Dear Poirot,

<<Has it occurred to you that in order to "make a choice" (as in, "now which parents should I have?") one also needs a brain?>>

Yes, this conundrum isn't new and been long debated in scripture. If choice required thinking, then the answer would be 'Yes', but thinking is limited to humans (and perhaps also to higher apes, dolphins and whales, possibly also to creatures of other planets), and even humans often don't make use of it when they choose!

Thinking requires a brain and the confusion arises from associating choice with thinking. Now please don't get me wrong - I do strongly recommend thinking before making a choice, but that's not a prerequisite. Some object because they find it difficult to accept that they're responsible for their lot, that they're not victims. A human court is likely to consider a "I didn't think" argument as a mitigating factor and even acquit on the basis of "I didn't have a brain at the time, your honour", but that's only because the judge and jury are human. If you aren't a human (which indeed you aren't), then you don't get such discounts.

Dear Agronomist,

Spiritual Safety simply means the absence of risks to one's spiritual well-being and progress.

You accurately described how our bodies came to be, but what has that to do with the question of why should YOU want to have anything to do with this or that body?

Dear Martin,

Good, we are finally coming to the crux of the matter. It may require legal advice (are you a lawyer?), but assuming that the procedure you describe prevails, then what it means is that Australia is run by a humanist elite that persecutes religion, particularly religious children, offering them no protection whatsoever against the tide of materialism. In other words, violence prevails.

Assuming your description is correct, then science is thus used as an excuse for persecution. The fact that something can be proven scientifically only means that it is a scientific fact, not that it's better in any way than other points of view.

Yuyutsu,

"...I strongly recommend thinking before making a choice, but that's not a prerequisite..."

If you're making a choice then you are thinking.

Dear Poirot,

<<If you're making a choice then you are thinking.>>

Thank you for the compliment, though I don't think that I always deserve it.

"proof" exists in mathematics...but not science in general and certainly not in medicine!
The best we can manage is "balance of probabilities"...anyone pretending certainty is either deluded or scamming you. (I'm guessing this is why religions have constant issues with science...they just don't allow the concept of probability and uncertainty into their world-view and are magnets for scammers)
When evidence is looked at, vaccination is a no-brainer *unless* you assume that it is OK to freeload...let the rest of the population bear the burden via herd immunity. Some of the "illogical" reaction is just selfishness in disguise.
cohenite: Seen any climate stats lately? The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of AGW...don't let the politics of what to do (if anything) distort the data and the science.

Martin:

>>I'm not normally this aggressive, so I apologise, but what you've just said is very disturbing, and I'm even wondering if I should show the police.<<

I entirely understand your sentiment but showing the police won't help in the slightest. Expressing opinions which show a callous disregard for human life does not constitute a criminal offence so there is nothing the police can do. If he were to act on those opinions it might come under the jurisdiction of the police. But for now the best thing to do is show it to a doctor - three doctors actually: that being the required amount to have him sectioned under the mental health act. And in this case sectioning seems entirely appropriate. Not only will he locked up securely where he can't hurt other people: he will also be getting the psychiatric help that he needs so he no longer feels it is acceptable or desirable to hurt people. He won’t get that help in prison. Surely sequestration with the chance of rehabilitation is preferable to just sequestration?

>>know that an absence of further posts from me in response indicate my continued disbelief in your delusions and my refusal to play your trolling game.<<

I think that Yuyutsu is a nut and not a troll. Trolls do it for the lols. Nuts are just nuts.

Cheers,

Tony

Yuyutsu:

>>I wonder whether they did so indeed in honour of Kali, or in order to procure benefits from Her. The former is justified, the later isn't.<<

So strangling strangers is OK as long as you do it for the right reasons? If we were to start locking up people who would recklessly endanger their children on the basis of their religious beliefs but we were doing it for the right reasons then that would be OK too wouldn't it?

>>We all die, eventually: what's better than to die for a spiritual cause!<<

Dying for a spiritual cause at age 99 from an incurable illness like cancer instead of being killed for your parent's spiritual cause at age 9 from an easily curable or preventable affliction like blood loss or poliomyelitis.

>>By not realizing our divine true nature, by believing that we are humans instead, we do it all the time!?<<

Well then you should have no trouble at all linking me to a scanned image of a death certificate that has 'insufficiently religious' as the cause of death. Well go on... I'm waiting. Although I can see how you might have some trouble finding a death certificate like this if your assertion that irreligiousness can be directly fatal is just unfounded crap with no basis in reality.

>>The bible's 6th commandment is wrongly translated as "thou shalt not kill": the original text, however, is "thou shalt not murder".<<

The original text is written in Hebrew. Do you know Classical Hebrew? As well as the scholars who translated the Bible? How about we leave translation of dead languages to those whose credentials amount to more than what they read off some website?

>>The difference is the selfish intention or the lack thereof.

I do not support murder. My morals are not merely subjective, but also based on scriptures many thousands of years old and careful philosophical analysis.<<

>>The foremost spiritual principle is that of Non-violence.<<

Well now you're just being difficult. Where does that leave the poor old Spanish Inquisition?

TBC