|
Post by XAOTL on Feb 16, 2009 6:50:57 GMT 12
The Dharmic religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism neither condemn nor condone homosexuality (and, in some instances, actually condone it), as opposed to certain religions which outright condemn it. In Bhuddism the Dali Lama says no to it. Sikhism condems it, and Hinduism isn't pro homosexuality either.
|
|
|
Post by Anime Aficionada on Feb 16, 2009 10:00:56 GMT 12
^ Yes, but it doesn't mean, in the most part, that we (Hindus) shun those who are homosexual.
|
|
|
Post by xxxRAWRS on Feb 16, 2009 12:01:47 GMT 12
There is one Bible, and it is split into two parts. The Bible, or so I have heard, does say that "Man should not lay with Man", but even if you could use religion as a valid reason, then it would only affect Christians, as in Atheists, Muslims, etc, would not need to listen to that. Really? My friend is Christian and has a Bible that doesn't have Mary in it
|
|
|
Post by narutoninja44 on Feb 16, 2009 15:12:08 GMT 12
There are many differnet bibles for there are many different forms of Christianity, therefore, different beliefs arise.
|
|
|
Post by Rishi on Feb 16, 2009 21:01:21 GMT 12
The Dharmic religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism neither condemn nor condone homosexuality (and, in some instances, actually condone it), as opposed to certain religions which outright condemn it. In Bhuddism the Dali Lama says no to it. Sikhism condems it, and Hinduism isn't pro homosexuality either. Bullsh*t! Don't be over-simplistic. It depends on which particular branch of those religions are being followed. The Dalai Lama is NOT the be-all and end-all of Buddhism in general. He is a spiritual leader; nothing more, nothing less. He has his own opinions about matters such as homosexuality. The Dalai Lama, believe it or not, does NOT speak on behalf of ALL Buddhists. His views do NOT represent the views of ALL Buddhists. There is a VAST variety of diverse opinions among Buddhists about homosexuality. Gautama Buddha taught that bondage to sensual/sexual desires IN GENERAL are hindrances to enlightenment (and that, by extension, INCLUDES homosexual activities... and heterosexual activities too). However, homosexuality in Buddhism is generally accepted for laypeople who are not pursuing a path to spiritual enlightenment. Sikhism has no specific teachings when it comes to homosexuality, leaving the moral appropriateness of homosexual behaviour in Sikhism ambiguous and open for debate. Similarly to Buddhism, Sikhism mentions five habitual desires one should try to control in the spiritual quest for self-mastery. One of these five habitual desires is lust. Although it could be argued that homosexual behaviour is ultimately a manifestation of lust, it could be equally argued that heterosexual behaviour is ALSO a manifestation of lust. However, Sikhism does not outright forbid lust. It calls for the controlling of lust, it calls for one to not become a SLAVE of lust. Views on homosexuality tend not to be a primary concern in Sikh teachings, as the UNIVERSAL goal of a Sikh is to have no hate or animosity for ANY person, regardless of race, caste, colour, creed, gender or sexual orientation. As for Hinduism, Hindu views of homosexuality are EXTREMELY diverse and sometimes even contradictory. However, there is DEFINITELY actual SUPPORT for homosexuality in certain streams of Hinduism. Vedic/Hindu philosophy contains a concept of a 'third gender' ( tritiya prakriti - literally 'third nature' in Sanskrit). This category includes a wide range of people with mixed male and female natures such as transgenders, homosexuals, transsexuals, bisexuals, the intersexed and so on. Such persons are not considered fully male or female in traditional Hinduism, but instead a combination of both. Understand that ancient Vedic beliefs of gender did NOT take ONLY mere physical anatomy into account when it came to their understanding of genders, they also took one's mental nature and emotional nature into account as well (which are subtler natures, yet no less 'real'). The participation of 'third gender' people in religious ceremonies has been considered auspicious in traditional Hinduism for at least several THOUSANDS of years. Some Hindus believe that third gender people have certain abilities allowing them to bless or curse others. In traditional Hinduism, the universal creation is honoured as being limitlessly diverse and the recognition of a third gender is simply one more aspect of this understanding.
|
|
|
Post by XAOTL on Feb 17, 2009 4:20:38 GMT 12
But he dose speak for quite a few of them. Saying otherwise is like saying the Pope has no voice in the workings/opinions of the Catholic Church. Like every other religion. People have opinions that can change easily to changing circumstances/influences. Religions... not so much. Seeing as the aim of Buddhism is to achieve enlightenment. the only people who aren’t pursuing that goal would be non-Buddhists. So Buddhists accept homosexuality if you’re not a Buddhist. "One of Sikhism underlying values is family living. Sikhs are expected to live in a family environment in order to conceive and nurture their children in order to perpetuate God's creation. Any alternative manner of living is prohibited specifically a celibate lifestyle. Most Sikhs assume this means homosexuality, which cannot result in procreation, is unnatural and against God's will."Like every rule in hinduism... there's something that goes against it... apart from the NO beef rule. Hinduism. The goal of man is to break free of the cycle of death and birth, to achieve a higher level of being so that man becomes one with god. Hinduism teaches man morals, and virtues. Many of these are manifested within the gods, and there is no homosexual god. There are instances of the gods speaking of Homosexuality, even gods allowing two women to conceive, but there isn’t a homosexual god.
|
|
|
Post by JbstormburstADV on Feb 17, 2009 4:56:52 GMT 12
Unfortunatel, Xaotl, I have to disagree with you here. Even with the Pope, I'm sure only the CONSERVATIVE Catholics follow him word by word. I'm Catholic, but does that mean I follow Catholic beliefs word for word? No. Besides, most people also forget the one principle of Christianity, or even simpler, Catholicism that really helps add diversion into the belief system: the Pope is NOT the be-all end-all of Catholic or Christian opinion; rather, your beliefs are supposed to be more dependent on your OWN conscience. There have actually been several books covering the topic.
Also, the fact that there are over thousands of different Hindu belief systems really doesn't help your argument, especially since in religion, basing off the majority can be a BAD thing, especially when considering the fact that many belief systems have many extremes in terms of liberalism and conservatism, but usually, most gravitate towards the center, or the moderates.
|
|
|
Post by Rishi on Feb 17, 2009 6:47:09 GMT 12
But he dose speak for quite a few of them. True, but there are a considerable number of Buddhists out there who also disagree with his views (even vehemently). Like every other religion. People have opinions that can change easily to changing circumstances/influences. Religions... not so much. Religions are made BY people FOR people. If a highly influential figure in a particular religion changes his or her opinion, such a change can (and occasionally does) become reflected in the actual religion they are a part of. Seeing as the aim of Buddhism is to achieve enlightenment. the only people who aren’t pursuing that goal would be non-Buddhists. So Buddhists accept homosexuality if you’re not a Buddhist. Buddhists generally accept homosexuality whether you label yourself as a 'Buddhist' or not, since homosexuality is something one is born with. A homosexual person is inherently homosexual, so a person CAN be a Buddhist as well as a homosexual. However, it is important to differentiate between homosexual people and homosexual acts. Buddhism does NOT actively sing the praises of homosexual acts, though it also does NOT deny homosexual people from travelling their particular spiritual path with sincerity. There are about 324 million adherents of Buddhism around the world. Are you implying to me that NONE of these Buddhists engage in sexual acts (be they heterosexual or homosexual)? How the hell are there so many millions of Buddhists if they didn't increase their numbers by getting laid? Kinda weird, huh? And even if most of those adherents of Buddhism are heterosexual (as opposed to asexual), not ALL of them are heterosexual. Some of them ARE homosexual and that's okay too. No-one is denied the chance to break away from samsara and end their suffering. Most Sikhs assume this means homosexuality, which cannot result in procreation, is unnatural and against God's will." [/i][/quote] As the quote explicitly states, this is an assumption. Homosexuality is COMPLETELY natural, though it cannot result in procreation. In Sikhism, homosexual acts are usually differentiated from homosexual people. However, there is actually NO mention of homosexuality WHATSOEVER in the Gurû Granth Sâhib as well as the other writings of the six of the ten Sikh Gurus. Therefore, teachings on homosexuality are open to interpretation. apart from the NO beef rule. Nah, that's not true either. Plenty of Charvakas don't give a sh*t about following the 'no beef' rule. There are instances of the gods speaking of Homosexuality, even gods allowing two women to conceive, but there isn’t a homosexual god. Aside from the birth of Bhagiratha through two women, there have been other instances of deities that are hermaphrodite (half man, half woman), deities that manifest in all three genders, male deities who become female, female deities who become male, male deities with female 'moods', female deities with male 'moods', deities born from two males, deities born from two females, deities born from a single male, deities born from a single female, deities who avoid the opposite sex and deities with principal companions of the same gender. Mitra and Varuna are two male devas (deities) who were extremely intimate with each other. Mitra and Varuna are, for all intents and purposes, homosexual deities. They are often mentioned together in Vedic writings. In the physical body, Mitra moves waste outwards whereas Varuna directs nourishment inwards. Mitra is thus associated with the body’s lower orifice (the anus and rectum) while Varuna governs the upper orifice (the mouth and tongue). In Vedic literature, Mitra and Varuna are portrayed as icons of brotherly affection and intimate friendship between males (the Sanskrit word mitra means 'friend'/'companion'). For this reason, they are worshiped by men of the third gender, albeit not as commonly as other Vedic deities. They are depicted riding a shark or crocodile together while bearing tridents, ropes, conch shells and water pots. Sometimes they are portrayed seated side by side on a golden chariot drawn by seven swans. Ancient Brahmana texts furthermore associate Mitra and Varuna with the two lunar phases and same-sex relations: “Mitra and Varuna, on the other hand, are the two half-moons: the waxing one is Varuna and the waning one is Mitra. During the new-moon night these two meet and when they are thus together they are pleased with a cake offering. Verily, all are pleased and all is obtained by any person knowing this. On that same night, Mitra implants his seed in Varuna and when the moon later wanes, that waning is produced from his seed.” (Shatapatha Brahmana 2.4.4.19). Varuna is similarly said to implant his seed in Mitra on the full-moon night for the purpose of securing its future waxing. In Hinduism, the new and full moon nights are discouraged times for procreation and consequently often associated with citrarata (unusual types of intercourse). The Bhagavata Purana (6.18.3-6) lists Varuna and Mitra as the ninth and tenth sons of Aditi and both gods are described having children through ayoni (non-vaginal sex). For example, Varuna fathered the rishi (sage) Valmiki when his semen fell upon a termite mound plus the rishis Agastya and Vasistha were born from water pots after Mitra and Varuna discharged their semen in the presence of Urvasi. Another celebrated child of Varuna is Varuni — the goddess of honey-wine and other intoxicating beverages — and Mitra is considered to be the father of Utsarga, Arista and Pippala — the three deities presiding over manure, soapberry trees and banyan trees. Varuna and Mitra are homosexual gods.
|
|
|
Post by XAOTL on Apr 5, 2009 2:17:31 GMT 12
Forgot about this place, but I may as well reply to Rishis post.
Dosn't change who he is.
and here I thought religion was made by god.
One. I don't think there has been a survey taken. Two. You make Homosexuality sound like a disability. I am sick of that line. I thought that it was nothing more than personal preference that one chose to do something over something else. But As you say it is their nature lust or love defining their actions as it would with hetroseuals. Where as religion the goal is to bring yourself above the temptations of the subconsious mind.
Charvaka is not hinduism and I quote 'Cârvâka is classified as a "heterodox" (nâstika) system, the same classification as is given to Buddhism and Jainism. It is characterized as a materialistic and atheistic school of thought.' Not hinduism.
Blasphemy. There is nothing greater than the no beef rule in hinduism. In the views of the followers that is the most memorable. In the views of the holy texts it is solidified by vegitarianism and the status of the cow in society and beyond as the provider. and by the leaders of the religion who also agree.
Now you seem to be contradicting youself several times. Please state weather you are talking abot the religious leaders. The followers. Or the holy texts.
South east asia isn't exactly notorious for its homosexual population so tha counts out the followers. Religios leaders, well the say it's a no-no.
They're homosexual gods... I take your word with a pinch of salt. But entertaining the idea that you have read the walls of hindu text and billions of gods, It would be helpful to center on the major dieties. Ram, Shiva, Vishnu, Brahman.
I'm not against such relationships personally. I'm just stating that no matter how much one idealises religion. Religion and Homosexuality are like fire and wood. One will burn the other.
|
|
|
Post by Rishi on Apr 5, 2009 6:35:07 GMT 12
And I didn't already know this? Moot point. and here I thought religion was made by god. You thought wrong. One. I don't think there has been a survey taken. There has. The Pew Forum released a survey, part of which explored the social and political views of respondents along with the specific details of their religious beliefs and practices. These adherents of various religions were asked about their stance on numerous controversial social issues, one of which being homosexuality. Buddhists were found to be more likely than the adherents of any other religion to be accepting of homosexuality. 82% of respondents stated that they believed that homosexuality should be accepted by society, as compared to 50% of respondents nationally. Two. You make Homosexuality sound like a disability. I am sick of that line. I make homosexuality sound like a disability? Um, what the HELL man?!? That's one of the most laughable things I've ever read. I don't accept the belief that homosexuality is a disability any more than I accept the belief that heterosexuality is a disability (which is none). Neither are disabilities and to believe otherwise is to dwell in the abyss of ignorance. I thought that it was nothing more than personal preference that one chose to do something over something else. You believe that homosexuality is nothing more than a 'personal preference'? HAHAHA, OH WOW. So, today I've turned my heterosexual button on, but tomorrow I'll turn it off, turn my homosexual button on instead and look for some dudes. Then the day after that, I'll go from being gay to straight again. Wow. Just..... wow. But As you say it is their nature lust or love defining their actions as it would with hetroseuals. Moooooooooooooooooooooot. Where as religion os to bring yourself above temptations of the subconsious. That's a simplification, but yes. Charvaka is not hinduism and I quote 'Cârvâka is classified as a "heterodox" (nâstika) system, the same classification as is given to Buddhism and Jainism.[3][4] It is characterized as a materialistic and atheistic school of thought.'Nice job quoting Wikipedia there. I can quote Wikipedia too. Hell, I can even quote something from that same page: "While this branch of Indian philosophy is not considered to be part of the six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, it is noteworthy as evidence of a materialistic movement within Hinduism." Carvaka is a system of Hindu philosophy. 'Hinduism' is a convenient umbrella term given to a vast collection of extremely heterogenous beliefs, rituals and practices ranging from theism to atheism. Three schools of thought have been labelled as nastika: Buddhism, Jainism and, of course, Carvaka. There are many Hindu atheists even in recent times, such as Jawaharlal Nehru, Amartya Sen, K. Shivaram Karanth, Amol Palekar and Manabendra Nath Roy (to name but a few). Some of these atheists have beliefs which clearly echo the teachings of the Carvaka philosophical system. No. There is nothing greater than the no beef rule in hinduism. No, not really. If you read the Bhagavad Gita, it's pretty clear that one of its main messages is the relative nature of morality. Morality, in truth, can never be truly absolute. The sacrificing of cows is even mentioned in the Rig Veda, along with the sacrificing of other animals (such as horses and goats). It has been argued thus: in vast epochs (yugas) long gone, humankind as a whole possessed nobler character and greater moral purity than these current times. As a result, the animal-sacrificing rituals described in the Rig Veda could be conducted with exactitude. Also, beef-eating is mentioned in various Vedic writings. For example, in book 8, hymn 43, verse 11 of the Rig Veda, it states: "Let us serve Agni with our hymns, disposer, fed on ox and cow, who bears the Soma on his back." Similarly, in the first Adhyâya, second Brâhmana, verse 21 of book 3 of the Satapatha Brahmana, the rishi Yâgñavalkya states that he would eat beef provided that it was 'tender': "He then makes him enter the hall. Let him not eat the flesh of either the cow or the ox; for the cow and the ox doubtless support everything here on Earth. The gods spake 'Verily, the cow and the ox support everything here: come, let us bestow on the cow and the ox whatever vigour belongs to other species of animals!'. Accordingly, they bestowed on the cow and the ox whatever vigour belonged to other species of animals; and therefore the cow and the ox eat most. Hence, were one to eat the flesh of an ox or a cow, there would be, as it were, an eating of everything, or, as it were, a going on to destruction. Such a one indeed would be likely to be born again as a strange being, as one of whom there is evil report, such as 'he has expelled an embryo from a woman', 'he has committed a sin'. Let him therefore not eat the flesh of the cow and the ox. Nevertheless Yâgñavalkya said ' I, for one, eat it, provided that it is tender.'" In the views of the followers that is the most memorable. All of the members of my immediate family are beef-eaters. They are also Hindus. Thanks for speaking on their behalf as well as on behalf of all Hindus in general. In the views of the holy texts it is solidified by vegitarianism and the status of the cow in society and beyond as the provider. As I've already shown to you, there are conflicting views in the Vedic literature about the eating of cows (and of meat in general). Furthermore, vegetarianism is NOT considered essential for Hindus. Hell, I've been to South India and found difficulty finding people who DIDN'T eat fish and/or chicken over there. I would not be even slightly surprised if some of them ate beef too. Vegetarianism is strongly encouraged among Hindus, but ultimately not essential. As a matter of fact, in chapter 5, verse 56 of the Manu Smriti, it is said: " There is no sin in eating meat, in drinking spirituous liquor and in carnal intercourse, for that is the natural way of created beings, but abstention brings great rewards." Also, as I've already stated, morality is not a fixed entity. It is fluid and dynamic. It is situational and circumstantial. It is mutable and adaptive. For example, it was common practice for kshatriyas (the warrior/administrative class of society) to eat meat as it was believed that it would bestow on them more physical strength and put their mind in a state considered ideal for battle. The Vedic writings have also expounded that for one being to live, many other beings must die as that is the natural order of things. In the Dharma Shastras, it is even acknowledged that we are constantly engaged in unknowingly killing things (such as micro-organisms and small insects, for example). Now you seem to be contradicting youself several times. Where have I contradicted myself 'several times'? Please state weather you are talking abot the religious leaders. The followers. Or the holy texts. In regard to what? If you are referring to beef-eating in Hinduism, then I'm talking about all three. In any case, be specific. South east asia isn't exactly notorious for its homosexual population so tha counts out the followers. Religios leaders, well the say it's a no-no. Ah, 'tis but a sign of the current times and climes! They are two types of dharma (Sanskrit for 'law' in this particular context): sanatan dharma and naimittika dharma The former is eternal and changeless, whilst the latter is transient and subject to change. Sanatan dharma is based on one's soul and is inherent. Naimittika dharma is based on society and is artificial and superficial. For example, in a previous epoch (yuga) of human history, the most ideal method of attaining self-realisation recommended during that particular yuga may have been through the performance of sacrifices, while in another yuga it may very well be something else. That is an example of naimittika dharma. And sanatan dharma is superior to naimittika dharma except when naimittika dharma is in accordance with sanatan dharma. They're homosexual gods... Seeing that you make presumption after presumption I'd take your word with a pinch of salt. You haven't actually refuted what I've said about that. Do so. Oh, and just for the record, I take your word with a bucket of salt. I'm not against such relationships personally. Neither am I. Never was, never will be. WTF, dude? WTF? I'm just stating that no matter how much one idealises religion. I do not idealise religion any more than I idealise science, I idealise Truth. Just as I find relative truths in science, I also find some (though certainly not many) relative truths in religion - be it organised religion or unorganised religion. Truth is Truth, it exists regardless of human sanction. Religion and Homosexuality are like fire and wood. One will burn the other. Generally speaking, yes. But there are some exceptions here and there.
|
|
|
Post by XAOTL on Apr 5, 2009 8:41:28 GMT 12
The picture of the bean is funny. ;D
Well, That's most of the world wrong then.
Could you get me a link?
I'm saying that people are not born one way or the other, good or evil, violent or peaceful. A biulder or a gardener, an accountant or a shop owner. That we have freedom of choice, Hitler could choose to kill the Jews, and use the tank to strengthen the German people; or to make Germany into a economic power without strength of arms, but he chose what he chose, as is the price of freedom.
If one doesn't have the ability to choose what one is like, what's the point?
Thank you
Funny, the only way for you to find where I got it from would be to go there yourself. Most of the stuff you have said is actually on Wikipedia in a good amount of detail, so to get my feet down on things, it helps to solidify knowledge, you know... It's better than the other option.
Oxymoron.
yes ;D
Sorry for simplifying the statement. As you should have been able to tell by now, saying that All Hindus don't eat beef and any meat in general is not accurate. But the generalisation (majority) is what I'm pointing to. Bieing a non beef eating hindu myslf, with a vegetarian dad, and knowing quite a few hindus, where all but one follows the same 'no beef' rule.
Funny I've been to the North-east (Gujrat, Maharastra) where all alcahol is banned unless you are able to get documentation to say otherwise, and how there are nearly no meat resteraunts there, unless it is for tourists and HGV drivers going into Pakistan. There have been close to no meat eating natives, and most of the villagers are purely vegetarian.
and I agree completely. If more people understood that, I truely belive the world would be a better place. As a wise man said, 'All morality is relative'
Talking to one, he said Rajputs(a.k.a Kshatriya same thing different names), during the Mugal invasion had been unable to have acess to vegetarian food (in curcumstances such as imprisonment in war) and eating meat as the last remaining choice of survival would be seen as aceptable, but only if nessesary for survival.
Religion and Homosexality.
YES! THAT'S THE POINT!
One, No I said stick to orthadox, the majority, the main, the big picture. I don't care about a grain of sand I care about the beach. Two such high amounts of salt are very unhealthy.
I know WTF, It was stating my position here, I figured yours was to defend the vedic religions and their openess to homosexuality in comparison to the Abrahamic religions. And the thing that I said... it actually works well with the other parts of the paragraph still attatched to it.
Well... why didn't you say so?
There are always exceptions. But it's the big bulk in the middle that matters to me.
|
|
|
Post by Rishi on Apr 6, 2009 2:35:42 GMT 12
The picture of the bean is funny. ;D It's actually a pear, but I'm glad you thought it was funny nevertheless. ;D Well, That's most of the world wrong then. I'm not discussing 'the world' here. Another moot point. Sure. Here it is: religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-chapter-2.pdfI'm saying that people are not born one way or the other, good or evil, violent or peaceful. A biulder or a gardener, an accountant or a shop owner. That we have freedom of choice, Hitler could choose to kill the Jews, and use the tank to strengthen the German people; or to make Germany into a economic power without strength of arms, but he chose what he chose, as is the price of freedom. We have freedom of choice when it comes to SOME things, but NOT when it comes to ALL things. This is a simple, self-evident truth. For example, you cannot choose what colour your eyes are at birth whilst you can choose what kind of food you want to eat for lunch. This same principle is applicable to one's sexual orientation. It is intrinsic, not chosen. If one doesn't have the ability to choose what one is like, what's the point? What's the point of what? You're welcome. Funny, the only way for you to find where I got it from would be to go there yourself. Wrong. I just googled a portion of that quote about Carvaka and the first result I got was from Wikipedia. But thanks for guessing anyway. Wrong again. 'Hinduism' (I'm personally not very fond of that term, but hey, that's just how it is) happens to be an extremely broad term which refers to a wide variety of diverse philosophies, beliefs, rituals etc. (some of them even being outright contradictory). Atheism is found in varying degrees in both the astika and nastika streams of Hinduism. When it comes to the astika streams of Hindu philosophy, the Samkhya school and the early Mimamsa school did not accept 'God' (Ishvara) as a part of their philosophical systems. The Samkhya school embraces dualism by believing in the dual existence of Prakriti (Nature) and Purusha (Spirit). Samkhya does not accommodate 'God' into its system. In fact, there is even an aphorism in Samkhya which declares 'God is unproven'. When it comes to Mimamsa, the early Mimamsakas did not feel that a belief in the existence of 'God' was necessary to their philosophical system. Mimamsa, as a philosophy, is almost solely focused on the nature of karma. Hence, it is occasionally referred to as Karma Mimamsa. No. ;D Sorry for simplifying the statement. Apology accepted. As you should have been able to tell by now, saying that All Hindus don't eat beef and any meat in general is not accurate. I've always been able to tell. That's why I pointed it out. But the generalisation (majority) is what I'm pointing to. Bieing a non beef eating hindu myslf, with a vegetarian dad, and knowing quite a few hindus, where all but one follows the same 'no beef' rule. Your generalisation is beside the point. To be legitimately labelled as one who follows an astika stream of Hinduism, all one must do is accept the validity of the Vedas as being divinely revealed scriptures. And, as I've already told you, the Vedas themselves do not entirely condemn the eating of beef. The fact that eating beef is considered taboo among Hindu societies in these modern times is merely a reflection of how the cultural values and ethics of 'Hinduism' as a whole have shifted throughout the centuries (and, indeed, the millennia). Funny I've been to the North-east (Gujrat, Maharastra) Funny, I mentioned South India (Karnataka in particular) and now you're mentioning Gujarat and Maharashtra? Um, okay? All you're basically telling me by these words and the words which immediately succeed them is that the customs of one state of India differ from the customs of another state of India. Thanks for stating the blatantly obvious! Thanks for agreeing with common sense. If more people understood that, I truely belive the world would be a better place. I concur. Talking to one, he said Rajputs(a.k.a Kshatriya same thing different names), Well, kinda. The Rajputs are a type of Kshatriya, but the words 'Kshatriya' and 'Rajput' are not synonymous with each other. The roots of the Rajputs can be traced back to the present-day Indian state of Râjasthân. eating meat as the last remaining choice of survival would be seen as aceptable, but only if nessesary for survival. An excellent example of the inherent relativity of morality. I know. One, No I said stick to orthadox, the majority, the main, the big picture. No, I refuse to 'stick to orthadox [ sic], the majority, the main, the big picture'. I will explore this issue in its entirety as much as I possibly can and that includes delving into relatively obscure details (since I do not consider those relatively obscure details to be any less important in regard to this debate). I don't care about a grain of sand I care about the beach. There is no beach without grains of sand, just as there is no ocean without droplets of water. Two such high amounts of salt are very unhealthy. Two such high amounts of salt are very unhealthy for consumption, but I never said anything about consuming those 'two such high amounts of salt'. Yet another moot point. Glad you agree! It was stating my position here, I figured yours was to defend the vedic religions and their openess to homosexuality in comparison to the Abrahamic religions. I was also stating my position here. I defend not necessarily the Vedic philosophies/religions in and of themselves, I defend what I firmly believe to be true and some (though not all) aspects of the Vedic philosophies/religions are in accordance with what I firmly believe to be true. And the thing that I said... it actually works well with the other parts of the paragraph still attatched to it. It works equally as well in isolation. Well... why didn't you say so? Because it's glaringly obvious. There are always exceptions. I already know that, but I appreciate you reminding me. But it's the big bulk in the middle that matters to me. It's the entirety that matters to me. But hey, whatever floats your boat.
|
|
|
Post by Midnightmoon602 on Apr 6, 2009 22:35:45 GMT 12
Woah Rishi. thats one long post.
|
|
|
Post by xxxRAWRS on Apr 11, 2009 15:05:00 GMT 12
No way, really?
|
|
|
Post by XAOTL on Apr 12, 2009 1:45:07 GMT 12
I'm not discussing 'the world' here. Another moot point. Now seriously, what got you to that conclsion? dosn't work. Eye colour is not instinct. The example dose not match with the explanation. Sentience See so you do reasearch on what you're talking about as well. If anything I find that Wikipedia is usually rather useful, for reasearch, and to be completely honest, I already knew that you could quote from wikipedia, I didn't need you to show me that it wasn't a special power. I may be over-simplistic. But that is just llllloooonnnnngggggg. All wisdom is contradicted by another pieice of wisdom. The pourpose is to allow thought within the reader/listener, to allow them to forge their own choice of how to live. There is only one athism, one without god. As for the bolderd and underlined sections of the 'long' quote, it shows how you have taken small portions of the big picture. Therefore I say again. Hindu Atheist = oxymoron Yes My generalisation is a very good point. My generalisation 'generalises' it. Not taboo, still frowned upon. You gave your experiences, I gave mine. Those regions (that I stated) have high quantities of non hindu populations. i.e. Gujrat has a high Muslim populous and only 3% of Muslims in India are actually vegetarian, yet the Hindu ties to vegetarianism are still strong says a lot. India as a whole has a strong vegetarian system, and has for a long time. Just beecause you have seen it otherwise, it dosn't change the general view of the country by visitors, and resedents. Not common sense.. just sense. They are the Same thing. For the sake of not wanting to go long. If you had as you say spoken about it's entirety, you would quite literally defeat yourself, stating ALL views even if they are self defeating. That is something you have not done. The focus that you have put on the obscure details is too much for you to have put all views to the table in balence to how much they matter whilst your focus has been quite clearly upon the fringe thoughts. If you take too long looking at the grain of sand, you miss the joy that the beach offers. So you're throwing the salt away!!! tut tut tut. So, all this time I was talking about religion in general, but you were talking about certain parts of religion that suit you. I thought you said you were talking about things in its 'entirety'. Whatever happened to that? No... just... no. 'Because it's so clear, it takes a long time to realise it.' 'He who defends everything defends nothing.'
|
|