Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[abaddon]

Ok let us check it practically. Pls tell me 2/3 practices or principles of any religion. I shall try to show you its relevance with nature.

1. Transubstantiation.
2. Infallibility.
3. Slavery is moral.

 

[Peregrinus]

Ok let us check it practically. Pls tell me 2/3 practices or principles of any religion. I shall try to show you its relevance with nature.

Salvation
Grace
Sin

 

[Kumar]

Straw man. You are claiming your religion derives from nature. Specifically you are claiming its moral code derives its authority from mimicking what happens in nature. You have been shown that this is not factually correct. The claims made by your religion do not stand up to fact, and therefore its moral code stands on shaky ground.

You challenged that criticism by asking your critics to give examples of religious practice, and you would demonstrate that they are "relevant" to nature. I responded in two ways. First I showed that your proposed rejoinder was too weak because it discussed only relevance and not derivation. Relevance can be satisfied simply by talking about one thing from the point of view of another, which your religion does with nature. Second I gave examples of practices from Western religions and asked you to show how they derived from nature. So did two other critics.



You refused to describe even relevance, so it's safe to assume you cannot show the more strict requirement of basis. Do you therefore concede that there are religious practices that not only do not derive from nature, but which have nothing whatsoever to do with it? Since you have failed to meet the challenge you set, that would be the customary conclusion to draw.



You are the one who wants to divide nature up into different facets and ignore the parts that don't fit your predetermined beliefs. Your critics rightly are not letting you do this, because it amounts to a circular argument in favor of your religion. You claim your religion is derived from nature, but then you simply ignore the parts of nature that don't fit what your religion teaches. That's blatantly illogical.



In my opinion, religion is simply a tool used by some people to enslave and ensnare others who are weak-minded -- enslaving them socially, financially, politically, and spiritually. Yes, I include Jainism in that description. It seems to use deception in order to deprive people of rich and full lives, and to solicit donations to its clergy.

First, my religion is true religion whose basis can be of any religion. @nd, living under an environment, you can not ignore the affect of that environment. Whatever you get or give, make or lose, that is also due to affect of that environment. And that environment is nature. So doing anything independent of nature is odd. Now what that environment/nature create in you and how you process that is only need to be understood. You get fruits from nature, simply you take out their juice or process those in some way. It does not mean, that juice or processed fruits have no relevance with nature. Suppose there is a single source of any river which is divided into many streams. Few flow through mountains give comparatively pure water other through muddy or dirty area and give dirty water, it does not mean their source was not natural and pure. Like it, many religions can have different basis due to environmental factors and regional needs but still there original source should be one and that is nature. May it be on fire/violence side or on water/peace side. Just compare to whichever religion you want to check by it, you may find original source of all religions should be nature. Just compare anything in any religion with that thing, if also present in nature. Suppose violence or cruelty if in any religion, yes it is also present in nature, suppose love, peace & morality, yes it is also present in nature.

 

[Kumar]

Salvation
Grace
Sin

We have inherent sense of presence of these, so natural. Balance of nature, moving towards balance of nature and deviating from balance of nature, will justify above respectively.

 

[Kumar]

No mixed fibers, burn any furniture a woman has sat upon, rest on the sabbath

Please tell in my language.

 

[Kumar]

Straw man. You're trying to set a lower bar for yourself than your argument requires. Given sufficient time to think, I'm sure anyone can construct a line of reasoning -- however tenuous -- that shows how some practice could simply be "relevant" to nature. I already addressed this in pointing out that your religion largely preaches about nature without carefully observing it. Talking about something is not the same as being derived from it. More importantly, talking about something does not invoke its authority for your own moralizations.

The bar you need to clear is to establish that nature is the basis for your religion. You are imposing a moral obligation allegedly based on nature, but you haven't shown how mere relevance implants that basis.

Simply look all sides of nature and then compare with anything with equanimity. You may notice, nature being environment can affect every thing. When a person is in gas chamber, gas exposure is most important than any treatment within that.

 

[JayUtah]

First, my religion is true religion...

No, your religion is ascetic Hinduism. You clearly have little if any experience with any other denomination. It's not "true" religion. There's no platonic religion that somehow espouses all its purported virtues and avoids all its blatant failures. You are preaching exactly Jainism. Don't pretend otherwise.

So doing anything independent of nature is odd.

Your religion does not accurately describe the environment that persists on planet Earth. The sense of morality that you're trying to foist on people is unnatural.

Like it, many religions can have different basis due to environmental factors and regional needs but still there original source should be one and that is nature.

No, there is no one true religion based on nature. You correctly note that all prevailing religions have specific cultural, historical, and regional origins. There is nothing more special to them than that. And your religion contradicts the facts of the natural world. You cannot truthfully say it is based on nature.

Just compare anything in any religion with that thing, if also present in nature.

You've been given several lists of religious practices that have no equivalent in nature. You obviously can't explain them in terms of nature. You failed your own proposed test.

 

[Kumar]

1. Transubstantiation.
2. Infallibility.
3. Slavery is moral.

Ask in my or in common language.

 

[JayUtah]

Simply look all sides of nature and then compare with anything with equanimity. You may notice, nature being environment can affect every thing. When a person is in gas chamber, gas exposure is most important than any treatment within that.

None of this addresses my post. Please learn English and stop writing gibberish.

 

[JayUtah]

Please tell in my language.

Ask in my or in common language.

You asked for examples of religious practices from any religion. You promised you could show their "relevance" to nature. Obviously you don't understand enough about religion to satisfy your own test. The first group are common proscriptions in Judaism. The second group are proscriptions from Catholicism. These are two religions practiced widely in many areas of the world, in many countries. That you are completely ignorant of them says much about your study of religion. Which is, you obviously know very little about religion.

 

[Kumar]

Most of this thread is involved with having already done that. Most relevant already to your OP: animals are not observed to follow an ascetic lifestyle.

Yes but since we are observed to follow ascetic lifestyle, we should care for it being conscious and senior entities .

But you don't know what nature is. You simply define it as whatever your religion teaches, hence you are proposing we conduct a circular argument. First you need to correct your understanding of what nature is.

Nothing can be independent of nature/environment. Yes, specific regional variations in nature/environments can be possible and affects therefrom like different forms of energy.

 

[abaddon]

Ask in my or in common language.

What is your problem with english, Kumar?

 

[JayUtah]

Yes but since we are observed to follow ascetic lifestyle...

You follow an ascetic lifestyle because that is your religious choice. It has nothing to do with nature. It has no moral authority from nature. It's simply your choice, and you're trying to foist it onto everyone else by demanding that they accept your moral judgment.

Nothing can be independent of nature/environment.

Correct, which is why you define nature arbitrarily to be the same as your religion, not as the observed facts show.

Yes, specific regional variations in nature/environments can be possible and affects therefrom like different forms of energy.

No, "different forms of energy" in the way you intend the phrase is not part of nature.

 

[Kumar]

You asked for examples of religious practices from any religion. You promised you could show their "relevance" to nature. Obviously you don't understand enough about religion to satisfy your own test. The first group are common proscriptions in Judaism. The second group are proscriptions from Catholicism. These are two religions practiced widely in many areas of the world, in many countries. That you are completely ignorant of them says much about your study of religion. Which is, you obviously know very little about religion.

To understand a term, it should be in my language or in common language. I replied abaddon post accordingly. Care for others not only for self.

 

[Kumar]

What is your problem with english, Kumar?

I base on sense instead on words. I replied one of your post that was both in my & common language but noth other one since is not.

 

[JayUtah]

To understand a term, it should be in my language or in common language.

Those posts were written in ordinary English. If you don't understand the words in English that pertain to religion, then you have no business trying to debate the subject. Your incompetence with the English language is your problem, not anyone else's. Do not shift blame for your failure.

 

[Kumar]

You follow an ascetic lifestyle because that is your religious choice. It has nothing to do with nature. It has no moral authority from nature. It's simply your choice, and you're trying to foist it onto everyone else by demanding that they accept your moral judgment.

I follow true religion which is fully based on universal religion and can vest in any religion--fully or partly, one way or the other. Nature is not one sided, yes religion or any individual can be. Level & specificity is the only difference in any religion or of making base of nature.

Correct, which is why you define nature arbitrarily to be the same as your religion, not as the observed facts show.

If ANY religion justify true religion, that will be my religion. So nothing odd or specific in that. Absolute non-violence is neither possible nor suggested.

No, "different forms of energy" in the way you intend the phrase is not part of nature.

I think, I shall need more comments from other members, whether energy can change into different forms in nature due to natural processes?

 

[Kumar]

Those posts were written in ordinary English. If you don't understand the words in English that pertain to religion, then you have no business trying to debate the subject. Your incompetence with the English language is your problem, not anyone else's. Do not shift blame for your failure.

My language is that,, what I can understand in words and in sense. Better ask common terms instead of specific terms.

 

[Kumar]

Not too aware of reality, are we?


This would be heresy in any religion I've ever heard of.


Possibly so, seeing that your thoughts (or at least your expressions of them) make no sense whatever.

Reality or artificiality?

 

[JayUtah]

I follow true religion...

No, you follow ascetic Hinduism.

...which is fully based on universal religion...

There is no such thing as "universal religion."

Nature is not one sided....

Your definition of nature comes from your religion, not from the actual natural world.

If ANY religion justify true religion, that will be my religion. So nothing odd or specific in that. Absolute non-violence is neither possible nor suggested.

And that is exactly Jainism. You seem to think your critics are unable to correlate your expressed beliefs with the published tenets of actual religions. You do not practice any sort of "true" or "universal" religion. You're just trying to avoid the impression of sectarianism, but you are failing.

I think, I shall need more comments from other members, whether energy can change into different forms in nature due to natural processes?

Most of your critics are scientists are otherwise well educated in science. Do not try to foist more nonsense. You don't know what you're talking about.