17 Jan 11
Originally posted by FMFMore word games .......bringing up ego and vanity.
More vanity. And yet you won't discuss its role in your belief system.
You are the one playing with words. I am the one confronting you with your misuse of language.
You need to address the barrier that you created with these words...
[b]"Forget belief systems. What I present is not my personal belief system but the truth. Persons who reject this truth ...[text shortened]... "
...before debate with you can commence.
Only your ego is preventing it, it seems.[/b]
Your just itching to start a war of words., for you self amusement
Still dont know what you stand for.....let me guess, Jesus is the only way, so lets go kill an animal and cook it up to celebrate Jesus.....or
Life is an accident without intelligence at its foundation.
What falsity do you subscribe to?
17 Jan 11
Originally posted by vishvahetuDoes your concern for the death of living things include the plants that have to die when you eat them ?
More word games .......bringing up ego and vanity.
Your just itching to start a war of words., for you self amusement
Still dont know what you stand for.....let me guess, Jesus is the only way, so lets go kill an animal and cook it up to celebrate Jesus.....or
Life is an accident without intelligence at its foundation.
What falsity do you subscribe to?
What about the microscopic lives which die in your digestive system when you drink a cup of water ? Are their lives sacred too ?
Are the micro organisms in your water beings in the cycle of rebirth ?
17 Jan 11
Originally posted by jaywillI have said previously.....
Does your concern for the death of living things include the plants that have to die when you eat them ?
What about the microscopic lives which die in your digestive system when you drink a cup of water ? Are their lives sacred too ?
Are the micro organisms in your water beings in the cycle of rebirth ?
1. I have no concern for the death of anything, because have I not said that all bodies are made of dust and the soul is indestructible.
Bhagavad Gita Chpt2 v17 "That which pervades the entire body you should know to be indestructible. No one is able to destroy the imperishable soul"
2. All life is just a soul inhabiting a material body for a short time.
3. Yes when you exist, you inadvertently kill microbes.....but this is not sinfull. ( the soul is unaffected )
3. Gods perfect plan is to give man fruits grains etc for food and there is no sin in collecting these......but spiritual teaching instructs us to offer all foods to the Lord before consumption in sacrifice for purification.
4. Foods not offered in sacrifice to the Lord will incur karma.
The Lord says BG Cht 9 v26 " If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf; a flower; a fruit or water; I will accept it"
17 Jan 11
3 edits
Originally posted by vishvahetuI thought your were concerned for the death of living things because you voice your outrage at the "slaughter" of cattle.
I have said previously.....
1. I have no concern for the death of anything, because have I not said that all bodies are made of dust and the soul is indestructible.
Bhagavad Gita Chpt2 v17 "That which pervades the entire body you should know to be indestructible. No one is able to destroy the imperishable soul"
2. All life is just a soul inhabi f one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf; a flower; a fruit or water; I will accept it"
And when you talk about an indestructible soul it is impressive talk. However, in the New Testament we have a model Christ. We have an example in history. We do not simply have lofty teachings. We have Someone who was a living example of what He spoke.
This is why it is not easy to back off of our living, practical, historical example of a death overcoming man, to mere lofty speech.
Christ not only preached indestructible divine life. He demonstrated it. This you fight against and deny, saying it is the conspiracy of men.
All religions have lofty talk and idealistic thoughts. That is okay. But in Jesus Christ we have a man who lived that oneness with God and conquering of the grave.
For me to move from the New Testament to the Bhagada Gita teachings would definitely be a big step backwards. It would be a step not into the more profound but the vastly more shallow.
I do not want to move backwards. Through Jesus I have come to know God as my dear Father.
17 Jan 11
Originally posted by vishvahetu"A person is not qualified to return home back to Godhead, if they are contaminated in any way."
A person is not qualified to return home back to Godhead, if they are contaminated in any way.
That contamination runs deep into the consciousness and heart.
To remove this worldy material contamination, a person must follow the process of purification (devotional spiritual living)....and they must re-frain from sinfull thoughts, sinfull deeds, and ...[text shortened]... grace, if they are animal killers.....so first stop animal cruelty or you will never get grace.
Agreed
"All ther grace in the universe will not re-move the contamination, and to think so is fancifull. (false)"
"But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:" Rom. 5:20b
"It is true....we need the grace of God to do anything at all, but if one does not follow true religion, they will not attract the grace of God."
This is where you begin to flounder. "Grace" means unmerited favor. You keep saying one needs to "do" something. If it is by grace we are saved, then how can you say that one has to "do" something to get something that's free?
"Likewise persons who want to return back to Godhead must be pure.....and no one, or no thing can magically make someone pure."
Now we're onto something! Read this carefully. You state that one must be pure. That is true. BUT, then you say that no one and nothing can make one pure.
I suppose this is where you will say that one then must needs "do" something.
This is a self contradictory trap. If no one and nothing can make one pure, then neither you or anyone else can "make" oneself pure.
Do you see the fallacy vish?
"If God could make persons pure...he would wave his hand and make the whole world pure....but this does not happen (it can,t happen)"
If God "can't" do it then no one can! And no! God does not "wave" His hand to make one pure. This is where you completely misunderstand the Word of God. Perhaps we will get to that sometime.
"What is pure?
Pure means to have no material desire or worldly desire......and only have loving sentiments for God."
Your definition of what is pure within the context of this discussion misses the mark. We are talking about what it takes to be in the presence of God. We both agree that one must be pure. That means one must be RIGHTEOUS. That righteousness is the righteousness of God. Not our own righteousness. His righteousness.
You can't earn it! No matter what you "do" it isn't good enough because we are flawed and incapable of performing up to the standard of righteousness necessary to be in God's presence.
The only way to obtain the righteousness of God is when God Himself "imputes" that righteousness. God did the work. We can "do" only one thing, and that is to believe God.
You cannot "do" enough to be "good" enough. If you don't believe God and trust in what HE has done on your behalf you will die in your sin. You can "do" nothing in and of yourself to remove the stain of sin. You are 100%, totally, completely, absolutely DEPENDANT on God for eternal life. You cannot earn eternal life. Get that into your head.
"No person will get grace, if they are animal killers.....so first stop animal cruelty or you will never get grace."
This is silly. I love animals. I'm a farmer. I practice animal husbandry. Sometimes I must kill (euthanize). I eat meat. It's good. It's healthy. And my conscience is clear.
If you want a cause, why don't you concern yourself with the 100,000,000 million people who are starving to death each year, and the billion people who are hungry.
Meat is food. No doubt there are people dying of starvation because of the attitude you embrace.
17 Jan 11
Originally posted by vishvahetuWhat does your holy book say is the main difference between plant life and animal life other than eathing one is OK but the other is not? After all, you said that ALL life is a soul inhabiting a body, so it would then appear that plants are no different that animals. What am I missing?
I have said previously.....
1. I have no concern for the death of anything, because have I not said that all bodies are made of dust and the soul is indestructible.
Bhagavad Gita Chpt2 v17 "That which pervades the entire body you should know to be indestructible. No one is able to destroy the imperishable soul"
2. All life is just a soul inhabi ...[text shortened]... f one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf; a flower; a fruit or water; I will accept it"
17 Jan 11
===================================
"No person will get grace, if they are animal killers.....so first stop animal cruelty or you will never get grace."
=====================================
Vish, does this passage from the book of Proverbs express some of your feelings about animals ?
"A righteous man regards the life of his beast, But the inward parts of the wicked are cruel." (Proverbs 12:10)
Does this saying of Solomon touch on some of your sacred sentiments about man / animal relationships ?
18 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwYou misunderstand everything.
"A person is not qualified to return home back to Godhead, if they are contaminated in any way."
[b]Agreed
"All ther grace in the universe will not re-move the contamination, and to think so is fancifull. (false)"
"But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:" Rom. 5:20b
"It is true....we need the grace of God to do anyt on because of the attitude you embrace.[/b][/b]
The doing part is.....living the pure spiritual life, and this you must do to clean all the crap out of the consciousness.
Iam not talking about doing things like opening orphanages or hospitals (pious works)......no, Iam talking about doing the spiritual living, simple living and high thinking, and refraining from chasing materialism and sinning.
You have to stop sining or you will never get grace.
Grace does not come to the person who keeps on sinning.
Teaching false teachings is sinning.
Killing animals is sinning.
Believing false knowledge is sinning.
Sinning means error.
To do error and to teach error and to think error is sinning, and you will never attract grace to you.
The Bible teaches much error, so it teaches sin.....can you see that?
If you cannot see that animal slaughter is sinful, then you are dishonest.
Your conscious is clear because you have accepted false knowledge from your Bible, and you think the Bible is the authority.
The Bible is not the authority because it was compiled by politicians and pseudo religious clergy.
Leave the animal killing to the atheists.....but religious people do not kill.
18 Jan 11
Originally posted by jaywillYes its quiet clear isn't it.......so why are Christians cruel to animals, just to satisfy the tongue.
[b]===================================
"No person will get grace, if they are animal killers.....so first stop animal cruelty or you will never get grace."
=====================================
Vish, does this passage from the book of Proverbs express some of your feelings about animals ?
"A righteous man regards the life of ...[text shortened]... of [b]Solomon touch on some of your sacred sentiments about man / animal relationships ?[/b]
Spiritual life means a life of self control.......control of the mind and senses or else you will be led astray into sinful activities.
18 Jan 11
Originally posted by jaywillHave you no common sense.
I thought your were concerned for the death of living things because you voice your outrage at the "slaughter" of cattle.
And when you talk about an indestructible soul it is impressive talk. However, in the New Testament we have a [b]model Christ. We have an example in history. We do not simply have lofty teachings. We have Someone who was a ...[text shortened]...
I do not want to move backwards. Through Jesus I have come to know God as my dear Father.[/b]
Killing is sinful....no one has the right to end someones or somethings life for the pleasure of the senses.
Animal slaughter is cruel also.
A person who is realized, does not lament at the passing of any living thing, because the body is dust and the soul is eternal.
That realization doesn,t condone killing.
You twist words and meanings because you are trying to make the errors in the Bible make sense ......but the only way to make the Bible make sense is to remove the error.
18 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by vishvahetuplants are living as well. do you not find it sinful to end their lives? in order to get milk or eggs from cows and hens respectively they often have to be kept in very low conditions. do you not find it sinful to torment them by keeping them confined in small spaces? what if they have dreams, aspirations? what if a cow might want to paint a masterpiece, what if a chicken might want to go skydiving?
Have you no common sense.
Killing is sinful....no one has the right to end someones or somethings life for the pleasure of the senses.
Animal slaughter is cruel also.
A person who is realized, does not lament at the passing of any living thing, because the body is dust and the soul is eternal.
That realization doesn,t condone killing.
You t ...[text shortened]... the Bible make sense ......but the only way to make the Bible make sense is to remove the error.
18 Jan 11
2 edits
Originally posted by vishvahetu==============================
Have you no common sense.
Killing is sinful....no one has the right to end someones or somethings life for the pleasure of the senses.
Animal slaughter is cruel also.
A person who is realized, does not lament at the passing of any living thing, because the body is dust and the soul is eternal.
That realization doesn,t condone killing.
You t ...[text shortened]... the Bible make sense ......but the only way to make the Bible make sense is to remove the error.
Have you no common sense.
Killing is sinful....no one has the right to end someones or somethings life for the pleasure of the senses.
=================================
After the flood of Noah, God seems to have expanded the diet of man to include meat.
Before the flood, at the creation of man, God said to Adam:
" And God said, Behold I have given you every herb yeilding seed that is on the surface of all the earth and evry tree which has fruit yeilding seed, it shall be for you as food." (Genesis 1:29)
That was right after the creation of the great ancestor of all human beings.
Centries latter, after the great flood in which only 8 humans were saved, God seems to have made an adjustment in man's diet. Now he was permitted to be a meat eater:
"Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; just as I gave you the green herb, so I have given you everything. But the flesh with its life, that is, its blood, you shall not eat." (Genesis 9:3)
Here we see God allowing man, after the catclysmic changes upon the environment of the flood, to eat meat in addition to vegetation.
He did not say that man HAD to eat meat. And if you choose for some reason NOT to eat meat, I see no problem. That is your own private affair. Why should you judge others who feel to avail themselves of the permission to eat meat ?
If you feel morally or spiritually superior to others because you do not eat meat, that is your private affair. God has instructed humanity to enlarge its diet to include meat.
You will be totally wasting your breath arguing with me that these were errors either of God or introduced to the Bible by erroneous men. I have no heart to consider that criticism.
Now concerning the Proverbs verse on a righteous man being considerate of his beasts. I think a man can be considerate of the beast that he slays quickly, and without undue torture, in order to eat it.
There were laws passed in the US to end the undue cruel slaughter of animals decades ago. That is not to say that there is not still need to do so. It is to say that relatively speaking "righteous" people considered the lives of the beasts. They may be killed for food but it should not be done with cruelity.
If one objects that they should not be killed for food at all and that such killing is cruel, I think that perhaps they practice a kind of idolatry in which they have elevated beasts to a higher level then they should.
Jesus the Son of God taught that we human beings are of more value then the birds and the grass:
"Look at the birds of heaven. They do not sow nor reap nor gather into barns, yet your heavenly Father nourishes them. Are you not of more value than they ?" (Matt. 6:26)
The point here is not that the birds are of NO value. That is the other extreme error. The point is that human beings are of "more value" then the birds.
I have to leave now to do an errand. I will complete my thoughts latter on this.
18 Jan 11
2 edits
Originally posted by theblackprawn=================================
Our morailty evolves from human understanding of the universe , ie ...slavery is endorsed in the bible and perfectly acceptable 2000 yrs ago .It is only through education and knowledge that we know now just how wicked it really is.
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a pet ...[text shortened]... ilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
— Richard Dawkins
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
— Richard Dawkins
=====================================
The Bible contains the highest morality on the earth and in human history. Its central figure Jesus Christ has NO EQUAL as an exemplary human being with high morality.
Name a rival.
Now lets talk about control freaks and atheists like Richard Dawkins.
I just finished seeing a statement on film and recorded by fellow atheist Christopher Hitchens of considerable interest.
Hitchens is talking about a conversation he had with Richard Dawkins. And Hitchens admits that if he could convert everyone in the world to be an atheist, and there was ONE PERSON LEFT whose mind he had to change, HE WOULD NOT DO IT.
Again, Hitchens says that if only ONE person in the world was left for him to persuade to be an atheist, he would not do it. He said he is not sure WHY he would not do it. But he would not, if he had such power. He would leave at least one person left on the world who believed in God.
Christopher Hitchens said that Richard Dawkins looked at him in unbelief. A look, which Hitchens says he still remembers the incredulity of. Dawkins asked in unbelief "Why NOT ??"
If you ask me, the reason is that though both Hitchens and Dawkins are atheists, Dawkins is MORE of a control freak then Hitchens, plain and simple.
Dawkins, the real control freak, does not have the tolerance to leave even ONE human being left on earth to believe in God. He has to control the whole human race to accept his atheism.
Hitchens is a strong atheist too. However there is at LEAST a strain of tolerance left in him. He would not leave the world totally without one single theist.
Richard Dawkins is your control freak folks.
Right here: " Christopher Hitchens makes a shocking confession: "