Christianity and The Truth

[Neil_LA]

Tell me please if your vedas speaks of life after death or are they just concern with things of this life here?

As I stated in a previous posting, the Vedas are concerned with eternity.

Eternity by its definition has a scope beyond this one lifetime.

Please read previous posts before asking questions already covered.

Thank you.

 

[wisdomseeker]

As I stated in a previous posting, the Vedas are concerned with eternity.

Eternity by its definition has a scope beyond this one lifetime.

Please read previous posts before asking questions already covered.

Thank you.

thank you.
you still have not answer my question about the Savior.
does your vedas speaks of a need of a Savior or not?

 

[Neil_LA]

thank you.
you still have not answer my question about the Savior.
does your vedas speaks of a need of a Savior or not?

Could you please define “savior?” If by “savior” you mean that we here in this world need Divine Assistance to attain the Divine Abode, then yes.

I suspect that you are expecting me to answer a question about Hinduism using the vocabulary of Christianity.

I would need to be clear what you mean by “savior,” “salvation,” and what we need “saving” from.

I suspect that you are refering mostly to the Judeo-Christian concept of “sin” and the “fall.”

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
You accept that Krishna was a real person. We don’t. Why should we? That you accept that Jesus was a real person doesn’t obligate us in any way to “be agreeable” with you in your unsubstantiated (as far as I know) claims to be “nice”, and APPEASE you or anyone. As I’ve said, we are a rather “crude” people, compared to the “nicey nice” folks who worship “NICE” more than “TRUTH”.

We don’t overly care whether you think we’re “stuck up” or not. Show us that Krishna was a real person.

Show me that Krishna was NOT a real person.
Show me that Jesus was a real person.

I thought you agreed that Jesus was a real person? If not, then if it’s important to you to find out if He is or not, you’ll have to find better sources as to His “real person”-ness than I am.

It’s certainly not important to me, though it seems to be to you, whether Krishna is real or not, so I’ll leave it to whomever wishes to show me any evidence that Krishna is real to those who find it important that I know that.

Saying “prove my God is not real” is a very strange way to “evangelize”?

 

[Neil_LA]

I thought you agreed that Jesus was a real person? If not, then if it’s important to you to find out if He is or not, you’ll have to find better sources as to His “real person”-ness than I am.

It’s certainly not important to me, though it seems to be to you, whether Krishna is real or not, so I’ll leave it to whomever wishes to show me any evidence that Krishna is real to those who find it important that I know that.

Saying “prove my God is not real” is a very strange way to “evangelize”?

Well you all seem very keen on proving that my conception of God is not real, so I asked you all to do so. I don’t believe anyone would be able to. So my challenge still stands.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Since everyone wants ME to prove that the Vedas are as old as they say they are, please provide credible evidence that the Vedic peoples are not members of “the line of the people of God.”

I don’t believe that the Hebrew people CLAIMING that they are the “people of God” is clear, scientific, historical evidence that they ARE the “people of God.”

You take your scriptures at their face value, but you question me when I take my scriptures at their face value?

That is typical of the Christian double-standard…

I don’t question your taking your scriptures at face value. You should do so. They are a mighty deep elaboration of natural law, and even more than our scriptures and tradition are fascinatingly capable of both correct and incorrect interpretation.

But you still simply don’t get the concept of what “direct revelation from God” is, and why it MUST come from one “place”, and why that place is what it is, and why we believe it.

You SAY you are “OK” with our little “idiosyncrasies”, but you’re showing that you’re really not “happy” with us having them, and claim superiority for yourself for being “more tolerant” in these matters.

I would actually say that the Vedic people (peoples?) were heavily influenced BY the “people of God”, who were the source of many of the “Abramic” sounding elements within the Vedic tradition.

In that respect, they sorta kinda ARE part of the people of God, because they listened and incorporated unfindable (within natural law) knowledge about God from the one source from which it WAS findable.

This particular “european-oid western-culture-type person” (moi) doesn’t take offence at our (“westerners”) having listened to a valid source of authoritative information and accepting it as the universal truth that it is.

We don’t insist on things being rejected just because they’re “not invented here”. Is that or is that not the case for “the east”?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Well you all seem very keen on proving that my conception of God is not real, so I asked you all to do so. I don’t believe anyone would be able to. So my challenge still stands.

I don’t say that your conception of God isn’t real! In as much as it is an elaboration of natural law, it is quite real AND CORRECT!

But where it is misinterpretation of a true elaboration of natural law, it is INCORRECT.

Since your tradition had no way, other than listening to your more correctly informed brothers, to know when to stop elaborating natural law, and no way to correctly know how to interpret those elaborations, many aspects of what you’ve elaborated have been misinterpreted, leaving you with errors.

We can show you where what you present as your concept of God-stuff is incorrect, assuming you can present it sensibly enough.

And isn’t that what you want to know? All we can do is tell you where we think you are incorrect based on what you give us. Our job is not to debunk your beliefs, but rather only to show you how we think you are incorrect.

What you do with that infomation is your business. If you choose to get “annoyed” about it, either don’t ask in future, or enjoy your annoyance, because we’re not going to appease you apparent NEED to be appeased by telling you falsehoods.

So, either enjoy the show, or go somewhere else.

 

[Neil_LA]

I don’t question your taking your scriptures at face value. You should do so. They are a mighty deep elaboration of natural law, and even more than our scriptures and tradition are fascinatingly capable of both correct and incorrect interpretation.

I challenge you to show what in the Vedic scriptures is “correct” and what is “incorrect.”

But you still simply don’t get the concept of what “direct revelation from God” is, and why it MUST come from one “place”, and why that place is what it is, and why we believe it.

I challenge you to show how exactly I “don’t get” the concept of “direct relevation.”

You SAY you are “OK” with our little “idiosyncrasies”, but you’re showing that you’re really not “happy” with us having them, and claim superiority for yourself for being “more tolerant” in these matters.

What make you think I’m tolerant? I am actually extremely disturbed by Christian “superiority” and the resulting mess. As I believe I said before, Christian and Muslim “superioity” is the biggest threat facing the world today. Does that sound “tolerant?” If so I guess you have a different definition of the word than I do

I would actually say that the Vedic people (peoples?) were heavily influenced BY the “people of God”, who were the source of many of the “Abramic” sounding elements within the Vedic tradition.

Again I would like to see evidence supporting your claim. Given the fact that the Vedic literatures claim greater antiquity than the Judeo-Christian literatures, one could be more thank justified making the claim that, in fact, it was the Hebrews who were influenced by the Vedic culture.

In fact, your tradition says that Abram was in Mesopotamia when he was “called by God.” Mesopotamia is much closer in physical proximity to Bharat (India) than “Israel” is…Its highly likely that Abram was influenced by the Great Spring of Knowledge arising in the east.

In that respect, they sorta kinda ARE part of the people of God, because they listened and incorporated unfindable (within natural law) knowledge about God from the one source from which it WAS findable.

Again, you would need SOME sort of evidence to support your highly speculative claim.

This particular “european-oid western-culture-type person” (moi) doesn’t take offence at our (“westerners”) having listened to a valid source of authoritative information and accepting it as the universal truth that it is.

Which valid source of authoritative information are you refering to? To the Vedas? I doubt it. If you are refering to your tradition, again I ask what else other than the tradition itself backs up your assertion that it is “authoritative?”

And if your tradition can be claimed to be “authoritative” soley on its own merits, then how can you possibly state that my tradition is not authoritative, when my tradition clearly states that it is indeed authoritative?

We don’t insist on things being rejected just because they’re “not invented here”. Is that or is that not the case for “the east”?

i’m not following what you are asking here…

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
I don’t question your taking your scriptures at face value. You should do so. They are a mighty deep elaboration of natural law, and even more than our scriptures and tradition are fascinatingly capable of both correct and incorrect interpretation.

I challenge you to show what in the Vedic scriptures is “correct” and what is “incorrect.”

Very good. A little “western” spunk! Excellent.

I only respond to what is told to me by someone more “expert” than I am in their own religion. If you want to posit something that you think is correct, that you think I might think is not correct, then post away!

Quote:
But you still simply don’t get the concept of what “direct revelation from God” is, and why it MUST come from one “place”, and why that place is what it is, and why we believe it.

I challenge you to show how exactly I “don’t get” the concept of “direct relevation.”

There may well have been some “direct revelation” given to non-“God’s people” people, but that gift was not important to the definitive gift of revelation to “God’s people”, which is the single source which God intends to use to spread knowledge of Him “definitively” through all mankind. All other “direct revelation” was ancillary.

You refuse to accept that the “one (definitive) source” is what it is, and are therefore “insulted” that “your chosen tradition wasn’t special” too, in the same way that God’s people have been and continue to be.

What you don’t get about “direct revelation” is that qualitative difference between that given to God’s people and all other people. It’s very much the same as the incapacity to understand the qualitative difference between the monotheistic God and the polytheistic “gods”.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
You SAY you are “OK” with our little “idiosyncrasies”, but you’re showing that you’re really not “happy” with us having them, and claim superiority for yourself for being “more tolerant” in these matters.

What make you think I’m tolerant? I am actually extremely disturbed by Christian “superiority” and the resulting mess. As I believe I said before, Christian and Muslim “superioity” is the biggest threat facing the world today. Does that sound “tolerant?” If so I guess you have a different definition of the word than I do

We don’t have any superiority in accepting truth. What is superior is the truth itself.

That you don’t think your “truths” to be superior is your problem, not ours.

We’re also, like you, not very tolerant, but were not tolerant of errors in truth, and try to balance that with charity in dealing with those who are in error, while never appeasing those in error by calling their error non-error just to “get along”.

How do you deal with your intolerance?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
I would actually say that the Vedic people (peoples?) were heavily influenced BY the “people of God”, who were the source of many of the “Abramic” sounding elements within the Vedic tradition.

Again I would like to see evidence supporting your claim. Given the fact that the Vedic literatures claim greater antiquity than the Judeo-Christian literatures, one could be more thank justified making the claim that, in fact, it was the Hebrews who were influenced by the Vedic culture.

The vedic tradition can claim what it likes. If it’s important to you to have people believe as you do, give them evidence.

In fact, your tradition says that Abram was in Mesopotamia when he was “called by God.” Mesopotamia is much closer in physical proximity to Bharat (India) than “Israel” is…Its highly likely that Abram was influenced by the Great Spring of Knowledge arising in the east.

That is true! No one has claimed that any specific physical location is “the place where God speaks”, but rather that there is a people to whom God speaks as He speaks to no other people.

He spoke to Abram where Abram was located, just as He had spoken to Noah where he was, and Adam where he was.

“The Spring of Knowledge” is not a physical locale, but God.

You consider that the “elaboraters of natural law” that lived in “the east” were the “font” of knowledge of God-stuff, because of their supposed antiquity and their voluminous output, which admittedly pretty well outstrips “the west” in shear volume and subtlety.

The antiquity of the vedic tradition is unproven, at least to me, and will have to be “spoon fed” to me by someone who cares that I know about it more than I do for me to be convinced of it’s antiquity.

The massive quantity, of dubious quality in my opinion, as regards to that which I’ve seen at any rate, tells me only that the “elaborators” of natural law had much reason to continue elaborating and little reason to stop doing so, because they weren’t given the “HALT” signal by God, because they weren’t privy to that gift from God due to their being the brothers of God’s people who were/are to learn of God’s STOP signal from their brothers, and not find it in their own elaborations of natural law, where it can’t possibly be found.

We accept our humility before God, in that we have heard our brothers who were the keepers of God’s direct revelation and accepted our place as not the originators but only the receivers of the great “STOP”.

The “east” seems to lack the humility to accept that anyone but they themselves could possess wisdom to dispense.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Could you please define “savior?” If by “savior” you mean that we here in this world need Divine Assistance to attain the Divine Abode, then yes.

I suspect that you are expecting me to answer a question about Hinduism using the vocabulary of Christianity.

I would need to be clear what you mean by “savior,” “salvation,” and what we need “saving” from.

I suspect that you are refering mostly to the Judeo-Christian concept of “sin” and the “fall.”

Nope!

i am trying to say that we might not worship the same God.

if God is One and He says what He says He is than we must admit He cannot contradict or teach contraries things to different people and cause confusion among many.

we also must understand humanity. who are we? what are we looking for? where did come from, where are going frorm here? …

i know very little about your religion. i know that your religion believes in reencarnation, reach a certain level of calmness of the mind to free one’s soul, yoga, holy serpent, is all about humans reaching the knowledge necessary to live a better life. there are other believes too.

there is more…

:bowdown: :byzsoc:

 

[Neil_LA]

i am trying to say that we might not worship the same God.

Now here’s a strange thing that I’ve tried to bring up before, but no one has wanted to address. If Catholics claim to be monotheistic, how can you posibly admit the existance of more than one God?

if God is One and He says what He says He is than we must admit He cannot contradict or teach contraries things to different people and cause confusion among many.

Again Catholics keep saying that God can’t contradict Himself, but they fail to show how my religion actually contradicts and they also fail to admit the many places in Catholicism that are contradictory.

What’s up with that?

i know very little about your religion. i know that your religion believes in reencarnation, reach a certain level of calmness of the mind to free one’s soul, yoga, holy serpent, is all about humans reaching the knowledge necessary to live a better life. there are other believes too.

Yeah, you obviously don’t know anything about my religion. And yet you are extremely quick to rush to judgement and jump to conclusions…again I ask:

What’s up with that? I really don’t get you people!!!

I give up!!!

 

[LDNCatholic]

Now here’s a strange thing that I’ve tried to bring up before, but no one has wanted to address. If Catholics claim to be monotheistic, how can you posibly admit the existance of more than one God?

Again Catholics keep saying that God can’t contradict Himself, but they fail to show how my religion actually contradicts and they also fail to admit the many places in Catholicism that are contradictory.

What’s up with that?

Yeah, you obviously don’t know anything about my religion. And yet you are extremely quick to rush to judgement and jump to conclusions…again I ask:

What’s up with that? I really don’t get you people!!!

I give up!!!

Bah! You don’t give up! Show a little perseverance would you?!

What contradictions?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Now here’s a strange thing that I’ve tried to bring up before, but no one has wanted to address. If Catholics claim to be monotheistic, how can you posibly admit the existance of more than one God?

Again Catholics keep saying that God can’t contradict Himself, but they fail to show how my religion actually contradicts and they also fail to admit the many places in Catholicism that are contradictory.

What’s up with that?

Yeah, you obviously don’t know anything about my religion. And yet you are extremely quick to rush to judgement and jump to conclusions…again I ask:

What’s up with that? I really don’t get you people!!!

I give up!!!

Please dont be so quick and jumpy. be calm and things will come into place.

aparently you know more about my catholic faith than i know about your religion. am i right?

:bowdown: :byzsoc:

 

[Neil_LA]

Please dont be so quick and jumpy. be calm and things will come into place.

aparently you know more about my catholic faith than i know about your religion. am i right?

I’m not uncalm, thank you very much. I try to have a discussion and my questions don’t get answered in a rational way, and my religion gets attacked and I’m told I’m jumpy…

Anyway…I’m really beinging to doubt the sanity of contiuning this conversation.

I just wish someone would show me why they contend that the Judeo-Christian tradition is a “divine revelation” and yet the Vedic tradition isn’t.

It continues to seem that you are relying on the statement of the tradition itself that it is a divine revelation, and yet you can’t say why you believe that the statement of the Judeo-Christian tradition is correct, while the statement of the Vedic tradition isn’t.

Yes, I have studied Catholicism. One needs to do one’s homework before one can make an informed choise.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I’m not uncalm, thank you very much. I try to have a discussion and my questions don’t get answered in a rational way, and my religion gets attacked and I’m told I’m jumpy…

Anyway…I’m really beinging to doubt the sanity of contiuning this conversation.

I just wish someone would show me why they contend that the Judeo-Christian tradition is a “divine revelation” and yet the Vedic tradition isn’t.

It continues to seem that you are relying on the statement of the tradition itself that it is a divine revelation, and yet you can’t say why you believe that the statement of the Judeo-Christian tradition is correct, while the statement of the Vedic tradition isn’t.

Yes, I have studied Catholicism. One needs to do one’s homework before one can make an informed choise.

Now let’s see.

do you say that the God of the Book of Genesis, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and of the Hebrew people (Jews) is the same God you religion teaches about?

Peace be with you.

 

[Neil_LA]

Now let’s see.

do you say that the God of the Book of Genesis, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and of the Hebrew people (Jews) is the same God you religion teaches about?

Peace be with you.

How can there be more than One God?

Seems that I (as a Hindu) actually have more faith in monotheism than you do…

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by wisdomseeker
i am trying to say that we might not worship the same God.

Now here’s a strange thing that I’ve tried to bring up before, but no one has wanted to address. If Catholics claim to be monotheistic, how can you posibly admit the existance of more than one God?

Those gods who are not God are idols, which usually get “inhabited” by demons, meaning they are “wants” that are very attractive “tools” for demons to use to lead men into sin.

There is only one God, but men are infinitely capable of creating infinite quantities of gods, which is the enormous danger of the “hyper-elaborative god making” which we see in the religions of the “east”.

 

[Neil_LA]

Those gods who are not God are idols, which usually get “inhabited” by demons, meaning they are “wants” that are very attractive “tools” for demons to use to lead men into sin.

There is only one God, but men are infinitely capable of creating infinite quantities of gods, which is the enormous danger of the “hyper-elaborative god making” which we see in the religions of the “east”.

Who’s to say that your concept of God is not a human creation?