28 Nov 10
Originally posted by KellyJaySeeing something created does not mean that because there a creator that
If there is the "Creator" and His "Creation" no it does not open the door for
anything else that doesn't need to be created.
Kelly
the creator needs or requires a creator. Simply apples and oranges, one does
not have the same limitations as the other just because.
Kelly
28 Nov 10
Originally posted by RevRSleekerYour exactly right.........but out of compassion, the atheist must at least be informed, to that the spiritual is credible and a reality, so much so that it is the reality of actually who they are.
Rule number one, I was always told: 'Don;t get involved with cross religious \ Darwin'istic' \ scientific rhetorical arguments'...the 'rules' were effectively written 100's of years ago, so no one will accept each others comments and just who will effectively alter one anothers convictions. The religious say, 'I have 'seen, I feel it, I am Blessed, I nee ...[text shortened]... ely to only abstractly alienate the other....OR is that just an easy way out 😛
If they keep rejecting out of madness, then what can be done, its up to them to become well....when their ready.
28 Nov 10
Originally posted by RevRSleekerMore like the rules were developed and improving over hundreds of years. It wasn't written then remain stagnant. Unlike Vishva's sources, which was apparently written trillions of years ago. 😛
Rule number one, I was always told: 'Don;t get involved with cross religious \ Darwin'istic' \ scientific rhetorical arguments'...the 'rules' were effectively written 100's of years ago, so no one will accept each others comments and just who will effectively alter one anothers convictions. The religious say, 'I have 'seen, I feel it, I am Blessed, I nee ...[text shortened]... ely to only abstractly alienate the other....OR is that just an easy way out 😛
28 Nov 10
Originally posted by lauseyDont twist words, the Vedas are eternal, and are given to mankind at the beginning of every new creation.......and they were not put into writing until about 3000 BC.
More like the rules were developed and improving over hundreds of years. It wasn't written then remain stagnant. Unlike Vishva's sources, which was apparently written trillions of years ago. 😛
Now you know!
28 Nov 10
Originally posted by vishvahetu“...and in between the matter (body) creates stuff and does stuff ...”
Matter takes birth, it grows, it reproduces, it dwindles then dies......and in between the matter (body) creates stuff and does stuff,...........none of this can happen without the spiritual soul, the living being.the life within,.... which you reject.
And why do you reject the soul........because you cant see it!
Where would science be today, if it ...[text shortened]... u could at least say, there is a God, but I dont care for God.....at least that would be honest.
where is “between the matter (body) “? are you talking about the space between the atoms?
And what are you referring to by the vague statement “ creates stuff and does stuff”?
“...none of this can happen without the spiritual soul, ...”
what do mean by “ the spiritual soul”? Do you mean a mind that believes there is a god? -if so, then I have a mind that does not believe there is a god and yet I function just like everybody else. If not, then what do you mean?
“...the living being.the life within ..”
life is not something that is “within” matter but life is made of matter ( at least life on Earth is ) .
“...And why do you reject the soul........because you cant see it! ...”
What do mean by “soul”? Do you mean “mind” or “consciousness” ? If so, then I don't “reject” it.
It is an empirical fact that I have a “mind” or “consciousness” because I see it; I see it because I have something called “self-awareness” and there is nothing mystical about that.
28 Nov 10
I think my points still stands here, going off the last post 😛
By 'rules' I meant 'engagement' rules, clearly defined demarcation zones if you like...there has to be an understanding, the difference here is that there are none...one calls another for literally 'talking Greek to me' and the other calls him 'ignorant'...each party is ignorant to the other, if that were not the case there would degrees of acceptance here. Jumping on what one views as poorly expressing their views doesn't take away from the intent. I'll leave you guys in peace now, I'm in the wrong forum...take care all, Dean.
28 Nov 10
Originally posted by RevRSleekerNope, methinks each "party" is not at all ignorant of the other; on the other hand, I assure you I never had the slightest problem with anybody who talked Greek to me😵
I think my points still stands here, going off the last post 😛
By 'rules' I meant 'engagement' rules, clearly defined demarcation zones if you like...there has to be an understanding, the difference here is that there are none...one calls another for literally 'talking Greek to me' and the other calls him 'ignorant'...each party is ignorant to the othe ...[text shortened]... tent. I'll leave you guys in peace now, I'm in the wrong forum...take care all, Dean.
29 Nov 10
Originally posted by RevRSleekerGreetings from Athens, Greece!
Greetings 'black beetle'...Tarun Ganguly has told me 'lots' about you 😉 Dean.
My Tarun is to me a teacher, Dean, our bond is strong; I see him in his lake under the cascade, his power is huge, we are both heading up the Ocean;
Namasteji
😵
29 Nov 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuThe fact that you claim it is eternal is even more ridiculous. Having said that, how are you sure that when it was written, it was noticed down correctly? Also remain accurate after thousands of years of interpretation and translation?
Dont twist words, the Vedas are eternal, and are given to mankind at the beginning of every new creation.......and they were not put into writing until about 3000 BC.
Now you know!
My point though was that you also contradicted yourself when you agreed that something isn't reliable because it was written hundreds of years ago, when your sources are much older.
29 Nov 10
Originally posted by lauseyActually I think the Vedas were written a trillion and twenty seven years ago because an expert on the Vedas told me that they were written a trillion years ago, and he told me that 27 years ago.
Unlike Vishva's sources, which was apparently written trillions of years ago.
29 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by lauseyThe Vedas are about knowledge, all kinds of knowledge, and the spiritual knowledge is eternal, because God and the living entities are eternal.
The fact that you claim it is eternal is even more ridiculous. Having said that, how are you sure that when it was written, it was noticed down correctly? Also remain accurate after thousands of years of interpretation and translation?
My point though was that you also contradicted yourself when you agreed that something isn't reliable because it was written hundreds of years ago, when your sources are much older.
The material creation goes through cycles of annihilation and creation eternally, so at the beginning of this particular creation, the Vedas where given to mankind, just like they have been given to mankind trillions of times before.
The spiritual knowledge of the Vedas are absolute, because the circumstances of this creation are always the same, like every other creation in the past.
What are those circumstances, well we always suffer, and must endure birth, disease, old age and death, and spiritual knowledge always offers the person the way to end this cycle.....so the spiritual message is always the same without any change.
Persons who under illusion and dont accept the authority of the Vedas, know nothing of their eternal past, and think that this is the first time that life has appeared, but this is false, and we have been existing for eternity, and this world is just one more creation for us to do all over again.