This is why I am not a Christain

[Hiwaunis]

Om Shanti Kaos,
I agree with you whole heartedly when you wrote, " Americans must learn to recognize organized Christianity for what is, and that it is garbage. Not the original, core teachings of Jesus, but as to what his teachings have been misrepresented and perverted, to be and packaged abroad for export, in the form of Christian missionary activities."

This is why I am not a Christian.

I admire Jesus The Christ very much. It pains me to see His dead corpse paraded around town in the form of jewelry like some sort of mascot.

But none the less the Christian religion is very necessary for our society. It is a form of control. Without it the crime rate would be much higher.

[sarabhanga]

But none the less the Christian religion is very necessary for our society. It is a form of control. Without it the crime rate would be much higher.

Why is the moral control of Christianity particularly required, when Sanatana Dharma has long promoted Ahimsa and Satya as the very basis of true humanity and civilized society?

Yama is the first word of Yoga, and the first words of Yama are: ahiMsA satyA aste

“Without causing any harm and always truthful, until the end!”

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Om Shanti Kaos,
I agree with you wholeheartedly when you wrote, " Americans must learn to recognize organized Christianity for what is, and that it is garbage. Not the original, core teachings of Jesus, but as to what his teachings have been misrepresented and perverted, to be and packaged abroad for export, in the form of Christian missionary activities."

This is why I am not a Christian.

Namaste Hiwaunis & Kaos (et.al)

I see your point yet have a different view on this matter. I mention this because are we not doing the same thing the Christians would say about Hinduism? ( I Prefer the words Sanatana Dharma myself).

The original core teachings of Jesus is based upon time honored principles we find in yama-niyama. Yes, something got crooked along the way, yet I know many Christians that are excellent people, with firm faith and would love to have millions more just like them. What qualities do I find noble about these that I know?

Firm faith
Caring for others
Fairness
Non-injury and good will towards others
Balanced behaviors
Stewardship
Work ethic

Just think when others look at Sanatana Dharma - what is with all these gods? What is the varna system? What? you have people (rishi's) that can 'see' the vedas? and these veda's are ancient, aja, knowledge? And what of this agnihotra? this fire puja you do? All of these things can be explained to them, and makes perfect sense to us, but from their view, their level of consciousness it is not comprehensible.

At the end of the day, Christians that believe in God is a good thing. I do not see them chopping people's heads off, holding hostages, causing undue grief and angst on this planet. I see some, not all, wishing to spread thier beliefs - if that is the worst they can do on this earth, then I have no issue with that. Why so? I have been given the freedom of choice , as you have , to say thank you for your ideas , I am quite settled and comfortable with my beliefs and practices. I do this all time here in the USA.

Why does this make sense? Krsna gives us some direction here...Chapter 3 of the Gita. Better is death in ones own dharma; the dharma of another only brings danger.(3.35). Why would I try and dissuade them about their beliefs?


We, as do Christians, have the freedom to choose... I respect their choice, even though it is different then mine.


Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes."... Mahatma Gandhi

[devisarada]

Namaste Yajvan,

I agree with you. One should not make such perjorative pronouncements about any faith. Everyone has a different level of understanding, and a different capacity for understanding. That is why there are so many different belief systems.There are many good things about Christianity, as you point out.

My main reason for having abondoned Christianity, as my official faith, is that, to be a Christian, you must believe that the only path to salvation is through Christ Jesus. That has confounded me since I was a child.

[Znanna]

Namaste Yajvan,

I agree with you. One should not make such perjorative pronouncements about any faith. Everyone has a different level of understanding, and a different capacity for understanding. That is why there are so many different belief systems.There are many good things about Christianity, as you point out.

My main reason for having abondoned Christianity, as my official faith, is that, to be a Christian, you must believe that the only path to salvation is through Christ Jesus. That has confounded me since I was a child.

"Through Me" can also be interpreted as a transformational metaphor, as much of the Bible ... the notion that Scripture is the "literal Word of God" itself is metaphor, IMO.

In a sense being "born again" is similar to my understanding of "shaktipata" ... in that one is imbued with the Spirit and in the process reconstructs oneSelves.

YMMV


Love,
ZN

[devisarada]

"Through Me" can also be interpreted as a transformational metaphor, as much of the Bible ... the notion that Scripture is the "literal Word of God" itself is metaphor, IMO.

In a sense being "born again" is similar to my understanding of "shaktipata" ... in that one is imbued with the Spirit and in the process reconstructs oneSelves.

YMMV


Love,
ZN

Namaste,

That is a very Vedic way of looking at things.

Christians believe that Christ is the only way. I had a long discussion with my pastor about this when I told him that I was following the path of Sanatanan Dharma. He tried to convince me that if I did not accept Jesus as my one and only Saviour, I was doomed to eternal hellfire. I told him that I would take that risk.

[vcindiana]

Namaste,

That is a very Vedic way of looking at things.

Christians believe that Christ is the only way. I had a long discussion with my pastor about this when I told him that I was following the path of Sanatanan Dharma. He tried to convince me that if I did not accept Jesus as my one and only Saviour, I was doomed to eternal hellfire. I told him that I would take that risk.

A believer and a non believer were very good friends. One day the believer told his dear friend that he would be very sad not to see him in the heaven. The non believer answered him not to worry, that he would meet the believer in his heaven!

[Znanna]

A believer and a non believer were very good friends. One day the believer told his dear friend that he would be very sad not to see him in the heaven. The non believer answered him not to worry, that he would meet the believer in his heaven!



LOL

:D


Love,
ZN

[jaggin]

Om Shanti Kaos,
I agree with you whole heartedly when you wrote, " Americans must learn to recognize organized Christianity for what is, and that it is garbage. Not the original, core teachings of Jesus, but as to what his teachings have been misrepresented and perverted, to be and packaged abroad for export, in the form of Christian missionary activities."

This is why I am not a Christian.

I admire Jesus The Christ very much. It pains me to see His dead corpse paraded around town in the form of jewelry like some sort of mascot.

But none the less the Christian religion is very necessary for our society. It is a form of control. Without it the crime rate would be much higher.

If your choice is not based on what it means to be a Christian, then your previous reasons are excuses or stumbling blocks.

I don't see organization as inherently corrupt. God created the universe in an ordered (organized) fashion, not a universe of chaos. The problem with organizations is that they can become corrupt as the members of the oraganization become corrupt.

A later message talked about a valid Hindu equivalent. I can't vouch for that but it would be interesting to hear more about it. I believe that all three levels of spirituality can work to prevent sin but the third level which Christianity represents works best. That does not mean that all Christians are operating at that level and I myself have progressed through the first two levels before reaching this level.

[Achanda]

My main reason for having abondoned Christianity, as my official faith, is that, to be a Christian, you must believe that the only path to salvation is through Christ Jesus. That has confounded me since I was a child.

I had the same problem. The Abrahamics put all the emphasis on accepting a particular theological doctrine, whereas personal development is often put on the backburner. Heaven is promised to those who believe in the "right" prophet or the "right" dogma. It seems the Dharmic religions put more emphasis on what really matters which is the hard work one puts into personal evolution.

Christians and Muslims often consider it a sin to learn wisdom from other faiths. Thats really too bad.

[Eastern Mind]

"But none the less the Christian religion is very necessary for our society. It is a form of control. Without it the crime rate would be much higher."

I don't agree with this statement, or others like it such as.. In order to be a moral person, you have to believe in God. (i.e - the Christian God) In which country is there higher crime rate, America, or India? Crime is controlled mostly by governments, and by people who for whatever reason choose not to commit crimes. It can be as easy as a recognition that crime is hurtful to another individual, or to society itself, and we don't need God to help us figure that out.
My early moral training came from my father who was an avowed atheist. He taught honesty, character development, the rights of others, etc. not by teaching, but by example. He was a Christian until about the age of 8 when the hypocracy got to him (not a really valid reason, in my opinion, but as a young lad, I can see why he did it...) after hearing a particular sermon on 'being kind to one's brother' at church one day, and then watching 2 or 3 cars drive by he and his siblings on a cold rainy day whilst they walked home the 3 miles, he had the thought... "Boy this church thing sure is pointless", and vowed never to return again, and fulfilled that vow for the next 80 odd years.
The same argument is used by the Catholic schools here in Canada .. (We, at least in the province I live, have 2 school systems primarily, and a third 'private school provision' "Our school is a better more moral school because we are Catholic, and God is in it." Yet from personal observation, I see no significant difference between the public schools. Fights, violence, cheating on tests, gang rivalry, petty theft, etc. exist pretty much in both systems. In fact, a case can be made that it is worse in the Catholic schools.

Aum Namashivaya

[Znanna]

Perhaps the notion of "the Christ" as a process rather than a anthropomorpic entity helps?

"Through Me" ... well, as a process "the Christ" poses some interesting concepts as the body transformed through, shall we say, divine insemination into a manifestation of Godz?

I'm for being "born again" into the "body of Christ" as a process of incorporating ALL as ONE.

Of course, most "Christians" see me as a "Satanist" :)


ZN

[atanu]

Perhaps the notion of "the Christ" as a process rather than a anthropomorpic entity helps?

"Through Me" ... well, as a process "the Christ" poses some interesting concepts as the body transformed through, shall we say, divine insemination into a manifestation of Godz?

I'm for being "born again" into the "body of Christ" as a process of incorporating ALL as ONE.

Of course, most "Christians" see me as a "Satanist" :)

ZN

Namaste ZN,

As usual, you have given a fresh and more appropriate (more inclusive) view.

There is "Christ Conscioussess", and there is "Krishna Consciousness" and some are able to see the Saman -- THE CONSCIOUSNESS itself. Then some are able to incorporate the ALL as ONE consciousness.

Girija -- the pure consciousness is the progenitor of Ganesha, who apparently has unlimited appetite (big belly) yet whose head is divine. Without knowing Ganapati, the Son of God, the hindrace of ego is not overcome.

And through Girija (the mother of all Gunas and awareness) only God can be prayed to and reached.
---------
And then we say that OM (and AUM) takes care of all these.

Om

Note: It is natural for Christians to label other as satanists. It is not that Demonic versus Daevic or that Niyama and Yama are not similar to injunctions of other religions. But the fact that the knower of spirit is above the injunctions is a big sore point with some.

Om

[devisarada]

Namaste ZN,


Note: It is natural for Christians to label other as satanists.


Especially when we call our religion Sanatana Dharma, and we refer to ourselves as Sanatanists. Many Christians will automatically assume that we are Satanists. Some radical Christian members of my immediate family consider me to be a Satanist.

[Hiwaunis]

"But none the less the Christian religion is very necessary for our society. It is a form of control. Without it the crime rate would be much higher."

I don't agree with this statement, or others like it such as.. In order to be a moral person, you have to believe in God. (i.e - the Christian God) In which country is there higher crime rate, America, or India? Crime is controlled mostly by governments, and by people who for whatever reason choose not to commit crimes. It can be as easy as a recognition that crime is hurtful to another individual, or to society itself, and we don't need God to help us figure that out.


Aum Namashivaya

Om Shanti,
History has shown that one can (or pretend to) believe in the "Christian God" and not be a moral person. In America in the 1770's through 1970's or so it was the believers in the "Christian God" that were responsible for the oppression, rape and murder of minorities. Even before that it was those so called Christians that were responsible for litterally wiping the Native Americans off the face of the earth.

If it weren't for the Christian institution the children and grandchildren of those oppressed and murdered would certainly get revenge. It was Christianity that taught us as children that revenge is wrong and that we should forgive those who trespass against us. For some people without the teaching of Christianity (the fear of God, not the love of God) there would be no reason to act (morally?) with some other people. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

When I was a Christian I was never taught anything about the science of the self. Most Christians' think that they HAVE a soul not that they are soul. You really don't have to do much to get into heaven other than believe in Jesus. I could kill as many children as I wanted and just ask Jesus to forgive me (according to Christianity) and I would be let into heaven.

I agree with your father Eastern Mind it is hypocracy. But none the less I think if I didn't have Christianity in those early years who knows where I would be now?

I have noticed one thing though about Christianity. Whats being taught and whats written as the standard belief is somewhat different.

I'll end by saying, to each his/her own.

Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti
Hiwaunis

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Devi,

Those who praise the Śatarudriya (or Rudra Śatāni) are the true Śatānists!

[jaggin]

"Through Me" can also be interpreted as a transformational metaphor, as much of the Bible ... the notion that Scripture is the "literal Word of God" itself is metaphor, IMO.

In a sense being "born again" is similar to my understanding of "shaktipata" ... in that one is imbued with the Spirit and in the process reconstructs oneSelves.

YMMV


Love,
ZN

Born again could be loosley interpreted to include those who adhere to living according to a dharma and are aware of the spirit of God.

I don't know much about "shaktipata" but a Cristian would not consider himself imbued but posssed by the Spirit.

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Born again could be loosely interpreted to include those who adhere to living according to a dharma and are aware of the spirit of God.

I don't know much about "shaktipata" but a Cristian would not consider himself imbued but possessed by the Spirit.


Namaste jaggin,
nice to see you posting again...

Perhaps this born again is dvija द्विज , twice-born , from dvi or two + ja born as in janma.


I know many Christians that are of the opinion they are born again, or into the Holy Spirit.
Now this is interesting (to me) as baby's are baptized, from the Greek word baptizo or to immerse, perform ablutions.
Christian rites are close to Jewish rites, and the Jews have mikvah, this means collection, so assume its a collection of water, or of collecting impurities. Yet this mikvah is not a one time event, as it is used for purification activities of daily events, utensils, etc.

This not so different then purification mantras we see and use in Sanatana Dharma e.g.
apavitraH pavitro vA sarvA-vasthAm gato'pi vA |
yas-smaret-punDarIkAksham sa bAhyAbhyantaraH SuciH ||

We do this with the sprinking of water (apas) for puja, as it says:
Whether pure or impure whether all places are permeated by purity or impurity
who ever opens himself (remembers) to the Lotus-eyed One (Lord) gains inner and outer purity

So with the first baptism, one enters the faith, as it symbolizes the cleansing of sins, and the union of the believer with Christ. This first baptism then is not being born again, it is with the second time,dvija. Now when this comes, and what makes it 'official' I am not sure... Yet it seems when the person now acts of his/her own free will, this born again takes place, and has much to do with the Holy Spirit.

...just a thought.


pranams

[nirotu]

So with the first baptism, one enters the faith, as it symbolizes the cleansing of sins, and the union of the believer with Christ. This first baptism then is not being born again, it is with the second time,dvija. Now when this comes, and what makes it 'official' I am not sure... Yet it seems when the person now acts of his/her own free will, this born again takes place, and has much to do with the Holy Spirit.

Many times we hear the term twice born... I am interested in what others know of this. Let me offer what I understand this to be. I am happy to be corrected, and any information and insights that can be augmented, is welcomed.Dear Yajvan:

“Asmaakam thu visishtaye
Thaanni bodha dwijothama”( BG 1:7)

Here Duryodhana addresses the Brahmin Guru Drona as “Dwija”. The meaning of “Dwija”, as you have elaborated so well, are “twice born” and “born again”. “Dwija” is a synonym for Brahmin in Vedas. However, I like to think that the word “Dwija” is referred to twice born in the same life and not as in a resurrected life! Such an interpretation would contradict Hindu interpretation as there are multiple incarnations of the self.

The title “Dwija”, in both traditions, are reserved for someone who has attained intuitive knowledge of God. The definition of Brahmin is: One who gained universal (eternal) wisdom, one who has known God. Being born from mother’s womb is the first birth. Knowing God after gaining wisdom is the second birth; he thus becomes Brahmin. In Hindu tradition, a boy is at the threshold of an age of accountability and is ready to receive and understand the wisdom of God. Generally, an appropriate age (>12) is considered as an age of accountability at which time there is a ritualistic ceremony (Upanayana) is conducted.

In the Gospel of John there is a passage where Necodemus encounters with the same situation talking to Jesus. In (v3:3) Jesus say, “I am telling you the truth: no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” Here we see that the wisdom dawns at the second birth in the same life. Both traditions do require us to be “Dwija” in the present life.

Food for thought: In a spiritual realm, if you consider “death” as a metaphor for separation from God then a person who is born twice will only die once, whereas, a person who is born once will die twice!!!!!

Blessings,

[atanu]

Dear Yajvan:
--
The title “Dwija”, in both traditions, are reserved for someone who has attained intuitive knowledge of God. ----

Food for thought: In a spiritual realm, if you consider “death” as a metaphor for separation from God then a person who is born twice will only die once, whereas, a person who is born once will die twice!!!!!

Blessings,

Namaste Nirotu,

I agree as my understanding is same as yours (at least on this occassion, hehe).

As per the Guru, it is the ego that is born as new incarnation in ever new dresses. But when the ego dies while still being in the dress, a jivanmukta is born -- so to say. That is Dwija.

Om

[sarabhanga]

Namaste,

dvijA (twice-born) refers to an Arya (one who is faithful to dharma), especially a brAhmaNa, but also kshatriya and vaishya, who is reborn by the upanayana saMskAra.

And upanayana is the purification or initiation (performed by a guru) in preparation for study of the veda, involving transmission of the gAyatrImantra and investiture with the sAvitrIsUtra (the brahmasUtra or yajñopavIta ~ the sacred thread). The upanayana is a formal introduction into the sacred vidyA, leading one’s self towards the Self. The rites are somewhat different for each of the three dvijA castes, but before the upanayana saMskAra occurs there should have been nAmakarman (name-giving) and cUDAkaraNa (shaving the head).

[yajvan]

Namaste,

dvijA (twice-born) refers to an Arya (one who is faithful to dharma), especially a brAhmaNa, but also kshatriya and vaishya, who is reborn by the upanayana saMskAra.

And upanayana is the purification or initiation (performed by a guru) in preparation for study of the veda, involving transmission of the gAyatrImantra and investiture with the sAvitrIsUtra (the brahmasUtra or yajñopavIta ~ the sacred thread). The upanayana is a formal introduction into the sacred vidyA, leading one’s self towards the Self. The rites are somewhat different for each of the three dvijA castes, but before the upanayana saMskAra occurs there should have been nAmakarman (name-giving) and cUDAkaraNa (shaving the head).

Namaste,
this is my understanding also of dvija... this leads to one's Ralization of the Supreme over time.

nirotu wrote
The title “Dwija”, in both traditions, are reserved for someone who has attained intuitive knowledge of God
Which suggests one has achieved liberation and hence the 'title' of dvija is then imparted. My understanding differs:

Hence dvija occurs:

with initiation
with upanayana or sacred thread ceremony
with studyAll leading to the unfoldment of SELF yet SELF-realization is not a prerequsite for dvija.

pranams

[ScottMalaysia]

Note: It is natural for Christians to label other as satanists.

The Bible says in Psalm 96:5 that "All the gods of the nations are idols". The Catholic Douay-Rheims version translates this verse as "All the gods of the gentiles are devils". Paul says in the New Testament "But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God". These two verses are the main justification that Christians have for labelling others as satanic. Some hardcore Protestant Christians even label Catholics as satanic. It's ridiculous.

I remember seeing on a joke site once. "Satanic - anything a fundamentalist Christian doesn't agree with".

I remember the lady from ISKCON who told me much of what I know about Krishna used John 14:6 "No man cometh to the Father but through Me (Jesus)" to say that you can't just go straight to God - you need a spiritual master, and that is what Jesus meant.

[atanu]

Namaste,
this is my understanding also of dvija... this leads to one's Ralization of the Supreme over time.

nirotu wrote
Which suggests one has achieved liberation and hence the 'title' of dvija is then imparted. My understanding differs:

Hence dvija occurs:

with initiation
with upanayana or sacred thread ceremony
with studyAll leading to the unfoldment of SELF yet SELF-realization is not a prerequsite for dvija.

pranams

Namaste Yajvan,

Yes, it is correct that Self Realisation is not a pre-requisite and conventionally Brahmanas and others are considered so. But Dwija -- the twice born, in true sense, can only be the one who is born a second time and is aware of this.

I am a Brahmana of Sandilya gotra yet I do not know of my second coming, though it may be true. Moreover, Brahmana caste and a true Brahmana may not be same.

Finally, to large extent, what one intuits about a word makes the meaning of words. You taught us levels of truth in Vedic words such as Gau. For example, for me, Shiva name itself indicates the good, whereas for most christians shiva is satan.

I feel that a Dwija should have awareness of being a Dwija -- Self Realisation is not necessary but knowledge of the false relation between the body and I, may be a requisite. Yet, the highest level of born twice is one who will have no more death.

I more or less understand it as ZN said (quoted below).



In a sense being "born again" is similar to my understanding of "shaktipata" ... in that one is imbued with the Spirit and in the process reconstructs oneSelves.


Om

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan,

Finally, to large extent, what one intuits about a word makes the meaning of words. You taught us levels of truth in Vedic words such as Gau. For example, for me, Shiva name itself indicates the good, whereas for most christians shiva is satan.

I feel that a Dwija should have awareness of being a Dwija -- Self Realisation is not necessary but knowledge of the false relation between the body and I, may be a requisite. Yet, the highest level of born twice is one who will have no more death.
Om

Namaste atanu,

I see your point...
re: Siva and Christians... it is their loss to consider 'The Auspicious' as any thing other then Supreme. Trying to convince one of this takes them out of their dharma.

I have had the good fortune to not meet any of the Christian folks that have a negative view of Siva-Bhairava. Yet have met people considering themselves part of Sanatna Dharama that look down on Siva and consider Him inferior. Again Ignorance abounds on Bhu Loka. This gets back to 'my God is better then your God' mind set. And for these people it is small-small thinking.

I like what you said on dvija... knowing that there is false relation of body and Atman (I) as a pre-requisite. This is where it needs to start.
Thank you for your post.


pranams,

[jaggin]

The Bible says in Psalm 96:5 that "All the gods of the nations are idols". The Catholic Douay-Rheims version translates this verse as "All the gods of the gentiles are devils". Paul says in the New Testament "But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God". These two verses are the main justification that Christians have for labelling others as satanic. Some hardcore Protestant Christians even label Catholics as satanic. It's ridiculous.

I remember seeing on a joke site once. "Satanic - anything a fundamentalist Christian doesn't agree with".

I remember the lady from ISKCON who told me much of what I know about Krishna used John 14:6 "No man cometh to the Father but through Me (Jesus)" to say that you can't just go straight to God - you need a spiritual master, and that is what Jesus meant.

As an iconoclastic Christian I don't believe they are justified from those two verses to label others as satanic. Devils don't necessarily oppose God they just don't measure up to His goodness, so they are of evil (d'evil). No doubt they were speaking about the pagan gods in their vicinity. No doubt Pagans opposed (Satan means opponent) Christianity because it was converting people from their religion but it is doubtful that any gods were telling them to do so. It seems a natural reaction.

That is not so ridiculous in light of the fact that Roman Catholicism originally opposed the Protestant Reformation. It is simply a question of whether Protestants who think adversarily are not in themselves satanic.

Here again, I think the door swings both ways.

I would disagree with the lady and many other Christians who view it that way. I believe that Jesus is just re-affirming His identity as God incarnate. IMO if a person prays to God using another name He gets Jesus, Krishna and whatever other name God has used because there is only one God. However God might not refer to Himself that way if it has no reference point for the praying person.

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~



Here again, I think the door swings both ways.



Namaste jaggin,
nice to see you posting again.

[jaggin]

Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste atanu,

I see your point...
re: Siva and Christians... it is their loss to consider 'The Auspicious' as any thing other then Supreme. Trying to convince one of this takes them out of their dharma.

I have had the good fortune to not meet any of the Christian folks that have a negative view of Siva-Bhairava. Yet have met people considering themselves part of Sanatna Dharama that look down on Siva and consider Him inferior. Again Ignorance abounds on Bhu Loka. This gets back to 'my God is better then your God' mind set. And for these people it is small-small thinking.

I like what you said on dvija... knowing that there is false relation of body and Atman (I) as a pre-requisite. This is where it needs to start.
Thank you for your post.


pranams,

I learn by conversation. If the conversation gets too technical I am apt to get befuddled.

Christians can never lose. Even when it looks like we are losing we are still winning. Christians can stunt their growth by having a preference to remain ignorant. My guess is that the large majority of Christians don't have a clue about Shiva except that they might have seen a picture and therein lies the problem because representations outside a cultural context can be misinterpreted.

Since there is only one God it is more of a cultural understanding of God that people prefer over others. A person can never exalt his own understanding by detracting from the understanding of others. This is a way for a person to lose.

People who understand the culture make the best critics. However it would seem to me to be anti-scriptural to perceive Shiva as anything but a name for God.

[atanu]

I learn by conversation. If the conversation gets too technical I am apt to get befuddled.

Christians can never lose. ---- This is a way for a person to lose.


Namaste jaggin,

You seem to have answered a question that sarabhanga put to me. Yes, Christians can never lose. Most Hindus will be happy to lose their misconceptions called Avidya, even if that appears as a defeat.




However it would seem to me to be anti-scriptural to perceive Shiva as anything but a name for God


Who is that whose name is God? For me that which is ever good goes by the name of God.


Om Namah Shivaya

[dhruva023]

A later message talked about a valid Hindu equivalent. I can't vouch for that but it would be interesting to hear more about it. I believe that all three levels of spirituality can work to prevent sin but the third level which Christianity represents works best. That does not mean that all Christians are operating at that level and I myself have progressed through the first two levels before reaching this level.


This is what i dont like about some Christians. Claiming without any proof.

[jaggin]

Namaste jaggin,

You seem to have answered a question that sarabhanga put to me. Yes, Christians can never lose. Most Hindus will be happy to lose their misconceptions called Avidya, even if that appears as a defeat.




Who is that whose name is God? For me that [COLOR=blue]which is ever good goes by the name of God.


Om Namah Shivaya

If Christians lose their misconceptions they win and if they don't they win.
I think King Solomon recognized that the more wisdom he had the more complex his life became. There may be benefits to living a simple life but God always decides what is best for us.

Jesus put it this way: "...none is good, save one, even God."

[jaggin]

This is what i dont like about some Christians. Claiming without any proof.

To those who are wise no proof is necessary; to those who are foolish no proof will be accepted.

I could ask you to accept what I say by faith but you do not know me well enough to know whether I speak the truth. I am talking about what I have experienced. Yes, I could get into Christian scripures to document the fact that my experience is not peculiar to me but is central to Christian faith but do you really want me to to that?