Originally posted by Rank outsiderYes to the first point..........because people can believe what ever they want to believe.
So, providing a Muslim family kept themselves to themselves, and were not violent, they could live peacefully in Vedic society, and not fear any reprisals from the authorities?
Vedic society does not control what people want to believe.....they just teach what is proper.
A Muslim family living in a Vedic community would question their faith being so integrated with his Vedic brothers...........and because the Vedic teachings are perfect the teachings would polarize the difference between his faith and the Vedic way.
And that would have the affect of changing the opinion of the Muslim man altogether if he was a sincere and honest man.
Vedic society would not tolerate mis-treatment of animals, so the Muslim man would have great difficulty hiding his animal slaughtering from everyone else........and after a while he would end up also feeling compassionate towards his animal friends and give up his unacceptable ways....and come to appreciate the wisdom of the eternal Vedas...(you think?)
1 edit
Originally posted by DasaWell then you'd have to let them eat meat if they believed it was ok - and their right - to do so.
Yes to the first point..........because people can believe what ever they want to believe.
In your 19th December thread, "Peace", you said "...force must be used and termination of all Muslims would be the rule. Muslims converting to other religions at the eleventh hour would not be accepted.
And yet now you're suggesting that if they converted to the Vedic religion then they would not be terminated.
You're saying one thing in one post and another thing in other posts.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritThis is true......but squatting is not one of them.
vedic religion has 6 capital crimes that can be carried out right away by any ordinary man without incurring any penalty (ie: mob justice).
1. poisoning
2. arson
3. assault with a deadly weapon
4. thievery
5. squatting
6. wife kidnapping ( i guess kidnapping anything else is okay )
Each crime must be appraised to the severity of the crime.
Thievery would mean grand thievery. (taking off with a farmers livestock) and rendering the farmer destitute.
However in true Vedic times there were bands of plunderers who crossed the border on horse back and pillaged and plundered and set fire to and stole from innocent people.
If caught they were dealt with.
Therefore it did not happen much.
These rules for capital punishment were intentioned for those plunderers.
Originally posted by FMFIn Vedic society meat eaters/animal killers were fringe dwellers and were not allowed to live with civilized people.
Well then you'd have to let them eat meat if they believed it was ok - and their right - to do so.
In your 19th December thread, "Peace", you said [b]"...force must be used and termination of all Muslims would be the rule. Muslims converting to other religions at the eleventh hour would not be accepted.
And yet now you're suggesting that if they conver ...[text shortened]... b] be terminated.
You're saying one thing in one post and another thing in other posts.[/b]
Originally posted by DasaSo why not just live in self-contained communes where people can subscribe voluntarily to community rules? Why advocate imposing your belief system on people with other belief systems? Why do you say "force must be used and termination of all Muslims would be the rule"?
In Vedic society meat eaters/animal killers were fringe dwellers and were not allowed to live with civilized people.
Originally posted by DasaIf people insisted on teaching something that you personally don't believe is "true", would you simply use your government's security forces to keep closing them down, or would the people who want to teach about their beliefs and persist in doing so be punished? If so, in what way?
Dealt with means to be prevented/stopped/closed down.
1 edit
Originally posted by DasaIt must have come of a bit of a shock to them when they were met with a gang of children with tomatoes
[b]This is true......but squatting is not one of them.
.
However in true Vedic times there were bands of plunderers who crossed the border on horse back and pillaged and plundered and set fire to and stole from innocent people.
If caught they were dealt with.
Originally posted by RJHindsHe did say "This will be my last comment about this subject". What has been misunderstood.
You should pay more attention to Dasa than you do, then you might not
misunderstand things like you do, so much.
Still waiting to hear about the lies that FMF told
Originally posted by nook7I have spent the last week looking at various sites discussing the Vedic teachings.
Finding things to ridicule in your and the other nutter Dasa's posts is like bringing a drift net to catch a fish at a fish farm.
Frauds.
It has led me to three conclusions:
1) Dasa is unable to appreciate that most of us do not have his 'context' for the appreciation of the Vedic teachings. He therefore leaves most of the 'conditionality' out of what he says, believing it is obvious. Vedic teachings would see this as an error in him which he should correct. If his reference to "all adult Muslim males" was indeed a reference to Muslim terrorists, then he should recognise that the words were inaccurate, that this was 'false teaching' and apologise. Even if he believes that people are deliberately misunderstanding him for their own agendas, this makes no difference to his error or need to make amends.
2) The manner in which he presents his beliefs is also against Vedic teachings. They would not support using the word 'abuse' to define someone teaching evolution to his children. Again, they would see the error in him for failing to appreciate that the use of this word will create division when he should be seeking genuine dialogue.
3) Vedic teaching recognises that the most productive approach to achieving the goal of converting people to the Vedic ways is by patient, constructive debate. This is genuine debate, not simply the constant gainsaying of other perspectives. Vedics, indeed, value discussing other perspectives and do not seek to classify all people who disagree as simply 'dishonest'. Wrong, yes, but not dishonest.
Of course, Dasa may well say that a week's reading of Vedic treachings on websites does not qualify me as an expert, but the whole tenor of what I have read is a million miles away from my perception of the religion from what he has written and how he has expressed it.
To my mind, Dasa, that is false teaching, even if it is unintentional.