Guest guest Posted January 1, 2000 Report Share Posted January 1, 2000 > On 31 Dec 1999, Prema Bhakti wrote: > >>Guru-Krsna Dasa wrote: >So in the case of the former it is "saying the facts", while in the case of the >later it is a "highly slanderous offence" punishable by Yamaraja. >Typical. In the case of the former, whoever fits the definition may truthfully be described as such. And in the case of the latter, whoever is so childishly slandering those who happen to differ with him on "gender issues" will reap his just deserts--I also am confident of that, yes. >Curiously, but you are using term "Vaisnavis" when referring to "one who >advocates... [atheism]". Well, prabhu, I thank you for putting that word in brackets, at least. So that's now for you to explain or not, as you like. My comment is that although feminism is a product of an atheistic society, still it's obviously *not* a synonym for atheism. So you have unnecessarily introduced the word "atheism" in a discussion not at all about atheism and have also unecessarily created the oxymoronic concept of a "Vaisnavi who advocates atheism." Why waste time in this way? >While "one" is of no gender, you got only the females in your divine mind (as >opposed to "darwinistic mind") to attribute to this trouble making. That you claim (wrongly, by the way) to know my mind is also a little silly, isn't it, prabhu? >- Mahanidhi das (typical) Perhaps you might consider responding atypically for a change --gkd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.