Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Bramble]

Raising animals to serve humans is exploitation, whether or not you observe ISKCON standards. Also, a farm that did observe those standards would not be a business; it would be a nonprofit organization. I'd prefer to support a real sanctuary.

[jajdude]

[The Bobster]

[mindmetoo]

[Rteacher]

Animals don't have the same rights as humans, but humans have a higher responsibity to follow religious principles that respect the sanctity of all forms of life - thus animals should be killed and eaten only when necessary.

Relatively low class people - functioning mainly on the sensual platform - will always be inclined to eat animal flesh, but they should at least refrain from slaughtering cows - which can be eaten after they die naturally.

The "exploiting nature to the max" mindset combined with dramatic scientific advances is a proven recipe for disaster.

Although man-made laws should be respected, God's laws ultimately control the universal system of infallible justice.

Moreover, the distinction should be made between essential religious principles (like cow protection) which are always a good idea and nonessential religious (and sub-religious) principles which may be good for certain types of people according to different times and circumstances, but which may be a bad idea for other types of people in different situations.

[mindmetoo]

[jajdude]

[Rteacher]

Religion means to follow God's laws. Spiritual means in relation to God, the Supreme Spirit - in essence we are all tiny spirits.

Religion should not be based just on sentiment - there should also be scientific understanding of our constitutional position as finite conscious entities vis-a-vis the infinite conscious entity.

Performing rituals just for the sake of performing rituals without progressive development of God consciousness is not very good, but a recent scientific study indicates that there may at least be significant material benefits (like better self-control) as a result of following religious rituals...
www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/science/30tier.html?em&exprod=myyahoo

[itaewonguy]

[mindmetoo]

[Rteacher]

"New atheists" are probably proportionately more represented in the younger age groups that are more prone to binge drinking, etc.

But any words like God (or Christ or Krishna or Allah or Buddha) that are used to refer to the Supreme Lord can be understood (by realized souls) to have some spiritual potency, and they may provide an impetus for following religious principles - originally found in every tradition - that regulate sex, intoxication, meat-eating, and gambling.

Of course, the tendency is that these principles get watered-down in time (eg: Catholics no longer restrict themselves to eating fish instead of red meat on Fridays)

This is an interesting excerpt from the article:

In a study published by the University of Maryland in 2003, students who were subliminally exposed to religious words (like God, prayer or bible) were slower to recognize words associated with temptations (like drugs or premarital sex). Conversely, when they were primed with the temptation words, they were quicker to recognize the religious words.

�It looks as if people come to associate religion with tamping down these temptations,� Dr. McCullough said. �When temptations cross their minds in daily life, they quickly use religion to dispel them from their minds.�

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/science/30tier.html?_r=1&em&exprod=myyahoo

[Underwaterbob]

[mithridates]

[itaewonguy]

[itaewonguy]