Response from nirotu

I will question the rest of the non sense that you have written later when I find time. But let me just point here to one more of your imaginative incoherent oscillatory assumptions, speculations and self-contradictory claims.

MahaSudarshanChakra said:

This is your biggest contradiction. If you can aception both universal salvationsist and also Calvynists as not bothered wih their diferences, what are you bragging here?

Click to expand...

Ha ha ha. You make me laugh like anything in here. Where on earth did I say that I accepted both. Didn't I tell you that you are imagining too much and then seemingly asserting or atleast start pretending that to be true? Man. That is not my contradiction. But your confusion. You make me laugh here. Look at the context in here. All along, I have been saying that the bigger (do you understand the meaning of it) problem or bigger question is your own self contradictory claims and incoherence at individualistic level which you pathetically tried to even defend and are now admitting failure up here trying desperately to prove yourself as coherent which in itself is the height of contradiction.

MahaSudarshanChakra said:

Hindus admit that scripture could have man made defects, while christians deny. Muslims correctly state that the bible has been corrupted, while coming up with another corrupted version that divides humanity. You are fre to beleive that the bible is the unaltered word of God in the literal sense, and a good number of Christians would disagree with you, every muslim would disagree with you and every non christian would disagree. Infact, only some dogmatic christians accept Paul's christinaity.

Though yuou claim to be making coherent claims, you first defence is already broken- because you simultaneously accept both Universal Salvationists and Calcinsis, Catholics and Protestants with diametrically oppsoite beleifs ( that some of them evn think the other is headed for the hell). If you dont bother about all these differences, why are so much bothered about differences in Hinduism and other religions?

Your first attempt in defending the multiple denominations of Christianity is self contradiction, you need to try again.

Click to expand...

Man. Again another imagination!!! Where on earth did you get the idea that I started answering you for anything in here or claimed in here that I started defending Chrsitian faith against you (Man. Don't you remember that my task here is made as easy as just hitting dead snakes by you after you yourself killed all your defenses and arguments by accepting your self contradictions, incoherent claims and speculations on your own? Yeah. Your so called defenses are nothing better than dead snakes in here if you remember the famous tamil proverb no matter what non sense you want to boast about your defenses in here) Infact all through the post, isn' it that the main point that I wanted to convey here was that I am not going to answer any of your so called questions knowing your current position of incoherence and self-contradiction? How long are you going to live in your own hypocritical world of assumptions, presumptions, speculations, uncertainities, self-contradiction and incoherence?


Good attempts, Sudharshan. And indeed height of imaginations with great expectations from your side. But try something else. And I hope that you will think before you write in here again.

selwyn said:

I will question the rest of the non sense that you have written later when I find time. But let me just point here to one more of your imaginative incoherent oscillatory assumptions, speculations and self-contradictory claims.




Ha ha ha. You make me laugh like anything in here. Where on earth did I say that I accepted both. Didn't I tell you that you are imagining too much and then seemingly asserting or atleast start pretending that to be true? Man. That is not my contradiction. But your confusion. You make me laugh here. Look at the context in here. All along, I have been saying that the bigger (do you understand the meaning of it) problem or bigger question is your own self contradictory claims and incoherence at individualistic level which you pathetically tried to even defend and are now admitting failure up here trying desperately to prove yourself as coherent which in itself is the height of contradiction.



Man. Again another imagination!!! Where on earth did you get the idea that I started answering you for anything in here or claimed in here that I started defending Chrsitian faith against you (Man. Don't you remember that my task here is made as easy as just hitting dead snakes by you after you yourself killed all your defenses and arguments by accepting your self contradictions, incoherent claims and speculations on your own? Yeah. Your so called defenses are nothing better than dead snakes in here if you remember the famous tamil proverb no matter what non sense you want to boast about your defenses in here) Infact all through the post, isn' it that the main point that I wanted to convey here was that I am not going to answer any of your so called questions knowing your current position of incoherence and self-contradiction? How long are you going to live in your own hypocritical world of assumptions, presumptions, speculations, uncertainities, self-contradiction and incoherence?


Good attempts, Sudharshan. And indeed height of imaginations with great expectations from your side. But try something else. And I hope that you will think before you write in here again.

Click to expand...

Ha ha, I know to laugh too, everyone who has read anything here knows what you have goofed. Bye with you, See later. And wait, we have some questions pending...as always.

Btw, try to catch up on a few books on Hinduism if at you want to argue, else you will make a big fool of yourself like your friiend nirotu and others made themselves on Hindunet.

Man, you have not demonstrated one contradiction yet...and avoid answering questions...and when aswering blunder...and now laughing. No wonder.

If you think it is like hitting a dead snake, try arguing against some of the threads on Hindunet. And try to stop the conversions out of Christianity. Or atleast, show me your so called logic can convince one Srivaishnavite to drop his chains.

Well, this is my last with you. You can dream on...

MahaSudarshanChakra said:

Ha ha, I know to laugh too, everyone who has read anything here knows what you have goofed. Bye with you, See later. And wait, we have some questions pending...as always.

Btw, try to catch up on a few books on Hinduism if at you want to argue, else you will make a big fool of yourself like your friiend nirotu and others made themselves on Hindunet.

Man, you have not demonstrated one contradiction yet...and avoid answering questions...and when aswering blunder...and now laughing. No wonder.

If you think it is like hitting a dead snake, try arguing against some of the threads on Hindunet. And try to stop the conversions out of Christianity. Or atleast, show me your so called logic can convince one Srivaishnavite to drop his chains.

Well, this is my last with you. You can dream on...

Click to expand...

Oh. Are you still under the illusion that I am trying to answer you? Hopefully you will get out of that soon!!!! And can't you see the irony of your claims in here? Just before two posts, you were vehemently claiming and complaining that I am not answering your questions at all only to now contradict yourself once again that while I am still questioning you without giving any answer to you, you have started screaming that I tried answering you in here. Oh man. Are you really alright?

And now considering all your boasting about hindunet here now and your sheepish invitation to hindunet (I don't know if that is a violation of forum rules in here though), isn't that a clear admission from your side that you have lost it up here because of your self-contradictions, incoherence, speculations, uncertainities and self-suicidal so called logical arguments?

At the other end, isn't it ironical that you are calling people to hindunet in here while you yourself could not continue with your so called discussion with some people in hindunet because of the non-sensical deletion of threads and banning of people at hindunet and have found only solace in a Christian forum thread, this very thread in hindunet? And with people out of there and back here in the recent past few days explaining their horrible experience in there, isn't that a clear indication of mockery of people at hindunet, the reputation of hindunet is not good indeed. Right?

It is another matter that for your information, I have infact read your totally contradictory view points that you have written in there compared to the masked version that you are throwing in here in the name of tolerance and understanding. But man, you have ended up contradicting within your posts in here consistently and have even admitted it. And ironically, you seem to be asserting your admission in here by now inviting me to hindunet.

Sorry. I am not going to get in there for any questioning after all the non-sense that you have thrown over people in here in the name of hinduism and knowing that how people had been unceremoniously thrown out of that forum for petty reasons. But don't worry. Whenever I find the need here, I would continue asking questions up here. And let us see if there is any more non-sensical incoherent claim left in your stock that you want to come up with over here.

Thanks.

Namaste Sudarshan,

MahaSudarshanChakra said:

With due respects, what are you trying to do here?

Click to expand...

What do you mean? This is my opinion, nobody has to agree upon everything.

MahaSudarshanChakra said:

Yes, I am a monotheist, but this is a ridiculous comparison with the one in Islam or Christianity. If this discussion came up in a Hindu forum, I am sure you would have been "massacred".

Click to expand...

I can handle that "massacre", perhaps you have not seen my debates on Hindu forums? If you are up for it, let us have a debate on some Hindu forum, not here.

MahaSudarshanChakra said:

How on earth did you get the impression that Vaishnavite monotheists are intolerant of other beleifs. Certain points I like to clarify...and I request you to stop comparing the monotheism in Hinduism with other religions - it is not worth any comparison.

Click to expand...

I never compared...read carefully.

MahaSudarshanChakra said:

1. We beleive in one supreme Lord or God whom we call Vishnu or Narayana. We consider him a being, unlike energy or attributeless as regarded by some other Hindus. For this reason, you can call me a monotheist.

2. Unlike Christianity or Islam, we never use proper names for Vishnu. We do concede that God is one, and even Christians and Muslims are infact referring to this same God ( contrary to the christian/Islamic belief in a particular flavour of God or a trinity). Thus, though we are monotheists - we do not hijack God to suit our own beleifs. Infact, we do not object to Polythesim, because we beleive the Gods in polytheism are nothing but expansions of Lord Vishnu, and are suitable manifestations for worship.( though we desist from practices of worshipping anybody other than the supreme, because we consider that more superior/easier way to salvation)

3. Even the usual charges that are levied against Hinduism, like its practice of caste system are not even recognized by us. Our school has essentially abolished the caste system as early back as the 12th century A.D amidst a lot of opposition. It took the likes of Sri Ramanuja to be bold and oppose all dogmatic beleifs prevalent at that time and restore proper Hinduism. The so called low caste people have headed religeous offices in my school, and some of them considered in very high esteem. Unlike most other religions in the world, we even have woman prophets, who are treated as amongst the most elevated saints. Any Hindu, irrespective of caste, can be part of our Srivaishnavite school - which recognises only devtion towards God a qualification for God realization, not birth or human qualities.

4. Regarding tolerance, there have been very few schools that have been as tolerant as in the preachings of my own school. The traditional preaching is not to use violence even in self defence. During the muslim invasion of Tamil Nadu in the 13th century A.D, a lot of Vaishnavites perished by offering "no resistance" or fled to other parts of India like South Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and the hilly districts of Tamil Nadu. This has contined to this day - there are virtually no Srivaishnavites who are criminals or have intolerance of any kind.

Click to expand...

For your information I am also a Vaishnavite, but I am detached from any organised school, because of the dogma that goes in that name.

I know about the muslim invasion of Tamil Nadu. Many of my ancestors who lived in Kanchipuram and Srirangam were cleaned off my the muslim invaders and a very few of them survived and escaped to Tirunelveli to save their lives. But I dont belong to Tamil Nadu for 3 generations, I am in Kerala.

MahaSudarshanChakra said:

And finally, you may have heard this or not, the IIT Madras is popularly called as the Iyer-Iyyengar Institute of Technology. Though we are only 4 million worldwide and only 2 million in Tamil Nadu, if you check the number of admissions to IIT Madras every year, you will find that 30% of these candidates belong to my school. An unsual representation...

Click to expand...

Quite right... Vaishnavas are a hgh majority in all IITs, for their small populations. But what has that to do with this discussion and monotheism?

MahaSudarshanChakra said:

And you have taken the words of me having said "Christianity is false" out of context. I followed up such posts with proper reasoning which I reproduce here.

1. If I accept the mainstream Christianity as true, then it automatically amounts to saying my own beleif is wrong. It is not the case while accepting the truth of a Dharmic school. I do accept all Dharmic schools and reject all non Dharmic schools, because by accepting the mainstream Christianity as true, I would end up saying Srivaishnavism is false, and following it leads to eternal hell. Is that what you want me to defend?

2. I have never spoken against Christianity in general, because I understand that it is as diverse and has as many self-contradicting philosophies like Hinduism. I clearly specified which of these I do not accept in one of my posts.

3. For your info, my best friend is a Christian and I dont have hatred for any christians. That is your own imagination. I have never claimed here that I beleive Christianity is true, to win some accolades. But to classify as true and false by blanket statements is not Hinduism. So when I actually call something as false, it need not mean absolute falsity or that it leads to hell or something like that. Calling sky as blue is corrct, calling it as a variant of blue is proabably partially true, calling it as green is more incorrect and calling it as black is what is absolute false. HInduism grades truth like this..

4. I openly accepted that some of the posts on Hindunet that arunma questioned were posted by me - because I am not afraid of politics. I am not the guy, who has something inside and says something totally different outside.

Click to expand...

I never said Christianity is a right path for that matter. No Hindu says that either. But the word "false" is generally not used used.

MahaSudarshanChakra said:

No infighting inside Hinduism was ever caused by the monotheistic Vaishnavites, if so show some good proof please. There have been no instances of my school persecuting anybody anytime - I challenge you to prove otherwise. Perhaps you need the story of Sri Ramanuja and Kulotunga Chola to know better.

Click to expand...

I know the story of Kulotunga and how he persecuted the Vaishnavites. I am not talking of physcial persecution here. Though Vaishnavites are a peaceful and tolerant folk, they do suffer from a superiority complex like all monothesitic religions. They do think they are nearer and dearer to God for having some specific dogmatic beleifs. I am a Vaishnavite, but I disagree with such superiority complex and one of the reasons I dont follow organised religion seriously. People just asssume that they are people of God just because they beleive in certain fairytales and also follow some specific way of life - I am sorry to say, many Vaishnavites suffer from this drawback, though it may not apply to you.

Ram

rahul_sharma said:

Click to expand...

Ram said:

I can handle that "massacre", perhaps you have not seen my debates on Hindu forums? If you are up for it, let us have a debate on some Hindu forum, not here.

Click to expand...

OK, that should be interesting. I am ready. You sure you can defend your mix of advaita and vishitadvaita philsophies? I am afraid, that is not a defendable philosophy unless you resort to trademark Selwyn strategies by avoiding questions.

Let me warn you: Though I am not against advaita or dvaita philosophies, advaita is virtually impossible to defend in a debate, either logically or scripturally. It has many internal inconsistancies. Dvaita is the most sound of all Indian philosophies in traditional debates, and is water tight logic.

Mayavada, Nirguna Brahman, adhyasa are all unsustainable unless you introduce terms like anivachaniya( unknowable or undescribable) which I will not accept. We can debate under this condition. On which forum- you can PM me.

Ram said:

For your information I am also a Vaishnavite, but I am detached from any organised school, because of the dogma that goes in that name.

Click to expand...

Sorry about that. There is not much dogma in my school, but I have to explain you the reason for formation of such religions. Without organized religion like my school in medieval periods, muslims would have annihilated Hinduism. We have preserved plenty of old scripture with our lives. I hope you do know that whenever muslims found non Islamic manuscript in India, they killed the owner and also burnt the manuscript, the quran orders that. Take the Nalanda UNiversity for example. Only organised religions have managed to preserve Hindu scripture without which we wont have the vedas now - it was protected by many organised "dogmatic" schools with their lives by following strict oral traditions, against which muslims could do nothing. Buddhism could not evolve such a organized school and got razed by muslims in India. We have many South Indian schools that have rendered such a great service in this regard and we should not refer them as dogmatic.

Ram said:

I know the story of Kulotunga and how he persecuted the Vaishnavites. I am not talking of physcial persecution here. Though Vaishnavites are a peaceful and tolerant folk, they do suffer from a superiority complex like all monothesitic religions. They do think they are nearer and dearer to God for having some specific dogmatic beleifs. I am a Vaishnavite, but I disagree with such superiority complex and one of the reasons I dont follow organised religion seriously. People just asssume that they are people of God just because they beleive in certain fairytales and also follow some specific way of life - I am sorry to say, many Vaishnavites suffer from this drawback, though it may not apply to you.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is a sad part. But Vaishnavism never preaches this superiority complex. I am to consider myself as a servant of Lord Vishnu and each of his other devotees, so where does this question arise? But you are right - monotheism encourages this aspect. People do tend to beleive that God is only for them and their school, but let me tell you we diont preach that and we cant be responsible if followers have such beleifs. Read my posts on Hindunet - I have mentioned such superiority complex leads to spiritual disaster.

Hi Ram and Sudharshan,

Are you both vaishnavites planning to "massacre" each other in your so called logical debates?

Hmm.

Hey Chill out Guys, the thread is very hot.

selwyn said:

Hi Ram and Sudharshan,

Are you both vaishnavites planning to "massacre" each other in your so called logical debates?

Hmm.

Click to expand...

Are you sure these are no debates betwen christians on these forums? Remember, this is only NCR section.

Yes, Hindus are pretty much passionate about debates and talks on religion. It is an opportunity to learn more and also improve your own understanding of the religion. And on a side note, it a good defence for all Hindus to know their indepth philosophies so that they dont carried away by other mythologies and fairy tales.

"Massacre" is probably a metaphor, you can see that a lot on Hindu forums. You can see a lot of debates betwen Hare Krishnas and other Hindus, between Vaishnavites, between advaitins and dvaitins etc - man, they are interesting to watch.

All debates are outcomes of different interpretations of the scripture. Definitely, all of them cant be true simultaneously, hence the real need for intellectual debating, which is encouraged in Hinduism. It helps you correct your wrong understanding of scripture.

But most Hindus agree on the spiritual disciplines, like prayer, devotion, worship and meditation and hence understanding religion in the right way is not considered a prerequisite towards spiritual development.

Priyasri said:

Hey Chill out Guys, the thread is very hot.

Click to expand...

Namaste Priyasri, perhaps you can serve some cool drinks.

Ram said:

Namaste Priyasri, perhaps you can serve some cool drinks.

Click to expand...

Cool drinks, which one - Pepsi or Coke

selwyn said:

Hi Ram and Sudharshan,

Are you both vaishnavites planning to "massacre" each other in your so called logical debates?

Hmm.

Click to expand...

As we know you are not confident about your religion's basics and don't have any knowledge so that you can defend Christianity...maybe that's why you have never been to only christian parts of this forum where you can see how one strict path of Christinity is messing itself with unlimited types of denominations...lol!!

one way path with unlimited ways of nonsense?? hehehe

Priyasri said:

Cool drinks, which one - Pepsi or Coke

Click to expand...

You are serious? I want pure fruit juice - dont prefer commercial drinks.

Hello nirotu,

nirotu said:

I read that part of Gita in which Krishna is glorified as divine (Chapter 16).

Click to expand...

Are you sure it is chapter 16 that you are talking about? Chapter 16 talks about the separation of divine and un-divine nature.

The rest is just an epic written by Vyasa to bring about wisdom and understanding of God.

Click to expand...

Do you believe in what chapter 16 talks about? Or do you just believe part of this chapter?

There is a school of thought that believes that Krishna of Mahabharata and Krishna of Gita Upadesha are different! Many Indian scholars have emphatically confirmed that it is very difficult to see Sreekrishna, the hero of history of Mahabharatha as the ethereal and saintly Sreekrishna of Gita.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you can explain to me why these so called scholars think that way about Krishna. Again, are these people considered religious scholars in India?

It is interesting that that you would challenge the intellect of these people I quoted above. For them to say something like that means there must be some merit to it. Rather than dismiss as something as non-sense, it would be prudent for you to investigate why they said like that. BTW, the information I quoted was directly from their writings and not by some one who wrote for them.

Click to expand...

Did you think that I was challenging their intellect? Do you think that the ideology of Gita is affected in any way by the comments made by these so called scholars or even by you and me?

I am sorry that you have such a narrow view of Mahatma Gandhi based on some zealot’s writings. His life, his works are open to all to see. He may not have been a scholar but his views were scholarly! He never disparaged any religion. In fact, the last words from his dying mouth were “hey Ram”.

Click to expand...

“Hey Ram”.
Do you think that Mahatma Gandhi died in the ignorance of GOD (as you explained it earlier about dying in ignorance)?

Prabhupada was a scholar in his own right. He was an Evangelist from the East. He is no different than Christian Evangelist trying to hoist personal dogma upon revealed truth in scriptures.

Click to expand...

So, you would agree with the writings of “other” scholars and not Christian scholars. Okay, I got you.

How did you arrive at the conclusion that Prabhupada hoisted personal dogma upon revealed truth in Gita?

You quoted Reagan and Augustine earlier. I did a little search on Reagan and found this web site http://www.learnthebible.org/baptist_church_knoxville.htm

Now, Do you think that Reagan is an evangelist? Is he a scholar of some sort? Is he a religious scholar of some sort?

Would you consider him e.g. like the Gandhi that you quoted from or the prabhupada of Christianity?

St. Augustine said the following:
"The whole canon of the Scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called `of Solomon' because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them" (Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]).

Now, my question is first of all: Do you consider St. Augustine a scholar of Christianity? If No, then, why not? Especially because you quoted from him before.

If yes, then Do you think that Reagan is a better scholar and has authority over St. Augustine?

Secondly, do you agree with St. Augustine with the part that I bolded there in quotes?

For your information Nitzsche was an atheist who did not believe in the concept of God period. He did not believe in either Christian or Hindu God. Such people who think they can be good without God undoubtedly end up in realizing it was all a futile effort in the end.

Click to expand...

Nitzsche is not the only scholar that thought that the historical Christ was a very different man from the Christ of Christian mythology. He is just the most famous of them all. Does it matter to you that he didn’t believe in God be it Christian or Hindu version?

Mortal beings like us all suffer from the hell of ignorance that is inside us. The primary source of this is the ego. That ignorance is the veil that separates us from being with God. In fact, very words of Jesus that says, “ the difference between Him and us is that He knows and we know not”. It is this veil of ignorance that Jesus came to remove from our crusted shell self conceited ego.

There may very well be a literal “hell”, a real possibility. Many view this as mere speculation.

Click to expand...

In other words, you are not sure if Hell as depicted in the bible is a real literal place or a metaphor. But you choose to think that it is a metaphor. Am I correct in your understanding of “Hell” then?

How does “sacrifice” of Jesus on the cross “removes the ignorance from our crusted shell self conceited ego?” What makes “his” sacrifice (and his alone) “remove” my ego for example?

A Christian dies today and realizes that Hindu was right; he would have another shot at that in next life. On the other hand, if a Hindu dies today and realizes that Christian was right then he will have already lost the opportunity to save himself. What if Christian is right and you found it too late to realize?

Click to expand...

What is this? A version of pascal’s wager to be used on Hindus or Buddhists or those who believe in eternal life?

Anyway, my questions are regarding the last part of your quote. What if the Christian is right? Earlier you said that Jesus came to remove the veil of ignorance. Going by that metaphor, what does a non-Christian “Find it too late to realize”? What is that “it” and how does it affect a non-christian if there is no literal punishment so to speak. Dying in the veil of ignorance what does that mean? What are the consequences of dying in the veil of ignorance?

Therefore, rather than enter into a speculative venture, would you not consider your present life time itself as an opportunity to prepare to save yourself?

Click to expand...

Save myself from what? From the veil of ignorance? More questions for you:

Do you think that “jesus” alone is the one that can remove the veil of ignorance?

Do you think that Gandhi and all the other Indian scholars you quoted died in the veil of ignorance?

If hell as preached by Paul is not a literal place then what are the consequences of dying in the veil of ignorance?

When Jesus says, “Kingdom of God is right here and now” He means exactly that.

Click to expand...

Jesus also said that “Kingdom of God is within” What does he mean here when he says that? Do you know?

It can be experienced in this order of time and space. This is unlike Hindu or a Buddhist view of salvation where goal is to escape from this temporal order.

Click to expand...

Let’s stick with the things that you think you do know. Your understanding of Hindu or Buddhist views does not matter at this point of the discussion.

Hope this helps,

Click to expand...

Not sure why you inserted this here.

coolbodhi

rahul_sharma said:

As we know you are not confident about your religion's basics and don't have any knowledge so that you can defend Christianity...maybe that's why you have never been to only christian parts of this forum where you can see how one strict path of Christinity is messing itself with unlimited types of denominations...lol!!

one way path with unlimited ways of nonsense?? hehehe

Click to expand...

Man. Did you take enough time to read what your friend said here (that they are speculating about lot of issues incoherently even as they admitted and that even the whole hinduic scripture as such is incoherent)? Oh! could it be that you have also joined them in speculations about what I know and what I don't know and what I am confident about and what I am not confident about? And who told you that I have to write everything that I know in forum to prove myself in here. Doesn't that clearly demonstrate your level of maturity and distorted understanding?

Oh boy, grow up. Already many of your friends here have admitted sheepishly that they are just speculating things in here incoherently with their own set of assumptions and presumptions. On the other hand, isn't it true that you hardly had anything regarding any issue at hand in most of your posts other than mocking people around in here and playing second fiddle to some of your friends in here? And don't you realize, that is why I rarely care to even reply to your so called posts in here?

Coolbodhi said:

If hell as preached by Paul is not a literal place then what are the consequences of dying in the veil of ignorance?

Click to expand...

Coolbodhi said:

Let’s stick with the things that you think you do know. Your understanding of Hindu or Buddhist views does not matter at this point of the discussion.

Click to expand...

The problem with accusing Nirotu of ignorance is that it makes you look very hypocritical. Please tell me where Paul used the word "hell" (I mean that rhetorically, since you won't find it), or please admit that you lack an understanding of the Bible. And make no mistake: I do accuse you of lacking an understanding of the Bible.

selwyn said:

Man. Did you take enough time to read what your friend said here (that they are speculating about lot of issues incoherently even as they admitted and that even the whole hinduic scripture as such is incoherent)? Oh! could it be that you have also joined them in speculations about what I know and what I don't know and what I am confident about and what I am not confident about? And who told you that I have to write everything that I know in forum to prove myself in here. Doesn't that clearly demonstrate your level of maturity and distorted understanding?

Oh boy, grow up. Already many of your friends here have admitted sheepishly that they are just speculating things in here incoherently with their own set of assumptions and presumptions. On the other hand, isn't it true that you hardly had anything regarding any issue at hand in most of your posts other than mocking people around in here and playing second fiddle to some of your friends in here? And don't you realize, that is why I rarely care to even reply to your so called posts in here?

Click to expand...

Oooh, take some cool drinks man.

Let me tell you this: None of the threads like has been started by any Hindu. This thread was started by nirotu whining about his ousting at Hindunet or whatever and then continuing on with some of his previous discussions he had with Hindus over there. I am not here to debate or belittle anybody, and I have never even started any thread with such a motive, show me a proof. Nor do I think other Hindus started some threads challenging somebody to a debate or whatever you seem to accuse- it just happens in the middle of some thread where you childishly make some comments without any knowledge of what you are talking about.

It will just happen that somebody like you will interject into all threads and post some "contradictions" and quoting from all posts made since Jesus was born. I do not even clearly remember all that I write and say. I am not a full time surfer and dont have the time to remember all earlier posts and what I said earlier. In any discussion, the context of the thread must be used - quoting all previous threads is a nonsense and not acceptable. Our learning constantly imrproves, the more we debate or discuss on Hindu forums. Our viewpoints dont need to reamin the same - Hindus are not stagnant in their beleifs like you have memorized your bible. We do debate and discuss on many forums, where we often update our knowledge on Hinduism and sometimes we can change our opinions on certain matters. If we run into a better debator and if we are impressed with his logic, we tend to adopt his views, rather than blindly say "You may have won but I still dont care". That is why I accepted Sudarshan's challenge, because it gives me a chance to improve my own knowledge and its limitations, not that I want to "massacre" anybody.

Thus most Hindus are always thought evolving, infact everyday. We are not dummies to memorize scripture and quote long passages for consistancy each time. The scripture remains the same, but interpretations vary between many schools just like in Christianity, and if I somebody has a more reasonable interpretation than my own, I change my views. Sticking to ones beleifs even when you know it is wrong, is called superstition and close mindedness. If somebody can prove to me all religions are false, I will denounce all of them. Man, who told you our beleifs cant change over discussions? Dont you ever think at all?


Nobody wants a discussion with you, who does not answer any questions. The issue is with your taunt by posting into any discussions started by others. Nobody really knows what you know or know not yet - because you have hardly opened your mouth so far - except finding some conflicts between Hindu posters. The conflicts happen because

1. Different Hindus belong to different schools and may not share common opinions in all areas.

2. Each Hindu is thought evolving - he thinks and his own beleifs can vary over time in reaction to an improved learning, improved unlearning, personal expereicnes and other debates.

Stagnant beleifs and unwillingness to explore the truth of it, and make corrections is the hallmark of dogmatic religions and beleifs.

arunma said:

The problem with accusing Nirotu of ignorance is that it makes you look very hypocritical. Please tell me where Paul used the word "hell" (I mean that rhetorically, since you won't find it), or please admit that you lack an understanding of the Bible. And make no mistake: I do accuse you of lacking an understanding of the Bible.

Click to expand...

It is clear that you did not understand the context in which I used the name Paul and the word Hell, however, your accusation is duly noted.

coolbodhi said:

It is clear that you did not understand the context in which I used the name Paul and the word Hell, however, your accusation is duly noted.

Click to expand...

Well, at the very least, I thank you for not taking my accusation as a sign of rudeness (it wasn't intended as such, anyway). Nonetheless, I still don't think you have a clear understanding of the Bible or Biblical theology. Please tell me the context in which you're using the name of our Apostle and the doctrine of hell.