Christianity is simpler

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

 

Here's a part of a piece by Narasingha Maharaja:

"Gour Mohan De, a pure devotee of Krsna, desired the very best for his son. "Please bless him," he used to say, whenever holy men used to visit his home. "Please bless my son that he will become a great devotee of Srimati Radharani."

Srila Prabhupada said, "My father also trained me and instructed me to his best capacity, and he prayed for me that Radharani may be pleased upon me, and I think by my father's blessings and grace, I may have come to this position, and I have gotten into relationship with His Divine Grace Om Visnupada Sri Srimad Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Goswami Maharaja also by his mercy. So it is Krsna's grace that I got a good father and also a good spiritual master."

What else did Gour Mohan desire for his son? "He should learn to play mrdanga very nicely and he should engage in the worship of Sri Sri Radha-Govinda.""

This is also confirmed in Bhaktivedanta purport in S.B. that I can't quote at this time. (can somebody find it?)

Where does this fit it your line of reasoning?

 

 

With his father's help he found a good teacher...

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

 

I have a Bhagavad Gita. There is no need to copy-paste entire purports. Besides I've read it in its entirety. I still refuse to subjugate my soul and mind entirely to another human being. It is incompatible with Judao-Christian teaching and more importantly my own conscience , the still small voice within. It is easily the origin of all the corruption I have known in Eastern religions, especially the ones transplanted here. Luckily Eastern gurus are no longer fashionable like they were in the sixties and seventies. By now most of them have been exposed as charlatans. In the case of Bhaktivedant swami, his organization has been exposed time and time again as corrupt. Do not proselityze me with this kind of Hinduism. Except possibly with Buddhism I think we've come to a period of Western history when Orientalism is an idea whose time has come and gone.

 

 

If you're going to devote yourself to this path - then - you aught to have proper understanding of Jesus and - that includes understanding that he wasn't the predicted messiah - the facts on this are clear - i was wondering about your thoughts on this.

 

The fact is - Jesus cannot be the messiah predicted yet to come - within the Hebrew scriptures.

 

If he were - the world would not be in this mess - he would not have to so-called 'come again' - there are NO texts in the hebrew holy books that speak of two comings to complete the mission - [i know all that about the suffering servant verses and it ain't about Jesus and this issue] - also some major texts in the 'christian' bible are translated wrong.

 

One is in Psalms 22.17 [text 16 in your bible]:

 

So in the King James bible it reads this way:

 

For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

 

However - in the Hebrew Bible it reads this way:

 

For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me;like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.

 

So in the KJ version it is changed to try to draw a connection to Jesus and the Crucifixion by which he was murdered by the Roman State - however - the imprtant words were changed to support a nonexistent connection of this verse to Jesus and his death!

 

So the original hebrew word-phrase "like a lion" is rendered into "they pierced my hands and my feet" - how was that done?

 

The hebrew word-phrase "KeAri" [like a lion] was changed to "Kari" [which means 'he gouged me' - rendered into the english as they pierced my hands and my feet].

 

That is a fact.

 

Another text that is oft misquoted to support the Crucifixion/messiah theory is Zechariah 13.6 which reads [in the hebrew Bible] like this:

 

And one shall say unto him: 'What are these wounds between thy hands?' Then he shall answer: 'Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.'

 

This text has nothing to do with Jesus nor the messiah! It has to do with false prophets of the line of the ancient Baal religion. These texts [Zechariah 3-6] in context may be a warning to false prophets - with the advent of/during the messianic age.

 

Literally "wounds between your hands." The false prophets like the prophet of Baal [i kings 18.28: And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with swords and lances, till the blood gushed out upon them] - apparently inflicted wounds on themselves - to defend against the accusation of being a false prophet - the idea was that a man would deny having inflicted wounds on himself - instead saying that he received them at home - "in the house of my dear ones."

 

So on the face of it when one takes the mistranslated Psalms 22.16 text and misapplies it with this Zecharaiah 13.6 quote - it may look like there is a seeming pattern which speaks of the murder of messiah - by Crucifixion - when in fact it doesn't in the least.

 

There is much much more to it than that! So let's start there.

 

Can you find me 'old testement' quotes that teach 'original sin' and some [and not Isaiah's 'suffering servant' descriptions] that say anything about messiah having to come once die by Crucifixion for everyone's sins and come again 2000+ years later to complete the mission?

 

Since i bring up the Isaiah quotes let's look at this:

 

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. [isaiah 53.10, King James version]

 

The same text from the Hebrew Bible reads quite differntly and enters an interesting point about the messiah:

 

Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of the LORD might prosper by his hand: [isaiah 53.10, Hebrew Bible]

 

There is a significant difference contrasted in - to bruise him - and - to crush him by disease - obvious changes.

 

Also - when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin - contrasted to - to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution - this change goes to the heart of the false theory of original sin and false theory of messiah being a sacrifice for sin [enough edits that's another posting].

 

In text 3 of chapter 53 of Isaiah we read:

 

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. [isaiah 53.3, King James version]

 

He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not. [isaiah 53.3, Hebrew Bible]

 

Can you see all these bogus changes there within the King James translation?

 

Why are these changes introduced?

 

It is that there was no reference to Jesus being a man of pains, and acquainted with disease - so instead - they changed it to - a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief - do keep in mind the changes to the later verse [10] - where it should read - it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease - however - it reads like this in the King James - it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief - so these are important disparities which all can see.

 

Messiah shall be someone who is diseased and - Jesus wasn't recorded in the gospels as being diseased - he is recorded as having cured them - of course - we can see in these texts what disease it may be - a clue:

 

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. [isaiah 53.4, King James version]

 

Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. [isaiah 53.4, Hebrew Bible]

 

So "griefs" and "diseases" are two distinct states - and they aren't mutually exclusive states either.

 

In that text the change to "griefs" from "diseases" - is carried through but - one part remains the same - we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted - what these words - stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted- are traditionally speaking of - is skin disease - like leprosy etc., something quite different from "griefs" or "sorrows"!

 

So of course - another part should be explained in context to this - in text 5 we read:

 

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. [isaiah 53.5, King James Version]

 

Whereas in the original it really reads:

 

But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed. [isaiah 53.5, Hebrew Bible]

 

Just see these changes all noted in red - "was wounded" [not killed] and - "for" is different from "because of" - this text does not support the false theory that messiah shall 'have' to die for anyone's sins [how the sacrificial theory relates to the messianic age is another discussion] - what to speak sins brought about by the non-biblical original sin theory.

 

In that day, saith the LORD, will I assemble her that halteth, and I will gather her that is driven away, and her that I have afflicted; And I will make her that halted a remnant, and her that was cast far off a mighty nation; and the LORD shall reign over them in mount Zion from thenceforth even for ever. [Micah 4.6-7]

 

Of course the messiah that is expected - shall not be seen through any second advent of Jesus - because Jesus isn't the prophetically expected messiah - the 'why not' part of that - is a whole other discussion .

 

So it should be noted that the expected messiah [a complex subject matter] - is a human being - not God - not an incarnation [partial or otherwise] he isn't a demigod - he isn't a 'supernatural' nor divine being at all. - though he is 'different' - in that he has a 'general soul' or - a 'slightly universal' soul.

 

He doesn't have magic powers. Like in the days of old - God shall work the wonders - during the messianic age.

 

So what are a few points about this - in the Prophetic tradition.

 

But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig-tree; and none shall make them afraid; for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken. For let all the peoples walk each one in the name of its god, but we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever. [Micah 4.4-5]

 

In that quote we see that the messianic age - shall be multi-faith.

 

But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days. Therefore will He give them up, until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth; then the residue of his brethren shall return with the children of Israel. [Micah 5.1-2]

 

In that quote we see that the messiah's maternal roots could be traced to this place [Beth-lehem]. To say 'which art little to be among the thousands of Judah' indicates that this was an obscure place - not a place of greatness.

 

It is a misnomer that he is to be born in Beth-lehem - clearly the texts confirm he is born among the exiles.

 

In saying 'out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days' confirms that he has been reincarnating toward this point for a long time - 'whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days'.

 

We also see that Beth-lehem shall not be a part of a State of Israel 'until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth' or - he is born - the text says 'Therefore will He give them up' - so is he talking about Beth-lehem - the Hebrew people in exile [and thus Jursalem] or - both?

 

The full point is 'Therefore will He give them up, until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth; then the residue of his brethren shall return with the children of Israel' - so 'them' indentifies - both those in exile and - Beth-lehem.

 

So they 'shall return' to where - to an already renewed and infant State or - to just a geographical location or - both?

 

We must consider that were it not for Jesus and the Faith surronding him - Beth-lehem would certainly have become a nearly deserted and forgotten place [by the time messiah is born somewhere in the exile] and - for Hebrews it [was] is an 'obscure place' a place of 'no mention'.

 

So we have to then ask - when did Beth-lehem again become part of a State of Israel?

 

It was on June 05, 1967 - so 'He [will] give them up, until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth and - that then should indicate that - he must have to be born just prior to that event.

 

Consider 'He [will] give them up until the time that she who is to give birth has given birth' - the word 'until' is important - so they are no longer 'given up' right after he is born and - if the messiah is to [alone] accomplish all this - how would he do so - as an infant child? So the use of 'until' means that as soon as he is born - no more position of being 'given up' or seperated from the renewed State.

 

We can also add that the formal reclamation of all of Jerusalem could/would also coincide with this noted event:

 

Now why dost thou cry out aloud? Is there no King in thee, is thy Counsellor perished, that pangs have taken hold of thee as of a woman in travail? [Micah 4.9]

 

After that - there is this description in Zechariah 1.14-17:

 

...so the angel that spoke with me said unto me: 'Proclaim thou, saying: Thus saith the LORD of hosts: I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy; and I am very sore displeased with the nations that are at ease; for I was but a little displeased, and they helped for evil. Therefore thus saith the LORD: I return to Jerusalem with compassions: My house shall be built in it, saith the LORD of hosts, and a line shall be stretched forth over Jerusalem. Again, proclaim, saying: Thus saith the LORD of hosts: My cities shall again overflow with prosperity; and the LORD shall yet comfort Zion, and shall yet choose Jerusalem.

 

So that part - 'I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy; and I am very sore displeased with the nations that are at ease; for I was but a little displeased, and they helped for evil.' - that means that God is angry at the nations of the world for it's treatment of His exiled because He was 'but a little displeased' and yet the nations after the exile were to have 'helped for evil' [or helped forward the afflications] and they were 'at ease' with doing so - thus God says 'I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy' - so when we see fruition of the Micah 5.1-2 events we see that God permits all of Jerusalem to be again under an Israeli State.

 

The State of Israel was first reclaimed after WWII - after the well known last general pogrom [directly under the Nazis and other's indirectly] came to an end - as noted in that quote God thinks that the world could have done more to prevent so much loss and instead they were 'at ease' with the Nazis - for too long - and God sanctioned this renewal - but - with this renewed State - there was a line as it were through [dividing] Jerusalem - until 1967.

 

It should be mentioned that many propagandists have taken Zechariah 14.2 - 'For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, but the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.' - to mean that there shall be a future war there and 'the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city' - but this not so - as that was fulfilled in 30 C.E. - with the Exile - it should be noted that Muslim rulers later allowed the reestablishment of a Jewish community in Jerusalem thus 'the residue of the people [that] shall not be cut off from the city' means that even after the exile the people were being enabled by God - for a return to a former status as a State or - the end of the Exile!

 

In text 3-4 we read that sometime after the exile comes "The Day of the Lord" - we note this point in texts three and four:

 

Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when He fighteth in the day of battle. And His feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleft in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, so that there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

So God indeed left mercy and an open door through this 'residue of the people [that] shall not be cut off from the city' - so that means that at some point [after the 30 C.E. exile] - the residue of the exile again comes to Jerusalem.

 

Additionally - if the world ends up in a sorry state over this point - there may well come this 'vist' - that produces a mountain dividing earthquake - so - in text 7 we read - And there shall be one day which shall be known as the LORD'S, not day, and not night; but it shall come to pass, that at evening time there shall be light. - of course we 'everyone' have choices - that impact everything.

 

So to the point again - there must have been a State of Israel - already in existence and intended by God - before the time of his birth - as noted by 'then the residue of his brethren shall return with the children of Israel' - it means that there is a State for him and his family and 'the children of Israel' to return to.

 

So yes these are my humble interpretations but - it could well be that he is already here - what aspects of the future of the State of Israel [and the world] are to be impacted by his appearance - is another discussion.

 

One thing is sure - whenever it is that he is born - there must have been a State of Israel - already in existence and intended by God [with a securing of Beth-lehem and [all of] Jerusalem with the timing of his birth] - before the time of his birth - as noted by 'then the residue of his brethren shall return with the children of Israel' - it means that there is already a State for him and 'the residue of his family' and 'the children of Israel' to return to.

 

We can see within this last quote [and through the other's so far] that there is a clear allusion to an exisiting Jerusalem and State - to the seeming surprise of God [and the remant of the people who later begin to return] some time before messiah is born - further - we've seen that God is to show-up in anger - which is noted as being - directed toward the nations - for their helping forward the afflictions of His exiled - when He was 'only a little displeased' - so - at the end of the last and worst pogrom [nazi] God indeed 'showed up' to reclaim Jerusalem and - as expected and 'planned' - He was 'surprised' to see some of His exiled - already there and - because He was sore displeased with the nations - for their 'at ease' adventures in the continual pogroms - He was pleased with finding some remant of His exiled there and He thus began the process - for messiah to be born and - coinciding it with the removal of the dividing-line through Jerusalem:

 

And the word of the LORD of hosts came, saying: 'Thus saith the LORD of hosts: I am jealous for Zion with great jealousy, and I am jealous for her with great fury. Thus saith the LORD: I return unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem; and Jerusalem shall be called The city of truth; and the mountain of the LORD of hosts The holy mountain. Thus saith the LORD of hosts: There shall yet old men and old women sit in the broad places of Jerusalem, every man with his staff in his hand for very age. And the broad places of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in the broad places thereof. Thus saith the LORD of hosts: If it be marvellous in the eyes of the remnant of this people in those days, should it also be marvellous in Mine eyes? saith the LORD of hosts. [Zechariah 8.1-6]

 

So later - when the House of The Lord is reestablished by the Lord [and ONLY by the direct efforts of messiah not just the State itself can do this - and it musn't be through violence] - we note this point:

 

Take with you words, and return unto the LORD; say unto Him: 'Forgive all iniquity, and accept that which is good; so will we render for bullocks the offering of our lips. [Hosea 14.3]

 

One sad part of this is that messsiah's appearance shall be marked with spurious claims by others - that he is the anti-christ/al-dajjal.

 

[note this is composed of two other postings i've written - it is good for this post 'as is' - thank you!]

[cbrahma]

 

If you're going to devote yourself to this path - then - you aught to have proper understanding of Jesus and - that includes understanding that he wasn't the predicted messiah - the facts on this are clear - i was wondering about your thoughts on this

 

None of the voluminous references proves Jesus was not the Messiah. Actually He Himself claimed to be. His riding into Jerusalem on a donkey was exactly to fulfill the messianic phrophecy. He questioned Peter as to his true identity. When Peter responded in language that identified Him as the Messiah, Jesus told him it was not eyes of flesh that revealed this to him (Peter), but His father in heaven. It was after this that Jesus announced Peter would be the rock of His church.

So I guess Jesus was either was a nutcake or an evil man. Nice try.

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

 

None of the voluminous references proves Jesus was not the Messiah. Actually He Himself claimed to be. His riding into Jerusalem on a donkey was exactly to fulfill the messianic phrophecy. He questioned Peter as to his true identity. When Peter responded in language that identified Him as the Messiah, Jesus told him it was not eyes of flesh that revealed this to him (Peter), but His father in heaven. It was after this that Jesus announced Peter would be the rock of His church.

So I guess Jesus was either was a nutcake or an evil man. Nice try.

 

You cannot prove me wrong quote by quote?

 

You best go through them quotes because the facts are the facts and Jesus never said he was the messiah - people assume he said this but he didn't because he isn't.

 

There is no prophecy that messiah would be crucified - if you think there was - then what are the quotes...

 

What about these facts:

 

One is in Psalms 22.17 [text 16 in your bible]:

 

So in the King James bible it reads this way:

 

For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

 

However - in the Hebrew Bible it reads this way:

 

For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.

 

So in the KJ version it is changed to try to draw a connection to Jesus and the Crucifixion by which he was murdered by the Roman State - however - the imprtant words were changed to support a nonexistent connection of this verse to Jesus and his death!

 

So the original hebrew word-phrase "like a lion" is rendered into "they pierced my hands and my feet" - how was that done?

 

The hebrew word-phrase "KeAri" [like a lion] was changed to "Kari" [which means 'he gouged me' - rendered into the english as 'they pierced my hands and my feet'].

 

Jesus said many things that are not well understood - of course Jesus is an empowered incarnation of God but - he is NOT the messiah.

[cbrahma]

 

You best go through them quotes because the facts are the facts and Jesus never said he was the messiah - people

assume he said this but he didn't because he isn't.

 

 

<CENTER>John

 

Chapter 4</CENTER><DT>25 <DD><SUP>10</SUP> The woman said to him, "I know that the Messiah is coming, the one called the Anointed; when he comes, he will tell us everything." <DT>26 <DD>Jesus said to her, "I am he, <SUP>11</SUP> the one who is speaking with you."

There are many other verses but I'm not inclined to pursue such a pointless excercise. Your bald and laughable assertion about the facts proves nothing.

 

 

As for the prophecy about the crucifixion.

Zechariah 12:10 (NIV) "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

 

Psalms 22:16 (NIV) Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.

 

Matthew 27:35 (NIV) When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

 

Luke 24:39 (NIV) Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

 

John 19:18 (NIV) Here they crucified him, and with him two others--one on each side and Jesus in the middle.

 

 

Your obviously Jewish conviction that Jesus could not possibly be the Messiah flies in the face of over two thousand years of testimony to the contrary. When is the actual Messiah to come then?

</DD>

[sanatan]

 

I have a Bhagavad Gita. There is no need to copy-paste entire purports. Besides I've read it in its entirety. I still refuse to subjugate my soul and mind entirely to another human being. It is incompatible with Judao-Christian teaching and more importantly my own conscience , the still small voice within. It is easily the origin of all the corruption I have known in Eastern religions, especially the ones transplanted here. Luckily Eastern gurus are no longer fashionable like they were in the sixties and seventies. By now most of them have been exposed as charlatans. In the case of Bhaktivedant swami, his organization has been exposed time and time again as corrupt. Do not proselityze me with this kind of Hinduism. Except possibly with Buddhism I think we've come to a period of Western history when Orientalism is an idea whose time has come and gone.

 

 

 

 

<CENTER></CENTER>

 

I disagree with your claim that orientalism has come and gone in the west...eastern philosophy and related influences are firmly entrenched in western culture now, as is western culture in the east...whether these facts are "good", "bad", or just neutral has to be an individual call or a matter of taste.

 

I would hopefully guess that the part of orientalism that is becoming very questionable is blind following of guru-figures. Without fingerpointing any particular person or organization, we can certainly observe that a trail of havoc and tragedy remains behind.

 

No real need to mention the televangelists and various other Christian hucksters...old news, but I do mention them because you can apply the same standards of discernment to them as to the phony gurus...my point is the baby-bathwater one. I'm not tossing Jesus Christ or Krishna or the great scriptures that they inspired because some of their followers misbehaved in the past and continue to do so. I'm my own spiritual man, capable of independent and critical thought; you are as well.

[cbrahma]

 

I disagree with your claim that orientalism has come and gone in the west...eastern philosophy and related influences are firmly entrenched in western culture now, as is western culture in the east...whether these facts are "good", "bad", or just neutral has to be an individual call or a matter of taste.

I think it goes deeper than taste. There's no doubt that the Oriental invasion as left is indelible mark. But I don't read it any more as the 'thing to do'. The image of the Hindu swami, the Bhuddist priest (less so) is no longer exotic and glamorous. In fact it is tarnished by so many scandals. I see this as a good and wonderful thing that these unscrupulous pseudo-mystic snake-oil merchants have lost credibility.

 

 

 

No real need to mention the televangelists and various other Christian hucksters...old news, but I do mention them because you can apply the same standards of discernment to them as to the phony gurus...my point is the baby-bathwater one. I'm not tossing Jesus Christ or Krishna or the great scriptures that they inspired because some of their followers misbehaved in the past and continue to do so. I'm my own spiritual man, capable of independent and critical thought; you are as well.

 

Christian hypocrisy, at least on the Protestant side, has depended more on trickery than the religious demand for complete submission to a human authority. That one is harder for the Christian preacher/pastor to pull off.

When the price of admission is 'surrender' then exploitation is a no brainer from that point on.

[Guest guest]

If you find Christianity the path that wish to follow - by all means do so.

 

I'd like to ask you what exactly you hope to accomplish by denigrating the path of others?

 

Guru tattva is obviously a difficult tattva to understand and it is quite obvious that whatever level of involvement you have had with Gaudiya Vaishnavism, you have not properly understood this tattva.

 

When Krsna, in the Bhagavad gita (which you have read), says 'try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master' he makes it clear and concise what he is talking about. He says about such a person - he has seen the truth - tattva darshinah.

 

Such a person isn't just a person who has read a lot of books or has learned a particular set of rituals - this is a person who has gone beyond the mind and ritual and has actually developed his heart in relation to God. He is speaking from experience and he can share his 'heart experience' with others.

 

How did this person get such an experience? Submission and service. Saranagati means dying to live - ultimately totally giving yourself. This, by the way, is also what is taught by Christ as the absolute necessity of one who wants to call himself his follower.

 

There are more similarities between Christainity and Gaudiya Vaishnavism than there are differences. Still, there are significant differences and it is these differences that give impetus for different people to approach God through these similar but different traditions.

 

Gaudiya Vaishnavism isn't focused on salvation - the focus in Gaudiya Vaishnavism is service and surrender - not something forced - but in relationship with God in his most intimate setting.

 

At any rate you follow a different path and you are interested in a different aspect of God than Gaudiya Vaishnava's are.

 

I don't think you will gain much of value in terms of following your path here, especially since you are so negatively disposed toward the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition. Due to your personal outlook I would venture to say that even if someone said something that might help you in your spiritual journey - you most likely would not hear it or benefit from it since you disrespect the tradition and those who choose to follow it.

 

I can appreciate Christianity and Christians who live a genuinely spiritual life, but only so far, because their goal is so different from my own. In general terms - yes I certainly appreciate a spirit of giving and selfless serving - but I don't find it very helpful for me beyond that.

[cbrahma]

 

If you find Christianity the path that wish to follow - by all means do so.

 

I'd like to ask you what exactly you hope to accomplish by denigrating the path of others?

 

Guru tattva is obviously a difficult tattva to understand and it is quite obvious that whatever level of involvement you have had with Gaudiya Vaishnavism, you have not properly understood this tattva.

 

When Krsna, in the Bhagavad gita (which you have read), says 'try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master' he makes it clear and concise what he is talking about. He says about such a person - he has seen the truth - tattva darshinah.

 

Such a person isn't just a person who has read a lot of books or has learned a particular set of rituals - this is a person who has gone beyond the mind and ritual and has actually developed his heart in relation to God. He is speaking from experience and he can share his 'heart experience' with others.

 

How did this person get such an experience? Submission and service. Saranagati means dying to live - ultimately totally giving yourself. This, by the way, is also what is taught by Christ as the absolute necessity of one who wants to call himself his follower.

 

There are more similarities between Christainity and Gaudiya Vaishnavism than there are differences. Still, there are significant differences and it is these differences that give impetus for different people to approach God through these similar but different traditions.

 

Gaudiya Vaishnavism isn't focused on salvation - the focus in Gaudiya Vaishnavism is service and surrender - not something forced - but in relationship with God in his most intimate setting.

 

At any rate you follow a different path and you are interested in a different aspect of God than Gaudiya Vaishnava's are.

 

I don't think you will gain much of value in terms of following your path here, especially since you are so negatively disposed toward the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition. Due to your personal outlook I would venture to say that even if someone said something that might help you in your spiritual journey - you most likely would not hear it or benefit from it since you disrespect the tradition and those who choose to follow it.

 

I can appreciate Christianity and Christians who live a genuinely spiritual life, but only so far, because their goal is so different from my own. In general terms - yes I certainly appreciate a spirit of giving and selfless serving - but I don't find it very helpful for me beyond that.

 

I began by expressing why I wanted to stay with my Christian faith rather than pursue the treacherous complicated path of chanting. And I am little more than vexed at the misrepresentation of chanting as being 'simple' without any hard rules. That is simply a lie. I don't like being lied to. I see nothing wrong in expressing that fact in a public forum.

[Guest guest]

Because Christianity does focus on sin/guilt and pushes salvation and the sacrifice of Jesus - it does place an enormous psychological burden on it's adherents. The charlatan is able to dupe so many 'christians' precisely because he is preaching on the authority of the bible. Most of these charlatans are 'sola scriptura' types. The hypocrisy in their own lives in terms of what they do versus what they say is what always leads to scandal. There will always be materialists who use scripture to benefit themselves. They will always be the biggest hypocrits and they are generally easy to see through if your a little bit introspective.

 

Be that as it may - no matter what brand of Christianity you follow - there will be leaders who guide the congregation by setting up the liturgy and the focus of the church. They will set the agenda for how they themselves and those who are members of their society interface with the world and 'share the good news'.

 

In all religious traditions there is a need for people who actually have transformed their lives and who embody the teachings in their words and actions. These are the people that make the tradition worth being involved in - because by their example people can gain inspiration to better their own lives and live ever closer and closer to their ideal.

[Guest guest]

 

I began by expressing why I wanted to stay with my Christian faith rather than pursue the treacherous complicated path of chanting. And I am little more than vexed at the misrepresentation of chanting as being 'simple' without any hard rules. That is simply a lie. I don't like being lied to. I see nothing wrong in expressing that fact in a public forum.

 

That is an example of what I am talking about. Look at your inflammatory wording 'treacherous complicated'. 'That is simply a lie.'

 

First off - you are on a board with mostly Gaudiyas who follow Lord Chaitanya. He is the one who says about chanting (and it is corroborated in sastra) that there are no hard and fast rules and that chanting can be done at any time and any place by anyone. This is in stark contrast to other types of practices which are governed by rules of who can perform the ritual, when it can be performed, how it is to be performed etc.

 

Do you see the problem with your statement? You are calling Lord Chaitanya a liar. Do you think it would be in good taste or lead to constructive dialogue if a Gaudiya Vaishnava went to a Christian board and called Jesus a liar? Do you think it would promote constructive dialogue if a Gauidya called the Christian path treacherous?

 

I'm sorry but I don't think you are being honest with yourself and I don't believe you have given an honest answer to my query regarding your motives.

[cbrahma]

But there isn't an implicit requirement of surrender to a human being going in like in the vaisnava sects. One doesn't even get in the door really, until one surrenders (that word gets used a lot, because it's very useful). The Christian rhetoric is more cognitive , believe, repent etc... In the uncontaminated version there is no pressure as such. Salvation is already accomplished. One is led by grace to follow and be transformed. I don't find that one bit as complicated as all the rules about offenses that get slapped on as soon as you are naive enough to buy the "Chant and be happy" slogan.

 

 

Because Christianity does focus on sin/guilt and pushes salvation and the sacrifice of Jesus - it does place an enormous psychological burden on it's adherents. The charlatan is able to dupe so many 'christians' precisely because he is preaching on the authority of the bible. Most of these charlatans are 'sola scriptura' types. The hypocrisy in their own lives in terms of what they do versus what they say is what always leads to scandal. There will always be materialists who use scripture to benefit themselves. They will always be the biggest hypocrits and they are generally easy to see through if your a little bit introspective.

 

Be that as it may - no matter what brand of Christianity you follow - there will be leaders who guide the congregation by setting up the liturgy and the focus of the church. They will set the agenda for how they themselves and those who are members of their society interface with the world and 'share the good news'.

 

In all religious traditions there is a need for people who actually have transformed their lives and who embody the teachings in their words and actions. These are the people that make the tradition worth being involved in - because by their example people can gain inspiration to better their own lives and live ever closer and closer to their ideal.

[Guest guest]

'Naive enough to buy into'....

 

I give up with trying to have any kind of reasonable dialog with you. You will have better luck with those who are 'naive enough' to listen to your 'cognitive, believe, repent - 'uncontaminated version'... Good luck with that. I have never come across such a version of Christianity.

 

BTW - that whole repent thing is such a psychological hammer - not exactly loving and motivated by goodness. It is the whole sinner/repent thing pushed to the extreme meant to make people feel bad about themselves and guilty and scared that if they don't 'believe' they will 'burn in hell'. Sorry - I don't buy it.

[Guruvani]

Christianity is simpler because it's just sentimental faith.

 

Krishna consciousness is more complicated because it is a spiritual science - a yoga system.

 

In Christianity all you have to do is accept Jesus and let him do all the work of absorbing sins.

Srila Prabhupada criticized this Christian idea many times.

 

Science is always more demanding than sentiment.

However, science produces tangible results whereas sentiment is just an idea, a faith with a promise of salvation on Judgement day.

 

Spiritual science can give salvation right here and now.

You don't have to put all your faith in some judgement day when you hope to get salvation on the day that Christ returns to Earth from the clouds.

[Guruvani]

There are also a class of "Christians" who fabricate their own version of "Christanity" that doesn't conform to the actual beliefs and doctrines of the original founders of "Christianity".

 

Christ certainly did not fabricate any term "Christian".

It is not coming from him.

 

It is a concept of an organized Church.

It is not an original concept found in the teachings of Christ.

 

Some so-called apostle of Jesus fabricated the term "Christianity" and gave the church a form and a doctrine than in many ways cannot be traced to any original teachings of Jesus.

 

To become a "Christian" is nothing that Jesus ever taught.

 

Jesus taught to love God.

The idea of Church and the Christian doctrine is mostly the fabrication of so-called followers of Christ and cannot be attributed directly to the words of Christ.

 

Christianity is more about the teachings of the apostle Paul and the Church he fabricated, than it is about the actual direct teachings of Jesus.

 

Maybe they should change the name to "Paulianity"?

[cbrahma]

Salvation through Jesus is not a waiting game. It is a 'fait accompli'.

As for KC being a science, where is the empircal proof. In fact where is the empiricism at all? It's just a law book of offenses about so many little ritual behaviours. Makes me feel like a gerbil in a cage. Any system that promises punishment for speaking out the truth is hardly a science. Truth and complete discovery is the cornerstone of any scientific study.

 

 

 

Krishna consciousness is more complicated because it is a spiritual science -

Science is always more demanding than sentiment.

However, science produces tangible results whereas sentiment is just an idea, a faith with a promise of salvation on Judgement day.

 

Spiritual science can give salvation right here and now.

You don't have to put all your faith in some judgement day when you hope to get salvation on the day that Christ returns to Earth from the clouds.

[Guruvani]

The Holy Bible was not organized, assembled or actually approved or endorsed by Jesus.

The Holy Bible was assembled from various writings by the "Church" and the "Church" itself was given form and doctrine by men, not God.

 

Christianity as we know it today is the product of the "Church" of men, not the Son of God.

 

Maybe somebody should just isolate the teachings in a separate scripture and cut away all the doctrines and opinions of the "Church" and let Jesus' teachings stand alone for people to hear and make their own judgements on?

 

The Holy Bible is the product of man, not God.

 

The Ten commandments and Jesus sermons and teachings are the things that can really be said to be coming from God directly.

 

The "church" and the "Bible" have all been manufactured by religious zealots.

[Guruvani]

 

Salvation through Jesus is not a waiting game.

 

That is your own fabrication because the Christian doctrine does not say that.

 

The Chrisitan doctrine is that all souls wait in the grave till Jesus comes back someday and resurrects them from the dead.

 

There is no salvation until and unless that happens.

[cbrahma]

You prove to me how it says otherwise.

 

 

That is your own fabrication because the Christian doctrine does not say that.

 

The Chrisitan doctrine is that all souls wait in the grave till Jesus comes back someday and resurrects them from the dead.

 

There is no salvation until and unless that happens.

[cbrahma]

You expected Jesus to sit down and write Scripture? He was a Jew who reverenced Scripture, included in the very Bible you are trying to discredit.

Since you can't address the issues you try and make the whole thing evaporate. Christianity, the Bible is concoction. Christ never existed , Christ never said he was the Messiah.. etc... You have two thousand years of tradition and scholarship to address if you intend to just dismiss it as a fabrication.

 

 

The Holy Bible was not organized, assembled or actually approved or endorsed by Jesus.

The Holy Bible was assembled from various writings by the "Church" and the "Church" itself was given form and doctrine by men, not God.

 

Christianity as we know it today is the product of the "Church" of men, not the Son of God.

 

Maybe somebody should just isolate the teachings in a separate scripture and cut away all the doctrines and opinions of the "Church" and let Jesus' teachings stand alone for people to hear and make their own judgements on?

 

The Holy Bible is the product of man, not God.

 

The Ten commandments and Jesus sermons and teachings are the things that can really be said to be coming from God directly.

 

The "church" and the "Bible" have all been manufactured by religious zealots.

[Guruvani]

 

You prove to me how it says otherwise.

 

 

"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words." 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18

 

When Jesus comes all the dead Christians in their graves will rise up and meet Jesus in the clouds.

 

This is the real Christian doctrine, not your homemade Christianity and idea of immediate salvation.

[sanatan]

 

I think it goes deeper than taste. There's no doubt that the Oriental invasion as left is indelible mark. But I don't read it any more as the 'thing to do'. The image of the Hindu swami, the Bhuddist priest (less so) is no longer exotic and glamorous. In fact it is tarnished by so many scandals. I see this as a good and wonderful thing that these unscrupulous pseudo-mystic snake-oil merchants have lost credibility.

 

For some it was the fashionable thing or thing-of-moment to do, for others was and is the real thing to do...I'm not defending the negative realities of the so-called "eastern invasion", but you're blanket generalizing. Use some discrimination.

 

 

 

Christian hypocrisy, at least on the Protestant side, has depended more on trickery than the religious demand for complete submission to a human authority. That one is harder for the Christian preacher/pastor to pull off.

When the price of admission is 'surrender' then exploitation is a no brainer from that point on.

 

Yeah, I agree...there are varying degrees of control that can be pulled off...In the case of Christian-based exploitation it does have to take a more subtle form. But the result is the same...people surrender, either consciously or subconsciously, to a charismatic leader and do what he/she tells them. You know as well as I do that the most spectacular cases of mass suicide in the last 30 years have been those in Christian cults.

 

Televangelists milking poor and desperate people, often elderly, for the last few bucks they can cough up ranks up there with the worst forms of exploitiation...the marks are "surrendering" their livelihood so some dick can live a millionaire's lifestyle.

[cbrahma]

Christians survive their bodies. Salvation is not the ressurection of the body, althought that is included. I suggest you take basic catechism.

 

 

When Jesus comes all the dead Christians in their graves will rise up and meet Jesus in the clouds.

 

This is the real Christian doctrine, not your homemade Christianity and idea of immediate salvation.

[Guruvani]

 

Christians survive their bodies. Salvation is not the ressurection of the body, althought that is included. I suggest you take basic catechism.

 

Catechism is another fabrication of the "church" of men.

 

The actual Christian doctrine is that souls live in limbo in death and in the grave and then they are resurrected from the grave...

 

 

For there will be a trumpet blast from the sky, and all the Christians who have died will suddenly become alive, with new bodies that will never, never die; and then we who are still alive shall suddenly have new bodies too. For our earthly bodies, the ones we have now that can die, must be transformed into heavenly bodies that cannot perish but will live forever. When this happens, then at last this Scripture will come true-- "Death is swallowed up in victory. "O death, where then your victory? Where then your sting? For sin--the sting that causes death--will all be gone; and the law, which reveals our sins, will no longer be our judge." 1 Corinthians 15:50- 55

 

[Guruvani]

By the way cbrahma, I grew up in a Christian home and my Mom dragged me to church for years.

I am not totally ignorant of Christian beliefs.