Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[JayUtah]

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.

Your incessant stalling is very rude. Do you agree that you have failed your challenge? It's a simple yes-or-no question that you have spent nearly a day avoiding the answer to.

 

[Kumar]

Your incessant stalling is very rude. Do you agree that you have failed your challenge? It's a simple yes-or-no question that you have spent nearly a day avoiding the answer to.

Yes, for those religions to which Í am not famíliar, No for true religión and for religions to which I am familiar. Yes, I agree I shoúld have not included all religions before fully understandíng those. Ok, happy,?

 

[Kumar]

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.

Why above can't happen? Energy somewhat acted like mother for matter(child) and matter mediated energy(matter) so created energy(mother). Consider energy as nature and matter as supernature(because creating energy/nature. Whole sense.

 

[sackett]

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

Kumar guru, is not your culture again. GORDON sahib was is has been bit more big guru to engineer sahib Allnut.

He was all nut for Memsahib alone on boat is all. No big unaturel deal.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, for those religions to which Í am not famíliar, No for true religión and for religions to which I am familiar. Yes, I agree I shoúld have not included all religions before fully understandíng those. Ok, happy,?

No, I'm not happy because you're still trying to change the conditions of the challenge to make it sound like you should have won even though you clearly didn't. Jains take a vow of total honesty, which you have clearly broken. It has taken nearly a whole day of cajoling to get you to speak even a little bit of truth. Earlier, on a number of occasions, you have declared yourself to be morally superior to your critics because you adhere to a religion that respects nature. Do you agree that your claim of moral superiority is contrary to the evidence we have seen in this thread?

There is no such thing as true religion.

As regards Jainism, I wrote two lengthy articles showing how Jainism does not derive from nature but rather creates an idealized version of nature which it then deifies and venerates. You didn't answer the points I raised despite my many requests that you do so. I asked you a number of times if that should constitute a concession on your part. You insinuated that it did, but given your newfound honesty today I would like you to clarify that. Do you agree that your claims regarding Jainism being founded on nature have been refuted?

 

[abaddon]

Yes, for those religions to which Í am not famíliar, No for true religión and for religions to which I am familiar. Yes, I agree I shoúld have not included all religions before fully understandíng those. Ok, happy,?

No. What is with the whole accent malarkey? It cannot be your translator/spell checker, since English is absent any diacritical marks or symbols.

Therefore it can only be an affectation.

 

[bruto]

Why above can't happen? Energy somewhat acted like mother for matter(child) and matter mediated energy(matter) so created energy(mother). Consider energy as nature and matter as supernature(because creating energy/nature. Whole sense.

You can consider any nonsense you want and come up with any garbled theory you want, but considering matter to be supernatural is simply redefining reality to mean something it is not. "Why above can't happen" is because a child cannot be the parent of its parents by sheer definition, because if words do not mean something then we speak meaningless gibberish. You cannot create the thing that created you.

 

[sackett]

Bhailog on this very relijious thread: May be could kumar guru is talking POETRY, so lesser coolies not can able comprehand him?

My own personal sahib-ness of oponion that if Kumar baboo is a Jain, then I am a Corn God.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

Now, now, Kumar. Didn't know you had that in you.

Hans

 

[Kumar]

No, I'm not happy because you're still trying to change the conditions of the challenge to make it sound like you should have won even though you clearly didn't. Jains take a vow of total honesty, which you have clearly broken. It has taken nearly a whole day of cajoling to get you to speak even a little bit of truth. Earlier, on a number of occasions, you have declared yourself to be morally superior to your critics because you adhere to a religion that respects nature. Do you agree that your claim of moral superiority is contrary to the evidence we have seen in this thread?

There is no such thing as true religion.

As regards Jainism, I wrote two lengthy articles showing how Jainism does not derive from nature but rather creates an idealized version of nature which it then deifies and venerates. You didn't answer the points I raised despite my many requests that you do so. I asked you a number of times if that should constitute a concession on your part. You insinuated that it did, but given your newfound honesty today I would like you to clarify that. Do you agree that your claims regarding Jainism being founded on nature have been refuted?

No, not at all. I took some relevant quotes from that religion. If you will go on talkíng about specifics inspite of my repeated requests not to do so, I shall çlose these discussions, finally. Nothing can be beyond nature, it is different that, either we and science could not yet understand all or those are expressed differently for some particular íntention. Your some specific demands are very very odd or rude beyond your personality which I can not sustain any more. So just opt harmony.

 

[Kumar]

You can consider any nonsense you want and come up with any garbled theory you want, but considering matter to be supernatural is simply redefining reality to mean something it is not. "Why above can't happen" is because a child cannot be the parent of its parents by sheer definition, because if words do not mean something then we speak meaningless gibberish. You cannot create the thing that created you.

How? Nature has created us. Can't we create nature by growing few trees? Trees are nature. So many other nature we can create because we are manifested matter.

 

[Kumar]

You can consider any nonsense you want and come up with any garbled theory you want, but considering matter to be supernatural is simply redefining reality to mean something it is not. "Why above can't happen" is because a child cannot be the parent of its parents by sheer definition, because if words do not mean something then we speak meaningless gibberish. You cannot create the thing that created you.

Now, now, Kumar. Didn't know you had that in you.

Hans

This topic is bringing lot of dynamic material for further discussions. For it, I would like to understand science of so thought of supernatural and miracle but actually may be a modification of nature creating nature.
What is the science of energy transformation l or conversion into different forms? I need science lnot observation or outcome.

 

[JayUtah]

No, not at all. I took some relevant quotes from that religion.

The quotes were relevant precisely because Jainism is what you're trying to shore up as a universal "true" religion. You didn't just refer casually to your religion; you define "true" religion as it. You have no basis for doing so. Every religious sect claims theirs is the true one. If we consider just Roman Catholics, there are hundreds of times more Catholics than Jains, so just on sheer numbers it stands a much greater chance of being called a universal faith. It isn't, of course, but you need to realize how comical you look trying to prop up Jainism as "true" religion.

You've demonstrated that you don't really know much about comparative religion. Specifically you don't seem to realize how much religion differs among humans who practice it all over the world. This has already led to you having to admit you failed in your challenge to tie religion to nature. After having been shown how little you understand religion, perhaps you should become the student and learn, rather than continuing to pontificate about things you don't know anything about.

If you will go on talkíng about specifics inspite of my repeated requests not to do so, I shall çlose these discussions...

There you go, trying to squelch your critics again. You don't get to write the script for your critics to follow. And promising to run away if they don't follow it is not much of a threat. Go, if you can't handle the heat. If you don't want the individual tenets of your religion questioned skeptically, then don't preach them to skeptics as if they were some sort of inherent, universal truth -- especially if you plan to be a hypocrite about them.

It's very insulting when you decry your critics for their "violence" to nature by simply doing what humans have done for tens of thousands of years, and then toss your own moral code aside when it doesn't suit you. How is your behavior any different from PETA's?

Your some specific demands are very very odd or rude beyond your personality which I can not sustain any more. So just opt harmony.

If you can't sustain criticism anymore, it's because your claims have no merit and this has finally become apparent to you. And in addition, your hypocrisy has been laid bare, which defuses your moralistic lines of reasoning. I'm presenting facts you cannot deal with, and this is causing the dissonance, not some imaginary rudeness or "disharmony" among your critics.

You are lying about machine translation being the source of your inability to communicate in English. You avoided giving truthful answers to your critics' questions. You are the source of disharmony here by your willful acts of deception and concealment. You need to get your own house in order before you start trying to correct your critics.

 

[JayUtah]

How? Nature has created us.

The paradox is not in the notion that nature created humans, but that nature allegedly created God. If God created nature (i.e., the physical universe) then that same physical universe cannot have created God. One of them had to come first and be uncreated. In western religions, that is how God is formulated. God always existed, and created the natural world that includes humans. The natural world obeys natural law because that's how God ordained it to be. The rare occasions on which God decides that something different should happen are deemed miracles by those who believe in that God. It can happen that way, according to that theology, because God stands apart from nature. He is not a product of it and is not bound by its laws.

No matter how hard you try to stuff Western religion into Eastern religion, they are simply two very different things.

 

[Kumar]

The paradox is not in the notion that nature created humans, but that nature allegedly created God. If God created nature (i.e., the physical universe) then that same physical universe cannot have created God. One of them had to come first and be uncreated. In western religions, that is how God is formulated. God always existed, and created the natural world that includes humans. The natural world obeys natural law because that's how God ordained it to be. The rare occasions on which God decides that something different should happen are deemed miracles by those who believe in that God. It can happen that way, according to that theology, because God stands apart from nature. He is not a product of it and is not bound by its laws.

No matter how hard you try to stuff Western religion into Eastern religion, they are simply two very different things.

We shall need to first understand mother of all fundamental forces ànd father of all elementary particles. Science is trying for one unified force. Wheyher then, those will become basic of nature or not, we shall need to decide.Whether supernatural created nature or nature created supernatural or they got created independently, is somewhat a hen come first or an egg, We have to wait and watch till science become omniscient. Till then, we can take, many or most religions basically interpreted true religion in different forms and language with good intention.
Mothong

 

[JayUtah]

We shall need to first understand mother of all fundamental forces...

No the issue is much simpler than that. Your argument contains a circular dependency that cannot be resolved by vague handwaving about "elementary particles" or perfunctory differences in interpretation.

Till then, we can take, many or most religions basically interpreted true religion in different forms and language with good intention.

No, you are not competent in the field of comparative religion. The topic of which came first, nature or a god, illustrates that different religions are in contradiction at a very fundamental level, not in just some superficial interpretation of what you propose is "true" religion. There is no "true" religion in the sense you mean. You have been shown the facts that establish that, and you have no response beyond unintelligible handwaving.

The only description you have been able to provide for this so-called "true" religion is obviously your religion, Jainism. That boils the whole argument down to just another sectarian claim. Your chosen religion is not "true" religion, or in any other respect a universal one.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

No. What is with the whole accent malarkey? It cannot be your translator/spell checker, since English is absent any diacritical marks or symbols.

Therefore it can only be an affectation.

apropos nothing at all, I was playing around with google translate and managed to generate a number of accents by translate English to one South Asian language, then to another and then back to English. It's also a good way of increasing the incoherence.

If I get half an hour I'll try to recreate what I did.

 

[Kumar]

No the issue is much simpler than that. Your argument contains a circular dependency that cannot be resolved by vague handwaving about "elementary particles" or perfunctory differences in interpretation.



No, you are not competent in the field of comparative religion. The topic of which came first, nature or a god, illustrates that different religions are in contradiction at a very fundamental level, not in just some superficial interpretation of what you propose is "true" religion. There is no "true" religion in the sense you mean. You have been shown the facts that establish that, and you have no response beyond unintelligible handwaving.

The only description you have been able to provide for this so-called "true" religion is obviously your religion, Jainism. That boils the whole argument down to just another sectarian claim. Your chosen religion is not "true" religion, or in any other respect a universal one.

Since you are consistently defaulting ignoring my all requests, in making specific issues, PETA, Jainism, Christianity etc., I hesitate to repond to your posts unless you renounce these. Sorry and thanks.

 

[JayUtah]

Since you are consistently defaulting ignoring my all requests, in making specific issues, PETA, Jainism, Christianity etc., I hesitate to repond to your posts unless you renounce these. Sorry and thanks.

Sooner or later most fringe claimants come up with some excuse for why they don't have to pay attention to their critics.

No, you don't get to request that your critics stay within the narrow confines of responses you're prepared for. No, you don't get to condition your participation on their renunciation of the rebuttals they've made. I do not apologize that my responses have exposed points you clearly don't want to talk about and are now doing your best to evade. In fact, I will continue to press you on these subjects until we make headway.

Your claims in this thread have as their premise a view of nature that is at odds with the facts. We have determined that your view of nature comes not from observing the natural world, but is in fact the view of nature promulgated by your specific religion. While you do not deny that, you offer that your view of nature is made universal by its having derived from some imaginary proto-religion from which all religions derive, and that this universal basis gives your claims their moral authority.

But none of this is borne out by fact, and it is only through my efforts and those of others that your departure from the facts is made evident. Ongoing efforts to get you to deal with those uncomfortable facts have been met with all manner of deception and evasion. Your latest ploy to declare those efforts off-topic is just more of the same deception and evasion.

Quit whining about being treated so shabbily and start paying attention to your critics.

 

[Mojo]

Yes, for those religions to which Í am not famíliar, No for true religión and for religions to which I am familiar. Yes, I agree I shoúld have not included all religions before fully understandíng those. Ok, happy,?

This "true religion": would it originate in Scotland, by any chance?