primate

Then I guess drowning is the better option..

I don't know.. I'm not sure whether the last thing you would think about is Krishna, or pulling the trigger..

Actually, this pain is caused by our breathing reflex, trying to force us to start breathing again. Fish don’t have lungs, and consequently no breathing reflex. They have gills that can take up oxygen from the water that flows through. When taken out of the water, fish die a painless death from lack of oxygen, much like when you would breath in and out into a small plastic back for 10 minutes. Furthermore, drowning would be a relatively painless death for a human, because in the end you will simply be forced to breath water in and out, and you will die from lack of oxygen..

The total length of the human intestinal tract ranges from 7.5 to 8.5 meters. So, with an average height of 1.6 meter, the human intestinal tract is on average 8.0 / 1.6 = 5.0 times the body length, which is a ratio closer to carnivores (3 times the body length) than herbivores (10 times the body length). Basically this means that we are not able to digest tough vegetation like (uncooked) grass or leaves, but are better suited to digest fruits. Moreover, the fact that humans and Resus monkeys are the only two species of mammal on Earth that cannot synthesize their own vitamin C, strongly indicates that fruits and vegetables must have been a major part of the diet of our ancestors, thus allowing for this capability to disappear. Nevertheless, we have sharp front teeth, suggesting that raw meat was at least part of our ancestral diet. Chimpanzees, our closest relatives, regularly hunt down and kill other primates for consumption. And they also eat insects as a protein rich food source. In conclusion, we are omnivores, built to survive on a variety of foods including meat. This contributes to our overall adaptability as a species, and relates to the opportunistic way of life of our ancestors as hunter gatherers. However, we are not depending on meat to survive, and as modern humans we can choose not to eat meat, which seems to be simply a matter of culture and civilization..

In Theist's video it is stated that, because raising animals for food takes so much land, water and other resources, the Earth is able to sustain only about 2 billion people on a meat and dairy based diet. Vegetarian foot products on the other hand, require only a fraction of the land and far fewer resources than required to produce animal products with equal total nutritious value. Thus, the fewer animal products we consume, the more people we can feed. Furthermore, the enormous amount of faeces produced by farm animals worldwide, pollutes farmland and surface water and is currently responsible for 40% more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere than produced by all cars, trucks and airplanes in the world together..!

According to this latest Revision of the United Nations World Population Prospects, by 2050 the average global fertility is expected to drop below the rate of 2.1 child per woman, which is necessary to replace the world population. So, it is expected that the world population will actually begin to decrease after 2050. In terms of sustainability, population ageing will be a much bigger problem in the near future than population growth. Worldwide, there will not be enough young people to work, produce and pay for food, pensions and medical facilities for the old in a rapidly aging population. Thus, with the world GDP decreasing as a result of ageing, future sustainability of the world population may not be so much an environmental issue, as an economical and moral or ethical issue. In this respect, the current state of the world economy doesn’t help. And as far as ethics are concerned, I’m afraid humanity doesn’t have a good reputation. Nevertheless, it seems that this problem must be solved through worldwide political, economical and social reforms. Otherwise, for millions of people, especially in less developed countries, nature will solve it the hard way..

Of course, enough cosmic energy must exist to explain everything we observe in our material dynamic universe. And the concept of zero-point energy (just like the theory of the existence of dark matter) may explain the large scale gravitational behavior of galaxies, thus accounting for the positive cosmological constant in Einstein’s field equations of general relativity. The amount of missing energy (or mass) that is necessary to keep our universe together is huge. However, the zero-point energy of the vacuum is conveniently infinite. In terms of a physical model, I personally think that all this energy is present in the momentum (speed times mass) of one infinitesimal quantum point or atom or cosmic singularity or God, which contains total consciousness as well as all energy in the form of infinite speed. The eternal 'chaotic oscillation' of this conscious point, is what we call 'absolute reality'. Our partial individual consciousness or our material reality, may then be a function of a particular higher harmonic frequency, present in this conscious oscillation. Consequently, we may be conscious only every now and then. Hence, we consciously perceive just a small discontinuous fraction of continuous absolute reality. From mathematical chaos theory, we know that such discontinuous phase-projections expose the infinite fractal order or structure or form, present within any formal (non-conscious) singular continuous chaotic system. In a 'conscious chaos' model of reality, all duality and change that we perceive in our world, would then be a discontinuous (quantum) projection of continuous absolute reality. Now, this would neatly explain the missing energy in our universe. From scientific observations, we can deduce that an (invisible) large scale attracting force (gravity) must exist. But we are only consciously aware of a fraction of the total energy (the total chaotic attractor) of absolute reality which underlies all observable phenomena. Moreover, such a model would also be compatible with the concept of Maya. In the model, Maya is the higher harmonic frequency or sound (OM), which is present in the conscious cosmic oscillation and of which our individual projection of reality is a function. Thus, Maya is the basis of all gross material creation and all perceived duality and all perceived change and time in this world. Finally, note that in such a model Maya creates our entire material world, by 'hiding' all but a mere fraction of total absolute reality from our perception or consciousness. That seems to be a perfect explanation of the religious notion of ignorance! I believe that quantum mechanical experiments can provide the evidence necessary to validate such a scenario. Then the only remaining question would be: Where does conscious chaos (or God) come from? In reality, God’s origin is necessarily meta-physical or unknowable or 'supernatural'. Nevertheless, we might be able to clearly understand (in terms of mathematical chaos theory) the (unpredictable) mechanics of His creative energy or Maya. And consequently, we might be able to understand what we are ourselves..

Officially there are only seven deadly sins in Christianity: "Lust", "Gluttony", "Greed", "Sloth", "Wrath", "Envy", and "Pride" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins). "Unbelief" isn’t one of them, although even "murder" isn’t on the list.. And all sins can be forgiven through holy sacraments of the church such as confession. I agree, however, that belief in Jesus Christ is an absolute requirement for that. Today most Christians don’t believe in Hell as portrayed in the Bible, I guess because it doesn’t comply with the concept of God as a father. After all, eternal damnation and torturing your own children, doesn’t sound very fatherly. And in revelation 14:10, God Himself appears to commit the deadly sin of "Wrath": So the bible seems to be inconsistent and use double standards when it comes to the definition of (deadly) sins and moral values. Personally I suspect that the extreme emphasis on sin and Hell and eternal damnation is rooted in the medieval Roman Catholic practice of giving absolution to sinners in change of money. I also think that through the ages the Bible has become more of a political manifest to control the masses, than an authentic religious document. Perhaps it’s time for God to explain it all to us once more.. Anyway, the question was whether or not Jesus Christ ever cursed anyone. At least I’m sure this is not written anywhere in the Bible..

Well, I don’t think 'unbelief' is a deadly sin in Christianity. Moreover, you may have the same kind of choice in mainstream Hinduism: Either surrender to God, or reincarnate..

So, He said: If you don’t believe in Me you will die in your sins (which might be a rather miserable death, in case you have any sins). But if you believe in Me, you will die a relatively normal death, regardless of any sins you might have.. Nice..

Sant, Christ apparently tried to protect or warn humanity. He did not curse anyone..

It might have been Socrates or Plato.. Just tell me, what was the answer?

So, it seems you forgot to mention Maya (the supernatural delusory cosmic energy of God, or the creative Art of God), which is the basis of all gross material creation and all perceived duality and all perceived change..

As I understand it, Maya 'produces' the illusion we call material reality. This illusion may, for example, be compared to the illusion of hearing voices in the sound of running water, whereby different persons may hear different voices in the same (original) sound. Not unlike hearing voices in the sound of running water, Maya might actively 'filter' our conscious experience of reality, thus 'constructing' or 'projecting' our material world. In this sense, Maya is our material reality. It appears to be possible to become consciously aware of Maya. In the above analogy, the voices might disappear and a person will hear only the sound of running water. The sound still contains the separate voices, but they are no longer perceived as such. Somehow, they merged into the overall noise of the running water. Likewise, in the state of consciousness called Samadhi, which can result from intense concentration or focussing of consciousness on the oneness that underlies all duality, our individual material reality disappears and somehow merges into overall oneness. The knowledge gained from such an experience, generally enlightens a person. He still may not understand Maya or reality on the material level, but now he knows that material reality and absolute reality (or God), though seemingly different or distinct, are ultimately and actually one..

I forgive you. Tell me, how can Advaita, Achintya bhed-abheda, Dvaita all exist parallely? Is it perhaps because Achintya Bheda Abheda is true?

Of course, there's no contradiction between the concept of oneness (Advaita) and the idea of inconceivable, simultaneous oneness and difference (Achintya Bheda Abheda). But I'm sure, there is a contradiction between unqualified Advaita (monism) and Dvaita (dualism)..

I don’t think that the possession of knowledge necessarily makes a person 'feel greater'. Where did you get that idea? The more one knows or understands, the more one realizes how little one knows or understands. At least, I think that’s true in the case of scientific knowledge. I’m not sure about religious - or scriptural knowledge though. A difference with science might be, that religious knowledge on its own is 'blind' (as Einstein apparently stated). Religious knowledge might be unverifiable in itself, thereby providing ample opportunity for unchecked speculation and false ego. Perhaps, religious knowledge should be unified with verifiable scientific knowledge..

IMO, Advaita doesn’t mean that you and me can become God. That would be absurd. The basis of Advaita is that there exists only one God (just as in Christianity). So no one but God is God. Then, of course, it is impossible for both you and me to be God simultaneously. We must both be eternally different from God. The difficult part to understand (even for Advaitins) is not so much this difference, but the simultaneous oneness or Brahman or God. It seems to be inconceivable..

No offence taken. Although I realize that God must exist, my general religious outlook is still agnostic. I prefer oneness over duality, because in terms of formal logic, oneness seems to be a much better - and a more elegant proposition. A question: Gaudiya Vaishnavism (acintya-bheda-abheda) views individuality and ego as ignorance or illusion. Isn’t that ultimately Advaitic?

Do you think democracy will ultimately work?

Of course, you are wrong..

Then tell me what did you mean by your statement: "Hinduism is not Krishna consciousness. Just ask any Advaitin."? I guess you simply made a mistake. That's no problem.

I guess that’s how democracy is supposed to function. The crazier the people, the crazier the elected leaders..

By the way, I think that the particular logic necessary to accept simultaneous oneness and difference as a 'conceivable' reality, may already exist in 'mathematical chaos theory'..

Hinduism can be defined as 'Vedic religion' or Vedanta. If the scriptures of your personal religion are considered Vedic, then you are a Hindu. Thus, everyone can be a Hindu. The most fundamental controversy in different Hindu philosophies, is the Advaita-Dvaita dichotomy. Logically, Advaita and Dvaita are mutually exclusive philosophies. Either everything is Brahman, or everything is not Brahman. Both philosophies can not conceivably be simultaneously true. Hence, the concept of 'inconceivable truth' was introduced by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. According to 'acintya-bheda-abheda-tattva', everything is inconceivably Brahman and not Brahman, simultaneously. Why is this inconceivable? Because it doesn’t comply with any known form of reasoning or logic. In itself, this is not a reason to reject any proposal of simultaneous oneness and difference. Indeed, by some unknown (inconceivable) logic, it just might be correct. In any contemporary science, however, it would be considered 100% pure speculation. Nevertheless, I believe acintya-bheda-abheda is true. Why? Because it’s a scientific (known) fact that 'causality' doesn’t exist at the most fundamental (quantum) level of reality. This ultimately implies that our (contemporary) scientific logic is at least incomplete and possibly even invalid. God might be simultaneously believable and unknowable.. Edit: Theist, I hope I'm not on your ignore list.