Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, philosophical/religious facts

[LanDroid]

Jaya Jagannath said 1st of all is this Bhagawad gita is written by the authority ( Srila Prabhupada ) ?? is that you have taken these verses from http://www.asitis.com ? answer is no these verses are from other source therefore we don't accept these verses because they are not authorative.
for example : Milk is very good food, everyone knows. But as soon as it is touched by the lips of a serpent, it is poison immediately. Therefore it is forbidden.

Here we have an extreme form of Fundmentalism. Obviously since the Bhagavad Gita was written about 2200 years ago, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada did not write it. I assume he is claiming Prabhupada's translation and commentaries (or purports) are authoritative. This is similar to claims by some Chrisitans that the King James version of the Bible is the only authoritative one.

Claiming all other translations or commentaries are poisonous is a nice touch. It locks in a single perspective, forbidding all other considerations. But this raises serious concerns: what about the millions of people who studied the Bhagavad Gita prior to Prabhupada's version, were they deluded? Evidently after 2200 years, scholarship on the Bhagawad Gita ended when Srila Prabhupada died in 1977.

Jaya Jagannath said and here is the authorative photo of Lord Krishna.

Obviously you mean painting, not photo. How does a painting become authoritative? What is he eating, ghee (clarified butter)? What is the deal with ghee, why is that so important?

Srila Prabhupada's translation on anger:

From anger, delusion arises, and from delusion bewilderment of memory. When memory is bewildered, intelligence is lost, and when intelligence is lost, one falls down again into the material pool.
Bhagavad Gita 2:63

[Kevin]

It does reject an absolute right and wrong, and wisely so in my opinion.

What is derived from need and interest is not derived on a whim. The rest of the manifesto sets the context. We need food, water, and shelter, and our interests are comfort, love, power and success(plus a few more). What the surrounding context means is that any otherwise negative interest (power) must work within the manifesto - work to benefit society and be concerned for the well-being of all. It definitely doesn't mean that might equals right, which is apparent in the later paragraphs.

I think it does, if the reader happens to prefer it to mean that. For example, is it to the betterment of society to not dilute the gene pool? Meaning, should obviously flawed babies be eliminated, or at least sterilized? Can you say this does not better society? OK but can anyone say the opposite? Was Raskolnikov correct in thinking that he had the moral right to kill the old woman? I think an argument based on need and interest can go either way in both cases, and reasonably so. I think, actually, it has gone either way!

If our moral systems were truly absolute, tied to something objective and unchanging over time, we'd still be stoning people to death outside the front gates for adultery.

All systems are flawed, certainly. There is a difference however between act and operating principle. It requires a lot of hoop jumping to allow one to sanction death by stoning for the offence of having, say, a differing outlook on religion while maintaining equality for all is the operating principle on which you live your life. Now, I'm not saying it can't or hasn't been done, but gracefully... absolutely not. Never. What I'm getting at is that without an absolute operating principle anything can be justified - and most likely, already has. In short, the manifesto does reject an absolute right and wrong, and unwisely so in my opinion.

[Jaya Jagannath]

Jaya Jagannath said 1st of all is this Bhagawad gita is written by the authority ( Srila Prabhupada ) ?? is that you have taken these verses from http://www.asitis.com ? answer is no these verses are from other source therefore we don't accept these verses because they are not authorative.
for example : Milk is very good food, everyone knows. But as soon as it is touched by the lips of a serpent, it is poison immediately. Therefore it is forbidden.

Here we have an extreme form of Fundmentalism. Obviously since the Bhagavad Gita was written about 2200 years ago, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada did not write it. I assume he is claiming Prabhupada's translation and commentaries (or purports) are authoritative. This is similar to claims by some Chrisitans that the King James version of the Bible is the only authoritative one.

Claiming all other translations or commentaries are poisonous is a nice touch. It locks in a single perspective, forbidding all other considerations. But this raises serious concerns: what about the millions of people who studied the Bhagavad Gita prior to Prabhupada's version, were they deluded? Evidently after 2200 years, scholarship on the Bhagawad Gita ended when Srila Prabhupada died in 1977.

Jaya Jagannath said and here is the authorative photo of Lord Krishna.

Obviously you mean painting, not photo. How does a painting become authoritative? What is he eating, ghee (clarified butter)? What is the deal with ghee, why is that so important?

Srila Prabhupada's translation on anger:

From anger, delusion arises, and from delusion bewilderment of memory. When memory is bewildered, intelligence is lost, and when intelligence is lost, one falls down again into the material pool.
Bhagavad Gita 2:63

so you mean that christians have got another explanation ? which supports there authority ? alright explain that explanation right now which is not based on holy book quotes, personal expeirence or opinion and bogus faith or belief.

right now explain that explanation which christians have already given to you.

and if you will not explain anything at all now. then once again you have to keep your bogus bluff in your pocket with your fellow rascal dogs.

[Interbane]

For example, is it to the betterment of society to not dilute the gene pool? Meaning, should obviously flawed babies be eliminated, or at least sterilized?

Maybe it is, but notice that you're once again ignoring other parts of the manifesto. Killing flawed babies in definitely not in line with having 'concern for the well-being of all'. I'm sure you could take any single sentence in the manifesto and twist it to mean whatever you wish. But taken as a whole, you'll quickly find out how difficult it would be to twist around. Those who sign it do not sign an affirmation for a single sentence or paragraph. They sign the entire thing. Not that signing really means anything other than a personal oath - my point is that the purpose of the manifesto is only relevant in it's entirety, not single excerpts twisted with hermeneutics.

What I'm getting at is that without an absolute operating principle anything can be justified

It is not the characteristic of absolute or relative or provisional that allows "anything" to be justified. It is the fact that the extreme complexity of the universe can never be so thoroughly compressed that our rules for behavior can be contained within a single book. Humans will always find justification by reading between the lines. The proof is in the pudding that every atrocity can and has been justified using "absolute" morality. Absolute morality fails because it is absolute - it cannot account for the complexities of a changing society. Thou shalt not kill is a rule easily followed by a thousand instances in which killing is morally condoned. I will list some for you if you doubt me.

The Humanist Manifesto trumps any religious text no matter what angle you analyze it from. I'm more than willing to take a long hard look at this if you wish.

[LanDroid]

Jaya Jagannath said so you mean that christians have got another explanation ? which supports there authority ? alright explain that explanation right now which is not based on holy book quotes, personal expeirence or opinion and bogus faith or belief. right now explain that explanation which christians have already given to you.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but here are some attitudes Christians have towards the Bible.
- Some Christians believe every word of the Bible is to be taken as literal truth. They may believe the universe was created in one week about 6000 years ago.
- Most Christians believe parts of the Bible should be treated as metaphor or poetry and other parts as literal truth.
- Some Christians believe parts of the Bible contain errors, such as Old Testament commands to stone people to death for various reasons, in contrast to New Testament prohibitions against stoning people to death.
- Many Christians do not base much of their faith on the Bible. Catholics frequently rely on teachings from the Priest and Church tradition.
- There are many versions and translations of the Bible. There is some disagreement about these versions, but that is not a major conflict.


Now in contrast to the various attitudes above, you state there is only one translation and one commentary of the Bhagavad Gita that is valid, and all others are poison. That sort of fundamentalism can lead to fanaticism. For example, based on his commentary on anger, I'm sure Srila Prabhupada would not approve of language such as "senseless, shameless, brainless, foolish, rascal, street dogs".

[Kevin]

Maybe it is, but notice that you're once again ignoring other parts of the manifesto. Killing flawed babies in definitely not in line with having 'concern for the well-being of all'.

I think it is. At least as much as not killing flawed babies is. How can you have a concern for all when/if the situation occurs that one person's interests are directly in conflict with another's? In other words, to say "concern for the well-being of all" doesn't mean anything more than what every politician will say come election time. We know this doesn't mean anything, don't we? What is the operating principle that causes us to have a concern for all? Do you/humanists have one?

I'm sure you could take any single sentence in the manifesto and twist it to mean whatever you wish.

I may misinterpret what it says, or through carelessness miss entirely what it says, but I won't twist it. I realize it's only my word but I do wonder if you think I am "twisting" its meaning since that's a charge that implies intent. If this is how you view it, well OK, but it's really not the case.

It is not the characteristic of absolute or relative or provisional that allows "anything" to be justified. It is the fact that the extreme complexity of the universe can never be so thoroughly compressed that our rules for behavior can be contained within a single book.

I think it can be contained in a single sentence. And this gets back to the carelessness comment I made about myself, I think the manifesto itself might contain it! Here it is: Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. So what do you take this sentence to mean? Is it not an absolute guiding principle? I am particularly interested in the "interest" inclusion (which must be why I completely overlooked it at first) because here is what I think: the most acceptable outlook is one that affords an equal consideration of interests to all involved. This view may be called the Golden Rule or enlightened self-interest or, my favorite, equal consideration of interests. What do you think of it? Does the manifesto endorse it? If not, then what is meant by "interest?" It is this principle that remains constant while our actions and responses vary due to the human condition.

Humans will always find justification by reading between the lines. The proof is in the pudding that every atrocity can and has been justified using "absolute" morality. Absolute morality fails because it is absolute - it cannot account for the complexities of a changing society. Thou shalt not kill is a rule easily followed by a thousand instances in which killing is morally condoned. I will list some for you if you doubt me.

Actually what I am most unsure about here is that you are aware you are talking about rules while I am talking about principle. Yes, every act can be justified using absolute morality just as, I'll add, it can be justified through use of its more flexible cousins:"Systems kill."

[youkrst]

Awesome thread this one, I feel that for me at least, there is a little something of everything in it, very humbling in a good way.

Reminded me of that saying

Chaos is inherent in all compounded things, work on with diligence.

Which seems to be what y'all are fixing to do, long may you run!

I guess I'm clumsily trying to say I hold you all in the highest regard! At times being born is something one is tempted to rue, at other times I readily say...

I wouldn't be dead for quids

[LanDroid]

Kevin said What I'm getting at is that without an absolute operating principle anything can be justified - and most likely, already has.

OK out with it now: State these absolute operating principles.

[Jaya Jagannath]

Jaya Jagannath said so you mean that christians have got another explanation ? which supports there authority ? alright explain that explanation right now which is not based on holy book quotes, personal expeirence or opinion and bogus faith or belief. right now explain that explanation which christians have already given to you.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but here are some attitudes Christians have towards the Bible.
- Some Christians believe every word of the Bible is to be taken as literal truth. They may believe the universe was created in one week about 6000 years ago.
- Most Christians believe parts of the Bible should be treated as metaphor or poetry and other parts as literal truth.
- Some Christians believe parts of the Bible contain errors, such as Old Testament commands to stone people to death for various reasons, in contrast to New Testament prohibitions against stoning people to death.
- Many Christians do not base much of their faith on the Bible. Catholics frequently rely on teachings from the Priest and Church tradition.
- There are many versions and translations of the Bible. There is some disagreement about these versions, but that is not a major conflict.


Now in contrast to the various attitudes above, you state there is only one translation and one commentary of the Bhagavad Gita that is valid, and all others are poison. That sort of fundamentalism can lead to fanaticism. For example, based on his commentary on anger, I'm sure Srila Prabhupada would not approve of language such as "senseless, shameless, brainless, foolish, rascal, street dogs".

is this dry talking with is neither verifiable nor tangible is all that you have got ? and i have to believe it ? just look at the fun of your rascaldom.

[youkrst]

Jaya, I see your "rascaldom" and raise you a "rapscallion"

Where is a good website where I can imbibe a little of your take on things?

If I asked you "what must I do to be saved" a Christian might answer "believe on The Lord Jesus Christ" but what would your answer be I wonder?