Would this not make the Christian God... evil?
- Thread starter w1z4rd
- Start date
They were evil too.
Have you seen any proof of Jewish slaves in Egypt, or do you mean if we're assuming the bible is a true account of history(as you'd have to to answer the OP)?
*************
M*W: There were no Jewish slaves in Egypt at anytime. The tribe of Habiru (the ancestors of the Hebrews) were a sect of Egyptian sun worshippers (monotheists) living in lower Egypt. They weren't Hebrews nor were they Jews, and there is no evidence to indicate they were slaves.
I think we all know by now that the bible is not an historical document. It's beyond my why anyone in this day and time would believe it is.
Because there is no evidence that there were Jewish slaves at the period biblical mythology asserts. Indeed, there's very little evidence that there were any Jewish people at that time.
The Jewish myth of their Egyptian servitude may even have its origin in the Hyksos occupation of Lower Egypt, when Canaanites ruled Avaris and controlled the Delta until the Egyptian army sacked the city when the Pharaoh had had enough of foreigners occupying Egyptian soil.
Snakelord
possessing material opulence with the heartfelt notion "This is MINE" = (the attempt to) rain on god's parade
SB 5.5.1: Lord Ṛṣabhadeva told His sons: My dear boys, of all the living entities who have accepted material bodies in this world, one who has been awarded this human form should not work hard day and night simply for sense gratification, which is available even for dogs and hogs that eat stool. One should engage in penance and austerity to attain the divine position of devotional service. By such activity, one's heart is purified, and when one attains this position, he attains eternal, blissful life, which is transcendental to material happiness and which continues forever.
at the very least, infatuation with one's genitals or the genitals of others is certainly not unique
“
Talking about lust bereft of wrath is like talking about evacuating without passing water
In otherwords using opulence in the service of god protects us from sinful life - the propensity to live in a palace should be dovetailed by building a palace for god, the tendency to eat nice foodstuffs should be dovetailed by offering one's foodstuffs to god - the understanding is that all these things actually belong to god (of course if one is not attached to living with nice furnishings and foodstuffs, their case is different - hence a distinction between theists who can be classified as 'householders' and 'renunciates')
1- the gross physical body
2 - the subtle body of mind and intelligence
3- the eternal body of the spirit soul
so yes, there are three aspects to the discussion
I would be more likely to use the word unmanifest (much like the sun is not manifest at night time)
unmanifest actually
BG 4.34: Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth.
SB 7.5.31: Persons who are strongly entrapped by the consciousness of enjoying material life, and who have therefore accepted as their leader or guru a similar blind man attached to external sense objects, cannot understand that the goal of life is to return home, back to Godhead, and engage in the service of Lord Viṣṇu. As blind men guided by another blind man miss the right path and fall into a ditch, materially attached men led by another materially attached man are bound by the ropes of fruitive labor, which are made of very strong cords, and they continue again and again in materialistic life, suffering the threefold miseries.
or more specifically in the case of genital worshiping
SB 7.5.30: Prahlāda Mahārāja replied: Because of their uncontrolled senses, persons too addicted to materialistic life make progress toward hellish conditions and repeatedly chew that which has already been chewed. Their inclinations toward Kṛṣṇa are never aroused, either by the instructions of others, by their own efforts, or by a combination of both.
true - hence the successful performance of religiousity culminates in reforming one's nature
actually the implication was that cavities impede the classification of teeth as perfect, much like ephemeral happiness impedes the classification of perfect happiness
material world = god's property
possessing material opulence with the heartfelt notion "This is MINE" = (the attempt to) rain on god's parade
certainly - if you had the choice of inhabiting a body that is ephemeral, ignorant an d subject to macro, micro and mesocosmic miseries or accepting a body that is eternal, full of knowledge and bereft of any trace of distress, which would you prefer ?
its quite tough inhabiting a material body, since death, old age and disease visit everyone equally
I never said I didn't want to inhabit a body - I did say however that this body certainly leaves a lot to be desired - but generally people tolerate such things by taking shelter of intoxication (or sleep) or otherwise, as you have mentioned, sex
SB 5.5.1: Lord Ṛṣabhadeva told His sons: My dear boys, of all the living entities who have accepted material bodies in this world, one who has been awarded this human form should not work hard day and night simply for sense gratification, which is available even for dogs and hogs that eat stool. One should engage in penance and austerity to attain the divine position of devotional service. By such activity, one's heart is purified, and when one attains this position, he attains eternal, blissful life, which is transcendental to material happiness and which continues forever.
at the very least, infatuation with one's genitals or the genitals of others is certainly not unique
“
obviously the murder is the vehicle of sin, since he is under the influence of lust transformed into wrath.
Talking about lust bereft of wrath is like talking about evacuating without passing water
if you want to verify something in connection to the soul (past life etc) then it requires that you apply spiritual processes (namely get free from lust) - hence its not very practical for a lusty person to demand such a thing
I understand the implications of lust, wrath, envy etc and can see the futility in cultivating activities that develop these vices
depends by what one understands by the word "god"
you miss the point - it never left god's possession in the first place
then since we have these stockpiles of money the next question is why work harder than an ass to enjoy a life of less restrictions than a pig?
In otherwords using opulence in the service of god protects us from sinful life - the propensity to live in a palace should be dovetailed by building a palace for god, the tendency to eat nice foodstuffs should be dovetailed by offering one's foodstuffs to god - the understanding is that all these things actually belong to god (of course if one is not attached to living with nice furnishings and foodstuffs, their case is different - hence a distinction between theists who can be classified as 'householders' and 'renunciates')
one can be free from sin, yes
therefore most strains of christianity, while certainly capable of enabling a person to make spiritual advancement, are not perfectional since they have incomplete knowledge
old in the sense that it has a historical continuum - if the continuum is broken you merely have something from history (like the toothbrush in the red cup has a continuum of 20 years)
as far as conditional life is concerned, yes
ultimately the conditioned soul is eternal, and has nothing to do with the conditions of material existence, although such a notion is unfathomable in the grips of illusion and ignorance
you find that the word for self in sanskrit has three possible meanings according to usage
1- the gross physical body
2 - the subtle body of mind and intelligence
3- the eternal body of the spirit soul
so yes, there are three aspects to the discussion
actually I asked you who you were, and you gave an answer that reflects the notion of the mucus bag (the thing at the keyboard)
at least I have a claim of a process to accompany the direct perception of such things - is there a claim of direct perception of the brain as the self as context?
you already have MR Mucus Bag - (But the good news is that ultimately you are not a mucus bag - to realize that all it requires is that you stop behaving like a lusty old goat and take up religious principles rather than worshiping vaginas)
actually dead people without a makeover look grey - and they also tend to get a bit stinky too, hence the reason for getting the liposuction before their final last guest appearance
and the makeover artist
still you see that rigor mortis is sufficient to spell the end of any supermodel s career
on the contrary, you define yourself completely in relation to the mucus bag - from your genital ogling to your career credentials - why don't you try and define yourself with some unique quality that you could exclusively call "yours" that is not related to the gross or subtle body (namely the mucus bag or the false ego in the form of mind and intelligence that deals with the unique issue of your mucusey state)?
I never used the word immaterial
I would be more likely to use the word unmanifest (much like the sun is not manifest at night time)
no
unmanifest actually
are we talking about why god created the material world as a facility for ignorance and illusion or something else now?
if you were the one that manipulated my creation to make it do that, certainly not
because we desired an existence where we could entertain such an illusion
therefore solo attempts at getting free from illusion are not recommended - even the storyline for matrix would have been a bit drab if there was no one free from illusion in the first place
BG 4.34: Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth.
like many processes of knowledge, the first issue is to find someone who knows (which you have admitted is pretty difficult with what you currently have in the way of christianity, since its inconceivable how one can even be sinless) - otherwise its just a case of
SB 7.5.31: Persons who are strongly entrapped by the consciousness of enjoying material life, and who have therefore accepted as their leader or guru a similar blind man attached to external sense objects, cannot understand that the goal of life is to return home, back to Godhead, and engage in the service of Lord Viṣṇu. As blind men guided by another blind man miss the right path and fall into a ditch, materially attached men led by another materially attached man are bound by the ropes of fruitive labor, which are made of very strong cords, and they continue again and again in materialistic life, suffering the threefold miseries.
or more specifically in the case of genital worshiping
SB 7.5.30: Prahlāda Mahārāja replied: Because of their uncontrolled senses, persons too addicted to materialistic life make progress toward hellish conditions and repeatedly chew that which has already been chewed. Their inclinations toward Kṛṣṇa are never aroused, either by the instructions of others, by their own efforts, or by a combination of both.
true - hence the successful performance of religiousity culminates in reforming one's nature
conditioned life is given as a result of one's previous acts - hence one's conditioned nature ultimately finds its source in one's own activities - therefore you find that religiousity has a foundation based on normative descriptions, namely the rejection of sin - so in the beginning direct perception of god may be a long way away, but in th meantime one could refrain from acts of lust and control the senses and thus appreciate what the human form of life can offer
the difference is that religion offers very real indications how one can change one's nature
religion however offers that one can change one's nature by giving up the cultivation of lust, wrath etc - even if one associates with a saintly person their nature will not change so much for as long as they continue worshipping 'awesome' things of the material world
therefore there is the examination of acts of lust, beginning with the proposal from the platform of theoretical knowledge that lust, wrath, envy, etc are the cause of unnecessary trouble
the theist however can pray to god (or even jesus) for the intelligence to refrain from sin (lust, wrath, envy, etc)
if a person behaves in a wrathful/lusty/envious way, they develop a world outlook from that habit - like for instance a person who frequently masturbates develops a certain 'world view' of vaginas
depending on the reason why you actually came here in the first place
celibacy is also defined by scriptural commentators as only having sex with one's lawfully married partner - of course you are free to violate that, but it certainly results in problems
used yes - abused no
then please explain why - after all, if I didn't know what gold was, what would be the point in asking
"So.. perfection = lack of cavities?"
"That's what my dentists says"
"Really?"
"Yes"
You're telling porkies LG. Nowhere in that is there an implication that you state there was. That claim made by you and confirmed by you is that teeth that lack cavities are perfect. Kindly stop with the lies.
Once again: "show something to support your claim that anyone inhabiting a body, (i.e all 6 billion of us + the animals), 'envy' your gods."
Well, I don't want to be eternal so I would pass on that particular aspect. As for the rest.. During one of my bible rewrite stages I started off with what would have originally been nothingness. That is where god has existed forever. It went on to state that.. ([pp] 'cause I can't be bothered opening the document) "This being is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. As such it is the only being in the universe that has absolutely nothing to see, do or know."
This is one of the reasons I would have to disagree with your claim that all of us humans "envy god". If there was one, or 100 and they satisified the omni definition then I wouldn't ever want to be it.
Sure, I would rather not have to go to the dentist, but it is a hell of a large leap from that to the rest.
I call your bluff.. hell, you even said it in this very post:
I said: "So you consider the human body as a prison and do not want to inhabit it?"
You said: "certainly.." and then went on to explain that a body gets disease and old and whatnot. Hell, you've called it a stinky mucus bag, (and disagreed with yourself), 100 times while refusing to consider it a work of art - which is surprising for someone that thinks the universes greatest intellects made it - which in itself shows your serious dislike for it.
What you "tolerate" I actually enjoy. This in itself is another indication. Btw, you can cease with your BG quotes, I'm not even reading them.
I never claimed otherwise.
So.. wrath is the sin?
See Skinwalkers statement in another thread, and linked in another.
You would have to support your claim that I am "lusty". I'm not.
Does not answer the question, (there's nothing new). Let's try again:
"..justify how that fool, the dangerous fool that is oblivious to them being a fool, is not you. (No, this is not an insult, it's a valid question). If they're "oblivious", how would you determine that it isn't you?"
You would 'think' you're not a fool because you have feelings towards certain things but would still be oblivious if you are still actually a fool and thus couldn't ever say you're not a fool.
I see, so the world are all living "under the notion that god doesn't exist" if an on the basis that it doesn't agree with your version?
So that's a no..?
Why exactly? Better for his creation, the creation he loves so much to live uncomfortably while he owns a "palace" he doesn't need?
Why exactly? Better for his creation, the creation he loves so much to go hungry while he owns food that he doesn't need to eat? (And no, don't say "oh I'm sure you have enough food" - it's irrelevant. That one piece of chicken, that one leg of lamb can help save a childs life - a child forced to live in a place where there's no water and where nothing lives all because this same being created that place to be that way.
The amount of sacrificed animals, "palaces" and "money" could have saved the whole of Africa tenfold. Why, how many lives, human lives would the vatican save? But noooooo, instead give it to a being that has absolutely no bloody use for it. Now sure, humans often buy things when they have no "need", but that can not rival the lack of "need" on the part of an omnipotent, omniscient being.
How many lives have been lost because of money given to a sky being that doesn't need it? Why, at least 10 African children have died in the time it took me to write this part of my post. Forget them right? They're just stinky mucus bags after all.
While you would have to support any claim that it is even attainable, I was specifically looking for a name.
You'll undoubtedly find much debate from a christian on the subject. It is not really my position to say your belief is more pertinent, but if you are going to claim that it is, which is what you're essentially doing, then you would need to support the claim.
So then nothing is of any real worth. Let's say that over the course of the next 100 years hinduism and it's texts vanish into obscurity. If you were still alive then you'd be denouncing the very thing you currently subscribe to. You'd have to live for eternity just to be able to make good on your claim that the texts are of any value. As you can't do that, your claim falls apart.
So when I referred to "I", which clearly is my thoughts, 'me', the eternal part of me that keeps reincarnating - why did you claim it was a "mucus bag" and then adamantly kept telling me it was whether I stated otherwise or not? Can you not tell the difference between "I" and the physical body? You started this whole "mucus bag" thing because you clearly had a problem working out the difference. Bizarre.
Not entirely accurate. You asked who "I" was to which I stated "the person responding to you". You didn't ask further questions you then just lumped the "me" as being a stinky mucus bag and done with it based upon an obviously lack of observation, (namely that I said: "I dont want an eternal existence whether it's material or immaterial as long as I am me". This statement alone should show anyone that's paying attention that "I" is not a statement concerning the physical 'me'.
"The bible says it's true so it's true". That's all you're saying and yet somehow consider it of value. Further to which the "claimed" process, that you haven't even shown as being attainable, is just another claim. At the end of the day you're all claims, while trying to convince the rational and sane that those claims are valid because there is a claim to back up the claim which is supported by another claim all of which rests on the claim that it's valid because it's old and thus because people have been making claims for millennia, the claims are true. What utter f****** idiocy.
All mouth, no ears. You assign something to me and then "have a claim" that I said it lol. You and your claims, none of which to date you have even tried to support. When I ask a question you change the subject, and I just keep on asking.
Another claim, wholly unsupportable and utlimately fallacious as you'd know if you had a speck of honesty in you. I worship nothing, I've already told you that.
On the contrary. Once again: YOU define me in that way. At least finally, although clearly with lack of interest in any answer, you're actually attempting inquiry.. Of course I'm a bit worried if I do answer you'll state I have no historical continuum and then label me a mucus bag anyway lol. Now, "I" am the sum of my thoughts and feelings. That is the "I" I refer to. From your perspective they would be a part of my 'eternal soul'. I wont have the same thoughts and feelings when I'm a dog, but apparently my "eternal soul" will remember them.
Can't say I really care what you do or don't do. Now, answer the question:
"What activity is there for the senses in an immaterial/"unmanifest" existence?"
So you're claiming the robot manipulated it's own programming? How did it do such a thing?
Hard to tell with your vague pointless lines.. Was that an agreement to what I said?
You would 'claim' to know. How do you support your claim?
But you seemingly agreed, (who can tell with your vague pointless statements), that one cannot change their nature.
So "lust" is not something that the human form of life can offer? Why then refrain from it when you've just talked about appreciating what life can offer?
So does Lenny. What now?
Which... someone would only do so if it was in their nature to do.
Many people are probably aware that such things can cause trouble. It's a far cry from that to claiming elephant headed gods exist, or leprechauns, or mermaids or the boogeyman.
A) As discussed, he would only do so if it was in his nature to believe in such things.
B) You're ultimately agreeing as your statement above shows external influence - which is not "you" changing your nature, but something else hidden in the clouds.
You would be wrong on many levels - namely that the view would come before the action, (ergo it is quite natural to like vaginas which can lead to masturbation). Having a certain world view of vaginas and masturbating are genetic.
Because the gods made me a certain way.
So you're into this no sex before marriage thing?
You'll find out when you answer. As a current explanation of course I could point out your statement that you "have a claim to direct perception", which is untrue, because you refuse to make that claim. As such you were clearly lying. I have asked you a simple yes or no question that you can't answer. Your claim of claiming to have direct perception is therefore a bogus claim.
Last edited:
Snakelord
A child may have perfect teeth, but they are encouraged to clean them, otherwise their 'perfection' will be short lived
just because god doesn't have to do battle with the onslaught of ignorance and degradation at the hands of material energy (aka seeing, doing and knowing) it doesn't mean he exists like a wall flower
While contemplating the objects of the senses, a person develops attachment for them, and from such attachment lust develops, and from lust anger arises.
From anger, complete delusion arises, and from delusion bewilderment of memory. When memory is bewildered, intelligence is lost, and when intelligence is lost one falls down again into the material pool.
first establish how if you are born with nothing and you die with nothing, and in the interim period you remain completely within god's domain, how one ever came to possess something that wasn't gods?
PS - ever wondered why they say 'revealed' scripture?
I am saying that if I created a certain thing and you manipulated it to give a different result, the responsibility lies with you - similarly if we take this material world and use it in a way not recommended by god, we become responsible for that
it boils down to the nature of what we are choosing to associate with, and the decision to associate with god and things that relate to him yields results uncommon to any other object of association you could name.
“
The italics was sarcasm - the idea is that cavities are commonly held as affecting the perfect teeth, and what contributes in probably 80% of all cases for them being pulled out, and why people most commonly visit dentists.
A child may have perfect teeth, but they are encouraged to clean them, otherwise their 'perfection' will be short lived
they display heartfelt ownership over things that are not theirs, beginning with the mucus bag actually
actually you are displaying envy of god by interpreting scripture in a way to say that god doesn't have a sense of self - and in the same breath saying "but I sure do"
just because god doesn't have to do battle with the onslaught of ignorance and degradation at the hands of material energy (aka seeing, doing and knowing) it doesn't mean he exists like a wall flower
I didn't say I didn't want to inhabit a body, but I did make it quite clear that the material world isn't the best atmosphere to exhibit such a desire
sickness, old age and disease?
actually the complete picture is this
While contemplating the objects of the senses, a person develops attachment for them, and from such attachment lust develops, and from lust anger arises.
From anger, complete delusion arises, and from delusion bewilderment of memory. When memory is bewildered, intelligence is lost, and when intelligence is lost one falls down again into the material pool.
given your previous statements about the godlike nature of women's genitals, it seems you are also delusional too
in short, between fools, there are those that are eager to enter more regularly into the arena of foolishness and those that have some reluctance to do so, but once having entered the arena of foolishness, one is a fool regardless
more specifically if they don't agree with the description offered in scripture and the philosophical ramifications of such descriptions
no - its not
first establish how if you are born with nothing and you die with nothing, and in the interim period you remain completely within god's domain, how one ever came to possess something that wasn't gods?
no you miss the point - if one doesn't use the opulences given to one by god for god's service, one has the tendency to act sinfully (lust, wrath, envy etc) - one can still live comfortably
god is not a greedy fellow - you can offer whatever you are about to eat - the point is that even eating can be used as an opportunity to remember god - it can also be used as an opportunity to forget god too
the real lack in this world is god consciousness - at the very least it is obvious to persons working in the field of social work that solving issues of poverty is not as simple as dumping a load of money on the shores of foreign countries since many of the problems exist due to the economic policies of the persons being charitable
are you talking about NASA's budget?
actually they tend to suffer because of the economic policies by persons both in their country and in the super powers abroad who are dedicated to maing their mucus bag existence as grand as possible
quite simply, if a religion cannot bring one to the point of being free from sin it is not as effective as a religion that can - not to say that christianity is good or bad, but if its the conclusion of a practicing christian that it is impossible to refrain from sin, even in the perfectional stage of their practice, then their knowledge is imperfect because their behavior is imperfect
ok - but in the meantime there is a historical continuum
because you started out by deriding the notion of eternal existence, which means you must be identifying with the next thing down the scale
certainly
given that your whole notion of "me" expires when they place you in the crematorium or scrape you off the bitumen into the body bag, your point is ....?
more correctly, scripture says that if you worship god giving up the vices of sinful life, such worship will result in the direct perception of god - and further more this notion is corroborated by a whole host of saintly persons who have applied this principle
how can you illustrate something that is attainable to a person who is violating what attainment requires?
now you even have the vocabulary of a high school drop out
so far you have said you worship vaginas, you worship your daughter (BTW which tend to be a natural result of worshipping vaginas) and also that you worship nothing - do you want to go for a fourth answer?
quit waffling and answer the challenge, since it doesn't require a historical continuum outside of your own awareness
as long as the manifest remains unmanifest, there is none -
PS - ever wondered why they say 'revealed' scripture?
No
I am saying that if I created a certain thing and you manipulated it to give a different result, the responsibility lies with you - similarly if we take this material world and use it in a way not recommended by god, we become responsible for that
obviously a person in the grips of illusion doesn't get out of illusion by their own strength - your rant seemed to illustrate the futility of such an endeavour so I trust I don't have to elaborate on it.
well to slip in with an analogy, how do you propose that a highschool student (ie person bereft of relevant qualifications in the field) knows whether a physics teacher (ie person with relevant qualifications in the field) is bonafide?
one cannot change one's own nature by the power of one's nature (obviously)- one can however change one's nature by receiving the mercy of god and saintly persons, since they are situated superiorly to one's mundane nature
certainly
by cultivating lust one misses out on what the human form of life has to offer - much like by cultivating a life of criminality one runs the risk on missing out on what life outside of jail has to offer - just because you have the ability to perform crimes and go to jail, doesn't mean you should necessarily be a criminal, even if you are one of those strange artist types who feel its not proper to eulogize pain unless one has been gored by a bull
If I wasn't wary of you simply parroting my conclusions I could ask you to elaborate on what and how those changes of nature actually are.
no
it boils down to the nature of what we are choosing to associate with, and the decision to associate with god and things that relate to him yields results uncommon to any other object of association you could name.
overcoming lust inc. however is the prerequisite for validating anything spiritual
if he makes the decision to pray to god with sincerity, he can change his nature
if he makes the decision to pray to god with sincerity, he can change his nature
after 20 years of such activity, they have certainly developed a world view that wasn't prevalent 19 years and 363 days ago
“
the next question is whether god was duty bound to dress you up in illusion due to your previous desires
you can get married after you have sex, but the marriage is merely a formality
the reason why its pointless to give an answer is the same reason it is a waste of time to discuss the points of realization/value when the learning curve hasn't even entered into practice because it got derailed at theory
Nice excuse.
This would clearly not apply to the worlds atheists, agnostics and those under the impression that the gods 'gave' these things to man. What you're saying therefore is that any theist that displays heartfelt ownership envies god.
Your statement is nonsensical. I am an atheist, by dint of that fact I do not envy that which does not exist. As for my statement, it was humour that shows a being that knows everything has nothing to know, a being that is everywhere has nowhere to go etc etc. What exactly in that statement do you disagree with and why?
Yes you did, I already pointed out where.
You're a quick one to change tact. You mentioned sex and intoxication.. no? In saying you should be quite aware of what I was talking about.
You missed out the words "might" or "can" or "possibly".
The delusion is all yours. Enjoying/liking something is a far step from lust. Figure that out then get back to me.
For the fifth time, not an answer to the question: How do you know you're not a fool when you'd be oblivious to if you are a fool?
So we've gone from buildings and McDonalds to scripture. So, given that the mass majority of people on the planet are theists and do agree with scripture how can you state that we're "under the notion that god doesn't exist"?
Why then are you giving things to god when they're already his and thus you wouldn't need to give them to him?
Clearly you're missing the point. There are many people that are not living comfortably and could be if that money and property was not given to a being that has absolutely no use for it.
And yet people are starving to death because your god wants stuff that he doesn't need.
"That one piece of chicken, that one leg of lamb can help save a childs life - a child forced to live in a place where there's no water and where nothing lives all because this same being created that place to be that way."
Quite irrelevant to the point.
No, I'm talking about wasting that which could be given to the poor on a being that is omnipotent and has no use for food/houses etc. NASA are actually important to mankinds future.
This shows your true nature. You blame man for not giving god enough and then when I ask why not give it to humans because god doesn't need it, you blame humans. Why does god need it?
While some might claim they are free from sin, who is?
Right, and how far back must that historical continuum go?
The relevance? Wait, here's where you state that thoughts are material?
Have you attained direct perception of these gods? Uh uh.. before you just shoot off an irrelevant statement that doesn't even attempt to answer the question I want you to stop and think. Give it some serious thought before replying..
Now, If you haven't attained direct perception of these gods you've got absolutely nothing of worth to say. You might as well be given me the 'truth' as Lord of the Rings sees it because you cannot justify any of the claims made. The only way anything you say can be of any value is if you have direct perception of these gods. Do you? I've tried over what, 10 posts? to get you to answer but you refuse. The reason you refuse is because the answer is clearly no.
If you say so. Once done with that nonsense, did you agree or disagree with what was said?
Yet another lie.
I said if anything I would worship my children, but I'm not the kinda guy to 'worship' things. You really need to pay attention.
Do you want to imagine one up for me?
Well, the day you answer so much as one of my questions I'll consider it.
Yeah, so you created robots and then those robots reprogrammed themselves.
One can start knocking on wood. There's many others.
So you claim to have completely overcome lust?
Yeah and their fingers have grown, feet have grown, their hair has changed etc etc what was your point? The world view comes before the action.
Duty bound heh?
Once you're done with the waffling :bugeye: ... The above isn't of any relevance to the question and nor does it prohibit an answer. Do you have direct perception of gods? (The answer is blatantly obvious given all your diversionary tactics).
Snakelord
God doesn't need us to worship him
Humans however need to worship god to refrain from sin (and performance of sin leads to a whole variety of social inebriates)
SB 6.2.35: I am such a sinful person, but since I have now gotten this opportunity, I must completely control my mind, life and senses and always engage in devotional service so that I may not fall again into the deep darkness and ignorance of material life.
better than asserting one's direct perception of god is asserting the process through scripture- after all, even if I say no I could be lying, and if I say yes, it doesn't benefit the discussion in the slightest
still it remains that they display a heartfelt sense of possession over things that are not theirs (born with nothing and dies with nothing), even if their conceptions on who actually owns them are somewhat clouded
as already indicated, disempowering a personality of their very nature of self by interpreting the very means that clearly establishes their sense of self is envy - maintaining the stance of god's nonexistence is distinct from rationalizing scripture to establish the nature of god's existence
you mean a quote given in the context of material bodies?
you (or anyone else you can name in the history of conditioned souls) have never experienced attachment, lust or anger?
I think most persons would agree that establishing practically any particular set of women's genitals on the platform of worship and constant meditation is a sign of lust - if you can't figure that out, get back to your shrink
as indicated with the 'arena of foolishness' thing
if you feel more inclined to fulfill the needs of the body rather than the needs of the soul, it indicates where one stands in regard to god, regardless of what one may clamour about in the name of religion
giving acknowledges the fact, and when done in the right mood becomes an act of love - parents act in the same way when they give their young children $10 to buy a gift for the parents birthday
many people are living in uncomfortable positions due to others using their acquired opulences in irreligious ways
commonly people starve due to the greediness of their fellow humans
actually its essential, since irreligious life results in sin and the withdrawal of material necessities is one such reaction of sin
NASA helps feed the hungry in Africa?
You miss the point
God doesn't need us to worship him
Humans however need to worship god to refrain from sin (and performance of sin leads to a whole variety of social inebriates)
a person who has control over their senses and worships god
SB 6.2.35: I am such a sinful person, but since I have now gotten this opportunity, I must completely control my mind, life and senses and always engage in devotional service so that I may not fall again into the deep darkness and ignorance of material life.
the longer the better
out of curiosity, how would you know if I was lying or not?
lol
better than asserting one's direct perception of god is asserting the process through scripture- after all, even if I say no I could be lying, and if I say yes, it doesn't benefit the discussion in the slightest
"godlike vagina" doesn't have connotations of worship?
then you should be a bit more selective with your vocabulary
I am sure if we drag this on long enough you will let slip with another
No - reread the statement
again, how would you know if I am lying or not?
as a person apparently working in the field of mental health, if you cannot understand how exposure to habit and environment affects a person you had better cash in your diploma
what you ask for is what you get
God defines what is moral/ethical.
Hence, whatever God does is ethical.
Hence, whatever God does is ethical.
Once again: by virtue of having no belief in gods, an atheist does not envy gods. Who owns what is irrelevant to that.
There must be many. You indeed stated that removing lust was the way to get direct perception of gods. If nobody has got rid of lust then nobody has had direct perception of gods and thus any claim stating they have is a lie.
However, your question was, once more, kind of irrelevant to what was being said - namely that lust might lead to anger/stalking/murder etc etc, not that it does. In saying, lust in itself is not a problem, the possible outcome is. It's really quite simple to grasp LG, and I sit here amazed that you find it more pertinent to sidestep the actual issue.
Right, but the day you decide to be honest and awake you'll notice that I have already stated that I do not "worship" anything, nor is there any indication of "constant meditation".
Further more, what you're saying now is that all practicing theists suffer from lust, (they engage in rigid worship and meditation). Now I'll watch you once again do an about turn and argue against your own claims.
Which.. was not an answer. Try again, don't try again, or continue with irrelevancy. Whatever.
Right. So we've now gone from buildings to scripture to needs of the body. None of the following indicate that we are living "under the notion that god doesn't exist". The simple fact that the mass majority of people believe a god does exist destroys your claim instantly. Just accept your error and move on.
1) But there's nothing to give, it's already his. To use your analogy, that's like giving your child $10 when it was his anyway.
2) Seems your gods are as caught up with the material as much as humans are. If you want to 'give' your gods something why would you espouse that you give them money, houses, and food? It's all material crap. Wouldn't it seem more pertinent to state that your gods would want immaterial things, or the feelings in your 'soul'? Kindly justify why a god would want money/houses and food, (the material), when he not only owns it already but would surely be much more interested in the immaterial?
Certainly, along with people living in uncomfortable positions due to others and gods using these things in religious ways.
You stated that food etc should be given to your gods, (as it often is.. somehow.. maybe he sends an angel to come down and pick it up). That food/money etc could be used to help and save the starving but your god demands it instead and you religious fools help people to starve by giving it to that being. Some people certainly starve due to human greed, but that is not what we're talking about here - kindly stop trying to descend into irrelevancy.
No, it's not relevant to the discussion. Once again: "I'm talking about wasting that which could be given to the poor on a being that is omnipotent and has no use for food/houses etc"
You either don't know how to debate or can only debate dishonestly.
No, you miss the point. Point shown on last quote.
We've discussed this now for a while.
1) You claim that people can get free from sin. I have argued from the christian standpoint that nobody is free from sin and that it is indeed unattainable, (except for jesus who of course had the benefit of being god/the offspring of god).
2) You stated that 'lust' is a sin. I asked you many times if you were sure of this - asking "isn't the murder the sin instead of the knife".
3) On your latest post you go on to imply that nobody on this earth is lust free.
4) Given that lust is a sin and nobody is free from lust... Nobody is sinless and thus all your statements invariably go down the shitter.
Why?
People give away a lot more than they think with the words they use and the style they write with. Your continual avoidance actually says a lot more about you than you would probably like it to. Such is the way of the world LG. However, if it makes you feel happier I'll just say I wouldn't know if you're lying or not.. So, now answer the question.
But it does. You see, once answered the cracks in the story are easy enough to find.
1) You claim that to gain direct perception one must be free from sin/lust etc.
2) Any statement made by you that shows you have sin or lust would show you're either a liar and don't have direct perception or that your claims were incorrect. From there we would move on to other avenues of exploration using claims made in your scripture and so on.
3) If it is established that you don't actually have direct perception of gods, then anything and everything you say here is valueless. Every statement you've ever made concerning the gods is pointless and without any worth whatsoever. It would at best be 'your imagination' and nothing else - and you could not argue that because you don't have direct perception.
4) As stated, there will be indications as to the honesty or dishonesty of your statements within your posts. It's not that hard to work out whether someone is lying or telling the truth.
5) Answer the question, it's just a yes or no.
Possibly. Of course I notice you've put it in speech marks so I am under the impression that you're now claiming it's a statement I made. I would urge you to point it out or apologise for your error.
You'll find I did make a comparison between your gods and my imaginary gods concerning the human body. Yours apparently view it as a "stinky mucus bag", I said mine view it as a 'work of art'. Nothing in that statement implies that I 'worship vaginas'.
Figure it out.
Perhaps, or perhaps (and more likely) you should pay better attention or learn to read.
I did. You stated that if you create something, (god in the analogy), and I mess around with it, (the robot) then it's my fault. So basically what you're saying is that you made me, (the robot), and I reprogrammed myself against your will.
That's like trying to explain electrons to a high school dropout. Just understand that I am qualified, you are not. I would know. So.. answer the question. It's just a yes or no answer.
"Do you claim to have completely overcome lust?"
They most certainly do, (dependant upon your nature you'll be affected in different ways), but the action is what culminates in the world view. One might hang around with people that smoke dope, and thus end up smoking dope himself, (the action). He will then adopt the world view that dop smoking should be legal etc etc etc.
Where's that gazillion pounds I asked for? Shoo flea.
kerux
Registered Senior Member
Isaiah 45:7
You see the Biblical God works with evil well?
And your questions,
Is God evil? NO
Does he create/work with evil? NO
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
THE QUESTIONS for ANALYSIS OF YOUR MIND follow:
1. WHAT LIGHT IS FORMED BY THE LORD?
2. WHAT DARKNESS IS CREATED BY THE LORD?
3. WHAT PEACE IS MADE BY THE LORD?
4. WHAT EVIL IS CREATED BY THE LORD?
You see the Biblical God works with evil well?
And your questions,
Is God evil? NO
Does he create/work with evil? NO
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
THE QUESTIONS for ANALYSIS OF YOUR MIND follow:
1. WHAT LIGHT IS FORMED BY THE LORD?
2. WHAT DARKNESS IS CREATED BY THE LORD?
3. WHAT PEACE IS MADE BY THE LORD?
4. WHAT EVIL IS CREATED BY THE LORD?
Snakelord
lust has many outcomes - obviously the explicitly criminal is the gross outcome
(BTW this is a lead in to the notion that better than sacrifice of material possessions is sacrifice performed in knowledge)
BG 4.32: All these different types of sacrifice are approved by the Vedas, and all of them are born of different types of work. Knowing them as such, you will become liberated.
BG 4.33: O chastiser of the enemy, the sacrifice performed in knowledge is better than the mere sacrifice of material possessions. After all, O son of Pṛthā, all sacrifices of work culminate in transcendental knowledge.
BG 3.9: Work done as a sacrifice for Viṣṇu has to be performed, otherwise work causes bondage in this material world. Therefore, O son of Kuntī, perform your prescribed duties for His satisfaction, and in that way you will always remain free from bondage.
there are many temples in India that feed hundreds of thousands of people every week for free or at a price close to free
who will decide these things?
(after all, regardless whether I answer yes or no, it doesn't appear you can determine if I am lying or not - of course you can say if you are lusty than you don't know, but then you indicate that one can ogle vaginas and not be lusty - so we are back at semantics)
then the issue is why does the conditioned living entity display such a strong sense of attachment to the ephemeral, even at the point of death ....
hence my emphasis on the word "conditioned"
lust has many outcomes - obviously the explicitly criminal is the gross outcome
there is the mention of the words "godlike" and "my god" in reference to womens genitals however
a practicing theist comprehends the implications of lust - a perfected theist is free from the influence of lust
once again - people clamour about so many things - actions speak louder than words
thats right - ultimately there is nothing to give since it belongs to god - there is however the act of being conscious of what is ultimately god's property however
and if all that one's consciousness can comprehend is the "material crap" what do you propose that an aspiring theist offer?
(BTW this is a lead in to the notion that better than sacrifice of material possessions is sacrifice performed in knowledge)
BG 4.32: All these different types of sacrifice are approved by the Vedas, and all of them are born of different types of work. Knowing them as such, you will become liberated.
BG 4.33: O chastiser of the enemy, the sacrifice performed in knowledge is better than the mere sacrifice of material possessions. After all, O son of Pṛthā, all sacrifices of work culminate in transcendental knowledge.
its not that god benefits from our acts of sacrifice - we do
BG 3.9: Work done as a sacrifice for Viṣṇu has to be performed, otherwise work causes bondage in this material world. Therefore, O son of Kuntī, perform your prescribed duties for His satisfaction, and in that way you will always remain free from bondage.
hence my earlier point about clamouring "I believe in god" having certain ramifications in every day life in order to be more than mere clamouring.
obviously you have never heard of the concept of prasadam
there are many temples in India that feed hundreds of thousands of people every week for free or at a price close to free
Your trip is about how organized religion has no right to request money since it apparently contradicts the notion that god exists - the connection between your premises and conclusion seems to be still under construction - if you want to move on to something different from "$=human benefit" be my guest
still amongst christians you find those that are indifferent to sin and simply go to church every weekend as if thats a solution to the issue and those that have taken successive steps in their life to refrain from gross displays of lust, anger etc - these two are worlds apart
you dress "knife" up as lust - I dress "murder" up as lust
who will decide these things?
correct, but the influence of lust can be curtailed by developing a higher taste
in short - desire applied to the material = lust ..... and desire applied to the spiritual = love ...... its not possible to give up desire, yet the object of desire can be negotiated to give results as disparate as lead and gold
if you kept your toothbrush in a red cup for 20 years and kept your soap in a blue cup for 20 seconds, you would tend to rely on your toothbrush being in a red cup moreso than your soap being in a blue cup in anticipation of the future
actually the reason I ask is because its not even clear that we use words (for a start your whole "godlike vagina" trip doesn't sit to well with "I am not lusty") with the same understanding - it was an opportunity, much like the "have you seen god" thing, for you to justify the truth or falsity when inspecting claims
hence my request for you to clear up the terminology as above mentioned
and how do you propose that be established?
(after all, regardless whether I answer yes or no, it doesn't appear you can determine if I am lying or not - of course you can say if you are lusty than you don't know, but then you indicate that one can ogle vaginas and not be lusty - so we are back at semantics)
As opposed to what?
And.. the criminal outcome is the 'sin' right, and not lust that might lead to that criminal outcome?
But clearly they are not given your statement concerning what lust is, (worship and constant meditation).
People clamouring is entirely irrelevant to 'living under the notion that god does not exist'. Accept your error and move on.
There you go then.
The immaterial.. no? You should know this, you're the theist with the apparent expertise on the immaterial.
So.. he doesn't want it?
I have no care for hindu crap to be honest.
So... people feed other people? As such it's irrelevant.
Fucking hell LG you've lost the plot.
So.. murder is actually the sin, you just want to change the meaning and definition of murder to suit your own nonsense. Interesting.
---
1) I stated that nobody on earth is free from lust. You said: "correct". You have also said that one must be free from sin to gain direct perception and you have said that lust is a sin.
Having said all that the only supportable statement that can be made is that nobody has direct perception of god/s. Having said that, everything you say is completely without any worth whatsoever.
2) Considering you are not free from lust, and thus are a sinner and thus have no direct perception of gods then what can anyone possibly gain from listening to you?
3) Why are you a failure? You have this adamant belief in your multitude of weird gods and would never doubt their existence and yet seemingly cannot follow their orders. Why do you have sin? Why do you fail your gods? Are you not good enough to do as your gods ask? Have they asked too much from you or are you just lazy? Is LG a gross materialist?
So, to stick to the discussion, because the Epic of Gilgamesh predates all other known text it is the most reliable?
I'd agree if you could show me anywhere where I said "godlike vagina". Wakey wakey.
I've explained already, you're simply stalling. Yes or no LG?
You're being childish. That's all that irritates me.
Then we need to look at nature. If for instance I created a robot with free will - but it seemed to always choose murder as it's first option then it comes down to more than "free will". I would have to look deep into the programming to find out where I had put the chip that governed the choices that were made.
From a biblical persepective, everything has without fail gone against god - including most of his angels who are above human beings. The question is why.. Is it because:
A) Purely out of coincidence, and for no apparent reason, these beings decided to be bad
B) It was an integral part of their design. They couldn't help but do bad things
C) They realised god's an asshole and wanted nothing to do with him.
It got to the stage where god had to kill every single living thing on the planet save for one dude and his family. Given statistical likelihood, it doesn't stand to reason that all these people, (including the 1 month olds), just chose to be bad. What is more likely is that they could not help it.
We must also look further into moral evolution. If we look back in the day god was killing people that dared ask for food. He ordered mankind to stone naughty kids and prostitutes to death and so on. Our morality has clearly outgrown his. Surely we're all in for a beating for ignoring these laws, for considering our sense of morals as superior, but that is not a "choice". I cannot help but consider the stoning to death of anyone, let alone a child as immoral whether god told me to do it or not. For that I might burn, but it was never a choice.
Last edited:
*************
M*W: Terra, welcome to sciforums. Where did you get this piece of information? The "slaves" you refer to were called the Habiru who were Egyptian. The Habiru, also spelled Hapiru and Abiru, were the forerunners of the Hebrews, but they weren't slaves. The people who wrote the first five books of the OT called themselves slaves, but they weren't working for anyone but themselves. As compared to Egyptian Royalty, of which Moses was a Pharaoh, the Habiru were shepherds. Therefore, the term "slaves" is mistranslated. Shepherds compared to royalty, however, was a lower eschalon in Egyptian society, but they were not "slaves."
That "merciful god" to which you refer was the sun god Aten whom the Habiru worshipped right along with Egyptian royalty as commanded by Akhenaten (Moses). This is the main reason he was run out of town. Although he kept running, back and forth, there was no official Exodus. The Exodus has been studied for about 4,000 years and absolutely nothing has been found to prove the Exodus occurred. The Habiru wandered toward Canaan and intermarried with the Canaanites. By the time they left Canaan for what is now Israel, their name evolved to the monotheistic "Hebrews." However, "monotheism" as we know it, developed down in Egypt and worshipped the sun god Aten, and not the patriarchal god of the OT.
Snakelord
(hint)
BG 9.27: Whatever you do, whatever you eat, whatever you offer or give away, and whatever austerities you perform — do that, O son of Kuntī, as an offering to Me.
BG 9.28: In this way you will be freed from bondage to work and its auspicious and inauspicious results. With your mind fixed on Me in this principle of renunciation, you will be liberated and come to Me.
me - “commonly people starve due to the greediness of their fellow humans
”
you - "You stated that food etc should be given to your gods, (as it often is.. somehow.. maybe he sends an angel to come down and pick it up). That food/money etc could be used to help and save the starving but your god demands it instead and you religious fools help people to starve by giving it to that being."
do you understand how offering foodstuffs to god doesn't result in starvation or do you wish to move on to more pertinent queries?
you miss the point
you talk about the knife in your analogy as representing lust and I talk murder up in the analogy as representing lust - if we want to make any further progress in discussing the analogy this difference has to be addressed - thus it gets back to "who will decide these things?"
anyway just provide the quote I apparently gave and we will clear everything up
BG 3.36: Arjuna said: O descendant of Vṛṣṇi, by what is one impelled to sinful acts, even unwillingly, as if engaged by force?
BG 3.37: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: It is lust only, Arjuna, which is born of contact with the material mode of passion and later transformed into wrath, and which is the all-devouring sinful enemy of this world.
BG 2.62: While contemplating the objects of the senses, a person develops attachment for them, and from such attachment lust develops, and from lust anger arises.
BG 2.63: From anger, complete delusion arises, and from delusion bewilderment of memory. When memory is bewildered, intelligence is lost, and when intelligence is lost one falls down again into the material pool.
why people find it incredibly easy in spiritual life is also explained
BG 2.59: The embodied soul may be restricted from sense enjoyment, though the taste for sense objects remains. But, ceasing such engagements by experiencing a higher taste, he is fixed in consciousness.
BG 6.20-23: In the stage of perfection called trance, or samādhi, one's mind is completely restrained from material mental activities by practice of yoga. This perfection is characterized by one's ability to see the self by the pure mind and to relish and rejoice in the self. In that joyous state, one is situated in boundless transcendental happiness, realized through transcendental senses. Established thus, one never departs from the truth, and upon gaining this he thinks there is no greater gain. Being situated in such a position, one is never shaken, even in the midst of greatest difficulty. This indeed is actual freedom from all miseries arising from material contact.
because it doesn't have an unbroken historical continuum (it is merely an object from history, as opposed to an object that has an accompanying historical continuum of normative behaviour)
so now you are departing from your reference that the vagina is the greatest thing in god's creation?
"My gods are different... Just spend 10 seconds looking at a vagina and you'll see that the human body is a work of art. It should be shown off with all it's apparent smelliness - smells that we should truly love given that they were created by the perfect gods."
what now?
not displaying such a strong sense of attachment for the ephemeral since everyone is born with nothing and dies with nothing since time immemorial
basically there are sins of the mind, sins of one's speech and sins of one's acts - and lust has all three bases covered
pardon me?
it certainly does illustrate something - a criminal is often revealed to be a criminal not by their words ("I'm innocent your honour") but their acts
it doesn't explain why someone is holding onto something however
you miss my point - if you want to advocate that there is no need to give the "material" and if an aspiring theist is only familiar with the "material", what do you propose that the theist offers?
(hint)
BG 9.27: Whatever you do, whatever you eat, whatever you offer or give away, and whatever austerities you perform — do that, O son of Kuntī, as an offering to Me.
BG 9.28: In this way you will be freed from bondage to work and its auspicious and inauspicious results. With your mind fixed on Me in this principle of renunciation, you will be liberated and come to Me.
more specifically he wants that we don't suffer unnecessarily by trying to exploit the resources of his inferior energy
then perhaps you shouldn't have attempted to venture into an intelligent discussion about what sacrifice to god entails, particularly the offering of foodstuffs
perhaps slightly less irrelevant than your inquiry into the subject
me - “commonly people starve due to the greediness of their fellow humans
”
you - "You stated that food etc should be given to your gods, (as it often is.. somehow.. maybe he sends an angel to come down and pick it up). That food/money etc could be used to help and save the starving but your god demands it instead and you religious fools help people to starve by giving it to that being."
do you understand how offering foodstuffs to god doesn't result in starvation or do you wish to move on to more pertinent queries?
I am just trying to help you form a coherent argument
no
you miss the point
you talk about the knife in your analogy as representing lust and I talk murder up in the analogy as representing lust - if we want to make any further progress in discussing the analogy this difference has to be addressed - thus it gets back to "who will decide these things?"
I don't recall making such a reference - at a guess you are taking something I said in reference to a conditioned soul out of context - a conditioned soul must experience lust, and a conditioned soul is disqualified from gaining direct perception of god
anyway just provide the quote I apparently gave and we will clear everything up
therefore I speak in reference to scripture ... much like many persons on this site speak on all things from ancient civilizations and prehistory to supernovas and dna splitting yet not having any direct perception (or even credible academic qualifications0 in the said fields
does this sound familiar?
BG 3.36: Arjuna said: O descendant of Vṛṣṇi, by what is one impelled to sinful acts, even unwillingly, as if engaged by force?
BG 3.37: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: It is lust only, Arjuna, which is born of contact with the material mode of passion and later transformed into wrath, and which is the all-devouring sinful enemy of this world.
why people in general find great difficulty in spiritual life is also explained in further detail
BG 2.62: While contemplating the objects of the senses, a person develops attachment for them, and from such attachment lust develops, and from lust anger arises.
BG 2.63: From anger, complete delusion arises, and from delusion bewilderment of memory. When memory is bewildered, intelligence is lost, and when intelligence is lost one falls down again into the material pool.
why people find it incredibly easy in spiritual life is also explained
BG 2.59: The embodied soul may be restricted from sense enjoyment, though the taste for sense objects remains. But, ceasing such engagements by experiencing a higher taste, he is fixed in consciousness.
BG 6.20-23: In the stage of perfection called trance, or samādhi, one's mind is completely restrained from material mental activities by practice of yoga. This perfection is characterized by one's ability to see the self by the pure mind and to relish and rejoice in the self. In that joyous state, one is situated in boundless transcendental happiness, realized through transcendental senses. Established thus, one never departs from the truth, and upon gaining this he thinks there is no greater gain. Being situated in such a position, one is never shaken, even in the midst of greatest difficulty. This indeed is actual freedom from all miseries arising from material contact.
no
because it doesn't have an unbroken historical continuum (it is merely an object from history, as opposed to an object that has an accompanying historical continuum of normative behaviour)
so now you are departing from your reference that the vagina is the greatest thing in god's creation?
"My gods are different... Just spend 10 seconds looking at a vagina and you'll see that the human body is a work of art. It should be shown off with all it's apparent smelliness - smells that we should truly love given that they were created by the perfect gods."
what now?
so you can talk about having failed to properly establish free will but what if it is properly established (and what if a majority of souls/robots aren't criminally inclined)?
to say the least, the bible doesn't have clear indications on what is the position of angels - for instance in the vedas there are descriptions of pious personalities still within the grip of material nature who fit descriptions of angels - attaining the eternal abode is something distinct from an elevated material heaven of piety - and besides ll this there are clear indications in the vedas that only a minority of all living entities make their way to the material world
And what problem exactly comes from enjoying temporary things during your temporary mortal existence? Are you espousing that one should not like food because it's temporary and part of a temporary existence? If so, why bother feeding the starving? Surely it's better to just let them die and move on to a permanent spiritual existence? By eating you are delaying meeting your gods. Why do that?
Right so... once again... lust might lead to sins of the mind, speech and acts but isn't actually a sin in and of itself? If you claim it is, then you'd have to show how - but not on the basis that lust might lead to criminal activity - because anything can do that. You need to show how lust in itself is criminal.
You're pardoned.
You claimed that I had lust and stated that I had lust because I "worshipped and meditated constantly". In saying, every single practicing theist has lust, just for something different - because they worship and meditate constantly.
Wake up.
Ok. Now, you state that we are "living under the notion that god does not exist". From this you go on to talk about actions/sins, (lust). You state that everyone has lust - showing that yes, we do live under the notion that god does not exist.... regarding everyone. In saying it also stands that nobody has direct perception of gods.
First you have to explain why it is wrong for a temporary mortal being to hold on to temporary things. What possible difference does it make?
Love is material?
Oh Kunti, (no surprise he was given that name), doesn't want us to suffer by giving us material things to surely use during our material existence?
Oh c'mon, we all know kunthead and his freaky cohorts are fictional. If you want an intelligent discussion about gods then pick real ones. Can you argue this? Didn't think so.
I have come to realise that you're not particularly bright, but do at least put some effort in. Now, you espouse that one give material things, (food/money/houses), to god. In doing so those items are taken away from those that could use them to survive and given to a being that has absolutely no need, (or want apparently), for them. You go on to say that some humans decide to give some of that food to other humans. The question here is does god take any for himself? If not, what is the value of giving when nothing is taken? It is an excercise in idiocy.
No, the knife represents that which could be used to commit a crime but isn't a crime in and of itself. Is the knife a crime? Of course not.. Can it be used to commit crimes? Certainly. Now you need to justify how lust, (that in itself doesn't do anything), is a crime on par with the murder it might lead to.
What you need to do is wake up and work out what murder is and what lust is and then work out why you cannot consider murder and lust as the same thing. You're being either dishonest or just plain fucking stupid if you think they are the same thing.
Once you're done with that, tell me.. Is the sin murder or is it lust - that in and of itself causes no harm to anyone. If you assert that lust is a sin you need to show why - without saying what sin lust might lead to.
It's on your very last post. I stated that everyone has lust, you said "correct". If you're now going to try to bring up this "conditioned souls" and.. unconditioned souls? then you need to validate one from the other.
So.. LG admits that LG is guessing because of what some book that LG can't substantiate says? (Ignore what other people do or do not do, we're not talking about them.. we're talking about you). Of what value is that to anyone?
Probably not, I don't read hindu crap. However, I am asking you. Why do you LG, have sin? Can you not follow orders?
Pay attention f00, why do you... I'm not talking people in general, I'm talking you LG. Once again:
"Why do you fail your gods? Are you not good enough to do as your gods ask? Have they asked too much from you or are you just lazy? Is LG a gross materialist?"
So.. something is only true as long as people believe it is?
Creation? Lol get real you silly boy. The vagina certainly is a wonderful thing. Now.. the rest of your point?
To continue you would have to justify your claim that free will is properly established and that the majority, (even though every single person on the planet is lusty according to you and are only here as humans/animals because they fucked up somewhere), aren't criminally inclined.
Snakelord
if all discussion on this site is from the standpoint of established bodies of knowledge, why do you insist on something different for the discussion of spiritual knowledge - its just like trying to have a discussion about advanced physics without referencing any term or discovery that has come to light in the past 250 years
but to get back on topic
if belief is evidenced by direct perception on a regular basis you have a historical continuum (as in the case of the toothbrush in the red cup thing for the past 20 years)
to begin with, getting free from the clutches of material illusion is not so simple as dying, since material desire will lead one to another material birth - in other words the problem with material desire (ie displaying a strong sense of attachment to the ephemeral) is that one must appear in the material sphere to express such desires
lust = material desire (strong attachment to the ephemeral)
on something ephemeral
hopeful such theists also have something that is not ephemeral to meditate on
please don't accuse me of being round about - after all I am just following your lead
as indicated earlier in the post, you still have a few hitches with your working definition of lust (haven't quite hooked on the 'ephemeral' quality of it - at a guess it seems you are confusing lust with desire
its not criminal to hold to things that are not one's own?
love is characterized by service, and if all one has is apparently 'material' things at one's disposal, what do you propose the aspiring theist offer with their service attitude?
using is okay - displaying a strong sense of attachment is something else
and your beloved object of meditation is more substantial, eh?
actually you haven't even offered a real argument why the BG is not real - but feel free to try again, preferably with your brain turned on this time
how upper echelon of you - lol
Do you want to discuss what prasadam is or not?
so you have to illustrate how there are examples of lust that are not sinful - kind of like trying to pass stool without passing water - good luck
you need to actually be clear with your semantic use of the word "lust" (other words you might want to examine while you are at it are "real" and "sin" too) rather than just say meaningless things
you have an opportunity to illustrate your brilliance by providing an example of lust that isn't criminal -lol
you miss the point.
if all discussion on this site is from the standpoint of established bodies of knowledge, why do you insist on something different for the discussion of spiritual knowledge - its just like trying to have a discussion about advanced physics without referencing any term or discovery that has come to light in the past 250 years
if you think either yourself or myself stand outside of people in general, you had better explain why.
not necessarily
but to get back on topic
if belief is evidenced by direct perception on a regular basis you have a historical continuum (as in the case of the toothbrush in the red cup thing for the past 20 years)
I don't know - its your fantasy buddy -lol
what do you take as evidence that it is not?
depends whether we are talking about a majority of persons in the material world or a majority of living entities in the entire creation - just like it depends whether we are talking about whether there is a majority of criminally inclined persons in jail or in society at large