PDA

View Full Version : Why do Christians reject gnostic teaching?



Tomoz
25 August 2006, 10:19 AM
Hi there everybody:)
A lot of people around here seem to be really interested in the teaching of the gnostics. I thought it might be helpful if I post on here why it is exactly that christians don't accept the gnostic gospels. There are lots of conspiracy theories about church cover-ups and the like, but actually the reasons are much more mundane.

Firstly, the gnostic gospels were written a lot later after Jesus died than the gospels we accept (which are known as the canonical gospels). We know this through several dating techniques and clues found in the gospels themselves. Here is an example; in the Canonical gospels, the writers say that Jesus rose 'on the day after the sabbath'. This is because, when they were written, christianity was still just a jewish sect and hadn't been established as its own faith, and so the writers still considered saturday the sabbath. In the gnostic gospels however, they write that Jesus rose 'on the Lord's day'. This immediately shows that these gospels were written much later, after sunday, 'the Lord's day' had been set aside as the christian day of worship and Christianity had been established as a separate faith.

So how did the church decide which writings to include in the New Testament? Again, there is quite a logical and mundane answer to this. It was decided that, to be accepted as true, the writings had to have been written either by one of the apostles (one of the 12 that comprised Jesus' inner circle during his three years of ministry) or someone with a close association with an apostle. Why is Paul considered an apostle, if he didn't live with Jesus during his ministry? Well Peter, the main man in terms of apostledom, affirmed Paul as an apostle (you can find this in 2 Peter).
The fact that the gnostic gospels were written so much later meant that they couldn't have been written by an apostle or an apostle's disciple, so they weren't accepted as reliable.

Also, the Gnostic teachings themselves clash with Christianity, in a couple of ways you might not expect.
1) The Gnostics taught that there were actually two Gods - and evil creator God (or Demiurge) and a good redeemer God. The world was created by the demiurge, and so all matter is inherently evil. Jesus was sent by the good God to redeem us from matter.
This clashes with Jewish and Christian teaching for several reasons. Firstly, we believe there is only one God, who is the creator and the redeemer. The world that God created was good, but we messed it up. So evil comes not from God, but from rebellion against God (Christianity isn't a dualistic religion because we don't believe in an equal good and evil force - we believe that God, who is good, is infinitely more powerful than any evil).

2) The gnostic gospels tell stories of Jesus as a boy, making birds out of clay and bringing them to life, and, after losing a game that he is playing with his friends, striking them down! These silly, mythological stories go against everything we learn about how Jesus operated on Earth - if you look through the biblical gospel stories, you will see that not once did Jesus use his power to aid himself or in his own interest. His use of the miraculous was completely selfless. He was actually quite down to earth.
The gospel of Judas contains another story. As his disciples break bread and give thanks to God, Jesus laughs at them - because, according the the Gnostics, they are giving thanks to an evil demiurge, not a good God. This again goes completely against what we learn about Jesus in the canonical gospels. He took any sin or lack of understanding very, very seriously and, if they actually were lacking in understanding, he wouldn't have simply laughed at his closest followers, but would have put them straight. We know this from reading in the canonical Gospels about how Jesus operated.

Sorry its been a bit long winded - I hope that you've read some of it and found it interesting. I just thought I should explain why we don't accept the Gnostic Gospels as true. There are many other reasons of course. I hope you can see that, agree or disagree, the selection of canonical scripture was actually carried out quite logically, without any cover-ups or conspiracy.

Skillganon
25 August 2006, 11:35 AM
2) The gnostic gospels tell stories of Jesus as a boy, making birds out of clay and bringing them to life, and, after losing a game that he is playing with his friends, striking them down! .

Hello Tomoz,

Thanks for the post.

Can you provide reference to where it say's about this story. Is their a book online?

I am keen to know.

Peace

Skill.

Tomoz
25 August 2006, 08:11 PM
Sure buddy, they come from the infancy gospel of thomas, which dates from about 140 C.E. at the earliest. It's online at http://www.gospels.net/translations/infancythomastranslation.html.

Znanna
26 August 2006, 06:43 AM
Namaste,

If you seek a more precise translation, please see this link for the Gospel of Thomas (and other texts).

http://www.sacred-texts.com/gno/index.htm


ZN
("You see what you want to see, you hear what you want to hear" - The Point by Harry Neilsson)

satay
26 August 2006, 09:29 AM
Hi there everybody:)
A lot of people around here seem to be really interested in the teaching of the gnostics.

namaste,
Thank you for the post.
May I ask who are these 'lot of' people? What is gnostics and why should a hindu be interested in it?:headscratch:

Tomoz
26 August 2006, 09:56 AM
namaste,
Thank you for the post.
May I ask who are these 'lot of' people? What is gnostics and why should a hindu be interested in it?:headscratch:

Hi there Satay!
There were a few threads started in which people were saying that they thought gnostic christianity was more in line with what Jesus was really on about than christianity as it stands today.
The gnostics were a sect of christians who had beliefs that differed from mainstream christianity. Earlier this century, several gospels written by the gnostics were found, and conspiracy theories started cropping up as to why the church accepted some gospels and not others.

Tomoz
26 August 2006, 10:00 AM
Namaste,

If you seek a more precise translation, please see this link for the Gospel of Thomas (and other texts).

http://www.sacred-texts.com/gno/index.htm


ZN
("You see what you want to see, you hear what you want to hear" - The Point by Harry Neilsson)

Hi there Znanna
The gospel of thomas and the infancy gospel of thomas are two different documents.

Skillganon
26 August 2006, 11:49 AM
Sure buddy, they come from the infancy gospel of thomas, which dates from about 140 C.E. at the earliest. It's online at http://www.gospels.net/translations/infancythomastranslation.html. Thanks for that.



Originally Posted by Tomoz
2) The gnostic gospels tell stories of Jesus as a boy, making birds out of clay and bringing them to life, and, after losing a game that he is playing with his friends, striking them down!

Hey Tomoz.

Note this is not for debate, I do not wan't to hijack your thread, but just thought this might be an interest to you what is "highlighted red".

"Lo! I come unto you with a sign from your Lord. Lo! I fashion for you out of clay the likeness of a bird, and I breathe into it and it is a bird, by Allah's leave. I heal him who was born blind, and the leper, and I raise the dead, by Allah's leave. And I announce unto you what ye eat and what ye store up in your houses. Lo! herein verily is a portent for you, if ye are to be believers.

And (I come) confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was forbidden unto you. I come unto you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to Allah and obey me.

Lo! Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him. That is a straight path.] (Aal `Imran 3:49-51)

and

(9) Then, the Jews who were present and heard Jesus were amazed and said, "What a strange and remarkable event. The child is only five years old and already he says such things. For we never heard anyone who speaks words like this child does."

46. "He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous."
[Quran 3:46]
Peace.

Skill

Znanna
26 August 2006, 12:01 PM
Re: The Infancy Gospel of Thomas

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancythomas.html

(Fair Use Rules!)

F. F. Bruce writes (Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, p. 87):


Then there is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which purports to describe the doings of Jesus in his boyhood. Jesus proves to be an infant prodigy at school, instructing his teachers in the unsuspected mysteries of the alphabet; he astounds his family and playmates by the miracles which he performs. This is the document which tells for the first time the familiar tale of the twelve sparrows which Jesus, at the age of five, fashioned from clay on the sabbath day.
In The Other Gospels, Ron Cameron suggests that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas may have been written in eastern Syria, the location of the Thomas traditions, although Cameron states that attribution to Thomas "seems to be a secondary, late development." The original language of the document may have been either Syriac or Greek. The Greek manuscripts date from the fourteenth through the sixteenth century, while the earliest manuscript is a sixth century one in Syriac. Cameron thinks that the longer Greek recension more accurately preserves the text.

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas relates the miraculous deeds of Jesus before he turned twelve. According to Cameron, it "carries forward the aretalogical tradition of the gospels, expanding it to include an enumeration of miraculous feats performed even while Jesus was a mere infant." Cameron identifies the Sitz im Leben of the gospel to be "Christian missionary propaganda" in exalting Jesus over and against other "divine men" and "all other religious and political leaders within the Greco-Roman world." There is nothing particularly Christian about the stories attributed to Jesus; rather, the stories elaborate on the missing years of Jesus with reference to Hellenistic legend and pious imagination.

In The Complete Gospels, Harold Attridge considers whether the Infancy Gospel of Thomas contains docetic or Gnostic teachings. Attridge states: "While Gnostics may have been able to interpret stories in Infancy Thomas for their own ends, it is unlikely that they originally composed the work with the aim of propagating their theological positions."

Hippolytus and Origen refer to a Gospel of Thomas, but it is unclear whether they knew the Infancy Gospel of Thomas or the sayings Gospel of Thomas. But there is an earlier reference from Irenaeus, as Cameron notes: "In his citation, Irenaeus first quotes a non-canonical story that circulated about the childhood of Jesus and then goes directly on to quote a passage from the infancy narrative of the Gospel of Luke (Luke 2:49).

Since the Infancy Gospel of Thomas records both of these stories, in relative close proximity to one another, it is possible that the apocryphal writing cited by Irenaeus is, in fact, what is now known as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Because of the complexities of the manuscript tradition, however, there is no certainty as to when the stories of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas began to be written down."

Thus, while our present Infancy Gospel of Thomas may have been expanded over time, the original must have been written sometime in the middle of the second century.



ZN

Tomoz
28 August 2006, 07:04 AM
Thanks for that.



Hey Tomoz.

Note this is not for debate, I do not wan't to hijack your thread, but just thought this might be an interest to you what is "highlighted red".

"Lo! I come unto you with a sign from your Lord. Lo! I fashion for you out of clay the likeness of a bird, and I breathe into it and it is a bird, by Allah's leave. I heal him who was born blind, and the leper, and I raise the dead, by Allah's leave. And I announce unto you what ye eat and what ye store up in your houses. Lo! herein verily is a portent for you, if ye are to be believers.

And (I come) confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was forbidden unto you. I come unto you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to Allah and obey me.

Lo! Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him. That is a straight path.] (Aal `Imran 3:49-51)

and


46. "He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous."
[Quran 3:46]
Peace.

Skill

Hi Skill, yeah I had heard that the bird trick was in the Quran...
When Jesus begins his ministry and visits his home town of Nazareth, the locals who grew up with him are all flabbergasted and think he's full of rubbish. If acts like the transformation of sparrows actually happened, the Nazareth locals wouldn't have been surprised at Jesus coming and performing miracles:

"Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offence at him. (Mark 6:2-3)

The only out-of-the ordinary story in the Bible from Jesus' youth is when, at the age of twelve, he astounds everyone with his questions and understanding at the Temple. And at this even his parents, who went through the virgin birth, are "astonished" (Luke 2:41-52).
If he was doing all of those other miraculous things, the temple episode should have been par for the course. Its this kind of thing that affirms for us that the Gnostic texts are unreliable.

Tomoz
28 August 2006, 07:07 AM
Thus, while our present Infancy Gospel of Thomas may have been expanded over time, the original must have been written sometime in the middle of the second century.



ZN

That is still over fifty years older than the latest date for a book in the Bible

satay
28 August 2006, 12:40 PM
namaste Tomoz,
Just some questions...


Hi there everybody:)

Firstly, the gnostic gospels were written a lot later after Jesus died than the gospels we accept (which are known as the canonical gospels).

Oh okay. What about the gospels that you guys do accept...when were they written? How long after jesus' death?



So how did the church decide which writings to include in the New Testament? Again, there is quite a logical and mundane answer to this. It was decided that, to be accepted as true, the writings had to have been written either by one of the apostles (one of the 12 that comprised Jesus' inner circle during his three years of ministry) or someone with a close association with an apostle. Why is Paul considered an apostle, if he didn't live with Jesus during his ministry? Well Peter, the main man in terms of apostledom, affirmed Paul as an apostle (you can find this in 2 Peter).

so as long as peter said that paul was in his company...paul was accepted as apostle even though he never actually met jesus? hmm...
What about Matthew? Did matthew know Jesus? How well? Do we know?



The fact that the gnostic gospels were written so much later meant that they couldn't have been written by an apostle or an apostle's disciple, so they weren't accepted as reliable.


fair enough. Did jesus write anything of his own?



Also, the Gnostic teachings themselves clash with Christianity, in a couple of ways you might not expect.

Well, I guess if you guys have defined 'christianity' this one way then everything that contradicts it is going to be 'clashing with it' isn't it?



Firstly, we believe there is only one God, who is the creator and the redeemer. The world that God created was good, but we messed it up.

oh?
If GOD is the creator then how can he create something that can 'mess' something up that he created?



So evil comes not from God, but from rebellion against God

Where does the 'rebellion' come from? before you say, 'free will' my question will be where does 'free will' come from?

Is GOD the source of everything or not?



(Christianity isn't a dualistic religion because we don't believe in an equal good and evil force - we believe that God, who is good, is infinitely more powerful than any evil).

I don't understand. So you are saying there are two sources...good and evil but GOD is infinitely more powerful than evil. ?



2) The gnostic gospels tell stories of Jesus as a boy, making birds out of clay and bringing them to life, and, after losing a game that he is playing with his friends, striking them down! These silly, mythological stories go against everything we learn about how Jesus operated on Earth - if you look through the biblical gospel stories, you will see that not once did Jesus use his power to aid himself or in his own interest. His use of the miraculous was completely selfless. He was actually quite down to earth.
The gospel of Judas contains another story. As his disciples break bread and give thanks to God, Jesus laughs at them - because, according the the Gnostics, they are giving thanks to an evil demiurge, not a good God. This again goes completely against what we learn about Jesus in the canonical gospels. He took any sin or lack of understanding very, very seriously and, if they actually were lacking in understanding, he wouldn't have simply laughed at his closest followers, but would have put them straight. We know this from reading in the canonical Gospels about how Jesus operated.

actually I read somewhere that jesus never 'laughed' I guess how could he...



I hope you can see that, agree or disagree, the selection of canonical scripture was actually carried out quite logically, without any cover-ups or conspiracy.

yes, quite logically.

Tomoz
29 August 2006, 04:39 AM
Hi Satay! I know you're a pretty knowledgeable guy and you've probably heard answers to these questions a hundred times before, but seeing as you asked...



Oh okay. What about the gospels that you guys do accept...when were they written? How long after jesus' death?
Mark's gospel is the earliest, dated at around 60 a.d. However, in Paul's letters, which were written earlier, Paul quotes Jesus as scripture. This means that Jesus words were written down and accepted as scripture before the gospels we have were written.


so as long as peter said that paul was in his company...paul was accepted as apostle even though he never actually met jesus? hmm...
What about Matthew? Did matthew know Jesus? How well? Do we know?
In the book of 2 Peter, Peter describes Paul's letters as scripture. He was accepted as an apostle by the people who lived closest to Jesus, and to whom Jesus gave authority at the last supper.
Matthew was one of the 12. The gospel was written either by Matthew or his own disciples. I can't tell you the ins and outs of how this is known, as my knowledge isn't good enough. However, I can tell you that very intelligent people have devoted their lives to studying these texts for the past few millenia. Some people date them later, some earlier. Bith give convincing arguments. It comes down to what you believe based on the evidence given to you.



fair enough. Did jesus write anything of his own?
No - no Rabbis did. That was the job of their disciples.


Well, I guess if you guys have defined 'christianity' this one way then everything that contradicts it is going to be 'clashing with it' isn't it?
Well, as I said above, that definition has come from scholars devoting their lives to study of the bible and its teachings. We haven't just decided on dogma.



oh?
If GOD is the creator then how can he create something that can 'mess' something up that he created?
Here's that term - free will.


Where does the 'rebellion' come from? before you say, 'free will' my question will be where does 'free will' come from?

Is GOD the source of everything or not?
Free will comes from God. He gave us free will. This is because he wants a real, loving relationship with us. For that to be a possibility, we gave us the freedom to choose following him over the alternative. Creating us to automatically love him wouldn't be a relationship - that would be a prison.

I don't know the ways of God, but apparently He thought that giving us the freedom to make the choice to follow Him was worth the risk of us choosing not to.


I don't understand. So you are saying there are two sources...good and evil but GOD is infinitely more powerful than evil. ?
Not quite - gnostic teaching is that there are two sources, two equally opposing good and evil forces. Christians believe there is one source, a good one, God.


actually I read somewhere that jesus never 'laughed' I guess how could he...

You know, I don't think that is actually true! In the gospels Jesus is accused by the pharisees for having too good a time with his disciples!

TruthSeeker
29 August 2006, 05:10 AM
Free will comes from God. He gave us free will. This is because he wants a real, loving relationship with us. For that to be a possibility, we gave us the freedom to choose following him over the alternative. Creating us to automatically love him wouldn't be a relationship - that would be a prison.


How could one make up one's mind, whether to choose the world or God? I see the world, I see it gives me good and I love it. I dont see God, dont see any reason to beleive it, but dont "hate" God. What could God be expecting except than wishing us to forfeit our brains over blind faith. Is it like choosing between reason and faith, and reason must be deserted? Is that how we are supposed to use freewill?

If God were known, I suppose no one will reject God over something else. So we have to concede that the die is heavily loaded -- and very few will see through this game.




I don't know the ways of God, but apparently He thought that giving us the freedom to make the choice to follow Him was worth the risk of us choosing not to.


Apprently, his "thought" was not worth the risk, with most of his creation opting for the freedom. He could stop creation atleast now, so that the mess is minimized and be wound up. Why bother to continue with a "soul factory" that has heavily backfired?

Tomoz
29 August 2006, 06:57 AM
Hithere truthseeker :)


How could one make up one's mind, whether to choose the world or God? I see the world, I see it gives me good and I love it.

Well we believe that the world won't ultimately satisfy the hunger we have for 'something else'. Everyone has a god-shaped hole in their heart. Some try to fill it with money, sex, ego etc etc etc. Nothing truly will fit it but God.
I speak as a Christian but I think that most faiths would agree with this.


I dont see God, dont see any reason to beleive it, but dont "hate" God. What could God be expecting except than wishing us to forfeit our brains over blind faith. Is it like choosing between reason and faith, and reason must be deserted? Is that how we are supposed to use freewill?

If God were known, I suppose no one will reject God over something else. So we have to concede that the die is heavily loaded -- and very few will see through this game.

I don't think it is simply a case of reason versus faith. Many people have become Christians simply by logically waying up the evidence. They write great apologetics too. I think that, on investigation, belief in God is completely reasonable. We believe God gave us brains for a reason, that we should use them.
But it's not like you wake up one day with faith. For me, I decided that there was a pretty good chance that God was real, but wasn't sure. So I prayed - not knowing if there was anyone out there to hear the prayer - for God, if He existed, to show me He was real, to give me faith. And here I am - a Christian.



Apprently, his "thought" was not worth the risk, with most of his creation opting for the freedom. He could stop creation atleast now, so that the mess is minimized and be wound up. Why bother to continue with a "soul factory" that has heavily backfired?

Actually, we believe that God isn't winding it all up now because He is waiting for as many people to come to Him as possible. Well, that's what the Bible says anyway :D

satay
29 August 2006, 10:55 AM
Hi Satay! I know you're a pretty knowledgeable guy and you've probably heard answers to these questions a hundred times before, but seeing as you asked...

Thank you for answering my questions. Do I know you from before? Sometimes my (bad) reputation proceeds me.


Mark's gospel is the earliest, dated at around 60 a.d.

On the other hand, Augustine concluded that Matthew was written first and Mark used Matthew and peter’s teachings as his sources. However, I could not care less either way. I was just trying to see how ‘early’ are the ‘early’ writings that you guy accept as your spiritual guide.
2 Peter is estimated to be written around 100-160 a.d. by http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

To an outsider like me…it doesn’t make sense to just ignore some writings that some scholars think are written later in the date when the same scholars are not even sure of the dates for the ‘authentic’ documents. So therefore, I do not agree with the conclusion that Gnostic writings should be rejected based on ‘time’ of writings.

Now, the second point you made was that Gnostic writings are rejected because they contradict with the ‘accepted’ writings. If that’s the case then we should reject both Luke and Matthew since they contradict each other on birth stories of jesus.

The new testament contains no clue as to the time of jesus’ birth. Christmas was a pagan tradition adopted by Constantine. Birth stories of both luke and matthew contradict each other. There is no record of the census as mentioned in the gospel of luke, in the roman empire under augustus. And to make matters worst, we have no record of herod decreeing the murder of the male children of bethelhem as mentioned in matthew.

Most of the so called ‘historical’ evidence is only provided by the believers. We have absolutely no record of jesus’ existence in any historical source. If jesus was really born in the year 1 herod the great would already have been dead for four years. So either the count is off or the story of herod’s intervention is false.



However, in Paul's letters, which were written earlier, Paul quotes Jesus as scripture. This means that Jesus words were written down and accepted as scripture before the gospels we have were written.


Paul was the disciple of peter and never met jesus himself so I reject all his writings as hearsay.
The bottom line is that the new testament is written entirely by the believers and ‘historians’ have no evidence of even jesus’ existence let alone a reason to believe in what paul says.



In the book of 2 Peter, Peter describes Paul's letters as scripture. He was accepted as an apostle by the people who lived closest to Jesus, and to whom Jesus gave authority at the last supper.


All this does is that person B is authentic since person A says so. This is not ‘historic’ evidence. It is hearsay.



Matthew was one of the 12. The gospel was written either by Matthew or his own disciples. I can't tell you the ins and outs of how this is known, as my knowledge isn't good enough. However, I can tell you that very intelligent people have devoted their lives to studying these texts for the past few millenia. Some people date them later, some earlier. Bith give convincing arguments.
It comes down to what you believe based on the evidence given to you.


Let’s assume for the purpose of this discussion that jesus did exist even though there is no historical evidence of him anywhere. Even if we assume that there are still some problems for me.

Who ‘baptized’ jesus? John. How come john baptized the only son of god? What was the need?

Jesus preached the end of the world. If taken literally, the end of the world has not come.

Jesus’ death in itself is a very disrespectful way of dying. Why such a disrespectful death to the only son of god?

No one actually saw him arise.

The inscription on the cross was “jesus of Nazareth, king of jews”

Most of what I see with Christians is a matter of faith, not claims that can be demonstrated historically.



No - no Rabbis did. That was the job of their disciples.


Fair enough. But did jesus then at least verify what his disciples were writing or saying?


Well, as I said above, that definition has come from scholars devoting their lives to study of the bible and its teachings. We haven't just decided on dogma.


The so called scholars are all believers.


Here's that term - free will.


If free will is responsible for the mess and GOD is the source of free will then ultimately the buck stops with GOD and if he is omniscient then he must have known that this free will is going to create mess. If that’s the case then he himself is responsible for the mess and not man.

If we look at the nature of GOD in sri bagvatam, we find that this creation is all a play. In the grand scheme of things ‘we’ are nothing but part and parcel of him and we do have free will which activates the karmic law but ultimately GOD himself is responsible for the karmic law, free will and the whole damn mess or as we hindus call it leela (a divine play).



Free will comes from God. He gave us free will. This is because he wants a real, loving relationship with us. For that to be a possibility, we gave us the freedom to choose following him over the alternative. Creating us to automatically love him wouldn't be a relationship - that would be a prison.


If free will is truly free then no one should be punished for ‘not choosing’ to love him.
‘disobedience’ is ‘implied’ in free will. If GOD wanted us to follow him and love him and pray to him like a robot then he should not have given us free will. But sinc e he did give us free will he should be indifferent to what we choose...in fact, he should be happy that adam rebelled as 'rebellion' is a sign that the child has grown to be a 'man' and is not a child anymore.



I don't know the ways of God, but apparently He thought that giving us the freedom to make the choice to follow Him was worth the risk of us choosing not to.


In Gita we find out about the true nature of GOD. He does not force anything…we are responsible for our actions and thus the karmic law.

Not quite - gnostic teaching is that there are two sources, two equally opposing good and evil forces. Christians believe there is one source, a good one, God.


No, my comment was in response to your comment that GOD is infinitely better than Evil. This statement assumes that there is ‘evil’ that exists separately from GOD and out of control of GOD because to compare the source i.e. GOD to evil you implied that there is another source for evil.

My question: is GOD the source of ‘everything’ or not? Please think about it before answering.


You know, I don't think that is actually true! In the gospels Jesus is accused by the pharisees for having too good a time with his disciples!


‘good time’…that doesn’t make any sense…as how can a son of god who came to take the sins of ‘all’ men have good time! What in your opinion is ‘good time’ that he was having?

Sorry, this post is too long…

TruthSeeker
29 August 2006, 11:21 AM
Hi Tomoz,




Well we believe that the world won't ultimately satisfy the hunger we have for 'something else'. Everyone has a god-shaped hole in their heart. Some try to fill it with money, sex, ego etc etc etc. Nothing truly will fit it but God. I speak as a Christian but I think that most faiths would agree with this.


What do you mean by "ultimately" satisfy the hunger of man? There are a number of people who have had no problems in life from birth to death, and have never felt the need for "something else".

Yeah, we all agree with the "God shaped hole" but we dont think most people find it in one life time. They will "ultimatelly" definitely find it.





I don't think it is simply a case of reason versus faith. Many people have become Christians simply by logically waying up the evidence. They write great apologetics too. I think that, on investigation, belief in God is completely reasonable. We believe God gave us brains for a reason, that we should use them.
But it's not like you wake up one day with faith. For me, I decided that there was a pretty good chance that God was real, but wasn't sure. So I prayed - not knowing if there was anyone out there to hear the prayer - for God, if He existed, to show me He was real, to give me faith. And here I am - a Christian.


This could be uttered by anybody...when a person prays to God, some one becomes a muslim, and some one becomes a Hindu. Was it the same God that led people into different faiths on praying?





Actually, we believe that God isn't winding it all up now because He is waiting for as many people to come to Him as possible. Well, that's what the Bible says anyway

So that means as many people have to be sacrified in order for God to get as many people as he wants.

Does God know what happens to every man he creates before hand or not? Answer this...if he does not, then he simply is not omniscient or all knowing.

satay
29 August 2006, 11:42 AM
sorry to interrupt your dialogue with TS but I wanted to add some comments...


Everyone has a god-shaped hole in their heart.
Metaphorically speaking of course.
We hindus believe that we are part and parcel of GOD. Our atma (soul) is directly made up of energy that is GOD.


Some try to fill it with money, sex, ego etc etc etc. Nothing truly will fit it but God.
I speak as a Christian but I think that most faiths would agree with this.

Yes, ‘love’ for money, ego, sex must be eliminated or better word is ‘transcended’.
The gita says

“They are forever free who renounce all selfish desires and break away from the ego-cage of "I", "me", and "mine" to be united with the Lord. This is the supreme state. Attain to this, and pass from death to immortality.”



Many people have become Christians simply by logically waying up the evidence.


And as many have left Christianity for the same reason. They have dis-covered that paul’s paulinity is not ‘christ’s religion.



They write great apologetics too. I think that, on investigation, belief in God is completely reasonable. We believe God gave us brains for a reason, that we should use them.


Belief in GOD is reasonable yes. Using reason we should decipher what evidence sits in front of us and not follow it blindly due to the environment we were born-in.

While all religions of the world make a promise of ‘some reward’ or ‘punishment’ after our death…only Vedanta is bold enough to say…
Here is the prescription to ‘Experience’ GOD right here on this earth while you are still visiting this planet!



But it's not like you wake up one day with faith.


As GOD tells us in Gita :
Chapter 17
GOD said: The natural faith of embodied beings is of three kinds: Goodness, Passion, and Ignorance. The faith of each is in accordance with one’s own natural disposition governed by karmic impressions.

Earlier in chapter 13 he says:
Other who don’t know the yogas of meditation, knowledge and work; but they perform deity worship with faith, as mentioned in the scriptures by the saints and sages. They also transcend death by virtue of their firm faith in what they have heard.



Actually, we believe that God isn't winding it all up now because He is waiting for as many people to come to Him as possible. Well, that's what the Bible says anyway


This is illogical and ‘reason’ if we choose to use it says that this makes GOD some kind of tyrant that enjoys throwing souls in the fire pit!

Let’s examine what we have discovered so far:
GOD created world and us. He gave us free will. We messed up the world with our free will (well, actually only adam messed it up not us but let’s carry on…).

First of all if GOD is omniscient he must have known that we will mess it up. Secondly, if he didn’t know (and at this point he remains GOD no longer) and at least now knows that we have messed up big time with our free will then any reasonable creator should and would stop the ‘source’ of this mess i.e. stop creating souls. If he chooses to still create new souls as he does now all the while knowing that we will contribute to more mess then I reject such illogical GOD as common man seems to have won the argument of logic to GOD!

The only thing that makes reasonable sense for the behavior of GOD is if we accept that it is all a divine play as Vedanta declares.

Having said all this though GOD also promises in Gita that those who pray to other deities he will make our faith stronger in those deities…as ultimately all ‘worship’ goes to that one GOD as explained in the Gita.

TruthSeeker
29 August 2006, 12:23 PM
First of all if GOD is omniscient he must have known that we will mess it up. Secondly, if he didn’t know (and at this point he remains GOD no longer) and at least now knows that we have messed up big time with our free will then any reasonable creator should and would stop the ‘source’ of this mess i.e. stop creating souls. If he chooses to still create new souls as he does now all the while knowing that we will contribute to more mess then I reject such illogical GOD as common man seems to have won the argument of logic to GOD!


The freewill/destiny is a paradoxial problem isn'i it? If God is omniscient then there is no room for freewill beyond God's knowledge. If everything is destined then what is the role of prayers or worship?

In advaita, destiny alone exists from the absolute perspective. It is the inevitable destiny of the Atman to enjoy uninterrupted bliss. Freewill exist only from the phenomenal perspective, and since there is only a universal witness or experience, ie Atman, there could be no real freewill.

God must hence certainly know the biography of every soul that emanated from him and reach him in the end. The soul certainly does not know, and hence from his perspective freewill exists to a certain extent, though it is easy to verify the role of destiny in every walk of life.

If it is destiny all the way, then what is the role of prayers or meditation? Well, just like we cant leave the factory work to destiny in worldly life, spiritual work cannot be left to destiny from our perspective. So most teachers will preach only a combination of destiny and freewill, though destiny ought to be the ultimate reality. Enlightened sages know the fate of every soul, and hence never indulge in this "soul saving" business as they know it is all already planned by God.

It is all just play only, a well planned play to the finest detail. Perhaps this divine author might change his play occasionally based on audience feedback? If so, that might be a little bit of real freewill in this play.;)

satay
29 August 2006, 12:30 PM
More on reason and 'early writings'

"
These books, beginning with Genesis and ending with Revelation (which, by the by, is a book of riddles that requires a revelation to explain it), are, we are told, the word of God. It is, therefore, proper for us to know who told us so, that we may know what credit to give to the report. The answer to this question is, that nobody can tell, except that we tell one another so. The case, however, historically appears to be as follows:
When the Church Mythologists established their system, they collected all the writings they could find, and managed them as they pleased. It is a matter altogether of uncertainty to us whether such of the writings as now appear under the name of the Old and New Testament are in the same state in which those collectors say they found them, or whether they added, altered, abridged, or dressed them up.

Be this as it may, they decided by vote which of the books out of the collection they had made should be the WORD OF GOD, and which should not. They rejected several; they voted others to be doubtful, such as the books called the Apocrypha; and those books which had a majority of votes, were voted to be the word of God. Had they voted otherwise, all the people, since calling themselves Christians, had believed otherwise — for the belief of the one comes from the vote of the other. Who the people were that did all this, we know nothing of; they called themselves by the general name of the Church, and this is all we know of the matter."

Age of Reason Part First, Section 4 - Thomas Paine

satay
29 August 2006, 12:32 PM
The freewill/destiny is a paradoxial problem isn'i it? If God is omniscient then there is no room for freewill beyond God's knowledge. If everything is destined then what is the role of prayers or worship?

In advaita, destiny alone exists from the absolute perspective. It is the inevitable destiny of the Atman to enjoy uninterrupted bliss. Freewill exist only from the phenomenal perspective, and since there is only a universal witness or experience, ie Atman, there could be no real freewill.

God must hence certainly know the biography of every soul that emanated from him and reach him in the end. The soul certainly does not know, and hence from his perspective freewill exists to a certain extent, though it is easy to verify the role of destiny in every walk of life.

If it is destiny all the way, then what is the role of prayers or meditation? Well, just like we cant leave the factory work to destiny in worldly life, spiritual work cannot be left to destiny from our perspective. So most teachers will preach only a combination of destiny and freewill, though destiny ought to be the ultimate reality. Enlightened sages know the fate of every soul, and hence never indulge in this "soul saving" business as they know it is all already planned by God.

It is all just play only, a well planned play to the finest detail. Perhaps this divine author might change his play occasionally based on audience feedback? If so, that might be a little bit of real freewill in this play.;)

I would like to reply to your post but don't want to hijack Tomoz's thread. Otherwise we might end up trolling this thread and you might 'warn' me eh? :D I am being a good poster following rules of the site...

sm78
30 August 2006, 05:52 AM
Actually, we believe that God isn't winding it all up now because He is waiting for as many people to come to Him as possible. Well, that's what the Bible says anyway :D

But the fun begins after this winding up, ain't it??

About free will ~ if God gave us free will it must be one of his attributes.
Those who choose to deny free-will (freedom) are denying an attribute of God and in essence denying God. Slavery is not the nature of God. Being a slave is not the nature of those who seek to believe in God. What do you say??

On other points you are speaking in general terms about God taking a normal dualistic postion. Apart from the imprecise terminology and contradictions, what you say will be in partial agreement with anyone who believes in God(not necessarily father jeovah) and understands the pit-falls of materialism. What is the special thing about christianity or gnostic chiristianity w.r.t these points??

Tomoz
30 August 2006, 06:43 AM
On the other hand, Augustine concluded that Matthew was written first and Mark used Matthew and peter’s teachings as his sources. However, I could not care less either way. I was just trying to see how ‘early’ are the ‘early’ writings that you guy accept as your spiritual guide.
2 Peter is estimated to be written around 100-160 a.d. by http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

To an outsider like me…it doesn’t make sense to just ignore some writings that some scholars think are written later in the date when the same scholars are not even sure of the dates for the ‘authentic’ documents. So therefore, I do not agree with the conclusion that Gnostic writings should be rejected based on ‘time’ of writings.
Augustine was writing in the 4th/5th century, proper scholarship has been done since that time.
That date for 2 peter is one opinion. You will find that nothing is conclusive, and everyone can back up their points of view with compelling evidence.
There is controversy surrounding when different books were written. However, everyone seems to agree that Paul's epistles are the earliest Christian writings (remember that Paul, despite not knowing Jesus during his ministry, knew those people who lived intimately with Jesus for three years, and they affirmed Paul's teaching as compatible with that of Jesus). Also, scholars all agree that the canonical gospels are the earliest gospels we have.


Now, the second point you made was that Gnostic writings are rejected because they contradict with the ‘accepted’ writings. If that’s the case then we should reject both Luke and Matthew since they contradict each other on birth stories of jesus.
I'm not a Christian who states that there are no contradictions in the Bible. Of course there are - we believe the Bible to be the word of God, but it was delivered through fallible human beings.
But there are contradictions and then there are contradictions. The gospels don't always line up on history. But you'll find that the Bible doesn't contradict itself points of sgnificance for belief, and that is what really matters. What is important in the birth stories is that it was a virgin birth, concieved by the Holy Spirit. On this they agree.


The new testament contains no clue as to the time of jesus’ birth. Christmas was a pagan tradition adopted by Constantine. Birth stories of both luke and matthew contradict each other. There is no record of the census as mentioned in the gospel of luke, in the roman empire under augustus. And to make matters worst, we have no record of herod decreeing the murder of the male children of bethelhem as mentioned in matthew.

Most of the so called ‘historical’ evidence is only provided by the believers. We have absolutely no record of jesus’ existence in any historical source. If jesus was really born in the year 1 herod the great would already have been dead for four years. So either the count is off or the story of herod’s intervention is false.
All of this is nothing new to Christians - we place Jesus' birth at around the year 5 or 4 b.c.


Paul was the disciple of peter and never met jesus himself so I reject all his writings as hearsay.
The bottom line is that the new testament is written entirely by the believers and ‘historians’ have no evidence of even jesus’ existence let alone a reason to believe in what paul says.
Paul wasn't a disciple of Peter. We believe that Paul did meet Jesus - on the road to damascus :)
There isn't really a debate as to whether Jesus existed or not. That is pretty much confirmed, through the non-christian writing of people at the time such as Josephus. No credible historian questions the existence of a 1st century jewish teacher named Jesus of Nazareth. People just differ as to his nature and significance.


All this does is that person B is authentic since person A says so. This is not ‘historic’ evidence. It is hearsay.
It isn't just person A and person B. It is Paul being confirmed as an apostle by Peter, the number one Apostle who lived with Jesus for three years, new him intimately, and whom Jesus, along with the other apostles, conferred all authority.




Let’s assume for the purpose of this discussion that jesus did exist even though there is no historical evidence of him anywhere. Even if we assume that there are still some problems for me.

Who ‘baptized’ jesus? John. How come john baptized the only son of god? What was the need?
Part of Jesus ministry was showing us how to live a Godly life. He set the perfect example for us.
It also show's Jesus' humility


Jesus preached the end of the world. If taken literally, the end of the world has not come.
not yet...:D


Jesus’ death in itself is a very disrespectful way of dying. Why such a disrespectful death to the only son of god?
Not many people outside the church understand the passion and atonement. But this may give you an idea: "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" John 15:13

"Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:7-8


No one actually saw him arise.
Well, he was seen risen. There is actually some pretty compelling evidence for the ressurection - I won't go into it now, but can tell you if you like.


The inscription on the cross was “jesus of Nazareth, king of jews”

Most of what I see with Christians is a matter of faith, not claims that can be demonstrated historically.
Well yes, faith is a big part. Ultimately, nothing can be proved beyond all doubt to everybody(though, perhaps, beyond resonable doubt) - that goes for every spiritual path. But there does come a point when you have to step out in faith.
And I think Christianity has a lot more historical backing than some other faiths.




Fair enough. But did jesus then at least verify what his disciples were writing or saying?
Yes - in the gospels ;)




The so called scholars are all believers.
Many of them weren't when they began their investigations.




If free will is responsible for the mess and GOD is the source of free will then ultimately the buck stops with GOD and if he is omniscient then he must have known that this free will is going to create mess. If that’s the case then he himself is responsible for the mess and not man.

If we look at the nature of GOD in sri bagvatam, we find that this creation is all a play. In the grand scheme of things ‘we’ are nothing but part and parcel of him and we do have free will which activates the karmic law but ultimately GOD himself is responsible for the karmic law, free will and the whole damn mess or as we hindus call it leela (a divine play).
So, are you saying we have free will or not? A god who calls some of the things that happen in the world 'divine play' isn't really a god I would want to worship.
It doesn't matter if it is all ultimately illusion - that is no comfort if you're a starving child.




If free will is truly free then no one should be punished for ‘not choosing’ to love him.
‘disobedience’ is ‘implied’ in free will. If GOD wanted us to follow him and love him and pray to him like a robot then he should not have given us free will. But sinc e he did give us free will he should be indifferent to what we choose...in fact, he should be happy that adam rebelled as 'rebellion' is a sign that the child has grown to be a 'man' and is not a child anymore. Adam wasn't acting like a man, he acted like a child - he saw what he wanted and he took it, regardless of the consequences. That translates into how we all operate today, unfortunately.
Christians don't really believe in the idea of 'reward' and 'punishment'.



No, my comment was in response to your comment that GOD is infinitely better than Evil. This statement assumes that there is ‘evil’ that exists separately from GOD and out of control of GOD because to compare the source i.e. GOD to evil you implied that there is another source for evil.

My question: is GOD the source of ‘everything’ or not? Please think about it before answering. God is the source of everything. Everything God created was good (you can see this in the first chapter of genesis - "God saw it and it was good".
Evil is a corruption of Good - it doesn't exist of itself, but is a corruption of something that was originally good.
Hence the story of satan - he was originally an angel, who rebelled against God. But because he was created (God is the only uncreated 'thing') he is nowhere near God in power and will ultimately be thrown down. In fact, evil's time is already running out.



‘good time’…that doesn’t make any sense…as how can a son of god who came to take the sins of ‘all’ men have good time! What in your opinion is ‘good time’ that he was having?
Well, he turned water into wine at a wedding feast - I doubt he would have gone through the whole feast without smiling once.
also:

"Now John's disciples and the pharisees were fasting. Some people came and asked Jesus, 'how is it the John's disciples and the disciples of the pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?' Jesus answered, 'how can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them. But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast'" Mark 2:18-20




Sorry, this post is too long…
No worries!!

Tomoz
30 August 2006, 06:52 AM
Everyone I'll try to answer your questions ASAP. I have assignments and the like though, so please bear with me!!

Ablaze
30 August 2006, 07:11 AM
Namaste all,

Gnosticism basically = Jnana Yoga. The ancient gnostic groups sought enlightenment thru the experience of transcendental knowledge and the unfoldment of awareness in their higher chakra-centers. There were many such groups, some were Christian mystics, others worked with Egyptian and Hermetic mysticism and symbolism. It's important to note, they communicated with esoteric symbols and language, and their writings can never be understood by historians or orthodox Christians, who read their writings literally, without any esoteric or metaphysical understanding. You have to be initiated into the gnostic symbolism and have some esoteric understanding, to understand their writings.

There is a modern Gnostic Christian group, the Sophians:

http://www.sophian.org

They speak about reincarnation, and other things that closely tie them in with "Hindu" beliefs. Their teachings and practices are most closely tied to Shakta and Tantric beliefs, although they use the language of Jewish mysticism (Kabbalah) and Christian Gnosticism.

They do not believe in a literal Demiurge, but see the Demiurge as the influence of cosmic ignorance on the physical and astral levels. The Demiurge in that sect, is what we would call Tamas-guna.

Anyway, they are an interesting sect, and very different from the exoteric, hell-fire and brimstone, one life to live, Orthodox Christian sects. :Cool:

satay
30 August 2006, 02:57 PM
Everyone I'll try to answer your questions ASAP. I have assignments and the like though, so please bear with me!!

hey tomoz,
appreciate your post...we all have lives outside this forum so please take your time...we are not going anywhere.

In return, I also ask that you bare with me...I have many more questions that I want to clarify for my own understanding of christian concept of god...but my there are so many things going on that I won't be able to reply right away...

satay
31 August 2006, 04:15 PM
namaste tomoz,



Augustine was writing in the 4th/5th century, proper scholarship has been done since that time.


I was under the impression that Augustine’s contribution to Christian theology are second to on other post apostolic author. However, since you are implying that Augustine was not a proper scholar okay I accept your implication as it is and we will not discuss any of augustine’s contributions in our dialogue.



That date for 2 peter is one opinion.


As a matter of fact, all dates suggested by the so called scholars are ‘opinions’ isn’t it?



You will find that nothing is conclusive, and everyone can back up their points of view with compelling evidence.


Yes, I am beginning to see that about the Christian ‘historic’ proof. If anyone can make up something and then make something else up to back up the claim then that is not proper historic evidence. Historic evidence should stand the scrutiny of an independent source not just the ‘faithful’.



There is controversy surrounding when different books were written. However, everyone seems to agree that Paul's epistles are the earliest Christian writings (remember that Paul, despite not knowing Jesus during his ministry, knew those people who lived intimately with Jesus for three years, and they affirmed Paul's teaching as compatible with that of Jesus). Also, scholars all agree that the canonical gospels are the earliest gospels we have.


That doesn’t make any logical sense as far as historic evidence is concerned. First you said that everyone can backup their points of view with compelling evidence now you are saying that ‘all’ scholars agree.

Who are these ‘all’ scholars? I bet they are ‘all’ Christians also. Since ‘all’ these scholars are just making up their own points and then making up some more points to back up their own points and all these scholars are agreeing on some of these points…There findings can not be taken seriously. Again these are tenets of faith since nothing can be demonstrated historically by an independent third party.



I'm not a Christian who states that there are no contradictions in the Bible. Of course there are - we believe the Bible to be the word of God, but it was delivered through fallible human beings.


Oh? Words of my friend nirotu echo in my mind, “bible is the inerrant word of god”
Anyway, if you agree that there are contradictions in the bible due to human authorship then how do you verify which parts are the word of god and which parts ‘word of man’? What is your personal criterion of verifying this?



But there are contradictions and then there are contradictions.


No. all contradictions are contradictions. You are just playing with gymnastics of words.



The gospels don't always line up on history.

But in your first post you wanted us believe that Gnostic scriptures are rejected based on ‘time’. Since that time is in the past and thus a history now to us…then that implies that the history is also important to Christians. It is history that tells Christians which scriptures are authentic and which are Gnostic. Isn’t it?

Since now, you are saying that gospels don’t always line up on history…what an outsider or a student of comparative religion like me to believe?

You have already admitted that not all scholars agree on all points of history. And now you say that even gospels i.e. the writings of the followers don’t agree on all points based on history. So then, How to decide which scripture is authentic? Which scholars are authentic? Which authors are authentic? What is your method of verification? What is your reasoning in deciding who is right and who is wrong? Please share with me so that I can try to apply that for myself.



What is important in the birth stories is that it was a virgin birth, concieved by the Holy Spirit. On this they agree.


Is this a reasonable thing to believe? How do you verify it was virgin birth? Did marry or her husband or any of her family leave any written document, a diary or script or something like that historians can verify?

You said, “on this they agree”. What’s the criterion used to decide this?
I am beginning to wonder if you really are using reason to decipher all this information. In your own words, “bible has contradictions”.



All of this is nothing new to Christians - we place Jesus' birth at around the year 5 or 4 b.c.


Okay.



Paul wasn't a disciple of Peter. We believe that Paul did meet Jesus - on the road to damascus


Could you please provide me with the source or reference? I am a new student and have not read most of your scriptures.



There isn't really a debate as to whether Jesus existed or not. That is pretty much confirmed, through the non-christian writing of people at the time such as Josephus. No credible historian questions the existence of a 1st century jewish teacher named Jesus of Nazareth. People just differ as to his nature and significance.


Sine we both agree that scholars are making up their points and backing up their own points by evidence it means that there is not really any credible ‘historic’ evidence of anything.

However, as I said before, let us assume that Jesus of Nazareth did exist.



It isn't just person A and person B. It is Paul being confirmed as an apostle by Peter, the number one Apostle who lived with Jesus for three years, new him intimately, and whom Jesus, along with the other apostles, conferred all authority.


But since they were all persons my example still stands. It is merely person A saying person B is authentic. This is not historic evidence. It doesn’t stand the scrutiny of independent parties so it is just a hearsay.



Part of Jesus ministry was showing us how to live a Godly life. He set the perfect example for us.
It also show's Jesus' humility


Yes, okay, that makes sense to me. Even when GOD himself came and lived in vrindavan and gokul he had human teachers…



not yet...


I would say that 2000 years (give and take 5 years for discrepancy of your scholars ‘historic evidence’) is a long time for a prophecy to be fulfilled. If it was going to take thousands of years to fulfill the prophecy why make it at all? Doesn’t make sense.



Not many people outside the church understand the passion and atonement. But this may give you an idea: "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" John 15:13


There are a number of ordinary men who have given up their lives for other ordinary men or an entity called ‘their country’, their religion etc. John’s quote doesn’t explain why jesus had to die a humiliating and disrespectful death.



"Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:7-8


If christ is the son of god then he couldn’t have “died” and if he died then he couldn’t have been the son of god. In that case, it was all a drama or as tao masters call it a parable.
You can see that his death and reincarnation (or resurrection if you insist) was a parable and not a literal death. That is the only thing that makes reasonable sense.



Well, he was seen risen. There is actually some pretty compelling evidence for the ressurection - I won't go into it now, but can tell you if you like.


Yes, let’s go in to evidence that can be verified by independent parties like me a student of comparative religion.



Well yes, faith is a big part. Ultimately, nothing can be proved beyond all doubt to everybody(though, perhaps, beyond resonable doubt) - that goes for every spiritual path. But there does come a point when you have to step out in faith.


Ahh…yes…faith. I have no problem with faith. But if faith is what I must step into then I am already sitting in faith and why should I step circle in your faith? Any reason?



And I think Christianity has a lot more historical backing than some other faiths.


Wrong! Buddha has more historical backing any day!
But we are leaving all this ‘historic evidence’ alone are we not?



Yes - in the gospels


I don’t understand. This is like saying…bible is the truth because it says so. This kind of logic only works on the ‘faithful’.




Many of them weren't when they began their investigations.


Are you contending that any comparative religion student that starts studying Christianity becomes a beliver? I can produce at least one person that I know who probably knows more about Judaism and Christianity than the both of us combined.

The fact remains, all ‘historic’ evidence, all ‘scholars’ are all believers. There ‘evidence’ doesn’t stand the scrutiny of independent parties otherwise the whole world would already be Christian!



So, are you saying we have free will or not?


I don’t know. You tell me. What does your scripture say about free will.



A god who calls some of the things that happen in the world 'divine play' isn't really a god I would want to worship.


That is of no concern to me. Hindus couldn’t care less if you believe or don’t believe worship or don’t worship.



It doesn't matter if it is all ultimately illusion - that is no comfort if you're a starving child.


You seem to be stuck in illusion of ‘historic evidence’ and ‘contradictions of the scriptures’ yourself.

Do you want to talk about a ‘starving child’ now or later in our discussion. What does your scripture say about a ‘starving child’? Why is he starving while another is born with a silver spoon in his mouth?



Adam wasn't acting like a man, he acted like a child - he saw what he wanted and he took it, regardless of the consequences. That translates into how we all operate today, unfortunately.


Actually careful now…we don’t want to change the history! It was not adam actually it was Eve wasn’t it? Eve compelled him to take from the tree of knowledge and god of the bible got angry that adam listened to his wife instead of his instructions! So it was a matter of ego for the god of the bible.

“And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life” Genesis chapter 3.17



Christians don't really believe in the idea of 'reward' and 'punishment'.


This is new to me. Then why do you care to convert?



God is the source of everything. Everything God created was good (you can see this in the first chapter of genesis - "God saw it and it was good".
Evil is a corruption of Good - it doesn't exist of itself, but is a corruption of something that was originally good.


This doesn’t make any logical sense! If GOD is the source of everything then he must also be the source of ‘everything’ including ‘corruption’ as you say.

Now on to corruption. What is this corruption you speak of? How can something that is GOOD can get corrupted? E.g. let’s say you have a large piece of white cloth…how is that piece or part of it can become black by itself?

It is logical impossibility to prove that something ‘bad’ or ‘corrupt’ or ‘unholy’ can come out of ‘good’.

So based on reason I reject what you are saying. Clearly, an unholy thing can not come out of holiness.

If GOD is the source of everything then all things come from him including what seems to us as corruption or what seems to us as unholy.



Hence the story of satan - he was originally an angel, who rebelled against God. But because he was created (God is the only uncreated 'thing') he is nowhere near God in power and will ultimately be thrown down. In fact, evil's time is already running out.


Let’s leave satan for another thread for now. Is that okay?




Well, he turned water into wine at a wedding feast - I doubt he would have gone through the whole feast without smiling once.


Yes, in the movie john the Baptists too jesus smiles at that occasion. Okay let’s say that he smiled once in a while.

:)

nekozuki
31 August 2006, 08:04 PM
Tomoz, I am an ex Christian. Christianity has never been for me so I started to researching other faiths. I was surprised about the lies that my Sunday school teachers taught us about other faiths. That's when I realized I didn't want to be Christian at all anymore. Of course I have great respect for Jesus, he may or may not be God in the flesh :dunno: I found Hinduism to be the religion for me as it agrees with me of what God could actually be like.

I've never believed Satan to be a literal figure but a personification of the evils of human beings. I personally believe humans are responsible for evil.

One of the reasons why the Satan story makes no sense is because I learned that angels have no free will, if they have no free will then how can this angel called Lucifer rebel against his Creator?

I believe that the Gnostics' demiurge is similar to the Hindu concept of Maya also.

saidevo
01 September 2006, 01:17 AM
God must hence certainly know the biography of every soul that emanated from him and reach him in the end. The soul certainly does not know, and hence from his perspective freewill exists to a certain extent, though it is easy to verify the role of destiny in every walk of life.


Based on the Law of Karma, Destiny or Fate is the past karma of a soul and free will is the ability to create present karma. The final Destination of every soul is God, the source it emanated from. The journey to this Destination is delayed by Destiny, the accumulated past karma of a soul, and Freewill, the ability to add more karma.

TruthSeeker
01 September 2006, 02:50 AM
Based on the Law of Karma, Destiny or Fate is the past karma of a soul and free will is the ability to create present karma. The final Destination of every soul is God, the source it emanated from. The journey to this Destination is delayed by Destiny, the accumulated past karma of a soul, and Freewill, the ability to add more karma.

You are right - from the perspective of man, freewill "seems" to exist. However, the individual soul being his own projected consciousness - there is nothing that the Lord does not know, in the past, present and future. If God does not know the future, it challenges his omniscience. This is a paradox.

The universe(matter) follows a well defined law and it has no unpredictability. The unpredictability(freewill) is introduced by the two false egos of mind and intellect. however both these are not self luminous, and insentient, and cannot cause any absolute unpredictability. The universal soul is aware of every smallest event that is happening or will happen in future.

The example is right there in Bhagavad Gita itself. When Arjuna beholds the universal form, he is instantly able to know the future too - the death of Bhisma, Drona all stand as inevitable destinies, whether Arjuna chooses to act or not. The concept of "I am the doer" makes one imagine that there is freewill, but in reality the Lord is the doer. When your consciousness transcends the three states of time, you will find that all this is only a big planned show. For those contained within the constrants of time, it raises a number of questions and logical problems - the paradox or freewill and destiny, which no one is able to understand properly. Outside it, there is none - that is only one divine law and one universal soul that operates, what could happen without its knowledge? If freewill beyond the knowledge(approval) of God is possible, then you will be forced to admit the realities of concepts like eternal damnation, just like Christianity.

saidevo
01 September 2006, 08:35 AM
If freewill beyond the knowledge(approval) of God is possible, then you will be forced to admit the realities of concepts like eternal damnation, just like Christianity.


I never meant to imply that freewill is outside God's purview as Christianity does. If the universe is the body of Saguna Brahman who impregnates it with His Cosmic Consciousness, how can anything that is and happens in the universe be beyond his Omniscience? I totally agree with the view that it is all His leela, His sport and that He plans and conducts every minute action in the universe.

Freewill is an aspect of the sixth sense given to humans to observe the universe, contemplate and investigate their source and Ultimate Reality. It is a tool to shape one's own destiny. All this of course from the human perspective.

Freewill from God's perspective is a part of his Maya Shakti that enables Him to create infinite patterns of life and events in his Drama.

Tomoz
01 September 2006, 11:05 AM
namaste tomoz Hi Satay! Man, you ask some good questions! I think we are having a bit of a break down in communication on some points (as per usual on forum conversations) but I'll do my best...




I was under the impression that Augustine’s contribution to Christian theology are second to on other post apostolic author. However, since you are implying that Augustine was not a proper scholar okay I accept your implication as it is and we will not discuss any of augustine’s contributions in our dialogue.
Augustine was a giant of theological thought. But theology and biblical scholarship are different fields. Biblical scholarship is often more of a secular pursuit, looking at the bible as an historical document (or collection of historical documents), and is a field that has really only developed in the last 150 years.




As a matter of fact, all dates suggested by the so called scholars are ‘opinions’ isn’t it?
In the sense that any theory is an opinion




Yes, I am beginning to see that about the Christian ‘historic’ proof. If anyone can make up something and then make something else up to back up the claim then that is not proper historic evidence. Historic evidence should stand the scrutiny of an independent source not just the ‘faithful’.
That would be poor scholarship in anyone's book. You seem to think that christians are all in on this conspiracy. Biblical scholarship is pursued by believers and non-believers alike, and all can back up their opinions with good evidence. Thats why the case isn't closed.


That doesn’t make any logical sense as far as historic evidence is concerned. First you said that everyone can backup their points of view with compelling evidence now you are saying that ‘all’ scholars agree. What I was saying was that, although scholars differ on the exact dates that the canonic gospels were written, they do agree that, whenever they were written, they were the earliest. That comes from scholars of all persuasions.


Who are these ‘all’ scholars? I bet they are ‘all’ Christians also. Since ‘all’ these scholars are just making up their own points and then making up some more points to back up their own points and all these scholars are agreeing on some of these points…There findings can not be taken seriously. Again these are tenets of faith since nothing can be demonstrated historically by an independent third party.
We are talking about credible scholars. In the world of serious academia, while you can make up a theory, you can't just make up points to back it up - you have to have something to go on that can be accepted by other historians or scholars, regardless of their own affiliations. Now of course there is some very dodgy scholarship out there. But there is a lot of good stuff too. Its just a matter of sorting through it.
And there are secular biblical historians out there. Thats not surprising though - its a really interesting field, regardless of you own personal opinions as to its ultimate truth.



Oh? Words of my friend nirotu echo in my mind, “bible is the inerrant word of god”
Anyway, if you agree that there are contradictions in the bible due to human authorship then how do you verify which parts are the word of god and which parts ‘word of man’? What is your personal criterion of verifying this?
Well different christians read the bible in many different ways - that is fairly standard for every faith tradition, I think.
Where the bible doesn't contradict is on matters of doctrine - the things that actually make up and define our faith e.g. the ressurrection.




No. all contradictions are contradictions. You are just playing with gymnastics of words.
But not all contradictions are equally significant.
Say you and I seperately described a day we shared a little while ago. I might say we got on the bus, went the market, picked up some milk, walked home via the park and had a cup of tea.
You might say we walked to the park, walked to the market and got some milk, went to the movies and caught the bus home.
Now our stories contradict, but we can confirm that, amongst the other things that we may have got confused, we bought milk from the market and went to the park.
Just because there are contradictions doesn't mean that the points on which we agree are of no relevence.


But in your first post you wanted us believe that Gnostic scriptures are rejected based on ‘time’. Since that time is in the past and thus a history now to us…then that implies that the history is also important to Christians. It is history that tells Christians which scriptures are authentic and which are Gnostic. Isn’t it?

I'm not quite sure what you mean


Since now, you are saying that gospels don’t always line up on history…what an outsider or a student of comparative religion like me to believe?
This kind of links bakc to what I wrote before. If the gospels all lined up perfectly on every detail, then everyone would be screaming collusion and conspiracy.
But the gospels were written by different people, at different times, to different audiences. They weren't originally written as scripture, but as reports of things people had seen.
So you would read them as you read reports from witnesses in criminal cases. On the points at which they contradict, you can take with a grain of salt. The points on which they agree, however, you need to take more seriously. These are the most important ones.


You have already admitted that not all scholars agree on all points of history. And now you say that even gospels i.e. the writings of the followers don’t agree on all points based on history. So then, How to decide which scripture is authentic? Which scholars are authentic? Which authors are authentic? What is your method of verification? What is your reasoning in deciding who is right and who is wrong? Please share with me so that I can try to apply that for myself.
I think this links into my answers above.


Is this a reasonable thing to believe? How do you verify it was virgin birth? Did marry or her husband or any of her family leave any written document, a diary or script or something like that historians can verify?
Well this is something you choose to believe or disbelieve. The thing is, Christian faith doesn't hang on the virgin birth, it hangs on the resurrection. I believe in the virgin birth because I believe God can do anything. But if some proof showed up tomorrow saying that the virgin birth was false, it wouldn't destroy my faith.


You said, “on this they agree”. What’s the criterion used to decide this?
I am beginning to wonder if you really are using reason to decipher all this information. In your own words, “bible has contradictions”.

Well, if they say the same thing, hey agree.
So for example, all of the gospels say that Jesus was raised from the dead. That is something on which they agree.




Could you please provide me with the source or reference? I am a new student and have not read most of your scriptures.
Sure - Paul's conversion is in chapter 9 of the book of acts.
You probably already know this, but before Paul became a Christian his name was Saul, and he was persecuting Christians violently.




But since they were all persons my example still stands. It is merely person A saying person B is authentic. This is not historic evidence. It doesn’t stand the scrutiny of independent parties so it is just a hearsay.

Yes it does come down ultimately to how you view the Bible.
May I ask, though, which of Paul's teachings do you find particularly offensive?



I would say that 2000 years (give and take 5 years for discrepancy of your scholars ‘historic evidence’) is a long time for a prophecy to be fulfilled. If it was going to take thousands of years to fulfill the prophecy why make it at all? Doesn’t make sense.
Christians have been asking that since the beginning of the church! Christianity's understanding comes from the bible (surprise surprise!!), in 2 peter, chapter 3 verse 9:
"The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance"


There are a number of ordinary men who have given up their lives for other ordinary men or an entity called ‘their country’, their religion etc. John’s quote doesn’t explain why jesus had to die a humiliating and disrespectful death.
In Christian theology, this is known as the atonement. The long and the short of it is this - God wants us to be in a relationship with Him, but our sin seperates us from God. God is perfectly Holy, and sin simply can't be in God's presence.
So why doesn't God just wipe away sin and give us a clean slate? Well because God is perfectly just, and to maintain justice sin needs to be punished.
But rather than subjecting us to that punishment, God took it on Himself. Jesus, the only person ever to live on earth without sin, took all sin on Himself and suffered for us, took our punishment for us.
Its like this. Imagine you have a heap of unpaid speeding tickets. You go to court, and the judge bangs his hammer and orders you to pay $2000 in unpaid fines, plus a further $1000 overdue fine. So you're left with a $3000 dollar fine that is your own fault.
Then the judge comes down from his chair, walks up to you and writes you a $3000 dollar check. He's actually your father. Because he is a judge, he has to uphold justice. But because he is your father and he loves you, he pays the price himself.


If christ is the son of god then he couldn’t have “died” and if he died then he couldn’t have been the son of god. In that case, it was all a drama or as tao masters call it a parable.
You can see that his death and reincarnation (or resurrection if you insist) was a parable and not a literal death. That is the only thing that makes reasonable sense.
To understand the stroy of Jesus, you have to understand his nature while he was on earth. God the Son has existed in eternity. When God the Son entered history and incarnated as Jesus of Nazareth, he had two natures - he was fully 100% human and fully 100% god. One person, two natures. In theology this is called the hypostatic union (if you want to look it up).
So Jesus was fully God, and so lived a perfect life on earth without sin and, through His life, revealed what God is like. He was also fully man, and so truly suffered.
On of the things that is so amazing to me about the Christian message is that God did that totally for us - humbled himself and limited himself to become human.
I have to say that, in all my readings of faiths that have stories of God coming to earth, only Christianity seems to take the reality, the implications, of the God of the universe becoming human seriously.




Wrong! Buddha has more historical backing any day!
But we are leaving all this ‘historic evidence’ alone are we not?
I would disgree on that.


I don’t understand. This is like saying…bible is the truth because it says so. This kind of logic only works on the ‘faithful’.
I know - thats why I put a smiley face! :)



Are you contending that any comparative religion student that starts studying Christianity becomes a beliver? I can produce at least one person that I know who probably knows more about Judaism and Christianity than the both of us combined.

The fact remains, all ‘historic’ evidence, all ‘scholars’ are all believers. There ‘evidence’ doesn’t stand the scrutiny of independent parties otherwise the whole world would already be Christian!
You keep going on about how all these scholars are believers. Can you back that up?
I might also say that the whole world isn't following any one particular religion. The fact that everyone isn't christian doesn't make it, nor its scholarship, false.
If comparative religion students study with an open and unbiased mind, I do think they will find that there is a unique message in Christianity. Then it would be up to them whether they accept it or not.




I don’t know. You tell me. What does your scripture say about free will.
We believe we have been given free will.




You seem to be stuck in illusion of ‘historic evidence’ and ‘contradictions of the scriptures’ yourself.

Do you want to talk about a ‘starving child’ now or later in our discussion. What does your scripture say about a ‘starving child’? Why is he starving while another is born with a silver spoon in his mouth?
There are many things Christians can't explain. We don't (and are not meant to) know more than the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction of God's ways.
However, I would say the reason why some children are starving while others are born in comfortablr surroundings is a question we should be asking ourselves rather than God.


Actually careful now…we don’t want to change the history! It was not adam actually it was Eve wasn’t it? Eve compelled him to take from the tree of knowledge and god of the bible got angry that adam listened to his wife instead of his instructions! So it was a matter of ego for the god of the bible.

“And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life” Genesis chapter 3.17
They both sinned - one wasn't more guilty than the other. The KJV bible is very poetic but not always very clear. I don't think you are reading it quite correctly.
Adam's sin wasn't in his listening to his wife rather than God - their sin were that neither of them listened to God, but rather wanted to become God themselves
Non-christians who read this story never seem to think that perhaps God suggested they not eat the fruit, not for His sake, but for their own good.





This is new to me. Then why do you care to convert?
This comes down to the idea of our salvation being through grace by faith.
We don't believe that salvation comes through good works. Why is this? well there are a few reasons:
1) No amount of good we can do can overcome our sin. One sin is enough to seperate us from God (He's perfectly holy, remember). We all fall short of the glory of the perfect God. Read the sermon on the mount to get a feeling for the standard!
2)Even if we could do enough good works to balance out our sins, we couldn't claim those works as credit to ourselves. All our good works come from God working in us - either through our conscience or , if we have turned to God, his Spirit at work in us. So any niceness, goodness, virtue in us is, in truth, God's gift to us, not our gift to God.
2)But there is hope - because Christ has broken down the barrier that laid between us and God, we don't have to rely on our good works. Salvation is a free gift, offered to us by God. We can choose to accept that gift or not.

God loves us not because of who we are, but because of who He is. there is nothing we can do to make God love us more, and there is nothing we can do to make God love us less. That is the Christian idea of Grace.
So salvation isn't a reward - we have done nothing to deserve it. We can contribute nothing to it. It is offered freely to us by the God who loves us.

So does that mean that Christians can just do whatever they want if they say they believe in Jesus? Of course not! Jesus still gave us teaching on how to live. You couldn't really say you had faith in God if you just ignored everything He says!
So our works show forth of faith, and give God glory (because it is He, not us who does the works, so we can't really take credit for them). They can't earn us salvation.


This doesn’t make any logical sense! If GOD is the source of everything then he must also be the source of ‘everything’ including ‘corruption’ as you say.
Free will! :Cool:


Now on to corruption. What is this corruption you speak of? How can something that is GOOD can get corrupted? E.g. let’s say you have a large piece of white cloth…how is that piece or part of it can become black by itself?

It is logical impossibility to prove that something ‘bad’ or ‘corrupt’ or ‘unholy’ can come out of ‘good’.

So based on reason I reject what you are saying. Clearly, an unholy thing can not come out of holiness.

If GOD is the source of everything then all things come from him including what seems to us as corruption or what seems to us as unholy.
The very definition of 'corruption' is a good thing going bad - by outside influence, perhaps? who knows? I'm the first to admit I don't have all the answers.
It is this idea of free-will. God is the source of free-wil, not sin. Freedom is a good thing, wouldn't you agree? That was given to us by God. But although giving something freedom is a good thing, it carries with it an inherent risk, a risk that that freedom could be abused. But without that risk, it wouldn't be freedom.





Let’s leave satan for another thread for now. Is that okay?
Good idea!

Tomoz
01 September 2006, 11:28 AM
Tomoz, I am an ex Christian. Christianity has never been for me so I started to researching other faiths. I was surprised about the lies that my Sunday school teachers taught us about other faiths. That's when I realized I didn't want to be Christian at all anymore. Of course I have great respect for Jesus, he may or may not be God in the flesh :dunno: I found Hinduism to be the religion for me as it agrees with me of what God could actually be like.

I've never believed Satan to be a literal figure but a personification of the evils of human beings. I personally believe humans are responsible for evil.

One of the reasons why the Satan story makes no sense is because I learned that angels have no free will, if they have no free will then how can this angel called Lucifer rebel against his Creator?

I believe that the Gnostics' demiurge is similar to the Hindu concept of Maya also.
Hi there Nekozuki

I just thought I'd say that I understand 100% what you are saying. I went to church when I was a teenager, got baptised and everything, but ended up walking away because I thought it was a load of rubbish.
For five years I followed Sanatana Dharma. Then, through a few years worth of conversations with Christian friends of mine, I realised I had never actually understood Christianity, despite going to church each sunday, and I never understood who christians believe God to be and what they believe He's like.
Of course, you have to follow your heart. But I 'd say the christianity you don't believe in, I probably don't believe in either.
Sorry guys - I'm not here to proselytise, please don't get the wrong idea!! All I'm hoping to do is quell a few myths!
p.s. Christians believe that angels, like all of God's created beings, have free will.

nekozuki
01 September 2006, 01:16 PM
Hi there Nekozuki

I just thought I'd say that I understand 100% what you are saying. I went to church when I was a teenager, got baptised and everything, but ended up walking away because I thought it was a load of rubbish.
For five years I followed Sanatana Dharma. Then, through a few years worth of conversations with Christian friends of mine, I realised I had never actually understood Christianity, despite going to church each sunday, and I never understood who christians believe God to be and what they believe He's like.
Of course, you have to follow your heart. But I 'd say the christianity you don't believe in, I probably don't believe in either.
Sorry guys - I'm not here to proselytise, please don't get the wrong idea!! All I'm hoping to do is quell a few myths!
p.s. Christians believe that angels, like all of God's created beings, have free will.

Oh, everyone has the right to follow any path to God they want to. I believe in a loving and caring God which is why he comes to Earth in the flesh to progress humanity or to right the wrongs of people or eliminate an evil. My Christian friends also see my point but they, like me, don't see me going back to Christianity. I've read the Bible and everything ( though some I have forgotten) but like I said it's never been for me. When I was a child I had a feeling I have lived before. I had never seen the Devil as a literal being. When I researched Hinduism...I knew I was home.

TruthSeeker
01 September 2006, 03:30 PM
1) No amount of God we can do can overcome our sin. One sin is enough to seperate us from God (He's perfectly holy, remember). We all fall short of the glory of the perfect God. Read the sermon on the mount to get a feeling for the standard!


Righto! Dharma goes beyond the standards of the "sermon on the mount" as it also addresses the perfection at the level of subtle and causal bodies,. You are right - one sin (desire) will separate us from God, but can be made up next time and so on. There is no need for one to go to hell permanently because he commiteed just one sin.



2)Even if we could do enough good works to balance out our sins, we couldn't claim those works as credit to ourselves. All our good works come from God working in us - either through our conscience or , if we have turned to God, his Spirit at work in us. So any niceness, goodness, virtue in us is, in truth, God's gift to us, not our gift to God.
2)But there is hope - because Christ has broken down the barrier that laid between us and God, we don't have to rely on our good works. Salvation is a free gift, offered to us by God. We can choose to accept that gift or not.


Dharma does not beleive that liberation can be obtained by doing good works and cancelling the sins. The fruit of sin and the fruit of good works are different and have their own results.

No amount of good works could lead to liberation ~ only cessation of all action and their fruits would do it. Good works lead to temporary state of enjoyment known as heaven.

Good Karma=0
Bad Karma = 0

would be a neccessary and sufficient condition for obtaining liberation regardless of your means. Non Zero Karma = rebirth, regardless of if it is good or bad.




God loves us not because of who we are, but because of who He is. there is nothing we can do to make God love us more, and there is nothing we can do to make God love us less. That is the Christian idea of Grace.
So salvation isn't a reward - we have done nothing to deserve it. We can contribute nothing to it. It is offered freely to us by the God who loves us.


A free gift, eh? So why bother about something that is already guaranteed.

In Christianity, you say that you are a God's creation, which is comparable to the love I have for a good painting I have done. But Sanatana Dharma holds that you are not merely a painting, but the painter himself( or part thereof). There could be no comparison between the love of the Christian Giod and the Hindu God. Do you love your painting or your very own limbs more? No wonder, when some dirt falls on the painting, this God gets angry and throws it away. But our God cannot do it, he is "forced" to love regardless of whether the limb gets dirty or not, and might himself wash the dirt!





So does that mean that Christians can just do whatever they want if they say they believe in Jesus? Of course not! Jesus still gave us teaching on how to live. You couldn't really say you had faith in God if you just ignored everything He says!
So our works show forth of faith, and give God glory (because it is He, not us who does the works, so we can't really take credit for them). They can't earn us salvation.


This is what they all say, and so do we.:)

Just a question to you. Somebody beleives in Jesus, and has surrendered to Jesus, but inadverdantly commits a murder out of anger. What happens to him? Would he be forgiven or pushed into the flame chamber for eternity? How could God handle this issue?

Znanna
01 September 2006, 07:58 PM
Namaste,

In my view, Gnostic scriptures (though some Christians may consider that phrase an oxymoron, heh) in many cases are the roots of the compendium which is now called the Bible. If you are looking for direct quotations of Jesus the Christ, for example, you will find it much easier to find these (and many more of them, too) in Gnostic texts than in the Bible (at least whilst doing internet searches)!

Also, the bulk of the quotations of the Christ in the Bible are found in Gnostic texts, in what to my eye seems a better translation. I am no historian, this is just my hypothesis, that the Gnostic texts are the "purer" version, for what its worth :)

Regarding "sin" ..


Tomoz said: In Christian theology, this is known as the atonement. The long and the short of it is this - God wants us to be in a relationship with Him, but our sin seperates us from God. God is perfectly Holy, and sin simply can't be in God's presence.
So why doesn't God just wipe away sin and give us a clean slate? Well because God is perfectly just, and to maintain justice sin needs to be punished.
But rather than subjecting us to that punishment, God took it on Himself. Jesus, the only person ever to live on earth without sin, took all sin on Himself and suffered for us, took our punishment for us.

To me, sin is otherness, the divide between ourSelves and Godz. The notion that there is any difference between us, that there is "you" and "me", this is sin. We are all reflections of One, to my way of sorting. The act of that sorting, of this discussion per se, itself is divisive, but hey, I'm still here and so are you :)

It is not a matter of "God wiping away sin" ... this is Bible School stuff, no insult intended, but to my way of thinking it is a gross oversimplification of a process of unification which is Holy.

If Jesus the Christ was without sin, it was because he *was* Christ, the I AM ... One with God. However, the notion of sacrifice is such that it also may be interpreted as "through me" (as in this is the way, the manner in which a body may be united with God) may also imply a Virgin birth, in the act of being "born again" in an allegorical sense, is referenced in the Gnostic texts relating to Sophia.



ZN
(no, virginia, women are not the root of all evil)





nanna

Tomoz
02 September 2006, 02:13 AM
Righto! Dharma goes beyond the standards of the "sermon on the mount" as it also addresses the perfection at the level of subtle and causal bodies,. You are right - one sin (desire) will separate us from God, but can be made up next time and so on. There is no need for one to go to hell permanently because he commiteed just one sin.
But by the time you have 'made up' for that sin, you have comitted 10 others...




Dharma does not beleive that liberation can be obtained by doing good works and cancelling the sins. The fruit of sin and the fruit of good works are different and have their own results.

No amount of good works could lead to liberation ~ only cessation of all action and their fruits would do it. Good works lead to temporary state of enjoyment known as heaven.

Good Karma=0
Bad Karma = 0

would be a neccessary and sufficient condition for obtaining liberation regardless of your means. Non Zero Karma = rebirth, regardless of if it is good or bad.
Can you tell me, how does one attain moksha? Is it not through a process of self-perfection, through karma, jnana and/or bhakti yoga?




A free gift, eh? So why bother about something that is already guaranteed.
Just because the gift is offered to you doesn't mean you have accepted it.


In Christianity, you say that you are a God's creation, which is comparable to the love I have for a good painting I have done. But Sanatana Dharma holds that you are not merely a painting, but the painter himself( or part thereof). There could be no comparison between the love of the Christian Giod and the Hindu God. Do you love your painting or your very own limbs more? No wonder, when some dirt falls on the painting, this God gets angry and throws it away. But our God cannot do it, he is "forced" to love regardless of whether the limb gets dirty or not, and might himself wash the dirt!
Actually, that isn't an accurate analogy for how we understand our relationship to God.
It is not like god is the painter and we are the painting. Rather, God is our Father and we are his children.
I would say that a good father would love His child even more than he loves himself.




This is what they all say, and so do we.:)
If your salvation is a gift from God that can't be earned, why must you live through so many countless lives to attain it?


Just a question to you. Somebody beleives in Jesus, and has surrendered to Jesus, but inadverdantly commits a murder out of anger. What happens to him? Would he be forgiven or pushed into the flame chamber for eternity? How could God handle this issue?
God forgives anyone who sincerely seeks forgiveness. That is the promise He has made to us.

Tomoz
02 September 2006, 02:21 AM
Namaste,

In my view, Gnostic scriptures (though some Christians may consider that phrase an oxymoron, heh) in many cases are the roots of the compendium which is now called the Bible. If you are looking for direct quotations of Jesus the Christ, for example, you will find it much easier to find these (and many more of them, too) in Gnostic texts than in the Bible (at least whilst doing internet searches)!

Also, the bulk of the quotations of the Christ in the Bible are found in Gnostic texts, in what to my eye seems a better translation. I am no historian, this is just my hypothesis, that the Gnostic texts are the "purer" version, for what its worth :)

Regarding "sin" ..



To me, sin is otherness, the divide between ourSelves and Godz. The notion that there is any difference between us, that there is "you" and "me", this is sin. We are all reflections of One, to my way of sorting. The act of that sorting, of this discussion per se, itself is divisive, but hey, I'm still here and so are you :)

It is not a matter of "God wiping away sin" ... this is Bible School stuff, no insult intended, but to my way of thinking it is a gross oversimplification of a process of unification which is Holy.

If Jesus the Christ was without sin, it was because he *was* Christ, the I AM ... One with God. However, the notion of sacrifice is such that it also may be interpreted as "through me" (as in this is the way, the manner in which a body may be united with God) may also imply a Virgin birth, in the act of being "born again" in an allegorical sense, is referenced in the Gnostic texts relating to Sophia.



ZN
(no, virginia, women are not the root of all evil)





nanna

Of course you can read into it anything you like. But you can't take elements of the Bible out of context and think you have found their true meaning. You have to read it like any other document. I admit, this is something that we Christians ourselves are most guilty of.
Men and women of incredible intellect have devoted their lives to studying the Bible for the past 2000 years. I don't know why people simply find a few verses that they think fits their interpretation and then decide they have more knowledge and understanding.
To have a good understanding of the Bible (and I'm here to say that mine isn't really that good - it is a complex document) you need to approach it in a credible way. You need an understanding of context, reference, language changes, the list goes on.

Tomoz
02 September 2006, 02:24 AM
Oh, everyone has the right to follow any path to God they want to. I believe in a loving and caring God which is why he comes to Earth in the flesh to progress humanity or to right the wrongs of people or eliminate an evil. My Christian friends also see my point but they, like me, don't see me going back to Christianity. I've read the Bible and everything ( though some I have forgotten) but like I said it's never been for me. When I was a child I had a feeling I have lived before. I had never seen the Devil as a literal being. When I researched Hinduism...I knew I was home.

Well I pray that you will have all peace and blessings

Sudarshan
02 September 2006, 03:17 AM
Actually, that isn't an accurate analogy for how we understand our relationship to God.
It is not like god is the painter and we are the painting. Rather, God is our Father and we are his children.
I would say that a good father would love His child even more than he loves himself.


This is a bluff. No father will give an eternal punishment to his children. If the child is erring, he will go to all lengths to correct him and show him the way. Where is your God doing that? One sin means eternal punishment, eh?;)

The child is erring or sinning because he does not know about God or his glories. The moment a child knows, he will loose all interest for anything else. But your God supposedly showed himself some 2000 years ago to a few people. Then a book abounding in logical inconstancies, absurdities and myth ( which says the earth is 6000 years old and was created in 6 days!) is shown as proof for God. On what grounds should his children beleive? Faith!!

Those who spread the message of the gospel set very bad examples by colonization, killing people, engaging in slavery and has been the major cause of disbeleif in Christianity. When such all proof in the credibility have disappeared due to the illogical book( or interpretation of it), and by the action of followers, why could not God forgive everybody and expect me to beleive that a dead man rose up again?

If your God gives just once chance, then he has to show himself to his children and let them choose if they want him or the hell. By hiding in the heaven, and allowing the chidren to use their freewill to seek their doom, are the acts of a tyrant.

Sudarshan
02 September 2006, 03:55 AM
I never meant to imply that freewill is outside God's purview as Christianity does. If the universe is the body of Saguna Brahman who impregnates it with His Cosmic Consciousness, how can anything that is and happens in the universe be beyond his Omniscience? I totally agree with the view that it is all His leela, His sport and that He plans and conducts every minute action in the universe.

Freewill is an aspect of the sixth sense given to humans to observe the universe, contemplate and investigate their source and Ultimate Reality. It is a tool to shape one's own destiny. All this of course from the human perspective.

Freewill from God's perspective is a part of his Maya Shakti that enables Him to create infinite patterns of life and events in his Drama.

Gita 7:26

O Arjuna, I know everything that has happened in the past, all that is happening in the present, and all things that are yet to come. I also know all living entities; but Me no one knows.

Thus, it is clear the "freewill" is only a product of divine will, which otherwise the Lord could not know. If the whole thing is a divine will, its end must always be auspicious - no possibilites of anyone geting ruined. Such a possibility comes only for those who think that some souls are intrinsically bad, and for others who deny that - all is well that ends well in this drama.

It also proves that the Christian God is not omniscient because he is quite restless in heaven fearing rejection by his creation, and therefore cannot be the same as Krishna.(must be some deva like Indra or Yama who cannot be expected to be omniscient, and yet have control over us)

Znanna
02 September 2006, 05:35 AM
Of course you can read into it anything you like. But you can't take elements of the Bible out of context and think you have found their true meaning. You have to read it like any other document. I admit, this is something that we Christians ourselves are most guilty of.
Men and women of incredible intellect have devoted their lives to studying the Bible for the past 2000 years. I don't know why people simply find a few verses that they think fits their interpretation and then decide they have more knowledge and understanding.
To have a good understanding of the Bible (and I'm here to say that mine isn't really that good - it is a complex document) you need to approach it in a credible way. You need an understanding of context, reference, language changes, the list goes on.

This would be why I focus on only the quotes directly attributed to Jesus the Christ. Those are the most consistent, throughout the texts.

John 14:10


Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.


Namaste,
ZN

Tomoz
02 September 2006, 09:54 AM
This would be why I focus on only the quotes directly attributed to Jesus the Christ. Those are the most consistent, throughout the texts.

John 14:10




Namaste,
ZN

OK,so tell me again, who do you believe Jesus to be?

nekozuki
02 September 2006, 10:29 AM
Well, looking at some of Jesus's quotes he starts to sound like a Vedantist. ;)

Skillganon
02 September 2006, 10:29 AM
Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time?
Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.
How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?
The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.
I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing.
He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.
[john 14:9-12]


On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. [John 14:20]

Znanna
02 September 2006, 11:22 AM
OK,so tell me again, who do you believe Jesus to be?



Skillganon's post above sums up very nicely, in my opinion :)

ZN

Tomoz
03 September 2006, 12:14 AM
Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time?
Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.
How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?
The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.
I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing.
He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.
[john 14:9-12]


On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. [John 14:20]


This is why it is dangerous to just take elements of the bible out of context and just use them for your own purposes.
Jesus said He was God, that He and the Father are one. If He was an Advaitin, shouldn't he have been teaching His disciples that they themselves were God? He never extended to divinity to anyone other than Himself.
With regards to John 14:20 - Advaita teaches that everything, including us, is none other than the impersonal non-divisible Brahman. It is just a matter of realising that.
In Christianity, we do believe that when we turn to God, the Spirit of God comes to dwel within us. But it isn't there all along - God only enters when we invite Him in. This idea clashes with Advaita, which says that God is within us (or we are Brahman) all along, whether we believe that or not. Yet look at what Jesus says a few verses later:

Jesus replied, "if anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My father will love Him, and we will come to him and make our home with him" (John 14:23)

Jesus teaches not that God is in us always, but comes into us when we turn to Him.

TruthSeeker
03 September 2006, 01:20 AM
But by the time you have 'made up' for that sin, you have comitted 10 others...


Yes, but you no longer sin, when you are no longer man. That is what that happens with a Yogi. A tattva jnani cannot sin even if he wants, just like a perfected driver.




Can you tell me, how does one attain moksha? Is it not through a process of self-perfection, through karma, jnana and/or bhakti yoga?


Strict Advaitic theory holds that no one 'attains' moksha. It is always there, and you have been searching for it. Moksha is stillness, peace. No amounts of efforts can take you there. The only efforts we make are to get to the state of effortlessness. No Hindu or anybody else obtains moksha through efforts - it is only through grace, as you put it, and such grace is fully experienced in samadhi.

The stillness is the nature of the Self. But man is unable to be free of thoughts for even a moment, if he does so, he will attain moksha. Karma without desire of fruits, Bhakti and Jnana are aids to the process of being able to obtain the stillness where lasting bliss is obtained.

So the ultimate aim is to reach a state of effortless action and thought. In in initial stages, a great deal of effort maybe needed in the form of deliberate meditation. Such meditation practised for a while will lead into the state of samadhi, which is the ultimate goal of all Hindus, irrespective of what they are doing right now.

There maybe so many techniques that could serve as an aid to meditation, that makes Hinduism a universal religion - that is why Hindu does not insist on any specific method. Starting from idol worship and beleif in a personal God are all very useful techniques, because they all promote the idea of love and concentration, which is the very nature of the Atman.



Actually, that isn't an accurate analogy for how we understand our relationship to God.
It is not like god is the painter and we are the painting. Rather, God is our Father and we are his children.
I would say that a good father would love His child even more than he loves himself.


You did not read me fully did you? Why would a God throw away his children if he loved them so much? Is that you would do to your child too, if he does not listen to you? In our case, the child is not even aware of his father, except for some minimal clues. He is not aware that he is breaking his rules either. I must say this is a deadly trap setup for the child.






If your salvation is a gift from God that can't be earned, why must you live through so many countless lives to attain it?


No Hindu says that countless lives is necessary. Advaitins do not even think that this space-time entity is an absolute reality, so the "countless" thing does not mean anything at all. If you transcend time into eternity, all this will just be a joke. You will find that you have been simply tricked by the Almighty Isvara.:)

Many lives is not more miserable than a single life, because we are not aware of the long journey. You also take only the present one. If the prArabdha karma is suitable. salvation can be obtained in that very same birth, sometimes with the help of a guru or even without. Sometimes God himself can become your guru, if you have reached samadhi in a former birth.






God forgives anyone who sincerely seeks forgiveness. That is the promise He has made to us.

Agreed. Christianity promises only heaven as the goal isn;t it? That can certainly be obtained by the grace of God, without any meditative process. But our ultimate goal is not heaven( which is tempoary according to us) , and if you are not seeking eternity, it will take a while to get there. Does not really matter to Hindus, as it is the inevitable destinty of mankind and every living creature to be one with the Atman someday - we are not bothered with what people think or beleive. Everyone is guided by his own divinity within, and it will not forsake anybody.

nekozuki
03 September 2006, 12:56 PM
To me reincarnation makes more sense than living once and going to either eternal heaven or eternal hell. You can't learn from your mistakes in just one lifetime. What if you did something to someone and in your next life you want to make it better, you are given a second chance. God loves you enough to let you go through a thousand lifetimes to correct your mistake instead of throwing you in eternal hellfire and never talking to you again. Life is short, too short to correct the mistakes you made.

Sudarshan
03 September 2006, 01:16 PM
I was reading the biography of a man who converted to Christianity from Hinduism. Though I dont remember the exact words, he said that he examined Hinduism in depth and found that it offered no easy ways to atain liberation - all Hindu dieties expect people to do good works, meditation etc, and hence he concluded it was not the true religion. He then checked with Christianity and found that Jesus just asked him to come to him regardless of his nature. He then writes that Christianity must be the true religion because only here God is graceful and does not expect any effort on our part.

He does not know about some religions like Srivaishnavism which are reasonably similar to Christianity in that there is more emphasis on the grace of God, but Srivaishnava is expected to be a "near" perfect human being, and not live the way he wants and not seek material pleasures.

Christianity has a totally wrong understanding of the concept of grace. I wonder how grace can be compatible with a tyrant God who punishes some wicked people for eternity. It is even amazing that people beleive in a myth that states that if a person refuses to beleive that somebody died and arose again, he would have to suffer eternal hell. People will beleive in anything.

nekozuki
03 September 2006, 02:01 PM
See, that's what doesn't make sense about Christianity, a psychopath can ask Jesus for forgiveness and still attain heaven versus someone who has done good all their life without accepting Jesus.

Tomoz
04 September 2006, 12:28 AM
See, that's what doesn't make sense about Christianity, a psychopath can ask Jesus for forgiveness and still attain heaven versus someone who has done good all their life without accepting Jesus.
This is what makes me believe that Christianity is real! The message of the cross goes so completely against human nature that it can't have been made up by someone. Its almost too good to be true!
Human logic says that if you live a good life, you will go to heaven. Christian grace says that you can't live a good life, so accept that God has done it for you. Then we are free to try and live the most Godly life we can, all the while knowing that when we fail to get it all right, we won't have to come back and go through it all again until we do get it all right because, as God says in the Bible, "My grace is sufficient for you".
Salvation by grace isn't about good people going to hell, its about bad people going to heaven - us. All of us fall short of God's perfection. No one deserves salvation, and no one can earn it. But God as done everything for us, and is offering it to us.
We believe God isn't watching and waiting for us to try and fail, try and fail, until we meet His pre-approved standard of perfection regardless of how long it takes, like an examiner. Rather, He is reaching out, saying "you can't save yourselves. But I have saved you". He has done it all for us already. We just have to accept His gift.
This is the Christian teaching of Grace. I don't think its a flawed understanding at all.

Tomoz
04 September 2006, 12:44 AM
Yes, but you no longer sin, when you are no longer man. That is what that happens with a Yogi. A tattva jnani cannot sin even if he wants, just like a perfected driver.
How does a tattva jnani reach that state? And who judges that perfection?



Strict Advaitic theory holds that no one 'attains' moksha. It is always there, and you have been searching for it. Moksha is stillness, peace. No amounts of efforts can take you there. The only efforts we make are to get to the state of effortlessness. No Hindu or anybody else obtains moksha through efforts - it is only through grace, as you put it, and such grace is fully experienced in samadhi.

The stillness is the nature of the Self. But man is unable to be free of thoughts for even a moment, if he does so, he will attain moksha. Karma without desire of fruits, Bhakti and Jnana are aids to the process of being able to obtain the stillness where lasting bliss is obtained.

So the ultimate aim is to reach a state of effortless action and thought. In in initial stages, a great deal of effort maybe needed in the form of deliberate meditation. Such meditation practised for a while will lead into the state of samadhi, which is the ultimate goal of all Hindus, irrespective of what they are doing right now.

There maybe so many techniques that could serve as an aid to meditation, that makes Hinduism a universal religion - that is why Hindu does not insist on any specific method. Starting from idol worship and beleif in a personal God are all very useful techniques, because they all promote the idea of love and concentration, which is the very nature of the Atman.
See, I would suggest that that isn't really grace. The reason why is because you have to work towards moksha. Maybe no amount of effort will lead to moksha, but a whole lot of effort is needed to reach the stage where no amount of effort is needed! So you do actually contribute to your attaining of moksha. Christian teaching of grace is that we can't contribute to our salvation. God has done it all for us, all we need to do is say "HELP!"


You did not read me fully did you? Why would a God throw away his children if he loved them so much? Is that you would do to your child too, if he does not listen to you? In our case, the child is not even aware of his father, except for some minimal clues. He is not aware that he is breaking his rules either. I must say this is a deadly trap setup for the child.
We don't believe God throws away his children, rather we walk away from Him ourselves.





No Hindu says that countless lives is necessary. Advaitins do not even think that this space-time entity is an absolute reality, so the "countless" thing does not mean anything at all. If you transcend time into eternity, all this will just be a joke. You will find that you have been simply tricked by the Almighty Isvara.:)

Many lives is not more miserable than a single life, because we are not aware of the long journey. You also take only the present one. If the prArabdha karma is suitable. salvation can be obtained in that very same birth, sometimes with the help of a guru or even without. Sometimes God himself can become your guru, if you have reached samadhi in a former birth.
But this would be the rarity, right?
Why has the universe been created?
Why do you think God would want to trick us? A lot of the stuff that goes on in the world isn't very funny.



Agreed. Christianity promises only heaven as the goal isn;t it? That can certainly be obtained by the grace of God, without any meditative process. But our ultimate goal is not heaven( which is tempoary according to us) , and if you are not seeking eternity, it will take a while to get there. Does not really matter to Hindus, as it is the inevitable destinty of mankind and every living creature to be one with the Atman someday - we are not bothered with what people think or beleive. Everyone is guided by his own divinity within, and it will not forsake anybody.
This is interesting

TruthSeeker
04 September 2006, 01:49 AM
See, I would suggest that that isn't really grace. The reason why is because you have to work towards moksha. Maybe no amount of effort will lead to moksha, but a whole lot of effort is needed to reach the stage where no amount of effort is needed! So you do actually contribute to your attaining of moksha. Christian teaching of grace is that we can't contribute to our salvation. God has done it all for us, all we need to do is say "HELP!"


Stems from different philosophical positions, no point in comparing. In Christianity, the God is more like a human being with human emotions like love, jealosy, anger etc. We do not accept such a proposition. We find no reason in your God creating at all.

We reject that God did everything for us. In that case he need not have created us at all. Even if he created, he could have just washed the sins. Does/nt the omnipotent God have the power to remiove sins of anybody? Why only a select few?

The evil we see in the world cannot exist with an omnipotent creator and who is also said to be loving towards his creation. Either the evil does not exist, or if we take it as real, it must exist with his full will. Some Hindus take the former way and say that all you need is to overcome the Maya that covers your ignorance. Some other hold that God is just giving his children a challenge by hiding himself(self concealment) and asking them to find him...when it is a game like this , there is no room for "grace" in your way. If it is really the ignorance of unknown origin, it is even more unlikely that salvation would come by beleiving that somebody died for your sins. The only useful contribution I see from Christianity is faith, nothing more.

If this is how you want to beleive, you are quite free to, as long as threat messages are not used to mislead others.




We don't believe God throws away his children, rather we walk away from Him ourselves.


Just another way of putting the same thing. How many times we have heard this argument before?;)

I am only asking this. A child walked away from God, what could a still loving parent do? Create a hell as an alternative? Why create that place at all, unless one is a saddist. Let the child be forbidden into heaven and allowed to continue here on earth where he loved...a Hindu can never understand this hell thing. Or he could finish off that soul, so that there is neither happiness nor sorrow. Why create a place of torture? How could even a reasonably thinking person ever digest such thing? We are taught not to do wrong even to our enemies by scriptures, so shouldn't God set an example to his creation?

The Christian "rebellion" is only a manifestation of the divine will - Maya Shakti, which creates "freewill" and "ignorance".:Cool:




But this would be the rarity, right?
Why has the universe been created?
Why do you think God would want to trick us? A lot of the stuff that goes on in the world isn't very funny.


What is the cause of an earthquake that kills ten thousand people and maims several times more? Who is the culprit - is that God or man?

satay
04 September 2006, 02:42 AM
Hi Satay! Man, you ask some good questions! I think we are having a bit of a break down in communication on some points (as per usual on forum conversations) but I'll do my best...


namaste Tomoz,
Thank you for the reply. My weekend is ruined in mundane tasks of life and haven't been able to respond to your post. I will in the days to come.

Just wanted to say that since christianity, islam and judaism claim that their 'book' is the only prescription to the TRUTH it is necessary to put these books under reason and logic's scrutiny.

For me the christian scripture doesn't pass even the simplest straight forward logic test. It seems to be entirely based on 'faith'. My question then is why would I jump in your faith when I already have the exact map on how to get to the TRUTH?

It's like you are on your way to a new place, you are holding the map and the directions provided to you by someone who has already been there. Someone else approaches you and says why don't you follow me. You ask him for his map but it doesn't make any sense to you. The other person tells you just have faith. How do you know this map is correct? He replies,"because it says right here in the map!"

Do you think any logical man would throw away his direct map given to him by his guru and follow this man on faith? Faith has its place but something has to make some logical sense.

Also, we are mixing up a lot of issues in our conversation. We are jumping all over the place from historic evidence of 'accepted scriptures' to 'concept of god' in christianity etc. Concept of god in christianity is the most absurd thing to me and it doesn't stand any logic.

Why would I drop the instructions given to me directly by God and listen to a christian's 'faith' thing since it defies all logic to begin with?

sm78
04 September 2006, 04:41 AM
This is what makes me believe that Christianity is real! The message of the cross goes so completely against human nature that it can't have been made up by someone. Its almost too good to be true!
You got that right man!;). It is too good to be true.


Human logic says that if you live a good life, you will go to heaven. Christian grace says that you can't live a good life, so accept that God has done it for you. Then we are free to try and live the most Godly life we can, all the while knowing that when we fail to get it all right, we won't have to come back and go through it all again until we do get it all right because, as God says in the Bible, "My grace is sufficient for you".
Salvation by grace isn't about good people going to hell, its about bad people going to heaven - us. All of us fall short of God's perfection. No one deserves salvation, and no one can earn it. But God as done everything for us, and is offering it to us.
We believe God isn't watching and waiting for us to try and fail, try and fail, until we meet His pre-approved standard of perfection regardless of how long it takes, like an examiner. Rather, He is reaching out, saying "you can't save yourselves. But I have saved you". He has done it all for us already. We just have to accept His gift.
This is the Christian teaching of Grace. I don't think its a flawed understanding at all.

All these are fine at their level. Btw, this christian message is nothing new in Hinduism. All schools of hinduism including monistic ones believe that the grace of God is the only method salvation. DIY Salvation, is never a method it's just a theory or philosophy for some schools. Dualistic schools which are majority of hinduism even reject it as theory and regard that by grace of God alone we can achieve salvation.

So there is absolutely nothing that christianity adds to much older schools of god realization beyond the basic bhakti or Karma yoga. As has been argued the position of christianity on grace etc is the very elemental level of hinduism. No hindu will deny it. But it is just the basic requirement in the path of God realization, not a complete path.

Uniqueness of Xianity is that you claim that God reserves this salvation only for Xians and that christ is God and his son. As you say both this points in Xianity completely go against human logic (well facists will recognize that this claim have some logic!!!) and common sense and is nothing more than blind faith.

sm78
04 September 2006, 04:58 AM
How does a tattva jnani reach that state? And who judges that perfection?

Who judges that Christ was God ??:rolleyes:

TruthSeeker
04 September 2006, 05:33 AM
This is what makes me believe that Christianity is real! The message of the cross goes so completely against human nature that it can't have been made up by someone. Its almost too good to be true!
Human logic says that if you live a good life, you will go to heaven. Christian grace says that you can't live a good life, so accept that God has done it for you. Then we are free to try and live the most Godly life we can, all the while knowing that when we fail to get it all right, we won't have to come back and go through it all again until we do get it all right because, as God says in the Bible, "My grace is sufficient for you".
Salvation by grace isn't about good people going to hell, its about bad people going to heaven - us. All of us fall short of God's perfection. No one deserves salvation, and no one can earn it. But God as done everything for us, and is offering it to us.
We believe God isn't watching and waiting for us to try and fail, try and fail, until we meet His pre-approved standard of perfection regardless of how long it takes, like an examiner. Rather, He is reaching out, saying "you can't save yourselves. But I have saved you". He has done it all for us already. We just have to accept His gift.
This is the Christian teaching of Grace. I don't think its a flawed understanding at all.

Great understanding. Too good to be true.:Cool:

I will telegram you when I am on my death bed, and accept Christianity at the last minute.

Until that time, I will spend my energy in doing good works, doing meditation, prayers, converting other people into Hinduism and all these "filty rags".

Shouldn't matter because I will accept Jesus last minute and will repent - if a Hitler can be saved this way, then why cant I? My sins would be forgiven right? I have the freewill currently isn't it?:rolleyes:

Tomoz
04 September 2006, 10:14 AM
Great understanding. Too good to be true.:Cool:

I will telegram you when I am on my death bed, and accept Christianity at the last minute.

Until that time, I will spend my energy in doing good works, doing meditation, prayers, converting other people into Hinduism and all these "filty rags".

Shouldn't matter because I will accept Jesus last minute and will repent - if a Hitler can be saved this way, then why cant I? My sins would be forgiven right? I have the freewill currently isn't it?:rolleyes:

Then I look forward to rejoicing with you in Heaven :)

Tomoz
04 September 2006, 10:21 AM
Satay is right guys - this has gone way off the topic of the O.P. - my fault I think. How about you all post your questions on seperate threads? Might be able to keep track of them then as well