This is raised by just about everyone: Priests and ministers, college students and housewives, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers.
It’s one of the hardest questions anybody ever asks.
Just a few days ago, a close friend of mine, Laurin, passed away after a fierce 18 month battle with cancer. What a horrible experience this was for him and his wife Diana.
I’ve visited the slums of Sao Paulo Brazil, where 500,000 homeless street kids sniff glue and steal for a living. Sometimes the police hunt them down and kill them, just to reduce the crime rate.
Last year my wife spent a week in Mozambique where she saw an infant in her mother’s arms, dying of pneumonia in a hospital waiting room. She met hundreds of other kids with malaria and malnutrition. We’ve given some money for a medical clinic, and every bit helps. But the problems are so huge, what little you try to do still seems like a teardrop in the ocean.
If you took all the parties, the humor, the success and happiness in the world, and put it side by side with the suffering and pain, the comparison would be almost absurd.
There’s a lot of sickness and sadness in this world.
How can God let it go on?
Well, I can’t give you an answer. I can only tell you a true story.
~~~
A certain man threatened the Religious Gestapo, who in turn convinced the Roman government that He was a threat to them, too.
His followers were disappointed that He didn’t overthrow the Romans and declare himself King, like the Messiah was supposed to do. So they abandoned Him.
The ancient Romans pioneered what was possibly the most cruel form of torture ever devised by man: Crucifixion. They would drive spikes into their victim’s ankles and wrists, smashing his nerves. He would hang there in blinding sheets of pain, slowly suffocating and dehydrating for days, until he finally expired.
Jesus was whipped and beaten, literally beyond recognition, then nailed to a cross between two common criminals.
One of these criminals was cursing and shouting at Him in a fit of rage: ‘HEY! If you’re the KING, why don’t you get yourself down from there! And US, TOO!!!’
The other guy went along with this… for a little while.
But he saw that Jesus wasn’t hurling insults at his torturers. Instead He was asking God to forgive them (?!).
He sobered up. He said to the other criminal, ‘Hey dude, you and I are here because we deserve it. But this man Jesus has done nothing wrong.’
Then he said to Jesus, ‘Remember me when you take charge of your Kingdom.’
Jesus simply replied, ‘Today you’ll be with me in Paradise.’
~~~
Stop the camera.
What you have here, in this brief conversation, is a snapshot of the entire world.
You have two criminals who have gotten themselves into a horrendous, awful mess. And you have the Son of God, who has not only chosen to live with us in our world of pain and suffering, but has personally taken all of it upon his own shoulders.
Even though he is completely innocent.
One thief refuses to accept any responsibility for his actions. He’s unwilling to admit that he created the very mess that he’s in.
He lives in denial until the bitter end. He grits his teeth and dies in his sin.
The other thief comes clean. He recognizes that Jesus possesses divine authority. He admits his guilt. He is required to do nothing, other than to let go of his pride.
He asks for forgiveness.
Forgiveness granted.
Jesus’ pardon doesn’t make the cross or the agony go away. But finally the struggle ceases and this man crosses the Great Divide. The intense pain dissolves and he steps into a New World, designed by God Himself — with renewed body and soul.
That’s a picture of the entire world, right there. You and I are in this mess together, and we’ve all contributed to it.
We’ve all rejected God in some way or another, we’ve all committed some kind of crime, and we all experience suffering.
The situation is what it is.
So we have a simple choice: Accept that fact that God has suffered with us — or mock him and be furious because the suffering exists in the first place.
Which way do you want it???
The decision is yours. You and I will never get a true ‘answer’ about the pain and suffering we experience in this life. But in the midst of our pain, we have a companion. You and I can have the same conversation with Jesus that this criminal had, and we can experience the same forgiveness. All we have to do is ask, just like the thief on the cross did on that sad day.
~~~
This is the last of the Seven Great Lies of Organized Religion. I pray that I’ve helped to strip away all the baggage that the Religious Gestapo adds to the story and reduce it to the bare essentials. I hope this has stirred your mind and your heart.
Are you trying to strip away the baggage and get to a deeper truth? We’d like to hear from you. Simply submit a comment below.
We often run behind, but will do our best to respond.
Respectfully Submitted,
Perry Marshall
www.CoffeehouseTheology.com
- Read the whole conversation between the two thieves and Jesus
- Hear my extended presentation of the 7 Great Lies
- The prophet Ezra asks God why his people suffer so much. God sends an angel with an answer. Story continues here.
What if God did create evil for ‘His’ Divine purpose, and we have misunderstood the Biblical account of Adam and Eve ? What if we have misunderstood the meaning of “Satan” and created the myth of “Orignal Sin”, and of being “Saved”, and mostly by some old-fashioned rituals symbolizing our acknowledgement of Christ’s Sovereignty, and a declaration of our Faith in God.
God has no peers. What if there is no polarity involved with good an evil, God and devil ? What if it is all one sliding scale of ‘Love’. What if evil is simply an extreme lack of love ? What if darkness is simply an extreme lack of light ? And poverty a lack of wealth ? What if this sliding scale is the measurement of our progress as evolving Souls, our life’s journey closer to God ? Such that the more Love and the more Light we all have, the more “Wealthy” we all are !
On one level, ‘Satan’ refers to our ego –
“the dark anamilistic heritage each one of us has : the lower nature, that can develop into a monster of selfishness, brutality, lust and so on. It is this self that we must struggle against, or this side of our natures ; in order to strengthen and free the spirit within us and help it attain perfection. Self-sacrifice means to subordinate this lower nature and its desires to the more Godly and noble side of ourselves”
This gives new meaning to ‘sacrificing your self’ for God.
This is also reflects another level for ‘Jihad’, or even a metaphoric ‘Armageddon’. The internal battle between our faithful-Godly self and our non-believing infidel-self. Our Spirit and our ego, The ultimate fight of good and evil. The ‘Angel’ and the ‘Devil’, whispering in our opposing ears. Both created by God, for our spiritual education and our progress into the next worlds. Both just greater and lesser manifestations of God’s Love. Both a test. This much “Evil” is necessary in this world, at this time. It is simply a lack of God-ness. Notwithstanding that God’s Loving Sunshine falls on us all equally, some of us have umbrellas up, or are smothered in toxic sun-cream, or are just hiding inside. We need to resolve this with independent investigation of truth. And we will, eventually…….and “every eye shall see Him”
As Baha’u’llah said ; “The whisperings of Satan have been breathed to every creature.”
And as I say, this is part of God’s Plan for ‘Heaven on earth’ – for the Most Great Peace – for our moving out of this messy adolescence, and into our collective maturity. Into the long-awaited Era of peace,love and unity, that we are destined to enter. Perhaps this is the wisdom of our temporary engagement with seemingly “evil” bodies, and their anamalistic egos? IE to domesticate them, and live a holy and unselfish life, as one people, loving and obeying the One God. (and loving our one planet)
And someone else? said, “The only thing wrong with Christianity is that hardly anyone is doing it.” ??
Cheers
Francis, I agree with your iteration regarding our apathy towards desired religious activities. I also agree with your stating of the correct teachings of various other leaders. But, since I haven’t read much from Budha or Krishna, I can’t really conclude about their contributions of the religious/spiritual aspect.
Jesus Christ was a prophet (a scrupulous man), he would never advocate violence for correction purposes, but a standard human might. SImilarly, the last prophet, Muhammed, represented humanity to rectify their impudent acts, and divert them to the desirable state, as they were quite deluded by satanic propensities. But at this current point in time, a very limited number of “Muslims” are complying with the actual requirements of God. I have punctuated the word “Muslims”, because a particular base of religion is frivolous, in my opinion. It’s purpose was to only differentiate for identification purposes, between the “good” and “bad” of that time. As there is no general requirement of this, in this particular time period, as most people are intellectually capable of deciphering the truth for themselves.
The current state of classification of Muslims is being deteriorated by themselves. I personally believe the reason for that is lack of education, which is intrinsically related to intellect/intelligence. They can clearly not understand the abstruse and profound text of the Quran. The corrupt state authorities do not have any considerable education either, so they resort to extorting of human rights, and illegally consume the state’s money for their personal pleasure. The deprived population is also then forced to involve in unethical activities. The concept of “suicide bombing” is also related to this. They are told they will attain heaven, by completing a simple task, and rid of the tortures of this world, and obtain the pleasures of heaven. However, this belief defies the general conformities of logic and fact. I do not want to continue with the actual reason of the televised exposure of the incorrectly presented inclinations of Muslims, because of reasons pertaining to Jewish scrutiny of this conversation.
I’m sure your misconceptions might have been clarified by reading this short compendium of the actual truth.
This doesn’t make sense…
It doesn’t answer why there is suffering in the world… why are we not born in heaven directly? and don’t say this life is a “trial” beacause if God is all-powerful and all-knowing he should be able to create everyone extremely good, or unable to do evil things, or at least he should know before-hand who will pass the “test” and send them directly to heaven without all the suffering involved in this world…
Hi, first, sorry for any typos, I’m from Brazil =)
Talking about evil and suffering, I have the following thought:
God gave us life, do whatever you want or need with it, do something good or evil, He doesn’t care about it, you’ll receive in life what you deserve and that’s a fact.
God gave us two powers the one to create life and to take life away from ourselves our from another person.
We have an amazing capability to create things that make our life easier or harder.
It was not God who created the bombs and weapons, it is our responsibility, not His, we create pain and suffering, we create bigger weapons to cause more damage to people. It is not God who’s whispering in the soldiers ear “Shoot him in the head, he is our enemy”.
He gave us the ability now we decide how to use it, it’s a like a doctor, he can save a life or can kill in seconds.
I am a computer programmer and can create systems that will make life easier but I can create systems that you really bother you and your business.
It’s a question of choice.
About Bible:
The same way bible is an important book for Christians, the other religions books are. The is no absolute truth.
Yeah but in that case God would not be an all-loving and benevolent being…
If there is a God, obviously He often likes to play soldiers, to suffer pain or enjoy pleasure, to live life to the fullest or to keep clear of trouble, He likes to be a workaholic sometimes and a lazy bum at other times. Who are we to disagree ?
Hello friends,
I believe in God because I have faith in Him. I have read a definition of faith and agree to it – “belief in someone that cannot be seen”.
I believe God is the source of Life and all the Goodness in all places in the universe and His Kingdom. He created us in his own image and likeness, and gave us freedom and right to take charge of the Earth and all the other creatures He created to be our companions.
God is the source of all Goodness, God is good. We are created in His image and likeness, man is good. But because of the abuse of our God-given freedom, we do bad things :( i’m just so sad, even I do bad :'(
I have been in doubt some time before this and I prayed to God, to give me grace, and bless me with his LOVE, and let me realize He is just watching us :'( I became happy and now I want you to realize it too. Faith will save us all. Religion, like Buddhism, Taoism, including Christianity, divides us all, but our Faith in God unites us.
I am a Christian and I want the whole world to be united in God. God Bless us all!
Please pray everyday. God requires us to give Him a day a week for Him, why not offer our entire lives for Him. Let us live life with all aspects and ways in accordance to God, Our Almighty, Heavenly Father.
God, we Love you with all our hearts and all our selves.
I love God!
I LOVE GOD. That’s what I believe. I know that sufferings are just part of human experiences. Mortal or immortal, suffering is always visible. It’s really unfair if we always experience on just happiness…….. It’s also good to suffer any bad situations as long as we know how to get up and fight for that exoerience into soemthing good. Let’s just have positive outlook and pray!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That’s that.
Evil is a relative term.
If a lesser evil prevents a greater evil, is it still evil?
Why do you present suffering in a negative light?
Suffering is liberating and purifying, it is educating and turns knowledge into wisdom.
Suffering reveals the true nature of this world, that it is not a nice place and anyone who is determined simply to indulge and enjoy the senses is on the level of an animal, with no higher intelligence. The constant push to develop technology and industry are a waste of time. The main suffering in this world is birth, disease, old age and death. These cannot be solved with material adjustments. Unless these are addressed with permanent solutions only an idiot will think he is happy and able to enjoy here. Everyone has a sword of Damocles hanging over them. No one knows when they will die and how, nor what diseases await them in life. The foolish think there are no solutions to these problems, so abandon searching and rush headlong into a frenzied state of pleasure-seeking,accompanied by their family, friends, community, bank balance etc.
The more contemplative people understand the futility of life in this world and derive great inspiration from the books like Ecclesiastes or other examples of renunciation in their own culture.
The average, modern, middle-class Christian home in the western world is the most ridiculous parody of religion available on the planet.
The family grouped together at meal times thanking the Lord for the meat that is provided by modern industry with the most atrocious level of cruelty. Everyone heartily tucking in while over 1 billion people of the world are malnourished due primarily to policies and actions from the developed ‘Christian’ countries of the world.
Why is this all going on, can be summarized in one word KARMA.
It is a simple concept, but the intricacies are impossible to fathom. It is the Supreme Lord’s justice department, correctional institution, and school of hard knocks all rolled into one. Since the living being is eternal, his karma also stretches back to time immemorial. EVERY action a man, woman or child over seven performs carries with it a reaction that tastes either bitter or sweet. The law of Karma is a divine law, there is no escaping it. You WILL suffer for all suffering you cause to other living beings, regardless of their body or species.
If someone is too short-sighted to understand that their present situation is due to their past activities, then better they stick to programming computers and not venture into the realms of philosophy or theology.
Evil is relative? Great place for a mother-in-law joke…
Seriously, though, anybody and everybody who bases their life on a theory of “relativity”–what’s evil to me, may not be (as) evil to you–is basically disclaiming any responsibility for personal choices, good or bad. You can’t preach “karma” and at the same time “relativity”– otherwise, what is the “supreme judge’s” basis for judgement?
As to “present situations being due to past activities”–so, every aborted fetus deserves to be murdered? If I rob you, it’s because you deserve it? If you want to talk about “realms of philosophy and theology”, you have to get past this adolescent, romantic view of fatalism. God gave us the ability to ease suffering, and the responsibility to try.
And who arbitrarily decided that your seventh birthday is the one that makes you “karmally” responsible?
(You have some neat ideas, but if you’re going to bash those who disagree with you, then you’d better be prepared to defend your arrogance.)
The material world is relative, it is not absolute. That is it’s nature. There IS an absolute standard, but if you choose not to follow that, then you are agreeing to live in a relative world where what is good one day is bad the next, and vice versa.
The ‘neat ideas’ are not mine. I am an idiot, but if I have access to perfect knowledge then I can repeat that with certainty that it is correct which may seem to be arrogance, but actually comes from the humility of accepting that I am imperfect and subject to illusion and make mistakes, so should try to understand life, the universe and everything from someone who is free from such defects.
God has indeed given us the ability to ease suffering, but it is not through technology, industry, big pharmaceutical companies and atheism.
7th birthday was arbitrarily decided by God.
And yes, every aborted foetus previously had their turn at aborting an innocent baby, everything that is stolen from you is in return for what you previously stole. Everything nice that comes your way is a result of previous pious activities.
Your happiness and suffering are determined before your birth, you simply take birth and experience what is due to you, like a prisoner in a jail. His sentence is decided by the judge, and then he enters the jail, and leaves when it is finished, if he behaves properly. If he continues to act criminally then his sentence will be extended indefinitely. That is the choice the living entity has, to follow the laws of God or not. He can not choose how happy or how unhappy he will be independently of the Supreme Lord, that is obviously outside his jurisdiction otherwise everyone would be floating in a cloud of bliss all day every day.
Fatalism is healthy.
Consider the following:
1.You are going to die, and you do not want to, but there is nothing you can do about it, it is inevitable, and you do not know when it will happen. Death is a problem with no cure in sight.
2.You are going to suffer due to your physical body and mental anxiety. You do not seek it, and try to avoid it, but it will happen anyway. You daily suffer from your body, and have to constantly look after it to keep it running. (cleaning, feeding, resting, exercising etc. )
3. You are going to suffer at the hands of other living entities, sometimes human, sometimes animal, sometimes insects, whatever, they will inflict distress upon you and you have to deal with it.
4. You are powerless to control nature which also has a large assortment of suffering in her bag of tricks. Drought, flood, extreme heat and cold, tsunamis, tornadoes/cyclones and so on.
It is a fact that you are utterly powerless to stop the above mentioned. So the point is that this suffering is visited upon each individual according to their karma. As you sow, so shall you reap. These miseries are not wanted and everyone is struggling to avoid them, but still they intrude into our lives. Something or someone much more powerful than us forces it upon us.
That higher power should be the object of everyone’s enquiries.
“Why is this happening to me, to those I love and the world in general?”
And then no stone should be left unturned until satisfactory answers have been found. It matters not where they are, gold is pure even when found in a dirty place.
If your ideology/philosophy has gaps and flaws and inconsistencies in it, then broaden your search pattern and build on what you already have until every question has been answered and you are free from all anxiety and bewilderment and fixed in a pure loving relationship with the Lord and His creation.
“The material world is relative, it is not absolute.” That’s your opinion. Care to defend it?
“God has indeed given us the ability to ease suffering, but it is not through technology, industry, big pharmaceutical companies and atheism.”
Says who? I mean, the “atheism” one is obvious, as the mandate comes from God, but who do you think technology comes from? Sure, we corrupt and pollute the ideas that God gives us, but He created us “in His image”, right? As *creative* beings. The laws of science are the laws of God, and the attitude that all technology and industry is “evil” is the attitude that CAUSED untold suffering by keeping the common masses in slavery. God doesn’t encourage ignorance.
“7th birthday was arbitrarily decided by God.” What? Seriously, what are you talking about? Are you trying to take rules given in one limited context and apply them to the eternal destiny of the soul? Do you seriously think God will call one child “innocent” and another “murderer” for the difference of one day of age?
Claiming that every aborted foetus is the reincarnation of an aborter is blind, simply by a matter of numbers. For that matter, reincarnation itself is logistically impossible. Given population growth, there simply isn’t enough “raw material” (reincarnated souls) to go around–unless new souls are being created all the time, in which case, they don’t “deserve” anything, good or bad… so that means that “karma”, as a basis for everything happens to you, simply can’t work. It really is that *simple*.
On that note, you can’t support anything the Bible says, and still believe in reincarnation. “Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment…” (Hebrews 9:27)
Fatalism, my friend, is a personal rejection of responsibility. Yes, there are things over which we have no control–but that does not mean that we can hide behind “fate” or “destiny” and pretend that our only choice is whether or not to be happy with what we have. People living in the desert can “happily” die of thirst, based on that philosophy, or they can go in search of water.
“If your ideology/philosophy has gaps and flaws and inconsistencies in it…” I fully agree. Mine don’t; I am free from anxiety (on that count, at least). I don’t claim to understand everything, but I have peace in my faith that Jesus *IS* the Way, the Truth and the Life. As He calls me to love others as He loves them, I seek to share that peace. Sometimes, that means exposing the “gaps and flaws” in ideologies that do *not* lead to salvation.
The material world is relative, it is not absolute. That is it’s nature. There IS an absolute standard, but if you choose not to follow that, then you are agreeing to live in a relative world where what is good one day is bad the next, and vice versa.
Where is the absolute standard?
We cannot have absolute standard because the universe is expanding, and measurements of time (non material) and lengths (non-material) vary according to relative speeds. Who can say that he is stationary and does not change? Even Hindoos believe that their God is forever expanding. What is big today will be comparatively “small” tomorrow. Even the Hindoo God’s duty must be relatively tougher today. Compared to a few years ago he now has to deal with many million more Hindoo’s prayers because Hindoos multiply faster than bacteria.
Contraception and abortion which was frowned upon some years ago are encouraged today. Soon eating children to avoid starvation will also become acceptable.
The ‘neat ideas’ are not mine. I am an idiot,
I thought so too
but if I have access to perfect knowledge
from where? Internet? FBI? Das Kapital? Bible? or Koran?
then I can repeat that with certainty that it is correct which may seem to be arrogance,
Certainly it is arrogance and stupidity
but actually comes from the humility of accepting that I am imperfect and subject to illusion and make mistakes, so should try to understand life, the universe and everything from someone who is free from such defects.
Being humble will not make you less stupid
God has indeed given us the ability to ease suffering,
He could have done better by not giving any suffering at all, to begin with.
but it is not through technology, industry, big pharmaceutical companies and atheism.
By reciting hymns and bathing in filthy rivers?
7th birthday was arbitrarily decided by God.
Very clever of Him!
And yes, every aborted foetus previously had their turn at aborting an innocent baby,
Were there more Hindoos living before than now?
Or have all the bacteria that got killed in western countries recently by anti-biotics re-incarnated themselves as Hindoos?
everything that is stolen from you is in return for what you previously stole.
But then how can we account for so many stolen cars today, which is more than even the total number of cars that were in the world 50 years ago?
Everything nice that comes your way is a result of previous pious activities.
Same argument as above holds.
Your happiness and suffering are determined before your birth, you simply take birth and experience what is due to you, like a prisoner in a jail. His sentence is decided by the judge, and then he enters the jail, and leaves when it is finished, if he behaves properly. If he continues to act criminally then his sentence will be extended indefinitely.
How can then be more people today if they were all incarnations of people who lived a few years ago?
Surely the population has multiplied from one or a few couples who lived many many years ago. How can one Adam and one Eve incarnate into billions of Hindoos today, unless they were dead viruses in their previous birth?
What kind of sins should a virus do to deserve becoming a Stephen Hawking in this life?
That is the choice the living entity has, to follow the laws of God or not.
What is God’s Absolute law?
Marry 4 wives, or one?
Eat pork or beef?
Make wives jump into the funeral pyre of their husbands, or make them wear cloth on their head to cover their faces?
He can not choose how happy or how unhappy he will be independently of the Supreme Lord, that is obviously outside his jurisdiction otherwise everyone would be floating in a cloud of bliss all day every day.
Does the Supreme Lord then become jealous, and shower shower some misery on the happy guy to make him unhappy?
Fatalism is healthy.
Indeed!
Consider the following:
1.You are going to die, and you do not want to, but there is nothing you can do about it, it is inevitable, and you do not know when it will happen. Death is a problem with no cure in sight.
So we can stop going to hospitals, and taking medicines, and procreate faster than the death rate to prevent disappearance of the human species.
2.You are going to suffer due to your physical body and mental anxiety. You do not seek it, and try to avoid it, but it will happen anyway. You daily suffer from your body, and have to constantly look after it to keep it running. (cleaning, feeding, resting, exercising etc. )
It makes good sense to stop spending money for hospitals and medicine, and drink beer instead.
If we die early, we will have to suffer correspondingly less. Euthanasia or suicides may also be good options.
3. You are going to suffer at the hands of other living entities, sometimes human, sometimes animal, sometimes insects, whatever, they will inflict distress upon you and you have to deal with it.
Kill them all with powerful insecticides, or a nuclear bomb!!
4. You are powerless to control nature which also has a large assortment of suffering in her bag of tricks. Drought, flood, extreme heat and cold, tsunamis, tornadoes/cyclones and so on.
Euthanasia and suicides will work efficiently in such areas also. If we die soon enough, we may steal less and do less crime. In our next life, we can be then born in civilised countries with better medical facilities, and crime and corruption.
It is a fact that you are utterly powerless to stop the above mentioned. So the point is that this suffering is visited upon each individual according to their karma.
Hopefully a good Karma can get one a green card to migrate to the U.S.
As you sow, so shall you reap.
In our next incarnation?
These miseries are not wanted and everyone is struggling to avoid them, but still they intrude into our lives. Something or someone much more powerful than us forces it upon us.
Is it GOD or the DEVIL?
That higher power should be the object of everyone’s enquiries.
Again GOD or the DEVIL?
“Why is this happening to me, to those I love and the world in general?”
It is bad KARMA abosolutely!!
And then no stone should be left unturned until satisfactory answers have been found.
They may be easier found if you search in Google.
It matters not where they are, gold is pure even when found in a dirty place.
GOLD is the solution. There is nothing GOLD cannot buy.
Beg, Borrow, or Steal!!
If your ideology/philosophy has gaps and flaws and inconsistencies in it,
I can see plenty of it but GOLD will take care of all of them
then broaden your search pattern and build on what you already have until every question has been answered
WE should try Yahoo and Wikipedea also!!
and you are free from all anxiety and bewilderment and fixed in a pure loving relationship with the Lord and His creation.
Till the next re-incarnation, when you can start the cycle all over again
Thank you Tony for your revealing comments.
Obviously you don’t expect them to be taken at face value, as anyone writing such drivel would need help getting dressed in the morning. If I have time I will look for some deeper message later.
Perrari Das (sorry, I’m not clear which is your given name), finally we agree on something! ;p
Father Collins may be able to help you.
“”The material world is relative, it is not absolute.” That’s your opinion.”
That is not my opinion, that is the version of scripture and is plainly evident. There is nothing in or of the material world that is absolute. Go ahead, give an example of something absolute that is produced from the material world.
I am not saying that all industry and technology are ‘evil’, I am saying they are useless in solving the problems of life, viz. birth, death, disease and old age.
Of course they come from God, but if society replaces God consciousness with technology and industry there will be disaster, witness the current world situation.
Nobody is innocent in the material world. It is a prison house, and EVERYONE who takes birth here has screwed up previously. Of course, just like in jail everyone will claim they are innocent, but the law of karma doesn’t make mistakes. If you are born here in this world, you are fallen, whatever your age or parentage. It is the duty of parents and teachers to instruct children by the time they are seven as to what is right and wrong, because by that age a child can understand the basics.
Reincarnation is not subject to your tunnel vision. All living entities evolve through different species till they take birth as humans. Do a quick count of the number of animals, birds, insects, fishes, plants reptiles etc. and you will see there is no shortage of souls to take birth as humans. They also take birth from higher planets and lower planets.
Run your calculation again with this new information and see if it is still *simply* impossible.
On that note your understanding of Hebrews 9:27 is incorrect. Man refers to the body which of course only dies once. The soul is eternal, thus never dies, and can live to face judgement.How can something dead be judged, punished or rewarded?
Fatalism, my friend, to me, is less a personal rejection of responsibility but more an appreciation of the inevitable, (death) and then finding a solution. The modern mind-set ignores this reality and simply fatalistically accepts death as inevitable and tries to live happily in their desert without going in search of water, bewildered to the real goal of life, and blinded by the flickering lights of the entertainment and advertising industries.
The Christian doctrine unfortunately has many gaps, (right at the start of this site Perry says “Well, I can’t give you an answer”) but the standard answer is “We cannot understand why it is like this”.
Or “It is God’s will, we cannot question it”
This is blind faith and something akin to believing in Santa Claus, it’s OK for small, or big not very smart children, and it seems to answer the question of where do all the presents come from, but at some point kids should be encouraged to grow up and enquire a little deeper.
Just so we can be on the same page, please give a short summary of the philosophy you adhere to, covering the goal of life, the nature and form of the absolute truth, the difference between matter and spirit, the reason for the amazing disparity in living conditions for the embodied souls, and the difference between a living animal and a dead one.
The Christian religion is notoriously scant on hard philosophical truths, relying instead on sentiment and faith, the backbone of all religion. Over the years many spiritually advanced Christians have tried to add their realizations to the body of knowledge that constitutes Christianity, and I take the dust from their feet upon my head, but anyone who eats meat, drinks alcohol, has sex (except for procreation), is going to be struggling with any concept deeper than ” I am the only person in all eternity, in all time, places and circumstances who knows anything. Just do what I say or suffer forever.”
If it works for you, then bully for you, but please do not think that you have the full picture until you have exhaustively studied and understood all available teachings, both within Christianity and outside, on the subject of the Absolute Truth. If there is even one question I can ask, to which you have to reply; “I don’t know”, Then either your understanding or philosophy or both are flawed.
If you are going to set about “exposing the “gaps and flaws” in ideologies that do *not* lead to salvation,” it would be better if you didn’t admit in the same breath that you can’t claim to understand everything.
Why should anyone listen to someone who doesn’t understand everything they are talking about? duh! How can you defend your beliefs without a full understanding of your faith. Religion without philosophy is simply sentiment, and philosophy without religion is simply mental speculation.
Seek outside the box you never know what you may find. Maybe your peace, freedom from anxiety and love will reach new heights.
““”The material world is relative, it is not absolute.” That’s your opinion.”
That is not my opinion, that is the version of scripture and is plainly evident. There is nothing in or of the material world that is absolute. Go ahead, give an example of something absolute that is produced from the material world.”
We can argue till we’re blue about what is opinion and what is fact, but if *you* can’t prove it, then general consensus is to call it opinion. As to examples… didn’t I already give a few? What scripture are you referring to, by the way?
“Of course they come from God, but if society replaces God consciousness with technology and industry there will be disaster…”
Well, on that we can agree.
“Reincarnation is not subject to your tunnel vision…”
Cute. Just a reminder: What all survived the flood? Unless you want to claim that there was a population explosion of fish in the sea, to hold all the “extra” souls, there’s still this consistent problem that the number of living things has increased in number significantly since the Garden of Eden. There is no scriptural support for reincarnation in the Bible; perhaps you are looking at other books, as well? (And yes, it’s still logisically impossible, unless there’s a constant source of new “souls” to add to the mix.)
“On that note your understanding of Hebrews 9:27 is incorrect. Man refers to the body which of course only dies once.”
The body dies once, but are you suggesting that the soul is judged, then reincarnated, then judged again after the next body dies, then reincarnated again, and so on? Because that sure ain’t what the Bible says.
“Fatalism, my friend, to me, is less a personal rejection of responsibility but more an appreciation of the inevitable, (death) and then finding a solution.”
If death is inevitable (no argument there), then what is your “solution”? Fatalism should look to accept the fact that it *is* inevitable, not try to solve it.
As to “blind faith”, I’ve already written at length on that topic; I don’t think there’s much more to say.
As to “hard philosophical truths”… like what, exactly? “God is good.” There’s a truth. “All creation exists for the purpose of glorifying God.” “God loves you.” There’s a lot of “philosophy” for those willing to accept it–just because it isn’t what you want, doesn’t invalidate it.
“…anyone who eats meat, drinks alcohol, has sex (except for procreation), is going to be struggling with any concept deeper than ” I am the only person in all eternity…”
…Says WHO? I do all of the above. My wife and I know that we can only afford to raise two children, so rather than stupidly over-populating and driving our family into poverty, we took measures to make sure we won’t have any more. Does that mean we can never have sex again? ‘Cause that ain’t in the Bible anywhere. Eating meat? Seems to me that the Bible clearly says, in several places, that God allowed it–and further, He specifically condemned the ultra-legalistic attitude that would encourage such a diet. Drinking wine? Are we forgetting Jesus at Cana? The Bible says not to get drunk, not simply not to drink.
“If it works for you, then bully for you, but please do not think that you have the full picture until you have exhaustively studied and understood all available teachings, both within Christianity and outside, on the subject of the Absolute Truth.”
Now you’re just being silly. Have I claimed to have the full picture? No. CAN anybody at all have the “full picture” in this life? NO! You can not possibly study “all available teachings” because there is always more being written. What I have claimed is that there is only one truth–John 14:6 “Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father
except through me.” It’s not just “good enough for me”. It’s what Jesus said, and as I’ve mentioned in other places, either He was a crazy liar, or He was Who and what He claimed to be.
“If you are going to set about “exposing the “gaps and flaws” in ideologies that do *not* lead to salvation,” it would be better if you didn’t admit in the same breath that you can’t claim to understand everything.”
That don’t make no sense at all. If you claim to know or understand everything, then you’re either a liar or deluded, so why are *you* posting on this site?
“Why should anyone listen to someone who doesn’t understand everything they are talking about? duh!”
Why should anyone believe someone who claims to understand everything they are talking about? Duh yourself.
Now, you had asked what my philosophy is, “…covering the goal of life, the nature and form of the absolute truth, the difference between matter and spirit, the reason for the amazing disparity in living conditions for the embodied souls, and the difference between a living animal and a dead one.”
The goal of all life is irrelevant; the *purpose* of all life is to glorify God. Those whose goal is that purpose will find their lives fulfilling; those whose goal is otherwise will be disappointed. Of course, many of them will claim to be fulfilled in their life of academic pursuit or philosophical endeavour or monetary accumulation… but they lie to themselves.
As to matter and spirit–you want a dictionary definition? Are we arguing over semantics? It can’t be a philosophical question without first being a vocabulary one. The world of matter is temporary; the world of spirit is eternal.
The “reason for the amazing disparity in living conditions for the embodied souls” is sin. Pure and simple. This world is going to hell; we have poisoned it, and it is no longer the world that God wanted us to inhabit. As the Bible says, it will one day be destroyed, and then God will create a new Earth for those who chose to follow Him on this one. On the new Earth there will be no sin, and therefore no “disparity in living conditions”.
A living animal is one that moves when I poke it; a dead one needs to be poked much harder. I mean, come on, how is that even relevant? How is it important? Will my pet Fluffy be waiting for me in heaven? The Bible doesn’t specifically say, one way or the other. Does that mean I need to search for the answer in some other book? No, it means IT’S NOT THAT IMPORTANT. We know that Man has an eternal soul; God did not give us the mandate to spread His good news among all creatures soft and furry, but among mankind. It is *Man* who can lose his soul to eternal damnation by rejecting Christ, and while the Bible tells us to care for animals, we are not called to look after their “souls”.
As to *your* personal philosophy, you seem to be taking bits and pieces from different religions, with Buddhist asceticism, Hindu reincarnation, and a few commandments from the Bible. Well, some religions think that’s fine and dandy; “believe what you want to believe” and all that. Don’t bother with the Bible, though, unless you’re willing to take it whole. Once again: John 14:6 “Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”” If it’s not true, then the whole thing is about as reliable as a dozen monkeys at a dozen typewriters; if it is true, then you can either believe it, or perish.
We can argue till we’re blue about what is opinion and what is fact, but if *you* can’t prove it, then general consensus is to call it opinion. As to examples… didn’t I already give a few? What scripture are you referring to, by the way?
Actually, no, you haven’t given even one, and I am referring to the Vedic scriptures.
(And yes, it’s still logisically impossible, unless there’s a constant source of new “souls” to add to the mix.
Why can there NOT be a constant source of new souls.
The Vedas describe that God is forever expanding and His parts and parcels with Him.
The body dies once, but are you suggesting that the soul is judged, then reincarnated, then judged again after the next body dies, then reincarnated again, and so on? Because that sure ain’t what the Bible says.
That is exactly what happens, it is not MY suggestion. There are many things that the Bible doesn’t say, and Jesus himself says there are many things he could not tell his men. Also there is the possibility that James I didn’t like that bit.
As to “hard philosophical truths”… like what, exactly? “God is good.” There’s a truth. “All creation exists for the purpose of glorifying God.” “God loves you.” There’s a lot of “philosophy” for those willing to accept it–just because it isn’t what you want, doesn’t invalidate it
I am not invalidating it, just pointing out that it is not very deep and is basically sentimental to make people (like you) feel good.
Pray tell a little about God’s day. What does He do each day? what does He look like? what does He wear? Who are His friends? Is He married? what is His house like? what does He eat?
Or do you glorify a vaporous, misty, formless entity that ‘loves’ you and is good.
That don’t make no sense at all. If you claim to know or understand everything, then you’re either a liar or deluded, so why are *you* posting on this site?
If I have an internet connection, I can tell you what any English word means. That doesn’t mean I know every English word, but I can find out and inform you.
I have access to answers to any philosophical question you or any other Christian can ever dream up. Does that make me either a liar or deluded?
I am posting here because I dislike ill-informed, sentimental people claiming they have the ONLY way to salvation
Why should anyone believe someone who claims to understand everything they are talking about?
Did you actually mean to write that???? double duh!
The goal of life is to render pure unmotivated uninterrupted devotional service to the Supreme Lord.
Spirit is alive, eternal, full of bliss and knowledge.
Matter is dead, temporary, and full of ignorance
What sins have those born into abject poverty and suppression committed?
The difference between a living animal and a dead one is that the soul has left the body.
Well, some religions think that’s fine and dandy; “believe what you want to believe.
Which religion teaches that??
I do not have a personal philosophy, I study the spoken words of the Supreme Lord, in their original language, unadulterated by any mundane scholars, academics, translators or heads of state, under the tutelage of someone who has realized the knowledge having studied under his teacher.
I grew up with the Bible, but by 18 had had enough of smite smite smite, begat begat begat, Jesus is the only way anyone, past, present or future can ever attain salvation. Just didn’t sound right that millions and billions of people were condemned to hell-fire eternally because they had never even had a chance to accept Jesus. BTW are all the old prophets, Moses, Elijah, David etc. burning in hell fire because
“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
Absolute truth in the material world: two dogs will not mate and produce kittens. It’s on this page, somewhere, along with a few other examples.
So, the Vedic scriptures, eh? Back to the question, “why refer to the Bible at all if you’re going to ignore that simple point that Jesus claims to be the only way?” Argue if you like that the text was changed, but there are enough places where Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, and that salvation is through Him alone, that you’ll pretty much have to discard the whole book. Basically, you disagree that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, wholly and absolutely true; well, I disagree that your Sanskrit scriptures are the words of the Supreme Lord. We believe differently. The nice thing about my faith (not to compete or anything) is that if you’re right… when I die, I get to try again. Sadly for you, if I’m right… when you die, you’ll find out the truth. It’s not a very safe bet to make.
“Why can there NOT be a constant source of new souls.
The Vedas describe that God is forever expanding and His parts and parcels with Him.”
Yeah, well, that goes back to that problem with karma: a new soul should start with a blank slate–meaning that nothing good or bad should happen to it until it does something good or bad. That makes it impossible for a newborn soul to deserve love; it makes it impossible for a newborn soul to be aborted; in fact, given the karmic “age of responsibility”, a child would deserve nothing good or bad until the age of seven… don’t you see the problem with that?
“If I have an internet connection, I can tell you what any English word means. That doesn’t mean I know every English word, but I can find out and inform you.”
So, you don’t understand everything, but you can find out. Yeah, well, I feel the same way, except that when God says I don’t need to know something right now, I’ll take His word for it. Hey, that must be what we call “faith”, right?
“I have access to answers to any philosophical question you or any other Christian can ever dream up. Does that make me either a liar or deluded?”
Yep. (Sorry, but you asked.)
“”Why should anyone believe someone who claims to understand everything they are talking about?”
Did you actually mean to write that???? double duh!”
Yes I did. Just how big is your ego if you honestly think you understand everything you’re talking about? EVERYTHING? What, are YOU god? Did YOU create the heavens and the earth? Were YOU there at the beginning of time? ‘Cause really, if you truly do understand EVERYTHING you’re talking about, you should be able to convince me, I should think. After all, you must be infinitely wiser than I am.
Sorry for the mockery, but really, you should be more careful. Claiming to be God tends to end very badly for the imposter.
“”Well, some religions think that’s fine and dandy; “believe what you want to believe.””
Which religion teaches that??”
Yours. If what I want to believe is wrong, I can just try again. Yeah, sure, there may be a few lifetimes as an ant or something, but it’s not like I’m in danger of an eternal hell, now is it? Or is the last possible reincarnation going to be sometime soon, ’cause then I’ll have to do the appropriate service and all.
That’s the problem with karma and reincarnation: it’s just not convincing that I should be good *now*, if I have all eternity to get it right. There’s a massive freedom from responsibility in knowing that I may get a slap on the hand and come back as a cockroach, but one of my future selves can worry about giving money to the poor and living selflessly and all that. The reward system ain’t all that great, either: becoming one with the universe, achieving total peace, or even becoming a god myself but only once I’m certain not to have any actual “fun” with the job–none of that compares with the future that my God offers me: an eternal life in an eternal creation, living as He designed me to live, finding fulfillment in accomplishing His purpose and interacting with His people… just as He planned for His creation originally.
Sorry, but I’ll stick with my God. I pray for the sake of your eternal soul that you reconsider yours.
“Just didn’t sound right that millions and billions of people were condemned to hell-fire eternally because they had never even had a chance to accept Jesus. BTW are all the old prophets, Moses, Elijah, David etc. burning in hell fire because
“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.””
My Bible tells of a loving God Who is not willing that any should perish. If we’re going to rehash the old “why do bad things happen? why did God smite him and her and their whole city? why why WHINE?” and not listen to any of the answers, then repeating them won’t help. My God says that He is fair and just, and yet full of grace and mercy; I’ve found no reason not to believe Him. If He says that Jesus is the only way, then I have to believe that there will be a way, for everyone, to either accept or reject Him. Once again, we come to the issue of faith. (And don’t bother with the “blind faith” argument, it’s been done to death. There’s a difference.) The Old Testament faithful? Well, Jesus was with God in the beginning; at least, that’s what the Bible says. Why couldn’t Moses have known God through Jesus? Just because Jesus wasn’t walking the earth in a human body doesn’t mean He didn’t exist. It’s sad that all you got from the Bible was “smite smite smite” and whatnot; perhaps you should read it again.
God bless.
Stef,
I think you misunderstand the nature of Absolute.
An absolute truth is one that is true in all circumstances, at all times, in all places. Since the material world is not permanent there is no truth born of it that is absolute.
There are unlimited numbers of universes, we have direct experience of only one, but each universe contains millions of species of life, any one of which can take birth on planet earth according to the law of karma. ‘New’ souls are ‘born’ initially in very heavenly realms, and only if they act sinfully do they come down to this realm we know as planet earth.
There is thus a pool of living entities (souls) of unimaginable size from which the human population can expand. A new born baby does not equal a new soul.
It is very difficult to discuss anything if you hold to the view that if you don’t understand it, it is wrong;
if you don’t agree with it, it is wrong; if it is not in King James’ Bible it is wrong. If it threatens your sense-gratification it is wrong.
There is a gulf of difference between spiritual life and religious life.
Let’s be honest, you have no idea what ‘religion’ I follow, nor have studied the Vedas, I am happy you have faith in Jesus, I will pray that your faith increases more and more.
I have great faith in Jesus also, when Father Collins was sodomizing me instead of Andrew after choir practise, I prayed to Jesus to show me what was true spirituality, and although it took many years, he did.
May you seek and find the truth, and dwell forever in realms of blissful ecstacy
What we disagree on, primarily, is that you believe you fully understand, and I think you’re wrong; I believe that I understand in part, and that it is sufficient, and you think that I am wrong. You’re human. Your definition of “absolute truth” is no more valid than mine. Dogs will not (naturally) produce kittens; this is absolutely true. A finite “god” can not be eternal; this is also absolutely true. Either God is Who He says He is, or He is not; absolutely true. Gravity does not work differently for you than it does for me, and in some fictional alter-universe where gravity doesn’t work the same way… it wouldn’t be gravity. It would be something else.
Now, where I can say with certainty that you are wrong is that you claim to have faith in Jesus. You have faith in a liar? Because again, Jesus said that He is the ONLY way. It’s not just one verse, it’s not just one translation; again and again, the Bible says that confessing your sins, asking Jesus to forgive you, and trusting in Him to be Who He claims to be, is what allows you to receive eternal life. IF Jesus lied about that, then no intelligent person would believe Him on anything else. If He didn’t lie about it, then Vedas, the Qur’an, Buddha’s teachings… they’re all WRONG because they all teach either that you don’t need salvation, or that you can be saved without Jesus Christ.
Now, your belief that there are infinite universes and therefore infinite souls, and your belief that “new” souls born on Earth are originally heavenly beings who “fell”, are both so impossible to prove that it (again) comes to a matter of faith. My question is: why do *you* believe it? And, coming back to belief, how certain can you be? For me, I have seen the changes Jesus makes in my life and in the lives of others; every time I have doubt, or wish to re-examine my faith, God reassures me. I can *talk* to my God, ask Him questions, and receive answers. You talked about “having access” to all the answers? Well, my source is God Himself. As I said before, if I’m wrong… so what? I try again. If you’re wrong… it’s too late.
“It is very difficult to discuss anything if you hold to the view that if you don’t understand it, it is wrong;
if you don’t agree with it, it is wrong; …”
I agree. It is hard. I wish you would reconsider your view. You claim that I don’t understand your religion? Well, you don’t understand my faith, and so you say that I am wrong. You don’t agree with me; therefore, I’m wrong. (Actually, that one kind of makes sense.)
Let’s re-examine some of those earlier discussions: *I* am not the one claiming to understand everything. That’s *you*. And yet, you do not understand why faith in Jesus is mutually exclusive with belief in the Vedic writings. And so, you claim that my position is wrong.
“…if it is not in King James’ Bible it is wrong…”
Who says that? The King James version had some errors. That’s why most modern translations are based on the original languages, not Late-Middle English.
“… If it threatens your sense-gratification it is wrong.”
Eh? You mock me for taking things on faith, and then you accuse me of needing my senses to be gratified. Make up your mind.
I can choose to believe in nothing that I can’t see or hear; I can also choose to believe in something for which I have no evidence whatsoever, nor any cause for faith, save that I *want* to believe because it means I don’t have to keep asking myself whether there is a God to Whom I am ultimately responsible (for example, believing that aliens will some day come and rescue their “faithful”).
Or, I can choose to believe in a God who actually does provide answers for the important questions, but in His infinite wisdom chooses not to share *every* answer with me *right now* (as He knows that good will come of me learning patience, for one thing). As this God is good (that’s why I serve Him) and powerful (that’s how He survives infinity), I can choose to believe that He wants me to know Him, and that He will help me to know Him. I can trust that He will discourage people who try to lie to me, and He will ensure that His Word, which He gave to help me know Him, will survive in spite of people’s efforts to change it. If He says that there is a Devil who wants to keep me from knowing Him (God), then I can trust that this is true.
As I *choose* to believe this, I need some initial investment of faith; however, as with all good investments, there is a return, evidence in my own life that what I believe is true. This return is then re-invested; this is how faith grows.
Don’t fool yourself into believing that your “faith” in Jesus means anything, if you believe He is a liar. I’m sorry you had such horrible experiences with someone who *should* have shown you God’s love instead. It is true that “all the world would believe in Jesus if only Christians were more like their Christ.” However, ultimately it is *your* decision to make; nobody else can take the blame if you reject Jesus’ salvation.
Don’t you get it??
Jesus HAS saved me. I believed in him, and he showed me the true path. I am going to the father through the teachings of Jesus. Praise be to God. Jesus is my vartmanpradarsana guru. I will never reject him. Why do you say such offensive things?
Why is your attitude so inimical, show me where I am not following the teachings of Jesus.
All glories to him, and good luck to you.
Jesus didn’t teach repeated reincarnation. You reject the Bible as absolute truth… and yet you believe that Jesus has saved you?
How many gods are in the Vedic teachings?
When did Jesus say that you can “fully” understand anything while you are on this Earth?
You reject that Jesus is THE Way, THE Truth and THE Life… and yet you think your belief in Him will save you? Guess what: even the Devil believes in Jesus.
Jesus believed and taught the Jewish scriptures that we now call the Old Testament. He never quoted the Vedic scriptures. He was the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies; again, He spoke the TRUTH of the Old Testament. This is the same Old Testament that speaks of God’s creation of THIS Earth, and of THIS “species” that He named “Mankind”. The Old Testament clearly shows that Mankind is unique in being made in God’s image; we do not “share souls” with animals or plants or aliens on other planets.
Jesus also taught that there would be many who would call on His Name, at the Final Judgement, and He would simply say, “I never knew you.”
Lie to me; it’s between you and God, and I have no influence on your final destiny. However, stop lying to yourself. Believe in Jesus and reject all this other foolishness; believe that God carefully made you as a unique individual HUMAN and not as some heavenly being who is stuck down here because he fell. Don’t forget that the fire of Hell, the eternal death, is actually meant for those who fell from heaven. Do you really want to be one of them?
Hello again Stef
Jesus didn’t teach repeated reincarnation.
Jesus didn’t deny repeated reincarnation.
How many gods are in the Vedic teachings?
There is ONE God that is the meaning of God. He from whom everything and everyone manifests. He is never to be confused with the 33,000,000 demi-gods, who are all mortal, exist in the material world, and are infinitely inferior to the one Supreme Lord, Who is the source of them, as well as all creations both spiritual and material.
When did Jesus say that you can “fully” understand anything while you are on this Earth?
Seek and ye shall find.
You reject that Jesus is THE Way, THE Truth and THE Life… and yet you think your belief in Him will save you?
I believe Jesus is A way to The truth and The life.
Guess what: even the Devil believes in Jesus.
Well great, I guess the devil is saved then coz he BELIEVES in Jesus.
Jesus believed and taught the Jewish scriptures that we now call the Old Testament. He never quoted the Vedic scriptures. He was the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies; again, He spoke the TRUTH of the Old Testament. This is the same Old Testament that speaks of God’s creation of THIS Earth, and of THIS “species” that He named “Mankind”. The Old Testament clearly shows that Mankind is unique in being made in God’s image; we do not “share souls” with animals or plants or aliens on other planets.
Of course Jesus never quoted the Vedic scriptures. He was talking to some of the densest people on the planet, addicted to eating meat, drinking wine and having sex. It is forbidden to reveal the higher teachings of the Vedic scriptures to such a class of men. For the little that Jesus did teach, they killed him, and his top men abandoned him and denied that they knew him. Nice going fellas.
Birth as a human among mankind IS unique. The species was created by God for the living entity to return to Him. None of the other births in the other species allow for this as readily as a human birth. Every soul takes birth as a human at sometime or other and either gets free from the cycle of birth and death by returning to God, or returns to it as some lower species until he has ‘evolved’ back to human birth again, one birth at a time, for another chance. That is why a birth as a human is so special and rare compared to all the other species. All species were created at the same time at the beginning of the universe. There was no evolution of the species, and all the souls that give life to the universe were carried over from a previous universe that had been destroyed, and impregnated into this universe so that it could be sustained.
Jesus also taught that there would be many who would call on His Name, at the Final Judgement, and He would simply say, “I never knew you.”
Maybe you fit that category?
Lie to me; it’s between you and God, and I have no influence on your final destiny. However, stop lying to yourself. Believe in Jesus and reject all this other foolishness; believe that God carefully made you as a unique individual HUMAN and not as some heavenly being who is stuck down here because he fell. Don’t forget that the fire of Hell, the eternal death, is actually meant for those who fell from heaven. Do you really want to be one of them?
I don’t intend or need to lie to you or myself.
The soul is eternal; it has always existed because it is a minute part of God Himself, Who has always existed. It is not created at some point in time. Whatever has a beginning also has an end, and whatever is eternal has no beginning. Our dilemma is that we are now separated from Him when once we were with Him, and covered with ignorance and the unshakeable concept that I am my body, and I belong to this or that religion, both concepts are false in the sense that they are subject to change and therefore not absolute.
I can believe in Jesus without believing everything you say YOU know as truth.
This forum is not for who believes what……………it is to try to understand the statement:
“If God was really powerful and good, he wouldn’t allow so much evil and suffering to go on.”
I have put forward what several billion people have understood and accepted for thousands of years, ‘The law of Karma.’ It is backed by scripture and makes perfect sense. There is nothing to disprove it.
Your argument against it, to date, is ‘Jesus didn’t teach repeated reincarnation’.
This should actually read:
‘There is no record in the Bible that I have, that Jesus taught repeated reincarnation, but then again he didn’t specifically state that it was false either. It seems the question wasn’t really dealt with. There are thousands and thousands of volumes of scriptures held in the Vatican and some of them DO deal with the question of repeated reincarnation, but they have been withheld, maybe so that Christians do not become lackadaisical by thinking they can try again later on.’
As for an actual answer to the question, you don’t seem to have one at all.
If you want to continue the discussion stay on topic and stop trying to ram YOUR beliefs down my throat and claim they are Jesus’.
The law of karma very succinctly explains the dilemma posed at the start of the discussion. If you disagree with it, that is your choice, but the argument that Jesus didn’t specifically refer to it therefore it is rubbish, is hardly the tone of an enlightened, sober, deeply thoughtful, philosophically astute man seeking answers. But then in all fairness you didn’t claim to be any of the above.
Your claim is that you are a Christian right?
The law of karma says that you can eventually earn salvation. Jesus said that that is impossible.
Karma does not answer the question on this page, because if we all got what we deserved, we’d all be in hell. “For the wages of sin is death, but the GIFT of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 6:23, emphasis mine) The idea that you can “earn” good by doing good is exactly the lie that the Bible keeps warning us about.
Your definition of “eternal” is flawed. Something only needs to be infinite in one direction in order to be infinite; a created soul that lives forever from the point of its creation is still eternal.
As to what Jesus didn’t deny… well, let’s just say that if He specifically listed everything we should *not* believe, then He never would have had time to tell us what we *should* believe. (I’d have thought this to be self-evident. And… please don’t pretend that the Vatican has existed since the very first scriptures were written, and that the Pope and his agents have “controlled” what Christians have read ever since. Just because some church-goer wrote a book about reincarnation does NOT make it scripture; again, this should be self-evident.)
Your “seek and find” response is cute… but does not answer the question.
By definition, THE way is distinct from A way. So, you don’t believe what He said about Himself.
“Of course Jesus never quoted the Vedic scriptures…” because He didn’t write them. Sorry for the triteness, but one consistent thing about God is that He repeats Himself. He knows how limited we are, and He wants to make sure the message is clear. The God of the Bible is not the God of the Vedic scriptures.
Back to the question of this forum: karma only gives an answer if the god you believe in is the one in question. The truth of the matter is that we live in an evil world, we deserve eternal damnation, and only by God’s grace can we repent and be forgiven, and be granted eternal life.
(I’m sure somebody is going to say, “but I’m a good person! Maybe you deserve eternal damnation, but I don’t!” It’s not a hard concept: to a perfect God, any minute amount of sin is intolerable. It’s not that He wants to destroy us; it’s simple physics: infinitely bright light will pass through an infinitely transparent surface without harming it, but put one speck of dust on that surface and the light will destroy the whole surface. The Good News is that He will give us His infinite purity/”transparency” *IF* we will admit that we can NOT save ourselves; if we admit that we are sinners, that we need Him, that we *want* Him, then His salvation is free. Why do people hate this idea so much?)
Your joke that “the devil must be saved” shows how much you really understand about your “faith”. Now, you wish to mock my attempts to correct your errors; you claim my “only” argument is that Jesus didn’t teach repeated reincarnation; you even insult me directly. All this is between you and me, and frankly doesn’t bother me much. HOWEVER, you wish to lie about my God, and claim that the Bible teaches Vedic karma; you seek to deceive those seeking truth. In these things, you offend the God I love, and you endanger the people that He loves. This is foolish indeed.
(I won’t bother answering the rest of your questions if you won’t bother reading the answers already posted. I will, however, pray that God helps us both to see the truth… and that the lies will stop.)
One more thought for you:
You want to “include” my God’s Bible in your religion; you want to believe that the same god wrote both the Bible and your Vedas. Well, that answers the question on this page just fine: your god is not good. Your scriptures and mine do not agree; yours say that souls are “part” of god, and mine say that many souls will perish–how can part of an eternal god perish? Yours say that you can “try again” until you earn your reward; mine say that salvation can not be earned, it is a gift. So, if the same god wrote both scriptures, he’s either unreliable or a liar; therefore, bad things happen because god is *not* good.
Now, my God has a place for your scriptures, too. We have many names for their author: Father of Lies, the Deceiver, Satan. The same guy wrote many other books; he’s probably the most proliferate writer in all history (easy enough, when the subject matter is fiction). My God has given an answer to the question on this page; many will refuse to accept it, but that is their choice. Jesus died for our sins, because if we “get what we deserve” we’ll all go to hell; He died for our sins, so that we can get something we do NOT deserve (salvation). Your “karma” would mean that He didn’t need to die. Your “karma” would mean that Jesus’ death on the cross was completely pointless. As the WHOLE Bible is in some way related to mankind’s need for salvation, and God’s plan to provide it, to suggest that the Bible also teaches “karma” is indescribably unintelligent–or maliciously slanderous. (Therefore, suggesting karma as the answer to the question is equally unhelpful.)
“The rain falls on the good and the wicked alike.” Sounds like karma.
“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you BECAUSE OF ME. [Ie., NOT because you deserve it.] …because great is your reward in heaven…” …so, I get persecuted when I don’t deserve it, but then, I get a reward in heaven. Yeah, that sure sounds like karma. Oh, wait, no it doesn’t. It actually sounds like God saying something like, “the world is an evil place and people are going to hurt you in order to hurt me; however, the hurt is temporary and the reward is eternal.” Gee, I think I’ll stick with my God, and His system of reward; there’s literally no way in hell I can ever make it on my own, and I thank Him for helping me see that. Others will call me “weak” for “needing” a God to save me, but you know what? My God is the Creator of the Universe, and it doesn’t hurt my pride in the least to admit that I need Him.
Hey, (yet) one more thought:
Karma is absolute, universal, applicable to everyone, … right?
So, heavenly beings who “fall” to earth because of some heavenly indiscretion must have done something wrong to *somebody*… right?
How did the cycle start? How did the first “being” to be wronged come to deserve it?
Or, perhaps the first sin/crime/wrong was against God Himself… but if karma is truly an absolute, then in must apply to Him to, so what did God do to deserve it?
Or will you suggest that you can “do wrong” but not actually do it to anybody at all… because then the question is, why would it be wrong?
You’ve said you have access to all the answers. So? If you can only get what you deserve, how did the first “victim” deserve what he got?
Dear Stef,
You are mistaken in much of what I believe, since I do not want to make the same mistake towards you, please clarify for me exactly what you believe.
As I understand your doctrine:
All humans are souls that are created by God at conception and are eternal.
They have once chance only to make it to eternal heaven or eternal hell. There is no second chance for anyone.
The only possible way any one of these billions of souls can get to heaven is by accepting and bowing down to Jesus with all humility as the one and only savior etc.
Everyone else goes to hell forever.
Before Jesus came, people were not able to go to heaven, so (I guess) they all went to hell.
If there is any misunderstanding on my part, please correct it.
Please also give your churches doctrine on the following points.
1. The fate of all humans that die before they are able to comprehend the teachings of Christ. Specifically babies, children and the mentally retarded.
2. The purpose of the lives of all those humans who never came or come into contact with the teachings of Christ, through no fault of theirs.
3. Which denominations within Christianity qualify for heaven, and which don’t? Does it matter whether you are Catholic or Protestant etc?
4. Why is there such disparity for ‘new’ souls taking birth for the first time? What or who decides, who is born where?
I would prefer quotes from Jesus as answers, but failing that any part of the Bible would do. Failing that the official doctrine of whatever denomination you belong to, and failing that, your opinion.
These are not trick questions; I simply cannot understand how you fit the pieces together while excluding karma and reincarnation, knowing the all good, all powerful qualities of God.
Dear Stef,
“how can part of an eternal god perish?”
perish in this context means to be separated from God which is as good as dead, like a spark that flies out of a fire and quickly loses its heat and light, But it can regain them when returned to the fire.
I won’t bother to answer your ramblings about earning salvation through karma as it based on a misconception of karma.
The Vedic scriptures were declaring that the only way out of this world is by the mercy of the Supreme Lord or His empowered representative, many years before Jesus appeared. It is understood by all classes of Vedantists that the soul is helpless in its conditioned state, bound by ignorance, and can only be set free by the mercy of one who is not bound by the illusion of the material world. That means God Himself, or someone so God-like that they have the same potency as God in this regard. That means someone like Jesus.
To understand karma, you have to accept the concept of continual reincarnation within this universe. If you can’t accept that, you will not understand karma…………..or why bad things happen to good people.
I respect your humility and gratitude before God and Jesus, I just wish you would accept there are truths that are not mentioned in the Bible.
respectfully,
Perrari.
The law of karma says that you can eventually earn salvation.
Nope, the law of karma doesn’t say that at all.
Salvation is given purely at the discretion of the Supreme Lord or His empowered representatives.
Please reread your law book, and then have another bash.
The essence of the law of karma is: as you sew, so shall you reap, and acts entirely in a material framework completely separate from anything spiritual like salvation
You must have been working from hearsay. If you want to discuss the law of karma please either study it thoroughly or leave it alone.
As for everyone going to hell, except those that are saved……….be patient, it will happen.
infinite in one direction?
is that a purely Christian concept?
“”The law of karma says that you can eventually earn salvation.”
Nope, the law of karma doesn’t say that at all.”
Um, yeah, that’s the whole point. Keep doing evil, and perhaps (eventually, after how many thousands of lifetimes?) there might be some final non-“good” destiny for you. Keep doing good, and in your next life you’ll be one step (or more) closer to the “final good” destiny. Sure, you may eventually have to come to the realization that it is only by the “grace” of the “eternal being” that you even have a chance at it, but that’s a bit beyond the understanding of a lowly cockroach. Be a good cockroach, and you’ll get a chance at an upgrade.
Don’t tell me that that isn’t how karma and reincarnation works. You can go on about how the ultimate goal is true enlightenment, or how you won’t even understand what it’s all about until you’ve gotten a whole lot closer (which is why someone like me “can’t” fully understand its mystery), but it boils down to “earning” a better life next time ’round (and by “better”, of course, one means to say “more enlightened” or some such).
“Salvation is given at the discretion of the Supreme Lord…” But if you’re good enough, and try hard enough, maybe he’ll decide to look favorably on you… or are you saying that he may choose to “reward” rapists and murderers? What happened to karma?
“infinite in one direction?
is that a purely Christian concept?”
Nope, it’s a mathematical concept. (It gets tiring explaining the same thing again and again, but here goes…) Consider heat. There is an absolute zero; in other words, there is no “negative” heat. It is limited at zero. However, there is no limit in the other direction. There is no “absolute heat”; there can’t be, as the universe is constantly expanding, and “more” heat would constantly be required to maintain the (theoretical) absolute maximum limit.
Back to the karma thing… again, how did the first “victim” deserve it?
(Can’t reply to the comments above; I’ll do it here, instead.)
Rejecting Christ brings damnation. (I’ll find verses later, as I’m a bit pressed at the moment.) Accepting Christ brings salvation. For those who do not have a chance to choose… we serve a loving God, and if He doesn’t specify, we have to trust that He will be loving and merciful to them. (In other words, I don’t know, but I know that God won’t condemn every aborted fetus to hell. Does He speak to them privately, and give them a final chance? Does He extrapolate and base their fate on what He knows they would have done, had they lived? I don’t know, and I don’t need to know. To demand for God to answer would be pure arrogance; simply, it’s none of my business.)
“Before Jesus came…” I’ve answered this one already. John 1:1 says that in the beginning, the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Jesus was there since the beginning; He did not walk the Earth in a physical body, perhaps, but that doesn’t mean that He wasn’t there. And no, He didn’t write the Vedas while He was waiting to be born in Bethlehem; again, there are too many disagreements between what He Himself said in the Bible, and your scriptures, to ever suggest that the same God could be in both.
Denominations? Why should God care whether we sing old hymns, and use incense during worship, or instead dance and praise God in holy jeans? (Sorry for the pun.) There are elements of Catholic tradition that go against the Bible (like praying to the saints, worshipping Mary, …) but any one who believes in Jesus as His Lord and Saviour will be saved. (John 3:16)
Now, as to why some souls are born into crippled bodies, and why some babies are born with the proverbial silver spoon… why are we questioning God? If He knows something that we don’t, shouldn’t we trust Him? There’s a guy in South Africa (I forget his name, sorry) who was born with no arms or legs, just a toe and part of a foot (if I remember correctly). He praises God for the wonderful opportunity to be a witness. He realizes something you seem intent on ignoring: this one, short little life that we get is NOTHING compared to an eternity in paradise with God. Really, why focus on a silly 80 years, when you have eternity to look forward to?
That should also answer your other question: we don’t get just “one” chance. Our whole life is God gracefully giving us another chance, and another chance, so we can finally decide that doing things His way is the right decision. We have our whole life on this Earth to make the right decision. Stupidly, we like to wait until the last minute; but God keeps trying, giving us second, tenth, thousandth chances to choose Him. So, yeah, after this life is over, there are no more chances. You’ve had opportunities every day, every hour to choose God, to choose Jesus; even if you reject Him now, you still get the chance to change your mind… until you die. Do you want to pretend that that is in some way unfair?
According to Jewish belief, every born man must fulfill all 613 mitzvot, and if he doesn’t succeed in one lifetime, he comes back again and again until he finishes. For this reason, events in a person’s life may lead him towards certain places, encounters, etc., in ways that may or may not make sense. Divine providence provides each person with the opportunities he needs to fulfill those particular mitzvot necessary for the perfection of his soul. But the responsibility lies with us. At the actual moment of decision in any given situation, the choice is ours.
One of the ways in which heaven maintains our ability to exercise complete freedom of choice is by not allowing us conscious knowledge of previous incarnations. Consequently, it might seem to some people that there is little practical benefit in being aware of this doctrine. Furthermore, many scholars contend that these mystical concepts can easily be misunderstood, or carried to erroneous and misleading conclusions. We can therefore understand why this and similar subjects are only hinted at in scripture, and why some knowledge and a great deal of determination are often required in order to gain access to this information.
“According to Jewish belief…”
Don’t lie. According to *A* Jewish belief, reincarnation allows a soul to complete the 613 mitzvot. This is neither traditional nor mainstream.
Just about every religion has cults; this in no way justifies what that cult believes as part of the religion itself. Even some muslems believe in reincarnation. You will likewise find some members of every major religion who believe that God is really a highly advanced alien race; oddly enough, these mythical aliens often ask people to “shed their earthly bodies” (ie., commit mass suicide) so that their spirits can join with the aliens on their “heavenly” mothership. (Obviously, it would be a more commonly found cult if the believers didn’t all die before they could “spread the word”.) You will even find members of every religion who quite honestly think that God isn’t real at all, but church (or temple or mosque or…) is a good place to go to, to learn how to be “good” and to show how “good” you are. Some churches/temples/… even teach it that way.
Reincarnation does not help deal with the issue of why bad things happen if God is good (unless you’re using the “karma” argument, which has its own flaws).
So, in other words, SO WHAT?
Source : http://stellarhousepublishing.com/jesusmyth.html
«But during the past century or so, scholars have shown that all these “known” details of Jesus’s life story are mythic: That is, they were told for many centuries before his time about many previous savior-gods and legendary heroes in pre-Christian lore. Not a single detail of Jesus’s life story can be considered authentic. Some investigators have tried to peel away the layers of myth in search of a historical core, but this task is like peeling the layers of an onion. It seems that there is no core. The layers of myth go all the way to the center.
Fact or Fiction?
One of the problems faced by Christian scholars is that there is no record of Jesus’s existence in any contemporary source. The earliest literature concerning him was written by Paul, who never knew him or anyone else who might have known him and who never heard anything about his life story. Paul mentioned none of these now-so-familiar details, which were added much later by unknown writers who pretended to bear the names of various disciples and who sprinkled their writings with mythic data gathered from sacred-king traditions of contemporary Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Persian and Levantine salvation cults.»
Ha ha, thanks for the laugh.
…or were you serious? I mean, come on, look at the source. We already know the name “Murdock” to be synonymous with “witch-hunter”. She “knows” the truth, and is setting out to prove it. (In other words, she ain’t no scientist.) She’s trying to prove that Christianity is wrong; she really doesn’t care about what is “right”. And a site on *astrology*?
People will lie, and other people will listen, nod their heads, and say, “Yeah, that makes sense.”
“Not a single detail of Jesus’s life story can be considered authentic.” Wow. This person REALLY hates Christ. Poor her.
Hi Stef,
You have as much right to laugh at Serge Grenier’s views on Jesus’s mythical history, as I have to laugh at your comments about 613 mitzvot.
Although a person begins life with only a Nefesh, he has the potential to ascend to higher levels of soul, according to his merit (as elucidated below).
…All Nefashot are only from the world of Asiya; all Ruchot are from the world of Yetzira; and, all Neshamot are from the world of Beriya. However, the majority of people do not have all five parts, which are called NR”N, etc., but only the Nefesh from Asiya.
We have seen at the end of the previous section that the abbreviation for all five levels of the soul is NRNCh”Y. Since the uppermost levels of Chaya and Yechida are inaccessible now, they are often ignored, and the short-form is even more abbreviated to NR”N. Late in history and distant from Mt. Sinai as we are, most people only have access to the Nefesh level of their soul, which is why it is so difficult to relate to God and spirituality.
However, even this Nefesh has many levels, and this is because Asiya itself also divides into five Partzufim, called: Arich Anpin, Abba, Imma, Zer Anpin, and Nukveh d’Zer Anpin.
The word “partzuf” (plural: “partzufim”) literally means “face”. In the Kabbala it also refers to the entire human shape.
In general, there are ten sefirot: keter, chochma, bina, chesed, gevura, tiferet, netzach, hod, yesod, and malchut. However, each one is a localized version of the entire system. In other words, it is possible to discern within each one of them ten component sefirot, and within each one of those ten others, etc. (This may be likened to a photograph taken with a hologram, where any detail may be blown up to reveal all the basic information that is contained in the whole photograph. All the basic information of the whole is contained in the detail; and the detail contains all the basic information found in the whole.)
When we see a number of sefirot joined together, working together and functioning together as a system, then they are called a partzuf.
Each partzuf has a unique name, and these correspond to the names of the sefirot, the names of the soul and the names of the worlds, as discussed previously (Chapter 1, Section 1).
Soul World Sefira Partzuf
Yechidah
Singular
Keter
Crown
Arich Anpin
The long face
Chaya
Life force
Atzilut
Emanation
Chochma
Wisdom
Abba
Father
Neshama
Breath
Beriya
Creation
Bina
Understanding
Imma
Mother
Ruach
Wind
Yetzira
Formation
Chesed — Yesod
(details)
Zeir Anpin
The short (or, near) face
Nefesh
Rested
Asiya
action
Malchut
kingdom
Nukva de’Zer Anpin
The feminine consort of Zeir Anpin (the short or near face)
For a more detailed Table of Correspondences: click here.
It should be noted that the sefirot according to the names of the partzufim resemble a family tree of three generations: grandfather, parents, child and his bride.
Before a person can merit to attain his Ruach from the world of Yetzira, he must first be complete in all of the five partzufim of the Nefesh of Asiya.
In other words, though a person begins life with a Nefesh, it too has higher levels that must be attained through spiritual growth and rectification. When all the levels of Nefesh are rectified, then a person is ready to ascend to a higher spiritual level, that of the level of Ruach. He then repeats the process of growth on this higher spiritual plane.
That is, he must first master the Nefesh of his Nefesh, then the Ruach of his Nefesh, the Neshama of his Nefesh, and so on. Once he has acquired the Yechida of his Nefesh, then the entire level of Nefesh is said to be “his,” and, he is ready to work on acquiring the levels of Ruach.
Dear Tony Francis
I believed ruach to have come from Hebrew and and Greek pneuma meaning the spirit and breath given to Adam at time of creation which is then inherited by his progeny at time of birth. This gift of life or breath expired when Adam died due to sin and disobedience to his/our creator.
I am not contradicting what you claim but I choose to remain uncomplicated in my spiritual relationship choosing to know; obey; love; and serve my God to the best of my imperfect human ability and let whatever will be happen, according to his will through our Lord Christ Jesus, Amen.
I think you misunderstand the nature of Absolute.
An absolute truth is one that is true in all circumstances, at all times, in all places. Since the material world is not permanent there is no truth born of it that is absolute.
Absolutely!!. There is no Absolute right or wrong in this world. Everything is relative. What is right today may not be so tomorrow.
There are unlimited numbers of universes,
we have direct experience of only one,
How do we then know there are others?
but each universe contains millions of species of life,
So says who?
any one of which can take birth on planet earth
This is fact or Science/ Spiritual Fiction?
according to the law of karma.
Is this the Third Law of Thermodynamics?
‘New’ souls are ‘born’ initially in very heavenly realms, and only if they act sinfully do they come down to this realm we know as planet earth.
Judging from the rate of increase in earth’s population, Heaven must be getting increasingly sinful these days. Probably those who sodomise in heaven are sent down as choir boys to get sodomised by priests and mullahs and rabbis on planet earth.
There is thus a pool of living entities (souls) of unimaginable size from which the human population can expand.
And who may I ask, expanded into this pool of living entities (souls) of unimaginable size, and from where?
A new born baby does not equal a new soul.
There is also a cave in the north pole where souls of heavenly criminals are frozen into microscopic eggs made of ice crystals. Storks sit on the eggs melting the eggshells, and thus releasing the souls which are then transported by the spirit of the storks and put into foetuses growing in human wombs.
It is very difficult to discuss anything if you hold to the view that if you don’t understand it, it is wrong;
if you don’t agree with it, it is wrong; if it is not in King James’ Bible it is wrong. If it threatens your sense-gratification it is wrong.
I totally agree with you. We have to let loose our imagination. That is why God has given us the freedom to dream and imagine.
There is a gulf of difference between spiritual life and religious life.
Absolutely
Let’s be honest, you have no idea what ‘religion’ I follow, nor have studied the Vedas,
There will then be more scope for imagination.
I am happy you have faith in Jesus, I will pray that your faith increases more and more.
Pray to whom?
I have great faith in Jesus also, when Father Collins was sodomizing me instead of Andrew after choir practise, I prayed to Jesus to show me what was true spirituality, and although it took many years, he did.
What sin did you do in heaven to make you deserve this on planet earth?
May you seek and find the truth, and dwell forever in realms of blissful ecstacy.
We may be able to enjoy ecstasy better if we dream, and go on imaginative trips after taking a shot.
I think you misunderstand the nature of Absolute.
An absolute truth is one that is true in all circumstances, at all times, in all places. Since the material world is not permanent there is no truth born of it that is absolute.
Absolutely!!. There is no Absolute right or wrong in this world. Everything is relative. What is right today may not be so tomorrow.
There is Absolute right and wrong, but it comes from outside the material universe, where everything is of the absolute nature.
There are unlimited numbers of universes,
we have direct experience of only one,
How do we then know there are others?
There are three ways of gaining knowledge.
1. Direct perception
2. Deduction
3. Hearing from an authority.
Ovbviously we have to hear from the authority if we can not use 1 or 2 to find the answer.
but each universe contains millions of species of life,
So says who?
The creator of them. God.
any one of which can take birth on planet earth
This is fact or Science/ Spiritual Fiction?
according to the law of karma.
Is this the Third Law of Thermodynamics?
I don’t know, I haven’t studied Thermodynamics.
‘New’ souls are ‘born’ initially in very heavenly realms, and only if they act sinfully do they come down to this realm we know as planet earth.
Judging from the rate of increase in earth’s population, Heaven must be getting increasingly sinful these days. Probably those who sodomise in heaven are sent down as choir boys to get sodomised by priests and mullahs and rabbis on planet earth.
Yeah, probably.
There is thus a pool of living entities (souls) of unimaginable size from which the human population can expand.
And who may I ask, expanded into this pool of living entities (souls) of unimaginable size, and from where?
Um, probably God, from His infinite resources.
( Gee these are real tough questions)
A new born baby does not equal a new soul.
There is also a cave in the north pole where souls of heavenly criminals are frozen into microscopic eggs made of ice crystals. Storks sit on the eggs melting the eggshells, and thus releasing the souls which are then transported by the spirit of the storks and put into foetuses growing in human wombs.
Interesting, what is your reference for this information?
What sin did you do in heaven to make you deserve this on planet earth?
It can be understood that every living entity has been in conditioned life since time immemorial, and throughout that time has travelled through all the different species of life inummerable times and has committed every sin imaginable. Why should you and I be exceptions? But the root cause of all sin is envy of God.
May you seek and find the truth, and dwell forever in realms of blissful ecstacy.
We may be able to enjoy ecstasy better if we dream, and go on imaginative trips after taking a shot.
They tried that back in the 60’s, didn’t seem to hit the spot after all.
There is Absolute right and wrong, but it comes from outside the material universe, where everything is of the absolute nature.
How can things be absolute outside the material universe, when things are changing there also?
Angels rebel, New souls are entering / leaving heaven / hell. And Hindu Gods always fight among themselves, exchange curses, and try to subdue each other. How can things be stagnant where there is life? Things are stagnant when they are dead. There is nothing absolute in Heaven or Earth. I believe things will be stagnant only in Hell, where I believe everybody will be dead. But some believe that even in Hell, there is burning, and crying, and suffering.
Ovbviously we have to hear from the authority if we can not use 1 or 2 to find the answer.
And who is this authority? Acharya Rajneesh?, or Swamy Nithyananda? Pope? or Rev. Sun Myung Moon?
So says who?
The creator of them. God.
To whom did God say that?
Has anybody recorded what God said?
Aside of what you believe, are there any proofs, logical, or mathematical or physical?
How can things be absolute outside the material universe, when things are changing there also?
Change doesn’t necessarily mean relative. On the absolute platform there is change also, but it is not possible to fully comprehend this with the mind, which is material, and trapped within relative concepts. In the spiritual world there are activities, and everything is conscious, but there is no time. In spite of the absence of time there is still a tomorrow and a yesterday and today, but nothing gets any older. So although there is change, it is not the same as the changes of the material world dictated by time.
Angels rebel, New souls are entering / leaving heaven / hell.
Heaven and hell are within the material world. Outside the material world is the spiritual world which is absolute and eternal. Christians muddle up heaven with the spiritual world. They are distinctly different, but it is useless trying to explain it most of the time.
And Hindu Gods always fight among themselves, exchange curses, and try to subdue each other.
The Hindu Gods you refer to live within the material world and are mortal, but their life span is many many times that of ours. They live in the higher planetary systems and are immensely powerful compared to us, so they appear god-like, but they are all acting under the direction of the Supreme Lord.
Obviously we have to hear from the authority if we cannot use 1 or 2 to find the answer.
And who is this authority? Acharya Rajneesh?, or Swamy Nithyananda? Pope? or Rev. Sun Myung Moon?
An intelligent person will pray sincerely to God for help, and examine very carefully who actually is an authority.
To help in this regard the Vedas list the basic criteria as follows:
1. They must have studied under a recognized authority, who must have studied under a recognized authority, who must have studied under a recognized authority…………going back to God.
2. Their teachings must be supported by scripture.
3. They must have realized what they teach.
4. They must teach by example i.e. practice what they preach.
5. They must be able to impart their knowledge to you ‘through the heart’, as well as through the ear, i.e. you should gradually (or even rapidly) become self-realized.
There are more refinements, but these are the pillars.
In the end tho’ everyone gets what they want. If you want something cheap, you will get something cheap, if you don’t really want to accept anyone, then no one will impress you. If you want the real thing you will quickly recognize it when it comes your way.
So says who?
The creator of them. God.
To whom did God say that?
He said it to Arjuna.
He said it to Brahma.
He said it to Indra.
He said it to Druva.
The list goes on and on and on.
Has anybody recorded what God said?
Yes, Srila Vyasadeva has recorded so much of what God said, word for word.
It is faithfully recorded in Bhagavad Gita, Srimad Bhagavatam, Visnu purana, and many more Sanskrit texts.
Aside of what you believe, are there any proofs, logical, or mathematical or physical?
If you mean material proofs, then no.
Spirit cannot be properly understood by material means, because The Absolute Truth is way beyond mundane logic and mathematics.
God reveals Himself in differing degrees, when He is pleased by the process of surrender and devotion to Him. To those lacking these He remains eternally hidden. He’s not an idiot. Why should He be available to those who disrespect Him? He is a gentleman and does not force Himself upon those who do not wish to be reminded of Him.
It is by His grace that anyone can understand Him, and receive proof. It has to start with faith in His existence and a sincere desire to find Him. Then, unseen but perceivably, He guides the aspiring devotee through the necessary purification of his heart to the degree where He can be perceived directly, face to face. There are many examples of this recorded in the Vedas. The process requires faith, but is entirely scientific. Anyone who applies it gets a result commensurate with their application. There is no force or coercion; it is dependent simply upon desire.
Life in the spiritual world is ever-fresh. There is no question of stagnation or boredom. The variety of activities and the pleasure derived from them are ever-increasing, eternally. Since we have no experience of this it seems far-fetched. We are conditioned to everything having a beginning and an end, but the spiritual world although full of forms, relationships, emotions and activities is infinite and unlimited. The material mind is limited so it cannot comprehend how this is. The mind forces us to impose an end, at some point, to everything. We can discuss the concept of infinity but we cannot actually conceive of it because the mind is finite, it simply cannot conceptualize something going on and on forever.
The soul is spiritual so it has no trouble understanding infinite and eternal, but in the material world it is covered with ignorance and dominated by the mind. When the mind is controlled and the ignorance removed, then the natural qualities of the soul, eternity, knowledge and bliss, can manifest. Then we can directly perceive the Supreme Personality of Godhead, should He appear before us.
That is the real proof.
In spite of the absence of time there is still a tomorrow and a yesterday and today.
You can call the same day by twenty different names- today, Boday, moday, but in a place where there is no time, everyday will be the same day.
In Christianity, there is no marriage in Heaven, and in Islam, if you have killed sufficient number of Kafirs (infidels) you will be given 70 beautiful virgins; but will you follow a religion that says that in their heaven, 2+3=7 ???
If we are to discuss an issue and come to a conclusion, we have to have some fundamental postulates which should be universally true, and accepted by all involved in the discussion.
I cannot conceive of a God who creates different worlds or universes with different logics. No conclusions will be reached from the discussions, if all of us have different logics and postulates.
They must have studied under a recognized authority, who must have studied under a recognized authority, who must have studied under a recognized authority…………going back to God.
2. Their teachings must be supported by scripture.
3. They must have realized what they teach.
4. They must teach by example i.e. practice what they preach.
5. They must be able to impart their knowledge to you ‘through the heart’, as well as through the ear, i.e. you should gradually (or even rapidly) become self-realized.
I think that the only person that fits this bill is JESUS CHRIST. Everybody else falls short.
Then you follow what you think best. Probably Jesus is the best choice for you, but until you have met and evaluated every spiritual teacher in the universe, it is a little presumptuous to say he is the only person that fits this bill
So says who?
The creator of them. God.
To whom did God say that?
He said it to Arjuna.
He said it to Brahma.
He said it to Indra.
He said it to Druva.
The list goes on and on and on.
How is your story different from Roman Mythology, or Greek Mythology, or a good science fiction?
Read them all you lazy bum, then you will see.
Has anybody recorded what God said?
Yes, Srila Vyasadeva has recorded so much of what God said, word for word.
It is faithfully recorded in Bhagavad Gita, Srimad Bhagavatam, Visnu purana, and many more Sanskrit texts.
Muslims claim that Quran is word for word what God told Prophet Mohammed, which is quite opposite (Monotheism)to what God told Srila Vyasadeva (Pantheism)
Srila Vyasadev wrote more than 1,000,000 verses, please quote just 1 that supports pantheism…..sanskrit essential, but not necessarily devanagari text.
If you can not offer a single text, then I will accept an apology instead.
Spirit cannot be properly understood by material means, because The Absolute Truth is way beyond mundane logic and mathematics.
We should then seek Truth in mental asylums and drugs de-addiction centres.
God reveals Himself in differing degrees, when He is pleased by the process of surrender and devotion to Him.
Is He somebody with a big ego problem?
No, He has no problems whatsoever.
It is by His grace that anyone can understand Him, and receive proof.
Why is He not graceful enough to give it away to everybody, some to me and two helpings to Stef?
He gives it to anyone who wants it badly enough.
Do you and Stef have doubts?
Do you need more proof, I’m pretty sure Stef doesn’t.
Life in the spiritual world is ever-fresh. There is no question of stagnation or boredom.
If everything is perfect in quality and quantity in the spiritual world, why would they disturb the status quo?
Why would God have created this universe, and this world and men and women, and all their associated politics and war and famine and Judgements and revenge and jealousy and envy if He was very perfect before, or He wanted a change from his Boring existence in a non-eventful Spiritual world? Is this universe a toy God the Father got for his Son? I think Stef will be better qualified to answer this.
Spirit is by nature always improving, and matter being opposite is always dissolving. It is not a question of disturbing the status quo, it is not possible for spirit to stop eternally improving.
You might as well ask why is fire always giving off light, even when the sun is up and we don’t need it.
Since you think Stef better qualified for the second part of your comment, I will leave it for him.
I was hoping to avoid answering certain people, but as the question is being “forwarded”… ;p
“Is this universe a toy God the Father got for his Son?”
Let’s see: we’ve discussed the issue of God being bored, and you (Tony) firmly believe that an infinite, omniscient God can indeed suffer from boredom. Nothing I (or any other people here, so far) say will change your mind on this matter. So, if God is truly as you believe, a petty, selfish, *childish* deity, then sure, it’s quite conceivable that His creation is just a “toy” to Him. In that case, you’d best be careful what you write here, or you might just get yourself smited (or smote, or smitten, or whatever your God is likely to do when His toy is more trouble than it’s worth).
If, on the other hand, God is as the Bible presents Him, if He is a God Who loves us so much that He would even suffer death for us, then it’s a pretty darn stupid question. (Perhaps you would be willing to give your life for your Tonka truck…?)
That is the real proof.
Which one?
Seeing God face to face.
>
> Author: perrymarshall
> Comment:
> I would like you to consider that atheism doesn’t get you around this question either. The most common form of atheism, materialism, doesn’t give a foundation for believing that free will truly exists, since it assumes that everything simply obeys the laws of physics which gives rise to determinism.
True. Having to obey laws of Physics makes Physics a small god. It is surely more logical and convenient to worship the Lord of Physics and Chemistry and Anatomy and ….. (GOD Almighty) than worship many smaller gods.
>
> Part of my reason for believing that free will exists is simply from taking it as axiomatic because ultimately it is a theological proposition. Which happens to be consistent with my perception.
Free will cannot be exercised individually.
One man alone will not be able to fly across the Atlantic just because he so wills. But with airline pilots, aircraft manufacturers, Airport operators, etc. etc., working together systematically towards that end, a man will be able to fly from New York to London easily.
God can make anything happen, because, like a healthy human body, each part of Him performs systematically according to his Divine Will. Man is still in filth (outside God’s Holy Body (Kingdom), where there is chaos, and no order. Only after rigorous testing will anything be allowed into His Kingdom.
We can also hope to become part of His body (Kingdom), if we are willing to surrender ourselves completely to His will. We will then have more freedom than if we chose to act on our own free will. The only way to become acceptable in God’s Kingdom is to conform ourselves according to the plan or designs in God’s DNA. God’s DNA was planted in this chaotic world through His SON Jesus.
If Man can grow according to the plans in God’s / Jesus’ DNA, he would be given access into Holy Land, and will be able to live there. Otherwise, man will rot and become manure for other healthy plants (men).
A driver can safely drive at 300 Km/ hour in an Auto Bahn, when everybody follows Auto Bahn rules, and do not drive according to their own free will.
Curiously, the more disciplined we become, and the more we sacrifice our own selfish interests in favour of larger interests – of the family, club, societies, teams, city, state, country, world, and the largest (GOD), we gain capability to exercise Free Will, and gain Freedom from evils like Hunger, Rape, prostitution, diseases, etc.
>
> All the diseases you mention are explainable as either 1) the result of information entropy, or 2) competition in an evolutionary world.
All diseases and evil are the result of excessive use of free will by selfish individuals.
>
> Rape and murder of children etc: I am appalled by these things as you are. Any view one might hold about God must necessarily account for the fact that some evils are simply not prevented.
God had made man very perfect, but due to excessive use of free will selfishly by Eve, humans got infected with evil, and started to rot.
God has planted his seed (Jesus Christ) again in the rotting compost, hoping a healthy plant (Christian Church) will grow.
Rot (Rapists, murderers etc.) surrounds the healthy plant. But the plant will protect those who are in it, as long as they follow the plans written in the plant’s DNA. Rot has to exist because it is manure for the holy plant. That is why God marked Cain and forbade everyone not to punish him for murdering Abel. So God permits evil to exist for a higher cause.
>
> My book tells me that Lucifer is the God of this world. Let’s be very clear: Christianity tells us that a dark, evil being runs the show on planet earth.
Lucifer is the Lord of worms and flies and bacteria and viruses that breakdown dead animals and plants and convert them into simpler substances that can be later used as building blocks for building healthy and living plants; He is the Lord of ROT and CHAOS, and is in charge of maintaining Rot & Chaos in the world.
Unbridled and indisciplined free will of Eve would have bred weeds or tumours that would have multiplied and challenged God’s Kingdom.
So God had to throw the weeds out and expose them to Lucifer for breaking them down into a rot, or chaotic compost. This compost is fertile soil for growing new healthy plants. If not for Lucifer’s EVIL , the weeds (selfish EGO) bred by Eve would have grown big enough to overwhelm God’s Kingdom, because man was made in God’s image. The weeds look almost like the good plants, tumour looks almost like flesh, thieves and charlatans look like saints; and only from their fruits will we be able to distinguish good from the bad.
The world is the footstool of Jesus, on top of which he would rest his heels. (Acts 7:49)
His heels has to be bruised to allow nourishment to flow into his bloodstream, like the plant’s roots take nourishment from the compost. This injection of nourishment into the bloodstream is painful, and that is why contact with evil is painful. Pain is the test given to distinguish between GOOD and BAD. The separation that takes place afterwards is painful. Anything that promotes assembly, construction, co-operation is GOOD, and everything resulting in separation, explosion, dis-membering, and mis-match is BAD.
Everybody who enters God’s Kingdom should pass the Test of PAIN. Those who skip or try to bypass PAIN will remain in the compost, and will not attain LIFE.
>
> Leszek Kolakowski, the famous Polish philosopher who lived through the holocaust, said: “I can understand people who do not believe in God, but the fact that there are people who do not believe in the devil is beyond my comprehension.”
DEVIL / SATAN is to GOD as NEGATIVE is to AFFIRMATIVE, or DARKNESS is to LIGHT or LIES to TRUTH. ABSENCE of one is PRESENCE of the other.
Anybody who hopes, professes, practices things that results in ultimate CONSTRUCTIVE growth and PEACE is GOD or a part of GOD,
Anybody who hopes, professes, practices things that results in ultimate DESTRUCTION , CHAOS, DIS-ORDER, and ANARCHY is DEVIL or part of DEVIL.
What somebody does makes him a Devil or God. So Apostle Peter can be termed “SATAN”when he says or does something that will result in something BAD.
>
> Those who live in this world all have only a certain range of freedom. Some more, some less. Some people can take our freedom away completely.
Satan and his world tries to enslave and reduce Man’s freedom. Satan lied to misguide Eve when he said that God had forbidden her to eat the apple to prevent her from getting more freedom / power. Anomalously, making and following rules and regulations only helps man in liberating himself from the constraints imposed on him by the world. No man or Devil can take away the freedom given to him by GOD without his permission.
Man falls enslaved to alcohol, nicotine, food, laziness etc out of his own choice. Man can achieve anything if he becomes determined to achieve it.
>
> The ultimate answer to your question lies in the cross. It’s no coincidence that the #1 icon, symbol and brand logo in the history of civilization is a cross – an instrument of hideous torture – and there’s one at the top of nearly every church in the world.
>
> The cross is about suffering. Jesus is about suffering. “A man of sorrows, acquainted with grief.”
But there is a difference between the hopeless suffering of a drug addict suffering from AIDS and that of a purposeful suffering of Jesus on the cross, or a mother suffering labour pains while delivering her baby.
>
> Elie Wiesel tells of seeing a child twist and turn on the gallows for three days before dying. Forced to watch the innocent victim suffer and die, Wiesel hears a voice within him asking, “Where’s God? Where’s God?” The answer comes back, “God is on the gallows.” For Wiesel, God dies with the innocent who suffer.
>
> The situation is what it is.
>
> So we have a simple choice: Accept that fact that God has suffered with us — or mock him and be furious because the suffering exists in the first place.
Again, it is up to us whether to enjoy the pain, or suffer the pain.
A body builder enjoys the pains he takes while exercising. An athlete enjoys the pains he takes pumping his last ounce of energy to win a race.
A mother enjoys carrying a heavy load of vegetables from the market to cook food for her children.
To a Stephen Hawkings, or a Helen Keller, and many more like them, living against odds, and overcoming obstacles give them a joy which is beyond any pain that the world can afflict them.
Can someone please explain to me if Jesus was the son of Joseph, or God?
Why either/or? “Son” can have more than one meaning.
The Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God. It says that Mary was impregnated by the work of the Holy Spirit. Was Jesus the “son” of Mary? In a certain sense; she gave birth to His physical body. Is Mary the “mother of God”? Not literally, no. God was not born; He is eternal.
Joseph contributed no DNA to Jesus’ physical, human form. However, “son” has other meanings. Legally and culturally, Jesus was the son of Mary and Joseph.
Hope this helps. God bless, eh!
Thanks Stef, I totally agree with you, Joseph contributed no DNA to Jesus’ human person. The more reason why the New Testament narative of Mathew should be given a closer look. The first 16 verses of the book of Mathew traces the lineage of Jesus from Abraham, as reference to the promise made in Genesis 22:18 that says ‘And in thy SEED shall all the nations of the earth be blessed…..’ (caps mine).
Mathew chapter 1:1 ‘And this is the geneology of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham: 2. Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers…….’.
From verse 1 to 15 of Mathew 1,the relationship common to all these individuals is that of blood. The seed, or the sperm of Abraham and his children’ children defined the lineage. In a patriarchal Jewish society, lineage is traced through the male line of the family hence, no reference was made to any female as being of the line of Abraham.
In verse 15 to 16 the account continues, ‘Elihud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.
If Jacob was the father of Joseph, and Joseph was not the father of Jesus, how is the prophecy fulfilled? For there to be an unbroken line, the SEED/DNA of Abraham that ran up to the line of Joseph was supposed to be transfered to Jesus through Joseph.
The only relevance of Joseph as Mathew’s account show in the Abrahamic lineage, is as the husband of Mary. Mary’s DNA of cause should form a part of the DNA of Jesus, but then again, Jewish society was and still is patriachal, and this piece of information would be worthless.
So why would Mathew make the effort to trace the history of Jesus through a father that was not his? To set the stage for a Messianic claim, or to show that Jesus really was a product of Abraham’s seed?
Legally and culturally if Jesus was not a product of Joseph’s seed, then in Jewish society he could not be a descendant of Abraham. DNA Stef,DNA.
If on the other hand Joseph was the biological father of Jesus that prophecy would have been fulfilled, but it will be at the expense of another prophecy, the virgin conception, and birth.
Hope this helps.
While it is true that in Jewish society, the mother’s lineage is not generally important, it *is* important to note that there were several women listed in Jesus’ genealogy. Also of interest is that the genealogy in Luke (3:23-38) shows Heli as “Joseph’s” father… which is easily explained by understanding that Luke’s genealogy is through Mary. Both Mary and Joseph were descendants of David; Joseph was descended from Solomon, and Mary from Nathan. The “DNA” argument only applies if we subject God’s Plan to human laws. Patriarchal succession is NOT something God strictly limited Himself to; it is (was) human nature to assume that only male genealogy mattered, but God often showed that He did things His own way, and using Mary’s line to make Jesus a biological heir to David is a good example. Legally, Jesus was David’s descendant through Joseph; biologically, through Mary. Spiritually (and quite literally), He’s the Son of God. As the promised Messiah, He fulfills *all* those prophecies.
(Remember that those true Jews, who followed God in law *and* in their hearts, would have no problem accepting God’s acting outside of their cultural restrictions; it is only those legalistic Jews who would argue that Jesus not being Joseph’s *biological* son would prevent Him from fulfilling prophecy as the Messiah.)
God bless, eh!
Was Jesus the “son” of Mary? In a certain sense; she gave birth to His physical body.
Is Mary the “mother of God”? Not literally, no. God was not born.
Here is a nice riddle!!.
Question: “Who is the son of a woman who is not his mother?
Answer: Jesus.
Karma is absolute, universal, applicable to everyone, … right?
Not exactly. God is above the law of karma (and of everything else…..job description!)
And karma only works within the material world. There is no karma in the spiritual world.
So, heavenly beings who “fall” to earth because of some heavenly indiscretion must have done something wrong to *somebody*… right?
How did the cycle start? How did the first “being” to be wronged come to deserve it?
The cycle starts when a living entity has a twinge of envy (due to his free will) towards God. If that grows, then at some point he decides that he would like to live a little away from God and be a little independent. This is actually not possible in the spiritual world, so the material world is created for the living entities who want to have a semblance of independence from God, and want to enjoy different aspects of life without including God in them.
Once in the material world, any activity that you perform, good bad or indifferent will lead to another birth with good bad or indifferent reactions. Reflect for a moment on how many thoughts and activities you perform in a day, and then extrapolate to how much reaction is accrued in just one life.
Karma does not only punish, it also rewards.
Give a lot of money in charity in one life and you will have to take birth again to receive a lot of money later.
Or, perhaps the first sin/crime/wrong was against God Himself… but if karma is truly an absolute, then in must apply to Him to, so what did God do to deserve it?
karma is NOT absolute, it is a law that works in the material world only, and by the grace of the Lord can be ended or changed.
Or will you suggest that you can “do wrong” but not actually do it to anybody at all… because then the question is, why would it be wrong?
Envy is a sin, but it does not affect the object of envy unless acted on.
Lust is also a sin. Sinful thoughts are also sinful! they may not affect any one, but still there is reaction
You’ve said you have access to all the answers. So? If you can only get what you deserve, how did the first “victim” deserve what he got?
We are not sent to the material world as a punishment, we come here because it is our desire to leave the Lord, (due to envy). once here it is not possible to live without encroaching in some small way on another living entity, be they human, animal, plant, fish, bird, microbe, whatever.
This has been going on for as long as the Lord and the living entities have existed……………. eternaly.
Ther is no ‘first’ victim
Nice questions………….please consider the anwers to see if it is possible, not just to see if you can shoot them out of the water because you disagree.
“Nice questions………….please consider the anwers to see if it is possible, not just to see if you can shoot them out of the water because you disagree.”
The problem with that is this: if you are right and I am wrong, so what? Anybody who reads my words and misses a chance to come closer to “truth” doesn’t really lose that much, as they can always try again. HOWEVER, if I am right and you are wrong, then anybody who reads your words and is convinced by them loses EVERYTHING. Just because a theory might be “possible” does not in any way justify teaching it as *the* truth. It is “possible” that countless invisible, insubstantial fairies are flying around seeing to it that good things and bad things happen according to the laws that they have revealed to Bob, their chosen prophet. (Whether it was “revealed” four thousand years ago, or yesterday, really makes no difference to its validity.)
Now, if a sin does no harm to anyone, as you say for example with lust or envy, then why is it a sin? The truth is that it DOES harm someone. It harms the person who has those thoughts. My envy of my neighbour for his new car harms my relationship with him, and it keeps me from enjoying the old car that I already have. So, that “sin” is already repaid: I have hurt myself. I was both the perpetrator and the victim. There is no further “karmal” reason for me to “get” what I deserve, so the question still stands: how did the first murder victim deserve it?
Now you say that God is “above” the law of karma, and all His other laws. While spiritual being(s) may well be justified in exemption from *physical* laws (like gravity), it makes for a pretty unreliable heavenly being who could simply decide to destroy us all at his whim. To say that God needs to answer to *us* for His every decision is horribly arrogant; however, to say that God can do whatever He wants, for no reason and with no consequences, because He’s God… well, so much for Him wanting us to be like Him, to follow His example, to be righteous like He is righteous. He *can* destroy us all, but He *doesn’t* because He is good. There is a law that governs His behaviour, because He wants it to.
Independence from God is not possible in the spiritual world? So, you don’t believe in the devil, then. So much for your scriptures agreeing with the Bible.
To suggest that a heavenly being might want to be separated from God, to “enjoy life without Him”, is a gross misunderstanding of Who God is. Again, the Vedas completely contradicts the Bible. Our God *is* what allows life to be enjoyable, unless you think hell itself is a holiday resort. You touched on the truth when you said that a spark separated from the fire dies out… sadly, when it comes to the eternal punishment for souls who “separate” themselves from God, there will be no “dying out”, but rather an eternity of dying.
“We are not sent to the material world as a punishment, we come here because it is our desire to leave the Lord, (due to envy). once here it is not possible to live without encroaching in some small way on another living entity, be they human, animal, plant, fish, bird, microbe, whatever.”
Again, completely different from the Bible; the same God can NOT be in both. Desire to leave the Lord would show no small envy, but rather an overwhelming, soul-consuming hatred; unless, like somebody else ’round here I’d rather not mention by name, you believe that eternity with God might get “boring”. (Again, we must believe in different Gods.) Life on Earth was not meant to be a punishment; it was meant to be life! Quite simply, it’s because this is what we were created for. Seriously, for a god to create a physical world just so parts of himself could experience life on their own, although it automatically requires them to do harm to others (eating plants to live, for example), in itself shows that that god is not good. Why would God allow parts of Himself to “split off” and form souls anyway? An omnipotent, omniscient God would have no need of this silly little experiment; it could all just be a figment of His imagination (which again would mean that there could be no final “bad” destiny for “soul fragments”, so eat, drink and fornicate, because tomorrow you can try again).
The difference between your scriptures and the Bible, is that in the Bible, God CREATED Man. Man is a new, separate being. God wishes to share all of Himself with SOMEBODY ELSE. That means that a human soul lost to hell is lost forever; it means that a human soul that is saved, is saved to an eternity of life AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE LIVED, in a *physical creation*, in a FELLOWSHIP with God. Separate beings, living together in harmony. (And some of you will of course complain that it would get boring. So much for having all the answers!)
If karma is only physical, and not spiritual, then there is no actual danger for the spiritual soul. I can steal, torture, kill, and pay for it with a couple rounds of cockroack poison. Why do bad things happen? Because there’s no serious consequence for making them happen.
Karma is not the answer.
Desire to leave the Lord would show no small envy, but rather an overwhelming, soul-consuming hatred; unless, like somebody else ’round here I’d rather not mention by name, you believe that eternity with God might get “boring”.
I shall mention the name for you. It was Tony Francis.
Seriously, for a god to create a physical world just so parts of himself could experience life on their own, although it automatically requires them to do harm to others (eating plants to live, for example).
So you believe that tigers and lions ate plants and grass when God made them. Did they start eating other animals after Adam and Eve sinned ?
Why is God so cruel to the plants as to make them food for the animals? Did they also commit some sin in the Garden of Eden?
What did the snakes eat before they started eating dust in Genesis?
How will I enjoy food if I don’t have hunger? or enjoy a drink if I am not thirsty?
In heaven, where there will not be any wants, will I be able to enjoy at all? Life will surely becoming boring. I hope there will be at least a chess board in heaven with some black pieces against whom I can play with my white pieces, to kill time.
“Why is God so cruel to the plants as to make them food for the animals? Did they also commit some sin in the Garden of Eden?”
Thanks for reminding me why not to take you seriously. ;p
Even if you did, you will have no answers to my questions.
“So you believe that tigers and lions ate plants and grass when God made them. Did they start eating other animals after Adam and Eve sinned ?”
Seriously… have you even *read* Genesis? (No wonder there are no “answers” to your questions. You have to want to hear the answer, or the question is purely rhetorical!)
Genesis 1:30 “‘And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.’ And it was so.”
Hi Stef,
My question was “Why is God so cruel to the plants as to make them food for the animals? Don’t plants have life? At what stage of evolution can we say an organism lives or dies?
Does a plant have nerves, that lets it “feel” being eaten? Genesis doesn’t specify that God did not intend carrots, for example, to be eaten; it says “all green plants”. Most other plants (other than the ones which must be uprooted to be eaten) can survive being food for animals, because you don’t chop down the tree to eat the apples, and well-rooted grass and other plants grow back after having their green, leafy bits bitten off. (Haven’t you ever tried weeding a lawn?) In what even vaguely intelligent way can we argue that it is cruel to the plants?
…and why even discuss evolution? In Genesis, God clearly defines plants as separate from animals. I know there are Christians who think evolution is compatible with the Bible, but this would be one more example of why it is *not*.
As the question has been asked, let me rephrase it: doesn’t it show a great deal of creativity and intelligence on our Creator’s part, that originally, all the food sources were self-replenishing? Imagine a place where the food (literally) grows on trees… you harm nobody and nothing by eating from it, because part of the natural life cycle is for the fruit to fall from the tree on its own, anyway. Other food springs from the ground; the part that you eat, or walk on, or crush while dancing for joy, is designed to grow back. There is literally no harm done, as again, it’s part of the natural life cycle: even the blades of grass constantly renew themselves, shedding the older blades to allow room for the new growth.
Really, next you’ll suggest that I’m being cruel to countless electrons by posting this message.
How will I enjoy food if I don’t have hunger? or enjoy a drink if I am not thirsty?
In heaven, where there will not be any wants, will I be able to enjoy at all?
It is true that happiness in the material world is based simply on mitigating a suffering condition. That is rejected by the Vedas as being happiness. It is going from negative to zero, it does not move forward to positive.
That is only possible on the spiritual platform.
Indulgence and gratification of the five senses and the mind gives some temporary relief from their urgings, but that is totally rejected as true happiness.
Once the mind is brought under control and the senses subdued, the actual nature of the soul with its inherent quality of spiritual bliss as different from the body, can be perceived,. Once established in that consciousness the living entity can rekindle its forgotten relationship with the supreme Lord and enjoy ever increasing ecstatic emotions and activities with Him.
The pleasures of the material world are considered no more than ‘a drop’ in the ocean of bliss inherent in the pure consciousness of the soul, and the bliss of the soul is no more than ‘a drop’ in the ocean of ecstatic exchanges with the Supreme Personality of Godhead in His all attractive feature.
Have faith, a person who is omniscient, omnipotent, all-attractive, supremely independent and free from any and every defect or flaw, is NOT a boring person to hang with.
Good news is, He’s ready to help you get back to Him,
Take one step towards Him and He will take 10 towards you to close the gap.
And yes, He does play chess, but you won’t need to kill time, it doesn’t exist there.
Rejecting Christ brings damnation. (I’ll find verses later, as I’m a bit pressed at the moment.) Accepting Christ brings salvation. For those who do not have a chance to choose… we serve a loving God, and if He doesn’t specify, we have to trust that He will be loving and merciful to them. (In other words, I don’t know, but I know that God won’t condemn every aborted fetus to hell. Does He speak to them privately, and give them a final chance? Does He extrapolate and base their fate on what He knows they would have done, had they lived? I don’t know, and I don’t need to know. To demand for God to answer would be pure arrogance; simply, it’s none of my business.)
Re Question 1.
Why not just leave it at “I don’t know”, instead of adding your own possible explanations, which appear on the face of them to have even less credibility than Bob and his flying fairies.
You KNOW (somehow) that God won’t condemn EVERY aborted fetus to hell, so logically, SOME are condemned. So how does that work? God comes to the un-named fetus and says;” I have created you, but you are going to be killed tomorrow. I could protect you, but I am unwilling to (you don’t need to know why, it’s none of your business) Tomorrow your mother, is going to murder you, but hey, I figured you wouldn’t surrender to Jesus anyway because I have arranged your birth in a nomadic tribe of illiterate hunters in the far north provinces of Mongolia where there are no Christians. So in view of this, it’s off to hell with you forever. Please do not be so arrogant as to question why this is the way it is”.
Hmmm.
Now what of the fetuses that don’t go to hell? They can’t go to heaven as that would make either John or Jesus or both liars (John14.6 )and they can’t take birth again because Jesus didn’t mention reincarnation, and you know that God won’t condemn every aborted fetus to hell, so is there a planet somewhere full aborted fetuses that can’t go anywhere?
If God can extrapolate and determine a person’s fate, then let’s dispense with the material world altogether. God can just create billions of people, extrapolate a little, and send them straight to heaven or hell. Save a lot of muss and fuss.
What does it mean that God is going to be loving and merciful to people that never hear of Him, the one true God, through Jesus. We know they can’t go to heaven (John 14.6) We know they can’t take birth again as reincarnation doesn’t happen, we do not know of any other place they can go except hell. So are there some areas of hell that are not as bad as others, only puddles of fire instead of lakes, and the non-believing recipients of God’s love and mercy go there?
Btw, answers don’t have to be ‘demanded’ from God, they can be sought with a humble and submissive attitude, ever tried that?
“Before Jesus came…” I’ve answered this one already. John 1:1 says that in the beginning, the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Jesus was there since the beginning; He did not walk the Earth in a physical body, perhaps, but that doesn’t mean that He wasn’t there.
Question 2. This sounds like more good ol’ Steph speculation. Does Jesus anywhere claim credit for saving the saved before 30 AD? Do the prophets and heaven-bound characters from the Old Testament cite Jesus as their savior? I think not, there are no scriptural references to validate and support your claim. Your fertile imagination would serve you better if you kept it within the boundaries of what Jesus said.
Denominations? Why should God care whether we sing old hymns, and use incense during worship, or instead dance and praise God in holy jeans? (Sorry for the pun.) There are elements of Catholic tradition that go against the Bible (like praying to the saints, worshipping Mary, …) but any one who believes in Jesus as His Lord and Saviour will be saved. (John 3:16)
How ironic. Sects that have hated, fought and killed each other over centuries will have to live together in heaven eternally. Now that’s a transcendental sense of humour. I will warn the Christians I know who believe in reincarnation to give you a wide berth when you are all in heaven together, lest they get a good ear-bashing from you about the error of their ways.
Now, as to why some souls are born into crippled bodies, and why some babies are born with the proverbial silver spoon… why are we questioning God? If He knows something that we don’t, shouldn’t we trust Him? There’s a guy in South Africa (I forget his name, sorry) who was born with no arms or legs, just a toe and part of a foot (if I remember correctly). He praises God for the wonderful opportunity to be a witness. He realizes something you seem intent on ignoring: this one, short little life that we get is NOTHING compared to an eternity in paradise with God. Really, why focus on a silly 80 years, when you have eternity to look forward to?
The problem here Stef is that you are too focused on the body to the detriment of the consciousness that inhabits the body. Your one-toed wonder from South Africa is blessed with a consciousness sufficiently developed to understand God. Millions of people are born into material affluence, but with a consciousness that prohibits them from understanding anything higher than eating, sleeping, mating and defending. For them there is no chance to accept Jesus. Many millions more are born in areas where there is no Christianity. They may have silver spoons in their mouths, but without the chance to hear about Jesus, what is the use? Why does God arrange their births there, knowing well that no Christian is ever going to meet them?
You have emphatically indicated elsewhere that God is not capricious, whimsical or arbitrary in His actions. He works according to laws, (albeit His own). We are not questioning God’s right to do as He thinks fit, we are curious to know the criteria He works under when deciding who gets what kind of consciousness, and association, that will largely determine his/her beliefs in life. A child born in the Saudi Arabian Royal Family has very little opportunity to become a Christian, there is immense pressure on him to be a Muslim, can you say that he has the same chance to be saved, as say, your child? You avoid mention of the mentally retarded people of the world. Do you consider them as less than human because they do not have the intellectual capacity to grasp concepts like God and Saviour? What is their destination at death? Heaven or Hell? Why are they created like that in the first place? What do the answers depend on?
God is swarat, supremely independent, He can do as He likes, but for the sake of instilling faith He does act according to certain criteria. The question is simply under what criteria the ‘new’ soul’s birth takes place. You have rejected karma, (for your own personal reasons, not because of anything written in the Bible). What do you offer instead?
If the answer is another “I don’t know”, then just say that.
Answering your bleat of ‘who is the first victim’ is on the same level as responding to atheists demands to know who created God. It cannot be answered within the limitations of their understanding. First an atheist has to understand what God means, then the question of who created Him automatically goes away. Since your understanding of karma is flawed, you will have a million questions that no one will ever be able to answer to your satisfaction. Once you perceive the reality of karma, then the answers will all be self evident and obvious.
That should also answer your other question: we don’t get just “one” chance. Our whole life is God gracefully giving us another chance, and another chance, so we can finally decide that doing things His way is the right decision. We have our whole life on this Earth to make the right decision. Stupidly, we like to wait until the last minute; but God keeps trying, giving us second, tenth, thousandth chances to choose Him. So, yeah, after this life is over, there are no more chances. You’ve had opportunities every day, every hour to choose God, to choose Jesus; even if you reject Him now, you still get the chance to change your mind… until you die. Do you want to pretend that that is in some way unfair?
For many people their ‘whole life’ is a matter of hours, days, months, or a couple of years. So if we discount your speculative extrapolation philosophy, since it is not mentioned by Jesus (or anyone else) in the Bible, then yeah, it is unfair that that is their only chance/birth to get it right.
You may be fixed in your faith and quite happy to simply accept things without any questions, but Christians are leaving their churches in droves because their teachers are unable to answer these simple questions. You admit you are not enlightened, I am beginning to suspect that your teacher is also not enlightened or worse still, that you do not have one at all. If Jesus is your teacher then humbly ask him for enlightenment on these issues and post his answers. If no answers are forthcoming then you must be either unfit to hear them, unable to comprehend them, or not even connected with Jesus after all. Whichever it is, it would be more dignified for you, (and more beneficial for Christianity) however well-meaning and full of good intentions you may be, to put away your soap box until you are able answer basic questions about the nature and workings of the material world in relationship to God, with solid scriptural references.
In the present day and age, with the advances in science and information technology, “I don’t know” doesn’t cut it any more. If that is the best your religion can offer well…..
Who has taught you all these fanciful ideas about karma? Are they your own imperfect opinions and assumptions based on your own interpretation of the Bible, or do you actually have a teacher?
Anyway, I can’t be bothered answering your questions any more, because:
1. you are not interested in hearing the answers.
2. Your depth of spiritual concepts and philosophy is so meager that I might as well try to explain e-mail to an aborigine sitting in a cave in the Australian desert.
3. You are already starting to pull out the old “we cannot question why God does this” argument, which basically means “We Christians don’t know, so nobody else can know, because we are the only people who count,” which doesn’t lend itself to an interesting discussion.
I am thankful that your brand of Christianity is not very prevalent.
So take joy in your ‘victory for Jesus’, I am leaving for more fertile fields than this barren one.
I would like to point out that you don’t give your “explanation” of reincarnation and karma. How is my explanation flawed? You do good, you return “better”; you do bad, you return “worse”. You claim it’s been happening for all eternity so far, but at some point it will stop; and yet, you argue with my view that something eternal can actually have a starting point.
You are (again) insulting me directly; thank you. It weakens your argument.
Nowhere have I stated that we can not ask God; I said that we should not demand answers from Him. Interpret that as you will, but anyone with a passing command of English will understand it as “sometimes God doesn’t tell us”. Now, there are a lot of people who choose to make up answers for themselves, based on what they think they know already. For example, you challenged my belief that God will not condemn every unborn fetus to hell (with an interesting focus on the word “every”, on your part.) You mocked my “ignorance”, in fact. Well, the God that I know and love is a God of love and mercy. He is just, but as His whole plan for our salvation is based on His mercy, not our “deserving” it (like karma–oh, right, you don’t think it applies to spiritual concerns), I think it’s a fair statement (backed up by the Bible) that God is merciful. So, will He condemn unborn fetuses to hell? Well, I know my wife pretty well. Will she stab me in my sleep? Not likely. Can I read her mind? Do I know the future? No. But I know that she won’t stab me in my sleep, because that is not her nature. So, based on what I know of God’s nature (from the Bible and from personal experience), no, He will absolutely not condemn every unborn fetus to hell. Now, if He should give an unborn fetus’ soul a chance to choose, and that soul, knowing full-well the consequences of its choice, should choose NOT to accept Christ, then I think it’s quite fair to say that that soul would have chosen hell.
Why do you have a problem with that?
There are some things we can not know. It isn’t wrong to look for answers, but to become obsessed with what we can *not* know, and blatantly ignore what is given to us directly, is just arrogant, stubborn, willful and petty. (Funny… those are some of the things your religion is supposed to be *against*.)
You mock my “I don’t know”, but you yourself refuse to acknowledge the question “what started it all?”, claiming it’s like the atheist’s demand to know who created God. Is karma god? Is “good for good, evil for evil” going to be the way it is for all eternity? ‘Cause that would really suck… eventually, the “good” guys will slip up (again) and have to start all over? So, in the end, it really does NOT matter; do what you want, because there is no ultimate end. You see eternity stretching out *before* now, but possibly having a finite end in the future; I see eternity (for me) having started when God created me, and stretching out infinitely, forever, after this life. Which of us has more hope?
Because, if karma is *not* God, then my question about what started it all is quite valid. If you only get what you deserve, then there is no start to the cycle. You’re right, I don’t understand it. It simply doesn’t make sense. An eternal God, that makes sense; He couldn’t be God, otherwise. But unless God is part of that karmic cycle, He must have created it… which means He created beings on all parts of the cycle when He set it into motion… which means that He created some good AND SOME BAD… which means that He is NOT good. Insult my intellect and “enlightenment” if you will, but at least think for yourself for a moment; maybe your teacher was wrong, ok?
Comment:
I would like to point out that you don’t give your “explanation” of reincarnation and karma. How is my explanation flawed? You do good, you return “better”; you do bad, you return “worse”. You claim it’s been happening for all eternity so far, but at some point it will stop; and yet, you argue with my view that something eternal can actually have a starting point.
Good for good, evil for evil goes on eternally within the material universe. Souls enter and leave the material universe, so while the law is eternal, its effect upon the living entity need not be. Karma binds you to this material world, when you are freed from karma, you can leave. Why do you think Jesus died for people’s sins? To free them from their karma. He suffered the reactions to people’s sins so that they need not.
When you are convicted and jailed, you are bound by the rules of the prison. When you leave, the rules continue, but they are no longer applicable to you.
Nowhere have I stated that we cannot ask God; I said that we should not demand answers from Him. Now, there are a lot of people who choose to make up answers for themselves, based on what they think they know already. For example, you challenged my belief that God will not condemn every unborn fetus to hell. So, based on what I know of God’s nature (from the Bible and from personal experience), no, He will absolutely not condemn every unborn fetus to hell. Now, if He should give an unborn fetus’ soul a chance to choose, and that soul, knowing full-well the consequences of its choice, should choose NOT to accept Christ, then I think it’s quite fair to say that that soul would have chosen hell.
Why do you have a problem with that?
The problem is, you are guessing. I accept your reasoning, and in large part agree with it, but one cannot know with absolute certainty that that is the way it is. If God declares it is like this, then the problem is solved, but He has not said this. The very first thing I learnt when studying the Vedas is DON’T SPECULATE.
This is the problem. Your statements may be fair, logical, well-reasoned, but they are still YOUR thoughts, therefore not acceptable as scriptural evidence. You may even be right, but unless your conclusion is supported by scripture, we can never know.
There are some things we cannot know.
I disagree. God can reveal whatever He chooses to whomever He chooses, and in fact does.
ye yatha mam prapadyante
tams tathaiva bhajamy aham
You mock my “I don’t know”, but you yourself refuse to acknowledge the question “what started it all?”, claiming it’s like the atheist’s demand to know who created God. Is karma god? Is “good for good, evil for evil” going to be the way it is for all eternity? ‘Cause that would really suck… eventually, the “good” guys will slip up (again) and have to start all over? So, in the end, it really does NOT matter; do what you want, because there is no ultimate end. You see eternity stretching out *before* now, but possibly having a finite end in the future;
Stef, please do not erroneously tell me what I ‘see’. I do not see eternity as possibly having a finite end in the future; there is no end to eternity, it is the choice of the individual where he chooses to spend it.
I would have thought good for good evil for evil, would encourage people to …….be good. No? Isn’t that how the penal system works?
Because, if karma is *not* God, then my question about what started it all is quite valid. If you only get what you deserve, then there is no start to the cycle. You’re right, I don’t understand it. It simply doesn’t make sense. An eternal God, that makes sense; He couldn’t be God, otherwise. But unless God is part of that karmic cycle, He must have created it… which means He created beings on all parts of the cycle when He set it into motion… which means that He created some good AND SOME BAD… which means that He is NOT good. Insult my intellect and “enlightenment” if you will, but at least think for yourself for a moment; maybe your teacher was wrong, ok?
Well, actually no, not ok.
There is no start to the law of karma, there is only a start to the individual’s karma. God did not exist ‘in the beginning,’ in some void, on His own, with nothing to do. Along with Him all His energies exist simultaneously. The material worlds are routinely created and destroyed; this has been going on eternally. For God there is no beginning. In the beginning refers to the creation of the material world, separate from the spiritual world, which has no creation or annihilation. Billions of material universes have been created and destroyed since forever; they are nothing to do with the spiritual world which is separate.
Light and heat can be said to come from fire, but in reality they exist simultaneously. You cannot have fire without light or heat.
Similarly God and His energies have always existed simultaneously though we say that everything comes from God.
In reality He and His world and His activities and associates and multifarious potencies and laws, have all existed eternally. Only the material worlds are manifest and again dissolved, but the manifestation and annihilation has been going on eternally, it has no beginning, and will never end.
All living entities are in the image of God.
Since He is supremely independent so the living entities have minute independence. Misuse of that independence leads to sinful activity; it is the exercise of the individual’s free will that determines if he is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Everything stems from desire. Once the soul’s desire deviates from pure unalloyed loving service to the Lord, by the smallest fraction, then the possibility of entering the material world arises and subsequent domination by the law of karma follows from that. The material worlds, populated by innumerable living entities, are always being created and annihilated, a soul from the spiritual world can enter any one at any time, and come under the law of karma.
Although it is not logically possible to understand, because the number of souls in the billions of material worlds is described as innumerable, still, there are 3 times as many souls in the spiritual world who never choose to leave it and come here to the material world.
So all of us here are in a minority.
I know I have mocked you, but it is because you are a very intelligent, thoughtful and introspective person. You deserve better than ignorance. I am sure you have wrestled with many tough questions, but because you have not found satisfactory answers in the Bible, you have put them to one side. It is testament to your integrity that your faith has not been affected. Although you can accept not-knowing as being part of God’s plan, I am sure you would still be very enlivened if God were to reveal more to you. Ignorance is anathema to sincere people like you. Why not work with me to see if there are possible explanations that do not contradict Christianity, but enhance your appreciation and commitment to God.
My intention is not to mock your faith, but to stimulate you to seek and find more.
First: I appreciate the “nicer” tone to the comments, this time around. I fully understand how arguments can become rather heated, and have myself said things in ways that were somewhat less than polite. For any comments which may have been taken as offensive (whether meant that way or not), I apologize.
Now, I’d like to correct something:
“I am sure you have wrestled with many tough questions, but because you have not found satisfactory answers in the Bible, you have put them to one side.”
I HAVE found satisfactory answers in the Bible. I fully agree that ignorance is *not* bliss; and yes, should God reveal more of His plan to me, I would be grateful indeed.
However, I do not see the need to look outside of the Bible because, in order to accept the Bible, I need to accept it absolutely. Scripture that is half true is actually a worse lie than flat-out untruth. It is far more insidious to preach that “Jesus is real, He died for your sins, but you can accept Him *later*” than to preach that Jesus is not real at all. There are some issues where there is no “almost”; when you die, you are either 100% saved or 100% lost. However, people are usually more than happy with “good enough”; if you tell them that 90% is good enough, they generally won’t bother trying for 100%. So: either the Bible is 100% the Word of God, as it claims, or it is not. If it is, then it *is* the whole answer. Does it tell us all about the different kinds of angels (or “spiritual beings”) in heaven? No. It says that that is a pointless discussion. (Colossians 2:18-19 warns against those who were filling themselves with non-Biblical “knowledge” about heaven, and believing that it would help them be closer to God.)
“The problem is, you are guessing. I accept your reasoning, and in large part agree with it, but one cannot know with absolute certainty that that is the way it is. If God declares it is like this, then the problem is solved, but He has not said this. The very first thing I learnt when studying the Vedas is DON’T SPECULATE.”
IF GOD DECLARES… Well, you believe God declared the Vedas; I don’t. Which “scriptures” are from God, and which are not? There are many who accept books about seven-foot-tall aliens as scripture; I sometimes find those books entertaining, but I’m not about to drink the magic kool-aid so I can join them on the mothership.
You think the same God could write the Vedas and the Bible; according to what the Bible says, this is impossible. I’m not basing this on what the Bible “doesn’t” say; the Bible clearly teaches condemnation for those who refuse to accept Christ, which would take a soul right out of the karmic cycle (except that, of course, those who are condemned are actually getting what they deserve; it’s those who accept Christ, who are saved, who do not “deserve” their fate).
Now, as to “speculation”, I believe in a God Who gives discernment through His Holy Spirit (because that is what the Bible teaches). You call it speculation; I call it understanding. You have to do the same with your Vedic scriptures; even if you speak the language exactly as it was spoken when they were written, you do *not* live in the same culture (…internet, for one thing) and you do *not* have the same context for the language. It may be taught and passed down, teacher to student, for thousands of years, but there’s no way to actually ask the original scribe(s) what exactly was meant at the time.
If you believe *exactly* what your teacher tells you to believe, then you put yourself at his mercy… and you put yourself in serious danger, because no human being is perfect or infallible.
Finally, as to “absolute certainty”… it’s called “faith”. I am absolutely certain that my God is Who He says He is. This is no *blind* faith. I have very good *personal* reasons for believing in Him. …that’s kind of the whole point, though. You need to make a *personal* decision to serve Christ, because God wants a *personal* relationship with each one of us. This is no “do it your own way” faith; it’s a “read God’s Word, and let Him speak to your heart” faith. Yes, it can easily be abused; just look at the U.S. constitution and that whole rot about “the right to bare arms”. If one tries, one can turn a fashion statement about sleeveless clothing into the legal right to run around school with a machine gun. (Yes, the “fashion” part was a joke… however, you still have very *different* opinions around as to what exactly that phrase originally was supposed to mean.) However, if you are looking for the truth, *honestly* looking, then God can direct you to it… without needing “other” scriptures to provide the answer.
This is my answer to the “start of the law of karma”, too. Genesis says that when God created the earth, it was good. When He created Adam and Eve, they were good. Man was created as a physical being; a good being, in a good place. There was no “karma” because it wasn’t necessary; Man did not *deserve* God’s goodness, but rather, God blessed Man because God Himself is good and loving. What your scriptures say about eternity contradicts the Bible; they can’t both be true.
“”You see eternity stretching out *before* now, but possibly having a finite end in the future;”
Stef, please do not erroneously tell me what I ‘see’. I do not see eternity as possibly having a finite end in the future; there is no end to eternity, it is the choice of the individual where he chooses to spend it.”
I should have been clearer; sorry. What I meant was the “eternal karmic cycle”. What I understand from your writing, is that you believe karma to be infinite towards the past, but limited toward the future in that at some point, an individual will be ultimately judged and spend the “rest” of eternity accordingly. Perhaps I misunderstand you, but from what I can tell, you see the “eternal” karmic cycle as having a finite end, at least for individual souls. Eventually, a soul leaves the karmic cycle… forever? That’s actually something I’m not clear on: does a soul ever return to the karmic cycle? Because if it does, then there really is no ultimate fate; even if a soul is so evil that it leaves the cycle for “hell”, it can always look forward to entering the cycle again…? Or, for “good” souls that leave karma to enter “heaven”, there’s always the risk that at some point, they might have to re-enter karma…? You have used the image of a flame being separated from a fire; without fuel, it dies out. If *that* is the “bad fate” that awaits those who go to “hell”, then it’s nothing worse than what atheists believe; it’s simply “nothingness”. These results are *all* very different from what the Bible says. There’s also the problem with what *when* that “ultimate fate” gets decided. Going “upwards”, you can have lists of levels that must be attained, counting on your growing enlightenment to show you the next set of levels as you need to see it; however, going “downwards”, once you get to plants or single-celled organisms… how is God supposed to judge them? A creature that has no consciousness can have no conscience, and can not (karmically or otherwise) be held accountable for its “decisions”. How does a plankton choose to be a good plankton or a bad one? At one point, you say that your scriptures set the age of karmic responsibility at seven years. Most animals don’t live that long, so there must be a different age standard for them? I am not trying to mock, here. I simply don’t see how such a system can possibly work. I mean, to deserve a fate like hell, wouldn’t a cockroach have to work its way back up to “human” so that it could actually make decisions evil enough?
This brings me to:
“I would have thought good for good evil for evil, would encourage people to …….be good. No? Isn’t that how the penal system works?”
Sadly, no. People are inordinately lazy. It’s easier to be a little bit selfish. If the punishment isn’t that bad, then it’s easier to get the slap on the hand, and not bother improving. As a teacher, I can tell you how often I’ve had to deal with this problem: if they aren’t in danger of failing, most students will *not* do extra work. (Some will, but not the majority.) Even the danger of failing isn’t enough to make most *poor* students try harder.
The promise of passing, or even of getting an A, is also not enough. As a teacher, I have to encourage, sympathise, befriend, cajole… how much I *love* my students has much more impact on their studying then simply “good (grades) for good (effort), bad for bad”.
Looking at the lack of any real, immediate, *ultimate* penalty for doing evil… karma simply won’t be effective. Remember that the penal system only works on criminals that are caught. If my karma won’t hurt me until my next life… so what if a future reincarnation of me gets raped? *I* won’t feel it.
There is much we do seem to agree on. Remember, though, that the most effective lie is the one that is 90% true. (I’m not calling *you* a liar; reconsider, though, that if *God* did not write your Vedas, then *who* did?) I appreciate your efforts to stimulate me; I hope you appreciate, though, that my primary concern is your salvation (and that of “our” readers). God bless.
Hello Stef,
Each ‘exchange’ brings up many points, in trying to deal with them all, sometimes none get dealt with satisfactorily.
I am going to focus simply on karma this time. We can come back to other points later.
I will present everything as I have learnt it, but not include the quotes unless you request them.
Karma is an eternal principle that has always existed along with the Supreme Lord.
There is the material manifestation (which includes heaven and hell, but is finite and temporary) and there is the spiritual world which is outside of the material world and is infinite and eternal. The material creation is sometimes manifest and sometimes not.
The supreme Lord has his own planet within the material world in the heavenly regions, called Swetadwip, and it is possible to go there, it is something like an embassy. At the dissolution of the universe, Swetadwip becomes unmanifest when the rest of the universe is destroyed, and its inhabitants are transferred to the spiritual world. I think this is what Jesus spoke off, when he spoke of being with his father in heaven, but I am not an authority on the meaning of the Bible.
Now the nitty-gritty.
A soul falls down from the spiritual world due to misuse of his independence, into a material universe that already exists.
His first birth is very elevated, and in a heavenly environment.
Due to contact with the material modes of nature, goodness, passion and ignorance, the pure consciousness, although spiritual, becomes covered by the influence of the material world, because it is very tiny
If the soul does not fully surrender to the Supreme Lord, he will take another birth that is less elevated and less pleasant. This continues until the soul takes birth in mrityaloka, the earth planet, where there is a mixture of heavenly and hellish conditions.
It is here that karma is most obvious.
According to its activities the soul may return to the heavenly areas, fall to the hellish areas, take birth again on earth, or go back to the spiritual world.
These activities are categorized as karma, vikarma, and akarma.
By performing pious acts that are not spiritual, the soul is promoted to heavenly regions where it enjoys the fruits of its previous activities, and then returns to birth again on earth, in pleasant conditions, when its credit is exhausted. Technically this is called karma-kanda.
By performing vikarma, which are sinful activities, the soul falls to the hellish regions and suffers there, before taking birth again on earth, frequently in a lower species, due to its degraded consciousness. In the species below the 400,000 different types of human birth, there is no karma, but the soul progresses one birth at a time through the species which are in between it and human birth. Animals, birds, fish etc, are not held responsible for their activities, I guess that’s why not many end up in court, even in America. Not surprisingly the progression is very similar to the evolution charts, because the consciousness is gradually being reformed to that of a human again. We can understand that a cockroach has a different consciousness to a sheep dog, or a horse. This is due to the density of the covering (ignorance) that has covered it. Each birth, the reaction is decreased till human is reached again.
We can similarly see in humans, that there is a wide range of different consciousness, but underneath the subtle covering of illusion, (I am this body) every soul is eternally pure, and full of bliss and knowledge.
The more sinful a person, the lower he falls into the lower species, and the more his consciousness is covered.
If one’s pious and sinful activities roughly balance out, then you skip heaven and hell and take birth again as a human with your consciousness carried over from the previous birth, and you enjoy and suffer the reactions due to you, while creating more.
As a human , on the earth planet there is once more a chance for ending it all, which is done by activities described as akarma.
These are spiritual activities that carry no material reaction.
A spiritual activity is any activity that is offered for the pleasure of the Lord or His devotees and is accepted by the Lord. There is no karma for such activities. If the Lord is pleased by the sincere efforts of His devotee then He, being the master of the material world can release the soul from its illusion and bring it back to be with Him.
At the time of dissolution of the material universe, all the souls remain in a state of suspended consciousness where they are unconscious, and when the material universe is again manifest, they take birth again where they left off in their previous birth.
We exist in one universe that is finite and temporary. It is like a hollow ball or bubble.
There are billions and billions of similar universes all of which are populated just as ours is.
They are described as being as numerous as bubbles in the foam of the ocean.
All of them together form a ‘cloud’ in the spiritual sky and constitutes the material manifestation.
Karma is totally absent from the spiritual world, because everything is done for the pleasure of the supreme Lord.
Karma is absent from the hellish planets, as there is only suffering there, no free choice. It is like a prisoner in restraints in solitary confinement in a maximum security facility. He actually has no scope for criminal activities. When the reactions are largely finished, he returns to experience whatever is left, on the earth planet in whatever species he deserves, and finally as a human again at which point he once more, after millions of years, has a chance to end it all by serving the Lord.
There is very little karma in the heavenly areas as everything is so nice that people are naturally content and peaceful. Again, once the pious credits are exhausted the soul falls to earth for another chance to end it all. It is possible to exit the material world from the heavenly planets, but there is not much incentive as everything is so nice.
It is not possible to exit from the hellish planets, unless a devotee of the Lord visits there and saves you, and that is rare.
Planet earth is the best exit terminal because we experience both pain and pleasure, and see others worse and better off than us. It is a rare opportunity to break free from the cycle of repeated birth and death that has trapped all the foolish souls who came here.
This is a very broad overview, and there are many refinements, exceptions, and intricacies, that there is no time or space for now.
I know some of this will jar with you, but stay flexible and see the logic and brilliance of the arrangement.
written in haste so forgive any typos,
Jaya guru,
Perrari
Thanks for the explanation. It is a very attractive belief. It is not illogical, nor can I say it is “hateful” in anyway… as you say, there *is* logic and brilliance to the design.
*But*… it completely disagrees with the Bible. I won’t apologize for repeating this argument, although I am truly sorry if my stubborness frustrates you. It’s just that if karma is “true”, then Jesus died for nothing. Jesus died to save my soul from *eternal* damnation. There is no “purgatory” in the (Christian) Bible simply because there is no possibility to “pay” for one’s sins; compared to God’s perfect righteousness, there is no way I can ever work my way back into deserving less than hell, and for Tony’s sake, I will clarify that by “hell” here, I mean the Biblical teaching of an eternal damnation to eternal torment, eternally separated from God’s love, with NO hope of ever being released, EVER. *That* is what the Bible teaches as “hell”; it is no temporary “behavioural correction facility”.
Likewise, the Biblical teaching of “heaven” (in the sense of the salvation given through faith in Christ, by the grace of God) is an *eternity* of freedom from sin, NEVER AGAIN to suffer penalty to the law, never again to be *under* the law; where there is no law, there can be no sin. It won’t be anarchy, because sin will no longer exist; God’s love will be everywhere, so there will be no temptation to evil. (I know the “boring” argument, but in truth, you don’t need darkness to make light “interesting”; after all, there is infinite variation in colour.)
This is why the Vedas is irreconcilable with the Bible. Yes, karma is a “beautifully” detailed and stunningly intelligent design… so is Feng Shui… so is geomancy… so is the argument of evolutionary progression… but it is no accident that the Bible warns against the “wisdom of man”, which is “foolishness to God”. I have to return to this conclusion, and hope that others will see it as well: if I am wrong, I lose nothing. However, I am absolutely certain of my faith in Christ. It would be so much simpler to believe in karma, in a way, because I really wouldn’t “have to get it right, first time ’round”. God doesn’t delineate the rules and regulations for everything in the Bible for a pretty good reason, you know; He tried that with the Jews, His chosen people, and they ended up largely trying to do just the bare minimum to get by. They “played by the rules”; God wants us to “play by love”. So, no, the Bible doesn’t specify which kind of person is allowed which kind of belief, or state that “the mentally ill are exempt”, or clarify the exact procedure for judgement of those born in places where the Bible has never been preached… but it does say that God is a loving and merciful God, and if I believe that He is as He claims, then I don’t need a list of regulations as detailed as American tax law. I *know* that God is just, but also merciful, because that’s what the Bible says, and that’s how He has revealed Himself to me. “Getting it right, first time ’round” is not cruel or unfair or arbitrary or whimsical; the more you understand the God of the Bible, the more you come to realize that it is, quite simply, the one best solution to the problem of mankind deserving eternal damnation. There is beauty in simplicity, too.
One more thing: in your answer to Tony, you point out that karma has no need for an entity such as Satan. The Bible clearly (NOT “just metaphorically”) states that Satan is real, that he is an enemy of God, and that God allows his existence temporarily so as to offer us a choice; the devil is NOT in any way God’s “equal”; he is, quite literally, a fallen angel; and, he seeks to hurt God by taking as many of us to hell (eternal damnation) with him as he can. *ANY* book that teaches otherwise, contradicts the Bible. If your enlightenment shows you that an omnipotent God “can not” allow the existence of Satan… then just think for a moment that, if Satan really does exist, how much more effective his lies are if he can convince you not to believe in him!
I believe that the Bible is, as it claims to be, the inspired Word of God. This belief is incompatible with evolution, reincarnation, the Qur’an, the Vedas…
I am no fanatic; I do not burn “evil scriptures”; I do not beat my friends with a Bible. HOWEVER, I love my God, and He loves *you*; that means that I also love you (however imperfect my love is, and however flawed my way of expressing it); that means, I do *not* want you to go to hell! I am sorry that I do not love you as much as God does; there are no tears in my eyes as I write this. Perhaps that is why I am unable to fully express the urgency of you accepting Christ, and Christ alone, as your salvation.
I do believe you are searching for truth. God will not hide from those who honestly, sincerely seek Him.
God bless, brother.
Thank you Stef for your reply, I am not in the least disappointed, and you need not apologize for anything. I am delighted I could explain a tiny aspect of the Vedic literatures so that you could appreciate it.
I never really thought you would buy into it, but it pains me when the Vedas are described as rubbish.
It is not my job to try and change or challenge your faith, I simply have to present the Vedic view point and let you decide.
In some cultures monogamy is law, in others polygamy is allowed. Having chosen your spouse in a monogamistic (?) society, the honorable thing to do is to stick with that person even if someone else attractive catches your eye. But that does not mean that you cannot appreciate the beauty and good qualities of another person.
If the Bible prohibits you from accepting teachings from outside its contents then I respect that.
But ………there is no reason to think that if karma is true Jesus died for nothing. Karma is what binds us to rebirth of this world. Karma is the reaction to our activities. Unless freed from those reactions we cannot be released from this world. Jesus accepted the reactions of men upon himself by suffering and dying on the cross, thus eliminating their karma and paving the way for their salvation. Life in the material world is actually miserable and hellish wherever you are, because there is a veil that separates us from God, and we are stuck here eternally unless someone like Jesus descends to get us out. (Let us not get into whether there is anyone else like Jesus………….at least not now). So in the words of the Vedas we are nitya baddha, or eternally trapped here, in a hellish condition separated from our Lord. Eternally damned you could say.
Jesus promises to take his followers to his father who is in heaven, this is either a reference to the spiritual world, or to Swetadwipa within the material world, either way the result is the same, eternal liberation from the hellish material world.
This is a core teaching in the Vedas. One must surrender to a guru/teacher, and take initiation from him, (baptism). Your spiritual master absorbs your karma that has not yet fructified, and so frees you from the need to suffer for it and take another birth. But the disciple has to follow the spiritual master very faithfully from then on. Jesus is performing that service for his sincere followers. It is entirely consistent with the law of karma and the Vedas.
The only fly in the ointment is whether an eternally damned person ever gets a second, third fourth etc. chance to be saved. Well, you accept God as fair, merciful and loving, think hard on this one point, and ponder deeply that if quite ordinary men can give others multiple chances, never mind loving, caring fathers dealing with their children, perhaps there is another way to understand how, why, or what the Bible says to you.
A quick comment on your grouping of Feng sui, Geomancy and evolution.
Feng shui is a legitimate science derived from Vastu shastra and geomancy descends from a section of the arthava veda that deals with portents, omens and sign reading, although somewhat diluted now, it originates from a legitimate science. Both are true in that when correctly applied they deliver. Just like the law of karma.
Evolution of species and universes is bogus and not supported be any scripture or factual evidence. But because the consciousness evolves through different species, and according to one’s consciousness one’s body is formed, it has a semblance of reality, but actually contributes nothing beneficial to society. I do not find it beautiful since it tries to steal credit from the Lord and frequently encourages atheism.
On the topic of the devil. As mentioned before, he does not appear anywhere in the Vedas, his entry on the world stage comes later via Zoroastrianism, and from there into the Abrahamic religions. Zoroasta IS mentioned in the Bhavisya purana, part of the Vedas that deals with the future, and it describes that he will be born into a Brahmin family, but will concoct his own religion, based on the Vedic literatures, and subsequently be driven out of Bharatvarsa (India), by the orthodox Brahmins. He will introduce the concept that evil comes from a source separate from God, who is all good and therefore incapable of evil. When this concept matured into a distinct personality is not clear, it is possible that his followers introduced this, but it spread rapidly outside of India because it nicely explains the duality of the material world under the control of an omnipotent all loving God.
I actually don’t want to discuss this, but as usual, I am just presenting what the Vedas said thousands of years ago.
I guess we are pretty much done here now, since I have presented the Vedic answer to the issue of ‘If God was really powerful and good, he wouldn’t allow so much evil and suffering to go on” and you have understood the concepts, and no one else seems interested.
Please do not worry for my future, as you yourself have said:
“I do believe you are searching for truth. God will not hide from those who honestly, sincerely seek Him.”
I would just like to leave with the thought:
What do you think you would believe if you had grown up in a Vaishnava family, studying the Vedas, and later came across Christianity?
Now I must deal with Tony who is crying for attention again!
Hare Krishna,
Perrari.
“Now I must deal with Tony who is crying for attention again!”
You two must be quite thick headed or blind to believe that there are only the two of you in this world or who are knowledgeable enough to express in this Forum, or to believe that I will be greatly benefited in some way by gaining your attention.
One of you believe that there is nothing in this created universe outside of his bible, and the other believes that whatever he sees while riding high on a shot of ecstasy or cheap Indian charas, to be the ultimate secret truths God is sharing exclusively with him.
Anyway, it is quite amusing to read your ramblings, and shall continue to pour some oil to keep the fire alight.
War monger.
“What do you think you would believe if you had grown up in a Vaishnava family, studying the Vedas, and later came across Christianity?”
This is a good question; likewise, I could ask what you would believe if you had grown up in a Christian home, and then come across the Vedas. ;p
It is very hard to say. I would *like* to say that I would accept Christ when He revealed Himself to me… perhaps, though, the answer is that I was born into a Christian home because God knew that that was the only way I would accept Him (rather a humbling thought). For those not born into Christian homes, I guess there would be two possibilities: God knows that they will accept Christ in spite of (or even because of) their non-Christian background, or that they won’t accept Him no matter what background they come from. (This does come uncomfortably close to “predestination”, which is a “fun” topic in itself, but perhaps not really related to the question discussed on this page.)
I am glad that we are “ending” on a good note. I do still disagree with your statement “there is no reason to think that if karma is true Jesus died for nothing”, and you probably realize that according to the Bible, things like Geomancy are actually condemned as witchcraft (the “simple” argument being that it allows people to look for power and/or prophecy that does *not* directly come from God… of course, there are those who argue that even astrology is of God, no matter what the Bible says). However, I would like to think that we have shared our beliefs, understood and appreciated each other’s positions, and come to a “friendly” disagreement.
Thank you for the time you have put into this discussion. Methinks that, rather like *some* of the others with whom I have argued on this site, you and I would have a good chance at friendship should we meet some time on the street. …Actually, I do hope to see you some day.
God bless… and good luck with Tony. ;p
It is my experience that in ‘inter-faith’ discussion, (which is what ours has been, rather than a philosophical debate)that nothing changes. Anyone convinced enough to speak up for their beliefs is unlikely to change them.
But as you suggest it is nice to see other’s explanations and view points, even if we are not ‘buying’
I WAS brought up (loosely) as a Christian. Being frequently in trouble I prayed a lot, at the apparent ‘unfairness’ of it all. I don’t feel I have betrayed Christ by adding more knowledge. This is NOT an area we should explore, please.
I am glad you feel we could be friends, I agree, mutual respect should not be abandoned simply because of different faiths, even if only one can be right!
If you ever have a need to know the Gaudiya Vaishnava perspective on any topic, or the Vedic view on ANY issue, I hope you will contact me emjidee@gmail.com
Jay Nitai.
” no need for an entity such as Satan. The Bible clearly (NOT “just metaphorically”) states that Satan is real,”
Satan is negative of a saint; more or less like negative energy or negative temperature or negative matter (anti-matter which exists).
Something becomes negative depending on where we keep the datum for measuring.
Satan is a person or force or power which tempts another to slip from a higher standards of morality or quality to lower standards.
So Jesus calls Peter a “satan” when he tries to tempt him; even though Peter is not a satan but a saint to most of the other men.
“see the logic and brilliance of the arrangement.”
Indeed, I see the logic and the brilliance of the arrangement. You make it sound like a well lubricated Rolls Royce engine. The design and workmanship is like that of some perpetual motion machines some inventors fabricated a few hundred years ago; when man had not yet heard about entropy, and theory of chaos, and Second law of Thermodynamics. Today we know that Perpetual motion machines will never work how ever well they are lubricated. Even our earth will slow down and eventually spiral into the sun, and the sun also will get depleted and stop giving out radiation. It is not a perpetual machine. It all had a beginning, and will have an end, unlike the eternally running engine you have described. This very big toy will run only as long as the battery lasts, and even the toy will wear out after some time. At every level, we need a Father who will provide new batteries or money to buy new batteries and a new toy when it wears out.
How-ever much intricate or complicated you may make your perpetual motion machine, you will not be able to escape the fact that you need an external cleaner, or arranger in your system to throw out garbage and arrange the things strewn around. The baby alone will not be able to do it. He will need a loving, caring parent to clean his room and arrange the toys he has strewn around. She should love him so much that she will repeatedly forgive the stubborn child who insists on dirtying himself and messing up his room at the first available opportunity. Any amount of Law, or Karma will not help to keep the room clean.
The energy or battery or electricity or willpower to run our world does not come from Karma, but unconditional love from its creator and Father.
Karma cannot replace God or His Love. Even if the Spiritual and Material worlds are run on Karmic principles, there still has to be another powerhouse or battery to give fuel to the Karmic engine.
Why should we prostrate before lesser gods when we have direct access to OUR GOD who loves us?
Brahma Samhita 5.54: I adore the primeval Lord Govinda, who burns up to their roots all fruitive activities of those who are imbued with devotion and impartially ordains for each the due enjoyment of the fruits of one’s activities, of all those who walk in the path of work, in accordance with the chain of their previously performed works, no less in the case of the tiny insect that bears the name of indragopa than in that of Indra, king of the devas.
Congratulations Tony, you have got it right, as confirmed by the above verse.
Laws need at least one law-maker, here The Supreme Lord is recognized as the functioning principle behind the law of action and reaction, giving everyone their due reactions and destroying the reactions of those imbued with devotion.
Brahma Samhita 5.49 I adore the primeval Lord Govinda from whom the separated subjective portion Brahma receives his power for the regulation of the mundane world,
Here the Supreme Lord is credited with supplying the power or battery, that you posit is necessary for maintaining the universe.
Well done again.
BS 5.51: The three worlds are composed of the nine elements, viz., fire, earth, ether, water, air, direction, time, soul and mind. I adore the primeval Lord Govinda from whom they originate, in whom they exist and into whom they enter at the time of the universal cataclysm.
You correctly note that it all had a beginning and will have an end.
Here the Supreme Lord is credited with the beginning and end of the three worlds that make up the material creation. (heaven, hell, earth)
Score another point.
As for the loving caring parent, well here the nanny is mentioned.
BS 5.44: The external potency Maya who is of the nature of the shadow of the cit potency, is worshiped by all people as Durga, the creating, preserving and destroying agency of this mundane world. I adore the primeval Lord Govinda in accordance with whose will Durga conducts herself.
But please note that she acts according to the will of the Supreme Lord.
Any more nice realizations you would like to share before I have my next cheap Indian chara
“You correctly note that it all had a beginning and will have an end.
Here the Supreme Lord is credited with the beginning and end of the three worlds that make up the material creation. (heaven, hell, earth)”
So a soul will not have infinite opportunities to pull up his socks. If he does not straighten up within the life span of the worlds, he has to perish; which is contradicting your statement that souls never perish, but keep on taking different life forms till they are good enough for birth in the spiritual realm.
Whoa there Tony, slow down and reread the verse. It says that the three worlds are destroyed, not the souls.
The souls survive, and along with the matter of the dissloved universes, they enter into the body of Karanadaksayi Visnu, to be born again when the next universal creation takes place, and take up where they left off in their previous life.
The soul never perishes, unless the Lord desires to extinguish him forever, and so far I have never read of any instance of that happening.
Also I never said that souls keep on taking birth until they are good enough for birth in the spiritual realm.
They keep on taking birth until someone from the spiritual realm saves them and takes them back there.
Any luck with Srila Vyasadev’s pantheism quote, or are you busy preparing your apology?
The souls survive, and along with the matter of the dissloved universes, they enter into the body of Karanadaksayi Visnu, to be born again when the next universal creation takes place, and take up where they left off in their previous life.
The soul never perishes, unless the Lord desires to extinguish him forever, and so far I have never read of any instance of that happening.
When some experts, scholars, or doctors are cornered by simple logic, they suddenly start speaking jargon. Are you adopting the same technique.
Using your technique, I shall show you that 1 = 10
1 Karanadaksayi = 5 urangootans
But in Shama shastra, 1 urangootan = 0.5 Karanadaksayi, because at day break, the kundalini is erect and vertical.
So by evening (which is the Kali kal in which we are today, kundalini becomes horizontal, Therefore,
1 Karanadaksayi= 2 urangootans = 10Karanadaksay
Therefore 1 = 10.
Any luck with Srila Vyasadev’s pantheism quote, or are you busy preparing your apology?
First of all I do not know whether Srila Vyasadev is a man or woman or an animal, and I honestly don’t care. or is he another Acharya Rajneesh?, or Swamy Nithyananda? on Ecstasy?
You said that one Srila Vyasadeva has recorded so much of what God said, word for word which is faithfully recorded in Bhagavad Gita, Srimad Bhagavatam, Visnu purana, and many more Sanskrit texts which is Hinduism.
The Hinduism I know and what the world knows of has thousands of Gods and goddesses. So you are the one who should tell us of verses in which God talks to Mr. Srila about multiple Gods.
Another reason I didn’t take your posting seriously is because You said
“Srila Vyasadev wrote more than 1,000,000 verses. Even if Mr. Srila started writing as soon as he was born, and he wrote 1 verse every hour, and worked 8 hours a day working through Sundays and other holidays, he would have had to live for over 300 years to complete 1,000,000 verses full of philosophical and religious truths.
I can imagine God giving 10 commandments to Moses in one day on a tablet, but I am not yet high enough on Ecstacy to conceive of Mr. Srila recording (on palm leaf, or clay tablets?) 1000000 verses in a life time.
This is one of the reasons I don’t take the Koran also seriously.
In contrast, the Bible was written by so many authors through thousands of years.
I hope you understand why I will not waste my time researching Mr. Srila’s 1000000 verses
Tony:
1,000,000 verses, perhaps over 50(?) years, amounts to 20,000 verses per year; assuming only 200 days of “work” per year (so he can have weekends and holidays off), that’s still only 100 verses a day. Assuming a “verse” to be on average 1-2 sentences long, we’re looking at less than your standard European university student regularly has for homework (assuming that his teachers actually assign written work).
Not impossible.
(I’m also learning that it’s not impossible to *respectfully* disagree.) ;p
Hi Mr. Das,
Don’t get dis-heartened and leave so soon, especially when your postings are becoming interesting and thought provoking.
I can understand why you logically require “re-incarnation” to implement justice for all souls. And that is probably why Catholic scholars had to “invent” a “Purgatory” which Stef would not accept because nothing is mentioned about it in the Bible.
The discussion will become more interesting if Stef understands and accepts that there are a lot of Truths not mentioned in the Gospels or the Bible. Jesus could not have taught all the truths in the universe to his disciples in 33 years. The 4 gospels would not be able to contain all the truths that Jesus taught. Jesus taught many things in parables, because the actual truth could not be expressed otherwise. So what is actually taught is not their exact literal meanings implied by the texts. For instance, wheat and tares do not mean wheat and tares, but children of the kingdom and children of the wicked one. Sheep and goats mean the Lord’s people and those of a different spirit or disposition.
Even in the scriptures, we can (if we look for them) references to indicate that there are more places other than Heaven Earth and Hell.
Stef will accept that “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God (Psalm 9:17); but will he accept that they will be re-turned there; that the passage, correctly translated, reads, “The wicked shall be returned into hell, all the nations that forget God” – showing that there are nations which go into hell once, come out of hell, learn of God, forget him and are returned there.
Stef will accept (Jude 11) that Korah, or Core, went to hell; but does he know that he was accompanied to this place by his house, by all his household goods, and two other establishments similarly equipped? (Numbers 16:32, 33)
Stef will accept that the Sodomites went to hell (Genesis 19), but he should also accept that they were accompanied by the city in which they lived and that there are other cities there? (Matthew 11:23)
Stef will agree that many heathen warriors of long ago went to hell, but will have difficulty in accepting that they took with them their weapons of war, and that their swords are there now, under their heads, with what is left of their bones? (Ezekiel 32:27)
We may understand that the wealthy go to hell, but how many know that in the same place are sheep, gray hairs, worms, dust, trees and water? Psalm 49:14; Job 17:13-16; Ezekiel 31:16
We may all know that bad men go to hell, but how many of us know that the ancient worthies, Jacob and Hezekiah, fully expected to go there, and that faithful Job prayed to go there? (Genesis 37:35; Job 14:13)
We may think that those who go to hell go there to stay forever, but how many of us know that Samuel said, “The Lord killeth and maketh alive; he bringeth down to hell and bringeth up” out of hell, and that David said, that God has the same power to aid those in hell that he has to bless those in heaven? (1 Samuel 2:6; Psalm 139:8)
We may think that those who go into hell never come out, and that there is no record that any have come out, yet there are at least two persons in history who have been in hell and come out of hell. One is Jonah, who prayed in hell and was delivered from hell (Jonah 2:2); and the other is Christ, whose soul went to hell, but “his soul was not left in hell,” for God raised him up out of it. (Acts 2:31) And when Christ came out of hell he brought with him “the keys of hell” and now has the power and the right to set all its captives free. Revelation 1:18, 19
Thank you Tony for a slight hint of appreciation for the Vedic version. (No sarcasm inherent this time )
It is difficult for me to discuss concepts on this forum because there is no framework within which a debate can take place.
The Bible has a checkered history in terms of accuracy and interpretation. Without the original words spoken, it is hard to examine what each verse means, and without commentaries from self-realized saints for reference, it becomes a nightmare of doubt, confusion and dogmatic opinions.
I am trying to present the Vedic perspective without any personal modification or change from how I have heard it from my teacher. The Vedas are voluminous and intricate, it is very easy to get lost amongst their teachings without a guide who has diligently studied and realized the knowledge from his teacher. Thus there are four accepted lines of Vaisnava disciplic succession going back to antiquity, and only someone who has been accepted into one of such lines can speak with any authority.
In philosophical debates on the nature of the absolute, as soon as ‘perhaps’ ‘maybe’ or ‘in my opinion’ etc.(WHAT TO SPEAK OF I DON’T KNOW)comes up in a statement, the speaker is considered fool number one.
Many Truths cannot be understood straight away, but faith in the teacher leads to realization of them in due course of time.
There has to be a process to purify the heart so that the jnana can become vijnana, or book knowledge becomes directly perceived knowledge.
I appreciate your quotes and comments regarding hell, but the information from the Bible comes to us piecemeal, sometimes allegorically, and occasionally contradictory
There are very precise and detailed descriptions of hell in the 5th canto of Srimad Bhagavatam.
There are seven levels of hellish planets described, each one consisting of many many hellish areas, and as you descend lower they become increasingly worse. Their locations are mentioned. There are descriptions of which sins lead to which hell. There are descriptions of how the living entity is taken there. It is described for how long he has to stay there. Similarly there are seven levels of higher planetary systems with heavenly delights that have no equivalent on earth.
But both heaven and hell are within the material universe and are under the jurisdiction of God, so are considered inconsequential to transcendentalists, who are interested only in the spiritual world outside of the material universe.
The Vaisnava scriptures, do not mention any such person as the devil.
Logically the devil makes no sense, as a competitor to God, as someone beyond the reach of God, as someone who interferes with God’s plan for mankind and the universe, as someone who can cause suffering to innocent people.
By definition, God means the person who has full power over everyone else. Nothing and no one can interfere with His system and plan. Whatever is happening is going on under His direction. As the Vedas say, ‘not a blade of grass moves without the sanction of the Supreme Lord’ and ‘the sun rises, the winds blow and the rains fall according to the direction of the Supreme Lord.’
But this is an advanced understanding, (that this world is actually perfect in all respects,) and easily leads to abuse, or cries of foul, by less intelligent and base-natured (low class)people. So to explain the ‘apparently bad stuff’, the devil is invoked, as if it is he that keeps thwarting God’s plan for happiness, and screwing things up.
A cursory glance at the dictionary definition of ‘God’ and ‘omnipotent’ renders such a concept invalid, and actually raises more questions than it answers.
There are no rogue angels, or rogue anything else in the Lord’s creation. Absolutely everything is totally under the Lord’s control at all times, through His different energies.
But highly sensitive horrors like child abuse, rape, torture, genocide etc, cannot be stomached by the average man as the work of God……so what to do?
The higher understanding is that everything is under the control of God including all the ‘evil’, and the logical explanation as well as the Vedic version is simple.
PAYBACK.
I am used to discussing different perspectives of the same scriptures with other people who have learnt a slightly different view point from their teacher. There is no right or wrong, but rather different levels.
To give a mundane example.
What does ‘love’ mean?
I love chocolate.
I love Mummy.
I love my wife.
I love my children.
I love my girlfriend
I love my country.
I love God.
I love rock n roll.
Given the above 8 examples we can discuss the different meanings of love.
We may disagree on which is the highest form of love, but we have a framework within which to work.
1 the English language. ( as learnt from our teacher)
2 dictionary definitions. ( authoritative texts)
3 shared experiences. (Our realizations)
4 the above 8 statements. (examples in real life)
At a later stage we may even discuss what it means to ‘make’ love. Whole new area with a deeper understanding that needs a certain level of maturity . If it is introduced too early a child may declare that his father ‘makes’ love with his daughter, instead of just saying he loves her, and lead to serious misunderstandings.
But if we cannot agree on
1. The correct use of English
2. Which dictionary we both accept,
3. Have never loved our mother, eaten chocolate, loved a girlfriend, married etc., on what grounds will we discuss anything?
I am interested in the Christian religion, but compared to Vedic texts I find much of it obscure and incomplete, and to date, have found no one from within or without the many churches sufficiently God realized to answer all my questions with scriptural evidences. Moreover the doctrine seems to keep changing as the years go by. Now condoms are allowed in some cases for Catholics. I believe elements of evolution are now accepted by mainstream Christianity. I expect some day, in some cases, abortion will also be sanctioned, due to ignorance of what will happen at some future date to those responsible for the act.
An understanding of karma and reincarnation is essential to know what will result from what actions, and so give a code by which to live. Its absence from the western world is creating havoc in society, particularly since Christianity with its codes of morality and decency is losing credibility by not having proper answers to the tough questions.
I am happy to discuss any topic, but I will always give the Vedic scriptures’ view point, as taught to me by my spiritual master who is coming in the Brahma Madhava Gaudiya sampradaya. I cannot debate from the Bible because I have never been taught it properly.
@perrari das
Kudos for your efforts in putting forth the Hindu beliefs which the world badly requires to come out of a state of conflict. I have also sometimes commented on this blog, but frankly, I am not knowledgeable enough to enter into deep discussions as you have.
As long as people of various beliefs keep on insisting that their God is the only true God, there will always be conflict.
I believe, as an Hindu – the God is God only. Period. If we could understand Him fully we would be like Gods. So no point in being blind to other faiths. All are different facets of a Reality – so big that no mortal soul can grasp it fully.
Just a passing remark – for all the claims of superiority by Christianity, you have rightly pointed out how this faith adapts itself to the changing reality – like allowing the condoms. Then claiming the credit for Democracy. Then claiming the credit for the concept of equality.
I will just like to say – this is evolution. This same Christianity subjugated our country, and drained it of its resources, now it is tom-toming about equality!
“for all the claims of superiority by Christianity, you have rightly pointed out how this faith adapts itself to the changing reality – like allowing the condoms. Then claiming the credit for Democracy. Then claiming the credit for the concept of equality.
I will just like to say – this is evolution. This same Christianity subjugated our country, and drained it of its resources, now it is tom-toming about equality!”
I think that you are confused between religion and politics. Christians generally don’t live Christian lives and cannot be used as an example to disprove Christianity.
Hinduism is not a false religion because of what a Kalmadi, or a Chotta Rajan did, as much as Islam is not an evil religion because of a Haji Masthan or an Osama Bin Laden.
I won’t try to defend what European/English culture has “justified” in the name of the church. I will however, understandably, deny that such activities as the Crusades and the subjugation of India (etc…) have anything at all to do with true Christianity.
So, I disagree with your statement “This same Christianity subjugated our country, and drained it of its resources, now it is tom-toming about equality!” basically in that it is *not* the same Christianity, any more than the Islam that killed thousands on 9/11 is the “same” Islam that *most* Muslems today practice, nor is *your* Hinduism the “same” as that which has killed thousands(?) of non-Hindus throughout South-East Asia. Can a true Hindu justify the *cultural* practice of discrimination against lower castes? Or is that really the mis-interpretation of your scriptures, applied to allow those in power to remain in power (and other such abuses)?
Do not confuse the Catholic church with Christianity, nor the cultural/political practices of the “West” with true Christian faith. ;p
(To be clear: I am not suggesting that Islam or Hinduism are in any way compatible with the message of Christ; I am simply pointing out that demonizing them undeservedly, by placing on them responsibility for all acts of cruelty performed by their respective countries/governments, is NOT going to help in any way.)
If you claim that democracy came out of Christianity, then you have to accept the responsibility for the political acts of Christians.
That’s why I said “this is evolution”.
…”nor is *your* Hinduism the “same” as that which has killed thousands(?) of non-Hindus throughout South-East Asia.”
— I don’t know what you are talking about! Such false claims are made to malign Hinduism, and to show that all religions have a dark side. No such acts were ever committed by Hindus.
Caste system is not a part of Hindu religion. In India you will also find “Lower Caste Christians”. There are separate Churches for “lower caste Christians” and “upper caste Christians”!
For understanding how Caste system took its present form, please read an Englishman Nicholas B. Dirk’s “The Castes Of Mind”.
Don’t forget that India has just come out of 1000 years of Foreign subjugation.
I’m not sure what you mean by “you have to accept responsibility for…” or what I would be doing if I did.
Equality came from Paul’s statement in Galatians. Christians do a lot of things that the New Testament forbids. Doesn’t make me or the Bible responsible for their behavior.
Who claims that democracy came from Christianity? It sure ain’t in the Bible.
“– I don’t know what you are talking about! Such false claims are made to malign Hinduism, and to show that all religions have a dark side. No such acts were ever committed by Hindus.”
You’re right, of course. No Hindus have ever commited acts of evil. No Hindus have ever killed anyone. Everyone who claims to be Hindu is incapable of violence. There is no murder or rape in the Hindu areas of the world.
Would you suggest that no government of a primarily Hindu people has ever gone to war? Would you suggest that none of the Hindu princes ever led attacks on others?
Yes, Hinduism is basically a non-violent faith. This does not mean that it has never been abused as a means of power. And as to the caste system, no, it’s not a major part of the Vedic scriptures (as I have been told), but it IS indeed a major part of the culture where Hinduism is the major belief, and very few Hindus (I don’t say “none”!) have ever spoken out against it. On the other hand, “caste” is specifically condemned in the Bible, and any “Christian” church which actively supports the caste system is about as “Christian” as a “church” which encourages ancestor worship or animism. Some churches may not deal with it as a major issue, recognizing that you may accept Christ regardless of your place in society; having a church for the poor, or for the foreigners, or for those who live in a certain area, does not “support” the caste system unless members of other castes are discriminated against.
As to “superiority”: if you aren’t claiming that Hinduism is “superior”, then why are you going on about how all the other religions are “evil”? You think your faith is better, which is why you believe what you believe. You don’t *have* to start arguments; just because your religion doesn’t place great emphasis on “sharing your faith” doesn’t mean that ours is wrong for doing so. In fact, it seems to me to be rather selfish to “know what is right” and try to keep it to yourself.
Is it any “better” to allow evil to happen than to actually cause it yourself? How many have needlessly suffered and died because some pacifist stood quietly by and refused to do what is right?
One last thing: India is (as of 2001, more or less) at least 80% Hindu. Will you pretend that all of India’s skirmishes with neighbouring countries are purely the responsibility of the evil occupying British government? You’ve had independence for sixty years, now. Either own up, or stop blaming Christianity for the stupidity of human governments.
No need to go into a verbal overdrive. I have said all that I wanted to say on Caste in my reply above.
If you really want to discuss Caste system, you can take part in a no-holds-barred open discussion on Cast system started by Shantanu on the following link-
http://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/10/09/hinduism-caste-system-and-discrimination/
Yes, there are separate Churches for “Upper Castes” and for “Lower Caste” Christians in India. Lower castes are not allowed to enter upper caste Churches. Upper Caste Christians don’t marry their children with lower chaste Christians.
Why don’t *you* own it?
And don’t forget your own history regarding slavery while you are on the topic. And the inferior spiritual status accorded to women.
On the other hand, many of the Hindu Goddesses are, of course, women! Women can and do become priestesses in temples.
India and Hinduism has given a lot to the world. But Western (Christian) world suffers amnesia when it is time to give credit where it is due.
Yoga and Transcendental Meditation, are both a gift of Vedic tradition to the world. But you never acknowledge it.
Read more on the topic here –
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/aseem_shukla/2010/04/nearly_twenty_million_people_in.html
And read some history before commenting on Indian Kings and Princes.
You’ve said all you wanted to say… and yet you’ve said more, so you’ll forgive me for replying. ;p
My point was NOT that there are no churches that follow the caste system, but that those churches do not represent true Christianity. (You have to read the comments.)
So, “Western” culture used to (and still does) minimalize women. So does Eastern culture. If Hinduism doesn’t… so what? Yay, your culture got something right. “Equal rights for all!” Oh, wait, no, that’s not true.
Slavery? Go back far enough in any culture, and you find slavery. Today, it’s called “working in a shoe factory”. Again, what’s your point?
Have I suggested anywhere that Hinduism and India (as you put them together) are nothing but a black hole, sucking the goodness out of “better” people elsewhere? Have I suggested in any way that “my” culture is better than yours?
Maybe it’s my experience as a teacher that helps me recognize this problem, but “If you don’t read the question/comment, you won’t get the right answer!”
I’ve already said that I won’t try to defend what Western culture has done in the “name” of Christianity. Yes, there were evil people who did evil things. There still are. My point is that just because somebody *says* that he’s killing “in God’s Name” does NOT mean that he has God’s sanction. Is that too hard? I could go about killing innocent Westerners, and claim to be a Hindu. Does that condemn all Hinduism?
So what about Yoga and meditation. I don’t practice it, and couldn’t really care less. It came from India. There, I’ve acknowledged it. Whoohoo.
(Sorry, were you expecting some kind of argument?)
As to your Indian princes… I was commenting on Hindu princes, but all the same, will you honestly pretend that not one single one of them ever misused his power? You study your history; prove that every last one of them was the model of Hindu tolerance.
Call it verbal overdrive if you like; I haven’t mocked or insulted Hinduism (although if my comments have given that impression, I apologize), yet you feel the need to insult Christianity. I *do* believe that my faith is the only one that can save you, which is why I wish to share it. Does that mean that I think Christianity is “superior”? No; it has nothing to do with “quality”.
There are people who call themselves Hindus who do NOT reflect true Hinduism. Well, surprise surprise–there are people who call themselves Christians who do not truly follow Christ. In fact, none of us are perfect; I am certainly less perfect than most.
Although the current number of telemarketing facilities is *not* something I would be proud of, myself (yes, that’s a wee bit of humour), the truth is that India has contributed much to the world. So has Hinduism. So has Canada, for that matter, and everybody still thinks that the Americans do it all. I’m sorry that several hundred years ago, the ancestors of our Queen felt the need to subjugate your country and perpetrate such atrocities. They did the same in other places, you know. Once more, “stop blaming Christianity for the stupidity of human governments.”
You are making a difference here between Christianity/Hinduism etc. on the one hand, and their practitioners on the other.
Point well taken. It clears much air.
And yes, I did not want to insult Christianity. I was pointing out some facts. If they seemed like insult, I apologize, that was “not” the intention.
“You are making a difference here between Christianity/Hinduism etc. on the one hand, and their practitioners on the other.”
Yes. I’m sorry; sometimes I get carried away with examples and such when the point could be much more clearly stated.
I’m relieved that you meant no insult; no apology is necessary. When something is very near to our heart, it is easy to get defensive; I’m sorry for misunderstanding your intent.
Some of my own comments were rather strong… I’m (again) sorry. (I seem to end up apologizing a lot… maybe I need to be more careful in my writing.) ;p
About what the Vedas actually taught regarding the sciences: I have no trouble believing that our number system is originally from Sanskrit characters, or that Arabic mathematicians were not the “first” to formulate various theories. I am curious, though, about something that Tony brings up (though I’ll try to phrase it more politely): given the vast amount of knowledge available in those scriptures, what kept Hindu scholars from greater technological development? I can understand that the knowledge could be there, but its application not be seen as “needed” by the people; nuclear power, for one, would not have improved the quality of life even one hundred years ago. However, surely there must have been knowledge to assist with farming and food production? (I’m not saying there wasn’t; I’m asking for examples, so I can better understand the Vedas and what its purpose is.)
Thanks, and God bless, eh!
Some excerpts on Hinduism from the Wikipaedia.
Animal sacrifice was common in Vedic religion, the highest or “royal” such sacrifice being the Ashvamedha. .
Classical (Puranic, Vedantic) Hinduism as it emerged in the medieval period de-emphasizes animal sacrifice, and indeed any meat processing, based on the doctrine of ahimsa. Such practices as are still current are mostly associated with either Shaktism or with local tribal traditions.
There are Hindu temples in Assam (India) as well as Nepal where goats and chickens as well as buffaloes are sacrificed. These sacrifices are mainly done at mandirs following the Shakti school of Hinduism where the female nature of Brahman is worshipped in the form of Kali and Durga. There are many village temples in Tamil Nadu where this kind of sacrifice takes place.[2]
In many Shakti shrines of Orissa animals like goat and chicken are sacrificed on Durga Puja in the month of Aswina (September-October) every year. In Sambalpur, this ritual sacrifice is performed in the Samaleswari temple (Pasayat, 2003:67-84).
The three methods used by Hindus to kill an animal are: Jhatka (decapitation with a single blow); piercing the heart with a spike; and asphyxiation.
Possibly the largest animal sacrifice in the world occurs during Gadhimai festival in Nepal. In the 3 day long sacrifice in 2009 it was speculated that more than 250,000 animals were killed [3] while 5 million devotees attended the festival[4].
In India ritual of animal sacrifice is practised in many villages before local deities. For instance, Kandhen Budhi is the reigning deity of Kantamal in Boudh district of Orissa, India. She is the presiding deity of Kandha people of this area. She is represented in the natural form of stone under a tree on the bank of the river Tel. Every year, animals like goat and fowl are sacrificed before the deity on the occasion of her annual Yatra/Jatra (festival) held in the month of Aswina (September-October). The main attraction of Kandhen Budhi Yatra is Ghusuri Puja. Ghusuri means pig, which is sacrificed once in every three years. Kandhen Budhi is also worshipped at Lather village under Mohangiri GP in Kalahandi district of Orissa, India(Pasayat, 2009:20-24).
Bali Jatra of Sonepur in Orissa, India is also an annual festival celebrated in the month of Aswina (September-October) when animal sacrifice is an integral part of the ritual worship of deities namely Samaleswari, Sureswari and Khambeswari. Bali refers to animal sacrifice and hence this annual festival is called Bali Jatra
Some people in India are adherents of a set of theistic philosophies called Tantrism which forms the basis and founding philosophies of all Tantric cults both Hindu and Buddhist. Most use animal sacrifice , but a minority continue to practise human sacrifice despite the risk of prosecution. Even with this in mind, those who practise animal sacrifice remain a minority, human sacrifice being even more so a minority and not considered authentic Tantric practice to the majority of practitioners.
Human sacrifice is illegal in India. But a few cases do occur in remote and underdeveloped regions of the country, where modernity has not penetrated well and tribal/semi-tribal groups adhere to cultural practices as they did over the course of millenia. According to the Hindustan Times, there was an incident of human sacrifice in western Uttar Pradesh in 2003.[87] Similarly, police in Khurja reported “dozens of sacrifices” in the period of half a year in 2006. [88]
Don’t forget that India has just come out of 1000 years of Foreign subjugation.
The foreign rulers have only helped to make the Hindus more civilised.
The British took some Indians to Britain and educated them so they could rule themselves. Gandhi learnt about “Freedom” after he went to Britain. All the sane politicians of India (including those from the Hindu parties , BJP, VHP, Siva Sena etc.) were educated in Christian educational institutions like St. Stephens in Delhi which is where they learnt what “Freedom” was. Before that, the Hindoos of India were repeatedly invaded by Mongols, Mughals, Greeks, and by whoever chose to go that way, because the Hindoos always fought with each other.
99% of the people were slaves and prostitutes (called Sudras) who served the upper class (called Brahmins). Even today, there are Hindoo temples where low caste Sudras are made eunuchs and prostitutes (called Deva dasi- meaning servant of God) as a sacrifice to Hindu Gods.
It was the British who abolished a cruel practice (called Sati) in India, in which, a widow is burnt alive along with the body of her dead husband, because the Hindus believed that she would then become the dead man’s wife in their next incarnation.
But for the British and Christian missionaries who set up schools, hospitals etc. India would have been today, less civilised than the head hunting tribes in the African jungles of today. Some serious civilisation they must have had, for 5000 long years.
So you have stooped to this level. Not surprising since you are a Christian Missionary. Your salary depends upon putting down the other Religions.
We Hindus have been taught to respect the Religious beliefs different than ours. But maybe, Christians are in a class of their own – maybe they have got a copyright over God.
I can also quote unsavory details regarding Christian practices around the world – it is just a Google search away. But I will refrain from doing so.
The Wikipedia link that you are referring to, according to Wikipedia itself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice), requires a “clean-up” – just look at the top. And contributors are asked to improve this article. Again, look st the top.
First, go and educate yourself about Hinduism, before spouting such venom.
A good place to start, and where animated discussions amongst Hindu/Muslim/Christian scholars are always going on, but in a mutually respectful way – is http://agniveer.com/
May God bless you. He is really great. He still may.
Your assumption that I am a missionary along with so many others are wrong. I travel a lot and have seen a lot of the world, but I am not a Christian missionary by profession. And I don’t get any salary for doing any religious work. As an observation, I believe that a true Christian should not do missionary work for money or a salary or any monetary gains. A true Christian’s life should be a self sacrifice for universal benefit of mankind and should not be aimed at making any personal profit. Though born a Christian, I have read more Hindu, Bhudhist and Islamic Scripture than I have read the Christian Bible. In my observation, around the world, today, Catholics spread the gospel more through deeds – running schools, hospitals, asylums, relief stations etc, and spend a lot of their resources (quite substantial)in doing systematic research in Scripture and other Theological subjects. They are not seen advertising themselves over the roof top. Many of their priests and nuns spend their lifetime in convents and monasteries far away from civilisation, praying in silence. The outside world does not know about them. Comparatively, others evangelise by advertising verbally, why their religion or their scripture is superior to others.
In my post, the Wikipedia quotes are from Indian news paper reports, which I have verified and found to be true. I try to post here only material I know to be true, and not what I think may be true. You are welcome to challenge their veracity, and I shall willingly accept your version, if you can prove mine wrong.
Personally, I know of a human sacrifice (killing of a virgin girl) done by a Hindu Swamy who was living in a hotel where I stayed in Chennai. He was a holy man whose room in the hotel was frequented by local politicians and businessmen for seeking advice. He was later arrested by police for murder.
I am stooping to the level of telling truth. Truth sometimes hurts in the beginning, but gradually, it eases all pains. Untruths bring temporary solace, but will hurt in the long term.
The Wikipedia post above was not true in the sense that it does not represent the entire truth.
Truth is good if it is the whole truth, and not if it contains only only that part which we will like to show to others to put them down.
That’s what the missionaries have been doing in India at least – spreading misinformation about Hinduism and Christianity to win converts. That’s why you sounded like a missionary. Sorry for that mistake!
If you are a seeker of truth, I am surprised that these are the only things that you could find worth mentioning about Hinduism and India.
Your comment above linking Vedas, Aesop tales and caveman does not indicate much familiarity with Vedic literature, I am sorry.
(Sorry for the digression, Perry, this is my last comment on the topic!)
Caste system is not a part of Hindu religion. In India you will also find “Lower Caste Christians”. There are separate Churches for “lower caste Christians” and “upper caste Christians”!
I have travelled to many parts of India from metropolitan cities to the least developed remote areas where Christian missionaries set up schools, dispensaries for food and medicines, etc., and am yet to see differential treatment by a Christian church to the different kinds and tribes and colors of people that visit them.
I saw that they welcomed all human beings to partake of what they had to offer, irrespective of their religion, creed, skin colour or health.
India needed a Mother Theresa to come from Albania, to show them how to treat the sick and dying in the streets humanely. Thanks to the Christian missionaries, India is progressing is all directions by leaps and bounds. I hope that the Hindoos will at least be grateful to them for their sacrifices, in which they left the comforts of their home countries, to live among the lepers, and Tuberculosis patients of India, to bring Jesus teachings to them, and improve their living conditions.
Just because the moderator is asleep at the wheel, we don’t all have to go off track.
The topic is:
“If God was really powerful and good, he wouldn’t allow so much evil and suffering to go on.”
Questions must be respectful, clear, thoughtful and ON-TOPIC – all others will be deleted by the moderator.
Bar-room brawls maybe fun, but they are not very productive.
As was once said:
“Any idiot can see what’s wrong with it, it takes an intelligent person to see what is right with it.”
This animosity, based on past events and present views, is understandable, but also unattractive and unbeneficial to the purpose of life. Nor can it be said to reflect the teachings of ANY great spiritual leader.
Out of respect for Perry, if there is no more to be said on this topic, then lets all go to another site and trade leather there.
If I have offended anyone, I apologize, and ask you to overlook my immaturity and clumsiness for being by-products of enthusiasm and nothing more.
“India needed a Mother Theresa to come from Albania, to show them how to treat the sick and dying in the streets humanely. Thanks to the Christian missionaries, India is progressing is all directions by leaps and bounds. ”
-This is an eye opening revelation!
“The British took some Indians to Britain and educated them so they could rule themselves. Gandhi learnt about “Freedom” after he went to Britain.
-Are all sparrows educated in British Universities? None of them likes living in a cage!
-Are all sparrows educated in British Universities? None of them likes living in a cage!
If the Hindoos in India had learnt their lessons from sparrows, India would not today have been a country with the maximum number of people below the poverty line. India is a hundred fold more blessed with resources than Britain, but a majority of Indians live like beggars because they do not follow Jesus’s simple teachings.
Jesus taught “Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?”
India owns over 18,000 tonnes of above ground gold stocks worth approximately $800 billion and representing at least 11 per cent of global stock, according to estimates of World Gold Council. The Indian Government estimates that the above ground stocks are only a tip of the iceberg, and the real stocks are under ground, hidden under beds, or in secret bank lockers which should add up to at least 5 times the reported stocks.
Indians have more trust in gold than they have in their government, or banks, or their neighbours, or even their gods.
The World Gold council reports that over the past ten years, the value of gold demand in India has increased at an average rate of 13 per cent per year, outpacing the country’s real GDP, inflation and population growth by six per cent, eight per cent and 12 per cent respectively, and is actually fuelling the present anomalous rise in gold prices.
Instead of investing in schools, hospitals, and other essential infrastructure, the Hindoos in India buy gold and bury them underground, or hide it under their beds, which is the reason why most of the Indians do not have a decent house, or access to healthy food, medicine or education. Anybody visiting India will notice that Christian or western charitable institutions run most of the good medical and educational facilities and relief centres in India.
Sir, that is because we got a chance to progress only after your forefathers were shown the shores when it was observed that their appetites were still not whetted even after looting and plundering this country for well over 200 years. Prior to that India had already been bled bone dry by Turkish/Mughal invaders, and all its cultural heritage razed to the ground, and its history completely wiped out.
It is estimated that British looted India of One Trillion Dollar money, apart from Gold, Diamonds, and other goods. With this loot they financed their Industrial Revolution. Even British historians agree that witout this “venture Capital” looted from India,Britain could not have progressed at that time. Even the crown of Queen wears the Kohinoor diamond looted from India- doesn’t even have the courtesy to return it!
A series of decisions of Churchill during the period 1940-44 lead to the death of some three million Indians, most of them in man made famines.
USA was also financed by this money in the way of heavy levies and taxes on goods imported from Britain, which, of course, Britain subsidized with money freely flowing from India. The USA progressed by bringing slaves from Africa and using their labor to build up its empire. And by massacring the original habitans of the country – the American Indians. USA’s money is steeped in the blood, and sighs, of those slaves and Indians.
It only shows the superior spiritual and moral strength of India that it has risen to this level in a short span of 60 years!
I don’t know why you are going on and on about Indians buying Gold. We do, so what? Indians must be doing things differently, that’s why when all the Western and Middle Easter cnountries are reeling under the impact of recession, Indian economy is booming!
Your President comes to India asking Indian business to create jobs in USA. One news item read- ‘Twenty deals worth 10 billion dollars that create over 50,000 jobs.’, with Indian orders worth for Americans with Indian money.’
Who would have imagined it!…We Indians do things differently, yes sure!
Will Durant, an American Historian mentioned in his note “India was flourishing in Ship building besides the expertise of making steel and textiles. But all got ruined when British took over those technologies”.
In your opening lines you quote Jesus preaching the virtue of not accumulating wealth. I think your people need this lesson more than us. We already know this! When the common man in USA was losing his job, and was being forced to sell his dream house, the CEOs’ of loss making companies were giving handsome bonuses to themselves, when their companies’ balance sheets were bathing in Red!
India at the moment needs to create and preserve wealth. Indian businessmen are still giving huge donations- Azim Premji, Mittal, Naraina Murthy, being a few notable ones.
Christian money is coming to finance Charitable institutions? Well it is also said to be financing anti-national activities of Maoists in the Naxalite belt of India, LTTE in Lanka; some say that it also financed Hitler! If some of this money also finds its way into charitable activities, I think it just balances out. I am not impressed.
You say, “Christian or western charitable institutions run most of the good medical and educational facilities and relief centers in India.”
–This is not correct. A few of them, yes. But not most of them.
One, a news item-
“There are hardly any inter-caste marriages among converted Christians. Until recently, Church-run magazines carried matrimonial advertisements containing specific caste references. Only after our protest they stopped it.
A few churches in Tamil Nadu have even been closed after Dalit Christians demanded a share in the administration. ”
The above is a quote from BBC News, dated 14 September 2010, link for which is given below-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11229170
On the other point, charity for getting converts to your side is not charity. This is investment.
The words “Dalit” and do not exist in Christianity. They must be purely of pagan origin.
” Moreover the doctrine seems to keep changing as the years go by. Now condoms are allowed in some cases for Catholics. I believe elements of evolution are now accepted by mainstream Christianity.”
You can make generally loose statements about the numerous Christians denominations in general which sprout and wither like mushrooms. But when speaking of the Catholic Church, you will note (if you sift through the in-numerous pro and anti catholic literature and rhetoric), that albeit its imperfections, it has survived for about 2000 years without changing any of its doctrines or stands, in spite of her being ridiculed or called names for being not modern, or adaptable with the times.
The Vedas have survived more than double 2,000 years. UNCHANGED. The teachings of Buddha more than 2,000 years, do we conclude that they are also as, or even more, correct as the unchanged doctrines of the Catholic church.
It is the present Pope Himself who has said that condoms are now acceptable in certain circumstances. Is this not a change?
The Vatican as I understand it, no longer disagrees with the process of evolution, only the origin of life. Is this also not a change?
(Not to argue with anyone, but just as a gentle reminder: the Vatican does NOT represent Christianity. The Bible disagrees with evolution; on the other hand, the Bible has never condemned condoms. This hasn’t changed.) ;p
Good point, but Tony is representing the Catholic church’s stance, so I am replying to that.
I think it fair to say that ancient writings will always be open to different understandings. The different understandings must be judged according to their respective merits in terms of what fruits they produce over the years.
A thoughtful and sober person should be able to recognize ‘genuine goodness’ wherever it occurs.;P
Good point; and yes, he’s discussing the Catholic church, not Christianity… I just wanted to make sure the readers understood that. ;p
Now, on the topic of “genuine goodness” we could open up another whole discussion: can a person who is less that perfectly good truly (and consistently) recognize perfect goodness? I think many scriptures contain references to those who are good in their own eyes, but who for that very reason fail to see their true lack of true goodness; are they genuinely good?
(Not trying to pick a fight, just to point out that many thoughtful and sober people may disagree on what “genuine goodness” is.) ;p
Not trying to pick a fight, just to point out that many thoughtful and sober people may disagree on what “genuine goodness” is.
Yes, therefore guru, sadhu and shastra.
These three confirm or reject a layman’s concept.
Your teacher, the holy people in your line, and the scriptures.
If every authorized religion originating from God pooled their ideas on goodness, and just took what was common to all of them, there would be enough to establish a standard of goodness (I hope).
It is ‘good’ that you have brought this up because the topic is:
‘If God was really powerful and GOOD, he wouldn’t allow so much evil and suffering to go on.’
So we should be clear on what is meant by ‘good’.
what do you think it means?
Well, I think we need to consider that not every religion is authorized and originating from God. I am *not* about to start another mud war on why certain religions might not be; I must, however, stick to what my Bible says, that Christ is the *only* way.
Unfortunately, sadly, that means that many religions do not originate from God; and, if they do not, one must ask where they *do* originate from. So, as respectfully as I can, with no intent to throw mud but rather present the truth as my teachers, “holy people” and scriptures have taught it to me, I must say that the Biblical reply is: all scripture that offers an “other” Way, Truth or Life than Christ Himself must be from the Enemy of God. This is consistent with the message of salvation through Christ: who are we saved from? If there were no devil, then yes, perhaps all non-Biblical scriptures could indeed be true simultaneously; however, the Bible itself would be a lie. As I believe the Bible to be true, I must also believe that there is a devil who seeks to lead people away from true salvation.
…which means that “good” can only mean “of God”, but that “God” is as He claims to be in the Bible, and therefore all the “goodness” presented in other scriptures and religions may be somewhat less than evil, but still, most sadly, not good *enough*.
The Biblical stance on salvation is that “goodness”, on its own, is not enough. It’s simple math: you can not add your way to infinity. Salvation through faith in Jesus is, on its own, both purely sufficient and absolutely essential: without it, nothing else is enough, and with it, nothing else is needed.
…sorry, but you asked…
Stef, your scriptures say,
“my teachers, “holy people” and scriptures have taught it to me, I must say that the Biblical reply is: all scripture that offers an “other” Way, Truth or Life than Christ Himself must be from the Enemy of God. This is consistent with the message of salvation through Christ: ”
My reply,
My scriptures teach that there is only one God, but many ways to reach Him. All are children of God, everywhere on the entire earth. Only we humans create differences, with our small brains.
Let us hope we all together can make this a better world, and stop arguing whose God is real/better/bigger/original, etc. etc.
God bless you!
This is how I see it!
GyanP, I wish we could just “make this a better world, and stop arguing whose God is real/better/bigger/original, etc. etc.”; I really do.
The problem is that the “many ways to reach Him” concept is fundamentally opposed to what the Bible teaches. The thing is, if the Bible is true, then *ALL* other religions, faiths and “paths to God” are actually lies that lead to damnation. If there really is ONLY one Way, as Jesus says, and if there really is a Deceiver who is trying to keep us from finding the one Truth (as the Bible teaches), then the most effective lie will not be that “the Bible is wrong” but that “there are other ways”.
So… I’m all for cooperation, and making this a better world; but, by agreeing that my God might not be the *only* God, I would be basically denying my faith.
God bless.
The Christian Bible also has not condemned Nuclear bombs.
I hope Stef can see here why “Sola Scriptura” will never work.
The Vedas describe how to acquire a nuclear weapon, and how to use it.
They also describe how to neutralize a nuclear missile and how to abort a nuclear strike while under way.
Not bad for people drawing on cave walls eh?
And 5000 years later The land of the vedas is doing shirshasana to got nuclear fuel and nuclear plants from other countries.
Is there nothing in the vedas on how to prevent starvation, and poverty,?
That’s not a very smart stand to take, Tony.
A) The Bible doesn’t condemn condoms because there has never been a commandment to “only have sex for procreation”, not because “condoms didn’t exist back then and therefore couldn’t have been explicitly condemned”. The commandment in Genesis to “go forth and multiply” was not a blanket directive to breed like rabbits until we overpopulate and starve ourselves into extinction. Anyone with the tiniest smidgeon of respect for God’s intelligence will realize this. Also, Onan was condemned for “spilling his seed onto the ground” not because “sex purely for pleasure” is forbidden, but because he was directly disobeying God’s laws on inheritance and preserving family lines. The ban on prophylactics is purely human in origin. (Consider how many couples over the years have been unable to have kids. Were they sinning every time they made love, because no child could come from it?)
B) Nuclear bombs pretty clearly violate the “love your neighbour” commandment. Or, are you perhaps saying that *your* modernized, liberalized collection of “God’s Holy sayings to man, as deemed valid by Tony Francis” includes a direct commandment to the effect of, “Thou shalt not make nuclear bombs, nor shalt thou use them in unholy warfare, for their very existence is an abomination unto Me…”? Considering what else God seems to be saying through His scriptures to you, I think I’ll stick with my “Sola Scriptura”, as you put it. ;p
The commandment in Genesis to “go forth and multiply” was not a blanket directive to breed like rabbits until we overpopulate and starve ourselves into extinction. Anyone with the tiniest smidgeon of respect for God’s intelligence will realize this.
Also, How was Onan directly disobeying God’s laws on inheritance and preserving family lines by “spilling his seed onto the ground”. Theologically, what is the difference between spilling seed onto ground, and spilling it into rubber?
Dear Stef,
How can you say this if you endorse “Sola Scriptura” ?
“The commandment in Genesis to “go forth and multiply” was not a blanket directive to breed like rabbits until we overpopulate and starve ourselves into extinction. Anyone with the tiniest smidgeon of respect for God’s intelligence will realize this.”
Dear Stef,
How can you say this if you endorse “Sola Scriptura” ?
Also, How was Onan directly disobeying God’s laws on inheritance and preserving family lines by “spilling his seed onto the ground”.
Theologically, what is the difference between spilling seed onto ground, and spilling it into rubber?
“Dear Stef,
How can you say this if you endorse “Sola Scriptura” ?”
?? Your question doesn’t make sense. I’m saying God isn’t stupid. Believing that the Bible is wholly, absolutely true doesn’t suggest otherwise. (Now, YOU are the one who labelled it as “Sola Scriptura”. Perhaps you need to check what that term really means. You like using Wikipedia to attack others; there’s a decent explanation there. Look it up.)
As to Onan: Genesis 38:6-10 (NIV)
6 Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. 7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death.
8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan [Er’s younger brother] knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also.
Onan wasn’t killed for his “birth control” method, but because his using birth control broke the levirate law (which is spelled out in Deuteronomy 25:5-6). He *deliberately* broke the law of his people, and sought to steal his brother’s family’s share of the inheritance by keeping his brother’s widow from having a child.
So, no, it wouldn’t have made any difference if he’d used a fashionable piece of rubber instead of the ground to keep from “knocking up” the girl; but, unless you are using a contraceptive to keep your brother’s widow from receiving her share of your father’s estate, neither “pulling out” nor using a condom (nor birth control pills nor oral sex, for that matter) can be condemned.
(For those curious, but too lazy to look it up: Deuteronomy 25:5-6: “5 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. 6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.”
Note that this is NOT open permission for bigamy, nor for adultery with your sister-in-law: there is a strict set of conditions, and likewise, a strictly defined purpose for this law.)
Dear Stef,
If God can punish Onan for deliberately preventing his impregnating his sister-in law, He will definitely punish people who adopt measures to prevent impregnating their own wife, especially when He has commanded men to go and multiply.
If the practice of “Sola scriptura” (meaning “By Scripture alone”)has to be ethically correct, it must be conclusively proved from the bible. If it can not be proven from the bible, it is a self-refuting doctrine that has no validity.
But Sola Scriptura is unbiblical. Nowhere does the bible teach that the bible alone is our sole authority.
Many Protestants say 2 Tim 3:16-17 teaches it. It says that scripture is inspired and profitable. That is exactly what the Catholic church also teaches. However, nowhere does it say that it is sufficient, or that it contains all inspired truth necessary to know, or that it is the only scripture that can be profitable.
In fact, if you try to use these verses to prove that scripture is all you need, then if you look at verse 15, you will see that Paul is talking about scripture that Timothy knew since infancy, the Old Testament. You will have then just proved that the New Testament is not necessary.
If sola scriptura was to be practiced, Moses would have made sure that he published Gideon Pentateuchs and Gideon Torahs for everyone to interpret on their own. However, Aaron is given this authority, for example in Deuteronomy 10:3. In Leviticus 10:2-11 only the Levites are given the authority by God to bear the ark of the covenant. The priests interpret the word and bind the people. The people do not say, “Oh no, you are mere Levites, you can’t tell me how to interpret scripture”. Here we get magisterial authority of the priests, when they make an oral proclamation of Deuteronomy. Also, the whole book of Deuteronomy is like a Pope Moses encyclical. It is all of Moses writing. It is not just Moses writing a command from God, per se, but it is Moses writing an infallible oracle.
In Nehemiah 8:1-8 we see Ezra the scribe and priest bring the Law before the congregation. They read it aloud. Ezra, the main priest with other Levites and helped the people to understand the law. It says in verse 8 that Ezra and the Levites “gave the sense, and helped them to understand the reading.” Not one Israelite said “give me the law directly and I will interpret it for myself.”
Elijah and Elisha are great prophets who had teaching authority. That is what magisterium means in Latin. Elijah was a great prophet but he did not write a thing down. Obadiah was a prophet. However, are we to believe that the only word of this prophet that had God’s blessing is one chapter? Prophets are not just read, they are listened to, orally, and that message is passed on by tradition. Jeremiah writes ” I will write the law on their hearts”, not on their pages.
God’s word in the Old Testament therefore shows us that his revelation came to his people orally and authoritatively by teaching authorities, and when scripture was written, it needed to be properly translated by priests and prophets. No one gave private interpretations of the Torah.
In the New Testament, how did the church function? The sola scriptural doctrine says that Christianity is solely guided by the bible. Can you show me anywhere where Jesus said that his disciples must write the New Testament? Do you see anywhere where Jesus told his disciples to write anything? No! Jesus says nothing about apostles or non-apostles (such as Mark and Luke) writing anything or binding the church exclusively to it. What do we read? Jesus said in Matthew 28:19-20, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” Nothing about writing a book. If Jesus meant Christianity to be solely based on a book, he would either have written it himself or at least commissioned his disciples to write it. He does not say write it down.
Jesus said to Peter “Upon this rock I will build my church…” He gives Peter alone the keys. He tells Peter to feed, or lead his sheep 3 times in John 21:15-17. Jesus shows this authority of the church also in Matthew 18:17-18, where he gives to the rest of the apostles the authority to bind and loose. In Matthew 18:17 Jesus said that if a brother sins against another, take it to the church. “But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and tax collector.” This church has authority from Christ who gave it authority to bind on earth as well as heaven. You have to trust Jesus’wisdom when He did what He did. You with your human intelligence may think that it was stupid of Him to hand over the keys to somebody whom He had once addressed as “Satan”
We can now examine how the church functioned in the New Testament. In Acts 2:42, after Pope Peter gave a sermon in which many were brought to salvation, it says they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” According to sola scriptura doctrine, the visible church has no authority in doctrine. According to this passage however, the doctrine already existed via Jesus but through the church that Jesus established. At that time there was not even a hint of one letter of the New Testament existing. According to sola scriptura there would have been no doctrine to persevere in. It fits in perfectly with the Catholic approach .
How was the dispute on circumcision handled in Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 15? Let us look at how it was resolved. The apostles Paul and Barnabus were disputing with the Christians who came from Judea who wanted to force the new believers to be circumcised. The question is who made this decision and how was it made? According to sola scriptura they would have to decide it in one of two ways: They would have to look up some Old Testament scripture and prove that view from the scripture: or the apostles would have written down the answer to that question, and after it was determined it was now New Testament scripture, they would have said circumcision is now necessary or not necessary based on this new scripture. Is that how it was determined? The bible shows that neither one of these sola scriptura methods were used. Pope Peter settled it the Catholic way. After all the disputing Pope Peter came out with an infallible decree that binds all Christians since. He said that circumcision is not necessary for salvation in Acts 15:7-11. What was the reaction of these people who were in such dispute? Did they say like you would “Who are you, a mere man, to tell me what to do? I follow no Pope!” No! In Acts 15:12. we can see that prior to Peter speaking, there was much division.
Once Peter spoke, “Then all the multitude kept silence,…” The people recognized his authority, as they knew that he received his authority from Jesus. Circumcision is not necessary. Also, nowhere does Peter say “This must be written down.”
Later, acting as local bishop James puts in guidelines to his local community. His guidelines assume the full force of Peter’s decree. Acts 15:13-20 shows that for that time, so as not to offend the Jews, they were to abstain from strangled meat, and blood. Now that was binding on the people at that time. It was written down. One would have sinned if those people would have eaten meat with blood, because it was a decree by the apostle. However, is it a sin today to eat meat with blood? I eat meat with blood all the time and I am sure that you do too unless you are a vegetarian. We do not sin by doing that. What does this passage show? First, that Peter was the ultimate authority who decided the issue of circumcision. This decree has been binding on all Christians ever since. and this was not written down until some 25 years after the fact. The church did not wait until Luke wrote this to make this decree authoritative. That is oral tradition at work. Scripture had nothing to do with that decision. Second, the decree that James had written down was something that could be changed later on. He did not try to adjust Peter’s decree. If you notice, that is the exact same thing that the Catholic church did with eating fish on Friday. In the past, eating meat on Fridays, out of respect for Jesus dying on Good Friday, was a small sacrifice to bring to remembrance his death for us (similar to Daniel in Daniel 10:2-3). That parallels James telling the people not to eat meat with blood. Later on, the decree of not eating meat on Fridays was changed, just as Christians are now not bound to abstain from eating meat with blood.
Whether the Pope is a good man or not, Jesus has given him the keys. It is like whether Pres, Bush is good or not, or whether the American soldier liked it or not, he had to go to Iraq if Pres Bush gave the marching orders.
Even if a traffic cop is corrupt, and a bad man, you will still go to jail if you don’t stop your car when he asks you to.
A corrupt cop is better than no cop at all, and an imperfect Pope may be better than no Pope at all. We can at least say that Jesus believed so. From where in this world will Jesus bring a 100% perfect Pope to head His church?
Otherwise, it will be like curing a mad man of his disease by cutting off his imperfect brain.
“If God can punish Onan for deliberately preventing his impregnating his sister-in law, He will definitely punish people who adopt measures to prevent impregnating their own wife, especially when He has commanded men to go and multiply.”
Dude, LEVIRATE LAW. Obviously you’re not reading my replies.
Oh well. Based on your statement, I can understand that after I have “multiplied”, I am free to “adopt measures to prevent impregnating my wife”. After all, I have obeyed the command to multiply; I have kids. Or, perhaps we need to be idiotically and ignoring-the-context-ly literal: each couple must “multiply” and turn two people into four. After that, they can use condoms? Or they have to stop having sex? Maybe *your* version of God’s Scriptures will tell us the answer? Maybe it will also tell us that people who *can’t* have kids are not allowed to try, because their sexual pleasure is not producing any offspring. Maybe, after women reach that age where having children is no longer physically possible (for some, as early as 40), they are no longer allowed to satisfy their husbands. (Bad news for you, eh? I sure am glad I’m not Catholic!) Or perhaps it would be wrong of a woman to remain a virgin until she’s past child-bearing age, because she is deliberately breaking that commandment. Oh crap, all your priests are going to hell, because they’re breaking that “first commandment” by remaining celibate!
Now, as to “Sola Scriptura”, again, YOU are the one who named it that; I didn’t bother “correcting” you, but if you’re going to fuss about it then I’ll take my definition from the Wikipedia page:
“Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.”
All knowledge necessary for SALVATION and HOLINESS. Now, I really don’t give a snot if you want to define “Sola Scriptura” differently, because A) you aren’t a Christian, you’re a Catholic, and B) as a Catholic, you read a different Bible anyway.
To other Catholics: I am NOT saying that there are no Catholics who are Christian, but rather that there are indeed those who are of the Catholic religion, but most certainly NOT of the Christian faith.
Since when did God appoint a Pope at all? You lot like to call Peter your first Pope, but that sure ain’t in the Bible (unless it is in the “modified” Catholic one). You also have to cling to that “commandment” in Genesis while blindly ignoring that we *have* filled the earth. Think for just one minute, if you can: the Tower of Babel was rebellion against the commandment to fill the earth, because people were refusing to fill the *whole* earth; they wanted to be lazy and band together in one place. If anything, we break that commandment by building cities instead of spreading our population out over the entire surface of the globe. The Catholic church has been one of the worst sinners in that regard, in building up monstrous cathedrals for their own glory and encouraging populations to congregate in cities so they can be more easily controlled. It’s not a “sin” to not have kids; the “sin” is to continue living in a high-population area.
Now: if you are going to apply your OWN definition to *MY* belief that the Bible, and only the Bible, is the inspired Word of God, then your arrogance is certainly greater than that of any here who claim to have access to “all” knowledge. “Nowhere does the bible teach that the bible alone is our sole authority.” Perhaps you can interpret it that way if you want to ignore that Jesus Himself is the Word of God, and if you want to ignore all the warnings throughout the Bible against finding “other” answers and against relying on *human* wisdom; for myself, I’ll stick with my one true Shepherd and His Holy Word, and be on my guard against anything and anyone that speaks against them (which includes people who claim to follow Christ but in truth think that He can’t be all that interesting to spend eternity with, or that He has an “equal but opposite” counter-part, or that God is stupid enough to “command” us into over-population).
The Vedas describe the the motion of earth and other planets around Sun. The motion of Sun in Galaxy along with Planets. The force of attraction of planets through which they are held together- the Gravitational force. Also, ship building, airplane mechanics, and the science of telegraphy and also the electricity.
Ever wonder what a cave man could not do?
The Vedas contain seeds for all forms of knowledge
Just an illustration to show that this is not an extrapolation of text or its meaning, following is a direct quote from Rig Veda (1.164.13)-
“Sun moves in its orbit which itself is moving. Earth and other bodies move around sun due to force of attraction, because sun is heavier than them.”
The curious soul can venture and find more!
If you have read books published by MIR publishers before the di-solution of the USSR, you will see similar claims. The books were very in-expensive and informative. The only fault was that they were all copied (plagiarised) from regular texts from the the western world. Also, in those books, everything from Radio, phonograph, telephone, and transistor to rockets and nuclear energy were invented by some Russian scientist with Russian sounding names like Dimitry Kersklowsky, or Ivanovich Skirskosky. Otherwise, the books were excellent, neatly bound, inexpensive, and was very popular with university students who often used them as text books.
If you read books by some Islamic scholars today, we can see the same trend. They will prove that everything from the value of pi (3.1416…. ) to modern bypass heart surgery and technology for making a hydrogen bomb is explained in detail in the Quran.
I wonder why the politicians and rich people from these countries try to catch the first available plane to get medical treatment in Western hospitals, or send their children to study in American Universities. Even the Hindu god-men in saffron robes (who nowadays come by the droves to western countries to seduce and cheat gullible teenagers by showing magic tricks and giving them narcotic drugs), love dollars, Big Macs, and Rolls Royce cars more than Ganges water and saatvic food. The Islamic mullahs also similarly enjoy the secular hospitality of the western countries to stay there, set up mosques, and religious centres to attract western youth and send them to training centres in Afghanistan and Pakistan where they are fed narcotic drugs to convert them into suicide bombers to be used to wage “Jihad ” against kaafirs (infidels who don’t believe in Islam).
Tony,
The Sputniks that USSR sent into space were not paper planes.
For every Indian that leaves the country for USA, there are thousands who “choose” to stay behind.
The progress of India is not “imaginary” either.
The knowledge of Science and Mathematics traveled from India to Egypt to Greece to Europe.
India has its own problems just like USA has, Europe has, Russia has. Everyone has got their own Histories, circumstances, etc. No use going over them again and again.
I may remind you, Just the other day Obama came to India asking Indian Businesses to create jobs in USA.
It is the cycle of History. Don’t gloat. Wheel may well take yet another turn…
“Hell” = Hades? The world of the dead? The final place of eternal damnation? The grave?
You don’t need to be a Bible scholar to understand that there are different references, here. If nothing else, even a 2nd-grader can comprehend that Jonah’s “hell” was merely the exaggeration of a terrified man.
(Why do I bother? “The discussion will become more interesting if Stef understands and accepts that there are a lot of Truths not mentioned in the Gospels or the Bible.” There are also a lot of lies.)
It is the present Pope Himself who has said that condoms are now acceptable in certain circumstances. Is this not a change?
The Catholic doctrine is on sex and contraception, and not on codoms.
The Catholic position on sex, repeatedly endorsed by Pope Benedict, had been that, since its only legitimate purpose is procreation within marriage, there is no possible role for condoms or other forms of artificial contraception.
And there has never been a Catholic doctrine other than this.
Pope may not mind endorsing use of condoms as balloons to entertain children; for storing oil, or other liquids; to prevent infections; for plugging pipes etc.
Given below, is what the Pope said about condoms in a casual talk.
The pope caused a firestorm of protest last year when he spoke out against condoms as a way of controlling AIDS during a trip to Africa, the continent hardest hit by the disease.
“You can’t resolve it with the distribution of condoms,” the pope told reporters in March 2009. “On the contrary, it increases the problem.”
But he outlined a possible exception in remarks published Saturday.
“There may be single cases that can be justified, for instance when a prostitute uses a condom, and this can be a first step towards a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, to develop again the awareness of the fact that not all is allowed and that one cannot do everything one wants,” Benedict said.
“However, this is not the true and proper way to defeat the infection of HIV,” he added, saying the “humanization of sexuality” was the best method.
I cannot see how the Pope has changed catholic doctrine on sex and contraception in any way.
Unlike in the time of Vedas, nobody can make loose talk after Jesus came into this world; because He is the “WORD”. All lies and false statements will be exposed.
Five thousand years ago, the only methods for permanently recording ideas were drawings on cave walls, and crude statues or tablets made out of mud or rocks. Unlike the Bible or Koran, most of the Hindu scriptures were orally passed down through generations, each one adding or omitting their bit to stories of flying monkeys and cruel rulers with a hundred heads. The morals of these stories may be good, and does the same purpose as Aesop’s fables. But to accept these stories as facts, one may have to take a dose of “Ecstacy”.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Let me see if I have got it right this time.
According to the Pope, a prostitute can entertain a customer with a condom to prevent the spread of aids, but she should not use any method of contraception, like ‘the pill’ or ….. condoms.
Since you are posing as an authority on activities dating back 5,000 years, please tell us, are your findings based on your own experiences or are you borrowing from someone else’s research? If the latter then please identify your source of information.
Since you also seem privy to the process of oral transmission of the ‘Hindu Scriptures’ please list for the benefit of all present day Vedic scholars, the bits that have been added or omitted from the original.
Failure to do so will again prompt me to ask you for an apology.
The same argument will apply to you when you say those things you claim to have happened did really happen.
Using your logic, I can say that the sun was blue in colour 10,000 years ago, and you will have to accept my statement till you produce a photograph showing that the sun was a different colour then.
You say that the Vedas explain how to use nuclear energy, and 5000 years down the generation, India still depends om foreign countries to fuel her nuclear reactors, even though she has the biggest known reserves of Plutonium. If
knowledge was transmitted efficiently as you say it had done, why are Indians still depending on non Vedic sources for food, medicine, nuclear plants, etc. etc.?
You are missing the point.
I am stating what is written in the Vedas.
That is what I accept as correct.
You have a different set of criteria, which is part Bible, part science, part your own speculation.
You combine those and that is where you put your faith.
I find the Vedas are competent to answer every question I have ever dreamt of, and then some.
I have never seen them disproved in the all the technical details of atoms, time, metallurgy, all the fields that can to some degree be verified they have remained accurate.
Therefore I accept the areas that cannot be ‘scientifically’ verified, but need faith for the proof to become manifest, and again, they have not disappointed me.
India is in a mess because they have abandoned their Vedic heritage, allured by the false glitter of gross materialism, and exploitation of the worlds resources for profit. But the culture has largely survived thousands of years and hundreds of years of foreign dominance.
I said the Vedas described nuclear weapons. They did not use nuclear energy to run their cities. The weapons were activated by mantra, (prayers) and would only be taught to those responsible and skilled enough to be entrusted with them. Since no such people exist any more, neither do the weapons, but there are many detailed accounts of their deployment over the ages.
When the natural resources of the world, particularly fossil fuels, run out, then the Vedic concept of living a less complicated more principled life will have a better chance of acceptance and will actually be more satisfying and pleasant than the current hectic-fast-paced-going-nowhere approach.
Wait and see, it won’t take long.
It has been described in the Vedas!!!
“I said the Vedas described nuclear weapons. They did not use nuclear energy to run their cities. The weapons were activated by mantra, (prayers) and would only be taught to those responsible and skilled enough to be entrusted with them.”
Dear Mr. Das,
Like the Hindoo Holy books, you keep on contradicting yourself. You claimed that in your Karmic system you don’t require somebody Evil equivalent to Satan. You also said that in the olden Vedic times, things were going on perfectly and that there was no evil.
You also say that in the Vedic times, they did not use nuclear energy to run cities or for other peaceful purposes, but for weapons (activated by mantras spoken by specially skilled people.)
Why did they require Nuclear weapons then, and Who were they using these deadly weapons on? in a place where there is no Satan, and at a time when all men were living holy Vedic life.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Let me see if I have got it right this time.
According to the Pope, a prostitute can entertain a customer with a condom to prevent the spread of aids, but she should not use any method of contraception, like ‘the pill’ or ….. condoms.
It is to clear your mis-understanding, that I had copy-pasted the exact words Pope had said.
And for your further information, the Pope is another human being probably with warts, and many other deficiencies. Everything he utters is not Catholic doctrine.
There is a stitching institute in Africa whose employees are blind, deaf or crippled in some way. But the products manufactured by it are of good quality and have no defects. The Catholic Church is another such organisation which produces good fruits out of imperfect people. Every good organisation or plant does the same. Jesus also does the same. He makes saints out of sinners. Mary Magdalene, who was a prostitute became a saint, after she had a few words with Jesus.
A good mango tree produces sweet mangoes from dirt and cow-dung and other waste. So I think you should avoid finding faults in the Catholic Doctrines, by pointing out that a pope or a priest or a catholic is a cripple, or a homosexual, even if he is one.
So what is the Catholic Church’s explanation for the evil and suffering that befalls the innocent?
Let’s leave aside what any Pope fallible or infallible, past or present has said.
Let’s leave aside Saint Tony’s imaginative speculations.
Let’s dispense with what you understand from the Bible.
IF you claim to be a follower in good standing of Roman Catholicism, (are you?) then let’s hear clearly once and for all the Catholic Church’s explanation of why:
“If God is really powerful and good, he allows so much evil and suffering to go on.”
Then we can consider it and move on, instead of discussing the merits of investing in gold and property over paper.
So what is the Catholic Church’s explanation for the evil and suffering that befalls the innocent?
Is that not what this whole forum is about. All we have seen so far is that Karma and the Vedas are not answers to this question.
Let’s leave aside what any Pope fallible or infallible, past or present has said.
I don’t think the Pope had any decree on this issue.
Let’s leave aside Saint Tony’s imaginative speculations.
You can leave Tony alone, because he is a very bad person who finds joy in poking holes in other’s arguments.
Let’s dispense with what you understand from the Bible.
Even Tony has not so far been able to poke a hole in what is given in the Bible.
IF you claim to be a follower in good standing of Roman Catholicism, (are you?)
No. I just study their literature to find loopholes in their teachings.
then let’s hear clearly once and for all the Catholic Church’s explanation of why:
“If God is really powerful and good, he allows so much evil and suffering to go on.”
The Catholic Church attributes all evil in the world to originate from the evil “Satan” who corrupted this world through Adam by tempting him to dis-obey God.
Then we can consider it and move on, instead of discussing the merits of investing in gold and property over paper.
People Worshipping Gold (Goddess Mahalaxmi, Roman goddess Discordia, etc.)have been seen to be the primary cause of all evil in this world.
Two days ago, I read in Yahoo news reports that Facebook co-founders Mark Zuckerberg and Dustin Moskovitz have become the latest – and the youngest – billionaires to sign up to Warren Buffett and Bill Gates’ Giving Pledge initiative by committing to give away at least half of their fortunes. How many from the numerous billionaires in India will venture to do this? And of what good are the vedas, if they are not able to inspire in its followers a desire to do good?
Let’s leave aside Saint Tony’s imaginative speculations.
You will get no credit for giving me a title of sainthood, and I don’t expect anybody to accept what I say if it is not logical.
Similarly, even if you are a saint, or claim to be a maharshi, or Swamy, I will value your statements only if they are sane and logical.
I think you have finally got it right. Not only a prostitute, but a bus driver or a nuclear scientist or a preacher may also use a condom to entertain their customers or prevent infection; but not as a contraceptive.
Good, I’m glad we have cleared that up.
According to Catholic doctrine, prostitutes, bus drivers, nuclear scientists and preachers were FORBIDDEN to entertain any of their customers with condoms several weeks ago.
Now,
According to Catholic doctrine, prostitutes, bus drivers, nuclear scientists, and preachers are
ALLOWED to entertain any of their customers with condoms.
And nothing has changed regarding birth control.
Thank you Tony, it’s very straight forward.
” According to Catholic doctrine, prostitutes, bus drivers, nuclear scientists and preachers were FORBIDDEN to entertain any of their customers with condoms several weeks ago.”
Dear Mr Das, Can you please tell me where you got the above information, or is it another story like Ramayana and Mahabaratha?
You belittle the holy scriptures of another religion as stories. You are stooping down to a whole new level of crassness. Going by the same standards, Bible is a story too. So are the old and new testaments.
Cheers.
Isn’t it in the very nature of Christianity? The whole edifice of Christianity is standing on the basis of one single person, whose own existence is doubted.
You are very right Gyan,
That is why we call our faith in these scriptures as ” beliefs” . We wouldn’t have had to “believe” in them, if we “knew” that they were “truly” true.
So they are stories. And you don’t know they are “truly” true!
Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing.
Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must “confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing” (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).
The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time. However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of his mouth” (Ps. 33:6).
Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.
One day and one night has no meaning to man at a time when there was no sun or earth.
About the creation of Man also, the Catholic Church only endorses what has been said in the scriptures. Man was formed from the material of the earth, and a living spirit was blown into it. How and how long it took to form a man out of the earth is not clear, as the duration of one day is not defined.
The Catholic Church has always taught that “no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people” (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).
As the Catechism puts it, “Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are” (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery; on the other hand, in the early stages, systematic scientific research and scientists and philosophers were funded by the Catholic Church, and even today, the Catholic Church runs some institutions reported to be in the fore front of scientific research.
“The Church does not have an official position on……”
“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared.”
“it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”
“How and how long it took to form a man out of the earth is not clear, as the duration of one day is not defined.”
Face it Tony, the Catholic church doesn’t have the answers, and its running scared to declare something and get it wrong.
No wonder Catholics are turning to science and atheism for answers.
If any individual or organisation or religion of this world claims he/ it /she knows everything, that is good enough reason to ignore him /it / her, because he / she is a liar.
Even Jesus when he was asked about when the temple would be destroyed, and when He would return to earth, He acknowledged ignorance, and said that only the Father in Heaven knew about that day or hour.
“If any individual or organization or religion of this world claims he/ it /she knows everything, that is good enough reason to ignore him /it / her, because he / she is a liar.”
This condemnation of certitude coming out from one who supports Biblical assertion of being the one and only True Book, and it’s God being the one and only true God – is it a change of heart? Or a Freudian slip of tongue?
Unlike Hindoos and Muslims, I don’t know of any Christian who claims that the Bible is an Encyclopedia for Everything from Nuclear Technology to gene transplant.
Bible indeed is a True book, and in spite of several attempts over the last 2000 years by various vested parties (from philosophers and biologists and physicists to kings and emperors) to disprove what it expresses had been futile.
The Muslims can at least claim that they have one book (Quran) like the Bible and one God like the Christians which we can analyse. The Hindoos on the other hand have numerous texts most of them contradicting each other. Hindoos themselves do not have one God like the Christians or Muslims. Some Hindoos worship Krishna, some Rama, some Siva, some a female goddess called Kali, some worship the Thunder, another group worships the lightning, and some believe that snakes are Gods. Each Hindu believes that their God is the most powerful and others are fakes. In Christianity and Islam also, there are groups but unlike the Hindoos, they are mostly divided for political reasons, and their God is essentially the same (and so are their Bibles).
“Unlike Hindoos and Muslims, I don’t know of any Christian who claims that the Bible is an Encyclopedia for Everything from Nuclear Technology to gene transplant.”
–Vedas are not Encyclopedias either. It only shows your ignorance about Vedas. The point is, they predate your science by many thousand years! Science does not contradict them! Nor is there any duality between science and logic on the one hand and spirituality on the other, in Hinduism.
“Bible indeed is a True book”
— Only Christians believe like this!
And there are many others who don’t. This is your faith.
But, I have full respect of other faiths, even if they are different from mine, and even if they spend overtime in denouncing mine, without even bothering to understand it!
“The Hindoos on the other hand have numerous texts … “, etc.
–So what if there are a number of texts? It only proves the vastness and the wealth of knowledge. We are not dependent on only one book, and thus are not forced to derive everything from that one Book. In terms of range of Philosophy and depth of knowledge it is superior to any other faith. Rest of your post again shows your ignorance. You are only speaking from some bits and pieces you have picked from up here and there.
With due regards.
Since the Father in Heaven DOES know everything, He can reveal everything humanly comprehensible to anyone He chooses, or would you deny Him that ability?
If you concede that He CAN do that, then you have to prove that He has never done that, to support your statement:
“If any individual or organisation or religion of this world claims he/ it /she knows everything, that is good enough reason to ignore him /it / her, because he / she is a liar.”
Of course you can’t prove that, so your statement is worthless.
BTW why are you so concerned with EVERYTHING?
The Vedas can answer any question regarding and relevant to living a God-centered life, and understanding how and why this universe runs.
What more do you want to know?
I can think of a lot of things that MY Father in Heaven will not know how to or will not be capable of doing.
(Commit suicide, Kill His Son for good, Hate his creations, Tell lies, Give contradictory statements.
I do not know or care about other’s fathers in Heaven.
And even of what MY Father knows, I am sure that He will not be able to reveal everything to a human being because
God said, ‘You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!’”
(Exodus 33:20)
“I can think of a lot of things that MY Father in Heaven will not know how to or will not be capable of doing.”
— Then what kind of a God is He? He cannot be a God if anything in the world is beyond Him! Or He is a very “limited” God, who operates in a limited domain. If there are limitations to God, He cannot be called a God!
Stef Coulombe says:
December 10, 2010 at 9:56 am
Dude, LEVIRATE LAW. Obviously you’re not reading my replies.
Rather, I feel that you are reading only your posts, because you are blind to all other posts. As per your own admission, No argument will make you change your beliefs, which means that you are already brainwashed and have stopped trusting your own brain to decide things for you.
Oh well. Based on your statement, I can understand that after I have “multiplied”, I am free to “adopt measures to prevent impregnating my wife”. After all, I have obeyed the command to multiply; I have kids. Or, perhaps we need to be idiotically and ignoring-the-context-ly literal: each couple must “multiply” and turn two people into four. After that, they can use condoms?
When you are asked to “Speak truth”, you are not expected to tell one truth, and start lying afterwards.
Similarly, when you are asked to multiply, God doesn’t mean you are to multiply by 2, or 1.5, or 3 and then start using condoms afterwards.
Or they have to stop having sex?
God didn’t say that you should have sex either. You could also multiply through artificial insemination or in vitro fertilisation. Anything pro-life is O.K, but everything anti-life is a no-no.
Maybe *your* version of God’s Scriptures will tell us the answer? Maybe it will also tell us that people who *can’t* have kids are not allowed to try, because their sexual pleasure is not producing any offspring.
Some people eat to live and some others live to eat. Which category do you want to belong to?
P.S.:(I admit, eating does not give as much pleasure as having sex)
Maybe, after women reach that age where having children is no longer physically possible (for some, as early as 40), they are no longer allowed to satisfy their husbands. (Bad news for you, eh? I sure am glad I’m not Catholic!) Or perhaps it would be wrong of a woman to remain a virgin until she’s past child-bearing age, because she is deliberately breaking that commandment. Oh crap, all your priests are going to hell, because they’re breaking that “first commandment” by remaining celibate!
Sorry, I have to ask you the same question again.
Some people eat to live and some others live to eat. Which category do you want to belong to?
Now, as to “Sola Scriptura”, again, YOU are the one who named it that; I didn’t bother “correcting” you, but if you’re going to fuss about it then I’ll take my definition from the Wikipedia page:
“Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.”
We have already seen that it not sufficient. Who decided that we have the right books and sufficient numbers of them in the Bible? If you have not, you have not read my post.
It is the Catholic Church that gave this world the Bible. All others are breakaway sects who just use parts of the Catholic Bible that are convenient to them. The Catholic Church herself feels that the books she has chosen to be included in the Bible alone are not sufficient and does not contain all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.”
Who gave Christianity, the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” and when?
Was it Jesus? Is it given in any scripture? Who was given the authority to propound such a doctrine, and by whom?
All knowledge necessary for SALVATION and HOLINESS. Now, I really don’t give a snot if you want to define “Sola Scriptura” differently,
I have no reason to define Sola Scriptura, because it is purely a “Protestant” invention which is neither in the Scripture, nor was taught by Jesus, and is therefore of no interest to me.
because A) you aren’t a Christian, you’re a Catholic,
Catholics are the original Christians. All others are breakaway Christians.
A Protestant’s claim to be a Christian is similar to Lucifer claiming to be “The Bright Morning Star” when he is actually only a break away from the original sons of God (angels)”
and B) as a Catholic, you read a different Bible anyway.
The Original Bible is the Catholic Bible. All the other Bibles are alterations or diminished versions of the original Catholic Bible. The origin of all Bibles – Protestant or otherwise is the Catholic Bible, because Catholic Bible existed many centuries before any Protestant was born or altered the Bible to suit his convenience. But you have to wake up from your brainwash to realise that you were brainwashed.
Protestants may interpret the Bible differently. But if they have added or subtracted anything (alter the Bible in any way, from the original Catholic Bible), they are in breach of the following commandments (from the SCRIPTURE).,
Deuteronomy 4:2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.
Deuteronomy 12:32 See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.
To other Catholics: I am NOT saying that there are no Catholics who are Christian, but rather that there are indeed those who are of the Catholic religion, but most certainly NOT of the Christian faith.
All those who claim to be Catholics or Christian are not Christians. But break away Christians can never be Christians just as musch as broken away sons of God can never be real sons of God anymore (even if they claim or lie to men that they are)
Beware! Satan is the Father of division, break aways, and Liars.
The Bible in 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 warns of Satan’s counterfeit: “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness;. . .
” Isaiah 14: 14 tells of Satan’s ultimate counterfeit: “. . . I will BE LIKE the most High.”
Since when did God appoint a Pope at all?
You lot like to call Peter your first Pope, but that sure ain’t in the Bible (unless it is in the “modified” Catholic one).
Dear Stef, wake up!, Below is a quote from one of your own bibles. Or is this not in your version of the Bible?
American King James Version: Matthew 16:18 to 19.
And I say also to you, That you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
You also have to cling to that “commandment” in Genesis while blindly ignoring that we *have* filled the earth.
Who decides whether we are “full” enough?
Think for just one minute, if you can: the Tower of Babel was rebellion against the commandment to fill the earth, because people were refusing to fill the *whole* earth; they wanted to be lazy and band together in one place. If anything, we break that commandment by building cities instead of spreading our population out over the entire surface of the globe.
The Catholic church has been one of the worst sinners in that regard, in building up monstrous cathedrals for their own glory and encouraging populations to congregate in cities so they can be more easily controlled.
Which commandment says “Thou shall not build cathedrals (monstrous or otherwise)”?
Is it there in the Protestant altered Bible? I didn’t see one like that in the original Bible (catholic).
But I saw that when Moses spent forty days on Mount Sinai and received the stone tablets bearing the Ten Commandments, which were regarded as the “title deed” of Israel’s covenant with God. It was then that God commanded Moses to construct a portable shrine and the Ark of the Covenant. The Tabernacle was the portable sanctuary, or “tent of congregation”, in which the Ark of the Covenant was kept and in which it was said that “God dwelt among the Israelites”. Later he gave clear instructions to Solomon on how to build a temple for Him.
The temple for God that Solomon built at Jerusalem was a magnificent edifice, surpassing anything that had preceded it. It was noted for the lavish beauty of its detail and finish.
The stone walls were lined inside with cedar carved with cherubim, palms, garlands and opening flowers. The ceilings also were lined with cedar and the floor was planked with cypress. The floor, walls and ceiling were all overlaid with thin plates of gold. Do you not have all these in your Bible, Stef? And Catholics build churches for the congregation to assemble and glorify God, not as you say to glorify themselves. You must be reading a heavily altered bible.
Also what is wrong with people living in cities? If you believe what Jesus said, Jesus Himself is building a city “The new Jerusalem’ with rooms for all us – the saved Christians. Don’t you want a room there too? What do you have against living in cities? Why do you think it is evil to live in cities.? What is wrong in being controlled? It is Satan who rebels against God’s control. When we drive, we are controlled by traffic lights. Or would you enjoy more freedom if there were no rules or traffic lights? It is Satan who wants anarchy, lawlessness and absence of rules and regulations. You should ask about all this to the person who has brain washed you and injected so much venom against Catholics and the Catholic Church which has given you and the world the Original Christian Bible.
It’s not a “sin” to not have kids; the “sin” is to continue living in a high-population area.
It may not be a sin not to eat. But it may become a sin if you waste food by eating (to enjoy the pleasure of eating) and then vomit it out so that you can eat again. (Romans used to indulge in this disgusting practice, and they had a special building called vomitarium next to their eating halls, where they went to vomit. People who indulge in sex purely for pleasure are no better than the Romans who frequented vomitariums. Eating food or earning money, drinking wine, sexually mating with your partner etc. are not sins, but being addicted to food, money, drugs, alcohol, sex and other worldly things or pleasures of the flesh, definitely is. That is why Jesus said “Man does not live by bread alone ” when He resisted all the worldly temptations Satan threw at Him during His forty days fast in the desert.
Now: if you are going to apply your OWN definition to *MY* belief that the Bible, and only the Bible, is the inspired Word of God, then your arrogance is certainly greater than that of any here who claim to have access to “all” knowledge.
“Nowhere does the bible teach that the bible alone is our sole authority.” Perhaps you can interpret it that way if you want to ignore that Jesus Himself is the Word of God, and if you want to ignore all the warnings throughout the Bible against finding “other” answers and against relying on *human* wisdom; for myself, I’ll stick with my one true Shepherd and His Holy Word, and be on my guard against anything and anyone that speaks against them (which includes people who claim to follow Christ but in truth think that He can’t be all that interesting to spend eternity with, or that He has an “equal but opposite” counter-part, or that God is stupid enough to “command” us into over-population).
In the same sentence above, you claim to follow Jesus blindly, while at the same time, relying on your “human wisdom” you question His intelligence in commanding us “to multiply” and take precautions against over-population. There was another person like you called Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834). You can google his name for reading more about him and his theory. Any I can assure you, that the God I believe in is the True God, and is more intelligent that Mr. Malthus or you. And you can go ahead and enjoy life without feeling any guilt or spending money on contraceptives.
“Rather, I feel that you are reading only your posts, because you are blind to all other posts. As per your own admission, No argument will make you change your beliefs, which means that you are already brainwashed and have stopped trusting your own brain to decide things for you.”
Brainwashed? Um, no. You completely ignored the point in the discussion on the Levirate law, which is why I questioned whether you read it or not. If your response is going to be a childish “No, it’s you who aren’t reading the posts!” then there’s nothing to be gained by answering you.
As to multiplying vs. speaking the truth, there is a difference in that multiplication is a simple action. If you think it’s supposed to be a lifestyle based on *one* verse, loosely interpreted, then it’s still *your* opinion. The command to speak the truth is repeated ad nauseum, throughout the Bible, in just about every single book.
As to “living to eat or eating to live”, it’s hardly a fit parallel. Sex isn’t necessary for me to live. Eating is. We *are* told that it isn’t right for a husband or wife to abstain from sex in making a vow; we are also told that young people who are in danger of giving in to their lust should hurry up and marry (paraphrased, obviously). It still is not commanded in the Bible that sex is only for procreation, and any extraneous “scripture” that commands it is dangerously close to teaching asceticism (which *is* condemned in the Bible).
“People who indulge in sex purely for pleasure are no better than the Romans who frequented vomitariums.” Who said anything about it being *purely* for pleasure? Ever heard of a little thing called “intimacy”? “Love”? Sex is supposed to be an expression of love–not about your own pleasure, but about your spouse’s. I’m not talking about nymphomania, here, so leave your vomitoriums in Rome. I’m talking about being responsible in planning your family so you don’t end up abusing your kids by not being able to afford to support them. If your answer is simply that “poor people shouldn’t have sex” then you really are missing out on the true joy of a Christian marriage.
And as to living in cities… the new Jerusalem is significantly different. You should realize that. The sin at Babel *was* the breaking of the command to “go forth and multiply”, spawned by arrogance and challenging God. You say the cathedrals were meant to honour God… I say, for the majority, it simply ain’t true. (Consider the suffering–usually not so voluntary–that went into their construction. Consider the sheer waste involved. It’s like the arrogance of today, putting millions of dollars into a single beautiful church to “honour God” when the same money could have built a hundred churches in a country where they actually need them.) Solomon’s temple was, again, significantly different.
Sola Scriptura: Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but through Me.” I’ve never said that no other books are valid, but that no other books are necessary for salvation, and that any books that *disagree* with the Bible are not good books. Salvation: John 3:16. You do NOT need more. Maybe you WANT more, but remember your own words about greed.
I never said anything about Protestantism pre-dating Catholicism. Have you ever heard of not putting words in other people’s mouths? It’s a nice little courtesy; you should try it. What I said was that there are Catholics who are NOT Christians, and it’s true. There are “Christians” who are not Christians; they attend the church, the read the Bible, but they are simply not saved because they have never given their life to Christ. Most Catholics I know believe that the priest will save them with some holy words on their death beds; they also believe that they have to be buried in “hallowed” soil in order to go to heaven. Again, John 3:16. The “holy sacrament” as a way to salvation is not Biblical; accepting Christ brings salvation, and nothing else is sufficient nor necessary. JOHN 3:16.
As to the Catholic vs. the Protestant Bible: again, I wrote of the Christian Bible. The original Christians were NOT Roman Catholic. Yes, they were “catholic” in the original sense of the word, but the modern church, seated in Rome, is not catholic–it is “Roman Catholic”. For all your knowledge of history, you don’t seem to remember that fact. If you want Peter as your Pope, remember where he was when Jesus “annointed” him (it wasn’t Rome).
Now, as to Peter:
“American King James Version: Matthew 16:18 to 19.
And I say also to you, That you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Yeah, I see “Pope” in there, along with “infallible decree” and “selling indulgences” and “intermediary between us and Jesus” and “authority to absolve sins”.
On the rock of Peter’s faith, Jesus established the church. And? The “power” in verse 19 is the power of prayer. Did Jesus say anywhere that the Pope had power to absolve sins? Did Jesus say ANYWHERE that there was to be someone between US and HIM? Did Jesus command us to confess our sins TO THE PRIEST so we could be forgiven? No, no, no! He said, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, so that WHOSOEVER believes in Him [Jesus] shall not perish but have a chance at earning forgiveness in purgatory”–no, that’s wrong–“…shall not perish but have eternal life.” Why complicate it? Oh, right, so that we can *sell* tickets to heaven. Don’t forget the reasons *why* the Protestants protested!
Now, you again put words in my mouth: I make great effort to show the difference between faith and “blind” faith, and yet you post:
“In the same sentence above, you claim to follow Jesus blindly…” On the other hand, you choose to ignore the actual point of what I wrote. Again, oh well.
You have told Perrari Das that you are not a Roman Catholic (or at least, not one in “good standing”), and yet you seem devoted to both destroying that faith as well as destroying all faiths that disagree with theirs. You claim to believe the Bible, but then you don’t believe in the God that the Bible teaches (what with all that “God creating evil” nonsense, or the rot about Satan and Jesus being equals). And, you fully admit to being “a very bad person who finds joy in poking holes in other’s arguments”. So: in truth, you’re agnostic, or something? You don’t actually have your own faith, but you hate the fact that other people find peace and joy in theirs, and so rather than finding that peace and joy for yourself, you seek to tear down others’ faiths so that they will be as miserable as you are?
It’s sad, really, because *some* of the things you post really are insightful.
P.S. I just read up a bit on Malthus, and I’d like to thank you for comparing me to him. I disagree with his theology on why evil exists, but then again, God loves to take bad, broken things and make something good from them… so Malthus’ ideas actually work quite well as God taking our evil world and allowing some good to come from the evil.
Malthus’ theories on population are rather intelligent (and advanced for his time), and I personally would compare him with certain other “great minds” in science who actually owe (and thank) God for their inspiration.
You just hate him because he was a Protestant. Right? ;p
(And one more time: if your “True God” is too boring to spend eternity with, despite his vast intelligence, then you just might consider whether you really do want to miss eternity with “my” God, Who most certainly will never run out of surprises for me *because of* His vast intelligence. Just a thought.)
As to multiplying vs. speaking the truth, there is a difference in that multiplication is a simple action. If you think it’s supposed to be a lifestyle based on *one* verse, loosely interpreted, then it’s still *your* opinion. The command to speak the truth is repeated ad nauseum, throughout the Bible, in just about every single book.
Are you implying here, that Jesus was mis guiding people, or lying, whenever he did not start a teaching with “verily verily I say unto you”, or “I tell you the Truth” ?.
I feel, repeating a truth many times does not make it truer that a truth told only one time.
As to “living to eat or eating to live”, it’s hardly a fit parallel. Sex isn’t necessary for me to live.
Why should living in this world be very necessary or important for man? Jesus did not think living beyond 33 years was very necessary. Why should one live after he has accomplished his purpose in life? To eat and indulge in sex?
Eating is. We *are* told that it isn’t right for a husband or wife to abstain from sex in making a vow;
You don’t have to take a vow before abstaining. You can refrain from sex if you are not planning to make babies. Will anybody waste time and money to cook food, if he is not planning to eat or consume it? You don’t have to take any vows. You can just refrain from cooking if you are not feeling hungry.
we are also told that young people who are in danger of giving in to their lust should hurry up and marry (paraphrased, obviously).
If lack of titillatory pleasure is the source of danger for young people to give in to lust, they do not have to get married and have sex with condoms. To save themselves from that danger, they can practice masturbation which I believe should be more hygeinic and can more positively prevent impregnation than sex with condoms. (Just a suggestion to Protestants who want sex without children, or pleasure without commitments.
It still is not commanded in the Bible that sex is only for procreation,
Is that why in many Protestant communities, the man-servant and maid servants never get married, because nobody covets them because of the commandment “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s”
and any extraneous “scripture” that commands it is dangerously close to teaching asceticism (which *is* condemned in the Bible).
Is not prevention of menservants and maidservants from getting coveted, dangerously close to teaching asceticism?
“People who indulge in sex purely for pleasure are no better than the Romans who frequented vomitariums.” Who said anything about it being *purely* for pleasure? Ever heard of a little thing called “intimacy”? “Love”? Sex is supposed to be an expression of love–not about your own pleasure, but about your spouse’s. I’m not talking about nymphomania, here, so leave your vomitoriums in Rome.
Some medical practioners also prescribe it as medicine for certain kinds of itches.
I’m talking about being responsible in planning your family so you don’t end up abusing your kids by not being able to afford to support them.
Who supported Adam and Eve? Who are supporting the teaming millions of children of parents who do not know about or cannot afford condoms? In many western countries, prevention of birth of children is causing those populations to age, in which there are not enough young people to work and support the older folks. When that generations die, there will be a vacuum, which will be filled by populations who follow GOD’s commandment to go and multiply. The selfish, masturbaters and condom users will have no heirs, and their genes will wither away and die- a punishment similar to what God gave Soddom and Gomorrah- Those societies died a permanent death.
If your answer is simply that “poor people shouldn’t have sex” then you really are missing out on the true joy of a Christian marriage.
If you see the statistics, it is the rich people who avoid having children- The size of an average family in a poor country is several times that in a rich country. Christian teaching is that the poor and the meek will inherit the earth, because the rich condom users will die without heirs.
And as to living in cities… the new Jerusalem is significantly different. You should realize that. The sin at Babel *was* the breaking of the command to “go forth and multiply”, spawned by arrogance and challenging God.
The sin at Babel was not building of skyscrapers or cathedrals, but “PRIDE” which urged them to defy or jointly rebel against GOD, make a name higher than GOD, (same sin as Satan’s -when he said, “I will ascend into heaven! I will exalt my throne above the stars of God! I will sit on the mountain of assembly, in the far north! I will ascend above the heights of the clouds! I will make myself like the Most High!”).
You say the cathedrals were meant to honour God… I say, for the majority, it simply ain’t true. (Consider the suffering–usually not so voluntary–that went into their construction. Consider the sheer waste involved. It’s like the arrogance of today, putting millions of dollars into a single beautiful church to “honour God” when the same money could have built a hundred churches in a country where they actually need them.)
You are speaking almost like Judas 12:5 “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor?” “when he saw that Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus’ feet, and wiped them with her hair.
Solomon’s temple was, again, significantly different.
How?
Sola Scriptura: Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but through Me.”
But “Me” is not only in the Bible. He is everywhere. .
“I tell you the truth, whatever you did to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did to me.
For “Then Jesus will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat,
I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,
I was a stranger and you did not invite me in,
I needed clothes and you did not clothe me,
I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
He is all over the world. So Stef, don’t look for Christ only in the Bible.
I’ve never said that no other books are valid, but that no other books are necessary for salvation, and that any books that *disagree* with the Bible are not good books. Salvation:
John 3:16. You do NOT need more. Maybe you WANT more, but remember your own words about greed.
I never said anything about Protestantism pre-dating Catholicism.
I commented about your claim that the Protestant Bible was original, and the Catholic Bible was a fake. The fact is that the Catholic Bible is the original, and all other Bibles were modified, or diminished versions of the catholic original Bible.
Have you ever heard of not putting words in other people’s mouths? It’s a nice little courtesy; you should try it.
But you just accused me of challenging your claim of Protestantism pre-dating Catholicism- which amounts to putting words into my mouth as well as yours.
You did not claim that Protestantism pre-dated Catholicism; and neither can you, because everybody knows that Catholicism was the original Christian sect, and that all the Protestants are dis-gruntled Protestors who couldn’t become popes or catholic bishops, and their followers; and how can I challenge you when you have made no such claims of pre-dation?
What I said was that there are Catholics who are NOT Christians, and it’s true. There are “Christians” who are not Christians; they attend the church, the read the Bible, but they are simply not saved because they have never given their life to Christ. Most Catholics I know believe that the priest will save them with some holy words on their death beds;
Did not Jesus (The WORD) save the thief who was dying on the cross?
If holy words can save people in a Faith convention, why would they lose their power on a death bed?
they also believe that they have to be buried in “hallowed” soil in order to go to heaven.
You are putting words not only in other people’s mouths, but also in their faithsand beliefs. I think you should learn to practice what you preach.
Again, John 3:16. The “holy sacrament” as a way to salvation is not Biblical;
Why did Jesus partake in the sacraments of “Baptism” in Jordan river, and passover meal, and Blessing of Bread and wine into His Body and Blood, and distributing it to His disciples for eating and drinking, if they were not necessary for our salvation? Was he enacting a drama? What other earthly benefit do you see in people going all the way to Jordan river and taking a dip?
accepting Christ brings salvation, and nothing else is sufficient nor necessary. JOHN 3:16.
Accepting Christ is not easy as carrying a few pages of the bible and saying “I accept”. It has to be seen in your deeds.
There will be no salvation without deeds that demonstrate your belief.
“So why do you keep calling me ‘Lord, Lord!’ when you don’t do what I say?
Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
As to the Catholic vs. the Protestant Bible: again, I wrote of the Christian Bible. The original Christians were NOT Roman Catholic.
Yes, they were “catholic” in the original sense of the word, but the modern church, seated in Rome, is not catholic–it is “Roman Catholic”. For all your knowledge of history, you don’t seem to remember that fact.
I believe you do not know the meaning of the word “Catholic”, though you are trained and brainwashed to hate it.
Saying the word “Roman Catholic” is like saying “ugly beautiful”
The meaning of “catholic” from Dictionary .com is
catho·lic (kat̸h′ə lik, kat̸h′lik)
adjective
of general scope or value; all-inclusive; universal
broad in sympathies, tastes, or understanding; liberal.
A church that is catholic is a church that is all-inclusive; universal, broad in sympathies, tastes, or understanding; liberal, and cannot be called Roman, or Greek, or American. Ofcourse, the Pope stays in Vatican, near Rome, the capital of Italy. But He has to stay somewhere. If he stayed in Beijing, people like you may call it the Chinese Catholic church which is impossible.
The city of Strasbourg (France) is the official seat of the European Parliament, but calling EU as the “French EU” will be similar to you calling the Catholic Church as the Roman Catholic Church.
If you want Peter as your Pope, remember where he was when Jesus “annointed” him (it wasn’t Rome).
If Peter was in China when Jesus anointed him, would you call the catholic church as the Chinese Catholic Church?
Now, as to Peter:
“American King James Version: Matthew 16:18 to 19.
And I say also to you, That you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Yeah, I see “Pope” in there, along with “infallible decree” and “selling indulgences” and “intermediary between us and Jesus” and “authority to absolve sins”.
When Jesus says “whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” He means it. Don’t you believe Jesus? Or do you trust more in your dry cleaned brain?
On the rock of Peter’s faith, Jesus established the church. And? The “power” in verse 19 is the power of prayer.
One of us is hallucinating , because I cannot see any word “power”in that passage.
Did Jesus say anywhere that the Pope had power to absolve sins?
He didn”t say that, but he said that Whatever Peter would bind on earth, the same shall be bound in heaven: and whatever he chose to loose on earth would be loosed also in heaven.”, and that is a lot lot lot more than just absolving sins.
Did Jesus say ANYWHERE that there was to be someone between US and HIM?
He didn’t put it in exactly those words, but he put it in a much stronger way. By saying that Jesus would get Heaven’s approval for anything Peter did in this world, he was giving Peter, the chair he was sitting on till then. He was giving the keys to the BIG BANK LOCKER, which means JESUS trusted Peter completely, (the man who he once called ‘SATAN’). But dear Stef, do you doubt the wisdom of Jesus? His ways are not of this world.
Did Jesus command us to confess our sins TO THE PRIEST so we could be forgiven?
No, no, no!
Yes Yes yes, Stef,
now Peter is in charge. He is given the keys, and he can bind or loosen anything he wantsin this world. If Peter decides that there should be two Sundays in a week, Jesus will get Heaven’s approval for that also. If you don’t believe that he can if he wants, then you don’t beleve in Jesus, and cannot claim to be a Christian.
He said, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, so that WHOSOEVER believes in Him [Jesus] shall not perish
What you said so far is all O.K but Jesus also said
Ï have to repeat again There will be no salvation without deeds that demonstrate your belief.”
“So why do you keep calling me ‘Lord, Lord!’ when you don’t do what I say?
Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
but have a chance at earning forgiveness in purgatory”–no, that’s wrong–”…shall not perish but have eternal life.” Why complicate it? Oh, right, so that we can *sell* tickets to heaven.
Now that Jesus has given Peter the keys, he can not only sell you tickets, he can insist that you sing two songs standing on one leg before he lets you in.
Don’t forget the reasons *why* the Protestants protested!
I know, all protesters doubt Jesus’s wisdom and thinks He was mad or drunk when He gave the keys to Peter.
Now, you again put words in my mouth: I make great effort to show the difference between faith and “blind” faith, and yet you post:
“In the same sentence above, you claim to follow Jesus blindly…” On the other hand, you choose to ignore the actual point of what I wrote. Again, oh well.
You have told Perrari Das that you are not a Roman Catholic
I think I explained before that there is nothing called roman Catholic or Greek Catholic, or Chinese Catholic. Catholic means all encompassing- Chinese + American + rest of the world.
(or at least, not one in “good standing”), and yet you seem devoted to both destroying that faith as well as destroying all faiths that disagree with theirs.
There is only ONE True Faith. and it will remain, not because of me, but because it is true, and Truth is eternal.
Everything else will perish, not because of me, because all lies will eventually get exposed.
You claim to believe the Bible, but then you don’t believe in the God that the Bible teaches (what with all that “God creating evil” nonsense.
How can you say in one breath that God created everything, and God did not create a blind man?
You decide who is talking nonsense.
or the rot about Satan and Jesus being equals).
You are again not practising what you preach
And, you fully admit to being “a very bad person who finds joy in poking holes in other’s arguments”. So: in truth, you’re agnostic, or something?
Do you want to pass a judgement on me, Go ahead, I am curious.
You don’t actually have your own faith, but you hate the fact that other people find peace and joy in theirs,
Even drug addicts find peace and joy in their drugs. But is their joy eternal?
and so rather than finding that peace and joy for yourself, you seek to tear down others’ faiths so that they will be as miserable as you are?
It’s sad, really, because *some* of the things you post really are insightful.
Lies will melt in the presence of TRUTH.
P.S. I just read up a bit on Malthus, and I’d like to thank you for comparing me to him. I disagree with his theology on why evil exists, but then again, God loves to take bad, broken things and make something good from them… so Malthus’ ideas actually work quite well as God taking our evil world and allowing some good to come from the evil.
Malthus’ theories on population are rather intelligent (and advanced for his time),
but was proved to be wrong in practice. Jesus reigns.
and I personally would compare him with certain other “great minds” in science who actually owe (and thank) God for their inspiration.
Man’s theories have limited life, It has a life like mobile phones of today – till the next model comes out.
You just hate him because he was a Protestant. Right? ;p
I didn’t know. Thank you for the information. He had to be for making such stupid statements and theories.
(And one more time: if your “True God” is too boring to spend eternity with, despite his vast intelligence, then you just might consider whether you really do want to miss eternity with “my” God, Who most certainly will never run out of surprises for me *because of* His vast intelligence.
Just a thought.)
My God has no surprises . He knows everything, and lets me know things that I have to know, in advance. You are lucky to fell lucky to have a god that gives you surprises all the time.
Well, most of your comment speaks for itself; I’ll let the intelligent reader accept or reject it. A couple things, though:
“But you just accused me of challenging your claim of Protestantism pre-dating Catholicism- which amounts to putting words into my mouth as well as yours.”
No, I didn’t. I said, “I never said anything about Protestantism pre-dating Catholicism.” My point was to focus on what I *did* write, which was “there are Catholics who are NOT Christians”. You think the term “catholic” still means “Christian”, but there is no “catholic” church today; the church based in Rome, which follows the pope, is not “catholic” or it truly would include the Protestants. The church in Rome is Roman Catholic, which is a different religion, which teaches people that salvation is through having a priest say the right words at the right time in your life; it teaches that you should pray to the saints; it teaches that Mary is the mother of God, and venerates her almost above Jesus Himself.
You have more faith in Peter to save you than in Christ, if you think that Peter can stand at the Gates and make you sing a silly little song before letting you in. Again, you’re putting a great deal of “faith” into single, rather out-of-context, isolated references. Yes, a truth spoken once is still a truth, but given that Jesus doesn’t contradict Himself, and given how often He said that salvation is through faith, by grace, it’s obvious to any who are willing to see; your “keys to the kingdom” verse can easily be misunderstood, but the repeated “believe in Jesus and you will be saved” is repeated so that it will NOT be misunderstood.
Your Judas comment is again out of context. The expensive perfume was a gift from the heart; that woman gave of her *OWN* meager life, so that she could honour Christ. Those cathedrals were beautiful, majestic examples of a pope or cardinal or some such giving of *other* people’s lives. It’s like America being generous and giving borrowed money to 3rd-world nations; easy to do, when it’s somebody else’s money (and you never have to worry about paying it back). Does a bank robber get credit for donating some of his “earnings” to a “good cause”?
Now, check again on Malthus. Some of his theories still stand quite true. Check again on the “poor inheriting the earth”; it has nothing to do with having so many children, or there would be some provision to ensure that more of those children actually survived.
“My God has no surprises . He knows everything, and lets me know things that I have to know, in advance.”
Yeah, but then you give Perrari Das a hard time about his scriptures. Make up your mind.
And finally:
“”Don’t forget the reasons *why* the Protestants protested!”
I know, all protesters doubt Jesus’s wisdom and thinks He was mad or drunk when He gave the keys to Peter.”
Oh, you are so wise in your understanding of history! You’re right, of course; it has nothing to do with the corruption in the ROMAN Catholic church. Nothing to do with the church selling indulgences. Say, if I join now, can I still buy permission to rob a bank tomorrow? Sounds profitable! It has nothing to do with the church lying in the pulpit, and telling people not to read the Bible for themselves; nothing to do with telling people that Jesus can’t save them if they don’t give their money and land to the church; nothing to do with the CHURCH become a “den of thieves” the likes of which Jesus angrily, violently condemned in Jerusalem.
You claim, “He didn’t put it in exactly those words, but he put it in a much stronger way. By saying that Jesus would get Heaven’s approval for anything Peter did in this world, he was giving Peter, the chair he was sitting on till then. He was giving the keys to the BIG BANK LOCKER, which means JESUS trusted Peter completely,” but the truth is that nobody really knows exactly what was meant. Jesus didn’t clarify; when He said the “keys of heaven” He can also have simply meant, “the authority to preach the Good News of salvation”. He asked Peter to take care of His sheep, not set himself up as King (or “Pope”) in Jesus’ place. He did NOT say that He “would get Heaven’s approval for anything Peter did in this world”; He said that whatever Peter bound or loosed on earth, would be bound or loosed in heaven. That isn’t causative; it’s the opposite. Whatever Peter bound on earth would be *what was* bound in heaven; Jesus binding things in heaven would result in Peter having authority and power to bind them on earth.
Otherwise, when Peter said that Jesus would not be taken away and killed (AFTER Jesus gave Peter the “keys”), then Jesus would have been under Peter’s authority.
Once more: context.
(And yes, I’m blessed to have a God Who realizes that not telling me everything in advance is the best thing for me. …didn’t you yourself just say something like that to Perrari Das, or GyanP? I have no interest in judging you, but I do wish to expose the wolf in sheep’s clothing where ever I see him.)
Catholic church teaches that you should pray to the saints;
What is the Protestant view of prayer? Catholics can pray to anybody who they believe can guide them, or help them in a time of need. If you take the human body as a model of Kingdom of God, we can consider how a finger deals with a poke by a sharp needle. The initial reaction will be a reflex action, initiated by the finger sending some prayers to the nearby muscles (good people or saints). If a relief is not obtained, a prayer is then sent to the supreme commander of the body -the brain (GOD) who will arrange for additional help from the eyes, and other hand, to deal with the poke. You don’t always have to approach the supreme commander to get things done. You can approach one of his reliable assistants to get it done.
In the administration of an organization, say a country, we don’t approach the President for everything. To get a passport, we just send an application (prayer) to the local passport officer.
When a Protestant runs out of milk, will he go to a grocer, or will he pray to God the Father for a bottle of milk?
it teaches that Mary is the mother of God, and venerates her almost above Jesus Himself.
What do Protestant churches teach? Don’t they believe that Jesus was God? or like the Pharisees, do they believe it is blasphemy to say so?
If Jesus was God, and if Mary was Jesus’ mother, from the logic I learned at school I can easily deduce that Mary was Mother of God. Is a different logic taught in Protestant schools?
Is your god so limited that he needs to delegate his authority? The president of a country, or for that matter the president of a company, is neither omni-present nor eternal, and therefore has limited resources; that’s why he handles the big stuff, and trusts his “reliable assistants” for the little stuff. The God of the Bible is omni-present and eternal; He CAN handle it all Himself. He uses us to do His Will for our own benefit, not because He needs the help. The various saints (having died, you know) are no longer in need of the “benefit” of doing God’s Will on earth. The problem is that Roman Catholicism still sees God as a vending machine, not as a Father or Friend.
If you can’t pray to God for the little things, how will you have faith to pray for the big things?
Do you really think there’s no difference between a priest and a grocer?
As to Mary, I shall be blunt (for the sake of the intentionally obtuse): she is not a goddess. Worshipping her is sacrilege. Jesus is at the right hand of God, not Mary. Saying a hundred “Hail Mary’s” as penance is a great example of how the devil has succeeded in taking the focus off of Jesus (and true repentance), in the ROMAN Catholic church.
And yeah, your logic is pretty skewed if you think Mary being the physical mother of Jesus’ earthly form means the same thing as her being the “Mother of God”. What about God’s grandmother?
Is your god so limited that he needs to delegate his authority? The president of a country, or for that matter the president of a company, is neither omni-present nor eternal, and therefore has limited resources; that’s why he handles the big stuff, and trusts his “reliable assistants” for the little stuff. The God of the Bible is omni-present and eternal; He CAN handle it all Himself.
I think I have to repeat the “blunt”question again.
When a Protestant runs out of milk, will he go to a grocer, or will he pray to God the Father for a bottle of milk?
And for clarity, may I add one more blunt question.
Does the Omni-Present, Omni Potent, God the Father of the Protestants breast feed a hungry and Protesting new born child, or does He delegate that duty to the baby’s mother?
He uses us to do His Will for our own benefit, not because He needs the help.
According to the logic I learnt at school, there is a contradiction in the above statement. If God is using us to do HIS WILL, how can it be for our benefit? You may get benefitted if you align with His plan. He will reach his destination but without you, if you continue protesting.
Also, if GOD is using us to do HIS WILL, is He not delegating his jobs to us, even though He is omni-potent and omni-present?
The various saints (having died, you know) are no longer in need of the “benefit” of doing God’s Will on earth.
How do we know that?
The problem is that Roman Catholicism still sees God as a vending machine, not as a Father or Friend.
Is not a father or friend also a kind of (organic) vending machine, or ATM?
If you can’t pray to God for the little things, how will you have faith to pray for the big things?
We can pray to God for small as well as Big things. But the God of the Catholics (though he is omnipotent)will delegate the delivery of even big things like say an elephant to a female elephant, or a Big Jumbo Jet to a manufacturer like Boeing or Airbus.
Do you really think there’s no difference between a priest and a grocer?
There indeed is. You can buy milk from a grocer, but a preist may have to eat dry cornflakes for breakfast, if he gives you his milk.
As to Mary, I shall be blunt (for the sake of the intentionally obtuse):
she is not a goddess.
Who said she is? She is just the Mother of God.
Worshipping her is sacrilege.
Absolutely.
Jesus is at the right hand of God, not Mary.
No doubt about it in my mind.
Saying a hundred “Hail Mary’s” as penance is a great example of how the devil has succeeded in taking the focus off of Jesus (and true repentance), in the ROMAN Catholic church.
I have also gone more than a hundred times to my grocer to get milk, and I don’t believe that Jesus or His heavenly Father is feeling jealous of the grocer for my visiting him more often than I go to the church.
And yeah, your logic is pretty skewed if you think Mary being the physical mother of Jesus’ earthly form means the same thing as her being the “Mother of God”. What about God’s grandmother?
By the same logic, who is Jesus’ grandfather?
I hope the Protestants don’t protest the truth that Jesus’s birth was unique, that He was born to a virgin, and that she was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not a human being.
“I think I have to repeat the “blunt”question again.
When a Protestant runs out of milk, will he go to a grocer, or will he pray to God the Father for a bottle of milk?”
You really love silly questions. Does the grocer promise to deliver milk straight from the cow? Or does the cow offer to walk into your house, squeeze it out into your glass and then cool it with its frosty breath?
God promises to save those who will believe in Jesus Christ His Son. Does He promise milk delivery? Well, He promises to help in times of trouble. He might use a “middleman”, and He might not. For Elijah, He used birds to deliver food. Why didn’t Elijah just go to the grocer (or merchant or farmer…)? When Jesus performed miracles, when people have been healed in Jesus’ Name, why didn’t God just say, “Go to the doctor, that’s what he’s there for”?
You’re taking the work that God has assigned to us as part of His creation, and expanding into areas where God alone has authority… like forgiveness of sins. My neighbour can forgive me for knocking over his garbage can; God can forgive my sin of anger or impatience when I did it; the priest, however, has NO business forgiving or “absolving” that sin, and has no authority to do so. I need to confess my sin, and ask for forgiveness, to the person(s) against whom I have sinned; as all sin is also against God, I need to ask Him for forgiveness. That isn’t a responsibility that Jesus delegated to Peter. There is no verse in the Bible that records Jesus saying “go forth and forgive sins in My Name”. He says to PREACH repentance and forgiveness, not to try to fill God’s shoes by forgiving on someone else’s behalf.
Do you begin to see why the grocer/priest analogy is just a little bit useless?
“”He uses us to do His Will for our own benefit, not because He needs the help.””
“According to the logic I learnt at school, there is a contradiction in the above statement. If God is using us to do HIS WILL, how can it be for our benefit? You may get benefitted if you align with His plan. He will reach his destination but without you, if you continue protesting.”
Withholding negative comments about your schooling, let’s look at your question: “If God is using us to do HIS WILL, how can it be for our benefit?” Um, because He knows what’s good for us? In *my* school, I remember teachers asking students for help with “special projects” which benefitted the school as a whole, but which also benefitted the students working on the projects. The teachers *could* have done it themselves; it would have been faster and easier, in most cases. However, they encouraged the students to be involved, despite the extra work and time required (in showing us what to do, fixing our mistakes, buying extra materials to make up for what we wasted when we got it wrong, …), in order to give us the opportunity to learn, to give us experience in different forms of work than what we would experience in the classroom, …
Now, if teachers can figure that out, don’t you think God is able to come up with a plan that doesn’t *require* my participation, but which will allow me to be involved, and which, if I do participate, will benefit me?
So, yes, there is work to be done in the church. Why doesn’t God do it Himself? Because it benefits US to do the work, IF it is the work that God calls us to do. If God delivers the milk to my door, then the milk delivery guy won’t get paid for his work, the milk bottling factory will close down resulting in massive unemployment, and the cows will suffer from not having the milk removed from their udders. However, if I have some priest “forgiving” my sins, then I’m not going to Jesus for forgiveness. Score 1 point for the devil. If the priest can tell me what to believe, and that I don’t need to read the Bible for myself, then it removes me even further from God. Score 2 points for the devil. If I can put all matters of the soul and of salvation into the hands of the clergy (it’s their job, right?) then I make no personal commitment to believe in Jesus. Game point, for the devil.
“”As to Mary, I shall be blunt (for the sake of the intentionally obtuse):
she is not a goddess.””
“Who said she is? She is just the Mother of God.”
Let’s see: there are shrines and churches built and named for her, she has idols set up in almost every catholic church in the world (and in many homes), people pray to her instead of praying to God, people worship her by believing that she is a heavenly being who can move heaven and earth by talking to her Son for them… in any other language, and in English too, that’s a goddess. Oh, and you capitalize “Mother”, in “Mother of God”, which is a respect we reserve for royalty and deity. She isn’t a queen… so…
“I have also gone more than a hundred times to my grocer to get milk, and I don’t believe that Jesus or His heavenly Father is feeling jealous of the grocer for my visiting him more often than I go to the church.”
Yeah, it’s about time for me to stop taking you seriously again. When you go to the grocer, do you ask for absolution or salvation?
“”And yeah, your logic is pretty skewed if you think Mary being the physical mother of Jesus’ earthly form means the same thing as her being the “Mother of God”.
What about God’s grandmother?””
“By the same logic, who is Jesus’ grandfather?”
That’s my point. If Mary is so special, then her parents must be pretty special too. Maybe her grandparents should all have shrines? After all, being the Great-Grandfather of God must be pretty important… it’s even alliterative!
“I hope the Protestants don’t protest the truth that Jesus’s birth was unique, that He was born to a virgin, and that she was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not a human being.”
…and she was a HUMAN woman. It was special because of Who Jesus is, not because of who Mary was. Seriously, do you think that Jesus was born when He was simply because God was waiting for Mary to be born? Mary can’t save us, she can’t move Jesus’ hand for us, and if she had said “no” to God, He would have used someone else. Yes, she is honoured above other women; it’s pretty special to give birth to the Saviour. However, focusing on her keeps your focus off of Jesus. If all the devotion that has been given to Mary and the saints over the past 2000 years had instead been given to Jesus, then the Catholic Church today probably *would* be still the true Christian church.
and venerates her almost above Jesus Himself.
Dear Stef, please do a little more research on Catholic Christian beliefs before accusing or passing comments on them
You have more faith in Peter to save you than in Christ, if you think that Peter can stand at the Gates and make you sing a silly little song before letting you in.
Well, if I was drowning, and you came around with a boat, I would get into your boat, rather than remain in the water and pray the Lord’s Prayer ten times- but not because I trust you more than Our Father in Heaven, but because I know that He sent you and your boat to save me.
Again, you’re putting a great deal of “faith” into single, rather out-of-context, isolated references. Yes, a truth spoken once is still a truth, but given that Jesus doesn’t contradict Himself, and given how often He said that salvation is through faith, by grace, it’s obvious to any who are willing to see; your “keys to the kingdom” verse can easily be misunderstood, but the repeated “believe in Jesus and you will be saved” is repeated so that it will NOT be misunderstood.
Since you are repeating the question, I have to repeat Jesus’ answer to your question (pasted below). Do you after reading it feel that you are going to get a free lunch?
There will be no salvation without deeds that demonstrate your belief.
“So why do you keep calling me ‘Lord, Lord!’ when you don’t do what I say?
Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Your Judas comment is again out of context. The expensive perfume was a gift from the heart; that woman gave of her *OWN* meager life, so that she could honour Christ. Those cathedrals were beautiful, majestic examples of a pope or cardinal or some such giving of *other* people’s lives.
It’s like America being generous and giving borrowed money to 3rd-world nations; easy to do, when it’s somebody else’s money (and you never have to worry about paying it back).
Does a bank robber get credit for donating some of his “earnings” to a “good cause”?
I will let the Scripture answer your accusations.
Exodus 20:16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Do not accuse anyone for no reason, when he has done you no harm (Pr. 3:30).
Do not judge others, and God will not judge you; do not condemn others, and God will not condemn you; The measure you use for others is the one that God will use for you.(Luke 6:36-38)
“All our righteousness is like filthy rags”, Isaiah (Isa 64:4-9).
Please give me the name of one Protestant who is righteous enough to give a “worthy” donation to GOD.
Now, check again on Malthus. Some of his theories still stand quite true.
Any one on population control?
Check again on the “poor inheriting the earth”; it has nothing to do with having so many children, or there would be some provision to ensure that more of those children actually survived.
There is, and that is why the rate of increase in population is higher in poor countries.
For you, sitting in front of a computer with internet connection, these statistics are only a few finger strokes away.
I sometimes feel, Jesus has already come back into this world like a thief, not as Ten Commandments, not in the household of American President, not in Jerusalem, but as the world wide web, with internet access to all human beings. I would like to hear Stef’s comments on this.
And finally:
“”Don’t forget the reasons *why* the Protestants protested!”
I know, all protesters doubt Jesus’s wisdom and thinks He was mad or drunk when He gave the keys to Peter.”
Oh, you are so wise in your understanding of history! You’re right, of course; it has nothing to do with the corruption in the ROMAN Catholic church.
In one of my earlier posts, I have already answered this. But I shall repeat. Which kettle of a Protestant Church can call a pot of the Catholic church “black”?
Will a patriotic US citizen migrate to Cuba, because of corruption in the US administration, or stay back and rectify the faults in the administration?
Nothing to do with the church selling indulgences. Say, if I join now, can I still buy permission to rob a bank tomorrow? Sounds profitable! It has nothing to do with the church lying in the pulpit, and telling people not to read the Bible for themselves; nothing to do with telling people that Jesus can’t save them if they don’t give their money and land to the church; nothing to do with the CHURCH become a “den of thieves” the likes of which Jesus angrily, violently condemned in Jerusalem.
Satan probably made the same lame excuses for leaving God’s Heavenly Kingdom.
You claim, “He didn’t put it in exactly those words, but he put it in a much stronger way. By saying that Jesus would get Heaven’s approval for anything Peter did in this world, he was giving Peter, the chair he was sitting on till then. He was giving the keys to the BIG BANK LOCKER, which means JESUS trusted Peter completely,” but the truth is that nobody really knows exactly what was meant. Jesus didn’t clarify; when He said the “keys of heaven”
I believe that When Jesus says ” Keys of Heaven” He does not mean “Keys to the church’s rest room, or Fort Knox , or keys to the charity box, or U.S Treasury. He means what he says.
He can also have simply meant, “the authority to preach the Good News of salvation”. He asked Peter to take care of His sheep, not set himself up as King (or “Pope”) in Jesus’ place.
The following example, I hope, will clarify your ambiguity and confusion.
When I hand over the keys of my car to my friend, I trust him enough to take care of my car, be in total control of it as I would when I drive it, and control who gets in.
He did NOT say that He “would get Heaven’s approval for anything Peter did in this world”;
He said that whatever Peter bound or loosed on earth, would be bound or loosed in heaven, he was not talking about “only his shoe strings” .
Otherwise, when Peter said that Jesus would not be taken away and killed (AFTER Jesus gave Peter the “keys”), then Jesus would have been under Peter’s authority.
Jesus never fought for position in this world, because He was a King of a Kingdom which was not of this world.
He sacrificed His position to come down into the lowly position as a subject of the Roman Kingdom, and Jewish Pharisees. He received baptism from John, who said that he was not worthy even to tie Jesus’ shoe strings.
Jesus even went down to the Hell to save the people there. Protestants have to stop assessing Christianity with worldly measures. Christ’s works can never be understood in worldly terms.
Once more: context.
I have no interest in judging you, but I do wish to expose the wolf in sheep’s clothing where ever I see him.)
What is the difference? You are still judging- whether I am a sheep in sheep’s clothing, or a wolf in a sheep’s clothing.
Venerating Mary above Jesus is not a difficult “Catholic Christian” belief to find. Open your eyes. If you want to claim the “superiority” of the Catholic church over the Protestant one, then you’re going to have to redefine the “catholic” part because a large part of “your” church does in fact worship Mary as a goddess. There are Catholic churches in this country where Mary is given a Buddhist shrine, right beside Matsu, and this is not the only country where old religions are mixed into the Catholic tradition. Most modern witchcraft has some tie to the catholic church, you know. If the Pope doesn’t know about this, or chooses not to do anything about it, then it would seem pretty clear that the bottom line is still the number of coins in the collection plate.
As to your “keys”, YOU are the one who first suggested the bank vault, not me. And your car analogy is again rather off, unless you think heaven is a bunch of clouds that we’ll race around in a cosmic Formula 1. Jesus gave Peter the authority to make heaven accessible by preaching the Good News. You still haven’t given any Scriptural authority for the Papal position to be successive.
Now, you think I’m judging the Catholic church, and you compare the Protestant movement to Lucifer leaving Heaven. For “abandoning” the RC church, you can find precedence in Scripture where disciples are told what to do with a town that refuses their message. Even God eventually loses patience. Or are you forgetting your history, and all those attempts at changing the church from within?
As to the wolf and the sheep, and judgement: you love quoting scriptures out of context, but look up the ones about discernment (and while you’re at it, the ones about teaching falsely). If what you say disagrees with the Bible, and you refuse to be less harmful in your preaching, then you ain’t no sheep.
Venerating Mary above Jesus is not a difficult “Catholic Christian” belief to find. Open your eyes. If you want to claim the “superiority” of the Catholic church over the Protestant one, then you’re going to have to redefine the “catholic” part because a large part of “your” church does in fact worship Mary as a goddess.
Yesterday, I saw a Protestant peddling drugs across the street. He was wearing a cross upside down, and I bet he is a follower of Satan, and is out in this world to destroy the true Catholic Christian Church by selling dope to kids going for Christmas Midnight Mass. I also know many other Protestants who are bootleggers, and tax-evaders.
What would you conclude from these facts?
There are Catholic churches in this country where Mary is given a Buddhist shrine, right beside Matsu, and this is not the only country where old religions are mixed into the Catholic tradition.
Jewish religion was an old religion, and Jesus was a Jew and practiced Jewish tradition. Jesus celebrated the “Passover Feast” like other Jews (who later got Him crucified), and that did not make Christ any less Christian than any Protester.
Most modern witchcraft has some tie to the catholic church, you know.
No I didn’t know. This is news. May I know the source of this news?
If the Pope doesn’t know about this, or chooses not to do anything about it, then it would seem pretty clear that the bottom line is still the number of coins in the collection plate.
The Catholic Church spends more money on Charity, and pro-life activities than all the Protesting churches put together.
“Yesterday, I saw a Protestant peddling drugs across the street. He was wearing a cross upside down, and I bet he is a follower of Satan, and is out in this world to destroy the true Catholic Christian Church by selling dope to kids going for Christmas Midnight Mass. I also know many other Protestants who are bootleggers, and tax-evaders.
What would you conclude from these facts?”
Um, that the “protestant” you saw, with the cross upside down, is not a Christian. I have also seen people wearing upside-down crucifixes. Were they catholics?
By the way, did you call the police on him (for peddling drugs)?
I would also conclude that you need to hang out with better people. Oh, and I would suggest that, given your history of posting to “fan the flames”, we can seriously doubt your usage of the word “facts”.
“Jewish religion was an old religion, and Jesus was a Jew and practiced Jewish tradition. Jesus celebrated the “Passover Feast” like other Jews (who later got Him crucified), and that did not make Christ any less Christian than any Protester.”
What’s your point? I mean, really? Are you saying that it’s ok for catholics to continue worshipping their old gods, alongside Jesus?
“”Most modern witchcraft has some tie to the catholic church, you know.””
“No I didn’t know. This is news. May I know the source of this news?”
It’s not “news” just because *you* didn’t know. Look around on your favourite website. About the only major tradition of witchcraft I can find that has no ties to the church is wicca. Santeria and voodoo are both hybrids of local mysticism and Roman Catholicism, and there’s a reason why Satan-worshippers say “black mass”, you know. Given your posts about secret catholic documents supporting belief in reincarnation, I find it surprising that you would not know about the witchcraft issue.
“The Catholic Church spends more money on Charity, and pro-life activities than all the Protesting churches put together.”
You’re not showing any sources, either. Anyway, as the single greatest land-owner in the world, it’s no surprise. So what? With their wealth, the Vatican could easily end world hunger. (So could the Christian church, but the point is that neither of them does it.)
The catholic church *has* to spend money on “good works” or it will quickly lose the faith (and money) of its adherents. Show me the Pope living in voluntary poverty, and I will believe that he doesn’t care about making money. (There have been very rich catholics who did give away all their money to the poor, but they are hardly representative of the catholic clergy in general. Too bad Peter’s “successors” don’t follow his example, eh?)
you can find precedence in Scripture
What Scripture you have is a mutilated copy of the original one from the Catholic Church.
where disciples are told what to do with a town that refuses their message. Even God eventually loses patience. Or are you forgetting your history, and all those attempts at changing the church from within?
Everybody who tries to change the Church from “Without” are ” broken away” rebellious Christians, and their claim to be Christians is as flimsy as Satan’s claim to be the “Morning Star”.
As to the wolf and the sheep, and judgement: you love quoting scriptures out of context, but look up the ones about discernment (and while you’re at it, the ones about teaching falsely). If what you say disagrees with the Bible,
I have not quoted any scriptures here at all.
you ain’t no sheep
I agree I may not a very good person, and may not be up to your level of expectation. But here, we are not discussing me or my virtues.
People will always determine the value of an opinion or argument by the “quality” of the speaker. I do not wish to judge your virtue, nor whether you live a good life; on the other hand, a bad person can not successfully bring a good message. I am not claiming to be “better” than you; I am saying that IF you are truly a “bad” person, then your argument is untrustworthy. For all we know, you are deliberately inciting disagreement and hatred. Do we have any evidence to the contrary? Do we have any indication that you speak the truth at all?
Sadly, your commentary is self-contradictory: you claim God’s greatness, and you call Him boring; you speak of God’s love, and you mock and deride those He loves; you write about the “truth” of your “original” Bible, and you support your claims with texts that disagree with the Bible. And, when you realize that your argument has been beaten, rather than acknowledge your error, you simply make another attack.
We are discussing God’s love and goodness; part of the discussion requires filtering out the lies, so, actually, the virtue of those posting comments *is* in question.
Look up those verses on teaching falsely. It is much “better” to knowingly be wrong and be silent about it, than to be wrong and knowingly seek to confuse and mislead others.
People will always determine the value of an opinion or argument by the “quality” of the speaker. I do not wish to judge your virtue, nor whether you live a good life; on the other hand, a bad person can not successfully bring a good message.
If you are a true Christian, you should by now have realised that Jesus used imperfect people, -tax collector Mathew, Prostitute Mary Magdalene, etc. to successfully take good messages to mankind.
I am not claiming to be “better” than you; I am saying that IF you are truly a “bad” person, then your argument is untrustworthy.
When I chose a lawyer to argue my case, I will not be spending any time to see if he has warts, or if he has only two teeth and a dozen wives. I will just see if he can think clearly and argue my case logically.
For all we know, you are deliberately inciting disagreement and hatred.
We would not be in this forum exchanging words if there was no dis-agreement. Regarding hatred, I cannot speak for you or the others in the forum; But I personally do not harbour any hatred towards you or anybody else in this forum.
Do we have any evidence to the contrary? Do we have any indication that you speak the truth at all?
You can have only as much evidence or indication as I have about your integrity and honesty.
Though I have no evidence at all for or against your integrity and honesty, I can clearly see that your arguments have a lot of holes, even without my poking any new ones.
Sadly, your commentary is self-contradictory: you claim God’s greatness, and you call Him boring;
I didn’t know that a great person cannot be bored.
Will you marry a second wife, if you are not bored with your first one?
Why else would God have created a new Heaven and earth, if He was not bored with what he had before creation?
you speak of God’s love, and you mock and deride those He loves;
Do you mean to say that I mock the Protestors?
No, I follow Jesus’ commandments, and I love them, and I beleve God loves them too. That is why God gives me time to write in this forum.
you write about the “truth” of your “original” Bible, and you support your claims with texts that disagree with the Bible.
Only the “Original” Catholic Bible is TRUE. All others are slightly modified versions of the TRUE WORD.
But slight variations in the WORD can amount to a lot of difference in the final product.
Biologists say that there is only a slight difference between the DNA of a man and that of a monkey.
And, when you realize that your argument has been beaten, rather than acknowledge your error, you simply make another attack.
I am in this forum searching for truth, and not to win any argument. If I see truth in what you say, I will only be too glad to accept it. But unfortunately, you cannot (by your own admission) accept anything outside of what your brainwashers have programmed your brain with.
We are discussing God’s love and goodness; part of the discussion requires filtering out the lies, so, actually, the virtue of those posting comments *is* in question.
Jesus had no problem using “Doubting Thomases, Prostitutes, cowardly Peters, etc. etc. to get his points across accurately. So my virtue will be of scant consequence to the veracity or accuracy of what I am communicating.
Look up those verses on teaching falsely. It is much “better” to knowingly be wrong and be silent about it, than to be wrong and knowingly seek to confuse and mislead others.
I think the protestors, condom users, abortionists, and all anti-life activists should look up those verses first, and practice what they teach verbally.
Imperfect people can be used by a good God, but if they insist on remaining imperfect, and rejoice in their evil, then a good God will still love them but prefer to use people who are willing to repent.
It’s nice that you have so much free time to copy and paste answers. I am going to have to say that, in the absence of others willing to *discuss* these particular issues, I am wasting my time arguing with you (time being something I don’t actually have an abundance of). I’ve said it before, and then been swayed by your insistence that you are still “seeking the Truth”. However, I don’t see any evidence that you actually want to find the Truth, nor help others on that path; so, have a nice life and God bless. You’ll call me a coward perhaps for “running away” but I really don’t care what you think of me; what I’ve shared of God’s Wisdom will stand on its own, regardless of your opinion, and what I’ve shared of my own folly will not last.
Perry, thanks for hosting the site; everybody else, God bless and Happy New Year.
does anyone know if perry has heard about the work of a.e.wildersmith. Have got some great mp3 lectures of his.He had 5 doctorites, and blew the evolution theory to pieces.
You think the term “catholic” still means “Christian”, but there is no “catholic” church today; the church based in Rome, which follows the pope, is not “catholic” or it truly would include the Protestants.
Truth exists and will exist for ever. Lies have temporary lives, but will eventually die. Those who live in lies are practically dead, and don’t exist; unless they realize the deceit and get out of it in time.
You can replace the word “Lie” with ” Satan”, and the paragraph will still be true. God is “I AM” that exists.
Satan, Lies, and men who live in lies are the opposite of “I AM”, which is “I AM NOT”. Satan, Lies, and men who live in lies don’t exist, because they are dead and have broken away from the VINE that exists and lives.
Catholic Christianity lives; and those who are broken away from them are dead, and don’t exist. I hope you realize why Protestants are not included in the Catholic Church.
The church in Rome is Roman Catholic, which is a different religion, which teaches people that salvation is through having a priest say the right words at the right time in your life;
The Universal Christian church whose head -the Pope lives in Vatican, is the True and original Christian Church.
Haughty and rebellious men (like Henry VIII)who wanted to live lives out of control of the catholic church, and their sissy followers broke away from the living church, and are dead like Satan and his followers broke away from the Living God’s Kingdom.
Man was dead because of his sin. God had to sent His only begotten SON- the WORD – just in time, to save man from eternal death. God allows only his priests to handle the WORD- while He was in the Ark of the covenant, and in the Scriptures. The original catholic Christians believe in the power of the WORD to give them salvation from eternal death. Those who don’t believe in the power of the WORD are DEAD, and don’t exist as long as they don’t believe.
Insulting protestants (“sissy followers”, etc.) makes your argument weaker; thanks for the help.
You’re still ignoring what the protestants were protesting about.
You still think cold is the opposite of heat; dark is the opposite of light; and, Satan, evil, etc. is the opposite of God (what with the “I AM NOT” and such). It really is simple: if the universe and everything is a “zero sum”, then faith in God has no eternal value because God Himself will be cancelled out.
If you want to suggest that God is +2, and all evil is -1, so that the “sum” is still “1”, then for one thing, your god is still pretty limited, and for another, your “opposite” argument has to be modified to merely “against”.
Consider for a moment what it might mean if the Roman Catholic church is the one that “broke away” from the true Christian church. You have all the examples, throughout history, of human failure; isn’t it possible that Jesus Himself is still supposed to be the head of the Church, that the verses in Matthew 16 were not meant to institute a papacy? Doesn’t it make more sense for the *human* aspect of the organization to be subject to the divine, rather than the other way around?
We are now rather far off topic for this page, and I suspect that none of the other commentators here really cares about our disagreement. We are not likely to settle hundreds of years of religious dispute between the two of us, anyway. We can leave it at this: we both (by your own admission) find problems with the Roman Catholic tradition, but you’re the only one who has a problem with the Christian faith.
God bless.
Insulting protestants (”sissy followers”, etc.) makes your argument weaker; thanks for the help.
It was not meant to insult. But “truth” sometimes hurts. I apologise if it had hurt anybody’s sentiments. My intention was only to show the difference between “discerning” followers and “blind” followers.
You’re still ignoring what the protestants were protesting about.
You still think cold is the opposite of heat;
1) what else is?
dark is the opposite of light;
2) What else is?
and, Satan, evil, etc. is the opposite of God
3) What else is? at least as far as Man is concerned?
(what with the “I AM NOT” and such).
In the logic I learnt at school, ” I AM NOT” is the opposite of “I AM”
It really is simple: if the universe and everything is a “zero sum”, then faith in God has no eternal value because God Himself will be cancelled out.
Your logic will work if God and creation are as per Hindu belief, in which the Hindu God is part of the universe- his creation.
But the Catholic God is without (outside) His creation. The Catholic God is not normally part of His creation. But The Son of the Catholic God can come into the hearts of worthy Christians in this world but who have rejected this world, and would after their life exist eternally in Heaven
If you want to suggest that God is +2, and all evil is -1, so that the “sum” is still “1″, then for one thing, your god is still pretty limited,
For Catholics, The total sum is only “GOD”. Only God, and those in Him exists. Everything else are lies and have only temporary existance.
and for another, your “opposite” argument has to be modified to merely “against”.
Jesus said in Mark 9:40 Anyone who is not against us is for us. This means that whatever is against us is the opposite of us. Conversely, Anybody who is not opposing us, is for us.
Consider for a moment what it might mean if the Roman Catholic church is the one that “broke away” from the true Christian church.
It will be as difficult to imagine as imagigining that it was God His Angels that broke away from the Kingdom of Satan.
You have all the examples, throughout history, of human failure; isn’t it possible that Jesus Himself is still supposed to be the head of the Church,
No it is not possible, because the Church is at present in the world,
and in John 14:28, Jesus says “You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
that the verses in Matthew 16 were not meant to institute a papacy? Doesn’t it make more sense for the *human* aspect of the organization to be subject to the divine, rather than the other way around?
Till Jesus comes back to claim His Church , he leaves it to be managed by Peter and his successors, for whose help and guidance, He promised to send a paraclete in
John 14 :16“I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.”
We are now rather far off topic for this page, and I suspect that none of the other commentators here really cares about our disagreement.
On the other hand, I feel that this discussion is very relevant to the subject in hand, because it shows why in God’s plan, there has to be a falling off of a part of his own creation to oppose those who are loyal to God, to act as a vaccine to strengthen those who stay with him, and immunise those who believe in him from destruction.
We are not likely to settle hundreds of years of religious dispute between the two of us, anyway. We can leave it at this: we both (by your own admission) find problems with the Roman Catholic tradition, but you’re the only one who has a problem with the Christian faith.
As a body made up of human beings, there will be faults and imperfections in the Church. But our duty will be stay together and strive for perfection. Our endeavours will only serve to strengthen our faith, and bond, as well as the unity and increase the perfection and efficiency of the church.
“…sissy followers…”
“It was not meant to insult. But “truth” sometimes hurts.”
Harhar, good one. “Sissy” isn’t meant as an insult. Right.
“You still think cold is the opposite of heat;
1) what else is?
dark is the opposite of light;
2) What else is?
and, Satan, evil, etc. is the opposite of God
3) What else is? at least as far as Man is concerned?”
1) The *absence* of heat.
2) The ABSENCE of light. Any luck with that dark beam, yet?
3) Satan is opposed to God, in that he fights against God, but calling him God’s opposite is saying that they are equal. It must be terrible, living in a world where God’s power is equally matched by the devil’s!
“In the logic I learnt at school, ” I AM NOT” is the opposite of “I AM””
Too bad your teachers didn’t explain the concept of non-existence. If the devil is “I AM NOT” then (obviously) he doesn’t exist… rather a different situation than him being God’s opposite.
You think your cute little “I AM NOT” argument is so clever, but any child can point out the problem: the devil does exist, so therefore he can’t be the epitome of non-existence.
Go back to school, and try learning about classification: God is “I AM eternal”, Satan is not; God is “I AM omni-potent”; Satan is not (“not omni-potent” being significantly different from “impotent”, the “opposite” of omnipotent); God is good, Satan is NOT GOOD, which we label as “evil” in order to give it a convenient name, not because there is actually a “negative” form of “good”; ……. If you want to use your “I AM NOT” argument, at least do it right.
“But the Catholic God is without (outside) His creation. The Catholic God is not normally part of His creation. But The Son of the Catholic God can come into the hearts of worthy Christians in this world but who have rejected this world, and would after their life exist eternally in Heaven”
Yes, you’re getting it! The only problem is the “worthy” part; none of us are worthy, and that is why we need grace.
“Jesus said in Mark 9:40 Anyone who is not against us is for us. This means that whatever is against us is the opposite of us. Conversely, Anybody who is not opposing us, is for us.”
…and, you’ve lost it again. “Against” is not the same as “opposite of” because “opposite of” is not the same as “opposed to”. Again, you can oppose someone without being his opposite. You’re trying to argue vocabulary, and you won’t win this one.
“You have all the examples, throughout history, of human failure; isn’t it possible that Jesus Himself is still supposed to be the head of the Church,
“No it is not possible, because the Church is at present in the world,…””
So the head of the Church has to be physically present in the world? Why? For a long time, Israel was a theocracy, following God Who was “present” as a column of fire or smoke. Christ is present in our hearts. He is still the Head of the church, and we need no man between us and Him.
“Till Jesus comes back to claim His Church , he leaves it to be managed by Peter and his successors, for whose help and guidance, He promised to send a paraclete in
John 14 :16“I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.””
Um, I didn’t see anything about Peter’s “position” requiring successors. And that promise to send the Holy Spirit…? Jesus was talking to Philip, not Peter. Of course, we understand that the Helper would be sent to ALL of those who know and love Jesus. And it still doesn’t say anywhere that Jesus was setting up a *human* leader for the church; Peter was special as a church *builder*, and on the foundation of faith, like Peter’s, the church would be built, but just consider how much God liked the idea of Israel having a (human) king instead of just following God… If you want to compare the Roman Catholic bureaucracy to the Old Testament priests, then great! Jesus is the High Priest. He’s still the Head of the Church.
“On the other hand, I feel that this discussion is very relevant to the subject in hand, because it shows why in God’s plan, there has to be a falling off of a part of his own creation to oppose those who are loyal to God, to act as a vaccine to strengthen those who stay with him, and immunise those who believe in him from destruction.”
Cute, but 2 Peter 3:9! God is not willing for ANY to perish, so how can He plan for a “falling off of part of His own creation”?
“As a body made up of human beings, there will be faults and imperfections in the Church. But our duty will be stay together and strive for perfection. Our endeavours will only serve to strengthen our faith, and bond, as well as the unity and increase the perfection and efficiency of the church.”
Yeah, that would mean a whole lot more coming from someone who didn’t describe himself as “a very bad person who finds joy in poking holes in other’s arguments”. (You said it, not me. If you want people to actually find value in the good things you say, then you have to start being more careful in your postings. You speak out of both sides of your mouth, you perversely take pleasure in “fanning the flames”, you deliberately insult, and yet you think your postings will serve in some way to “strengthen” faith? Salt water and fresh water can’t both flow from the same spring (James 3:11); repent of the salt water, and focus on producing clean water that refreshes. Then, maybe, your words of truth will accomplish some good.)
About that heat/cold thing: I just read your questions again, and realized that you meant something different. You’re not asking what else cold is, you’re asking what else is the opposite of heat, which is a much simpler issue:
not everything has an opposite.
Heat doesn’t need an opposite, nor does light, nor does God. People don’t have opposites; why should God need one?
Harhar, good one. “Sissy” isn’t meant as an insult. Right.
A sissy follower is one who cannot decide what to do himself, and would follow other’s commands blindly out of fear or servitude.
I hope, that from the following brief of the situations leading to formation of a ” breakaway” Anglican Church, you may be able to gather the qualities of one who is a “Sissy”, and one who is not.
Besides his six marriages, Henry VIII is known for his role in the separation of the Church of England from the Roman Catholic Church.
Two days after his coronation Henry VIII arrested his father’s two most unpopular ministers, Sir Richard Empson and Edmund Dudley. They were charged with high treason and were executed in 1510. This was to become Henry’s primary tactic for dealing with those who stood in his way.[4]
Henry VIII declared himself supreme head of the church in England in 1534.
During that time, St. Thomas More was Lord Chancellor, and an important counsellor to Henry VIII of England.
St. Thomas Moore opposed the king Henry VIII’s separation from the Catholic church and denied that the king was the Supreme Head of the Church of England, a status the king had been given by a compliant parliament through the Act of Supremacy of 1534.
Thomas Moore was imprisoned in the Tower of London in 1534 for his refusal to take the oath required by the First Succession Act, because the act disparaged the power of the Pope and Henry’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon. In 1535 he was tried and executed for treason by beheading.
Thomas Moore’s name was added to the Roman Catholic calendar of saints in 1970 for celebration on 22 June jointly with St John Fisher, the only remaining Bishop (owing to the coincident natural deaths of eight aged bishops) who, during the English Reformation, maintained, at the King’s mercy, allegiance to the Pope.[44] In 2000, Pope John Paul II declared More the “heavenly patron of statesmen and politicians”.[45] In 1980, More was added to the Anglican calendar of Saints and Heroes of the Christian Church, jointly with John Fisher, and is commemorated on 6 July.[46]
Thomas Moore is the opposite of a SISSY.
In contrast, Cardinal Thomas Wolsey of York is King Henry VIII’s primary and most trusted adviser. To be in the good books of the King, he (against his conscience) desperately tried to find a way for Henry to free himself of his first marriage. He is subsequently arrested for treason against the King and commits suicide by slashing his neck during prayer.
Cardinal Thomas Wolsey of York is a good example of a SISSY.
If your going to use your own definition for words, then you should list that definition first, no? Otherwise I could call you all manner of unkind names, and explain that to me, those names are actually not insulting at all.
From http://www.thefreedictionary.com:
Sissy:
1. A boy or man regarded as effeminate.
2. A person regarded as timid or cowardly.
3. Informal Sister.
(from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language)
sissy:
noun: an effeminate, weak, or cowardly boy or man
adj: …effeminate, weak, or cowardly
(from Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged)
And other dictionaries seem to agree. Let’s be honest: you used the word “sissy” as an insult, and then when someone challenged you on it, you tried to explain it away so as to not lose credibility. Then, when further challenged, you tried to distract us with your example of Wolsey, hoping that people will be impressed with your knowlege of church history and forget about your indiscretion.
Your original quotation: “Haughty and rebellious men (like Henry VIII)who wanted to live lives out of control of the catholic church, and their sissy followers broke away from the living church, and are dead like Satan and his followers broke away from the Living God’s Kingdom.”
Calling them “effeminate, weak, or cowardly” is insulting them. I won’t claim Henry VIII as a “saint”, but he’s not the head of the protestant movement, you know. Men like Martin Luther (with his 95 theses, remember?) and John Calvin were the true leaders of the Protestant Reformation. They were anything but “sissies”! It takes a great deal of courage to speak out against the church, especially when the church is fond of burning such protesters! If anything, the “cowards” were the members of the Catholic clergy who did NOT speak out against the corruption. (Notice how I’m not calling them effeminate “sissies”.)
Now, you can justify yourself all you like, but your words are posted on the internet for everyone to see. Try to remember that *before* you hit “Send Question/Comment”. (And if you’re going to copy and paste text from another site, like Wikipedia, have the decency to say where you got it. Otherwise, it’s plagiarism.) ;p
Oops… that should be “you’re” in the first line, not “your”.
Let’s be honest: you used the word “sissy” as an insult, and then when someone challenged you on it, you tried to explain it away so as to not lose credibility.
The dictionary meaning of sissy that you have quoted (sissy:noun: an effeminate, weak, or cowardly boy or man)exactly describes the people who supported Henry VIII (against their conscience and out of fear of getting beheaded)in his illegal divorce, and breaking away from his original religion.
I agree I do not know whether they were effeminate in the sexual or genetic way, because I have not seen any reports of what they had between their legs, but their actions as per generally accepted history / reports, were defintely effeminate.
I think you should have referred to your dictionary before complaining that I was insulting them.
If anybody packs and leaves his town with his family out of fear of being attacked by a local hooligan or a gangster, he is a sissy, like all breakawys whether his name is Martin Luther or John Calvin. If they were not, they would have stayed back and fought the injustice. Running away from a problem is no way to solve it. You will have most of the time the same problems in the new place you are going to. With that attitude, you will always be a drifter, or a breakaway. You can now see splits after splits and more allegations of corruptions, and nepotism among the breakaway Christians than you find in the Catholic Church.
Their running away and infighting among themselves have only served to weaken and thwart Jesus’ plan of Salvation for mankind.
sissy:
noun: an effeminate, weak, or cowardly boy or man.
Calling them “effeminate, weak, or cowardly” is insulting them.
Even if I agree that I was insulting Henry VIII’s bootlickers, by equating the word “effeminate” with “weak” and “cowardly”, are you not insulting all animals and people belonging to the female gender who account for almost half the population of the world?
I’m tired of the arguments about “sissies.” Enough.