Vikinor Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 Uh. How should I put this. I read this thing about Taoism and it said "This being did not wish to be Lord" then it continues saying stuff and then says this "I will call this being Tao." That seems to be sorta hippie-ish. "OK i see this grass I can smoke Ima gonna call it weed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrMcCoy Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 Originally posted by VikingLarz Uh. How should I put this. I read this thing about Taoism and it said "This being did not wish to be Lord" then it continues saying stuff and then says this "I will call this being Tao." That seems to be sorta hippie-ish. "OK i see this grass I can smoke Ima gonna call it weed." O_o ...I really can't see how you get from calling something unknown and abstract Tao to weed... ... "Entering the Tao" by Hua-Ching Ni Tao is the potency of the universe. It includes all Gods, all deities, all divine beings, all spirits, and all souls. This means that all things have Tao as their deep root. Anyone who embraces Tao also embraces the potency of the Universe. To embrace Tao is to become Tao, and nothing can be beyond you, nothing can occupy you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kjølen Posted April 23, 2005 Author Share Posted April 23, 2005 You know, Christianity is sorta like that. God is the God of the Universe and everything in it. He is a part of everything and everyone. Like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vikinor Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 Yea so we when embrace God we become God. I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kjølen Posted April 23, 2005 Author Share Posted April 23, 2005 Well, Christianity says were were created in God's image. And God is a part of everything, so really, God is a part of us, and we are a part of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrMcCoy Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 "Entering the Tao" by Hua-Ching Ni A person of Tao is a person of wholeness. He or she embraces the wholeness of Tao, not an image of God, not one single doctrine of any spiritual path, not life, not death, not anything that occupies the mind. By harmonizing with the Tao you will be aligned with the universal potency. [...] You and I are supported by the same universal spiritual energy; the whole thing is God. There is no separate "God" in the realm of integral truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 I'm probably walking on dangerouse territory here, but I just want to go back to this contraception thing. I think that the Catholic view was logical for it's time and still is now if you look at it in the right way. The Catholic church doesn't allow divorce, or sex before marraige. Therefore, it's logical to state that a person following the Catholic faith would only be with one person, sexually in their entire lives. The whole reason for the HIV and STD epidemic is simply because people have multiple partners. I'm not saying it would go away completely if we all started just sleeping with one person our entire lives, but it would lessen the threat over time. In this way, we can see why the use of contraception is not against the Catholic faith, it just encourages people to have sex with more than one person, which is against the Catholic faith. I'm a hindu, and I understand this, only because of a deep interest in the Buddist faith which pretty much explains all of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vikinor Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 Are you Indian? The Catholic church doesn't really allow being divorced, but you can get divorced in the faith. You just need a good reason such as your husband/wife becomes a drugatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kjølen Posted April 24, 2005 Author Share Posted April 24, 2005 Errm, remember those vows "For better or for worse?" Well, being a drug addict counts as for worse. You gotta get your spouse through these things. A REAL reason would be like, if your spouse was trying to murder you and your children or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toenail1 Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 Originally posted by VikingLarz I just think it is rather hippie-ish. Is their something wrong with hippies? Please explain this to the man with a John Lennon avatar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vikinor Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 Theres nothing wrong with hippies. I was just comparing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emin3m 2 Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 Originally posted by Joshi I think that the Catholic view was logical for it's time and still is now if you look at it in the right way. The Catholic church doesn't allow divorce, or sex before marraige. Therefore, it's logical to state that a person following the Catholic faith would only be with one person, sexually in their entire lives. The whole reason for the HIV and STD epidemic is simply because people have multiple partners. I know STDs are a problem, but abstinence until marriage is an extreme solution. I don't want to live like an asexual most of my youth and I actually want to have more than one partner in my lifetime, before becoming commited to one person. (I don't want to get married young.) Overall, the chance of getting an STD is very low. We have condoms which are very effective against many STDs. (Unmarried) couples who remain faithful and check themselves for STDs are at even lower risk. I don't think the Catholic view on sex is reasonable because I don't follow the Bible. If I disregard it, there is little nothing to convince me otherwise. I believe the Church's view on sex was partially reasonable at best, a long time ago when there was no reliable birth control, but now times have changed. Originally posted by Kjølen Can we unban Meksilon and ask for his opinion again? HAHA! I think he's still registered and can come back. That would be fun: [MEKMODE] .... sex is only for marriage, between one man and one woman ....... NATTY, U R INSANE 4 NOT ACCEPTING MY VIEWS!!1! ...... if you use contraceptives, U R KILLING AN INNOCENT BABY .... OMG, I live in a country where prostitution is LEGAL. WHATEVER shall I do??? ...... I think homosexuality is wrong. Even though private, mutually consenting, adult sexual activity shouldn't concern me, I WILL STOP IT! ............. NATTY, U R RUDE N U WILL GO 2 HELL!!1one ................................ [/MEKMODE] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toenail1 Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 Originally posted by Emin3m 2 Overall, the chance of getting an STD is very low. I forgot what the percentage was, but it was somewhere around 1/2 of everybody gets an STD in their lifetime. Or, somewhere close to that. All I remember is that it was shockingly high. That's pretty damn good chances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kjølen Posted April 26, 2005 Author Share Posted April 26, 2005 Originally posted by Emin3m 2 I believe the Church's view on sex was partially reasonable at best, a long time ago when there was no reliable birth control, but now times have changed. [1]sex is only for marriage, between one man and one woman [2]if you use contraceptives, U R KILLING AN INNOCENT BABY Well, Max Payne... should I still call you that? The Church's views weren't originally to prevent STDs, they were to maintain the gift of giving your virginity only to the one whom you are destined to live with for the rest of your life. As for the things I numbered: 1. Yes, that is what the Church teaches. 2. In some cases, like pills, it makes the woman's uterus unsuitable for babies, so if the pill fails to STOP conception, it acts as an early abortion and doesn't let the zygote attach to to uterus wall. Also, the "morning-after pill", the pill you take AFTER the night you had sex, is basically another abortion to kill the baby, I think, not too sure on my "morning-after pill" knowledge. From a Pro-Life point of view, some contraceptives ARE killing babies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 Originally posted by VikingLarz Are you Indian? Yes Originally Posted by Emin3m 2 I know STDs are a problem, but abstinence until marriage is an extreme solution. I don't want to live like an asexual most of my youth and I actually want to have more than one partner in my lifetime, before becoming commited to one person. (I don't want to get married young.) Overall, the chance of getting an STD is very low. We have condoms which are very effective against many STDs. (Unmarried) couples who remain faithful and check themselves for STDs are at even lower risk. The whole point of my post was to show how logical it was in the Catholic faith. Yes, the whole "One partner for life" thing won't come about anytime soon in todays society, but back in the days when the catholic faith was established, that was fine for the time. It's basically contraception without actual contraception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vikinor Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 My mothers side of the family is Indian. Except none of them are Hindu, they are all Catholic. Is that strange? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kjølen Posted April 27, 2005 Author Share Posted April 27, 2005 Not really Larz. However, it depends on where you live, too. America? Well back in the day, immigrants were coming in from all over. They tried living like "Americans" and probably some familys converted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vikinor Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 My grandmother(moms side) was born in India so only my aunts and uncles and my mom where born over here. But I thought India was in a way like Italy. Italy= a lot of Catholics I think 95% of the country is Catholic. India=a lot of Hindus. My family was Catholic while they lived in India too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kjølen Posted April 27, 2005 Author Share Posted April 27, 2005 Then your family is one of the rare few people that were Catholic while living in India. Congratulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vikinor Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Is that a good thing? What about this. My father and his side of the family(the Swedes) don't seem to beleive in God, but yet he was baptized. Can you answer that question? Why would he be bapized by people who don't (seem to) go to church? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kjølen Posted April 27, 2005 Author Share Posted April 27, 2005 That is entirely a matter that you have to discuss with your family. I may be sexily intelligent, but I cannot tell you about your personal life. Perhaps they're family was of Christian denomination, but they just stopped believing after some generations? Now, it could just be habitual. I would doubt it, but you'd have to ask them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Originally posted by VikingLarz India=a lot of Hindus. Not entirely true, India comprises of many different faiths which all stem from similar beliefs, (like Bhuddism for example) Hinduism is just one of them. Plus, these days many religions fester there, as they do in England or America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.