|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
gsxr750r
Joined: 29 Jan 2007
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 7:30 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Zoidberg wrote: |
You're not doing do yourself any favours. You're using your religion to justify saying women are nothing but baby machines before anything else. Even your statement "they should be specially protected and provided for because of their natural role as mothers" is distasteful since, when taken with what else you wrote, it implies that a woman's only value is as a potential mother.
And on this:
| Rteacher wrote: |
| My understanding (based on Vedic scriptures , and - as far as I know - not disproved by modern science...) is that as soon as a fetus starts growing it has consciousness (symptomatic of the spirit-soul...) and therefore feelings. |
I think that you've been told many times before (on the evolution/origin-of-life thread) science isn't in the business of disproving things. You have a claim, the onus is on you to prove it, not on others to disprove it. |
I don't agree with the majority of what Rteacher writes, but I can understand where he is coming from.
He didn't say women are baby machines. He is basically saying if you end up pregnant and then terminate the pregnancy, you are terminating a soul or sentient being. No one forced the woman to get pregnant unless she was raped, but I don't think Rteacher would say it is okay to abort a fetus even if the woman was raped.
As far as the post about the Brazilian woman who cooked her husband, Brazil and parts of Latin America have more serious problems when it comes to domestic abuse, and the woman claimed she was abused.
People also underestimate the amount of abuse towards women in the United States, Canada, and other Western non-Catholic or non-Islamic countries.
As far as slaughtering animals, our ancient ancestors used to hunt.
That is a fact rteacher before the Vedas were ever written. You do know that, I am sure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
From the Vedic spiritual point of view, any material body has negative value - male or female. The soul has no gender, but when it is assigned to a particular male or female body it falsely identifies with the material designations associated with that body.
Liberation in the spiritual sense means to stop essentially identifying ourselves in terms of material designations (eg: man, woman, Canadian, Korean, Earthling, Martian ...) We are all spirit-souls, parts-and-parcels of the complete whole spirit. Being embodied materially is foreign to our essential nature.
All the great spiritual authorities of India accept Krishna as God. In Bhagavad-gita, Krishna gives the science of the soul. Everything rings true because it's pure transcendental sound vibration, and there is no need of empirical proof.
Actually, there is no onus on God to do or prove anything - his only business is to enjoy unlimitedly. Our constitutional position is to cooperatively serve to increase that enjoyment, which we also can partake in when our consciousness is pure...
Atheistic people don't like the idea of a supreme controller because - although finite and very limited - they want to be the controllers of material nature, and they don't want any restrictions on exploiting and enjoying her. (That's just human nature in contaminated consciousness...)
While in material bodies, we should make the best use of a bad bargain. According to the interaction of the material modes of goodness, passion, and ignorance there are different types of people who are naturally inclined for particular types of work (eg: intellectual, administrative, commercial, physical ...)
There has always been a relatively small but significant percentage of humans fit to be warrior and hunter-types, and they incur minimal karmic reaction for eating animals they kill themselves (to perfect their fighting skills, meant for giving protection to society as a whole...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zoidberg
Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Location: Somewhere too hot for my delicate marine constitution
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
I don't agree with the majority of what Rteacher writes, but I can understand where he is coming from.
He didn't say women are baby machines. He is basically saying if you end up pregnant and then terminate the pregnancy, you are terminating a soul or sentient being. No one forced the woman to get pregnant unless she was raped, but I don't think Rteacher would say it is okay to abort a fetus even if the woman was raped. |
I understand what he is saying too. But I definitely don't agree. He basically said, that irrelevant of circumstances apart from probable death, a woman who finds herself pregnant must have the baby. So he is implying that women have baby-machine status, as once pregnant, the woman's desires or feelings cease to matter.
| Adventurer wrote: |
| People also underestimate the amount of abuse towards women in the United States, Canada, and other Western non-Catholic or non-Islamic countries. |
I would not dispute this.
I see that Rteacher in his reply to you didn't bother to refute this:
| Quote: |
| I don't think Rteacher would say it is okay to abort a fetus even if the woman was raped |
So I'll take that agreement on his part. He might even say they deserved it, from a Karmic point of view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zoidberg
Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Location: Somewhere too hot for my delicate marine constitution
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| From the Vedic spiritual point of view, any material body has negative value - male or female. The soul has no gender, but when it is assigned to a particular male or female body it falsely identifies with the material designations associated with that body. |
Evidence?
| Rteacher wrote: |
| Liberation in the spiritual sense means to stop essentially identifying ourselves in terms of material designations (eg: man, woman, Canadian, Korean, Earthling, Martian ...) We are all spirit-souls, parts-and-parcels of the complete whole spirit. Being embodied materially is foreign to our essential nature. |
Evidence?
| Rteacher wrote: |
| Actually, there is no onus on God to do or prove anything - his only business is to enjoy unlimitedly. Our constitutional position is to cooperatively serve to increase that enjoyment, which we also can partake in when our consciousness is pure... |
Evidence? The onus may not be on God, I haven't heard him claiming anything. However, you are making a whole lot of improbable claims, so the onus is on you.
| Rteacher wrote: |
| Atheistic people don't like the idea of a supreme controller because - although finite and very limited - they want to be the controllers of material nature, and they don't want any restrictions on exploiting and enjoying her. (That's just human nature in contaminated consciousness...) |
Is that so? You claim to know the likes, dislikes, thoughts and motivations of a very large and very varied group of people? You must have a lot of stalking time on your hands.
| Rteacher wrote: |
| While in material bodies, we should make the best use of a bad bargain. According to the interaction of the material modes of goodness, passion, and ignorance there are different types of people who are naturally inclined for particular types of work (eg: intellectual, administrative, commercial, physical ...) |
... or making babies...
| Rteacher wrote: |
| There has always been a relatively small but significant percentage of humans fit to be warrior and hunter-types, and they incur minimal karmic reaction for eating animals they kill themselves (to perfect their fighting skills, meant for giving protection to society as a whole...) |
I think you'll find the percentage increases the further back in time we look.
| Rteacher wrote: |
| and there is no need of empirical proof. |
Ahhhh, how convenient. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yingwenlaoshi
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Location: ... location, location!
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You guys lost me at abortion or something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh my god, exactly! Can we kindly return to the freaking point? I can't even remember what the point was. Oh yes - it was the moral necessity of inserting a pineapple violently into that German judge's rectum and then frying her in diarrhea. Now that's true justice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Allow me to clarify a couple of my tangential points - Isn't it obvious that when a woman becomes pregnant with a developing baby that there is another living being whose right to live needs to be balenced with the mother's right to live?
Just because an unborn child is fully dependent on its mother for nourishment does not confer a right to the mother to kill it just to avoid inconvenience and financial hardship. It's not just cosmetic surgery...
A two month old baby is also completely dependent on its mother (or some caretaker...) It can't be legally killed or even neglected.
Whether the sentient being is living inside the mother (still connected by the umbilical cord) or outside (after the cord is broken...) it still has a basic right to live - as does the mother. Even if the mother were given the legal right to choose, she should be fully informed of the universal religious principle of not unnecessarily killing another sentient being - and the heavy reactions to it.
In the case of rape, I think the woman should be allowed to make an informed decision based on how demonic the rapist is.
Neither fanatical religionists nor spiritually-blind atheists should be allowed to violate basic human rights of women, unborn babies - or anyone else - within a progressive legal system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zoidberg
Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Location: Somewhere too hot for my delicate marine constitution
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| Just because an unborn child is fully dependent on its mother for nourishment does not confer a right to the mother to kill it just to avoid inconvenience and financial hardship. It's not just cosmetic surgery... |
Financial hardship would not only affect the mother, but also the child. A child has the right to parents who chose to have a child at a time when they are able to properly cared for and not resented.
| Rteacher wrote: |
| Even if the mother were given the legal right to choose, she should be fully informed of the universal religious principle of not unnecessarily killing another sentient being - and the heavy reactions to it. |
No, they most certainly should not. What you are suggesting is exactly the same as saying "if a woman gets pregnant she should be informed in no uncertain terms that she'll go to hell if she has an abortion". It's irrelevant what religion-specific terminology you use, the message is the same.
| Rteacher wrote: |
| In the case of rape, I think the woman should be allowed to make an informed decision based on how demonic the rapist is. |
OK, so if the rapist is a human the victim has to have the baby? Is this because a demonic rapist would produce an obvious hybrid? What if the rapist is a half-demon? Does she have to give it up for adoption? Is there a special case for ass-demons?
In any event, unless you are advocating punishing women who have a abortions by burning them alive or gouging out there eyes, this has gotten pretty off topic.
I concur with SPINOZA suggestion for the judge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think that my posts here are really unrelated to the topic - just probing more deeply into the philosophical basis of laws pertaining to unncessary violence and coercion.
Rather than being based on sectarian beliefs (of any religion or culture, including atheism or "zoidism"...) they should be based on universal principles that don't go against the core beliefs (in the soul and God...) common to every major religion (although details may differ...)
People with any spiritual sense should know that it's a good idea that violence should always be minimized (unless fighting in a war or punishing criminals...) People guided by hard-core atheistic philosophies, however, seem more prone to think that killing for economic reasons is justifiable...
Religious fanatics without much philosophical understanding are also prone to senseless violent acts ...
Those people with more advanced understanding of transmigration of the soul realize that an individual soul is placed within a particular body and circumstances because of its previous life's karma and mentality - and that no one should unnecessarily interfere with its taking birth...
The specific reaction for abortion given in Vedic literatures is that the guilty parties will have to be repeatedly aborted themselves in the wombs of various mothers. It's a viscious cycle - and especially bad in atheistic countries (like China...)
Actually, after re-reading the original post of this thread, I have gone pretty far off the topic. But it can be argued that the guy was crazy partly because of religious fanaticism on the one hand and an oversexed materialistic culture on the other hand ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zoidberg
Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Location: Somewhere too hot for my delicate marine constitution
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| Rather than being based on sectarian beliefs (of any religion or culture, including atheism or "zoidism"...) they should be based on universal principles that don't go against the core beliefs (in the soul and God...) common to every major religion (although details may differ...) |
What are these "universal" beliefs? That god exists? That the soul exists? How do you base laws on this?
Also, you can't include atheism in this, since atheism is not a religion, but more a kind of non-belief. Atheists don't necessarily have anything in common except a lack of belief in god.
| Quote: |
| Atheism is commonly defined as the positive belief that deities do not exist, or as the deliberate rejection of theism |
| Quote: |
| Although atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism, rationalism, and naturalism, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors that all atheists adhere to |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
| Rteacher wrote: |
| People with any spiritual sense should know that it's a good idea that violence should always be minimized (unless fighting in a war or punishing criminals...) People guided by hard-core atheistic philosophies, however, seem more prone to think that killing for economic reasons is justifiable... |
What is your source for this claim? Not that I really expect one, since you've already stated that you don't place much stock in empirical evidence.
People with common sense know violent behaviour should be minimised as hurting others is generally unhelpful in maintaining a coherent society. Rampant rape and murder are not attractive to anyone with command of their mental faculties, atheist or theist.
Also, bear in mind that the cases of violence mentioned in this thread have been perpetuated by religious people (well, for the moroccan one it's more implied). You might respond with stories of atheistic bloodbaths. All this proves is that violence is a human phenomenon and that religion has no bearing on it. As you you yourself said:
| Rteacher wrote: |
| Religious fanatics without much philosophical understanding are also prone to senseless violent acts ... |
| Rteacher wrote: |
Those people with more advanced understanding of transmigration of the soul realize that an individual soul is placed within a particular body and circumstances because of its previous life's karma and mentality - and that no one should unnecessarily interfere with its taking birth...
The specific reaction for abortion given in Vedic literatures is that the guilty parties will have to be repeatedly aborted themselves in the wombs of various mothers. It's a viscious cycle - and especially bad in atheistic countries (like China...) |
These statements are not falsifiable, nor is there any evidence that anyone not part of a Vedic faith will acknowledge. Hence this part of your post is conjecture.
| Rteacher wrote: |
| Actually, after re-reading the original post of this thread, I have gone pretty far off the topic. But it can be argued that the guy was crazy partly because of religious fanaticism on the one hand and an oversexed materialistic culture on the other hand ... |
Or it could be argued that he was merely crazy, for no reason, or because of his upbringing, or anything. This is an interesting topic, but it should probably be discussed in another thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
