Religion Thread 2

Locked
Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3866
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Post by Kakkaji »

TSJones wrote:So guys, go ahead with yer little discussion here, but I want you to know it was the evangelicals who were at the forefront of the fight against slavery in Britain and in the US. So, no, they're not going to give up on the Dalits or the tribals anytime soon. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce
TSJ:

I'd like to know what the EJs are doing for some of their own countrymen, those of the African ancestry? I read some shocking statistics in a column in the local newspapers today. It appears a majority of them are living their lives surrounded by poverty and crime, unable to escape. Large percentages unemployed (generation after generation), majority of births out of wedlock, large numbers of young men in prison, many lives cut short by violence etc. etc. Are the EJs doing anything for them, or are they too scared to enter those neighbourhoods? Much safer and cheaper to 'help' Dalits and Tribals in India, isn't it?

And as for quoting William Wilberforce and all, when are you going to learn that such tactics may work with Pakis and all, but not with people from India, a country that has produced much larger number of pious social reformers than all of Europe and North America put together?

I don't wanna get into a "mine is bigger than yours" contest with you, but against your William Wilberforce, I shall pit a man by the name of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (perhaps you have heard of him), who was instrumental in the abolition of untouchability under law. Why don't you read about his life, what odds he faced, and how he forced society to change

As for your smugly superior posturings on this thread, here is a prediction from this SDRE Injun: 50 years from now (I won't be alive, you may still be :wink: ) the progeny of today's Dalit and Tribal Hindus will be well-integrated with the rest of Hindu society in India, but the descendents of African-Americans of today will still be living in a world apart from their White countrymen, notwithstanding the EJs.
Last edited by Kakkaji on 20 Mar 2007 06:07, edited 1 time in total.
Sadler
BRFite
Posts: 256
Joined: 30 Oct 2005 10:26
Location: USA-ISRAEL

Post by Sadler »

Rakesh: Very heartened to hear your views. I have been wanting to hear the view of Indian christians, and FWIW, i hope you and others like you can help curb the EJ menace.

RE: Original sin.

Here's my quandary.

Einstein and Gandhi are gonna rot in hell because they did not believe in Yeshu'a.

Yet a pedophile lands straight in His bosom, only because he believes in Yeshu'a.

Was gibst?
sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6088
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Post by sanjaykumar »

The central fallacies of conversion have been expostulated. Islamic jihad is beginning to look familiar.

Three cheers for democracy and the freedom to have this discussion, in English, without fear of state sanction or religious victimisation either from India or the Angloshere countries. Bailing out.
Sadler
BRFite
Posts: 256
Joined: 30 Oct 2005 10:26
Location: USA-ISRAEL

Post by Sadler »

Calvin wrote:Sadler:

There is a difference between a private residence and public place of worship. Do you suppose that a place of worship in the US would be able to deny entry to people on the basis of race, gender, or religion?
I still stand by my assertion that a place of worship is not a "public" place. If it were, i could stroll in there in my jammies or a woman could walk in there in a thong. Perhaps these are extreme comparisons, but still valid. You held up the example of a few temples denying admittance to non-hindus as a rebuttal of the putative tolerance of hindus. I proved, beyond doubt, that you were incorrect. And i cited the examples of Farsis in India, who have carved a great existence for themselves in India. They are respectful of the native indian faiths and yet, for their own religious reasons do not admit non-Farsis to their Fire Temple. THey have every right to deny a non-Farsi admittance to their holy sites. This non-admittance is not based on race or color (yet another diversion you cleverly chose to introduce - and you accuse me of inventing strawmen. HAH?) but IS BASED on religion. And they are perfectly justified in doing that.

So, your "putative tolerance" remark was exposed for what it was.

Also, you obviously have had time to research which hindu temples do not admit non-hindus. That must have taken some time, wot?

Yet it is simply amazing that you cannot find a fraction of that time to uncover the inherent intolerance and bigotry of EJ. Leave it to Mr G. Sub (sorry, name too long) to cite post after post. I mean if i was defending a certain practice, i would certainly at least undertake rudimentary research to determine what exactly it is that i am defending. But, perhaps you are so taken up by trying to rebut "putative hindu tolerance" that you have no time to research the vile agenda of the EJ. Sad, no?

Calvin wrote:For the rest of your email, it appears that you are setting up straw-men for the purpose of personally attacking me.
Quite the contrary. I dont need strawmen, when i can use your own, and in my view prejudiced, arguments against you.

BTW, i was not attacking you. I was attacking your intolerant defence of the bigotry of EJ. Big difference.

As for "setting up strawmen", seemed like a cop-out to me. Nice verbal jugglery to spare yourself the onerous task of answering my questions.

FWIW, i dont expect you to present any credible answers to this or many other excellent emails that have challenged your views in a very polite yet forceful way.

The fact that i want to expose about you to BRF is simple.

You are defending the vile, bigotted and despicable act of EJ. That is all i want BRF to see about you. Nothing more and nothing less. I am not attacking you as a person, but certainly your views.

AGAIN, lest you twist my words. Here is my simple agenda, if you will.

To show BRF the inherent hollowness of your defence of the EJ. And the fact that you seem to have more than sufficient time researching and re-butting the "putative tolerance" of hindus (temples) and others but yet, strangely enough, nary a moment to research the agenda of the EJ.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Post by Rakesh »

Arun_S wrote:I was rebutting as fallacious and wrong your following assertion (in bold and underline) that in John 1:1 the 'Word'(Lagos) means Bible. Don't brush it aside with "at the end of the day" diversion.:
The Greek word is Logos and not Lagos. The latter is a city in Nigeria. Secondly, and more importantly, for me to say that the Bible is NOT the word of God is akin to blasphemy. However I cannot force anyone to believe that, I am just telling you what I believe to be factual based on reading the Bible. My post, which you quoted in bold, also states that it is a matter of faith. Where I disagree with my fellow Christians, is when they force that view onto others. That is wrong. Christ Himself never did that, so what right do His followers have?
Sadler wrote:Here's my quandary. Einstein and Gandhi are gonna rot in hell because they did not believe in Yeshu'a. Yet a pedophile lands straight in His bosom, only because he believes in Yeshu'a. Was gibst?
To answer your question, one needs to read Matthew 20:1-16 to understand why Christians believe what you just asked above. [Added Later: Sorry, my fault...not exactly the correct verses to choose for the sake of this discussion...but nonetheless a good read as Matthew 20:15 is bang-on what we are talking about. Romans 9:20-21, which I quoted below is the better choice].

Einstein and Gandhi were both evolutionaries of their time. Two men that largely shaped the 20th century and arguably even the present one. However I really don't know where Einstein and Gandhi are right now. They could be in heaven or in hell. We fight for the souls of other men, but the one soul we ought to fight for (our own) is largely ignored.
Pulikeshi wrote:Being a "doubting Thomas" myself - :mrgreen:
How can God judge me for a sin I never committed? He has the right to judge my parents for producing me, but I was/am innocent :P

I can be held responsible for my actions, how can I be judged on some action that was not on account of my free will? By induction, everyone else had no sin, expect Adam/Eve (if they existed!).

Since, they committed the original sin, what kind of a vindictive God is this that punishes the rest of us who are innocent (of the original sin)? Does'nt seem all too compassionate and forgiving to me! Are vindictive Gods cramping your style? Choose Dharma! Choose Freedom!
Pulikeshi, thank you for your replies as well. I too am signing out from our discussion, but would just like to reply to your post with the following;

Romans 9:20-21 "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?."
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

Rakesh wrote:
Arun_S wrote:I was rebutting as fallacious and wrong your following assertion (in bold and underline) that in John 1:1 the 'Word'(Lagos) means Bible. Don't brush it aside with "at the end of the day" diversion.:
The Greek word is Logos and not Lagos. The latter is a city in Nigeria. Secondly, and more importantly, for me to say that the Bible is NOT the word of God is akin to blasphemy. However I cannot force anyone to believe that, I am just telling you what I believe to be factual based on reading the Bible. My post, which you quoted in bold, also states that it is a matter of faith. Where I disagree with my fellow Christians, is when they force that view onto others. That is wrong. Christ Himself never did that, so what right do His followers have?
Kudos. I am with you.
My bad on spelling of "Logos".
rocky
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 22:52

Post by rocky »

Rakesh wrote:Well the Christian belief is that all men have the sin of Adam upon them. So it does not matter if you were born 5000 years ago, 2000 years ago or right now...Christianity states that we all have the sin of Adam.
Since you are a Christian, and from Kerala, and you state that Kerala was Christianised after the arrival of St. Thomas (despite the fact that there is no evidence to the fact that he ever went to India, and there is literally no name for the alleged Hindu king who allowed him into India), I would like to pose a few questions:

1) Before St. Thomas allegedly came to Kerala, it is obvious that all the people there were Hindu, since that was the only religion in India. Obviously your ancestors were also Hindu at that time. Since they weren't Christian, are you saying that they have the sin and were sent to hell?

2) How can one lay the blame of a sin on people who didn't even know about it?

3) If tomorrow I write a book, and say that it is the text from God himself/herself and everybody must follow this book or they will go to hell, what gives?

4) Enormous amounts of evidence has been produced to prove that the earth is several millions of years old, and that life has been here on earth since several million years too. Now if I come across a book that says that the earth is only 8000 years old and anybody who doesn't agree with the book will go to hell, what gives?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

My take on Valkan's question to me in the Xenophobia thread:

S.Valkan wrote:
shiv wrote:That means that a Christian or Islamic concept of God is perfectly acceptable to Hindus.

That is the problem.
Why is that a problem ?

It is not a problem with regards to Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, all of which differ from/discard some elements of Hinduism.
The latter faiths call for ACTION, while Hinduism does NOT call for any action. Only inaction and acceptance.

But Hindus need to get off their asses because their philosophy is one of acceptance.

Acceptance is a virtue.

< snip >

But the bigger question is, WHAT are the Hindus trying to defend ?

Is there an immovable Hindu "way of life" that Hindus are seeking to defend , like the mullahs in their medieval Salafi bastions ?

Or is it some unique set of values and ideas, that are finding resonance in the educated, intellectual world of reason and ethics ?

If it is the latter, Hindus can find a common platform with a whole lot of people across the world.
The lack of fighting for space for one's own viewpoint, combined with acceptance of other viewpoints as valid is basically suicidal.

It explains the geographical spread of Islam and Christianity and the lack of geographical spread of Hindu thought except by random diffusion into environments that allow free thought. There is, as have been pointed out by many, a shrinking of geographical space occupied by Hindus.

There are geographical areas in which Hindu thought processes are illegal and can be punished by death and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are prime examples.

It is important not to forget that this is not a question of Hindus thoughts alone of ideologies of Islam and Christianity in isolation.

I am referring to the game that gets played out when the two sets of thought processes, one of "action" and another of "acceptance and passivity" collide as has happened in India

For example - let me take an instance of how a harmless but actively spread thought process can get precedence over an attitude of acceptance and lack of fighting because the active thought process is considered harmless by people, and opposition is considered disruptive.

The forum software allows the use of large fonts and colors. These features are used by choice. There was a move by some members to actively oppose (using gentle nonviolent requests as well as humorous threats) the use of large fonts and colored fonts. That opposition to font sizes and colors was not considered to be a big deal by most, although it did restrict the freedom of some people.

Gradually, this forum has "accepted" that large fonts and colors need not be used. If the feature that allows large fonts and colored fonts were to be removed, few on this forum would miss it.

In the same way Hindu "acceptance" that Christian belief and Islamic belief are fine and innocuous, and Hindus not pushing for the propagation and preservation of Hindu thought processes will gradually ensure that they reach a stage when their loss will be missed by no one.

Hindu passivity about preservation of a thought process (knowledge) that opposes nobody else is the biggest threat to Hindus while Christianity and Islam have action built in to their faiths.

One has to act to "spread the word of God". In the process of acting to spread the word of God, the passive thought process that God is anywhere and can take any form can be sidelined without opposition. Heck you want God - OK - you can have God via Quran or Bible. No need for your rock/tree idol.

At this stage we come back to "solutions" that were discussed in the Islamism threads.

Should Hindus kill all Christians and Muslims in the world?

Should Hindus eliminate all Christians and Muslims in India?

Should Hindus continue to wail and moan forever until the inevitable extinction of their passively accepting thought process gets replaced by a narrow but active dogma?

Maybe its me - but all three "solutions" seem faulty.

Hindus are not trying to preserve a religion. They are only protecting an advanced form of knowledge and exploration by thought and reasoning. Fundamentalist Christians and Islamists are opposed to this because such thoughts are the route to dissent and disunity. Disunity and dissent are destructive to any religious dogma and the mullahs/clergy whose power stems from that will be the most rabid opponents.

Acceptance unfortunately is the anathema of action. Krishna's reasoning in the Bhagwad Gita is a super trick of reasoning to force a dithering man to act. There are certain duties that one must perform and preservation of the freedom to think about God and the Universe as you wish must be a duty.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

Rakesh wrote:.... .for me to say that the Bible is NOT the word of God is akin to blasphemy. However I cannot force anyone to believe that, I am just telling you what I believe to be factual based on reading the Bible. My post, which you quoted in bold, also states that it is a matter of faith. Where I disagree with my fellow Christians, is when they force that view onto others. That is wrong. Christ Himself never did that, so what right do His followers have?
Is your disgreement not violative of not following Pope/Vatican's edict that IMO still stands (current) to convert the non-believers at the pain of discomfort and death?

What do you do today when fellow Christians, force that view onto others?
Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Post by Bade »

Since you are a Christian, and from Kerala, and you state that Kerala was Christianised after the arrival of St. Thomas (despite the fact that there is no evidence to the fact that he ever went to India, and there is literally no name for the alleged Hindu king who allowed him into India), I would like to pose a few questions:

1) Before St. Thomas allegedly came to Kerala, it is obvious that all the people there were Hindu, since that was the only religion in India. Obviously your ancestors were also Hindu at that time. Since they weren't Christian, are you saying that they have the sin and were sent to hell?

4) Enormous amounts of evidence has been produced to prove that the earth is several millions of years old, and that life has been here on earth since several million years too. Now if I come across a book that says that the earth is only 8000 years old and anybody who doesn't agree with the book will go to hell, what gives?
It is not obvious that was the case in Kerala. Buddhism was definitely popular as evident in the spartan temple architecture of Kerala. Shankara's recoversion though debate indicates that it was the case to laymen like me.

Since we know the age of the earth pretty well your last question is a very valid one and many faiths have yawning gaps that can explain the difference.
Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Calvin »

Sadler: If you haven't caught the drift of my interest yet, then you probably never will. The greatest crimes and killings have been caused in the names of the "greater good of society", in many cases embodied in the power of the state. Protection of individual rights is the only thing that can possibly protect us in the long run. In that context, freedom of speech is one of the most important rights. If you cannot "get" this, it is probably because emotional revulsion towards evangelists overrides the logical argument defending individual rights.

You are "asserting" that the Parsis have a right to discriminate on the basis of religion. From what I can tell, if they were in the US, they would most definitely NOT have that right.

This particular thread spent a significant fraction of its initial life discussing Dharmic beliefs, and what I as an outsider noticed was the discrepancy between the ideals being discussed and the reality which I had actually experienced. I merely wondered whether highly erudite Christian scholars would debate the finer points of Christianity and completely ignore the reality that the vast majority of its practioners deal with. No one has yet chosen to discuss this.
Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Post by Bade »

There are certain duties that one must perform and preservation of the freedom to think about God and the Universe as you wish must be a duty.
This is what Hindus should demand of other theocratic states and institutions. While others ask for freedom to preach and convert, the rallying cry for Hindus in return should be the preservation of the freedom to think independently about anything and be willing to legislate it and go to war for it as well, if we think we are in the business of propagation of the human species for as long as it can last.
Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Post by Pulikeshi »

In the same way Hindu "acceptance" that Christian belief and Islamic belief are fine and innocuous, and Hindus not pushing for the propagation and preservation of Hindu thought processes will gradually ensure that they reach a stage when their loss will be missed by no one.

Hindu passivity about preservation of a thought process (knowledge) that opposes nobody else is the biggest threat to Hindus while Christianity and Islam have action built in to their faiths.
Shiv - aptly put!

The Hindu – Memeplex is a collection of many Memes. One such is (H-M-Tolerance): that any new deity with a reasonable myth system and rituals shall be tolerated as long as it does not vastly challenge the rights of other deities, especially those associated with the Hindu Trinity, to exist.

Corollary: If a new deity (there are several new ones created as recently as a few hundred years ago, perhaps one yesterday!) is created by a group of people, and is given geologic time, the H-M-Tolerance meme can eventually transform and assimilate the new deity into the Hindu Trinity and weave a new Meme (myth).

However, the failing of H-M-Tolerance, is that it did not account for deities that are overtly jealous and demand singular attention and promise “Hellâ€
Vishy_mulay
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 09:21
Location: Melbourne

Post by Vishy_mulay »

Boy lot many interesting discussions happened on this forum in last 48 hrs. Was a pleasure to read most of the post and especially from Rakesh. I might not agree with few points you made but I respect the civil way you conducted in response to some hostile posts. My kudos. When I left this thread it was predominantly dealing with SD and its problems both internal and external. Wish it would have continued on those lines but it diverged into lot of other things.
My question to Rakesh, if at all you are still posting on this thread is that Have you read this book?
http://www.amazon.com/101-Myths-Bible-I ... 1570715866
I scan through it and will read it in details once I get some free time from my work. One thing which really strikes me was the creation story. I was unaware that Egyptian creation story is word to word copied into Old Testament. And words Adam (from soil) and Eve (Original "Hava" meaning air which is interpreted as soul) is quite suggestive of Egyptian origin of story of creation. Dont know how much truth is in it.
As a man of science and for lack of better word, without blind faith, I dont see much common is scientific reasoning and Faith. I dont think its possible to apply logical reasoning to Faith. One of your post mentioned that people have successfully had faith and believed in scientific reasoning. Want to know what you think of this dilemma? I am asking this question out of curiosity and not to denigrate Christianity. I apply reasoning to what I believe and hence trying to understand Christianity from someone who follows it rather than my anthropomorphic interpretation.
Calvin, this is third time I am saying it , In USA, 1st and 14th amendment allows people of RELIGION to have discriminatory practices under the pretext of Freedom to practice. Internet is full of legal stories about how LDS church can prevent you from visiting their temple if you are not ordained into LDS church.
Added later: Another point is I dont think as a non follower and without much detailed understanding of Christianity, I can comment anything on Christianity. I can very well discuss SD because I follow it and think know little bit about it (I might be completely wrong). The point Calvin raised about ideal thinking being different than what followers might be doing, I can only comment on SDF and not on Christians. I definitely see there are various aberration in common man's practice of SD, only a Christian can point out whether that's true for Christianity also. my 2 cents.
Last edited by Vishy_mulay on 20 Mar 2007 10:14, edited 2 times in total.
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Post by TSJones »


Yet a pedophile lands straight in His bosom, only because he believes in Yeshu'a.


Gosh, I never dreamed I would be ministering the Word before. :)

This, I can assure you, is untrod territory for yours truely for I am a magnificent sinner who needs to follow, not lead. :lol:

I hate to break this to you but you can believe in Jesus and you still may very well go to hell. I don't mean you personally, you know whut I mean...

Profession in the belief of Jesus is the first step to life everlasting. But it is only the first step. There are a few other matters to be dealt with.

1. Are you truely sorry for your sins? Really sorry? Sorry to the point that if you could do it all over again you damn sure wouldn't do it?

You don't think you haven't commited any sins? Bull s**t. You've stepped on somebody. One great theologian has said that you sin and you don't even know it. Somebody has paid the price for you.

2. Are you ready to commit your life to the Golden Rule? Knowing full well what it means? This is a tough row to hoe and you will surely fail at it from time to time, so see step no.1.

The Samaritans were not highly regarded by the Jews. But yet Jesus said a Samaritan was a good neighbor.

3. Besides professing your belief in God, you have to love Him with all your heart, all your soul, all your stength and all your mind.

So, yes a pedophile can go to heaven. But he's got to reform and do steps 1 thru 3. Unfortunately, probably not many of them can do it.

Pedophiles aside, the way I see it, there are a lot of good pious people going straight to hell, maybe dragging me along with them. :D
Last edited by TSJones on 20 Mar 2007 10:13, edited 1 time in total.
Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Post by Pulikeshi »

Seems to me there is no pure evil Meme in Dharmic religions - a la Shaitan (aka Satan). Most of the Dharmic Religion Gods are imperfect, yet well adjusted and seem normal, not overtly demanding and beneficial if treated well.

However, jealous they are not, neither is there a division of God vs. Shaitan.
This is an eternal US vs. THEM - is singularly unique to Judeo-Christian-Islamic triad.

Finally, TSJ you will probably go to "hell" for all the tormet you subject the netizens of BRF :P

I'd gladly give you company, but I am beyond hell:

Aham Brahman asmi
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Post by Murugan »

Arun_S

Regarding Ram Sita Coins of East India Company

Dear, you are right they didn't have any problem with relgious icons on coins/currencies,

But the east India company's ram sita huanuma and Om coins images you have posted here are FAKES. Yes, FAKES.

If you are paying for buying for such coins, please desist. There are lots a forgeries around

If you want more info on Indian coins

www.reeshabooks.com
www.todyauction.com
www.rbi.org

if you happen to be in mumbai
visit RBI Coin/Currency Museum near Mint
visit CS Museum (Prince of Wales Museum)'s Coin Gallery,
they are worth a look

***
You may buy Krause Publication Catalogue of World Coins
for the 1801 to 1900 and 1901 to 200, that will cost you Max INR 6000=00.

***

link for a Ram Siya Coin of none other than Mohammad Jalalluddin Akbar:

http://www.bhu.ac.in/kala/gallery_nidhi.htm

(This is Genuine)
sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6088
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Post by sanjaykumar »

I am incarnated to fight evil again.


The greatest crimes and killings have been caused in the names of the "greater good of society", in many cases embodied in the power of the state

That is debatable, Christians have a long and sordid history of killing each other, commencing with the time before modern states.


Their record with non-Europeans is no surprise. The British brought the Light to darkest Africa. They also ran death camps for any niggers with the temerity to ask for the highland farms back from the Christians.
The genocide in South America cannot be wiped clean by Mel Gibson's films. Was this was the civilising effect of Christianity. Winston Churchill, Christian extraordinaire felt it morally correct to bomb Iraqi villages from the air. You of course may have another Christianity in mind than the one historically documented. Ask Sadler who said of the Christians-We have come to an understanding, you tolerate my sighs, I put up with your murderous rages.

Yes now for Hindu rioting against Muslims-these Hindus are lost, they are devil worshippers only doing what comes naturally to them. What is your excuse that you know better?

Give up religion-use your intellect. You don't need homespun wisdom from a book if you truly believe in human rights for all.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Post by Rakesh »

Arun_S wrote:Is your disgreement not violative of not following Pope/Vatican's edict that IMO still stands (current) to convert the non-believers at the pain of discomfort and death? What do you do today when fellow Christians, force that view onto others?
The Catholic Church has single-handedly done more to destroy Christianity than any other Christian sect. That institution is the last one to pass moral judgements on anyone. The Pope and the Vatican have no santicty in them anymore and they never had it for quite a while. Pope Benedict XVI is the one who said St Thomas never really came to India. He is attempting to erase a part of Indian history that is factual and Christianity in India is not the only institution under attack, rather India as a whole is a victim of this cancer that is Evanjehadism.

The only evanjehadists that I have seen, are the ones on TV and the ones I read on the internet. However I have gotten into discussions with Pentecostals (the largest growing sect in Christianity and the one of the worst sects out there) and lets just say, it is not pretty :) To attack an evanjehadi, you must defeat him at his own game - gift of the gab and a thorough knowledge of the Bible.

Next time an evanjehadist comes up to you, ask him this...If God Loves Everyone, Does God Love Satan? More than likely he will say, after squirming for a while, "Well Satan is not Human!" Then ask him, but you just said God Loves Everyone...so I guess that is not true! Then ask him does God Love Adolf Hitler? If he says no, then he has already lost his credibility and pay him no more attention. If he says yes, then ask him is Adolf Hitler in heaven? Because going by all accounts of his life on earth, it is safe to assume then Adolf Hitler is in hell. By this point, he will already believe that you are possessed of the Devil. He will either leave you or try and convince you some more. If the latter happens, tell him that since you can't commit to either question in a satisfactory manner (that pleases you!) that you don't see the need to listen to him anymore. Also tell him to learn the Bible before he goes out attempting to harvest souls.
Last edited by Rakesh on 20 Mar 2007 10:48, edited 2 times in total.
Sadler
BRFite
Posts: 256
Joined: 30 Oct 2005 10:26
Location: USA-ISRAEL

Post by Sadler »

Rakesh wrote: Where I disagree with my fellow Christians, is when they force that view onto others. That is wrong. Christ Himself never did that, so what right do His followers have?
Rakesh: I wanted to run something by you. About proselytization, especially with reference to the call by JC to "spread the gospel."

Here's my take, fwiw.

I think most folks, including those on BRF here would not object to say a Hindu (or a jew for that matter), one fine day, of his/her own volition that the Lord Ganesha (or Abraham, equivalently) does not "do it for him (to use TSJ-speak) any more. He/she could freely walk into say a church and try to find solace there. And the church, by welcoming him/her, would be then free to "spread the gospel." This at least to me is acceptable, and were the hypothetical hindu (or jew) to convert, then so be it.

On the other hand, using the excuse of "spreading the gospel" to accost folks on the street by asking them "son, how'd you like to go to heaven?" is indefensible, biggoted and repugnant. For it presumes, for one that the non-christian target is not going to heaven, and therefore is presumably a sinner. How the duck can a christian (EJ) make such an utterance? And further, he/she may well think that the christian path, through JC, is the only way to salvation. But, the moment the christian says to a non-christian that the non-C is going to hell, there is a problem. That is the kind of "spread the gospel" that i disapprove.

To sum: No problem if a person, from whatever religion or an atheist or agnostic, of his/her own free volition decides to change his/her religion.

But, under no circumstances is it acceptable to accost people either on the street or on their own doorsteps, only to insult them. That's biggoted, pure and simple. And i dont care if JC Himself told his followers to do that.

That's what i think, and i'd be really interested in knowing your views on the subject. Thank you.
Sadler wrote:Here's my quandary. Einstein and Gandhi are gonna rot in hell because they did not believe in Yeshu'a. Yet a pedophile lands straight in His bosom, only because he believes in Yeshu'a. Was gibst?
Rakesh wrote:To answer your question, one needs to read Matthew 20:1-16 to understand why Christians believe what you just asked above. [Added Later: Sorry, my fault...not exactly the correct verses to choose for the sake of this discussion...but nonetheless a good read as Matthew 20:15 is bang-on what we are talking about. Romans 9:20-21, which I quoted below is the better choice].

Einstein and Gandhi were both evolutionaries of their time. Two men that largely shaped the 20th century and arguably even the present one. However I really don't know where Einstein and Gandhi are right now. They could be in heaven or in hell. We fight for the souls of other men, but the one soul we ought to fight for (our own) is largely ignored.
I think, Rakesh, that you misunderstood my reasons for asking my question. I wanted to know your personal thoughts on the subject, which may be based on your reading of christian scriptures and that is fine. But still, your distillation of what you believe.

Again, the question is: As a christian, do you believe (or are comfortable in believing) that Einstein and Gandhi because they were not christians are destined to go to hell, whereas a pedophile catholic priest will be with JC/God because he fervently believes in God and accepts that JC is his son.

Once again, i am not asking you where they are right now. What i am asking you is whether you believe that they both are DESTINED for hell simply because they are not christians. And if yes, are you personally comfortable believing so. If yes, why yes? If not, why no?

I have observed you answering questions so far very honestly. I believe that the question above is a toughie. Should you choose to pass, i can certainly respect your decision. Again, thanks and Shalom.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

Murugan wrote:Arun_S

Regarding Ram Sita Coins of East India Company

Dear, you are right they didn't have any problem with relgious icons on coins/currencies,

But the east India company's ram sita huanuma and Om coins images you have posted here are FAKES. Yes, FAKES.

If you are paying for buying for such coins, please desist. There are lots a forgeries around
OK I will check out some more. BTW bought those from Mumbai's bazaar.
Sadler
BRFite
Posts: 256
Joined: 30 Oct 2005 10:26
Location: USA-ISRAEL

Post by Sadler »

TSJones wrote: Pedophiles aside, the way I see it, there are a lot of good pious people going straight to hell, maybe dragging me along with them. :D
Thanks for the exposition. What about the first part of my question?

Will Yeshu'a and the god of christians consign both Einstein and Gandhi to hell simply because they are not christians even if otherwise they may have (for the sake of argument) led faultless lives.

Then, contrast that to a pedophile, even a remorseful one and his acceptance by the christian god and the son of the said god.

BTW, this "christ taking the bullet for his followers" is sure coming handy for both Newt Gingrich (who apparently was bonking his mistress about the same time that Bill was getting his sausage waxed) and good ole Rush. They shore need it.
Last edited by Sadler on 20 Mar 2007 11:09, edited 1 time in total.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Post by Rakesh »

Vishy_mulay wrote:My question to Rakesh, if at all you are still posting on this thread is that Have you read this book?
http://www.amazon.com/101-Myths-Bible-I ... 1570715866
I have not read that book, but the Holy Bible has been under attack since the beginning. I am not surprised. Last year, I read an article that after Jesus died on the cross, His body was fed to the dogs. The article basically states that Christ never really rose from the dead. I just laughed and turned to the next page of the newspaper. I really don't get bothered by such books & articles.
Vishy_mulay wrote:As a man of science and for lack of better word, without blind faith, I dont see much common is scientific reasoning and Faith. I dont think its possible to apply logical reasoning to Faith. Want to know what you think of this dilemma?
You are right. It is not possible to apply logical reasoning to faith. That is indeed a dilemma and a mystery. And to stop beating around the bush, I really don't have a specific answer for you. But as logical we humans attempt to be, can one explain logically and in a scientific manner why we love our parents or why we love our children? Can love be explained logically? Can love be explained scientifically? What is the logical & scientific reason behind men taking a second glance at Mallika Sherawat in a bikini? :) Somethings in life, Mallika included, are just not logical. Why that is the case, is a question you have to ask God.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Post by Rakesh »

Sadler I will reply soon to your post. Supreme HQ is complaining that I am spending too much time on BR. Will reply when she is not around :)
Sadler
BRFite
Posts: 256
Joined: 30 Oct 2005 10:26
Location: USA-ISRAEL

Post by Sadler »

Rakesh wrote: To attack an evanjehadi, you must defeat him at his own game - gift of the gab and a thorough knowledge of the Bible.

Next time an evanjehadist comes up to you, ask him this...If God Loves Everyone, Does God Love Satan?............
FWIW, i hope folks like you lead the fight. Thank you, from the bottom of my heart.
Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Post by Pulikeshi »

While we all argue about technicalities - wanted to share what I had to learn at an early age (I am sure may of you knnow this sukta very well):
The famous nasadiya sukta - the 129th sukta of the 10th mandala of the Rik Veda.

I believe every child must be made to recite this everyday as a prayer:

Then even nothingness was not, nor existence,
There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it.
What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping
Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?

Then there was neither death nor immortality
nor was there then the torch of night and day.
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.

At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumined water.
That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
arose at last, born of the power of heat.

In the beginning desire descended on it -
that was the primal seed, born of the mind.
The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom
know that which is is kin to that which is not.

And they have stretched their cord across the void,
and know what was above, and what below.
Seminal powers made fertile mighty forces.
Below was strength, and over it was impulse.

But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows - or maybe even he does not know.


This is worth protecting - choose freedom, choose Dharma!
SRoy
BRFite
Posts: 1938
Joined: 15 Jul 2005 06:45
Location: Kolkata
Contact:

Post by SRoy »

Pulikeshi wrote:While we all argue about technicalities - wanted to share what I had to learn at an early age (I am sure may of you knnow this sukta very well):
The famous nasadiya sukta - the 129th sukta of the 10th mandala of the Rik Veda.

I believe every child must be made to recite this everyday as a prayer:

Then even nothingness was not, nor existence,
There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it.
What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping
Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?

Then there was neither death nor immortality
nor was there then the torch of night and day.
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.

At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumined water.
That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
arose at last, born of the power of heat.

In the beginning desire descended on it -
that was the primal seed, born of the mind.
The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom
know that which is is kin to that which is not.

And they have stretched their cord across the void,
and know what was above, and what below.
Seminal powers made fertile mighty forces.
Below was strength, and over it was impulse.

But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows - or maybe even he does not know.


This is worth protecting - choose freedom, choose Dharma!
The title score of Bharat Ek Khoj :)
Abhijit
BRFite
Posts: 530
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: Bay Area - US

Post by Abhijit »

Shiv:
Hindus are not trying to preserve a religion. They are only protecting an advanced form of knowledge and exploration by thought and reasoning. Fundamentalist Christians and Islamists are opposed to this because such thoughts are the route to dissent and disunity. Disunity and dissent are destructive to any religious dogma and the mullahs/clergy whose power stems from that will be the most rabid opponents.

Acceptance unfortunately is the anathema of action. Krishna's reasoning in the Bhagwad Gita is a super trick of reasoning to force a dithering man to act. There are certain duties that one must perform and preservation of the freedom to think about God and the Universe as you wish must be a duty.
yada yada hi dharmasya ... sambhava mi yuge yuge!
Whenever the Gods have been under an existential threat, the Hindu society has produced its saviors ... in the form of adi shankaracharya ... saints of the islamic conquests period .. Shivaji ... who knows, may be Modi.
So far within the constricted borders of India barring the little pakistan no-go areas, this freedom is alive and well. Can the Islamist and EJ droplets expand to gobble up the rest of the freethinking map of India? Despite dire warnings and my own misgivings, I believe that it cannot. Why?

- Ganesh festival in Maharashtra: used to be purely Marathi, mostly inside one's house. Then a hundred years ago Tilak turned it into a sarvajanik (public) festival. Now it is the largest public festival in all of Maharashtra, next to Navaratri.
- Durga puja in WB: The fervor has never gone down. The participation by the commies would bring shame to their diehard ideologues.
- Diwali: Celebrated all over India with even more gusto.
These are but a few examples of a massive revitalization of Hindu festivals that have brought the Hindus closer to their Dharma - may not be ideal and in fact probably anathematic to the purists who would quote upanishads and Veds. But any expansion of the EJ/Islamist droplets will have to contend with the hundreds of millions who reassert their faiths through these observances - many times a year, year after year. The droplets will continue to caste malevolent glances towards these heathen and pagan rituals but the participation is beyond the critical mass - it is all encompassing, even commies haven't been spared.
The EJ's and islamists believe that the rituals are an effect and will be nullified once the souls are harvested or killed. But Hindu Dharma doesn't need any specific antidote against the poisons of the other ideologies. We generate antidotes through our rituals and the participation of untold millions in those rituals.
Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by Kumar »

In the big canvas of universal scope, faith can not be eternal. It is temporay. A higher knowledge modifies or destroys a faith. Even if a new knowledge confirms an existing faith, the faith no longer remains faith after the advent of knowledge. After the knowledge come 'I believe' changes to 'I know'.

Few centuries ago it was possible to lead a good, contented and happy life believing that earth was flat. It didn't impact people's life in any significant way to believe one way or the other, and it was much simpler to believe in flatness.

Now air-travelers from San Francisco can choose to fly west to Tokyo and save a lot of moolah instead of flying east. A flat earth model, where east was always in the east and west in the west, is now clearly counterproductive.

Religion's historical role was to give solace to people in distress. When all seemed lost, religions offered rays of hope, which had its value. It didn't matter what yarns they spun, as long as the primary deliverable had value to its customers, it was alright.

A few centuries ago in Europe, religion came into conflict with science. And despite strong efforts by the church, science won. This shows that when driven by need, people will drop useless 'faiths' and go along with the reality. The areas in which science was clearly in conflict with religion, it made religion retreat. But the primary utility of religion, i.e. providing solace when all hope seems to be lost, still remained, since science hadn't and hasn't yet stormed into that realm with full force.

But going by experience, when science does get there, where it can start to explain deeper human issues, then faiths which are against the reality will have to retreat.

So, in the long term I am not worried about which thought process will survive. Science is not going away anytime soon and is constantly chipping away at 'faiths' that don't conform with reality. And the faiths that have stronger grounding in reason, have a far better chance of survival than faiths whose sole defense is blind faith.

What does worry me is destruction of an ancient culture like India's, if some other expansionist faiths try to take over. A Constantine or Mao can cause a rapid uprooting of a pre existent culture and its supplanting by another. Can someting like that happen to Hinduism too? Can hinduism be subverted from the core itself, or can it be only chipped awy from the peripheries.

There are two kinds of evolutionary forces in this context:

(i) One driven by science, which will keep on uprooting faiths which start to prove counterproductive. Here science has shown itself to be the fittest and will survive the remains of many a hallowed 'faith', no doubt.

(ii) Second is driven by temporary but significant advantages of polarisation. A polarisation created by "us" versus "them" generates lots of potential energy.

I think Hinduism has better chance regarding point (i), not only because of the diversity of ideas which can be pruned as needed, but also the essentially knowledge driven nature. Faith is not so important in hinduism.

Regarding point (ii) Hinduism is at a disadvantage, but its very breadth & tolerance act as protective forces. There is not much left to attack in the realm of ideas, so attacks degenerate to demonisations or physical violence.

The so called "tolerance" of Hinduism is a force. Keeping diverse Gods together under one umbrella requires a tremendous 'higher force' that neutralizes the natural monotheistic type tendencies that can be asscociated with any deity. Think of protons held together in a nucleus by the strong nuclear force despite their huge electric repulsion. Electrons deprived of such higher-force fly away from each other in a mono-electronistic vehemence (monotheistic version of particulate gods :) ) when put together.

May the 'higher-force' be with you! :)
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Post by Murugan »

which religion can compare with this...

Women as Rishis

The history of the most of the known civilizations show that the further back we go into antiquity, the more unsatisfactory is found to be the general position of women. Hindu civilization is unique in this respect, for here we find a surprising exception to the general rule. The further back we go, the more satisfactory is found to be the position of women in more spheres than one; and the field of education is most noteworthy among them. There is ample and convincing evidence to show that women were regarded as perfectly eligible for the privilege of studying the Vedic literature and performing the sacrifices enjoined in it down to about 200 B.C. This need not surprise us, for some of the hymns of the Rig Veda are the composition of twenty sage-poetesses.

Women were then admitted to fulfill religious rites and consequently to complete educational facilities. Women-sages were callee Rishikas and Brahmavadinis. The Rig Veda knows of the following Rishikas

1.Romasa
2.Lopamudra
3.Apala
4. Kadru
5.Visvavara
6. Ghosha
7. Juhu
8. Vagambhrini
9. Paulomi
10 Jarita
11. Sraddha-Kamayani
12. Urvasi
12. Sarnga
14. Yami
15. Indrani
18. Savitri
19. Devajami
20. Nodha
21 Akrishtabhasha
22. Sikatanivavari
23. Gaupayana.


The Brahmavadinis were the products of the educational discipline of brahmacharaya for which women also were eligible. Rig Veda refers to young maidens completing their education as brahmacharinis and then gaining husbands in whom they are merged like rivers in oceans. Yajurveda similarly states that a daughter, who has completed her brahmacharya, should be married to one who is learned like her. A most catholic passage occurs in YajurVeda (xxvi, 2) which enjoins the imparting of Vedic knowledge to all classes, Brahmins and Rajanyas, Sudras, Anaryas, and charanas (Vaisyas) and women. No one can recite Vedic prayers or offer Vedic sacrifices without having undergone the Vedic initiation (Upanayana). It is, therefore, but natural that in the early period the Upanayana of girls should have been as common as that of boys. The Arthava Veda (xi. 5.8) expressly refers to maidens undergoing the Brahmacharya discipline and the Sutra works of the 5th century B.C. supply interesting details in its connection. Even Manu includes Upanayana among the sanskaras (rituals) obligatory for girls (II.66). Music and dancing was also taught to them. Brahmavadins used to marry after their education was over, some of them like Vedavati, a daughter of sage Kusadhvaja, would not marry at all.

The Vedic women received a fair share of masculine attention in physical culture and military training. The Rigveda tells us that many women joined the army in those days. A form of chariot race was one of the games most popular during the Vedic period. People were fond of swinging. Ball games were in vogue in those days by both men and women. Apart from this, a number of courtyard games like" Hide and seek" and "Run and catch" were also played by the girls. Playing with dice became a popular activity. The dices were apparently made of Vibhidaka nuts. From the Rigveda, it appears that the Vedic Aryans knew the art of boxing

http://www.sciforums.com/Education-Syst ... 16676.html
Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by Kumar »

Murugan,

One of the female risihis in your list, 'Vagambhrini' ("Vak" daughter of Rishi Ambhrina), was the 'seer' of the famous Devi-Sukta of Rgveda, where Devi (the Supreme Goddess) speaks in first person as being the source of all the power inherent in all the Gods.

Vak had attained identity with the Devi and even today Vak is one of the major names of the Devi. Incidentally "Vak" also means "Word" or "Logos".

Katyayani, daughter of rishi Katyayana, had attained identity with Devi too, and one of the common names of Goddess Durga today is Katyayani.

------------------------------------------------------
An interesting piece in today's hindustan times:

Monday rocks with Shiva
In Lord Shankar's family, natural enemies live in peace. While Shiva's vehicle is Nandi, the bull, Ma Parvati's vehicle is the lion. Ganpati's vehicle is the mouse while Shivji wears its arch-enemies, snakes, around his neck. His son Kartikeya's vehicle is the peacock, a sworn enemy of his father's reptilian ornaments.

Their peaceful co-existence is, hence, an 'adarsh' - an ideal to be followed. Actually, true Shivbhakti lies in making friends of opponents.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

Pulikeshi wrote:While we all argue about technicalities - wanted to share what I had to learn at an early age (I am sure may of you knnow this sukta very well):
The famous nasadiya sukta - the 129th sukta of the 10th mandala of the Rik Veda.

I believe every child must be made to recite this everyday as a prayer:

Then even nothingness was not, nor existence,
There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it.
What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping
Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?

Then there was neither death nor immortality
nor was there then the torch of night and day.
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.

At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumined water.
That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
arose at last, born of the power of heat.

In the beginning desire descended on it -
that was the primal seed, born of the mind.
The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom
know that which is is kin to that which is not.

And they have stretched their cord across the void,
and know what was above, and what below.
Seminal powers made fertile mighty forces.
Below was strength, and over it was impulse.

But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows - or maybe even he does not know.


This is worth protecting - choose freedom, choose Dharma!
BIG BANG THEORY! a rig vedic proof for saying Science existed before God(s)!

Q.E.D!

Ps: imho, Gods became relevant (created) only after Humans evolved!
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

Rakesh wrote:Whether I am trying to be factual about this assertion is not in question, as unlike Evangelists, I don't force anyone to believe it. You can accept it or reject it. However if you ask me about the KJV, then that is indeed my answer.
Well, the presumption when you make an unqualified assertion in response to a reasoned statement in a debate is that you can corroborate the claim with facts.

Obviously, if it is a matter of only belief, that is a whole different ballgame.
I fully believe that God was present during those Ecumenical councils and although folks in those councils argued & bickered with each other, every book that you see in the Bible was already decided by God. Again for that I go back to the Bible, as the Bible defends itself.
I have no intention of questioning your personal beliefs.

I was just trying to arrive at a conclusion in regards to facts surrounding the aggregation of the books of the Bible.

Historical evidence of the ecumenical councils and available recensions is contrary to the claim of an unitary version.

It is further bolstered by the discovery of Nag Hamadi scrolls.
If God really wants his children to know about him, he will create one Bible and one alone.
Now you are reading into the minds of someone or something you hardly know, leave alone know its mind.
I am however intrigued by your statement that the Gospels don't agree with one another. Please do state your findings.
I'll let you, the expert on the Bible, do the honours with the KJV. :wink:

Can you refer to the Gospels of Mark, John, Luke and Matthew and construct a version of the resurrection story which is agreeable to ALL of them ?

The time, the actors/actresses, the sequence of events, ALL differ in the various versions.

The "miracle" of Easter isn't so clearcut as one would like to believe.
I think every religion out there wants to enforce that their version is truth. That their path is the way and their path is the life.
Not every religion.

Even among the Abrahamic religions, there are different degrees of exclusivity.

The grand-daddy of them of all, Judaism, has provisions for non-Jews to attain salvation if they followed Noah's seven laws.

That is still not as egalitarian as the Indic religions.

The proof is right before your eyes,- "Ekam Sat Vipra Bahuda Vadanti".

Both the Sanatana and Bauddha/Shramana Dharmas are egaliatarian about your personal beliefs, as long as you conform to the path of least harm to your fellow beings and environment.
Thus if we did not create our own genetic makeup (the most important thing for life to exist) then I am pretty sure that there is a God.
You are trying to unconsciously slip in logic in your discourse, where you clearly aren't as well armed. :wink:

If everything has to be created by someone, or something, then even "God" must have a creator.

Who "created" this God ?

If you say "no-one", then the whole of your logical edifice falls apart.

If "God" needs no creator, neither does this universe, and its constituents.

It simply exists for eternity in different forms.

Unless we are to treat beliefs as sacrosanct, one can logically argue that "God" is simply - as the Byproduct Theorists suggest - a causal agent that the human mind attributes, pursuant to the evolutionary survival characteristic developed in sentient beings.
If we had no will in that, then what really is free will? :wink:
There you go!

Free will is simply a chimera, just as the notion of "I" is.
Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3866
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Post by Kakkaji »

This thread is worth archiving for posterity. 8)
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

Need to thank Shiv for persisting while I wanted to axe it!

Pullekeshi, Can you post the sanskrit version too so I can have my kids learn it in both the languages?

Thanks, ramana
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Post by TSJones »


Can you refer to the Gospels of Mark, John, Luke and Matthew and construct a version of the resurrection story which is agreeable to ALL of them ?

The time, the actors/actresses, the sequence of events, ALL differ in the various versions.

The "miracle" of Easter isn't so clearcut as one would like to believe.


He doesn't have to substantiate *your* assertion, *you* do. You made the original assertion, not him. Your intellectual laziness or acuity is at question here. Defend it. Or maybe you...can't.....
Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Post by Alok_N »

Pulikeshi wrote: But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?
this will be challenged by many here ...
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Post by TSJones »


this will be challenged by many here ...


But, but how would you know? Are you having a change of heart today? :)
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

TSJones wrote:But we do have the Dead Sea Scrolls and lo and behold, "Gosh, they're pretty darn accurate!". Not bad for a bunch of old time scholars, eh?
Doesn't compute.

The Dead Sea scrolls provide a glimpse into the divergent views held by the early members of the Christian cult, until the Romans forced a standard edict down their gullets.
Yeah, a lot of them were fairy tales about the baby Jesus performing super human acts of bravery. These were like Hollywood scripts today.

The Gospels were chosen from those stories that clicked with personal knowledge handed down over the intervening years.
Virgin birth, walking on water, turning water into wine, feeding 5000 people with one fish and a loaf of bread,- they ain't fairy tales ?

They were "personal knowledge" of a sorcerer at work ? :twisted:
Jesus' body was taken down from the cross by Joseph of Arimathea, and placed in a tomb carved into rock. Again, Jesus' mother and one or two other women were the only ones present. These same devoted women came to his tomb the following Sunday morning to anoint his body with spices. When they arrived, they were astonished to find the stone covering the entrance to the tomb had been rolled away, and the tomb was empty.

The four Gospels vary somewhat in their reports as to what happened next, but all generally agree that the women told the other disciples but their story was not believed. But the risen Jesus later appeared to the disciples, where he passed through a locked door yet demonstrated he was not a ghost by eating and allowing himself to be touched. He made several other appearances among various groups before ascending into heaven.
No soup.

1. Matthew 28:1 states two women (Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary) came to the tomb; Mark 16:1 states it was three women (Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome); Luke 24:10 agrees it was three women but gives a different list of three than Mark (Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James); John 20:1 states it was only Mary Magdalene.

2. Mark 16:2 states "the sun had risen" at the time of this visit, while John 20:1 states "it was still dark."

3. Matthew 28:2 says "an angel" "came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it"; Mark 16:5 says the women encountered "a young man sitting at the right" of the tomb (rather than upon the stone); Luke 24:4 says they saw "two men" who "suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing"; in John 20:1, Mary Magdalene saw nothing other than a moved stone.

4. There is also a discrepancy as to whatever dialogue occurred between this angel(s) or man (men) and the women: Matthew 28:5-7 and Mark 16:6-7 generally agree the women were told that Jesus had risen, and instructed to advise the disciples that "He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him" (Matthew 28:7), and ; Luke 24:6-7 contains no instruction to advise the disciples about an appearance by Jesus in Galilee.

5. To whom did Jesus appear first: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary as Matthew 28:9 claims? Mary Magdalene only as Mark 16:9 claims? Cephas (Peter) and then the other disciples, as 1 Corinthians 15:5 claims? Matthew 28:9 claims that Jesus appeared before the women even had reported to the disciples what the found (or didnt) at the tomb. Also in Mark 16:9 the appearance to Mary Magdalene was before Mary made any report to the disciples. However, John and Luke report no appearance before the women reported an empty tomb to the disciples.

6. Which disciples went to the tomb: Peter alone (Luke 24:12)? Peter and John (John 20:2-8)? Did the disciples believe the reports of the women (or woman) and proceed to Galilee, as Matthew 28:16 claims? Or did they disbelieve these reports as Mark 16:11 and Luke 24:11 claim?

7. In appearing to the disciples, to whom did Jesus first appear: All eleven together (Matthew 28:17-18)? Two of them on the road, then to all eleven together (Mark 16:12-14 and Luke 24:13-31)? To ten of the eleven (minus Thomas) together (John 20:19-24)? To Peter, then the others (1 Corinthians 15:5)? The story recounted in John 20:25-29 is all premised on an appearance of Jesus before the disciples at which Thomas was not present! Matthew 28:17-18, Mark 16:12-14 and Luke 24:13-31 all disagree with John about any such meeting taking place in the absence of Thomas!

8. In Acts and the Gospel of Luke, the disciples were commanded to stay in Jerusalem and, in fact, met Jesus there (see Acts 1:4 and Luke 24:33, 47, 49). In Matthew 28:10 and Mark 16:6-7, the disciples are commanded to go to Galilee, and in Matthew 28:16-18, we are told they see Jesus there, not in or near Jerusalem!

9. Mark says that after appearing before the eleven disciples together in Gallilee, Jesus ascended to Heaven (Mark 16: 14, 19). Luke says Jesus ascended to Heaven at Bethany after walking with the disciples some time (Luke 24:50-51). John says Jesus appeared to the disciples at three times and that some of these appearances were near the Sea of Gallilee (Lake Tiberias) (John 21:1, 14). According to Acts the disciples were at Mt. Olivet, a days journey from Jerusalem, when the ascension occurred (Acts 1:9-12).

10. In 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, it is claimed that Jesus appeared to more than five hundred witnesses before his ascent to heaven - a claim directly contradicted at least by Mark, who says the ascension occurred immediately after an appearance before the eleven disciples (Mark 16: 14, 19).
Well, if you want to see God in rocks and trees and animals or even your ancestors, that is certainly your choice


I would LOVE to have that choice.

But most evangelists of Christian and Islamic denominations won't let me have that choice, if THEY had a choice! :twisted:

but I will beleive in One who gives us rules that insists we follow a moral imperative in our relationship to others.
Nobody here prevents you from believing in the Pink Elephant on the Dark side of Uranus! :eek:

Of course, if you were trying to claim that your belief is any more logical than that of those who see "God" in rocks and trees, I can provide logical repostes that would puncture that balloon.

However, since this is NOT a religious debate, I'll refrain.
Free will and right to choose is the very basis of our republic.
What does that unscientific prattle hope to prove ?

It only shows that a bunch of well-intentioned people wanted to draw a free and fair social contract for the citizens of this country.

It has no relevance to the logical and scientific construct that "free will" and "individual" are BOTH a chimera in the absolute scheme of things.
Last edited by S.Valkan on 20 Mar 2007 19:43, edited 1 time in total.
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Post by negi »

Pulikeshi wrote: But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?
I would comment only after I get the original sanskrit nugget(for I assume god here refers to Indra & Co and not the Trinity(Brahma,Vishnu or Shiva).Anyways If I am not wrong hindi translation of this verse was the OST for 'Bharat Ek Khoj'.Paging Sroy ji for mailing it to the Brfites who would like to listen to it.
Locked