Response from nirotu

[nirotu]

Hello nirotu,
That's good that you believe in St. Augustine's reasoning. Augustine also believed the canon of Scripture to contain the Greek OT canon also known today as the deuterocanonicals or "Apocrypha".

What is your opinion of St. Augustine in this matter?

I assume that you are catholic and believe in the deuterocanonicals. Do you?

Dear Coolbodhi:

Good question! I am not an expert in Christology myself. I will look into that. All I know is this.

The title page of the King James Bible states: “The Holy Bible Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New.” Notice that the Holy Bible is contained in the Old and New Testaments. Yet, the Apocrypha was distinct and separate from both the Old and the New Testament. The truth is they were never considered a part of the Holy Bible. They were probably included for traditional reasons, but the translators did not allow tradition to sway their knowledge of true doctrine. They knew and made it clear that the Apocrypha was not scripture.

With time, as people got used to not having the Apocrypha, it began to be removed from more and more copies of the King James Bible until very few retain it today. After all, why have books that everyone knows are not scripture within the covers of the Holy Bible? In 1646, the Westminster Confession of Faith stated: “The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.” (The Apochrypha: By David F. Reagan)

For further info on Apochrypha: Read further by David F Reagen below.

Apocrypha is the name for 14 books written between about 200BC and AD100. Apocrypha, meaning “hidden” or “secret”, refers to the mysterious nature of their origin. Neither their authors nor the circumstances of their writings are known. Neither the Jews nor the early Christians accepted them as inspired scripture. The books themselves do not claim inspiration. There are no “Thus saith the Lord’s”. Although the New Testament has 263 direct quotations from and 370 allusions to the Old Testament, there is not a single reference to the books of the Apocrypha. It was at the Council of Trent, on April 8th, 1546, that the pope declared tradition and the Apocrypha to be canonical and authoritative. These books teach several false doctrines and contain many inaccurate historical facts.

The fourteen Apocryphal books are:

1. I Esdras (9 chapters) History of Israel from Josiah to the return from captivity.
2. II Esdras (16 chapters) A book of seven prophetic visions supposedly written by Ezra (5:1-10; 7:26-32; 15:33-36).
3. Tobit (14 chapters) A religious fantasy where Tobit’s son Tobias marries a widow who was married seven times yet was still a virgin having all her husbands killed by the demon Asmodeas (3:7-10). Tobias dispels the demon through an exorcism (6:1-7; 8:1-3).
4. Judith (16 chapters) Jewish widow disguises herself as a traitor to her people, gets an Assyrian general drunk and saves her people by chopping off his head and hanging it on the city wall.
5. Additions to Esther (7 chapters) Visions, letters and prayers meant to bring the mention of God to the book of Esther (10:4).
6. Wisdom of Solomon (19 chapters) A book of ethics commending wisdom.
7. Ecclesiasticus (51 chapters) A work of general morality and practical godliness modeled after Proverbs.
8. Baruch (6 chapters) Prayers and confessions of the Jews in exile.
9. Song of the Three Holy Children (1 chapter) An addition to Daniel 3.
10. History of Susanna (1 chapter) Added as the 13th chapter of Daniel. In it, Daniel uses his wisdom to free a woman falsely accused of adultery.
11. Bel and the Dragon (1 chapter) Another addition to Daniel telling how Daniel destroys two Babylonian idols.
12. The Prayer of Manasseh (1 chapter) Supposed prayer of II Chronicles 33:18-19.
13. I Maccabees (16 chapters) Credible history covering 40 years (175-135BC) from the accession of Antiochus Epiphanes to the death of Simon Maccabees.
14. II Maccabees (15 chapters) Fanciful history covering same period as I Maccabees (2:1-6; 3:23-27; 5:1-4).

Roman Catholic editions of the Bible include the Apocryphal books within the Old Testament. They are mingled in with the true books of scripture. However, the English Protestants changed this practice beginning in the sixteenth century. The English translation by Myles Coverdale (1535) was the first Bible to separate the Apocryphal books from the text of the Old Testament. He explained his approach to these books in an appendix which states in part:



“These books (good reader) which be called Apocrypha, are not judged among the doctors to be of like reputation with the other scripture…And the chief cause thereof is this: there be many places in them, that seem to be repugnant unto the open and manifest truth in the other books of the Bible.”

The Geneva Bible appeared in 1560. It described the Apocrypha as “books which were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church, neither yet served to prove any point of Christian religion save in so much as they had the consent of other scriptures called canonical to confirm the same.”

Yet, both the Coverdale Bible and the Geneva Bible had the Apocrypha. Why? They considered them of some value for historical and practical instruction. But there were practical reasons as well. These books had been considered scripture by those who were in the Catholic Church. Instead of removing them immediately, they removed them from the text of scripture first. Then, with time, the books began to be taken out entirely. Some copies of the Geneva Bible removed the Apocrypha by 1599. Early copies of the King James Bible did so as well.

Even the “Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion” which established the doctrinal position of the Church of England and was agreed on in 1562 denied the doctrinal authority of the apocryphal books. Men were not to “apply them to establish any doctrine.” King James himself said in his Basilikon Doron: “As to the Apocriphe bookes, I omit them because I am no Papist (as I said before) & indeed some of them are as like the dietement of the Spirit of God, as an Egg is to an Oyster.”


BTW, I am neither a Catholic nor a denominational based Christian. I just pick up "King James Bible" and attend full Gospel, non-denominational Church.

Blessings,

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

While I agree with many aspects of Ramanuja’s message, I do not agree with his “complete surrender and do nothing” philosophy.

What do you mean by "do nothing" philosophy. I guess that is applicable to Christianity's version of "unmerited favour". I clearly explained the message of Ramanuja - you have to surrender to the Lord, have intense love for God, and realise God with your devotion.

You do have some work to do in Vaishnavite Philosophy - you do have to invoke the Lord in person with your love to get salvation. Dont you think that is surely no joke or soemthing to be laughed at? Love the Lord so intensely that he reveals himself to you - that is the teaching of Ramanuja's message of total surrender and Bhakti Yoga. Bhakti Yoga is not doing good works, it is all about love of God so deeply as to reveal God directly - the summum bonum of human life.

Christinaity has absolutely no emphais on this part of Jnana or spiritual enlightenment or vision of God. You think all you need to do is to beleive in a story, do whatever you want, die and then wake up in heaven after the judgement day. That looks very simplistic to me, so to speak. It seems to be a beginners guide to spirituality. Christianity's goal seems to be heaven, not salvation.

The reason I say that because I consider human creation as the apex of God’s fabulous handiwork. He bestowed upon us many of His attributes that is far superior to any other creatures that He created. One of them is the intellect. It is through intellect we are being able to rationalize our thoughts. It is through intellect we are able to grasp the subtle nature of God. It is through intellect we are able to develop ideas, inventions that make man’s life less stressful and more fruitful. It would only make our Heavenly Father happy to see that this intellect is used to create greater good amongst ourselves.

Therefore, to me, it is perfectly rational to see a doctor when I get sick or take proper precaution not to get sick. It is rational for me to fight for my basic rights including moral rights. By not doing anything, as you indicated you would, will only demean the God given intellect in you.

If I work by faith in a room full of TB patients, I am bound to acquire that disease myself. On the other hand, if I take precaution I may very well avoid it. You can only imagine how life would be if there was no IT technology as you see it today and are communicating your responses through traditional print mail. But now you are able to appreciate God’s gift even more because you have used intellect to advance in your own progress.

Blessings,

Yes, we classify that as incomplete surrender to God.

You are under the false impression that a patient dies by not seeing the doctor. We realise that we have absolutely no control over life and death - this power rests with God alone. We do think we live only by the power of God, not by the power of the medicine. If the supplication to the Lord is total, no harm can befall you - thinking otherwise is having lack of faith in God. If you die, it is well and good and you can spend the eternity in sayujya. Death is nothing, but just a change of clothes in the spiritual realm. Faith can move mountains. It shows your philosophy preaches grace but not complete faith and surrender.

 

[coolbodhi]

Dear Coolbodhi:

Good question! I am not an expert in Christology myself. I will look into that. All I know is this.
Blessings,

I will wait from your reply to my other post and then most my comments on both replies.

 

[nirotu]

Dr. S. Radhakrishnan ( Bhagavath Gita Page 28),
Swamy Vivekananda (The complete work of Swamy Vivekananda. Vol 1, Page 438),
Mahatma Gandhi (Gita – My mother Page 38),
Vinobha Bhave ( Talk on the Gita Page 11).

All have come to the same conclusion as you read the reference. What’s your take on this?

I have not read anything written by these scholars. A question: Are these religious scholars?

Dear Coolbodhi:

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.

From something that I have read about Gandhi; he was actually more of anti-Hinduism. Is this correct or was he a religious scholar?

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”.

What is your opinion of Parbhupada who is considered a religious scholar?

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.

There are also scholars like Nitzsche that thought that the historical Christ was a very different man from the Christ of Christian mythology. What is your opinion of this?

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.

What do you mean by ‘removing the veil of ignorance’?

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. 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?

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?

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

Hope this helps,

Blessings,

 

[selwyn]

How old are you?.

How old are you?

True, I learnt this art from you. I used to always see positives in everything, after your contact, all negatives are visible to me now..

Oh!! Are you talking about the negatives in your religion that you could not control yourself and start hating people in here when they ask questions regarding your religion?

Clear proof that you just avoid the issue.....

Man. Where is the issue to begin with in your posts when you yourself don't know whether you want coherent or incoherent reply?

For your info, I have recieved many PMs commending my posts even by your fellow christians, so your comment hardly matters to me..

Man. Do you really think that my certification or the certification of any other person about you or me in here really matters to the Holy Almighty God to form His opinion about you or me? And don't you think that all that matters finally is how you or me live our lives before Him?

I am not seen as a Christian hater even by many of your friends here. I am a Christian if you may to call me that, and certainly have beleifs that fit some of the christain denominations. .

Isn't that one of the most hypocritical statements on your part? How could you even do this in here when you had openly declared Christianity as false at one end while at the other end that you are a "Christian" now against your own conscience if you had any inner conviction to begin with? (Please note: No offense meant, but you seemed to claim so in one of your posts that you can blindly close your eyes and cry out loud that only the philosophy of your school thought is true and the rest are all false)No, offense meant. With all due respect, now are you going to claim here that even your inner convictions are incoherent and that it is your own strength in here? Oh man, On the other end, watch out, hindus in here may end up violently protesting against you getting converted.

I simply disagree with your dogmatic presentation of Christianity..

What? Is that a coherent or an incoherent statment of yours?

And disagree with your unwarranted ridicule of Hindusim without knwoing a bit about it..

Man. To tell you honestly, I am wondering if you are ending up mocking your so called hinduism to the extent now that you even end up claiming in here that you could even be called as a Christian in here.

Not, hatred, but the truth.

What type of truth are you talking about in here? Coherent or incoherent, absolute or relative, "partial truth containing some untruths" or "partial lie containing some truth" disguised as truth? What truth are you talking about in here?

I want to expose people are against Hinduism without a good cause.

Man. Aren't you someone who believes that terms like "good cause" can be relative and that hinduism can very well afford to be incoherent? Then how on earth can you ever try anything hypocritically convince others based just on your own belief and poor understanding of "good cause"?

If you were a scholar in Hinduism and were speaking against it I

would have give you a good hearing.

And what do you think of yourself in here that I should give you a good hearing when you have already knocked down all your own arguments due to your incoherence and self

contradiction?

Is speaking aginst Islamic terrorism hatred? Is speaking against quran's discrimination against other humans a hatred? Is speaking against christain mssionaires using deciet hatred?

And to continue with questions in here, is speaking against the vedas and gita which advocate caste system and discrimination, a hatred?

Is speaking against people like you who call "All Hindus on this forum as liars" hatred? ( I am assuming that Pam's accusation was against you and I will leave her to confirm that...because I could not guess anybody else could have said that

after reading all your posts).

Man. I didn't expect you to end up degrading yourself to such a level in here. How on earth can you ignorantly go ahead and start a campaign against people based on your own set of

asssumptions based on a third person's general statement without even trying to confirm anything or getting things clarified? Isn't that a clear display of hatred and animosity against people in here that you equate statements of people in here to terrorism and all non-sense that is possible in here just based on your nasty assumption without any

clarification or confrimation of th issue to begin with? But what on earth can be expected from someone who has already admitted that he is just speculating about issues in here without knowing the truth exactly.

By the way, regarding whatever non-sense Pam said in here, I cannot comment on anything until she clarifies things in here. But on the other end, regarding whomever it may be, if Pam starts to play this gossipping game in here by telling openly in a public forum whatever is told to her by someone in a pm with full trust over her just to humiliate people in here and reveal their identity, then first of all I think that is a violation of forum rules. Secondly, she might end up loosing her credibility in here to the extent that
people will not be honest in any of their discussion with her in here.

I can give a good account of many christians on this forum as great human beings. Are you able to see that in a single Hindu here? Is that a different perception on oursides?

And is that a coherent account or an incoherent account, that you are talking about in here? But on the other hand again, do you really think that it matters to God the accounts you and me give about people in here? Or do you really think that people should be really bothered about the perception of just you and me based on our highly limited experience

through an internet experience about them? Man. Grow up please.

Can you pick one Hindu from among the many Hindus on this forum whom you would call "not a liar"?

Again. Do you really think that it really matters to the almighty Holy God what you or me

believe about people in here?

I know you cannot - there is nobody you have ever agreed with,

on a single point unless they throw the towel

Man! What are you ranting down in here? Do you want me to agree with people coherently or incoherently? And what non-sense are you proclaiming in here by saying that you agree with people in here after claiming "closing your eyes" that only your so called school of thought is truth and everything else is false? You seem to be getting more and more desperate in here. Calm down.

and agree with your version of Christianity.

What you have presented below is your own twisted version of Christianity (speculations and assumptions as usual affordable to hinduism) due to your desperate situation in here.

Nothing more.

1. The beleif in a dictator God,

Who told you I believe in a dictator God? Man. You assume too many things and arrogantly claim them in here as truth about my belief. I really pity you. You still can't understand the dangers of speculations yet.

2. The beleif in an eternal hell for non christians.

Who told you that eternal hell was created for non-christians.

3. The beleif in an unmerited grace ( an oxymoron which you have not cared to defend)

And again, do you want a coherent defense or an incoherent defense?

and such nonsense.

What non-sense? Isn't it that it is all your own hypocritical blind assertions and non-sense in here as truth without even knowing what on earth you are ranting in here?

Jesus was a great saint. You have not understood him even 1%.

Oh man. Are you the same one who proclaimed here once that you are not even sure of the historicity of Jesus? At one end, it seems like that you have come a long way down in here that you have started now believing that Jesus indeed was historical person. But at the other end, you seem to be having no idea of Who He is and as usual seem to be claiming your own speculations about Jesus as truth in here without any basis.

Ask your buddy nirotu here. Even he has a much better perspective - you can learn a lot from him, though I dont agree with him on all points. Did you not see that I an nirotu were able to agree on a majority of issues? Is it ever possible with you to agree on even on point? Is that your problem or mine?

Man. Can't you ever understand what I am poiniting in here? Isn't it that incoherence and self-contradiction of your posts clearly demonstrates in here often that you have a big

problem within yourself to agree with yourself at different times. And remember the mood changes that you were talking about? For example, in this post, you have gone to the extent of claiming that one can even call you as a Christian after all your oscillations and dances within hinduic claims so far. It is getting really interesting at this point indeed. We just have to wait and see what your claim is going to be in here tomorrow. Are you going to declare yourself a muslim, tomorrow?

Hmm, ask these questions to youself honestly.

Didn't I clearly say out here, that I don't hate anyone in here? And could you give me one example of my post in here where I had launched any personal attack on people rather than attacking what they claim in here through their posts? And when I am very much convinced that Christ is the truth, I am not going to compromise at any point on that issue in here. Yeah. After coming to know Christ and His abundant love for me, I am biased towards Jesus Christ, the Way the Truth and the Life as at this stage of life, I am pretty much convinced very much that He is the Way, the Truth and the life. And I think that being biased towards Christ is the same as being biased towards the absolute Truth.

No big deal knowing about a 600 page book. Nirotu expalined certain points very beautifully and you may may to reread this thread if your eyes are still open.

In other words, are you now accepting that the bible is not contradictory and that the

problem is with you and your understanding? And man. Isn't it much better to have a 600 page book with total coherence containing absolute truth revealing clearly God's love and plan for mankind rather than having millions and millions of pages of incoherent rantings and ramblings which none on earth would ever be able to understand but just speculate about and finally end up with their own models of so called gods only to finally even discard the so called "scripture"?

Thanks, hope I have communicated the true gospel to you.The true message of Jesus.

No. you have not. First of all, you seem to be highly confused about the meaning of truth

to begin with. That being the case, I doubt that you could ever make any sense with any claims of you to be true in here.

It has nothing to do with the kind of posts you and some of your buddies make here. Ask many of your Christian buddies here and they will be enlighten you

better, it need not be a Hindu like me.

Man. After admitting that you are just speculating things around here about God with self contradictions and incoherence to the extent that you don't mind identifying yourself with Christianity now in this post which you once adamantly declared as false and still seem to be declaring as false(!!!!), how on earth can you ever claim in here anything here as truth?

 

[rahul_sharma]

Mahasudhrashan , plz don't waste time on senseless things, just ignore him. The one who reply everytime that "he don't wish to answer question related to Christianity" and never dared to answer, why should any sensible debater will waste time with such member whose posts are nothing but chidish arguements? I am really enjoying debate between you and Nirotu , if possible and if you have time then continue with Nirotu.

 

[Ram]

Mahasudhrashan , plz don't waste time on senseless things, just ignore him. The one who reply everytime that "he don't wish to answer question related to Christianity" and never dared to answer, why should any sensible debater will waste time with such member whose posts are nothing but chidish arguements? I am really enjoying debate between you and Nirotu , if possible and if you have time then continue with Nirotu.

True, I guess all Hindus find this the very hard way, all have tried this guy atleast once, but they never return a second time. I have completely stopped arguing with him - simply coz this guy cant answer a single question...discussions/debates are essentially both ways. Nirotu-Sudarshan discussion was very entertaining, though my own views are different.

The best response to Selwyn would be from my friend Satay---the famous smiley.

 

[selwyn]

True,

Is that partial or relative or speculative or an assumption?

I guess all Hindus find this the very hard way, all have tried this guy atleast once, but they never return a second time.

What did you guys try in here? Is it that you guys tried to convince me in here that truth is relative, speculative partial, incoherent etc.?

I have completely stopped arguing with him - simply coz this guy cant answer a single question...

What answer do you want - true or partially true or relatively true or hypocritical or self-contradictory or lies containing some truth? What answer do you want? Or is it that you want incoherent answers?

discussions/debates are essentially both ways. Nirotu-Sudarshan discussion was very entertaining, though my own views are different.

Oh. you are in here for entertainment!!!! And who told you that I am in for a debate here with you. Didn't I tell you much earlier that I am not in here for any debate with you?

The best response to Selwyn would be from my friend Satay---the famous smiley.

So you agree that you give up and that you have no answers in here, after all your pseudo-assertive posts about "truth" filled with speculations and so called "partial truths" in the name of hinduism, right? Yeah. It is high time for you to keep on smiling. But don't worry, questioning will continue in here whether you respond with smiley or anything else in here. But man, didn't I tell you right at the start that you guys need not answer any of my questions in here, to begin with and very well ignore my posts? Whose problem is it now that after all your self-contradictions, incoherence and hypocricies has been exposed that you guys cry foul here?

 

[Ram]

From a Christian view point, you are on wrong footing. I lost you already when you started with these premises: Man is divine, God is evil and more. We can be a little more pragmatic and at the same time realistic. We live in this world where we have no choice but to go through “Sansara” that is unless you want to be a monk or sadhu. Undoubtedly, you have to deal with the worldly matters. From your definition, the motion of going through the rigors of “Sansara” makes us not divine. Therefore, from your definition of “man is divine” probably fits to handful of ascetic, monks and sages. Therefore, the theory is not practical and falls on its face.



The Bible say the following: Can man become divine? No. Can man aspire to become divine? Nope. What is the purpose man then? The very purpose of God’s creation of man is to have that intimate Father-Son relationship and in that have a communion with God. There is nothing more that makes God happy than to see His children worship Him.

You earlier said -"we are all saints who happen to sin"

Now you say this? Man cannot become divine or aspire to become divine? What exactly did you mean by a saint in your book?

Your statements dont weigh at all - God is a being at perfetc bliss at all times and has no unfulfilled desires - that he expects his children to worship him is just beyond my understanding. Well, if that is what you beleive, let us pass on...

My personal deductions from Hindu scripture that

1. Man, after death either goes to heaven or hell or both in accordance with his Karma.

2. If he has exhausted all bad karma, he never returns to the earth again.

3. If he still has good Karma, and not yet obtained enlightenment, he cannot get salvation - he just moves into a higher plane of existance that is permanent.

4. This world is symbolically called the Mahat. From Mahat, he moves up the world of Tapas, Jana and finally to Satya Loka, the world of Brahma. Until this level, the soul is subject to the Lord and engages in spiritual discipline like meditation, worship though in these worlds, it is not at the level of the physical body.

5. Thus, man(soul) progressively works up its way up in increasing planes of consciousness, bliss and love for God.

From the Satya Loka, the soul attains to the higher worlds of Kailasa or Vaikunta ( which I think are same or very nearly the same). In this state of spirituality, the soul attains the same level of bliss and knowledge as God himself-no an ounce less. Thus, you can see that Hinduism is talking about a very advanced state of salvation.

From all I see Christianity is just talking about the state of salvation below the Satya Loka, where physcial concepts like love and worship are still valid. Understand that Hindu salvation is beyond descciptiion, it is neither love or worship of God. The soul becomes a part of God in stages( until Satya Loka it is separate as far as its consciousness is concerned). In the highest states of salvation as in Vaikunta, the soul knows itself as part and parcel of the creator like waves on the ocean. Christianity is just talking about a lower salvation in the Hindu view of salvation - dont say that you are talking something new...the dualty is very prevalent in Hindu salvation and vanishes only at the highest level. You can still find dvaitins arguing vehemently over this - they just dont realise that it just refers to a state of incomplete salvation well know as apara mukti. Christianity is just talking of apara mukti and never para mukti or absolute salvation.

The problem I have is how to describe the problem of evil to a Dvaitan, advaitan or to VA. For example, when you read Adi Sankara, where he describes Moha, Maya in relation to evil and material world. The problem, as I see, with Hinduism lies in its conceptions of God and the world coming from different subsets. If knowledge of the world is characterized by illusion, it is hard to see how any standard can prove illusion is false (Hackett pp 158-175). At least for some Hindu’s even the highest truth is in the last analysis part of the “maya” or “cosmic illusion”. While claiming allegiance to universal moral order, the Hindu view of maya ultimately undermines the reality of such an order or, at least, the possibility of knowing anything about it.

I am sorry I dont beleive in this mayavada or cosmic illusion. I am not an advaitin. I am a Vaishnavite. I differ from Sudarshan though in many respects...I come between Vishitadvaita and advaita.

Is God a source of evil?

Yes, everything originates from God. But God does not see dualty like us. God does not see evil.

There is no next time! If you fall you fail. Why do you consider the next time as any better opportunity to correct yourself when you never was able the first time. That shows laziness in you thinking the next time around you will be good! That cannot be since Bible does not allow reincarnation myth. It only postpones your suffering to an unending cycle.

I consider myself insufficient or unfit or unquualified to have enlightenment in a single chance. Christianity lacks this concept completely - It is Jnana Shunya ( devoid of the term enlightenment). I hope you do take some time to see where these two philosophies stand - Christianity talks only of faith, which is nothing but the first building block in Hinduism. It does not touch the aspects of Jnana and Bhakti and abstraction. You know, I cannot take such a philosophy seriously , coming from a Hindu background.

Do you think a pilot drving an aeroplane would be impressed with a child playing with an aeroplane toy and trying to convince me of its capabilities?

Show me where the bible talks of Jnana and Philsoophy. As a HIndu, I can see many passages in the bible are pearls of wisdom but standard Christian interpretation is literal and means nothing to do.

First of all, we should not assume that all our suffering is the product of our own sin or indifference to the Lord. There are many reasons for suffering. Also, the notion that God somehow randomly chooses one to suffer and the other to enjoy is not correct. God loves us all with same measure. Yet why do we see different measures of pain and suffering caused to different people. We all go through life’s struggle. Some handle it well some give up easily.

Infact you are just bypassing the question. You have not explained anything, any differences we see in the world.

A Christian theist knows that God created people with freedom to choose or reject Him. When this creation chose to rebel, God revealed His plan of salvation. I can see the God was achieving greater good through this process of allowing Evil to occur.

Again, it means nothing to me. My concept of God is that Gid created us for his own leela(sport), like playing a game of chess with himself. He gave us no chance to reject him, as far as I am concerned. Union with God is inevitable, whehther you like it or not or want it or not. I force my child to do his homework even when he never likes to do it and compalins everyday that it is a drudgery. Similarly, God wants his children to be with him, whether they want him or not, and he can change our minds in a moments notice.

A person who talks about compassion and in the same breath passionately hates version of God presented in Christianity is difficult for anyone to fathom.

God’s love can be given only if the opposite choice is really available: hate. Just remember that either choice you make will have consequences here and in eternity. God's attributes includes His Holiness and the appropriate action for evil in His sight is its destruction. One must also remember that God is a Sovereign God, not limited by human ideas of goodness, kindness etc. Many think of God as a kind, bumbling, Santa Claus-like father figure, but forget that He is also a just God, and justice requires punishment of sin.

Blessings,

The reasons are not hard to seek. If God allows his children to seek their doom for ever, how can somebody ever have affection to such a God unless out of a blind addicition?

For eg, if my father is going to be in hell for ever, I wont be happy with God even if he offers heaven to me. God has to answer my pleas. no?


Ram

 

[Ram]

Dear Ram:


From your questionnaire I gather that you are trying to establish somehow the so called “Bible God” by nature is a source of both good and evil and makes Himself known from either of powers.

There are several ways one can prove that the Bible does not indicate that the God of this universe is creator of evil. The best example I will start with is from St.Augustine.

To me, St. Augustine’s reasoning seems to be correct:

1. God is the author of everything in the created universe.

2. Evil is not a thing or a substance; it is a privation or lack in things (blindness is lack of sight, pain is lack of health, hate or murder is lack of love).

3. Therefore God did not create evil.

I would love to answer all your questions as they are of legitimate concern to you. But before I do, please read this little story someone sent to me to illustrate the above point.

Does evil exist? Did God create evil?

The university professor challenged his students with this question, "Did God create everything that exists?" A student bravely replied, "Yes, He did!"
"God created everything?" the professor asked. "Yes sir", the student replied. The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are, then God is evil."

The student became quiet before such an answer. The professor, quite pleased with himself, boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth. Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question
professor?" "Of course", replied the professor.

The student stood up and asked, "Professor does cold exist?" "What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?" The students snickered at the young man's question.

The young man replied,"In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."

The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?" The
professor responded, "Of course it does." The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?" Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as I have already said. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

The young man's name -- Albert Einstein

These are all logical outcomes of the monotheistic philosophy.

Let me warn you -----------------whichiever religions have promoted this monotheism and also placed the creation outside his creation, have only succeeded in creatiing religions that destroy harmony in the world.

I think you know Hindusm, and dvaita philosophy. They beleive in a philosophy that fairly match yours - Strictly monotheistic, God as instrumental causalty, and they are just very narrow minded people and never accept any other views other than their own. Why, they will even never post on a form like this because they view christianity as nothing more than trash. They will openly call advaita, Vishitadvaita, Hare Krishna all as false, with zero truth.

If you find many Hindus here, having respect for many religions, it is because of a variant of Monotheism, where divinity is understood to exist everywhere. Naturally, peaceful coexistance with everybody is possible. Most Hindus on these forums are not Monotheists, but either monists, or in between monism and monotheism.

Never beleive in one stereotyped version of God, All such religions that done that have created tremendous confusion, and look at Islam, the major problem with theistic religion is Monotheism. Even just have a look at those sects in Hinduism that are strictly monotheistic - tolerance levels will be lower. Even read all of Sudarshan's posts - he managed to say that "Christianity is false" just because he is a monotheist, which is not a normal Hindu beleif.

I am not a monotheist(in the sense of one version of God) and hence I find truth in all beleif systems. I beleive the same God manifests in the multitude forms. Strict monotheistic religions like Islam, Christianity etc and those in Hindusim like Vaishnavism or Shaivism are not tolerant of other beleifs. This is a beleif that needs to be given up, yes, even by many Hindus. Some of the infighting you see in the Hindu history is exactly due to monotheists, who cannot accept any other version of God or religion other than their own.

Do you see a point or not? It is upto you.

 

[selwyn]

God is a being at perfetc bliss at all times and has no unfulfilled desires - that he expects his children to worship him is just beyond my understanding.

Are you the one who once boasted that you never tend to define God? Then what non sense is this up here? On the other end, are you the same guy who later in this same post claims out here that your hinduic God started playing games in creating mankind. Was he getting bored in this so called "perfect bliss" or was some of his fulfilled desires again became unfulfilled that he started this game?

My personal deductions from Hindu scripture that

1. Man, after death either goes to heaven or hell or both in accordance with his Karma.

Are you the same Ram, who once boasted that a literal hell is a myth and nothing more than a state of mind in mysery? Now what on earth do you mean here by "goes to"? And are you the same Ram, who was making noise once and just boasting about reincarnation again and again?

2. If he has exhausted all bad karma, he never returns to the earth again.

And you don't believe in any grace unlike Sudharshan, right? And you believe that man gets saved only by his actions, right?

3. If he still has good Karma, and not yet obtained enlightenment, he cannot get salvation - he just moves into a higher plane of existance that is permanent.

What? Even heaven and hell were temporary according to you. Now what is this higher plane of existence, that is "permanent"?

4. This world is symbolically called the Mahat. From Mahat, he moves up the world of Tapas, Jana and finally to Satya Loka, the world of Brahma. Until this level, the soul is subject to the Lord and engages in spiritual discipline like meditation, worship though in these worlds, it is not at the level of the physical body.

Oh man. Do you have any other world of illusion, speculation and "partial truth" that you have missed out?

5. Thus, man(soul) progressively works up its way up in increasing planes of consciousness, bliss and love for God.

And what about some crazy bad karma on the way? Does this poor soul fall back into the world again in the form of a pig or an earthworm once again? And man, where on earth is your so called God in all this? Isn't he the one who according to you initiated the game?

From the Satya Loka, the soul attains to the higher worlds of Kailasa or Vaikunta ( which I think are same or very nearly the same). In this state of spirituality, the soul attains the same level of bliss and knowledge as God himself-no an ounce less. Thus, you can see that Hinduism is talking about a very advanced state of salvation.

Really? Is this what is called as advanced salvation? Where on earth is God in all this man? All that you have talked about your so called God is that he started playing a game creating mankind. Is he happily sitting playing his own games continuously at the other end when your so called soul is under a constant state of pain and misery in its own ridiculous attempt of salvation? And all these lokas and yogas, are these temporary state of myths or your literal state of myth or your incoherent version or some partial truth mixed with lies and speculations?

From all I see Christianity is just talking about the state of salvation below the Satya Loka, where physcial concepts like love and worship are still valid. Understand that Hindu salvation is beyond descciptiion, it is neither love or worship of God. The soul becomes a part of God in stages( until Satya Loka it is separate as far as its consciousness is concerned). In the highest states of salvation as in Vaikunta, the soul knows itself as part and parcel of the creator like waves on the ocean. Christianity is just talking about a lower salvation in the Hindu view of salvation - dont say that you are talking something new...the dualty is very prevalent in Hindu salvation and vanishes only at the highest level. You can still find dvaitins arguing vehemently over this - they just dont realise that it just refers to a state of incomplete salvation well know as apara mukti. Christianity is just talking of apara mukti and never para mukti or absolute salvation.

And all these are your own speculations, right? Are you atleast sure of any of these speculations up here? And where on earth did you get such an understanding about Christianity?

I am sorry I dont beleive in this mayavada or cosmic illusion.

What? I thought that you were just ranting so far here about your own version and world of "cosmic illusion"? Are you sure that you don't believe these?

I

am not an advaitin. I am a Vaishnavite. I differ from Sudarshan though in many respects...I come between Vishitadvaita and advaita.

Oh you come between, Vishitadvaita and advaita!!!!! Do you know exactly where in between you are? Are are you going to say somewhere in between as you said about truth sometime ago?

Yes, everything originates from God. But God does not see dualty like us. God does not see evil.

What? Your so called God does not see evil at all? Oh man!!!! That needs to be underlined as your quote. Man. If that is the case, then where on earth is the need for all these various lokas and yogas and the karmas of the soul with all its struggles to reach God? Or are you saying that your version of God is blind to the fact of evil that is even seen by human beings and that your version of God has no sense of justice at all? Or could it be that your version of God is under an illusionary world that he is happily sitting and playing games as you have portrayed. (Remember, that is how you portrayed, not me)

I consider myself insufficient or unfit or unquualified to have enlightenment in a single chance. Christianity lacks this concept completely - It is Jnana Shunya ( devoid of the term enlightenment). I hope you do take some time to see where these two philosophies stand - Christianity talks only of faith, which is nothing but the first building block in Hinduism. It does not touch the aspects of Jnana and Bhakti and abstraction. You know, I cannot take such a philosophy seriously , coming from a Hindu background.

Do you think a pilot drving an aeroplane would be impressed with a child playing with an aeroplane toy and trying to convince me of its capabilities?

Now who is the pilot and who is the child in here? Man. How long will you live in your own world of illusion and assume that you are superior in everything up here while you proved yourself otherwise with your posts in here?

Show me where the bible talks of Jnana and Philsoophy. As a HIndu, I can see many passages in the bible are pearls of wisdom but standard Christian interpretation is literal and means nothing to do.

Oh. Are you someone who would want to speculate even if it is given in black and white?

Again, it means nothing to me. My concept of God is that Gid created us for his own leela(sport), like playing a game of chess with himself.

And there you go.This is what I was referring to. Your so called God probably got bored of his perfect bliss and started playing games by creating mankind, letting them to go through all the miseries, right?

He gave us no chance to reject him, as far as I am concerned.

In other words, according to you, your so called God created mankind nothing better than robots programmed to end up in Him, right?

Union with God is inevitable, whehther you like it or not or want it or not.

What? So you do confirm that according to you, your so called God just created robots in the name of mankind and nothing else?

I force my child to do his homework even when he never likes to do it and compalins everyday that it is a drudgery. Similarly, God wants his children to be with him, whether they want him or not, and he can change our minds in a moments notice.

Do you mean to claim here that your God is so selfish that he forcefully arrests people against their desires? And man, the analogy that you have given is really pathetic. This is not about doing homework. This is about staying permanently in a place where someone does not want to stay.

The reasons are not hard to seek. If God allows his children to seek their doom for ever, how can somebody ever have affection to such a God unless out of a blind addicition?

And if your version of God forces his children to just reach him even when they hate to do so, how on earth would you say that those children would ever have any affection over such a God (who just played games for his sadistic pleasures) other than blindness due to programming by your so called God, fear and for the lack of availability of any other choice? And isn't this what is known as a good picture of a dictator?

For eg, if my father is going to be in hell for ever, I wont be happy with God even if he offers heaven to me. God has to answer my pleas. no?

Oh man. If you are not happy going to heaven, you have nothing to worry about. Don't you think that God will let you go where ever you want to go? and do you think that He will force you to be with him against your wishes?

 

[Ram]

Ha ha, I dont want to respond you to rant, but just one point...

What? So you do confirm that according to you, your so called God just created robots in the name of mankind and nothing else?



Do you mean to claim here that your God is so selfish that he forcefully arrests people against their desires? And man, the analogy that you have given is really pathetic. This is not about doing homework. This is about staying permanently in a place where someone does not want to stay.

Dear Selwyn, this is what we call in Hinduism as spiritual jelaousy, if you get that you will not get salvation. You should always wish salvation for all - there is simply no question of somebody pushed outside. A devotee of God thinks he alone deserves it, because he is devoted, but that is the very reason he falls.

People reject God because they are simply unable to appreciate what or who God is and how a union is with him. Thus, God is doing nothing wrong by forcible actions I am even amused that you see God burning someone in eternity is considered fairer because he permitted the freewill. But he cannot give man eternal bliss becuase chose not to ask for it? No wonder, the effects of a myth can have on the psyche.

There is no proof for God whatsoever, unless it is by personal experience. God can never expect people to beleive in him , leave alone a particular religion or prophet. Thus, it is his sole responsibility to show the way for all, whether we want it or not. If I move away from God, I request God to even cane me to bring me back to him - I am not a hater of humanity. I want God to love and take all. Jealous people will find the path much harder....

I want God to arrest me, even if I stray away from him wilfully, dont you? You are talking like a 2 year old, that is why I am not responding to the rest of your posts.

Selfishness of God verses man's free will - good work Selwyn, you truly know God.

 

[nirotu]

You earlier said -"we are all saints who happen to sin"

Now you say this? Man cannot become divine or aspire to become divine? What exactly did you mean by a saint in your book?

Dear Ram:
When I say I am a saint who happen to sin is simply using a metaphor. Please, understand that the Bible is not to be taken in literal sense if not warranted. Use of metaphors, symbols are there to make points. If Jesus says I am the door do not confuse Him with pinewood door or when He says I am the bread He is not made of dough. Therefore, do not take literally that which is not. BTW, don't believe I am a saint!

Just so you know here is the way I interpret meanings of the following:

Saint: Is an individual who has accomplished liberation in this life. Many Sadhus also qualifiy to “accomplished ones”

Your statements dont weigh at all - God is a being at perfetc bliss at all times and has no unfulfilled desires - that he expects his children to worship him is just beyond my understanding. Well, if that is what you beleive, let us pass on...

If God has no desire in His creation then this whole creation business is non-sense. You are saying something that is not accepted in your own religion. You are positing God as some sadist who creates and leaves things alone. In my view, you are completely wrong here!! God is alive and actively participates in each one of our lives. He woos us to Him when we heed to His call.

1. Man, after death either goes to heaven or hell or both in accordance with his Karma.

Oops! Where did the Hell come into your scene here?

2. If he has exhausted all bad karma, he never returns to the earth again.

You are suggesting that man has to workout his own karma to eventually bring it to net zero. Again, you are treading on thin ice here. Let me ask you then if a person who is suffering (you possibly ascribe that to his past deeds) has to be left alone to workout his karma, in that case, would I be interfering with his karma if I were to help him? If I did not do that I myself will be depriving my own chances of doing good karma. But If I did that I would be severely interfering with his karma! I see a dilemma here!!

3. If he still has good Karma, and not yet obtained enlightenment, he cannot get salvation - he just moves into a higher plane of existence that is permanent.

What is that plane of existence? Is it in the realm of this world we live in? Is it in between hell and heaven?

4. This world is symbolically called the Mahat. From Mahat, he moves up the world of Tapas, Jana and finally to Satya Loka, the world of Brahma. Until this level, the soul is subject to the Lord and engages in spiritual discipline like meditation, worship though in these worlds, it is not at the level of the physical body.

5. Thus, man(soul) progressively works up its way up in increasing planes of consciousness, bliss and love for God.

From the Satya Loka, the soul attains to the higher worlds of Kailasa or Vaikunta ( which I think are same or very nearly the same). In this state of spirituality, the soul attains the same level of bliss and knowledge as God himself-no an ounce less. Thus, you can see that Hinduism is talking about a very advanced state of salvation.

While I don’t deny everything you describe here in 4 and 5, your narration makes the path to reach God somewhat convoluted with several paths. The way I see is this. The shortest distance between two points of travel is straight line. If that line is through Jesus Christ, why bother going through all convoluted paths knowing human condition?

From all I see Christianity is just talking about the state of salvation below the Satya Loka, where physcial concepts like love and worship are still valid. Understand that Hindu salvation is beyond descciptiion, it is neither love or worship of God. The soul becomes a part of God in stages( until Satya Loka it is separate as far as its consciousness is concerned). In the highest states of salvation as in Vaikunta, the soul knows itself as part and parcel of the creator like waves on the ocean. Christianity is just talking about a lower salvation in the Hindu view of salvation - dont say that you are talking something new...the dualty is very prevalent in Hindu salvation and vanishes only at the highest level. You can still find dvaitins arguing vehemently over this - they just dont realise that it just refers to a state of incomplete salvation well know as apara mukti. Christianity is just talking of apara mukti and never para mukti or absolute salvation.

To me, the salvation by definition is called liberation. It is liberation from bondage, liberation from samsara or liberation from body. The person who obtained salvation is truly in heaven enjoying communion with God. There is no upper and lower births in salvation. Once you have salvation, you are free indeed! Thus, the so called ultimate “para mukti” is salvation, as I view it.

I am sorry I dont beleive in this mayavada or cosmic illusion. I am not an advaitin. I am a Vaishnavite. I differ from Sudarshan though in many respects...I come between Vishitadvaita and advaita.

It is very confusing to me! While you believe that God created evil, Sudarshan believes there is no evil in God and if I were to talk to Hare Krishna people I might even get a different reply. Such lack harmony among your own schools creates problem among yourselves as well as others who are discussing with you.

Not to say, there is no harmony among Christian denominations but they all seem to agree upon one thing and that is Christ is central to our belief.

Yes, everything originates from God. But God does not see dualty like us. God does not see evil.

Explain to me Gita Chapter 17 where God clearly describes the good and evil as He perceives and in particular verse 6

"O son of Prtha, in this world there are two kinds of created beings. One is called the divine and the other demoniac. I have already explained to you at length the divine qualities. Now hear from Me of the demoniac." [ Chapter 17 v6; BG]

I consider myself insufficient or unfit or unquualified to have enlightenment in a single chance. Christianity lacks this concept completely - It is Jnana Shunya ( devoid of the term enlightenment). I hope you do take some time to see where these two philosophies stand - Christianity talks only of faith, which is nothing but the first building block in Hinduism. It does not touch the aspects of Jnana and Bhakti and abstraction. You know, I cannot take such a philosophy seriously , coming from a Hindu background.

For a Christian the faith is not a blind act of will; it is an act of the intellect, a thinking with assent. Thus, such a reasoning is perfectly rational in such a faith. At the same time the knowledge of God is not a result of some inference derived based on paths (as you allude above) but a result of immediate experience of soul through that active faith.

Show me where the bible talks of Jnana and Philsoophy. As a HIndu, I can see many passages in the bible are pearls of wisdom but standard Christian interpretation is literal and means nothing to do.

A Christian derives “knowledge” from his experience of the surrounding but the “wisdom” from above. Therefore, the only wisdom that is “God wisdom” is acquired by constantly immersing oneself in God’s word; the scriptures.

For eg, if my father is going to be in hell for ever, I wont be happy with God even if he offers heaven to me. God has to answer my pleas. no?

If your karma dictates where you are going to be by your God, you have no say in the matter but accept it like a fatalist. That to me is incomprehensible.

Blessings,

 

[selwyn]

Ha ha, I dont want to respond you to rant, but just one point...

Hmm.

Dear Selwyn, this is what we call in Hinduism as spiritual jelaousy, if you get that you will not get salvation.

What is called spiritual jealousy again?

You should always wish salvation for all - there is simply no question of somebody pushed outside.

Man. Who told you that I don't wish to see everyone saved?

A devotee of God thinks he alone deserves it, because he is devoted, but that is the very reason he falls.

Oops. Isn't that what you were asserting me in some of your posts claiming that salvation is meant only for saints and not for sinners don't deserve that. Now the moment you thought that, did you end up in a position of no salvation already? Or the moment that a so called hinduic claims that, shouldn't he end up loosing any chance for salvation according to your claims in here.

People reject God because they are simply unable to appreciate what or who God is and how a union is with him. Thus, God is doing nothing wrong by forcible actions

What? Are you the same Ram who was protesting in here vehemently and complaining that God according to Christianity is too forceful for any man to accept Him for just warning people of the dangers of rejecting Him? Are you the same Ram who screamed in here that Christians have only two choices?And now how on earth are you justifying hypocritically that your hinduic God is doing nothing wrong in being sadistacally forceful and giving no choice to people at all?

I am even amused that you see God burning someone in eternity is considered fairer because he permitted the freewill.

Who told you that God is burning them in there?

But he cannot give man eternal bliss becuase chose not to ask for it? No wonder, the effects of a myth can have on the psyche.

And just because your so called God wanted to play games, how on earth can he use human beings as voiceless and choiceless pawns in his games according to his whims and fancies?

There is no proof for God whatsoever, unless it is by personal experience.

What? What do you mean? Could you elaborate. Are you the same Ram, who at somepoint vehemently claimed out here that you could logically arrive at God through your so called logical debating and this and that in hinduism?

God can never expect people to beleive in him , leave alone a particular religion or prophet.

Who are you to put a restriction on what God can expect from people when you yourself say that at the other end that your so called god gives no choice even which you blindly have accepted and seemed to have resigned to your fate?

Thus, it is his sole responsibility to show the way for all,

What? Are you the same guy who claimed vehemently, that man should make efforts on his own to reach God? How on earth are you now throwing the blame on God suddenly?

whether we want it or not.

Man. Then what is the point of all those so called poor yogis and thyagis of your hinduic faith who according to you slog out up and down while any fellow should finally end up with your so called God one way or the other even through crooked means like blaming God for anything and everything? Are you saying that these yogis have misunderstood totally and are vainly doing all these yogas, mantras and tantras to impress your version of dictator God? Or could it be that they are merely dancing to the tune of his dictatorship trying to control themselves one way or the other even if they don't want to?

If I move away from God, I request God to even cane me to bring me back to him - I am not a hater of humanity.

And, are you the same guy who was hypocritically screaming in here that Christians out here are slaves to God unable to understand their relationship with God as free as that between a Father and a son?!!!! Hmmm. I wish I can say one beautiful verse from the Bible in here that came to my mind when I read this. But I reserve that option for now.

I want God to love and take all. Jealous people will find the path much harder....

What on earth are you really ranting in here man? You want more and more slaves resigned to their fate for your so called God?!!!!!

I want God to arrest me, even if I stray away from him wilfully, dont you? You are talking like a 2 year old, that is why I am not responding to the rest of your posts.

And man. isn't it clear in here that you talk like an unfortunate slave resigned to the fate of a dictator playing games with mankind according to his whims and fancies dancing to the tune of the cane of this dictator left out with no choice?!!!!!

Selfishness of God verses man's free will - good work Selwyn, you truly know God.

Aren't you the one who claimed in here that man has no free will? When there is no free will, where is the question of freedom? And are n't you the one who claimed in here that your so called God started playing games and thus created mankind and that all are his "leelas"? And what do you call that?

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

Mahasudhrashan , plz don't waste time on senseless things, just ignore him. The one who reply everytime that "he don't wish to answer question related to Christianity" and never dared to answer, why should any sensible debater will waste time with such member whose posts are nothing but chidish arguements? I am really enjoying debate between you and Nirotu , if possible and if you have time then continue with Nirotu.

Got you sir, I will neatly ignore him. As you can see all he asks is "Do you want coherent or incoherent answers or relative/absolute answers.". So with such mindset, we cant argue.

If Selwyn is hearing this, if he beleives in an absolute truth, then we would like to hear absolute answers. If he bellives in relative truth, let him give relative answers. If he cannot proide both, then he cant answer, simple. I dont even understand what he uses the term coherence and incoherence for....and I justified that claim in an earlier post to justify that their can be diversity within a religion, which we all know is present even in Christianity. Unfortunately some Hindu politicians have duped the world by issuing statements like "All paths are valid", which is not a vedic teaching. This Selwyn is caught with some Hindus here who make such claims, but he has never answered me. I have told him point blank that I do not beleive in relative truths and such nonsense. Yet, his replies to me are like the ones he gives to politicians. It is even ridiculous to generalize Hinduism like Selwyn does - and whoever really questions Hinduism must do that after studying the very many philosphies and religions in it.


"I dont care to answer you" is no answer.

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

Let me warn you -----------------whichiever religions have promoted this monotheism and also placed the creation outside his creation, have only succeeded in creatiing religions that destroy harmony in the world.


If you find many Hindus here, having respect for many religions, it is because of a variant of Monotheism, where divinity is understood to exist everywhere. Naturally, peaceful coexistance with everybody is possible. Most Hindus on these forums are not Monotheists, but either monists, or in between monism and monotheism.

Never beleive in one stereotyped version of God, All such religions that done that have created tremendous confusion, and look at Islam, the major problem with theistic religion is Monotheism. Even just have a look at those sects in Hinduism that are strictly monotheistic - tolerance levels will be lower. Even read all of Sudarshan's posts - he managed to say that "Christianity is false" just because he is a monotheist, which is not a normal Hindu beleif.

I am not a monotheist(in the sense of one version of God) and hence I find truth in all beleif systems. I beleive the same God manifests in the multitude forms. Strict monotheistic religions like Islam, Christianity etc and those in Hindusim like Vaishnavism or Shaivism are not tolerant of other beleifs. This is a beleif that needs to be given up, yes, even by many Hindus. Some of the infighting you see in the Hindu history is exactly due to monotheists, who cannot accept any other version of God or religion other than their own.

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

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".

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

Hi nirotu,

I think this thread got cluttered heavily due to a lot of irrelevant posts and people claiming they are not here to discuss anything. So let us get back to the point.

Sudarshan, you are misinterpreting what Christ and Christianity stands for with your false logic. I never said man is divine. The very purpose of God Jesus coming down from heaven to save mankind shows the lack of divinity in humans. When I say God dwells in us is a metaphor to indicate He created us with His attributes, thus, He is in a way represented in us. That is nowhere near being divine.

What do you mean "false logic"?
You said in an earlier post that "Man is a saint who sins" or something like that.

Whether we are divine or not divne - how do you find this? You really tell me now. Your only source for the info comes from the bible when interpreted in a specific way - and the bible is true because it says so and you think so?

Thus your calling mine as false logic is laughable. Even Hindus are not questioning the concept of man being a sinner. We are asking you, why did man become a sinner? Why did God create him a sinner by default? You have not answered me yet....

We do accept man is divine by nature, but as long as he is in bondage(samsara) he is not. Thus sinner concept is not alien to Sanatana Dharma, but you have given no reason for God to create man in sin. Our explanation goes that God gave man that freewill. Beings that used this freewill to choose God even in their first chance - like Garuda, Hanuman etc are called eternally free souls. All beings, that used their freewill even once to explore non-divine pleasures have fallen into this samsara. Once you do this( it called evolution) it is a hard Karma trap. But the way out of it is(involution) always available thru Bhakti Yoga and the path of self surrender( Isvara pranidhana). The gates to God are never closed in our beleif, but are never opened as long as you dont choose that.

What makes you think that a man who rejected God is wicked? That is the judgement of Christianity and it makes no sense to me. Even in one earthly life, many wicked men have reformed and truned new leaves. So dont you think, in the model of reincarnation, each man, who is the creation of the divine, not turn new leaves?

Again, your mentioning of God coming to save mankind has no evidence outside the bible. Infact, we believe God appeared many times in different contexts to save many people.

My friend, evil is not an illusion that somehow results from a faulty perspective of God. It is as real and pervasive as a nose on your face. We live in this world where our sensory perception is keen to realize and experience the evil. I do not subscribe to Shankara School to dismiss evil as an illusion (Maya).

What? Have I ever told you I am a mayavadin or a follower of Shankara? We beleive evil as nothing more than a passing thing, like a bubble disppearing on the surface of water.

When a person who is willfully determined to conduct his own way in life, God will simply step aside and let it take it's course. It is the same person when realizes the difference between his actions and God’s “will”, will some day come back to God like a prodigal son. He will never be refused by God. If I willfully defy the gravity and walk over the edge of a cliff, I am bound to fall. But if I knew what God has set forth to understand His creation I probably will do well.

You know what? Please enlighten me how God expects somebody to beleive that he sent a prodigal son to save the world? And in your words, such an acceptance has to be in word and deed. How many Christians do you think are eligible for salvation, when Jesus said very few people eter the gates of heaven. Dont you see an irony? How could God devise a scheme where a vast majority of his creation land in hell? So what is the purpose of his creation?

I am not bothered about hell or punishments as long as they are finite in nature. Surely, this Osama needs to be punished heavily for his sins. But does he deserve to be tortured for eternity?

Again, take the case of Buddha. What does Christianity say about him? He lived even before Christ and he had not even heard of the fact that he needed a saviour. Infact, he had no saviour for him because Christ appeared only 500 years later is a remote place. Ask most christians, they will readily tell you that Buddha is now in hell? Poor Buddha, there was never a Jesus to save him, nor did he comit any sins in his life. And he has to join the same baracks as Osama? Dont you see something fundamentally faulty in your reasoning? And you beleive it just because a book said so?

We are all given an opportunity do that which is good. Because good is all God and it pleases God. Why was Ramanuja leading a morally upright life? Because he knew that is the way to please the God. He exercised his choices correctly. Likewise we can all exercise similar choices that which pleases God. In every case, however, God will not force you to make that choice.

It is disappointing to see you agreeing with that dogma - God allows man to use his freewill to choose his own destruction while he has every power to save him, but he chooses not to. Though I dont beleive in unmerited favours, atleast as in the sense of Christianty, I do beleive that God is capable of changing human minds. We exercise our freewill because we do not know God. Has any person rejected God after knowing for sure God exists? In that case, it is reasonable to assume that God chooses to allow his freedom of choice and even push him into hell.

There have been many instances of atheists being inspired by God in dreams. There have been stories of even some tribals in remote places having dreams or even vision of Jesus or Krishna. Why does God choose to inspire only some people like this? Is that not unfairness on his part to give spiritual instruction to a select few who even never beleived in him?

To people who repeatedly reject God, just because they found no evidence for God, I have no doubts that God will reveal himself in someway to instill that faith. Do you think any atheist will reject God if he gets some divine experience?

Both a and b represent your karmic philosophy. That is to keep doing karma and obtain salvation. Because you do not believe that there is no “other” to intervene and save, grace is decidedly secondary to you.

Nonsesne. How many Hindus have clarified here that Karma is the reason why you exist in the world, and that it is impossible to remove Karma by your own efforts. Are you even reading the posts? Karma will keep operating until

1. Your love for God gets so intense as to reveal God dircetly to you. This is called the path of Bhakti Yoga.

2. Your love for God makes you shun everything t associated with world and spend your entire life searching for God. That is called Jnana/Raja Yoga

3. Your love for God makes you shun evil and do only good acts that please the Lord.

4. Your love for God makes you reject any means of salvation but complete self surrender.


There is no Karmic way of salvation. I would be interested in your opinion, certainly you pretend more knowledge than you have. Your idea of Hinduism is completely distorted and this is the way you confuse other Hindus reading these posts.

There is only one way to salvation - Love and complete surender to God, which automatically implies love for all of his creation and universal tolerance. If you beleive Hinduism is preaching "doing good works to heaven" you got it completely wrong. If you think that Hindus beleive in getting slavtion by helping others, charity or such material things, you got it dead wrong. There is no salvation by any means outside that of love for God and all his creation in which he resides.



I do not repond to the rest of your points because there is no point - because we have no common grounds for discussion on those things. You beleive that a book has the final say, while I beleive the vedas gave most of the truth and gave scope for further exploration and personal experiences. Since the bible completely rejects anything regarding the "exploration and personal experience" ( in the fear its follows may reject it) there is no point in discussing those specific points with you.

 

[selwyn]

Got you sir, I will neatly ignore him. As you can see all he asks is "Do you want coherent or incoherent answers or relative/absolute answers.". So with such mindset, we cant argue.

If Selwyn is hearing this, if he beleives in an absolute truth, then we would like to hear absolute answers. If he bellives in relative truth, let him give relative answers. If he cannot proide both, then he cant answer, simple. I dont even understand what he uses the term coherence and incoherence for....and I justified that claim in an earlier post to justify that their can be diversity within a religion, which we all know is present even in Christianity. Unfortunately some Hindu politicians have duped the world by issuing statements like "All paths are valid", which is not a vedic teaching. This Selwyn is caught with some Hindus here who make such claims, but he has never answered me.

I have told him point blank that I do not beleive in relative truths and such nonsense. Yet, his replies to me are like the ones he gives to politicians. It is even ridiculous to generalize Hinduism like Selwyn does - and whoever really questions Hinduism must do that after studying the very many philosphies and religions in it.

"I dont care to answer you" is no answer.

Hi,

Man. Here is a list of what you said incoherently in your posts incase you had forgotten to remind you for your own incoherence

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=18488478&postcount=320

I dont beleive all religions are valid ways, but many of them are. I dont, for example beleive atheism or devil worship as a valid way.

All religions have some or more validity but they are not the same.

Sanaa has repeated her claims that all paths are valid.

I agree with this.

You can go from Dallas to New York via many routes, thru car or plane. But if you choose to walk, like the path of atheism, you will take significantly longer.

And let us see further all the no-sensical incoherent claims that you have asserted in here in your very own posts and how you had the audacity of even going to the extent of justifying the incoherence of hinduism while hypocritically trying at the other end to claim that you were totally coherent in your posts.
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=18490713&postcount=324

I specifically said "All ideas of God are not valid", though many ideas can be valid.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=18494028&postcount=330

Put in simple words, every religion may have either zero truth ranging all the way to full truth. I cannot say with certianly which religions are perfectly false, but those with lesser truth are religions that deny God, soul etc. Worship of evil spirits and atheism have the least truth with respect to theistic religions.

I would say Hinduism is true while Christianity is false, and you might claim the opposite. Christianity may have some truth in it, however

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=18497160&postcount=333

I dont call it perfectly false because christians still accept a God, a soul and some other thesitic characetristics.

Christianity has some truth because it believes in a God, souls, and prayers etc. Its philosophy however is false if hinduism is used as the benchmark.

And here is your defense for your own incoherence and your self-conflicting beliefs that change according to your mood and time of the day within yourself. In other words, you accepted self-conflicting beliefs in here later to again incoherently claim that you are totally coherent in your claims.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=18512783&postcount=383

Yes, each person can have conflicting beleifs, because we are not machines. We dont think alike all the time. We change our beliefs based on the mood and the time of the day.

And here are some of your recent incoherent claims.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19241154&postcount=74

From my point, I have clarfied very clearly. I also do not beleive in relative truths or partial truths. I beleive in a single version of truth, which is that of my Srivaishnavite school. I consider all other religions and other Hindu schools including advaita as imperfect philosophies. I do not think any HIndu, advaitin or anybody else will never get salvation until he completely surrenders to Lord Vishnu and will keep reincarnating until he does that. I am very clear and coherent in my views. If you are not convinced read my posts on the Hindunet forum where I have questioned the validity of the philosophy of advaita and their interpretations of Hindu scripture- I am not a politician and always question anything. Including any other Hindu school. No advaitin answered my charges on Hindunet. I am not afraid of other Hindus or other non Hindus when stating my opinion. I will state bluntly with my eyes closed - There are no ways to salvation , in my opinion, than to completely surrender to the feet of Lord Vishnu - there are no grey areas. Is that coherent or incoherent in you view?

Even as you read that can't you see the incoherence of the paragraph ending up with the suicidal question?

Added to that in that very same post:

Hinduism can afford to be incoherent because it does not beleive in eternal damnation. Though no path to salvation exists outside Lord Vishnu and seking him as your saviour, you get many chances to do this.

And here is another really nasty self-contradictory incoherent claim from you boldened big in here so that you won't miss it.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19266679&postcount=85

I told you I defend only my own school and consider the rest as false.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19362259&postcount=138

I am a Christian if you may to call me that, and certainly have beleifs that fit some of the christain denominations.

Man. You have come a really long way indeed in these forums that you have ended up hypocritically trying to identify yourself with Christianity in here. No offense meant. With all these non-sensical claims and not even having the smallest sense of regret for all your non-sensical posts, how on earth did you expect me to answer you for any of your incoherent so called questions in here?

And how many times should I repeat this to you that I am not even bothered about denominational differences within any religion? Still all you guys blindly yell here with all your strength about these. But aren't you the one who openly admitted that hinduic scripture in itself is incoherent. And aren't you the one who openly admitted that hinduism as such could afford incoherence? And are n't you the one who hypocritically tried to defend your self-conflicting beliefs within yourself? My bigger question with you or any hindu in here has always been the self-contradictory claims that you are making in here hypocritically. Let me just wait and see what you have in store further in here in your posts. I won't be surprised that if you end up claiming yourself to be a muslim or an atheist tomorrow at this current rate of incoherence.

With all these incoherent posts to your credit, you expect me to answer you (you have not yet said if you want a coherent or incoherent reply and given your reasons for why you want any such reply)!!! Great expectations indeed!!!!!


And particularly, contrary to your claims that you don't prefer to be politically correct, you have often time and again demonstrated here with your posts that you infact tend to give politically correct replies in here. Otherwise, why would you make initial claims such as "all paths have some or more validity" (I have given reference in here of your very own words. You cannot deny that), agree with such claims initially and now talk against other hindus in here for making such claims? And that is just one example of your inconsistent posts in here while I have given the references for all of your other posts in here for you to see for yourself. You seem to be highly desperate currently.

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

Hi,

Man. Here is a list of what you said incoherently in your posts incase you had forgotten to remind you for your own incoherence

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=18488478&postcount=320












And let us see further all the no-sensical incoherent claims that you have asserted in here in your very own posts and how you had the audacity of even going to the extent of justifying the incoherence of hinduism while hypocritically trying at the other end to claim that you were totally coherent in your posts.
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=18490713&postcount=324



http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=18494028&postcount=330



http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=18497160&postcount=333





And here is your defense for your own incoherence and your self-conflicting beliefs that change according to your mood and time of the day within yourself. In other words, you accepted self-conflicting beliefs in here later to again incoherently claim that you are totally coherent in your claims.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=18512783&postcount=383



And here are some of your recent incoherent claims.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19241154&postcount=74



Even as you read that can't you see the incoherence of the paragraph ending up with the suicidal question?

Added to that in that very same post:




And here is another really nasty self-contradictory incoherent claim from you boldened big in here so that you won't miss it.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19266679&postcount=85



http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19362259&postcount=138



Man. You have come a really long way indeed in these forums that you have ended up hypocritically trying to identify yourself with Christianity in here. No offense meant. With all these non-sensical claims and not even having the smallest sense of regret for all your non-sensical posts, how on earth did you expect me to answer you for any of your incoherent so called questions in here?

And how many times should I repeat this to you that I am not even bothered about denominational differences within any religion? Still all you guys blindly yell here with all your strength about these. But aren't you the one who openly admitted that hinduic scripture in itself is incoherent. And aren't you the one who openly admitted that hinduism as such could afford incoherence? And are n't you the one who hypocritically tried to defend your self-conflicting beliefs within yourself? My bigger question with you or any hindu in here has always been the self-contradictory claims that you are making in here hypocritically. Let me just wait and see what you have in store further in here in your posts. I won't be surprised that if you end up claiming yourself to be a muslim or an atheist tomorrow at this current rate of incoherence.

With all these incoherent posts to your credit, you expect me to answer you (you have not yet said if you want a coherent or incoherent reply and given your reasons for why you want any such reply)!!! Great expectations indeed!!!!!


And particularly, contrary to your claims that you don't prefer to be politically correct, you have often time and again demonstrated here with your posts that you infact tend to give politically correct replies in here. Otherwise, why would you make initial claims such as "all paths have some or more validity" (I have given reference in here of your very own words. You cannot deny that), agree with such claims initially and now talk against other hindus in here for making such claims? And that is just one example of your inconsistent posts in here while I have given the references for all of your other posts in here for you to see for yourself. You seem to be highly desperate currently.

There are absolutely no inconstancies as viewed from the Hindu beleif in any of these points.

If you view if from your beleif of "Your are with God" or "against Gof", of course these wont make sense to you.

Let me clarify my points to see if they will get into ur rock head. Last effort by me, buf if you have decided not to discuss but just mischief, this is my last reply to you.


Statement 1:

I dont beleive all religions are valid ways, but many of them are. I dont, for example beleive atheism or devil worship as a valid way.

Answer:

For you as a christian who belieies in one chance, and failing which get roasted in hell fire, there maybe exactly one valid path( infact exactly one christian denomination). As a Hindu, valid path and the correct path have different meanings. A valid path is a path leading to the correct path, not necessarily the correct path.

Somebody who does not follow my own religion called Srivaishnavism, I beleive has no chance whatsoever of attaining salvation in this birth. That does not mean I beleive that non followers of my school enter an eternal fire pit and roast for eternity. You or some dogmatic christians, in my beliefs are following a path far away from God and will take plenty of chances to find the right path. Other christians, and other Hindus may either be on a correct path, or being close to my own beleifs.

What is your contradiction? You are totally blind, as far I can see.

Statement 2:

All religions have some or more validity but they are not the same.

Answer: See above, they are not in the same in the sense you are at different distances from finding the truth. I find dogmatic christians and muslims to be the farthest away from truth, along with atheists and devil worshippers - these have least validty in my book. I have not contradicted anywhere unless in your imagination.


Statement 3:
Sanaa has repeated her claims that all paths are valid.

Answer:

I do not even know who sanaa is here and I have never seen her post. So you must ask this question to her. Dont mix beleifs of different Hindus. Even if I said, see my answer to statement1, which still applies. All paths are valid to the extent that they serves as maps to the truth, not the truth itself.



Statement 4:

I agree with this.</FONT> You can go from Dallas to New York via many routes, thru car or plane. But if you choose to walk, like the path of atheism, you will take significantly longer.

Answer:
Clearly xplained above. You are going in in the path of walking according to me, and I consider myself in the aeroplane. No contradictions.


Statement 5:
I specifically said "All ideas of God are not valid", though many ideas can be valid.

ha ha, you must be dozing. It is self explanatory.

Do you think imagining Satan or a Hitler to be God is a valid of God? No, that is why I rejected the mainstream version of Christianity, in which God is a dictator, as accepted by arunma.

On the other hand, God when viewed as any idea that is "infinite", "pleasing", "loving", "auspicious" etc are all valid for me.


Statement 6:
Put in simple words, every religion may have either zero truth ranging all the way to full truth. I cannot say with certianly which religions are perfectly false, but those with lesser truth are religions that deny God, soul etc. Worship of evil spirits and atheism have the least truth with respect to theistic religions.

Clearly explained above so I am not repeating again.


Statement 7:
would say Hinduism is true while Christianity is false, and you might claim the opposite. Christianity may have some truth in it, however

Expalined above, some element of truth means that if you follow Christianity sincerely you will find the path of truth in a future birth - simple. That does not mean I have accepted your mainstream christianity. No contradictions...


Infact, you have succeeding in finding no contradictions whatsoever. Infact, your English is so poor that you can differentiate between "valid religion" and the "true religion". A valid religion is something that can lead you to the true religion, first understand this concept with the Hindu eye of reincarnation. If you cant, forget it, and you can learn in a future birth.


Again, I did not ask you if my posts had self contradictions and if any I have busted them unless you are in the dream world of denial. I asked you three questions, and I will tell you if you can give consistant answers only if you answer them. If you dont speak anything, you think you are intelligent, eh.

You have proved nothing....nothing.

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

Man. You have come a really long way indeed in these forums that you have ended up hypocritically trying to identify yourself with Christianity in here. No offense meant. With all these non-sensical claims and not even having the smallest sense of regret for all your non-sensical posts, how on earth did you expect me to answer you for any of your incoherent so called questions in here?

Hindus dont identify with religion but with God. I dont identify myself with this physical body but my soul. Thus, it hardly matters if I am called a Christian, Muslim or Vaishnavite. The primary thing I lknow is God and the relation I understand of his as my father. Thus if some christians have the same beleif, I could call myself as a christian. Similarly, I wont mind calling some of the new age christian beleifs as Hindu beleifs. These are all man made religions. Of course, you identify yourself with physical body, and also as a Christian, not a problem for me. If you did not raed all my posts, I also said "Only belefs maketh a man, not his religion".

As long as somebody acepts God as loving being, and all of his creation as residing in him, these people share my beleifs and I associate with them. I dont reject religions because they dont share jargons like Vishnu, Christ or such man made names.

And how many times should I repeat this to you that I am not even bothered about denominational differences within any religion? Still all you guys blindly yell here with all your strength about these. But aren't you the one who openly admitted that hinduic scripture in itself is incoherent. And aren't you the one who openly admitted that hinduism as such could afford incoherence? And are n't you the one who hypocritically tried to defend your self-conflicting beliefs within yourself? My bigger question with you or any hindu in here has always been the self-contradictory claims that you are making in here hypocritically. Let me just wait and see what you have in store further in here in your posts. I won't be surprised that if you end up claiming yourself to be a muslim or an atheist tomorrow at this current rate of incoherence.

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?

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?

With all these incoherent posts to your credit, you expect me to answer you (you have not yet said if you want a coherent or incoherent reply and given your reasons for why you want any such reply)!!! Great expectations indeed!!!!!


And particularly, contrary to your claims that you don't prefer to be politically correct, you have often time and again demonstrated here with your posts that you infact tend to give politically correct replies in here. Otherwise, why would you make initial claims such as "all paths have some or more validity" (I have given reference in here of your very own words. You cannot deny that), agree with such claims initially and now talk against other hindus in here for making such claims? And that is just one example of your inconsistent posts in here while I have given the references for all of your other posts in here for you to see for yourself. You seem to be highly desperate currently.

It is your imagination. Political correctness means accepting the Christian version of hell, which I have summarily dismissed. Of course, I do respect the beleifs of a number of other christians while I dont agree a wee bit with you. And look deeply into them, I am not a Christian who beleives in the bible to make statements in tune with that.

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