Lord Jesus Christ - Abandon all varieties of religion

[meenakshiamman]

 

But you guys arguing about christianity missed the boat entirely. This topic has nothing to do with that bloody religion.

 

So, we can see from the content of this thread why religion is to be abandoned.

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.

[RadheRade1657]

 

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.

Stories about the gods contradict each other as well. For example, in the lila of Kanya-Kumari, she is supposed to be the one that killed Narakasura. But, in the story of Krishna, he kills Narakasura. So, I guess that now both stories are invalid, and, as such, Krishna should be completely ignored and his teachings in the Gita should be thrown out as well.

You saying it's 'not an attack on Christians' is kinda like when people of Abrahamic faiths say that Hindu gods are demons and are only trying to help their Hindu 'friends' by bashing the gods.

[RadheRade1657]

 

The same could be said of pseudo-devotees, of which there are legion, who are more interested in appearances - all the religious accoutrements of brahminical culture, wearing dhoti, quoting Sanskrit, etc., than a relationship with god.

"I like your Krishna. I do not like your Krishnans. Your Krishnans are so unlike your Krishna." ?

[cbrahma]

 

The worst thing about christianity is that they deny death even though no one gets out alive

Vedanta denies death as a reality, since, according to that philosophy, we are not the body.

Liberation, moksa, is precisely release from death (and birth). Of course this is general to most mundane religions because they begin the cycle of dharma artha kama moksa.

I dispute that Jesus was promoting that kind of religion. If one is familiar with his teachings he carefully distinguishes between things of this world and the 'Kingdom of God'. He considers doing the will of the Father as the ultimate goal. He promotes the fact that God is Love. This is not just some religion in the mode of ignorance.

[meenakshiamman]

 

Stories about the gods contradict each other as well. For example, in the lila of Kanya-Kumari, she is supposed to be the one that killed Narakasura. But, in the story of Krishna, he kills Narakasura. So, I guess that now both stories are invalid, and, as such, Krishna should be completely ignored and his teachings in the Gita should be thrown out as well.

You saying it's 'not an attack on Christians' is kinda like when people of Abrahamic faiths say that Hindu gods are demons and are only trying to help their Hindu 'friends' by bashing the gods.

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.

[cbrahma]

 

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

Jesus' teachings are not vague. They are simple and straigthforward, yet even his disciples had problems because they were profound. That's what the parables were all about. If Christians simply answered Jesus' call to follow Him away from the things of the world and towards a life lived in love of neighbor and obedience to the Father, the contradictions could work themselves out.

It isn't vague, it's spiritual and requires a listening to that 'still small voice'.

[suchandra]

 

Jesus' teachings are not vague. They are simple and straigthforward, yet even his disciples had problems because they were profound.

Looks also that Jesus' teachings are meanwhile posing a severe threat to present Vaishnava institutions in that sense, that there's a clear supremacy in Christianity when it comes to the succession system. Jesus still has the power to liberate his followers, whereas present Vaishnava institutions say no, the current link has to be physically present. Next, when priests deviate this doesn't seem to destroy the faith in Jesus since 2000 years. However, when a guru of present Vaishnava institutions falls down this is different, something like when Jesus falls down or deviates. In other words, present Vaishnava institutions put up with it that the absolute principle, the inner core of Vaishnavism so to speak can fail. Could be that in the long term that such religions with more solid stability are the clear winners.

[Kulapavana]

 

Looks also that Jesus' teachings are meanwhile posing a severe threat to present Vaishnava institutions in that sense, that there's a clear supremacy in Christianity when it comes to the succession system. Jesus still has the power to liberate his followers, whereas present Vaishnava institutions say no, the current link has to be physically present. Next, when priests deviate this doesn't seem to destroy the faith in Jesus since 2000 years. However, when a guru of present Vaishnava institutions falls down this is different, something like when Jesus falls down or deviates. In other words, present Vaishnava institutions put up with it that the absolute principle, the inner core of Vaishnavism so to speak can fail. Could be that in the long term that such religions with more solid stability are the clear winners.

 

There are so many holes in these arguments...

 

1. Jesus was made God in Christianity and that is why Christians see him as bestower of liberation. Do you plan to do the same with Prabhupada?

 

2. The rumors of Christians attaining liberation (in Vedic sense) through Jesus are pure bunk.

 

3. Only in Iskcon the fairytales of Superman Gurus are contrasted with the reality of guru falldowns and hence the inevitable confusion among the naive followers. The rest of Vaishnavism is not that childish.

 

Do you want me to go on?

[suchandra]

 

There are so many holes in these arguments...

 

1. Jesus was made God in Christianity and that is why Christians see him as bestower of liberation. Do you plan to do the same with Prabhupada?

 

2. The rumors of Christians attaining liberation (in Vedic sense) through Jesus are pure bunk.

 

3. Only in Iskcon the fairytales of Superman Gurus are contrasted with the reality of guru falldowns and hence the inevitable confusion among the naive followers. The rest of Vaishnavism is not that childish.

 

Do you want me to go on?

Well this is not the point I tried to make, how actually people in general see it. If you come up with what you believe, your subjective personal understanding, you might say, I don't believe in Jesus etc. etc.

But the general mass of people will consider what I said and you also see that I'm right how people in general presently behave towards the Vaishnava institutions with increasing suspicion. How can it be otherwise?

[RadheRade1657]

 

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'm sorry. I didn't mean to say that you were bashing Jesus (I admit the comparison did make it seem that way, though). But, you said that he didn't exist (or was fictionalized/deified to the extreme), which is also what many people of Abrahamic religions do to try to get converts.

I don't really understand how it's hard to see what Jesus was really about. I think his words (or the words attributed to him) show what he was about. A rather early gospel (earlier than the canonical gospels) called the Gospel of Thomas is a teaching gospel. It is many of the teachings of Jesus. No life story or anything like that in it. It's just Jesus' teachings. Most of the teachings are the exact same as the ones in the canonical gospels (there are some additional teachings, such as teaching that God is both father and mother). So, it's really not hard to see what he was all about.

I do agree that most Christians do refuse to look at the contradictions in the Bible. Especially the Old Testament. And when you try to point out contradictions between the O.T. and the N.T. they act like you're a heretic who needs to be burned at the stake.

I was raised in a similar background (Catholic, though). Once I left Catholicism, I was a much happier individual. I think it's all the dogma modern Christianity pushes on it's followers that makes so many people turn away.

[Dark Warrior]

 

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to say that you were bashing Jesus (I admit the comparison did make it seem that way, though). But, you said that he didn't exist (or was fictionalized/deified to the extreme), which is also what many people of Abrahamic religions do to try to get converts.

 

He existed, but was fictionalised. Do you not realise how close to the story of Buddha and Krishna this whole Jesus myth is? But the Krishna Story and Buddha Story themselves have no influences, so thus, they cannot be discounted.

 

 

I don't really understand how it's hard to see what Jesus was really about. I think his words (or the words attributed to him) show what he was about. A rather early gospel (earlier than the canonical gospels) called the Gospel of Thomas is a teaching gospel. It is many of the teachings of Jesus. No life story or anything like that in it. It's just Jesus' teachings. Most of the teachings are the exact same as the ones in the canonical gospels (there are some additional teachings, such as teaching that God is both father and mother). So, it's really not hard to see what he was all about.

 

In the gnostic gospels, Jesus talks about how the spirit, when it loses ignorance, can become wholly divine. This is crude advaita at best. He talks of how the Kingdom of God is everywhere, which sounds similar to the 'Buddha Nature' of Buddhists.

 

In the canonical gospels, he advocates worship and reverance of a God, and at times refers to himself as god, at other times, calling himself a son of god. Hence, going by the gnostic texts and the canonical gospels, his message is garbled and inconclusive.

 

There is ample evidence to suggest that Vedic thought had permeated into Judea by the time of the Old Testament itself. Consider the story when Yahweh tells Moses to refer to him as 'I am'. This reminds me of the opening hymns of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.

 

The OT is a tribal text, utterly devoid of spirituality. Yet, even it has some vedic influences, as evidenced by the above fact. Hence, by the time of the New Testament, there is no doubt that philosophies like Buddhism and Advaita (which existed even prior to the time of Gautama Buddha and Sankaracharya) had reached the west.

 

 

Stories about the gods contradict each other as well. For example, in the lila of Kanya-Kumari, she is supposed to be the one that killed Narakasura. But, in the story of Krishna, he kills Narakasura.

 

The original texts, given to us by Vyasa and Valmiki Bhagavan, are the Mahabharata and Ramayana. There are many, many versions of these books, but they can only be considered as genuine if they do not contradict the works of the two rishis mentioned before.

 

Kanya-Kumari Lila and all that stuff is simply a later product of humans. The original story is that Lord Krishna killed Narakasura, and this is affirmed by great sages. Anything that does not confirm to the testimony of the rishis is spurious and is rejected.

 

Similarly, I see a lot of unhealthy comparison going on. For instance, some christians tend to think the Vedas are talking about nonsensical stuff when they say that the world is held up by 7 elephants, etc. But these people do not understand that the Vedas have a profound inner meaning, always.

 

For instance, the Vedas say the sun is a chariot drawn by 7 snakes. This is explained as follows - The 7 snakes pertain to seven colors of light. And mordern science has found that light from sun travels in a curved fashion, hence it has been referred to as 'snakes' in the Vedas.

[Amlesh]

All I know is that he's one of beloved son of God.

[Dark Warrior]

I agree. Just like you, like me, like all devas and asuras, and all jivatmas.

[Amlesh]

Glad to hear that. But it would have been even better if we would have shared the same love that he has for his father. But that's another story.

[gHari]

As faith in Sri Krsna does not come from the mind, faith in Jesus also comes from the heart. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Only the humble and meek can attend that feast. Those who have eaten are full and satisfied.

[cbrahma]

 

There are so many holes in these arguments...

 

1. Jesus was made God in Christianity and that is why Christians see him as bestower of liberation. Do you plan to do the same with Prabhupada?

 

2. The rumors of Christians attaining liberation (in Vedic sense) through Jesus are pure bunk.

 

3. Only in Iskcon the fairytales of Superman Gurus are contrasted with the reality of guru falldowns and hence the inevitable confusion among the naive followers. The rest of Vaishnavism is not that childish.

 

Do you want me to go on?

Jesus defined salvation as being with the Father in heaven. That is the Kingdom of God, which can be achieved in the here and now because the Kingdom of God is not of this world. It is within. This condition is almost identical with the state of brahma-buta as defined in the Vedas.

Being united with the Father in the Spirit (brahman). Jesus himself promised such salvation -

 

 

Jn 5:25, ...the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of GOD; and they that hear SHALL LIVE.

*Jn 6:47, He that believes in me has everlasting life.

Jn 6:50, This is the bread...that a man may eat and not die.

*Jn 6:51,58, If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever.

*Jn 10:28, And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish.

**Jn 11:25, 'He who believes in me, even if he die, shall live'.

*Jn 12:25, Die to this world and live forever.

Jn 17:2, That HE should give eternal life.

Jn 17:3, And this is life eternal...

Acts 2:29-35, ...David, that he is both dead and buried and his sepulcher is with us to this day...his soul not left in hell...his body not corrupted...

 

You have neither the knowledge nor the authority to make a pronouncement about who has been saved. That is not the sign of a more advanced path.

[Kulapavana]

 

Jesus defined salvation as being with the Father in heaven. That is the Kingdom of God, which can be achieved in the here and now because the Kingdom of God is not of this world. It is within. This condition is almost identical with the state of brahma-buta as defined in the Vedas.

Being united with the Father in the Spirit (brahman). Jesus himself promised such salvation -

 

 

You have neither the knowledge nor the authority to make a pronouncement about who has been saved. That is not the sign of a more advanced path.

 

You can not achieve something you do not even know exists. Most Christians have a completely different idea of salvation then the one Hare Christians like yourself claim for them. They are looking for Heaven and wings. These they may get, because their aim is heavenly planets and their material religiosity will get them there. Their god is Brahma, or Indra, or maybe even Dharmaraja, sitting on a throne with Jesus on his right side.

[cbrahma]

 

You can not achieve something you do not even know exists. Most Christians have a completely different idea of salvation then the one Hare Christians like yourself claim for them. They are looking for Heaven and wings. These they may get, because their aim is heavenly planets and their material religiosity will get them there. Their god is Brahma, or Indra, or maybe even Dharmaraja, sitting on a throne with Jesus on his right side.

What do you know about 'most Christians'? That is the sruff of prejudice which claims such intimate knowledge of an entire group of people.

I have read the Bible and read a lot of Christian theology. I go to a Lutheran church every Sunday and am more qualified than you to pronounce about the Christian idea of salvation.

 

Having dispensed with your speculations, salvation is defined by Jesus himself as being with the Father in the Kingdom of Heaven.

That Kingdom is not a 'loka'. One can be in that state before death, because the Kingdom is within - it is , believe it or not, spiritual.

You have decided for them that means some demigod, but that is something you have superimposed.

[Kulapavana]

 

What do you know about 'most Christians'? That is the sruff of prejudice which claims such intimate knowledge of an entire group of people.

I have read the Bible and read a lot of Christian theology. I go to a Lutheran church every Sunday and am more qualified than you to pronounce about the Christian idea of salvation.

 

 

I was brought up Catholic, and studied Christianity in a Catholic high school. Over the last 35 years I have also studied that tradition on my own, from various angles, especially the early history of the Church. Over the years I have also talked to countless Christians and that is why I still say: Most Christians have a completely different idea of salvation then the one Hare Christians like yourself claim for them.

[cbrahma]

 

I was brought up Catholic, and studied Christianity in a Catholic high school. Over the last 35 years I have also studied that tradition on my own, from various angles, especially the early history of the Church. Over the years I have also talked to countless Christians and that is why I still say: Most Christians have a completely different idea of salvation then the one Hare Christians like yourself claim for them.

I am not a Hare Christian. I have not claimed anything they don't claim for themselves. I have quoted Jesus on the subject. What is your authority, beyond specious categorizations?

[Kulapavana]

 

I am not a Hare Christian. I have not claimed anything they don't claim for themselves. I have quoted Jesus on the subject. What is your authority, beyond specious categorizations?

 

Even if you blindly trust Gospels, Jesus spoke in such general terms that almost any interpretation is possible, including yours. Ask a Jehowa's Witness, a Catholic, a Mormon, a Lutheran, a Pentacostal, what is salvation and you will get 5 or more different answers, none of which comes even close to what the Vaishnava understanding.

[cbrahma]

 

Even if you blindly trust Gospels, Jesus spoke in such general terms that almost any interpretation is possible, including yours. Ask a Jehowa's Witness, a Catholic, a Mormon, a Lutheran, a Pentacostal, what is salvation and you will get 5 or more different answers, none of which comes even close to what the Vaishnava understanding.

Not so. There is a Nicene creed. There is a lot more concurence, certainly on the topic of salvation than you want to believe.

Jesus spoke in parables, because the truths of which he spoke were profoundly spiritual and difficult to understand even by the initiated.

 

Luther didnt' have any serious theological disputes. His were ecclesiastical.

 

1. I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and find pasture ... I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly." (John 10:9)
   

2. Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life, he who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die." (John 11:25)
   
3. Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life." (John 8:12)
   

[suchandra]

 

You can not achieve something you do not even know exists.

 

This is not what Prabhupada taught how to deal with other religions. In fact Prabhupada never spoke like that in public. To hear this from a senior ISKCON member, resident of Prabhupada Village, strikes me at odd. At least we should try to follow the example of previous acaryas and not shoot forward and create chaos.

[Kulapavana]

 

This is not what Prabhupada taught how to deal with other religions. In fact Prabhupada never spoke like that in public.

 

I am not Srila Prabhupada. Lord Caitanya also gave us an example how to deal with other religions when they come to confront our preaching. You can read about it here: http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/features/04-08/features977.htm There are also His teachings to Chand Kazi.

 

I find it very strange that Iskcon devotees are blasting other Vaishnavas over trivial details of doctrine or devotional practice while they sing the glories of Christianity in it's scores of confused forms...

[suchandra]

 

I am not Srila Prabhupada. Lord Caitanya also gave us an example how to deal with other religions when they come to confront our preaching. You can read about it here: http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/features/04-08/features977.htm There are also His teachings to Chand Kazi.

 

I find it very strange that Iskcon devotees are blasting other Vaishnavas over trivial details of doctrine or devotional practice while they sing the glories of Christianity in it's scores of confused forms...

Vaishnavas don't invent, they mainly repeat and behave respectful.

 

"They are three million in India still. There is statistics. Three millions persons who are in renounced order of… Sādhu, they are called sādhu. They do not come. So these three millions mahātmās, those who are engaged, they may be, some of them may be impersonalists, some of them may be yogis, some of them are devotees. That doesn’t matter, because they are also engaged in understanding the Absolute Truth. The impersonalist, they’re in the beginning stage, but they are not materialists. They are not materialists. They are trying to understand the Absolute Truth. They cannot accommodate the Absolute Truth, the Supreme, can be a person. That is their less intelligence. But they are engaged in searching out."

 

Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.5.11

by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda

New Vrindaban, June 10, 1969