meenakshiamman

I don't see how I'm bashing Jesus? I mean, this is an open discussion. If someone proves me wrong, I'm fine with that. This is just currently how I stand, but I don't claim to have these beliefs set in stone. I find these debates to be productive and I feel I learn from them every time. The difference between the contradiction that you listed and contradictions in the Bible (which I agree that they both set themselves up for contradictions) is that on a general basis, people accept these contradictions and realize that they exist. In the Bible however, Christians turn a complete blind eye to it, thus creating their own version of Jesus in their minds. There's not a particular problem with this, however. They can do what they want, but it's hard to say "I worship Jesus" when I'm not sure what he was even about. I suppose this is a big deal for me as I was raised all-protestant. Christian schools and all. I lived it. The vagueness of the Bible as well as such contradictions sparked a lot of strange beliefs in American Protestantism. When I realized that these people I grew up with were merely picking and choosing what suited them from the scriptures...my beliefs were quite shaken. I am not blaming Jesus for this. Nor the Christians that do this. (most of them don't know any better) However, I don't believe that any form of Christianity really exists that can honestly say they understand Jesus or know why they are worshipping him.

I came in to talk religion because I find it fascinating and genuinely enjoy discussing it. I see no problem with this. However, it seems that we've hijacked your thread. Therefore, we didn't really miss the boat, but merely ignored it.

I will agree that perhaps these scriptures were based on a real person. However, we do not know if even the people writing these scriptures really knew him or not. Also, due to the many contradictions between them, we do not know which is truthful or not. Therefore how can we even worship him or claim to know anything about him or his true teachings? In order to do this would be to take all of the scriptures attributed to him at face value...even if you want to believe in a virgin birth, there are many other things to consider. Which do you take as fact or fiction? If these scriptures were not so inconsistent and contained so many contradictions (in facts) and had not so obviously been tampered with over time, perhaps there would be something left to have faith in. In order to do all of the above, one would have to make up their own version of Jesus in their head for the purpose of worship. Which many have done. As for Mark being anti-sementic, well, I will have to make a second post on that tomorrow. I think I'm too sleepy for this one tonight. No, I have not read the book you mentioned. The above post was from many things that I've read over time and have been stored as a mish-mash in my head. This is also not an attack on Christians (which I believe I stated above)...I respect Christians but am rather exhausted with the main idea that the Bible is without error or that Jesus is a cemented idea.

I feel that Krishna and Shiva are linked. Do they not both worship one another? I find it hard to separate the two in my mind. I think calling him a demi-god is a downright insult, personally. Is this to say that all of those who have worshipped him as the ultimate for thousands of years are now being called fools?

No, but there is other proof of your mother's existence. (Such as a photograph, her physical presence, written letters etc.) I only focused on Christ's birth to use as an example. I could've used many more. Still, the only evidence we have of Jesus' existence are the Gospels...and the Gospels are so untrustworthy that how can we really believe they were based on fact to begin with? BTW, this is not in any way Anti-Christian. I was born into a strict Protestant family...I was told to take everything the Bible said at face value. So, to find later that so many errors existed, seriously changed my entire spiritual outlook. This, however, does not mean that I disrespect Christians in any way and could easily worship Jesus just as much as I could worship Krishna or Lord Shiva.

Well, this is simply my opinion. The Gospels put Jesus in an actual place and time, meeting with actual figures of the time. This makes it easier to go into surviving historical records and cross reference. For starters, Jesus' birth story is rather easy to disprove. It would've made absolutely no sense for Jesus to have been born in Bethlehem. It would've made no sense for Joseph to have gone to his "ancestral" town to be taxed. (his father's town perhaps...but his distanced ancestral town?) There is no record of a "worldwide" census, which would've obviously have been documented. There are also conflicting scriptures that say Jesus was born in Nazareth or Galilee, even a scripture where people are mocking him, claiming he can't be the Messiah "because he wasn't born in Bethlehem"...which is it? As for a virgin birth: Romans 1:3: "...Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." No such thing is listed in the earliest of Gospels, as well as the Gospel of Mark. If these are supposed to be biographical scriptures on Jesus' life, why would they not be mentioned? None of the Gospels seems to even be able to agree on who Jesus was even related to. Also, the idea of the virgin birth seems to come from a mistranslation of an older scripture which would've translated as "young girl" and not "virgin". Some of the more miraculous aspects of Jesus' life seems to closely parallel the life of Krishna, as well as the God Horus and seemed to be an attempt to appeal to people of Pagan faiths. Why also would Joseph have taken Mary to Bethlehem, obviously late in her pregnancy? Only men were taxed at the time. The Gospel of Mark is almost completely compiled of re-written scriptures that were written many years before Mark. It is also quite anti-jewish, reflecting the sentiments at the time. This is the original of the four basic Gospels and the others reference it heavily. The Gospel of Luke was apparently written as an argument against earlier Gospels. Supposedly it's author felt that previous Gospels were not "accurate" enough. Why then would all four of these Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) be included together and are supposedly complimentary? It is believed by some that several parts of the Gospels have been a forgery, added later to the scriptures. When we completely base our opinions of Jesus on these Gospels that are obviously not very trustworthy...then how can we believe in His existence? Sorry for such a long post. I could've added much more to it, only I have to go to work.

Yes, but the Jesus thing is a bit complex. It's not just that we can't prove he exists...it's that we can prove that things attributed to him never happened at all. Again, this doesn't mean that he didn't exist, but that obviously whoever wrote the Gospels (or whoever decided to edit them later) was rather untruthful.

Allow me (if it's ok) to put a semi-ex-christian, non-vaishnava influenced stance on this. There is very little if any proof of Jesus' existence. At least, if you believe everything said about him in the Gospels. The thing is that so many times and locations etc. are mentioned in accordance to His lifetime that one can in theory research these references and see if they add up. For example, it has mostly proven that Jesus could not have been born in Bethlehem. Even though that is the popular consensus. This does not exactly prove that he didn't exist, but that perhaps what has been written about him is not exactly truthful.

I am rather surprised at this answer as I do care and have genuine questions of which I was hoping an answer. Who better to ask than a devout follower? The only real answer I've gotten to my last question is that you believe your path to be superior to others. You have never stated exactly why. I am genuinely concerned on this topic and these questions are in no way meant to be an attack on you or anyone else.

Thank you for your beautifully put post. I think that this is very much in line with my sentiments.

Why is Krishna in everything and not other deities? Why is He the only omnipresent deity? What proof is there that other deities cannot? I am being told to take things at face value too often when I ask these questions. All religions claim that their ultimate deity is omnipresent and blows all other deities out of the water. What makes them different from you or other Krishna consciousness followers?

Why so elite? Why must we have to see Krsna in everything? Is there not a time and place to see other deities as well? Or perhaps some of us are not at the right stage for Krsna worshipping? Also, exactly what constitutes as a demi-god to the Krsna Consciousness movement? All religions do have an equal thread in that all people are looking for something bigger than themselves. A great surrender of their egos for a greater Spirit or cause. Still, I am becoming weary of this elitist attitude. I have enjoyed my time at an ISKCON temple, but I have heard things that have sent alarm bells off in my head. I've heard Buddhists being called a "cult" and I've also heard Saivites being criticized and supposedly "blown out of the water" by the Krsna Consciousness movement. This does not exactly set well with me.

Thank you very much for your answer. I have on a general basis always thought the way that you do. Still, I am friends with many strict Vaishnavas and somehow feel a pressure that I should worship Krsna only and should not bother elsewhere. This pressure could only be in my head however.

I am going to try and ask this question as responsibly as possible. Does one have to always worship Lord Krsna and His Consort? If so, why? I only ask because, I feel a great need to worship others such as Devi Durga and Lord Siva...probably even more so than I feel a need to worship Lord Krsna. Is this a bad thing? I ask out of sincerity. While I thoroughly enjoy worshipping Lord Krsna, I mostly do not worship Him at home. Although I have a picture of Lord Vishnu on my modest in-home altar. Also, (and this probably requires a separate thread sometime) other sects believe in certain deities to be Supreme other than Lord Krsna. What is to be believed? I don't claim to be a very advanced spiritual person, but I have many questions.

The pastor in this case is adapting his ideas all of "Hinduism" and comparing them to Christian scriptures. Modern Christianity teaches that the Bible is word for word what they believe in and is the basis for everything. The Bible is God and they will consult it for everything and every situation. The only way to give a reply that would be taken seriously is to somehow compare vedic philosophy with biblical philosophy in a reverse sense. I am not advanced enough to do this personally, but it will be the only way to talk to someone like this. Respectfully of course.