williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) (05/10/85)
Tracy A. McInvale writes: > I am very interested in the Hindu religion and would like > to learn more about it. In particular, I have questions > concerning the concept of reincarnation. Hindu religion is based on the concept that the universe is one huge pulsating brain. They believe in something called conservation of spirit, hence, reincarnation. They speak of something called " Godhead ", which is the awareness we are all supposedly part of. They refute any basis for the universe being continuous, and instead of acknowledging that there are some truths that are inaccessible, they prefer to fill in the blanks with mumbo-jumbo. If there is a superior being, it most likely isn't the one they describe. Bill Gates writes: > Being a Christian, I thought I'd contribute my point of > view on this. > Man is ultimately responsible for his own fate. > vs. > God is ultimately responsible for everything's fate, including man's. Man is influenced by his environment. ( 3rd Choice ) The partition is not so clear cut. The answer is not so simple. If you wish to label the environment " God ", then do so, but that conflicts with what you have said. Proclamations of divine intervention do not make for very good arguments. This type of phenomenon is improbable, to say the least. > Man evolved from other, lower life forms. > vs. > God created man, just as he created all other life forms. Of all the possible moments that the universe was " created ", why do you insist that it was sometime *after* man evolved out of the environment? Someone wrote it in a book? After vivid hallucinations? Give me a break. > How can there help but be bitter conflicts? Scientific > theories such as these (remember, they're just hypotheses) > directly oppose what we as Christians read to be true in the > Word of God - the Bible. No, you oppose what is observable. Words have little or nothing to do with truth. Words and language originally evolved as a form of deception. What I am trying to tell you is that " GOD " never wrote that book, it was written by fanatics like yourself. > One last point. This notestring has been discussing how > all laws and other absolute truths are but good hypotheses. > Thus, nothing is absolute - it just hasn't been contradicted > yet. Well, in a Christian's life, there ARE absolute truths. > Since basic beliefs state that the Bible is the Word of God, > what's written there must be absolutely true, having been > written by the only One who knows it all! Thus, if we really > believe, we have to stick by what's written in the Bible over > what Science has decided to be true, because man is the origin > of one, and God is the origin of the other. Absolutely *WRONG*!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can't just fill in the blanks like that, and sit there stating that we can't disprove you. There is considerable evidence that the universe is very similar to what scientists agree on, and scientists very rarely agree. I REPEAT, THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN BY MAN, NOT GOD! Just another point of view. And the atom bomb is just another toy. How can you ever expect me to agree with you when all you have at your disposal is an outdated textbook. ONE, SINGULAR, REFERENCE? I find it amazing how you can weave a closed reality out of one book. > Why would you want to be buried in a garden, anyhow? You > won't be around to know or care! It seems just as silly to me > to want to be buried in a garden as it is to seal a body and > all that! Well, if I have no further need of this body, I figure it should go where it does everything the most good. I really don't see why we should destroy organic potential. I have dealt with religious fanatics many times. I don't think you want this discussion to continue. Here in net.philosophy, that is where you are, we don't reinforce a random possibility, we bring up possibilities and try to measure their validity. With you, and most religions, there is no measurement, only blind acceptance. And it's not *just* an opinion, it's also a method and a rational for converting others to be just as possibly mistaken as you are. If you are here to introduce us to christianity, believe me, most of us have seen it many times before. What I doubt is that you have ever consciously seen any of *this* before. You see, the " bitter " conflict is a result of isolation, a lack of communication, and I grow tired of listening to you. Perhaps you should try listening to us for a while. Next time you're out in the park with a $@#*&^%@ microphone, look for me. I have a list of corrections I would like to add. John Williams < The Universe wasn't born Yesterday >
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/12/85)
I agree that Christianity is nonsense, but why all the flaming? I didn't get the impression that the person who wrote that article was trying to convert anyone. Mike Sykora