sant Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 I reject it as irrelevant - as do billions of other people all over the world. Billions? Where did you get that figure from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiley Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Billions?Where did you get that figure from. www.adherents.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandu_69 Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Dear Chandu_69, Why single out Christianity as the cause that would further divide sub continent India and cause hatred among hindus? I didn't single out.It is one of the problems India and srilanka faces. Why not single out also atheists, religious hindu and non-hindu sects. Can you not understand? Ecumenism was re-initiated ( Srila Prahupad even went to Vatican and offered Pope John Paul VI the Srimad Bhagavatam) by God himself to quell violence among hindu and non-hindu fanatics. To quell violence the Abrahamic religions have to give up their exclusive monopoly on God.That is what i am trying to say. Besides, it`s not Christians in India converting hindus to christians whom you should worry. Really?.How do you know ?. It`s the muslims in Pakistan converting hindus to Islam. Look what Islam did to sub continent India. It was before only one India. Now, she`s only 1/2 of India. Ofcourse i know what islam did and still trying to do.I wrote several times about it.The bible thumping christians want to establish christian kingdom wherever they can.That includes somewhat clever ones like you who try to frighten nonchristians about "End times" to further their agenda. In other words, Ecumenism, is here to prevent this ancient nation from becoming 1/4 of India. Until there is none. Can you beat that?Melvin "In other words" you are trying to be clever in pushing your agenda by frightening the Hindus about chineses invasion. Sorry Melvin many people on this forum have understood what you are.Your silly tactics are not going to work. Better luck next time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin Posted July 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Ofcourse i know what islam did and still trying to do.I wrote several times about it.The bible thumping christians want to establish christian kingdom wherever they can.That includes somewhat clever ones like you who try to frighten nonchristians about "End times" to further their agenda . Christian UK would have done that a long time ago when she occupied India just like what Catholic Spain did to the Philippines. She was before ruled by Muslim Queens and Rajahs but Spain used her guns and canons when the natives were not convinced they were pagans and ought to be Christianized. "In other words" you are trying to be clever in pushing your agenda by frightening the Hindus about chineses invasion. If you look at world events there`s the possiblity Red China will do so without ado. Even if she has to feed billions of Hindus and Muslims just to occupy middle east and get that pot of black gold the Chinese always wanted. The occupation of USA in Iraq speaks for iself. Sorry Melvin many people on this forum have understood what you are.Your silly tactics are not going to work. Better luck next time. I`m sorry, too, Chandu_69. I guess, it`s your word against mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandu_69 Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 What is Ecumenism in the christian context? Here is What Vatican says: PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM The search for Christian Unity was one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. ....... the Holy Father noted that "the breadth of the ecumenical movement, the multiplication of dialogue statements, the urgent need that is felt for a greater participation by the whole People of God in this movement, and the consequent necessity of accurate doctrinal information, in view of a proper commitment, all of this requires that up-to-date directives be given without delay".4 It is in this spirit and in the light of these developments that the revision of this Directory has been made. To Whom is the Directory Addressed 4. The Directory is addressed to the Pastors of the Catholic Church, but it also concerns all the faithful, who are called to pray and work for the unity of Christians, under the direction of their Bishops. .... Aim of the Directory 6. The new edition of the Directory is meant to be an instrument at the service of the whole Church and especially of those who are directly engaged in ecumenical activity in the Catholic Church Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin Posted July 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 I don`t know what your trying to amplify, Chandu_69. That`s just a directory, for goodness sake. I want you to comment on the possiblity of Red China invading India even if she has to feed billions of Hindus and Muslims just to occupy middle east and get that pot of black gold the chinese always wanted. You said earlier I was trying to scare the hindus of a chinese invasion in India. That it was a kind of clever tactic of mine. Tell you frankly, I don`t have a hidden agenda nor I`m being paid or designated by the Catholic Church in convincing hindus that Christianity is a better option than Hinduism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 I didn't single out.It is one of the problems India and srilanka faces Smiley it says 2.1 billion are christions.So? Im not a christian but still beleive jesus lived.Many hindus also beleive in jesus.Also include the muslims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiley Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Believing someone lived and believing someone is relevant are two different things. Actions speak louder than words and the deities that Hindus think are relevant are the ones they propitiate in fire sacrifices. They often give lip-service to the deities of foreigners because that is the way many Hindus choose to practice gentleness. Smiley it says 2.1 billion are christions.So?Im not a christian but still beleive jesus lived.Many hindus also beleive in jesus.Also include the muslims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Believing someone lived and believing someone is relevant are two different things. Actions speak louder than words and the deities that Hindus think are relevant are the ones they propitiate in fire sacrifices. They often give lip-service to the deities of foreigners because that is the way many Hindus choose to practice gentleness. Quote: What i meant was beleiving someone lived. Christ is a historical figure. Whole history dating is based on A.D. and BC. If there are people who amount to billions and who brleve christ didint live then you can use the figure. whats happened to you. YOu can beleive all the hindu god and goddeses are living but cant beleive that jesus lived.That shows your just talking through emotions and not proof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiley Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 sant it is you that is "talking through emotions" and you are trying to project that on me. Try to read carefully what I actually say. I never said who I believed lived or did not. I already said that believing someone lived and believing that they are relevant are two different things. Then you start talking about if someone existed or not. I do not want to debate that with you since someone already has debated that with you. I do not care if someone who is irrelevant to my beliefs and practices existed or not. Many people existed in ancient times - it does not mean that they attained any kind of realization or that there is any good basis for believing they performed miracles or that any of the other mythology associated with that personality has any factual basis. Forgive me but I do not know how to be more clearer than I have been. What i meant was beleiving someone lived.Christ is a historical figure. Whole history dating is based on A.D. and BC. If there are people who amount to billions and who brleve christ didint live then you can use the figure. whats happened to you. YOu can beleive all the hindu god and goddeses are living but cant beleive that jesus lived.That shows your just talking through emotions and not proof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiley Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 sant it is you that is "talking through emotions" and you are trying to project that on me. Try to read carefully what I actually say. I never said who I believed lived or did not. I already said that believing someone lived and believing that they are relevant are two different things. Then you start talking about if someone existed or not. I do not want to debate that with you since someone already has debated that with you. I do not care if someone who is irrelevant to my beliefs and practices existed or not. Many people existed in ancient times - it does not mean that they attained any kind of realization or that there is any good basis for believing they performed miracles or that any of the other mythology associated with that personality has any factual basis. Forgive me but I do not know how to be more clearer than I have been. What i meant was beleiving someone lived.Christ is a historical figure. Whole history dating is based on A.D. and BC. If there are people who amount to billions and who brleve christ didint live then you can use the figure. whats happened to you. YOu can beleive all the hindu god and goddeses are living but cant beleive that jesus lived.That shows your just talking through emotions and not proof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Then why are you trying to demean others faith. What right do you have. I do not care if someone who is irrelevant to my beliefs and practices existed or not. Do you have any proof christ is a myth, that you keep on saying taht. Many people existed in ancient times - it does not mean that they attained any kind of realization or that there is any good basis for believing they performed miracles or that any of the other mythology associated with that personality has any factual basis. Forgive me Why not. What are you basis of facts. Its all faith youre talking with. You dont pray to christ so you deny hes existing.Isnt that right. Here these are your lines. What did you mean by them - reject it as irrelevant - as do billions of other people all over the world. The Indian subcontinent has not been well served by this myth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandu_69 Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Then why are you trying to demean others faith. What right do you have. Nobody has a right to demean other's faith as long as they keep it to themselves. Do you have any proof christ is a myth, that you keep on saying taht. You should really learn to read posts before responding.Smiley said in no uncertain terms(HE EVEN MADE A DOUBLE POST) that he is not interested in establishing the existence or non-existence of Jesus. People like smiley and me have a problem when the CHRISTIANS say christ is the ONLY way to AVOID perpetual punishment in hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Waht did smiley mean when he said reject it as irrelevant - as do billions of other people all over the world. The Indian subcontinent has not been well served by this myth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandu_69 Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Waht did smiley mean when he said reject it as irrelevant - as do billions of other people all over the world. The Indian subcontinent has not been well served by this myth. Yes people all over Europe rejected this Myth that jesus is the only saviour.It is in no way demeaning to jesus because jesus said: Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 OK so he meant that not jesus is a myth but jesus being only savoir is a myth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin Posted July 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 OK so he meant that not jesus is a myth but jesus being only savoir is a myth. In the absence of Christ in Jesus, Sant, is a consideration he`s a myth. Just as the absence of Christ in Jesus as savior is a myth. Because we have faith Jesus is the Christ then he isn`t a myth to billions of Christians like me who believe Christ Jesus is God and Savior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandu_69 Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 In the absence of Christ in Jesus, Sant, is a consideration he`s a myth. Just as the absence of Christ in Jesus as savior is a myth. Because we have faith Jesus is the Christ then he isn`t a myth to billions of Christians like me who believe Christ Jesus is God and Savior. Oh yes , jesus is the saviour from Wrath of God(Father) BIBLE: John 3:36 kjv He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. Jesus is the Savior from the righteous Anger(Wrath) of God(Father). Am i right?, melvin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin Posted July 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Oh yes , jesus is the saviour from Wrath of God(Father) BIBLE: John 3:36 kjv He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. My View: I`m a fan of Apostle`s Mark and Matthew not John. So, what ever John the Apostle says in the Bible in John3:36 to me is not a done deal. Like I`d rather follow the words of Narada and Vysadeva than what Yamaraja has to say. Jesus is the Savior from the righteous Anger(Wrath) of God(Father). My View: (Christ) Jesus is the Savior from the righteous Anger(Rudra) of God( Krsna). Am i right?, melvin. My View: Yes, Chandu. You`re correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandu_69 Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 My View: I`m a fan of Apostle`s Mark and Matthew not John. So, what ever John the Apostle says in the Bible in John3:36 to me is not a done deal. Here is Mark Mark 16:16 (kjv) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.. It looks like a done deal. My View: (Christ) Jesus is the Savior from the righteous Anger(Rudra) of God( Krsna). Krishna or Shiva(rudra) don't condemn you to eternal hell if you worship other gods.You pretty well know that. Now getting back to the original question. Saved from What?(as per bible) Don't give missionary bs like Jesus is Prajapathi etc.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin Posted July 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Here is Mark Mark 16:16 (kjv) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.. It looks like a done deal. Krishna or Shiva(rudra) don't condemn you to eternal hell if you worship other gods.You pretty well know that. Now getting back to the original question. Saved from What?(as per bible) Don't give missionary bs like Jesus is Prajapathi etc.. Saved from sin, like lust and anger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandu_69 Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Saved from sin, like lust and anger Healthy dose of Lust is required for propagation of life.Anger is a natural reaction. How they are sins?. If the above impulses are excessive and uncontrolled one may be inclined to do bad things and hence SIN. Plenty of people can control their impulses without believing in Jesus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin Posted July 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Healthy dose of Lust is required for propagation of life.Anger is a natural reaction. My View: There`s a saying: Forgive the sinner not the sin. Without lust, Adam and Eve wouldn`t have committed the sin of pre-marital sex. Without anger, Cain would have not killed his brother, Abel. How they are sins?. My View: It`s a sin to lustfully oogle at a devi dasi. It`s a sin to angrily stare at a Vaishnava. If the above impulses are excessive and uncontrolled one may be inclined to do bad things and hence SIN. My View: Yes, precisely! Lust eventually begets rape. And anger ultimately reaps murder. Plenty of people can control their impulses without believing in Jesus. My View: Yes. Plenty of people, too, can control their lust and anger without believing in Krsna. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandu_69 Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 melvin]My View: Yes. Plenty of people, too, can control their lust and anger without believing in Krsna. True, But they are not going to suffer in Eternal hell for not believing in Krishna. melvin]Yes, precisely! Lust eventually begets rape. And anger ultimately reaps murder. Lust eventually leads to love and anger eventually leads to realization; at least in majority of cases . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin Posted July 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 True, But they are not going to suffer in Eternal hell for not believing in Krishna My View: Who says so? An abortionist life after life will be the recipient of a never-ending abortion. This is eternal hell. Lust eventually leads to love and anger eventually leads to realization; at least in majority of cases . My View: Maybe. But only after you have served sentence for rape and murder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.