10 of 10
10
VIDEO - What The Anti-NWO Movement NEED TO UNDERSTAND!
Posted: 24 January 2007 11:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 100 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Mukunda dasa - 19 January 2007 12:37 AM

Cardinal Danielou: But why does God create some animals who eat other animals? There is a fault in the creation, it seems.
Srila Prabhupada: It is not a fault. God is very kind. If you want to eat animals, then He’ll give you full facility. God will give you the body of a tiger in your next life so that you can eat flesh very freely. “Why are you maintaining slaughterhouses? I’ll give you fangs and claws. Now eat.” So the meat-eaters are awaiting such punishment. The animal-eaters become tigers, wolves, cats, and dogs in their next life—to get more facility.

George:  “So is there any basic moral problem with the idea of killing animals for food?”
Australis Draconis:  “No.  Before creation, there must be destruction.  Avoid being wanton or cruel, though.”

(Liberi Smerka, Ch. 47 vs. 8-9)

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 January 2007 07:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 101 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14

Mukunda Dasa, you cannot conclusively prove your ideas about God any more than anybody else can conclusively prove that God doesn’t exist.  You’re basing most of your argument in favour of vegetarianism on religious principles, but those are your religious principles, not necessarily those of other people here.  Using your religious tracts and dialogues to support your argument simply won’t work; those tracts only have any validity and authority to people who already believe in them and who already follow them.  To the many people who don’t believe in your spiritual values, those tracts are just a bunch of words written by some guy.  They have no authority backing them.  So when you try basing your points on religious grounds, it in effect comes down to:

“God says this!”
“No, He doesn’t!”
“Yes, He does!”
“Does not!”
“Does to!”
“Does not!”
“Does to!”

As you can see, that will get nowhere unless God himself actually steps in and intervenes, and even then people will argue.

So instead of basing your arguments on religious and moral grounds, which depend on your listeners and readers already sharing your own personal beliefs, why don’t you try basing them on more common grounds?  Nutrition, or health, or economy, or things like that?

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2007 07:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 102 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  62
Joined  2006-11-25
Accipiter - 25 January 2007 12:10 PM

Mukunda Dasa, you cannot conclusively prove your ideas about God any more than anybody else can conclusively prove that God doesn’t exist.  You’re basing most of your argument in favour of vegetarianism on religious principles, but those are your religious principles, not necessarily those of other people here.  Using your religious tracts and dialogues to support your argument simply won’t work; those tracts only have any validity and authority to people who already believe in them and who already follow them.  To the many people who don’t believe in your spiritual values, those tracts are just a bunch of words written by some guy.  They have no authority backing them.  So when you try basing your points on religious grounds, it in effect comes down to:

“God says this!”
“No, He doesn’t!”
“Yes, He does!”
“Does not!”
“Does to!”
“Does not!”
“Does to!”

As you can see, that will get nowhere unless God himself actually steps in and intervenes, and even then people will argue.

So instead of basing your arguments on religious and moral grounds, which depend on your listeners and readers already sharing your own personal beliefs, why don’t you try basing them on more common grounds?  Nutrition, or health, or economy, or things like that?

What qualification you have acquired, that you can see God?


So people, they sometimes say, “Can you show me God? Have you seen God?” These questions sometimes we meet. So the answer is here. Yes, you can see God. Everyone can see God. I am also seeing God. But there must be the qualification. Just like God is there… Suppose a motorcar is there, something is wrong there. Everyone is seeing. But one engineer or mechanic, he sees differently. Therefore we have to go there. “What is the wrong in this car? It is not running.” He immediately touches some machine part; it runs. So these rascals, they do not know that “How I can see God if I have not the qualification?” The machine has gone wrong, I am seeing the machine. And the engineer, the mechanic, he is also seeing the machine. But his seeing and my seeing is different. He’s qualified to see. Therefore when the machine has gone wrong, immediately he touches some part, it runs. So if for a machine we require so much qualification, and we want to see God without any qualification? Just see the fun. Without any qualification. Rascal, they are so rascal, so fool, that they want to see God with their nuisance qualification.
  Krsna says in the Bhagavad-gita: naham prakasah sarvasya yoga-maya-samavrtah: “I am not exposed to everyone. Yogamaya, yogamaya is covering.” So how you can see God? But this rascaldom is going on, that “Can you show me God? Have you seen God?” God has become just like a plaything. “Here is God. He is incarnation of God.” Na mam duskrtino mudhah prapadyante naradhamah. They are sinful, rascals, fools, lowest of the mankind. They inquire like that: “Can you show me God?” What qualification you have acquired, that you can see God?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 January 2007 08:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 103 ]
Five Star Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4243
Joined  2005-06-05
Mukunda dasa - 31 January 2007 12:35 AM

What qualification you have acquired, that you can see God?

Does someone actually need a qualification to see God?

Besides, I’m a Doctor of Divinity, so I can see God, but only for minor ailments like existential doubt and piles. For more major problems, God needs to see a Consultant of Divinity, or - in extreme cases - a Surgeon of Divinity.

So people, they sometimes say, “Can you show me God? Have you seen God?” These questions sometimes we meet. So the answer is here. Yes, you can see God. Everyone can see God. I am also seeing God. But there must be the qualification. Just like God is there… Suppose a motorcar is there, something is wrong there. Everyone is seeing. But one engineer or mechanic, he sees differently.

But no-one can doubt that the motor car is there. In your case, you are pointing to an empty parking bay and saying “See the fabulous motor car. Look at its many cup-holders and emissions-free engine. Why only a fool or a rascal can’t see this is the best motor-car ever!”

Sorry, Guido, but we’ve all read The Emperor’s New Clothes. We’re wise to your con.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 January 2007 11:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 104 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Mukunda dasa - 31 January 2007 12:35 AM

What qualification you have acquired, that you can see God?

Ummmm, I never said that I could.  Or that I couldn’t, for that matter.

So people, they sometimes say, “Can you show me God? Have you seen God?” These questions sometimes we meet. So the answer is here. Yes, you can see God. Everyone can see God. I am also seeing God. But there must be the qualification. Just like God is there… Suppose a motorcar is there, something is wrong there. Everyone is seeing. But one engineer or mechanic, he sees differently. Therefore we have to go there. “What is the wrong in this car? It is not running.” He immediately touches some machine part; it runs. So these rascals, they do not know that “How I can see God if I have not the qualification?” The machine has gone wrong, I am seeing the machine. And the engineer, the mechanic, he is also seeing the machine. But his seeing and my seeing is different. He’s qualified to see. Therefore when the machine has gone wrong, immediately he touches some part, it runs. So if for a machine we require so much qualification, and we want to see God without any qualification? Just see the fun. Without any qualification. Rascal, they are so rascal, so fool, that they want to see God with their nuisance qualification.

Individually, each of those sentences quoted above makes sense within itself (mostly).  Combined, they don’t.  There’s stuff about motorcars and mechanics, and then there’s stuff about God, and I’m not really seeing any connection between the two.  I’m afraid that your analogy confused things rather than making things clearer.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
   
10 of 10
10