Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

shambu

Members
  • Content Count

    141
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by shambu

  1. Guest, I checked out some of these EVP-sites, and even became a member of Grassharp. As a teenager I used to do some experimenting with EVP, with some results... Only I want to tell you that I find the recordings of these Grassharp people pretty inaudible. It sounds more like radio-noise, for the most (99.9%). These people seem to be hallucinating to me, hearing things they want to here... And the things these "ghosts" are saying don't seem to make much sense at all. Could it be they all died in "delirium tremens" or some state like that? That's also the point I wanted to make: to believe in ghosts, and one step further looking to communicate with them is not a spiritual thing at all, necessarily. Neither are all people who believe in ghosts spiritual people. Especially since apparently these ghosts are unembodied entities who still have gross material attachments, being unable to leave the earthly plane, associating with them could be dangerous both mentally and spiritually. Unless you have some special "karmic" gift that allows you to help and uplift these beings. Just trying to chat with them out of curiosity will just bring one down to their level - that of the spheres of mental pollution. I checked out also one Dutch EVP-site, btw, given as a link on Grassharp, and their recordings are much more audible. Also these people actually have a mission to "help" these spirits, instead of just being curious or looking for thrills. Anyway thank you for the links! Cheers!
  2. Then how do you explain the existence of peoples like the Inuit, who traditionally subsisted practically solely on meat and fish? I think from your point of view this must be "inexplicable"... (this discussion is getting boring, by the way, I admit....)
  3. If this is true, it is an utterly strange "anomaly" that more than 90% of all humans consume meat, fish and eggs on a daily basis. Maybe some faulty design by Brahmaji???
  4. I really don't know. Are there any specific ailments/conditions that are caused by Guru Droha:crazy2: I think that depends on the nature of the Guru Droha committed. If you slept with your Guru´s wife, for instance, this may give an other kind of reaction compared to beating your Guru with a stick, or just ignoring His instructions, just to give a few examples.
  5. The word mentioned in these epics is maamsa, which I think cannot refer to sweet-meats etc. In the Ayodhya Kanda, Sarga 84, of the great epic Ramayana by Valmiki, it says: <TABLE width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width="68%"></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> iti uktvaa upaayanam gR^ihya matsya maamsa madhuuni ca | abhicakraama bharatam niSaada adhipatir guhaH || 2-84-10<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> 10. iti= thus; uktvaa= spoken; guhaH= Guha; niSaadaadhipatiH= the Lord of Nishadas; gR^ihya= took; matsya maamsa madhuuni= fish meat and honey; upaayanam= as an offering; abhichakraama= and approached; bharatam= Bharata.<o:p></o:p> After uttering thus, Guha the king of Nishadas took fish, meat and honey as an offering and approached Bharata.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> asti muulam phalam caiva niSaadaiH samupaahR^itam | aardram ca maamsam shuSkam ca vanyam ca ucca avacam mahat || 2-84-17<o:p></o:p> 17. asti= here are; muulam= the root; phalam chaiva= fruit; samudaahR^itam= gathered; niSaadaiH= by my tribe; maamsamcha= and the meat; mahat= of great quality; ucchaavacham= and of various kinds; aardram= fresh; shuSkamcha= and dried; vanyam= and all a produce of the forest.<o:p></o:p> “Here are the roots and fruits gathered by my tribe as well as fresh and dried meat of great quality and of various kinds, and all a produce of the forest.”<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> aashamse svaashitaa senaa vatsyati imaam vibhaavariim | arcitaH vividhaiH kaamaiH shvaH sasainyo gamiSyasi || 2-84-18<o:p></o:p> 18. aasham se= I hope; senaa= the army; svaashitaa= after eating well; vatsyat= can halt; imam= in this night; architaH= offered reverently; vividhaiH= various kinds; kaamaiH= of all that you could desire; gamiSyasi= you can go; shvaH= tomorrow; sasainyaH= along with your army.<o:p></o:p> “I hope the army, after eating well, can halt for the night here. Furnished with all you could desire, you can continue your journey tomorrow along with your troops.” <o:p>I don't know if this Nishada King is considered an outcast (who are not obliged to follow strict Vedic rules) but I do know that he was very favourable towards Sri Rama and His company. It also doesn't say here if the food he offered was actually accepted by Bharata and his associates, but sure is that meat-eating was never an issue for Ksatriyas, neither was the killing of animals. Sri Rama Himself didn't hesitate to go out to hunt the golden deer on the instigation of Seeta.</o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p>In the forest Sri Rama, Seeta and Lakshmana followed a strict vegetarian diet, btw, as is shown from the following example from the same epic [Ayodhya Kanda, Sarga 54], where Sri Rama is speaking to the sage Bharadwaja upon entering his hermitage:</o:p> <o:p> pitraa niyuktaa bhagavan praveSyaamaH tapo vanam | dharmam eva aacariSyaamaH tatra muula phala ashanaaH || 2-54-16<o:p></o:p> 16. bhagavan= "Oh, venerable sage! niyuktaaH= commanded; pitraa= by our father; pravekshhyaamaH= we shall enter; tapovanam= a forest suitable for austerities; tatra= there; charishhyaamaH= we shall practise; dharmameva= asceticism alone; muulaphalaashanaa= living on roots and fruits."<o:p></o:p> "Oh, Venerable sage! Commanded by our father, we are entering a lonely forest to practise asceticism, living on roots and fruits."<o:p></o:p> </o:p> <o:p>There are surely many more examples I could give on meat eating being a normal phenomenon in Vedic literatures, at least for certain classes of people (esp. Ksatriyas, Shudras) but You just search that out for yourself.</o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p>How can you be so sure that Adolf Hitler didn't have an inclination towards vegetarianism? Did you study this subject in any way? I heard from several sources that this is a fact, and that he spoke about the benefits of vegetarianism to his beloved Eva Braun for instance, who thought he was mad at this point.</o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p>That this fact would be used by certain scoundrels just to give him a good image seems very unlikely, especially since in the West vegetarianism is not looked upon as something favourable by most people.</o:p>
  6. Sure they have their dogmas and stagnant believes and try to cling on to them as long as their ideas seem somewhat valid. But whenever some idea or dogma has become superseded by overwhelming evidence they are also capable of changing them. From one angle this makes their approach very "relative", but as seen from a more positive angle one could say that it's a DYNAMIC and evolving process of knowledge-acquisition.
  7. Well, than these guys must've been quite stupid. Birds are also heavier than air, and still they're flying.
  8. I am no authority, but my Sanskrit dictionary says DROHA (that's the word) means "injury , mischief. harm , perfidy , treachery , wrong , offence", so that means that Guru Droha is the same as Guru Aparadha. Jayo.
  9. I like your conclusion (vasudevah sarvam iti). But worms are in my blood, in my feet and everywhere? I never noticed this... "Worms" could also mean "bacteria", maybe. But are there bacteria in the womb, biting an embryo? The baby is well protected in a special covering, kind of floating like Garbhodakasyi Visnu in a fluid, in somekind of mystic slumber or trance. If the living entity were tortured even before having been born, he would come out of the womb already traumatized and suicidal, perhaps. The womb is meant to be a protected place, not a place of harrasment. Some people even want to get back there...... And worms enter the intestines either through the anus or the mouth, don't you think?
  10. Material science is one thing and spiritual science another. Spiritual science is -in my opinion- the knowledge of the difference between spirit and matter, how a human being can become free from matter through self-realisation etc. Material science studies the workings of the material universe in an objective and experimental way, even without regards for its origins and purpose. Although the Vedas and related literatures claim to be mainly spiritual in nature, still a great portion of those literatures (such as the Srimad Bhagavatam) deal with material phenomena and describe them in detail. The problem here is that those descriptions do not seem to support the present scientific conclusions and observations. For instance it is stated somewhere that the unborn baby is bitten in the womb by worms. Fact is that there are no worms in the womb, worms are to be found in the intestines. So is this just a suggestive image of how terrible the baby must be suffering before even greater suffering befalls him at the time of birth? Scientifically it is mere rubbish. Another example is that it is said that pearls are created when it rains on the ocean during a specific astrological constellation. Is there any logic in this? Science has proved that pearls are made by oysters that produce some slime when some grain of sand or any other particle enter their shells. (Pearls are also not gems, as Vedic gemology claims.) Or that souls descend on the earth from heaven through rainfall, mystically being turned into grains that sprout into plants. It sounds unreal and according to scientific thinking it is an impossibility. And what about the Vedic idea that Solar eclipses are caused by some invisible planet named Rahu (the chopped off head of a demon btw) whereas it is clearly proven by modern science that it is nothing but the Moon that causes Solar eclipses (which according to Vedas would be impossible because the Moon is supposed to be at greater distance from the Earth than the Sun...) Of course the Vedas also give some information, even though unverifiable, that moderrn science doesn't provide, such as that there are 8.400.000 species of life. But then again, when I ask what is meant by 400.000 species of human life, what makes them into seperate species, where they are living, what they all look like, and how many species of human beings are or once were on this Earth planet, nobody seems to be able to give any sensible reply. It's all too vague and unverifiable in my opinion. So just rejecting modern science "because they never analyse the spirit behind matter which is the driving force behind everything" doesn't make any sense to me either. Actually you seem to be scared of modern science because in many ways it disproves a lot of statements made in books that are clearly not of this time and thus your holy faith may become affected. And besides, it is another popular misconception that all modern scientists are atheists who don't believe in God and the existence of a soul - this is simply not true. This is why I called this thread "Vedic Claustrophobia". Vedic fundamentalists believe they should take any damn thing which is written in old books literally and that it is a crime and dangerous thing to question anything that's in them, and that they should never take any serious notice of theories and findings that other sources provide, that might endanger their safe Vedic empire. It is just the same like Muslims who say that besides the Quran and Mohammed you don't need any other source of information, and anyone who doesn't follow this line is an "infidel", a disbeliever, and per definition a godless and sinful being. Or Christians who say the only Saviour is Lord Jesus Christ and all who don't accept this go to hell. I hope you are not offended by this, and if this outrages you or anyone else, that is their problem.
  11. Why I want proof for Vedic science (in this case historic information)? Well, it's in the human nature I would say to be curious. I never said there is a flaw in Vedic Science. Only sometimes I doubt if it is really a science or just a system of believe. I am far from thinking that Modern Science is NOT flawed - it is flawed in many ways. They still don't have a clue about the origins of this creation, Big Boom and Primeval Soup are just simplistic superstitions, evolution theory remains a theory. To validate Vedic Science through Modern Science could I think in some cases be a valid possibility; it would be nice if one could confirm the other to some extent, but this would be possible only on some gross physical level and not while speaking on "other dimensions". Let's start in the three-dimensional sphere. For instance historical evidence. You assume readily that Vedic Science (as if this were the subject) is perfect, and Modern Science is imperfect. But you can't proof that Vedic Science is perfect, because maybe there is no proof. Scientists however can clearly proof that their science is imperfect in many ways.
  12. On the website you referred to I found no clue as to what I was hinting at, namely some proof that once Vedic kings ruled the Earth. I only found this statement regarding their definition of what is Vedic Empire: "The Bhagavad-Gita is an Empire of thought and in its philosophical teachings ffice:smarttags" /><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comKrishna</st1:place> has all the attributes of the full-fledged monotheistic deity and at the same time the attributes of the Upanisadic absolute." - Ralph Waldo Emerson <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> Vedic Empire Productions uses the term Empire in the same sense as Ralph Waldo Emerson. When I founded the Vedic Empire Productions in 1996, I contacted Vedic Historian P.N.Oak. I sent him our TV shows, Articles etc. He appreciated our efforts but suggested we drop the term Empire. He offered us the name, “The Fraternal Association of Vedic Culture.” Besides being for all creation, not just human males, the name just does not have the right ring to it. As a Former member of Netaji’s Indian National Army and a Freedom Fighter against the <st1:place w:st="on">British Empire</st1:place>, it seemed that P.N. Oak attached the colonial abuse of the British to the term Empire. For Americans, the term Empire usually brings to mind George Lucas’ Star Wars epics. Yet the our use of the term Vedic Empire is in no way referring to Imperial colonial efforts but rather it is that very same Empire of Thought that Emerson praised. <o:p>So my conclusion is that "Vedic Empire" is an Empire of Thought, and not a factual world-rulership, as is sometimes suggested. I am sorry. And your "heavenly weapons" belong to that very same empire.</o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p>I just wanted to add that the similarities in religion, culture, governmental organization etc. with especially European peoples is not at all a proof that they were once ruled by Vedic kings. It just points to the fact that these peoples are related, share the same roots. This is also confirmed by Prabhupada, who said they (the European peoples) may be descendants from ksatriyas who once fled India. Well, that's another "theory" of course, but fact is that Europeans and Aryan Indians are related - so their superficial similarities have nothing to do with one people "ruling" or have conquered the other one. Most European languages are related to Sanskrit, but that isn't caused by having been conquered by foreign people. And in fact ALL cultures and religions of the world have many similarities, even when they are seperated by big oceans and mountains. This is because we are all people and are living in the same universe, I suppose. Some may be godly and others demoniac to some extent, but that's also universal.</o:p>
  13. I was talking about statements in the Vedic literatures (or made by guru-acharyas) that Vedic kings once ruled the entire world, and that there should be, logically spoken, some evidence that supports this proposal. Dwarka having been discovered doesn't contribute to the acceptability of this. In fact it's just off the coast of India, so what? Archaeological research has also proven that old Biblical stories are true, but the Jews don't claim to have ruled the earth.
  14. Mobile phone addiction is just like computer addiction. Are you sitting at a computer right now? Are you logged on to the Internet? So you are an addict too...(if you spend daily more than 2 hours in this way without professional interests). Digital technology has made us all addicts of some sort. Especially when you're living alone and don't have so much association. This morning my internet connection failed and all what I've been doing is trying to get it fixed. Now it's fixed (mysteriously after running my anti-spyware program and removing one sort of suspious cookie) and I am happy again. So I am an addict to the Internet, just like some may be addicted to Gaming. I just heard that the Chinese government is worried about their youth, because 60% of them is spending many hours a day on playing games on the computer and their mobile phones. It's a huge problem, and they expect it will only get bigger.... Personally I am one of the last persons who don't have a mobile phone. I just don't need it, and it's too expensive. A few weeks ago I witnessed some funny scene on the street. I was looking out of the window below and I saw one young woman talking on her mobile - I could literally understand what she was saying. She asked one question, and got no reply. She totally panicked and freaked out, screeming: "Oh, my battery is finished! I have to go upstairs now!" She was practically crying with anxiety. Then I realized how people are addicted to this thing.
  15. Actually the word means something like "natural" or "spontaneous". The Sahajiya devotees pride themselves in being spontaneous and natural, as opposed to those devotees who perform bhakti strictly according to the rules and regulations of scriptures. In doing so they tend to imitate elevated stages of spiritual attainment, like shedding of tears, rolling on the ground, dressing like gopi's etcetera. In this way the meaning of the word sahajiya has become "imitationist", but this is only a secundary meaning.
  16. I'm sorry but I couldn't find this specific quote. This indeed is the typical geocentric conception of the universe that has more astrological than astronomical value. Only modern science has seperated these two scientific disciplines, whereas in Bhagavatam they are still interwoven. Bhagavatam says [sB 5.21.7] the Sun is revolving around some mountain named Manasottara, and travels through the signs of the Zodiac with a specific speed. It also says the Moon is radiating warmth, is bigger than the Sun and beyond the Sun also. So this is not in accordance with the physical reality as perceived through our normal senses. In fact the whole cosmology according to the 5th Canto of Bhagavatam is plainly absurd from any modern scientific perspective, no matter how screwdly and cleverly devotees have tried to "harmonize" these vastly remote conceptions (Sadaputa and the like). Mountains and oceans of liquor, honey and ghee are not the first things one would expect to encounter while on a cruise through the universe. Prabhupad even said that the planets were "floating in the air". So if I were a bird then theoretically I could fly to let's say Venus, then. Anyway, these are all externals. Regarding the supposed world-reign of King Parikshit, it says in Bhagavatam [sB 1.16.12]: "Maharaja Parikshit then conquered all parts of the earthly planet -- Bhadrasva, Ketumala, Bharata, the northern Kuru, Kimpurusa etc. -- and exacted tributes from their respective rulers." The purport to this verse in the BBT publication mentions that with Uttarah is meant the Northern Regions, and especially Ilavrta-varsa or the Mediterranean (according to Sridhar Svami, the Bhagavatam commentator). To keep my story short and to the point: If this were true, and King Parikshit conquered the Mediterranean some 5000 years ago, there should be some physical evidence. In fact archaeologists are finding objects that are older than 5000 years, but do not look Vedic at all. I mean, some inscription in Devanagari writing, a small Shiva Lingam or statue of Narayan, that would be real evidence, wouldn't it? It's simply not there, it seems.
  17. I am especially referring to the non-religious portions of the Vedas. Those subject matters that are related to history, science, cosmology and biology that seem to contradict the findings of modern science. I wouldn't like to dispute the religious contents of the Vedas, since that's on an entirely different level. As an example I could give the Vedic idea that Indian kings once ruled the entire planet. The question that arises with me is if this is to be taken literally, since there is not a shred of evidence in my opinion that supports this "theory". If only 5000 years ago a king named Pariksit ruled the entire Earth planet, there should be some evidence to be found, I mean archaeologically or otherwise. If this is not there, my conclusion is that this is not to be taken literally. Every people or tribe has or had the tendency to put itself right in the center of the universe. This is just one example. The Vedas also claim that the Sun is rotating around the Earth, which was also believed in medieval Europe. It is simply not a fact. And just a fraction of logical thinking makes the idea that there is only one Sun in this entire universe unacceptable, apart from what modern telescopes reveil. I hope you are getting my point. I am not qualified to engage in discussions of spirituality, so please forgive me for being so materially obsessed.
  18. Is there any case possible in which a person could be said to be suffering from "Vedic Claustrophobia"? Do the Vedas give room enough for anybody, no matter how broadminded this person tends to be? My impression is that certain subject matters are hardly discussable here since there is no proper Vedic reference for them. Am I wrong? Any ideas? Is anything that could possibly make one doubt in the validity and absolute authority of the Vedas automatically a taboo? Should a person who asks questions that apparently can't be answered within the Vedic context be "kicked out" or just ignored? Mental speculation? Even though the facts are there?
  19. It was me, shambu, who posted the previous post. Nice to meet you! I especially mentioned "pre-inca" since I believe to have understood that the Incas as well as their descendants deny to have created the huge and impressive walls and certain other structures to be found in Peru and beyond. How could they have done so, given the poor means they availed of? These pre-inca structures are real wonders of stone-molding. And there is at least a great deal of superficial similarity with the photographic images taken near the Japanese island of Yonaguni. Cultural links between the Inca or pre-inca culture and that of Eastern Island are pretty much accepted. Please correct me if I am wrong. Did any of you, who are interested in unbiased archaeological research, hear about the "pyramids" that were recently discovered in Bosnia? So now not only Japan, but even Europe claims to have pyramids. Hoping to be of service to you, shambu.
  20. Lord Krsna says He IS sex life which is not contrary to religious principles [bg. 7.11]. So what you are saying has a doubtful foundation.
  21. Just let me add that I think the whole attempt to prove that Mary of Magdela was Jesus' lover or wife, that they had children together, and that this Mary was in fact his best discipel and ended up in a power-struggle with His male disciples (being discriminated by them because of being a woman) is nothing but an explosion of modern-day feminism, incorporated within the amorphous mass they call "New Age". There is nothing so annoying for a feminist as a celibate authority, who has Himself anointed by a humble woman. For them the only way to subjugate men is through the bonds of sex-life. Hahaha.
  22. I thought it would be interesting to find out what the "ordinary" New Testamentical Gospels tell about Mary of Magdela. It appears that no "apocryph" text (partially eaten by ants) is needed to proof that this Mary is an important figure in the history of Christianity and the life of Christ, and that Jesus loved her very much. I couldn't find even one "negative" reference in connection with this personality, even though I only checked out the most common and welknown passages (that nevertheless appear to be quite interesting and meaningful). Especially noteworthy is the conclusion to be made, that there is a direct connection between Mary's devotional act of anointing Jesus (somewhere it says His head, somewhere His feet - I guess probably the whole body) and Judas' sudden determination to betray his Lord. I think this cannot be taken as less than more than significant, since Jesus' crucifixion or act of Self-Sacrifice has evolved to become the very symbol of the religion He represents. Please read: John 12.3-8<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> 3 Then Mary took a pound of very costly oil of spikenard, anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil. 4 But one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, who would betray Him, said, 5 “Why was this fragrant oil not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” 6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it. 7 But Jesus said, “Let her alone; she has kept this for the day of My burial. 8 For the poor you have with you always, but Me you do not have always.”<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Luke 10. 38-42<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> 38 Now it happened as they went that He entered a certain village; and a certain woman named Martha welcomed Him into her house. 39 And she had a sister called Mary, who also sat at Jesus’ feet and heard His word. 40 But Martha was distracted with much serving, and she approached Him and said, “Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Therefore tell her to help me.” 41 And Jesus answered and said to her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and troubled about many things. 42 But one thing is needed, and Mary has chosen that good part, which will not be taken away from her.”<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Mark 14.3-11<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> 3 And being in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, as He sat at the table, a woman came having an alabaster flask of very costly oil of spikenard. Then she broke the flask and poured it on His head. 4 But there were some who were indignant among themselves, and said, “Why was this fragrant oil wasted? 5 For it might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii and given to the poor.” And they criticized her sharply. 6 But Jesus said, “Let her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a good work for Me. 7 For you have the poor with you always, and whenever you wish you may do them good; but Me you do not have always. 8 She has done what she could. She has come beforehand to anoint My body for burial. 9 Assuredly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her.”<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Mathew 26.6-16<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> 6 And when Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, 7 a woman came to Him having an alabaster flask of very costly fragrant oil, and she poured it on His head as He sat at the table. 8 But when His disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste? 9 For this fragrant oil might have been sold for much and given to the poor.” 10 But when Jesus was aware of it, He said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a good work for Me. 11 For you have the poor with you always, but Me you do not have always. 12 For in pouring this fragrant oil on My body, she did it for My burial. 13 Assuredly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her.”<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> 14 Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests 15 and said, “What are you willing to give me if I deliver Him to you?” And they counted out to him thirty pieces of silver. 16 So from that time he sought opportunity to betray Him.<o:p></o:p> Interestingly enough, the very name CHRIST is a derivation from the Greek word CHRISTOS, which is itself a rendering of the Hebrew word Mesjieach, or Messiah, which supposedly means THE ANOINTED ONE.
  23. It's mainly not scriptures that tell people eating meat is good - it's primarily modern science that says so, or actually withholds information on the benefits of vegetarianism. Amongst the first Christians were many vegetarians. Also it's a myth that Indian culture is or was purely vegetarian always. Even in books like Ramayan there are ample examples of meat-eating, as well as in other Vedic literatures, like Puranas and Mahabharat. Even examples of eating cow's meat are there to be found. To state that all humans could or should become vegetarians is simply daydreaming. According to their gunas people will select the food of their choice. Personally I prefer to keep vegetarianism a matter of personal choice, not something one should force others to follow, even though it´s never wrong to try to inspire. And there are places on earth where people are simply bound to eat meat, since there's no other food available, like where it's extremely dry or cold (desert and polar areas). Out of his mercy, God has created man in such a way that he can survive practically everywhere on this planet. He is an omnivore, not a herbivore pur sang, and some will live as vegetarians while others will not. Also to state that all vegetarians are per definition non-violent is wrong. Adolf Hitler, by whose order millions of people died and suffered, had an inclination towards vegetarianism too. Here in Holland one politician was killed by the hands of a strict vegan, a vegetarian who doesn´t consume any product coming from animal, such as milk or even honey. Still he didn´t hesitate to kill a human for political reasons. But you are right to say that meat eaters are generally more violent than vegetarians, of course. Whenever I see those angry Muslim mobs, I wish they could become vegetarian by some magic...
  24. Since when is somebody an atheist when he doesn't believe in ghosts? An atheist is defined as somebody who doesn't believe in God or any Supreme Being. There's a difference between a "spirit being" and a "spiritual being", just like the "Spirit World" (if it exists) has nothing to do with the Spiritual World. Or should we believe in ghosts and take them very seriously because some Scripture tells us they are fact? Even when we never experienced the existence of such beings ourselves?
  25. Why wouldn't the Destroyer of the Universe look a little bit scary? Even though (divine) Destruction also has its Charm....
×
×
  • Create New...