Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[JayUtah]

No but essence of every understanding.

Irrelevant. The description of "true" religion in your argument is simply your sect of Hinduism. You are not the first to try to foist his own beliefs as if they were some universal truth.

No you are avoiding to understand real sense. These are not Olympic games, so no challenge, win or lose, issue. Just logical discussions.

Stop being rude. Yes, there is a challenge, and it was a challenge you made, so you don't get to back out of it just because it went badly for you. Do you agree that you have failed your challenge?

 

[Kumar]

Stop blaming your critics for your failure. Stop avoiding my question. You challenged us to provide examples of religious practice from any religion, and you would show how they relate to nature. We provided several, including transubstantiation, that are specifically held by their followers to defy nature. You are unable to show how that has any basis in nature. Do you agree that you have failed your challenge?

Answer that question and only that question, please.

Ist, Henceforth, Please post one post at a time. I don't want to miss your post due to overload or oversight. Thanks.

I already indicated but if you are not familiar to that(like me), what to do? I can comment on any true religion part of any understanding, provided I am familiar or made familiar to that. Pls talk in my home, to exchange better, if you desire so.

 

[JayUtah]

Ist, Henceforth, Please post one post at a time.p.

No. Do not try to squelch your critics. I will post as many times as it takes for you to be held accountable for your claims.

I already indicated but if you are not familiar to that(like me), what to do?

You can stop evading my question.

I can comment on any true religion part of any understanding...

No. This was your challenge:

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.

You said nothing then about limiting the challenge to "true" religion. You explicitly said you would accept suggestions from any religion. Several were provided, and you could not show their relevance to nature. Do you agree that you have failed this challenge? Please stop being dishonest and answer this truthfully.

...provided I am familiar or made familiar to that.

The problem with your argument is exactly that you are unfamiliar with most of these topics. You simply don't know what you're talking about. And you haughtily rebuff those who are taking the time to educate you and correct your deficiency.

 

[Kumar]

It has been repeatedly explained to you that the point of this line of reasoning is not whether miracles have a scientific explanation or whether they may someday have an explanation. You have been further advised to read posts carefully, so that you do not continue to make this mistake. You are being very rude.

Unless, we shall understand those things in science, how can we shall able to satisfy to each other. You do not base logic and mass observation for factual stamp, so we have to depend on scientific stamp and since science is not yet A&F, nothing can be claimed for A&F surity. Are you demanding just logic, stamp of mass/majority i.e anything beyond scientific understanding i.e super or sub normal?

 

[JayUtah]

Unless, we shall understand those things in science...

You're still missing the point. Do not keep giving the same irrelevant answer after you've been told several times that it is irrelevant. You're being very rude.

 

[Kumar]

No. Do not try to squelch your critics. I will post as many times as it takes for you to be held accountable for your claims.



You can stop evading my question.


No. This was your challenge:

​

You said nothing then about limiting the challenge to "true" religion. You explicitly said you would accept suggestions from any religion. Several were provided, and you could not show their relevance to nature. Do you agree that you have failed this challenge? Please stop being dishonest and answer this truthfully.



The problem with your argument is exactly that you are unfamiliar with most of these topics. You simply don't know what you're talking about. And you haughtily rebuff those who are taking the time to educate you and correct your deficiency.

If you do not want to accept true religion parr of any religion or any agency, how can I convince you and others? If you want to learn from me, you will need to consider me as teacher. Quite logical. Accept me or accept yourself, it is your choice.

 

[Kumar]

You're still missing the point. Do not keep giving the same irrelevant answer after you've been told several times that it is irrelevant. You're being very rude.

Sorry but there is a difference between bold and rude. I always respected you for being your "bold" quality not rude one.

 

[JayUtah]

If you do not want to accept true religion...

Your challenge had nothing to do with "true" religion. You expressly opened it up to "any" religion, as I showed by quoting your exact words. Do not try to change the conditions of the challenge. Do you agree that you failed to meet your challenge?

If you want to learn from me, you will need to consider me as teacher. Quite logical. Accept me or accept yourself, it is your choice.

You have nothing to teach me. You are patently ignorant on the subject of comparative religions. Do not patronize your critics, especially when you refuse to answer their questions.

 

[JayUtah]

Sorry but there is a difference between bold and rude. I always respected you for being your "bold" quality not rude one.

There is nothing bold about ignoring one's critics and pretending they've said something different than what they said. You're being very rude. Stop it.

 

[bruto]

Do you want to impress that basis of religion are just miracles, supernaturals, paranormals etc.? In other sense, they are beyond the understanding of people and science? Please noth any unnatural(all above normal) can not be digestible because we shall not be having inherent sense of right or wrong for those. It will not be possible to process by body mechanisms, pre-informed normally so can cause odd side affects. Do you want to claim that religions give us such affect to us?

Your post makes very little sense, as usual. There is no one religion. There are many, and it does not matter what we decide to call their basis. You asked some time ago for what religions are not "natural." A religion that worships a supernatural god cannot, by definition, ever be considered to be based on nature. It is based on a being that is believed to have created nature. A religion such as Christianity, which not only takes as its basis a supernatural god but the miraculous activities of that god, is inherently not based on nature. It does not matter what is understood by science, or what is right or wrong, or anything else. It does not matter whether the idea is, as you put it so bizarrely, "digestible." The essence of many religions is that the workings of their gods MUST BE beyond our ability to understand or explain. The doctrine of many religions requires - REQUIRES, DEMANDS as a non-negotiable condition of the faith that there be a personal god that transcends nature, and performs miracles that are contrary to nature, and operates in ways that are inherently, ineradicably, unequivocally outside our ability to understand or explain. The acts of a god, at least in the monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Islam and Christianity, do not concern themselves with right and wrong, because it is definitively, non-negotiably necessary that the actions of a monotheistic god are always good by definition. If you do not understand the meaning of the word "transcend" stop right here and look it up before proceeding.

It does not matter for this part of the discussion whether those religions are right or wrong. It does not matter for this part of the discussion whether they make sense. It does not matter for this part of the discussion whether you believe them, or whether I believe them. It only matters that these religions are what they are and not what they are not.

A religion might well be respectful of nature, and caring. According to the biblical stories relied on by Christians and Jews, God, after creating nature, made humans its custodian. But a supernatural god cannot be a product of nature. A supernatural god creates nature and stands, by absolute necessity, outside it. A god does not create itself. A religion that worships a supernatural god cannot ever be said to be based on nature no matter how well its practitioners behave in their husbandry.

You keep doubling down on misunderstanding this, and repeating the misunderstanding. Make sure that you understand that the question of whether there are any religions that are not based on nature is answered here. There are. It does not matter whether they are right, or good, or sensible. It does not matter whether science could explain better what they claim.

Oh by the way, I do not want to get involved in a slapping fight here but PLEASE abandon the arrogance of suggesting that you are the teacher here. You may be wise (though evidence of that is yet to be seen), but you certainly are not teaching religion here. I don't know about Jay Utah and others, except for noting that he has the patience of a saint if not the faith, but many of us here have made a considerable study of some of these issues. I could go on and boast about my education and reading (mostly long forgotten anyway) but it does not really matter. I learned more comparative religion in elementary Sunday school than one would need to counter your assertions. If I adhered as tenaciously to the error and misunderstanding shown in some of the posts here I would weep with shame.

 

[JayUtah]

A religion might well be respectful of nature, and caring. According to the biblical stories relied on by Christians and Jews, God, after creating nature, made humans its custodian.

Specifically, "dominion" over it -- with instructions to "subdue" it. If there is any relationship to be surmised between Judeo-Christianity and nature, it is that humans are masters over the Earth and may exercise their dominion as they see fit. And that has as much philosophical and religious validity as the Jainist fluffy-bunny interpretation of nature.

 

[Kumar]

Your post makes very little sense, as usual. There is no one religion. There are many, and it does not matter what we decide to call their basis. You asked some time ago for what religions are not "natural." A religion that worships a supernatural god cannot, by definition, ever be considered to be based on nature. It is based on a being that is believed to have created nature. A religion such as Christianity, which not only takes as its basis a supernatural god but the miraculous activities of that god, is inherently not based on nature. It does not matter what is understood by science, or what is right or wrong, or anything else. It does not matter whether the idea is, as you put it so bizarrely, "digestible." The essence of many religions is that the workings of their gods MUST BE beyond our ability to understand or explain. The doctrine of many religions requires - REQUIRES, DEMANDS as a non-negotiable condition of the faith that there be a personal god that transcends nature, and performs miracles that are contrary to nature, and operates in ways that are inherently, ineradicably, unequivocally outside our ability to understand or explain. The acts of a god, at least in the monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Islam and Christianity, do not concern themselves with right and wrong, because it is definitively, non-negotiably necessary that the actions of a monotheistic god are always good by definition. If you do not understand the meaning of the word "transcend" stop right here and look it up before proceeding.

It does not matter for this part of the discussion whether those religions are right or wrong. It does not matter for this part of the discussion whether they make sense. It does not matter for this part of the discussion whether you believe them, or whether I believe them. It only matters that these religions are what they are and not what they are not.

A religion might well be respectful of nature, and caring. According to the biblical stories relied on by Christians and Jews, God, after creating nature, made humans its custodian. But a supernatural god cannot be a product of nature. A supernatural god creates nature and stands, by absolute necessity, outside it. A god does not create itself. A religion that worships a supernatural god cannot ever be said to be based on nature no matter how well its practitioners behave in their husbandry.

You keep doubling down on misunderstanding this, and repeating the misunderstanding. Make sure that you understand that the question of whether there are any religions that are not based on nature is answered here. There are. It does not matter whether they are right, or good, or sensible. It does not matter whether science could explain better what they claim.

Main understanding needed here: Why super natural entities can not be made by nature. We made super conductors etc. If prime force or fundamental forces or energy modified into matter and matter is able to mediate energy, how matter can not be taken as super energy/force? Probably, it may be real logic behing every such off i.e. Unified one prime force>fundamental forces>energy>different type of energy>matter> Elementary particles>different matters in quality & quanity>atoms>molecular structure>>mediating energy...so on. Probably but mostly, main auspicious intention behind any religion is to aid to physical, mental and spritual health by faith reward expectation effect and by spritual practices and civility. They were practical to really effect these in good intention. However all these can still be super-natural because we do not have inharent sense of these. Previous ancient most learned though understanding real shape of earth but still expressed it flat, do not mean it was odd. They were so practical that they didn't want to make people so unstable alike standing on a foot-ball. Proof: ancient vedic astrological calculations.

 

[bruto]

Specifically, "dominion" over it -- with instructions to "subdue" it. If there is any relationship to be surmised between Judeo-Christianity and nature, it is that humans are masters over the Earth and may exercise their dominion as they see fit. And that has as much philosophical and religious validity as the Jainist fluffy-bunny interpretation of nature.

Well, true enough. Some would consider dominion at least to require good husbandry, and I was being hasty and perhaps more liberal-minded than necessary. Either way, in the Judaeo-Christian setup God is at least outside of nature and man might be considered so as well.

I'm always reminded of the wonderful line from The African Queen (alas, tight copyrighting keeps this bit off of youtube it seems) :

"Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this earth to rise above."

 

[JayUtah]

Well, true enough. Some would consider dominion at least to require good husbandry...

And in the ideal of the religion I think it should. One religion has the model of nature as something created by God and given to humankind to use as we see fit. Another religion has the model of nature as a Disneyesque cartoon of non-violence, to be venerated. Which religion is "related" to nature?

"Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this earth to rise above."

Was that before or after she threw all his Gordon's overboard?

 

[Mojo]

I am not making base of any specific religion or agency. I am talking about true religion, which can suggest every being has fundaméntal ríght to lífe and personal liberty. If any religion support it, this part of that religion can be taken as true religion. It does not mean that, all principles of that religion shall necessarily match with true religion. Hence, pls do not base specifics with me but make universal base with equanimity with me.

Pls base true religion only. If one put some artificial fruits on trees, it does not mean those fruits are natural. On true religion base, no one can fail.

You're going round in circles again. You're cherry-picking bits of religion you approve of and calling them 'true', defining things you approve of as being 'natural', and using this to support your claim that 'true' religion is based on 'nature'.

 

[JayUtah]

Main understanding needed here: Why super natural entities can not be made by nature.

You're the one who isn't understanding. The point is not whether science can explain miracles. The point is that the people who believe in miracles deny, as a matter of their faith, that miracles can have a natural origin. Between me and Bruto, we have written hundreds of words trying to get you to stop going off in the wrong direction on this line of reasoning. Between us we have begged you to slow down and carefully read the posts in question so that you can digest what is actually being argued.

You simply refuse to do so. That's not being "bold." That's being exceptionally rude. Please do your critics the courtesy of slowing down when they ask you to.

 

[JayUtah]

Pls talk in my home, to exchange better, if you desire so.

I'm not going to pretend to speak your native language, whatever that is. You've elected to have this discussion in English on an English-speaking forum. If you're not competent to have sophisticated discussions in English, then apologize for wasting your critics' time and go find a forum in your native language.

Now please answer my question. You challenged your critics to list religious practices and you would show their relevance to nature. Do you agree that you have failed your challenge?

 

[abaddon]

I am not making base of any specific religion or agency. I am talking about true religion, which can suggest every being has fundaméntal ríght to lífe and personal liberty. If any religion support it, this part of that religion can be taken as true religion. It does not mean that, all principles of that religion shall necessarily match with true religion. Hence, pls do not base specifics with me but make universal base with equanimity with me.

Except that no religion actually does that. All of them require that one goes against ones own nature, even Jainism.

 

[Mojo]

I'm not going to pretend to speak your native language, whatever that is. You've elected to have this discussion in English on an English-speaking forum. If you're not competent to have sophisticated discussions in English, then apologize for wasting your critics' time and go find a forum in your native language.

He has consistently refused to say what his native language is. Even when faced with people offering to translate, or to find someone who can.

 

[Kumar]

Well, true enough. Some would consider dominion at least to require good husbandry, and I was being hasty and perhaps more liberal-minded than necessary. Either way, in the Judaeo-Christian setup God is at least outside of nature and man might be considered so as well.

I'm always reminded of the wonderful line from The African Queen (alas, tight copyrighting keeps this bit off of youtube it seems) :

"Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this earth to rise above."

Biggest supernaturality and miracle can be that a child creating mother or mother creating many mother and father. Whole idea seems to be based on this nature. Understand the sense behind it.