Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I need copies of "Hinduism for Dummies" and "Physics for Dummies." But from what little I've read and understand, Hinduism is a religion that intersects with science. I find that delightful.
Many religions intersect with science. And when they conflict, the religious either change their beliefs or compartmentalize them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodestar
I think early practitioners intuited concepts that took science students millennia to theorize.
It would be interesting to see how the early discoveries were made, but unfortunately much has been lost, from Emperor Qin destroying books to Christians ignoring scientific discoveries of the ancient Greeks.
Was the explorer a vegetarian? Otherwise how did he thing his meat was obtained without pain and suffering?
Suffering is a human condition, until we learn how to find relief from it.
I think you've misunderstood the point. It wasn't that an animal had been killed. It was that the guide butchered it alive until it died. It appeared to the explorer to be an unnecessary amount of cruelty. And his nonchalant attitude about its pain being short-lived in a world which continues forever was upsetting to the man.
I wonder if that kind of response might not lie behind much unnecessary cruelty. Perhaps a different religion's response would be acknowledging that pain and death will be companions of the living but his job it to help alleviate the pain while he lives?
I think you've misunderstood the point. It wasn't that an animal had been killed. It was that the guide butchered it alive until it died. It appeared to the explorer to be an unnecessary amount of cruelty. And his nonchalant attitude about its pain being short-lived in a world which continues forever was upsetting to the man.
I wonder if that kind of response might not lie behind much unnecessary cruelty. Perhaps a different religion's response would be acknowledging that pain and death will be companions of the living but his job it to help alleviate the pain while he lives?
Yes, that sounds reasonable.
If one is going to eat meat, a killing has to happen. Be it shooting a deer between its eyes, hooking a fish and cutting into it, slitting the throat of a cow until the blood drains out, all undeniably ghastly things. So is a hawk tearing into the flesh of a squirrel. When vegetables are harvested, is there trauma? Of course. When the earth is ploughed to plant grains, are there lives killed? Death and suffering and pain are all part of life. I am not sure where one can draw the line. We can be mindful of what we eat, how we eat, and what was lost because we eat. More than that I can't see how judging one way to kill over the other does anything good.
We kill people because they killed people. Relatives can come and watch the execution. And this is considered justice. Is it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
