Originally posted by FMFI sincerely hope you believe me when tell you that I was not directly or indirectly thinking of you at all when I was typing that sentence.
I have no doubt that you sincerely believe that I am "ignorant" and that this, for you, "implies innocence". I will continue to afford you common courtesy, regardless.
When I said "ignorant", I was meaning everyone, and no inividual or group specifically at all.
I will wait on your answer before making any conclusions as to whether we have an understanding.
Seems you were implying that I was personalizing that post of mine, where that was clearly not my intention. (I admit its possible you may have taken it the wrong way due to my wording and/or the climate in which that post was made)
Originally posted by karoly aczelYou may wish to reach "some happy medium" with someone who compares you to a "a 7 yr old child with cerebral palsy" simply for disagreeing with him. I don't. I am content to simply deal with assertions about subjective matters that are made about me. Perhaps you should keep your "facilitation" to yourself lest you continue to be seen as someone who is seeking to enable one of this Forum's incorrigible abusers and bullies.
I hope you guys understand that I'm just trying to facillitate a better debate bewtween you two, as I find it frustrating to move to such extremes so often when, at times, some happy mediums are available.
Originally posted by FMFWhy do you misrepresent my comments and twist their meaning.......this is not being truthful.
You may wish to reach "some happy medium" with someone who compares you to a "a 7 yr old child with cerebral palsy" simply for disagreeing with him. I don't. I am content to simply deal with assertions about subjective matters that are made about me. Perhaps you should keep your "facilitation" to yourself lest you continue to be seen as someone who is seeking to enable one of this Forum's incorrigible abusers and bullies.
Does your spirituality allow for being untruthful?....like it allows for killing.
Originally posted by DasaActually I think it's my sense of common human decency that prevents me from comparing you to "a 7 yr old child with cerebral palsy" and to do so simply because you and I have different belief systems. In fact using a comparison to "a 7 yr old child with cerebral palsy" as a form of online abuse did not enter my mind until you decided to use it.
Does your spirituality allow for being untruthful?
Originally posted by FMFYou are twisting my words and that is being untruthful.
Actually I think it's my sense of common human decency that prevents me from comparing you to "a 7 yr old child with cerebral palsy" and to do so simply because you and I have different belief systems. In fact using a comparison to "a 7 yr old child with cerebral palsy" as a form of online abuse did not enter my mind until you decided to use it.
Originally posted by DasaWell then, why not have another go at it?
You are twisting my words and that is being untruthful.
I am almost 50 years old and in good physical and mental health. And you and I disagree about our belief systems. I do not accept the "authority" of the teachings you subscribe to; I do not ask you to modify or replace your belief system and I only criticize it in so far as it seeks to make what it claims to be objective assertions about the reality of my life and my spiritual path; I do not push or cite any "authority" of my choosing upon you and I never talk about you "denying the undeniable" etc.; finally I do not approve of you copying and pasting other people's words and trying to pass them of as your own and I will continue to draw attention to it just as long as you continue to attempt to do so.
Now, have another run at it: comment on my philosophical stance and our difference of opinions using - somewhere in your sentences - the phrase "a 7 yr old child with cerebral palsy".
Go on. Have another go. Then we will see if any words have been twisted.
Originally posted by FMFYou know exactly what I said and how I said it.......but you misrepresented and fabricated your own meaning to make it sound different........this is not being truthful.
Well then, why not have another go at it?
I am almost 50 years old and in good physical and mental health. And you and I disagree about our belief systems. I do not accept the "authority" of the teachings you subscribe to; I do not ask you to modify or replace your belief system and I only criticize it in so far as it seeks to make what it claims to be object ...[text shortened]... alsy".
Go on. Have another go. Then we will see if any words have been twisted.[/b]
Originally posted by DasaYes. I do. And that's why you have your back up against the wall. Given the chance to clarify you babble on about "fabrication". And yet they are your words, not my words. Your words. Your 'debating point'. Not mine.
You know exactly what I said and how I said it.
What I still do wonder is, why you felt the need to mention "a 7 yr old child with cerebral palsy" while talking to me, at all?
I mean, why did you type those words? What is the relevance? Yeah, I know, we disagree. But why are the words "a 7 yr old child with cerebral palsy" in your response at all?
Why not have another try? Use the phrase "a 7 yr old child with cerebral palsy" as you seek to characterize my disagreement with you over spiritual matters. Just have one more go. Clear this whole thing up.
Originally posted by DasaYou know exactly what I have said for the last 3 months, about Buddhism. You reject it. Therefore, you are dishonest and a liar.
You know exactly what I said and how I said it.......but you misrepresented and fabricated your own meaning to make it sound different........this is not being truthful.
Simplicity of evidence, the truth of not having proof of a God, but waiting for it. In the mean time, subscribing to truth of self-inprovement and meditating to achieve self cleanliness.
Buddhism, in essence, is a masterful way of living; be there a God or no-God, as we don't know. We don't say 'no' and we don't say 'yes' - that is a logical middle ground, and does not mock science - nor other religions. You constantly mock those who do not adhere to your words. That is dishonest of you, because in simplicity, you know 'TRUE' Buddhism can't be mocked!
-m.
Originally posted by mikelomI like true Buddhism.......but not the modern day watered down version.
You know exactly what I have said for the last 3 months, about Buddhism. You reject it. Therefore, you are dishonest and a liar.
Simplicity of evidence, the truth of not having proof of a God, but waiting for it. In the mean time, subscribing to truth of self-inprovement and meditating to achieve self cleanliness.
Buddhism, in essence, is a masterful w ...[text shortened]... st of you, because in simplicity, you know 'TRUE' Buddhism can't be mocked!
-m.
But I do have proof of God....and it is not your proof.
You do not seek proof of God.
You reject proof of God.
Vedanta explains that proof, and to understand that proof one must adhere to the principles of Vedanta and realization does develop in the purified heart.
Not purifying the heart and mind from all the dirt that collects there, will keep the person a conditioned state and bewildered.
Originally posted by FMFIt is very clear what I have said and all you have done is put your own fabricated twist on the comment.
Yes. I do. And that's why you have your back up against the wall. Given the chance to clarify you babble on about "fabrication". And yet they are your words, not my words. Your words. Your 'debating point'. Not mine.
What I still do wonder is, why you felt the need to mention "a 7 yr old child with cerebral palsy" while talking to me, at all?
I mean, why d ...[text shortened]... nt with you over spiritual matters. Just have one more go. Clear this whole thing up.
You manipulate and play word games, and this is what you are doing with that comment that I have made........it lends itself to untruthfulness.
Stop being untruthful.
Originally posted by DasaThis is pretty rich coming from you.
It is very clear what I have said and all you have done is put your own fabricated twist on the comment.
You manipulate and play word games, and this is what you are doing with that comment that I have made........it lends itself to untruthfulness.
Stop being untruthful.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think he is pointing out he said AT the foundation, where the other post said IS the foundation. Nitpicking maybe, but it does slightly change the character of the post. At the foundation would refer to possible correlation of knowledge of early times with modern knowledge. Saying it IS the foundation is much more sweeping, saying they knew about stuff like differential voltages on batteries or calculus or research on HIV or genetics or celestial navigation techniques or transistors and so forth.
Its right there in the thread title!
Originally posted by DasaIf Vedanta is your way to develop to a harmonious and good being so be it. But the rude way you are pushing Vedanta here is counterproductive and harmful.
I like true Buddhism.......but not the modern day watered down version.
But I do have proof of God....and it is not your proof.
You do not seek proof of God.
You reject proof of God.
Vedanta explains that proof, and to understand that proof one must adhere to the principles of Vedanta and realization does develop in the purified heart.
Not purify ...[text shortened]... from all the dirt that collects there, will keep the person a conditioned state and bewildered.