Originally posted by poker87I'm just going to limit this to your last statement, Mr. Dasa'a attorney (I wonder what your "retainer" is?).
You said it doesn't matter how old the book is but how reliable are the words, and the words that say care for the animals of God are much more reliable than the words that say do not care for the animals of God.
You argue like Dasa. The first 3/4 of this statement is true. The last 1/4 is an unmitigated lie. NOwhere in the Bible does it say "do not care for the animals of God". NOwhere does it even suggest any such thing. And yet a large part of your post is simply a set-up for this lie, making it "not so unrealistic to believe".
So come on. I'm already tired of exposing Dasa as a liar. I do not need a Dasa II to fight with too.
I think the bigger thing to think about is that this is only your last statement in your long post. How much more of it is a lie?
Originally posted by poker87Reread my post. I did not say that not killing is un-acceptable. If one
I would say its the other way around, and that it is irrational and illogical to think killing is acceptable and that not killing un-acceptable for anyone following religion, and now it seems very clear why dasa had so many problems in this forum if this sought of posting is what he had to confront. But you are not the only one to speak like this in this for ...[text shortened]... n aggressive towards the lower creatures of God. And the Bhagavad Gita is very clear about this.
wishes to follow a religion of not killing animals that is fine with me.
However, to require that no animals ever be killed is irrational. Because
animals need to be killed by other animals for food and they are also
killed accidentally by man. Also if they were confined so that no killing
or eating of meat could take place, many would die from starvation and
disease which would be just as bad if not worse.
Originally posted by poker87So the question is, how long have you known Dasa? I take it you used to work together right?
I would say its the other way around, and that it is irrational and illogical to think killing is acceptable and that not killing un-acceptable for anyone following religion, and now it seems very clear why dasa had so many problems in this forum if this sought of posting is what he had to confront. But you are not the only one to speak like this in this for ...[text shortened]... n aggressive towards the lower creatures of God. And the Bhagavad Gita is very clear about this.
Originally posted by SuzianneLike Satan in disguise. Reminds of Eve in the Garden with the serpent with
I'm just going to limit this to your last statement, Mr. Dasa'a attorney (I wonder what your "retainer" is?).
You argue like Dasa. The first 3/4 of this statement is true. The last 1/4 is an unmitigated lie. NOwhere in the Bible does it say "do not care for the animals of God". NOwhere does it even suggest any such thing. And yet a large part of you ...[text shortened]... that this is only your last statement in your long post. How much more of it is a lie?
legs.
Originally posted by FMFI am having to side with dasa when he said that it is not proper to slaughter animals in the name of religion or spirituality, and as for the others or everyone else then they are not included, but religion should be about following the instructions of religion, and religion or as dasa says true religion does not condone meat eating, it never did and never will. So you see I think dasa,s words have once again been misquoted and he always emphasised that it is not proper for *people on the spiritual path* to eat meat and not every single human being as you have suggested.
If your religionist pitch requires you to call almost every single human who has ever lived "irrational and illogical" for eating meat, including the vast majority of people active here, I rather think that it's not going to work out well for you - assuming that you wish to persuade people or make them reflect. This community embraces a diverse range of approaches to spirituality, religion and philosophy. Insulting people has very little traction here.
Originally posted by Proper KnobI was at RHP last year and met dasa during chess, and we had some very interesting talks, and we swapped emails and those talks continued for months back then. And he doesn't talk to everyone like he talks to people in this forum, because he told me they are a special breed of infinitum/argumentum people, meaning they just argue to enjoy the arguing, and that unless they argue on the basis of truth then they are just wasting everyone,s time including their own.
So the question is, how long have you known Dasa? I take it you used to work together right?
2 edits
Originally posted by poker87Yes. As I said. Dasa's stance is well known. I don't think anybody here has any difficulty understanding his views on vegetarianism. I don't think anybody here has any difficulty understanding his views on who is and who isn't "on the [proper] spiritual path". Why do you feel the need to "re-explain" these things? Why do you feel the need to claim he has been "misquoted" on vegetarianism?
I am having to side with dasa when he said that it is not proper to slaughter animals in the name of religion or spirituality, and as for the others or everyone else then they are not included, but religion should be about following the instructions of religion, and religion or as dasa says true religion does not condone meat eating, it never did and never w ...[text shortened]... eople on the spiritual path* to eat meat and not every single human being as you have suggested.
If you have read his threads and interactions here at RHP you will know that he has made himself well understood. Almost every single human being who has ever lived has eaten meat. Any claim that all these people are not spiritual people - or any comparisons of these people to cockroaches, rutting dogs, stool eating pigs, or 7 year old children with cerebral palsy, or rats - isn't going to work on a forum as spiritually diverse as this one.
And he doesn't talk to everyone like he talks to people in this forum, because he told me they are a special breed of infinitum/argumentum people, meaning they just argue to enjoy the arguing, and that unless they argue on the basis of truth then they are just wasting everyone,s time including their own.
Dasa's opinions about almost everybody here being a "special breed" of liars and cheats and "child abusers" are already well known and well understood by this community. What purpose do you think you are serving by repeating this to people who already know that this is what Dasa believes?
Originally posted by poker87Christians do not slaughter animals in the name of religion. Dasa does not
I am having to side with dasa when he said that it is not proper to slaughter animals in the name of religion or spirituality, and as for the others or everyone else then they are not included, but religion should be about following the instructions of religion, and religion or as dasa says true religion does not condone meat eating, it never did and never w ...[text shortened]... eople on the spiritual path* to eat meat and not every single human being as you have suggested.
know what true religion is and neither do you. This spiritual path of his will
get him nowhere. he is wasting his time on earth and will not come back
in some other body, be it monkey, rat, cow, pig , or his beloved ass.
Originally posted by RJHindsIndeed.
Christians do not slaughter animals in the name of religion. Dasa does not
know what true religion is and neither do you. This spiritual path of his will
get him nowhere. he is wasting his time on earth and will not come back
in some other body, be it monkey, rat, cow, pig , or his beloved ass.
Offhand I can't think of any religions that require animal sacrifice today. Well, there's always Satanism... but other than that...
Hey, I just googled animal sacrifice religion and ironically, the wiki page is dominated by none other than the Vedic religion. 😀
Also, the Church of Latter Day Saints evidently incorporates animal sacrifice!!! 😲
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice
1 edit
Originally posted by poker87Do you also agree with Dasa that the population of a country is doing time for the crime of being Buddhist and, not yet accepting but awaiting evidence of a God?
I was at RHP last year and met dasa during chess, and we had some very interesting talks, and we swapped emails and those talks continued for months back then. And he doesn't talk to everyone like he talks to people in this forum, because he told me they are a special breed of infinitum/argumentum people, meaning they just argue to enjoy the arguing, and tha ...[text shortened]... hey argue on the basis of truth then they are just wasting everyone,s time including their own.
Do you condone these words?
Do you wish all non-Vedic believers to drown and be homeless and needy?
A truthful answer would be highly appreciated.
-m.
Edit: Oh! And also. Is your scientific IP address the same as Dasa's?
Originally posted by FMFI have noticed that people like to get statements from dasa and twist them to meet their own particular needs, especially the need to criticize, but they cant criticize on the basis of the exact words that dasa writes, so they give his words a little twist and just enough for his comments to come out all wrong. And I have seen you being a great enthusiast to this sought of foul play..
Yes. As I said. Dasa's stance is well known. I don't think anybody here has any difficulty understanding his views on vegetarianism. I don't think anybody here has any difficulty understanding his views on who is and who isn't "on the [proper] spiritual path". Why do you feel the need to "re-explain" these things? Why do you feel the need to claim he has been "m ...[text shortened]... g by repeating this to people who already know that this is what Dasa believes?
Originally posted by poker87So what brought you back to this website 290 days after you played your last game of chess? How did you end up in this forum?
I have noticed that people like to get statements from dasa and twist them to meet their own particular needs, especially the need to criticize, but they cant criticize on the basis of the exact words that dasa writes, so they give his words a little twist and just enough for his comments to come out all wrong. And I have seen you being a great enthusiast to this sought of foul play..
Originally posted by mikelom.# yes I do but with a lengthy explanation to go with it. # some of them. # no I don't. # yes I will. # don't know what you mean by I.P. address.
Do you also agree with Dasa that the population of a country is doing time for the crime of being Buddhist and, not yet accepting but awaiting evidence of a God?
Do you condone these words?
Do you wish all non-Vedic believers to drown and be homeless and needy?
A truthful answer would be highly appreciated.
-m.
Edit: Oh! And also. Is your scientific IP address the same as Dasa's?