Korean Job Discussion Forums

[crash bang]

to be fair, if we expect rteacher to be answering us rationally, shouldnt we stop insulting him and his beliefs?

[Omkara]

[ED209]

[crash bang]

And weren't those murderers just carrying out karma on their victims?

good point. it's like the bigots who condemn the jews for being "christ-killers" well, ummmmm WASNT HE SUPPOSED TO DIE LIKE THAT FOR YOUR RELIGION TO WORK? DUH!

[Omkara]

Well, Christ had it coming. . .karmically speaking.

The Jews, too. In fact, they had to kill Christ in order that Christ's karma would work itself out, and thereby they'd acquire a negative karma such that Hitler would simply have no choice but to work out their karma, and now he's been re-born a homosexual evangelical. . .

[Rteacher]

It's perfectly logical to posit an infinitely intelligent, ever-existing, non-physical being as the first cause of creation - even Einstein conceded that point after he realized that the material universe had a beginning.

Just as Newton's law of equal and opposite reactions applies to matter, the intricate laws of karma apply to living beings with developed consciousness peculiar to the human form of life.

The essence of life - symptomized by consciousness - is neither physical nor chemical, and that can be disproved only when scientists succeed in creating conscious life from inert matter.

So it's not an illogical assumption (based on the fact that we are conscious) is that we are fragmental parts of an ever-existing being, and the idea that we are by-products of biochemical combination is based on illusory perception.

It's clearly evident that the gross material body dies, but there is no real evidence that the subtle mind also dies - what to speak of the soul. Though the brain dies, the mind lives on in subsequent bodies.

Our particular mentalities at death largely determine our next birth.

The mechanisms are obviously very subtle, and modern science prefers to just label transmigration of the soul as a superstitious belief rrather than seriously trying to investigate it.

And rather than accepting the more sophisticated cyclical view of cosmic time from eastern philosophical traditions - most notably the Vedic - science has tended to accept the Judeo-Christian linear model that there is only one beginning and one final ending of the universe.

It's not a reasonable expectation that our relatively tiny finite brains can ever understand the intricacies of the laws of karma which operate at both the individual and collective level.

However, religious codes adapted for various types of people according to different times and circumstances are there to regulate moral behavior in a gradually progressive way.

Within the philosophically limited one-lifetime framework (assumed by both science and western religions) there is limited ability to explain why someone is born dirt poor while another is born to a very wealthy family.

But just because some theologies or moral theories may not be as complete as others is hardly reason to deny their faithful adherents basic freedoms of speech and religion.

With increasing fervor, atheists cloaked in materialistic science seem to want to suppress other points of view - including both materialistic and non-materialistic religion.

[pastis]

Rteacher, were you some kind of f-cked up, anti-social, severely depressed, over-sensitive guy who got angry and cried a lot, before stumbling onto this passive-aggressive krishna sh-t? That's what you come off as, and let me tell you, it is weak. I don't believe you are even sincere though, quoting all that rubbish from those absurd websites.

I think you are really hurting man. You need to grow some balls and face up to your demons (I mean figuratively of course ). You seem like a nice enough guy, but you are really just wasting your life on that trash. Go out and get drunk or laid or something, have a laugh, and get some goddam perspective. I'm routing for you!

[Omkara]

[crash bang]

pastis, just go back to trying to pick up k-girls and falling off your bar stool at the foreigner bar

[kermo]

I'm a Christian, and I usually stay out of these kinds of threads because I am not a fan of being stereotyped, mocked or psychoanalyzed. It's been a while though, and I think I can represent a side of faith that doesn't get a lot of airtime.

My interest was piqued by Omkara's protest about atheists being stereotyped as materialists. I'm interested in talking to people as individuals, not stereotyping or hearing parroted doctrine (from either side.) (Incidentally, I believe Dawkins is a brilliant scientist but not much of a theologian. I've been disappointed in his sloppiness with his arguments, and I wish he'd argue with less venom and more rationality. I haven't watched the video but I could try if the OP requests it.)

Anyway, I've been raised in a thoughtful Christian family and have had a lot of very intellectual, moderate, Christian friends.

I've been a Christian since I was a kid. Here are a few things that really challenge my faith:

-my fellow Christians (sometimes) being hateful, vicious, hypocritical and greedy. It makes me want to jump ship, and throw the baby Jesus out with the filthy bathwater.

-a lack of miraculous action in my experience. I've heard some pretty wild stories from people I trust, but I haven't seen much first-hand.

-how obtuse and incomplete the Bible is. It's incredible in parts, and then completely silent on some pretty important things, and quite offensive in others. Contrary to popular belief, it's not easy for someone to open it to any page and glean wisdom and morality.

Here's why I'm still calling myself a Christian. Maybe after you read this, you'll be reluctant to put me in that category, but I'm still putting myself in that camp:

-I've seen tremendous, life-changing demonstrations of love from Christians, in my family, in my church and in inspiring examples elsewhere.

-I believe that love is actually a transforming force on a practical level. Selfless, forgiving, understanding love. Not necessarily meek, smitten, grovelling, wimpy love, but righteous, brave, generous love. It's easy to give you small examples, like the effect of love on an individual or a family, but I'd like to see it in social policy, in peacemaking, in the justice system. Obviously, you can't legislate kindness or grace. However, if more individuals behaved honourably and mercifully, the world would be noticeably better, cleaner and safer. So much bitterness and cruelty is just a result of prior acts of ugliness. Some of it is innate, I imagine, and probably unavoidable, but what love doesn't prevent or heal, it can confront. Pure reason or pure justice can't go it alone.

-I continue to find inspiration for love in my beliefs. I know they're not the most logical or palatable. I find it hard to stomach the notion of "gospel truth" in the form of a literal interpretation of the Bible, knowing what it's been through to get to its current form, but there is remarkable historical consistency nonetheless. I actually *like* that so many of the so-called "good guys" of the Bible (Moses, Joseph, David, etc) are portrayed as they were-- sometimes great, sometimes scumbags. Understanding the culture in which it was written has helped me make sense of some tough parts too. There are parts of the Bible that I find quite undecipherable, and I resent other people who claim to know the meaning of every word. It's a stimulating, provocative book, not a bedtime story. It's challenging, encouraging, puzzling, beautiful, and the overall story I see is just about how people relate to a God who pursues them, woos them, (and probably smites them a few times too.)

-Other religions don't appeal to me. The other monotheistic religions put the burden of perfection on people, which is a doomed proposition. The idea of being good enough for a perfect God seems ridiculous to me, especially since so much external effort is required-- wear this, bow this way, eat that but not that... perfection, in thought or in deed, is unattainable. Something beyond our efforts would be required. As for Buddhism, it has some great teachings, but every time I've tried to find out more about it, I've been rebuffed and sneered at by believers (who rarely agree with one another.) I haven't yet known a loving or honest Buddhist either (including the nun I taught) so I haven't had a great sampling. Hinduism is pretty culture-specific, individualistic, and sometimes violent, so it's not really for me. That covers the big ones. The rest just suppose some things I have a hard time accepting, like Joseph Smith and the golden plates, or thetans, etc.

-Atheism, even humanistic atheism, seems like an extreme position. Who am I to say that God doesn't exist, that people are deluded, that their stories are lies, or that all the goodness I've experienced has been self-deceit? It seems plausible to me that the Universe holds more than I can understand or fully experience. My doubts haven't killed Him off. Also, to be honest, I still need Him. Without divine help, I don't feel that I can be as forgiving, wise and loving as I want to be.

I don't have a proof for the existence of God, and I'm not sure that my particular brand of spirituality is the best/only way to understand Him. I don't know if I'm going to an actual heaven, and I doubt even more that the majority of the world is going to Hell as we tend to understand it.

I am not convinced enough to be a great evangelist, but I'm positive that if I'm right, God just wants me to be honest, gentle and generous with others. When I demonstrate His love, in a sense, Christ shows up. I'll continue to use reason as much as intuition, to be open-minded as well as faithful, and whether I'm correct in my assumption or not, there's likely to be a net benefit to me and others.

[Rteacher]

The philosophy is essentially presented in Bhagavad-gita by Krishna, who becomes accepted as spiritual master by his stressed-out friend, Arjuna.

During their discourse, Krishna bestows spiritual vision upon his disciple and reveals his gigantic Universal Form as well as four-armed Vishnu forms.

Unless that's interpreted as some type of hallucination, it indicates that Krishna is God, and Krishna claims as much throughout the Gita, and all Vedic authorities accept Him as such (including the great impersonalist, Shankaracharya, who basically drove Buddhism out of India).

The transcendental message was carefully handed down by disciplic succession.
http://www.hknet.org.nz/guru-parampara-contents-page.htm

Anyone interested in a detailed outline of karma and dharma can check here:
http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/dharma.htm

I probably first heard Hare Krishna chanted on a Fugs album that I bought while at UMass-Amherst, circa 1968.
http://www.thefugs.com/history3.html

After turning on, tuning in and dropping out repeatedly, getting into existentialism, abstract art, progressive jazz/blues/rock, Cosmic Consciousness, Zen, and Woodstock nation, I became more-or-less a street person in Coconut Grove (Miami) Florida, living alternately in a "backyard tent settlement" (beneath banyon, mango, and avocado trees) and a landmark hippie boarding house, which I managed (and decorated with organic, mixed-media wall murals ...)

The first time I heard Srila Prabhupada's devotional singing I was tripping with some friends, one of whom noted that Prabhupada seemed like the perfect spiritual father. This is the same song (accompanying some early footage of him taking a morning walk with devotees in Boston.)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmB_D5QYRmI

Although I'm a very flawed disciple, I've been able to refrain from taking any intoxication (or nonvegetarian food) for over 34 years, and I attribute that to always chanting on my beads for at least an hour a day and reading a page or two of transcendental literature every morning.

Websites such as www.prabhupadaconnect.com and www.krishna.com have also helped me maintain at least some spiritual focus while living apart from any devotee communities for a very long time.

[Omkara]

[quote="kermo"]

[Omkara]

RTeacher, you'd do better in these forums did you answer and resopond to peoples actual questions instead of just pouring out more doctrine.

Converse with us, not at us. I've asked you a lot of questions, but cannot connect with you.

[Rteacher]

You ("Omkara") referred to Christians using natural disasters (eg: the tsunami that hit Thailand) as an example of the "danger" posed by stating that people are held accountable for their sins to the extent that they may be punished by supernaturally caused disasters.

You stressed that reality must be explained correctly.

I can counter that stifling free speech in the name of political correctness poses a greater danger to freedom, and assuming that the Absolute Truth is devoid of personality - or is limited in some way - is not a correct explanation of reality.

I think that higher-dimensional beings (demigods) can exert some control over various phenomena like tsunamis and earthquakes, but there's no reason to believe that we're capable of detecting it - or that we're intelligent enough to understand how collective karma works.

Seems like those who propagandize that God is dead are themselves motivated to become the ultimate judge of everything and everyone based on their own limited understanding - and skewed ground rules as to what constitutes real science.

[crash bang]

i know i said we should stop being mean, but this is just too funny and spot on