You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
How about a belief purely based upon what a person feels? Are you saying that should be dismissed as bunkum?
A lot of people would say "yes" but what they means is "yes, but only when it conflicts with one of my own beliefs for which I hold no evidence for beyond my limited experience". See the recent coffee thread, tupperware thread, this thread, Brexit thread...
Like why do you have coffee every morning? Did you investigate all other possible morning drinks and rigorously test them to arrive at coffee as the most superior drink? How did you determine the best way of making it? What criteria did you use to judge superiority - cost, taste, health etc?Nope, for most people me included we've just kind of stumbled there being blindly influended by something or other. But when it comes to religion we're really sure we have it 100% nailed down.
How about a belief purely based upon what a person feels? Are you saying that should be dismissed as bunkum?
Well it's belief, not proof.
if I had a friend who thought he was a toaster would I stick a slice of bread up his arse at breakfast time or would I give him a mirror and and Argos catalogue and leave him to work it out for himself?
You're wasted here, you should be on telly with Dara.
In the interests of the scientific method and for completeness, I can confirm that the bread came out nicely browned but I'm not sure as I want to eat it.
when in reality you’ve just used your faith to sort your life out, kinda like a goddy placebo effect. God as a metaphor for some sort of inner reserve makes total sense here.
This is me. I have faith of a sort and attend church occasionally. However the engineer in me knows its a made up story which must have been re-translated multiple times over the centuries/millennia into what it is today. It must have started somewhere which is the proof part, but pinning down what that proof is...? I have no idea.
Back on topic: I was best man a number of years ago for a mate who was raised quite religious (CoE) and one of the main reasons for getting married was to get his end away. We tried to reason with him to at least live with the girl for a year (separate bedrooms of course) but couldn't get through. He has now been (un-)happily married for over 10 year with 3 kids and has no life. Went from hanging out multiple times a week to counting the number of times I've seen him since marriage on one hand.
Not as extreme as OP's situation but similar cause.
pmsl @ cougar.
Yeah. Bollocks to this, I'm off to Argos.
Also, some people are just potty.
Can’t say I have ever had a religious group that’s tried to control me, force me to do something or offend me in any way that I can think of.
I believe in dignity in death. I believe its a human right to chose the time and place of my death. Organised religous objections to this deny me this right. Thats them imposing their moral code on me. Thats a very personal and strongly held belief that I cannot exercise because of religious objections.
I will fight for the religious to be able to follow their beliefs at the end of their life even when it conflicts with my personal beliefs. Why will they not do me the same courtesy?
Religious opposition to dignity in dying causes huge human suffering and its something that I have intimate personal and professional experience of
Oh fiddlesticks - sucked back in. Sorry!
Can’t say I have ever had a religious group that’s tried to control me, force me to do something or offend me in any way that I can think of.
Never worked anywhere that shut down over Christmas?
Or been to the Isle of Lewis?
I believe in dignity in death. I believe its a human right to chose the time and place of my death. Organised religous objections to this deny me this right. Thats them imposing their moral code on me. Thats a very personal and strongly held belief that I cannot exercise because of religious objections.
I will fight for the religious to be able to follow their beliefs at the end of their life even when it conflicts with my personal beliefs. Why will they not do me the same courtesy?
tjagain - I wholeheartedly agree with your argument
I believe in dignity in death. I believe its a human right to chose the time and place of my death. Organised religous objections to this deny me this right. Thats them imposing their moral code on me. Thats a very personal and strongly held belief that I cannot exercise because of religious objections.
Again, confirmation bias. There are secular arguments against assisted dying.
Can’t say I have ever had a religious group that’s tried to control me, force me to do something or offend me in any way that I can think of.
Never worked anywhere that shut down over Christmas?
Or tried to marry more than one spouse?
Even my grandparents’ generation would have thought very differently to you and there are still vast swathes of the world, well documented places, where religious groups will tell you how to behave if you visit.
Yes but it's not *because* of religion. It's because they are conservative, they think they are right, and they think they are entitled to persuade you to think like they do. These traits are NOT at all limited to religious people, nor do all religious people demonstrate them.
The problem isn't with religious people, the problem is with arseholes. Some of whom are religious.
Never worked anywhere that shut down over Christmas?
That's a ridiculous argument. Christmas is a secular festival as well as a religious one. Same thing happens at Thanksgiving in the US, that's not a religious festival.
Molgrips - I have looked into this topic in detail. there is almost a 100% correlation between religious belief and opposition to dignity in death. Trust me on this - a topic close to my heart and one I have looked at in detail. If you look into the folk objecting on supposed secular grounds they are almost all religious.
pm me if you want to know more
I believe its a human right to chose the time and place of my death.
Secular objections include (but are not limited to)
Weakens respect for the sanctity of life
Values some lives more than others
Places doctors in a difficult position ethically
Places pressure on people at end of life
Difficult to regulate
Becomes a cost effective way of dealing with an increasingly elderly population
Ignores palliative care
Nickc =- pm me if you want to know more.
edit -You can make a secular argument yes ( it does not stand up) however if you look into the folk actually objecting you will find an almost 100% correlation between those who object adn those who hold religious beliefs - especially within the medical professions. A lot of them know that their religious objections are invalid ( to impose upon others) so try to hide behind a secular mask
Or tried to marry more than one spouse?
I believe it's unlawful to marry even the one spouse. (-:
Secular objections include (but are not limited to)
... open to manipulation by relatives who may not have the patient's best interests at heart.
There's an interesting podcast from the Guardian on the topic of euthanasia.
The problem isn’t with religious people, the problem is with arseholes. Some of whom are religious.
I think you’re partially correct; there ARE arseholes everywhere. The problem with religion is that it confers legitimacy to some arseholes; their otherwise unreasonable positions are entrenched by the writings of long dead zealots, and it’s then held up as a legitimate argument to (for example) withdraw children from classes where gender and sexuality equality is being taught.
Hell, they even have the arrogance to call it the ‘Truth’ for goodness sake.
dignity in dying is not the same as euthanasia. There is a whole series of degrees of it with DNACPR at one end to active euthanasia at the other.
But as I said - if you want to discuss this topic with me PM me.
For those of you that are bang up for suicide, is it wrong to intervene if you are aware of someone else trying to commit suicide? Near where I live there is a cliff that folk like to jump off, several a year. If I see someone go up there looking a bit worried should I let them get on with it or intervene?
TJ, I suspect my views on euthanasia are broadly similar to yours. I don’t want to reach the point where being kept alive is not worth the poor quality of life. Millions and millions of us have probably sadly had some experience of it over the years with loved ones. And everyone’s personal experience will quite possibly influence their views.
However the arguments for and against it are a complex mix of ethical, moral and practical. The law, whether or not we agree with it, was made by parliament, not by any religious group. That decision will have been taken after listening to arguments both for and against, made by both religious and secular groups. As they are perfectly entitled to do. Everyone has the right to petition parliament if they feel strongly about an issue. And parliament has to weigh up the arguments and make a decision. I’d like to think the laws may change in future but that’s for another day.
Or are you suggesting that certain groups in society should not be allowed to put their views forward?
PM please
If you look into the folk objecting on supposed secular grounds they are almost all religious.
I said there IS a secular argument. Explained to me by a non-religious old person, and it's a very good argument in my opinion. A brief Google brings up a load of hits for 'secular arguments against assisted dying', I haven't got time to read many of them now. But the first article I read provided a second argument.
Also a quick warning - you are attempting to reinforce your point by appealing to your own self-proclaimed authority. This is fairly egregious as it assumes I know nothing and my thoughts are worth less than yours.
The problem with religion is that it confers legitimacy to some arseholes
This is a better argument worthy of discussion.
There’s an interesting podcast from the Guardian on the topic of euthanasia.
I'm not sure how interesting a podcast about some kid visiting China would be...
Nickc =- pm me if you want to know more.
You know, I won't. Thanks though... Not because I don't think it'd be worth it, but as I used to volunteer for the Samaritains, I've had those same conversations a number of times and I don't think there's a one size fits all answer. I don't disagree with the concept of dying with dignity, I don't think anyone, (religious or not) , would argue with you, it's just that it's such a moving target that I don't think there's any easy answers, and to direct your anger solely at religious people (because many people have undignified deaths) is flawed
That’s a ridiculous argument. Christmas is a secular festival as well as a religious one. Same thing happens at Thanksgiving in the US, that’s not a religious festival.
I disagree. Granted the first link I looked at regarding Thanksgiving and religion was Wikipedia but, it stated that the festival had roots in religious services thanking for the fruit of labour that year, etc. Easter is another well know religious festival that has links to modern life. The secular aspects of these events would likely not exist if not for the religious activities they originate from.
The problem isn’t with religious people, the problem is with arseholes. Some of whom are religious.
👆 This. Majority of the problem is with people that understand half baked teaching then proceed to impose their own agenda due to power, greed etc calling themselves the one with legitimacy. I come from a region where such practice is so common we just yawn when they start to speak.
I think you’re partially correct; there ARE arseholes everywhere.
👆 and this.
Molgrips – I have looked into this topic in detail. there is almost a 100% correlation between religious belief and opposition to dignity in death.
Not answering for anyone but meself. I have no problem with TJ's views even with my belief. Do as they wish coz that is their body/life. Actually, I rather let people do what they want so long as they don't bother me or try to impose their belief on me.
As for dignity in death what is that? (I am referring to the moment a person stops breathing and dead, correct me if I am wrong) The dignity is for the living Not for the death. The death has no say whatsoever. The end. All the ceremony etc are for the living and how the remains are treated is irrelevant to the death but for the living. Why should the death care about the way their remains are treated. That is the logic.
For those of you that are bang up for suicide, is it wrong to intervene if you are aware of someone else trying to commit suicide?
Tricky this. Coming from a regional norm far away we normally not try to intervene much But I would ask them (the person trying to commit suicide) their reasons and logic. Then if they still wish to continue I would just tell the person to prepare well and not cause hassle to others. (the regional belief is that the "soul" of the person will remain at the point/spot of death for a while repeating their action over and over again until such time as they exhausted their natural "living" limit to life which they cut short with suicide and such soul are usually full of hatred, anger etc. The belief is that they are Not at peace and can hassle others around that area.)
Near where I live there is a cliff that folk like to jump off, several a year. If I see someone go up there looking a bit worried should I let them get on with it or intervene?
Just speak to them to find out their reasons for wanting to jump. If you have a solution you provide one otherwise just let them get on with it. Nothing much you can do because they have made up their mind.
However the arguments for and against it are a complex mix of ethical, moral and practical.
Nothing complex so long as that is the wish of the person and NOT a decision made for him/her directly or indirectly.
I don’t disagree with the concept of dying with dignity, I don’t think anyone, (religious or not) , would argue with you, it’s just that it’s such a moving target that I don’t think there’s any easy answers, and to direct your anger solely at religious people (because many people have undignified deaths) is flawed
I am not from the Abrahamic faith and in our belief you are responsible for your own action so do as you wish so long as you don't blame or hassle others. Pre and post death.
P/s: My father used to wind up my mum (actually some form of silly arguments) by saying he would commit suicide in the house and in response my mum would tell him to do it somewhere else where she did not have to clean up; and she would cremate his remains and flash it down the toilet so that his "soul" would smell like poo forever ...
Granted the first link I looked at regarding Thanksgiving and religion was Wikipedia but, it stated that the festival had roots in religious services thanking for the fruit of labour that year, etc
Right. It had its ROOTS as a religious festival 350 years ago, because they were puritans and everything they did was religious. But then that practice died out for a long time and it was revived in modern times in a bid to promote 'American-ness'. And today, it is a secular festival.
Re the ‘religiousness’ of various festivals; you may as well argue the origins of chickens and eggs; the truth is complex and multi factorial, without solid evidence either way and therefore lends itself to being hijacked to ‘prove’ the point of either position.
Near where I live there is a cliff that folk like to jump off, several a year. If I see someone go up there looking a bit worried should I let them get on with it or intervene?
Just speak to them to find out their reasons for wanting to jump. If you have a solution you provide one otherwise just let them get on with it. Nothing much you can do because they have made up their mind.
Oh ya just to add a point. If you can talk a person out of committing suicide the merit is yours and saving a life means a very good merit for yourself. Being neutral i.e. just let it be, means you have not accumulated any negative or positive merit as in neutral. However, causing others to take their own life directly or indirectly with or without intention will accumulate negative merit. Directly will have severe consequences to yourself and your next generations to come. Indirectly will be less severe but still negative. For example, a person who prescribes the "cocktail" for a person to die will accumulate negative merits regardless, but their negative merits are over shadowed by other good merits they have done with others. In short, you are responsible for your own actions.
Have to say... whatever religious background Chewkw is from it sounds a hell of a lot more sensible and pragmatic than a lot of western Abrahamic religions.
Sounds a bit Buddhist. Chewkw that is.
Suicide isn’t the same as dignity in death. Speaking as someone who has (and still does) suffer with depression suicidal thoughts are not born from a stable mindset. Wanting to end it all because you are terminally ill, paralysed etc is a whole different ball game.
A discussion for a different thread though I think
Sounds a bit Buddhist. Chewkw that is.
Yes, it is my understanding of Buddhism and as my belief.
Speaking as someone who has (and still does) suffer with depression suicidal thoughts are not born from a stable mindset.
Sorry to hear about your condition. There is a distinction with people born into the situation and those that do not. The karmic consequences are different too. i.e. people who can or cannot be responsible for their own actions.
p/s: Do Not meditate with your condition if you do not have an expert with you.
accept that there is nothing you will be able to do that will likely change their position any time soon, then ask yourself do you want them potentially influencing other family members especially if they are preachy.
Utterly off topic this, but Buddhism has never really struck me as religion, more a philosophy or thought process. I’ve tried meditating before, but my mind is like a monkey on amphetamines!
Don’t need sympathy Chewkw, it’s just one of those things. My brain struggles to produce certain chemicals and the effects of this can be a right bastard to deal with 😀
accept that there is nothing you will be able to do that will likely change their position any time soon, then ask yourself do you want them potentially influencing other family members especially if they are preachy.
You (not you specifically but people in general) cannot change someone until you really understand their reasons or understand who they are. Even that does not mean you are right and they are wrong change to them. What if you have made the changes for them resulting in a worse outcome or even more suffering? You might feel good for yourself but others might feel worse than before.
Utterly off topic this, but Buddhism has never really struck me as religion, more a philosophy or thought process.
Yes, the definition is unclear hence the term middle path.
I’ve tried meditating before, but my mind is like a monkey on amphetamines!
Just be aware, easily said than done, that you mind get suck into something unwanted. The situation is different for all individuals. I was advised not to meditate and if I wish I could but only do so for 5 minutes maximum. I used to meditate long time ago for several hours everyday or whenever I could by myself ... crikey, the amount of "weird stuff" I saw in my dreams after that was so real I stopped. Not scare but more like lazy but later realised after the advice that it was not very good ...
My brain struggles to produce certain chemicals and the effects of this can be a right bastard to deal with 😀
That is the problem because the other "fellow" might "take over" your mind if not careful.
Majority of the problem is with people that understand half baked teaching then proceed to impose their own agenda due to power, greed etc calling themselves the one with legitimacy.
This is spot on.
Majority of the problem is with people that understand half baked teaching then proceed to impose their own agenda due to power, greed etc calling themselves the one with legitimacy.
This is spot on.
We questioned them but nearly started a race riot! 😅
In my region if the race riot kicks off it would be a very serious matter and I mean not like some form of protest but people running amok ...
This is spot on.
It’s inarguably true; however further than that, the problem with religion is that as it is, by definition, based wholly upon articles of faith rather than fact, it is uniquely vulnerable to being ‘interpreted’ any which way people want.
This combined with the unique sureness in their own righteousness that religion instils in people makes it a potential, as well as often a very real force for bad.
It’s inarguably true; however further than that, the problem with religion is that as it is, by definition, based wholly upon articles of faith rather than fact, it is uniquely vulnerable to being ‘interpreted’ any which way people want.
The problem is that people don't ask questions. i.e. everything that is written has a reason but people just ignore that by only wanting a quick fix. To keep the explanation simple, some religious authorities simply start to provide short cut direction and as a result they end up with "do as I told" scenario. People than take on those advice blindly. Then you end up with "if you don't do this you will go to hell ...".
I was listening to some religious scholars explaining the reasons for certain practices and there are logic to them with nothing much "magical" other than for practical reasons. For example, why in certain part of the world the death has to be buried almost immediately? This is because the body decade in warm temperature quickly and may spread diseases so they have to buried them quickly. A lot of the stuff are for practical reasons. Bear in mind many centuries ago the people with knowledge are those that could read and understand the scriptures. Most people were illiterate then.
This combined with the unique sureness in their own righteousness that religion instils in people makes it a potential, as well as often a very real force for bad.
Yes, as it evolves it becomes a profitable venture and this is also the time the politicians take note and hijack them for their own "profit".
Catching up here, so excuse dragging this back to page 5...
I believe in dignity in death. I believe its a human right to chose the time and place of my death. Organised religous objections to this deny me this right. Thats them imposing their moral code on me. Thats a very personal and strongly held belief that I cannot exercise because of religious objections.
Do what????!!! Try going to your GP and asking to book your own Death Day and enquiring what substances they offer to facilitate your own death. Are you saying that the Hippocratic Oath is fundamentally determined by religious dogma and doctrine?
Bang goes my exit strategy.
slackalice. all over the world countries are legislating to allow dignity in death ( an umbrella term that encompasses a lot of measures not just active euthanasia) ( Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, some US states etc etc.
the abuses that some say they are concerned about simply do not happen
In the UK everytime someone attempts to move the legislation towards this the outcry from organised religious groups means that these attempts to make the law more humane fail.
Despite what others state on here the opposition to this comes mainly from organised religious groups often hiding behind a secular facade. Without that organised religious opposition we would have much more humane laws around end of life care in line with best practice worldwide
the net effect is that organised religion is preventing humane end of life care. this is the religious using their superstition to prevent me from exercising my right to have a death in a manner of my own choosing and forcing many people to have undignified deaths.
No one is saying the religious have to take advantage of dignity in death. Indeed I would and have fought for their rights to do as they wish at the end of their life. Why will they not accord me the same rights?
A good few folk on here are trying to make out this is not a religious thing. Well I have looked into this a lot. Its a subject dear to my heart due to what I have seen in my personal and professional life. Its clearly mainly ( not exclusively) a religious issue the opposition to measures to improve dignity in death. the vast majority of secular medical professionals are in favour of some moves down this road. The majority of religious medical professionals are against it. Objections to any move in that direction are overwhelmingly from religious groups. These religious groups often hide behind a secular facade but it is clear its religious belief that motivates them.
In the UK everytime someone attempts to move the legislation towards this the outcry from organised religious groups
Yup, see; the incredible demonisation of the Liverpool Care Pathway when the worried Christian middle Englanders became (mis)informed of its existence. Absolute travesty that set palliative care back decades in this country.
however further than that, the problem with religion is that as it is, by definition, based wholly upon articles of faith rather than fact, it is uniquely vulnerable to being ‘interpreted’ any which way people want.
It's not unique. Politics is not fact based, nor is nationality (beyond the trivial), race or gender politics. Or social conservatism. Many of the things that cause problems today are not based on facts. If they were we'd be living on Vulcan, and we're clearly not.
A good few folk on here are trying to make out this is not a religious thing. Well I have looked into this a lot.
You might have read a lot but if you go in with a desired conclusion you'll re-inforce your beliefs regardless of what you read.
It’s not unique. Politics is not fact based, nor is nationality (beyond the trivial), race or gender politics. Or social conservatism.
Yes, but the uniqueness comes from the protection and ‘special status’ that is conferred upon religiously based opinion though. No one is going to excuse bigotry or insidious discrimination based upon which political doctrine they happen to support, but as soon as it’s based on religion, it becomes more legitimate. It will still get criticised,but that criticism in turn becomes open to counter criticism as ‘religious intolerance’ ‘islamophobia’ ‘antisemitism’ etc.
An awful lot of criticism that would be entirely justifiable if it’s target were based on a purely political ideology gets neutralised by the protection afforded by religious legitimacy.
Yes, but the uniqueness comes from the protection and ‘special status’ that is conferred upon religiously based opinion though. No one is going to excuse bigotry or insidious discrimination based upon which political doctrine they happen to support, but as soon as it’s based on religion, it becomes more legitimate. It will still get criticised,but that criticism in turn becomes open to counter criticism as ‘religious intolerance’ ‘islamophobia’ ‘antisemitism’ etc.
An awful lot of criticism that would be entirely justifiable if it’s target were based on a purely political ideology gets neutralised by the protection afforded by religious legitimacy.
If you think religion is unique in that respect then you've not been following gender issues.
No one is going to excuse bigotry or insidious discrimination based upon which political doctrine they happen to support, but as soon as it’s based on religion, it becomes more legitimate.
Environmental extremists like XR use bigotry and pass moral judgement on people and infringe upon their rights.
On both sides of the B* debate you have people using political ideologies to demonise and dehumanise people with opposing veiws. I don't recall the guy that shot Jo Cox following any religious doctrine. Also people who supported B* were duhamised in various ways for not conforming to a polical ideology.
The illiberal fringes of the labour party use political doctrine to shout bigoted views about people who have alternative views about how society and the economy should be organised.
The crowd at a Donald J Trump rally aren't using any kind religious justification for viciously attacking anyone that opposes them.
At the very worst extremes, Pol Pot didn't need any religious cover to do what he did.
I cannot understand how anyone can look at current affairs or human history and conclude that an organised religion is required to excuse bigotry or insidious discrimitination.
Try going to your GP and asking to book your own Death Day and enquiring what substances they offer to facilitate your own death. Are you saying that the Hippocratic Oath is fundamentally determined by religious dogma and doctrine?
You can (almost) literally do this. My mam made an active decision to end her life prematurely when her cancer spread to her brain, by stopping all medication, food and fluid. As a family we discussed which drugs would facilitate this with a doctor.
Because of (primarily) religious objections to euthanasia she had to spend more than a week dying, instead of almost instant.
Because of (primarily) religious objections to euthanasia she had to spend more than a week dying, instead of almost instant.
This saddens me greatly. When a beloved pet is suffering, no problem, it can be put to sleep and end the suffering. People, on the other hand, are expected to suffer. If an individual wants to die in pain then fair enough. Me, I’d want to slip away peacefully. We have the cheek to call ourselves civilised.
Because of (primarily) religious objections to euthanasia she had to spend more than a week dying, instead of almost instant.
Please read this with open mind as this is the explanation/logic based on our "religious" (some say it is philosophy rather than religion) belief. Just do as you wish as I am Not trying to criticise etc but trying to explain the logic of how we see things. This applies to all living beings including animal (hence we never put down our animals especially our pets or even beings from other dimension).
Sorry to hear about your mum. A very brave woman.
In our belief we normally let life expires naturally rather than intentionally cut short no matter how hard it can be. Intention can be referred to as deliberate action. i.e. simply put, mind first to be followed by action a bit like the legal term of intention.
The logic is that if a person intentionally cut short own life then his/her karma has not fully exhausted. i.e. has not repaid all the debts as it should be in this life. The unspent karma will then be brought forward to next life where or what ever that might be.
For example, if a person has a natural life span of say 80 years but due to illness the person cuts short own life to 75, then the "soul/spirit" will linger on the human realm (some say immediately to next life and Not linger in human realm ... I am yet to determine which is which) for unspent 5 years until the balance of the unspent 5 years is exhausted. If the 5 years is suffering then the soul will carry on with that burden until exhaustion before proceeding to next life. But before moving to next life/lives the soul will be judged for violating what was supposedly given (there are some flexibility here due to their action in that life and NOT predetermined). i.e. say a person is given a natural life of 80 but due to own own actions that life can be prolong or cut short naturally.
Alternatively, depending on many situations (different for all individuals) the remaining 5 years will be added to the future life. Added 5 years means either the future life will suffer for another five years or simply only given 5 years life. i.e. die at 5 years of age before starting the actual new future life again. The future life can be defined in the immediate next life or unknown future lives. The bottom line is that the remaining 5 years karma must be repaid regardless.
However, there can also be mitigating circumstances that the remaining 5 years karma can be spread into uncountable future lives. i.e. 5 minutes in the next life, 1 minutes in next next life, 1 day in next next life, 2 seconds in one of the future life etc. This all depends on the person actions in that future life/lives. The best analogy is like diluting a glass of ink with the entire sea water from the ocean. In a way it can be explained as doing more good means less suffering in the remaining 5 years karmic repayment. Note that there is no actual formula to determine the situation as karma is "organic" depending on oneself. In a way it is like a probability with many factors that we are unable to process and only Buddha or the enlighten ones whoever they are know (to calculate).
If a person endure the hardship or suffering that s/he should endure in this life then the karmic repayment is complete. Upon departing from this life, the person will start new but what sort of life the person will have, again, depend on the actions in before the new life.
Therefore, taking life intentionally or unintentionally (even with good intention) will have karmic consequences on oneself. The difficulty is to determine when karma will come knocking at the door demanding repayment.
@tjagain thank you for your response, I’m with you. As @miketually experience, it’s ridiculous that people are made to suffer when they have made their ultimate choice.
I’ve said before, the one human right we need only have, we are denied.
So I’m left to arranging my own exit strategy, so far I’m looking at overdosing on insulin, or possibly going out on a bit of a high (which I would prefer tbh) and considering a desert spoonful of ghb (or gbl). Not just yet, but I like to be prepared 😁
Dib dib dib an all that.
I’ve said before, the one human right we need only have, we are denied.
I have to say I agree.
Your life so do as you wish.
No one is going to excuse bigotry or insidious discrimination based upon which political doctrine they happen to support, but as soon as it’s based on religion, it becomes more legitimate. It will still get criticised,but that criticism in turn becomes open to counter criticism as ‘religious intolerance’ ‘islamophobia’ ‘antisemitism’ etc.
No, this is not true at all. There is a difference between religious intolerance and criticising a position. It is up to you to try and understand this difference. For example - 'religious people are all idiots' is religious intolerance. 'I don't agree with the Church's position on assisted dying' - this is reasonable criticism.
It's not just specific to religion, it's about the type of belief and the reason for the criticism. For example - my wife's cousin became increasingly into spiritualism and self-help type literature. I was quite critical at first, but then I realised a few things. 1) it's meaningful to her and helps a great deal 2) it does no harm and 3) who am I to criticise her? Why was I criticising? Did I think it was going to help? No, it was my own cockiness and desire to be clever and right, nothing more. I don't have to read the books or join in the spiritualism, but I don't need to lay into her for it. If she wants a discussion on it I'll have one and take a different position, but I'll treat the subject with respect because I care about her feelings.
All we're saying is don't be a dick, and discuss things carefully and with respect, where it's appropriate. Anyhoo, we're off topic now. And for the record, overall I'm in favour of assisted dying with significant controls.
2) it does no harm
... until it starts being used instead of conventional medicine.
Oh please @cougar, instead of conventional medicine? The example above suggests very strongly that she was benefitting from her efforts, more than likely gaining a sense of inner peace, where what and how does conventional medicine enable that?
Please refer to:
No, it was my own cockiness and desire to be clever and right, nothing more. I don’t have to read the books or join in the spiritualism, but I don’t need to lay into her for it. If she wants a discussion on it I’ll have one and take a different position, but I’ll treat the subject with respect because I care about her feelings.
All we’re saying is don’t be a dick, and discuss things carefully and with respect, where it’s appropriate.
A blanket approach of complete denial to anything away from your own comfort zone is really quite a narrow minded approach to life, do you not feel?
… until it starts being used instead of conventional medicine.
That is the person's individual decision as s/he sees fit. All you can do is to explain your logic to them and it is up to her/him to accept or to reject what you said.
A blanket approach of complete denial to anything away from your own comfort zone is really quite a narrow minded approach to life, do you not feel?
Seems to be the default position on here these days, increasingly from people I've known on here for years who never seemed to be like that in the past.
To my mind, there is no credible evidence to suggest that our concept of an Abrahamic god has any basis in fact. Evidence aside even, there’s no reasoning to think that this might be true.
I was out on a bike ride the other day. Couple of friends (both avowed atheists) each had tyres go flat. I didn't.
As it says in the hymn, "God moves in mysterious ways, His punctures to perform".
Oh please @cougar, instead of conventional medicine?
There's plenty of examples of this happening. People shunning chemotherapy in favour of homeopathy, folk like Matthias Rath peddling vitamin pills as AIDS prevention / cure in developing nations. I'm not saying it happens in all cases (and in Molgrips' example there's nothing to suggest that she is doing so) but it absolutely does happen.
I guess that's the orthodox interpretation of reincarnation/ karma.
I find that to be a very restricting interpretation.
It's based on a very narrow conception of what is 'good' or 'bad' karma, and thus 'suffering' is seen as something to be avoided.
However, it appears that many souls seek out 'suffering', like the way roadies seek out really steep climbs.
Incarnating, especially on earth is like altitude conditioning. It can be a means of 'powering up' with enhanced skills for the next life.
Maybe planet earth gives really good opportunities for spiritual growth. Maybe this is due to our lifespan or the specific density of our organic flesh.
On other planets, your consciousness may take other forms. So the kinds of challenges we face here on earth may have no equivalent on a planet in which consciousness manifests as say, a black gas.
I can't condone it, but if we mistakenly burn people on the belief that they're witches, their consciousness will become very focussed up till the moment of death (surprise, surprise!).
Next time they incarnate, they'll have some 'mad-skills', which may be misinterpreted as witchcraft, and get thrown on the bonfire again. Oh the irony!
And the orthodox interpretation of karma sounds very dis-empowering, as though there's an echelon of bean-counters in the afterlife, weighing out your 'good' and 'bad' deeds.
Maybe you have much more 'agency' in the afterlife than the orthodox beliefs would like to accept.
The orthodox approach to karma just sounds like a load of sales-pitch to me.
When the buddhists, etc, tell you that your chances of re-incarnating in human form are very slim (especially after you've just passed your driving test, for example) then its basic human psychology that you'll sign up for whatever they'll offer. Doubly so if they lay on the sp whilst your chest implodes. (What WAS in that tea?)
So, to me, the orthodox interpretation of karma not only serves as a fetter on our spiritual development, and is really nothing but a recruitment con.
Take the dahli lama himself. Nice enough bloke, but I've seen more profound insights on the back of a cereal packet.
The wing of the Chinese communist party that selected him knew that he wasnt the reincarnation of some former deity, but just some ordinary bloke.
Hope I haven't put too much shizxle in the game...
Like why do you have coffee every morning? Did you investigate all other possible morning drinks and rigorously test them to arrive at coffee as the most superior drink? How did you determine the best way of making it? What criteria did you use to judge superiority – cost, taste, health etc?Nope, for most people me included we’ve just kind of stumbled there being blindly influended by something or other.
I don’t. In fact, I hardly ever drink coffee, the only time is when I go into town at the weekend, and have a couple. The only criteria I apply is that I prefer tea.
Environmental extremists like XR use bigotry and pass moral judgement on people and infringe upon their rights.
This statement sounds like it’s come from the White House press office. Please explain the bigotry aspect for the rest of the class.
I find that to be a very restricting interpretation.
So what is the alternative(s)?
It’s based on a very narrow conception of what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ karma, and thus ‘suffering’ is seen as something to be avoided.
Well, that depends your acceptance of the term 'suffering' as some might say that being alive is part of the process of suffering while others consider that a mere abstract concept.
On other planets, your consciousness may take other forms. So the kinds of challenges we face here on earth may have no equivalent on a planet in which consciousness manifests as say, a black gas.
Funny you say that. Yes, you can reborn in another universe or in black gas or in a different dimension or beyond that. There are many dimensions by the way. Being born as human is the physical state i.e. coarse. The "higher" the dimension the finer the "beings" are.
And the orthodox interpretation of karma sounds very dis-empowering, as though there’s an echelon of bean-counters in the afterlife, weighing out your ‘good’ and ‘bad’ deeds.
I can only explain it this way. The way I see it as in our physical state if we consume too much of bad foods we do ourselves harm in terms of health. Now, in terms of our mind if we "consume" too much of the negativity does that do much damage? Just like attachment to negativity as it will weigh you down. The accumulation of negativity will add weight to the a person "conscious or energy whatever you wish to call them" (let's call it as karma) and that will take a person's soul to another dimension. So you might ask so what happen in the other dimension? Well put it this way when you have all the souls residing in one location (dimension) it can become over crowded just like earth. I bet the rules are established there to "govern" the new arrivals and the way they decide (or judge) is based on your past deeds good or bad in previous life. There is a system in place.
When the buddhists, etc, tell you that your chances of re-incarnating in human form are very slim (especially after you’ve just passed your driving test, for example) then its basic human psychology that you’ll sign up for whatever they’ll offer. Doubly so if they lay on the sp whilst your chest implodes. (What WAS in that tea?)
Yes, the probability of being reborn as human again is slim or it takes time. However, if you believe in life after death i.e. afterlife, then you have bought into that concept already. In other words, you have already asked that question about your future many times already so are doubting yourself or the afterlife? i.e. if you are a person of science you shouldn't be even concern about the chances of being reborn as human.
So, to me, the orthodox interpretation of karma not only serves as a fetter on our spiritual development, and is really nothing but a recruitment con.
It might or might not be a con but that is the logic of some beliefs. Whether it is for recruitment purposes that is up to individual acceptance.
If I accept the scientific explanation does that me I have been recruited to a new belief? i.e. scientific.
I can assure you that even without becoming a scientist I can give you a quick definite scientific fact which I am 100% right that when you died you turn to dust or fertiliser (some of your bacteria might live on) for the earth. The end. No more. As a human you will Not have a lifespan of more than 100 years (some can live to that age or beyond but not much give it +10% to 15% in rare cases)
Take the dahli lama himself. Nice enough bloke, but I’ve seen more profound insights on the back of a cereal packet.
I am sure he does no harm to other human beings nor force others to believe.
The wing of the Chinese communist party that selected him knew that he wasnt the reincarnation of some former deity, but just some ordinary bloke.
Why even bother to explain whether he is or he is not? All they need to do is to say he is bloke like every human beings. Funny thing is that the communist did not understand other religion during the cultural revolution such as those religion that opposed "idolising" and let the people continued with their belief, but now they are prosecuting them in droves. They don't belief in communism and now being prosecuted.
Hope I haven’t put too much shizxle in the game…
No harm done as individuals just take whatever they can or cannot. You are who you are. I am just seeking to understand how things piece together and to listen to others' views. Even Buddha said not to indulge too much on the details if a person has not truly cultivated own minds.
Reincarnation is a Hindu concept while the Buddhism refer to them as rebirth. Hence the term No Self. I used the term "soul/spirit" for simplicity sake as I don't know what is the best way to describe it. Energy force perhaps? Bear in mind English language has difficulty in interpreting the meaning the true meaning behind those old language.
I have "listened" to some Abrahamic and Hindu explanations all with their own logic but not in great depth yet so will continue to research them when I have time.