Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[bruto]

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?



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

My vague recollection is that it's as the last bottles drift away.

 

[Kumar]

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'.

Basis or Prime of everything can b ONE or just few. So when we tend to know basics, we have to come again and again on it, ultimately. Can you reply to my last post consideration, somewhat interpreting, supernaturality and miracles indirectly. Ref my last reply to bruto. That should cover all in one shot.

 

[Kumar]

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?



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

Are you all interacting opposite to me in cordination? Will 1:10, not be an injustification?

 

[Kumar]

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.

Many understandings actions, though look opposite butwill stll support fact/nature in indirect sense. Refer my last reply to bruto. A matter can be said as supernatural because it can mediate energy/nature but still modified from energy/nature. So we can not say, supernatural can not come from nature. It is miracle that child creating mother.

 

[Kumar]

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?

I am not talking to language or 3rd language to me. I am talking to my home atmosphere. This forum can be specific to language but not to any religion. My home mean my religion i.e true religion derived from many religions here and from nature & other practices.

 

[Kumar]

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.

Translator is much worse than my language, Then why I should opt it? Machines can never be alike humans.

 

[abaddon]

Many understandings actions, though look opposite butwill stll support fact/nature in indirect sense. Refer my last reply to bruto. A matter can be said as supernatural because it can mediate energy/nature but still modified from energy/nature. So we can not say, supernatural can not come from nature. It is miracle that child creating mother.

Make any kind of sense,you cannot.

Coherent idea you find not.

With the master and the pupil, it ever is.

 

[bruto]

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.

Wrong, based on a complete misunderstanding of words. "Supernatural" means outside of nature, transcending it, not part of it. A thing cannot be supernatural and natural at the same time. You can't be off the world and on it at the same time. Forget other uses of the prefix "super" which through a degree of corruption have come to denote a very high degree of something. Stick to the word we're speaking about. Supernatural does not mean very very natural. It means not natural. A thing cannot be itself and not itself at the same time. If a thing is outside a container it is not inside the container!

If you believe in a supernatural god, then your belief is not based on nature. It's based on the god you worship. A supernatural god cannot be part of nature. It just can't. A god cannot be what it creates, and it certainly cannot be created by what it creates. It just can't. And it does not matter whether or not you believe what other religions believe. What you say you believe has no relevance at all to what they believe. According to many religions, God made nature. In such a case, it is absolutely and completely the case by definition that nature did not make God.

Should I put it in big red capitals so you're sure to see it?

THE THING YOU MAKE CANNOT BE THE THING THAT MADE YOU!It does not matter (If I say it ten times over will you notice?) It does not matter does not matter does not matter does not matter does not matter does not matter does not matter does not matter does not matter...(is that ten does not matters?) whether or not it is true. We are not speaking here of what may or may not be true, but of what certain religions assert. What does matter when you speak of what adherents of a religion believe is just that: what they believe, not what you believe. If a person believes God made nature it would be utter nonsense, delusion and insanity for him to claim at the same time that nature made God.

 

[Kumar]

Final Conclusion of this topic can be that:

Those animals, meant for food, are Idiots or are in compulsion from their POVs because they misunderstand real intentions of ther owners in selfish/ commecial interests. From crops POV other than fruits,milk etc. esp seed crops, it shall someway be the Compulsion. From fruits,milk etc. POV, it can someway be Grattitude. It can also somehow be related to Nobility. We do not directly nurse pests/weeds in home still regularily do pest control and weeding. Inspite of it, they come again and again, it can someway be Idiocy or compulsion for need...no Nobility.

However, I feel, we may also need to look all these from our POV towads them. Whether we be taken as their seniormost and so have duty to protect and nurse then alike head of family or have right to slaughter them alike a monopolistic? On former practicing later, it can someway will be bit odd from our POV. Nothing can compensate life & pain esp when it is componding/propagating.

All are open to present their equanimious views.

Thanks all.

 

[abaddon]

Final Conclusion of this topic can be that:

Those animals, meant for food, are Idiots or are in compulsion from their POVs because they misunderstand real intentions of ther owners in selfish/ commecial interests. From crops POV other than fruits,milk etc. esp seed crops, it shall someway be the Compulsion. From fruits,milk etc. POV, it can someway be Grattitude. It can also somehow be related to Nobility. We do not directly nurse pests/weeds in home still regularily do pest control and weeding. Inspite of it, they come again and again, it can someway be Idiocy or compulsion for need...no Nobility.

However, I feel, we may also need to look all these from our POV towads them. Whether we be taken as their seniormost and so have duty to protect and nurse then alike head of family or have right to slaughter them alike a monopolistic? On former practicing later, it can someway will be bit odd from our POV. Nothing can compensate life & pain esp when it is componding/propagating.

All are open to present their equanimious views.

Thanks all.

What a big load of rot.

 

[Kumar]

Wrong, based on a complete misunderstanding of words. "Supernatural" means outside of nature, transcending it, not part of it. A thing cannot be supernatural and natural at the same time. You can't be off the world and on it at the same time. Forget other uses of the prefix "super" which through a degree of corruption have come to denote a very high degree of something. Stick to the word we're speaking about. Supernatural does not mean very very natural. It means not natural. A thing cannot be itself and not itself at the same time. If a thing is outside a container it is not inside the container!

If you believe in a supernatural god, then your belief is not based on nature. It's based on the god you worship. A supernatural god cannot be part of nature. It just can't. A god cannot be what it creates, and it certainly cannot be created by what it creates. It just can't. And it does not matter whether or not you believe what other religions believe. What you say you believe has no relevance at all to what they believe. According to many religions, God made nature. In such a case, it is absolutely and completely the case by definition that nature did not make God.

Should I put it in big red capitals so you're sure to see it?

THE THING YOU MAKE CANNOT BE THE THING THAT MADE YOU!It does not matter (If I say it ten times over will you notice?) It does not matter does not matter does not matter does not matter does not matter does not matter does not matter does not matter does not matter...(is that ten does not matters?) whether or not it is true. We are not speaking here of what may or may not be true, but of what certain religions assert. What does matter when you speak of what adherents of a religion believe is just that: what they believe, not what you believe. If a person believes God made nature it would be utter nonsense, delusion and insanity for him to claim at the same time that nature made God.

This only is the wonder and miracle of Nature. May it be biggest miracle or wonder i.e Chid create mother or mother create father or other mothers. Why can't be one child be superier to his parents? He can be chosen on natural selection superior to hisparents. It is the beuty of nature. In scientific sense:

Force/Energy form matter and matter mediate energy. It is child creating mother. Energy is converted into many forms even in matter. It is mother creating mothers and father. Take force/energy as mother/female, matter as father/child/male. Other energy forms as other motherd/daughter/females. Then you can better understand beuty of nature and of religions who indirectly indicated it?

Don't energy is modified/converted into matter and in other forms of energy--scientifically and naturally? We may need to understand real sense behind indirect expressions.

 

[Pixel42]

Final Conclusion of this topic can be that:

... that Kumar has once again paid no attention whatsoever to anything that has been patiently explained to him and is, as usual, leaving the discussion clinging to the same fundamental misunderstandings and basic factual errors with which he started it.

 

[Kumar]

... that Kumar has once again paid no attention whatsoever to anything that has been patiently explained to him and is, as usual, leaving the discussion clinging to the same fundamental misunderstandings and basic factual errors with which he started it.

I think, we may need to become or go into those zoological and botanical beings to practically understand that conclusion.

 

[Mojo]

Translator is much worse than my language, Then why I should opt it? Machines can never be alike humans.

Kumar, your refusal to say what your language is was in the face of a human poster offering to translate for you, or to find someone who could. The inadequacies of machine translation are irrelevant.

 

[Mojo]

Basis or Prime of everything can b ONE or just few. So when we tend to know basics, we have to come again and again on it, ultimately.

You are still begging the question, by cherry-picking "basics" that you consider to be natural and then trying to use them to show that religion has a natural basis.

Can you reply to my last post consideration, somewhat interpreting, supernaturality and miracles indirectly. Ref my last reply to bruto. That should cover all in one shot.

Your last reply to Bruto was nonsense.

 

[Kumar]

You are still begging the question, by cherry-picking "basics" that you consider to be natural and then trying to use them to show that religion has a natural basis.




Your last reply to Bruto was nonsense.

Try to harmonize.Most likely strict religious basis is meant for you types i.e to give full nstural effect of faith/reward expectation and from religious practices, indirectly.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Translator is much worse than my language, Then why I should opt it? Machines can never be alike humans.

This underlines the fact that you are not sincere. People skilled in many south Asian languages AND English have offered to translate for you, but that would remove your excuse for your myriad fatuous posts

 

[Kumar]

This underlines the fact that you are not sincere. People skilled in many south Asian languages AND English have offered to translate for you, but that would remove your excuse for your myriad fatuous posts

To do that , I may have to post only 1/2 post per day. Old story.

 

[fagin]

Better one that actually makes sense than countless meaningless ones.

 

[bruto]

This only is the wonder and miracle of Nature. May it be biggest miracle or wonder i.e Chid create mother or mother create father or other mothers. Why can't be one child be superier to his parents? He can be chosen on natural selection superior to hisparents. It is the beuty of nature. In scientific sense:

Force/Energy form matter and matter mediate energy. It is child creating mother. Energy is converted into many forms even in matter. It is mother creating mothers and father. Take force/energy as mother/female, matter as father/child/male. Other energy forms as other motherd/daughter/females. Then you can better understand beuty of nature and of religions who indirectly indicated it?

Don't energy is modified/converted into matter and in other forms of energy--scientifically and naturally? We may need to understand real sense behind indirect expressions.

The argument is obviously hopeless. A child may be superior to its parent but a child never ever gives birth to its parents. Nature may be better and more worthy of worship than any god but if you believe that a god created nature then you cannot believe that nature created the god that created it. It does not matter what is right when you speak of what a person believes. All the confused and garbled nonsense you keep repeating here keeps on saying, in short, that people do not believe what people believe. Oddly enough, that is wrong. It will always be wrong, because it will always be utter nonsense.