Religion and Veganism

a reply to: chr0naut

Bahma is an abstract metaphysical concept that represents mind whereas Saraswati represents desire. When Saraswati runs away, Brahma creates five heads (sense organs) to search for her.

So when our desires run away from us we eat the apple.

Religion is about us. Not Brahma nor Abraham.

Aristotle was no fool.

a reply to: Damla

Thanks Damian for kind words.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: chr0naut

Bahma is an abstract metaphysical concept that represents mind whereas Saraswati represents desire. When Saraswati runs away, Brahma creates five heads (sense organs)

There are more than five senses which have been measured in humans:
- Sight
- Hearing
- Taste
- Smell
- Touch
- Balance and acceleration
- Temperature
- Proprioception
- Pain
- Sexual stimulation
- Time
- Agency
- Familiarity
- Sensing gravity
- Echolocation
- Electroreception
- Magnetoception
- Hygroreception
- Infrared sensing
- Psychic senses

to search for her.

So when our desires run away from us

Our desires are intrinsic to us so I'll assume you mean that, metaphorically, we lose self-control.

we eat the apple.

Another metaphoric allusion.

Religion is about us. Not Brahma nor Abraham.

Aristotle was no fool.

Our personal beliefs and faiths are about us but religions are most definitely about the likes of Brahma and Abraham.

Brahma may be a metaphysical abstraction but the power in the lessons about Abraham is that he was a historical person and the devout ancestor of the Semitic peoples, both genealogically and in religious conceptualization.

Of course, we can abstract and make metaphoric allusions until we can define Brahma as some type of beer and Abraham as unisex clothing but then we would be entirely missing the points of the scriptures.

Aristotle may not have been a fool (he did propose many of the processes of reasoning evaluation of observation which underlies much in science and philosophy). But none the less, he was quite wrong, politically and scientifically, in much of what he inferred.

a reply to: glend

i believe it isnt right time for me to get angry with you for intentionally typing my name wrong.

a reply to: chr0naut

Of course, we can abstract and make metaphoric allusions until we can define Brahma as some type of beer

Brahma beer is sacred. How dare you!

Abraham is that he was a historical person and the devout ancestor of the Semitic peoples.

Its clear that the OT contains allergy as pointed out by Paul in Galatians 4:21-31. Isn't it possible that the story of Abraham was a parable to help oral transmission of deeper philosophical content?

religions are most definitely about the likes of Brahma and Abraham.

Its the Hindu belief that all of creation is made in the image of Brahman. That Brahman is both the creator and the created. I'd like to think that such an entity would be beyond self glorification.

a reply to: Damla

Let it all pour out Damia. I can take it

a reply to: glend

brahman is in caste system name of priests.

you are talking of brahma maybe.

a reply to: glend

i doubt it. and i am the doubter and doubt.

a reply to: Damla

Brahma is the creator, Vishnu the preserver, and Shiva the destroyer but Brahman is considered in Vedas to be highest reality, the creator, preserver and destroyer of all,

a reply to: Damla

You full of zen.

a reply to: glend

seeking self gratification?

a reply to: glend
i still doubt it.

a reply to: Damla

"seeking self gratification?"

Some people think that God wants to be idolised. By if we are made in Gods image that means God would be receiving idolisation from his own image (us). Many religions teach prayer but i think that has other purpose. So the person can clear their mind of other thoughts (aka meditation).

I'm off to bed now (australia) so catch ya latter.

a reply to: glend

my name is pretty simple and clear and you not catch me. i am open to sincere calls better.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: chr0naut

Of course, we can abstract and make metaphoric allusions until we can define Brahma as some type of beer

Brahma beer is sacred. How dare you!

Abraham is that he was a historical person and the devout ancestor of the Semitic peoples.

Its clear that the OT contains allergy as pointed out by Paul in Galatians 4:21-31. Isn't it possible that the story of Abraham was a parable to help oral transmission of deeper philosophical content?

I don't deny that there is allegory in the Bible. But Abraham himself was the ancestor of the Semitic peoples and specifically the tribes of Israel.

Abraham's significance is that he was promised by God to be the patron of nations, even though at the time of the promise, he had no children. Then he fathered children in his old age but God tested Abraham by asking him to sacrifice his son. Abraham showed his faith by preparing to offer his son but God intervened and rescued the son.

Interestingly, the place where Abraham prepared to offer his son is the same place (Mount Moriah outside the old city of Jerusalem) that Jesus was crucified. There are deep parallels and correlations there.

religions are most definitely about the likes of Brahma and Abraham.

Its the Hindu belief that all of creation is made in the image of Brahman. That Brahman is both the creator and the created. I'd like to think that such an entity would be beyond self glorification.

Brahman is the 'ultimate' universal concept in Hinduism but is different than Brahma (a Hindu god), which was what I thought we were discussing.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Damla

"seeking self gratification?"

Some people think that God wants to be idolised. By if we are made in Gods image that means God would be receiving idolisation from his own image (us). Many religions teach prayer but i think that has other purpose. So the person can clear their mind of other thoughts (aka meditation).

I'm off to bed now (australia) so catch ya latter.

Prayer is also a personal acknowledgement - communication.

Do you think God would create us to ignore Him?

Is It Wrong to Eat Meat?

...
It is true that man’s original diet was vegetarian. But Jehovah later expanded it to include animal flesh.
...
Some who...consider animals to be man’s equals feel strongly that taking the life of an animal for any purpose is wrong—killing them for food even more so. Nevertheless, the Scriptures indicate that God differentiates between animal life and human life and allows the killing of animals for various reasons. In Israel an animal could be killed, for example, when it posed a threat to human life or one’s livestock.—Exodus 21:28, 29; 1 Samuel 17:34-36.
...
After they emerged from the ark, Jehovah for the first time stated: “Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you.” (Genesis 9:3) At the same time, however, God gave the law: “Anyone shedding man’s blood, by man will his own blood be shed, for in God’s image he made man.” (Genesis 9:6) Clearly, God did not place animals on the same level as humans.
...
This is not to say that the provision to eat meat is a license to indulge in the needless spilling of animal blood for the sheer thrill of the hunt or to display personal prowess. Nimrod evidently did this. The Bible identifies him as “a mighty hunter in opposition to Jehovah.” (Genesis 10:9) Even today, excitement over hunting and killing animals can easily develop in some. But such a spirit goes hand in hand with wanton disregard for animal life, and God does not approve of it.
...
Some vegetarians today also have sincere concern over the treatment of animals by the modern meat industry. ... While the use of animals for food is not against the will of God, their cruel treatment is. “The righteous one is caring for the soul of his domestic animal,” says the Bible at Proverbs 12:10. And the Mosaic Law enjoined proper care of domestic animals.—Exodus 23:4, 5; Deuteronomy 22:10; 25:4.
...
Because of health, economics, ecology, or compassion for animals, a person may choose to follow a vegetarian regimen. But he must recognize it as only one way of eating. He should not criticize those who choose to eat meat, just as one who eats meat should not condemn a vegetarian. Eating meat or refraining from it does not make one a better person. (Romans 14:1-17) Neither should one’s diet become the prime concern in his life. “Man must live,” Jesus said, “not on bread alone, but on every utterance coming forth through Jehovah’s mouth.”—Matthew 4:4.

As for cruelty to animals and misuse of earth’s resources, Jehovah has promised to bring an end to this corrupt and greedy system and to replace it with the new world of his making. (Psalm 37:10, 11; Matthew 6:9, 10; 2 Peter 3:13) In that new world, man and animals will be forever at peace with one another, and Jehovah will ‘satisfy the desire of every living thing.’—Psalm 145:16; Isaiah 65:25.

Romans 14:

Welcome the man having weaknesses in his faith, but do not pass judgment on differing opinions.* [Or possibly, “inward questionings.”] 2 One man has faith to eat everything, but the man who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let the one eating not look down on the one not eating, and let the one not eating not judge the one eating, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for Jehovah can make him stand.
...
13 Therefore, let us not judge one another any longer but, rather, be determined not to put a stumbling block or an obstacle before a brother. 14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; only where a man considers something to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 For if your brother is being offended because of food, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not by your food ruin* [Or “destroy.”] that one for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore, do not let the good you do be spoken of as bad. 17 For the Kingdom of God does not mean eating and drinking, but means righteousness and peace and joy with holy spirit.

Song 70: Make Sure of the More Important Things

a reply to: chr0naut

Do you think God would create us to ignore Him?

I think the main difference between east and west religions is in the definition of God. Eastern religions teach that the garden of Eden is within every single one of us. That before we can be one with God we need be one with that Garden, the atman (or soul) within.

In Hindu terms one can not see Brahman without going through the Atman (our soul).
In Christianity terms one cannot see the Father without going through the Son.

Personally I prefer the eastern definition. As loving something that is incomprehensible, unknowable, to my mind is a false love/devotion.

But each to our own.

The great sage of Arunachala Sri Ramana Maharshi wrote...

The eternal, unbroken, natural state of abiding in the Self is jnana (Samadhi, enlightenment, born again etc).
To abide in the Self, you must love the Self.
Since God is verily the Self, love of the Self is love of God and that is bhakti (devotion).

Jnana and bhakti are thus ultimately one and the same.

a reply to: Damla

catch you latter = bye.