PDA

View Full Version : Meaning of Christianity as understood by a universalist



UniversalLove
13 December 2011, 08:02 PM
Greetings everyone. :)

This is just something that I've been contemplating for a while and thought it would be nice to share with open minds.

Christianity is NOT about condemning people to eternal hell or forcing religion on people. It's not about judgement or frightening people. It isn't about being better or more righteous than others.
And please don't think that just because I'm talking about something I feel is good about and central to Christianity, it means that I'm trying to lure you into the religion. It simply isn't true.

The true meaning of Christianity is agape love. It teaches love like any other religion. Agape is the Greek word for a divine, selfless, and unconditional love. It is central to Christianity, as Mahatma Gandhi once said.

Jesus taught and demonstrated agape love. He taught love toward the neighbor, enemy, saint, and "sinner."

Jesus even said that it is agape love that is the mark of a true disciple or Christian.

Remember that Jesus also befriended the outcasts and the oppressed in his society.
Jesus is also known for being crucified, but it isn't the "blood" and "torture" aspects of it that are important. It was the agape love that was behind it. It was Jesus' selfless love for his friends and even his enemies.

I grew up Christian, and the message that the religion speaks to me is to simply love everyone.

So, for those who may believe that Christianity is a bloody or evil religion, please consider looking at it in another way.

Please feel free to share any thoughts.

Thanks. :)

Kismet
13 December 2011, 08:35 PM
At this point in my walk... I find it very naive how anyone can come to an exact conclusion about what Jesus did and didn't teach. First off, Christians have claimed his teachings as their own. Secondly, Jesus did not speak in any sort of obvious lineage or tradition. He was an out of the blue character, who irritated others. And lastly, given the amount of political intrigues, as well as the ambiguity of many of his teachings, how can you come to such non-ambiguous conclusions?

Jesus was an interesting person. Should I trust what is written about him or he purportedly said? Not at all. Nor should anyone else.

UniversalLove
13 December 2011, 08:42 PM
Kismet, I understand. I was just giving my own interpretation of what the Christian faith means. I'm not trying to set something in stone. I just thought about the way I worded the title of my thread, and I didn't intend it to mean that "this is the only way." I apologize if I did.

There is a thought on HDF (and elsewhere) that if someone is a Christian, it is likely that he or she is deceitful or has ulterior motives, but that isn't always true.
There are Christians who are sincerely focused on kindness and interpret their faith in light of kindness.

In the end, I think that's what it's really about, whether you are Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, atheist, etc.

Friend from the West
13 December 2011, 10:03 PM
Namaste and greetings I Love God,

First, good to see you posting again. Secondly, I hope to keep in spirit of Kismet's response and your follow up. In light of Shian's post last night, this is what I selfishly wish for.
I Love God, I have followed your posts, and I do not question your intent for others at all. I view you as a seeker from within. I am happy how you choose to interpret the meaning of Jesus. With this though, his purported teachings can not be taken in a vacuum. There is very much that you do not include with his acceptance and preaching regarding the Torah which he also is quoted as teaching about (I will not insult you or what I feel is your intent, with sharing post of going into thoughts regarding Torah and the dreaded oral tradition of the Talmud). Based on what is given to us in these texts (to include Pauline), it seems to me, as but one spectator, that you are in love with an idea, the most beautiful idea known to us, and that you filter it through a tradition that you are more familiar with. Unfortuantely, the text where it seems you derive this beautiful idea of the ideal, does not support such a view. The idea of agape love for the Divine is more than beautiful.

Take care I Love God.

Om Shanti.

FFTW

NayaSurya
13 December 2011, 10:11 PM
FFTW, that was one of the most beautifully kind yet wise posts I have ever read.

Adam, Beloved Bless you in every single way.

UniversalLove
13 December 2011, 10:15 PM
FFTW, thank you so much for your love and kind words. Thank you for recognizing my feelings and intentions. You are a good friend. :)

NayaSurya, it is good to talk to you again. I hope you have been well. May you also be blessed. :)

Kismet
13 December 2011, 11:40 PM
Kismet, I understand. I was just giving my own interpretation of what the Christian faith means. I'm not trying to set something in stone. I just thought about the way I worded the title of my thread, and I didn't intend it to mean that "this is the only way." I apologize if I did.

I did not intend, by the way, to downgrade your own personal interpretation of what Christianity means *to you.* If that is the case, then fine. By all means you are entitled to believe that which moves you.

Speaking in general terms, though, it sounded more as if you were giving an actual argument about the real meaning of Christianity. Loosely defined "Christian" can mean just about anyone or anything. Your remarks about Jesus, too, I have no idea of how to verify. How do you know Jesus really loved both his friends and enemies? I do not know, and I do not care to speculate anymore.

satay
14 December 2011, 12:39 AM
Greetings everyone. :)

Christianity is NOT about condemning people to eternal hell or forcing religion on people. It's not about judgement or frightening people. It isn't about being better or more righteous than others.

Please feel free to share any thoughts.

Thanks. :)

Namaste,
Since you asked ...

I realize that you are creating your own version of Christianity but the main stream Christianity is precisely about hell, about frightening people destroying cultures, families and condemning people and humanity in general for the sins that they never even committed.

In general, Hindus don't care about Christianity and Jesus. It is completely irrelevant to us.

Pls don't think that when I say this that I am being critical of Christianity. I watch a couple of programs from two different churches on Sundays. Christianity is precisely about judgement and hell is normally the theme of their messages. In fact, last Sunday message was precisely about judgement day and repentance, a special message to remind people of these two central themes during this gift buying bonanza.

Just because you have some liberal notion of Christianity doesn't make the religion itself what you imagine it to be or what you think it should be.

Anyway, Christianity is irrelevant to us in general.

sm78
14 December 2011, 02:54 AM
Kismet, I understand. I was just giving my own interpretation of what the Christian faith means.

I appreciate your attempt to find liberal meanings from an established religion. Ofcourse your interpretation would be of any real help only if you can get Christians (at least some of them) who believe in eternal hell, hinduism is satan worship, only salvation through jesus etc, to agree with you and behave accordingly. Since none of the Hindus believe in these things, nothing is achieved by telling us what real Christianity should be. But if you try to spread these understanding among the fundamentalist christian I would greatly admire your efforts and courage. There is only gain if we can make a few fundamentalist into humanists. Hindus have no problem if they worship Jesus or someone else, but if they are humanists, we surely will all benefit from greater brotherhood. Humanists can't necessarily believe in eternal torment of fellow human beings. Please continue the good work, but to the right audience.

Chris
14 December 2011, 04:25 AM
The true meaning of Christianity is agape love. It teaches love like any other religion. Agape is the Greek word for a divine, selfless, and unconditional love. It is central to Christianity, as Mahatma Gandhi once said.

Jesus taught and demonstrated agape love. He taught love toward the neighbor, enemy, saint, and "sinner."

Jesus even said that it is agape love that is the mark of a true disciple or Christian.
If Christianity is about love to saint and sinner then why does it teach that non-Christians, even those who practice love, will go to hell whereas those who believe in Jesus will be forgiven and saved even if they practice hate?

Mana
14 December 2011, 06:52 AM
Namaste Chris,

Surly that is not the original Hebrew teaching, but the modern interpretation. I don't know; do you?

PraNAma

mana

Chris
14 December 2011, 07:50 AM
Namaste Chris,

Surly that is not the original Hebrew teaching, but the modern interpretation. I don't know; do you?

PraNAma

mana
Well the original new testament was in Greek and written 50 years or so after the death of Jesus. There is a lot of debate on whether hell for unbelieving was an original belief, but it was certainly a main belief by 100 CE (http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/hell.htm), and codified into the creed by the Nicene council in 325 CE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed).

Mana
14 December 2011, 08:03 AM
Namaste Chris

Wow was it that early, amazing; I always assumed it was written in Hebrew; Thank you.
Do you have any knowledge as to the destruction of the Jewish temple 70AD in Jerusalem. Was that Jesus s' temple; how that is explained in the history books?

praNAma

mana

Chris
14 December 2011, 08:49 AM
Namaste Chris

Wow was it that early, amazing; I always assumed it was written in Hebrew; Thank you.
Do you have any knowledge as to the destruction of the Jewish temple 70AD in Jerusalem. Was that Jesus s' temple; how that is explained in the history books?

praNAma

mana
I don't know much about the destruction of the temple. It would have been the temple where Jesus overturned the money-lenders desks.

UniversalLove
14 December 2011, 11:01 AM
I appreciate everyone expressing honest thoughts and opinions, so thank you for that. :) Thanks again so much to people who have said kind things.

Again, the original post was just a very personal opinion and interpretation of my own.

As Kismet helped me realize, I probably could've worded the title of the thread a little better. I apologize for this.

By the way, Kismet, you have not downplayed or offended. No worries. :)

Following up on what Kismet said about how we know what Jesus actually did and said, I am not trying to act like I know what Jesus actually taught or did. When referring to Jesus, I am only referring to information within the four Gospels. But nor am I claiming that the Gospels or the whole Bible are perfect. I'm basically just using what is given.


Chris, when I said that Jesus taught to love the saint and the "sinner", I am referring to what the Gospels say, particularly where it says that Jesus befriended prostitutes and tax collectors -- the "sinners" of his society.

And, just to emphasize, I personally do not believe that non-Christians are going to an eternal hell. I don't think God would send anyone to an eternal hell. Instead, I believe God loves everyone unconditionally, regardless of differences.

My goal, both as a Christian and simply as a human being, is to just be an instrument of kindness toward everyone.

My goal has nothing to do with judgement, fear, condemnation, or trying to turn people over to a certain way of life.


I love questions, so if anyone has more thoughts or questions to share, please feel free. Thanks. :)

Eastern Mind
14 December 2011, 11:38 AM
I love questions, so if anyone has more thoughts or questions to share, please feel free. Thanks. :)

VannakkamI ILoveGod: IMHO, In any interfaith dialogue, there should be open questioning going both ways, so I put this question back on you: If you have any further questions about Hinduism, feel free to ask. Many of us would be happy to oblige.

Aum Namasivaya

UniversalLove
14 December 2011, 02:02 PM
Thanks, EasternMind, good to talk to you again. :) I have many, many questions about Hinduism.

Eastern Mind
14 December 2011, 02:32 PM
Thanks, EasternMind, good to talk to you again. :) I have many, many questions about Hinduism.

Vannakkam: Well, ask away!:)

Aum Namasivaya

Jainarayan
14 December 2011, 03:18 PM
Jesus was an interesting person.

And whether he existed or not really isn't the issue, imo, because whoever wrote about loving your enemies, loving God, forgiveness and such cannot be all bad. I take all the rest with a grain of salt anymore.

Of course, Lord Krishna and the Buddha said those same things centuries before "Jesus" did. He appeals to a certain audience at a certain time in a certain place. It's just that someone (Paul, who actually usurped and corrupted it) took the ball and ran with it, turning it into what it is today.

I seriously doubt that a wandering preacher from the hills of Judea wanted anything more than to show his countrymen what God really is, not what the Jewish establishment of the time made God out to be. That Jewish establishment was no better than what organized Christianity is today.


In the end, I think that's what it's really about, whether you are Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, atheist, etc.

Love of, and devotion to God and all creatures. No more, no less.


I realize that you are creating your own version of Christianity but the main stream Christianity is precisely about hell, about frightening people destroying cultures, families and condemning people and humanity in general for the sins that they never even committed.

In general, Hindus don't care about Christianity and Jesus. It is completely irrelevant to us. ...

Just because you have some liberal notion of Christianity doesn't make the religion itself what you imagine it to be or what you think it should be.

Anyway, Christianity is irrelevant to us in general.

Again, it's the corruption of it beginning in the first century CE, and continuing to the present day. If Christanity remained true to its core teachings, I doubt there would be much, if any, debate about it.

At one time I was also sucked into the going-to-hell silliness. It's nonsensical dogma and what's indoctrinated by people who are just parroting their preceding generation(s). I remember my friend getting his butt kicked by Sister Mary Intolerant of the Sisters of Merciless for saying angels don't really have wings. :doh:


If Christianity is about love to saint and sinner then why does it teach that non-Christians, even those who practice love, will go to hell whereas those who believe in Jesus will be forgiven and saved even if they practice hate?

There's that corruption of it again.

Jesus only said that salvation comes through him... yes, he taught people how to turn away from sin. Lord Krishna said the same thing centuries earlier. He said to fix your mind on Him, devote yourself to Him, and you will go to Him.

Yet no one has taken His words and corrupted and twisted them into something to be feared; that you will go to hell if you don't believe in Him. Why it happened in Christianity? I have no a clue, but it's a crying shame.

Now, for anyone who might misintepret, I'm certainly not defending Christianity, at least not organized Christianity because I've been wounded by it, rather I'm condemning organized Christianity. I see no problem with anyone who only wants to love God, see Him, go to Him, and do His bidding, and to live and let live, regardless what He is called. In that regard let's remember R.V. 1.164.46 ekam sat viprah bahudha vadanti "There is One Truth but the wise know it by many names". The problem is that not everyone is wise enough to see that and live by it.

Jainarayan
14 December 2011, 03:21 PM
Well the original new testament was in Greek and written 50 years or so after the death of Jesus. There is a lot of debate on whether hell for unbelieving was an original belief, but it was certainly a main belief by 100 CE (http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/hell.htm), and codified into the creed by the Nicene council in 325 CE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed).

"Paul stands accused". I have no regard for that man, writer, figment, composite or whatever he or it was that wrote the drivel that has become the core of Christianity from the 1st century on. Nor do I have any regard for Constantine, who bent the Council of Nicaea to conform to his agenda and interpretations.

I should correct myself and say the only regard I have for them is contempt.

Jainarayan
14 December 2011, 03:24 PM
Namaste Chris

Wow was it that early, amazing; I always assumed it was written in Hebrew; Thank you.
Do you have any knowledge as to the destruction of the Jewish temple 70AD in Jerusalem. Was that Jesus s' temple; how that is explained in the history books?

praNAma

mana


I don't know much about the destruction of the temple. It would have been the temple where Jesus overturned the money-lenders desks.

It was indeed the temple Jesus had a fit in, over the corruption. It was indeed finally destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE in a final act of "That's it, we've had enough of these rebellions!". The Romans virtually razed it to the ground, leaving only the western (wailing) wall. I believe most of the rest of the fondations are gone also.

UniversalLove
14 December 2011, 04:33 PM
Love of, and devotion to God and all creatures. No more, no less.

Words of wisdom, TouchedbytheLord. :) I am in wholehearted agreement with you in this.

Agnikan
15 December 2011, 02:30 PM
The largest Christian church, the Catholic Church, does not teach that simply being non-Christian will send someone to eternal damnation.

sanjaya
16 December 2011, 12:48 AM
Greetings everyone. :)

This is just something that I've been contemplating for a while and thought it would be nice to share with open minds.

Christianity is NOT about condemning people to eternal hell or forcing religion on people. It's not about judgement or frightening people. It isn't about being better or more righteous than others.
And please don't think that just because I'm talking about something I feel is good about and central to Christianity, it means that I'm trying to lure you into the religion. It simply isn't true.

The true meaning of Christianity is agape love. It teaches love like any other religion. Agape is the Greek word for a divine, selfless, and unconditional love. It is central to Christianity, as Mahatma Gandhi once said.

Jesus taught and demonstrated agape love. He taught love toward the neighbor, enemy, saint, and "sinner."

Jesus even said that it is agape love that is the mark of a true disciple or Christian.

Remember that Jesus also befriended the outcasts and the oppressed in his society.
Jesus is also known for being crucified, but it isn't the "blood" and "torture" aspects of it that are important. It was the agape love that was behind it. It was Jesus' selfless love for his friends and even his enemies.

I grew up Christian, and the message that the religion speaks to me is to simply love everyone.

So, for those who may believe that Christianity is a bloody or evil religion, please consider looking at it in another way.

Please feel free to share any thoughts.

Thanks. :)

I understand your desire to think positively of the religion you grew up with. And if you wish to do so, that's certainly your right. But since you've made a specific case, let's look at it logically. You say that agape love was behind Jesus' crucifixion.

Why was the crucifixion of Jesus an act of love?

Answer: because by his death, we can all be saved from our sins and avoid going to hell. That's what Christians mean when they say that he takes the sins of the world, that he conquered death, etc. Even the liberal Christians mean this, though they haven't yet figured out how to say these words while simultaneously rejecting belief in eternal hell. Of course this implies that we must believe in him, which entails that we stop being Hindus and convert to Christianity.

So then, you see the problem. It's not possible to see Jesus' death as an act of love without introducing the concept of hell. Let's put it another way. Let us say that Lord Krishna had been killed on the battlefield of Kurukshetra instead of living for more than thirty years after the fact. Would God's death be an act of love? Theologically speaking, I think not. We would likely commend what he did in life, namely instructing Arjuna in Dharma and acting as his charioteer. Maybe we'd commend his willingness to risk death. But the death itself wouldn't mean too much. That's because in our religion, there is no hell. More importantly, we don't believe in substitutionary atonement. God doesn't take your sin away by suffering for the deeds that you have done. And since eternal hell is not the alternative to letting God suffer vicariously for our sins, we see nothing wrong with paying for our own sins.

I can't make any comment one way or another on Jesus himself, because the Bible contains scare little information on him. I'm with Satay. Christianity at its best is irrelevant to us, at its worst a religion that centers on eternal hell and escape from it. Hell makes Christianity an awful religion bent on the destruction of other cultures. But without hell, Christianity is just a bunch of meaningless platitudes and a Sunday social club (see the Episcopal church).

Chris
16 December 2011, 02:31 AM
I understand your desire to think positively of the religion you grew up with. And if you wish to do so, that's certainly your right. But since you've made a specific case, let's look at it logically. You say that agape love was behind Jesus' crucifixion.

Why was the crucifixion of Jesus an act of love?

Answer: because by his death, we can all be saved from our sins and avoid going to hell. That's what Christians mean when they say that he takes the sins of the world, that he conquered death, etc. Even the liberal Christians mean this, though they haven't yet figured out how to say these words while simultaneously rejecting belief in eternal hell. Of course this implies that we must believe in him, which entails that we stop being Hindus and convert to Christianity.

So then, you see the problem. It's not possible to see Jesus' death as an act of love without introducing the concept of hell. Let's put it another way. Let us say that Lord Krishna had been killed on the battlefield of Kurukshetra instead of living for more than thirty years after the fact. Would God's death be an act of love? Theologically speaking, I think not. We would likely commend what he did in life, namely instructing Arjuna in Dharma and acting as his charioteer. Maybe we'd commend his willingness to risk death. But the death itself wouldn't mean too much. That's because in our religion, there is no hell. More importantly, we don't believe in substitutionary atonement. God doesn't take your sin away by suffering for the deeds that you have done. And since eternal hell is not the alternative to letting God suffer vicariously for our sins, we see nothing wrong with paying for our own sins.

I can't make any comment one way or another on Jesus himself, because the Bible contains scare little information on him. I'm with Satay. Christianity at its best is irrelevant to us, at its worst a religion that centers on eternal hell and escape from it. Hell makes Christianity an awful religion bent on the destruction of other cultures. But without hell, Christianity is just a bunch of meaningless platitudes and a Sunday social club (see the Episcopal church).
I agree absolutely. Once you say that non-Christians won't go into hell you are odds with all the major Christian lineages. You are saying that the crucifiction was not necessary, turning to Christ is not necessary, and therefore the gospels are not necessary. Many Christians would not class you as a Christian.

Now Jesus may well have been a guru to his disciples, teaching the same message as other gurus. I know Hindus who believe this, but we should not kid ourselves that it is encompassing Christianity. It is saying that Christianity has it wrong and we understand the real message of Jesus through Sanatana Dharma, which they have missed.

wundermonk
16 December 2011, 05:35 AM
I agree with Satay and sanjaya.

Xity is irrelevant for Hinduism for the following reasons.

(a)Adam and Eve never existed.
(b)Original sin and its transmission via biological inheritance due to which all of us are in a "fallen" state is false because of (a).
(c)Christianity is dull and sad. As sanjaya mentions, it is about God suffering vicarious for our sins which are anyway not ours because even granting Adam and Eve existed, the sin was theirs not ours. To further support this point, I googled Christianity images. Here were the first few results.

http://www.tiptoptens.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/christianity.jpg

and

http://www.deeshaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/christianity.jpg.

I dont like to follow a religion where the only imagery I have of the Gods and Goddesses are full of pain and sadness.

Contrast this with the first few results for Hinduism images. Here were the first few results.

http://free-vedic-astrology.com/images/hinduism.jpg

and

http://www.shaivam.org/gallery/image/shiva/shiva_shakti_lingam.jpg

Hinduism is quite simply a much more open, fun and diverse religion. It is a no-contest.

Dont take this too personally, ILoveGod. You probably are a well-meaning person. But it is what it is. Xity is simply too stifling a religion. You may have a different POV, but this is after all a Hindu message board. Hinduism has suffered enough under Abrahamic filth for Hindus to be open-minded about the Abrahamics' intentions. If any proselytization needs to be done, it is to be done on the Abrahamic so that he gives up notions of eternal heaven and eternal hell.

UniversalLove
16 December 2011, 05:35 PM
Thank you for your replies.

As I've said, I know the stance of Hindus on HDF toward Christianity, and I have total respect for that. And I am also deeply sorry for what's been going on between Christians and Hindus in general. I even looked at a website once, and the articles on "how to evangelize Hindus" were very disturbing to me, too.

In my original post, I was trying to make a point that not all Christians are the same or have the same mentalities.
A religion can be interpreted in different ways by its adherents.


I'm a Christian, and it certainly isn't my intention or desire to destroy any culture or religion. I'm not bent on destroying anything.
I'm honestly not joking: I love Hinduism & India, and other cultures and religions.
I don't think Hinduism is wrong or full of "Satan worshippers." I enjoy learning about it, as well as other religions. That's just part of my interests.
Nobody has to believe or think the way I do. Everyone should have the right to believe whatever he or she chooses.

Maybe a majority does, but I personally wouldn't use Christianity as a means of conversion or threatening of eternal hell. To me, Christianity is a religion of example: that is, following Jesus' teaching and example of loving others.

By the way, concerning the images of Christianity, my personal favorite is the Sacred Heart of Jesus. That doesn't make me feel sad or scared. It inspires me to love everyone.

Chris
17 December 2011, 02:39 AM
By the way, concerning the images of Christianity, my personal favorite is the Sacred Heart of Jesus. That doesn't make me feel sad or scared. It inspires me to love everyone.

Interesting that it should be plagerised iconography from the Ramayana that predates Jesus:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aB5PNbIDm28/Tg3dbNaHSbI/AAAAAAAAAHY/-lPI8zcYPos/s1600/hanuman-heart-rama-sita.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ysbqAK-74JE/TFD-nsF2SMI/AAAAAAAACJQ/v6qR5Zqnpd4/s1600/Sacred+Heart+LG.gif

see http://www.exoticindiaart.com/article/hanuman/

Moonlight
17 December 2011, 04:01 AM
"As soon as one desires to worship some [god], I make his faith steady so that he can devote himself to that particular deity." BT 7:21

Doesn't matter who it is we worship, the true god will still support us.

Now in my understanding and research.
The 3 gosples (mat,mark,luke) are the ones christains should follow. In those gosples it's about doing good deeds and love all without descrimating (spelling)
the book of john and pauls writting are the only ones who talks about Jesus being a human sacrifce. Jesus has warned about Paul and orginaized religions who claim to be "Christ". Christ means annoited (spelling) and he said not to belive anyone who claims this. In my interpretation of the gosples, christainity was pose to be an inner peace religion but later turned into an outward religion where you must listen to the false Christ and there own interpretation of the bible.

In this way people are following other peoples interpretation of god and not there own personal god.

UniversalLove
17 December 2011, 09:16 AM
Chris,

For me, that is okay.
I also love the images of Hanuman.
I like any image that inspires Divine love.

Ramakrishna
19 December 2011, 05:28 AM
Namaste Adam,

Although you seem to think otherwise, Hindus are not naive enough to think that all people who call themselves Christians believe in hate, exclusivism, that all non-believers are going to hell, etc.

I respect your views and beliefs, yet at some point (not necessarily in this lifetime) you will realize that what you believe in is not Christianity. It's great that Jesus supposedly preached about peace and love and compassion and all that good stuff, but in the Gospels he also talked about exclusivism and proselytizing and converting people, things that most Hindus are fundamentally against. If you are against those two things then you are not a Christian (follower of Christ)...it's really that simple.

But as I said, I respect your views. It's just that you feel some need to attach yourself to Jesus when you don't even seem to agree with everything he said and the teachings that you do agree with are already found in other religions.

Jai Sri Ram

satay
19 December 2011, 01:05 PM
namaste,
One thing I never get is:
- how can a 'God' 'suffer' for someone's sins? Are you really a God if you can 'suffer'? and if you 'really' didn't suffer then what's the point of getting nailed and put on the drama?

I think the nailed man on the cross actually proves the point that whoever that man was, was not God indeed. Because if he was 'suffering' by the torture, he wasn't a God because I don't know of any God that can 'suffer' on the other hand if he wasn't really getting hurt then he was just making a show of it. What a nonsense.

:rolleyes:

satay
19 December 2011, 01:06 PM
namaste,
I also think that 'iLoveGod' is not a Christian for any sense of the word. Seems to be some sort of universalist. Nothing wrong with that...

Jainarayan
19 December 2011, 01:54 PM
Namaste satay.

The whole thing reeks of illogic and sadism.

1. God, who is omnipotent and omniscient, creates man. Creation is to show God's power and glory.

2. God tests man, knowing full well (there's that omniscience at work) that man will fail the test. It's a set up.

3. Then God promises to send a Redeemer, a Savior, to atone for the sin God knew man would commit.

4. God incarnates as his own son in human form and takes on the sins of humanity, which I might add, is still born under the shadow of that "Original Sin".

5. This human incarnation of God dies a horrible and gruesome death to atone for that sin he knew would be committed. But if mankind is still born with the "stain of original sin" as the RCC calls it, what did the redeemer's death accomplish?

Where is the logic? Where's the consistency? The more I thought about it over the years (and other things), the less I could accept a God like that. However, it's not God who is at fault, it is the humans who conjured up this drivel and twaddle of a story.



namaste,
One thing I never get is:
- how can a 'God' 'suffer' for someone's sins? Are you really a God if you can 'suffer'? and if you 'really' didn't suffer then what's the point of getting nailed and put on the drama?

I think the nailed man on the cross actually proves the point that whoever that man was, was not God indeed. Because if he was 'suffering' by the torture, he wasn't a God because I don't know of any God that can 'suffer' on the other hand if he wasn't really getting hurt then he was just making a show of it. What a nonsense.

:rolleyes:

Moonlight
19 December 2011, 02:39 PM
It reminds me of when Yahweh was in one of his moods in 2 Sam 21:1-10 and the people were in famine for 3 years so they had to kill 7 people to make Yahweh happy and to stop the famine.

The logic is stupid and it's very pagan-ish when you think about it where people sacrificed others to stop famine and other strange stuff. 

For me like I wrote earlyer, Jesus was murdered and there was no "sin" offering. That was added later on in gosple of john and pauls writings.   


Mind you, anyone ever read Zechariah Chapter 11? It talks about Yahweh killing a great shepherd and that he will replaced the shepherd for another one which will not care for anyone.
It's a fun read and makes you wonder.  

 http://the-red-thread.net/bands-beauty.html

 

UniversalLove
19 December 2011, 03:32 PM
I don't know.
All I know is that my goal is to be kind. I try to live by that everyday.
I don't wish any harm or discomfort upon anyone, including the Hindus on HDF or any other Hindu in the world.
Hindus have a beautiful way of life, and I wouldn't ever want to ruin that for them or do any kind of evil against them.

I like all world religions and meeting friends who practice them.

sanjaya
23 December 2011, 01:23 AM
Namaste Adam,

Although you seem to think otherwise, Hindus are not naive enough to think that all people who call themselves Christians believe in hate, exclusivism, that all non-believers are going to hell, etc.

I respect your views and beliefs, yet at some point (not necessarily in this lifetime) you will realize that what you believe in is not Christianity. It's great that Jesus supposedly preached about peace and love and compassion and all that good stuff, but in the Gospels he also talked about exclusivism and proselytizing and converting people, things that most Hindus are fundamentally against. If you are against those two things then you are not a Christian (follower of Christ)...it's really that simple.

But as I said, I respect your views. It's just that you feel some need to attach yourself to Jesus when you don't even seem to agree with everything he said and the teachings that you do agree with are already found in other religions.

Jai Sri Ram


namaste,
I also think that 'iLoveGod' is not a Christian for any sense of the word. Seems to be some sort of universalist. Nothing wrong with that...

Yes, I very much share the views expressed here. None of us seem to take any offense with the beliefs expressed by ILoveGod or UniversalLove. It's just that what they're saying doesn't match up with what we read in the Bible or hear from the lips of Christian preachers. I don't personally subscribe to the idea of applying whatever labels or titles people wish to themselves. If someone wants to call himself Hindu but is sacrificing cows to Lord Vishnu...well, that person simply isn't Hindu. You can't apply a label to yourself while fundamentally betraying the meaning of that label, or else the English words we're using would be arbitrary (and why bother with language at all in that case?). Likewise, the Bible says that non-Christians go to hell and that it is the church's duty to convert all non-believers. This isn't just some temporary lapse, like the Christian who doesn't fully live up to his beliefs. To say that there is no hell is to reject the idea that man needs someone to die for his sins. If you don't submit to this view, I'd be hard pressed to call you a Christian. Not that I think this is a bad thing. As I've said before, being a good Christian necessitates being a bad person (and yes, since I believe in God I am capable of making objective moral judgments).


Namaste satay.

The whole thing reeks of illogic and sadism.

1. God, who is omnipotent and omniscient, creates man. Creation is to show God's power and glory.

2. God tests man, knowing full well (there's that omniscience at work) that man will fail the test. It's a set up.

3. Then God promises to send a Redeemer, a Savior, to atone for the sin God knew man would commit.

4. God incarnates as his own son in human form and takes on the sins of humanity, which I might add, is still born under the shadow of that "Original Sin".

5. This human incarnation of God dies a horrible and gruesome death to atone for that sin he knew would be committed. But if mankind is still born with the "stain of original sin" as the RCC calls it, what did the redeemer's death accomplish?

Where is the logic? Where's the consistency? The more I thought about it over the years (and other things), the less I could accept a God like that. However, it's not God who is at fault, it is the humans who conjured up this drivel and twaddle of a story.

Indeed. The problem I see here is that the judgment of man is based on man's knowledge and intellectual assent. We must know about the Christian gospel and believe in its doctrines in order to escape eternal hellfire. I much prefer the model presented in the Sri Sathyanarayana Katha (which those of us who grew up Hindu are likely familiar with). In it, we are presented with several cases of humans who arrogantly reject God and are punished for it. But their sin does not result in eternal death. Indeed their lives are preserved until such point as they repent of their deeds and approach God from a humble posture, at which point their fortunes are restored to them. In Hinduism, it is possible for man to pay for sin without any eternal punishment. That's the fundamental problem with the Christian model of sin: man is offered the opportunity to pay for his sin, but the only payment God will accept is an eternity of hellfire. This becomes an excuse for man to simply abdicate all responsibility for his sin.

Thank God that Hinduism properly portrays God as a friend rather than a strict judge. I think we are the ones who truly understand God as a Father (and Mother, for that matter), the Lord's Prayer notwithstanding.

pineblossom
23 December 2011, 02:26 AM
Namaste satay.

The whole thing reeks of illogic and sadism.

1. God, who is omnipotent and omniscient, creates man. Creation is to show God's power and glory.

2. God tests man, knowing full well (there's that omniscience at work) that man will fail the test. It's a set up.

3. Then God promises to send a Redeemer, a Savior, to atone for the sin God knew man would commit.

4. God incarnates as his own son in human form and takes on the sins of humanity, which I might add, is still born under the shadow of that "Original Sin".

5. This human incarnation of God dies a horrible and gruesome death to atone for that sin he knew would be committed. But if mankind is still born with the "stain of original sin" as the RCC calls it, what did the redeemer's death accomplish?

Where is the logic? Where's the consistency? The more I thought about it over the years (and other things), the less I could accept a God like that. However, it's not God who is at fault, it is the humans who conjured up this drivel and twaddle of a story.

Namaste satay.

I can understand your conclusion that there appears little logic and a great deal of inconsistency in the teachings of Christianity.

I would like to point out that what many take as 'Christianity' is in fact, Churchianity - an rather lop sided view of the teachings of Jesus.

So you are quote right in pointing out the inherent failings of human endeavour.

But if one goes back to the teachings of Jesus and blot out the inherent cloud of spin and rhetoric overhanging those teachings one might gain a fruitful understanding of what Jesus was on about.

1. Jesus makes no mention of a 'God of Creation'. Rather, Jesus speaks of a 'Father of love'.

2. Jesus makes no mention that the Father 'test's humanity. Rather, the Father is only too eager to cast off his robes in order to bestow love and mercy on all.

3. Jesus is not a sacrifice. The Father is not into child abuse. The theology of a 'blood' sacrifice was a later adoption.

4. The is not mention of 'original' sin in the Bible. There is no 'Fall". Humanity is made in the image of God.

5. Jesus died a criminal's death because he was essential a rebel - he challenged the stagnant social order that imposed unrealistic burdens on those who could lest afford it while the elites live in luxury.

Jesus was not talking about what one had to believe. Jesus was teaching humanity how to behave towards each other. He lived and died by that example.

I have recently left my church. I have done so precisely because of the issues you raise. The unfortunate thing is that most Christians do not understand the difference between what the church indoctrinates and what Jesus taught.

I have been draw to teachings of Sri Ramakrishna and the Ramakrishna Order. From what I have learnt I am encouraged by the balance contained in these teachings.

I leave in January for a trip to the two epicentres of the worlds religions - Jerusalem and Varanasi where I will be staying in Christian retreat centers and Hindu ashrams.

Perhaps I will learn something useful and beneficial.

In the meantime, please allow some latitude to Christians. Most have a kind and loving heart and it is at that level I think we should engage with one another.

Moonlight
23 December 2011, 05:59 AM
I think some people misunderstood Jesus way of teaching and the way he talks. Like if you read the new testement for the first time without any spiritual background, your end up hating the guy cause your mind thinks he's an enemy. But once you learn more about spirituality and other ancient text your see that they all lineup pretty well with the same message. We are following our sences and forgetting god. 

For sample:
Matthew 6:24
"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other.

(this can mean anything but I like to see it as our sences vs god, if you serve your sences then you have forgotten about god cause your to busy injoying pleasure.) 

"You cannot serve both God and money." 

(this one is god vs Material goods)

Jesus passed his test when he met Satan who offered him all sorts of Material things and Jesus rejected them all cause he knew it was all an illusion and that reaching the supreme goal is more importent then Material pleasure.       

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Matt 10:34

This was in the present moment and the sword he was talking about was a spiritual truth. Even tho he was a peaceful monk he was bringing war to those who hated his teachings and wanted him killed.

"'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— Matt 10:35

Many can related to this. Ever had a diffrnt belief then your own family who belives in something else? it's just like that and Jesus was saying that his teachings will make people turn against each other and fights will start cause of the belief's. We see this everyday when a someone wants to change his beliefs and there loved ones get upset and start arguing etc.


"Truly I tell you," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first." Mark 10:29-31

I can now understand this verse since Im into spirituality and Jesus makes a good point here.

There's a very good anlogy from the matrix that explains this:

"Neo, sooner or later you're going to realize, just as I did, that there's a difference between knowing the path, and walking the path."

The Gita is a guide and we can ither know it's gospel or walk it. Same with the 4 gosples (mat,mark,luke) 
So many christains don't walk the path, They just know the path.

It's all about getting away from the material world and live like a monk. Sadly my mum can't see this cause she's brainwashed by her cult. She calls everyone outside of her cult as "worldy" in reailty it is her that is "worldly" cause she has falling into a trap of self idenity and following other peoples interpretation of the bible.

"Then he said to them all: "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves ...... and follow me." Luke 9:23

To deny yourself is to stop identifying yourself as a christain,Jew,muslim,
hindu and so on. God isn't a religion and nither is Jesus. Budda isn't a religion nor Krishna and nither is Lao Tzu. They all teach the same truth which guides us all to the supreme goal.

If christains follow Jesus' real laws I'll be happy to give them hugs and maby cookies.

Rules and sins:

1: Self defence (non-violence)  
Matt: 5:38,39
Matt: 5:43,44
(never fight back) 

2: Material wealth (uncovetousness)
Matt: 6:19. Matt: 19:16 Matt: 6:24
Matt: 19:24. Luke: 14:33.
(no earthly material of any kind)  

3: Sexual attraction
Matt: 5:28
(no looking at hot girls/guys)

4: Religious activity rewarded by people
Matt: 6:16. Matt: 6:1. Matt: 6:5.
(everything must be done in secret) *god is personal*

5: Failure to be completely humble
Matt: 5:40
(give everything you have and acept everything that happens to you)

6: do not judge
Matt 7:1-2

8: Do not go door to door 
(Ek oikia eis oikia)
Luke 10:7 (they only preached in public places such as towns/Market etc)
The times when they did go from house to house was to stay for the night
And also heal others  Matt10:5-12

9: Deny thy self : 
Matt 16:24

10: No discrimination:
Matthew 5:44-48

NayaSurya
23 December 2011, 09:12 AM
I think some people misunderstood Jesus way of teaching and the way he talks. Like if you read the new testement for the first time without any spiritual background, your end up hating the guy cause your mind thinks he's an enemy. But once you learn more about spirituality and other ancient text your see that they all lineup pretty well with the same message. We are following our sences and forgetting god.




No...I am very sorry, but no they absolutely do not.

Let me tell you, that when the fool comes to correct, the misconception must be catastrophic.

This reminds me of a current situation in my family. We have a narcisist who is also paranoid schizophrenic. Often, as mostly normal functioning folks, our family has projected good motives upon this one so violent.

Projecting our own goodness upon one who is truly very ill. When she would hit us we blamed ourself and thought we should behave better and this would not bring her to this state of violence. Because our motivation was peaceful, we project this also upon her. But this is unrealistic...you can not project your own personality and motivation upon another.

That is exactly what is going on here...we have picked and chosen what portions of the jesus fairytale will be focused on and the rest...the hundreds of other portions are thrown out.

The reason Jesus is often so contradictory within the bible...because he is a composite character, written by several good intentioned, or perhaps not so good intentioned people.

Jesus didn't really exist. He was a composite several men, all jumbled together in the jewish myth we now call jesus.

There is more evidence, at this moment...that Big Foot exists than there is that jesus did.

If we took this to a court of law, they would throw the case out claiming there was not enough evidence. Almost everything they say jesus said is heresay...words repeated many years later.

The bible is a jumble of stories, like Stephen King's NightShift.

It was never meant to be merged together nor is most of it ancient, as the men who came along and chose the specific books colored everything with their own personalities...and motives.

Now for this conversation I am going to have to drink the koolaid a bit here and pretend jesus was a real person...

Nothing...not a shred of jesus is relevant to this follower of Dharma. It's as if you had a choice between pure honey or drinking honey flavored water.

We can go all day over the bible, you can give me the quotes from people "ghost writing" for jesus who were kind and peaceful...and I could give you a hundred quotes from people like Mathew who say jesus said...

Mathew 10: 34-37

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. (http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-10-34/)
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. (http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-10-35/)
36 And a man's foes [shall be] they of his own household. (http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-10-36/)
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. (http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-10-37/)

Does this teach what those other "ancient text" teach?

How many ancient texts have you read? and for that matter...which? I have read numerous ones and never found them remotely similar to the bible...well except the quran.:p

This quote above says.... in a nutshell...everything Sanatana Dharma is not.


Was Jesus aware of the Truth of SD in those statements?

no.

Because for many in SD a daughter, son...mother....father...your neighbor are a portion of God, in the ultimate sense.

Does jesus even sound peaceful in that quote?

You want to believe jesus was real, "peaceful" or even "enlightened"
fine...that's your perogative.

But, do not claim that because one has not "learned about spirituality enough" yet...they can not see his "true message".

Folks, until you can stop projecting your own motives upon this fictional man....you will never be free enough to move past it.

Always you will live in that fear of:

(good ol' Mathew again)

10:28

28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-10-28/)

8-12

12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-8-12/)


Luke 12:5

5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him. (http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Luke-12-5/)

John 3:16-18

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/John-3-16/)
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. (http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/John-3-17/)
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/John-3-18/)


If you believe jesus, how can you possibly accept your Divine Birthright?

The guilt, shame, hate, and fear are so tremendous as a xtian...you would live in fear your entire life of eternal damnation.

A religion which believes the soul can die.

Moonlight
23 December 2011, 09:50 AM
Hi NayaSurya ^_^

I mostly look at the text in a spiritual fictional way. like the matrix and star wars, behind the storys they have great wisdom and teachings. The Gnostics don't take the bible serously and they take what is good and adapt from there.

"take what is useful and develop from there"  - Bruce lee

It's all part of spiritual development. Don't have to take a hole book to understand self relization or good morals. The Gnostics can adapt so many text such as the quran,Gita. Tao te ching,bible etc and develop themselves in better understanding.
If people take the bible seriously then we got a huge issue with that cause like you said it's contradictory.

In the bible all we pretty much need is matt chapt 6 and the story of the fruit of good and evil. The fruit of good and evil to me shows how humans were once one with the supreme till they started forgetting and fell into ignorance. 

There was a really good quote by gandi but I can't remmber where I found it on this forum so I can't finish this post x_x

   

Eastern Mind
23 December 2011, 09:56 AM
Vannakkam: I'm just so glad that a few others have tread the path of Christian study, and understand it well enough to explain it so well. Because I trust you, it means I don't have to tread that path and discover it for myself.

So thank you, Naya, Sanjaya, and others. It strongly reconfirms my decision so many years ago of not to delve into Christianity from the former agnostic/atheist stance. I'm glad I never read any of it.

Aum Namasivaya

UniversalLove
23 December 2011, 10:10 AM
Thanks for the posts.
Yes, I'm sorry if I confused anyone. I asked satay to change my name to UniversalLove.

I wholeheartedly respect everyone's opinions.
I just wanted to share my own feelings and perspectives. If I created any hostility, I apologize. I didn't create this thread unaware of the general relationship between Christianity and Hinduism. It was an attempt to show Christianity in a new light.

I also have considered if I am projecting anything on Jesus.
But what I said on the OP didn't just come from me; those things are found in the New Testament.

Also, it truly doesn't matter to me whether or not the person of Jesus was "stolen" from several other traditions. In my opinion, it is the example and teachings of love that count.

And I have to ask again: If there are Christians who focus on the teachings of salvation, why can't there be Christians who focus on the teachings of love?

So, these are examples why I think love is the heart of Christianity. But it is my own interpretation. Others see it differently, and that is fine. :)

NayaSurya
23 December 2011, 10:13 AM
I am deeply humbled by your kindness.

E.M. I feel you just didn't require the information...so you were free from the go. You have been blessed with a wondrous shelter of community with like minded individuals. Though I know you have often shared your memories of times when even that was not enough.

For this incarnation it has been crucial, pivotal to my ability to withstand the constant pressure of my location.

Just yesterday, my son's girlfriend and her entire family came to my home for a surprise visit to give me xmas presents.

Her son asked me if that was from the movie "avatar" and pointed to Shiva.

I looked him straight in the face and said...it's God...and so are You.

and then I bowed.

I could not look these xtians in the eye so strongly without being concrete solid in my reasons for this deviation.


and I would not lead my children to eternal death...so I had to be 100% sure myself before taking the leap out of my own childhood mishmash of misinformation...to the Truth.

I wanted to give my children every understanding to know why we are this way while everyone.... every single Being which surrounds us... is yet sleeping.

They see others, and can whole heartedly observe this sleeping state...the oblivious money making drive every householder here is consumed with.

Without this, I feel they had no chance to withstand this constant pressure to conform.

Instead of one needing more spiritual awareness to understand the bible I would say...the more spiritual awareness you have...the more and more questions will arise until you can not deny the shift in your own heart.

So we are hardened by the Truth...as Beloved Yajvan say....

"Neti Neti"

And we know it well...

(oh an Moonlight<3 my oldest son would agree with you. He calls the bible, "Harry Potter" as he considers it very good spiritual fiction.:P)

Eastern Mind
23 December 2011, 10:30 AM
Just yesterday, my son's girlfriend and her entire family came to my home for a surprise visit to give me xmas presents.



Vannakkam: That was a kind gesture. I'm actually a bit more into Pancha Ganapati this year than before. It was even mentioned by Oprah and on some other TV show the other day. Today is Day 3 and we'll sing a few bhajans maybe. The whole living room is turned into a Pancha Ganapati shrine. (Ganga does all the work.) We have a nice wooden Ganesha as the centerpiece. Yesterday the grandchildren were over and they 'helped' a bit. The little one 'helped' her Grandmother in the shrine room with her simple puja. She seemed to be able to bring out the shakti.

As it is always within the 31 day Vinayaka Vitrayam Tamil festival, I think He comes across pretty loud and clear this time of year.

On Day 5, most likely we'll be off to temple. All the family still around these parts are coming over on the 26th for gift opening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancha_Ganapati

Aum Namasivaya

PARAM
23 December 2011, 12:02 PM
There is nothing that we need to learn from Jesus, we have all the knowledge and Jesus did not become our Guru, he is only in the way of self praising, all non Christian will go to hell no matter how good they are. I met a Christian who was arguing me to accept Jesus or else I will go to entire hell, and he rejected when I told him doing good and noble deeds, he even said everyone good or bad, social worker or terrorists all will get same hell, and only those will be allowed to enter heaven who accept Jesus.

I refused his theory and said -Christian god treat both good and bad deeds equal and send all non Christian to hell, so Satan has all the strength.

Moonlight
23 December 2011, 12:29 PM
"If they were inspired, then the four gospels mast be true. If they are true, they mast agree.

The four gospels do not agree.

Matthew, Mark and Luke knew nothing of the atonement, nothing of salvation by faith. They knew only the gospel of good deeds -- of charity. They teach that if we forgive others God will forgive us.

With this the gospel of John does not agree.

In that gospel we are taught that we must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ; that we must be born again; that we must drink the blood and eat the flesh of Christ. In this gospel we find the doctrine of the atonement and that Christ died for us and suffered in our place.

This gospel is utterly at variance with the other three. If the other three are true, the gospel of John is false. If the gospel of John was written by an inspired man, the writers of the other three were uninspired. From this there is no possible escape. The four cannot be true." - Robert G. Ingersoll

Tāṇḍava
23 December 2011, 01:15 PM
"If they were inspired, then the four gospels mast be true. If they are true, they mast agree.

The four gospels do not agree.



Don't forget that the four gospels in the bible are the ones hand picked as "on message". The Gospel of Mary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mary), the Gospel of Thomas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas), etc. differ even more than these.

They were rejected as unsuitable for the aim of promoting the Holy Roman Empire. I have never read them but I have heard that the rejected books were more suitable for an aim of spiritual growth.

satay
23 December 2011, 03:26 PM
namaste,
Yes, that other show was 'the office'.

I'm actually a bit more into Pancha Ganapati this year than before. It was even mentioned by Oprah and on some other TV show the other day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancha_Ganapati

Aum Namasivaya

pineblossom
23 December 2011, 08:27 PM
Jesus didn't really exist.

NayaSuraya - you seem both angry and confused. I can understand both as I too have had such experiences. However, there are some points which I urge you to reconsider.

There is ample body of evidence, independent of the biblical texts, that confirm that Jesus existed. Respected historians accept as much.

Jesus existed as did the Buddha.


He was a composite several men, all jumbled together in the jewish myth we now call jesus.

Perhaps, but the essential elements of his life do follow a singular pattern which most scholars accept. Certainly there is debate over any number of incidents and sayings but none of this alters the fact that Jesus existed.


There is more evidence, at this moment...that Big Foot exists than there is that jesus did.

Perhaps you need to read a little further.


If we took this to a court of law, they would throw the case out claiming there was not enough evidence. Almost everything they say jesus said is heresay...words repeated many years later.

A court of law would accept the evidence. Hearsay evidence is legitimate evidence except in particular cases - mainly sexual cases.


The bible is a jumble of stories

No one has pretended any different.


It was never meant to be merged together nor is most of it ancient, as the men who came along and chose the specific books colored everything with their own personalities...and motives.

The biblical literature was never constructed as a seamless text. I don't know where you got such an idea.

Any one who writes anything constructs his/her texts from within his own experience and such experience will 'colour' what is written. To expect that texts, any text, are wholly objective is unsustainable.


If you believe jesus, how can you possibly accept your Divine Birthright?

You misread Jesus, as do many.

The pithy confrontational statements by Jesus demonstrate the change of thinking one needs to undertake. If one is forever constrained by social norms and customs then the dharma will be of little use. But such does not then mean we have to literally 'hate' those whom we love. What it means we have to be awakened to the inherent constraints placed on us by society and culture.


The guilt, shame, hate, and fear are so tremendous as a xtian...you would live in fear your entire life of eternal damnation.

Unfortunately, many Christians do so live. But there are many others who sees the words of Jesus as freedom.

I agree, getting to the substance of what Jesus said and did is difficult.

The essence of Jesus teachings is that we are 'made in the image' of God if we only realized as much. He taught that by adopting moral behaviour and establishing a just social system then one may well 'see the Kingdom of God'.

I also suggest that what the church teaches is very different to what Jesus taught. What the church teaches is Churchianity - conformity to doctrine and dogma. Jesus was not a conformist and was executed because of that non-conformity.

In addressing these issues I hope I don't sound as if I'm attacking your beliefs. That is not my object.

Eastern Mind
23 December 2011, 08:46 PM
There is ample body of evidence, independent of the biblical texts, that confirm that Jesus existed. Respected historians accept as much.

Jesus existed as did the Buddha.



Vannakkam pineblossom: I lean with Naya. I don't believe Christ existed. What anyone believes in this regard has nothing to do with whether or not he existed. It's just belief. Can't be proven either way.

The more important question, in my mind, is whether or not Christ, whether he existed or not, has any relevance at all to Hindus. For that I have a definitive, 'No'. There is infinitely more straight forward and esoteric helpful knowledge available within the confines of SD than anywhere else.

Aum Namasivaya

Friend from the West
23 December 2011, 10:39 PM
Hari Om

Namaste Pineblossom and others,

I am here as a hypocrite. I said I would not partake in this type of dialogue and even wrote poem here about this, but this point of conversation just struck me as wrong in that people may read and believe what is said. Pineblossom and others, almost feel like I need to apologize before writing. In truth and in weakness perhaps, I did not like tone in addition to content.

In my opinion only, this thread by my friend, should have probably been more appropriately named, "The True Meaning of Christianity in my View" by Universal Love. It appears to me to be reasonable, what is put forward by author here at HDF, is not what the New Testament or even Churchanity (whatever the heck that is) teaches, but not anything any version of the bible teaches as well.

Pineblossom, what you put forth, seems to be more gnostic in smell. Eastern MindJi speaks better to what is found within Sanatana Dharma.

The rules of evidence in country Nayasurya resides, makes her statement correct. if something was deemed hearsay it would generally not be admissable in about anything but civil cases and than its weight would be considered differently. Perhaps heavily and perhaps with the weight of a feather. Beyond this, does not appear she was trying to make a technical statement. Even with this, for some reasonable people to base their sole beliefs on someting external, they may want more than what is offered. Additionally, even if one did not need to be a contortionist to believe in bible (or to severely pick and choose or to be one of few very wise people who are able to discern these secret sayings/meanings) perhaps their choice would be not to serve such a thing.

This person who is called Jesus or the Christ existence is based on some seemingly spurious evidence. How to define as hearsay is even a reach for some. You have the Gospels written by who? James written by who? Paul who met who? etc. Your extra biblical evidence beyond a shallow wikipedia search is a guy who believed in the Phoenix who waxed on knowingly about this as you do here. You have two people who came after 33ad or whenever who refer to a person that is a reach to say is Jesus, and you have a great historian who records much of the history and refers in what certainly appears to be additions, to Jesus. Quite frankly, there really is not so much extra evidence. Regardless, what does it matter?

Om Shanti.

FFTW

pineblossom
24 December 2011, 01:12 AM
Vannakkam pineblossom: I lean with Naya. I don't believe Christ existed. What anyone believes in this regard has nothing to do with whether or not he existed. It's just belief. Can't be proven either way.

Sabhivadan

Whether Jesus existed or not is not a matter of personal belief - it is a matter of documented history.

Just as we can say that the second Temple at Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE by the Romans, we can accept that the historical record with respect to Jesus/


The more important question, in my mind, is whether or not Christ, whether he existed or not, has any relevance at all to Hindus. For that I have a definitive, 'No'. There is infinitely more straight forward and esoteric helpful knowledge available within the confines of SD than anywhere else.

Aum Namasivaya

I take you point here. But limited as my understanding may be of the Hindu religion I find many similarities - just as there are many similarities across most religions.

Can the teachings of Jesus be relevant to the Vedas - probably not. Which is one of the reasons I am following Hinduism.

Aapka

pineblossom
24 December 2011, 01:24 AM
Namaste Pineblossom

This person who is called Jesus or the Christ existence is based on some seemingly spurious evidence. How to define as hearsay is even a reach for some. You have the Gospels written by who? James written by who? Paul who met who? etc. Your extra biblical evidence beyond a shallow wikipedia search is a guy who believed in the Phoenix who waxed on knowingly about this as you do here. You have two people who came after 33ad or whenever who refer to a person that is a reach to say is Jesus, and you have a great historian who records much of the history and refers in what certainly appears to be additions, to Jesus. Quite frankly, there really is not so much extra evidence. Regardless, what does it matter?

Om Shanti.

FFTW

Dhanyavaad

The point I was making is that the evidence to which I refer comes not from what is written in the biblical texts - but from the Roman historical record.

And you comment - what does it matter - is not a skillful response in light of te hard evidence available.

Whether you choose to accept that record is, of course, a matter for you. But in making that choice does not have the effect of altering the historical record.

Aapka

NayaSurya
24 December 2011, 01:27 AM
NayaSuraya - you seem both angry and confused.




lolol Oy Vey! No, and no. :p Geeze folks let's not project our own ideas and emotion onto others who have came here for peaceful conversation.

There's nothing to reconsider...I am not xtian I do not need to consider anything at all about this religion, thankfully. What's there to confuse?

Why should I be angry about a fairy tale?

There have been some lovely posts by actual historians here on HDF in reference to the jesus myth. I encourage you to read them. Heresay...when one says someone else said something...and that person is not available. Sounds perfectly like the bible.:p

But, either way, as E.M. said...he matters not at all to me or anyone in my family.

I will say, these words here are written in a forum for SD. I do not harm xtians by stating the Truth. This space is for we small few to speak openly about these dogmas.

If believing in jesus gives them peace fine. I personally love Santa...I get a lot of joy from the whole deal.

My only reason for coming here at all was one whom would say you have to have more "spiritual background" to understand the primitive dogma of jesus.

I have some of my relatives visiting this weekend for the holly days and I have been baking treats for them and their families. So I found the new direction of the conversation very ironic and silly. :p

NayaSurya
24 December 2011, 01:33 AM
I took the time to look up some of the most wise information from our Elders here-

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=704

Another ver wonderful one<3

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2696

kallol
24 December 2011, 02:19 AM
Until and unless the other religions move from God and I to the higher levels of God in All and All in God, it will be futile to make them understand that we (including the whole creation) all are same and part of the same Bramhan.

We all respect the "Love" of the subject but then the universalism and acceptance is starkly missing. Even the love is mostly with a motive (at least for the missionaries).

So even the love has shades.

Moonlight
24 December 2011, 04:36 AM
The only problem we have with things like religion is that we don't know if the storys are true or not. Back then there were loads of verson of Jesus, even the one who went to India and learned many things then came back to teach the Jews. This is why we should focus more on the teachings then the actual person and what they did. 

One of my fav quotes from the matrix:
"Your mind makes it real"

What seems to be natural to me is gaining wisdom and knowledge. I'm pretty sure everyone is the same. 

While the world is in there little boxes, the enlightend ones are wise as serpents and soft as a dove. We are the wind that can flow in any direction without stopping or getting trapped in a box of beliefs and concepts  .
The silence will guide us and save us from outside dogma ~

Anyone notised how most enlightend people only talk about silencing the mind but useing diffrnt anologys? 

Which brings us to Matthew 6:25-34 ! (my fav chapt in the hole book)
Where it talks about no action and no thoughts and all theses things will come to you. Just like the father who looks after nature, he will also look after you. So many christains are unawere of this verse which is a shame.   

Tāṇḍava
24 December 2011, 05:13 AM
Dhanyavaad

The point I was making is that the evidence to which I refer comes not from what is written in the biblical texts - but from the Roman historical record.



The Roman historical record shows that there was a minor dissident in Israel. The problem is that's a bit like proving that a particular "Joe" existed because there are records of a "Joe" in America.

Moonlight
24 December 2011, 06:25 AM
Hello NayaSurya ^^


My only reason for coming here at all was one whom would say you have to have more "spiritual background" to understand the primitive dogma of jesus.

Awww I'm sorry! I was looking at the teachings in a diffrnt way and my own interpertations and cause iv studied alot of spirituality such as Gnostics and other great spiritual groups, I can see the teachings in a diffent way. Mind exspands itself to a better understanding. If I didn't belive in any god or spirituality I would take the hole gosple view diffently then I do now.

Jainarayan
24 December 2011, 10:13 AM
Namaste.


The point I was making is that the evidence to which I refer comes not from what is written in the biblical texts - but from the Roman historical record.

Actually there is nothing in Roman or Greek historical records about Jesus, and the Romans and Greeks wrote down everything... including recipes and grammars for correct pronunciations, not unlike Panini did with his Sanskrit grammar.

Flavius Josephus is not a credible source for information about Jesus. Josephus lived c. 37-100 CE. He was born after the time of Jesus, so he had no firsthand knowledge of Jesus. It was hearsay from dubious sources. Josephus's claim to fame, and is probably accurate, is his documentation of the final struggles between the Romans and Jews, Masada, and the destruction of the temple, all of which occurred during his lifetime. That is all well documented by the Romans.

The Romans also have information about Pontius Pilate's life and career, but it makes no mention of a Jesus of Nazareth. Now, is it possible that despite their penchant for documentation, the Romans didn't think Jesus was that important? Possible, but I think unlikely given the "press" he's been given by other non-credible sources.

The gospels were written in the first century CE at the earliest, and probably not even by anyone called Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. At the time it was fashionable to write using someone else's name to lend credibility. By that time, the names of the apostles were gaining ground, but there's no credible history of them either.

The point is that belief in Jesus is just that, belief. If one needs proof for the existence of someone one believes in, then how strong is that belief and faith?

JaiMaaDurga
24 December 2011, 11:43 AM
Namaste,

I do not find myself particularly keen on keeping this particular thread a going concern, since the OP finds the discussion to be drifting far afield of their original intent; but- if someone is to make statements about something being a "historical fact" without being more specific than "Roman historical records", it begs the question.

http://www.bandoli.no/historicalrecords.htm


Please do not mistake me for having any vested interest in whether or not Jesus was an actual living, breathing person; it no more preoccupies me than Jesus' possible weight, height, shoe size, or level of hand-eye coordination. It is amazing how quickly desire or expectation replaces reality for those that "loom larger than life"... ask Americans what they think Abraham Lincoln sounded like, and most will give him a deep rich baritone, like many films etc.- yet, descriptions of Lincoln's voice, given by those who had actually heard him speak, invariably have it much more of a higher-pitched, nasal twang.

Speaking of historicity, I cannot help but think of how little the foundations of Abrahamic belief and practice have been shaken by:

1) The utter lack of Egyptian records or any historical basis for the veracity of the Hebrew tales of Egyptian enslavement, Moses, Exodus, etc. The University of Tel Aviv after decades of research found instead evidence that the core of the stories trace to the Hyksos invaders, who after being driven from Egypt settled and intermarried among the Hebrew tribes living in Canaan at the time.

2) The discovery and translation of Sumerian tablets containing the ancestor of the Biblical flood/destruction of man story; the Sumerians, being polytheistic, have the sky/wind-god Enlil as the advocate for mankind's destruction, and the wisdom-god Enki as the agent of mankind's preservation. All the gods had sworn not to warn any mortals as to the impending destruction, but Enki gets around this with a technicality; at his temple there is a reed screen separating Enki from his head priest. Enki addresses the reed screen, warning of the flood and passing on the instructions concerning the ark, what to take, etc. It becomes blindingly obvious that the Hebrew flood story was descended from this, if one reads the translation.

These two facts have not caused the implosion of any of the three Abrahamic faiths. Individuals are than capable of carrying around mutually contradictory ideas (see the fellow quoted at the bottom of the post), and certainly no religion with many generations of thousands of followers will collectively collapse crying, "A faulty premise has been found- alas! I die!"

Bearing all of this in mind, I ask- do we not have more pressing concerns?
I admit to being fond of a quote from a fellow(who was admittedly very self-contradictory, in the sense of being an owner of slaves...who concerned himself greatly with liberty) concerning what others believe:

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

JAI MATA DI

satay
24 December 2011, 12:00 PM
Admin Note

namaste everyone,



I wholeheartedly respect everyone's opinions.
I just wanted to share my own feelings and perspectives.

Let's take a break here and refocus.

Jesus is irrelevant to hindus, Period.

Lord Krishna says,

Yanti deva-vrata devan, pitran yanti pitr-vratha
bhutani yanti bhutejya yanti mad-yajino 'pi mam

Those who worship the devas will take bith among the devas; those who worship the ancestors or pitr go to the ancestors;
those who worship ghosts and spirits will take birth among such beings;
and those who worship Me will live with me.

Jesus and the holee spirit are irrelvant to hindus but if someone wants to worship these ghosts and spirits they will go to their designated place as told by lord krishna i.e. to bhut-loka below the material world.

Think about it. As hindus we are striving to go towards spiritual world.

I am closing this discussion as preaching of other religions is against the rules of HDF.

Thank you for your understanding.