Unbelievable...this is the most long winded set of posts I have ever seen. LG, why don't you just post a link to a digital BG and say "so there 
"?
"?
Would this not make the Christian God... evil?
- Thread starter w1z4rd
- Start date
Unbelievable...this is the most long winded set of posts I have ever seen. LG, why don't you just post a link to a digital BG and say "so there
Amen.
on the point though,
My god kills people for sinning, yes. He also kills them for the greater good.
For example, September 11. Many people died, but more went to church because of the event. Consequently more will become saved still because of it. tradegdies happen but only for the good of the planet. The free will you hold so dear is the reason why. You may say "well if god is so powerful, why didnt he just make them become saved?" he couldnt because of free will. Bad things must happen, it's the sacrifice you make for it.
Last edited:
I only cited one example, yes. I didn't really consider it worthwhile to cite many considering the point was simply that I do not desire eternal existence. If I must cite further examples I would add..
I) I'd most likely be bored after 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years.
II) It's doubtful the company would be the kind of people I like to hang with, and even if those that I do like to hang with were there I doubt I could put up with them for all eternity. Sure I love my wife dearly, but in 50 gazillion trillion billion million years? Yeesh.
I don't drive and most people I know do not buy a car for pleasure, but out of a need to get to places.
So not being overly thrilled with something means you're seeking perfection? I assume, by mentioning people dying, that the 'perfect' level to attain would be eternal existence - As I've already explained, I do not desire such a thing.
Eh? Where did that spring from?
So.. the body dies and then this ghosty spirity thing wafts around and then... What? Attaches itself to someone's sperm?
Not really. Someone who is ignorant of the moral and legal implications concerning murder for instance isn't usually imprisoned but sent for mental help. Different methods are employed for dealing with people of differing levels of ignorance.
But it is and can be. I have explained how already. You're making up an answer to suit your own claim.
Actually it is.
To who? Certainly not to me.
They're nothing alike.
What isn't intelligent is claiming someone is a 'saintly person' with nothing in the way of proof or evidence of their claims to make your claims.. absolutely bloody regardless to what a book says.
You still didn't answer the question.... which god?
Well, it took the time to tell us we should stone naughty kids to death, (and generally people don't), so why not include something people must adhere to in preference of something people apparently need not?
You like saying "an intelligent person" thinking it's only those that agree with your view on the world. I find it rather naive. However, your statement is still irrelevant to what I said, which I am clearly going to have to keep drumming into your head until you get it.. If a person reincarnates and has no recollection of past lives then anything learnt in those past lives in inherently worthless.
A) Many things. From minor things like appearances. Some have elephant heads, (lol... people actually believe that crap?), some don't, to larger issues such as their intructions and rules etc.
B) Well if you have one rule that said 'don't keep slaves' and one that said ' it's ok to have slaves' you come to a serious problem. Please LG, this has nothing to do with road safety. Take some time out to learn how to use pertinent analogies instead of worthless ones. Thanks.
Well well well... Is this what it comes down to? Fine. You mentioned a "life force" or spirit.. prove it. You mentioned karma.. prove it. You mentioned gods.. prove it. If you want to go down that road LG, there's little point for this entire forum.
However, you made the claim that differences are superficial.. you prove it.
What are you trying to say? That fairies exist because more than one culture mentions them?
Prove it. :bugeye:
So when?
That's actually very interesting, but certainly not surprising for a country where people can get sued for pretty much anything, indeed it's a fast growing business. But what we are talking about here are people that are unused to a certain lifestyle. People that weren't rich and all of a sudden without warning are in a position that they have never been in before. It's not a surprise that many wont be able to cope. You'll find those born rich will be quite happy with their richness, (how many of them desire to be poor)? And of course there are many lottery winners that are absolutely ecstatic about their new found lifestyle.
The survey uses people infamous for struggling financially and yet expect them to say they are happy spending money?
I'm sure they do, we were talking about "fortunate people", not arm chair people.
Not true at all. This has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with the times. There would be little need to say "don't bonk kids" in a time where it isn't considered immoral. Several hundred years later morality in society has changed, the religious rulebook has not. So in a time when it is ok to marry a 9 year old, any religious text would not prohibit it. That doesn't help mankind now. (I refer of course to the real fundies that take the bible word for word, oh and also the priests that sleep with kids and probably justify it on that basis).
Doesn't change what I said.
It's a hard one to answer without going in depth more as to specific meaning of the word lightning. *end pisstake*
I said the bible was merely ink on paper, as is the same with other books that can easily be replaced if one wants to for a (generally) small cost. At the end of the day, it's not worth anything. If you think it is... prove it.
This is descending into pointlessness. You know why that paper goes to the bank, but what I stated was the the bible is just ink on paper that I can replace for £3.99 if I wanted to. To me it is no more than that.
That depends. Some are more sensitive than others. Each to their own.
O...k, and that's him. Must everyone else be the same as him? No, don't be silly.
Dude sort yourself out. The other day a friend and I were discussing Comic book characters. I mentioned that Batman was a waste of time super hero because he has no actual super powers. This does not mean that I have an adversity to batman or comic books, it's just an interesting discussion about imaginary beings. The same applies here. We're having a.. mildly.. interesting discussion about imaginary beings.
Most of which don't tend to blame external sources.
Wonderful. Alas you completely ignored the question. I get the feeling you're struggling.. Here it is again:
"how does that help when as a dog you wont understand anything and once you're dead and reincarnated you wont remember having been there?"
No, because as I have already stated... twice.. I don't care what he did.
I'm sorry, I really am. unfortunatley though, such things must be:bawl:
I guess at a certain level, saying I heard it from a "pundit guy" doesn't really solve issuesUnbelievable...this is the most long winded set of posts I have ever seen. LG, why don't you just post a link to a digital BG and say "so there
snakelord
“
to pass a value judgment on it (do you think its just like your regular daily adventures with a longer day?)
me - don't worry
”
you - It is in my nature to care and worry about the wellbeing of my kids. You might find it easier not to, or perhaps better not to - pointless trying to lump it on me.
”
me - on the contrary such an attitude to parenthood is commendable, but even after all is said and done, your worrying will be insufficient to ultimately protect your child, since no fallible creature can offer protection to an equally fallible one
”
you - An inability to protect someone wasn't really the point.
me - do you worry that your daughter is not protecting you then?
you say you worry about your daughter but not in the sense of protecting her
“
do you think "an intelligent person who has the human form of life sees no difference between themselves and the animals and thus they devote all their time and energy to sleeping, eating, mating and defending" sounds better?
“
“
why - in other words what do you know about the nature of eternal existence
to pass a value judgment on it (do you think its just like your regular daily adventures with a longer day?)
interestingly enough, that is why repeated birth and death in the material world adds a new angle to the same old story every time
perhaps you should inform the motor industry this since bringing out a new look model every year certainly doesn't serve such purposes
would you prefer perfect teeth or teeth full of cavities?
well we have brought up the subject several times on this thread
yes, eternity applied to one's material situation is certainly depressing
remembering things is sometimes difficult
me - don't worry
”
you - It is in my nature to care and worry about the wellbeing of my kids. You might find it easier not to, or perhaps better not to - pointless trying to lump it on me.
”
me - on the contrary such an attitude to parenthood is commendable, but even after all is said and done, your worrying will be insufficient to ultimately protect your child, since no fallible creature can offer protection to an equally fallible one
”
you - An inability to protect someone wasn't really the point.
me - do you worry that your daughter is not protecting you then?
you say you worry about your daughter but not in the sense of protecting her
more or less
like doctors facing malpractice suits?
insanity is for cases where it is impossible for the said party to know - like for instance you couldn't plead insanity for a traffic infringement (or perhaps you could, but it wouldn't simplify the court proceedings in your favour)
if it was the case, why do claims of ignorance in even small claims get frequently rejected ("but officer, I didn't know it was a 60 zone")
your personal value judgments aside, the answer to the workplace scenario reveals otherwise
doing 80 in a 60 zone is not a traffic infringement for me, but the officer has a different opinion
“
but they are - you are arguing that your value judgments are sufficient to determine merit
so in other words you think it is more intelligent just to look at a persons clothes?
the one with the correct qualities - just like choosing the headache tablet with the correct qualities
doesn't really answer the question - does scripture require intrinsic information about every aspect of creation or does it require info on how to properly surrender to god in order to be complete? (just imagine the hysterics you would work yourself up in to if you chose the former when you cannot even read the bible with out blowing things out of perspective - BTW haven't encountered many christians into stoning kids)
do you think "an intelligent person who has the human form of life sees no difference between themselves and the animals and thus they devote all their time and energy to sleeping, eating, mating and defending" sounds better?
“
thats the point - in the human form of life you come to the point of understanding that one is reincarnating (or at least you can ask yourself "what the hell am I doing here?") whereas in the animal life one merely dies like an animal (ever notice goats in a queue at a butchers passing the time having sex)
Well, there are various statements concerning the 'afterlife' that give an indication, but my comment wasn't so much about the nature of an afterlife, but my nature - my feelings concerning an "eternal" existence. Much like I see no value in standing in a hot air balloon for hours, I see no value in living forever.
It depends. From a biblical perspective, the afterlife takes place in a new Jerusalem made out of gold and gemstones, where lions and lamb lie down together while dogs and fortune tellers must stay outside. The passage certainly seems to indicate that it is a physical existence that would probably be quite like it is now but without the 'bad' stuff. In any scenario, the thought of existing for eternity is not appealing to me.
Interesting but neither here nor there.
Sure it does. An old rusty banger generally fails to get from A to B.
Who's subjective opinion of 'perfect' are we using? If you were to ask me what 'perfect teeth' are I would say ones that are nicely spaced, not too large, fit the shape of your mouth and never discolour no matter what you throw at them. However, I'm more than happy with normal everyday teeth. Needless to say because I do not desire perfection does not ultimately mean I desire complete anarchy. I find it quite interesting that the only two options you allowed me was either perfection or absolute tooth carnage. Why not include 'would you prefer just normal everyday teeth"?
Why do you do that? You begin a sentence with "yes" as if you're responding to something someone else said that is in agreement... and then completely change or ignore what they actually said while filling in with something they didn't say or imply?
Of course to see if there is a difference between an eternal existence here or an eternal existence elsewhere, we must come to a conclusion of what that eternal existence involves - something that cannot be done until we're dead and find ourselves in that eternal existence. I just hope there's a get out clause. Being a materialistic weasel as often claimed by theists, wouldn't it stand to reason that I would be more interested in an eternal material existence than an eternal non-material existence? Are there pubs in heaven? Can I get laid whenever I want? Will we have mp3 players? I could certainly put up with a few hundred/thousand years if those things are included. Oh and chocolate ice cream.. Or am I just gonna be a wafty spirity thingy floating around doing sweet bugger all and somehow feeling content with that?
O...k, and what has that got to do with your statement saying that I worry that my daughter isn't protecting me?
Which one?
They're generally not all that ignorant of the moral and legal implications.
We'll label that 'ultimate ignorance'.
Because if they didn't you'd have everyone frauding the system saying they too were ignorant. It's not so much that "ignorance is not an excuse", (it certainly can be), but that it's hard for people to prove their ignorance. This is court, not church - fantasy wont generally work.
You can't start this statement with "your personal judgements aside" because it's my personal judgement that is under question. No, I do not consider the bible as anything more than a book. Do not forget that your question was loaded - (i.e my financial security relied on me not using the bible to write on). It wasn't that I give a shit what this person believes but that my ability to feed and clothe my family was in jeopardy. Furthermore, if I was around this same persons house and the options were Winnie the Pooh and the bumble bees or a telephone directory I would still write on the directory. Not because I think Winnie the Pooh is sacred or holy, or I care if they think Winnie the Pooh is sacred, but because I have manners.
You're talking actual laws, proven to have their place in the lawbooks, (the speed limit is set to save lives). This is incomparable to a book written several millennia ago by shepherds unknown. When you mention it being a 'sin' - it is only so to a person that believes in ancient hogwash. It has no bearing on reality. If you think it does... "prove it".
Not really, no. One is testable and provable.. The other results in a large nothing other than a burning smell. The book of Lenny says that one must not chop down trees. Are lumberjacks in the wrong because of that?
Absolutely not, although having said that clothes do tell a lot about a person and their character, (generally speaking). What I said was that it is the absolute lack of intelligence to accept someones claim that someone is "saintly" based upon their claim that they are - that they have direct perception etc etc. Now, if not on their claim, how exactly do you make the statement that they are saintly people while still having your claimed intelligence remain intact?
Which is... which god?
That depends on whether a certain 'law' is expected to be upheld. If it is, then it is of utmost importance to include it. It doesn't need information about everything - like how to bury your poo, (which the bible does explain), but must include every law that is expected to be upheld - much like the law must include everything it deems illegal otherwise nobody would ever know it was illegal. They might not do that thing from a personal perspective on morality, but then they might and cannot then be considered guilty of anything because it wasn't included in the law book.
"doing 80 in a 60 zone is not a traffic infringement for me, but the officer has a different opinion"
Actually, most humans do devote all their time to sleeping, eating, mating and defending, (the last of which includes working as it is keeping your family alive and well). However, this isn't really of any relevance to my statement.
So if you come to no point of understanding while being an animal.. what is the value of becoming one? And once again.. in either case what is the point of going through it if you have no recollection of that "point of understanding" the minute you're dead and reincarnated?
And... those people are all different and those vehicles are all different. Thanks for making my point lol.
See? "Different" vehicles. Now, if you had different rules for the exact same thing... (keep slaves/don't keep slaves).. you'll see the problem.
Incorrect. My argument is that if two beings give differing rules to people then there is a difference between those beings. So, once again.. which god?
I am saying "prove it". I have, (and you have helped me lol), show that these beings are different. I would call that essential because we now need to determine which of those if any we should be listening to.
On what grounds can't there be? However, this is largely irrelevant. The question is: which one of these claimed omnipotent etc beings is the one we should believe in considering they all have different laws etc etc? If they are all the exact same thing then we have a serious issue because this thing contradicts itself.
Sorry... where in my question did I make any affirmative declarations? It stands to reason that there can't be affirmative declarations in a question. Tell me LG where is the affirmative declaration in asking if fairies exist because many cultures have mentioned them... Well?
Absolutely not. I am in the habit of asking question that you are in the habit of ignoring while stooping into irrelevancy. Your question, posed in the quotes is a response to my question which was just two words.. "so when?"
I asked this question in response to you asking if people can perform paedophilia and others wont blink an eyelid. The reason I ask the question I do is because what is deemed moral or not changes over time. Of course the holy books do not change and quickly become outdated and worthless from a moral point of view except to the serious fanatics. Ergo the stoning kids to death statement earlier. What was once considered acceptable is now not. In none of that has god changed his mind or changed his laws.. ergo I point you at your own statement: [pp] "I consider nothing wrong with doing 80 in a 60 zone".
So, to answer your question I need to know "when".
Cool, one Beatles song is going to sway my mind while that very same Beatle is the richest singer in the country, (I have met him), and he seems exceptionally happy. (of course not right now that his ex wife is trying to take all his money).
I was hoping you'd get the point. However, how many of those surveyed had won the lottery other than... none?
Never said they were. That's probably why I said: "we were talking about "fortunate people", not arm chair people."
Do you see how I have separated them? What are you trying to tell me that I hadn't already pointed out?
Not at all. I meant exactly what I said.
Several reasons. Exploitation is wonderful. There you are doing as you please while denying everyone that bows at your feet the same. In the early days as seen in the OT, the priests were laughing all the way to the bank. Animals were sacrificed, "given to god" which meant the priests got to eat it. And the amusing thing is people will accept it.
You go off to some religious meeting and that "saintly person" you keep mentioning reaps all the benefit. He gives you something that keeps you happy while actually gaining "real" value for himself. In churches where they take donations do you honestly think the money is handed to god? Does jesus come down and say "Yo, thanks for the £1000"? To quote the film 300.. "give them nothing, take from them everything". And do not for one second doubt that it is a huge, vast business... need I point at the Vatican? Exploitation of the idiotic. It's no different to these people that email you and say you've won the lottery please hand over your bank details. In both cases you're willing. And by fuck do/did they have some power. Theyve had people killing others, (while saying don't kill), for absolute millennia.
Actually no, my statement hinted at the exact opposite.
The pope declared with a loud voice that evolution is true. Clearly it's not clear why he would do such a thing.. because in doing so he wouldn't get any social influence... right? Do me a lemon. How much more accepted would religion be by one acceptance of a social norm? The guy is conducting business in a proper fashion. It's all about control and profit which sometimes mean you have to stoop to the level of others to attain the customers. He didn't accept evolution on the basis that he understands it, or agrees with it, but that it would bring him big business. He'd gain all those people stuck between theism and science by trying to amalgamate the two. The door swings both ways. Sometimes it is best to go against the norm, sometimes it is best to go with it. That is business.
Not really, no. There's absolutely no point trying to rehabilitate someone that is on death row.
If you think it's otherwise.. prove it.
Certainly. Alas we're not talking about either, but some irrelevant book written by shepherds a few thousand years ago. That doesn't buy the food or fix my TV.
Probably not but it's irrelevant. It doesn's stop someone being able to tell paedophile jokes.
The point?
If those 3000+ posts were made in response to people that thought batman was real then it wouldn't come down to an adversity to batman, but an adversity to the idiots that claim batman is real. Do you understand that?
Truly wonderful but not an answer to the question. Here it is for the third time:
"how does that help when as a dog you wont understand anything and once you're dead and reincarnated you wont remember having been there?"
You seemingly misunderstand "what did a child do to deserve it" as "a child doesn't deserve it at all if he has no recollection of his former life". Even then I would argue that a new life deserves a clean slate so that one can cultivate the most from it. If you start off life by dying you're not going to learn much. Tell me.. considering my son, (who wasn't my son but some reincarnated fool who'd probably whacked someone in a past life), died at 6 months and wont have any recollection of that in his next life.... what did he learn? Well?
Last edited:
Snakelord
“
“
true - the material situation is inherently disgusting
true - that description doesn't sound particularly appealing
certainly explains how an eternal living entity can tolerate living in the material world
but why change the curves of the old rusty bangers every year if its all simply about A to B?
ok - would you prefer teeth that are full of cavities, teeth that get get cavities regularly, teeth that get cavities occasionally, teeth that get cavities rarely or teeth that don't get cavities at all?
you said it and i think it is true - you said you don't aspire for eternity and if all anyone had to go by for understanding the nature of the eternal as you indicated, probably not to many other people would either
you don't have these things already?
Considering that most people spend their lives doing sweet bugger all in the pursuit of intoxication, sex and buying useless overpriced lifestyle cluttering crap without much contentment, it doesn't leave us with much of an alternative
it was just an attempt at humour to get you to rephrase yourself as to why you worry about your daughter (since you didn't wan to take the 'protection' angle)
the general idea is ok but you are out on a few details
in hindsight, yes
the only reason we ar e discussing this is because you brought up that a person who performs crimes in ignorance is (or somehow should be) innocent when it comes to sin
not really - you understand that scriptures are sacred but you don't understand why people would want to hold them as sacred
yet in the scenario you could distinguish between the bible an d the yellow pages
if you didn't know that scripture is prone to occupy a position somehow higher than the yellow pages, you would have answered differently
hence you could call upon your knowledge that scripture is sacred to save your butt
ok then - what if there was winnie the pooh, the telephone directory and the bible - would you write in the bible then?
is it possible to have manners without knowledge?
regarding the police as an imagination also doesn't work
until you get caught of course
I agree
scripture can help define such qualities as free from envy, etc which are prerequisites for saintliness as opposed to clothing or learning scripture by rote
omnipotent, omniscient, etc
so therefore you see that there are general indications in all scriptures about the futility of material acquisition at the expense of comprehending one's spiritual nature, dallying with the ephemeral at the expense of the eternal etc etc
and we have the hide to call ourselves an advanced society
the fulfillment of material desires
once you have exhausted one's material desire to participate in the activities of a dog one can progress on to the pig an d in this way gradually move through all the species of life until they reach the human form of life
seems you have forgotten my point - but they all participate in making contributions to road safety despite the variety
but the societies can still progress towards god consciousness despite the differences, just like the motorists can make contributions towards road safety despite the differences
“
your argument is that different rules give different results
”
Incorrect. My argument is that if two beings give differing rules to people then there is a difference between those beings. So, once again.. which god?[/QUOTE
the government gives different rules to motorcyclists and truck drivers - does that mean there are two different bodies of government in the country?
depends on whether you identify as a motorcyclist or a truck driver, so to speak
then you can gradually go through them - like for instance if an omnipotent god that is the father of all living entities says that it is okay to kill people from a particular race or creed, that raises severe issues
do you see any problems with these premises?
many cultures mention god
many cultures mention fairies
fairies are not real
therefore god is not real
just as I gathered -lol
so in otherwords if anyone does anything in the name of religion they are absolutely correct because they say so?
whenever
I guess money cannot buy him love, or even peace of mind
your speaking may have been a fact but what you said may not be
and the result was that such a so called 'religious society has turned out persons such as yourself - given that such apparently religious behavior can be condemned by the scripture they are apparently representing, it gets back to my original inquiry .....
or do you mean everything to do with the miscreants who misrepresent the general principle?
corruption aside, do you think that if god does exist, there is work for god to be done in this world?
I indicated thousands of years, you indicated hundreds
“
its not clear how religion would bear any social influence if it is always bound to be in agreement with established social norms
”
and the irony is Christianity is waning in its practices
hence we have a tendency to take religion off the rails
In religious philosophy,much like the art of cooking, it tends to indicate folly when one is constantly asked "did you create this yourself?"
hence such institutions are frequently petitioned by human rights activists
by empiricism you mean?
so you don't see the value of it - thats all you are saying
he is not acting offensively - just like a thief has a knife and so does a doctor, but one can save your life and the other can finish it
actually to say that god is not real is not a statement said by the philosophically cautious and here is why
.... to know that God does not exist requires perfect knowledge of everything (omniscience). To gain this knowledge requires simultaneous access to all aspects of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the atheist's claim one would have to possess godlike qualities. Obviously, our limited nature runs short on these special qualities. therefore your dogmatic claim is unjustifiable. It is the atheist's attempt to prove a universal negative that is a self-defeating proposition.
and whats worse is that you are cultivating this
and here's the answer for the third time
you can begin life as a pig after going through everything that a dog has to offer
actually there are numerous possible causes for karma - at the moment we are just examining the previous activities of the child involved - but since death affects everyone in the extended family, there is also the question of their activities - so in other words it can also be an issue of what you learned.
Regarding your son, or anyone in the material world, they may learn or not learn, but all instances of happiness and suffering are determined by one's previous pious or impious activities - every material act demands a material reaction - in this way we are exhausting our stockpiles of pious and impious credits, and of course manufacturing more as we go along the way
I neither stated nor implied anything of the sort. Indeed my later statements go on to say the exact opposite. I love my material existence. No, I wouldn't want to do it forvever for reasons stated, but it would be a preference to some immaterial floaty nonsense.
And given that the bible is true, it would seem you're also adverse to an eternal afterlife. Welcome to the club.
Many reasons. The shape of those curves determines wind factors and how changing them can speed up a journey and help you consume less petrol. A sat nav would help you find B faster, the speed changes would help you get to B faster, (even if the law prevents it), improved tyres etc etc all help you get to B faster and more efficiently.
Sure, there are people that do buy a car for pleasure, (racers etc), but then I wouldn't describe the eventuality as ultimate "pain". The 'pain', (not a word I would use), generally pales in comparison to the pleasure that is gained. Two weeks ago my computer started having issues. It would switch off whenever I put a game on - but with nothing else. It was annoying, granted, but cannot compare to the months upon months of pleasure that was gained from that computer. Being quite "computer literate", I managed to figure out the problem and fixed it. More pleasure arrives, the pain dwindles into insignificance.
So.. perfection = lack of cavities?
Not really, no. You said it. I don't desire an eternal existence regardless to how it is.
What has that got to do with anything?
I wont speak for those depressed about such a situation, but I personally like all that intoxication and sex.
Your attempt at humour [?] wasn't a very good one. Find yourself some better material. While doing so also note where this came from. I stated that it is my nature to worry about the well being of my children in response to you telling me not to because ultimately I can't protect them, (they're going to die and become someone else). I said that protection wasn't the point. The point was that I worry about them even when you tell me not to, it is my nature. So, regardless to whether you have delusions concerning multiple lives is irrelevant to my concerns for the well being of my children. With me now?
Not really. My concern is that the punishment is given when they are a different person - when the person that they were that committed the crime has long since died. They have absolutely no recollection of those events, (being a new person), and will not learn anything from it given that they will have no recollection of it in their next life. Thus it is utterly pointless. If someone was in a hypnosis session and said he was Hitler in a past life, do you think it justified that the legal system imprison him for the crimes Hitler committed? This scenario is incompatible with traffic violations and the like.
It is where you generally go astray. You use analogies that do not fit the discussion.
Completely inaccurate. Let me reword it in a more appropriate manner:
I understand that scriptures are nonsense but that some deluded people might believe they are sacred.
Now, as is always the case with you, you used an analogy that was faulty. You stated that my financial security was at stake, (thus the question was loaded). I would have no moral issues with setting fire to a bible where my financial security was not at risk. The only reason I wouldn't write on the bible in your analogy was for self interest - i.e me making money.
Because you made a complete mess of it. What I could distinguish was that this guy, (as you stated), was a serious bible thumper and that my financial security rested solely on me not writing on that bible. The question was idiotic as is your conclusion.
You told me he was a devout christian. It's not hard to figure out that he deems it to be important. It's also not hard to figure out that I deem my financial security as important - not the book.
Inaccurate. I could call upon my knowledge that this guy likes that book and considers it important. I wouldn't have written on it if it was Winnie the Pooh's Summer Adventure if my financial wellbeing relied on me not doing so.
What's the scenario? Still a devout religious christian right? Lol.
Let's try a new analogy.. Let's say I need to write down some information a 6 year old is telling me. There are only two things I can write on, either his favourite bed time book - Mickey Mouse and the cloudy day or the bible. I'd write the information on the bible.
Which is why you cannot compare real policemen and laws vs ancient idiotic books.
There is no law prohibiting the burning of a bible.
And you determine scripture as valid.. how?
So.. which god?
? I said the bible must include that which the gods deem illegal so that people are aware of what they deem illegal - and if they don't make note that something is illegal they cannot hold anyone guilty that does that thing. From what orifice did your irrelevant quote spring from?
I'd tend to agree, but that's humans for you. They think they're chosen and special but at the end of the day they're just animals.
How does being an animal for a brief time and then never remembering that occasion fulfill material desires?
So.. people have a 'material'? desire to be a dog and a pig?
That's great, but they're all existing different entities. Are you saying that all the gods exist and contribute despite their variety?
Which god?
Can you please desist from your pointless analogies? We're not talking truck drivers, we are talking gods. When two gods give differing rules who's do we listen to? Which god is real? Are they both real? Who's the one to follow?
Do we listen to the elephant headed gods, (lol), that tell us that we live multiple lives as dogs and cats, the largely insane jewish god that currently ranks number 1 on the human slaughter list or the christian white hippy man god that preached love and kissed blokes?
What about those that are still on foot, unsure whether they should but a car, bike or truck? Which god?
Why does it?
Surely, given everything you've said, these people are just being punished for sins of their past lives? What was it you said to me?... don't worry, it's only temporary.
I see one big problem: You've got it upside down and inside out. What you were saying is:
many cultures mention gods
therefore gods exist.
I then asked that if, because many cultures mention fairies, that fairies also exist. I didn't say anything didn't exist, I merely followed your line of reasoning. If you see issue with it, blame yourself.
Thank you for making my point.
Where is such thing implied? I am saying the opposite - but that they cannot be faulted for doing something that god does not prohibit.
Well, they're both emotional states. However, that money can buy him a much more comfortable life.
Where does religious scripture condemn animal sacrifice and priests eating it?
I would have to say no. I'm not into thinking that humans are the special species with their own little fairy godfather to cater for their desires and remove their fears. If there was a 'god' I don't see why it would give a shit.
Got any figures? Of course as mankind progresses religion will dwindle. It's inevitable.
Generally the non-religious that think killing someone is not an answer to the problem. Of course they shouldn't really care, it's only temporary.. The guy will be up and walking a year later. Could even be one of those activists pet dog.
You can prove it in whatever way you want.
Certainly.
Here's where you go wrong yet again. I made no such claim, I merely stated that if my 3000 posts were made in response to people that made the claim, (batman is real), then it wouldn't indicate an adversity to batman, (your claim), but an adversity to people making claims that they can't support.
Did you not notice that I'm not making claims, you are and they are?
That's not an answer. Try reading the question several times. Once more:
"how does that help when as a dog you wont understand anything and once you're dead and reincarnated you wont remember having been there?"
Snakelord
“
develop retro designs?
“
That is god's jurisdiction and there is no need for others to lay any extra punishment
“
both motorcyclists and truck drivers, which set is real? Are they both real? Who's the one to follow? (answering this analogy, which I trust you are sane enough to give the right answer to, gives the same answer to your puzzling query)
Why would he create them?
“
me - if you had posted 3000+ statements in regard to batman it would indicate a cultivation of sorts
”
you - If those 3000+ posts were made in response to people that thought batman was real then it wouldn't come down to an adversity to batman, but an adversity to the idiots that claim batman is real. Do you understand that?
what else are you saying if not batman is not real, with a direct parallel to god?
there comes a point in a dogs life where they think "You know this dog business is not all its cracked up to - I mean sure the eating shit and having sex with anyone and everyone is really cool, but this fur really sux since it tends to itch and gets crap stuck all over it - If I could be a pig with hardly any fur, wow, that would be swell"
“
the reason you don't want to maintain your material existence eternally is because it wears thin and is inherently disgusting - why else would a person give up an apparently 'good thing'? If you buy something you like do you throw it in the bin before you open it?
true in essence - I disagree about the notion of eternal hell, and can even cite historical references to the development of the bible that gave rise to the whole 'eternal hell' trip
then why do manufacturers
develop retro designs?
then why do have to redesign the shape of the car to more closely resemble a ladies backside if it just has a new set of wheels and a gizmo?
camels who think thorns are tasty because of the taste of their own blood probably think the same thing
I am sure you look forward to many more pleasures/pains in the future
thats what my dentist says
given that the only existence you can fathom is a material one, I agree
“
if you have them here and reject heaven because they aren't there, why are you disgusted by the notion of an eternal material existence?
certainly passes the time
actually I was telling you that you are incapable of actually protecting your children no matter how much you worry - and that was in relation to you taking the stance that you are so magnanimous and charitable to others that you worry about them - my point is that your so called magnanimous charity is just another device of self aggrandizement since it doesn't actually benefit anyone
indeed, it is the nature of all parents - still you find that religious spirited parents can understand that they are deputed protectors of their children
what makes you say they are different - if a person wears different clothes than the one they performed the crime in, are they innocent
they can understand all this in the human form of life -
no
That is god's jurisdiction and there is no need for others to lay any extra punishment
it does however indicate how ignorance is no excuse even in mundane affairs of law - it is a matter of policy
and it is your tendency to over look the general principle that an analogy gives with nit picking - just like if I indicated a constellation by saying it was at the end of a tree branch on the nights sky you would probably say "how could you be so foolish as to say a star is on the end of a tree branch?"
hence the knowledge that scripture is sacred allows you differentiate between it and the yellow pages and winnie the pooh
so in other words I gave an example where a person would not hesitate to exhaust the extent of their knowledge
but not when your financial security is at risk, because you know that scripture is sacred (you may not accept that it is - thats a separate issue)
hence you could call on your knowledge that scripture is sacred to save your butt
It was not to point out that you think from t he core of your heart that scripture is sacred - the whole thing was to point out that you could not claim ignorance, as you did with the traffic infringement, since you know that scripture is sacred - it s just that you choose not to accept it as sacred
of course - but because you know that scripture is commonly held as sacred, you could act accordingly - in the scenario you could lose your money by writing on the telephone directory if the boss's friend said "What the hell are you doing - that is a rare mint condition phone book from pre ww2 worth thousands of dollars" - such a mistake on your part, would have been made in ignorance because you had absolutely no idea what the phone book was.
all without him telling you - note how you could not do that in the case of the pre ww2 vintage phone book
if your knowledge was sufficient for you not to detect a fault in writing on it, yes
of course - for some reason you thought that introducing winnie the pooh would drastically change things
even then, as evidenced by the previous analogy, you would know that the bible is sacred - its just that you don't care
given that you are yet to approach the point where transgressions of scriptural law are determined, its not clear how you have escaped from Alcatraz at this point in time
“
so you and other foolish persons might say
the same as any other field of theory - practical application
the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient one
and he does so through presenting codes of behaviour in the mode of goodness that enable a person to come to the right decision after ruminating on whether it is ok to have sex with an anaconda despite there being no specific mention on this in the bible
you can find quotes like that all over the place - even find them in pop song lyrics too
lower than animals actually - even sparrows don't have to work a night shift or take sleeping pills in their nest at night time
the living entity has a material desire to fulfill and when they exhaust that they can begin another chapter in foolishness by applying themselves to another
certainly - you can see them exhibit such desires even in the human form
no - I am saying that despite the variety of time places and circumstances, a unified cause can be met, just like despite all the varieties in eras and participants of motor transport, road safety has been a singular issue
the omnipotent one that all societies are existing under of course - just like all the different rules for all the different vehicle drivers are existing under the same road traffic authority
only if you desist from having fallible premises for your conclusions
the reason we are talking about trucks is because you have a few incorrect ideas about god
which brings us back to this issue - when two sets of differing rules exist for
both motorcyclists and truck drivers, which set is real? Are they both real? Who's the one to follow? (answering this analogy, which I trust you are sane enough to give the right answer to, gives the same answer to your puzzling query)
Do we have to check our air brakes if we don't even have air brakes - how the hell do they expect you to use a lower gear when you are driving an automatic? No doubt the road traffic authority are so rat arsed that they cannot even scribe a coherent thing
if you don't know whether you are in a car, motorcycle, truck or on foot, the issue of road safety will be quite bewildering
Its not obvious?
Why would he create them?
but the sins are relative to an individual and not everyone of a particular race or creed
actually it was more like many cultures mention god, therefore its not exactly clear why this invalidates god
so do you want to say why it is exactly that many cultures mention god that it is a cause for deeming the claim invalid?
it appears that the only way you discriminate between a person who is religiou s and a person who is not is according to their claim
or a higher grade of suffering
I think you were harping more on the issue of greed and gluttony, rather than eating things, even though I am sure you would prefer a religion where the priests starve to death
its not so much about humans have their own special creator, but more that the human form of life affords the opportunity to know things not available to the animals, and the nature of gratitude follows.
hence waning religion gives rise to reformations and re-establishments of religion
whatever - still the notion of punishment bereft of rehabilitation for humans is alien
there is also the question of one's own involvement in the issue, since the laws of karma cast a wide net in terms of duty and responsibility and their absence
that is empiricism?
yes you did
“
me - if you had posted 3000+ statements in regard to batman it would indicate a cultivation of sorts
”
you - If those 3000+ posts were made in response to people that thought batman was real then it wouldn't come down to an adversity to batman, but an adversity to the idiots that claim batman is real. Do you understand that?
what else are you saying if not batman is not real, with a direct parallel to god?
so you know that god is not real simply because anyone who says so is obviously wrong?
you are not saying not that god is false but that all claims regarding the nature of god are false - still begs the question, on what basis do you base such knowledge (given that you are not omniscient etc)
here's the answer again
there comes a point in a dogs life where they think "You know this dog business is not all its cracked up to - I mean sure the eating shit and having sex with anyone and everyone is really cool, but this fur really sux since it tends to itch and gets crap stuck all over it - If I could be a pig with hardly any fur, wow, that would be swell"
Inaccurate. There's nothing "disgusting" about material existence, but yes - material things do have a shelf life. I wouldn't eat a tin of beans that was ten years old, but it doesn't ultimately make beans "disgusting".
The same however would be true if that eternal existence was material or immaterial if I was 'me'. I don't want an eternal existence regardless to the form, but if I am no longer me, (I'm just a wafty wispy thing with no recollection of who I am), then it doesn't matter because I wouldn't be 'me' and thus we have nothing to discuss. If I am 'me', and aware of that, then I don't want an eternal existence regardless.
We weren't talking about hell. You were seemingly quite put off by the biblical version of heaven - thus I said welcome to the club.
Two reasons: 1) People like to make things, and like to make them look cool and 2) Some people like to buy things that look cool.
The shape of a car is very important in many ways.
Pleasures certainly, but unlike you I do not perceive a slight computer/car glitch or indeed life as 'pain'. Well, I guess we all differ emotionally. Of course it's unsurprising that someone that has a seemingly clear hatred for the material would use the word 'pain' when referring to it. Right about now I'd ask you about your childhood, but I'm not going to.
Does he indeed?
As stated on my first response, it is irrelevant if I am still 'me'.
I am not 'disgusted', I simply do not want to participate. I do not want to participate in the London marathon, I am not "disgusted" with it. Get over that hurdle and we can move on.
It does more than that.
Duh. That kinda goes without saying, no?
We're not talking clothes here or anything even remotely resembling clothes. We are talking about the punishment of a child because of something it did when it was a dog, or the punishment of a dog when it did something as a rabbit. These are not clothes, they are completely separate lives - with no knowledge whatsoever of those lives we have apparently lived when we've moved on to the next one. You might well have been Hitler in a past life, it is absolutely nonsensical to get given leukemia at 3 in this life because you were once Hitler when you never killed anyone or hurt anyone, but someone else did. Someone else you don't know and never will. Someone that doesn't share the same looks, thoughts, beliefs or even sperm as you.
Who can? Where? What?
Look.. do you disagree with: "They have absolutely no recollection of those events, (being a new person), and will not learn anything from it given that they will have no recollection of it in their next life."?
Will a human have recollection of his past lives, the actions he performed in them and the lessons he supposedly learnt from being in that existence? If you say yes I will have to say it is not evidenced.. I don't remember being anything before. If no, they can't remember anything, then what has been learnt exactly by going through it?
Let's just be thankful that society disagrees with you.
But ignorance can be an excuse, we've been through it already.
Utter nonsense. You just use crap and largely irrelevant analogies.
Wrong again. It could be someone's cheque book, someone's wallpaper, someone's toilet roll, but not writing on it does not mean that anyone has knowledge that it is 'sacred'. You're talking out of your rectum. What you're trying to say is that it's someone else property and most people have manners, there's nothing 'sacred' about it.
Inaccurate. I wouldn't write on wallpaper if my financial security was at risk. That's not because I know wallpaper is sacred.
Wrong again. Scripture is not sacred, just like wallpaper is not sacred. I wouldn't write on that either.
Sure you would, (at least here). They are handed out freely and I'd know what it looked like. Of course the scenario is kinda silly. If it came down to it I would most likely write on the paper in my wallet because the property is mine. That does not mean his phonebook is sacred, his bible is sacred, his toilet paper is sacred, it's just his property. The reason you mentioned phonebooks is because you're well aware they're freebies that most people forget they even have.
I have a phonebook here sitting on the shelf and on the other side of the room where the printer is I have some plain A4 paper. When I'm on the phone and need to write something down I don't write on the phone book.. I walk across the room and get a piece of paper. No LG, the phonebook is not sacred.
Nonsense. You told me he was a devout christian. If you had have told me he collected rare antique phonebooks then the answer would have been different. No LG, phonebooks are not sacred.
No, as highlighted above it depends upon the person. If you had have told me this guy collected rare antique phonebooks then I wouldn't write on it - not because it's "sacred" but because it's someone elses property that he wants. In saying, if we were talking to a 6 year old it's likely that Winnie the Pooh is of more importance than the adventures of jesus and thus - if I had to write on one of them it would be the bible. The same is true if this guy was a rare antique phonebook collector as opposed to a devout christian.
Incorrect. You really need to get over this hurdle. My tea cup is not sacred, but I wouldn't expect someone to come round my house and throw it against the wall.
It's not illegal here. That's not foolish, that's fact.
So.. you met these elephant headed (lol) gods of yours? You witnessed that there are multiple lives? You remember being a dog once?
Which is... which god?
But there is:
Leviticus 18: "Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it"
Along with that we have the following:
"Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."
"Of the animals that move about on the ground, these are unclean for you: the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard"
So basically what you're saying is that this god decided to tell you not to eat weasels and not to wear clothing made of more than one material but did not bother telling anyone not to sleep with kids and consider this perfectly rational and sane?
Utter nonsense. Food collection, nest building etc. They work a hell of a lot. (Surely that's the reason people work the night shift - food collection/nest building)?
From whence did this material desire appear? When did it create itself?
Guess you keep odd company.
Which is... which god?
You haven't told me which one we're talking about yet.
Try again. When two different sets of rules exist for truck drivers. One says drive trucks only on weekends, the other says drive trucks only on weekdays. Which is the the one to follow?
Your analogy is flawed.
Try, for once, to answer a straight question. Which god?
Purposeful avoidance. Try again:
"What about those that are still on foot, unsure whether they should buy a car, bike or truck? Which god?"
Nowhere in that was it mentioned that the people "didn't know they were in a car or truck".
Kindly pay attention.
Limit the gods why don't you. You think because they have the power to make things that they need to ultimately be nice to their creation? I've seen people 'create' children only to beat the shit out of them. What rule exactly states that gods must be any different?
Not from a biblical perspective. In the case of the Noah flood.. everyone had sinned and thus the punishment was given to everyone. The same is true of the Egyptians who kept gods people as slaves. They sinned big time so he punished all of them - including the new borns who hadn't actually done anything, (in that version of life). The same is true of all of us who are only sinners because of the actions of Adam and Eve. Women still to this day have painful childbirth solely because of her sins. Still to this day man must work his nuts of tilling the soil because of the sins of Adam. Sins are most certainly not relative to an individual. Now, is there some legal requirement for a god to undertake his punishments in a certain way? Can he not employ man to do his will?
Many cultures mention fairies, therefore it is not exactly clear why this invalidates fairies.
?
? I said a person cannot be faulted for committing a crime that the gods deem illegal if those gods never mentioned it. Example: Would you consider it justified to be sent to hell for wearing a shirt made of both cotton and nylon if a god hadn't have happened to mention it? Where does your above statement come from? Are we even having the same discussion?
I guess it's a personal thing. Your statement of course isn't surprising for someone that hates the material.
Not at all, I'm not religious - I am an atheist.
Why would an omnipotent, omniscient sky being care if we were grateful or not? It seems so petty. Further to which, from a biblical perspective we were supposed to remain like those animals, (unaware we were even naked, no knowledge of right or wrong). What you're now saying therefore is that we should be thankful to a talking snake, (satan), because he's the one that got man to become more than animals.
Clearly it isn't. The death penalty speaks volumes. Sure, you'll get a few that protest, but that doesn't indicate that it's "alien for humans".
Anything you can imagine.. (lol)
Right, now I see where you went wrong. My 'adversity' is to the idiots that make unsupportable claims. That doesn't ultimately mean that batman does not exist in some alternate universe inhabited by cartoon characters, but that a completely unsupportable claim is idiotic, and I am adverse to it. With me?
In honesty you probably should have picked up on that by now considering I went on to say:
" it wouldn't indicate an adversity to batman, (your claim), but an adversity to people making claims that they can't support."
Not at all, you're making a fundamental error. The FSM might exist. It is the claim that it does, bereft of any evidence that I find I have an adversity to. That's not to say that you or I "know" the FSM doesn't exist but that the claim is inherently worthless. Same with your god claims, afterlife claims, multiple life claims, you become a dog claims etc etc and so forth.
The error continues...
See, those kind of claims. Does there come a point in a dogs life where they think "this dog business isn't all it's cracked up to be"? How do you know that? What evidence do you have to support that claim?
Snakelord
BG 15.10: The foolish cannot understand how a living entity can quit his body, nor can they understand what sort of body he enjoys under the spell of the modes of nature. But one whose eyes are trained in knowledge can see all this.
BG 15.10: The foolish cannot understand how a living entity can quit his body, nor can they understand what sort of body he enjoys under the spell of the modes of nature. But one whose eyes are trained in knowledge can see all this.
BG 6.41: The unsuccessful yogī, after many, many years of enjoyment on the planets of the pious living entities, is born into a family of righteous people, or into a family of rich aristocracy.
BG 6.42: Or [if unsuccessful after long practice of yoga] he takes his birth in a family of transcendentalists who are surely great in wisdom. Certainly, such a birth is rare in this world.
BG 6.43: On taking such a birth, he revives the divine consciousness of his previous life, and he again tries to make further progress in order to achieve complete success, O son of Kuru.
BG 6.44: By virtue of the divine consciousness of his previous life, he automatically becomes attracted to the yogic principles — even without seeking them. Such an inquisitive transcendentalist stands always above the ritualistic principles of the scriptures.
:shrug:
how many the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient ones do you know?
Along with that we have the following:
"Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."
"Of the animals that move about on the ground, these are unclean for you: the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard"
So basically what you're saying is that this god decided to tell you not to eat weasels and not to wear clothing made of more than one material but did not bother telling anyone not to sleep with kids and consider this perfectly rational and sane?[/QUOTE]
perhaps it gives an indication of the common sense required to know not to have sex with children
have to go
you would get disgusted also by eating tinned baked beans for ten years
what exactly do you mean by the word 'me'?
l I have to ask, who are you?
all you have talked about in terms of heaven is what a drag it is since one's freinds/family would be in (eternal) hell and that eternity in a stinky material body doesn't sound good - thats your version of heaven (and hell)
which explains why car manufacturers and purchasers interact on the point of "coolness" as opposed to rigid practicality
yes, for coolness, as you have finally admitted after several posts
So if your wife runs a 3 foot scratch down the side of your car or your hard drive accidentally gets reformatted you would be in ecstasy?
actually its the common bottom line of practically any line of philosophy you want to accept - there is no possibility of perfect happiness in the material world - anyone who says otherwise is either a fool, on drugs, or lying
even freud admitted that the id can't win out and must settle for a lot less happiness than desired
certainly - does your dentist recommend people have perfect teeth or imperfect teeth?
if you think that the word 'me' is a stinky sack of bile, mucus and air that is subject to frequent embarrassments, I agree
Lets try again - if you say that heaven is a drag because there is no sex drugs and rock and roll, why would you say that the notion of eternal material life is a drag, since these things are quite obviously present here?
So ultimately your magnanimous concern doesn't benefit anyone, not even your dog.
Actually if you were paying attention you would understand that we were talking about sin in relation to humans, since animals don't have that capacity
actually they are separate bodies (hence the analogy of separate clothes)
not for everyone, obviously
BG 15.10: The foolish cannot understand how a living entity can quit his body, nor can they understand what sort of body he enjoys under the spell of the modes of nature. But one whose eyes are trained in knowledge can see all this.
if hitler and i are the same person, how is it that I didn't hurt anyone
perhaps you will never know and never will (at least in this lifetime anyway)
hence the living entity is not ultimately their corporeal or subtle (mind, etc) body
BG 15.10: The foolish cannot understand how a living entity can quit his body, nor can they understand what sort of body he enjoys under the spell of the modes of nature. But one whose eyes are trained in knowledge can see all this.
should I quote BG15.10 a third time?
BG 6.41: The unsuccessful yogī, after many, many years of enjoyment on the planets of the pious living entities, is born into a family of righteous people, or into a family of rich aristocracy.
BG 6.42: Or [if unsuccessful after long practice of yoga] he takes his birth in a family of transcendentalists who are surely great in wisdom. Certainly, such a birth is rare in this world.
BG 6.43: On taking such a birth, he revives the divine consciousness of his previous life, and he again tries to make further progress in order to achieve complete success, O son of Kuru.
BG 6.44: By virtue of the divine consciousness of his previous life, he automatically becomes attracted to the yogic principles — even without seeking them. Such an inquisitive transcendentalist stands always above the ritualistic principles of the scriptures.
BG 2.29: Some look on the soul as amazing, some describe him as amazing, and some hear of him as amazing, while others, even after hearing about him, cannot understand him at all.
SB 3.26.6: Because of his forgetfulness, the transcendental living entity accepts the influence of material energy as his field of activities, and thus actuated, he wrongly applies the activities to himself.
maybe after attaining the human form of life thousands of times after billions of years something will begin to click
you live in a society that punishes persons for crimes performed in a previous lifetime?
:shrug:
read it again - ignorance as an excuse is an exception and definitely not the rule
(sigh) the moon on the end of a branch, eh?
well you managed to chose the phone book instead of the bible
I am actually talking about the information you have already given
the phonebook also belonged to him
your argument is that the bible is just another book - when given a scenario where you had the choice between writing on a bible or the phone book, you chose the phonebook - I am not arguing that you think that the bible is sacred - I am arguing that you know that the bible is commonly held as sacred by others, and as such you can't claim ignorance, if indeed defacing sacred scriptures is punishable
I agree that the scenario is kind of absurd with the pre-WW2 phone book - but it does illustrate the difference between acts done in ignorance and knowledge
the scenario illustrates that you have knowledge that scripture is sacred, since the neither the phone book or the bible belonged to you in the eg
you have knowledge why a christian would hold the bible as sacred - that is all the scenario is meant to illustrate, therefore you cannot claim ignorance, as you did with the cop and the traffic infringement
then you would have sufficient knowledge on why an antique dealer would hold his antique phone book as valuable
then you have knowledge why a child would hold winnie the pooh as valuable
but not in the presence of a christian who's whim had the capacity to drastically change your financial status for the worse - why? Because you have knowledge why a christian would hold the bible as sacred
thus it illustrates you have knowledge that the bible is sacred, since you wouldn't do such a thing (perhaps you would if you thought you could get away with it) in the presence of a practitioner
but you can however distinguish between the relative values of a christian's bible and a christian's phonebook
then its a fact they are foolish
you asked how do we determine that scripture is valid - I answered practical application - are you asking a different question here?
how many the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient ones do you know?
how about having sex with a plant?
Along with that we have the following:
"Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."
"Of the animals that move about on the ground, these are unclean for you: the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard"
So basically what you're saying is that this god decided to tell you not to eat weasels and not to wear clothing made of more than one material but did not bother telling anyone not to sleep with kids and consider this perfectly rational and sane?[/QUOTE]
perhaps it gives an indication of the common sense required to know not to have sex with children
they do it in the day time however
not as much as humans - and they get quicker returns
yes - it must take on average about thirty years to own a house
from where does a shadow appear?
SB 11.13.7: In a bamboo forest the wind sometimes rubs the bamboo stalks together, and such friction generates a blazing fire that consumes the very source of its birth, the bamboo forest. Thus, the fire is automatically calmed by its own action. Similarly, by the competition and interaction of the material modes of nature, the subtle and gross material bodies are generated. If one uses his mind and body to cultivate knowledge, then such enlightenment destroys the influence of the modes of nature that generated one's body. Thus, like the fire, the body and mind are pacified by their own actions in destroying the source of their birth.
just go for a walk in your nearest red light district at 1am
how many persons do you think can occupy the title of being omnimax?
you haven't explained how more than one personality can be omnimax
how is this connected to your argument that different rules for different persons give different results (you are arguing now that different rules for the same persons give different results - its not clear how this correlates to your (mis)understanding of interfaith dialogs
have to go
Snakelord
“
When two gods (or regulations for different grades of motor vehicle drivers) give differing rules who's do we listen to? Which god (regulation) is real? Are they both real? Who's the one to follow?
”
surely you are joking aren't you?
he's rich
he's famous
he's talented
.... but his life is a still a drag
(and foolish people envy his fame, talent and riches - beginning with his wife)
... what else could it be but a higher grade of suffering?
should we try again
“
When two gods (or regulations for different grades of motor vehicle drivers) give differing rules who's do we listen to? Which god (regulation) is real? Are they both real? Who's the one to follow?
indeed - choosing which set of regulations to follow is truly bewildering
if you try to unify hinduism,christianity and islam (without coming to the point of being a practitioning hindu, christian or muslim) you will not get far - much like if you try to be a motor cycle rule obeying truck driver you won't get far in the pursuit of road safety - in fact in these situations you would have to ask what sort of madness does the person have that makes them addicted to eclecticism
I guess you missed it - if an omnipotent seed giving father of all living entities advocates that it is ok to kill any persons of a particular colour or creed it indicates something philosophical askew, hence that understanding is not the omnimax god one is seeking
”
illustrates the difference between god and the living entity
different from the living entity?
surely you are joking aren't you?
then either the bible is wrong or your perspective of the bible is wrong - I leave it up to you to make the choice which one it is (But I have encountered numerous christians who don't share such a perspective)
basically the reason we are here in the material world is because we are envious of god - and that envy prohibits us from entering the spiritual realm - one of the best ways to come to terms with this envy is to willingly accept the desire of god in this world (which means not becoming a human punching bag - which ironically is what we become if we reject god - but attempting to use one's intelligence to work in a way in this world that god finds pleasing - in other words it is not god's gain if we work for him - he has everything already anyway - but it is us that gain since our envy is diminished)
fairies are actually invalidated for reasons other than the fact they appear in many cultures, which begs the question why you brought up the 'many cultures' thing in the first place
my point is how do you determine what god prohibits - like for instance is it feasible that a truth in religion is what anyone says after reading scripture? Is it feasible that a truth in chemistry is what anyone says after reading a chemistry text book?
well ...
he's rich
he's famous
he's talented
.... but his life is a still a drag
(and foolish people envy his fame, talent and riches - beginning with his wife)
... what else could it be but a higher grade of suffering?
hence why you would appreciate a religion that involves the heads dropping dead from starvation palatable
I guess at a certain point in the pursuit of opulences one goes beyond the stage of not even passing wind if one things another can benefit from it
innocent, yes
its more like due to envy of god we were obliged to come to the material world to exhibit our animal like desires
you find that places that advocate the death penalty do so as a deterrent to potential offenders (of course you can argue how effective it is) - so rehabilitation - or trying to cultivating a sense of obedience in the criminally inclined, is at the core
and if you don't take the support of their claim, what then - like for instance if you insist on being sinful in ways that they insist you not be, on what grounds are the claims 'unsupportable'
hence there is no difference between saying god doesn't exist and god is an imagination that cannot be verified (despite one's lacking to fulfill the prerequisites for verification)
in other words because the idea is wrong anyone making the claim is wrong - do you see how your first premise is begging the question?
but is there is a claim of evidence being perceivable yet you violate such prerequisites, what then?
if you lack qualification, isn't your claim that the claim is useless also useless?
the next question is whether you fulfill the prerequisites for such knowledge
do you base it on your current 'understanding'?
aren't you existing in this world to exploit the resources of this world under the influence of your bodily designation (and don't you frequently fail in the pursuit of such exploitation)?
Disgusted is a bit of a heavy word - but I certainly wouldn't be the happiest chappy about it. As stated, it's one of the reasons I wouldn't want to participate in an eternal existence. Now, although you'd have to supply a detailed explanation of an 'immaterial existence', I can say at this point in time that eternal existence to me is something I would rather not partake in. It's not because I am disgusted by the idea, it's perhaps just that the knowledge that life eventually ends is what makes any of it enjoyable.
As a side issue, it's worth noting that when gods people were wandering through the desert, their god fed them nothing but manna. Day in day out, year in year out. Finally the jews asked for something different. They got some meat - but got killed them all before they could eat it because they had dared ask for something different. If this is the being that is the leader, it's one more reason to not want to spend an eternity in the place that he rules.
The person responding to you.
They were a couple of short examples, nothing more. Of course if you have some knowledge of heaven that you can show as being more valid than say the biblical version of heaven, the Sumerian version of an afterlife or countless others, and would actually be appealing to 'me', then go for it.
Depends entirely on the manufacturer/purchaser. To some it's all about aesthetics, to some it is all about practicality. Such is the way of the world.
Now now, right back at the start of this I mentioned that some have cars for pleasure. However, the actual discussion was that there will be an equal amount of pain with something pleasurable. I would disagree, but then I am quite well known to be a laid back, almost non-caring kinda guy so perhaps it's just me. Surely it would be pertinent to state that the non-pleasurable is bound to be more painful?
Ecstacy? No. I have noticed with you this tendency to look at everything in black and white terms. If something is not painful it must be ecstacy. It's quite bizarre and needless to say there are actually many greys in between both of those instances.
Well, that depends on who's subjective opinion on perfection we're talking about. If we were to use your dentists for example, then simply by the fact that my teeth do not have cavities we can now consider them perfect. By using that same line of reasoning simply by the fact that I am not upset about anything then clearly I have perfect happiness. I did even go to lengths to clarify with you that that was what your dentist said. Of course perhaps your dentist is just a fool or on drugs.
See? (check the bit in bold). Now, by using the same reasoning that a lack of cavities equals perfect teeth, a lack of sorrow must equal perfect happiness. My dentist, being neither a fool, liar or on drugs, doesn't ever say "perfect" when he talks about teeth. Clearly his subjective opinion on perfection differs from that of your dentist.
Well, if you honestly wanted to know the polite thing to do would have been to ask instead of thinking you can give some sort of answer for me. However, tell me why I would want an eternal existence even if I wasn't a sack of bile and air?
Surely you see the difference between 'here' and 'eternal'?
Ultimately, yeah.
Why don't animals have that capacity? I have seen dogs very cunningly go and steal food, (your butchers analogy). That is theft. Ignorance is not an excuse.. remember? If ignorance is an excuse because dogs don't understand it why is it not for humans - especially given our discussion and all that time and energy spent on your part trying to dismiss any negating of punishment because of mans ignorance? And it is indeed ultimate ignorance considering the actions performed by this person were done so in a past life that he doesn't even remember having ever lived. Where's the difference exactly?
So then why would you not get punished as a dog even though you were once Hitler? Are Hitler and the dog both not you? How can a dog therefore be free from punishment? That dog killed millions. It is ignorant of doing so.. indeed it just sits down and licks its balls all day long, but that surely would not detract from the crimes he committed during a human incarnation?
So.. what exactly is the living entity and what evidence can you provide to substantiate any claim you might make?
Is there specific reason for me to believe the words of ancient Pakistani's that thought god was blue with six arms and had an elephant head?
Ah, that's the prize.. being born into a rich family. Gotta love a material existence lol.
And then.. I start believing in ancient books and elephant headed gods?
Animals outnumber humans to a vast degree. Seems ignorance is the rule. For some undefined reason our ignorance isn't acceptable.
Certainly, under the knowledge that the phone book is a largely unwanted freebie, (especially given 118 118), whereas the bible/winnie the pooh/the wallpaper/the toilet paper was bought by this person. That doesn't make any of them sacred.
Certainly. And I have justified that statement by showing that I wouldn't write on any other book this man owned - even the Adventures of Winnie the Pooh. The phone book is something that people generally write on because it's a largely ignored freebie that is replaced 2 months later. You knew this which is exactly why you used it in your analogy. The bible is just another book.
Yeah.
The phonebook isn't actually a 'book'. It's not bought, it's largely not read, it serves no real purpose, it's free, it gets replaced every few months. When I returned the scenario using Winnie the Pooh I actually wrote in the bible. Where then is your point?
Your argument is foolish. I know that the other peoples property - be it the bible, winnie the pooh's adventures or the toaster are other peoples property and can be important to them. Indeed you even recognise the difference because you change tact and say "valuable" when it comes to anything else. I have yet to meet or see one person that regards the bible as anything more than 'valuable'. If the bible was to accidentally get set on fire they wouldn't sacrifice themselves, they'd buy another one. It is just a book. They might view the 'words' in that book as sacred - ergo the original texts, but the actual printed bible in this persons house is just a book - valuable to them, not sacred.
Your statements concerning ignorance are of no relevance. There is no law against burning a bible and I see no personal problem with doing so. If it was illegal to burn bibles then I would never do it - not because I understand that the bible is sacred, but that, as dumb as laws can be, breaking them causes personal problems. The same would be true if the law applied to Winnie.
I tend to disagree, but then here in the UK there are book shops - and religious bookshops where people can buy new bibles. Sacred? No. I understand that a christian might view the words as sacred, not the book.
Then I too would have sufficient knowledge on why a christian would hold his bible as valuable. Certainly. Valuable = yes, sacred = no.
Certainly. My computer is more valuable to me than my tea cup. Neither is 'sacred'. Perhaps you should choose your words more carefully.
Proof please.
No, same question to same statement. You see, the only possible way that you can determine that a scriptural claim to some elephant headed god is valid is if you've seen it. Have you?
Quite a few. So... which god?
No law against it. Thus if you had sex with a plant, (if you could), there would be no justification in handing out punishment. There was a guy on the radio that had sex with cars. As bizarre as that might seem to you and I, there is no law prohibiting him from engaging in such activity. As a result of that no charges could be brought against him.
See.. You can't have sex with animals - gods law says so. He says nothing about bonking children.
These very same people full of common sense that couldn't work out not to have sex with their mothers or with animals? So why, if it's left out because humans have common sense, did he mention those other things? Why tell people to bury their poo? It's common sense surely? Why tell people not to eat weasels, bats and lizards? It's common sense surely? People don't have the common sense for that but somehow do when it comes to not bonking children?
Uhh... not those that work nightshifts :bugeye:
In comparison to the sparrow that works solid for a couple of months and only lives for a couple of years?
It appears from the lack of ability on the part of light to turn corners. So, now I've done the decent thing and answered your question, try and answer mine.
From where does this material desire appear?
Fascinating but irrelevant... unless you can show that this bamboo has a material desire to set fire to the forest. So, once again.. where does this desire come from? What created this desire in humans?
I wouldn't presume to be that omniscient that my human brain could answer the question. However, if I listen to those humans like yourself that claim they know these things then I would have to say millions, (while not providing any evidence - and there's fuck all you can do about it). *gotta love that shit*. The point however was concerned with specifics.. i.e are we talking yhwh, your elephant headed gods, allah etc etc? The reason I ask and the reason it is important is because they all have different attitudes and personalities. If we're talking yhwh then I should go get a knife and chop a bit of my penis off, if we're talking brahma or vishnu or one of those many gods then I need to go put a red splodge on my forehead.
If I do not follow and abide by the rules of the specific, existing, real 'omnimax' then I could be in deep smegola - and I resent the idea of being in deep smegola all because I didn't rub a raspberry into my head or chop up a perfectly nice looking willy.
You haven't explained which of those contradictory personalities is the omnimax one.
It should be perfectly clear. The rules of allah differ to the rules of yhwh. Two differing rules for the exact same person. It was my argument all along. You changed it to reflect different people/same being when it is actually the opposite. Same person/1 million different gods. Your misunderstanding that your god is the god is what is causing the problem.
Let's kindly not fall into pointless analogies - which, even if you believe they are good, are not a substitute for the actual subject. yhwh says chop your penis off, zeus says no such thing. Do we abide by yhwhs law here or not do it on the basis that zeus says no such thing? If vishnu or some elephant headed weirdo you believe in gives one rule and yhwh says the opposite, who would you listen to? Sure, if you don't have a penis it doesn't seem an issue, but for the sake of discussion let's pretend that you do.
yhwh/vishnu/allah.. How do you eat yours? So tell me.. on what authority would you choose vishnu over yhwh? By choosing one over the other, what does it say about the other?
Right. I have yet to meet a practicing christian that recognises any unity with islam or hinduism, (other than muslims mention jesus).
Why? Justify your statement. Kindly show me any law that states that god must like anyone, cannot choose to kill a specific group of humans etc.
Ah, so now you speak for god. Justify your statement.
Well, if you found it that funny you wont have any problem whatsoever actually justifying your statements and answering my question.. Go for it.
Easy as that heh.. "god can't do such a thing. With all that omnipotence and the guy is incapable. Book's wrong or person's wrong.. because I say so".
No offence pal, but that aint much of an argument.
Who's "we"?
Such as?
What was it you said? Oh yes.. "scripture is certainly a start".
Justify your statement. I have met him in person and he seemed perfectly happy.
I guess you misunderstood the statement. I am an atheist, and thus - unlike a theist - I do not appreciate the death of humans that have differing ideas and beliefs.
Not an answer to the question. Now, you almost flipped your lid when I dared give a human perspective of gods so I would wonder why when it comes down to the crunch you always use analogies about humans when talking about gods. Once again:
Why would an omnipotent, omniscient sky being care if we were grateful or not?
Again, what's with the 'we'?
Inaccurate. Someone that is put on death row is never rehabilitated. They might very well want to stop people getting to that point where they are not rehabilitated but that doesn't detract from the fact that these people are not rehabilitated.
If a jew tells you that you not having chopped a bit of your penis off is a punishable sin.. on what grounds would you demand he support the claim? When he does support the claim, (biblically), what is your excuse?
No beating around the bush please, just answer the question.
You are lost in a deep dark void. A god or gods might exist - as might giant invisible banjo playing turtles. Unless someone can show evidence to support the claim of their existence, I will not accept the claim as ultimate truth. Let it soak in.
No. How about you stop making up 'other' words and just pay attention to the 'actual' words?
If that were the case, then I would still lack evidence to suggest that such a being exists and thus would have no reason to just accept the claim. Nothing changes. Now, if you are trying to convince someone then ultimately you must go to their level - much like god does. When he communicates with humans he doesn't do so in 'god language', he talks in a language that they understand. In science class when you're 12 and lacking any understanding of science whatsoever, they don't go into hardcore science terms - they explain things to you in a way that you will understand. In order to teach, one must know how to talk to the student.
I have never even so much as mowed a lawn in my entire life. I hate gardens and gardening. So the other week my daughter expresses an interest in growing fruit and veg. I take her to B&Q and while walking around I see a 'grow bag'. This will help veggies grow, it says. I then get some seeds.. Plant them 2" deep, 6" apart and put in sunlight. We now have 8 tomato plants and peppers growing. Soon we'll be doing cucumber, corn, courgette, etc etc.
Now, if someone else - entirely ignorant of gardening, came upto me and asked for evidence that a seed grew into a tomato, I could show him with no problem whatsoever - and I am not a gardener.
On the theist front we have everyone in disagreement, we have multiple gods all in disagreement, we have different sects, different beliefs, different claims and so on and so forth. "It's not a tomato, it's a potato", "no it isn't, it's asparagus", "hell no, it's a cabbage" - all of whom claim to be gardeners. So you plant the seed and it is none of them. They claim you're wrong, that they're the best, they're the educated. It's ludicrous. You're just one of them.
No, the claim is still ultimately useless to those that lack qualification:
< html> < head> < title> < /title> < /head> <body bgcolor="pink"> < marquee>< p>< /body>< /html>
How worthwhile is that to someone uneducated in webpage design? Useless right? Now, they will never learn what that means unless the teacher is good enough to teach them.
So you see, the only claim that is justified is my claim that their claims are worthless - whether I'm qualified or not. If they want to try and sell me their claim then they need to teach correctly, in a manner that I can understand and connect with. The amusing thing is nobody has ever failed other than those espousing idiocies such as fairies, gods and mermaids.
You're arguing the case into pointlessness. To believe god exists one must believe god exists.. it's idiocy.
Great... what has that got to do with whether dogs come to a point in their life where they think sucking their own balls aint all that good?
Last edited:
I'll grant you that, but neither does your lenghty posts of the same book he learned it from.
Both of us were guilty of appeal to authority, but I figured I'd have taken the wind out of your sails had I said that my friend is taught in the Bharatiya Vidya Sansthhaan, by Prof. H.S. Adesh. He tells me that you're completely incorrect. Since I have absolutely no care in the world to learn about any theism, I figure I'd have let him...as my resident expert...hear what you posted, and respond
Also, I think this is waaaaaay too long, kudos to SL for having patience to respond to all of this rhetoric. Plus it has strayed away from the topic lol
actually I would argue that when it comes to the discussion of knowledge (any knowledge) you have to establish the theoretical foundation - the reason I had issues with your reference to the 'pundit guy' is similar to the issues a person could have with a person who's argument rests upon 'persons learned to the field' (bereft of reference to who the actual persons are and the field in question0
at its best, the study of music is a sub branch of the vedas
about what exactly?
well if you feel satisfied for a culturally established indian musician to establish what the conclusion of the vedas are (even at the expense of actually approaching what the vedas say), what can I say ......Since I have absolutely no care in the world to learn about any theism, I figure I'd have let him...as my resident expert...hear what you posted, and respond
so do I - actually its a bit of phenomena with SL
agreed - i think I will try and bring it back on trackkudos to SL for having patience to respond to all of this rhetoric. Plus it has strayed away from the topic lol
Last edited:
Snakelord
“
BG 15.10: The foolish cannot understand how a living entity can quit his body, nor can they understand what sort of body he enjoys under the spell of the modes of nature. But one whose eyes are trained in knowledge can see all this.
apart from words to the effect of "I am not a fool because I say so"
“
different time/place/circumstance same being, actually
(a person who is actually familiar with road safety, so to speak, can properly discriminate in a wide range of time/places and circumstances)
If a truck driver demands that a motorcyclist obeys the speed limit and can quote regulation what then?
In other words knowledge of road safety, the essence of all regulations in the field, is akin to being familiar with the conclusion of religion
and if I said I have not seen god, how would you know if I was lying?
SB 1.1.1: .... He is directly and indirectly conscious of all manifestations, and He is independent because there is no other cause beyond Him. It is He only who first imparted the Vedic knowledge unto the heart of Brahmājī, the original living being. By Him even the great sages and demigods are placed into illusion, as one is bewildered by the illusory representations of water seen in fire, or land seen on water. Only because of Him do the material universes, temporarily manifested by the reactions of the three modes of nature, appear factual, although they are unreal. ....
if even great personalities can be placed into illusion by god, what to speak of a person inimical or disrespectful towards him
if you think you already know, what capacity do you have to learn?
“
that is my point - you view eternal existence with a value system that belongs to the temporary world - hence its not surprising that you have no desire for eternal life
bingo! (can you guess which paradigm this value belongs to?)
even if one has perfect teeth, there are many more shortcomings of existence to address
if he thinks the perfect teeth is the be all and end all of perfect existence, most certainly
correct
maybe your dentists understanding of perfect teeth is imperfect teeth (imperfect teeth = dentist $$$$!!)
given that I could expect a "the guy you are talking to" answer, I hazarded a guess
well for a start you wouldn't have to eternally worry about being stinky and embarrassed
well that was your argument - if "here' is eternal I don't want it and if heaven doesn't have the activities of 'here' I don't want to go there
the butcher punishes them, but god does not, since to have a dogs body in the first place indicates some previous transgression of karma
hence dog life is the punishment
humans have an obligation to cultivate spiritual knowledge - certainly explains why dogs don't go to church
I thought it was clear - humans run the risk of getting a fine if they J walk (even if they are a first time offender), yet an animal never gets fined for J walking
the human performs an act that transgressions their obligation and the animal, by dint of their nature and reduced scope for independence, has no capacity to transgress their obligation (there are some tricks you cannot even teach a new dog)
dog life generally = punishment
a dog's life is punishment practically 24 hours a day - (if you were in an environment where you were spontaneously attracted to sniffing the backsides of others, would you call that punishment?)
and perhaps he will have to be a dog for millions of lifetimes
you don't see that, along with the butt sniffing, as punishment?
the soul is spiritual by nature - that means it is not matter - in other words you can see, touch, smell, etc matter with your blunt senses - spirit, while having substance, is not like that, since its perceptibility depends completely on one's consciousness - as for the evidence, empiricism certainly cannot be effective - maybe you should clarify your statement - are you asking "what empirical evidence is there for the soul"?
the form of god is along way away at the moment - actually we are just talking about the philosophy presented by god - so do you have anything to say in regard to
BG 15.10: The foolish cannot understand how a living entity can quit his body, nor can they understand what sort of body he enjoys under the spell of the modes of nature. But one whose eyes are trained in knowledge can see all this.
apart from words to the effect of "I am not a fool because I say so"
If you read the following verses you would understand that being born into a family or rich aristocracy is the booby prize - mainly because the spare time offerred by a rich existence is often not utilized for spiritual advancement but becoming a gross materialist (BTW - do you know that taking birth in a western country and not living hand to mouth and owning a debit card puts you head and shoulders above about 90% of the world's population)
the stage before that is that one begins to come to grips with one's inimical disposition towards anything remotely familiar with universal intelligence
hence attaining an animal form is the result of ignorance in a human form
what if it was a gideon bible (the one's given out for free) - what if there was a stack of twenty on his desk next to the one phonebook - which one then?
would a christian hold that a gideon bible is bereft of value because it didn;t cost them any money to acquire?
on what grounds to they hold the bible as valuable? The typography? the illustrations?
I was making the point that the laws of this mundane world have an obvious limitation, and that they actually operate out of a larger paradigm - like for instance it may not be deemed illegal to dump radio active waste in the ocean, but that doesn't stop one developing cancer
hence my suggestion that a human law giver is a fool if they transgress foundations established by god, since even persons (and indeed society at large) like yourself follow such persons regardless
I think I said practical application - or are you arguing that nothing can possibly be true unless you think it is true?
then your philosophical sense is quite pliable
so you agree that at a certain level, having sex with a car or plant is not normal - so in the same way despite god not giving us detailed knowledge about the instances when it is and when it is not suitable to hit oneself in the head with a hammer, an intelligent person can fathom the right answer?
or hitting oneself in the head with a hammer either
sparrows?
“
it takes them a week, and not half their life
so in other words a shadow can only appear behind an actual object - similarly material desire can only appear behind an actual (or spiritual) desire
just as forest fires in bamboo forests, material desire is the sum and substance of material life - or to change analogy, its just like jumping in the ocean and asking where did this wetness come from (it came from your decision to jump in the ocean)
I see the extent of your philosophical inquiry - certainly explains why you are bewildered in understanding much on the topic
it seems you have two possibilities - incredulous belief or incredulous disbelief - assuming that you can actually function in this world, why do you insist on sitting on your brains when it comes to the topic of religion (ie you switch off your sense of discrimination)
the fact that you can entertain the idea of several personalities being omnimax indicates that you have no understanding on the significance of the word
I always thought they they applied to two different times places and circumstances
different time/place/circumstance same being, actually
your misunderstanding is that your time/place/circumstance is the same as a million other time/places and circumstances
depends whether you identify yourself with a motorcyclist or truck driver, so to speak, since obviosuly not all time/places and circumstances are identical
(a person who is actually familiar with road safety, so to speak, can properly discriminate in a wide range of time/places and circumstances)
its all about road safety I guess
also there are motorcyclists unfamiliar of the special requirements for road safety applicable to truck drivers, but if you search carefully they can be readily located
BG 9.29: I envy no one, nor am I partial to anyone. I am equal to all. But whoever renders service unto Me in devotion is a friend, is in Me, and I am also a friend to him.
well if you think there is no difference between the living entity and god, what problem would you have with me speaking on his behalf?
I think saying that god is the same as the living entity requires more justification than the other way around - hopefully you don't need be to indicate the inherent stinkiness and frequent embarrassments associated with inhabiting a bag of bile
he has no reason to kill everyone of a particular creed, since the time factor, which affects everyone equally is sufficient - malice, envy, hatred etc are qualities of consciousness under the influence of ignorance
for a start its not that stinky bile bag commonly referred to as 'me'
then the next question is why do you derive understandings from scripture that are obscure and contradict central themes
obviously you are not his shrink
because its the nature of consciousness to reciprocate - for instance if you gave a multi-million dollar beatle star a fruit platter, do you think it is inconceivable for him to be grateful?
everyone in conditioned life
but their execution rehabilitates potential criminals - for instance a big argument put forward in the case for some western "drug mules' last year in asia was that the execution had to proceed to deter others
this is why i was on about knowledge of road safety and motorcyclists and truck drivers - if a truck driver demands that a motorcyclist check his air brakes (and can quote regulations) what then -
If a truck driver demands that a motorcyclist obeys the speed limit and can quote regulation what then?
In other words knowledge of road safety, the essence of all regulations in the field, is akin to being familiar with the conclusion of religion
in short, as evidenced by the road safety thing, some things are essential and some things are peripheral - to one who cannot fathom the essential, all they see are the peripheral as the be all and end all (which gives rise to contradictions, fanaticism etc)
If a process is also advocated with this claim, we have something to go on
well if I said I have seen god, how would you know if I was lying.
and if I said I have not seen god, how would you know if I was lying?
you can still violate prerequisites for science at age 12
if however one doesn't care for sin, not so much on peripheral things but for essential things - like for instance if you didn't really care whether scripture (the very means of knowing god) is defaced or not - how do you expect that one can understand god?
SB 1.1.1: .... He is directly and indirectly conscious of all manifestations, and He is independent because there is no other cause beyond Him. It is He only who first imparted the Vedic knowledge unto the heart of Brahmājī, the original living being. By Him even the great sages and demigods are placed into illusion, as one is bewildered by the illusory representations of water seen in fire, or land seen on water. Only because of Him do the material universes, temporarily manifested by the reactions of the three modes of nature, appear factual, although they are unreal. ....
if even great personalities can be placed into illusion by god, what to speak of a person inimical or disrespectful towards him
if you think you already know, what capacity do you have to learn?
to think that knowledge doesn't have prerequisites (like not being sinful in the case of god, or at least seeing the wisdom in not defacing scripture) is idiocy
you can't see the common link?