Cant move on...

Why do I keep saying the same thing?

I have much to present, but I must start with basics and then move on up to more detailed information,.......... because how could you discuss higher mathematics if the person is struggling with their two times table.

I am having heated debates trying to get persons to understand that animal slaughter is wrong....its silly.

I am having trouble trying to have people understand that the body is dust, and is not living, but its the eternal soul that is the actual living force.

These things are basics.

These things are your two times table.

One could only have this much trouble because of dishonesty, for no one could be that dense.

The atheists say the cosmos has no design at its foundation....this is clearly dishonest.

People of false religion say animals have no souls, so how do they live?.....they are dishonest.

This is why I will stay with the basics.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Why do I keep saying the same thing?

I have much to present, but I must start with basics and then move on up to more detailed information,.......... because how could you discuss higher mathematics if the person is struggling with their two times table.

I am having heated debates trying to get persons to understand that animal slaughter is wrong... ...[text shortened]... souls, so how do they live?.....they are dishonest.

This is why I will stay with the basics.

because how could you discuss higher mathematics if the person is struggling with their two times table
If we carry on this analogy though, your solution to this would be you get them working in base one arithmetic. Same analogy applies to fundies of different religions btw

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Why do I keep saying the same thing?

I have much to present, but I must start with basics and then move on up to more detailed information,.......... because how could you discuss higher mathematics if the person is struggling with their two times table.

I am having heated debates trying to get persons to understand that animal slaughter is wrong... ...[text shortened]... souls, so how do they live?.....they are dishonest.

This is why I will stay with the basics.

should lions, wolves and alligators become vegetarians? Are we seperate from the natural world? If we are a part of the natural order, then eating meat is acceptable, if we are not, then it is not...simple really.

Originally posted by Doward
should lions, wolves and alligators become vegetarians? Are we seperate from the natural world? If we are a part of the natural order, then eating meat is acceptable, if we are not, then it is not...simple really.

Trying to bash a square peg in a round hole....wont work get honest.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Trying to bash a square peg in a round hole....wont work get honest.

the difference between a chimp and a human (on the genetetic level) is quite small. Humans and pigs have very similar internal anatomy. We are part of the natural world. We are, by design, meant to eat a multitude of different things. Our bodies create the necessary enzymes to digest meat and meat by-products. If it were unatural for us to do so, then we would be unable to digest meat. Are you impklying that our ability to digest meat is a mistake?

That then is my question: Are humans able to digest meat naturally?

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Why do I keep saying the same thing?

God knows.

I thought you were leaving the site in flurry of indignation and disgust?

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Why do I keep saying the same thing?

I have much to present, but I must start with basics and then move on up to more detailed information,.......... because how could you discuss higher mathematics if the person is struggling with their two times table.

I am having heated debates trying to get persons to understand that animal slaughter is wrong... ...[text shortened]... souls, so how do they live?.....they are dishonest.

This is why I will stay with the basics.

The reason is that you provide no reason to move forward. You have offered no evidential grounds to accept the doctrine of reincarnation or immortality of the soul. You merely assert these as self-evident and insist that any reluctance to accept these doctrines is a sign of disease. Other times you have boldly declared that Jesus taught Vedic doctrines and that the bible was fabricated out of political expediency. None of this is very persuasive however when you offer us no evidence.

Originally posted by Conrau K
The reason is that you provide no reason to move forward. You have offered no evidential grounds to accept the doctrine of reincarnation or immortality of the soul. You merely assert these as self-evident and insist that any reluctance to accept these doctrines is a sign of disease. Other times you have boldly declared that Jesus taught Vedic doctrines and ...[text shortened]... of political expediency. None of this is very persuasive however when you offer us no evidence.

What I have presented is a starting point.....from there it is discussed and it expands, but before it can expand.....persons simply reject and hold tighter to their error.

Cannot continue if persons are dishonest and reject on whim.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
What I have presented is a starting point.....from there it is discussed and it expands, but before it can expand.....persons simply reject and hold tighter to their error.

Cannot continue if persons are dishonest and reject on whim.

"Cannot continue if persons are dishonest and reject on whim."

Think carefully about these words you wrote.

Now think again about them.

No one is rejecting anything " on a whim"

You arrive with your message of vedanta and expect that all will follow you like the Pied Piper - instead of wasting your time insulting all those whith other viewpoints to yours - why dont you try and actually talk about some of the really beautiful things vedanta has to offer - you may find you are better received than you have been.

Originally posted by Doward
the difference between a chimp and a human (on the genetetic level) is quite small. Humans and pigs have very similar internal anatomy. We are part of the natural world. We are, by design, meant to eat a multitude of different things. Our bodies create the necessary enzymes to digest meat and meat by-products. If it were unatural for us to do so, then we woul ...[text shortened]... digest meat is a mistake?

That then is my question: Are humans able to digest meat naturally?

Humans can digest meat so lets kill the animals.....dont think so.

You are bringing the topic down to a level of logical argument.

Its logical for this....so lets do that.

Its logical for that....so lets do this.

Anything to support error.

Its dishonesty.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
What I have presented is a starting point.....from there it is discussed and it expands, but before it can expand.....persons simply reject and hold tighter to their error.

Cannot continue if persons are dishonest and reject on whim.

People will remain skeptical if you refuse to present evidence for your beliefs. If you cannot argue even for the basic premises of your belief system, how can we trust you to do so with more complicated points?

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Why do I keep saying the same thing?

I have much to present, but I must start with basics and then move on up to more detailed information,.......... because how could you discuss higher mathematics if the person is struggling with their two times table.

I am having heated debates trying to get persons to understand that animal slaughter is wrong... ...[text shortened]... souls, so how do they live?.....they are dishonest.

This is why I will stay with the basics.

I can agree loosely with your basic tenets,ie. the soul is immortal (pleas dont ask me what the soul is. it is the 'force of animation'. you dont need to know more), and that THE WAY in which we treat animals is wrong.

But many posters have queried you on these two points, so lets just plod through.

Oh and stop calling people "dishonest". Like FMF said, your are misusing that word.

Originally posted by Conrau K
People will remain skeptical if you refuse to present evidence for your beliefs. If you cannot argue even for the basic premises of your belief system, how can we trust you to do so with more complicated points?

...and what Conrau said...

Originally posted by nook7
"Cannot continue if persons are dishonest and reject on whim."

Think carefully about these words you wrote.

Now think again about them.

No one is rejecting anything " on a whim"

You arrive with your message of vedanta and expect that all will follow you like the Pied Piper - instead of wasting your time insulting all those whith other viewpoints to ...[text shortened]... tiful things vedanta has to offer - you may find you are better received than you have been.

Yes....I must do this, present the wonderful things of Vedanta, but not before persons become honest, because it is impossible to discuss if persons reject common sense....do you see that.

I am presenting basics first, and so many persons are having trouble with the basics....why?

Because they have a dishonest element in their responses, and this jams up the flow.

And I cant proceed forward if the discussion is jammed up with silliness.

Originally posted by Conrau K
People will remain skeptical if you refuse to present evidence for your beliefs. If you cannot argue even for the basic premises of your belief system, how can we trust you to do so with more complicated points?

I have presented simple evidences, that rely on common sense and honesty, but if common sense and honesty are pushed aside then I cannot proceed to other things.

I have presented evidences without scriptural reference,s, and relied on common sense...and persons reject.

I also supplied scriptural references, and persons do not accept these, because they do not believe that Vedanta is the authority.....why?

I could easily give hundreds of pages of scriptural references, but who would accept.

How could they know that Vedanta is........or is not, the authority?

By what methods would they put Vedanta to the test..........their whim?