Originally posted by vishvahetuDefine the difference between killing an animal in a humane way and an animalistic way! Are humans not animals?
But beyond killing in a humane way......killing in itself is detrimental to spiritual development, because it destroys the qualities of mercy, compassion, non violence and spirituality.
The atheists do not care for these spiritual qualities, so leave the killing of everything that moves to them, because they are taking birth again and returning to this material world anyway, for all their other negative activities.
Is a lion, when killing an antelope merciless, incompassionate, violent and unspiritual?
~~~~~
You maintain that atheists are nonspiritual. Prove it to me. Prove it. Instead of assuming it!
Atheists are full of negative activities, are they?
Your comment is indeed a negative activity, and an unwanton breath of wrongness in all areas that it comes from. You are despicable.
You judge. What gives you a right to judge, when you have already stated that you are far from knowing the inner depths of your religion fully, and that you still carry sin?
Your judgements carry no weight for the majority of readers in this forum, and I would go further to say you are making a complete arse of yourself every time you post.
You are detrimental, abusive, insulting and untruthful.
-m.
Originally posted by dj2beckerI totally agree in the termination process when all things are considered.
[b]Killing animals is low class and barbaric in its nature.
What if an animal is suffering pain from a terminal disease and you relieve its pain by 'putting it down'? Is that barbaric in nature? Or is leaving the animal to suffer barbaric in nature?[/b]
Whats being terminated anyway?
The soul is the real person and the body is a temporary vehicle.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFtransmission problem
I eat meat, vishvahetu. So I support killing animals. Killing them. And then eating them. So your quibbling about whatever your definition of "suffering" is, is moot. I agree with the animals being killed. I don't like the suffering that my wife underwent to give birth to my two children either. It does not mean I am against having children. I am also not agains ...[text shortened]... gain that I do not condone unnecessary suffering because I do not condone "cruelty". Clear?
Originally posted by mikelomTake a deep breath mikelom, you're going to pop a blood vessel.
Define the difference between killing an animal in a humane way and an animalistic way! Are humans not animals?
Is a lion, when killing an antelope merciless, incompassionate, violent and unspiritual?
~~~~~
You maintain that atheists are nonspiritual. Prove it to me. Prove it. Instead of assuming it!
Atheists are full of negative activities, are ...[text shortened]... yourself every time you post.
You are detrimental, abusive, insulting and untruthful.
-m.
You know very well you'll never get Vishy to change his beliefs or alter his approach. He's to deeply entrenched in his own Truth. While he expects others to be open to his beliefs he'll never budge an inch in considering those of others.
Originally posted by mikelomCould you please ask your questions again nicely without the attacks?
Define the difference between killing an animal in a humane way and an animalistic way! Are humans not animals?
Is a lion, when killing an antelope merciless, incompassionate, violent and unspiritual?
~~~~~
You maintain that atheists are nonspiritual. Prove it to me. Prove it. Instead of assuming it!
Atheists are full of negative activities, are ...[text shortened]... yourself every time you post.
You are detrimental, abusive, insulting and untruthful.
-m.
I will answer any question for any person, but if you come on to me like you have done, it sought of kills the moment.
Originally posted by vishvahetuhttp://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Qj6qGd4X52M/SnocWLZMgTI/AAAAAAAAB08/G84pep2AanI/s400/smiling_cow.jpg&imgrefurl=http://kludgespot.blogspot.com/2009/08/smiling-cow.[WORD TOO LONG]/[WORD TOO LONG]
Could you please ask your questions again nicely without the attacks?
I will answer any question for any person, but if you come on to me like you have done, it sought of kills the moment.
Originally posted by Hand of HecateMy beliefs have been shaped by the Authority of Vedanta.
Take a deep breath mikelom, you're going to pop a blood vessel.
You know very well you'll never get Vishy to change his beliefs or alter his approach. He's to deeply entrenched in his own Truth. While he expects others to be open to his beliefs he'll never budge an inch in considering those of others.
Vedanta is the only authority when it comes to God and life.
I support truth and that is why I subscribe the the Vedanta teachings.
Show me where one can find an authority on God, other than Vedanta....you cannot find one.
Originally posted by vishvahetuSo humans dont have choices then?
My beliefs have been shaped by the Authority of Vedanta.
Vedanta is the only authority when it comes to God and life.
I support truth and that is why I subscribe the the Vedanta teachings.
Show me where one can find an authority on God, other than Vedanta....you cannot find one.
I dont get the thread title. From this response your are saying that we have no choices because Vedanta is the only authority on God,right? (Or we got two choices? I dont get it , still seems limited)
Originally posted by karoly aczelYes of course we have choices,
So humans dont have choices then?
I dont get the thread title. From this response your are saying that we have no choices because Vedanta is the only authority on God,right? (Or we got two choices? I dont get it , still seems limited)
We can choose atheism, false religion or true religion.
It is impossible to only have true religion, because there will always be someone who will want to be reject the authority and invent there own religion, so as to make killing acceptable, and intoxication acceptable and so on.
In society we have rules given by the leaders and courts....but there will always be someone who says stuff the rules.
When I say that God is one and religion is one.......I mean true bonafide religion is one.
There is only one place you can find perfect knowledge of God without error, and there are many other religions but they will teach much error and some truth..
1 edit
Originally posted by vishvahetuPeople no more choose atheism (i.e. choose not to believe in some god or gods) than they "choose" to believe they're not the gingerbread man.
Yes of course we have choices,
We can choose atheism, false religion or true religion.
It is impossible to only have true religion, because there will always be someone who will want to be reject the authority and invent there own religion, so as to make killing acceptable, and intoxication acceptable and so on.
In society we have rules given by ...[text shortened]... ithout error, and there are many other religions but they will teach much error and some truth..
Originally posted by AgergNot true....
People no more choose atheism (i.e. choose not to believe in some god or gods) than they "choose" to believe they're not the gingerbread man.
Because you become an atheist by choosing to ignore the reality of God, which by default make you an atheist.
So there is choice there.
You cannot prove there is not a God.......so that leaves an opening for there to be a God.
So if there is an opening for there to be a God, you must choose which way to go.
You have chosen to go for "there is no God"
3 edits
Originally posted by vishvahetuWe do not "choose" to ignore any such "reality", we simply cannot believe such proposed "realities" are anything more than fiction. Based on the information at our disposal, this belief comes about by the way our minds work and what weight we assign to unsubstantiated, untestable claims about supernatural dimensions which we cannot, by definition of "supernatural", have any knowledge of.
Not true....
Because you become an atheist by choosing to ignore the reality of God, which by default make you an atheist.
So there is choice there.
You cannot prove there is not a God.......so that leaves an opening for there to be a God.
So if there is an opening for there to be a God, you must choose which way to go.
You have chosen to go for "there is no God"
There is no choice.
Originally posted by AgergBut if you actually in an unbiased way look at the cosmos, everything points to a creative hand, and it does not scream out that there is no creative hand. agreed.
We do not "choose" to ignore any such "reality", we simply cannot believe such proposed "realities" are anything more than fiction. Based on the information at our disposal, this belief comes about by the way our minds work and what weight we assign to unsubstantiated, untestable claims about supernatural dimensions which we cannot, by definition of "supernatural", have any knowledge of.
There is no choice.
When you look at a painting it screams out at you, that an artist painted it.
It does not do the opposite
So when you look at the mind boggling complexity of the cosmos, it also screams out to you that there is a cause.
It doesn't scream out to you that there is no cause.
That cause is God.
Now....you have consciously chosen to ignore that cause, to say there is no cause.
That implies choice.
1 edit
Originally posted by vishvahetuWhen we see a painting, we know that without human interaction, a canvas would retain its default colour, or bear a random covering of coloured "stuff" (depending upon what it has been exposed to). Given that some paintings fail to have this random quality or are filled with "stuff" we cannot expect to have found itself there natually (like royal blue acrylic paint for example) we conclude it was painted.
But if you actually in an unbiased way look at the cosmos, everything points to a creative hand, and it does not scream out that there is no creative hand. agreed.
When you look at a painting it screams out at you, that an artist painted it.
It does not do the opposite
So when you look at the mind boggling complexity of the cosmos, it also screa have consciously chosen to ignore that cause, to say there is no cause.
That implies choice.
As for the universe we have nothing to compare the actions of this universe with; i.e. we have no way to tell how, if it wasn't "designed", it should instead behave. Indeed we have no reason to suppose there is any design or intelligence at all.
Your statement
"So when you look at the mind boggling complexity of the cosmos, it also screams out to you that there is a cause."
does not apply to me - I hear no such scream.
Originally posted by AgergSo this is what I mean by dishonesty of the atheists....they choose to NOT hear that scream, and it is very loud.
When we see a painting, we know that without human interaction, a canvas would retain its default colour, or bear a random covering of coloured "stuff" (depending upon what it has been exposed to). Given that some paintings fail to have this random quality or are filled with "stuff" we cannot expect to have found itself there natually (like royal blue acrylic ...[text shortened]... out to you that there is a cause."[/i]
does not apply to me - I hear no such scream.