Re: The Flat Earth? - Conclusion

Matthew Scott (
3 Jul 1995 18:49:56 GMT (Madhudvisah dasa Swami) writes:

> (Sandra Russell) wrote:

>>In <3t1a3t$>
>> (Matthew Scott) writes:

>>>God makes everything easy for us, just possible.

excuse me, but this sentance doesn't look quite like anything I would
have said. It must be out of context or distorted.
God doesn't make everything for us just possible (and may I put a border on
"everything" to reduce it to everything which God considers to be necessary.)
and may I include that possible does not mean probable or necessarily successful.

>No. Not always. We are sons of God. God is great and we are small. So we
>have the same qualities as God but He is unlimited and we are very small.
>So he is completely independent therefore we are also independent, but not
>completely... God is supremely independent and we have a little
>independence. So we can use our independence to do whatever we want to. We
>can serve God or we can serve our selves... But if we serve ourselves we
>have to suffer and enjoy the results of our activities... Even the Bible
>says, "What you sow so shall you reap." So if we are sinful we sow sinful
>seeds in our hearts and in the future we "reap" suffering as the result.
>So we cause our own suffering...

very basic christian philosophy.

>Sometimes God makes it hard for His devotees as well. Just look at Lord
>Jesus Christ. His life wasn't exactly a bed of roses. There are so many
>examples of saintly people suffering in their attempts to tell people
>about God... Because generally people don't like it, they want to be God
>themselves, so when you tell them there is someone more powerful than
>them, someone to whom they should surrender and serve, the get angry...
>But what can be done about that?

Jesus also enjoys a place at Gods right hand for his amiable strength.
We can only attempt to spread the message nonoffensively, which I'm sure
is what God intended anyway.

>If a devotee is still attached to material things God may take them all
>away from him so he instead becomes a fully surrendered soul... This may
>be a little painful. The father sometimes punishes his children, but that
>punishment is a sign of His love for them...

also very basic christian philosophy.

>>>First of all, it's
>>>not really a particularly important question (in the large scheme of things) what
>>>the distance to the stars in question are.

>Yes. It's not very important at all.

>>>Second, our capability to measure this distance is adequate.

>NO! We can't measure it at all. The scientists have a theory that the
>distance is related to the red-shift and they can measure the red-shift
>then they pop the red-shift into their "distance to the stars" formulae
>and come up with a number. But it may not be correct. They don't even
>claim it is correct. The assumption [red-shift and distance are related]
>may be wrong and/or the formulae may be wrong...

triangulation is also used, and the answer is good enough for our needs.

>>>Therefore, it is by no means time to expect an emergency
>>>message from God about the distance to a star.

>Yes. I don't think He'd bother coming down here to tell us that!

>>>Keep in mind that God is a parent with a lot of responsibilities.

>Actually He is not "burdened" by responsibilities. He has all knowledge,
>all beauty, all fame, all strength and all renunciation. He is happy in
>the Kingdom of God [the spiritual world]. He is with His devotees there.
>Most people are in the spiritual world. This material world is only a
>small part of the creation of God (about 1/4). The other 3/4 is the
>spiritual world... This place is for the rebellious souls [us] who want to
>be happy separately from God [Krishna]... We try to become the master here
>in the material world, and to a certain extent we can, but everything ends
>in frustration. So after being frustrated for many, many births we can see
>this material world is not so good after all, and we want to go back home,
>back to Godhead.

This sounds a lot like jehovas witness philosophy (except for the many
many births). I assume there are also other groups who believe it. At any rate,
I hardly believe a word of it. It is all part of a picture that just has too many
logical holes. A perfectly omnipotent God would never lose control of our desires,
and you can't give me one reason why such a God would need to give us any sort of
free will. Why should he do such a thing that introduces so much disharmony. God
gives us free will because the beings that can become the greatest are the ones
that have some sort of r.a.m. that means changeable memory. That's because
prefabricated programs are always limited in their content, and something always
comes up that they're not prepared for. Free will = r.a.m. and its there because
it's the only thing that can deal with a complex, ever changing reality. Not because
God wanted to make some contribution to the principle of beauty. This naturally
builds the possibility that some form of non-godliness finds its way into this
r.a.m. , which of course would not be any problem for a completely omnipotent
God. If God is so omnipotent, why do we need causality? These are just a few of
my complaints against this old dogma. There are thousands more where that came from.

>>ROFL! And what was our Parent doing during Auschwitz? Getting drunk at
>>the corner saloon while nobody baby-tended? Or do you suppose that the
>>millions of Jews, Gypsies, etc. and others getting tortured, starved,
>>murdered, etc, in unspeakable ways, forgot to add in their prayers that
>>their problems were an "emergency"?

>This is nonsense... We sin so we suffer. It's karma. Is the law of nature.
>It's the law of God. This world is a place for suffering. It's like a
>prison... And the devotees of God "suffer" too at the hands of the
>"atheists". But they don't suffer actually, because they know they are not
>these material bodies. They are the spirit soul and their business is to
>serve Krishna. So they are not disturbed by bodily suffering. Rather they
>expect it... If we have a material body THE BODY will suffer... EveryBODY
>gets old, everyBODY gets sick and everyBODY dies... But I do not die, I do
>not get sick, and I don't get old... IT IS ONLY THE BODY... So if we
>understand we are not these material bodies, but the soul within there is
>no suffering...

sounds good.

>The serious determination to take to spiritual life can only come at the
>point of frustration of our material desires and the world we are living
>in is designed to simultaneously give us an opportunity to fulfil our
>material desires, but to frustrate them at the same time. So we find, in
>the Western world, everyone is becoming frustrated. It is our
>responsibility in the Krishna consciousness movement to give those
>frustrated people the knowledge about what to do after they become
>frustrated with material life.

Learning to deal with a body is certainly a great challenge. I always
thought we were to learn to harmonise our spirits with our bodies, not to want to
throw them away. What you seem to be saying is that being dead is better than
being alive. I'm not convinced. If it were really true, why don't you go killing
people. It would certainly help them experience frustration and maybe give up hope
for living.

>The defect of our Western culture is although people become frustrated
>with material life, they have no alternative to it. Our society doesn't
>provide a spiritual alternative. So people become frustrated and commit
>suicide --

I'll agree with that to a degree, but I know plenty of westernerswho
have found plenty of spirituality and satisfaction in their lives.
...and had physical success... (not that the physical success was their
ultimate goal..rather a means to an end)

> because there is nothing left. If I come to the point where I
>am totally frustrated with material life there is no alternative in the
>Western world. We have a very big job, the job is to provide that
>alternative, to provide the spiritual alternative so when people are
>frustrated with material life they can turn to Krishna. This is the
>business of the Krishna consciousness movement. I humbly beg that you
>please take this Krishna consciousness movement seriously and help in
>spreading the knowledge of Krishna to give everybody in the Western world
>a chance to understand the real purpose of life. Thank you very much. Hare

I'll keep an ear open about your krischna movement, but there are plenty
of other examples of fulfilling spirituality.

> dehino 'smin yatha dehe
> kaumaram yauvanam jara
> tatha dehantara-praptir
> dhiras tatra na muhyati
>"As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood
>to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death.
>A sober person ls not bewildered by such a change." (Bhagavad-gita 4.13)

I don't believe this. Can you tell me why I should? other than some
testimonial... I've seen plenty of testimonials of people who talk to their
dead grandma. The bible doesn't support this hypothesis very well either.