Don't you think for a "religion" that is quite an insightful observation of the universe?
Religion The God Question - part 2
- Thread starter Total Power
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Thread starter
- #2,902
Its not religion, as vedas is not one single book, and there is not one author. Its been written over 4,000 years ago by various people. Vedas actually forbid worship, unfortunately people have turned these symbols into gods, just like buddhism.
- Feb 24, 2013
- 45,365
- 37,740
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Man Utd Green Bay Melb Storm
- Banned
- #2,903
Time is but one of many Man--made measurements..
- Thread starter
- #2,904
Could be, but we are not discussing that, quantum physics in this material world absolutely needs time. You are comparing apples with oranges, meta physics is not quantum physics.
Isn't it?
"A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, i.e., things set apart and forbidden--beliefs and practices which unite in one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them".
Is that not a description of Hinduism?
- Thread starter
- #2,906
The underlined is not true in Hinduism. Vedas states morality is subjective and there are no common guidelines you can follow.
- Feb 24, 2013
- 45,365
- 37,740
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Man Utd Green Bay Melb Storm
- Banned
- #2,907
LOL....When quantum physics starts postulating metaphysical ideas, then they cross the line into my domain snookums.
- Thread starter
- #2,908
You are just insecure, there is no science that is "meta-physics", meta-physics is not science. Believe what you can but learn quantum physics first without making assumptions first, if i ask you about Planck scale i bet even by googling you wouldnt have a clue, so please dont comment on stuff you dont understand.
- Feb 24, 2013
- 45,365
- 37,740
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Man Utd Green Bay Melb Storm
- Banned
- #2,909
Nope....When they start understanding terms properly then I'll shut-up.
They can't even get a simple concept like time right.
Their morons.
I think you will find that's not true.
- Thread starter
- #2,911
The fact you dont understand that the measurement of motion is important in space/time actually makes you a moron. How do you think gravity functions in space/time?
- Thread starter
- #2,912
Have you actually read the vedas? there are plenty of vedic verses and scholars which states that,
Anjili:Would you say that ethics is the theoretical aspect?
A: No, the subjective. Ethics is more subjective, something you have to cultivate in yourself. Then its expression in the world outside becomes morality. A man ethically cannot be morally good. A moral man springs from the ethical values he preserves in himself.
https://shivshankardaily.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/the-doubts-we-have-about-ethics-and-morality/
Hinduism teaches that humans are moral agents who have the imperative of applying their understanding of their religion to their daily lives. Hindus believe that the supreme reality, Brahman, exists in all things, including the bodies of all individuals. Hindu morality preaches the importance of understanding and realizing this divine presence.
http://www.google.com.au/url?url=ht...ggUMAA&usg=AFQjCNEq7wyeDz-_0Raqsx_PJ88qQoCp-Q
- Thread starter
- #2,914
You just blindly pasted a verse without understanding it. This is what pantheism is about, that god manifests in every thing that is nature. Pantheists do not believe in set morality as we are part of god and "ego" separates us from god
- Feb 24, 2013
- 45,365
- 37,740
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Man Utd Green Bay Melb Storm
- Banned
- #2,915
- Thread starter
- #2,916
Yes rolling eyes wont help you, now you dont believe in space time?? we do live in space time you realise that? in our dimension time is important.Just LOL..
Okay so you're a Pantheist, and a Saganist?
For those you dont know, i'll post a wiki link:
Spinoza[edit]
Main article: Baruch Spinoza
In the West, pantheism was formalized as a separate theology and philosophy based on the work of the 17th-century philosopher Baruch Spinoza.[4].7 Spinoza was a Dutch philosopher of Sephardi Portuguese origin,[16] whose book Ethics was an answer to Descartes' famous dualist theory that the body and spirit are separate.[5] Spinoza held the monist view that the two are the same, and monism is a fundamental part of his philosophy. He was described as a "God-intoxicated man," and used the word God to describe the unity of all substance.[5] Although the term pantheism was not coined until after his death, Spinoza is regarded as its most celebrated advocate.[6] His work, Ethics, was the major source from which Western pantheism spread.[7]
The breadth and importance of Spinoza's work was not fully realized until many years after his death. By laying the groundwork for the 18th-century Enlightenment[17] and modern biblical criticism,[18] including modern conceptions of the self and the universe,[19] he came to be considered one of the great rationalists of 17th-century philosophy.[20]
Spinoza's magnum opus, the posthumous Ethics, in which he opposed Descartes' mind–body dualism, has earned him recognition as one of Western philosophy's most important thinkers. In his book Ethics, "Spinoza wrote the last indisputable Latin masterpiece, and one in which the refined conceptions of medieval philosophy are finally turned against themselves and destroyed entirely."[21] Hegel said, "You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all."[22] His philosophical accomplishments and moral character prompted 20th-century philosopher Gilles Deleuze to name him "the 'prince' of philosophers".[23]
Spinoza was raised in the Portuguese Jewish community in Amsterdam. He developed highly controversial ideas regarding the authenticity of the Hebrew Bible and the nature of the Divine. The Jewish religious authorities issued a cherem (Hebrew: חרם, a kind of ban, shunning, ostracism, expulsion, or excommunication) against him, effectively excluding him from Jewish society at age 23. His books were also later put on the Catholic Church's Index of Forbidden Books.
- Thread starter
- #2,918
Okay so you're a Pantheist, and a Saganist?
For those you dont know, i'll post a wiki link:
Spinoza[edit]
Main article: Baruch Spinoza
In the West, pantheism was formalized as a separate theology and philosophy based on the work of the 17th-century philosopher Baruch Spinoza.[4]
The breadth and importance of Spinoza's work was not fully realized until many years after his death. By laying the groundwork for the 18th-century Enlightenment[17] and modern biblical criticism,[18] including modern conceptions of the self and the universe,[19] he came to be considered one of the great rationalists of 17th-century philosophy.[20]
Spinoza's magnum opus, the posthumous Ethics, in which he opposed Descartes' mind–body dualism, has earned him recognition as one of Western philosophy's most important thinkers. In his book Ethics, "Spinoza wrote the last indisputable Latin masterpiece, and one in which the refined conceptions of medieval philosophy are finally turned against themselves and destroyed entirely."[21] Hegel said, "You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all."[22] His philosophical accomplishments and moral character prompted 20th-century philosopher Gilles Deleuze to name him "the 'prince' of philosophers".[23]
Spinoza was raised in the Portuguese Jewish community in Amsterdam. He developed highly controversial ideas regarding the authenticity of the Hebrew Bible and the nature of the Divine. The Jewish religious authorities issued a cherem (Hebrew: חרם, a kind of ban, shunning, ostracism, expulsion, or excommunication) against him, effectively excluding him from Jewish society at age 23. His books were also later put on the Catholic Church's Index of Forbidden Books.
I am not sure what are you trying to discuss, philosophy or morality? please go have a read first without googling and copying from wiki.
Read the hindu epic called the mahabharatas to understand what subjective morality is. For example:
The contrast with traditional morality is obvious. Another important character in the battle of Kurukshetra, Yudishthira, Arjuna's brother, tried to expiate his sin of killing his relatives in battle through repentance, gifts, asceticism and pilgrimages (Mahabharata 12,7). For him a bad conscience could not be cleansed by a right attitude of mind, but by compensatory acts.
On the other hand, the same mindset that Arjuna should have had in securing a clear conscience (Gita 2,19) was used by the demon Kamsa in the Bhagavata Purana (10,4,22) in order to comfort Krishna's parents and justify the killing of their other sons by him:
In the bodily conception of life one remains in darkness without self-realization, thinking "I am being killed" or "I have killed my enemies". As long as a foolish person thus considers the self to be the killer or the killed, he continues to be responsible for material obligations, and consequently he suffers the reactions of happiness and distress.
- Thread starter
- #2,919
Also this:
When Arjuna found himself in the process of choosing between his duty as a warrior and the killing of his relatives (a severe violation of Vedic morality), Krishna explained to him that he must give a new meaning to traditional morality. Traditional ethical values should not be a hindrance to acting detached from the fruits of action. He argued: "The wise men who reached true knowledge see with equal vision a brahman (priest), a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater" (5,18). And as a result: "One whose mind is free from egotism, whose intellect is pure, is not bound even though he slays many people, for he does not truly slay" (18,17).
It is nicely explained in story form, unfortunately wiki wont tell you this. Just read it
Let me go back to this. Isn't this the essence of what is presented in the Christian Crucifixion together with the underlying message of the new Covenant of Jesus Christ?
- Thread starter
- #2,921
He was trying to say this:
A newborn baby has no sense of morality. Then we slowly train him, which in society we call giving him culture, education, and so on. It is then that morality comes. Suppose you are living on a solitary island, morality would have no meaning. Morality and Self-discipline are necessary when you live in society. morality will depend upon the social complexion of the society. There was no income tax in the cave man’s life. But there was sharing with the other man what he had, helping him in need lest he may also need him. It’s mutual. I think morality slowly built up that way.
He was trying to say, ethically and morally one neither could be good or bad. Its subjective.
- Thread starter
- #2,922
I do think you are struggling to understand the difference between theism and pantheism, this page is not a good example but still will set you on the right track while comparing with abrahamic religions
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/religions_hinduism.htm
I would say that morality comes very early. To separate culture and education from morality is incorrect. And to use the example of isolation is incorrect as well.
- Feb 24, 2013
- 45,365
- 37,740
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Man Utd Green Bay Melb Storm
- Banned
- #2,924
- Thread starter
- #2,925
You have to read Freuds stages of human development for that. Ofcourse culture and education got lot to do with morality, thats what he was trying to say there, society impacts your morality. If i am from Saudi arabia my idea of morality will be vastly different than yours, but then who is correct?
Similar threads
- Locked
