Is Religion the Source of Morality?

[Vyasadeva]

no im not stuck on anything. allah has no begining. yhwh has no begining. what about krsna?

Krsna has no beginning.

so let me get this straight. krsna went to being krsna and the demigods to becoming yhwh with a son to allah (who was ORIGINALLY part of a multiple god system) who has no son or partner.......this makes NO SENSE at all.

Of course it makes no sense. That is NOT AT ALL what I said.

There is ONE GOD. He is eternal. Due to different views of Him within the material world of "TIME", He has been known by different names and attributes.

if ALLAH (actually HU-BAAL) says he has NO partners OR son yet YHWH says that he DOES how are they the same?

I am NOT saying that "they" are the same! I am saying that these different names and attributes ALL exist within the ONE SUPREME LORD.

keep in mind that ISLAM came AFTER judaism and christianity. so that is a contradiction.

Yes it came after Judeo-Christianity. Yes its teachings contradict those of the Bible. Yet BOTH of these religions describe ONE SUPREME LORD. They are simply different views of Him.

only people who know chemistry can explain what it is or isnt. im not a chemist......i havent studied it.....so i cant tell you what chemicals to mix and what chemicals to leave out because they might cause something to explode. so if this is the case why are you and 916 saying what is and isnt when neither of you have studied islam (based on questions posed to you and answers)......

This has nothing to do with Islam, it has to do with a person (you/miggidy) having LIMITED experience in a field, and yet claiming with absolute certainty that ONLY that which you have studied is legitimate.

Since you are not a chemisty scholar, if you took a class on chemistry and then declared that ALL other chemistry classes were false, would that be a legitimate claim?

john 1:1-14 pay attention to verse 14.

The Word was made flesh so that those viewing the world with material vision could see him. Those with spiritual vision could see that he was 100% spiritual.

make it sound good buddy. all i know is that i asked you what christ meant and you replied "ATTRACTION". end of discussion.

It sounds real good, I know. Stay stuck on that "attraction" if it benefits you.

due to many translations, errors,
variations etc etc etc it would be WISE for one to study the greek,latin,hebrew and arabic and aramaic writtings (if possible).my knowledge comes from what I have ***studied*** AND what i have been TAUGHT.

That's good. I have studied Hindi, Bengali, Sanksrit, and Roman so that I could make sure I got the best translation of the original Sanskrit that the Vedas were written in.

so with that being said you either

a.) didnt know the answer to the question i gave you

b.) gave an answer that was irrelevent to the question (the sanskrit meaning)

c.) ignored the question altogether

d.) believe that christ and krsna (the words) have the same meaning

which one is it????????

e. none of the above.

im not squabbling with you or making personal attacks directed at you. if you feel its a squabble i wont even reply to the thread. i do not want confusuion.

I didn't mean you were squabbling with ME, but with definitions. Putting all your emphasis on the semantics of Greek Lexicon is counterproductive to meaningful dialogue.

you cant make them drink. which is why one must STUDY before they condemn something and say what it is or isnt......

EXACTLY. Have you studied the Vedas and Sankrit? How then can you condemn them and say what they are not without having first studied them?

the flesh is flesh.....its dirt/clay/dust whatever you wanna call it.

Yes, even though it is physical, being that it emanates from God it *IS* spiritual. One must have the proper vision with which to see this.

im stuck on elementry dogma yet you cant even tell me the meaning of christ

Whether or not I can give you a definition of "Christ" that *YOU* find acceptable is irrelevant to the elementary level of the dogma you adhere to.

simply put YOU agree with the bible (so you claim) yet the bible does NOT agree with ANYTHING you have typed.

The Bible agrees with me, it is *YOUR* interpretation of it that does not. I am not stuck on the 'milk' teachings of the Bible.

im simply calling you on what you are typing. your a grown man like i am.

No doubt.

if you cant handle someone questioning your logic or reason........well.......just keep in mind about how many times i have attacked YOU personally and how many times you have attacked ME. keep it in mind.......

I have no problem with anyone questioning me. I encourage it. But I haven't been keeping score with the attacks that have been made.

You claim "you are in error", "you are a false christ", etc. And I respond in a similar manner. I have a thick enough skin that this shit doesn't affect me, and I'm sure you do too. We can keep it movin.

however because i am familiar with greek and hebrew i DONT need to consort a strongs.......YOU however......you need one.

No I don't. I receive knowledge from a source which PREDATES all Greek and Hebrew existence, and I have familiarized myself with the ancient languages of Sanskrit and Bengali. Greek and Hebrew is not the only languages which can explain ancient spiritual knowledge.

you can enter the SPIRITUAL world WITHOUT becoming 100% spiritual.

LOL! You're kidding, right?

just ask a wiccan.

I would have to ask them what dope they been smoking if they believe that.

better yet ask a warlock where he is when he is inside a perfect circle.........

I think I trust Krsna over a warlock.

NO ONE HAS A SPIRITUAL (GLORIFIED) BODY yet.

We all have a spiritual body. Our material body is covering it. The material elements of water, air, fire, earth, ether, when mixed together are like clay and the flesh of our temporary bodies is covering our eternal spiritual body.

this CONTRADICTS the ressurection.

No it doesn't. It contradicts incomplete knowledge of the resurrection.

so now the word has a different meaning........HAHAHAHA!!!!! because words DO

Do you REALLY think that the meaning of "Christ" can be summarized by ONE word, and that ONE word is "anointed"? Hahahahhaaaa.. yeah aiight.

 

[XianeX]

i am so sad that ive caught this thread so late in the discussion.

once again another beautiful post @ 20.

@ vy as a beliver in a hindi religion why do you personificate god as being not The ONE but a One.

according to the upanishads we are a part of that one. im not mentally inclined to acceot all the teachings of the baghvad gita and the srimad cantos. but i do find the upanisads as more fundamental even in comparison to the rg veda. but thats my opinion

 

[HERESY]

Yeah, and those who he was talking to were going to go back to the Pharisees and tell them what John said. Being killed is alot worse than being in jail, no?

on what grounds do you have that john feared for his life when he was asked those questions??? please explain how you come to this assessment. JESUS WAS KILLED ON THE GROUNDS OF *BLASPHEMY*. ON WHAT GROUNDS WOULD JOHN HAVE BEEN KILLED? BY THE WAY JOHN WAS KILLED. HEROD=MORE POWER THAN THE JEWS.

I aint manipulating shit. The scriptures speak for themselves.

YES YOU ARE BECAUSE THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES *FEARED* JOHN AND THE PEOPLE WHO FOLLOWED HIM....YOU ARE ALSO MANIPULATING THE SCRIPTURES BECAUSE THE SCRIPTURE I GAVE YOU SAID THAT MAN IS TO DIE *ONCE* AND BE JUDGED...NOT DIE ONCE AND BE REBORN AND REBORN AND REBORN.....

The numbers are not "OFF", they are simply DIFFERENT. The conclusion is the same but they are using DIFFERENT equations. They ALL add up to God.

IF I SAID I HAD A SON THEN LATER DENIED HAVING A SON THAT WOULD MAKE ME A LIAR.

When I was 15 I had no girlfriend. (ALLAH) When I was 18-23 I was fuckin with 3 bitches simultaneously. (YHWH) Presently I have one girl. (KRSNA) These are three different descriptions of ONE PERSON. They APPEAR to contradict themselves, but they are ALL DESCRIBING THE SAME PERSON, ME.

THE PROBLEM WITH *THIS* IS THAT *ISLAM* COMES *AFTER* JUDAISM/CHRISTIANITY. NOW IF ISLAM CAME *BEFORE* YOU WOULD HAVE A CASE. HOWEVER WE ARE GOING FROM HAVING A SON TO NOT HAVING A SON. EITHER THE SUPREME BEING HAS A SON OR HE DOESNT. KEEP IN MIND THAT CHRISTIANITY CAME *BEFORE* ISLAM.

GOD is the SAME PERSON, yet due to different TIME AND CIRCUMSTANCE, He has been known by different people to have different attributes. This DOES NOT mean that God changes His mind or changes His attributes, but that WE view Him differently because we exist within TIME.

IN ISLAM ALLAH SPECIFALLY STATES THAT HE HAS *NO* SON OR PARTNER.....IF HE IS THE SAME AS YHWH WHY DID HE PREVIOUSLY SAY (BEFORE ISLAM AND THE QURAN) THAT HE HAD A SON? IN FACT WHY IS JESUS IN THE QURAN SAYING HE DIDNT SAY CERTAIN THINGS YET IN THE BIBLE HE IS CLAIMING TO BE THE SON OF GOD (WHICH LED TO HIM BEING CONVICTED).

YOU CANNOT SAY THAT ALLAH ,YHWH AND KRSNA ARE THE SAME. YOU CANNOT SAY "HE IS KNOWN TO THOSE OVER THERE AS SUCH AND SUCH AND WITH A SON BUT TO THOSE OVER HERE HE DOESNT HAVE A SON BECAUSE OF BLAH BLAH BLAH"

Nonsense. Spirit is eternal. Since spirit is not existing within TIME, it cannot "die". Even as you sin you are not separate from God, you are blinded from seeing Him, but God is ALL, therefore He is present everywhere.

WHEN I SAY THAT ONE DIES *SPIRITUALLY* I AM ***NOT*** EQUATING THAT TO HOW A HUMAN DIES OR HOW A DOG CAN GET HIT BY A CAR AND DIE. IM TALKING ABOUT BEING BLIND FROM SEEING HIM AND BEING TURNED AWAY FROM HIM. CASE IN POINT. WHEN ADAM AND EVER WERE KICKED OUT THE GARDEN. WHEN THEY SINNED THEY DIED A *SPIRITUAL* DEATH. HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SPIRIT BEING DESTROYED OR CEASING TO *EXIST*. HAS TO DO WITH GOD BEING HOLY AND HIS VIEW ON SIN.

No it aint. That is just bullshit dogma used to control those with lesser intelligence.

ON WHAT GROUNDS DO YOU COME TO THIS CONCLUSION? PLEASE USE THE BIBLE (SINCE YOU ADHERE TO IT) AND SHOW ME HOW SINNING DOES NOT LEAD TO SPIRITUAL DEATH.

I understand that when you sin you are in rebellion against Him. But I do not fall for that "spiritual death" bullshit, some of us aint that gullible. Spirit has no beginning, no middle, and no ending. HOW can that which is timeless, "die"? It is simply illogical and incoherent. I recognize the mind control techniques of the dogma you spewing. Yall are stuck in that narrow vision due to fear. Cats fear not being saved, and they fear this nonsensical "spiritual death".

READ THE ABOVE. IT HAS *NOTHING* TO DO WITH YOUR SPIRIT ACTUALLY *DYING*. YOUR SPIRIT/SOUL IS ETERNAL. I AGREE WITH THAT. SPIRITUAL DEATH IS *NOT* CEASING TO LIVE OR BE ETERNAL.

 

[HERESY]

.

I see that you do not really understand God. You can NEVER be separated from God. That is IMPOSSIBLE. God is ALL-PERVADING, and ALL-ENCOMPASSING, therefore there is not one thing in all existence which is "cut off/separated" from God. The "separation" is only due to the perception of the sinner.

USING THE BIBLE I HAVE SHOWN YOU THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO BE CUTT OFF FOREVER (PLEASE READ THE SCRIPTURES I GAVE YOU IN PREVIOUS POSTS). SINCE YOU ADHERE TO THE BIBLE USE IT TO SHOW ME THAT NOTHING IS CUTT OFF FROM GOD FOREVER.

So what? Logic is your enemy? Do you know that God is present inside every atom?

IS GOD INSIDE MY COMPUTER? IS LOGIC YOUR FRIEND?

I don't adhere to the Bible. I adhere to the Vedas. So if you can prove YOUR point with the Vedas I would acknowledge your message.

SO NOW YOU DONT ADHERE TO THE BIBLE? HERE ARE THINGS *YOU* SAID ABOUT THE BIBLE

What you don't seem to understand is that I DO NOT question the authenticity of the Bible. I accept it as authoritative scripture.

Yup, as I said, I do not doubt the credibility of the Bible. So what?

Unlike you, however, I do not make the claim that ONLY the Vedas are authentic. I know that they are, and I know that the Bible is.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW ITS POSSIBLE FOR ONE TO NOT ADHERE TO THE BIBLE YET TAKE IT AS AUTHORITIVE SCRIPTURE? I DONT ADHERE TO THE VEDAS NOR DO I ACKNOWLEDGE THEM AS AUTHORITIVE SCRIPTURE. NOR HAVE I EVER CLAIMED TO DO SUCH.THE BURDON OF PROOF IS ON YOU.

See above.

SEE ABOVE.

See above.

SEE ABOVE.

Who said that it did? The FACT is that his life during the years 13-30 are unaccounted for.

HOW IS HIS LIFE UNACCOUNTED FOR? IS THE CHILDHOOD OF JOHN THE BAPTIST ACCOUNTED FOR? HOW ABOUT THE CHILD HOOD OF CAIN?

You don't see shit. Orthodox Jews normally eat lamb at passover but it is NOT required! I live near an orthodox Jewish community near Robertson/Pico in West L.A. and have had this conversation MANY times with different Jews. MOST do eat lamb but it is NOT required. And since Jesus was preaching something different than standard Judaism, why do you assume that he DEFINITELY ate meat?

I SUGGEST *YOU* STUDY JUDAISM *YOURSELF* AND SEE IF ITS REQUIRED OR NOT.

On the same grounds you use to say the Vedas are not accurate.

CAN YOU PLEASE QUOTE ME SAYING WHY THE VEDAS ARE NOT ACCURATE? I SAID I DONT ADHERE TO THEM OR CONSIDER THEM AUTHORITIVE.....I DONT RECALL SAYING WHY....I COULD BE WRONG BUT CAN YOU PLEASE CUT AND PASTE IT?

I never said he "grew up" in India. I never said he was not a Nazarene. There IS evidence which points to him having visited India and passing through many other countries. Does that mean he did? No. Does that mean he didn't? No.

SO WHY LIST IT?

No, Jesus is not a conditioned soul. WE ARE. Jesus is eternally liberated and eternally a 100% pure spiritual being. WE ARE NOT. Jesus is the Son of God, therefore he can do what he pleases. WE ARE NOT. Therefore we have rules we have to abide by.

HE HAD RULES TO ABIDE BY ALSO. WHICH IS WHY HE FULFILLED THE LAW. JESUS IS NOT SOME LEARNED EXALTED MASTER GURU WHO LEARNED ALL THE GAME.....TURN THIS STONE TO BREAD, JUMP OFF THIS BUILDING.....

So what? The Son of God is not under the control of material nature so he can do whatever he wants and still retain his perfection. WE ARE NOT HIM. We have rules to follow.

SO THE SON OF GOD IS EXEMPT FROM FOLLOWING 2 OF THE 4 RULES YOU LISTED.......WOW.......

You are in error. Many orthodox Jews observe passover in that way, but it IS NOT REQUIRED.

I SUGGEST YOU STUDY JUDAIMS AND PASSOVER FOR YOURSELF.

Man you are confused. YOU are not your body, YOU are the soul within. Your material body is nothing but a useless lump of matter. Without the spirit soul within it it has no life. When your body dies die, YOU are GONE from your body.

I UNDERSTAND THIS. IN FACT I HAVE TYPED THIS.

THEREFORE **YOU** are NOT flesh and bone. **YOU** DO NOT grow older. **YOU** DO NOT gain or lose weight. These are things which take place within material time, and the SOUL that YOU are, is eternal

I AM COMPRISED OF FLESH/SOUL/SPIRIT.

Those things are all happening to YOUR BODY, which is DIFFERENT than the soul occupying it.

I AGREE AND THE BODY IS A CLOAK OF SORTS. HOWEVER IT IS THE *LAST* EXTENSION OF *ME*.

No you aren't. You are comprised of 2 parts. Flesh and spirit soul. There is no difference between "spirit" and "soul". THey describe the exact same entity residing within your body. That spirit and soul separation is simply more nonsensical "Christian" dogma

HEY IF YOU SAY SO.I Thessalonians 5:23. PLEASE READ.

PLEASE LOOK UP THE WORDS

pneuma
psyche
soma

And I call you what you are. What are we fuckin 10 years old? Heresy is knows all, and I am a false Christ. Blah blah blah... You display ignornce and your brain must be crushing under the weight of that inflated ego you got.

IM ACTING LIKE A TEN YEAR OLD YET I HAVE NOT CURSED AT YOU,SLANDERED YOU OR ACCUSED YOU OF SAYING SOMETHING YOU DIDNT

YOU THINK I HAVE AN EGO. YOU THINK THAT I KNOW ALL. IM GLAD YOU THINK HIGHLY OF ME.

LMAO! You don't even know what the "doctrine" is, much less poked any holes in it. All you have done is present your ignorant egotistical view of Jesus Christ and passed it off as some sort of spiritual knowledge.

I DONT KNOW THE DOCTRINE BASED ON WHAT?

What the fuck? You are comparing appled and oranges. You already know the Bible's position on those subjects. NO ONE here is saying that the Vedas or the Koran is 100% identical to it. Since you already know the Bible's position, and I know the Vedic position, I will present that which I know about. Since you or I am not Musilm, I see no reason to spend time posting the Koran version of those subjects

WE ARE TALKING BAOUT THREE MAJOR RELIGIONS. ISLAM,HINDUISM AND CHRISTIANITY/JUDAISM. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT VEDAS,QURAN AND THE BIBLE. SO I *MIGHT* TAKE TIME TO POST THE SURRAHS THAT ARE RELEVENT TO MY QUESTIONS. IF SOMETHING IS IDENTICAL IT IS THE SAME RIGHT?

Unlike you however, I do not question the AUTHENTICITY of the Bible or the Koran. I KNOW that they all present TRUTH.

ONLY ONE TRUTH EXIST. IF SOMETHING IS 99% ACCURATE YET FALLS SHORT ON THE LAST 1% GUESS WHAT?

Your dismissal of everything outside the Bible is NOT a result of them not possessing TRUTH, but because you have your neat little preconceived ideas about God and Jesus, and in your delusion you have concluded that ALL other scripture is bogus.

I GUESS THIS IS THE REASON WHY I HAVE STUDIED GREEK AND HEBREW ON MY OWN..MAYBE ITS THE REASON WHY I HAVE NEVER BEEN A MEMBER OF AN ORGANIZED CHURCH/RELIGION......YEAH MAYBE ITS THE REAOSN WHY I STARTED TO GO ON A SERIOUS STUDY WHEN I WAS YOUNGER....

It does not give the names of them, it does not describe their appearance and attributes, and it does not explain each of their functions in detail.

YES IT DOES. FROM SERAPHIM TO THE THRONES TO THE CHERUBIM. FROM HAVING MULTIPLE EYES TO MULTIPLE WINGS TO THEM BEING "CLOTHED IN FLAME". NOW DOES IT GO INTO GREAT DETAIL LIKE THE BOOKS OF ENOCH OR JASHER? NO. BUT IT DOES EXPLAIN WHO THEY ARE,WHAT THEY DO,WHY THEY DO IT AND WHEN.......

WHAT I TYPE IS TYPED OUT OF LOVE FOR GOD AND LOVE FOR YOU. I WILL NOT RIDICULE *YOU*. HOWEVER I WILL HOLD YOU ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT *YOU* SAY. IM NOT TRYING TO BE MR. KNOW IT ALL BECAUSE I DONT KNOW IT ALL. HOWEVER IF I SEE THAT YOU ARE TYPING SOMETHING WITH NO EVIDENCE AND A BLATENT DISREGARD FOR TRUTH I WILL QUESTION........

YOU SAID THAT YOU HOLD THE BIBLE AS AUTHORITIVE SCRIPTURE YET YOU CANNOT USE THE BIBLE TO PROVE YOUR POINTS. WHAT YOU DID USE THE BIBLE TO PROVE HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCREDITED AND SHOWN TO BE OUT OF CONTEXT (JOHN THE BAPTIST BEING AFRAID FOR EXAMPLE).


SHALOM.

:h:

AND WITH THIS I BOW OUT OF THE THREAD NEVER TO EVEN READ IT AGAIN.

 

[XianeX]

islam existed before christianity by the definition of the word islam. it was foramlized into a religion after christianity true but according to judaism that supercedes them both god did not have a begotten son other than what david said that god called him. even the myth of virgin birth is dispelled in the book of isiah where it is said that it proves jesus's virgin birth.

no deity is the same.

but as noted to the subject of this post by 20 the debate of religion is one of its main reasons for being anathema to atheists and intellectual agnostics alike. its inconsistancy and inclination to faith only dogma that causes the controversy in the world.

 

[Vyasadeva]

@ vy as a beliver in a hindi religion why do you personificate god as being not The ONE but a One.

I don't follow a "hindi religion", I follow sanatana-dharma, eternal law.

Krsna is both "a" One and "the" One. He is the Supreme Person within whom all is existing. Brahman is His impersonal emanation.

according to the upanishads we are a part of that one.

All Vedic literature confirms that we are a part of the ONE.

im not mentally inclined to acceot all the teachings of the baghvad gita and the srimad cantos.

That is your prerogative, but the Bhagavatam and the Gita are the most important of the Vedic scriptures in this age of Kali.

The Srimad Bhagavatam is known as the ripened fruit of the Vedas. It is Vyasadeva's commentary outlining the most important and fundamental truths of the 4 original Vedas (Rg, Yajur, Sama, Atharva).

The Upanisads are the philosophical portion of the Vedas and contain immense knowledge. The Bhagavad-Gita is the sum and substance of the ENTIRE Vedic literature, because it is the Supreme Personality of Godhead explaining Himself in explicit detail.

but i do find the upanisads as more fundamental even in comparison to the rg veda. but thats my opinion

You're right. The Upanishads are fundamental and very philosophical, and are referred to by most Hindus because they describe the impersonal feature of God, which is Brahman.

The Upanisads do point to God ultimately being personal.

kashmin tu bhagavo vijnate sarvam idam vijnatam bhavati

"If one is able to understand the Supreme Person, then everything becomes known."

There is another prayer in the Upanisads where Brahma says: "My Lord, please remove this glaring effulgence so that I may see your face." The Bhagavad-Gita is the means by which one may remove the veil of the impersonal Brahman and see Krsna face-to-face.

 

[Vyasadeva]

I was going to respond to the rest of your thread, but since you aint even gonna read it I will just say this.

WHAT I TYPE IS TYPED OUT OF LOVE FOR GOD AND LOVE FOR YOU. I WILL NOT RIDICULE *YOU*.

I feel the exact same way. Nothing is more important than loving God, and furthering our understanding of Him. We might call Him by different names, but the same God that provides you with the air you breathe is the same God that provides me with mine.

You might think I'm in error, and I might think you have a basic level of spiritual understanding, but like you said, the point is not to ridicule one another. These are inconsequential differences between us, when the important thing is that we both love God.

Namaste

 

[XianeX]

@ vy - what you said. i ask this. if we are part of "that One" then the concept of "a One" is then nullified. the personification of "the One" removes away from its (or should i say) the Strength.

most of whats left of my collection of religious books is eastern text. hinduism at its fundamental level is the only philosophy that i find intellectual and viable to mankind universally. so i when i speak to you it IS in respect and in honest query.

some find me confrontational but i am that way only in hopes that i may challenge you to challenge your own way of percieving things.

with that said.

i disagree with your thinkin that krnsa/god is "a One" and "The one" in the context of personification. but i do think that this could be correct if you are speaking from the context that krsna is "a one" in the logia that man can choose any path or incarnation of "the one" since they fundamentally lead in the same direction.

i think that the variety of gods religions and spiritualities are just iconographic art that draw away from the One truth.
america's founding fathers as deist may have came to this same conclusion with the law of seperation between church and state.

although there is nothing wrong with art

marinara

 

[XianeX]

after reviewing this thread i must say that vy is by far the only cat that ive seen that has impressed me other than :h: with words.

this is very entertaining. for a second i thought that me and :h: were the only ones with the capacity to mince words about this subject.

@heresy you and vy have a similar debating style this may get long and interesting

you both have interesting perspectives although i find heresy the stronger of the debate.

i am biased by some of vy's insights although i disagree with a lot of his opinions and theology (emphasis on ology).

*grabs popcorn*

 

[Vyasadeva]

@ vy - what you said. i ask this. if we are part of "that One" then the concept of "a One" is then nullified. the personification of "the One" removes away from its (or should i say) the Strength.

Actually no it doesn't. I don't know how deep your study of the Vedas go, but do you know about acintya-bhedabheda-tattva? That translates to "inconceivable simultaneous Oneness and distinction from all".

Basically it is saying that we are all part of the ONE, yet the Supreme Truth is eternally simultaneously CONNECTED to yet DISTINCT from us, therefore He can be called "The" One and also "A" One.

most of whats left of my collection of religious books is eastern text. hinduism at its fundamental level is the only philosophy that i find intellectual and viable to mankind universally.

No doubt, I agree completely.

so i when i speak to you it IS in respect and in honest query.

I recognize that and respect it as well.

some find me confrontational but i am that way only in hopes that i may challenge you to challenge your own way of percieving things.

Your challenge is welcomed, I appreciate anybody that can make me question things. And if you've studied eastern texts then you should be able to do that.

i disagree with your thinkin that krnsa/god is "a One" and "The one" in the context of personification.

It all comes down to whether or not you view God as personal or impersonal. I can't see how God is not ultimately a person. If you have any arguments against the personalism of God I would be interested to hear them.

Brahman is what you might call "The One". It is the impersonal underlying reality of all existence. However Brahman is simply the effulgence of Krsna. Krsna is "a" One, being that He is a singular person, yet He is also "The" One, because He is the SOURCE of the impersonal Brahman. Therefore He encompasses both the personal and impersonal aspects of the Supreme.

but i do think that this could be correct if you are speaking from the context that krsna is "a one" in the logia that man can choose any path or incarnation of "the one" since they fundamentally lead in the same direction.

This is also correct. Fundamentally all religious paths lead to the same Supreme Being. Some regard the Supreme as being personal, some as impersonal, and some think He is a void. Somce call Him YHWH, ALLAH, or KRSNA. These variations only arise as a result of different realizations of Him, due to different times and circumstances, yet He eternally remains the same, unchanging and absolute.

Those who know Krsna know that He is both "the" One and "a" One at the same time. acintya-bhedabheda-tattva, simultaneously One and different from the One. He is both the personal and the impersonal.

This is a difficult concept for most to grasp. Picture a person sitting a can of soda on the table in front of them. acintya-bhedabheda-tattva means that that person has his hand gripping the can while *simultaneously* that same hand is hovering a foot in the air above the soda can. This is physically impossible for one of us to accomplish, but for the Supreme Lord this is His inconceivable nature.

i think that the variety of gods religions and spiritualities are just iconographic art that draw away from the One truth.

Or maybe they are iconographic art which DEPICT the One truth?

You have to remember that variety is the spice of life. God is infinitely variegated yet also Absolute. Those who have no idea about God can remain agnostic or Deist. Those who do not want to worship a personal God can look to Taoism or Buddhism and concentrate on Brahman and Nirvana and Void. Those who want a personal God can look toward Judeo-Christian faiths. Those who want a variety of demigods to pray to can look to Hinduism, and those who want to know the Absolute Truth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, will find Krsna.

Then there are the lowest among men, who do not want to recognize any higher power outside of themselves and so they worship only themselves, they are atheists. All these varieties exist within the One truth.

america's founding fathers as deist may have came to this same conclusion with the law of seperation between church and state.

I don't think there were any motives the separation other than their desire for the proliferation of capitalism. The C of E left a bitter taste in their mouths and that is why even though they were heavily Christian/Catholic, they adopted a Deist stance which definitely aided in their objective to usher in a new era of "money is God", otherwise known as capitalism.

although there is nothing wrong with art

Ha, I agree.

Jaya Prabhu.

 

[XianeX]

Or maybe they are iconographic art which DEPICT the One truth?

nice answer

INTERESTING! i dig you. i wish :h: was as open minded.

now that i have a full understanding of what you mean by "a one" and "the one" i can concur on your definition.

 

[miggidy]

QUOTE]Originally posted by Vyasadeva

You are quite incorrect. I do not base ANY of my ideas on the claims of Jesus visiting India. I repeat, that is NOT a basis for my worldview.

I simply presented that to see what yours and Heresy's opinions were on the evidence which points to his having visited. As I expected, it is also dismissed outright.
[/QUOTE]

The Indian Jesus claim hardly has any evidence. And the fact that the claims suggest that he lived there just a few hundred years ago kills the entire theory.
Like I said, this claim falls right there next to the Mormon claim of Jesus visiting early America. Also not to mention the Islamic accout of Issa.
Jesus clearly indicated that there would be false prophets after him.
These characters are a clear indication of what Jesus for told….

It's one or the other. Either I am "saved" and am going to heaven, OR my actions have consequences and *I* ultimately decide my destination. Which one is it?

Would you care to speculate as to whether the priests who get caught for pedophila are still "saved" and have their "ticket", OR will their sinful actions result in punishment?

It’s not one or the other but it’s both. You can’t have one with out the other.
You accept the sacrifice and when you do so, the Holy Spirit enters your body.
And it’s because of the Spirit that you change your ways.
But the spirit will never enter your body if you are not sincere.

And by knowing this, you can draw the answer to the pedophiliac priest question you asked. The priests never had the “ticket” in the first place.
They are of the brood of vipers….

Yes, if you would have read the website you posted, it explains that Vyasadeva is the compiler of ALL the Vedic literature, including the Bhavishya Purana. The website you provided is suspect, seeing as they only posted certain portions and have grammatical errors all throught the scripture.

I'm curious, did you read about the part where Adama and his wife, and how Kali came in the form of a serpent, and how Adama ate from the forbidden tree? Sound a little familiar?

How about the story of Noah being in there? Here is a little bit:
Interesting isn't it? A text written before there was such a thing as the Bible or history, yet it is about the future and is inconceivably accurate

I don’t understand how the website is suspect since it’s designed by Vedic believers attempting to introducing people to the Vedas.
The text is only about 3 thousand years old. The great flood happened much further back. It’s only predicting the past.
It’s not the first time text similar to the bible is found.
The Sumerian King tablets talk about the same Adam and Eve characters and the Noah character. The only difference is that the Sumerian scripture resembles the biblical scripture more than the Vedas do.
Lets not forget that the Vedas and the Sumerian tablets date back to 3,000 years. While the oldest Old Testament scripture “found so far” dates back to almost 4 thousand years. It’s safe to say that the Vedas and the Sumerian tablets were inspired by the book of Genesis.

Of course there are "nice" people who worship Jesus, but the fact is that the majority of "Christians" are self-indulgent mlecchas.

They aren't wicked in YOUR eyes, but in the transcendental view of the sastra, if they are not following the 4 principles, they are mlecchas. Thieves do not consider other thieves to be wicked. Gangsters do not consider other gangsters to be wicked.

Meat eating is eating in the mode of ignorance. Perpetuating needless slaughter is a wicked trait. Meat eaters worshipping Jesus is a perfect example of "He who is worshipped by the wicked".

Don’t get it twisted, true Christians are harmless people who help those in need.
Those self-indulgent Christians are hypocrites who are ignorant. And have no clue what Christianity is about….
With your philosophy, we can assume that every Muslim is wicked just like Bin Laden. True Muslims don’t kill innocent people, Bin Laden is a hypocrite….

God, and Muslims get the bad rep, but look at what the Vedas preach.
Meat eating a Sin?
And illicit sex a sin? Can you describe to me what’s illicit sex in the first place?
If sex were only for child bearing purposes then there wouldn’t be orgasms in sex.
This claim is totally contradicted by the female clitoris.
And wasn’t Kama Sutra Indian? I wonder if he subscribed to the Vedic beliefs….

Heresy, I hope that you are reading this. Peep this is out….

The Vedic writers bit their tongue big time! V, I’m curious to see what your response will be even though, you cannot argue about what I’m about to say…
The Vedas claim that it is against God’s teachings for us to eat meat? Is that so?
That’s contradictory because why in the hell would God make us a carnivorous species in the first place???? The Vedic law goes against God’s nature in every way imaginable. It doesn’t even make sense. There is a food chain in this here planet Earth and animals feed off other animals for survival. I see the Vedic point of view, this is violent but that is nature. And we are at the top of the food chain. We need to eat other animals for our own survival, which is what God stated in the book of Genesis. Can you imagine what would happen to the eco system if animals stopped eating each other? Doom! We need protein in our diet! That’s why a lot of Hindus eat poultry in spite of what the Vedas teach.
Man This goes to show that the Vedas were written by some dude claiming to be inspired by God just to brain wash people for personal gain. No different than what Mohammed did with the Quran. Well maybe not like Mohammed as I’m sure who ever wrote the Vedas had nothing but good intentions. However this contradiction has the fingerprints of man all over the Vedas.
Dogg, and please don’t even try to debate the fact that we are a carnivorous species because I’m gonna have to spend another few days debating a proven fact.

The Vedic poets shot themselves in the foot about 3 thousand years ago, let it go bro….

You are in error. Actually it is PROOF that the Purana is speaking of Jesus. The Vedas expplain that meat eating is sinful behavior and the killing of animals is carried out by the wicked.

Heresy peep this out too bro…

V, you should really study the origins of the Bhavisya Purana and you will see that this text is not trustworthy. It has been revised a few number of times through out history, even in the 19th century. It is no coincidence that the Purana’s give Jesus the Arabic name version, Issa. India was conquered by Mohammed and it’s a clear indication that the Muslims altered the Bhavisya Purana to fool the Indian people into submission.
The whole idea that Jesus lived after the crucifixion comes from Mohammed’s mind and it’s apparent that he implemented his ideals into the Bhavisya Purana. The Purana names Mohammed very clearly and Jesus in the Arabic form of Issa. But why not in Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke in?
This is a clear indication that Arab Muslims tampered with the Purana.
The Bhavisya Purana even speaks of Britain’s Queen Victoria, and guess what? India was also conquered by Great Britain under Queen Victoria’s rule. And if this isn’t enough to convince you that the Purana’s have been subjected to a number of alterations then how do you explain the addition of English words in the Bhavisya Purana? Words such as "Sunday", "February" and "Sixty", very clear indications of tampering during the 19th century.
Just about every religious scholar other than Hindu scholars believe the Purana’s are right down fraudulent. And it is not only the Puranas that are fraudulent but also the entire Vedas fall prey because they have done what the Quran did, and that is to borrow from the Bible. It was not just Islamic writers who have tampered with the Vedas but even Hindu authors as well. People claim that the Puranas are the history of the future but they are only prophesizing the past by borrowing from the bible.

Go to my friend’s website for more info:
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Mna/hindu.html

Since your average "Christian" eats meat and sees no evil in the needless slaughter of billions of animals, Jesus Christ is worshipped by the wicked.

I guess Jesus was wicked too. I mean he did eat fish at one point….

No, I don't know where you got that from. Prajapati is a common name seen throughout the Vedas, but Lord Brahma is also known as Prajapati. Prajapati also refers to the controller of women, who are the objects of sexual pleasure, and the controller of the sense perception of sexual pleasure.

Wasn’t Prajapati torn into pieces?

No, nothing is "going against" anything. Jesus *is* a perfect role model and you *should* try to live like he did. I'm not arguing against that in any way.

It's too bad though that those who claim to worship and follow him can't get themselves to actualoly LIVE LIKE HIM. They are not sincere in their desire and ultimately they just want Jesus to pay for their sins so they can go on enjoying life in whatever way they want.

I agree

****Cont.****

 

[miggidy]

No, no, no.. You are comparing two things which are completely unrelated. Prajapati was not a "false Christ" or a "false prophet", nor did he pretend to be.

You are flat out wrong potna.

I notice you have a pattern you follow, which is that you start out typing about a certain thing, but then you get carried off into other subjects, then you make ASSUMPTIONS about what I believe in, and then you attempt to defeat that position that you set up. Your posts are long and rambling and ultimately you are arguing against a position that I don't even hold! That is called a strawman, and it is not a very honest method of dicussion.

I do not subscribe to your theory of Prajapati, and the Vedas do not corroborate that which you are spouting.

What surprises me is how the hell have you come to this conclusion when I haven't said ANYTHING about what you are saying?!?!

I do NOT agree or accept with this "theory" you are talking about.

Dog, I have not said that I accept ANY theory on the matter. I simply PRESENTED the subject to you. I did NOT say that I know for a fact that he did or did not go to India. I did NOT say that you have to believe it. I simply presented it because there is evidence which points to it happening.

You really should ASK what a person believes about a certain thing before you make assumptions and then argue against those assumptions, because as you are finding out, I do not agree nor believe any of the things you are assuming about me.

I remember reading that Prajapati was torn to pieces as a form of sacrifice to mankind.
And it’s because of this sacrifice that some people draw the comparison with Jesus.

The Pattern that you speak of is only because I played along with the games you played earlier. I kept posting claims making you seem like you didn’t believe in Jesus. I purposely did that because you questioned my beliefs of Jesus, while not backing up your own reasons.
And now you say you believe not only in Jesus but also in God. But God in your eyes is Krishna. That’s why I’m assuming that you pick the Hindu version of Jesus over the biblical one. Because it connects the bible with the Vedas.
But if this isn’t the reason why you don’t believe that the biblical God is not related to Krishna then I don’t know what is.

Yes, God was pissed because they were "CREATING THEIR OWN GODS."

The Gods in the Vedas are NOT "created", they are eternal and authentic.

For example, if I decide not to pay postage any more, so I build my own mailbox and start putting my letters in there, will they get delivered? NO. Because that mailbox is not bonafide. If I use a U.S. Postal Service recognized mailbox, my mail will get delivered.

Similarly, if one worships an authentic Deity as described in the Vedas, the desired result is obtained. If I worship a Scooby-Doo chia pet, that is NOT authorized and God will be pissed off at that.

I don’t see any authenticity in the Vedic deities, it’s right up there with Greek mythology.
And when I say that, I don’t mean it in a disrespectful way. I’m just implying that it’s all a mythology.

Yes, love Him above everything else, but that does NOT mean that He cannot be worshipped in Deity form.

You say God is a person, but you don't know what He looks like do you? I do. You just don't understand that worshipping a Deity of Krsna is the same as worshipping Him in your mind. If one chants the maha-mantra, it is the same as engaging in Deity worship. These various methods of worship are authorized by the Lord because he is so merciful upon us that He lets us worship Him in many different ways.

[/B][/QUOTE]
I don’t know about that, I mean I know that he is merciful. But I’m not sure he’s ok with us creating many deities out of him. He made it clear through Abraham, Moses and Jesus….

What are you talking about?!?!? The Vedas were around for 3,000 years BEFORE Christ appeared! They were being followed in India at the same time Christ was living and walking.

As far as I know, the Vedas are only 3 thousand years old. They have been tampered with on top of that. Did you know that the manuscripts have been passed on and completely rewritten through the years? The scribes were written in leaves and have been copied over and over. And most interesting is the fact that just about everything we know comes from the studies of Orient lists Dr.Vidyarthi and Arvindaksha Menon. Very slim compared to the teams of scholars, historians, archeologists, and writers who have translated the bible. And a lot of these people weren’t even Christians. We know that the Vedas themselves were written by the sage Parashara. Later his son, Vedavyasa wrote eighteen mythologies idolizing his father's original creation. 2 people, compared to hundreds of people who wrote and witnessed the biblical scriptures at different times, different places, and with different languages. The pieces of the puzzle were scattered and the early church put them together and all the books found in the bible tell a complete story.

Jesus could NOT have spoken about the Vedas because the time and circumstances of his appearance demanded that he stick to the fundamentals of Judaism while still preaching his unique message.

If Jesus came out the blue talking about Krsna, Siva, Indra, Brahma, Vedas, do you REALLY think he would have had any followers? No, he would not have had one. His mission was not to preach Krsna consciousness, it was to preach love of God to a degraded mleccha society.

It makes absolutely no sense that Jesus didn’t speak about the Vedas for whatever reason. He had already changed a few things from the Old Testament, why not reveal the whole deal? There wasn’t anything more for him to say. Don’t you think God would send him out to merge the gap between the Vedas and the O.T.? That it is if there was one.
It wouldn’t help his cause to add to the difference between the Vedas and the Bible.
What Jesus did, was to further the gap between the bible and all other religions of the world. Because they were false, including the Vedas.
Read Timothy from the New Testament for further info.

He did mention it. The Gospel of Thomas clearly shows Jesus teaching about reincarnation. CONVENIENTLY, the early church had it removed from the Bible in 553 A.D. because they wanted to increase their power and influence, and by removing reincarnation and inventing some nonsense called "spiritual death", they have succeeded in controlling the sheep.

First you have to understand that the original Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John came before anything else speaking of the life of Jesus. And people often mimicked them with other books such as the book you mentioned, Timothy. And just like this book, there were other such as The Protoevangelium of James, the Gospels of Ebionites, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthias, , Thomas, Barnabus, and even Judas.
These were all false, written by heretical writers to satisfy their desire to know more about various characters related to New Testament events.

Jesus had to use parables to get people to understand even the most BASIC of spiritual truths. The Vedas are not basic at all, they are the most advanced knowledge in existence. They explain the SCIENCE of God. The knowledge is deeper than the Bible, and since
the people of his time already adhered to a specific scripture, Jesus COULD NOT have up and introduced some totally foreign scripture and preached about the Gods therein.

It doesn’t even make sense for God to hit his people with a more complex description of himself through the Vedas. And then hit the people with laments terms via his Son.
It proves that we are talking about 2 very distinct beliefs here.

****cont.****

 

[miggidy]

It doesn't exist? I don't understand. The Vedas have been archaeologically tested and are world known to be over 5,000 years old and the oldest writings in all existence.

You are so big on "historical evidence", well "history" says that the Vedas are the oldest writings on the planet and were here 3,000 years BEFORE Jesus.

So do they exist or not? And are you now going to question "historical evidence"?

No no no, like I stated before, the Vedas are about 3 thousand years old. The idea dates back to 5 thousand years. The problem is that the scripture is very new. It is a lot like the Quran who has been passed along through verbal prayers. There is no proof for the Vedas going back to 5 thousand years, that idea is only a claim.

2+2=4
1+3=4

They contradict themselves, yet both are TRUE. Do you see how this is possible yet?

I totally understand what you are saying. But you are simply twisting things around to make them compatible. Mohammed did the same thing with his Al Qu’ran writings.

Wrong. God is UNCHANGING, ETERNAL, ABSOLUTE. Due to different TIME and CIRCUMSTANCES in the material world, different people have realized God in DIFFERENT ways.

The two are inextricably intertwined. If you do not believe anything but the Bible, then your knowledge of God cannot extend beyond it.

Yes God is omni-present in every realm beyond time and space.
But his history through man’s revelations has nothing to do with this.
God’s revelations are documented through the biblical scribes. The Vedic scribes are a totally different account as so is the Quran.
We know that the Quran came from Mohammed while the Vedas came from Parashara and Vedavyasa. Mohammed has his own accounts of God and so do Parashara and Vedavyasa. And the biblical account of God comes from many different men most notably Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. Abraham, Moses, and Jesus’ accounts are of the same ideals. While Mohammed’s is completely different. And the same with Parashara and Vedavyasa whose account of God’s ideals are very different than Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
This is not the same God bro. Well I think Mohammed was deceived by Satan so his idea of God is not of the God of divine light. Unfortunately we don’t know much about the life of Parashara, so I can’t speak of what inspired him to write the Vedas.

Yes, but understand that when Krsna takes birth, He is not a "man at first", he does not "retire", he does not "become the Supreme Personality of Godhead", etc. He is eternally the Supreme Lord.

It was my understanding that Krishna was a normal man who later became God.

You welcome. Basically yeah, they are the same thing. The Bible leaves all the angels nameless, and the Vedas explain exactly who they are in full detail.

Krsna says the same thing. Since He is the source of all the demigods and they are subordinate to Him, why should one worship a demigod? Go straight to the source.

At the end of the Gita Krsna says: "Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear." (18.66)

True indeed. God the Father is the source of all, and is the Supreme Person we owe everything to. He is the only one worthy of our worship.

Think of it like this. Just like a president has various people under him who carry out the functions of the government, God has his subordinate angels and demigods who are carrying out the functions he has given them.

The president is not personally carrying out every action of the government, yet he is still the final authority. Similarly, God has his appointed workers, yet He eternally remains the Supreme Person in charge and the final authority.

Not true. When the Supreme Lord is worshipped, ALL the demigods are pleased and bestow munificent charity to the worshipper.

God doesn’t give his angels that much power according to the biblical scriptures.
And on top of that, the Angels are all of male gender. There are no female angels in the scriptures so the Demigods and angels aren’t the same thing because the Vedas teach of Goddesses.

I agree, one should only worship the Father. But yet Buddhists, Hindu, and Catholics pray to servants of God.

Wrong, my friend.

***YOU*** have no clue as to what He is.
*I* KNOW who He is.

I cannot be lumped into a group with you or anyone who does not know who the Father who art in heaven is. I know Him personally.

That’s what everyone claims. But only a select few know him personally. The last one who knew God personally was Jesus. After that, no one knows him. Me might come into your life, but you don’t know him personally. Mother Teresa didn’t even know him personally, how is that you do?

If you say so, but aren't you fixated on the Bible's view of all physical and spiritual things?

If I’m fixated with the biblical view of God it’s because it is the only view of the true God.

Yes, because God is a 100% spiritual being.

You’re talking about the Spirit of God.

How do you know who has seen God in which form?

Only those who can bring evidence to their claims get my attention.
Moses and Jesus performed many miracles with thousands of eyewitnesses, proving that God was with them..
People like the prophet Mohammed never performed a miracle, proving that God was not behind him.

Says who? You? You must be crazy. The Vedas completely explain the form of God. There is the universal form, and there is His transcendental personal form. It is only a mystery to those who desire it to be. The answers are there out in the open for anyone who wants to know.

No, they are different dimensions. One is temporary, destructible and imperfect, and the other is eternal, absolute, and perfectly pure. The material realm is sustained yb the spiritual realm, but they are NOT the same dimension.

That dimension is the spiritual world. It exists above any conceptual understanding of mind and body. It is the Brahmajyoti.

All the Vedas speak of is both his physical and spiritual form.
I am telling you that he has another form beyond what we know, even in the spiritual realm. The physical and spiritual realms are in the same dimension because they can intertwine with each other. That is why God booted Satan and his Demons down to Earth. That’s how you can explain their Satanic activities here on Earth. They are of different realms but co-exist with each other.
That is how Jesus was able to manipulate the environments when he made miracles. Jesus is an example of the physical realm, while the Holy Spirit is an example of the Spiritual realm, But God goes beyond both these realms.
He is the creator of the realms and dimension known to us, he created the entire concept. He does not reside inside these realms, they are only his creation to house Angels and man.

Think of it as a software engineer who has created this world in his PC.
The world has everything from physical life, to the spiritual after life. The simulated realm is only a creation of the software engineer, there for he exists in a totally different dimension….

Originally posted by Vyasadeva No, "they" are not the same. They are different descriptions of the ONE SUPREME BEING.

2+2=4 and 1+3=4 are two equations which have the SAME conclusion. They APPEAR to us to be two different equations, yet we can see that the conclusion is nondifferent.

Same with the Bible and the Vedas. The Bible is 2+2 and the Vedas are 1+3. They are two different ways of achieving the same conclusion.
There is no denying that they are different philosophies. But if you see with absolute vision, you would see that they are all describing the ONE SAME GOD, and that God is unlimited therefore He is known by unlimited names.

Peace,
Vyasadeva

So what you are saying is that even though the bible and the Vedas present different philosophies, they are referring to the same ultimate reality?
It is just a different equation, but the answer is the same.
Yeah, when you look at it that way, they are speaking of one God just like the Quran.
But you have to understand that these God’s have different ideals.
The Biblical God is much more strict than the Vedic God.
Compare the 10 Commandments and Jesus’ philosophy about them with the 4 Vedic laws? And you will see that they contradict each other. Meaning that they didn’t come from the same being….
We agree in a lot of things, and I like your approach of trying to bridge the gap between Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and Orientalism. But the only thing these beliefs have in common is the idea of one supreme God….

Peace,
Miggidy

 

[XianeX]

@ miggidy
there are other ancient texts of aramaic origin that say that jesus wasnt crucified.
even the bible says that jesus had walked on the earth and even was touched by people after his alleged death.

also "The Acts" said jesus was not crucified but hanged on a tree. "hanged" this is a big difference from crucifixion.

so if you wanna get technical that would say that all three books are spurious.

some people miss the point in the details. others use them as tools for war.

i mean no disrespet but id appreciate a reason for your disrespect for hinduism and islam? especially when christianity has its fualts?

 

[miggidy]

X,
It's cool bro.
You did know that the Romans would crucify people on trees when they ran out of crosses did you?

 

[XianeX]

yes

 

[miggidy]

Well there isn't anything in "acts" saying that Jesus was hung on a tree.
I disrespected Islam and Hinduism?
Maybe I was being insensative but any how,
please proceed to show me the bible's faults.

 

[Vyasadeva]

The text is only about 3 thousand years old. The great flood happened much further back. It’s only predicting the past.

The text is over 5,000 years old, and prior to them being written down they were passed on strictly by mantra for millenia.

While the oldest Old Testament scripture “found so far” dates back to almost 4 thousand years. It’s safe to say that the Vedas and the Sumerian tablets were inspired by the book of Genesis.

LMAO! Dog you have got to be kidding!? The book of Genesis is like pre-school material when contrasted with the Vedas. There is NO WAY that the transcendental knowledge of the Vedas are inspired by that book, because the Vedas predate it.

"Regulated activities are prescribed in the Vedas, and the Vedas are directly manifested from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Consequently, the all-pervading Transcendence is eternally situated in acts of sacrifice." (B.G. 3.15)

Meat eating a Sin?
And illicit sex a sin? Can you describe to me what’s illicit sex in the first place?

Meat eating is an act of ignorance. It is sinful if one does not offer the meat to Kali before eating it, and eating anything without offering it is also sin.

"The devotees of the Lord are released from all kinds of sins because they eat food which is offered first for sacrifice. Others, who prepare food for personal sense enjoyment, verily eat only sin."(B.G. 3.13)

Jesus speaking in the Essene Gospel of Peace: "For I tell you truly, he who kills, kills himself, and whoso eats the flesh of slain beasts, eats of the body of death...Kill not, neither eat the flesh of your innocent prey, lest you become the slaves of Satan. For that is the path of sufferings, and it leads unto death."

Illicit sex is sex for the purpose of sense gratification. Sex is permitted only for begetting children. Because sex pleasure is the highest pleasure one can have through his material body, it is the most common sinful activity and the hardest to refrain from. Sex binds us to the material world and hampers spiritual progress. Why do you think the Bible says that to even LOOK at a woman in a lustful manner is to have already commited adultery with her?

If sex were only for child bearing purposes then there wouldn’t be orgasms in sex.
This claim is totally contradicted by the female clitoris.

Orgasms and the clitoris have NOTHING to do with child bearing. The fact that we enjoy sex does not mean it is not sinful to endlessly indulge in it. There is some sick fucks who get an orgasm when they kill people, does their enjoyment mean that the act is not sinful?

Sex pleasure is the highest pleasure, no question, and it is on the basis of sex attraction that we are in this material world in the first place. Women are the personification of maya, or the illusion of the material world, and our inability to resist their allure and form is what keeps us here in conditioned entanglement. The whole world is spinning and the universe is oscillating due to sex attraction alone. Sex attraction is so strong it binds the atoms together.

The difference between demons and demigods is that a beautiful woman very easily attracts the minds of demons, but she cannot attract the mind of a godly person. A godly person is full of knowledge, and a demoniac person is full of ignorance. Just as a child is attracted by a beautiful doll, similarly a demon, who is less intelligent and full of ignorance, is attracted by material beauty and an appetite for sex. The godly person knows that this nicely dressed and ornamented attraction of high breasts, high hips, beautiful nose and fair complexion is maya. All the beauty a woman can display is only a combination of flesh and blood. Sri Sankaracarya has advised all persons not to be attracted by the interaction of flesh and blood; they should be attracted by the real beauty In spiritual life.

And wasn’t Kama Sutra Indian? I wonder if he subscribed to the Vedic beliefs….

I wonder if you have any idea of what you are talking about, because the author of the Kama Sutra NEVER HAD SEX.

The Vedic writers bit their tongue big time!

You continue to display ignorance. There is ONE author of the ENTIRE Vedic scripture, Sri Vyasadeva. There was not a group of writers. The Vedas were written by an incarnation of Visnu.

That’s contradictory because why in the hell would God make us a carnivorous species in the first place????

We are NOT a carniverous species, that is simply what you have been conditioned to believe. Our teeth are obviously designed not for tearing and ripping flesh, but for chewing fruits, grains, and vegetation. Any semi-intelligent dentist will tell you that. It is due to the canine teeth that people think we are omnivores, and while we have the ability to chew and tear meat, we are not meant to do so.

We need to eat other animals for our own survival, which is what God stated in the book of Genesis.

Nonsense. There have been countless vegetarians who have lived into their 90s and 100s who NEVER ate a piece of meat. Meat is NOT necessary for survival, and if you want to quote Genesis, what does "Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." mean to you? God clearly says "I have given you plants, trees, and fruits, and to you it shall be for meat."

Or Genesis 9:3-4 "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat."

Can you imagine what would happen to the eco system if animals stopped eating each other?

ANIMALS are SUPPOSED to eat ANIMALS!

HUMANS are NOT ANIMALS. You may have adopted animalistic behavior as a result of your conditioning, and maybe you can't put your animalistic desires in check, but you are a HUMAN, *NOT* an ANIMAL.

We need protein in our diet!

Meat is NOT the only source of protein.

That’s why a lot of Hindus eat poultry in spite of what the Vedas teach.

As I said earlier, one may eat meat if he offers it to Kali. Most "Hindus" don't even do that though, so they still incur the karmic reaction. They don't eat meat to get protein, they eat meat because they can't control their tongue.

Man This goes to show that the Vedas were written by some dude claiming to be inspired by God just to brain wash people for personal gain.

More nonsense. How does people not eating meat = personal gain?! The opposite is true, by conditioning man to eat meat, the slaughterhouses have reaped personal gain. Meat eating is unhealthy, it is sinful, and it dulls the mind. You are simply proving the Vedic teachings correct.

Dogg, and please don’t even try to debate the fact that we are a carnivorous species because I’m gonna have to spend another few days debating a proven fact.

Whatever mayn, keep dulling your mind and believing what you want. Your arguments are simply trying to justify your uncontrollable tongue. You don't eat meat because it is necessary for your survival, you eat it because you like how it tastes. Just be honest.

The Vedic poets shot themselves in the foot about 3 thousand years ago, let it go bro….

V, you should really study the origins of the Bhavisya Purana and you will see that this text is not trustworthy. It has been revised a few number of times through out history, even in the 19th century.

Miss me with your dimestore analysis. All you know about the Vedas is what you have seen on some website. That info is not trustworthy. I have gone to India, learned Sanskrit, and studied the Vedas with college professors. On top of that I follow Srila Prabhupada, who is a guru in the line of disciplic succession which originated with Krsna. I am not receiving any distorted information, contrary to your baseless assertions.

And if you knew anything about what happened with the Vedas in the 19th century, you would know that it was English scholars who attempted to discredit the Vedas because the knowledge found in them is too great and it overshadows the dogma they were trying to establish in the name of Christ.

And if this isn’t enough to convince you that the Purana’s have been subjected to a number of alterations then how do you explain the addition of English words in the Bhavisya Purana? Words such as "Sunday", "February" and "Sixty", very clear indications of tampering during the 19th century.

YES! EXACTLY! They were tampered with by the English who wished to DISCREDIT THEM! Therefore if one is referring to the Puranas which have been changed and altered, they are not getting the pure original message. I do NOT refer to any changed literature, I have the original, translated by a spiritual master who was a consummate Sanksrit scholar, who also spoke perfect Bengali, Hindi, and English.

The need by the English to poison the Puranas only goes to strengthen the argument that the knowledge contained in them THREATENED the control that the "Christian" church wished to impose on the masses. The Vedas blow the lid off all that dogmatic and poisonous nonsense that the church promulgates, and that is why the church had to try and change them, in vain I might add.

 

[Vyasadeva]

And it is not only the Puranas that are fraudulent but also the entire Vedas fall prey because they have done what the Quran did, and that is to borrow from the Bible.

More nonsense. The Vedas existed prior to the Bible, and before they were written down the knowledge was transmitted for millenia through sound vibration (mantra).

Your claim is nothing but wishful thinking, let it go bro.

Go to my friend’s website for more info:
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Mna/hindu.html

Now I see where you've gotten that nonsense that Jesus = Prajapati. That website is full of nonsense, I lost count of the untruths after about 2 paragraphs.

I guess Jesus was wicked too. I mean he did eat fish at one point….

No Jesus is eternally pure. It is the majority of his followers who are wicked.

And now you say you believe not only in Jesus but also in God. But God in your eyes is Krishna. That’s why I’m assuming that you pick the Hindu version of Jesus over the biblical one. Because it connects the bible with the Vedas.

I understand your mind's desire to categorize everything, but what it demonstrates is that you do not yet see with transcendental vision.

Jesus is who he is, and Krsna is who He is. It is not that I accept a certain "version" of Jesus, and a certain "version" of God. Jesus is the Son of God and the Bible decribes him. Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the Vedas describe Him.

But if this isn’t the reason why you don’t believe that the biblical God is not related to Krishna then I don’t know what is.

The Biblical God is describing God according to a particular time in human history. The Vedas have no beginning, they eternally emanate from the sound vibrations of the flute of Krsna.

They are connected because they both describe God. They are different because they describe different realizations of Him.

I don’t see any authenticity in the Vedic deities, it’s right up there with Greek mythology.
And when I say that, I don’t mean it in a disrespectful way. I’m just implying that it’s all a mythology.

I take no offense at your statements. That's all it is, your implication. And in case you were unaware, your assumptions mean exactly nothing with regards to TRUTH.

You are simply telling me what you WANT to be true.

I don’t know about that, I mean I know that he is merciful. But I’m not sure he’s ok with us creating many deities out of him. He made it clear through Abraham, Moses and Jesus….

Your mistake is thinking that the Deities of the Vedas are "created". They are eternal beings with their own eternal attributes.

As far as I know, the Vedas are only 3 thousand years old.

Then your knowledge of them is flawed and incomplete.

They have been tampered with on top of that.

Yes, by the English who feared the knowledge they contain. Their tampering is just more evidence of the frailty of the "Christian" dogma, it is so paper thin they had to try to discredit the Vedas.

Did you know that the manuscripts have been passed on and completely rewritten through the years? The scribes were written in leaves and have been copied over and over.

What you don't seem to understand is that even more important than the written scribes is the sound vibration of chanting the mantras. The parampara, or disciplic succession of guru/disciple, has insured that the pure original verses have been preserved through this medium.

And most interesting is the fact that just about everything we know comes from the studies of Orient lists Dr.Vidyarthi and Arvindaksha Menon. Very slim compared to the teams of scholars, historians, archeologists, and writers who have translated the bible.

What is interesting is that you continue to make errors in speaking on a subject you clearly have no knowledge of. You are obviously just regurgitating something you have read on a website somewhere.

If you had any knowledge at all you would know that what we know of the Vedas comes as a result of the spiritual masters in the line of the gaudiya-sampradaya, through the medium of disciplic succession. Spiritual masters such as Narada, Vyasa, Madhva, Lord Caitanya, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, Bhaktivinode Thakur, and Srila Prabhupada. This disciplic succession goes all the way back to KRSNA Himself.

We know that the Vedas themselves were written by the sage Parashara.

Where are you getting this shit playa?! Did the same cat that wrote that fraudulent website give you this faulty information?

VYASADEVA wrote the Vedas, get it right. Parasara was the father of Vyasadeva and was a great sage, but he did not write anything! See if you really knew what you were talking about, you would know that originally there was one Veda, the Atharva-Veda.

When Vyasadeva incarnated, it was just prior to the coming age of Kali, which necessitated the division of the Vedas into the 4 main, the 108 Upanisads, the 18 Puranas, the Mahabharata, and the Srimad Bhagavatam.

The Mahabharata has over 100,000 veres. The Bhagavatam has over 18,000. In total there are hundreds of thousands of verses, ALL compiled by ONE person. And if you had any understanding of the profound depth of the philosophical wisdom and spiritual truth within the Vedas, then you would know that it is simply IMPOSSIBLE that some dude just "created" the whole thing in order to brainwash people. You've obviously not read or studied them, so I can't expect you to realize that, but I am amused at your attempts to discredit them using this faulty internet information.

Later his son, Vedavyasa wrote eighteen mythologies idolizing his father's original creation.

More cut and paste from some erroneous website, huh? The 18 Puranas are not mythologies any more than the Bible is a mythology. Your propaganda is simply incorrect. And as I explained above, Vyasadeva compiled the ENTIRE Vedic literature, which was previously transmitted through sound vibration. Vyasadeva divided the Veda into 4 Vedas, then he divided those 4 into the 108 Upanisads, then he wrote the 18 Puranas, and then summarazed all those in the Vedanta-sutra.

Veda means knowledge.
anta means end.
sutra means a condensed work which carries immense meaning and importance while remaining flawless (i.e. Kama sutra).

And then for the benefit of the degraded society within which we currently reside, he wrote a fifth Veda, the Mahabharata, within which the Bhagavad-Gita is found.

It makes absolutely no sense that Jesus didn’t speak about the Vedas for whatever reason.

It makes perfect sense. THAT WAS NOT HIS MISSION! Jesus was preaching to meat-eaters and barbaric savages and appeared to teach them to love God.

Don’t you think God would send him out to merge the gap between the Vedas and the O.T.?

No, it would not make sense, especially given the climate in which Jesus appeared. Look at you, you are dismissing them with no grounds other than your preconceived biases, but if you were among the Pharisees, you would have KILLED Jesus just for mentioning a God other than YHWH.

What Jesus did, was to further the gap between the bible and all other religions of the world. Because they were false, including the Vedas.

It doesn’t even make sense for God to hit his people with a more complex description of himself through the Vedas. And then hit the people with laments terms via his Son.

God is infinitely complex, He is not simple. But for the simple people, He makes Himself known to them in their simple terms.

You act like every man can understand the same thing. Why is there a pre-algebra class and an advanced calculus class? Shouldn't there just be ONE math class? Of course not, different levels of intelligence require different levels of learning. The Bible is for the beginner class, and the Vedas are for the advanced class.