12 Sep 11
Originally posted by DasaIn other words, you don't know.
You are not yet qualified to ask that question.
While you cannot or refuse to understand that animal slaughter is sinful and should not be supported - then you will remain unqualified to ask questions about the higher order of spiritual creation.
These questions are reserved for honest persons.
So I will stay with the basics as regards to yourself.
12 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseAs I said these questions are reserved for persons who are qualified to receive the answer.
In other words, you don't know.
If someone is defending animal slaughter they are not yet qualified to receive further higher knowledge for they will simply not understand just like they don't understand that animal slaughter is unacceptable......can you see that?
However when the persons becomes honest and can appreciated that animal slaughter is sinful then they are more qualified to understand higher spiritual knowledge........and not before.
First things first.
12 Sep 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeScience IS claiming that life began in a single event in a muddy puddle.
[b]" How did it happen that there was so much nice healthy food to feed all this life?.....random chance. "
Modern day plants mainly eat and construct themselves out of Carbon dioxide.... A highly complicated foodstuff that
couldn't possibly be created without intelligent design.... (btw your sarcasm detector probably just exploded)
Ver ...[text shortened]... you don't care.
I personally wouldn't call you a whackjob... More of a fruitcake....[/b]
One moment there was no life and then the lightning bolt struck and then life appeared.
Then this one cell thing became tigers, horses, dogs, cats, elephants, whales, sharks and man.
This is unacceptable.
12 Sep 11
Originally posted by Dasadear oh dear 😕
You are not yet qualified to ask that question.
While you cannot or refuse to understand that animal slaughter is sinful and should not be supported - then you will remain unqualified to ask questions about the higher order of spiritual creation.
These questions are reserved for honest persons.
So I will stay with the basics as regards to yourself.
Not qualified? Of course he is!
Universal knowledge is "circular" , not ascending. It is eternal knowledge and therefore it doesn't matter which part of the cirle you start on , as long as you start somewhere. The most basic of spiritual knowledge is JUST as important as the more complex ideas presented by the Vedas (and other holy books).
It is true that the Upanishads were (as I understand it) one of the first books that introduced the world,in a formal way, to "universal knowledge". But there have been many that have come after that have been just as powerful (Zen Buddhism and Sufism spring to mind).
Just because the Vedas are ancient is not proof that they are the best scource of universal knowledge.
Some christians use the same arguement for the bible only to be pointed out that the buddha (for example) came about 500 years before Jesus and had just as much wisdom and transformative power as Jesus. (Perhaps more,time will tell. I think Buddhism is one of the fastest growing religons)
In fact, I like commentators who are more contemporary. I like Osho,(for example), because he answers questions that people can relate to in a more contemporary way.
This post (the one I'm responding to) is really a waste and counterintuitive for someone trying to promote their theory.
(As far as I can tell, sonhouse was asking an honest question, and despite where he might be spiritually, I believe you should answer ANY questions that are serious otherwise you come off as elitist and evasive. " I don't know" is a perfectly good answer,(if that is the case), for it shows humility and honesty, 2 things that you have been accused of lacking.)
12 Sep 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelDo you yourself think Dasa lacks humility and honesty?
(As far as I can tell, sonhouse was asking an honest question, and despite where he might be spiritually, I believe you should answer ANY questions that are serious otherwise you come off as elitist and evasive. " I don't know" is a perfectly good answer,(if that is the case), for it shows humility and honesty, 2 things that you have been accused of lacking.)
12 Sep 11
Originally posted by FMFHe sure does. (I mean his posts do. I can only ever comment on people based on their posts, never their religous persuasion)
Do you yourself think Dasa lacks humility and honesty?
Seems he has a problem with "connecting" with people in any meaningful way,at best, at worst he's just a pest.
12 Sep 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelThe Vedas are not ancient and have nothing to do with age and time...........because they are eternal and outside the scope of past present and future.
dear oh dear 😕
Not qualified? Of course he is!
Universal knowledge is "circular" , not ascending. It is eternal knowledge and therefore it doesn't matter which part of the cirle you start on , as long as you start somewhere. The most basic of spiritual knowledge is JUST as important as the more complex ideas presented by the Vedas (and other holy ...[text shortened]... e), for it shows humility and honesty, 2 things that you have been accused of lacking.)
Relatively speaking .....yes they are very ancient.
Only true authority can claim eternality of their knowledge and teachings.
Because the Vedas are Sanatana Dharma they are not a belief system but eternal truths and facts that are unchanging to infinity of time.
Belief systems (listening FMF) are only temporary and change like the weather and one day you can be Muslim and then the next day you can change your belief to be Christian.
Vedic teachings which are universal do not change - and the truth today is the truth tomorrow into eternity.
In fact the Vedas discuss atomic energy - and have done so long before the scientists even discovered the atom and this is evidence they are beyond time and history itself.
Only true religion can claim eternality.
Christianity Islam and Judaism have only recently appeared on the human scene after being fabricated from the minds of the animal killers and meat eaters - and therefore they will come and go like all false religions do.
There are some questions Sonhouse has no business asking when he cannot be honest enough to admit that animal cruelty and slaughter is a sin.
I do not want to waste my time with insincere questioning if he and others cannot come to terms with the basics first which I have already covered but which have been whimsically rejected because of dishonesty.
When basic have been understood and accepted then that is the time for further questions of the higher spiritual nature.
Karoly...............you are a nice person but you do misunderstand many things I say which I believe I have been clear about - and I don't know why you quiet often misunderstand and get my comments to mean something other than I have intended.
If that happens again I will let you know and we can discuss why it happens.
12 Sep 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelWhen persons are exposed as dishonest they certainly do see that other person as a pest.
He sure does. (I mean his posts do. I can only ever comment on people based on their posts, never their religous persuasion)
Seems he has a problem with "connecting" with people in any meaningful way,at best, at worst he's just a pest.
Its natural for persons who are exposed for teaching falsity to get upset - unless afterwards the person becomes honest and then all becomes well.
Originally posted by DasaI wish you well in your search for certainty. I am neither a Christian, nor a Muslim, nor do I recognize the "authority" of Vedic teachings. I am not a religionist whereas you clearly are. To my way of thinking, I believe your demeanour in this community serves as a stark warning about the perils of allowing religionist cant to erode and corrupt humility and interpersonal communication skills.
Belief systems (listening FMF) are only temporary and change like the weather and one day you can be Muslim and then the next day you can change your belief to be Christian.
Most people that I know who have a well formed spiritual dimension exhibit interpersonal skills rooted in the empowering nature of inner balance, they also exhibit humility, honesty, open mindedness, toleration, curiosity and a generosity of spirit. You seem to have shed all semblance of these qualities - at least in your online persona - in your search for certainty and in your need for "authority" [and, indeed, frame yourself as an "authority"].
12 Sep 11
Originally posted by Dasakaroly has stated that he sees you, at worst, as "a pest". [Others might differ with him and say that you are "at best" a pest; I prefer to avoid insulting you]. Does this mean that karoly has been "exposed as dishonest" in your view?
When persons are exposed as dishonest they certainly do see that other person as a pest..
12 Sep 11
Originally posted by DasaThe whole "authority" thing is a real turn off for me.
The Vedas are not ancient and have nothing to do with age and time...........because they are eternal and outside the scope of past present and future.
Relatively speaking .....yes they are very ancient.
Only true authority can claim eternality of their knowledge and teachings.
Because the Vedas are Sanatana Dharma they are not a belief system but eter ...[text shortened]... have intended.
If that happens again I will let you know and we can discuss why it happens.
As far as I know you are the only one here who claims to know the authority behind all spiritulity.
I simlpy dont agree.
I am my own authority, first and foremost. This gives me the confidence to spread out and find out more. If I had to submit to some unknown authority I wouldn't get anywhere.
Paradox mate
(sorry, I had to cut this short, somethings come up)
Oh, and stop making it personal, it's not a good look and a very unsound practice around here-you kmow how sensitive people can be
12 Sep 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelSurely, Dasa should stop "making it personal", not because of "how sensitive people can be", but because his raw insults and personal abuse are - in and of themselves - quite simply disgraceful and profoundly anti-social?
Oh, and stop making it personal, it's not a good look and a very unsound practice around here-you kmow how sensitive people can be
12 Sep 11
Originally posted by DasaReligion is claiming that life began by magic.
Science IS claiming that life began in a single event in a muddy puddle.
One moment there was no life and then the lightning bolt struck and then life appeared.
Then this one cell thing became tigers, horses, dogs, cats, elephants, whales, sharks and man.
This is unacceptable.
One moment there was no life and then the divine lightning bolt struck and created all creatures.
All creatures included tigers, horses, dogs, cats. elephants, whales, sharks, atheists, theists, deists, RJHinds and Dasa.
This is is unacceptable.