Discussion:
Are humans designed to eat meat?
(for gammel til at besvare)
Jahnu
2020-07-25 00:38:41 UTC
Permalink
Nope. Humans are designed to be vegetarians. That's why humans who eat
meat stink like corpses, and are more sick and miserable than
vegetarians.

Here is the new and revised chart, comparing flesh-eaters to plant
eaters, as it appeared in Peter Cox's book, Why You Don't Need Meat,
from 1994. It is highly recommendable reading for those who care about
what they eat, and who care about the planet and its other
inhabitants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
VEGETARIAN FLESH-EATER HUMAN


Hands / hoofs Claws as append- Hands as
as appendages ages appendages


Teeth flat Teeth sharp Teeth flat

Alkaline saliva; Acid saliva; no Alkaline saliva;
much ptyalin ptyalin enzyme much ptyalin
enzyme enzyme

Stomach acid 10 Much strong hydro- Stomach acid 10
times weaker chloride acid in times weaker than
than meat-eaters stomach meat-eaters

Long intestines Short intestines; Long intestines;
to digest nutrients rapidly excrete digest nutrients in
in plant foods fully putrefying flesh plant foods fully


Sweats to cool Pants to cool Sweats to cool
body body body


Sips water Laps water Sips water


Vitamin C obtained Vitamin C manu- Vitamin C obtained
solely from diet factured internally solely from diet


Exists largely on Consumes flesh Diet depends
fruit and nut diet; exclusively on environment


Grasping hands No manual dexte- Grasping hands
capable of using terity capable of using
tools and weapons tools and weapons


Inoffensive Putrid Offensiveness of
excrement excrement excrement depends on diet


Snack feeder Large meals infre- Combines worst of
frequently taken both worlds


Predominantly Preference for salty Likes both sweet and
sweet toothed / fatty food salty / fatty food


Likes to savor Bolts down Likes to savor food,
food, experiment food experiment with variety,
with variety, com- combine flavors
bine flavors


Large brains, able Small brains, less Large brains, able
to rationalize capable of adaptive to rationalize
behavior
EXLEX
2020-07-25 08:02:37 UTC
Permalink
Den 25-07-2020 kl. 02:38 skrev Jahnu:

Yes.




--
EXLEX
Jahnu
2020-07-26 02:15:01 UTC
Permalink
Yes.
No wonder you stink like a cadaver :D

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival
of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet"
-Albert Einstein
EXLEX
2020-07-26 09:04:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jahnu
Yes.
No wonder you stink like a cadaver :D
"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival
of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet"
-Albert Einstein
The very fact that you claim to be able to smelle me from a posting in
a newsgroup - clearly shows the level of maturity you posess.

Also the continueous use of the same reply tell me you are unable to
wrap your mind about the subject.
Clearly, if I wanted advice on nutrition and sustainability, Einstein
wouldn't be the man to go to.




--
EXLEX
Jahnu
2020-07-27 04:00:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by EXLEX
The very fact that you claim to be able to smelle me from a posting in
a newsgroup - clearly shows the level of maturity you posess.
Also the continueous use of the same reply tell me you are unable to
wrap your mind about the subject.
Clearly, if I wanted advice on nutrition and sustainability, Einstein
wouldn't be the man to go to.
No wonder you are such a miserable bastard with the garbage you eat.


HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER

The New York Times, Tuesday, June 20, 1989


The Hunger Argument

Number of people worldwide who will die of starvation this year: 60
million.

Number of people who could be adequately fed with the grain saved if
Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10 perc.: 60 million

Human beings in America: 243 million

Number of people who could be fed with grain and soybeans now eaten by
U.S. livestock: 1.3 billion

Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20

Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80

Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95

Percentage of protein waste by cycling grain through livestock: 99

How frequently a child starves to death: every 2 seconds

Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an acre: 20.OOO

Pounds of beef produced on an acre: 165

Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56

Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of beef: 16


The Environmental Argument

Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect

Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from
fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels needed to produce a meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free
diet: 50 times more

Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75

Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising:
85

Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce
meat-centered diet: 260 million

Amount of meat U.S. imports annually from Costa Rica, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: 200 million pounds

Average per capita meat consumption in Costa Rica, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: less than eaten by average U.S.
housecat.

Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every 1/4 pound hamburger: 55
sq.ft.

Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical
rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1.000 per year


The Cancer Argument

Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat 4 times a week
vs. less than once a week: 4 times

For women who eat eggs daily vs. less than once a week: 3 times

Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or
more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times

Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who eat meat daily vs.
sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times


The Natural Resources Argument

Use of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.:
livestock portion.

Amount of water used in production of the average steer: sufficient to
float a destroyer.

Gallons to produce a pound of wheat: 25

Gallons to produce a pound of meat: 2.500

Cost of common hamburger if water used by meat industry was not
subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer: 35 dollars a pound

Current cost of pound of protein from beefsteak, if water was no
longer subsidized: 89 dollars

Years the world's known oil reserves would last if every human ate a
meat-centered diet: 13

Years they would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260

Barrels of oil imported into U.S. daily: 6.8 million

Percentage of fossil fuel returned as food energy by most efficient
factory farming of meat: 34.5

Percentage returned from least efficient plant food: 32.8

Percentage of raw materials consumed by U.S. to produce present
meat-centered diet: 33


The Cholesterol Argument

Number of U.S. medical schools: 125

Number requiring a course in nutrition: 30

Nutrition training received by average U.S. physician during four
years in medical school: 25 hours

Most common cause of death in U.S.: heart attack

How frequently a heart attack kills in U.S.: every 45 seconds

Average U.S. man's risk of death from heart attack: 50 perc.

Risk for average U.S. man who avoids the meat-centered diet: 15 perc.

Meat industry claims you should not be concerned about your blood
cholesterol if it is: normal

Your risk of dying of a disease caused by clogged arteries if your
blood cholesterol is ?normal?: over 50 perc.


The Antibiotic Argument

Percentage of U.S. antibiotics fed to livestock: 55

Percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin in
1960: 13

Percentage resistant in 1988: 91

Response of European Economic Community to routine feeding of
antibiotics to livestock: ban

Response of U.S. meat and pharmaceutical industries to routine feeding
of antibiotics to livestock: full and complete support


The Pesticide Argument

Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by grains:
1

Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by fruits:
4

Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet suppl. by dairy
products: 23

Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by meat: 55

Pesticide contamination of breast milk from meat-eating mothers vs.
non meat-eating: 35 times higher

What USDA tells us: meat is inspected

Percentage of slaughtered animals inspected for residues of toxin
chemicals including dioxin and DDT: less than 0.00004


The Ethical Argument

Number of animals killed for meat per hour in U.S.: 500.000

Occupation with highest turnover rate in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker

Occupation with highest rate of on-the-job injury in
U.S:slaughterhouse worker

Cost to render animal unconscious with captive bolt pistol before
slaughter.: 1 cent

Reason given by meat industry for non using that pistol: too expensive


The Survival Argument

Athlete to win Ironman Triathlon more than twice: Dave Scott (6 time
winner) Food choices of Dave Scott: Vegetarian

Largest meat eater than ever lived: Tyrannosaurus Rex

Last sighting of Tyrannosaurus Rex: 100.000.000 B.C.


Famous vegetarians:
-------------------------------
Candice Bergen, David Bowie, Paul Mc Cartney, Darryl Hannah, Janet
Jackson, k.d.lang, Sting

'I am a great eater of beef, and I believe that does harm to my wit.'
--William Shakespeare "Twelfth Night," Act I, Scene 3
EXLEX
2020-07-27 13:59:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jahnu
Post by EXLEX
The very fact that you claim to be able to smelle me from a posting in
a newsgroup - clearly shows the level of maturity you posess.
Also the continueous use of the same reply tell me you are unable to
wrap your mind about the subject.
Clearly, if I wanted advice on nutrition and sustainability, Einstein
wouldn't be the man to go to.
No wonder you are such a miserable bastard with the garbage you eat.
HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER
The New York Times, Tuesday, June 20, 1989
The Hunger Argument
Number of people worldwide who will die of starvation this year: 60
million.
...and if they ate eachother - the problem would be solved...
...by a meat eater...




--
EXLEX
Poul Nielsen
2020-07-27 09:48:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jahnu
Nope. Humans are designed to be vegetarians. That's why humans who eat
meat stink like corpses, and are more sick and miserable than
vegetarians.
Vegetarism vas introduced to hindus by lord Buddha and mahavir 2500 yrs
ago and before that indians ate meat.

jahnu is a liar.
Jahnu
2020-07-29 01:39:56 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 11:48:48 +0200, Poul Nielsen
Post by Poul Nielsen
Vegetarism vas introduced to hindus by lord Buddha and mahavir 2500 yrs
ago and before that indians ate meat.
jahnu is a liar.
Indians stil eat meat, fool.

It is said that bad karma hits in three basic ways - poverty, disease,
and being harassed by the state. The advantage of being wealthy is
that there is no suffering from poverty. There are other advantages to
being wealthy - it’s easier to have one’a desires fulfilled. As we all
know, wealth can’t buy happiness, but it can buy lots of
sense-gratification, which is an advantage to those who confuse
sense-gratification with happiness.

Actually, the bottom line in the material world is suffering, for the
simple reason that everything ends in old age, disease and death. Not
all the wealth in the world can buy us more time, or make us more
happy than we are allotted by our karma.

The only way to escape the fundamental suffering of living in a
material body, is to cultivate spiritual knowledge. Spiritual
knowledge begins with knowing the difference between matter and spirit
- the difference between the body and the self.

Krishna says:

My dear Arjuna, because you are never envious of Me, I shall impart to
you this most confidential knowledge and realization, knowing which
you shall be relieved of the miseries of material existence. (Bg. 9.1)

Only by knowing oneself as an eternal particle of consciousness, can
one gain real happiness. Real happiness is a constant fact. Real
happiness is not constantly being interrupted by misery. People of the
modern world are not educated in real happiness.

In the modern consumer civilization people are indoctrinated into
believing that sense-enjoyment will create happiness for them. Indeed,
bodily and mental enjoyments are the only types of happiness people
know of. But sense-enjoyment is merely a temporary pause in the basic
suffering of the body and mind.

Sex, for instance, is regarded by most people to be the highest joy
available. But sex-enjoyment are merely an attempt to escape the
suffering of being without sex. It's misery to live in forced
celibacy. Anyone who has reached puberty can testify to that.

Or eating. To eat is considered one of life's major enjoyments. But
actually, to eat is merely an attempt to escape the suffering of
hunger. People of the Western culture don't know what it means to
suffer from famine, but it is a great suffering experienced by many
people around the world.

And that's how it is with most of the enjoyment we seek. Eating,
sleeping, mating, and defending are the four activities humans have in
common with all other living entities. In the modern world, however,
it has become the foremost goal to fulfill and satisfy these four
needs.

They have been made the standard of happiness and enjoyment in life.
What do we do together with our loved ones, with our family and
friends? We eat, we sleep, we mate, and we defend. The entire
civilization revolves around these four activities. That's an animal
civilization. Humans are expected to have a higher goal in life than
merely satisfying basic, bodily and mental urges.

"Both animals and men share the activities of eating, sleeping, mating
and defending. But the special property of the humans is that they are
able to engage in spiritual life. Therefore without spiritual life,
humans are on the level of animals." --Hitopadesa

Millions of tons of iron are extracted from the earth to make pots,
knives and forks. Whole forests are cut down to make serviettes and
napkins. Add to that the industrial setup to manufacture cups and
glasses etc. And for sleeping - beds, mattresses, pillows, quilts,
covers, the list goes on and on. A massive enterprise - all of it,
just to eat and sleep. What to speak of the meat-industry, the second
largest industry in the world, only topped by the defense industry.

So the global culture is nothing more than one giant industrial setup
to fulfill four basic bodily needs. The fact is that the modern,
global civilization is an exploitative civilization that rapes and
plunders nature, and puts her inhabitants through untold suffering.
And it’s proudly called the industrialized, developed world.

Anyway, the happiness that can be obtained by surrendering to
Krishna's enjoyment is so far superior to the happiness that can be
squeezed out of matter, that sex with the most beautiful women become
like broken glass in comparison.

And who or what is to be blamed for the fact that the modern world
runs on animal principles? Atheism. Atheism reduces the human being to
nothing more than an animal.

In reality, the human life-form is a unique opportunity for the soul
to realize its real identity. The soul cannot realize itself in any
other life-form. In other forms of life, the soul is simply absorbed
in eating, sleeping, mating, and defending. The human form of life is
a waste of time for the soul, if it is not used to learn about one's
relation to Krishna.

Krishna should be the only center. He is the beloved of the soul. When
we love Krishna, who is the root of everything, we automatically love
all His parts and parcels - all other living entities.

It's like watering a tree. One does not benefit a tree by pouring
water on its every leaf, twig and branch. Water is poured on the root.
Then the whole tree is nourished. In the same way all living entities
are benefited and nourished when one serves Krishna - the root of all
existence.

Lord Brahma says:

"One attains the human form of life after transmigrating through
8,400,000 species by the process of gradual evolution. That human life
is spoiled for those conceited fools who do not take shelter of the
lotus feet of Govinda."

--Brahma-vaivarta Purana
EXLEX
2020-07-29 07:07:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jahnu
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 11:48:48 +0200, Poul Nielsen
Post by Poul Nielsen
Vegetarism vas introduced to hindus by lord Buddha and mahavir 2500 yrs
ago and before that indians ate meat.
jahnu is a liar.
Indians stil eat meat, fool.
Still the namecalling does not appear to gain your cause.




--
EXLEX
Jahnu
2020-07-30 05:43:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by EXLEX
Still the namecalling does not appear to gain your cause.
Awww, is it now I break down sobbing and beg forgiveness? :D

Krishna says:

Now hear, O son of Prtha, how by practicing yoga in full consciousness
of Me, with mind attached to Me, you can know Me in full, free from
doubt.

I shall now declare unto you in full this knowledge, both phenomenal
and numinous. This being known, nothing further shall remain for you
to know.

Out of many thousands among men, one may endeavor for perfection, and
of those who have achieved perfection, hardly one knows Me in truth.

Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego --
all together these eight constitute My separated material energies.

Besides these, O mighty-armed Arjuna, there is another, superior
energy of Mine, which comprises the living entities who are exploiting
the resources of this material, inferior nature.

All created beings have their source in these two natures. Of all that
is material and all that is spiritual in this world, know for certain
that I am both the origin and the dissolution.

O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything
rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread.


--Bhagavad Gita 7.1-
EXLEX
2020-07-30 06:12:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jahnu
Post by EXLEX
Still the namecalling does not appear to gain your cause.
Awww, is it now I break down sobbing and beg forgiveness? :D
Probably not.
But your choice will define who you are for the world to see.
Simply because any reasonable person knows, that an individual with good
and valid arguments wouldn't have to resort to name calling.




--
EXLEX
Jahnu
2020-07-31 03:00:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by EXLEX
Probably not.
But your choice will define who you are for the world to see.
Simply because any reasonable person knows, that an individual with good
and valid arguments wouldn't have to resort to name calling.
hahaha :D Lyt til fjolset. Han prøver at lyde helt fornuftig og
resonabel.

Preaching on-line to antagonists, one thing I hear real often is - uh
duh, you can't think for yourself. You need some old books to think
for you.

But the real fact of the matter is that main-stream people would be up
the proverbial creek without a paddle if they didn't have TV,
newspapers and magazines to tell them what to think and believe. They
all say the same things and have the same values. How is it
independent thinking to talk, think and be like millions of other
people?

I would venture to say, that the more a point of view is prevalent in
society, the more people who share a view-point, the less independent
it is.

Practically nobody except the Hare Krishnas think like the Hare
Krishnas, and the Hare Krishnas are a tiny minority of people on
planet. So actually the Hare Krishnas must be the most independent
type of thinkers.

The Hare Krishna way of thinking is based on an ancient, revealed
science, that has been tried and tested since time immemorial whereas
the thinking of people in mainstream society is dictated by mass media
and Hollywood. So whose thinking is most independent, seriously? That
also begs the question - what is the definition of independent
thinking, and who defines it? If you say, independent thinking is
defined by the majority of people, how is it independent thinking? So
when people tell you, that you have no independent thoughts, they have
no idea what they are talking about. They are merely mindlessly
repeating a slogan.

Next time someone challenges you - you can't think for yourself - ask
that person to name just one single, miniscule, little thought he or
she has come up with by themselves. Let's hear some of your
independent thoughts. That'll stomp anyone... just try. Nothing of
what people in general have to offer are based on independent
thinking.

The real fact is that nobody is thinking independently. Everyone's
thinking is inspired by what they have heard and learned from others.
So what's best? - to be inspired by the ancient teachings of the Vedic
tradition or to be inspired by CNN and Fox news or the garbage they
teach you in school?

"I owed a magnificent day to the Bhagavad Geeta. It was the first of
books; it was as if an empire spoke to us, nothing small or unworthy,
but large, serene, consistent, the voice of an old intelligence which
in another age and climate had pondered and thus disposed of the same
questions which exercise us."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Krishna says:

One must deliver himself with the help of his mind, and not degrade
himself. The mind is the friend of the conditioned soul, and his enemy
as well. (Bg. 6.5)

For him who has conquered the mind, the mind is the best of friends;
but for one who has failed to do so, his mind will remain the greatest
enemy. (Bg. 6.6)
EXLEX
2020-07-31 08:14:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jahnu
Post by EXLEX
Probably not.
But your choice will define who you are for the world to see.
Simply because any reasonable person knows, that an individual with good
and valid arguments wouldn't have to resort to name calling.
hahaha :D Lyt til fjolset. Han prøver at lyde helt fornuftig og
resonabel.
Jeg bemærker, at det indtil nu ikke er en grøft, man kan beskylde dig
for at falde i.
Måske du burde prøve?
Post by Jahnu
Preaching on-line to antagonists, one thing I hear real often is - uh
duh, you can't think for yourself. You need some old books to think
for you.
Er det derfor du copy/paste'r størstedelen af dine indlæg fra
eksisterende tekster og citater fra andre?




--
EXLEX
Jahnu
2020-08-01 01:44:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by EXLEX
Er det derfor du copy/paste'r størstedelen af dine indlæg fra
eksisterende tekster og citater fra andre?
Til forskel fra dig, der kun er her for at hvine og hyle, så har jeg
noget vigtigt på hjertet.

Ateistens Trosbekendelse

Først var der ingenting, og så skete der noget med ingenting, helt
uden grund, og så eksploderede ingenting og skabte på magisk vis
alting. Så var der noget af alting, der helt magisk arrangerede sig
selv således, at det blev til selv-replikerende små stykker, og disse
små selv-replikerende stykker blev så til en amøbe. Og så skete det,
ganske gradvist, at amøben fik ben at gå på og lærte at tale, og disse
nye væsener, der kunne gå og tale, begyndte så at opfinde computere.
Og efter alt det, bliver de igen til ingenting.

Og det er helt videnskabeligt. Der var en flink mand i hvid kittel, og
han har selv fortalt mig det, så det må være rigtigt. Og jeg har også
set det på TV, så det passer altså.
Ejvind Kruse
2020-08-01 05:43:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jahnu
Post by EXLEX
Er det derfor du copy/paste'r størstedelen af dine indlæg fra
eksisterende tekster og citater fra andre?
Til forskel fra dig, der kun er her for at hvine og hyle, så har jeg
noget vigtigt på hjertet.
Ateistens Trosbekendelse
Først var der ingenting, og så skete der noget med ingenting, helt
uden grund, og så eksploderede ingenting og skabte på magisk vis
alting. Så var der noget af alting, der helt magisk arrangerede sig
selv således, at det blev til selv-replikerende små stykker, og disse
små selv-replikerende stykker blev så til en amøbe. Og så skete det,
ganske gradvist, at amøben fik ben at gå på og lærte at tale,
Det med amøben der lærer at tale, passer da ellers glimrende på dig?
--
Ejvind Kruse
EXLEX
2020-08-01 06:48:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ejvind Kruse
Post by Jahnu
Post by EXLEX
Er det derfor du copy/paste'r størstedelen af dine indlæg fra
eksisterende tekster og citater fra andre?
Til forskel fra dig, der kun er her for at hvine og hyle, så har jeg
noget vigtigt på hjertet.
Ateistens Trosbekendelse
Først var der ingenting, og så skete der noget med ingenting, helt
uden grund, og så eksploderede ingenting og skabte på magisk vis
alting. Så var der noget af alting, der helt magisk arrangerede sig
selv således, at det blev til selv-replikerende små stykker, og disse
små selv-replikerende stykker blev så til en amøbe. Og så skete det,
ganske gradvist, at amøben fik ben at gå på og lærte at tale,
Det med amøben der lærer at tale, passer da ellers glimrende på dig?
Jeg fik ellers en stærk association til noget med papegøjer som gentager
enkelte tillærte ord i en uendelighed...
...men når han nu selv siger det, så....




--
EXLEX
Jahnu
2020-08-02 22:58:05 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 07:43:21 +0200, "Ejvind Kruse"
Post by Ejvind Kruse
Det med amøben der lærer at tale, passer da ellers glimrende på dig?
Ov, tror du?


"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival
of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet"
-Albert Einstein
EXLEX
2020-08-03 22:51:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jahnu
On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 07:43:21 +0200, "Ejvind Kruse"
Post by Ejvind Kruse
Det med amøben der lærer at tale, passer da ellers glimrende på dig?
Ov, tror du?
Det er ellers meget rammende, når du påstår at have været igennem 8.4
millioner arter i dine reinkarnationer - du må jo ha' været dér.




--
EXLEX
Jahnu
2020-08-05 05:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by EXLEX
Det er ellers meget rammende, når du påstår at have været igennem 8.4
millioner arter i dine reinkarnationer - du må jo ha' været dér.
Ov, tror du?

Alle har deres egen personlige opfattelse af tilværelsen, hvadenten
den er teistisk, socialdemokratisk, videnskabelig eller ateistisk, Det
spiller ingen rolle, hvad man kalder sin livstil og sine værdinormer,
det er ens religion, der er tale om. Således defineres religion i
Vedaerne - dharma - livsstil, essens, normer, det vi idenficerer os
selv med - det er vores religion. Velkommen til Scientisme, folkets ny
religion.

Så kommer der nogen og siger - nej, nej, sådan er det ikke. Alting er
tilfældigt. Normer er intet andet end det, vi gør dem til. Vi
bestemmer selv vores værdier. Vi behøver ingen Gud eller religion til
at trække værdier ned over hovedet på os. Vi kan godt selv finde ud af
det.

Men hvad er det, der tyder på, vi godt kan finde ud af det? Går det
virkeligt godt i verden lige nu?

Og hvad er det for fænomener i naturen, der tyder på, at en enkel
celle skulle være opstået af sig selv (uden intelligent styring) over
meget lang tid? Hvilke fakta er det indenfor naturvidenskaben, der
peger på, at alle de forskellige levende væsener skulle være opstået
fra en enkel amøbe, af sig selv, over meget lang tid?... Ikke det
mindste. De biologiske og arkæologiske realiteter viser netop, at alle
de forskellige livsarter altid har levet side om side. Der er intet
bevis for, at de forskellige arter skulle være opstået fra en amøbe,
der så voksede ben ud på og lærte at tale. Det er bare noget fup, som
folk bliver fodret med gennem almen uddannelse og en endeløs strøm af
natur programmer, og de æder det råt.

Hvis man afkræver naturvidenskabsmanden bevis på hans teori om, at
alting er opstået af sig selv helt tilfældigt, taler han bare uden om
og leverer et par komplicerede matematiske ligninger for at obfuskere
masserne. Videnskabsmændene er den moderne forbruger-kulturs
ypperstepræster. De må adlydes uden at stille spørgsmål. De kræver
viljeløs overgivelse til at paradigme, der absolut ingen mening, logik
eller sund fornuft indeholder.

Heldigvis ved vi bedre. Det er det, der er så vildt ved Hare Krishna -
vi ved hvem Gud er :)

Krishna siger:

De levende væsener i den materielle verden er Mine evige
fragmentariske dele. Som følge af deres betingede liv, kæmper de en
hård kamp med de seks sanser, sindet indbefattet. (Bg. 15.7)

Det levende væsen i den materielle verden bærer sine forskellige
livsopfattelser med sig fra krop til krop, ligesom vinden bærer en
duft. Således påtager han sig den ene krop efter den anden. (Bg. 15.8)

Det levende væsen, der således får tildelt en ny grov krop, erhverver
sig en særlig slags ører, øjne, tunge, næse og følesans, hvilke
grupperer sig omkring sindet. På den måde nyder han en særlig samling
sanseobjekter. . (Bg. 15.9)

Tåber fatter ikke, hvordan et levende væsen forlader sin krop, og de
fatter heller ikke, hvilken slags krop han nyder under fortryllelse
fra naturens kvaliteter. Men med kundskabens øjne kan man se alt
dette. (Bg. 15.10)

En stræbende transcendentalist, der er selvrealiseret, kan se det hele
klart. Men de, hvis sind ikke er udviklede, som ikke er forankrede i
selvrealisation, fatter ikke, hvad der foregår, end ikke selvom de
forsøger. (Bg. 15. 11)
EXLEX
2020-08-05 14:06:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jahnu
Post by EXLEX
Det er ellers meget rammende, når du påstår at have været igennem 8.4
millioner arter i dine reinkarnationer - du må jo ha' været dér.
Ov, tror du?
Tjaaa...
Med mindre du tilstår at dén historie var løgn.




--
EXLEX

Loading...