Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Drew wrote: "I don't feel the need to be considerate or tactful when arguing these points, religious people frequently do not apply these traits either when debating, or should I say preaching, their points. Respect is something earned. "
Here's a question for you, Drew. I've asked Gary similar questions in the past.
When you were speaking yesterday and the day before, were you having a conversation with Vishal, with Blou, with me ... or with the "religious people" you've known in the past who "preach" their points?
You say you don't feel the need to be considerate or tactful given the fact that religious people don't apply the same standards. Tit for tat and all that.
The question, though, is ....
Who were you talking to? Nameless and faceless religious people who aren't tactful or considerate. Or, were you addressing Vishal and Blou? Were you speaking to me?
Question .... When was Vishal inconsiderate to you? When Was Blou less than tactful? When was I inconsiderate or lacking in tact?
You say respect is earned. What, specifically, did I say to you or anyone that would make you say you feel no compunction to be considerate or tactful given the fact that ... what ... and that respect needs to be earned? It's appropriate to be inconsiderate to me, perhaps disrespectful, because ...? To Vishal? To Blou?
Here's a question for you, Drew. I've asked Gary similar questions in the past.
When you were speaking yesterday and the day before, were you having a conversation with Vishal, with Blou, with me ... or with the "religious people" you've known in the past who "preach" their points?
You say you don't feel the need to be considerate or tactful given the fact that religious people don't apply the same standards. Tit for tat and all that.
The question, though, is ....
Who were you talking to? Nameless and faceless religious people who aren't tactful or considerate. Or, were you addressing Vishal and Blou? Were you speaking to me?
Question .... When was Vishal inconsiderate to you? When Was Blou less than tactful? When was I inconsiderate or lacking in tact?
You say respect is earned. What, specifically, did I say to you or anyone that would make you say you feel no compunction to be considerate or tactful given the fact that ... what ... and that respect needs to be earned? It's appropriate to be inconsiderate to me, perhaps disrespectful, because ...? To Vishal? To Blou?
Travis wrote: "We are so conditioned to religion having the magic respect shield, that somebody being as blunt as Drew is seen as radical. It's not. It's no more radical than telling a child there is no Easter Bunny."
One more thing, Travis ....
This isn't just about Drew. Yeah, Drew's the one who was engaging in the discussion last night. But, let's remember what happened on this thread the other day.
By my count, at least five, count them, FIVE, people started posting that Vishal wasn't making sense and needed to stop and was off point and ... I'm not going to talk with you anymore ... and .... I'm not going to read his posts anymore ... And ....
That's where this began, Travis, and, make no mistake, it was ugly. It was an ugly thing.
People can dance around the thing now. People can pretend that's not where it started. It's about Shannon and Blou getting offended by a little old word. It's about the fact that, while Vishal made sense based on his beliefs, it doesn't make sense that he believes. NOT an argument that was made two days ago, by the way.
The fact remains that what happened the other day was disrespectful and uncalled for. The fact remains that, instead of trying to understand someone of a different language and culture, people fell into poking fun of him and quasi-bullying behavior. Morality was absent.
I, for one, am not going to be distracted by the smoke currently issuing forth.
It happened.
It happened.
It happened.
If you guys are all kinds of comfortable with that fact, that's your choice. I wasn't and I'm not.
One more thing, Travis ....
This isn't just about Drew. Yeah, Drew's the one who was engaging in the discussion last night. But, let's remember what happened on this thread the other day.
By my count, at least five, count them, FIVE, people started posting that Vishal wasn't making sense and needed to stop and was off point and ... I'm not going to talk with you anymore ... and .... I'm not going to read his posts anymore ... And ....
That's where this began, Travis, and, make no mistake, it was ugly. It was an ugly thing.
People can dance around the thing now. People can pretend that's not where it started. It's about Shannon and Blou getting offended by a little old word. It's about the fact that, while Vishal made sense based on his beliefs, it doesn't make sense that he believes. NOT an argument that was made two days ago, by the way.
The fact remains that what happened the other day was disrespectful and uncalled for. The fact remains that, instead of trying to understand someone of a different language and culture, people fell into poking fun of him and quasi-bullying behavior. Morality was absent.
I, for one, am not going to be distracted by the smoke currently issuing forth.
It happened.
It happened.
It happened.
If you guys are all kinds of comfortable with that fact, that's your choice. I wasn't and I'm not.
With all due respect and consideration for everyone, this is a place for debate, disagreeing, opinions, maybe even some hostility if someone feels strongly enough. We are all ( I assume) grown-ups who will not get their feelings hurt if someone calls them ignorant or says they are clogging up the forum, etc. I don't "know" any of you, so why would I care if you don't like my post, call me ignorant, or think I'm mean. We all have different personalities. Drew is a little more outspoken and not very tactful - but that's fine, it's fun to read and respond to him knowing that it's all a debate. Hazel, Gary, Travis - all very knowledgeable and a little more tactful - extremely interesting and good at eliciting responses. Again, that's what we're here for. Shannon has a lot of good points, and is obviously the most tactful of us, and seems to want to take up for anyone we disagree with or call out. Let's not waste space here trying to make someone else's style of debate our own. Let's just respond to each other as we feel the need.
This is a thread on whether one would choose religion or science. I don't want to get into a debate of whether East or West has a greater right to talk on religious matters...in truth, while the west practices Christian/Catholic, Jewish beliefs...all the three Semitic religions arose from the desert sands of the Middle East or the Arab world (Asia to use a collective).
As for the topic on hand...religion has often been used for evil purposes of conquering, subjugation and destruction by the very people who profess to fight evil. Science produces, invents, creates methods and means that can again be used for good - saving lives, saving the planet or for killing fields, polluting the planet.
I follow the Hindu way of life in the narrowest sense of the word. I am more of an agnostic who has grown up and lives in a pluralistic, secular country which means I am neither going to be crucified or beheaded for losing my faith nor am I on a one way ticket to hell...one of the many things I love about my country and my religion of birth (the things I hate about them would take another thread).
A religious world that breeds racism, xenophobia, hatred, bigotry is something we are better off without.
A scientific world that is again the lord and master of our lives is a dangerous place to be.
You don't need religion to be a good, honest, helpful or respectful human being.
And science is not a panacea for all ills.
I don't visit Temples, Churches, Dargahs or Gurudwaras anymore...I am not going to turn a child molester, murderer, social psychopath, arsonist, swindler, scammer because I no longer affirm my faith.
It's the personality, emotional attitude, human qualities of empathy, altruism and sympathy along with your reaction to society that define your behaviour.
At the same time, I have a problem with generic "super babies" created in labs because it deems our natural "uniqueness" that makes us special to be vile/hindrance
I prefer to live in a tolerant world that celebrates our differences or at the very least accepts it; not a world of either religion sanctioned discrimination and hate crimes or science sponsored genetic superiority/ "gattaca" where the ordinary has no right to survive with dignity.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "We are so conditioned to religion having the magic respect shield, that somebody being as blunt as Drew is seen as radical. It's not. It's no more radical than telling a child there ..."Couple things:
I have mentioned That I thought Drew could have been more tactful in presenting his ideas.
My defense of him has been what he said, not how he said it.
My main problem is people got too wrapped in how he said it, so they sidestepped a lot of what he said.
and what's been happening with Drew is another example of what I keep saying, the assumption that having a belief is also a free 'I get respect' card, and it's not.
I try to be polite when I talk about ( or at least try for blunt rather than rude) but we have all in our lives encountered someone who spouted something so crazy that we had no choice but to respond with 'What a nutter!' ( or your phrase of choice)
It happens
This was Drew's turn, it's just that instead of saying it about UFO enthusiasts, Birthers, people who believe Twilight is real, or people who believe the gays are going to take there guns and force their children to do musical theater, he is saying it about the people that believe in a man in the sky.
and we are so conditioned in this county to not be able or allowed to point out that that is crazy, that it's even hard to talk about why we can't talk about it.
He is also the only one I have mentioned.
To be honest the stuff involving the three other names you mentioned, I've been skimming. Some of it was interesting, but most of it was just the 'same old, same old' that I've discussed and repeated a ga-zillion times, so decided to just lurk and let Gary do the heavy lifting.
Thirdly ( I think it's thirdly, I've rambled a bit so I lost count.)
You have every right to feel offended or hurt about something said here and say so. Kind of the point of this thing. We talk about everything.
Some people don't like something and just shrug and go 'Not worth my time and effort' and move on. I think it's more a case of that than any silent 'First they came for the Sean Bean fans and I said nothing' situation.
fourthly and lastly: please don't do that repeating the 'It happened' three times thing again.
That kind of stuff leads to posting in CAPS LOCK mode and we all care and respect you too much to let you turn into one of those kind of people.
Well said, Travis. Some posts we skim, some we peruse, based on lots of factors, not the least of which is how they appear visually, at least for me. And also how well they flow. Vishal, for example, may have had some valid points, but I could not read his posts without my head spinning. Maybe the language thing, maybe just my mood at the time. When I told him to go away, that was rude and I shouldn't have said it. Some people even had the nerve to say I cannot say it. But the thing is, if someone here said that to me, I would just chuckle to myself and continue with what I wanted to say. Vishal turned all "woe is me, I am a failure, you all hate me, I will go hide under a rock now..." which made me want to read his posts even less.
I do a lot of lurking and reading here as opposed to posting a reply to everything, mainly due to lack of time. Most of us have lives outside of this forum so we can't be judgemental of someone when they pop back up after not posting for a while. It's the nature of the beast, so to speak.
Drew wrote: "Blou4432 wrote: "Drew wrote: "Shannon wrote: "As an aside, ....I can't help but take note of the fact that, instead of spending some time trying to understand another person and his culture and b..."
if you look at the pure hinduism not the new styles no restrictions at all ...you may believe in karma yoga that is you treat your work as worship ...bhakti yoga that is you focus your belief on one God...now why do we have thousands of Idols as God...every form of god that is worshiped in Hinduism is not worshiped as God!!!... but just as the particular form chosen to be worshiped by that person.....
each form/ representation is the way it is for specific reasons... each represents different aspects of creation.... since the almighty is all encompassing and unknowable... in Hinduism.... they take specific forms of god.... i.e. different aspects of him.... different energies.... and worship them for specific reasons.... but do not be confused... Hinduism also believes in the one all encompassing, omnipresent, omnipotent creator.....
See, case in point. This person expresses her opinion very intelligently and clearly, but to me the post is hard to read because of the "u" and "ur" - like in a text message, also the capital letters, and finally all the .......'s. But that doesn't mean she doesn't have a right to express her views. It just means that some people will not read them.
I'm not going to comment on your post, Travis, point by point.
But, one thing puzzles me ....
The three other names I mentioned ....
What names would those be? Vishal and Blou?
Or, are you talking about the five people who ganged up on Vishal the other day? I didn't name them.
I was just curious.
Will endeavor not to repeat myself three times again. Was attempting to point out that, no matter how much smoke is blown in my direction, I'll not likely forget this started with people picking on someone of a different culture and language versus critically analyzing his arguments or making any attempt to view the situation through anything but their own lenses. The truth is the truth, after all. But, you're right, given that it's the truth, there's not reason to repeat it three times. If it was the truth the first time, why say it again. Does that make it any more true?
And ... ultimately, I'd hate for people to go all CAPS LOCK on me, for me to go all CAPS LOCK on them or people to feel the need to hand me my ass.
Regarding Rekha's post, awesome job! I wish I had some of your peace and centeredness. I don't think I'm off base in sensing it shine through your words. I have it, unless and until I think someone is being treated unfairly. Then, it turns to fire. Something I must work on.
But, one thing puzzles me ....
The three other names I mentioned ....
What names would those be? Vishal and Blou?
Or, are you talking about the five people who ganged up on Vishal the other day? I didn't name them.
I was just curious.
Will endeavor not to repeat myself three times again. Was attempting to point out that, no matter how much smoke is blown in my direction, I'll not likely forget this started with people picking on someone of a different culture and language versus critically analyzing his arguments or making any attempt to view the situation through anything but their own lenses. The truth is the truth, after all. But, you're right, given that it's the truth, there's not reason to repeat it three times. If it was the truth the first time, why say it again. Does that make it any more true?
And ... ultimately, I'd hate for people to go all CAPS LOCK on me, for me to go all CAPS LOCK on them or people to feel the need to hand me my ass.
Regarding Rekha's post, awesome job! I wish I had some of your peace and centeredness. I don't think I'm off base in sensing it shine through your words. I have it, unless and until I think someone is being treated unfairly. Then, it turns to fire. Something I must work on.
Shannon wrote: "I'm not going to comment on your post, Travis, point by point. But, one thing puzzles me ....
The three other names I mentioned ....
What names would those be? Vishal and Blou?
Was it five? Thought you only listed three. My fault. Reading comprehension and math are tricky in this heat.
and feel free to point out when you think something/one is wrong or out of line. we all do it and expect it from others.
Personally, I'm amazed I haven't gotten yelled at more than I have.
and while Anjali has some interesting thoughts, ( and a very cool name) I tend to skim after the second 'U' or 'UR' as well as god being all caps.
Personal pet peeve.
and despite the friction in parts of this part of the debate, I have been tactful and kept any comments about Shannon posting in her boots to myself.
Not risking another awkward thread drift like that whole 'Fifty Shades of Grey' thing.
Maria wrote: "See, case in point. This person expresses her opinion very intelligently and clearly, but to me the post is hard to read because of the "u" and "ur" - like in a text message, also the capital lett..."oops my bad...i have edited my post ..will try in future not to use such things
Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "I'm not going to comment on your post, Travis, point by point. But, one thing puzzles me ....
The three other names I mentioned ....
What names would those be? Vishal and Blou..."
Thanks Travis the name Anjali means devotion
No, it's your style. And since the points you make are good ones and worthy of discussion, I will read your posts. And if you are using a phone or hand held device, I know it's much easier. I agree with you that both science and religion can go too far.
Science - I don't think we should be able to create our own "custom babies" - someone would like a blond, blue-eyed baby girl with a predisposition to being a concert pianist - and if they can tell in utero that they don't have that, well then just scrap it and try again. It's scary.
Religion - I don't think you need an organized religion or trips to a church or other designated place of worship to be a good person. I do believe that some people who go to church are good people because of what they have been taught there, and that's a good thing. But I also believe that it is not necessary to be religious to be a kind, loving person who does good to their fellow humans.
I think Anjali is a cool name as well.
Let me try and explain as i recognise my religion...It recognizes that everyone is different
and has a unique intellectual and spiritual
outlook. Therefore, it allows people to develop
and grow at their own pace by making different
spiritual paths available to them,so that individuals may be guided by their own
spiritual experiences. This freedom of worship is
unmatched. Hinduism has never been imposed on
anyone, whether on a slaves people through
wars, or by offering spiritual or economic
benefits to the poor
I think Hinduism is the religion I am least familiar with and am glad that you are explaining it. Thank you, and keep going!
Travis wrote: "and despite the friction in parts of this part of the debate, I have been tactful and kept any comments about Shannon posting in her boots to myself.
Not risking another awkward thread drift like that whole 'Fifty Shades of Grey' thing. "
I went back and changed that part, Travis, regarding shaking in my boots if I weren't barefoot. That was me not you.
You see, I thought you were telling me people were going to go CAPS LOCK on me. I thought ... Ooh, scary. I posted and logged out of the computer to go do dishes. Then, it flashed through my brain .... Oh, crap. Was he saying people were going to go CAPS LOCK on me or that I was going to on them? I went back, re-read, and realized, I think, that you were alluding to the fact that I would on them, so I edited my post.
I didn't explain, as I thought I caught it before it was read.
However, since it was read, I'm willing to admit that I was wrong and misread the post.
Regarding the number, yes, by my count at least five people ganged up on Vishal ... though I didn't name them. Therefore, I was confused.
Regarding Anjali and your skimming after the second 'U' or 'UR' .... There is a difference between how people are discussing that today and how it was discussed the other day ....
I wonder .... If someone writes in a way that we don't understand or appreciate, why don't we address the person directly, or decide to simply not read the posts or skim them? Why do some feel it necessary to post to hundreds of people who are reading or will someday read this thread, that another's writing style is bothersome, therefore let's not read it ... or I'm not going to read it?
What is the point or purpose of saying that aloud ... especially when coupled with things like ... hogwash, stop spewing, go away, you don't make sense, you're ignorant, etc...? (In addition and as an aside, I don't recognize that as debate. Ha! I'm reminded of asking Gary if it made him more comfortable, given the fact that he was once religious and is now not, to think ... what were my words ... that no good could come from religion and nothing could be learned through religious or spiritual study? Ah, remember that? Remember people jumping all over my butt and defending Gary. How dare I attack him?! Even Gary asked me why I was changing tactics ... shifting from questioning his points to attacking him personally. Wow! In actuality, that wasn't me attacking Gary. That was me asking a question. But, that was viewed as an attack, not debate, while five people going on about hogwash and spewing and "you need to go away" and I'm just not going to read your posts and I'm not responding to you anymore, is ... what? I'm sometimes amazed. I truly am.)
Not risking another awkward thread drift like that whole 'Fifty Shades of Grey' thing. "
I went back and changed that part, Travis, regarding shaking in my boots if I weren't barefoot. That was me not you.
You see, I thought you were telling me people were going to go CAPS LOCK on me. I thought ... Ooh, scary. I posted and logged out of the computer to go do dishes. Then, it flashed through my brain .... Oh, crap. Was he saying people were going to go CAPS LOCK on me or that I was going to on them? I went back, re-read, and realized, I think, that you were alluding to the fact that I would on them, so I edited my post.
I didn't explain, as I thought I caught it before it was read.
However, since it was read, I'm willing to admit that I was wrong and misread the post.
Regarding the number, yes, by my count at least five people ganged up on Vishal ... though I didn't name them. Therefore, I was confused.
Regarding Anjali and your skimming after the second 'U' or 'UR' .... There is a difference between how people are discussing that today and how it was discussed the other day ....
I wonder .... If someone writes in a way that we don't understand or appreciate, why don't we address the person directly, or decide to simply not read the posts or skim them? Why do some feel it necessary to post to hundreds of people who are reading or will someday read this thread, that another's writing style is bothersome, therefore let's not read it ... or I'm not going to read it?
What is the point or purpose of saying that aloud ... especially when coupled with things like ... hogwash, stop spewing, go away, you don't make sense, you're ignorant, etc...? (In addition and as an aside, I don't recognize that as debate. Ha! I'm reminded of asking Gary if it made him more comfortable, given the fact that he was once religious and is now not, to think ... what were my words ... that no good could come from religion and nothing could be learned through religious or spiritual study? Ah, remember that? Remember people jumping all over my butt and defending Gary. How dare I attack him?! Even Gary asked me why I was changing tactics ... shifting from questioning his points to attacking him personally. Wow! In actuality, that wasn't me attacking Gary. That was me asking a question. But, that was viewed as an attack, not debate, while five people going on about hogwash and spewing and "you need to go away" and I'm just not going to read your posts and I'm not responding to you anymore, is ... what? I'm sometimes amazed. I truly am.)
so like Rekha ....even i do not go to the temple regularly ...but i still believe that there is a higher God somewhere..i have the freedom to do as i feel ..i am at peace with my belief systems...my parents are quite religious....but they do not impose the same on me as my belief systems are different they are shaped by my experiences in my life ...more tomorrow as i cannot compose my thoughts so easily in english...
Anjali ....
May I ask a question? I picked up a copy of the Gita this morning and intend to start reading this afternoon. As I stood in the bookstore, I remembered Hazel mentioning wanting to find a good translation. The bookstore only had one. I got it anyway, not knowing if it was a "good" translation. It's by a man named Eknath Easwaran. Do you happen to know of him or anything about this translation? Can you speak to whether or not there are certain translations that we would do well to read or to avoid?
(I also spent about an hour doing some skimming in a book on Hindu philosophy while at the store. I didn't know or had forgotten that Emerson and Thoreau were inspired by the Gita ... and Gandhi was later inspired, somewhat, by Thoreau. I almost think I learned all of that when I was in college, but it just flew out of my mind.)
May I ask a question? I picked up a copy of the Gita this morning and intend to start reading this afternoon. As I stood in the bookstore, I remembered Hazel mentioning wanting to find a good translation. The bookstore only had one. I got it anyway, not knowing if it was a "good" translation. It's by a man named Eknath Easwaran. Do you happen to know of him or anything about this translation? Can you speak to whether or not there are certain translations that we would do well to read or to avoid?
(I also spent about an hour doing some skimming in a book on Hindu philosophy while at the store. I didn't know or had forgotten that Emerson and Thoreau were inspired by the Gita ... and Gandhi was later inspired, somewhat, by Thoreau. I almost think I learned all of that when I was in college, but it just flew out of my mind.)
"...five people going on about hogwash and spewing and "you need to go away" and I'm just not going to read your posts and I'm not responding to you anymore, is ... what?" It is people saying what they think, as is their right - the person it is directed at can come back with something, ignore it, whatever they fancy.
Being one of the "five" you are referring to, even though you won't confront any of us directly (which is also your decision) I can only speak for myself. I read posts, comment on their style and content and give my opinions - always tactful? No. But that is the beauty of a forum like this - the free will to address pretty much anything, like Travis said.
Will I get yelled at or dressed down? Maybe. Great! Maybe I'll feel bad and apologize. Maybe I'll defend myself. Am I hurt or annoyed that I've made five or six posts in the last hour and no one has even acknowledged me? A little. But that's the nature of the world of online discussions.
yes it is a good translation ...i read a translation in a language called kannada..... but i have heard that the eknath version good from my dad...i will have to check up dad about good english translations....
Maria wrote: "I think Anjali is a cool name as well."thanks :)
Maria wrote: "Most of us have lives outside of this forum so we can't be judgemental of someone when they pop back up after not posting for a while. It's the nature of the beast, so to speak. "
Maria ....
Has someone judged another for popping back up after not posting for awhile? I don't believe that's happened. Has it?
Drew asked me why asked him the question I did. Why did I ask him why it was so vital for him to point out that people were ignorant? He said it wasn't vital to him at all and he wanted me to explain myself.
As I told Drew ....
Drew doesn't often take part in the conversation. He only does so from time to time. I believe I even said something like ... I'm not saying you should post more .... I suggested he think of Charlie Brown, though I might be dating myself. When I was growing up and in high school, there'd be Charlie Brown specials on TV. Whenever the teacher spoke, it sounded like, "Wah, wah, wah, wah, wah." When someone speaks a lot, guilty, it can become easy to tune that person out. His or her words, I'm sure my words, can become a "wah, wah, wah." Whereas, when someone, like Drew, speaks on rare occasions, that person's words tend to stand out. They can even come across as being important, perhaps due to the infrequency of hearing the person's voice or seeing his words and perhaps due to assumptions made by the listener ... if he rarely speaks and is doing so now, it must be really important.
I'm fairly sure I said all of that, didn't I? I did have a horrid nightmare about a spider the size of my fist crawling round my bedroom, which made me wake up screaming ... which led me to search my bedroom as I wasn't sure if it was a dream or if I'd really seen it ... which led me not to want to turn out the lights and sleep ... which led me to go to the living room and work on the computer all night ... several things including the debate here. So, given my sleepless state, I might not have said that. But, I'm 99% certain that I did.
Was any part of that judgmental, in your eyes? Because, frankly, I'm having a hard time understanding how it could be seen as judgmental.
Further, may I ask you a question?
Why did you begin your statement with ....
"Most of us have lives outside of this forum...."
What was your point or purpose in making that statement? Or, did the statement serve no purpose?
Maria ....
Has someone judged another for popping back up after not posting for awhile? I don't believe that's happened. Has it?
Drew asked me why asked him the question I did. Why did I ask him why it was so vital for him to point out that people were ignorant? He said it wasn't vital to him at all and he wanted me to explain myself.
As I told Drew ....
Drew doesn't often take part in the conversation. He only does so from time to time. I believe I even said something like ... I'm not saying you should post more .... I suggested he think of Charlie Brown, though I might be dating myself. When I was growing up and in high school, there'd be Charlie Brown specials on TV. Whenever the teacher spoke, it sounded like, "Wah, wah, wah, wah, wah." When someone speaks a lot, guilty, it can become easy to tune that person out. His or her words, I'm sure my words, can become a "wah, wah, wah." Whereas, when someone, like Drew, speaks on rare occasions, that person's words tend to stand out. They can even come across as being important, perhaps due to the infrequency of hearing the person's voice or seeing his words and perhaps due to assumptions made by the listener ... if he rarely speaks and is doing so now, it must be really important.
I'm fairly sure I said all of that, didn't I? I did have a horrid nightmare about a spider the size of my fist crawling round my bedroom, which made me wake up screaming ... which led me to search my bedroom as I wasn't sure if it was a dream or if I'd really seen it ... which led me not to want to turn out the lights and sleep ... which led me to go to the living room and work on the computer all night ... several things including the debate here. So, given my sleepless state, I might not have said that. But, I'm 99% certain that I did.
Was any part of that judgmental, in your eyes? Because, frankly, I'm having a hard time understanding how it could be seen as judgmental.
Further, may I ask you a question?
Why did you begin your statement with ....
"Most of us have lives outside of this forum...."
What was your point or purpose in making that statement? Or, did the statement serve no purpose?
It probably didn't serve a purpose. At least not one that makes sense now. I think I felt guilty for lurking and then when I finally made a comment I was anticipating being judged, simply because it's been a while. In other words, kind of defending myself before the fact. Doesn't really make sense, so it was not really a great thing for me to have said. I personally enjoy the diversity on this forum, with all of our styles of conversation. I understand where Drew calling people ignorant would ruffle some feathers. But if that's what he thinks, then he can say it here, because that's his right. Whoever he calls ignorant has the choice of getting offended, laughing it off, responding, ignoring, etc. It's not a huge deal to me, it just spurs more discussion.
I sometimes hold myself back... sleep on a comment and then type it out the next day ..as it is very tough to explain my belief to some who may be able to understand my emotional and cultural makeup as a person...No matter what anyone says my belief is strong as it is influenced by experiences in life...it gives me peace ..the strength to start my life again no matter what happend
Maria wrote: "Being one of the "five" you are referring to, even though you won't confront any of us directly (which is also your decision)"
Actually, Maria, I did address people at the time. You might recall Gary asking people to use some patience with regard to Vishal. At that point, I began posting ... including the fact that I thought he was making sense, typing a quote regarding Hindu philosophy that I'd read and asking if people were reminded of Vishal's words. In point of fact, I asked you specifically, when you continued to say he didn't make sense, to please read my post, if you hadn't, and comment on it.
No, I didn't call any of out. I didn't call you ignorant or anything of that nature. No, I didn't do that. I didn't say you should stop being mean to Vishal. I attempted to deal with the matter more tactfully ... to, I hoped, further understanding. I tried to address the situation by pointing out that he actually was making sense and suggesting that people realize there might be language and cultural issues at play. I addressed that.
After the back and forth with Drew last night, I continued to think about the situation. Did I call you out on ganging up on him and quasi-bullying tactics? Did I use those words? No.
I'll do it now.
To the five people who ganged up on Vishal yesterday ... or was it the day before ...
Drew, Maria, Hazel, Shanna, Jettcat (sp?), I think your words left the bounds of debate and veered toward quasi-bullying behavior. Yes, you have a right to your opinion. I suppose you even have the right to gang up on people on GR. However, when I see that type of behavior, I feel uncomfortable. It especially makes me feel uncomfortable when it seems as if there's a language and cultural barrier instead of the intent to confuse or tick people off. If I see that behavior, I'll likely speak to it in some way. That is also my right.
I don't stand up for people you disagree with. That's not the point. We're not all going to agree. No humans are in constant agreement. I accept that and even think it can be a beautiful thing.
I do stand up for people who are being treated unjustly. When people say atheists lack morals, I speak against that. I consider it to be an unjust statement and judgment. When people have "yelled" and sworn at atheists here, name-called, and said the atheists were going to hell, I questioned, given their Christianity, whether or not they felt they were living the words and intentions of Christ? When people tell someone he's spewing and needs to go away and that they're not going to talk with him anymore, I stand for the person who is being ganged up upon and, frankly, misunderstood.
That is who I am and have always been. I sometimes wonder at whether or not it's wise. What is the line between standing against injustice and not allowing someone to stand for him/herself? Might my stance impede the free speech of others? Might it add to the chaos of misunderstanding? Those are things I actually think about and try to take into account. However, the truth is the truth. This is a huge part of my very being, for various reasons, rightly or wrongly. I'll not deny it. But, it's not about agreement or disagreement. It's about how people are treated. It's, for me, an issue of justice.
Actually, Maria, I did address people at the time. You might recall Gary asking people to use some patience with regard to Vishal. At that point, I began posting ... including the fact that I thought he was making sense, typing a quote regarding Hindu philosophy that I'd read and asking if people were reminded of Vishal's words. In point of fact, I asked you specifically, when you continued to say he didn't make sense, to please read my post, if you hadn't, and comment on it.
No, I didn't call any of out. I didn't call you ignorant or anything of that nature. No, I didn't do that. I didn't say you should stop being mean to Vishal. I attempted to deal with the matter more tactfully ... to, I hoped, further understanding. I tried to address the situation by pointing out that he actually was making sense and suggesting that people realize there might be language and cultural issues at play. I addressed that.
After the back and forth with Drew last night, I continued to think about the situation. Did I call you out on ganging up on him and quasi-bullying tactics? Did I use those words? No.
I'll do it now.
To the five people who ganged up on Vishal yesterday ... or was it the day before ...
Drew, Maria, Hazel, Shanna, Jettcat (sp?), I think your words left the bounds of debate and veered toward quasi-bullying behavior. Yes, you have a right to your opinion. I suppose you even have the right to gang up on people on GR. However, when I see that type of behavior, I feel uncomfortable. It especially makes me feel uncomfortable when it seems as if there's a language and cultural barrier instead of the intent to confuse or tick people off. If I see that behavior, I'll likely speak to it in some way. That is also my right.
I don't stand up for people you disagree with. That's not the point. We're not all going to agree. No humans are in constant agreement. I accept that and even think it can be a beautiful thing.
I do stand up for people who are being treated unjustly. When people say atheists lack morals, I speak against that. I consider it to be an unjust statement and judgment. When people have "yelled" and sworn at atheists here, name-called, and said the atheists were going to hell, I questioned, given their Christianity, whether or not they felt they were living the words and intentions of Christ? When people tell someone he's spewing and needs to go away and that they're not going to talk with him anymore, I stand for the person who is being ganged up upon and, frankly, misunderstood.
That is who I am and have always been. I sometimes wonder at whether or not it's wise. What is the line between standing against injustice and not allowing someone to stand for him/herself? Might my stance impede the free speech of others? Might it add to the chaos of misunderstanding? Those are things I actually think about and try to take into account. However, the truth is the truth. This is a huge part of my very being, for various reasons, rightly or wrongly. I'll not deny it. But, it's not about agreement or disagreement. It's about how people are treated. It's, for me, an issue of justice.
Anything that gives you peace and strength is a good thing. Whatever anyone else says should not diminish that for you. And that is a good idea about holding back. Unfortunately I am not good at doing that!
Anjali wrote: "yes it is a good translation ...i read a translation in a language called kannada..... but i have heard that the eknath version good from my dad...
i will have to check up dad about good english t..."
Thanks!
i will have to check up dad about good english t..."
Thanks!
well they say in sanskritsatyam bruyat priyam bruyat na bruyat satyam apriyam
priyam ca nanrutam bruyat esha dharmah sanatanah
Speak truth in such a way that it should be pleasing to others. Never speak truth, which is unpleasant to others. Never speak untruth, which might be pleasant. This is the path of eternal morality, sanatana dharma.
To speak truth is an eternal value irrespective of time and place. But the expression of truth should be accompanied by two conditions. Firstly, it should be presented in a loving manner and secondly it should be spoken for the betterment of others. How you speak is as important as what is said. Priyam means speech that does not hurt others. Hitam is something that is said for the good or betterment of others. One should be careful of speaking truth but not hurting others.
We should be careful in speaking the truth. The purpose should be good and the words used and the manners in which they are spoken are important. So the value of truthfulness is relative to a situation. According to the Indian scriptures while living in the world of relativity truth can be interpreted in many ways
Anjali wrote: "Firstly, it should be presented in a loving manner and secondly it should be spoken for the betterment of others. How you speak is as important as what is said. Priyam means speech that does not hurt others. Hitam is something that is said for the good or betterment of others. One should be careful of speaking truth but not hurting others."
This is something I've felt, inside myself, for a long time. I didn't know it was a Hindu teaching. Personally, it's something I struggle with, greatly. Sometimes I'm successful. Other times ... I fail miserably. I think I did both yesterday and today, truthfully. Now ... to attempt to learn from it and do better next time.
Thank you ....
This is something I've felt, inside myself, for a long time. I didn't know it was a Hindu teaching. Personally, it's something I struggle with, greatly. Sometimes I'm successful. Other times ... I fail miserably. I think I did both yesterday and today, truthfully. Now ... to attempt to learn from it and do better next time.
Thank you ....
I wish I could call back message 5923. I'm not going to delete it, much as I want to do so. I said it. Unfortunately, given that, it stands. However, it doesn't need to stand on its own.
It was wrong for me to have written it the way I did. I was feeling badly over it while doing laundry, even before seeing Anjuli's last post. I stood there folding clothes thinking ... you never should have said that ... never ... what were you thinking ... oh, that's right ... you were reacting ... you weren't thinking ... yesterday ... when you tried to point out that Vishal was making sense and there were likely cultural issues at play, you were doing a good thing ... attempting to help shed light on a murky discussion ... what you just did ... that was a crappy thing to do.
Then, I read Anjali's post (thank you) and knew ....
I apologize for reacting and adding to the chaos of misunderstanding. I apologize to Drew, Maria, Hazel, Shanna and Jettcat (again, sp?) for calling you out as I did. If I felt impelled to do so, I should have found another way.
It was wrong for me to have written it the way I did. I was feeling badly over it while doing laundry, even before seeing Anjuli's last post. I stood there folding clothes thinking ... you never should have said that ... never ... what were you thinking ... oh, that's right ... you were reacting ... you weren't thinking ... yesterday ... when you tried to point out that Vishal was making sense and there were likely cultural issues at play, you were doing a good thing ... attempting to help shed light on a murky discussion ... what you just did ... that was a crappy thing to do.
Then, I read Anjali's post (thank you) and knew ....
I apologize for reacting and adding to the chaos of misunderstanding. I apologize to Drew, Maria, Hazel, Shanna and Jettcat (again, sp?) for calling you out as I did. If I felt impelled to do so, I should have found another way.
Seems in my morning hustle and bustle, I missed quite a bit here. I am new here, but you all knew that. I find the fact that this thread is so diverse in its beliefs and the personalities who interact with it refreshing. I do not have the time, at this moment, to go through point for point, on everything that was discussed here, but I will as soon as my household settles a bit this evening. I just wanted to point a few things out. I got the impression that Drew grouped me in with the religious. In that, he would be wrong. As I tried to make clear last night, I do not think he is wrong for his beliefs. I jumped in for one reason. It is the same reason Shannon just stated. I read Vishnal's post. I found it beautiful and understood what he was saying about what he believed because I had studied on it. Directly following his post, he was told he did not make any sense. Taking the time to re-read his post, I felt that he was being bullied. It is true. Debate is good for the soul. Debate tactics vary. Some are blunt. Some are tactless. Some have a lot to say, others don't. But it should never be rude. Just because we don't understand someone's beliefs, doesn't make them wrong. It makes them theirs. There is nothing wrong with that. Religious or not, shutting someone down because of a belief that is far removed from what you have known or believe and telling them they are not valid or on point when you either didn't read it or didn't understand it is rude. If you don't understand something, the simple solution is to ask. I enjoy debating, but try my best to not be rude and to treat everyone with respect. That was the point I was making and I apologize if it seemed there was some different motive.
Shannon, apology accepted, however not necessary. You can call out whoever you want. It's hard to be kind and tactful when you feel strongly about things. Believe me, I struggle constantly with saying the wrong thing, or saying the right thing in the wrong way. I totally understand where you are coming from, and really - no harm done. I think Anjali's post is fabulous - definitely humbles me and gives me something to work toward.
When I came in this thread this night, I became totally amazed that Shannon is trying to defend me. This was hardly needed. We are here to share our beliefs that I was being stated many times and not to fight with each others' beliefs. They were only against my belief and there was no intention to be rude towards me. I had said 'I am failure' not because I was thinking something as Maria thinks. I was actually then truly in the mind where no thoughts were popping up in my head. In my whole comments I was actually trying to make some sense of my thoughts and when Gary was putting questions, I was just thinking how my thoughts are getting complicated day by day.
I have seen Hazel was saying, I am propagating Osho's teaching and I was not like that. Because if Hazel would read my previous long comments then she would actually find out that I am against abolishing anyone's belief and more in favor of the harmony in which here in India people live. Now I am a mixed kind of person and there are many impacts of many persons on my life. I carry the meditation of Osho and I have gone through 'Gita' and 'Upnishads' and many philosophies. That is why I was frequently saying to Gary that I am understanding the meaning of religion through my own learning of 'Gita' and Buddha's meaning of religion. I have already made a comment where I have shown where my mind is staying and how to see the diversity of India, I am wishing that it should not to be abolished or destroyed.
In last comment Shannon has got the meaning of Anjali's post and actually Anjali has given the true essence of 'Gita' in that comment far more better than I could have done. I have many times apologized to every one in several comments even when people were not asking. Why? Just because I participated here not to make anyone against me personally and they were just against my thoughts. Gary is very perfect in his meaning but Hazel had got me personally because I quoted 'Osho'.
I have seen Hazel was saying, I am propagating Osho's teaching and I was not like that. Because if Hazel would read my previous long comments then she would actually find out that I am against abolishing anyone's belief and more in favor of the harmony in which here in India people live. Now I am a mixed kind of person and there are many impacts of many persons on my life. I carry the meditation of Osho and I have gone through 'Gita' and 'Upnishads' and many philosophies. That is why I was frequently saying to Gary that I am understanding the meaning of religion through my own learning of 'Gita' and Buddha's meaning of religion. I have already made a comment where I have shown where my mind is staying and how to see the diversity of India, I am wishing that it should not to be abolished or destroyed.
In last comment Shannon has got the meaning of Anjali's post and actually Anjali has given the true essence of 'Gita' in that comment far more better than I could have done. I have many times apologized to every one in several comments even when people were not asking. Why? Just because I participated here not to make anyone against me personally and they were just against my thoughts. Gary is very perfect in his meaning but Hazel had got me personally because I quoted 'Osho'.
Now I apologized to every one once again because of me, one page had got wasted. And if I would be here in the day then I surely would say to Shannon to stop this because they have all right to say what they wish and I found it very true when I found that one should to be ready for any criticism for one's belief if one participated in a debate forum but truly as I sated to Hazel, this thread should to be named something else. I was totally confused when I had written my comment. I misunderstood it as it is saying something to just share what one's belief is as Rekha has written in the first sentence, I had also thought it. As soon as I got that this is going as a debate I concluded in some page (I don't know on which page) that I have no wish to carry on any argument to Gary. But when respond popped up as Gary again began argument, I thought what harm is there if I make myself at some understanding point what beliefs I am carrying for my life style, from inner to outer. But alas! I arrived no where so that was the reason why I tried to stopped myself from carry on the argument further more.
Vishal, you have no need to apologize to anyone. I apologize for telling you to "go away" and that you made no sense. You do make sense, and that was a rude thing for me to say. Please - discuss, argue, debate, wax poetic - anything goes here. Again, please accept my apology. I sometimes speak (or in this case, write) before thinking things over.
Maria wrote: "Vishal, you have no need to apologize to anyone. I apologize for telling you to "go away" and that you made no sense. You do make sense, and that was a rude thing for me to say. Please - discuss..."
No more apologizing process should to be continued.
I think you'll not mind if I say something:-
In India, there is a city, "Lucknow" and it is famous for its generosity and good etiquette and good behavior towards anyone. It is famous story in all over India that once a time two 'Mullas (a word for Muslim Maullana or priest)' tried to bored a train at same time but then both found that this is not a perfect behavior for each other. So by accepting his mistake he asked another to get on the train by saying sorry. But same was in the mind of another Mulla, so he done the same. They continued doing this and then at last one was agree to go first but as they both turned, they found train was not there. Train had gone.
No more apologizing process should to be continued.
I think you'll not mind if I say something:-
In India, there is a city, "Lucknow" and it is famous for its generosity and good etiquette and good behavior towards anyone. It is famous story in all over India that once a time two 'Mullas (a word for Muslim Maullana or priest)' tried to bored a train at same time but then both found that this is not a perfect behavior for each other. So by accepting his mistake he asked another to get on the train by saying sorry. But same was in the mind of another Mulla, so he done the same. They continued doing this and then at last one was agree to go first but as they both turned, they found train was not there. Train had gone.
I understand. On to other topics.....
Maria wrote: "With all due respect and consideration for everyone, this is a place for debate, disagreeing, opinions, maybe even some hostility if someone feels strongly enough. We are all ( I assume) grown-ups ..."Yes Maria, you got it, I don't know any of you so when I'm debating something I feel that I don't need to pull my punches, and I expect the same from you. I will not get my feelings hurt or feel disrespected if you say something off-color.
Shannon, I was speaking to you, Blou, and Vishnal, along with the other religious people here, I'm not purposefully trying to single anyone out.
Yes, my original comment was directed at Vishnal but it wasn't just him I speaking to, I want concise, easily understood questions and answers so that I can properly debate them. Instead I got a bunch of run-on sentences that were hard to understand due to the way it was typed. Maybe the meaning of what I was trying to get across got lost in translation, I can freely admit that could be a possibility. That's the biggest hurdle we have in discussing these issues online, Sometimes what we mean and what is understood isn't clear.
I want to make sure it is understood right now that I used the words "wish", "spew", and "garbage". I didn't tell him anything, I wished it. One of the definitions of spew is to come forth in a flood or gush, so when I said spewing, I was literally talking about his thoughts coming out in a flood of words that was difficult to read. Finally, "garbage", I do think all religious beliefs are garbage. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, it's just the way I feel about it.
As far as being tactful to you goes, religious people always take harsh words used against them and try to use them to their advantage. It allows you to go off on a tangent so that you can side-track the discussion.
Why instead couldn't you just brushed them off and continue on with the discussion at hand. We spent an awful lot of time debating whether or not the word ignorance should be taken negatively. I felt no need to be tactful because you were using my words to start an entirely different debate.
Anjali wrote: "Let me try and explain as i recognise my religion...It recognizes that everyone is different
and has a unique intellectual and spiritual
outlook. Therefore, it allows people to develop
and grow ..."
Okay, now the spiritual aspect sounds nice because spiritual doesn't necessary mean religious. It can mean humanistic ideas on qualities such as love, compassion, patience, tolerance, forgiveness, contentment, responsibility, harmony, and a concern for others, aspects of life and human experience which go beyond a purely materialist view of the world, without necessarily accepting belief in a supernatural reality or divine being. I can absolutely respect this aspect of Hinduism.
The problem is when it gets into the divine realm and maybe not all Hindus practice the aspects that are divine in Hinduism, but many still do and the fact that it is rooted with the divine in mind leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Vishal wrote: "When I came in this thread this night, I became totally amazed that Shannon is trying to defend me. This was hardly needed. We are here to share our beliefs that I was being stated many times and n..."Vishnal, I don't want you to leave, your arguments are just as valid as anyone else's and frankly we need you viewpoints in this discussion.
I hope you understood that it wasn't the context of what you were saying, it was simply the way you had typed it. It has to do with the language barrier, word of advice though, put spaces in between your topics so that they are more easily read. This would help tremendously.
"I don't know any of you so when I'm debating something I feel that I don't need to pull my punches, and I expect the same from you. I will not get my feelings hurt or feel disrespected if you say something off-color."Drew - exactly! While I have enjoyed talking to all of you, it's not like we all take to heart everyone's opinion of us on this forum. I mean, not to sound harsh, but who cares if Shannon thinks I'm rude or Drew thinks I'm ignorant, etc etc. That's certainly their right to think and say those things. And unless they are my best friends whose opinions of me matter greatly, then it doesn't bother me.
Besides, I am rude sometimes. And I am ignorant on a lot of topics. So they are right.
Shannon, where exactly did I bully or even quasi-bully Vishal?
Hinduism also has a athesist school of thought... The principal text of the Samkhya school, the Samkhya Karika, was written by Ishvara Krishna in the fourth century CE, by which time it was already a dominant Hindu school. The origins of the school are much older and are lost in legend. The school was both dualistic and atheistic. They believed in a dual existence of Prakriti ("nature") and Purusha ("spirit") and had no place for an Ishvara ("God") in its system, arguing that the existence of Ishvara cannot be proved and hence cannot be admitted to exist
this is very old commentary by my guru on hinduism ...The quality of the Great Spirit Earth out of the Panchamahabhootas is Aetheistic, i.e. the belief that solid, physical, visible and perceptible to senses only exists. Whereas the quality of the First Element, the God particle, Ether(Eshwar is the Divine quality. Sanatana Dharma as well as Hinduism belives that everything in the cosmos is formed from the five great spirits. Those who believe in God is theists and those who believe in mundane and earthly or materials or materialistic beliefs are Atheists. Hinduism belives in Dvaida (the dual state) as well as the Advaita (the montheist state) as well as the undifferentiated Brahman, the Polytheist state of Divine existence, as well as polytheist belief in God by materially worshiping various gods or demigods or idols. It is too complex and deeper understanding that encompasses all other beliefs and understanding. Since God is omnipresent it has to be polytheistic and pantheistic, whereas the Omnipresence originates from one source has to be Montheistic, and at the same time the universe and the God does not stop at the converging single point of Monotheism and extends further in the higher consciousness levels beyond the perceivable God positions and therefore a realm of polytheistic Gods are acknowledged by the knowing adept in Hinduism and Sanatana Dharma.
Anjali wrote: "this is very old commentary by my guru on hinduism ...The quality of the Great Spirit Earth out of the Panchamahabhootas is Aetheistic, i.e. the belief that solid, physical, visible and perceptible..."Very complex and very hard to follow, maybe it's just my ignorance, or the language, or maybe it's just that the words began to bleed together and I was unable to separate them, or all three.
Just to get us back on track, Anjali and Vishal, would you rather live in a world without science or without religion? Let's say, just for arguments sake, that you can't have both. I can't remember if either of you ever answered this question.
I would say i would not live in a world without religion ...Case to prove my point is some discussions i have had with my dad and uncles ...let me try and give a gist of what i remember ..As per Bhagvad Gita ...Science is main basis or pillar of religion ...in a few posts behind i talked about bhakti yoga and karma yoga ...science is essentially Gyan(knowledge) yoga...
Gyana yoga as per a great Guru is....... Great is the tenacity with which man clings to the senses. Yet, however substantial he may think the external world in which he lives and moves, there comes a time in the lives of individuals and of races when involuntarily they ask "Is this real?" To the person who never finds moment to question the credentials and of his senses, whose every moment is occupied with some sort of sense enjoyment-even to him death comes, and he also is compelled to ask, "Is this real?" Religion begins with this question and ends with its answer
There is a chapter of the Gita is entitled, Sankhya Yoga. The word "sankhya" means “counting,” “enumeration,” or “analysis.” In the Gita there is a simple form of "analysis" that classifies matter into eight constituent elements: earth, water, fire, air, space, mind, intelligence and ego. This is essentially a periodic table and an excellent example of early science or what used to be called natural philosophy.
Even before the Gita, Hindu thinkers had taken this theme of “counting” and developed it into one of the six traditional philosophies of ancient India called Saankhya. From the perspective of Bhagavad Gita, it is fair to say that modern science is simply a highly detailed analysis of matter and so, in this sense, there is no conflict between the Gita and science. Modern science is simply more of what ancient Hindu thinkers had been doing for millennia, but where the Gita would disagree with modern science is that modern science does not go far enough in its analysis of reality.
Vedic "science" is not simply about the mere analysis of matter, but it also includes the analysis soul and God.
Anjali wrote: "I would say i would not live in a world without religion ...Case to prove my point is some discussions i have had with my dad and uncles ...let me try and give a gist of what i remember ..As per B..."
So you would rather live in a world without science, correct? If that's the case, that means you would rather live in a primitive world where we all had to hunt and gather, no electricity, nothing of the modern world. You'd rather live in the Stone Age rather than live in a world without religion?
Your explanation really didn't make any sense to me at all to be honest but I will try to piece it together. It looks, to me, as if you are saying that science and religion are one in the same (please let me know if I'm wrong about my understanding).
I'm sorry but that sounds like utter crap to me. Science and religion are in opposition to one another, at least I don't see how they could possibly be unified. Perhaps that's just my Western thinking but I don't think it could possibly be so.
Well i am trying to say science and religion are one and the same ...thats what we have always been though as per vedic books...Hinduism perhaps the only religion which treats the gays and lesbians as a third gender and a full part of civilization some points to prove my point....
1) The Narada Smriti says that the sexuality of a person is decided at the moment of conception, cannot be changed, and is part of one's god given nature.
2) Many gods have bisexual forms, such as Shiva's famous Ardhanishvara. The gods Varuna and Mitra (both male) engage in relations. So do Shiva and Vishnu when he takes his female form. In the heavens there are angelic beings, the male being ghandarva, the females being apsara and the tritiya prakriti or third gender being kinnara.
3) In ancient Indian society there were THREE genders, the third being Tritya prakriti, and they were an accepted part of society. The kamasutra explicitly describes this.
4) In the Mahabharata (the world's longest epic poem by far) the great hero Arjuna lives as a transvestite for a year and the just king after testing him by sending beautiful women to him treats him (not know who he is) with perfect honor and courtesy.
5) The great sage Bhagiratha whose power brought forth the revered Ganges river was born from two queens who had lesbian affairs and the grace of Shiva. His name means "of two wombs".
6) Sex (not lust) was a permissible pastime if done with love in mind. And the temple walls show it it not something to low and dirty like Christianity says. Lots of gay art existed on ancient temples, some still do. Most were destroyed by the muslim invaders and further invasions
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
I'll answer this one, Travis.
There's a difference between giving a critical analysis of a person's beliefs, and ....
Saying a person isn't making sense and is clogging the discussion and is spewing and is ignorant and ....
Do I really and truly need to go on? I bet I do.
Here. Let me give you a possible example.
A couple days ago, Hazel said over a billion people are atheists. I was shocked by that number. I started trying to find information on how many people are atheists. For the most part, I found a lot of sites that said it's INSANELY difficult to come up with a number, especially given the fact that some countries "persuade" ... "encourage" ... "demand" ... the citizenry to claim they're atheists or claim they're religious. Having said that, the numbers I did find, which seemed to be given with all sorts a caveats, were somewhat lower than Hazel's assertions.
I considered writing and asking where she got her numbers. I considered noting I was a bit confused that she'd throw out a number as she did, as if it were an absolute certainty, given the information I viewed. That would have been a critical analysis of her assertions.
(In the end, it wasn't important enough for me to go there. Further, while her number and percentage seemed off based on what I saw, they weren't grossly different.)
Let's say, though, that I did post regarding this issue. However, instead of stating the above, pretend I said something like, let's see ....
I can't believe, Hazel, that you'd spew garbage. You're ignorant. You're ignorant because you refuse to use logic. Everyone who is everyone states it's almost impossible to get a true number and percentage of atheists (and religious folk) given a variety of factors, including some countries forcing their citizens to claim one or the other, fear of retribution, stigma, etc.... What a bunch of hogwash! I can't force you to stop spewing garbage, but I wish I could.
So, again Travis, please view the possible options ....
Option One ... Hazel, I was really shocked when you said over a billion people are atheists. I had no idea the number was that high. I started trying to find information on your number and percentage. I really wanted to know. Why hadn't I heard that before?! I didn't find your number. I found a somewhat similar number and percentage, but they were off. More importantly, I found statements, over and over, regarding how difficult it is to get accurate numbers, for several reasons including some countries forcing their people to claim atheism or religious belief. They seemed somewhat reticent to give numbers. Could you explain where you got your information and why you state it so definitively?
As opposed to ...
Option Two ...
I can't believe, Hazel, that you'd spew garbage. You're ignorant. You're ignorant because you refuse to use logic. Everyone who is everyone states it's almost impossible to get a true number and percentage of atheists given a variety of factors, including some countries forcing their citizens to claim on or the other, fear of retribution, stigma, etc.... What a bunch of hogwash! I can't force you to stop spewing garbage, but I wish I could.
There is a glaring difference, is there not? Does that clear it up?
One can be critical without being judgmental and disrespectful. One can disagree with a person, the person's beliefs and/or opinions, while still speaking and acting morally.