Sasun

Well I didn't explain that in order to bring a quick final death, we should accelerate reincarnations. Once there is no more need for reincarnation it will be a final death

Fair enough.

I think dis-respect is earned, not respect. All people have a default amount of respect (at least from me). If they do disrespectful things then their respect decreases. And if they do respectful things then the amount respect increases.

You do not agree to what? Something that I didn't say. I didn't say that questioning religion and God is ridiculing. I will give a vivid example: A. I don't think God exists and I don't believe in anything that the Bible says B. that book of yours is , I am sick and tired of hearing about it, send it to those shitty people where it came from A is questioning, B is ridiculing. It is those who ridicule that are lacking inner security, so they think that the book (or whatever they ridicule) is dangerous, so they attack it by ridicule. You can't attack someone and say its your fault because you have no defense mechanism. And if you so much defend Arpa, maybe you will answer the questions that I asked. If you listen to him he is a poor persecuted guy who has been threatened, but he never answered as to who/when/how has threatene him SPECIFICALLY in this forum. Just one example.

Sorry to interrupt the feast... oops, the funeral. I am just making sure this thread is thoroughly dead and will not incarnate again

It's your hypothesis. Imagination takes a second or even less. I am talking about meditation which is inner work, and those who have meditated seriously know that it is really hard work, never imagination. You never meditated so you would not know anyway. People who have meditated a little also don't know. It requires a lot of experience in perfecting the art of meditation. I think I said before, if you look through your third eye and see what's behind the wall, then you actually walk behind the wall and see the same thing, then you realize, OK, this may have been an accident. Then you check other things and realize that your third eye never fails, then you make a conclusion that it is a valid source of knowledge. But what do you know Sip besides your pickle jar ? What I am saying has been found by centuries of trial and error. Call that imagination if you wish, but those who know they know.

That does not seem like a realistic scenario though. Assuming it is, if you break any laws (let's say animal rights, disturbing neighborhood, etc.) there are laws against that. Still there is no need to regulate religious freedoms.

Sip, I brought the example from the US Constition to show that look, we are living in this country and enjoying the freedoms. Part of that is because there are no rules on people's ideas and views, it would be absurd if validation of ideas came into picture. People would start being labeled idiots, morons, etc... even if you don't put them in jain for that it is still a punishment. Of course, I understand that you are not advocating new forum rules, and I am by no means saying that you as a moderator have done anything to that effect. Simply, the constitution usually reflects the basic moral values of the society. In a rerpessive society a constitution would have wording where tolerance was dependant on conditions. As soon as you put conditions there you go, those conditions can be interprated in various ways and bloodshed would be ready. You are saying that you never complained of being ridiculed. I don't remember you being ridiculed, but let's assume you will not complain. But ask anyone if they mind being ridiculed. 99% of people do not enjoy ridicule. Basically, the point between tolerance and freedom of thought/speech is that you can have any ideas about anyone, but you have to be discreete in expressing them. This is an uwritten rule about politeness and decency. If you have such rules written and enforced there will be repressions and it will be very ugly. Yet, existence of moral codes like this is essential for a civilized society. Everyone has the right to be impolite but it is not recommended, tolerant society is also a polite society. There are so many nice or neutral ways to express your thougths and disagreements. There are zillions of words to choose. Why choose a way that hurts individuals and creates disharmony? We have to try to coexist in peace and harmony (another unwritten moral code).

Here is my rule: Ridiculing is not a civil behavior, it hurts people. It is a form of intolerance.

Respect must be earned? In what currency and by what standards?

Sip, I think you don't get it. Your rules are self-centered because it is alway you who will be deciding the validity of ideas. How about I ridicule you and make up my own rules justifying why I do that? You are trying to reinvent a bycicle. I tell you what, that bycicle existed in middle ages when peoples thoughts were controlled. Ridiculing is also a form of punishment. Get it?

Your point 1 flatly contradicts this definition, and you are obviously not tolerating the idea that some people may go to hell, and probably many other religious view. I hope you understand how dangerous your rules are. I have a different set of rules from the US constitution, which is actually the lack of rules: Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. No wonder there are no religious persecutions in the US, thank God for that at least.

How do you define preaching?

Sip, I don't agree with the rules. This sounds dark ages when the church rules had to be maintained in order not to be burned on fire. Your definition of tolerance does not make sense, because I am having hard time to understand what intolerance would mean. Please define intolerance to me.

Of course, everyone witnessed that, and there is a police report.

Sip, what exactly is the issue here? What are you trying to find in Seb's words? According to his belief you will most likely go to hell. So what, his belief is not just about Sip. It is an impersonal theology about everyone.

You see, even in a supposedly positive note you are making antagonizing comments which you also know. The same exact thought could be expressed in nicer words, you chose otherwise.

Yervant, good idea. This is the type of conversations that will bring peace to the forum. Staying out of an institutionalized and dogmatic religion makes one more open minded. In some cases, it will enable someone to actually choose the right religion, which is not necessarily the religion of his/her family. And that is a positive thing. And if they don't choose any religion, at least they do it out of their own choice. Another advantage of not adhering to religious dogmas is that one can more easily have a true quest for metaphysical knowledge, there won't be as many mental habits of wrong thinking. Yet another advantage: if one is a blind follower of a religion he/she spends a considerable time sitting in a church and wasting time while he/she is not really benefitting from it spiritually. Mechanically following religious rites may cost a lot of money, too. Why would anyone pay a hefty sum of money to a priest to get married?

Let's not exaggerate: ridicules your intellingence ??? That is not an objective observation. Every religious person will feel insulted if their religion was ridiculed. But it is only in a few extreme cases that someone will claim their intelligence is ridiculed because of a theological belief which is not really about their intelligence. This is not a valid excuse to ridicule anyone.

Sip, you are misunderstanding me. I don't keep things vague for a fuzzy interpretation, usually things are not simple to give a clear cut picture. Your line of thinking is too simple, you like to jump to conclusions. But there are many instances where shortcuts are wrong. You are pointing that God is capitalized. That does not mean that it's a Christian God. This, my friend, is your own conclusion. Many people capitalize God but they don't necessarily mean the Christian God. And if I don't speak or think the same way as you do that seems fuzzy to you, and you think I am artificially creating vagueness. Wrong conclusion. If anything is not clear to you, I can clarify, but I will not accept your "defensive mechanism" theory. As for Seb, I remember him saying that he believes Buddha went to hell, which could not be farther from truth. That would make me think that he probably is talking about the Christian God. But you are saying that he said it is the Christian God while he didn't say. This is what you always do, making your own conclusion and claiming that your opponent said that. Remember I told you before?

Sip, where is Seb saying the Christian God?

I asked you some questions, which I have done before also. You ignored my questions as you have done before, and repeated the same exaggerated accusations againts religions. Basically, what is happening, you are full of hate and can't tolerate religous variety. To justify your expression of hatred, you are inventing accusations. I question your accusations. An honest debate would be to back up your accusations with facts. But that cannot be expected from you... because there are no such facts. And no, this is not a school where you are the teacher and the students have to read your posts about Spring and make comments.

Sip, we are going in circles. Please tell me, do you realize that ridiculing somebody's religion insults that person?

Seb, if I can make a suggestion. I have an impression that sometimes you are a minimalist with word usage Please say more so people don't misunderstand you

Ed and Yervand, excellent posts I enjoy this type of conversations a lot more.