On conspiracy theories, split off from the Global Warming topic Options

[drejc]

in trying to do so, we have to wade through the informational garbage heap available on the web

Well-said, Kali. At first I read "information garbage heap that IS the www." It is amazing how one can literally superimpose on a text what's on one's own mind and think it was actually written there. Perhaps it is also a side effect of the garbage web flood – one can't give full attention to so much junk all of the time (which is not in any hidden way supposed to be interpreted as me saying you wrote so much junk, ok?). In one sense the web is like the proverbial paradise where trash and truth amicably live side by side in complete harmony. ha ha comes to mind the trash handed out by the Jehova's Witnesses showing tigers and lambs (and blacks and whites) schmoozing in the garden of Eden.

One can even find on WEB that Obama is Maitreya etc. What they say in Scandinavia about those signs in the sky that recently appeared in Norway?

I did not follow the topic in the local press – in print or online. I have no information other than what was shown here at GR. Something tells me the event was "ordinary."

What is GR?
I found on web two opposite views on this phenomena, as is always the case in such matters: one is that it is mysterious sign indicating Maitreya's descent, and the other is to find scientifical explanation. You know what I heard: that every single thought can be factually registered by some physical instrumet, so that in future whole banks of such data will be available. And you would just measure the brain waves of somebody, put tha data in laptop, and you would get what he thinks.
Actually this is not surprising as all spheres of life are more and more only in numbers, statistics, billions of data. Totally ahrimanic.

[Homer]

What is GR?

Gaudiya Repercussions.

[ePiTau]

in trying to do so, we have to wade through the informational garbage heap available on the web

Well-said, Kali. At first I read "information garbage heap that IS the www." It is amazing how one can literally superimpose on a text what's on one's own mind and think it was actually written there. Perhaps it is also a side effect of the garbage web flood – one can't give full attention to so much junk all of the time (which is not in any hidden way supposed to be interpreted as me saying you wrote so much junk, ok?). In one sense the web is like the proverbial paradise where trash and truth amicably live side by side in complete harmony. ha ha comes to mind the trash handed out by the Jehova's Witnesses showing tigers and lambs (and blacks and whites) schmoozing in the garden of Eden.

One can even find on WEB that Obama is Maitreya etc. What they say in Scandinavia about those signs in the sky that recently appeared in Norway?

I did not follow the topic in the local press – in print or online. I have no information other than what was shown here at GR. Something tells me the event was "ordinary."

What is GR?
I found on web two opposite views on this phenomena, as is always the case in such matters: one is that it is mysterious sign indicating Maitreya's descent, and the other is to find scientifical explanation. You know what I heard: that every single thought can be factually registered by some physical instrumet, so that in future whole banks of such data will be available. And you would just measure the brain waves of somebody, put tha data in laptop, and you would get what he thinks.
Actually this is not surprising as all spheres of life are more and more only in numbers, statistics, billions of data. Totally ahrimanic.

A mysterious sign indicating Maitreya's descent?
I did not know there were still people hoping for yet another descent. I thought Maitreya had been relegated to the ranks of fairy book figures.

The Internet is already like a gigantic record of everybody's thoughts. Mainly noise with very little signal. If the whole thing could be recorded and analyzed in real time, what would the single most prominent emerging pattern be? Perhaps "Help!" or more likely "Food!" or really just atmospheric crackle? Or all souls jiving in unison "Maitreya!" Or "Ooops."

[Gerard]

You see it time and again; the world of maya is not so good.


"Rise above the three modes of material nature!"

[Homer]

Here are some more conspiracy assertions:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=118262

"World Health Organization scientists are suspected of accepting secret bribes from vaccine manufacturers to influence the U.N. organization's H1N1 pandemic declaration, according to Danish and Swedish newspapers...

According to estimates from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, between 2,500 and 6,100 Americans died from swine flu between April and Oct. 17 this year.

However, the CDC also reports that during a typical U.S. winter, normal seasonal flu strains result in an average of 200,000 hospitalizations and 36,000 American deaths – roughly 10 times the current swine-flu death rate.

Leading epiemiologists are now predicting the pandemic may rank as the mildest on record..."




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh3jlPHZyS0


"Billions in the trash: Swine flu drug scandal in Ukraine..."

[kalki]

I don't really know how to paste small setions of a reply in small quote boxes in order to debate effectively. So if someone replying to me could, then please inform me how to do it. In the Gaudiya Discussions forum, there was an easy box to click on the make it happen. So anyway, I am resorting to cut and paste with my reply:

DHyana said:
"Commenting just on your objection to the ideas you present being called a "conspiracy theory." I don't find the use of word "theory" belittling. Theory needs to build on research and facts. An online dictionary says that theory is a "more or less verified or established explanation". Less verified speculations would be called hypotheses. Your "union of giants and monkeys" example would be a hypothesis, at best."

Well I am not sure you are in the position to answer that because I believe I put the term in quotes in order to emphasize the meaning of the label being thrown at me or someone like me who entertains any opposition views to established truths established by an establishment which it is illegal to question. I think I was questioning Kalisurfer's intention in saying that to me and he hasn't made a comment. Cutting up the phrase into two words minus the intention that was used to say it I think is know way of finding out what was meant. Yes, grammatically speaking, it does not show to be belittling and the definition implies the opposite that a theory is based on facts and cannot be used as a word to imply that someone is off their rocker. If we are all honest with each other, it is well known that as soon someone presents some research to show that an established truth is wrong, people who support the establishment call those people conspiracy theorists in a derogatory and belittling manner. I am suggesting that because what i see in Kalisurfers points to me is that my posting is almost irrelavant because it comes from a christian site. I don't agree at all that all the information or opinions are unreliable. That sounds more like a conspiracy theory to me by throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And the onlslaught of kalisurfers disgust and hatred for the "idea" that their is a real agenda taking place is really an unnecessarily demoting denial of a network of facts that do seem to fit together. I suppose I would appreciate more a recognition of the things that seem true and a reasonable explanation with some research that would show why some of things presented don't seem likely. Rather than going at length to bash the kitten and kaboodle. Mind you, I want to repeat again, a point which you don't seem to be recognizing in favor of arguing with some emotional sway, that I don't really identify with the christian agenda presented or predictions about the antichrist revelation or whatever. I just made a simple link to some stuff and i didn't realize that I was proclaiming in your eyes that every thing there is good as gold.

In other words the fact that you (kalisurfer) are offended by fundamentalist christian stance against homosexuals I think is more your problem than theirs. They are emotionally charged as are you. The better thing to do would be to have dialogue about the difference of views. I am not remotely offended by their views because I don't want to be attached to someone's insults especially if they come from ignorance. The christian world is evolving out of that stance that you mention. The person who gave me this movie also is a christian, fundamentalist but doesn't agree with grace not being offereing to homosexuals. He thinks that god's grace should go to all people and non homosexuals are creating loads of sins that gay folk are not. Aside from that, there are sites that point out that it is a misinterpretation to read from the bible that there is anything condemable about being gay. So if the misunderstanding comes from a misreading, it is better to handle it intellectually and non emotionally. After all, Iwould say that it is all karma how people react and therefore it is just when we receive such treatment due to past actions. So we can only deal with it sensibly rather than nonsensibly when it appears. This is my view anyway, and I know there might be people on this site who don't believe in karma. So then it is like an apple talking to an orange and it is no use to continue that type of discussion.

[kalki]

as I have already indicated, I don't know how to make quote boxes, so please teach me.

Kalisurfer said:
Kalki, it is going to take a lot of time to address all your comments, which at the moment I have little of, nor do I have big interest in filling my head with right wing fundamentalist Christian hatred toward anyone who does not believe or think like they do, but I will try to address in the coming days and weeks some of the issues concerning conspiracy and One World Order thinking. To your question concerning the Jerimiah Project and homosexuality, all one has to do is click links on the web site and you find mounds of mounds of disinformation or confusing facts filtered through biblical interpretation in other areas of the same site.

Okay the homosexual link I will check out, but I already replied two times that I see no reason to dismiss all things on the site because of it. that is their view and they are entitled to it I guess. if they say that homos are damned to hell, then that is just their philosophical view and you can leave it alone. it is not like they are beating gays up like they are the kkk or something. and if you wanted to claim that all fundamentalist christians are affiliated with or just as bad as the kkk, then I would consider that to be quite a "conspiracy theory" to quote your most favored term these days.

And just what do you mean by "it is going to take a lot of time to address all my comments and you have little of them, and you have no interest in filling your head with right wing fundamentalist christian hatred toward anyone who does not believe like they do?" Do you mean to say, that you are not interested in a discussion because you are wrong and I am right and it sucks to spend the time to dialogue with someone as stupid as me? If you mean that, then I find it belittling. And why would my posts fill your head with "christian fundamentalist, etc" anyway? I guess because you are unnecessarily gathering tension about it,which I am not.

Just because some truth and facts are mixed in with a fundamentalist Christian Far Right ideology does not make everything correct, which is why I would not trust this site or the minister behind one bit, but that is your choice to make.

and just who are you debating here? I never claimed that the site is right based on its christian affiliation. That just sounds like more of your painting the picture of our discussion to suit your liking so you have someone to bash and blame. I will admit that if most people sympathize with your side of the argument, then you will win the discussion boards vote for the war on "kalki's opinions" which are nothing like the opinions that I have truly expressed, unless you are right and I am just fuckin crazy. I don't really want to think that though. It is a little like george bush's war on weapons of mass destruction, none of which were ever found and the war on osama bin laden, who was never tried for the crimes that they claim he did. It was also leaked by the lady leader in the gulf, but I can't remember her name, that he is dead. and then she was assasinated maybe because she was going to frak everything up by making the war on a live threat, Osama, ridiculous since he isn't alive. It rallied the country's spirit to invade and take over. people over there frakking hate us and aren't pleased that we liberated them from terrorism. they say, saddam was bad, but america is worse. at least these are the people who I talk to online, but maybe they and me are just misinformed conspiracy theorists?

[Dhyana]

Well I am not sure you are in the position to answer that because I believe I put the term in quotes in order to emphasize the meaning of the label being thrown at me or someone like me who entertains any opposition views to established truths established by an establishment which it is illegal to question. I think I was questioning Kalisurfer's intention in saying that to me and he hasn't made a comment.

That still doesn't make it inappropriate for other readers to comment. I am not pretending to speak for Kalisurfer.

If we are all honest with each other, it is well known that as soon someone presents some research to show that an established truth is wrong, people who support the establishment call those people conspiracy theorists in a derogatory and belittling manner.

I responded to your use of the word "theory", not the term "conspiracy theory." Below is what you said (emphasis mine):

It is not fair to label investigations of a corporate world takeover which is led and facilitated by America is fair to label as a theory only, because there is a lot of facts being looked at.

It all reminds me of our unease in ISKCON at being called a cult or a sect. The words are descriptive and fit well, but for some people they have a negative tone because they are associated with groups that are secretive, weird and isolated from the real world. In ISKCON Communications I learned that when we ourselves define the debate, we should ideally use another term that carries no negative connotations to some. But I also learned that when we encounter others who call us cult or sect, it is self-defeating to focus on the word and protest against it. The best strategy is to be open and prove to others that we are not "secretive, weird and isolated."

[Dhyana]

I don't really know how to paste small sections of a reply in small quote boxes in order to debate effectively. So if someone replying to me could, then please inform me how to do it. In the Gaudiya Discussions forum, there was an easy box to click on the make it happen.

You can do it it two or three ways. In all examples below, quote commands (with the word quote) have top be wrapped in square brackets, [ ]. I cannot reproduce that, because the software would execute the commands. Instead, I have put these commands in bold face.


1) If you want to respond to only one passage in a text, do like this: Hit Reply. The dialog box opens containing the entire text you are replying to, with the opening quote tag (a rather long string beginning with, for example, quote name='dhyana... etc) and the closing quote tag (just /quote). Remove the parts of the text you are not interested in, but do not remove the quote tags. Put your response below the quote. Hit Add reply. (Or hit Preview post" first to see of the commands work.)


2) If you want to respond to several passages in the text: remove the opening and closing quote tags to keep things simple. Highlight the first passage, then click on the little "speech bubble" icon above the dialog box, it is the second one from the right and it is called "wrap in quote tags." This icon automatically puts the opening and closing quote commands around your passage.

Write your comment below the quote. Then repeat the procedure with the text passage you wish to quote.


3) You can also do it all manually, just typing quote and /quote before and after the passage.



Hope this helps.

[babu]

My favorite conspiracy theory is the supposed death of abscp which may have been an assassination. Too, while he was alive there was an attempt on his life by someone who put salt in his milk so the theory must be given some credence.

[drejc]

A mysterious sign indicating Maitreya's descent?
I did not know there were still people hoping for yet another descent. I thought Maitreya had been relegated to the ranks of fairy book figures.

The Internet is already like a gigantic record of everybody's thoughts. Mainly noise with very little signal. If the whole thing could be recorded and analyzed in real time, what would the single most prominent emerging pattern be? Perhaps "Help!" or more likely "Food!" or really just atmospheric crackle? Or all souls jiving in unison "Maitreya!" Or "Ooops."

Most likely "Food and Games", like it was in Rome before it's end.

[drejc]

You see it time and again; the world of maya is not so good.


"Rise above the three modes of material nature!"

Nature is getting better now. We will soon have wineyards in Scandinavia.!

[kalki]

Kalisurfer said:

I've heard of these accusations for years Kalki, maybe its true, maybe its not, all depends on which media or pundits you put your faith in.
and then I said that you said:

that they previous US presidents have not necessarily spoken about a NWO and that it is just the rendering of media pundits
but you are saying:

I never said or implied that sentence, where did you get that from?

but I showed you just know where I got it from and so I am saying still that:

It seems that the mentions of a new world order by presidents have been documented by historians and not media pundits.

and to tell you the truth my opinion is that mentions of a new world order are hardly documented by media pundits if you are referring to abc, nbc, so on and so forth. I thought that is what is meant by media pundits who are usually viewed as people who are controlled and paid for by the private interest groups of the world, bankers and so forth in order to control politics. I didn't know that Alex Jones is considered a media pundit, but maybe I am just out of it. I don't really watch tv much at all and just heard about alex jones for the first time.

I am not sure why you think I have misquoted, misconstrued, or misinterpreted what you have said regarding above. I have tried to retrace the steps which starts to border on becoming convuluted and burdensome. It is easier if we just hear each other and inquire what we meant to say rather than accusing that the other got it wrong without even as much acknowledging what my argument was probably based on. Am I so out of line that it is impossible for you to trace my rendering of your words?

You are saying that these conspiracies you believe in, the same ones stated by the Jerimiah Project website and the YouTube video by Alex Jones, are reality and not a theory, which then implies, no questions asked, no need for further study or debate, that it's a sound historical fact.

actually, I don't believe I am saying that and I think it is your interpretation of my words. It would be interesting for you to actually quote which words that you think that i have professed as such. I certainly never used or meant the word reality. I can't help that the people that I linked feel that way. I didn't know that there were some rules saying that if I link something that I believe everything in the link except for the stuff about global warming. I didn't quote a sentence of anyone, I just provided a link. Do you believe that if a devotee wants to explain to someone something about krishna consciousness in terms of what is suffering according to krishna and he links someone to one of prabhupada's online books that he endorses everything there? I guess he could also state a disclaimer for other nonsense, or he could trust the reader not to draw any wild assumptions.

If anything, I kinda think from the way that you respond to me that you believe your views to be above correction by even engaging in an explanation of how obvious that alex jones and whoever is all slanted this and that and has some time of twisted agenda. I find it tiresome that I have to defend myself for putting links since you seem to be debating with someone who has views that are not the views of myself. Remember the "war on drugs" the "war on bin laden" and "the war on ecoterrorists" and a lot of other

I say it may or may not be, for it is up to historical interpretation, for I am willing to believe that people profit from war, or for the continuation of war once it is started, but do they plan wars just to profit, that I have a hard time accepting or believing

I am certainly not saying that I am omniscient, but it doesn't seem far fetched to me to theorize that wars, corporate take overs, establishing a central bank (which woodrow wilson himself regretted, I provided that quote earlier) are planned with ulterior motives. Does just the world ulterior motive mean "conspiracy theory" to you? If not, why do you think so strongly that the government and private investors somehow probably don't have ulterior motives just like everyone in the world that is not a savior of humanity avatar like kinda a person? When people make bets on a fight in boxing, it should be well known to you if you saw Rocky, that fighters are paid to take a fall and people invest money in the other person including the fighter's manager who is taking the fall. Of course there is a larger strategy to construct a come back for the same fighter later. That person sees that there is an overall good so doesn't feel guilty for the dishonesty.

but is that the sole purpose for the Iraq war, no in my opinion.

I guess to you every newspaper in the nation that proclaimed that the war was about oil and not weapons of mass destruction mean nothing to you and it is all conspiracy theory?

Conspiracy believers take real information and then apply it to political self interests and mysterious or complex events filled with factual holes that then can be hijacked for their own purposes.

But why don't you make a list of the factual holes instead of just claiming that there are holes? The theorists of conspiracy take the time to refute the claims of politicians that seem false, but the establishment just continues to make statements that don't address what the accusations are saying. When scientists from all around the world find traces of metal created with nanotechnology in the dust of the world trade center wreckage which can only be produced in very sophisticated laboratories rather than caves and shacks that al queda hides out in, is it a crude conspiracy theory to say that it was an inside job? How could the towers have been brought down so sophisticatedly with inside bombs planted that were not the work of insiders? Just a pack of crazy muslim terrorists? And if you are ready to agree that something fishy was there, why does the president deny that it was anything but Osama?

If you want to believe and it feels natural to you Kalki, nothing I say will sway you, nor is that my purpose, but I will counter stated certainties and statements that seem based on the political self interest of others, especially those stated by the far political right and Fundamentalist Christians posing as neutral media pundits. If ever there was a real concern for the return of totalitarianism in political form, it is through these same channels and personalities as the website Jerimaih Project and the work of Alex Jones, for they create panic and fear through partial or full misinformation, putting blame on the only opposing party that exits, then trying to hoist their own brand of Theocracy upon the masses.

dude, you are scaring me on how slanted you are! Alex Jones creates panic and fear, and George W and any other president never did that? Even republicans are against Bush nowadays. the families whose relatives perished in 9/11 who were denied health care are conspiracy theorists I suppose? Were you there? Have you talked to anyone? Do you work for the government or something? Is that why you only want to defend everything that the government stands for and want to tear to shreds anyone who opposes it? Because frankly, I was not so passionate and I am still not about this argurment, but I just want to rebut your accusations to me that are consistently wrong. YOu have assumptions all over the place and by the way how are the anti-establisment arguments any more politically interest motivated than your the side of the establishment? I can't understand your accusation even properly becasuse I am shocked at your statements.

Did you read 1984? Was it conspiracy theory? I guess all my literature teachers were also crazy then, because as far as I have been educated, our updated modern history books say pretty clearly that there have been numerous agendas of world governments throughout time which at the time are considered crack pot conspiracy theory, and later are shown to be a reality.

Lincoln freed the slaves, but blacks didn't have the right to vote until after women 100 years some odd later. Anti-semitism, prejudice against slaves, a desire to control others through business, so on and so forth are all sentiments that are documented historically by analyzing the writings of our previous presidents and the weatlthy elite, of Jp Morgan, Ford, Rothschild, Rockefeller, etc. Governments and corporations are always debating for power on different grounds and cartels and monopolies have been fought against by great presidents and accepted by ones whose campaigns are getting paid. I really thought that this was all documented stuff, so I don't agree with you that it is all just factual loopholes or something.

What I do think is that you disagree with the conclusion of the facts that have been collected, but I don't think that gives you the right to proclaim that there are no facts and it is all insane theory.

An argument and language that would sound more logical and fair to me would be if you were to say, "kalki, I don't agree with your opinions and theories about their being a conspiracy, and this is why...." Rather than saying "Its all just conspiracy theory which you uphold so strongly and dismiss any other idea than that and it is totally totalitarian in thought" I am paraphrasing statements which I have read in your refutation and I suppose you could just say "where the hell did I come up with it". I hope you won't do it because it seems clear to me that you hold this opinion againsit me.

At this point I feel exhausted from this discussion not because of the differene in view, but simply because I have spent most of the time debating you on what I said and didn't say rather than discussing with you views and their basis. So this is my reason for exhaustion which I would claim is a bit different from the one that you expressed.

I am willing to listen to your counter ideas to mine in the spirit of discussion but I don't really think your accusations upon my arguments have been just.

heck, perhaps I should start my own conspiracy theory website .... hmmmmm?

if you ask me, you have the perfect type of diatribe that make a baseless conspiracy theory website. again I would allude to the information presented by Drunvalo Melchisidek, who posits that humans are the evil union of giants and monkeys and are supposed to be mining for gold for another planet up in the stars somewhere. That guy is definitely one track minded and splices information from completely disconnected sources that could be refuted by a elementary student of religion including a fundamentalist christian. and Dhyana thinks that I have errored because his type of site is a hypothesis at best, but whatever the word you want to use, the rest of the world continues to cite such examples as conspiracy theories. So I guess you should forward your opinion to them and not me.

It was your accusation, Kalisurfer, that my arguments are conspiracy theory, although I never mentioned that I relish taking up conspiracy theory in general. But when an idea is put forward, and i find it to have evidence, it is worth considering and reading links to such information. Please check with your own thoughts about whether you are using the term in a derogatory way, or neutral way. If neutral is the way you want to go, then I suggest changing the grammar of your sentences to reflect that.

Is english your first language by the way? I am just wondering because if it isn't, it may account for what i think is your misreading of my post. That wasn't an attack, just a question so pardon me if I am wrong for asking. I haven't checked your profile page, I am just posing the question to see what I get. Sometimes people that I know are born in America but there mom was from spain or somethng so it influences the language of the child and his understanding.

[Dhyana]

heck, perhaps I should start my own conspiracy theory website .... hmmmmm?

Some guys have beaten you to it, but there might still be room for another one!

Conspiracy Theory

[kalki]

2) If you want to respond to several passages in the text: remove the opening and closing quote tags to keep things simple. Highlight the first passage, then click on the little "speech bubble" icon above the dialog box, it is the second one from the right and it is called "wrap in quote tags." This icon automatically puts the opening and closing quote commands around your passage.

this is exactly what I wanted to do. it is how i remember it in gaudiya discussions

[kalki]

Well I am not sure you are in the position to answer that because I believe I put the term in quotes in order to emphasize the meaning of the label being thrown at me or someone like me who entertains any opposition views to established truths established by an establishment which it is illegal to question. I think I was questioning Kalisurfer's intention in saying that to me and he hasn't made a comment.

from dhyana:

That still doesn't make it inappropriate for other readers to comment. I am not pretending to speak for Kalisurfer.

I will mention that I never used the word nor had the intention to call your comment innapropriate nor did I accuse you of trying to speak for kalisurfer. I said that you aren't in the position to speak for kalisurfer and you aren't because you aren't him and youd don't know what his intentions are in using the word. If you are trying to comment on the use of the word theory, then wouldn't it be more appropriate to educate him on the word "theory" because if a theory is chock full of facts, then Kalisurfer was in the wrong to object to my supposed or support of conspiracy theory, which apparently thanks to you seems to mean "chock full of verified facts." that about closes the discussion and my side kinda wins (if I even have a side). I am simply objecting to what I perceive is his intention, which you don't know, and you didn't waste your time to comment on, though that was the core of my objection. I would rather debate about core issues than side ones. as I suggested in my reply to the kalisurfer, I think the sentence could read differently if no derogatory thing is meant by "conspiracy theory" by his statement.

It all reminds me of our unease in ISKCON at being called a cult or a sect. The words are descriptive and fit well, but for some people they have a negative tone because they are associated with groups that are secretive, weird and isolated from the real world. In ISKCON Communications I learned that when we ourselves define the debate, we should ideally use another term that carries no negative connotations to some. But I also learned that when we encounter others who call us cult or sect, it is self-defeating to focus on the word and protest against it. The best strategy is to be open and prove to others that we are not "secretive, weird and isolated."

I agree with you, and I always called Iskcon a cult. Actually it is referred to by Prabhupada as the cult of Lord Chaitanya. I don't have a problem with the words used, but the word alone doesn't carry the meaning, it is also the intention used by the person, and without any sound of peoples' voices in this forum, I am again saying that a lot is told by the grammar of a sentence. According to your definition, the sentence that Kalisurfer made to me about all this is a complement and renders any further dispute about the conspiracy useless since I have presented according to him according to you a view based on verifiable facts.

[kalki]

Kalisurfer,

I read the blurb about homosexuality being a sin and so forth. While I don't agree it is a sin, in the sense of the word sin that I understand, I don't think that everything on the site is useless. How can you say that? Maybe you think in such an extreme way, but I don't.

For instance, Prabhupada said that Hitler was an intelligent man for studying the Vedas, but Hitler was wrong in so many ways.

Prabhupada helped a lot of people to transform their life away from sin and misdeeds, but he also was very extreme in his words against women and homosexuals.

President Lincoln abolished slavery, but he also had slaves.]

Rudolf Steiner built a very interesting alternative system of education, but he was also a Nazi sympathizer who ultimately was defeated by Hitler because he didn't want competition.

I am sure that many nazis and white supremicists and child molestors and so forth also invented cures for diseases and made medical achievements.

So we are mixed good and bad, so what? Are you so perfect? Anyway it is up for debate what is right and wrong. This is according to time and culture and understanding of people. Your opinion is not absolute anymore than a fundie christian's is. Or are you so bold to disagree?

If I may take a moment to express my views on Homosexuality without getting persecuted by others on the site, I will say this:

According to Buddhist view, it is a misconduct, that is the wrong use of the sexual organs such as in the mouth or anus. These were the words of the buddha who brought people to liberation and continues to, including gays. So of course there is a lot of discussion about this. Buddhism has more followers that are homosexual than other religions do even after seemingly condemning it.

The Dalai Lama said about this, that it does seem kinda out of order of things for any relation other than penis vagina union, but he is willing to say that misconduct might be more importantly seen as harming another person with your sexualtiy nonconscentually.

But he is not sure about it. And no one bothers him about it. He still follows what the buddha said and doesn't say that buddha was wrong. there might be a reason. In buddhism, it is a misconduct, not per say a sin. smoking,drinking , stealing, and lieing are also misconducts, but we do those things a lot usually. So who can judge another who has a certain sexual tendency? But it is still a misconduct and people have them so big deal?

In buddhism you take vows to avoid misconduct but you don't have to take all the vows unless you can. So if you want to have sex with men, then you don't take that vow, you take the other ones. You try to aspire to that vow and if you can't, then you are free to disagree with that part of the teaching and practice the other things. As long as you don't disagree with that it is wrong to kill.

So where is the evidence that it could be a misconduct or not beneficial spiritually? So other masters have mentioned that in tantric practice, where one guides the winds of the body through meditation, sucking a penis or sucking a vagina for that matter is wrong use of the mouth or oriface, and so it disturbs the airs in the body. So it is problem for both hetero and homo sexual persons, but if you are homosexual, then it might be more of an issue because both anal and oral sex would cause a problem to the airs, which is not the same for penis vagina sex.

So it comes down to a misfortune of having the karma to not enjoy sex and tantric meditation properly like others can. That is a misfortune indeed if you believe in all that value. Maybe there is a way for homosexuals to practice tantra in a different way and not use anal or oral sex? Maybe a homosexual tantric master has to figure it out and liberate his kind? That is what Tara did as well, that she vowed to be born as a woman again and again until she achieved enlightenment to show other women the way.

So it is generally believed that the inferiority of women is a belief of sutra which is more rigid in its rules and views, but in tantra, being a woman might be more naturally to practie with, so they say. So rather than bringing spirituality to our level, we rise to the level of spirituality and find a way we can achieve what other hetero men are achieveing. We accept obstacles as karma and not the sinister conspiracy of fundie chrisitans or patriarichal men.

so back to whether there is misconduct, maybe yes and maybe no, but if it is, then it is not a sin that damns you eternally. So maybe christians could be more soft in their approach, and you could too, in my opinion

[Kalisurfer]

I don't really know how to paste small setions of a reply in small quote boxes in order to debate effectively. So if someone replying to me could, then please inform me how to do it. In the Gaudiya Discussions forum, there was an easy box to click on the make it happen. So anyway, I am resorting to cut and paste with my reply:
[b]

I went ahead and made quote boxes on all your posts that had quotes in bold fonts.

In other words the fact that you (kalisurfer) are offended by fundamentalist christian stance against homosexuals I think is more your problem than theirs. They are emotionally charged as are you. The better thing to do would be to have dialogue about the difference of views. I am not remotely offended by their views because I don't want to be attached to someone's insults especially if they come from ignorance. The christian world is evolving out of that stance that you mention. The person who gave me this movie also is a christian, fundamentalist but doesn't agree with grace not being offereing to homosexuals. He thinks that god's grace should go to all people and non homosexuals are creating loads of sins that gay folk are not. Aside from that, there are sites that point out that it is a misinterpretation to read from the bible that there is anything condemable about being gay. So if the misunderstanding comes from a misreading, it is better to handle it intellectually and non emotionally. After all, Iwould say that it is all karma how people react and therefore it is just when we receive such treatment due to past actions. So we can only deal with it sensibly rather than nonsensibly when it appears. This is my view anyway, and I know there might be people on this site who don't believe in karma. So then it is like an apple talking to an orange and it is no use to continue that type of discussion.

Can you explain how it is a FACT that I am somehow offended by Fundamentalist Christians? I have no problems with Fundamental Christians as human beings and their freedom to express their beliefs, but do have problems with any preaching activity that becomes political and filled with negativity toward others who are different from the preachers and the beliefs they espouse. Once religions become politically active, they are trying to influence the society I and many others who do not share their beliefs live in, so I feel it is a citizens duty to oppose and fight against the any attempt to Theocratize the nation, state and town we live in. Your website link to the Jerimaiah Project was filled with political and offensive statements and links toward homosexuals and other religious beliefs, and that is what I was referring to. If standing up against homophobia and religious intolerance is considered being emotional and my problem, then indeed I welcome it. Having dialog with fundamentalist is an extremely hard thing to do, for the most part they do not want to listen, just preach and are rather hardened in their stance and beliefs, much like many devotees are. You speak of Christians evolving out of ignorance, and use karma to explain why people act the way they do, which seems to imply that you still retain many Gaudiya Vaisnava beliefs and worldviews, which ironically are also demeaned on the Jerimiah Project's website, in terms of it belittling Eastern faiths in general. I understand that you are willing to accept their incongruity of politics and faith, but many others do not and find such links troubling and lacking sense.

[babu]

This thread is on the clock.

[Kalisurfer]

Okay the homosexual link I will check out, but I already replied two times that I see no reason to dismiss all things on the site because of it. that is their view and they are entitled to it I guess.

I posted it as graphic also so that you would not have to go to the site, but it's amazing that after all these posts you have not even bothered to read what the site and graphic says, but are still willing to defend it!

if they say that homos are damned to hell, then that is just their philosophical view and you can leave it alone. it is not like they are beating gays up like they are the kkk or something.

Using the word Homo's is rather loose and derogratory, so I am going to ask you to please refrain from using it going forward, for we do have gay members and I do not want to see such terminology used on this forum (speaking as a moderator now) so thank you for abiding by our forum rules of not using derogatory word usage toward other peoples lifestyles that may differ from your own.

and if you wanted to claim that all fundamentalist christians are affiliated with or just as bad as the kkk, then I would consider that to be quite a "conspiracy theory" to quote your most favored term these days.

I never claimed that, wrote that or even thought of that, nor did I ever mention the KKK, that is something of your own making.

And just what do you mean by "it is going to take a lot of time to address all my comments and you have little of them, and you have no interest in filling your head with right wing fundamentalist christian hatred toward anyone who does not believe like they do?"

To do research into conspiracy theories, conspiracy web sites like that of Alex Jones or delve into who is behind the Jerimiah Project takes time, and right now I am busy with work or family, so I am limited in the time available to answer your many posts.

Do you mean to say, that you are not interested in a discussion because you are wrong and I am right and it sucks to spend the time to dialogue with someone as stupid as me? If you mean that, then I find it belittling. And why would my posts fill your head with "christian fundamentalist, etc" anyway? I guess because you are unnecessarily gathering tension about it,which I am not.

So I am wrong and you are RIGHT, hmmm, how can one have a discussion if this is how you view things? I never implied or called you stupid, so I have no idea where this comes from? I am sorry you feel belittled by my responses to you, and I don't even know why you should feel that way, for I was going after the sites and personalities you mentioned in earlier posts, trying to find their source and uncover their agenda that lay behind their stance against Global Warming, Barack Obama and One World Government. I have no tension about these topics, nor is it gathering, just responding to your posts.

and just who are you debating here? I never claimed that the site is right based on its christian affiliation. That just sounds like more of your painting the picture of our discussion to suit your liking so you have someone to bash and blame.

You seem intent on starting an online fight or something, I am not painting the discussion to suit my likings, just responding to your links which I found problematic and doing the research to explain why. No bashing or blaming going on, though I must say, I am beginning to feel that you are beginning to do just that.

I will admit that if most people sympathize with your side of the argument, then you will win the discussion boards vote for the war on "kalki's opinions" which are nothing like the opinions that I have truly expressed, unless you are right and I am just fuckin crazy.

No body is taking sides, no body is voting on who is right or wrong, there is no war against Kalki's opinions, where is all this thinking coming from, for it sure is not apparent in the posts. It is not a matter of anyone being right or wrong and no one is calling anyone crazy except for yourself doing so. It's just a discussion, that's all, time to put things in perspective and chill out for a while.