Biblical Creationism versus Hindu Creationism

[juvenissun]

To make a long story short, the solution I came up with was that a single creator made little sense, reality as we know it is defined by energy gradients, without them there would be nothing. Heat is a transition of energy between a high point and low point, movement, light, stars are all this, and it's not the high or low energy levels that generate existence, it's the transition between them. So, given this I reasoned that it takes two forces minimum for creation, and the actual creation takes place at the boundary between them. From that I went to Wicca as my next step on the long path to atheism.

Solomon said there is no new thing under the sun. What you said is complete illustrated by my avatar. However, that is only the second step. The first one is to create the two forces, or, in your words, the creation of energy.

 

[ragarth]

Because Christianity has a well-defined God. Basically, it takes the whole Bible to define Him. So, it could not be defined any better. The center of the whole Christian doctrine is: to know this God.

It makes a perfect sense.

I disagree that this answers my question, in a matter of fact, I disagree that having a well-defined God is better at all. Case in point: God exists in such a state so far beyond our comprehension that to believe we could comprehend God in totality is ludicrous, therefore seeing God in different ways makes sense.

This recognition effectively says: there is no god.
I think that is what Buddhism says. Hinduism should not be far away from it.

If you do not agree, you still have to find a way to define what a god is.

That's an unfounded leap of logic, at no point did I say 'there is no god' in Hinduism. They have a God, depending on the tradition the 'true' God is either Krishna or Vishnu, with all the other gods being avatars of that one true god. This quite clearly states there is a God, and once you transcend reincarnation, you become a part of that God.


Further, the idea that having a single comprehensive God is better is just your opinion. You have failed to prove how a single comprehensive God makes the Bible more accurate or reliable than the Vedas et al, and I further counter that an omnipotent and omniscient being cannot be comprehensively known from a book (therefore a book that does so is by it's very nature inaccurate), so you're opinion holds only as much weight as a single individual unproven opinion holds.

 

[MoonLancer]

How's come the Hindu don't practice the Caste System today?

for much of the same reason we stone disobedient children to death? Theirs alot in the bible which we don't do because of a cultural taboos.

 

[juvenissun]

I disagree that this answers my question, in a matter of fact, I disagree that having a well-defined God is better at all. Case in point: God exists in such a state so far beyond our comprehension that to believe we could comprehend God in totality is ludicrous, therefore seeing God in different ways makes sense.

That's an unfounded leap of logic, at no point did I say 'there is no god' in Hinduism. They have a God, depending on the tradition the 'true' God is either Krishna or Vishnu, with all the other gods being avatars of that one true god. This quite clearly states there is a God, and once you transcend reincarnation, you become a part of that God.

Further, the idea that having a single comprehensive God is better is just your opinion. You have failed to prove how a single comprehensive God makes the Bible more accurate or reliable than the Vedas et al, and I further counter that an omnipotent and omniscient being cannot be comprehensively known from a book (therefore a book that does so is by it's very nature inaccurate), so you're opinion holds only as much weight as a single individual unproven opinion holds.

Please define how could one religion be "better" than another. Until you get this clear, I am not going to waste my time.

 

[ragarth]

Please define how could one religion be "better" than another. Until you get this clear, I am not going to waste my time.

Christianity claims to have a monopoly on the truth, by doing so it's claiming itself to be the better choice of religion, but I have never seen any proof to back up this claim. Therefore, the religion that can prove that it is more true than another religion is the better choice. If it cannot be proven that the bible is the better text in some way, then these claims of having monopoly on the truth are effectively refuted because one cannot claim a monopoly without showing a distinct superiority over the competition.

Let me give you an example, this link was used in another discussion I had upon the validity of faith: http://www.acts17-11.com/faith.html The claim made was that the validity of one's faith could be ascertained by believing in the truth, and since only the bible and Christianity are true, they are the only valid things to have faith in, anything else is 'bad faith'. I failed to see how Christianity is anymore true than any other religion, and so to prove the claim that Christianity is the only valid thing to have faith in, one must prove that it is the only truth, that it has a monopoly on truth, and that it is better. Since the basis of truth in Christianity is defined in terms of the bible and the word of God, the most direct way to analyze this claim of truth is by comparison to other holy books.

This is not limited to just Truth though, the field is open to proving Christianity's bible's superiority than Hinduism's holybooks in any way you choose. Validating the bible while invalidating the Vedas et al is an effective method of ascertaining their relative value.

 

[Hespera]

Christianity claims to have a monopoly on the truth, by doing so it's claiming itself to be the better choice of religion, but I have never seen any proof to back up this claim. Therefore, the religion that can prove that it is more true than another religion is the better choice. If it cannot be proven that the bible is the better text in some way, then these claims of having monopoly on the truth are effectively refuted because one cannot claim a monopoly without showing a distinct superiority over the competition.

Let me give you an example, this link was used in another discussion I had upon the validity of faith: http://www.acts17-11.com/faith.html The claim made was that the validity of one's faith could be ascertained by believing in the truth, and since only the bible and Christianity are true, they are the only valid things to have faith in, anything else is 'bad faith'. I failed to see how Christianity is anymore true than any other religion, and so to prove the claim that Christianity is the only valid thing to have faith in, one must prove that it is the only truth, that it has a monopoly on truth, and that it is better. Since the basis of truth in Christianity is defined in terms of the bible and the word of God, the most direct way to analyze this claim of truth is by comparison to other holy books.

This is not limited to just Truth though, the field is open to proving Christianity's bible's superiority than Hinduism's holybooks in any way you choose. Validating the bible while invalidating the Vedas et al is an effective method of ascertaining their relative value.

I notice that some here speaking under the assumed banner of Christianity, take it a lot further than just Truth and Superiority.

Those such as myself are in fact believed to be evil and under the direct control of satan.

I will take that as evidence that not all who follow the true word have a very nice attitude toward others.

 

[ragarth]

I notice that some here speaking under the assumed banner of Christianity, take it a lot further than just Truth and Superiority.

Those such as myself are in fact believed to be evil and under the direct control of satan.

I will take that as evidence that not all who follow the true word have a very nice attitude toward others.

While true, some is not a majority, however it can be debated that the majority believe in their religion, and therefore believe it to be true.

 

[Hespera]

While true, some is not a majority, however it can be debated that the majority believe in their religion, and therefore believe it to be true.

I guess a lot may believe it but just not say it. If so I have more respect for those who will come out and be honest and say it.

I dont know if being a Christian leads one inescapably to the view that I must be evil / demon controlled. I'd kind of like to know.

I have been told a number of times that I am, tho I havent really noticed it about myself so far.

 

[juvenissun]

Christianity claims to have a monopoly on the truth, by doing so it's claiming itself to be the better choice of religion, but I have never seen any proof to back up this claim. Therefore, the religion that can prove that it is more true than another religion is the better choice. If it cannot be proven that the bible is the better text in some way, then these claims of having monopoly on the truth are effectively refuted because one cannot claim a monopoly without showing a distinct superiority over the competition.

Let me give you an example, this link was used in another discussion I had upon the validity of faith: http://www.acts17-11.com/faith.html The claim made was that the validity of one's faith could be ascertained by believing in the truth, and since only the bible and Christianity are true, they are the only valid things to have faith in, anything else is 'bad faith'. I failed to see how Christianity is anymore true than any other religion, and so to prove the claim that Christianity is the only valid thing to have faith in, one must prove that it is the only truth, that it has a monopoly on truth, and that it is better. Since the basis of truth in Christianity is defined in terms of the bible and the word of God, the most direct way to analyze this claim of truth is by comparison to other holy books.

This is not limited to just Truth though, the field is open to proving Christianity's bible's superiority than Hinduism's holybooks in any way you choose. Validating the bible while invalidating the Vedas et al is an effective method of ascertaining their relative value.

I have no target to shoot.
Good luck to your exploration.

 

[ragarth]

I have no target to shoot.
Good luck to your exploration.

next please.

 

[ragarth]

The judge is still out on which religion is better, Christianity or Hinduism. So long as this question remains unanswered then this thread will remain open, and be used as a reference for anyone who attempts to make such claims as one religion being the true religion, or one religion being the best choice, etc. So it behooves anyone who makes these claims to prove one better than the other and get this thread closed!

A quick synospis thus far (though you should read all the previous posts because I may have missed something, and there might be something for you to use to prove one better than the other):

"If Hinduism is true, then India should be a Paradise on Earth right now."

The proof for this one was fallacious, a sentence clipped in half, from an opinion source that had nothing to do with the Vedas et al.

"How's come the Hindu don't practice the Caste System today?"

Disengenious. Hinduism predates the caste system and it can be countered with the fact that Christians now eat shellfish and wear polyester blend fabric.

THere was this conglomerate: http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=50845834&postcount=35

AV later defended his claims of the period it took to write the bible, multiple posts hold these and the defense was good but a side issue to the thread.

and this one:
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=50847533&postcount=34

then this one:
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=50854411&postcount=43

Then there was a series on Monotheism vs Polytheism that was reduced to personal preference

And another series on the contrast of free will in Hinduism to free will in Christianity

Then there was an innacurate claim that anyone can become a God in Hinduism, and that this makes Christianity better, this as well failed due to the fact that it is an oversimplified, innacurate statement.

Then came this:
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=50900120&postcount=82

and a clarification on my use of the word 'better'
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=50900120&postcount=85

Happy Hunting!

 

[AV1611VET]

Happy Hunting!

Oh, if those 450 prophets of Baal could just come back for a day --- they'd give you an education you'd long remember.

 

[ragarth]

Oh, if those 450 prophets of Baal could just come back for a day --- they'd give you an education you'd long remember.

Aren't you supposed to be in Ghost Mode right now? I'll be honest, I don't mind debating with you, I've thoroughly enjoyed it on many occasions, but you stated you were taking a break 2 days ago. If you can't spend a week away from the computer (aside from business), you might have a problem.

Might I recommend going for a hike? (Pun not intended, I'm serious.) I'm an avid fan of outdoor sports and I find a good clip along the Appalachian Trail or up Dragon's Tooth Mountain or Mcafee Knob to be very cathartic. If you have the time, do some backwoods. Walmart and kmart carry basic camping supplies and you can generally get a free deep woods permit at many reserves. If you plan it right and enjoy the shooting sports, you can go camping in a reserve that has an open, public shooting field, like the George Washington and Jefferson National Forest around here. The point is, do something outside, you'll thank yourself for it, and it will keep you from worrying over the PC.

 

[AV1611VET]

Aren't you supposed to be in Ghost Mode right now?

Oops! Sorry!

I can't believe I did this --- I really can't.

 

[ragarth]

Oops! Sorry!

I can't believe I did this --- I really can't.

Take a hike (I'll either be hiking or target shooting this weekend, if you lived in the area, I'd invite you.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Take a hike (I'll either be hiking or target shooting this weekend, if you lived in the area, I'd invite you.)

I'm scared of guns and heights --- but a good Chess tournament or simul somewhere might draw me out ---

 

[juvenissun]

The judge is still out on which religion is better, Christianity or Hinduism. So long as this question remains unanswered then this thread will remain open, and be used as a reference for anyone who attempts to make such claims as one religion being the true religion, or one religion being the best choice, etc. So it behooves anyone who makes these claims to prove one better than the other and get this thread closed!

You still have not define the meaning of a "better" religion. Unless it is made clear, the question is not a valid one.

 

[MoonLancer]

You still have not define the meaning of a "better" religion. Unless it is made clear, the question is not a valid one.

what makes a religion 'better' then any other? we could just go with what YOU think the meaning of better is.

 

[ragarth]

You still have not define the meaning of a "better" religion. Unless it is made clear, the question is not a valid one.

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=50910952&postcount=89

I quoteth your own post quoting mine. Are you now changing your statement from 'I have no target to shoot' to 'that doesn't answer my question'?

Christianity claims to have a monopoly on the truth, by doing so it's claiming itself to be the better choice of religion, but I have never seen any proof to back up this claim. Therefore, the religion that can prove that it is more true than another religion is the better choice.

...

This is not limited to just Truth though, the field is open to proving Christianity's bible's superiority than Hinduism's holybooks in any way you choose. Validating the bible while invalidating the Vedas et al is an effective method of ascertaining their relative value.

If not, I give you some definitions, the last is the better of the bunch, I think:

something superior in quality or condition or effect; "a change for the better"
(comparative of `good') superior to another (of the same class or set or kind) in excellence or quality or desirability or suitability; more highly skilled than another; "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din"; "a better coat"; "a better type of car"; "a suit with a better fit"; "a better ...
surpass in excellence; "She bettered her own record"; "break a record"
a superior person having claim to precedence; "the common man has been kept in his place by his betters"
better(p): (comparative and superlative of `well') wiser or more advantageous and hence advisable; "it would be better to speak to him"; "the White House thought it best not to respond"
from a position of superiority or authority; "father knows best"; "I know better."
the superior one of two alternatives; "chose the better of the two"

Seriously though, I'd think the term 'better' is one of those unambiguous words that we all understand. 'The better of the two' is the one that is superior than the other in some way.

 

[juvenissun]

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=50910952&postcount=89

I quoteth your own post quoting mine. Are you now changing your statement from 'I have no target to shoot' to 'that doesn't answer my question'?

Christianity claims to have a monopoly on the truth, by doing so it's claiming itself to be the better choice of religion, but I have never seen any proof to back up this claim. Therefore, the religion that can prove that it is more true than another religion is the better choice.

...

This is not limited to just Truth though, the field is open to proving Christianity's bible's superiority than Hinduism's holybooks in any way you choose. Validating the bible while invalidating the Vedas et al is an effective method of ascertaining their relative value.

If not, I give you some definitions, the last is the better of the bunch, I think:

something superior in quality or condition or effect; "a change for the better"
(comparative of `good') superior to another (of the same class or set or kind) in excellence or quality or desirability or suitability; more highly skilled than another; "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din"; "a better coat"; "a better type of car"; "a suit with a better fit"; "a better ...
surpass in excellence; "She bettered her own record"; "break a record"
a superior person having claim to precedence; "the common man has been kept in his place by his betters"
better(p): (comparative and superlative of `well') wiser or more advantageous and hence advisable; "it would be better to speak to him"; "the White House thought it best not to respond"
from a position of superiority or authority; "father knows best"; "I know better."
the superior one of two alternatives; "chose the better of the two"

Seriously though, I'd think the term 'better' is one of those unambiguous words that we all understand. 'The better of the two' is the one that is superior than the other in some way.

Why do you spend so much time to say nothing?

Just like two different cakes. You say this one is better than that one. I say the opposite. Who is right? Better or worse is measured against something everyone can agree upon. In religion, what is that?