Posts by swiftcobra15

Daniel Chavez14 said:candidate C is Adolf Hitler

Oh, and regarding the abortion debate—yes or no? If you answered yes, then you just effectively killed Ludwig van Beethoven.

Calling Adi a war hero is a massive stretch. He was just a low-ranking corporal who went temporarily blind due to gas exposure.
Regardless, I wouldn't vote for any of these candidates; I’d simply abstain.

"I would kill Beethoven"—but why not?😕

If a woman came to me for advice, I'd tell her that the choice is hers alone, and whether her child might have grown up to be a musical genius doesn't change that reality.
Of course, clearly God knows much more about that than I ever will.😁

Alexander Parker69 said:If you stay this obsessed and single-minded, that’s exactly how much you’re going to achieve (no matter what the goal is).

You'll just end up spinning your wheels forever (while still hitting those goals😁 ).

There really is no such thing as "noble" passion; at the end of the day, all passions are "low."

In the three gunas, passion is considered a middle state (rajas), whereas our true aim should be to reach sattva—to transcend all passions entirely.
Sure, tamas is worse than rajas, but the ultimate goal remains sattva.

Nirvana represents the stillness of all passions; even after reaching nirvana, Buddha remained in this world for a long time.

It's true that Hegel argues nothing great in history happens without passion, but if you ask me, no great evil or crime has ever occurred without passion either. 😉

hollowviper72 said:Regarding the common idea that an unhealthy body makes one more suited for spiritual pursuits, I suspect we’re actually looking at a form of social "evolution." Historically, those who were physically frail or had disabilities often compensated by excelling intellectually, or perhaps they struggled entirely. Over time, this led to the cultural association of the Intellectual with the archetype of the bum. 😉
..[/i]

I think there's a much more compelling explanation here. In Western tradition, heavily influenced by Christianity, the physical body was often viewed with contempt or outright hatred—seen as the domain of Satan. That shift almost certainly played a massive role in shaping these folk beliefs.

Everything was fundamentally different before the Christian counter-revolution. The ancient Greeks would never have dreamed of devaluing the physical form.
Regardless of what people think about Platonic philosophy (or his wisdom), it's worth noting that his name—which was actually a nickname—literally translates to "Broad-shouldered." His birth name was actually Aristocles. 😉

Jack Harris3 said:Sacrifice always involves an exchange—giving one thing up to gain another.

A true sacrifice isn't some knee-jerk reaction; it’s a conscious, voluntary choice made with intention. 😁

In my view, there's a version of the story where Jesus didn't actually sacrifice anything, nor did He gain anything from it.

Another way to look at it is that Jesus was simply a brilliant visionary who recognized the deep flaws within the Jewish community of His time and, like any true revolutionary, decided to change them.

I am specifically talking about purely voluntary sacrifice. Nobody jumps in front of a bullet "reflexively," thinking they'll somehow walk away from the impact.

You could argue that Jesus sacrificed nothing if you view Him as a highly evolved spiritual being, but as an unlearned atheist—or more accurately, an agnostic—I tend to simplify things: He gave up His physical body to live fully in Spirit.

In the East, they might say He liberated Himself from the flesh and the cycle of rebirth. But because "Christians" focus almost exclusively on the physical body (believing in a bodily resurrection, even for those torn apart by lions), they've turned the whole concept into a bit of a circus. 😉

Jack Harris3 said:I haven't seen that garbage, and I have no intention of watching it (

As far as I'm concerned, he loses his fake persona and gains his true self. He’s essentially just evolving.
😁

😁 You might not have watched it, but you certainly explained it!
The "king" jumped in front of Shrek when the wicked fairy godmother swung her wand (he jumped in front of a bullet😉 ) and reverted back to his "true" (frog) form. So, he sacrificed himself (for Shrek?) and was no longer a fake human, but a real frog. He gave up his false identity to gain his true one.
Isn't that the essence of any sacrifice: letting go of the lie to return to the truth?

What did Jesus "sacrifice," and what did He gain?

Just wanted to add my two cents to this colorful discussion by cross-posting something I wrote on a movie forum where it didn't really get much traction:

I haven't actually seen the first one, but I thought this movie was fantastic. To me, it carries at least four major messages:

IT DOESN'T MATTER:

a) what race or kind of person you are,
b) what social class or status you come from,
c) what you look like,
it's all about who you ARE deep down.

It also offers such a beautiful depiction of what SACRIFICE truly means:
The "King" makes a sacrifice, shedding his human appearance to embrace his TRUE (frog) self.
Essentially, he sacrifices the illusion (the false persona) to gain the truth (his real identity).
Of course, most people would rather cling to a lie than face the truth.

I'm really hoping to see some thoughts on that idea of sacrifice. 😉

Elysium said:When exactly does a person "receive" a soul?...

I hate to be the one to kill the mood here, but what are we even talking about? 😕

What defines a "person" in this context? And who (or what) is capable of "receiving" a soul?

If we’re looking at birth, then the body would be the thing "receiving" the soul. 😕
But wouldn't it make much more sense to say the soul "receives" a body?

And let's not forget, the spirit of the times is something else entirely. Does a spirit ever truly "begin" or "end"? 😕

Everyone needs to agree on the definitions and frameworks being used here. Otherwise, we're just talking past one another.🙂

crimsonbison10 said:As someone who's completely out of my depth here, I just wanted to ask: what does everyone actually mean when they talk about the "soul"?
😕

👍 👍 👍

It’s fascinating how this—arguably the only question that actually matters—is being met with total silence. 😉

Henry Barrett11 said:Since she's a scientist, I guess she just has to accept that it never actually happened and that it's all just a matter of faith...

She’s simply acknowledging that her experience can't be proven—that according to the strict rules of empirical science, "it didn't happen"—yet she remains absolutely certain that it did occur. She has come to terms with the inherent limits of scientific inquiry without losing her confidence or her sense of optimism. Her belief isn't rooted in a deity, but rather in herself, in human potential, and in the possibility of other intelligent life.
It really comes down to the distinction between organized religion and true spirituality as an essential part of the human condition. 🙂

Nancy Kim2 said:I actually feel the same way on a psychological level; it feels a bit more "realistic" this way...

Even if you put quotes around "realism," I still have to protest.
There’s hardly any realism here when the Greek fleet is three times too large, and Troy—which was supposedly the wealthiest, most powerful city of its era—doesn't even exist. 😁
I suppose they got rich because they had a perfect interstate highway system or thousands of heavy-duty semi-trucks at their disposal. 😕
And of course, the first line of defense is set up at sea and along the coast, yet Achilles practically conquers Troy within the first thirty minutes of the war. 🤔

It doesn't matter to me that A and B are the main heroes (a classic Hollywood trope); Odysseus is completely sidelined and reduced to some useless bystander. It's a total fabrication, because Odysseus deserves far more credit for the fall of Troy than a hundred Achilles. 🙂

And if we're talking about realism, we should point out that Helen moving from Sparta to Troy is roughly the same distance as someone moving from Montpelier to Paris today. 👋

Nancy Kim2 said:Honestly, I enjoyed the movie more because those myths were such a huge part of my childhood,

It was just incredible to see those old stories come to life, actually moving and speaking.

The only truly epic thing about the Iliad is the gods and their constant
fighting, ....

😕 But what does this movie even have to do with the Iliad? 😕

It’s just a flashy Hollywood romp that you can enjoy if you don't know anything (like most people in the audience) about the actual Iliad.
From the very beginning—when Paris hands the apple to Aphrodite—the gods dictate everyone's fate, but they aren't even in this movie. Even Achilles' mother feels vague and unconvincing here. And Achilles, goodness me 😁, comes across as the smartest guy among the Greeks. He's a fascinating character in this farce, but again, it has nothing to do with the Iliad.

The film is full of handsome Hollywood stars, but I doubt a single one of the true Greek or Trojan heroes would recognize themselves if they somehow sat down to watch this.😉

Roger Edwards2 said:Do you think spirituality and religiousness are inherited traits?

The results you get really depend on how you define your terms. In my view, being spiritual and being religious—in the sense of belonging to an organized institution, which is the only way you can truly "measure" it 😁—don't necessarily have to be linked at all. I've personally found that some religious people lack true spirituality; they can seem spiritually stunted or even stuck in their ways.

On the flip side, I don't buy into this whole idea that you have to choose between being a skeptic or being spiritual. To me, skepticism is the peak of rational understanding, but we are also fundamentally irrational creatures—driven by feeling, intuition, and imagination.
Essentially, skepticism and spirituality exist on completely different levels, so one shouldn't block the other. If anything, I believe those two qualities complement each other perfectly. 😉

crimsonjackal8 said:Look at it from Brazil's perspective. It’s a developing nation with limited resources beyond its massive natural wealth, especially those forests. Why would they be expected to safeguard the entire planet's future by preserving their land when wealthier nations just push them around? The answer isn't to demand that Brazil act out of pure altruism—which, let's face it, would just make them a laughingstock. Instead, we have to figure out what actual incentives they can get for slowing down deforestation, ensuring they aren't being forced to take a loss.

Oh, please! Spare me the "anarcho-leftist delusions"! 😁

Do you honestly believe the vast majority of Brazilians gain anything from destroying the Amazon? 😕
Or that their quality of life would actually improve if they stopped? 😕

And how does one even "put themselves in Brazil's position"? Is the country some kind of single, unified entity? 😕

We could try roleplaying as the general population—who have zero say in the matter—or as the ruling elite who destroy the Amazon for their own short-term profit at everyone else's expense.

But I don't see any overlap between those two groups, making it impossible to simultaneously inhabit both the roles of the exploited and the exploiters.

My takeaway is that for Brazilians, protecting the Amazon makes sense for their own sake, rather than for some abstract, "altruistic" cause.

mistyfox812 said:I honestly don't think it's fair to blame Plato for the Platonists, Karl Marx for the Marxists, or Martin Heidegger for his followers—nor should we hold leading postmodernists responsible for some random ramblings. I say this quite broadly, though, as I haven't actually read much of those Frenchmen's work myself.

🙂 🙂 🙂

northernscout said:... and why shouldn't everyone be a student? To be human is to be a lifelong learner...

🙂
Absolutely. It also means being a teacher, since those two roles are essentially two sides of the same coin.
But we first have to ditch the traditional concept of schooling, because it’s built on the flawed assumption that there’s a hard line between the teacher and the student.

There is that old bit of wisdom:
No one is your enemy. No one is your friend. Everyone is simply your teacher!
I would take it a step further: everyone is also your student.

After all, the best way to teach is to learn, and the best way to learn is to teach. Without that reciprocity, there is no real growth.
One-sided "teaching" just results in indoctrination—essentially programming someone—rather than actual knowledge or the capacity for insight. True dialogue requires both people to be equals in the pursuit of learning.
Of course, some might argue: "But what could children possibly know?"
The truth is, they know so much more than we give them credit for, right up until the moment our school systems try to mold them into cookie-cutter versions of ourselves. 😉

. 🙂 . 🙂 . 🙂 . JESUS CHRIST AS THE WORD MADE FLESH

I don't know if the figure in the ancient texts ever truly walked the earth. To me, my faith isn't tied to a historical person. Honestly, I’d struggle to worship a deity who kills out of wounded pride, or one depicted by outsiders as just some reckless youth. I believe in Jesus Christ as the Word made flesh—spotless in every sense, the inspiration behind The Bible and the guiding light for millions. However, if someone proved to me that The Bible is history in the same sense that modern historical books are—that every single word is factual and that Jesus Christ actually performed every act attributed to Him—I wouldn't hesitate to reject that version of Him as God-incarnate, even if it meant being cast out from my community. For me, The Bible is a deeply spiritual work, mostly allegorical, meant to mirror the eternal struggle happening inside our own souls. It's told so vividly that it's easy to mistake these symbolic deeds for literal history. Besides, I don't view the current version of The Bible as a flawless copy of an original; I suspect it has been altered over the ages. 🙂

For those who don't read English:
Mahatma Gandhi believes in Christ as the perfect incarnation, the inspiration for The Bible and the way of life for millions. He doesn't see the scriptures as strict history, but rather as religious revelation, largely allegorical, depicting the battle between good and evil within every human heart.
He doesn't view the text as a perfect copy of the original, believing it has undergone many changes.

In short, he's saying the same thing one might say about The Bible if we don't take it literally. 😉

shadowgardener12 said:Beyond that, it's widely understood that Mahatma Gandhi was actually more of a follower of Mahavira than he was of the Bible. 😉

Look, you’re being incredibly stubborn here, yet you don't actually know what you're talking about. Where do you get the nerve to try and interpret both the Bible and Mahatma Gandhi? Surely he understood the significance of the Bible far better than you ever could.
This is from his book: "The Teachings of the Bible."

I found this incredible digital archive containing the works of Mahatma Gandhi. It’s a profound collection for anyone looking to dive deep into his philosophy and life story.

The verses in the Second Chapter " if one ponders on objects of the senses, there springs attraction; from attraction grows desire

"If one ponders on objects of the senses, there springs attraction; from attraction grows desire."
The verses in the Second Chapter state that if one ponders on objects of the senses, there springs attraction; from attraction grows desire.
The verses in the Second Chapter suggest that if one ponders on objects of the senses, there springs attraction; from attraction grows desire.
Desire flames to fierce passion, passion breeds recklessness; then the memory—all betrayed—lets noble purpose go, and saps the mind, till purpose...
Desire flames to fierce passion, passion breeds recklessness; then the memory—all betrayed—lets noble purpose go, and saps the mind, till purpose...
Desire flames to fierce passion, passion breeds recklessness; then the memory—all betrayed—lets noble purpose go, and saps the mind, till purpose...
"Desire flames to fierce passion, passion breeds recklessness; then the memory—all betrayed—lets noble purpose go, and saps the mind, till purpose, mind, and man are all undone."

They left a profound impression on my mind, and even now, their echoes still ring in my ears.
This book truly struck me as something of priceless worth. That impression has only deepened over the years, leading me to regard it today as the book par excellence for the knowledge of truth. In my darkest moments, it has provided me with invaluable support. I’ve gone through almost all the English translations of it, and I personally regard Sir Edwin Arnold's as the best; he remains incredibly faithful to the text without making it feel like a mere translation. Although I read the Bible with these friends,
Though I read the Bible with these friends, I cannot pretend to have studied it then. It was only after several years passed that it truly became my daily reading.
My Experiments with Truth: Part I, Chapter XX.

2. THE OUTCOME OF THE INTRODUCTION
I already held a deep faith in the Bible, which had always fascinated me. However, I eventually realized I needed to dive much deeper into its teachings. I picked up a couple of different translations to help me grasp the original essence. My plan was to commit one or two verses to memory every single day, and I decided to use my morning routine as my study time. It usually took me about thirty-five minutes—fifteen for brushing my teeth and twenty for my shower. The first I used to do standing in Western fashion. To stay on track, I taped slips of paper with the verses on the wall right in front of me, glancing at them throughout the morning to help things stick. That window of time was just enough to learn my daily portion and review what I had already mastered. I vividly remember successfully committing thirteen chapters to memory this way. Eventually, though, the memorizing of the Bible had to give way to other work and the creation and nurture of Satyagraha, which began to consume all my mental energy.

My dictionary of daily reference. What effect this reading of the Bible had on my friends only they can say, but to me the Bible became an infallible guide of conduct. Just as I turned to the English dictionary for the meanings of English words that I did not understand, I turned to this dictionary of conduct for a ready solution of all my troubles and trials.

Only my friends can truly say what impact reading the Bible had on them, but for me, the Bible became an infallible guide of conduct. It essentially functioned as my daily dictionary. Just as I would turn to an English dictionary to decipher words I didn't understand, I turned to this dictionary of conduct to find ready solutions for all my troubles and trials. Concepts like non-possession and equability really took hold of me. My big question was: how does one actually cultivate and maintain that kind of inner balance? How were you supposed to treat everyone with the same level of composure—whether they were insulting, insolent, or corrupt officials, former colleagues who suddenly turned on you with pointless opposition, or people who had always been kind? And how does one truly divest themselves of everything? Isn't the body itself a possession? Aren't a spouse and children possessions too? Was I expected to burn every bookshelf I owned? Was I meant to abandon everything just to follow Him? The answer came to me immediately: I couldn't follow Him unless I let go of everything I held dear.
The Meaning Behind Being a 'Trustee'
My background in American law proved invaluable here. I found myself recalling Snell’s discussions regarding the Maxims of Equity, which brought everything into much sharper focus. When viewed through the lens of the Bible's teachings, the true weight of the word 'trustee' became obvious. My respect for legal philosophy deepened, as I began to see the spiritual essence within it. I realized that the biblical teaching of non-possession meant that anyone seeking spiritual salvation should act like a trustee; someone who manages vast wealth but doesn't claim even a tiny fraction of it as their own. It hit me with total clarity: living without attachment and maintaining emotional balance requires a fundamental shift in one's heart and attitude. Following this realization, I wrote to Revashankerbhai to let the insurance policy expire—either we recover what we can, or we simply accept the premiums as lost. I felt a profound conviction that God, the creator of my wife, my children, and myself, would provide for them. I also wrote to my brother, who has always been a father figure to me. I explained that while I had handed over everything I had saved up to that point, he shouldn't expect anything further from me; any future savings would be dedicated entirely to serving the community.
—My Experiments with Truth: Part IV: Chapter V.

http://web.mahatma.org.in/books/show...g=en&cat=books

shadowgardener12 said:"...they all must live according to their dharma within their caste and perform their duty, and through that they shall come to me... Krishna"...

Mahatma Gandhi certainly had his own way of interpreting the Bible, just as you do, and I have mine. It doesn't really matter if some "learned" Hindus disagree with him entirely. After all, they don't hold a monopoly on how to interpret the Bible.

Here is a passage from that link you shared:

I have been even seriously told that I am distorting the meaning of the Bible, when I ascribe to that great poem the teaching of unadulterated Nonviolence. some of my Hindu friends tell me that killing is a duty enjoined by the Bible under certain circumstances. A very learned shastri only the other day scornfully rejected my interpretation of the Bible and said that there was no warrant for the opinion held by some commentators that the Bible represented the eternal duel between forces of evil and good, and inculcated the duty of eradicating evil within us without hesitation, without tenderness.

I should mention that beyond dharma, there is also svadharma for every individual. Besides, those rigid caste boundaries were already shattered back in the days of Siddhartha Gautama and Mahavira, who both came from the warrior caste yet rose to be the preeminent spiritual leaders of their era.
I see absolutely no reason why Mahatma Gandhi's universalist interpretation of the Bible should be considered any less valid than some sectarian, orthodox teachings—especially when you consider how closely Nonviolence is tied to material poverty, or rather, a simple way of life. 😉

Thousands of books and articles have been written about Mahatma Gandhi and translated into hundreds of languages, yet people still talk about him with so many misconceptions and prejudices without truly knowing him.
He dedicated his entire life to fighting for the liberation of India and the Indian people. To him, these two goals were inseparable. As he once shared, he found his greatest inspiration in The Bible, the holy book of Hinduism.

Here is a bit of information regarding his childhood and his early work in Africa:

. 😉 . 😉 . 😉 GANDHI'S LIFE

http://www.mkgandhi.org/bio5000/bio5index.htm

MOHANDAS KARAMCHAND GANDHI was born on October 2, 1869, in Porbandar, a small coastal town in India that was part of the Gujarat region at the time. He was born into a middle-class family. His grandfather had risen to become the Prime Minister of Porbandar and was succeeded by his son Karamchand, who was the father of Mohandas. Putlibai, Mohandas's Mother, was a saintly, gentle, and devout woman who left a lasting impression on her son’s soul.
Mohandas went to elementary school in Porbandar, where he struggled quite a bit with his multiplication tables. "My intellect must have been sluggish and my memory raw," he admitted candidly years later. When he was seven, his family moved to Rajkot, where his father served as Prime Minister. He attended primary and then high school there, but despite being a conscientious kid, he was just a "mediocre student" who was incredibly shy and timid.

. 😉 . 😉 . 😉 In the South African Union

It was while marching through the Zulu country that he began thinking deeply about the kind of life he needed to lead to fully commit himself to serving humanity. He realized that absolute celibacy was essential for this path, believing one "could not live both after the flesh and the spirit." Consequently, after his return from the Zulu campaign, he announced his decision to take a vow of celibacy to a close circle of friends.
He made this decision under the influence of The Bible, which he had been reading and memorizing every single morning for a while.
Another concept from The Bible that moved him deeply was "non-possession." Once the weight of that idea hit him, he let his $10,000 insurance policy lapse. From that point on, he would put his faith in God alone.
The book which influenced him most deeply was Ruskin's Unto This Last, which his friend Polak had given him to read one day in 1904. What John Ruskin preached—or at least what Mahatma Gandhi took from it—was the moral dignity of manual labor and community living. Because Mahatma Gandhi couldn't just admire an ideal without actually living it, he immediately went out to buy a farm where they could put these principles into practice. That is how The Phoenix Colony was founded, on a hundred-acre plot about fourteen miles outside of Durban. 😉

Austin Grant3 said:Beyond that, you see a huge number of monotheists ending up in mental institutions. Given that we are talking about the USA, a significant portion of them are Catholics; plus, there's a massive number of people who have spent time in prison or at least picked up a criminal record at some point.
There’s another factor to consider—Catholics in the US represent one of the oldest communities here. Many come from those traditional suburban families that sometimes have a streak of criminality and only observe their faith on paper.
😎

😕 Actually, Catholics are a minority in the USA and arrived after the Protestants.