God and Music

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
I am saying that if you study the essence (in this case "surrender to god) of a subject (in this case religion) you can understand that knowledge in a variety of forms/circumstances
”
I had a friend like that. He worked on Volkswagen engines and you could say knew the "essence of a subject [car engines]". He then went to work on a friends Lamborghini Espada. I wont detail the outcome.

guess he missed a few essentials then

My problem from a religious issue is that I would hate to not be sacrificing enough cows and get punished because of it because I hadn't take the time to read the right/enough scripture. Now, I don't mind if you do limit yourself to certain scriptures, but I would like to know how you justify yours as valid if you haven't read all the others.

I guess its a struggle until you determine what is essential

I mean sure, you could tell me that your scripture tells you enough for you to be getting on with things, but that isn't surrender to or completely attached to god. If you were, surely you'd want to read everything he'd ever written/was written about him?

at a certain point the need for theory gives way to practice

“
I don't think so
”
"Were you going to answer the question?"
"I don't think so."

Ok, that's all I needed to know.

yes, that's right, the question with the maligned theory ....

“
but its certainly not any scripture I am familiar with
”
Well, see the first section of this post. Why would you be familiar with anything outside of your own scripture?

did you pull talking to the clouds and helping old people from scripture or did you pull it from a maligned source?


“
looks like you dribbled on your mouse or something and scrolled off the menu that deals specifically with the link i provided
”

The link you provided, (http://www.bhagavata.org/bn/avadhuta...ilesDevotion_-), goes to a massive page right in the middle of devotion-shastras. I noticed that everything visible on that part of the page was all part of the same thing. I mean, there's 12 links all to the same page and here's the kicker...

They're all 404 errors.

did you want titles or reading matter?



“

but its not clear why reading X amount of scriptures distinguishes anything
”
So anyway, you're sitting at home one day perusing a law book when you stumble upon an interesting law. It says: "It is legal to ride a camel on the pavement". You're like "wow", and up you get, buy a camel and stroll off to town on the pavement. Eventually you get arrested... and it's only then that you realise you were reading the wrong law book. Oops.

See, your original assumption is that the book you're reading is correct and valid - but you don't have any basis with which to establish that. Without being aware of other books that exist on the subject, how do you ever make an informed decision?

you miss the point

some one could read a thousand scriptures and not understand anything if they are not prepared to act on it

“
is being "told" an aspect of theory or practice? (Hullo Timbuktu)
”
If you accept what you're told without question, would the practice not reflect that which you've already accepted as true?

no - even science recognizes distinctions between practical and conclusion

Now, let's take a look at your edited comment.. Ok, well it starts off with the same bullshit, (sufficient to say).. no lg, it isn't sufficient to say. You then say:

"in other words the very definition of being omnimax necessitates one entity"

Which one?

sorry, I should have warned you that it required logical thinking

if something is established as the causes of all causes, how could it be more than singular?

“
if you stress...
”
I'm not stressing anything, I'm asking questions. (They end with question marks - the question mark usually denotes that one is asking, not stressing).

But anyway, you mention knowledge without practice. Now, to understand the practice that one must do, one must get the 'theory'. In short the reading is going to come first. You then conduct practice that reflects the reading you did. So for example, scripture tells you to go and kill a small goat on Sundays so you do. But then see, if you were looking at the wrong 'theory' the practice is worthless. So how do you establish that the theory is correct to begin with?

How do you pick, how do you choose? How do you manage to sit down and say: "here, this theory will do"? If you then "just accept", (which seems to be your motto), the first theory you come to, and are happy with the practice because you've already accepted the theory - how can you even establish to yourself that you're correct? What are you comparing it to - certainly not other practices. Do you compare your theory to christian theory? Do you look at the amount of successful/"qualified" christians and say "hmm, not enough of them, it can't be that one". How?

How sweet

now you are picking up the local language in Timbuktu

“
my most pertinent response is that if followed, it grants a result in line with the conclusion
”
They all say that, absolutely regardless to the practice undertaken. Purely out of interest, but as that's the case wouldn't it be best to just pick whichever has the simplest practice and save yourself a lot of time and effort? Of course you'll never know which theory to choose from if you never read them all before deciding to engage in practice.

practically its all the same - surrender to god (as opposed to surrender to lust/wrath/avarice/envy/etc)

“
hence the importance of having a proper foundation of theory as opposed to a maligned one
”
hence you now need to establish that those that have been where you are nw and progressed beyond it had a 'maligned theory'.

if you could talk coherently about theistic practice it would be a beginning ....

Of course you can't know that until you have complete the practice. Remember, knowledge can't be attained without practice - so how do you establish, currently still practicing, that those who have moved beyond you are wrong when you're not at their level yet?

theory -> practice -> realisation.



“
hence the importance of having a proper foundation of practice as opposed to a maligned one
”
Same as above. You simply cannot speak for those that have progressed beyond you to the latter stages through practice. When you get there, someone might very well say you did it wrong, and you'll say the exact same thing I'm saying.

the problem is that you don't even have a foundation of theory
what to speak of when you launch in to your explanations of "practice"

“
you are into discussing peripheral things (like say circumcision) as integral to religion
”
You only consider it peripheral because your personal culturally defined god doesn't tell you to do it. To jews it is absolutely smegging essential, not peripheral. god voiced his opinion concerning it, indeed calling it smegging essential. Who are you to claim it is peripheral? Who are you to think you can speak on behalf of god?

There is a large part of your problem.

more theory problems eh?

“
as opposed to things like getting free from the influence of lust/wrath/etc
”
As opposed to? I would assert that they are all of equal importance, as would the god of the jews. You think you have the ability to pick and choose.. because? Wait, that's not your god right?

ditto above

“
from your maligned foundation of theory and practice, your values are understandable
”
Yeah yeah yeah, I'm maligned, they're maligned, we're all maligned.. except good old lg. Do me a lemon.

I guess its just a coincidence that you can't locate a theist worth their salt who works out of the same definitions of theory and practice that you concoct as essential

Now excuse me, what exactly do you disagree with with me stating that you would need to show results, and that if this practice led to a specific outcome, (other than disgustingly self centered arrogance), we would see it. So show it.

ok it goes something like this

first you present some theoretical foundation as essential to theism - like say circumcision or goat sacrifice (at the expense of actual essential foundations such as purity of self in relation to god)
next you say something like "just look at all these people getting circumcised and eating goats"
finally you say something like "anyone who simply gets circumcised and eats goats is just as much a goofball as me"

“
maybe one of the q's could be "Does spiritual/religious practice inspire/encourage exhibitions of lust/wrath/envy/avarice/etc" (To be fair we would only quiz persons who identify as theistic practitioners)
”
And... how exactly would you assert that this ever be established? Do you have a spare lustometer lying around?

its okay

we are just asking for opinions (the opinions of people actually practicing) about the practice rather than their opinion of their moral standing - in other words what is the ideal of theism (certainly should give us a few clues on what is essential don't you think?)

“
I identify myself as a practicing theist, hence I can elaborate something of the nature of saintly persons
”
Anyone can elaborate on the nature of something merely by looking at definitions of words -

still, you find that it is people with training and experience in the field of physics that give more thorough explanations of einstein etc etc

which is technically all you're doing and yes, all you are capable of without being in the same position as them. You cannot establish that they are what they claim to be - there is the point.

just like a physicist cannot establish what einstein's specific contribution to physics was, eh?

“
done what exactly
”
Exactly what you're still currently in the middle of.

erm - which is?

“
first of all tell us what has to be done, since your previous attempts don't fit the bill
”
It varies. Of course, when it does and doesn't coincide with your own personal culturally defined beliefs then you assert that the practice is "peripheral". So what answer do you want from me? It will never fit your bill unless I tell you exactly what you want me to say. As such there is a serious problem.

I say "well, it is absolutely essential that one have a clean penis - and one does this by snipping off the extra bit of skin". You turn round and tell me it's peripheral.. It is - to you.

What you're basically telling me is that to be valid, practice must be what you say it is.

aka - place your ass in a place of worship and stick your nose in a book - yes, yes, but what else??

“
but until you put it into practice, it remains nothing but an idea
”
Unless... lg regards it as peripheral. Lol.

or scripture
or practitioners in general
or commentators/leaders int he field who are held as credible or authoritative etc etc

“
no

you bring yourself to the platform of action
”
Now you're contradicting yourself. You did indeed state that an essential practice/action was merely "peripheral".

acting with peripheral things will not help you when the act requires an essential thing - for instance if your require a glass of water, simply having access to a glass will not grant entire success

“
see how easy it is when you are allowed reference to normative descriptions
”
I never said it wasn't easy to quote scripture, I asked how you "validate" who is a saintly person. One of the things you quote is "honesty". Do you lie detector every claimed saintly person? Another is purity.. how do you go about establishing that?

more theory from the champion of theism, huh?

“
more hang ups on non-essential aspects huh?
”
Non essential to who?

or scripture
or practitioners in general
or commentators/leaders int he field who are held as credible or authoritative etc etc

I can only tell you you're so wrong it's painful to even read. Sure, it's not essential to you and your culturally defined beliefs, but why think you can answer for everyone? skullcaps/circumcision etc are not "non essential" they are absolutely undeniably essential to a certain god and certain people. Well?

surrender to god is important for jews
surrender to god is important for christians
surrender to god is important for muslims
etc etc

And again, why say no when I asked if these things could be shrugged off as unimportant? You clearly meant yes.

do you think a muslim would be satisfied with another muslim if they were circumcised. wore a skull cap, but weren't surrendered to god?

“
If you took birth in a place where it was the custom to drink water from the bladder of a goat...
”
Tell you what, better to stick to the subject matter. So.. if you're born in Israel and told by a god, by scripture and by practice that it is essential to be circumcised.. how fucking daft does it look when some nobody on the other side of the planet says it's "peripheral and unimportant"?

ditto above

“
actually several years ago the hymns of the Brahma Samhita were sung by the vatican boys ..
”
Certainly, it's not really relevant. We celebrate christmas in this house, doesn't mean I don't laugh when people mention jesus and virgin births.

I see
christmas at your house and inter-religious dialouges in the vatican are on par with each other

“
we are just waiting for you to get back to us on their "practice"
”
Who's we? Is there something the you's need to say? Which one am I speaking to right now?

Of course, why you even make the statement is quite bizarre. You must "do" it. In short, you can't be told what the matrix is, you need to see it for yourself. You're currently behind them in the realms of practice done, you can't speak concerning them. This is your own argument. I know hypocrisy is your best friend though so don't let it stop you.

- no answer huh?

“
with or without normative descriptions?
”
Uhh.. yes or no would suffice. Are you really as stupid as you pretend to be?

no answer huh?

“
I have lost track what you are asking for my qualification
”
I'm not really one for taking lessons from the unqualified. I dunno, maybe I'm too picky... If you're not, this discussion is pointless.

no answer huh?

“
so you are after the qualifications of saintly persons then, since I asserted that they are the authorities
”
You have made many assertions - indeed telling me even that certain essential religious practices can be ignored because they're unimportant. To make such a claim you must be an authority on the matter. As a result of that, qualifications are essential.

find a religious authority that says surrender to god is not essential and prove me wrong

“
if they openly glorify women's genitalia, it tends to be a bit of a give away
”
Most certainly, no argument from me whatsoever. What if they do it secretly instead of openly? Hmmm..

Look at movie stars - all nice and glamorous for the public, behind closed doors they masturbate just like everyone else.

or do you mean they masturbate like you?

So again.. how do you establish their qualification other than.. you can't.

lol - to the likes of you, yes

“
there's no hiding character - surely as a one working in the field of mental health you can understand this
”
Oh do me a favour. Every single time there's a murder, or abduction of some child and the guy is caught the neighbours say "oh and he was such a nice young man". Everytime a priest is caught with kiddie porn the churchgoers say "no way, who woulda thunk it".

therefore there are distinctions between these people and professionals who work in ascertaining personality types

“
it remains a claim for you, and will do so for eternity for as long as you shirk the platform of practice
”
No. It will remain a claim for as long as you can't establish the claim - which you can't, so forever.

all because you have no idea what constitutes practice - can you think of any claim in any field of knowledge that can be established to persons who shirk practice?

“
what are the exact articles of practice that I am currently performing
”
I wouldn't know or really care, but it has to be below those that have already done the practice, completed it and come to realisation. What are you trying to argue?

you talk how you and your fellow atheists have superseded theistic conclusions - yet you can't even establish what is an essential theistic practice - in fact from your statements it appears that you can't even stop masturbating (and your are apparently married too) - why exactly does this make you more advanced?

“
but you whine continually that normative descriptions are not sufficient
”
Actually no, you're the one whining. I haven't even used the word normative. In fact, I was the one that said you can do whatever you want.

instead you say things like scripture has no basis or the paths chalked out by leaders in the field of theism are irrelevant - which begs the question how the hell one could qualify a position without being able to refer to such things (in argument its called "strawman")

“
if I identify as a theist, what do you think?
”
Again, many people identify themselves as theists but don't have this "essential" quality.

a theist who isn't or doesn't endeavour to surrender to god

“
I've given you a beginning for what qualifications I have
”
So you have 1 quality (completely attached to god)?

Now, if I look at an atheist and he has more, what am I supposed to conclude?

from your maligned theory base, I dread to think ....

“
still you can't elaborate properly on either theory or practice - no wonder they were wasting their time
”
For arguments sake, fine. If I can't, what in the world has that got to do with them other than nothing?

well practice is what usually bridges the gap between theory and values - hence if they arrive at the position of atheist, its no surprise

“
normative descriptions
”
They've been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Next..

erm - such as?

“
I think we have been here before - the only people who make such claims are
1) children on the basis of a poor fund of knowledge
2) atheists on the basis of rhetoric
get back to us if you can think of a third party who would stand for the defense of such claims of direct perception
”
In this instance you're plain wrong. I stand for the defence of such claims of direct perception.

sorry - thats number two - try again

“
actually it suggests that one is "doing" something as opposed to "thinking" something
”
No, it suggests that one believes in gods. No wonder you're so confused.

whatever - but they are doing something nonetheless

“
their so called theism is indistinguishable from atheism ("God exists - but hey he has his world and I have mine")
”
Uhh, hate to be the one to tell you - but you'll rarely find an atheist saying 'god exists'. Back to basics for you me thinks.

whatever - but they are doing the same thing nonetheless

“
you could begin by asserting those persons or bodies of people who lay claim to the direct perception that god doesn't exist
”
And this establishes what exactly other than.. ooh, there's more than 1. Do numbers equate to truth? The old appeal to popularity? All those alien abductees must be telling the truth because there's many of them?

I am sure you could round up a bunch of atheists who claim direct perception of god's non-existence - trouble is that none of them can be found in circles of intelligentsia

You wouldn't accept it even if I did, you know that. You would then in fact ask exactly the same things and make exactly the same statements I have to you.

How do they establish it, regardless to how many there are? Your answer would espouse that you too must be an atheist with direct perception. This goes nowhere.

Its already established what is required to have direct perception of god's non-existence - you just have to find someone who fits the bill - lol

“
how else?
”
How would I know?

indeed ...

 

[SnakeLord]

Hi again,

Before starting I would like to quickly get clarification on whether you would assert whether one needs to or doesn't need to study other scripture. Unfortunately you seemingly forgot the question existed.

If the answer is "no, you don't need to", is it ok to just choose any scripture? If not, kindly tell me which scripture is acceptable, why that scripture is more acceptable than the others, (including the ones you've never even read), and how you establish that scripture as being more acceptable. If you do say no and answer these points I will ask then why you have made such a big deal of trying to tell me that they all say the same thing.

guess he missed a few essentials then

Absolutely, my point. Without reading other 'theories' and texts on the same subject, how do you know you're not missing essentials? If you said to me that you've read them all and they're all nonsense then fine. But if you haven't even read them?

I guess its a struggle until you determine what is essential

I see. And who makes that determination, you? (Don't say no, I've already seen you try to do it). But hey, lets cut this discussion short.. In summary you're basically telling me to read hindu texts, become a hindu and that's as correct as it gets?

at a certain point the need for theory gives way to practice

I'm sorry but I am going to have to disagree given this specific subject. Is there something, anything to say one cannot serve or worship beings or engage in other 'practice' while not taking a moment out to read other scripture? To read other theories etc etc?

did you pull talking to the clouds and helping old people from scripture or did you pull it from a maligned source?

Both from scripture. god is supposedly everwhere according to scripture, including the clouds. Talking to clouds is therefore talking to god. As for helping people.. Sorry, does your scripture not talk about that? Ok.

did you want titles or reading matter?

I assumed you wanted me to look at the reading matter, otherwise uhh why paste a link? You could have just said: koran, OT, NT, enuma elish etc. Of course clicking the links also gives me an insight into what "theory" you are partaking in. Apparently that's a lot of knowledge regarding 404's. Don't tell me you did your reading there lol.

some one could read a thousand scriptures and not understand anything if they are not prepared to act on it

Someone could read one scripture and completely mess up the practice because they hadn't taken the time to establish a complete theory. Thus you walk around thinking you're the hot shot and then end up burning in the fiery pits because you didn't take the 5 minutes to chop a bit of your peewee off.

Ok, I appreciate that you think you know it all, but is it worth taking the risk? What are you looking at, a month to a year out of your life? Can't you fit it in alongside your 'practice'?

no - even science recognizes distinctions between practical and conclusion

Since when did science "just accept what it was told without question"? If it did, wouldn't everything related to that reflect that which they already accepted as true? You said no, the correct answer is yes.

sorry, I should have warned you that it required logical thinking

Lol, you wouldn't know what logical thinking was if it got up and slapped you about the face.

if something is established as the causes of all causes, how could it be more than singular?

Nobody here said anything was more than singular. I'll have to point it out once again though:

It's all in the details. Unless of course you just assert that some thing we would call a god exists, details be damned. In which case burn your scripture, it's pointless culturally defined nonsense.

Is that what you assert?

now you are picking up the local language in Timbuktu

7 questions were asked and this was the best lg could muster? Out of interest it's called English, I can see you haven't learnt how to read it very well yet so you're forgiven for the mistake. Anyway, can you possibly hire a translator that can speak English to help you answer the questions? Here it is again for convenience:

"But anyway, you mention knowledge without practice. Now, to understand the practice that one must do, one must get the 'theory'. In short the reading is going to come first. You then conduct practice that reflects the reading you did. So for example, scripture tells you to go and kill a small goat on Sundays so you do. But then see, if you were looking at the wrong 'theory' the practice is worthless. So how do you establish that the theory is correct to begin with?

How do you pick, how do you choose? How do you manage to sit down and say: "here, this theory will do"? If you then "just accept", (which seems to be your motto), the first theory you come to, and are happy with the practice because you've already accepted the theory - how can you even establish to yourself that you're correct? What are you comparing it to - certainly not other practices. Do you compare your theory to christian theory? Do you look at the amount of successful/"qualified" christians and say "hmm, not enough of them, it can't be that one". How? ”

practically its all the same - surrender to god

So it doesn't matter which scripture you choose? If not, I must ask why exactly you decided to choose the scripture you did. It's not cultural because that's apparently "absurd", so why?

if you could talk coherently about theistic practice it would be a beginning ....

A decent beginning would be for you to pay attention. We're not talking about me. Wakey wakey.

the problem is that you don't even have a foundation of theory

Not your specific theory, no.

more theory problems eh?

lg theory problems, clearly. But there is the point. You're simply asserting that only your scripture is valid. It's simple nonsense.

I guess its just a coincidence that you can't locate a theist worth their salt who works out of the same definitions of theory and practice that you concoct as essential

No disrespect but you're being plain stupid. The idea that circumcision is essential - a permanent covenant by a god to his people - an essential theory and practice is shared by what.. how many jews worldwide? Would you like me to name them all? Now, they're not "worth their salt"... how exactly? Because.. they differ to lg, the human with the largest god complex this side of the universe.

finally you say something like "anyone who simply gets circumcised and eats goats is just as much a goofball as me"

Where does simply come into it? Did anyone here, (other than you), even imply that this essential practice is the only practice done? How utterly moronic can you get?

we are just asking for opinions

That's good for you. Where is the relevance? I asked how you would establish that these people do not have lust etc. Must I draw pictures?

still, you find that it is people with training and experience in the field of physics that give more thorough explanations of einstein etc etc

So, unrelated issues aside, how do you determine that an apparent 'saintly person' has the qualities that he would claim he does, (and you seem to love claims)?

just like a physicist cannot establish what einstein's specific contribution to physics was, eh?

Uhh.. if you think a valid comparison can be made, then any of my ad homs to you weren't ad hom enough to do it justice.

aka - place your ass in a place of worship and stick your nose in a book - yes, yes, but what else??

Wtf is this lol?

or scripture
or practitioners in general
or commentators/leaders int he field who are held as credible or authoritative etc etc

Scripture confirms that circumcision is essential.
Practitioners, (not specifically the ones you listen to), state that circumcision is essential
Commentators/leaders in the field who are held as credible and authorative state that circumcision is essential.

Ok, not in the middle of New Delhi perhaps, but now tell me how it is "peripheral" when everything you mentioned was fulfilled and god himself stated it was essential? Because.. you don't believe in that god and scripture right? Because only the gods and scripture you believe in is right, right?

acting with peripheral things will not help you when the act requires an essential thing - for instance if your require a glass of water, simply having access to a glass will not grant entire success

I have it on good authority that crack cocaine is bad for you. I can already see it has laid waste to your brain. How is a scripture stated, god ordered, essential act peripheral other than simply because lg says so?

The problem is that you are asserting an ultimate truth, (circumcision is nonsense), for all of humanity and even speak for god himself and can't in any way justify your statements. The only way you can do so, you can assign ultimate truths for all of mankind and for god is if you are god. Are you god lg? You certainly pretend you are.

Anyway god, I'll give you this opportunity to justify your statements. £1,000,000 says you can't and don't. You'll probably just opt for some meaningless one-liner about timbuktu or something, such is your cowardly nature or whine about ad homs while in the process of ad homming.

more theory from the champion of theism, huh?

I'm sorry, was there going to be an answer to the question? Your tactics are common knowledge now. When you can't answer, you ask a pathetic question in return.

What makes it worse, what really gets on my fucking balls is that it isn't even relevant to anything I said.

or scripture
or practitioners in general
or commentators/leaders int he field who are held as credible or authoritative etc etc

Already dealt with. Next time if you would like to make the statement more accurate write: "scripture lg agrees with, practitioners lg agrees with etc"

surrender to god is important for jews
surrender to god is important for christians
surrender to god is important for muslims

Circumcision is essential to jews
Circumcision is religiously practiced by muslims
It is practised among African Tribes, Austrailian Aborignes, the Mayays of Borneo, American Indians, the ancient Aztecs and Mayas, the Caribs, the Fijians, the Samoana and the ancient Egyptians.
It is customary among the Coptic, Ethiopian, and Eritrean Orthodox Churches and also some other African churches.

And the only reason poor little lg complains is because hinduism is religiously against such a practice.

This in itself is fine, but you need to justify that because lg is against it, that it is not actually essential - which it certainly is.

Oh and one last thing.. god says so: "Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant."

I guess where you're from "must" & "everlasting" don't mean what they do everywhere else.

do you think a muslim would be satisfied with another muslim if they were circumcised. wore a skull cap, but weren't surrendered to god?

Here is where you consistently make a complete fudge fuck of the whole thing. You seem to view it as a case of: if you're doing one you're obviously not doing the other". I'm sorry, is there a reason one cannot do 2 essential things? Is "worship me and be circumcised" a little too much for little lg? Aww..

I see
christmas at your house and inter-religious dialouges in the vatican are on par with each other

Forget christmas, my brother is round here right now and he's a deeply religious christian. We have inter-religious dialogue. That doesn't mean I believe in gods. Work it out, I shouldn't even be going through it. If you can't navigate something so simple no wonder you're struggling.

no answer huh?

Ooooh, a new tactic. I am impressed. Needless to say, even on my last post I mentioned that I'd already mentioned that you can do and use anything you want to. The answer was there, you just never pay attention.

no answer huh?

Uhh, that was an answer. You asked why I am asking for your qualifications, I said I am asking for your qualifications because I'm not into being educated by the unqualified. What was it you didn't understand? Want me to post you a pop-up book?

find a religious authority that says surrender to god is not essential and prove me wrong

What the f...? Dude, this isn't even relevant to what I said lol.

or do you mean they masturbate like you?

Yeah, that too... whatever. Now can you answer? You stalling for time or what?

lol - to the likes of you, yes

Tell me how you establish it to anyone other than them simply accepting it as true.

all because you have no idea what constitutes practice - can you think of any claim in any field of knowledge that can be established to persons who shirk practice?

You made a claim that people can't hide their character. You were wrong. Just retract your claim and we can move on. Funnily enough, your question here should be posed to yourself who made a claim while not being in a field of knowledge that you can even establish your claim to yourself.

instead you say things like scripture has no basis or the paths chalked out by leaders in the field of theism are irrelevant

No, indeed I ask you to validate the scripture that you claim is ultimate truth, the paths you claim are ultimate truth, the 'saintly persons' that you claim are the ultimate authority on the matter all while not being able to establish your own qualification in the matter to be able to accurately talk about it. Dozens upon dozens of requests for you to validate your claims and still to this moment there is absolute diddly-squat.

a theist who isn't or doesn't endeavour to surrender to god

Uhh? I was expecting more to this sentence. But yeah, whatever.. there are theists that aren't "completely attached" to a god.. they merely assert that one exists. You were arguing against it, claiming that by simply saying you're a theist you instantly are "completely attached to god". You now disagree with your own claim it seems.

from your maligned theory base, I dread to think ....

It was your theory base, dipshit. You listed them all.. remember? So, once again: if an atheist has more of those "qualifications" than you, what is the conclusion?

sorry - thats number two - try again

No it isn't. It's easy to tell that it isn't.. call me on it.

Once again though:

The only way you can now argue it is if you apply correct theory and practice, (instead of the ill informed versions shown in your quote). What to talk of practice when you can't even get to the theory stage.

By now you should be aware but.. it requires a certain foundation of theory and practice - both of which you are adverse to.

 

[lightgigantic]

Hi again,

greetings

Before starting I would like to quickly get clarification on whether you would assert whether one needs to or doesn't need to study other scripture. Unfortunately you seemingly forgot the question existed.

not necessary

If the answer is "no, you don't need to", is it ok to just choose any scripture?

there are a variety of scriptures available for a variety of people who have a variety of capacities to actually surrender to god

If not, kindly tell me which scripture is acceptable, why that scripture is more acceptable than the others, (including the ones you've never even read), and how you establish that scripture as being more acceptable.

just like there are a variety of medicines of varying potencies to cure the same ailment, there are a variety of scriptures - if a patient is to sick to be treated with a strong medicine, they opt for one they can handle that operates at a weaker threshold - in the same a person who is too materially afflicted can settle on a lesser set of scriptural practices, just so they can remain within the purview of gradual spiritual advancement (some thing is better than nothing)

If you do say no and answer these points I will ask then why you have made such a big deal of trying to tell me that they all say the same thing.

weaker and stronger medicines have may have the same active ingredient, but simply lesser and greater concentrations of it - in the same way all religious practices (even those bereft of a written scripture) operate on the same principle of surrender to god

“
guess he missed a few essentials then
”
Absolutely, my point. Without reading other 'theories' and texts on the same subject, how do you know you're not missing essentials? If you said to me that you've read them all and they're all nonsense then fine. But if you haven't even read them?

as far as the topic of surrender to god goes , I haven't encountered any school other than vaishnavism that deals with it so elaborately

“
I guess its a struggle until you determine what is essential
”
I see. And who makes that determination, you? (Don't say no, I've already seen you try to do it).

saintly people determine what is essential - just like who else but the expert practitioners of a field of knowledge know what constitutes the essentials 9and who else would give more off-center opinions about what the essentials are than those bereft of practice and even proper theory)

But hey, lets cut this discussion short.. In summary you're basically telling me to read hindu texts, become a hindu and that's as correct as it gets?

not at all
there are many "hindus" who are just as much out to lunch as yourself
not in the bhagavad gita doe sit recommend to become a hindu - it does recommend that one surrender to god however, which can be done through being a christian/jew/muslim/etc

“
at a certain point the need for theory gives way to practice
”
I'm sorry but I am going to have to disagree given this specific subject. Is there something, anything to say one cannot serve or worship beings or engage in other 'practice' while not taking a moment out to read other scripture? To read other theories etc etc?

sure, no problem, but still after reading anything and everything on the subject, the need for theory gives way to practice at a certain point

“
did you pull talking to the clouds and helping old people from scripture or did you pull it from a maligned source?
”
Both from scripture. god is supposedly everwhere according to scripture, including the clouds.

is there a recommendation to talk to clouds?

Talking to clouds is therefore talking to god.

that's your maligned theory at work

As for helping people.. Sorry, does your scripture not talk about that? Ok.

as necessary, yes
as sufficient, no

“
did you want titles or reading matter?
”
I assumed you wanted me to look at the reading matter, otherwise uhh why paste a link?

Seemed like you just wanted to know how many I have read - given your tendency to manifest ecstatic symptoms in the general vicinity of scriptural quotes, i didn't think it was really what you were after

You could have just said: koran, OT, NT, enuma elish etc.

never heard of the vedas and their corollaries ?

Of course clicking the links also gives me an insight into what "theory" you are partaking in. Apparently that's a lot of knowledge regarding 404's. Don't tell me you did your reading there lol.

here might be a more suitable starting point

“
some one could read a thousand scriptures and not understand anything if they are not prepared to act on it
”
Someone could read one scripture and completely mess up the practice because they hadn't taken the time to establish a complete theory.

therefore reading scripture becomes all the more easier when done in the association of persons already established in the correct practice

Thus you walk around thinking you're the hot shot and then end up burning in the fiery pits because you didn't take the 5 minutes to chop a bit of your peewee off.

actually your genitals are not so important

Ok, I appreciate that you think you know it all, but is it worth taking the risk?
What are you looking at, a month to a year out of your life? Can't you fit it in alongside your 'practice'?

I guess it would be up to you to convince me - given that all you can talk of is circumcision as a means to further surrender to god, it seems that you have a bit of work ahead of you

“
no - even science recognizes distinctions between practical and conclusion
”
Since when did science "just accept what it was told without question"?

at the stage of "practical" - revisions of scientific practice happen after reviewing the stage of "conclusion"

“
sorry, I should have warned you that it required logical thinking
”
Lol, you wouldn't know what logical thinking was if it got up and slapped you about the face.

“
if something is established as the causes of all causes, how could it be more than singular?
”
Nobody here said anything was more than singular. I'll have to point it out once again though:

It's all in the details. Unless of course you just assert that some thing we would call a god exists, details be damned. In which case burn your scripture, it's pointless culturally defined nonsense.

Is that what you assert?

well, if something is defined as the cause of all causes, would it matter if it was in japanese or german? (given that the japanese word for "water" doesn't constitute a vastly different experience from the german word for "water", I wouldn't think so ... but hey, maybe that's just me ....)

“
practically its all the same - surrender to god
”
So it doesn't matter which scripture you choose?
If not, I must ask why exactly you decided to choose the scripture you did. It's not cultural because that's apparently "absurd", so why?

if you are actually surrendering to god, as opposed to surrendering to one's lust/wrath/envy/etc, it doesn't matter - if you feel that you and your family members can only do this by getting circumcised, then so be it

“
if you could talk coherently about theistic practice it would be a beginning ....
”
A decent beginning would be for you to pay attention. We're not talking about me. Wakey wakey.

that's right - we're talking about your funny ideas on what constitutes as essential to the practice of theism

“
the problem is that you don't even have a foundation of theory
”
Not your specific theory, no.

I don't have a specific theory - I can elaborate on conclusive theories presented in the vedas - you however sprinkle peripheral aspects of christianity with your own speculations

“
more theory problems eh?
”
lg theory problems, clearly. But there is the point. You're simply asserting that only your scripture is valid. It's simple nonsense.

you are asserting that peripheral aspects of christianity (in a way which makes chrisianity sound absurd - which just happens to decorate your value system as an atheist wonderfully) as essential - this is obviously nonsense

“
I guess its just a coincidence that you can't locate a theist worth their salt who works out of the same definitions of theory and practice that you concoct as essential
”
No disrespect but you're being plain stupid. The idea that circumcision is essential - a permanent covenant by a god to his people - an essential theory and practice is shared by what.. how many jews worldwide? Would you like me to name them all? Now, they're not "worth their salt"... how exactly? Because.. they differ to lg, the human with the largest god complex this side of the universe.

once again, you can't find a practitioner worth their salt who says the be all and end all of jewish practice is circumcision

“
finally you say something like "anyone who simply gets circumcised and eats goats is just as much a goofball as me"
”
Where does simply come into it? Did anyone here, (other than you), even imply that this essential practice is the only practice done? How utterly moronic can you get?

d'uh -
well we are talking about essential practices - if you are circumcised, eat goats or whatever, and if you are not a theist, then it is obviously not the essential aspect of thesim

“
we are just asking for opinions
”
That's good for you. Where is the relevance? I asked how you would establish that these people do not have lust etc. Must I draw pictures?

we are not asking what they have
we are asking for what they think they should have
this should give us a clear picture on what is essential

“
still, you find that it is people with training and experience in the field of physics that give more thorough explanations of einstein etc etc
”
So, unrelated issues aside, how do you determine that an apparent 'saintly person' has the qualities that he would claim he does, (and you seem to love claims)?

by dint of my practice, just as a little bit of theory and practice in the field of physics enables a greater understanding of einstein's contributons to the field

“
or scripture
or practitioners in general
or commentators/leaders int he field who are held as credible or authoritative etc etc
”
Scripture confirms that circumcision is essential.

certainly didn't get a mention in the ten commandments

Practitioners, (not specifically the ones you listen to), state that circumcision is essential

what ratio of sunday sermons deal with or mention circumcision compared to sermons that deal with or mention issues related to the ten commandments?

Commentators/leaders in the field who are held as credible and authorative state that circumcision is essential.

ditto above

Ok, not in the middle of New Delhi perhaps, but now tell me how it is "peripheral" when everything you mentioned was fulfilled and god himself stated it was essential? Because.. you don't believe in that god and scripture right? Because only the gods and scripture you believe in is right, right?

no

there is no need to bring anything else into it - even if you examine christianity isolated from other theistic practices, we can see that circumcision is not essential, as indicated above

“
acting with peripheral things will not help you when the act requires an essential thing - for instance if your require a glass of water, simply having access to a glass will not grant entire success
”
I have it on good authority that crack cocaine is bad for you. I can already see it has laid waste to your brain. How is a scripture stated, god ordered, essential act peripheral other than simply because lg says so?

you also need a glass for a glass of water - do you understand the difference between the two words "necessary" and "sufficient"?

This in itself is fine, but you need to justify that because lg is against it, that it is not actually essential - which it certainly is.

necessary perhaps
sufficient, definitely not
the evidence is that you are (probably) circumcised and an atheist, so whatever you are lacking as a theist, it has nothing to do with the amount of skin on your genitals

Oh and one last thing.. god says so: "Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant."

if its "sufficient" to be circumcised, why are you an atheist then?
why do priests sometimes get pulled down from their established positions, if its enough to merely be circumcised?

I guess where you're from "must" & "everlasting" don't mean what they do everywhere else.

so if god says that one must be free from lust and one must be circumcised, which one do you think is more essential (hint - guess which one makes it into the ten commandments?)

“
do you think a muslim would be satisfied with another muslim if they were circumcised. wore a skull cap, but weren't surrendered to god?
”
Here is where you consistently make a complete fudge fuck of the whole thing. You seem to view it as a case of: if you're doing one you're obviously not doing the other". I'm sorry, is there a reason one cannot do 2 essential things? Is "worship me and be circumcised" a little too much for little lg? Aww..

still, suppose there were two muslims - one was circumcised and never worshiped god - the other was not circumcised and always worshiped god - who would be held in greater esteem by their fellow muslims?

“
all because you have no idea what constitutes practice - can you think of any claim in any field of knowledge that can be established to persons who shirk practice?
”
You made a claim that people can't hide their character.

to all of the people all of the time - sure

“
instead you say things like scripture has no basis or the paths chalked out by leaders in the field of theism are irrelevant
”
No, indeed I ask you to validate the scripture that you claim is ultimate truth, the paths you claim are ultimate truth, the 'saintly persons' that you claim are the ultimate authority on the matter all while not being able to establish your own qualification in the matter to be able to accurately talk about it. Dozens upon dozens of requests for you to validate your claims and still to this moment there is absolute diddly-squat.

my claims of what?
All I have talked of is scripture and the practice of saintly persons - your attempt to dress circumcision up as the essential practice of chrsitianity/etc to make it appear absurd and bolster your atheistic sentiments is simply your hearsay, unless you can find an established theistic who plays circumcision as the number one essential practice

“
a theist who isn't or doesn't endeavour to surrender to god
”
Uhh? I was expecting more to this sentence. But yeah, whatever.. there are theists that aren't "completely attached" to a god.. they merely assert that one exists.

if that is simply all they do, then there is no essential difference between them and an atheist

You were arguing against it, claiming that by simply saying you're a theist you instantly are "completely attached to god". You now disagree with your own claim it seems.

no

if you read the breakdown of the word surrender, you would have seen there were at least two essential "doing" activities innvolved

“
from your maligned theory base, I dread to think ....
”
It was your theory base, dipshit. You listed them all.. remember?

its you however that have attached significance to the words - all without the assistance of scriptural commentaries

So, once again: if an atheist has more of those "qualifications" than you, what is the conclusion?

once again, given your theory base, I dread to think
“

sorry - thats number two - try again
”
No it isn't. It's easy to tell that it isn't.. call me on it.

its easy to tell that you aren't an atheist arguing from the platform of rhetoric - just as well you told me that because I would never have figured it out ...

 

[SnakeLord]

just like there are a variety of medicines of varying potencies to cure the same ailment, there are a variety of scriptures

Ok, I acknowledge the explanation. However, there are a couple of issues that need to be settled:

1) In the case of scripture, how do you establish which is the 'best medicine'? I can say from a personal perspective that when it comes to medicine I generally try them all to see which works best. I brought this up with concerns to scripture, and you have since told me quite clearly that it is not needed to read other scripture. How do you even know you're taking the right medicine without looking at what else is available?

2) You could of course ask the doctor for his opinion, but I have yet to meet a theist who knows much of anything about the other 'medicine' on the market, but acts more like a street hustler and asserts that his own 'medicine' is the only way to go. You are quite guilty of this yourself - and it has seemingly concluded that you don't know much other 'medicine' either. This is why I have asked and am asking you to 'kindly tell me which scripture is acceptable, why that scripture is more acceptable than the others, (including the ones you've never even read), and how you establish that scripture as being more acceptable.'

I appreciate the answer you gave - it indicates that there are different levels or 'concentrations' of scripture, but you didn't explain which scripture was the higher level, why you consider it the higher level and how you would show that it is indeed the higher level.

as far as the topic of surrender to god goes , I haven't encountered any school other than vaishnavism that deals with it so elaborately

How many 'schools' have you encountered? As an example I would say that I have never met a nicer golden retriever than my dog Orion, (named after the constellation). Having said that, I have never met another golden retriever.

If that is the case, what value does the original statement have?

saintly people determine what is essential

1) Saintly people from which religion?

2) How do you establish they're saintly? (yes, here it is again.. you still haven't managed to answer. You've said because they lack lust etc but then couldn't answer how you establish that they lack lust other than to assert that you can always tell a persons character - which is highly inaccurate).

3) If you find two different saintly people that assert two different things that are essential, and have conflicting ideas, who is the one to listen to?

4) As opposed to god? When god says something is essential and must be done, you deny it and ignore it as witnessed in this very thread.

but still after reading anything and everything on the subject, the need for theory gives way to practice at a certain point

Which practice? At that stage there's many different and conflicting 'essential' practices. Is it a case of doing an lg? (i.e asserting that they're meaningless without being able to support the claim)?

Seemed like you just wanted to know how many I have read

Ok, that's acceptable. So your answer is 1? (other than cow poop and how to cook pancakes you only seemingly linked me to one other text -[linked 12 times], and amusingly enough also stemming from your culture.

never heard of the vedas and their corollaries ?

Sure I have. Apologies but was there a point with this question?

here might be a more suitable starting point

Amusingly enough, (again), you have linked me to a principal tradition of your own religion. Although obviously I didn't make my request clear enough, I was curious to see how much scripture you had read external to your own religion.

therefore reading scripture becomes all the more easier when done in the association of persons already established in the correct practice

But how, being bereft of even theory - do you establish that this 'person' is established, and is established in the "correct" practice?

There came a time in your life when you decided you wanted to become religious. Before that time you might have believed in a god but were one of these theists that aren't "surrendered" to god, (yes, those theists you don't believe exist). At this stage you are bereft of anything that will aid you in choosing the 'correct' theory or practice, all you have is guesswork and what's present in your location. At this stage did you spread all the worlds beliefs out on a mat and consult theists from all the worlds different religious beliefs? Did you compare until you came to a conclusion or did you get given a conclusion after looking at 1 theory and accept that conclusion without question, (as you have asserted)?

If the latter is true, how could you ever tell you're doing the "correct" practice or that you have the correct theory?

actually your genitals are not so important

To hindus, I agree.

given that all you can talk of is circumcision as a means to further surrender to god, it seems that you have a bit of work ahead of you

Further? Surrender is surrender, or to put it in other words that you have used: "complete attachment". If you claim you are absolutely surrendered or attached to this god, you must understand that eyebrows will raise when you take it upon yourself to completely ignore his orders. I'm not saying you can't do as you please, that's what free will is there for, but if you make your disobedience public knowledge while then asserting that you're completely attached you must expect some questioning. What I would like is for you to justify how it is peripheral, (your claim), even though god himself said it was essential. You are in actuality arguing with god the second you debate it.

if something is defined as the cause of all causes, would it matter if it was in japanese or german?

If they contradicted each other, absolutely.

if you are actually surrendering to god, as opposed to surrendering to one's lust/wrath/envy/etc, it doesn't matter - if you feel that you and your family members can only do this by getting circumcised, then so be it

Childishness aside, you didn't actually answer the question. Here it is again:

"why exactly [did] you decided to choose the scripture you did. It's not cultural because that's apparently "absurd", so why?"

How does your statement even attempt to answer the question?

I don't have a specific theory - I can elaborate on conclusive theories presented in the vedas - you however sprinkle peripheral aspects of christianity with your own speculations

You show the same fault with pretty much every statement you make. Justify how god ordered things are 'peripheral'. Your only argument against seems to come in the form that "well it's christianity or jews therefore it's peripheral - only anything related to hindus and hindu scripture is essential".

you are asserting that peripheral aspects of christianity

Well, we were discussing circumcision which isn't a christian practice, so no. However, it's not quite clear why you think you can speak of christianity or judaism and what is or isn't 'peripheral' while not practicing those religions and in contradiction to christian 'saintly people'. Kindly explain, especially given your statement that:

"saintly people determine what is essential". So, you now contradict saintly people's statements while not even being of the same calibre as them. It's not like 1 saintly person vs another one, it's one person that can't even establish their qualifications vs a saintly person that, according to lg, doesn't even have to. You've dug yourself the mammoth of all holes.

once again, you can't find a practitioner worth their salt who says the be all and end all of jewish practice is circumcision

'Thou shalt not kill' is not the "be all and end all" of the bible, but you asserting that it is therefore ok to ignore is simple idiocy.

god said that 'thou shalt not kill' and established it as something everyone must obey. Some people don't, they might even call it 'peripheral, but that does not in any way detract from that rule being essential and it does not in any way make it the 'be all and end all'.

Your statement is flawed.

well we are talking about essential practices - if you are circumcised, eat goats or whatever, and if you are not a theist, then it is obviously not the essential aspect of thesim

Yes, we have been talking about essential practices, (such as circumcision and not killing people). The rest of your statement is foggy. If you're not a theist then it is obviously not the essential aspect...? I don't get what you're trying to say.

Furthermore, my statement was made in concerns to your claims, (be all and end all). What I don't understand is why you equate obeying an essential practice as meaning you're not doing any other essential practice also ordered by that same being. One can be surrendered to god and obey his laws... I assume?

we are not asking what they have
we are asking for what they think they should have
this should give us a clear picture on what is essential

Ok, so you're not even asking for their qualifications. For all you know, or care, the guy could be some lustful, angry, selfish twonk and it clearly doesn't matter - because you don't even ask. You do however want to know what he thinks is important without even asking what establishes his position of authority on the subject. Quite bizarre.

by dint of my practice

I see, and what part of that practice led you to be able to tell whether people had any lust or not?

certainly didn't get a mention in the ten commandments

So.. You're asserting that only the ten commandments are essential? Interesting.

If you answer "no"....: "Scripture confirms that circumcision is essential"

what ratio of sunday sermons deal with or mention circumcision compared to sermons that deal with or mention issues related to the ten commandments?

Christians do not practice circumcision. Your question is flawed.

As for in synagogue, here's the thing: They're all circumcised already, what is there to talk about? They might go around having affairs and murdering people - so it's talked about, but none of them can really un-circumcise themselves, (I assume - maybe they have a "re-attach your foreskin" programme).

ditto above

Great, you "ditto" a flawed question. However, needless to say many authorities on the subject and indeed 'saintly persons' state that circumcision is an essential practice. You stated that saintly people establish what is essential and they have done just that. You're full of contradiction.

even if you examine christianity isolated from other theistic practices, we can see that circumcision is not essential

Sure, to christians and hindus aye. (Of course even from an NT standpoint it actually is. Christians, just like you, simply ignore it).

do you understand the difference between the two words "necessary" and "sufficient"?

No disrespect but how is that an answer to my question? Here it is once again:

"How is a scripture stated, god ordered, essential act peripheral other than simply because lg says so?"

necessary perhaps

Oh, so now you're agreeing it is essential? Lol.

Necessary: being essential, indispensable, or requisite.

Glad after all that you finally contradict yourself once more and agree with me that it is essential.

sufficient, definitely not

Sufficient for what? You are still under the extremely flawed impression that doing one essential practice means you're not doing any other essential practice.

the evidence is that you are (probably) circumcised and an atheist

I am certainly an atheist, yes. You actually mentioned circumcision first, I merely followed up on it. I don't know how or what that's supposed to be evidence of - but needless to say, my atheism, circumcision or lack thereof are of no consequence in this discussion. However we can leave this, you've already agreed it's essential.

if its "sufficient" to be circumcised, why are you an atheist then?

This isn't even a coherent question.

I am an atheist because I don't have a belief in gods. As for the first part, where does "sufficient" come from other than your earlier flawed statements?

why do priests sometimes get pulled down from their established positions, if its enough to merely be circumcised?

Who here, other than you, said anything about it "being enough"? I have been stating that it is an essential practice. Why do you keep using this flawed notion that doing one essential practice means you're not or don't have to do anything else?

so if god says that one must be free from lust and one must be circumcised, which one do you think is more essential

Lol, I gotta laugh.. "more essential"? Essential means essential, you have no place to be putting a 'more' or 'less' next to it. The majority of humans on this planet can obey more than one essential thing.

still, suppose there were two muslims - one was circumcised and never worshiped god - the other was not circumcised and always worshiped god - who would be held in greater esteem by their fellow muslims?

They are both in the same position. By not doing as god commands, can one really claim that they are worshipping god?

unless you can find an established theistic who plays circumcision as the number one essential practice

You do love your loaded and flawed questions, don't you? The "number one" essential? Essential is essential. What don't you understand about the word essential?

However, if you were to argue that there is an "ultimate command", from a christian perspective it would come in the form of jesus statements to "love god...". By dint of that, disobedience to his rules is going against that one. If one loved god, one would do as he said.

This is also shown in the OT with literally hundreds of "fear the lord your god" and his various methods of saying 'obey me'. If you honestly feared him you would always obey. Sure, you can have a fake kind of love - but that doesn't detract from the statement. Remember:

"You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God"

"Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD"

Oh and..

"Like the nations the LORD destroyed before you, so you will be destroyed for not obeying the LORD your God."

Enjoy.

if that is simply all they do, then there is no essential difference between them and an atheist

Absolutely undeniable astonishing ignorance. I would submit that there is indeed an essential difference between a theist and an atheist. Your comment is idiotic.

once again, given your theory base, I dread to think

Says the person who asserts that there's no essential difference between a theist and atheist :bugeye: . However, you listed 26 things that one need not read scripture to recognise and understand. In fact, I am vastly more qualified at recognising them than you are.

its easy to tell that you aren't an atheist arguing from the platform of rhetoric

Ok then, you're debunking your own claim. That's certainly interesting. So anyway, once again:

The only way you can now argue it is if you apply correct theory and practice, (instead of the ill informed versions shown in your quote). What to talk of practice when you can't even get to the theory stage?

By now you should be aware but.. it requires a certain foundation of theory and practice - both of which you are adverse to.

Good day.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

just like there are a variety of medicines of varying potencies to cure the same ailment, there are a variety of scriptures
”
Ok, I acknowledge the explanation. However, there are a couple of issues that need to be settled:

1) In the case of scripture, how do you establish which is the 'best medicine'? I can say from a personal perspective that when it comes to medicine I generally try them all to see which works best. I brought this up with concerns to scripture, and you have since told me quite clearly that it is not needed to read other scripture. How do you even know you're taking the right medicine without looking at what else is available?

if you know what the disease is (lust/wrath/etc - aka - false ego, it's easy to discern the efficacy of medicine)

2) You could of course ask the doctor for his opinion, but I have yet to meet a theist who knows much of anything about the other 'medicine' on the market, but acts more like a street hustler and asserts that his own 'medicine' is the only way to go. You are quite guilty of this yourself - and it has seemingly concluded that you don't know much other 'medicine' either. This is why I have asked and am asking you to 'kindly tell me which scripture is acceptable, why that scripture is more acceptable than the others, (including the ones you've never even read), and how you establish that scripture as being more acceptable.'

there are also a variety of say headache medicines on the market and they all claim that they are effective (in many cases it can also be seen that they have very similar if not identical active ingredients)

I appreciate the answer you gave - it indicates that there are different levels or 'concentrations' of scripture, but you didn't explain which scripture was the higher level, why you consider it the higher level and how you would show that it is indeed the higher level.

in BG you find god talking about himself on the best process how to attain him - in there you can find many processes explained (karma, jnana, yoga, bhakti)
all of which are encompassed by other outlooks - the explicit focus on bhakti however is what makes such scriptures as Srimad Bhagavatam and Bhagavad gita stand out, even from the four vedas, the upanisads and other puranas, what to speak of koran, bible, etc

“
as far as the topic of surrender to god goes , I haven't encountered any school other than vaishnavism that deals with it so elaborately
”
How many 'schools' have you encountered?

quite a few

“
saintly people determine what is essential
”
1) Saintly people from which religion?

as defined by scripture - any way you wnat to mention it - for instance if you want to talk about what buddhism has to offer you have to go by what the established practitioners of buddhists have formed (as opposed to some new ager with an overly homogeneous view of life in the material world)

2) How do you establish they're saintly? (yes, here it is again.. you still haven't managed to answer. You've said because they lack lust etc but then couldn't answer how you establish that they lack lust other than to assert that you can always tell a persons character - which is highly inaccurate).

a person's character is established by their activities

3) If you find two different saintly people that assert two different things that are essential, and have conflicting ideas, who is the one to listen to?

eventually the search amongst saintly persons results in accepting one as a guru

4) As opposed to god? When god says something is essential and must be done, you deny it and ignore it as witnessed in this very thread.

there are many instructions given by scripture, mainly because there are many people with many different capacities in regards to application - you can even uncover such apparent "contradictions" in the vedas, however ....

BG 2.46: All purposes served by a small well can at once be served by a great reservoir of water. Similarly, all the purposes of the Vedas can be served to one who knows the purpose behind them.

“
but still after reading anything and everything on the subject, the need for theory gives way to practice at a certain point
”
Which practice? At that stage there's many different and conflicting 'essential' practices. Is it a case of doing an lg? (i.e asserting that they're meaningless without being able to support the claim)?

hence there are breakdowns of primary and secondary practices

“
Seemed like you just wanted to know how many I have read
”
Ok, that's acceptable. So your answer is 1? (other than cow poop and how to cook pancakes you only seemingly linked me to one other text -[linked 12 times], and amusingly enough also stemming from your culture.


“
never heard of the vedas and their corollaries ?
”
Sure I have. Apologies but was there a point with this question?

to begin with it is more than one book ...

“
here might be a more suitable starting point
”
Amusingly enough, (again), you have linked me to a principal tradition of your own religion.

your question didn't pertain to it?

Although obviously I didn't make my request clear enough, I was curious to see how much scripture you had read external to your own religion.

a little bit from christianity and buddhism -

“
therefore reading scripture becomes all the more easier when done in the association of persons already established in the correct practice
”
But how, being bereft of even theory - do you establish that this 'person' is established, and is established in the "correct" practice?

generally we get familiar with a bit of theory beforehand - (is education really such a difficult thing, considering we are born with practically no knowledge?)

There came a time in your life when you decided you wanted to become religious. Before that time you might have believed in a god but were one of these theists that aren't "surrendered" to god, (yes, those theists you don't believe exist). At this stage you are bereft of anything that will aid you in choosing the 'correct' theory or practice, all you have is guesswork and what's present in your location. At this stage did you spread all the worlds beliefs out on a mat and consult theists from all the worlds different religious beliefs? Did you compare until you came to a conclusion or did you get given a conclusion after looking at 1 theory and accept that conclusion without question, (as you have asserted)?

I did search a bit - basically you just go on with such conglomerate views until one's doubts are sufficiently satisfied to begin practice - that will be different for different people

If the latter is true, how could you ever tell you're doing the "correct" practice or that you have the correct theory?

SB 11.2.42 Devotion, direct experience of the Supreme Lord, and detachment from other things—these three occur simultaneously for one who has taken shelter of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, in the same way that pleasure, nourishment and relief from hunger come simultaneously and increasingly, with each bite, for a person engaged in eating.

Do you need to get a second opinion on the state of your hunger while eating?

“
actually your genitals are not so important
”
To hindus, I agree.

no

even if you asked the people who live in your street, they would tell you that your genitals are not so important, what to speak of the one billion people living in india

“
if something is defined as the cause of all causes, would it matter if it was in japanese or german?
”
If they contradicted each other, absolutely.

so how does the christian description of god as the cause of all causes contradict what is presented in the bhagavad-gita?

“
I don't have a specific theory - I can elaborate on conclusive theories presented in the vedas - you however sprinkle peripheral aspects of christianity with your own speculations
”
You show the same fault with pretty much every statement you make. Justify how god ordered things are 'peripheral'.

there is the BG quote given earlier


BG 2.46: All purposes served by a small well can at once be served by a great reservoir of water. Similarly, all the purposes of the Vedas can be served to one who knows the purpose behind them.

plus

NO2 One's devotional service is spoiled when he becomes too entangled in the following six activities: (1) eating more than necessary or collecting more funds than required; (2) overendeavoring for mundane things that are very difficult to obtain; (3) talking unnecessarily about mundane subject matters; (4) Practicing the scriptural rules and regulations only for the sake of following them and not for the sake of spiritual advancement, or rejecting the rules and regulations of the scriptures and working independently or whimsically; (5) associating with worldly-minded persons who are not interested in God consciousness; and (6) being greedy for mundane achievements.

Gitamala4.1.4 If one has intense greed (lobha) for executing the process presented herein (bhakti), then gradually his faith (sraddha), then loving affection (rati), and then full attachment in love (priti) will all increase very, very quickly. One who has attained this platform of worship in their own natural love has no need to be concerned with scriptural rules and regulations, although in the beginning stages of devotion such rules are mandatory.

Kalyana Kalpataru15.5 From all this, just try to understand the deep inner significance of the principles of Vaisnava behavior. That is, according to differences in the receptivity of people, there are definite differences in their capacity for executing devotional service. Bhaktivinoda's humble submission is that you should just become a sara-grahi and accept the essence of complete surrender to Krsna, thus becoming freed from (and transcendental to) all types of scriptural rules and regulations.

“
well we are talking about essential practices - if you are circumcised, eat goats or whatever, and if you are not a theist, then it is obviously not the essential aspect of thesim
”
Yes, we have been talking about essential practices, (such as circumcision and not killing people). The rest of your statement is foggy. If you're not a theist then it is obviously not the essential aspect...? I don't get what you're trying to say.

you are trying to argue that circumcision is essential to christianity/juadism - if a person is circumcised and not a theist, then you are obviously wrong

I am arguing that worshiping god in a mood of reducing one's sinful propensities (lust/wrath/envy/etc) is the essence of theistic practice, since it is something that is obviously not exhibited by atheists, regardless of the state of their genitals

“
we are not asking what they have
we are asking for what they think they should have
this should give us a clear picture on what is essential
”
Ok, so you're not even asking for their qualifications. For all you know, or care, the guy could be some lustful, angry, selfish twonk and it clearly doesn't matter - because you don't even ask. You do however want to know what he thinks is important without even asking what establishes his position of authority on the subject. Quite bizarre.

normative descriptions are quite easy to locate - attaining them might be something else

“
by dint of my practice
”
I see, and what part of that practice led you to be able to tell whether people had any lust or not?

not being so lusty for a start

“
certainly didn't get a mention in the ten commandments
”
So.. You're asserting that only the ten commandments are essential? Interesting.

How many sermons deal with circumcision?
How many sermons deal with the ten commandments?

“
what ratio of sunday sermons deal with or mention circumcision compared to sermons that deal with or mention issues related to the ten commandments?
”
Christians do not practice circumcision. Your question is flawed.

commonly they do, yes - but anyway .....

As for in synagogue, here's the thing: They're all circumcised already, what is there to talk about? They might go around having affairs and murdering people - so it's talked about, but none of them can really un-circumcise themselves, (I assume - maybe they have a "re-attach your foreskin" programme).

if it was essential to the practice it would be discussed essentially (most congregations don't have a high ratio of murderers either BTW)

“
do you understand the difference between the two words "necessary" and "sufficient"?
”
No disrespect but how is that an answer to my question? Here it is once again:

"How is a scripture stated, god ordered, essential act peripheral other than simply because lg says so?"

you could say that circumcision is deemed as necessary by christians/jews, but you couldn't say it is sufficient - the evidence is that there are many people who are circumcised and not in the least theistically inclined (I guess they must be missing something essential, or something that is sufficient to grant them the status of theistically inclined)

“
necessary perhaps
”
Oh, so now you're agreeing it is essential? Lol.

Necessary: being essential, indispensable, or requisite.

Glad after all that you finally contradict yourself once more and agree with me that it is essential.

no

see above

“
sufficient, definitely not
”
Sufficient for what? You are still under the extremely flawed impression that doing one essential practice means you're not doing any other essential practice.

ditto above

“
the evidence is that you are (probably) circumcised and an atheist
”
I am certainly an atheist, yes. You actually mentioned circumcision first, I merely followed up on it. I don't know how or what that's supposed to be evidence of - but needless to say, my atheism, circumcision or lack thereof are of no consequence in this discussion. However we can leave this, you've already agreed it's essential.

if you or anyone is circumcised and an atheist, then obviously circumcision is not essential (ie sufficient) for theism

“
if its "sufficient" to be circumcised, why are you an atheist then?
”
This isn't even a coherent question.

I am an atheist because I don't have a belief in gods.

now we're getting somewhere

As for the first part, where does "sufficient" come from other than your earlier flawed statements?

theism aside, its a break down of philosophical analysis in determining what constitutes "essence"

“
why do priests sometimes get pulled down from their established positions, if its enough to merely be circumcised?
”
Who here, other than you, said anything about it "being enough"?

you

I have been stating that it is an essential practice. Why do you keep using this flawed notion that doing one essential practice means you're not or don't have to do anything else?

hopefully its obvious now - the state of your genitals has nothing to do with one's willingness to surrender to god - it may help one get a rubber stamp designation in certain circles however ....

“
so if god says that one must be free from lust and one must be circumcised, which one do you think is more essential
”
Lol, I gotta laugh.. "more essential"? Essential means essential, you have no place to be putting a 'more' or 'less' next to it. The majority of humans on this planet can obey more than one essential thing.

still, you don't find an atheist who surrenders to god, even tjough you can find an atheist who has been circumcised - go figure ...

“
still, suppose there were two muslims - one was circumcised and never worshiped god - the other was not circumcised and always worshiped god - who would be held in greater esteem by their fellow muslims?
”
They are both in the same position.

By not doing as god commands, can one really claim that they are worshipping god?

if they are following 99% of god's commands, sure

“
unless you can find an established theistic who plays circumcision as the number one essential practice
”
You do love your loaded and flawed questions, don't you? The "number one" essential? Essential is essential. What don't you understand about the word essential?

However, if you were to argue that there is an "ultimate command", from a christian perspective it would come in the form of jesus statements to "love god...". By dint of that, disobedience to his rules is going against that one. If one loved god, one would do as he said.

This is also shown in the OT with literally hundreds of "fear the lord your god" and his various methods of saying 'obey me'. If you honestly feared him you would always obey. Sure, you can have a fake kind of love - but that doesn't detract from the statement. Remember:

"You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God"

"Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD"

Oh and..

"Like the nations the LORD destroyed before you, so you will be destroyed for not obeying the LORD your God."

Enjoy.

“
if that is simply all they do, then there is no essential difference between them and an atheist
”
Absolutely undeniable astonishing ignorance. I would submit that there is indeed an essential difference between a theist and an atheist. Your comment is idiotic.

once again, so being circumcised is sufficient to meet all this criteria?
“

once again, given your theory base, I dread to think
”
Says the person who asserts that there's no essential difference between a theist and atheist .

as far as circumcision goes - sure

However, you listed 26 things that one need not read scripture to recognise and understand.

since it is a scriptural quote (from a compilation by rupa gosvami), it would certainly behoove one to see how the list was compiled and defined

In fact, I am vastly more qualified at recognising them than you are.

really?

“
its easy to tell that you aren't an atheist arguing from the platform of rhetoric
”
Ok then, you're debunking your own claim. That's certainly interesting. So anyway, once again:

The only way you can now argue it is if you apply correct theory and practice, (instead of the ill informed versions shown in your quote). What to talk of practice when you can't even get to the theory stage?

By now you should be aware but.. it requires a certain foundation of theory and practice - both of which you are adverse to.

Good day.

its still not clear how that vindicates you from the position of an atheist arguing from the position of rhetoric (that leprechauns exist or whatever)

 

[SnakeLord]

if you know what the disease is (lust/wrath/etc - aka - false ego, it's easy to discern the efficacy of medicine)

In the case of religious issues... no. This is because there is always inherent bias, (it's like a doctor being paid to advertise one specific company tablet). Go to your GP and they will prescribe you whichever pill does the best job, go to an RP and they'll prescribe you the only one they know. So again I would have to ask how, in the case of these issues, you would ever know which (scripture) is the best medicine.

there are also a variety of say headache medicines on the market and they all claim that they are effective (in many cases it can also be seen that they have very similar if not identical active ingredients)

If you look at them it certainly can be seen. If you don't look at them?

This is why I am trying to find out "which scripture is acceptable, why that scripture is more acceptable than the others, (including the ones you've never even read), and how you establish that scripture as being more acceptable".

But of course this is the nature of people. They rarely shop around. Instead they take the first thing they come across and, if it is suitable for them, claim it the best on the market without having ever tested the market. While this is common practice, it really leaves little to say about the rest of the market. It is for this reason that Which? Magazine does so well, (Which? tests the market). I personally think it would be a good idea to have Which? religion.

in BG you find god talking about himself on the best process how to attain him - in there you can find many processes explained (karma, jnana, yoga, bhakti)

In other scriptures you'll find other gods talking about other 'best processes' - with no mention of yogi or booboo. You go on to claim that "the explicit focus on bhakti however is what makes such scriptures as Srimad Bhagavatam and Bhagavad gita stand out", but without testing the rest of the market, how would you know? That is the question and has been for a while now. I'll say it in a way you'll understand:

There are what, a couple of billion christians on the planet? I think it's quite safe to say that the majority have never read the bg or heard of bhakti. It's funny to think that these people are heading to impending doom or a life as a frog simply on the basis that they read the wrong book - and that, due to cultural barriers, will never know of the importance of bhakti. Would you suggest that these people read the bg? If you were to assert as you did earlier that it doesn't matter which scripture you read then I have to ask again why you picked that one. If it does matter, thus my questions and statements concerning testing the market and having a Which? religion magazine.

quite a few

But not all? I personally have issue with that.

a person's character is established by their activities

And how many people really know what the pope [eg] gets up to when he's not working? There is the problem. It's easy to look decent when in the public sphere. It's like when you go in a shop or phone a helpline. The guy you speak to seems really polite and corteous.. The minute he's off work he beats up his wife, urinates on someones car etc.

Your statement falls merely on the basis that you only get to see the "activities" that they want to show you.

eventually the search amongst saintly persons results in accepting one as a guru

As decided by who? This would be the longest of arguments in existence. You'd have someone from every religion asserting that their saintly person is the 'guru'. The christians would outnumber everyone else, the muslims would blow up everyone else, the scientologists would see if they could buy their way to the top etc etc. So, how to decide?

BG 2.46: All purposes served by a small well can at once be served by a great reservoir of water.

The problem here is you cannot establish which is a well and which is a reservoir.

hence there are breakdowns of primary and secondary practices

How do you decide which is which? (although bear in mind that 'essential' is essential.. there's no way around that).

to begin with it is more than one book ...

So is the talmud, mishna, tanakh, haggadah, kabbalah and midrash but they all belong to the exact same religious practice. In short you're just telling me you've only read that which is A) a part of your culture and B) That which supports your own set of culturally established beliefs.

It's like me watching Star Trek, Quantum Leap, Star Wars, and Red Dwarf and saying that scifi is the best TV has to offer, (ok... they are - minus Star Wars, never liked it).

My wife likes all that reality crap - big brother, celebrity love island, get me out of here etc. But she happens to be very open, she's not a bigot. She'll sit down with me and watch red Dwarf and then decide whether she likes it or not, (she happens to like Quantum Leap). This is what I am both asking and suggesting. If one only watches reality tv, they miss out on so much that is on offer - and seemingly the only excuse is because of what those that have come before them did. Hey, my people only read the bg, I'll only read the bg.

your question didn't pertain to it?

Not really, no. See above.

generally we get familiar with a bit of theory beforehand

Which theory?

basically you just go on with such conglomerate views until one's doubts are sufficiently satisfied to begin practice - that will be different for different people

So it's not about which god is real or what practices this god demands that you do, but merely how convincing the salesman is?

SB 11.2.42

Given the question, I don't see how you think it is suitable to quote scriptural text. The question indeed was focused on how you can ascertain that a certain scripture is correct. So by quoting scripture are you telling me that this specific scripture is correct because it says it is?

even if you asked the people who live in your street, they would tell you that your genitals are not so important

I asked them. The overall answer seems to be that genitals are of utmost importance. Without them there's no kids.

what to speak of the one billion people living in india

Funnily enough the very same people that use them more than most. What is it, 10 kids per person?

so how does the christian description of god as the cause of all causes contradict what is presented in the bhagavad-gita?

Is this where I lump up everything you've said and present the lg version of an debate? I shall try briefly just for fun..

I've never read the bg, I don't know what it says and nor is it important. Any scripture will do. I decided to read the scripture I read because I listened to the nearest saintly person. He never mentioned the bg, and he's a saintly person. No, it isn't 'culturally defined', and yes I have read other books - such as 'jesus we love you' and 'jesus kicks ass'.

Hopefully by now you'll see the problem with everything you've said.

Needless to say, the differences are vast - but you'll never know that unless you study it. Same goes for every other religious based text in existence.

you are trying to argue that circumcision is essential to christianity/juadism - if a person is circumcised and not a theist, then you are obviously wrong

I still don't understand how you come to that conclusion. To jews, circumcision is an essential practice. Some non jews and non theists are also circumcised but for different reasons, (health etc). I don't see how you have established your conclusion.

I am arguing that worshiping god in a mood of reducing one's sinful propensities (lust/wrath/envy/etc) is the essence of theistic practice, since it is something that is obviously not exhibited by atheists

What would you know of atheists? No really, I'm curious.

not being so lusty for a start

But how would anyone know if you whack one off in the shower when nobody is looking? This is the issue. From the other thread we were talking on, and a recent thread that you were talking to someone else on, it is seen that you wont even make a claim to direct perception of gods on the basis of "how would you know if I'm lying". The same principle applies here.

How many sermons deal with circumcision?

When a person is about to give birth, it is mentioned 100% of the time.

How many sermons deal with the ten commandments?

Not that many, people realise that regardless to scripture, not all that many people go around killing others.

But basically what you're saying is that what is most popular is "most essential", (although the statement in itself is flawed)?

commonly they do, yes - but anyway .....

No, but anyway....

you could say that circumcision is deemed as necessary by christians/jews, but you couldn't say it is sufficient

A) Sufficient for what?

B) I did said that circumcision was essential, and it is.

the evidence is that there are many people who are circumcised and not in the least theistically inclined

And that is evidence for what exactly? If anything, that in itself shows why it would be an essential god given order.. after all, there's a reason even atheists would get circumcised while being absolutely devoid of any belief in that god or its orders.

Necessary: being essential, indispensable, or requisite.

So you are agreeing it's essential. Glad we cleared that up.

no

see above

I did see above, it says "essential".

if you or anyone is circumcised and an atheist, then obviously circumcision is not essential (ie sufficient) for theism

It's not quite clear how you come to such a conclusion.

hopefully its obvious now - the state of your genitals has nothing to do with one's willingness to surrender to god

Incorrect. If you're not willing to obey his commands, you're in little position to talk of surrender.

still, you don't find an atheist who surrenders to god, even tjough you can find an atheist who has been circumcised - go figure ...

Again I don't see the point in your statement. If anything it merely shows that even atheists understand the importance of such a thing.. no wonder a god would order it.

if they are following 99% of god's commands, sure

Hey, that's a personal thing - don't let me get in the way. Of course if you end up a frog because of it that's your own problem. Either way that's between you and him.. "but god, I followed 99% of your orders"... I get you, that's bound to work.

once again, so being circumcised is sufficient to meet all this criteria?

Once again: Sufficient for what?

as far as circumcision goes - sure

Hmm.. One gets circumcised because god told him to, the other because of health implications. No difference heh?

its still not clear how that vindicates you from the position of an atheist arguing from the position of rhetoric

Of course not, and it will never be "clear" while you lack a "certain foundation of theory and practice - both of which you are adverse to."

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“ if you know what the disease is (lust/wrath/etc - aka - false ego, it's easy to discern the efficacy of medicine) ”
In the case of religious issues... no. This is because there is always inherent bias, (it's like a doctor being paid to advertise one specific company tablet). Go to your GP and they will prescribe you whichever pill does the best job, go to an RP and they'll prescribe you the only one they know. So again I would have to ask how, in the case of these issues, you would ever know which (scripture) is the best medicine.

physicians may exhibit bias – in fact it is expected (accupunctuarists recommend acupuncture, allopaths recommend allopathic treatments, etc
after all is said and done, one would judge the best treatment according to the results – which may differ from person to person – like for instance allopathy may be the best option and acupuncture lower in general but a particular person finds that they have allergic reactions to medication, and thus opts for acupuncture – similarly the standard of one religious process may be the best in general but a person finds they are too materially attached to follow it properly, so they opt for a lower one
“

there are also a variety of say headache medicines on the market and they all claim that they are effective (in many cases it can also be seen that they have very similar if not identical active ingredients) ”
If you look at them it certainly can be seen. If you don't look at them?

This is why I am trying to find out "which scripture is acceptable, why that scripture is more acceptable than the others, (including the ones you've never even read), and how you establish that scripture as being more acceptable".

But of course this is the nature of people. They rarely shop around. Instead they take the first thing they come across and, if it is suitable for them, claim it the best on the market without having ever tested the market. While this is common practice, it really leaves little to say about the rest of the market. It is for this reason that Which? Magazine does so well, (Which? tests the market). I personally think it would be a good idea to have Which? religion.

How much shopping around is required to find a suitable headache medicine (given that there are probably around 100 options a person has never tried)?
In otherwords curing the headache is the goal and gathering info to make an informed decision is only useful to the degree it assists in this pursuit –

SB11.2.42 Devotion, direct experience of the Supreme Lord, and detachment from other things—these three occur simultaneously for one who has taken shelter of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, in the same way that pleasure, nourishment and relief from hunger come simultaneously and increasingly, with each bite, for a person engaged in eating.

If one is experiencing devotion, direct experience and detachment, what is the necessity for shopping around?
“

in BG you find god talking about himself on the best process how to attain him - in there you can find many processes explained (karma, jnana, yoga, bhakti) ”
In other scriptures you'll find other gods talking about other 'best processes' - with no mention of yogi or booboo. You go on to claim that "the explicit focus on bhakti however is what makes such scriptures as Srimad Bhagavatam and Bhagavad gita stand out", but without testing the rest of the market, how would you know? That is the question and has been for a while now. I'll say it in a way you'll understand:

If you understood what the words karma, jnana, yoga and bhakti mean you wouldn’t ask such questions

There are what, a couple of billion christians on the planet? I think it's quite safe to say that the majority have never read the bg or heard of bhakti.

If they asked what it meant an explanation could be given that would automatically be familiar to them

“ a person's character is established by their activities ”
And how many people really know what the pope [eg] gets up to when he's not working?

There is the problem. It's easy to look decent when in the public sphere. It's like when you go in a shop or phone a helpline. The guy you speak to seems really polite and corteous.. The minute he's off work he beats up his wife, urinates on someones car etc.

Generally a person’s consciousness limits the degree that they can anticipate the activities of another – in other words a lusty, deceitful person will assume that other people are lusty and deceitful like him (and therefore be suspicious of everyone) – until one crosses the threshold of reflecting one’s inappropriate inclinations on the world at large, determining who is and isn’t a saintly person, or to what degree they are saintly, will remain a difficult task


“

eventually the search amongst saintly persons results in accepting one as a guru ”
As decided by who?

Decided by the disciple and the guru

This would be the longest of arguments in existence. You'd have someone from every religion asserting that their saintly person is the 'guru'.

Accepting guru is only necessary for persons seriously interested in determining the nature of spiritual life – if one is simply interested in religiosity, economic development, sense gratification and liberation, it may be sufficient for them to work out of scriptural indications as far as they are inclined

The christians would outnumber everyone else, the muslims would blow up everyone else, the scientologists would see if they could buy their way to the top etc etc. So, how to decide?

The lack of actual gurus in these groups tend to indicate their interests in general lie in other areas

“

BG 2.46: All purposes served by a small well can at once be served by a great reservoir of water. ”
The problem here is you cannot establish which is a well and which is a reservoir.

You are indicating that the rules and regulations attached to religion are the reservoir
This quote, particularly the bit you edited out about the purpose of the Vedas, states that the reservoir is not the rules and regulations attached to religion (but that such rules and regulations actually have a purpose, namely, to get free from lust for the ephemeral, become attached to god, etc)

“ hence there are breakdowns of primary and secondary practices ”
How do you decide which is which? (although bear in mind that 'essential' is essential.. there's no way around that).

If achieving an objective is made easier by an article, it is secondary
If achieving an objective is made impossible without an article it is primary

For instance drinking water is made easier with a glass but it is made impossible without water – hence the glass is secondary and the water is primary

Similarly surrender to god is made easier by following rules and regs, but it is impossible without devotion (hence an atheist who has done every rule and reg under the sun remains as he is and a theist, even if subject to every flaw of mortality, is in a different category for as long as his determination is rightly situated )

BG 9.30 Even if one commits the most abominable action, if he is engaged in devotional service he is to be considered saintly because he is properly situated in his determination.

“ to begin with it is more than one book ... ”
So is the talmud, mishna, tanakh, haggadah, kabbalah and midrash but they all belong to the exact same religious practice. In short you're just telling me you've only read that which is A) a part of your culture and B) That which supports your own set of culturally established beliefs.

It's like me watching Star Trek, Quantum Leap, Star Wars, and Red Dwarf and saying that scifi is the best TV has to offer, (ok... they are - minus Star Wars, never liked it).

Maybe you could begin by saying what information it is exactly that these books contain that the Vedas does not
Eg
Who am I?
Where am I?
Why am I in this material world?
Who is god?
What are god’s characteristics?
Etc etc
From my experience, by reading the Vedas one can uncover things already existing in other scriptures, as well as some things that cannot be located elsewhere – still, I have an open mind if someone wants to tell me what books have more ...

My wife likes all that reality crap - big brother, celebrity love island, get me out of here etc. But she happens to be very open, she's not a bigot. She'll sit down with me and watch red Dwarf and then decide whether she likes it or not, (she happens to like Quantum Leap). This is what I am both asking and suggesting. If one only watches reality tv, they miss out on so much that is on offer - and seemingly the only excuse is because of what those that have come before them did.

Then I guess it is up to you to impress on me what these other scriptures have to offer

Hey, my people only read the bg, I'll only read the bg.

While india is predominantly hindu (which is itself a melting pot of different philosophical outlooks), there are also established communities of muslims, Christians and buddhists

But I don’t even have a birth certificate that is Indian, so I guess I must have fulfilled your prerequisites for adequate searching
“

generally we get familiar with a bit of theory beforehand ”
Which theory?

You got yourself educated in science
What subject matter took your interest before you enrolled in university?
(most schemes for higher education demand this by having prerequisites)
“

basically you just go on with such conglomerate views until one's doubts are sufficiently satisfied to begin practice - that will be different for different people ”
So it's not about which god is real or what practices this god demands that you do, but merely how convincing the salesman is?

If one’s doubts can be satisfied by a salesman, yes
“

SB 11.2.42 ”
Given the question, I don't see how you think it is suitable to quote scriptural text. The question indeed was focused on how you can ascertain that a certain scripture is correct. So by quoting scripture are you telling me that this specific scripture is correct because it says it is?

(sigh) back to the normative description problem
Anyway ...
Was the scriptural quote saying “scripture is right because scripture is right” or was it offering an indication on what are the symptoms of progressive spiritual practice (generally people adopt a spiritual practice by reading a spiritual book)?
“

even if you asked the people who live in your street, they would tell you that your genitals are not so important ”
I asked them. The overall answer seems to be that genitals are of utmost importance. Without them there's no kids.

You have fathered all the children in your street?

But how would anyone know if you whack one off in the shower when nobody is looking?

the best way to know how to pick out a person who does not whack one off in the shower is to become a person who does not whack one off in the shower

“

what to speak of the one billion people living in india ”
Funnily enough the very same people that use them more than most. What is it, 10 kids per person?

Quite modest compared to the number of contraceptives of their western counterparts ....
“

so how does the christian description of god as the cause of all causes contradict what is presented in the bhagavad-gita? ”
Is this where I lump up everything you've said and present the lg version of an debate? I shall try briefly just for fun..

I've never read the bg, I don't know what it says and nor is it important. Any scripture will do. I decided to read the scripture I read because I listened to the nearest saintly person. He never mentioned the bg, and he's a saintly person. No, it isn't 'culturally defined', and yes I have read other books - such as 'jesus we love you' and 'jesus kicks ass'.

Hopefully by now you'll see the problem with everything you've said.

Needless to say, the differences are vast - but you'll never know that unless you study it. Same goes for every other religious based text in existence.

If the differences are vast you should begin by presenting one or two – btw this is a question on what ways the values/conclusion is different, not the process – so if you want to argue that all gods are different, now would be a good time to tell how the Christian description of god is different from the description of god presented in the BG
“

you are trying to argue that circumcision is essential to christianity/juadism - if a person is circumcised and not a theist, then you are obviously wrong ”
I still don't understand how you come to that conclusion. To jews, circumcision is an essential practice. Some non jews and non theists are also circumcised but for different reasons, (health etc). I don't see how you have established your conclusion.

Given what you have said above, I can’t see how you could describe circumcision as essential, since there are persons fulfilling the “essential” requirement yet remaining well outside the category
“

I am arguing that worshiping god in a mood of reducing one's sinful propensities (lust/wrath/envy/etc) is the essence of theistic practice, since it is something that is obviously not exhibited by atheists ”
What would you know of atheists? No really, I'm curious.

Quite a lot – I used to be one remember

“ How many sermons deal with circumcision? ”
When a person is about to give birth, it is mentioned 100% of the time.

They have special masses for pregnant women?
“

How many sermons deal with the ten commandments? ”
Not that many, people realise that regardless to scripture, not all that many people go around killing others.

So there are another 9 to discuss

But basically what you're saying is that what is most popular is "most essential", (although the statement in itself is flawed)?

What I am saying is that essential practices take the forefront of activity – and practices that are not so essential take a lesser role – in this way, even in examining Christianity as an isolated phenomena from religiosity in general, it can be seen quite easily that overcoming what is elaborated in the ten commandments occupies greater normative clout than circumcision
“

the evidence is that there are many people who are circumcised and not in the least theistically inclined ”
And that is evidence for what exactly? If anything, that in itself shows why it would be an essential god given order.. after all, there's a reason even atheists would get circumcised while being absolutely devoid of any belief in that god or its orders.
“ Necessary: being essential, indispensable, or requisite. ”
So you are agreeing it's essential. Glad we cleared that up.

Its easy to locate an atheist who is circumcised
Can you show me an atheist who takes an active interest in reducing the influence of lust/wrath in the pursuit of attaining the kingdom of god?
“

if you or anyone is circumcised and an atheist, then obviously circumcision is not essential (ie sufficient) for theism ”
It's not quite clear how you come to such a conclusion.

Ditto above

“ once again, so being circumcised is sufficient to meet all this criteria? ”
Once again: Sufficient for what?

To be categorized as a theist
If the answer is “no” then circumcisions is not sufficient

“ as far as circumcision goes - sure ”
Hmm.. One gets circumcised because god told him to, the other because of health implications. No difference heh?

So what do you think is the essential difference between these two?

“ its still not clear how that vindicates you from the position of an atheist arguing from the position of rhetoric ”
Of course not, and it will never be "clear" while you lack a "certain foundation of theory and practice - both of which you are adverse to."

Lol
Unless you can indicate what is the “practice” of an atheist, you are travelling further up the road of rhetoric

 

[Satyr]

The term "atheist" is often used by fanatical, retarded minds to indicate those that have not been convinced by the absurd and unsubstantiated bullshit their childish minds depend on to cope with life, whereas their own skepticism concerning deities that do not adhere to the dogma they were brough up in, is seen as rational thinking and logical skepticism.

This is how a stupid idiot justifies his stupidity to himself...that and the epistemology of the ontology from the right authorities...blah...blah....blah:xctd:

 

[lightgigantic]

The term "atheist" is often used by fanatical, retarded minds to indicate those that have not been convinced by the absurd and unsubstantiated bullshit their childish minds depend on to cope with life, whereas their own skepticism concerning deities that do not adhere to the dogma they were brough up in, is seen as rational thinking and logical skepticism.

This is how a stupid idiot justifies his stupidity to himself...that and the epistemology of the ontology from the right authorities...blah...blah....blah:xctd:

I just love tentative arguments

The term "theist" is often used by fanatical, retarded minds to indicate those that have not been convinced by the absurd and unsubstantiated bullshit their childish minds depend on to cope with life, whereas their own skepticism concerning ideas that do not adhere to the dogma they were brough up in, is seen as rational thinking and logical skepticism.

This is how a stupid idiot justifies his stupidity to himself...that and the epistemology of the ontology from the right authorities...blah...blah....blah:xctd:

 

[SnakeLord]

after all is said and done, one would judge the best treatment according to the results

Firstly would it not therefore seem more apparent that christianity is the 'best treatment' considering it has the largest number of pleased patients?

Secondly you can get 'results' from chewing on rhino testicles from the local Chinese 'doctors', (if I dare use the word). Of course at this stage we need to judge whether it's the medicine or placebo at work. It's not really a surprise of course that some guy in China would opt for rhino balls while some guy in London would opt for actual medicine.

How much shopping around is required to find a suitable headache medicine

That depends. If your first call is the guy on the street corner, or the man selling rhino gonads then I would personally advise shopping around a bit more. From a religious standpoint you're all guys in the street corner - unless of course you can establish otherwise.

What you're also saying shows why religion is culturally defined. Why would you shop around? Who gives a shit if it's real or genuine as long as it's the easiest thing to pick up.. right?

If one is experiencing devotion, direct experience and detachment, what is the necessity for shopping around?

Greater devotion, experience and detachment?

If you understood what the words karma, jnana, yoga and bhakti mean you wouldn’t ask such questions

That's fine, but not an answer to the question - which was: how would you know without testing the rest of the market. If you pay attention you'll see the question does not rely on my knowledge or lack thereof of yoga and bhakti, merely your lack of knowledge concerning other processes. When you attempt another answer, kindly take that into account.

in other words a lusty, deceitful person will assume that other people are lusty and deceitful like him (and therefore be suspicious of everyone)

Not really, no. Seems the bg doesn't teach you much, (or accurately), about human nature.

until one crosses the threshold of reflecting one’s inappropriate inclinations on the world at large, determining who is and isn’t a saintly person, or to what degree they are saintly, will remain a difficult task

Ultimately what you're saying is that you guess.

Decided by the disciple and the guru

Like a scene from Spartacus.. "I'm the guru!", "No, I'm the guru!"...

The lack of actual gurus in these groups tend to indicate their interests in general lie in other areas

"Actual" gurus decided by who? A minute ago you were telling me that the gurus decided that they were gurus, thus they're gurus if they bloody well say they are. You of course have no position to say otherwise.

For instance drinking water is made easier with a glass but it is made impossible without water – hence the glass is secondary and the water is primary

Analogy is flawed. Namely it is not essential to have a glass. Try again.

Maybe you could begin by saying what information it is exactly that these books contain that the Vedas does not
Eg
Who am I?

You are.. a descendant of Adam and Eve, born cursed because they ate a fruit. The Vedas say this? What were you referring to exactly when you ask "who am I"?

Where am I?

Earth.

Why am I in this material world?

You were sculpted out of clay for.. well.. no real reason. god's boredom I suppose.

Who is god?

Which one?

What are god’s characteristics?

Long blonde hair, carries a large hammer.. Oh wait, you meant a different one?

Then I guess it is up to you to impress on me what these other scriptures have to offer

One tends not to get far with high school dropouts adverse to learning. Agree?

What subject matter took your interest before you enrolled in university?

Again you seem to be espousing that choosing a religious belief is not about the truth of that belief but merely how interested in it you are. This is not the first time you have indicated such a thing, and I certainly have issue with that - which is obvious, because I'm into truth, not faith.

If one’s doubts can be satisfied by a salesman, yes

They generally can.

or was it offering an indication on what are the symptoms of progressive spiritual practice (generally people adopt a spiritual practice by reading a spiritual book)?

*sigh* How exactly does that answer my question of how you tell a certain scripture is correct other than it doesn't?

You have fathered all the children in your street?

Not to my knowledge, why?

the best way to know how to pick out a person who does not whack one off in the shower is to become a person who does not whack one off in the shower

You believe that? Lol :bugeye:

Quite modest compared to the number of contraceptives of their western counterparts ...

So then in both places genitals are of utmost importance. Glad we got that settled. Of course I'm all for contraceptives if it prevents giving birth to children that you're just going to abuse, (a massive problem in India).. So many sinful hindus heh?

http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/75187/Sexual_Abuse_of_Indian_Children_Common_

2 out of every 3 children.. The vedas work wonders.

btw this is a question on what ways the values/conclusion is different, not the process

Ok, so we accept that the process differs from scripture to scripture, the conclusion also differs unless you assert that the bg states we'll all live in a golden jerusalem after jesus comes back and ultimately destroys the universe, (before creating another one). Values are many - similar and different - from removing all signs of human emotion, (becoming a robot), to being able to do whatever you please as long as you ask forgiveness for it later. There's certainly no mention of being born again as a frog.

now would be a good time to tell how the Christian description of god is different from the description of god presented in the BG

One is white, circumcised, jewish and kinda feminine looking - the other is blue, multiple armed and well, frankly it's hard to tell what sex it's so damn ugly.

Given what you have said above, I can’t see how you could describe circumcision as essential, since there are persons fulfilling the “essential” requirement yet remaining well outside the category

Your statement is nonsensical. What are you trying to get at exactly?

Quite a lot – I used to be one remember

You used to be an atheist heh? Oh I doubt that very much.

They have special masses for pregnant women?

After she's give birth a mohel, (quite often a rabbi), performs the operation to ensure that it is done in compliance with essential jewish law. If for instance you have been circumcised by say a hospital a special 'saintly person' will actually have to check and, (make the circumcision jewish so to speak), before you can have a barmitzvah etc. The issue is spoken about at the relevant time. Murder might take more time but that's because you can't guarantee that nobody is going to go and murder someone, you can guarantee that everyone that's circumcised isn't going to get uncircumcised.

So there are another 9 to discuss

Discussions are generally about other parts of the OT. The ten commandments come into play at certain times of the year, (passover etc).

even in examining Christianity as an isolated phenomena from religiosity in general, it can be seen quite easily that overcoming what is elaborated in the ten commandments occupies greater normative clout than circumcision

But of course it does, christians don't get circumcised or see it as an essential practice. You keep making this mistake.

Its easy to locate an atheist who is circumcised
Can you show me an atheist who takes an active interest in reducing the influence of lust/wrath in the pursuit of attaining the kingdom of god?

I still don't get your argument.

To be categorized as a theist
If the answer is “no” then circumcisions is not sufficient

Being non-lusty also does not categorise one as a "theist". A theist is simply one that has belief in gods - there are essential processes and practices that accompany their belief, but do not come into play to be categorised as a 'theist'. Now I see where you're going wrong.

Lol
Unless you can indicate what is the “practice” of an atheist, you are travelling further up the road of rhetoric

What are you talking about? I have stated clearly for the record that I have seen and know Lenny the leprechaun. Where does atheism come into that?

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
after all is said and done, one would judge the best treatment according to the results
”
Firstly would it not therefore seem more apparent that christianity is the 'best treatment' considering it has the largest number of pleased patients?

"pleased" by what exactly?

“
How much shopping around is required to find a suitable headache medicine
”
That depends. If your first call is the guy on the street corner, or the man selling rhino gonads then I would personally advise shopping around a bit more. From a religious standpoint you're all guys in the street corner - unless of course you can establish otherwise.

What you're also saying shows why religion is culturally defined. Why would you shop around? Who gives a shit if it's real or genuine as long as it's the easiest thing to pick up.. right?

generally most people shop around for headache medicines for as long as their headache persists (or alternatively, one could take the equivalent of the atheists stand and pretend that having a head ache is perfectly natural and it s foolishness to try and address it)

“
If one is experiencing devotion, direct experience and detachment, what is the necessity for shopping around?
”
Greater devotion, experience and detachment?

then that is not so much an issue of shopping around

“
If you understood what the words karma, jnana, yoga and bhakti mean you wouldn’t ask such questions
”
That's fine, but not an answer to the question - which was: how would you know without testing the rest of the market.

if you are a satisfied customer, why shop?

If you pay attention you'll see the question does not rely on my knowledge or lack thereof of yoga and bhakti, merely your lack of knowledge concerning other processes. When you attempt another answer, kindly take that into account.

if neither you or I or anyone can name a process that falls outside of karma, yoga, jnana or bhakti, where do you propose I do my shopping?

“
in other words a lusty, deceitful person will assume that other people are lusty and deceitful like him (and therefore be suspicious of everyone)
”
Not really, no. Seems the bg doesn't teach you much, (or accurately), about human nature.

certainly explains why some people cannot conceive of people who are not lusty

“
Decided by the disciple and the guru
”
Like a scene from Spartacus.. "I'm the guru!", "No, I'm the guru!"...

hence the disciple would decide the issue

“
The lack of actual gurus in these groups tend to indicate their interests in general lie in other areas
”
"Actual" gurus decided by who?

in terms of "qualified" guru, it means some one who fulfills normative descriptions - in the strict sense, guru means some one who solves all the problems of material life

A minute ago you were telling me that the gurus decided that they were gurus,

i thought you were speaking in general - I could accept you as my guru this instant - whether you could solve the problems of life would be a separate issue however ....

thus they're gurus if they bloody well say they are. You of course have no position to say otherwise.

accepting a guru simply requires one person willing to lead and another who is willing to follow - whether or not they both end up in a ditch remains to be seen ....

“
For instance drinking water is made easier with a glass but it is made impossible without water – hence the glass is secondary and the water is primary
”
Analogy is flawed. Namely it is not essential to have a glass. Try again.

well, that was my point ....

“
Maybe you could begin by saying what information it is exactly that these books contain that the Vedas does not
Eg
Who am I?
”
You are.. a descendant of Adam and Eve, born cursed because they ate a fruit. The Vedas say this? What were you referring to exactly when you ask "who am I"?

that does not adequately explain my state of "being", where my responsibilities ultimately reside, etc

“
Where am I?
”
Earth.

where is the earth?

“
Why am I in this material world?
”
You were sculpted out of clay for.. well.. no real reason. god's boredom I suppose.

hardly a satisfying answer - guess its time for me to shop around ....

“
Who is god?
”
Which one?

ditto above

“
What are god’s characteristics?
”
Long blonde hair, carries a large hammer.. Oh wait, you meant a different one?

ditto above

“
Then I guess it is up to you to impress on me what these other scriptures have to offer
”
One tends not to get far with high school dropouts adverse to learning. Agree?

thats ok - Its not so much an appeal to how things work or what is real/false - simply that if you want to demand that "shopping around" in religion is required you will have to impress on the audience that there is something different scriptures have to offer

“
What subject matter took your interest before you enrolled in university?
”
Again you seem to be espousing that choosing a religious belief is not about the truth of that belief but merely how interested in it you are.

so because a person is interested in some field of knowledge, if they study it at university it indicates the focus is not on truthful information???

“
If one’s doubts can be satisfied by a salesman, yes
”
They generally can.

lol - I see

“
or was it offering an indication on what are the symptoms of progressive spiritual practice (generally people adopt a spiritual practice by reading a spiritual book)?
”
*sigh* How exactly does that answer my question of how you tell a certain scripture is correct other than it doesn't?

reread the quote and see what three things it advocates

“
the best way to know how to pick out a person who does not whack one off in the shower is to become a person who does not whack one off in the shower
”
You believe that? Lol

yes, it would be a humble beginning for some

“
btw this is a question on what ways the values/conclusion is different, not the process
”
Ok, so we accept that the process differs from scripture to scripture, the conclusion also differs unless you assert that the bg states we'll all live in a golden jerusalem after jesus comes back and ultimately destroys the universe, (before creating another one).

parallels can be drawn

Values are many - similar and different - from removing all signs of human emotion,

sorry, that's process

to being able to do whatever you please as long as you ask forgiveness for it later.

sorry, that's process

There's certainly no mention of being born again as a frog.

there's no mention contrary to it either

“
now would be a good time to tell how the Christian description of god is different from the description of god presented in the BG
”
One is white, circumcised, jewish and kinda feminine looking - the other is blue, multiple armed and well, frankly it's hard to tell what sex it's so damn ugly.

you have scriptural quotes that describe god like that or are you making it up?

“
Quite a lot – I used to be one remember
”
You used to be an atheist heh? Oh I doubt that very much.

must be your lust and deceitfulness shaping your world view again ...

“
They have special masses for pregnant women?
”
After she's give birth a mohel, (quite often a rabbi), performs the operation to ensure that it is done in compliance with essential jewish law. If for instance you have been circumcised by say a hospital a special 'saintly person' will actually have to check and, (make the circumcision jewish so to speak), before you can have a barmitzvah etc. The issue is spoken about at the relevant time. Murder might take more time but that's because you can't guarantee that nobody is going to go and murder someone, you can guarantee that everyone that's circumcised isn't going to get uncircumcised.

all interesting, but no indication that its anything more than secondary - mainly because a person can be circumcised and not a jew (guess such persons must be missing out on something essential, huh?)

“
So there are another 9 to discuss
”
Discussions are generally about other parts of the OT. The ten commandments come into play at certain times of the year, (passover etc).

what to speak about secondary issues, like circumcision ....

“
even in examining Christianity as an isolated phenomena from religiosity in general, it can be seen quite easily that overcoming what is elaborated in the ten commandments occupies greater normative clout than circumcision
”
But of course it does, christians don't get circumcised or see it as an essential practice. You keep making this mistake.

obviously you haven't shopped around much

"
The Greek Orthodox Church celebrates the Circumcision of Christ on 1 January,[36] while Orthodox churches following the Julian calendar celebrate it on 14 January. The Russian Orthodox Church considers it a "Great Feast".[37] In the Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran churches it has been replaced by other commemorations.[38] At the Council of Basel-Florence in 1442, the Catholic Church condemned circumcision among the Copts and ordered against its practice.[34] ."

“
Its easy to locate an atheist who is circumcised
Can you show me an atheist who takes an active interest in reducing the influence of lust/wrath in the pursuit of attaining the kingdom of god?
”
I still don't get your argument.

one article is essential to being a theist
the other is not

“
To be categorized as a theist
If the answer is “no” then circumcisions is not sufficient
”
Being non-lusty also does not categorise one as a "theist".

hence ...

who takes an active interest in reducing the influence of lust/wrath in the pursuit of attaining the kingdom of god

“
Lol
Unless you can indicate what is the “practice” of an atheist, you are travelling further up the road of rhetoric
”
What are you talking about? I have stated clearly for the record that I have seen and know Lenny the leprechaun.

lol - you also made the disclaimer that you weren't an atheist arguing from the platform of rhetoric

 

[SnakeLord]

"pleased" by what exactly?

You're well aware of the answer, it seems you simply didn't want to answer my question. Once again:

Would it not therefore seem more apparent that christianity is the 'best treatment' considering it has the best results? (i.e more cured people)

(or alternatively, one could take the equivalent of the atheists stand and pretend that having a head ache is perfectly natural and it s foolishness to try and address it)

Or one could take the theist equivalent and pretend that talking to a fictional being is going to actually do something and therefore consider it foolishness to do something real to stop it. :bugeye:

Want to continue being an ass?

then that is not so much an issue of shopping around

It's not clear how this statement follows from mine.

if you are a satisfied customer, why shop?

I was satisfied with Tesco's own brand of ice cream until I actually tried Ben and Jerry's. Now I realise what cheap crap Tesco's own brand is.

Of course we're not even talking something meaningless like ice cream but something that is claimed to be the ultimate and only purpose of your entire existence. It would seem daft in my estimation to accept scientology because "it's satisfying" while then being doomed to hell or doomed to reincarnate as a European pond slug all because I chose the wrong one and showed no interest in finding the right one - and chosen only because that's what my friends and family were doing.

if neither you or I or anyone can name a process that falls outside of karma, yoga, jnana or bhakti

I thought you had a certain dislike to tentative claims? What a hypocrite.

hence the disciple would decide the issue

Like a scene from Spartacus.. "He's the guru!", "No, he's the guru!"..

What next? Tarot cards to decide?

in the strict sense, guru means some one who solves all the problems of material life

He unblocks your toilet?

I could accept you as my guru this instant - whether you could solve the problems of life would be a separate issue however ...

I do so better than most, it's my job.

accepting a guru simply requires one person willing to lead and another who is willing to follow - whether or not they both end up in a ditch remains to be seen ....

Yes, it does remain to be seen - that's the point. You can't confirm or validate anything, it just simply requires you to follow.

well, that was my point ....

Uhh.. so we're discussing essential practices to which you make an analogy using something non-essential? Good one lg, way to go.

that does not adequately explain my state of "being", where my responsibilities ultimately reside, etc

Ok, you're the culmination of billions of years of evolution. Responsibilities? I don't follow..

The vedas contains that?

where is the earth?

On the back of a giant turtle.

hardly a satisfying answer - guess its time for me to shop around ....

Truth and satisfying are completely separate things. What you're telling me is that truth is inconsequential to whatever idea pleases you most. I have issue with that.

ditto above

Ditto above again. Furthermore, what's your problem exactly with long blonde hair and a hammer?

if you want to demand that "shopping around" in religion is required you will have to impress on the audience that there is something different scriptures have to offer

I'm not ultimately demanding anything, you can do whatever it is that pleases your little mind, (and we have seen how it is about what pleases you as opposed to what's true). Needless to say, it is not upto me to sit down and read scripture to you. That is your responsibility. If you choose to be a high school dropout, fair enough - it simply means you can't comment when the issues arise.

so because a person is interested in some field of knowledge, if they study it at university it indicates the focus is not on truthful information???

That depends. If the course is focused on how to make invisible clothing, (course provides a free pair of invisible pants) then that's exactly what it would indicate. There are many courses available in scientology.. focused on truthful information? If you say so.

reread the quote and see what three things it advocates

Well duh, you have to validate that scripture as being correct before quoting that scripture in order to try and claim that the same scripture is correct. Stop with the foolishness.

yes, it would be a humble beginning for some

roflmao.

parallels can be drawn

So, the bg does state you'll all live in a golden jerusalem?

there's no mention contrary to it either

Uhh, there's no mention against leprechauns planning to take over the cosmos and there's no mention of god being a blatant homosexual.. we now say these are true because scripture doesn't say they aren't? Roflmfao.

you have scriptural quotes that describe god like that or are you making it up?

Ah, you said christian description, not biblical description. It's all in the details. Anyway..

From a biblical perspective it's quite difficult because there's very little said about the matter. What we'll have to do therefore is focus on the only mention of his appearance made in the bible:

'1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks [one] like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
1:14 His head and [His] hairs [were] white like wool, as white as snow; and His eyes [were] as a flame of fire;
1:15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and His voice as the sound of many waters.
1:16 And He had in His right hand seven stars: and out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and His countenance [was] as the sun shineth in his strength'

So, he's a dude with white head and hair, orange eyes, brass feet and an accent that sounds like he's at the bottom of a lake. Lol, that's some funny shit.

Does the bg describe god in this manner?

must be your lust and deceitfulness shaping your world view again ...

O.....k.. lofl.

but no indication that its anything more than secondary

Clearly you didn't even read it - of course it's also understandable that you wouldn't know, because you don't shop around. High school dropout, kindly desist from thinking you can speak on the matter.

mainly because a person can be circumcised and not a jew

You keep saying this, but it's simply idiotic. Where is it's relevance to anything?

what to speak about secondary issues, like circumcision ....

You're seemingly under the impression that only 1 page of the bible is ever read and thus is the only important part of the bible. Different parts get mentioned at different, (and relevant) times. You're being very silly. There are times for many religions when it is essential to fast. That does not mean they talk about fasting 365 days a year. Likewise there are times when it is essential to talk about and engage in circumcision, (namely when a new child is born).

obviously you haven't shopped around much

Obviously you're not awake. The very first line from that link says: "Christianity does not call for circumcision."

There is the odd church that I mentioned earlier that practices the thing, and one or two that consider it essential, (and thus practice it as essential). So what was your point other than.. it's not essential to some but is essential to others? What exactly are you telling me that I haven't already told you?

one article is essential to being a theist
the other is not

Belief in a god or gods is essential to be called a theist, yes. Performing essential god ordered practices is essential, (to some), to attain the kingdom of god.

What was your point?

lol - you also made the disclaimer that you weren't an atheist arguing from the platform of rhetoric

Actually you made the claim that I was, I merely disagreed with your claim. Support your claim.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
"pleased" by what exactly?
”
You're well aware of the answer, it seems you simply didn't want to answer my question. Once again:

Would it not therefore seem more apparent that christianity is the 'best treatment' considering it has the best results? (i.e more cured people)

"cured" people of what exactly?

“
(or alternatively, one could take the equivalent of the atheists stand and pretend that having a head ache is perfectly natural and it s foolishness to try and address it)
”
Or one could take the theist equivalent and pretend that talking to a fictional being

you have direct perception that god is fictional?
interesting .....

“
then that is not so much an issue of shopping around
”
It's not clear how this statement follows from mine.

one would already have detachment, experience and devotion, to begin with in order to be looking for "greater" reserves of it

“
if you are a satisfied customer, why shop?
”
I was satisfied with Tesco's own brand of ice cream until I actually tried Ben and Jerry's. Now I realise what cheap crap Tesco's own brand is.

so then I guess it is up to you to place an alternative in front of me - if neither you nor I can conceive of an alternative to what is presented in the vedas, where do you propose we do our shopping?

Of course we're not even talking something meaningless like ice cream but something that is claimed to be the ultimate and only purpose of your entire existence. It would seem daft in my estimation to accept scientology because "it's satisfying"

I don't think Scientology is interested in these things


SB11.2.42 Devotion, direct experience of the Supreme Lord, and detachment from other things—these three occur simultaneously for one who has taken shelter of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, in the same way that pleasure, nourishment and relief from hunger come simultaneously and increasingly, with each bite, for a person engaged in eating.

while then being doomed to hell or doomed to reincarnate as a European pond slug all because I chose the wrong one and showed no interest in finding the right one -

actually it would be all because one's desires were headed in a direction that is best satisfied by being a pond slug

SB 4.29.30-31: The living entity is exactly like a dog, who, overcome with hunger, goes from door to door for some food. According to his destiny, he sometimes receives punishment and is driven out and at other times receives a little food to eat. Similarly, the living entity, being influenced by so many desires, wanders in different species of life according to destiny. Sometimes he is high, and sometimes he is low. Sometimes he goes to the heavenly planets, sometimes to hell, sometimes to the middle planets, and so on.

“
if neither you or I or anyone can name a process that falls outside of karma, yoga, jnana or bhakti
”
I thought you had a certain dislike to tentative claims? What a hypocrite.

so prove me wrong and name a process that falls outside of these four.

“

“
in the strict sense, guru means some one who solves all the problems of material life
”
He unblocks your toilet?

yes
“

I could accept you as my guru this instant - whether you could solve the problems of life would be a separate issue however ...
”
I do so better than most, it's my job.

lol - as I said its a separate issue

“
accepting a guru simply requires one person willing to lead and another who is willing to follow - whether or not they both end up in a ditch remains to be seen ....
”
Yes, it does remain to be seen - that's the point. You can't confirm or validate anything, it just simply requires you to follow.

thats right - process and conclusion/values are distinct aspects of knowledge ....

“
well, that was my point ....
”
Uhh.. so we're discussing essential practices to which you make an analogy using something non-essential? Good one lg, way to go.

well, regarding the non-essential, that was your point .....

“
that does not adequately explain my state of "being", where my responsibilities ultimately reside, etc
”
Ok, you're the culmination of billions of years of evolution.

wow - now my life is really meaningless

Responsibilities? I don't follow..

gee - and you said it was your job to solve the problems of life

The vedas contains that?

certainly

“
where is the earth?
”
On the back of a giant turtle.

and where is the turtle?

“
hardly a satisfying answer - guess its time for me to shop around ....
”
Truth and satisfying are completely separate things.

you mean like taking satisfaction in the notion that there are multiple entities attributed with omnimax potencies?

What you're telling me is that truth is inconsequential to whatever idea pleases you most. I have issue with that.

so you have direct perception that god doesn't exist?
interesting .....

“
ditto above
”
Ditto above again. Furthermore, what's your problem exactly with long blonde hair and a hammer?

it doesn't solve the issue - you can say anything is god (many people do) - but if you want to give a satisfying answer it would require a bit more of an explanation

“
if you want to demand that "shopping around" in religion is required you will have to impress on the audience that there is something different scriptures have to offer
”
I'm not ultimately demanding anything, you can do whatever it is that pleases your little mind, (and we have seen how it is about what pleases you as opposed to what's true).

unless you have direct perception that god does not exist you have just sunk yourself in the same boat ....

Needless to say, it is not upto me to sit down and read scripture to you.

if you want to imbibe in me the mood to shop around, that's what it would require

That is your responsibility
If you choose to be a high school dropout, fair enough - it simply means you can't comment when the issues arise.

thats ok, but if you want to just rant "don't buy that! don't buy that!" and have nothing else to sell as an alternative, you can expect people to ignore you .....

“
so because a person is interested in some field of knowledge, if they study it at university it indicates the focus is not on truthful information???
”
That depends. If the course is focused on how to make invisible clothing, (course provides a free pair of invisible pants) then that's exactly what it would indicate. There are many courses available in scientology.. focused on truthful information? If you say so.

thats a different issue - to get back to your original claim

”
Again you seem to be espousing that choosing a religious belief is not about the truth of that belief but merely how interested in it you are.


is it sufficient to deem something as untruthful simply because one is interested in it?

“
reread the quote and see what three things it advocates
”
Well duh, you have to validate that scripture as being correct before quoting that scripture in order to try and claim that the same scripture is correct. Stop with the foolishness.

if it claims "you are doing the process correctly if you are attaining these results", how do you propose we examine the validity of the claim?

“
yes, it would be a humble beginning for some
”
roflmao.

if you find you suffer from idleness try taking cold showers

“
parallels can be drawn
”
So, the bg does state you'll all live in a golden jerusalem?

well it doesn't mention Rudbeckia hirta specifically, if that's what you mean

“
there's no mention contrary to it either
”
Uhh, there's no mention against leprechauns planning to take over the cosmos and there's no mention of god being a blatant homosexual..

there's no mention of either of those things in the vedas or the bible either (did you have a point?)

“
you have scriptural quotes that describe god like that or are you making it up?
”
Ah, you said christian description, not biblical description. It's all in the details.

if you mean "scripture" by the word "details", then yes ...

Anyway..

From a biblical perspective it's quite difficult because there's very little said about the matter. What we'll have to do therefore is focus on the only mention of his appearance made in the bible:

'1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks [one] like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
1:14 His head and [His] hairs [were] white like wool, as white as snow; and His eyes [were] as a flame of fire;
1:15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and His voice as the sound of many waters.
1:16 And He had in His right hand seven stars: and out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and His countenance [was] as the sun shineth in his strength'

is this a description of god or jesus?

“
but no indication that its anything more than secondary
”
Clearly you didn't even read it -

clearly you don't understand it

of course it's also understandable that you wouldn't know, because you don't shop around. High school dropout, kindly desist from thinking you can speak on the matter.

“
mainly because a person can be circumcised and not a jew
”
You keep saying this, but it's simply idiotic. Where is it's relevance to anything?

“
what to speak about secondary issues, like circumcision ....

quite simply

you say circumcision is an essential practice of jews
if you can find a single person who is circumcised and not a jew, it would indicate it is not essential

if you can't understand this you have either funny ideas on what the words "essential' means or have a slim grasp on logic


at the very least this can be found here in the introduction

Throughout the ages, Judaism has clung to a number of religious principles, the most important of which is the belief in a single, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, transcendent God, who created the universe and continues to govern it.

and this is found as a sub heading under Life-cycle events

Life-cycle events, or rites of passage, occur throughout a Jew's life that serve to strengthen Jewish identity and bind him/her to the entire community.

* Brit milah - Welcoming male babies into the covenant through the rite of circumcision on their eighth day of life. The baby boy is also given his Hebrew name in the ceremony. A naming ceremony intended as a parallel ritual for girls, named zeved habat, enjoys limited popularity.

”
You're seemingly under the impression that only 1 page of the bible is ever read and thus is the only important part of the bible.

you are seemingly under the impression that scripture doesn't have an essence or conclusion

Different parts get mentioned at different, (and relevant) times. You're being very silly. There are times for many religions when it is essential to fast. That does not mean they talk about fasting 365 days a year.

they probably talk about god close to 365 days a year - what does that tell you?

Likewise there are times when it is essential to talk about and engage in circumcision, (namely when a new child is born).

an easy indication of the difference between essential and secondary practices is to see how they fall on the wiki entry

“
one article is essential to being a theist
the other is not
”
Belief in a god or gods is essential to be called a theist, yes. Performing essential god ordered practices is essential, (to some), to attain the kingdom of god.

What was your point?

one is primary
the other is secondary

“
lol - you also made the disclaimer that you weren't an atheist arguing from the platform of rhetoric
”
Actually you made the claim that I was, I merely disagreed with your claim. Support your claim.

considering that you are an atheist and that your argument is continuing with rhetoric, its not clear what you are aiming for ... a multiple personality?

 

[SnakeLord]

"cured" people of what exactly?

You simply refuse to answer questions don't you? Do yourself a favour, go back and read through the posts. Eventually you'll wake up and know the answer to your question. Once that's done, come back and answer mine. Thanks in advance.

you have direct perception that god is fictional?

Lol?

so then I guess it is up to you to place an alternative in front of me

Given your own arguments, of what use would it be for me to place alternatives in front of a high school dropout adverse to learning about them?

if neither you nor I can conceive of an alternative to what is presented in the vedas

What orifice did you drag this from? Your tentative claim fails the second I say "scientology", (or any one of a gazillion other things).

I don't think Scientology is interested in these things

You don't think or you know? If you just "think" and haven't studied, you simply make my point - and of course support your own arguments that you can't say anything unless you're qualified in it.

actually it would be all because one's desires were headed in a direction that is best satisfied by being a pond slug

No it wouldn't.

so prove me wrong and name a process that falls outside of these four.

Circumcision.

wow - now my life is really meaningless

Indeed. What are you telling me, that something must be false if it doesn't sound very pleasing to you?

Of course, feel free to provide a more meaningful alternative.

you mean like taking satisfaction in the notion that there are multiple entities attributed with omnimax potencies?

Where did this come from?

so you have direct perception that god doesn't exist?

I don't see how the question follows on from my statement.

you can say anything is god (many people do)

Yes, it's something theists tend to do.

but if you want to give a satisfying answer it would require a bit more of an explanation

Here we go again with the "satisfying". Tell me, (you forgot last time I asked), what exactly is wrong with blonde hair and a hammer?

unless you have direct perception that god does not exist you have just sunk yourself in the same boat ...

How do you figure that?

if you want to imbibe in me the mood to shop around, that's what it would require

So you are therefore responsible with reading all your scripture to me if you expect me to be in the mood to learn about hinduism? What a bizarre notion, and unexpected coming from you.

is it sufficient to deem something as untruthful simply because one is interested in it?

Clearly you don't understand my statement. Here it is again, pay attention:

"You seem to be espousing that choosing a religious belief is not about the truth of that belief but merely how interested in it you are."

Your question has no bearing on my statement.

if you find you suffer from idleness try taking cold showers

roflmao??

well it doesn't mention Rudbeckia hirta specifically, if that's what you mean

What I meant was quite apparent. Shall I try again? "does the bg state you'll all live in a golden jerusalem?"

there's no mention of either of those things in the vedas or the bible either (did you have a point?)

I was merely parroting your idiotic notion that if something doesn't say something it's true.

is this a description of god or jesus?

They're both one and the same.

you say circumcision is an essential practice of jews
if you can find a single person who is circumcised and not a jew, it would indicate it is not essential

You're talking simple nonsense. You honestly think there's anything remotely logical in your claim? Sheesh kebabs.

they probably talk about god close to 365 days a year - what does that tell you?

People talk about the weather 365 days a year but generally only talk about their childs birth on rare occasions. Is the weather more important than their child? K then.

an easy indication of the difference between essential and secondary practices is to see how they fall on the wiki entry

Oh please. The easy indication is to talk to a rabbi/jewish saintly person and/or practice judaism - be a jew. Saintly people don't mean shit anymore, right?

considering that you are an atheist and that your argument is continuing with rhetoric, its not clear what you are aiming for ... a multiple personality?

You don't half waffle some verbal flatulence, forget what a discussion is about or simply do your utmost to avoid ever having to answer anything with relevance to the subject matter. The latter is more probable - yes, I know you well. Go back, start again and then come back to me.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

"cured" people of what exactly?
”
You simply refuse to answer questions don't you? Do yourself a favour, go back and read through the posts. Eventually you'll wake up and know the answer to your question. Once that's done, come back and answer mine. Thanks in advance.

looks like its your morbid fear of clarifications rearing its ugly head again ...

“
you have direct perception that god is fictional?
”
Lol?

I'll take that is a "no"

“
so then I guess it is up to you to place an alternative in front of me
”
Given your own arguments, of what use would it be for me to place alternatives in front of a high school dropout adverse to learning about them?

at least in the case of the physics teacher, they could offer an alternative

“
if neither you nor I can conceive of an alternative to what is presented in the vedas
”
What orifice did you drag this from?

that orifice of yours that talks about anything and everything except alternatives

Your tentative claim fails the second I say "scientology", (or any one of a gazillion other things).

so what is the specific alternative offered by scientology (or any one of a gazillion other things) that falls outside of these four categories?

“
I don't think Scientology is interested in these things
”
You don't think or you know?

From what I've understood of scientology, its what I know - but I concede that my knowledge may not be perfect, but until you can drum up some sort of alternative, its all we have to go by at the moment ....

If you just "think" and haven't studied, you simply make my point - and of course support your own arguments that you can't say anything unless you're qualified in it.

once again, until you actually speak of an alternative, or take the position of representing an alternative, there's not much to say ....

“
actually it would be all because one's desires were headed in a direction that is best satisfied by being a pond slug
”
No it wouldn't.

well thats the standard definition of the mechanics of reincarnation - of course you can talk about it in an way that it is not standard, but it doesn't make for much of a discussion ....

“
so prove me wrong and name a process that falls outside of these four.
”
Circumcision.

sorry

that falls under the practices of being a karmi (performing religiosity according to the nature of one's corporeal body)

BG 8.3 The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: The indestructible, transcendental living entity is called Brahman, and his eternal nature is called adhyätma, the self. Action pertaining to the development of the material bodies of the living entities is called karma, or fruitive activities.

any more alternatives?

“
wow - now my life is really meaningless
”
Indeed. What are you telling me, that something must be false if it doesn't sound very pleasing to you?

not necessarily

just answers that can satisfy one's determination to uncover what is to be done and what is not to be done in this world

Of course, feel free to provide a more meaningful alternative.

there's many to choose from

SB 4.7.30: Śrī Bhṛgu said: My dear Lord, all living entities, beginning from the highest, namely Lord Brahmā, down to the ordinary ant, are under the influence of the insurmountable spell of illusory energy, and thus they are ignorant of their constitutional position. Everyone believes in the concept of the body, and all are thus submerged in the darkness of illusion. They are actually unable to understand how You live in every living entity as the Supersoul, nor can they understand Your absolute position. But You are the eternal friend and protector of all surrendered souls. Therefore, please be kind toward us and forgive all our offenses.

SB 6.16.8 Even though one living entity becomes connected with another because of a relationship based on bodies that are perishable, the living entity is eternal. Actually it is the body that is born or lost, not the living entity. One should not accept that the living entity takes birth or dies. The living being actually has no relationship with so-called fathers and mothers. As long as he appears as the son of a certain father and mother as a result of his past fruitive activities, he has a connection with the body given by that father and mother. Thus he falsely accepts himself as their son and acts affectionately. After he dies, however, the relationship is finished. Under these circumstances, one should not be falsely involved with jubilation and lamentation.

SB 6.16.9 The living entity is eternal and imperishable because he actually has no beginning and no end. He never takes birth or dies. He is the basic principle of all types of bodies, yet he does not belong to the bodily category. The living being is so sublime that he is equal in quality to the Supreme Lord. Nonetheless, because he is extremely small, he is prone to be illusioned by the external energy, and thus he creates various bodies for himself according to his different desires.

SB 7.2.22 The spirit soul, the living entity, has no death, for he is eternal and inexhaustible. Being free from material contamination, he can go anywhere in the material or spiritual worlds. He is fully aware and completely different from the material body, but because of being misled by misuse of his slight independence, he is obliged to accept subtle and gross bodies created by the material energy and thus be subjected to so-called material happiness and distress. Therefore, no one should lament for the passing of the spirit soul from the body.

etc etc

“
you mean like taking satisfaction in the notion that there are multiple entities attributed with omnimax potencies?
”
Where did this come from?

you derive satisfaction from debunking religion by accepting the above as a foundation

“
so you have direct perception that god doesn't exist?
”
I don't see how the question follows on from my statement.

if you are pleased by the idea that god doesn't exist, its not clear how you have not sunk yourself in the same boat unless you have direct perception that god doesn't exist (IOW you are taking pleasure in an idea that is not truthful)

“
you can say anything is god (many people do)
”
Yes, it's something theists tend to do.

atheists as well


generally such divergences can be avoided by quoting scripture

“
but if you want to give a satisfying answer it would require a bit more of an explanation
”
Here we go again with the "satisfying". Tell me, (you forgot last time I asked), what exactly is wrong with blonde hair and a hammer?

it doesn't explain anything much

like for instance if I ask what are the qualities of the president and you say he wears a gray suit and has brown hair, it would be a pretty weak answer compared to saying he has the ability to control the affairs of the country, from civil law to military deployment

“
unless you have direct perception that god does not exist you have just sunk yourself in the same boat ...
”
How do you figure that?

if you don't have direct perception that god doesn't exist (or even have the resource of referencing someone who does) you are just doing something to "please your little mind"

“
if you want to imbibe in me the mood to shop around, that's what it would require
”
So you are therefore responsible with reading all your scripture to me if you expect me to be in the mood to learn about hinduism?

not necessarily

I could suggest some alternatives to your current ideas however by a few select references

“
is it sufficient to deem something as untruthful simply because one is interested in it?
”
Clearly you don't understand my statement. Here it is again, pay attention:

"You seem to be espousing that choosing a religious belief is not about the truth of that belief but merely how interested in it you are."

so now you have to unpack that statement (uh -oh .... it requires a clarification) to save me repeating what I have already posted ....

“
well it doesn't mention Rudbeckia hirta specifically, if that's what you mean
”
What I meant was quite apparent. Shall I try again? "does the bg state you'll all live in a golden jerusalem?"

depends how you want to define the word

Rudbeckia hirta (common names :Black-eyed Susan, Blackiehead, Brown Betty, Brown Daisy, Brown-eyed Susan, Gloriosa Daisy, Golden Jerusalem, Poorland Daisy, ...

“
there's no mention of either of those things in the vedas or the bible either (did you have a point?)
”
I was merely parroting your idiotic notion that if something doesn't say something it's true.

thats nice

but if one thing is stated as true (the glass has water)
and another thing is stated as true (the glass is colored red)
it only causes a problem if both things are contradictory in some way

“
is this a description of god or jesus?
”
They're both one and the same.

that would require a scriptural quote

given that jesus often described himself as the "son" and god as the "father", you run the risk of contravening what is mentioned above about problems in logic

“
you say circumcision is an essential practice of jews
if you can find a single person who is circumcised and not a jew, it would indicate it is not essential
”
You're talking simple nonsense. You honestly think there's anything remotely logical in your claim? Sheesh kebabs.

actually its the general path of understanding followed by the use of words like "essential"

“
they probably talk about god close to 365 days a year - what does that tell you?
”
People talk about the weather 365 days a year but generally only talk about their childs birth on rare occasions. Is the weather more important than their child? K then.

unless one works as a weather forecaster, yes, people do tend to dedicate their activities (which include speech) to things related to their children more than the weather ...

“
an easy indication of the difference between essential and secondary practices is to see how they fall on the wiki entry
”
Oh please. The easy indication is to talk to a rabbi/jewish saintly person and/or practice judaism - be a jew.

so ask them if you can be a jew by being totally agreeable to circumcision but totally adverse to


Throughout the ages, Judaism has clung to a number of religious principles, the most important of which is the belief in a single, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, transcendent God, who created the universe and continues to govern it.

Saintly people don't mean shit anymore, right?

perhaps according to what is blocking your toilet

“
considering that you are an atheist and that your argument is continuing with rhetoric, its not clear what you are aiming for ... a multiple personality?
”
You don't half waffle some verbal flatulence, forget what a discussion is about or simply do your utmost to avoid ever having to answer anything with relevance to the subject matter. The latter is more probable - yes, I know you well. Go back, start again and then come back to me.

ok

there are two categories of people who claim direct perception of leprechauns

1) children/the mentally infirm on the basis of a poor fund of knowledge
2) atheists on the basis of rhetoric

if you can provide evidence of a third, please cease your rhetoric and do so ...

 

[SnakeLord]

looks like its your morbid fear of clarifications rearing its ugly head again ...

Ah, that's what you call your refusal to answer questions. Rofl.

at least in the case of the physics teacher, they could offer an alternative

There are alternatives to everything, but once again.. of what value is it offering alternatives when it comes to high school dropouts adverse to learning? You can't argue this because this is one of your very own arguments. If you want to argue it, take it up with lg.

so what is the specific alternative offered by scientology (or any one of a gazillion other things) that falls outside of these four categories?

Alas to know that you would have to (apparently) be a qualified scientologist. This is an lg argument, if you have issue with it take it up with him.

From what I've understood of scientology, its what I know - but I concede that my knowledge may not be perfect, but until you can drum up some sort of alternative, its all we have to go by at the moment ....

Again ditto above. Now, you claim that your "knowledge may not be perfect", but I think it would more accurately stated to say your "knowledge hasn't even begun". Have you done any processes or even come to a level of theory with regards to scientology? Have you spoken to saintly persons of scientology, read scientology 'scripture'? If not, it is unclear from your own arguments how you think you can say the first thing about it.

If I had not read any hindu scripture or spoken to any hindu saintly persons etc would you think it ok for me to just claim I know what hinduism is all about, (although my knowledge might not be perfect)?

But of course we all know how you work. You assign a rule and then think it applies to everyone except yourself. This is why you ultimately end up debunking your very own rules - and then in a new thread 5 minutes later apply them to everyone else again. It is simply impossible to have a worthy debate when you act in such manner. I would ask that you descend from that pedestal, but I know people do not change their natures - as such I seemingly have little choice but to put up with that gigantic flaw of yours.

well thats the standard definition of the mechanics of reincarnation

And.. that makes it true? Lol.

just answers that can satisfy one's determination to uncover what is to be done and what is not to be done in this world

And when they discover that there is nothing to be done? This is where you invent something that gives your existence purpose.. right?

you derive satisfaction from debunking religion by accepting the above as a foundation

I derive no satisfaction from having to debate the issue.

if you are pleased by the idea that god doesn't exist

Which one? Personally I thought thor sounded kinda cool. yhwh of course is a sadistic piece of shit, jesus is just a little too nancy-boy for my liking, brahma and all them bunch look freaky and talk unpronouncable bollocks, but thor.. he looks cool.

its not clear how you have not sunk yourself in the same boat unless you have direct perception that god doesn't exist (IOW you are taking pleasure in an idea that is not truthful)

It should be clear considering we're all born in the exact same position - one of lack of belief. I have continued that trend throughout my life, being 'pleased' does not come into the equation.

it doesn't explain anything much

like for instance if I ask what are the qualities of the president and you say he wears a gray suit and has brown hair, it would be a pretty weak answer compared to saying he has the ability to control the affairs of the country, from civil law to military deployment

All the rest is explained, (all differing depending upon certain scriptures). What you need to do therefore is establish how one particular scripture is correct and accurate while showing that the others are not.

I could suggest some alternatives to your current ideas however by a few select references

I tend not to get into all the scripture preaching nonsense. Now of course we could both suggest alternatives.. I could say "yo lg, study scientology", but that will simply result in you saying there's no need and that's that. So where is the point in doing so? You're happy where you are, truth is mere irrelevancy to happiness.

so now you have to unpack that statement (uh -oh .... it requires a clarification) to save me repeating what I have already posted ....

What in such an easy statement are you having difficulty with?

depends how you want to define the word

Rudbeckia hirta (common names :Black-eyed Susan, Blackiehead, Brown Betty, Brown Daisy, Brown-eyed Susan, Gloriosa Daisy, Golden Jerusalem, Poorland Daisy, ...

It might be worth pointing out that the biblical jerusalem does not refer to a flower. I shall try again: does the bg state that we are going to live in jerusalem, behind some large walls made of gold and gems, (no, not a flower), or not?

that would require a scriptural quote

Read the bible / talk to some christian saintly persons.

given that jesus often described himself as the "son" and god as the "father", you run the risk of contravening what is mentioned above about problems in logic

I can only suggest that you take your issues up with the relevant authorities. You know more than they do clearly, so spell it out to them. However, I could say that I am a father, I am also a son, a cousin, an uncle, a boss, a student and a partner.

actually its the general path of understanding followed by the use of words like "essential"

You're talking gibberish. I would strongly urge that you spend some time looking at what I have said and what you have said until you recognise the worthlessness of your statement.

It is absolutely essential that I go and put the dustbin out right now for the dustmen to take in the morning. That does not imply that if some guy on the other side of the planet puts his dustbin out when he doesn't need to that it is no longer essential for me to do so or that it being essential for me means it is essential for him, (i.e circumcision is essential for a jew and the jewish god. Clearly it is not for a hindu).

unless one works as a weather forecaster, yes, people do tend to dedicate their activities (which include speech) to things related to their children more than the weather ...

Once again: People talk about the weather 365 days a year but generally only talk about their childs birth on rare occasions. Is the weather more important than their child? K then.

You will find that people, (in general), talk more about the weather than they do the birth of their child. Talking about something more does not imply that something is more important. (When it's raining everyone says "hey look, it's raining" - they don't generally say "hey look.. oh btw did I tell you about my kid who was born 15 years ago on a Tuesday?").

so ask them if you can be a jew by being totally agreeable to circumcision but totally adverse to

Again you work on the false premise that only one thing can be 'essential' - and of course have problems with essential practices and essential beliefs which are different. The essential beliefs lead to the essential practices, (i.e you believe in a certain god that demands you to fast in November so you do). They're both part of the same big parcel.

there are two categories of people who claim direct perception of leprechauns

1) children/the mentally infirm on the basis of a poor fund of knowledge
2) atheists on the basis of rhetoric

if you can provide evidence of a third, please cease your rhetoric and do so ...

Woah, slow down boy. First you have to provide evidence that these two are the two categories. You seem to be saying that because some fall under this category that everyone does. I am well aware that even you recognise the stupidity of that.

To parrot exactly what you've said:

There are two categories of people who claim direct perception of gods

1) The mentally unstable/deluded
2) liars

If you can provide evidence of a third, please cease your nonsense and do so. I get the feeling this is where you tell me that one can only get evidence if one is qualified. Lol.. Apply it to your own statement.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

“
at least in the case of the physics teacher, they could offer an alternative
”
There are alternatives to everything, but once again..

then offer one and quit leading me up the garden path

“
so what is the specific alternative offered by scientology (or any one of a gazillion other things) that falls outside of these four categories?
”
Alas to know that you would have to (apparently) be a qualified scientologist. This is an lg argument, if you have issue with it take it up with him.

actually you don't have to be qualified to offer an alternative
as i said earlier, at least the physics teacher offers an alternative
so if you want to talk of the unique opportunity of scientology (or any one of a gazillion other things) start talking ....

“
From what I've understood of scientology, its what I know - but I concede that my knowledge may not be perfect, but until you can drum up some sort of alternative, its all we have to go by at the moment ....
”
Again ditto above. Now, you claim that your "knowledge may not be perfect", but I think it would more accurately stated to say your "knowledge hasn't even begun". Have you done any processes or even come to a level of theory with regards to scientology?

such as?

Have you spoken to saintly persons of scientology,

yes

read scientology 'scripture'?

yes

If not, it is unclear from your own arguments how you think you can say the first thing about it.

and if its "yes", what then?

If I had not read any hindu scripture or spoken to any hindu saintly persons etc would you think it ok for me to just claim I know what hinduism is all about, (although my knowledge might not be perfect)?

no

but if a person was talking about the alternatives of hinduism/scientology/Zimbabwe goat farming you would at least expect them to offer some alternatives

But of course we all know how you work. You assign a rule and then think it applies to everyone except yourself. This is why you ultimately end up debunking your very own rules - and then in a new thread 5 minutes later apply them to everyone else again. It is simply impossible to have a worthy debate when you act in such manner. I would ask that you descend from that pedestal, but I know people do not change their natures - as such I seemingly have little choice but to put up with that gigantic flaw of yours.

as i said earlier, at least the physics teacher can offer alternatives ...

“
well thats the standard definition of the mechanics of reincarnation
”
And.. that makes it true? Lol.

no

but for the purposes of discussion generally people stick to standard definitions to avoid situations like this

“
just answers that can satisfy one's determination to uncover what is to be done and what is not to be done in this world
”
And when they discover that there is nothing to be done?

This is where you invent something that gives your existence purpose.. right?

if one is satisfied by doing things that are essentially useless, yes

“
you derive satisfaction from debunking religion by accepting the above as a foundation
”
I derive no satisfaction from having to debate the issue.

your just in it for the finger exercise right?

“
if you are pleased by the idea that god doesn't exist
”
Which one?


Personally I thought thor sounded kinda cool. yhwh of course is a sadistic piece of shit, jesus is just a little too nancy-boy for my liking, brahma and all them bunch look freaky and talk unpronouncable bollocks, but thor.. he looks cool.

the omnimax one specifically - its obvious you have a greater chip on your shoulder with that conception than thor, orion, zeus or ganesh

“
its not clear how you have not sunk yourself in the same boat unless you have direct perception that god doesn't exist (IOW you are taking pleasure in an idea that is not truthful)
”
It should be clear considering we're all born in the exact same position - one of lack of belief. I have continued that trend throughout my life, being 'pleased' does not come into the equation.

obviously because you find it pleasing, since you have never focused that razor sharp discrimination of yours on your belief about lack of belief

“
it doesn't explain anything much

like for instance if I ask what are the qualities of the president and you say he wears a gray suit and has brown hair, it would be a pretty weak answer compared to saying he has the ability to control the affairs of the country, from civil law to military deployment
”
All the rest is explained, (all differing depending upon certain scriptures).

really?

what are some such differences between the information presented in the bible and say the vedas?

What you need to do therefore is establish how one particular scripture is correct and accurate while showing that the others are not.[/QUOTE]
first of all you should establish that they are different

“
I could suggest some alternatives to your current ideas however by a few select references
”
I tend not to get into all the scripture preaching nonsense. Now of course we could both suggest alternatives.. I could say "yo lg, study scientology", but that will simply result in you saying there's no need and that's that.

you can clamour about the necessity of accepting alternatives if you wish - but until you can come up with something that is actually an alternative, it won't be anything more than clamouring ....

So where is the point in doing so? You're happy where you are, truth is mere irrelevancy to happiness.

do you want to talk about the necessity of searching for alternatives or would you prefer to change the topic?

“
so now you have to unpack that statement (uh -oh .... it requires a clarification) to save me repeating what I have already posted ....
”
What in such an easy statement are you having difficulty with?

what reference did I make that made you think choosing a religious belief is not about the truth of that belief but merely how interested one is

“
depends how you want to define the word

Rudbeckia hirta (common names :Black-eyed Susan, Blackiehead, Brown Betty, Brown Daisy, Brown-eyed Susan, Gloriosa Daisy, Golden Jerusalem, Poorland Daisy, ...
”
It might be worth pointing out that the biblical jerusalem does not refer to a flower.

what makes you say that?

I shall try again: does the bg state that we are going to live in jerusalem, behind some large walls made of gold and gems, (no, not a flower), or not?

what do you mean by "jerusalem" that I could also not contort to mean a black-eyed-susan?

“
that would require a scriptural quote
”
Read the bible / talk to some christian saintly persons.

since you are the one advocating this view of christianity, i guess that responsibility lies with you (or alternatively you could concede that jesus, being the son of god, has a relationship with god - for a person who is an eager beaver to jump to the cause of leprechauns and thor at the drop of a hat, i wouldn't think it would be such a revolutionary turn of events ....)

“
given that jesus often described himself as the "son" and god as the "father", you run the risk of contravening what is mentioned above about problems in logic
”
I can only suggest that you take your issues up with the relevant authorities.

I have encountered christians who espouse with the idea
I have also encountered christians who disagree with the idea

what now?

You know more than they do clearly, so spell it out to them. However, I could say that I am a father, I am also a son, a cousin, an uncle, a boss, a student and a partner.

however if you approach the front desk of a sperm bank with the demand that you be made your own father they might politely inform you that the position is already taken ....

“
actually its the general path of understanding followed by the use of words like "essential"
”
You're talking gibberish. I would strongly urge that you spend some time looking at what I have said and what you have said until you recognise the worthlessness of your statement.

what?
the fact that the idea I presented as essential gets a mention in the intro of the wiki entry on judaism and the idea you presented makes it in a sub category of a sub category?

It is absolutely essential that I go and put the dustbin out right now for the dustmen to take in the morning. That does not imply that if some guy on the other side of the planet puts his dustbin out when he doesn't need to that it is no longer essential for me to do so or that it being essential for me means it is essential for him, (i.e circumcision is essential for a jew and the jewish god. Clearly it is not for a hindu).

thus the essence of taking out the dust bin relies on knowing the days that the garbage man comes around.
And your point is?

“
unless one works as a weather forecaster, yes, people do tend to dedicate their activities (which include speech) to things related to their children more than the weather ...
”
Once again: People talk about the weather 365 days a year but generally only talk about their childs birth on rare occasions. Is the weather more important than their child? K then.

is the influence of having a child in one's life simply the act of birth?
(or do you want to discuss specifics ... in which case I could ask something absurd like how many days of the year do people, even meteorologists, discuss the aureola of the moon as opposed to the birth of their children

You will find that people, (in general), talk more about the weather than they do the birth of their child. Talking about something more does not imply that something is more important.

well
you will also find that people will discuss many things related tot heir children, which may or may not include their birth, than they would discuss about the weather, which may or may not include the aureolas of the moon - this tends to be because one's children are commonly held to be more important than the weather

(When it's raining everyone says "hey look, it's raining" - they don't generally say "hey look.. oh btw did I tell you about my kid who was born 15 years ago on a Tuesday?").

they may say something like "hey look its raining - i hope my son remembered his umbrella" - in other words its the nature of things that bear no inherent relation to important things to nevertheless act as catalysts for them

“
so ask them if you can be a jew by being totally agreeable to circumcision but totally adverse to
”
Again you work on the false premise that only one thing can be 'essential' -

no

I said (as the wiki entry clearly illustrates) that some things are more essential than others

if you disagree, go ask a jew.

“
there are two categories of people who claim direct perception of leprechauns

1) children/the mentally infirm on the basis of a poor fund of knowledge
2) atheists on the basis of rhetoric

if you can provide evidence of a third, please cease your rhetoric and do so ...
”
Woah, slow down boy. First you have to provide evidence that these two are the two categories. You seem to be saying that because some fall under this category that everyone does. I am well aware that even you recognise the stupidity of that.

other categories of persons who claim direct perception of leprechauns exist?
do tell (names, literary contribution, persons who have studied the credibility of their claims etc)....

To parrot exactly what you've said:

There are two categories of people who claim direct perception of gods

1) The mentally unstable/deluded
2) liars

If you can provide evidence of a third, please cease your nonsense and do so. I get the feeling this is where you tell me that one can only get evidence if one is qualified. Lol.. Apply it to your own statement.

In answer to number one I can provide you with numerous examples of persons who make up a third (saintly persons)
note how I can do this without referencing obscurity or my own hearsay (which is no doubt what you would call upon to determine such persons as insane)

as for calling such people liars, it would require some evidence on your side

(I said, in regards to leprechauns that there are atheists who argue such things on the basis of rhetoric - an example of such a person would be yourself)

and on a side point, you are fitting yourself more deeply into such definitions the more you call upon rhetoric to lift you out

 

[SnakeLord]

as i said earlier, at least the physics teacher offers an alternative

In what respect lg? The physics teacher teaches you physics. If he offered you an alternative it would be "go learn biology instead". Of course physics works on facts whereas your religions work on nothing surpassing blind assumption and thus they can't really be compared.

so if you want to talk of the unique opportunity of scientology

Again lg's argument states that one cannot speak of these things unless one is qualified. Take it up with him if you have issue with that. This is your key problem. You assert something while thinking it applies to everyone else except you. You need to understand and change that or this goes nowhere.

as i said earlier, at least the physics teacher can offer alternatives ...

Again, in what regard? What are you asking for exactly? If you want an alternative to hinduism.. how about non-hinduism, christianity, scientology etc etc.. These are alternatives. If you want an alternative to theism.. there's atheism, deism, polytheism etc. There's always alternatives. Your statement is moot. - (and largely irrelevant to what was being said).

no

Good. So how exactly do you find out that reincarnation is true?

if one is satisfied by doing things that are essentially useless, yes

That's all about perspective. I would consider the very reason for my existence to serve one entity for eternity as essentially useless - it's not like it needs by servitude surely, (especially being omni). It is a worthless and pointless endeavour - yet I'm sure to many the idea is 'satisfying'. But we still have not established why something being satisfying would equate to it being true. Why must anything be satisfying or not useless?

the omnimax one specifically - its obvious you have a greater chip on your shoulder with that conception than thor, orion, zeus or ganesh

This is another one of your major errors. I will fully accept the statement that:

"Well, an omnimax god exists".

Yes/no/maybe/give a shit - it doesn't move beyond that. But wait.. this is where people come along and give that being qualities, emotions, behaviour patterns, wants and wishes, rules and regulations, shape, size, colour, name and location.

And so now there's multiple omnimax gods that all differ from each other. Some make us reincarnate, some don't. Some are angry and revengeful some are forgiving etc etc etc.

So, if you want to assign all these qualities and properties to this omnimax god, (while everyone else does the same), then I need to ask again: which one? If you simply assert that one exists then fine - this discussion can end. When you assert that you know this being inside out then you must expect some questioning and debate - especially when there are millions of differing claims concerning the qualities and properties of this supposed god. We haven't even established that such a being exists and yet you've already labelled it, packaged it, patented it and slapped it on the front of a lunch box and now are busy trying to sell it without being able to validate the accuracy of the product.

obviously because you find it pleasing, since you have never focused that razor sharp discrimination of yours on your belief about lack of belief

I lack a belief in mermaids as well. I wouldn't consider it obvious that I find my lack of belief in mermaids pleasing.. To even assert the notion is quite quite silly. I find my lack of belief neither pleasing nor displeasing.. I simply lack a belief.

first of all you should establish that they are different

Where to start lol? Hmm..

"According to Vedas, heaven and hell do exist as separate level of existence (there are 14 different dimensions of world created by God). They give very precise descriptions of all these. There are 26 kinds of hells and several heavens. Heaven and hell concept is also mentioned in almost all the religions. But the difference is that some religions say that the heaven and hell are eternal. This means, once God assignes either heaven or hell, then it can not be changed. It is not true as per the Vedas. Jivatma is eternal and it has the freedom to act whatever the way it wants and according to its karma, it keeps moving to different destinations. However, there is an absolute beatitude where once a Jivatma enters, it does not come back to this material world again."

So lg, is there one heaven and hell, 26 heavens? Ever changing etc? Is your name already written in a book, (if you're destined for heaven), which will happen shortly when jesus comes back and god destroys the universe, recreates it an plops all these people in heaven for eternity?

you can clamour about the necessity of accepting alternatives if you wish - but until you can come up with something that is actually an alternative

Apologies, how is something that's an alternative to your belief system not an alternative? ROFLMAO!

what makes you say that?

Read it and find out.

I have encountered christians who espouse with the idea
I have also encountered christians who disagree with the idea

what now?

Finally you're starting to learn. I have encountered people that espouse hinduism and encountered people that disagree with it. What now?

however if you approach the front desk...

Woah there lg. I'm a human, you think my human ability/inability is equal to gods? rofl!

the fact that the idea I presented as essential gets a mention in the intro of the wiki entry on judaism and the idea you presented makes it in a sub category of a sub category?

Kanya-dana is an essential hindu practice with concerns to marriage. Now, kanya dana wont be spoken about 365 days a year. It does not make it any less essential. You need to figure that out or we'll get nowhere.

I said (as the wiki entry clearly illustrates) that some things are more essential than others

The wiki entry doesn't illustrate what you claim, indeed it mentions all the essential laws from the torah.

if you disagree, go ask a jew.

Too late. I know quite a few jewish 'saintly persons'/rabbis and the like. For some reason you think you know better than they do. K.

other categories of persons who claim direct perception of leprechauns exist?

Yeah, namely those that have had direct perception leprechauns.

In answer to number one I can provide you with numerous examples of persons who make up a third (saintly persons)
note how I can do this without referencing obscurity or my own hearsay

Incorrect, that relies solely on hearsay, guesswork, assumption and nothing else. I have asked you to establish how you can tell someone is a saintly person. You stated that they are because they're not lusty etc. All due respect but having no lust doesn't indicate that one has seen a god. Now, being (1) deluded they think a god exists and demands that they not be lusty so they remove their lust - only because they're deluded.

So again: 1) The deluded, 2) Liars.

as for calling such people liars, it would require some evidence on your side

You first. You claim those that say leprechauns exist are "mentally infirm". After you..

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

as i said earlier, at least the physics teacher offers an alternative
”
In what respect lg? The physics teacher teaches you physics. If he offered you an alternative it would be "go learn biology instead". Of course physics works on facts whereas your religions work on nothing surpassing blind assumption and thus they can't really be compared.

you miss the point

regardless of whether I accept or reject the offer, the physic teacher is offering an alternative

you however are not

“
so if you want to talk of the unique opportunity of scientology
”
Again lg's argument states that one cannot speak of these things unless one is qualified. Take it up with him if you have issue with that. This is your key problem. You assert something while thinking it applies to everyone else except you. You need to understand and change that or this goes nowhere.

still no alternatives on offer, eh?

“
as i said earlier, at least the physics teacher can offer alternatives ...
”
Again, in what regard? What are you asking for exactly? If you want an alternative to hinduism.. how about non-hinduism, christianity, scientology etc etc.. These are alternatives. If you want an alternative to theism.. there's atheism, deism, polytheism etc. There's always alternatives. Your statement is moot. - (and largely irrelevant to what was being said).

no

once again you miss the point.

as I said earlier, if you think there is an alternatives to theistic activities that fall outside of jnana, yoga, bhakti or karma, name them.

until then, its hard to understand why you insist I look at "alternatives" (especially if you can't name any)

“
no
”
Good. So how exactly do you find out that reincarnation is true?

the same way you find out whether any standard definition in a body of knowledge (aka "theory") is true - practical application

“
if one is satisfied by doing things that are essentially useless, yes
”
That's all about perspective. I would consider the very reason for my existence to serve one entity for eternity as essentially useless - it's not like it needs by servitude surely, (especially being omni).

no, god doesn't require such service

our conception of our existence becomes less substantial than a retinal after- image at a fire works show by such neglect however

It is a worthless and pointless endeavour - yet I'm sure to many the idea is 'satisfying'. But we still have not established why something being satisfying would equate to it being true. Why must anything be satisfying or not useless?

I never said that satisfaction is an indication of truth - I did say that there is no satisfaction in a world view that is inherently useless or meaningless

“
the omnimax one specifically - its obvious you have a greater chip on your shoulder with that conception than thor, orion, zeus or ganesh
”
This is another one of your major errors. I will fully accept the statement that:

"Well, an omnimax god exists".

Yes/no/maybe/give a shit - it doesn't move beyond that. But wait.. this is where people come along and give that being qualities, emotions, behaviour patterns, wants and wishes, rules and regulations, shape, size, colour, name and location.

And so now there's multiple omnimax gods that all differ from each other.

whoa slow down there

you never did get around to clearly establishing essential differences between descriptions of omnimax god

Some make us reincarnate, some don't.

there are scriptural quotes in the bible that clearly establish reincarnation does not exist?

Some are angry and revengeful some are forgiving etc etc etc.

its not uncommon for one person to manifest a variety of behaviours in different time places and circumstances

So, if you want to assign all these qualities and properties to this omnimax god, (while everyone else does the same), then I need to ask again: which one? If you simply assert that one exists then fine - this discussion can end. When you assert that you know this being inside out then you must expect some questioning and debate - especially when there are millions of differing claims concerning the qualities and properties of this supposed god.

millions?
you haven't given one yet

We haven't even established that such a being exists and yet you've already labelled it, packaged it, patented it and slapped it on the front of a lunch box and now are busy trying to sell it without being able to validate the accuracy of the product.

perhaps according to your personal knowledge base ....

“
obviously because you find it pleasing, since you have never focused that razor sharp discrimination of yours on your belief about lack of belief
”
I lack a belief in mermaids as well. I wouldn't consider it obvious that I find my lack of belief in mermaids pleasing.. To even assert the notion is quite quite silly. I find my lack of belief neither pleasing nor displeasing.. I simply lack a belief.

you don't find theistic processes displeasing do you?

“
first of all you should establish that they are different
”
Where to start lol? Hmm..

"According to Vedas, heaven and hell do exist as separate level of existence (there are 14 different dimensions of world created by God). They give very precise descriptions of all these. There are 26 kinds of hells and several heavens. Heaven and hell concept is also mentioned in almost all the religions. But the difference is that some religions say that the heaven and hell are eternal. This means, once God assignes either heaven or hell, then it can not be changed. It is not true as per the Vedas. Jivatma is eternal and it has the freedom to act whatever the way it wants and according to its karma, it keeps moving to different destinations. However, there is an absolute beatitude where once a Jivatma enters, it does not come back to this material world again."

So lg, is there one heaven and hell, 26 heavens?

there is one transcendental abode and the material universe is gradated into numerous levels of heaven to hell

hence

BG 8.16: From the highest planet in the material world down to the lowest, all are places of misery wherein repeated birth and death take place. But one who attains to My abode, O son of Kuntī, never takes birth again.

Ever changing etc? Is your name already written in a book, (if you're destined for heaven), which will happen shortly when jesus comes back and god destroys the universe, recreates it an plops all these people in heaven for eternity?

you have scriptural references for this?

“
you can clamour about the necessity of accepting alternatives if you wish - but until you can come up with something that is actually an alternative
”
Apologies, how is something that's an alternative to your belief system not an alternative? ROFLMAO!

when it doesn't offer alternatives to existing definitions like for instance offering me a glass of water in spanish isn't such a grand alternative to offering me a glass of water in chinese

“
what makes you say that?
”
Read it and find out.

you should also try reading about black eyed susans

“
I have encountered christians who espouse with the idea
I have also encountered christians who disagree with the idea

what now?
”
Finally you're starting to learn. I have encountered people that espouse hinduism and encountered people that disagree with it. What now?

I guess we have to go back to the foundation - scripture

“
the fact that the idea I presented as essential gets a mention in the intro of the wiki entry on judaism and the idea you presented makes it in a sub category of a sub category?
”
Kanya-dana is an essential hindu practice with concerns to marriage. Now, kanya dana wont be spoken about 365 days a year. It does not make it any less essential. You need to figure that out or we'll get nowhere.

hence kanya dana is essential to hindu marriage as opposed to hinduism
btw if you want to find out what is essential to hinduism look at this

“
I said (as the wiki entry clearly illustrates) that some things are more essential than others
”
The wiki entry doesn't illustrate what you claim, indeed it mentions all the essential laws from the torah.

yet somethings make it into the intro and somethings make it as a sub category of a sub category

“
other categories of persons who claim direct perception of leprechauns exist?
”
Yeah, namely those that have had direct perception leprechauns.

now the next question would be whether they are atheists like yourself arguing from the foundation of rhetoric or something like children arguing from the foundation of a poor fund of knowledge

“

In answer to number one I can provide you with numerous examples of persons who make up a third (saintly persons)
note how I can do this without referencing obscurity or my own hearsay
”
Incorrect, that relies solely on hearsay, guesswork, assumption and nothing else. I have asked you to establish how you can tell someone is a saintly person. You stated that they are because they're not lusty etc.

hence being free from lust is but one small quality of a saintly person

All due respect but having no lust doesn't indicate that one has seen a god.

I never said it was

i did say it was a symptom of applying the correct procedure for coming to such a level of direct perception however ....

“
as for calling such people liars, it would require some evidence on your side
”
You first. You claim those that say leprechauns exist are "mentally infirm". After you..

there are no substantial philosophers, great thinkers or scientists who have advocated such things

you next

 

[SnakeLord]

you miss the point

regardless of whether I accept or reject the offer, the physic teacher is offering an alternative

you however are not

But I have, and you know I have. Scientology - regardless of whether you accept or reject the offer - is an alternative belief system to yours. You can reject Xenu and his Galactic Confederacy, but it is indeed an alternative.

the same way you find out whether any standard definition in a body of knowledge (aka "theory") is true - practical application

So, you need to die in order to find out whether reincarnation is true? (But then of course you would also need to remember your past life when you're reincarnated). How does one establish that as being the case? Now.. it is likely you have died many times and been reincarnated. Kindly regale me with stories of your past lives. How you then go about establishing that you did used to be a dog is beyond me, and frankly if you think you can try and compare this to "any standard definition in a body of knowledge" then you've got a few issues you need to rectify.

I did say that there is no satisfaction in a world view that is inherently useless or meaningless

I suppose this comes down to how we view 'useless' or 'meaningless'. Whose version?

you never did get around to clearly establishing essential differences between descriptions of omnimax god

Well, you are certainly quite gifted in evading points.

I will accept your definition of an omnimax god, I have already stated that I have no issue with that. Now what? How do we go from an omnimax god - omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator of all to "it wants you to worship it, fast at certain times blah de blah". That is where the issue lies. "This is where people come along and give that being qualities, emotions, behaviour patterns, wants and wishes, rules and regulations, shape, size, colour, name and location." That is where the issue lies.

there are scriptural quotes in the bible that clearly establish reincarnation does not exist?

1) You are arguing that something does exist if something doesn't mention it doesn't?

2) The answer is actually yes. I would urge you to read the NT because it shows reincarnation does not happen. Of course wait.. there's no need to read other scripture :bugeye:

its not uncommon for one person to manifest a variety of behaviours in different time places and circumstances

Ultimately you're missing the point, or evading it as per usual by trying to equate a god to human level.

millions?
you haven't given one yet

Again with the evading.

"So, if you want to assign all these qualities and properties to this omnimax god, (while everyone else does the same), then I need to ask again: which one? If you simply assert that one exists then fine - this discussion can end. When you assert that you know this being inside out then you must expect some questioning and debate"

Are you simply asserting that an omnimax god exists and that's that? If so we can end this discussion. The moment you then assign behaviour, rules, emotions, names and whatever else to your claim the moment this debate needs to continue.

you don't find theistic processes displeasing do you?

Which ones?

there is one transcendental abode and the material universe is gradated into numerous levels of heaven to hell

"But the difference is that some religions say that the heaven and hell are eternal. This means, once God assignes either heaven or hell, then it can not be changed. It is not true as per the Vedas"

you have scriptural references for this?

The NT. I suggest you read it.

when it doesn't offer alternatives to existing definitions like for instance offering me a glass of water in spanish isn't such a grand alternative to offering me a glass of water in chinese

"Xenu is introduced as an alien ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft resembling Douglas DC-8 airliners, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls then clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living. Scientologists believe the alien souls continue to do this today, causing a variety of physical ill-effects in modern-day humans"

Sorry, that is not an alternative to existing definition in the vedas? Roflmao.

I guess we have to go back to the foundation - scripture

Which one?

hence kanya dana is essential to hindu marriage

Yes. More or less essential than getting married? Does the husband talk more about kanya dana or his love for his wife? It's still essential in either case, right?

yet somethings make it into the intro and somethings make it as a sub category of a sub category

Certainly - such is the nature of writing, (although it was same page, not sub category of a sub category). What you're espousing here is that the first page of LotR was more important than every subsequent page. Why did the battle of Helms Deep only get a mention on page 450 instead of page 1? Do me a lemon.

now the next question would be whether they are atheists like yourself arguing from the foundation of rhetoric or something like children arguing from the foundation of a poor fund of knowledge

Neither.

there are no substantial philosophers, great thinkers or scientists who have advocated such things

You know, every single year roughly 20,000 entirely new insects are found and named. The majority of the time the first person to get direct perception of these never seen before creatures wouldn't satisfy the lg criteria for being a "substantial philosopher", "great thinker" or "scientist". Indeed even you have probably had direct perception of an entirely unknown insect and you come under none of these categories. So what I want you to tell me is how exactly being a philosopher, scientist or "great thinker" is a prerequisite for getting direct perception of something that happens to exist but has not been seen before?

What about bigfoot? Are you saying it doesn't exist merely on the basis that no philosopher, scientist or "great thinker" [lol] has seen it?