Greatest I am wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:20 pm
Commandments are for human to human interaction...
Answer my initial questions and I will reciprocate as is the best way to communicate and debate.
It's a good question (and I presume the other questions relate to the first), but I'm not looking to debate your philosophy, just wondering what your philosophy is here (on a vegan forum after all). "Did god really condemn mankind?" Why are you asking me... merely for the sake of debate?
If not, I'd like to know if the commandments which are for human to human interaction say that the act of a human being killing a non-human being cannot cause the death of another human (including the human being who killed the non-human being, especially as it relates to killing for sport or with extreme prejudice and in disregard of potential consequences on a grand scale).
Thanks, and by the way, I'm considering this from a perspective of Jain philosophy. Not to debate that either (or in particular), just to say that perhaps I'd have a broader perspective on interpreting your question than the context you've put it in. But I'm not sure if it's open to interpretation, as far as how the commandments are worded (or not worded... yeah maybe that could have been too much to write in stone). It isn't that I've never read such information, but haven't memorized it verbatim, because maybe it left me with more questions than answers. So that's all I have for you. Except to say that there may be more to consider than the wording of the commandments in order to answer philosophical questions based on them.
Personally, though, as a fundamental question of having just one word to consider (or parrot amongst myself, as a mantra), out of all of the words in the world, that would be the meaning of "balance" (not the meaning of "god"). Hypothetically, in other words, if I could give you (humankind) one commandment, it would be to find out what balance really means.
Well, that's essentially my philosophy on this philosophical vegan forum, I'm not really here to debate religion.
Although, the context of my discussion in this topic has to do with the balance between existence and spirituality. This could be what all religions or other human pursuits have in common, whether it's on anyone's mind at the time (not every question is fundamental, yet perhaps the humanity of it all boils down to a fundamental answer, which methinks would be in order to determine what balance really means in any context).
Yes, I can talk about it in any context, because I don't necessarily know what I'm talking about (except, of course, the words I'm using or trying to interpret).
Did god really condemn mankind... does this not sound like an unbalanced question? Just saying, I'm not really sure what the premise of it was, otherwise, because your other questions and discussion of those didn't seem to balance out that concept, philosophically (at least in my mind). That was the premise of my questions. Nevertheless, I guess that since you capitalized the word WORD, then maybe you'd like to know if the word "god" is condenmnable in itself. O', I don't think so, after all, it's one step away from to being "good". Now doesn't that sound balanced... good god! "Did good really condemn mankind?" What a silly question.
Not because it sounds balanced, since that could be like asking if good really means bad (or if good condemned man to be kind, if you like). Semantically, anything's possible, except perhaps a balanced discussion in so many words (I'd say it depends on what you'd like to think, when words can have so many meanings). Well, if whatever I just tried to say didn't make any sense, I'd say words really confused mankind (or vice versa).
Anyway, I haven't harped on mankind enough. So whether mankind has been condemned is obviously yet to be determined, but maybe nobody could answer that question after it happened (hypothetically, of course). I think mankind generally agrees that they could condemn themselves at least (by some kind of man made disaster, of which there are many scenarios for that, not only religious). I haven't heard the one about mankind balancing themselves into oblivion though (unless it really results in an imbalance). So that's what I was getting at, not that mankind couldn't possibly balance religious concepts (the balance of which isn't typically thought to cause condemnation, it's the imbalance of extremism based on religious misinterpretations causing another one of those scenarios). People will fight over anything, at times, like the balance of power (all the time). Perhaps the concept of god is another attempt at mankind balancing man kind. Sounds good, but does thinking about a 'balance of power' throw the word balance out of balance, if all you think about is power to do with balance, like how thinking about a god having only to do with condemnation would? I suppose it could (but it's just a thought imbalance).
Well, harping on balance isn't very balanced either, although I think it's a good start (compared to harping on the power of condemnation). I'm not really concerned about condemnation or power though, it may be disturbing in one way or another (or just questionable because it's simply another kind of imbalance), but then again so is too much of a good thing (except for balance, as far as I can tell). Anyway, from a Jain perspective, there is no balance of power, nor good vs evil, only non-violence to balance in the midst of one's spiritual existence. I don't know if that would balance out for me, in effect (I don't even know any Jains, only of them philosophically), but I prefer the thought of balance working that way (like a balance of peace—that's what I'd give to humanity if it were up to me—who says that anyway). Well, usually I'm just trying to balance out some silly situation, regardless of whether I'm thinking about it in terms of balance. So it ends up being a silly question most of the time, like what I intended to write in the first place, nothing too silly (it's just a wonder if everyone's on the same page there with balance as virtue, regardless of the topic, even if it's in the back of their minds). I think it could be a profound question, from infinite perspectives (whether or not I'd think of everything, beyond what I could read of everyone else's thoughts, or actually it could become one thought I suppose, if it's merely a personal question). That's about the only question I'm pondering in this discussion, because I wouldn't presume to know who else I'm talking to (and I forgive you for reading this, if it amounts to nonsense, because I wasn't trying to be the moral of the story, just make sense of it). I'm not going to remember most of these words, you know.
What else should I harp on? Honestly, I have a collection of harp music, yet I was not compelled to respond to your questions as they were worded to begin with. Well, I tend to reword my own questions, so that's not saying much. I was just wondering if there were holes in holy topics on purpose (and humoring other thoughts on the matter, either way). Not that what I wrote could be so humorous, when it's too long for a punchline. I'm not really joking about philosophy or theology (except I didn't study that in particular). Maybe it's off topic for me to discuss this one, if it goes beyond the scope of your questions. Perhaps the questions are beyond the scope of my discussion too. But it's really your discussion, and I found it interesting on some level (along with the other responses — funny though, I didn't really read them carefully at first, and I ended up talking about the same words, which were emphasized, in there somewhere). I think spirituality is supposed to be more interesting than semantics though, so I'll have to try that one word discussion next time... maybe its universal like that (get it... uni versal)? One verse is fine too, whatever balance may be. You know, it's a convention, the word of god, the universe, many things, one word (from all words, for balance, I guess). It's a convention, like condemnation, which can be balanced too (you just don't fall for it—holiness, ha).
Kidding aside, I generally like the religious conventions, and don't think of them in terms of condemnation, it's more like an aspiration to me. I mean I hope it works out for any of those who aspire that way. Beyond that I'd just like everything to balance out somehow (yet most everything's beyond me, yes well maybe that simplifies the matter)... you know, there's no point in describing that at length, like one commandment. I just wonder if people could ever follow one, universally... it's an aspiration at least (or a whole other religion, supposedly the oldest one—well, I guess they had a point in describing that at length then). It could be a long story, all things considered, and for the sake of having as little to do with them as possible. Oh well, it still sounds like I'm kidding...