God does exist.

[Tyler]

"Whoa. Back the truck up. I did NOT say God is limited. I said God cannot violate His own nature. Big difference."

Now, I'm no English major, but......

unlimited; having no barriers. not needing to follow any rules or laws. without limit.

It would seem that not being able to defy his nature is a barrier, eh?

Edit to add: Actually, having a nature period seems to be a barrier.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by inspector
Whoa. Back the truck up. I did NOT say God is limited. I said God cannot violate His own nature. Big difference.

No difference. You said "God cannot". If there is something that God can not do then even God has limits. It doesn't matter if the limitation is due to his nature.

I suppose you could work around this by hypothesizing that God can but chooses not to. But that is not what you said.

Do I really need to explain further?

~Raithere

 

[inspector]

"It would seem that not being able to defy his nature is a barrier, eh?"
--------------------------------



Is there anything that atheists will not interpret, by necessity, in humanistic, naturalistic presuppositions? Follow the logic, please. We are not here to argue, but to learn.

A supernatural being must, by logical necessity, operate in concert with His nature. In other words, God could not violate His own nature. This non-self-violation truth would be a characteristic: the inability of self-contradiction. By default, this is a limitation upon God that does not negate His existence. Since God is eternal by nature, He could not destroy Himself and thus violate His attribute of eternality. In fact, such thinking would demonstrate the logic of His existence by affirming the lack of ability of self-contradiction. As we can see around us, all things that exist have a nature against which they cannot act in a contrary manner. A tree cannot be a galaxy; their natures are different. A cat cannot be a jumbo jet; their natures are different. The fact that a cat cannot be a jet does not mean that neither the cat nor the jet exist. The same with God. God is limited to His own nature because He cannot do things which are against His nature. For example, God cannot lie, stop being God and then become God again, etc. Therefore, the claim that attributes which necessitate limits disproves God's existence is illogical.

><>

 

[Frencheneesz]

You Theists have "forgotton" this very good question of Rathier's:

"if God knows you will pick up the blue ball and not the red ball can you prove God wrong and pick up the red ball? If not why not? If not how can you say there is choice involved when there can be only one outcome?"

"This is representative of the type of paradoxes atheists use in attempts to prove that God cannot exist."

We aren't trying to prove that he doesn't exist. BUT we are trying to prove that the judeo-christian form of god CANNOT exist. A god is fine, sure he can do everything except not be able to do something, right? But he cannot know everything, yet allow freewill, it just doesn't work.

Why must the bible be true? Can't you believe in god and still think the bible is total crap?

 

[whatsupyall]

Originally posted by Frencheneesz
You Theists have "forgotton" this very good question of Rathier's:

"if God knows you will pick up the blue ball and not the red ball can you prove God wrong and pick up the red ball? If not why not? If not how can you say there is choice involved when there can be only one outcome?"

"This is representative of the type of paradoxes atheists use in attempts to prove that God cannot exist."

We aren't trying to prove that he doesn't exist. BUT we are trying to prove that the judeo-christian form of god CANNOT exist. A god is fine, sure he can do everything except not be able to do something, right? But he cannot know everything, yet allow freewill, it just doesn't work.

Why must the bible be true? Can't you believe in god and still think the bible is total crap?

Frenchy, and the rest of the atheist, you all never give up do you?

Knowing someone's choice doesnt mean deciding that choice for you.

Again, when I was playing my x-box, my nephew came in and I was absolutely 100% sure he will gab the controller, and yes he did...Does that mean that I controled him? No, does my knowledge of his act means he is a cyborg and have no freewill? No, does my knowledge of his act means he doesnt have the choice to get out and do something else? NO, NO, AND NO!
My nephew have freewill, and earlier you tried to argue he doesn't..
God is all powerfull, but God is also all good, he cannot break his promise, he created you to be free, not to be a robot. Why should God stop humans from doing what they want to do? why should God stop you from doing evil? Should God also stop them from doing good? In that case were not free, might as well create us as a robot if you want it that way...God can only tell you whats right from wrong, he even took the death that belongs to you, but God created you to be free...

GET OVER IT, YOUR DONE FRENCHY, ITS OVER, THIS ARGUMENT IS FINISHED A LONG TIME AGO, JUST GET OVER IT AND FACE THE FACT, KNOWING DOESMT MEAN "CONTROLLING"......THE MORE THIS IS BROUGHT OUT, THE MORE YOUR MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF, AND IF YOU WANT TO, THEN GO AHEAD, I WOULD LOVE TO ARGUE THIS ALL OVER AGAIN, I LOVE THE FEELING OF VICT0RY..

Note: this has been mentioned a million times (F.O.S), whats wrong with your judgment? is it impaired? AND IM REALLY SERIOUS, IS YOUR BRAIN OK?

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by inspector
Then, you obviously have a problem with Jesus.

Not at all. Jesus (or the real person who is at the core of the myth of Jesus) seems to have been a wise and kind man. Of course I also believe he was purely human and not of divine origin. I also believe that many, if not most, of his teachings have been warped by politics.

You have already acknowledged the validity of the Bible.

Isn't this a nice little piece of spin-doctoring. I acknowledge that the Bible contains some valid historical references. This is not at all the same thing as "acknowledging the validity of the Bible". The Bible is a collection of folk-history and myth.

If there is a God, and He encompasses the universe, is it possible that He would work in ways that are beyond us? Is that possible?

Certainly it is possible. It is also possible that Jesus is really an alien that is going to beam me up into his spaceship next Tuesday and take me the Alpha Centauri where I will have the pleasure of his harem.

~Raithere

 

[inspector]

"Not at all. Jesus (or the real person who is at the core of the myth of Jesus) seems to have been a wise and kind man. Of course I also believe he was purely human and not of divine origin."
----------------

Your opinion.


"The Bible is a collection of folk-history and myth."
----------------

Once again, your opinion.


"It is also possible that Jesus is really an alien that is going to beam me up into his spaceship next Tuesday and take me the Alpha Centauri where I will have the pleasure of his harem."
-----------------

And again, your opinion.




I see a pattern developing here. As an apparently intelligent individual, Raithere, you undoubtedly understand the subjectivity involved with opinions. Subjectivity leads to relativism.

><>

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Raithere
You're asking me prove the hypothesis that love exists. I ask you to define love. Without a lucid definition your query is meaningless.

My asking you to prove that you love someone, was for you to come to the realisation that some things, although as true as the nose on your face, are beyond the realm of physical experiment.

An inherent problem with things that are strictly subjective.

It is not strictly subjective, there are effects like you said, but they can only be truly experienced by the parties involved.

Now then, if we cannot prove love then how can we prove God?

You can prove love to the persons it matters most, to ourselves and the object of our affections. Similarly we can prove God to ourselves, and to people who have faith.

And if we cannot prove it, how do we know it's real?

Because you will know.
Knowledge is only known to the knower, if one conveys that knowledge to another party, it is up to the other party whether they accept it or not.

And if I do not 'feel' God or if what you call God I call something else how can you say I am wrong?

I wouldn’t say you are wrong. I know that for you to accept God as the Supreme Cause, you would have to realise that for yourself.

Essentially, you are saying that Love and God are both indefinable concepts.

No, that is not what I am saying, they can be defined both objectively and subjectively, as can everything, but they are personal and can only be experienced, and therefore defined through personal experience.

Both exist purely in the subjective realm. Given this subjectivity, my disbelief is equal in validity to your belief.

They don’t, there are effects such as the ones you gave regarding love. Nothing can be purely subjective as we are not purely subjective beings.

What I mean is; acting purely from emotion without the benefit of thought. Which I find to be a lower order of behavior... one of the things that separates us from animals (generally).

I cannot imagine how someone could act purely from emotion, hopefully you will give me some examples.
Animals do not act purely out of emotion, they have logic which is designed for their existence, as is ours. This exclusive claim to logic and rationality, which is branded about by so-called atheists, is nonsense. Everyone is endowed with these attributes and have to use them to ensure their survival.

Don't worry, I do that too. But learning to be calm and focused upon our own mind requires effort as well.

Only because we are conditioned not to think for ourselves. In this way it becomes like work in the beginning, but eventually becomes pleasurable, because it is a natural state.

That is what I think life is: patterns within patterns. Like a drop of cream in a cup of coffee.

So you think your whole existence is nothing but patterns within patterns?

But I think that religions are primarily an accretion of various manipulations, superstitions, and psychological tendencies.

So, you’ve read the BG I persume, could you tell me where it is manipulative, or supersticious.

Sorry, but I don't find these concepts to be valid.

Then you have lost the point.

Any being that enforced such concepts

Enforces what concepts?

I reject such conceptions of God that I find to be invalid.

Yes, by taking what you want and disregarding the rest because it doesn’t suit you.

Common "religion" is made up of a lot of things most of which are not really about God or even truth.

But not true religion.
Religions, where God is not the Supreme Object and Ultimate Goal, are nonsense.

But I'm not offended, nor do I find my actions/thoughts/beliefs to be self-abusive.

Neither is a rapist or peodofile, because while they do what they do, they feel satisfaction. This is what is known as ignorance, it isn’t until we face up to what we have done, we become aware, but while things are sweet, we feel fine.

From your post on 11-19: "The desire remains in the heart, it is not a thought or consideration, those come later, and they serve your desire which is usually to satisfy the senses."

Lets look at the donkey-carrot situation, the controller dangles a carrot just out of reach of the donkeys eyes, nose and mouth while sitting on the back of it, with a shed load of gear. The hungry donkey thinks, just a few more steps and the carrot will be mine, blissfully unaware that he is being used by his controller to carry stupidely heavy loads.
The donkey has a desire for the lovely carrot, this is why he is prepared to work so hard, he is thinking, just a few more steps and it will be mine, he may show some emotion, he may be happy because he thinks he is about to get the carrot, or he may be angry because he is feeling the strain of the load on an empty tum, and he never seems to get the carrot, so many variations.
His thoughts, in this instant, serves the desire, because he is devising a way to satiate this desire, do you see what I mean?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[whatsupyall]

Im sorry but I have to post this response of inspector to raithere.

"Not at all. Jesus (or the real person who is at the core of the myth of Jesus) seems to have been a wise and kind man. Of course I also believe he was purely human and not of divine origin."
----------------

Your opinion.


"The Bible is a collection of folk-history and myth."
----------------

Once again, your opinion.


"It is also possible that Jesus is really an alien that is going to beam me up into his spaceship next Tuesday and take me the Alpha Centauri where I will have the pleasure of his harem."
-----------------

And again, your opinion.




I see a pattern developing here. As an apparently intelligent individual, Raithere, you undoubtedly understand the subjectivity involved with opinions. Subjectivity leads to relativism.

Yup, Im proud to be a believer of God alright, Im glad Im not the one inspector is sending this info to....

 

[MarcAC]

Reference!

If we stay within a single temporal reference, yes, the fact that the event is known (or even knowable) collapses possibility. Look at it this way, if God knows you will pick up the blue ball and not the red ball can you prove God wrong and pick up the red ball? If not why not? If not how can you say there is choice involved when there can be only one outcome?

Good. The Bible says God is not limited by our time. That means we have to consider the argument in the context of more than one 'temporal reference'. If God knows you are going to pick up the blue ball then you are going to pick up the blue. Now did you choose when you chose that blue ball over the red one [oh brother]? Yes you did and you know the consequences of this - we have a choice - we have free will Instead of looking at it in terms of you going back and forth in time, which God doesn't do, you should look at it as if you can see all of time. Like time is a line and you can see the beginning of it and the end of it. You always limit your frame of reference; that's why you see paradoxes. God is not limited by anything. Logic is limited by your frame of reference and what you know. You can't use it to discredit anything concerning God.

No, that would be a false dilemma (God or Us). The function collapses, it is inherent in the nature of the function. The same thing happens when you know that X=5, the function 2X=Y collapses and we know that Y=10. What causes it? Nothing, it is inherent in the function.

What type of function do you refer to Raithere? Is it one with variables? [nice question huh?] Here you assume that the X in 2X=Y is the X in X=5. Is it correct to make such an assumption? As far as I know X and Y can range from + infinity to - infinity dependent on the nature of the function. You look at it too simply as most other 'logicists' [not logicians] do. Nothing causes it so the laws of cause and effect also collapse. What dimension is that math from? Here is the epitomy of logic; very narrow thinking.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
My asking you to prove that you love someone, was for you to come to the realisation that some things, although as true as the nose on your face, are beyond the realm of physical experiment.

Love is not a thing though, it's a concept, idea, emotion. Emotions do have a physical component. They also have a mental component. If what you're trying to say is that God is an idea... then fine, I have no problem with that. But you seem to be saying that God is more than that... that he has a reality beyond the realm of the mind.

It is not strictly subjective, there are effects like you said, but they can only be truly experienced by the parties involved.

This is such a feeble escape. What is the difference between what you are claiming and delusion? How does faith make manifest that which is otherwise undetectable?

You can prove love to the persons it matters most, to ourselves and the object of our affections. Similarly we can prove God to ourselves, and to people who have faith.

But you just said I can't prove Love. Which is it? And if it's provable, how can it be proven?

Because you will know.
Knowledge is only known to the knower, if one conveys that knowledge to another party, it is up to the other party whether they accept it or not.

Mystical sounding nonsense.

I wouldn’t say you are wrong. I know that for you to accept God as the Supreme Cause, you would have to realise that for yourself.

Jan, you're wandering off into never-never land. For me to accept God as the supreme cause I have to realize God is the supreme cause? Duh.

No, that is not what I am saying, they can be defined both objectively and subjectively, as can everything, but they are personal and can only be experienced, and therefore defined through personal experience.

Then please define Love and God objectively and so that the truth of either can be tested.

Animals do not act purely out of emotion, they have logic which is designed for their existence, as is ours. This exclusive claim to logic and rationality, which is branded about by so-called atheists, is nonsense. Everyone is endowed with these attributes and have to use them to ensure their survival.

Animals have a measure of reason, I agree. However, logic is a formalized system of reasoning. As such, there is no animal, other than the human animal, that uses logic that I am aware of.

Only because we are conditioned not to think for ourselves. In this way it becomes like work in the beginning, but eventually becomes pleasurable, because it is a natural state.

I find almost all work pleasurable in some manner. Either in the effort itself or the accomplishment it achieves.

So you think your whole existence is nothing but patterns within patterns?

Essentially. Yes.

So, you’ve read the BG I persume,

Yes I have.

could you tell me where it is manipulative, or supersticious.

The caste system for one.

Then you have lost the point.

Actually, I believe that I have the point.

Enforces what concepts?

Sin and blasphemy... stick with the conversation.

Yes, by taking what you want and disregarding the rest because it doesn’t suit you.

No you have it backwards. I reject certain aspects of religion but just because I reject the paradigm as a whole does not mean that there are not some truths buried within. I accept the truth wherever I find it... it's source does not matter to me. To put it simply I hold the truth above institutionalized religious teachings.

But not true religion.
Religions, where God is not the Supreme Object and Ultimate Goal, are nonsense.

So you say.

Neither is a rapist or peodofile, because while they do what they do, they feel satisfaction.

And you said I was being offensive? You know what you can do with this comment.

This is what is known as ignorance, it isn’t until we face up to what we have done, we become aware, but while things are sweet, we feel fine.

Then please do show me your divinely inspired wisdom and knowledge Jan. OH! But I forgot I first have to believe and practice 'true' religion before I can perceive the evidence (nice little self validating argument that). This is such a blatant example of a circular argument it should be in a textbook.

His thoughts, in this instant, serves the desire, because he is devising a way to satiate this desire, do you see what I mean?

You don't even know what it is you're arguing about anymore, do you?

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Re: Im sorry but I have to post this response of inspector to raithere.

Originally posted by whatsupyall
Your opinion.

Very good. Yes, it is my (informed) opinion and that of many others. Some of those 'opinions' are even shared in some contexts by certain churches (primarily regarding the OT). Now all you need to do is realize that the contrary beliefs... your beliefs, are also opinions... not facts.

Subjectivity leads to relativism.

Certainly... that is why I look to objective data to formalize my opinions.

~Raithere

 

[inspector]

Yes, it is my (informed) opinion and that of many others.
-------------------

Linking your opinions to the association of others does nothing to validate said opinions.





"Some of those 'opinions' are even shared in some contexts by certain churches (primarily regarding the OT)."
--------------------

Indeed, there are many false religions in existence.





"Now all you need to do is realize that the contrary beliefs... your beliefs, are also opinions... not facts."
----------------------

Agreed. My beliefs are subjective, although based on, and derived from, valid evidences supporting the existence of God.

><>

 

[Raithere]

Re: Reference!

Originally posted by MarcAC
Instead of looking at it in terms of you going back and forth in time, which God doesn't do, you should look at it as if you can see all of time. Like time is a line and you can see the beginning of it and the end of it.

Actually, I was. Sorry if I wasn't clear about it.

You always limit your frame of reference; that's why you see paradoxes. God is not limited by anything. Logic is limited by your frame of reference and what you know. You can't use it to discredit anything concerning God.

No, that is part of what modal logic was developed for, shifting frames of reference. Of course, you can posit that God's nature is illogical but then how can you assert anything about the illogical?

What type of function do you refer to Raithere? Is it one with variables?

Yes. The variable would contain the set of possible choices.

Is it correct to make such an assumption? As far as I know X and Y can range from + infinity to - infinity dependent on the nature of the function.

I chose a value for X to demonstrate the collapse of the function. You are correct in saying that X is a variable. Me choosing 5 would be the equivalent (in this analogy) to God knowing the choice.

Nothing causes it so the laws of cause and effect also collapse.

It's a result of the workings of the function. To relate it back to our paradox the act of choosing collapses the range of possibilities to a single event.

What dimension is that math from? Here is the epitomy of logic; very narrow thinking.

Not narrow, just structured. We can use math to handle any number of dimensions.

~Raithere

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Raithere
Love is not a thing though, it's a concept, idea, emotion.

Of course it is a thing, subtle, but a thing, as is emotion.

What is the difference between what you are claiming and delusion? How does faith make manifest that which is otherwise undetectable?

Delusion is like believing that a square peg can fit into a round hole, something like believing life comes from nothing.

But you just said I can't prove Love. Which is it? And if it's provable, how can it be proven?

You cant prove love to me but, you know it exists because you love and are loved.

Mystical sounding nonsense.

Maybe to you.

Then please define Love and God objectively and so that the truth of either can be tested.

Are you blind?
I've explained it quite a few times.

The caste system for one.

Where does it mention the caste system?

Actually, I believe that I have the point.

Puh-leaze!!!!!

Sin and blasphemy... stick with the conversation.

You stick with the conversation, God does not enforce sin or blasphemy, we do that quite competently without His assitance.

I accept the truth wherever I find it...

Tell me some aspects of the truth which you have found in religion.

it's source does not matter to me. To put it simply I hold the truth above institutionalized religious teachings.

Do i sound/read like i am into institutionalized religion?

And you said I was being offensive? You know what you can do with this comment.

You call yourself logical, reasonable and rational, but get riled for no reason. Pull yourself together man, I was only making a point.

You don't even know what it is you're arguing about anymore, do you?

Whats the matter, can't you hack it, if you want to stop conversing, just say so, there's no need to be silly.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Frencheneesz]

MarcAC:

"Now did you choose when you chose that blue ball over the red one [oh brother]? Yes you did and you know the consequences of this - we have a choice - we have free will Instead of looking at it in terms of you going back and forth in time, which God doesn't do, you should look at it as if you can see all of time."

Ok, Instead of forcing my thoughts upon you all at once, lets see what we can agree on slowly.

Can you agree that a "choice" require more than one POSSIBILITY(as in "that which is able to happen")?

Can you agree that if the timeline is already set "from beggining to end", then there is only ONE possibility for every event?

Ill let you answer these and then Ill continue

 

[Frencheneesz]

MarcAC:

One more thing.

"very narrow thinking."

I happen to think that most of you theists have "very narrow thinking" most of the time. I keep my mouth shut "most of the time". If you keep insulting people, you are no better than whatsupall, who I don't read the posts of anymore. You may agree with his ideas, but I must say I wouldn't trust you with a pop-gun around me if you agree with the way he goes about spouting them.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Of course it is a thing, subtle, but a thing, as is emotion.

Ugh. This is why I find discussions with you frustrating. I’m not wasting my time squabbling over semantics. Yes, love is an emotion; as such it is entirely subjective. How is God different?

Delusion is like believing that a square peg can fit into a round hole, something like believing life comes from nothing.

When have I ever said that life came from nothing?

Where does it mention the caste system?

Chapter 4 verse 13: “13
According to the three modes of material nature and the work associated with them, the four divisions of human society are created by Me. And although I am the creator of this system, you should know that I am yet the nondoer, being unchangeable.”

Of course we can look to history for past abuses of this division of human society. Today it is being reinterpreted in a humanistic light.

You stick with the conversation, God does not enforce sin or blasphemy, we do that quite competently without His assitance.

Then I choose not to enforce either.

Tell me some aspects of the truth which you have found in religion.

Unity.

You call yourself logical, reasonable and rational, but get riled for no reason. Pull yourself together man, I was only making a point.

Um… you got upset when I labeled you a fanatic and you don’t expect me to get upset when you equate me with rapists and pedophiles? Could you have possibly chosen two more offensive groups? Care to include genocidal maniacs and baby-killers? I reject your point entirely (not to mention the manner in which you chose to present it). You call me ignorant, vile, stupid, and evil all in one sentence.

I have been making an earnest effort for about 25 years to discern the truth of this existence, my life, humanity, religion… everything… and you think this is on par with rapists and pedophiles because I disagree with your own, subjective, unproven, undemonstrated POV? I feel I have the right to be offended. Hell, you didn’t even bother with a retraction.

Whats the matter, can't you hack it, if you want to stop conversing, just say so

I can hack anything you’ve got. The question is; is it worth my limited time? So far you have given me nothing, no idea, no argument, that I haven’t already considered. So have you got anything new? Otherwise, I may as well reply ‘been there, done that’.

~Raithere

 

[MarcAC]

No insults...

French

I happen to think that most of you theists have "very narrow thinking" most of the time. I keep my mouth shut "most of the time". If you keep insulting people, you are no better than whatsupall, who I don't read the posts of anymore. You may agree with his ideas, but I must say I wouldn't trust you with a pop-gun around me if you agree with the way he goes about spouting them.

I insult noone. You insult yourselves with your notions.

Can you agree that a "choice" require more than one POSSIBILITY(as in "that which is able to happen")?

It does from my point of reference yes.

Can you agree that if the timeline is already set "from beggining to end", then there is only ONE possibility for every event?

Yes French I can. That's why I believe we are predestined. And to save you the trouble. NO! That doesn't mean I don't have the ability to choose which is free will. Consider time as a line and God can see all of it. We are within that line with all those dots to choose our zigzagged path along it [consider it a thick line]. Open your mind. I rest my case.
Raithere

Actually, I was. Sorry if I wasn't clear about it.

Didn't seem like it. You were just jumping from one frame of reference to the next. What I mean is to just have one frame of reference which is God's frame of reference - God sees past present and future all at once. Somewhat like us seeing a line - you know that - I don't have to explain it.

No, that is part of what modal logic was developed for, shifting frames of reference. Of course, you can posit that God's nature is illogical but then how can you assert anything about the illogical?

Yes, modal logic is limited. You have to consider one frame of reference at a t ime. God sees all frames of reference at all times.

I chose a value for X to demonstrate the collapse of the function. You are correct in saying that X is a variable. Me choosing 5 would be the equivalent (in this analogy) to God knowing the choice.

How can you use this analogy in such a case? The fact that God limits his will so that we can have our way would preclude the collapse of the function. Thus y=2x although x=5; still y=2x therefore y=10; still y=2x. Now let us put this on a time line. y=2x [situation], we choose 5 from all available numbers [free will], y=10 [consequence]. God is outside this loop and he sees the whole chain reaction at once. Does it mean we do not have free will? Reasoning like this made mathematicians conclude that irrational numbers didn't exist.

It's a result of the workings of the function. To relate it back to our paradox the act of choosing collapses the range of possibilities to a single event.

That's why we are predestined. Free will is an act of grace from God.

Not narrow, just structured. We can use math to handle any number of dimensions.

Yes I need to revise my statment. The math is a function [your jargon - that's the word French - not vernacular - yeah I finally remembered] of the brain which uses it. That's why scientists rely on supercomputers right?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Raithere
Ugh. This is why I find discussions with you frustrating.

Then don’t bother to stress yourself, it all boils down to personal interpretation.

When have I ever said that life came from nothing?

Then where did all the materials which support gross life come from?

Chapter 4 verse 13: “13
According to the three modes of material nature and the work associated with them, the four divisions of human society are created by Me. And although I am the creator of this system, you should know that I am yet the nondoer, being unchangeable.”

A caste system is a class system, a system created by man, this is a gross pervertion of the original “varnashram dharma” created by God. The caste system places people in various positions according to their birth ties, or if they have some material oppulence. So if I was born the son of a priest, then I would be respected as a priest also, regardless of my character. Today one can become a priest simply by passing an exam.

The varnashram dharma system recognizes the quality of the person, so a shudra could be brahminical by his qualities. One could not be brahmin, unless he was brahmin.

Today it is being reinterpreted in a humanistic light.

?????????????????????????????

Unity.

What type of unity?
Please elaborate.

Um… you got upset when I labeled you a fanatic and you don’t expect me to get upset when you equate me with rapists and pedophiles?

How did I equate you with these types?
I used them as examples of ignorance.

Could you have possibly chosen two more offensive groups?

Show me in what way I linked you to these groups, and I will apologize sincerely.

You call me ignorant, vile, stupid, and evil all in one sentence.

Don’t be silly, I simply made a point.

I feel I have the right to be offended. Hell, you didn’t even bother with a retraction.

As I said, show me where I personally insulted you and I will be more than happy to retract.

I can hack anything you’ve got. The question is; is it worth my limited time? So far you have given me nothing, no idea, no argument, that I haven’t already considered. So have you got anything new? Otherwise, I may as well reply ‘been there, done that’.

Anything new?
Just in that statement alone, lies your lack of experience regarding these matters.
What is it you are looking for?
Why bother argue in religion forum at all?
The trouble with you is, you can’t hack it, if it is outside of “talk origins,” “Atheist. Com” rhetoric, etc.

Love

Jan Ardena.