False Gurus and Organizations in Christianity

[Mohini Shakti Devi]

Originally Posted by TatTvamAsi
. . . jesus is the biggest FAKE "guru" in the world and deadbeats have the audacity to denigrate . . .

My guru and my husbands guru taught us along time ago that Jesus illustrated the principle, “Aham Brahmaasmi”. We are Spirits in a material body in a material world. When this was understood by common man, since the era it first occurred, allowed for the development of human-rights as we know them today. It is harder to deify a monarch if all the constituency believes that the souls of man are united with the Super-Soul who art in Heaven.

Regarding the allusion to “Deadbeats”:

“Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it” --- George Santiana Santana

[sanjaya]

IMO, I intended a broader reach of the idea of "Lying" ---is a act that accrues bad karma and worsens ones samsaric next lives.

Lying casues bad karma.

In general yes, I don't think you'd get any argument. However, Christians take this commandment much more seriously, literally to the point of death. I believe most Hindus would agree that there are cases in which it is necessary to lie to evil people in order to thwart them. And there's Sri Krishna's statement about not wasting one's scruples on adharmic people who don't deserve it. But evangelical Christians, being absolutists, believe that lying is always wrong. If you peruse some Christian forums, you'll find various topics addressing this issue. The classical example is often given of the Nazi guard in a concentration camp who finds some personal item of his missing, and he begins shooting prisoners until someone tells him who stole it. Presumably the actual thief has covered his tracks well, and doesn't reveal himself. The question is posed: is it acceptable for another prisoner to lie to the guard and blame the theft on a person who has already been killed? Most of us would think that this is a no-brainer, but you'd be surprised at how many evangelicals still believe that it is wrong to lie, citing that you shoudn't combat sin with sin. Instead they suggest that a person "trust God" and tell the truth anyway. And this view is not isolated to a few random people on a discussion forum. I have Christian friends whom I've heard addressing the same topic (with a new, but similar, hypothetical scenario). They all come to the same conclusion. I guess when you believe that yours is the only true path to salvation, it's easier to construct an absolutist commandments that are completely detached from the real world. I'm all for absolute moral values, but Christians fail to realize that these absolute morals will result in different actions based on the situation in question. Hinduism lays out absolute morals, but doesn't give specific commands that must be obeyed in all cases. Christianity, on the other hand, simply says "thou shalt..." without regard to the specific situation. Maybe this is part of why the West is morally decaying at a higher rate than India. Obviously no Christian obeys this moral code as strictly as it's defined, but the issue of Christian hypocrisy probably deserves its own thread.

Since the issue has been raised of Christianity's subtle influence on us, I think it's important to bring this up to illustrate how their lofty theological principles can have a real effect on us. The absolute commandments of Christianity have an effect on this whole abortion debate that's been going on in America for the last forty years. Virtually all Christians take a pro-life position on this issue. Now, I don't mean to criticize the pro-life position, in fact I tend to lean that way myself. However, these people will also oppose stem-cell research on the grounds that this research involves using leftover embryos from in vitro fertilization attempts. Here we have a case of Christian absolutism having a very negative affect on research that could cure many kinds of ailments. Again, this is because Christians take their commandments literally to the point of absurdity.

Now here's what's really strange about all of this. Christian morality is only based loosely on what the Bible actually says. There's no commandment in the Bible which says "thou shalt not do an abortion." In fact the Biblical pro-life case is weak at best (again, not that I'm criticizing the pro-life position itself). And the commandment against bearing false witness, when read in context, only applies to lying in court. Essentially it's a commandment against perjury. There are examples of people in the Bible lying in order to save lives, and these lies are approved of by God (Bible references available upon request). It's almost as if Christians ignore their own holy books in order to come up with doctrines that will best instill obedience to their authorities. For example, though Christians are theoretically opposed to all forms of lying, they have no problem with government operatives who lie while performing clandestine intelligence operations. This is because another of evangelical Christianity's commandments requires American patriotism, and no evangelical would ever criticize the government. Thus they come up with theological gymnastics to explain why lying is only OK when it's being done for the government. Perhaps this is also how so-called pro-life evangelicals justify their love of guns and violence.

We need to be aware of how Christianity affects people's behavior and causes cognative dissonance, so that we can avoid falling into the same trap. This is especially true for those of us who live in the West.

My guru and my husbands guru taught us along time ago that Jesus illustrated the principle, “Aham Brahmaasmi”. We are Spirits in a material body in a material world. When this was understood by common man, since the era it first occurred, allowed for the development of human-rights as we know them today. It is harder to deify a monarch if all the constituency believes that the souls of man are united with the Super-Soul who art in Heaven.

Regarding the allusion to “Deadbeats”:

“Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it” --- George Santiana Santana

With the obvious exception of TTA, I think most of us have no problem with Jesus. Except for his hell doctrine (which is perhaps misunderstood due to Paul), pretty much everything he says agrees with Hinduism as I understand it. To paraphrase Mahatma Gandhi, the problem with Christianity is the Christians, who are so unlike Christ. Given all that Jesus preached about care for the poor, how else could it be that Christians only care about guns, gays, and conversion?

Let's consider your point about human rights. I agree that it's harder to deify a monarch when you believe that everyone has a soul that comes from Brahman. In Christianity, only Christians have the Holy Spirit (the rest of us are pagans), but since most people in medieval Europe were at least nominally Christian, let's ignore that for the moment. In theory, Jesus' teachings should cause monarchies to evolve into democracies. But Jesus' teachings took a back seat to Christian absolutist commandments. The idea of the king's "divine right" to rule is a characteristically Christian value. Just as modern evangelical Christianity teaches American patriotism, medieval Christianity taught all of Britain's subjects to chant "God save the King." This comes from the Bible's teaching that all goverments are ordained by God. Christians tweak this slightly (as they do with many Biblical teachings), and say that only Christian governments are ordained by God. That's why Christian converts in India are instilled with American patriotism instead of Indian patriotism.

Yes, Jesus' teachings teach human rights. But since when have Christians cared what Jesus taught? If we ever study Jesus, we should do so in a completely Hindu context. EM's warning about staying away from Christianity is based on the very poisonous effect that it has on the human mind. We as Hindus need to stay away from their churches, and only read their literature with a strong mind and a good understanding of how adharmic Christian teachings really are.

[Sagefrakrobatik]

What an unabashed display of ego that some youth are capable of and consider it a merit! You would count the BAPS, RKM, ISKCON and even "Ama's Ashram" (there is no such Hindu name as Ama; AMA is an abbreviation for the American Medical Association) because YOU visited them, and for others I need to give you a list! For one who would visit India occasionally, meet a commie friend and consider his words as the gospel truth about Hindu gurus and Hindu religious institutions, even seeing may not amount to believing: if you are serious and are capable of being objective in your comparative religious studies, search the Net, my young friend.

The person I was refering to is a social work major he deals with poverty all the time. He told me how people give and give money to spiritual leaders but never get anything back. I wish I could get a hold of him so I could explain it better but he never got in contact with me. I dont consider what he said to be absolute truth its just an opinion.
BTW i was refering to Amma, Mata Amritanandamayi Devi

The pedophile scandal is a problem of the church and not that of its followers?! And that doesn't say much about the church? What else you people need to take religious things with the severity that they deserve?

Could you rephrase this i am not getting you.

Or perhaps, since you have not mentioned anything about your religion in your profile, you consider yourself irreligious, but in that case, why bother about Hinduism?

I was raised Catholic but have been on and off studying different religions to find out which one is the true religion. Either all religions are true none are true or some are true and not others. Hinduism is the third largest religion in the world. How can i know about religions comprehensively without studying hinduism?

Because of the limitation of length to the text, your Purpose in the profile reads only this: "I study all religions. I want to know why so many Hindus belief in a religion with little proof. where as in Christianity or Islam"... Do complete what you wanted to say here in a post, so people like me can challenge you meaningfully and with purpose, instead of wasting our precious time.

What I am trying to say is that there are numerous books on how Christianity is superior to other religions and how Jesus did exist yet I dont see this same rigorous scholarship in Hinduism. Most Hindus I talk to do not care if the stories their holy books are factual or not. I dont see as many literalist in Hinduism as I do in CHristianity. I think this has to do with the bible itself. From the Torah to the Gospel It is clear that the Christian God is said to be "real" whereas all others are fake idols. In Paul he speaks of this in the post-ressurected cannon. How he told people that he had proof his God was true and the others aren't. I would quote the bible to you for specific examples but it would take to long. Maybe in another post. I am not letting Christianity off the hook either. I plan on fully investigating Christian beliefs as well. From all perspectives; Christian, Atheist, Jewish Muslim etc.

I will give you a more concrete idea of what i mean. Sometimes when i am in the bookstore I see Christian books that attempt to "prove" Jesus existed and he said who he said he was.

I tried to find the same type of investigation on Krishna or Rama or any other character from the Vedas, Puranas, Epics, Upainshads etc. when I visited several book stores in Kerala but I found nothing.

I expect some cock and bull story to soon emerge, out of your cursory studies of concise versions of Hindu itihAsas. First, try to get the spellings of Hindu text names right, my friend!

Well after i read it i plan on going through the forums and seeing how other people intrepeted those stories.

[Eastern Mind]

Sage: If you intend to study Hinduism with any justice, you'd better have some time. There are at least 100 times more words in our scriptures than in any of the relatively small books of the three Abrahamic religions. So imagine studying your Bible through 100 times. Besides that, almost all of it is in Sanskrit. Any translations are biased as per the translator. So be prepared to become a Sanskrit expert and discover new concepts for the mind that don't exist in English.

Then there is the non-scripture Hinduism, as often stated in this:" Hinduism is a way of life." So be prepared to live in several hundred villages for at least a year each so you can get a handle on the rich diversity of some 30 languages, local food types, varieties of bananas, dress types, multitudinous local customs, both family and society, how the varna structure operates without words, etc.

But best of luck to you. Wouldn't it be simpler just to remain a Catholic and live a good life within that?

Aum Namasivaya.

[sanjaya]

What I am trying to say is that there are numerous books on how Christianity is superior to other religions and how Jesus did exist yet I dont see this same rigorous scholarship in Hinduism. Most Hindus I talk to do not care if the stories their holy books are factual or not. I dont see as many literalist in Hinduism as I do in CHristianity. I think this has to do with the bible itself. From the Torah to the Gospel It is clear that the Christian God is said to be "real" whereas all others are fake idols. In Paul he speaks of this in the post-ressurected cannon. How he told people that he had proof his God was true and the others aren't. I would quote the bible to you for specific examples but it would take to long. Maybe in another post. I am not letting Christianity off the hook either. I plan on fully investigating Christian beliefs as well. From all perspectives; Christian, Atheist, Jewish Muslim etc.

I will give you a more concrete idea of what i mean. Sometimes when i am in the bookstore I see Christian books that attempt to "prove" Jesus existed and he said who he said he was.

I tried to find the same type of investigation on Krishna or Rama or any other character from the Vedas, Puranas, Epics, Upainshads etc. when I visited several book stores in Kerala but I found nothing.

Thank you for elaborating. I've always been curious about the statement in your profile asking why we Hindus believe in a religion that lacks proof. Specifically, I think there may be some confusion here concerning the idea of "proof," and evidence.

The issue here is historicity. Christianity makes certain historical claims on which the whole religion hinges. As the Bible itself says, if Jesus didn't literally rise from the dead, then Christianity is utterly worthless (see 1 Corinthians 15). This reliance on historicity, I believe, is somewhat unique to Christianity. Even the Abrahamic religion of Judaism, from which Christianity comes, does not share this ethic. There is no physical evidence that Moses ever existed, that the Jews ever lived in Egypt, that there was an exodus, or that God ever literally spoke to them at Mount Sinai. Most educated Jews are well aware of this, and yet they believe that their Torah comes from God and contains valuable teachings. Likewise, it isn't important to most of us Hindus if Rama or Krishna were historical figures, or if the stories are based only on kernals of truth. Their teachings contain valuable wisdom which has a very real impact on our lives.

I would actually contend that there is more evidence for Hinduism than there is for Christianity. As the Buddha said, you shouldn't trust what other people say about God. You need to experience him for yourself. Numerous people in Hinduism have prayed to God, done pujas to him, and had powerful religious experiences. And as Krishna promised, every time there is a decrease in the world's righteousness, God has become incarnate as a man. Many Hindu saints have appeared throughout the centuries and have done recorded miracles. Take the example of Shirdi Sai Baba. He lived in a small village in India, taught his disciples many spiritual teachings, and performed miracles that were recorded by contemporary sources. Sounds similar to the Christian gospel story, doesn't it? The difference is that Baba lived in the nineteenth century. We even have photographs of him, so there's no doubt as to this person's existence. In Christianity, there's no such thing as experiencing God (except perhaps in the new Pentecostal churches, which have their own host of problems). You have to take the Bible on faith, regardless of whether it corresponds to reality or not. Christians explain away miracles in other religions as the work of demons. A scientifically-minded person should take issue with this doctrine, because it's completely untestable. If you adopt the idea that the Bible is true and that demons can fake all of God's miracles, there's no test you could possibly perform to disprove this claim.

But what about the volumes of literature you talked about, which are supposed proofs of Christianity? I've read a lot of these works, and the scholarship is laughable. Take creation "science" for example. I think the poor quality of creationist literature speaks for itself. The proofs of the resurrection of Jesus are also dubious. A cursory reading of the gospel accounts of the resurrection (there are four of them) will reveal recollections that seem to contradict each other. Thus, much of the literature defending the resurrection doctrine focuses on harmonizing the gospels. The basic claim is that the gospels should be read like newspapers, where different witnesses will tell stories that appear to differ simply because they're coming from different points of view. At best, this may show that the gospels are self-consistent. But this does nothing to give the gospels any more veracity than the historical claims of other religions. Christians will claim that "numerous" extrabiblical sources refer to Jesus as a historical figure. In reality, "numerous" means two, namely Tacitus and Pliny the Younger. Each of these Roman writers mention Jesus once, but only when talking about his followers. And if I' not mistaken, their writings are from the second century. So this simply amounts to a proof that Christianity existed in the second century. I've even heard Christians claim that we have Roman court records of Jesus' trial. That claim is patently false, no such records exist.

Given that there are two billion Christians in the world, statistically there are going to be some smart Christians out there. The problem is that there are working with a religious scripture that contains numerous errors and illogical statements. So what you have is some very smart people working hard to make an illogical book sound reasonable. They've got very good rhetorical skills and access to the vast financial resources of the West, but this doesn't amount to evidence. At one point in my life I personally considered Christianity. I did a good deal of research, and even read the whole Bible. I found my own religion, Hinduism, to be far more reasonable. Hinduism has correspondance to reality. You can experience God for yourself, and you're not forced to believe in a religious scripture that contradicts what you can learn with your five senses.

I'd be interested in having a discussion on this (start a new thread if you feel so inclined). Whatever evidence you think points to Christianity, I believe it will ultimately prove to be spurious. It seems to me that there is much more evidence that Hinduism is a true religion.

[Sagefrakrobatik]

Sage: If you intend to study Hinduism with any justice, you'd better have some time. There are at least 100 times more words in our scriptures than in any of the relatively small books of the three Abrahamic religions. So imagine studying your Bible through 100 times. Besides that, almost all of it is in Sanskrit. Any translations are biased as per the translator. So be prepared to become a Sanskrit expert and discover new concepts for the mind that don't exist in English.

Then there is the non-scripture Hinduism, as often stated in this:" Hinduism is a way of life." So be prepared to live in several hundred villages for at least a year each so you can get a handle on the rich diversity of some 30 languages, local food types, varieties of bananas, dress types, multitudinous local customs, both family and society, how the varna structure operates without words, etc.

But best of luck to you. Wouldn't it be simpler just to remain a Catholic and live a good life within that?

Aum Namasivaya.

Well I will just keep it on "Scriptural Hinduism" The same lengthy exigencies would be required for other religions as well I suppse. If i would like to study Judaism I would have to learn Hebrew, read the Tanakh, The Kabal, and the both the Encyclopedic size Palestinian Talmud and Babylonian. Likewise if I want to know Islam from a scriptural standpoint I would study the QUran in Arabic read the numerous hadiths keeping in mind that Shias and SUnnis have diffferent collections.

What about Sikhism? Doesnt the Granith Sahib contain several text from a variety of languages? Buddhism?? Do you know how long the Tripitka is?

So you see one thing that sticks scripturally from Christianity among other religions is its brevity. You could add all the "Gnostic gospels" like Thomas, Phillip Mary etc. but the Church Fathers did not include them in the cannonization process. You can also add the "Tradition" of catholic saints but that wouldnt really count because it came after Paul! See how confusing this is!

The Two Versions of Hindu Epics I have are from C. Rajagopalachari. They are roughly 400 plus pages. That may contain everything in these gigantic stories but at least I am doing more to understand Hinduism then some New Age baby boomer who read "An autobigraphy of a Yogi" Or some young hipster from the 60's who wanted to protested "the white Establishment" by dabling into Eastern Philosophy for "Enlightenment?"

Sorry to sound crass but I sometimes wonder about these Non-indian Hindus who "try out" hinduism to get a spiritual high with out having a comprehensive understanding of the religion.

[Sagefrakrobatik]

I also wanted to ask if I learn Hindi will my understanding of the hindu scriptures be different then if i were to read them in English? I learned a little bit of Sanskrit when I was in India. "MOMMA NOMMA DAVID" My professor told me that all Indian languages are derived from Sanskrit. Thats nice but I want to learn a language I can also use in everyday conversation. Alot of words from different languages come from Latin but Latin Wouldnt help me navagate my way through South America.

Sorry for going off the Tangent

[Sagefrakrobatik]

Thank you for elaborating. I've always been curious about the statement in your profile asking why we Hindus believe in a religion that lacks proof. Specifically, I think there may be some confusion here concerning the idea of "proof," and evidence.

The issue here is historicity. Christianity makes certain historical claims on which the whole religion hinges. As the Bible itself says, if Jesus didn't literally rise from the dead, then Christianity is utterly worthless (see 1 Corinthians 15). This reliance on historicity, I believe, is somewhat unique to Christianity.

This is true. One thing I noticed as I read over the bible again and underline everything I find interesting or important is the empahsis on what is perceived to be the Truth. Paul goes to different cultures explaining to them why Jesus is the Son of God and why the Ressurection is the truth whereas other gods dont exist or are demons. But you can go further. There are several examples of the Tribe of Israel "proving" the superiority of their God over the non-existent inferior "Idol-gods."

In fact part of the Old testment does not deny that other gods exist but that the supreme God is the God of Israel. Later the concept evolves into strict monotheism where there are no other gods except God elohim or Hashem as commonly refered to. There is a great book on this subject called the "Evolution of God" which talks of this.

I think this is why apologetics is so central to Christianity as oppose to other religons.

Even the Abrahamic religion of Judaism, from which Christianity comes, does not share this ethic. There is no physical evidence that Moses ever existed, that the Jews ever lived in Egypt, that there was an exodus, or that God ever literally spoke to them at Mount Sinai. Most educated Jews are well aware of this, and yet they believe that their Torah comes from God and contains valuable teachings. Likewise, it isn't important to most of us Hindus if Rama or Krishna were historical figures, or if the stories are based only on kernals of truth. Their teachings contain valuable wisdom which has a very real impact on our lives.

For me thats fine. If gambling lust etc is bad then who cares how you recieve that message as so long as you recieve it. However for fundamentalist Christians other religions are "false Prophets" "Wolfs in Sheep Clothing" but lets entertain these notions. Suppose that all religions are false but Christianity. All other teachers are false but these religions teach the same value as christianity; love the poor, love your neigbor, but they dont affirm or they might deny the Crucifixtion historicity of the bible, John 3:16 etc.

Does it still matter? Well of course it does if fate of your soul is held in abeyance because of it? If the fate your eternal soul is determined by an article of religious belief such as monotheism or the Historicty of Jesus then I guess it matters.

But if it mattered so much why would not God come down here or do something more powerful to show with out a shadow of a doubt that Christianity is true and absolute. If I was God and compassion was one of my qualities why would I only allow 1/3 of the world's population attain heaven and the rest suffer eternal hell? If there was only one true path to God as God I would ensure that there is no confusion and eliminate all other religions. But lets face it that does not happen. If as God this was important to me that people follow only one "Straight and narrow path" (read religion) Overnight I would have all the the non true religious institutions be destroyed. Or do something to that magnitutude rather than rely simply on human beings to convince each other of the true religion.

Sorry to sound extreme.

I would actually contend that there is more evidence for Hinduism than there is for Christianity. As the Buddha said, you shouldn't trust what other people say about God. You need to experience him for yourself.

That reminds me of another saying attributed to the Buddha

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.

Interstingly enough through an internet search i come to discover that this sayings is attributed incorrectly. It is not in the pali Cannon but as one internet user posted is an incorrect translation a more precise translation would render the reading;

Kalamas in Anguttura Nikaya 3:65 - "...don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them."


sorry for the digression i just thought it was interesting.

[Znanna]

Here's a bit of a spoof ... but sometimes humor is most revealing!

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1...okburning.html

More seriously, book burning hasn't gone away, there are many who use "religion" to promote their agenda of expansion of a particular point of view to greater numbers in search of greater influence over a larger populace.

Personally, while I try to respect others' POV, I have a problem with anyone else's interpretation or restriction of interpretation of "HOLY" force fed ... to me, the only path is to experience "HOLY" without interpretation; I can only find this in meditation. Understanding and interpretation of the experience gained through practice is aided by study, but study follows practice, IMO, it is not the same.

Namaste,
ZN

[Sagefrakrobatik]

Numerous people in Hinduism have prayed to God, done pujas to him, and had powerful religious experiences.

It would be interesting to hear about these "experiences"

And as Krishna promised, every time there is a decrease in the world's righteousness, God has become incarnate as a man.

This is one of my favorite verses in the Gita it shows that God's relationship to man is evolutionary. It keeps evolving. In the United Church of Christ there is a common saying "God is still speaking" i think this is a similar idea that God's inteventionism does not end with any paticular religion.

Many Hindu saints have appeared throughout the centuries and have done recorded miracles. Take the example of Shirdi Sai Baba. He lived in a small village in India, taught his disciples many spiritual teachings, and performed miracles that were recorded by contemporary sources. Sounds similar to the Christian gospel story, doesn't it? The difference is that Baba lived in the nineteenth century. We even have photographs of him, so there's no doubt as to this person's existence.

Its interesting I always hear this guy mentioned. I get him confused with Sathya Sai Baba for whom I have seen alot of people criticize him. Did the Sai Baba from the 19th century ever know about Rama krishna?

In Christianity, there's no such thing as experiencing God (except perhaps in the new Pentecostal churches, which have their own host of problems). You have to take the Bible on faith, regardless of whether it corresponds to reality or not.

What about Christian Mysticism? or the biographies of the Saints? Paticularly saints like St. Francis of Assis.

Christians explain away miracles in other religions as the work of demons. A scientifically-minded person should take issue with this doctrine, because it's completely untestable. If you adopt the idea that the Bible is true and that demons can fake all of God's miracles, there's no test you could possibly perform to disprove this claim.

This is unfortunate. I tried to express this to someone who is Christian. If a Christian suffering then that means that it is done for the glorification of God through Christ. In other words a suffering Christian is a sign that God is "testing them" but if someone from another religion is suffering then God is punishing that person. Similarly if a person from another religion is prosperous then that is the work of the devil misleading them but if it is a Christian then that is God blessing them. Its inconsistent and does not make sense. Or God makes the followers "bear their own crosses" in remembrance of Christ.

There has to be a more independent way of testing the veracity of Christianity then saying its true because of some personal spiritual experience or because Jesus is "Unique"

But what about the volumes of literature you talked about, which are supposed proofs of Christianity? I've read a lot of these works, and the scholarship is laughable. Take creation "science" for example. I think the poor quality of creationist literature speaks for itself. The proofs of the resurrection of Jesus are also dubious. A cursory reading of the gospel accounts of the resurrection (there are four of them) will reveal recollections that seem to contradict each other.

I am refering to literature from Ravi Zachrias, Lee Strobel's series, The case for Christ, The Real Jesus, Jeff McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" "Death of a Guru" Micael Brown etc. and other simliar apologetic literature and numerous websites like Christian Answers and Answering Islam. Interestingly enough, not all Christians believe that Jesus is the only way to heaven. Bishop Shelby Spong is an intersting contrast from the others mention.

Thus, much of the literature defending the resurrection doctrine focuses on harmonizing the gospels. The basic claim is that the gospels should be read like newspapers, where different witnesses will tell stories that appear to differ simply because they're coming from different points of view. At best, this may show that the gospels are self-consistent. But this does nothing to give the gospels any more veracity than the historical claims of other religions.

I have often wondered why if Jesus had 12 disciples only a third of them have records about him, There is no Gospel of Bartholemew, Phillip, Andrew Thomas, etc. At best they are treated as "not official"

Christians will claim that "numerous" extrabiblical sources refer to Jesus as a historical figure. In reality, "numerous" means two, namely Tacitus and Pliny the Younger. Each of these Roman writers mention Jesus once, but only when talking about his followers. And if I' not mistaken, their writings are from the second century. So this simply amounts to a proof that Christianity existed in the second century. I've even heard Christians claim that we have Roman court records of Jesus' trial. That claim is patently false, no such records exist.

Similarly in the post-ressurection scriptures Acts of the Apostles, episles, etc. Paul constantly refers to the Sanhderin (Jewish court) however I asked someone who is Jewish if there is a record of Paul in the Sanhedrin (the records of the Sanhedrin are contained in the Talmud) they told me no.

Given that there are two billion Christians in the world, statistically there are going to be some smart Christians out there. The problem is that there are working with a religious scripture that contains numerous errors and illogical statements. So what you have is some very smart people working hard to make an illogical book sound reasonable. They've got very good rhetorical skills but this doesn't amount to evidence. At one point in my life I personally considered Christianity. I did a good deal of research, and even read the whole Bible. I found my own religion, Hinduism, to be far more reasonable. Hinduism has correspondance to reality. You can experience God for yourself, and you're not forced to believe in a religious scripture that contradicts what you can learn with your five senses.

Did you Know that one of the greatest Christian Apologist to ever existed C.S. Lewis was also split between Hinduism and Christianity. There are a host of reasons why I find Hinduism sketchy. I wont get in it because I have written to much as it is. At any rate I have been meaning to investigate the supposed "Contradictions in the bible" one example I have heard but dont remember reading is that there are two different accounts of how Judas died. There is a book called From "Preacher to Atheist" and in it there is a chapter that talks about the numerous "contradictions in the bible" One of these days I will look into it.

I'd be interested in having a discussion on this (start a new thread if you feel so inclined). Whatever evidence you think points to Christianity, I believe it will ultimately prove to be spurious. It seems to me that there is much more evidence that Hinduism is a true religion.

Although ideally I would love to have this indepth and engaging conversation/debate however I am academically overwhelmed with other interest. I am studying Arabic and working towards a BA with three majors and one certificate in Journalism. In addition I am trying to get an internship in Washington. So I cant devote as much time to it as I would like. However I maybe able to try and moderate a debate between this forum and a catholic forum i belong to. If your interest. Right now in my life I dont have time to read everything under the sun on Christianity and Hinduism.