Is Christianity the religion of untruth?

[leyh]

karthik_v wrote:

 

"Jesus, the rebel Rabbi, had no clue about soul. All he was concerned was [with himself being] the sole [way to liberation]."

 

The above statement betrays a total lack of understanding about Jesus and his mission.I don't even know where to begin to criticize it.It's just staggering.

 

[Guest guest]

Jesus a myth? I don't know. But what I do know is that the Vedas are a complete fabrication of Muslim influence. Ismael Akbar was very shrewd in completely rewriting the very basis of Hinduism. What exists today in the name of Hinduism is nothing but Islam by another name.

[shvu]

 

Jesus is a divine character only in the Bible. Even if there was a historical Jesus, he would have lived as an ordinary person like anyone else (i.e, minus all the magic attributed to him). But since there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a historical Jesus, this discussion isn't of much use to anyone. The same applies to Raama and Krishna. If they existed, they were normal people like anyone else. Over time, they were turned into religious personalities and elevated to the position of avatars of Vishnu. Still later [by the time of Nimbarka], there was a role-reversal between Vishnu and Krishna, with some sections of North Indias looking upon Krishna as the Supreme being and Vishnu as one of his extensions. So much that the Brahma Vaivarta Puraanaa [16th century] has stories where Krishna humbles Vishnu.

 

A point of interest is the current trend of worshipping Bachchan in a temple in Calcutta. This gives us a clue as to how in the past, ordinary humans (viz., Raama, Krishna and others) became divine personalities with time. Another such example is Raadha. While completely absent in earlier stories of Krishna, by 12th century AD, she had already become his consort and his soul. Shirdi Sai Baba is another good example.

 

But all this is irrelevant to those who have belief. As far as they are concerned, their icons are real and divine and a simple thing such as no evidence is not going to bother them.

 

Cheers

[leyh]

Isn't the assertion that Rama and Krishna were just normal people like anyone else based on belief too? To those who choose to believe that Rama and Krishna were ordinary people,no evidence for their divinity is relevant enough.

[shvu]

 

Such an assertion is based on the simple fact that there are no miracles in real life.

 

This has been and can be observed in our day to day life. That is the basis for even doubting the birth of avatars who perform miracles,for otherwise, why would anyone be dubious about these personalities, in the first place? There are many people who have never come across any miracles themselves, but nonetheless, firmly believe they are possible...which is simply faith. Since, faith in unnatural occurences takes second place to facts and reality and also given the fact that authors of religious books are inclined towards hyperbole, it is more reasonable to consider them (Raama, Krishna) as ordinary humans...although they may have possessed extraordinary skill in archery or brilliance in politics, both of which are realistic.

 

There are also those who believe they have witnessed miracles. But once again, this is not something they can prove to others and so remains an individual belief, once again taking second place to facts and reality that can be commonly observed by one and all, without exception.

 

Cheers

 

 

[ethos]

You're smart and funny theist.

[leyh]

Dear Shvu:

 

You write about the "simple fact" that there are no miracles in real life and that this can be observed in our day to day life. Albert Einstein once remarked: "There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle." You may choose to see no miracles. That is your angle of vision, which should not be mistaken for "facts and reality that can be commonly observed by one and all, without exception." The word "all" means "everyone".Have you scrutinizingly studied everyone who has ever lived to the point that you are able to speak for them?

 

Srila Prabhupada once remarked that it is nature for everyone to think that others are like himself.You may say that the non-divinity of Krsna and Rama or the non-existence of miracles are simple facts for you.But isn't it unwise to assume that the same holds for every other person without exception? Because you have not experienced God, you assume that all others have not experienced God.

 

Maybe you should make room for the possibility that (in the words of Shakespeare) "There are more things in Heaven and Earth,Horatio,than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

[ethos]

Ok, I got sucked into this one.

 

This is my understanding of Prabhupada's philosophy on religions.

 

It is dogmatic to say "this religion or spiritual process is the only way." It also says nothing about the substance or truth of a religion (or spiritual process) to say that they all make claims and therefore negate each other. (If they're all true, none of them are true. If we're all kings, then no one is king.)

 

Every religion has a prescribed process. If you don't submit yourself to the process, then you're not a suitable candidate for the knowledge. This holds true for material science as well. You cannot judge another's knowledge in a particular field unless you yourself have the knowledge. It is meaningless to say "no one knows." And you can't say if someone knows unless "you" know.

 

Now that's a general rule for knowledge, but a particular individual may be very advanced- so much so that everyone accepts him as an authority.

 

Prabhupada, the personification of philosophy and religious science, accepted time-tested, world-class religions. Yet he also pointed out the faults of many spiritual philosophies and established Krsna consciousness as most revealing and confidential. All processes can be put on a philosophical ladder so to speak; some higher, some lower. It's not that they're all the same. So we have to see the merits of each process.

 

Hare Bol theist and leyh!

[shvu]

 

At the outset, let me make something clear to avoid any possible confusion. By miracles, I mean divine magic. For instance, wine magically turning into water or a huge mountain being lifted up on a little finger for 7 days and 7 nights. Such acts violate fundamental laws of nature and defy logic as we know it. Since, by experience, we have observed that such things do not happen in real life where everything conforms to the laws of nature, we call such impossible occurences as miracles. Hence, I would define a miracle as an extraordinary, unnatural occurence, which violates the laws of nature. Having said this, let us look at what Einstein said. The first part is plain enough, so let us look at the second part.

 

The other is as though everything is a miracle.

 

If everything is extra-ordinary, the term extra-ordinary loses it's meaning and so everything is ordinary again. This statement contradicts itself. Hence, I would not pay much attention to such statements which prima facie, seem corloful, but when analysed are found to convey nothing meaningful.Unless Einstein had a totally different perspective of what a miracle is, in which case it is not worthwhile to ponder over his statements without knowing what his perspective was.

 

 

You may choose to see no miracles. That is your angle of vision, which should not be mistaken for "facts and reality that can be commonly observed by one and all, without exception." The word "all" means "everyone". Have you scrutinizingly

studied everyone who has ever lived to the point that you are able to speak for them?

 

 

Is seeing or not seeing miracles, a matter of choice? If water turned into wine, the wine and hence the miracle is there for everyone to see. If it did not, the water is there for everyone to see. There is no choice in this matter. I have in fact, scrutinizingly studied the people myself and the people around me and and based on my observations and study, it is impossible to turn water into wine by waving one's hand. This is how science works. One does not have to look at all the crows in the world to say "crows are black in color".

 

 

Srila Prabhupada once remarked that it is nature for everyone to think that others are like himself.You may say that the non-divinity of Krsna and Rama or the non-existence of miracles are simple facts for you.But isn't it unwise to assume that the same holds for every other person without exception? Because you have not experienced God, you assume that all others have not experienced God.

 

 

Can you find someone to prove the existence of miracles? Until then, facts such as, "water does not turn into wine" hold precedence. That is the point. We are not discussing God here and whil we are on the topic, it is possible for someone to believe in God and yet not believe in miracles. I just don't see God occasionally violating his own laws, for such a violation would make him imperfect...in my opinion.

 

 

Maybe you should make room for the possibility that (in the words of Shakespeare) "There are more things in Heaven and

Earth,Horatio,than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

 

 

My philosophy has room for anything and everything than ever dreamt of, but I choose to stick to facts and choose not to place my trust in old religious books, which like I said before, abound in hyperbole. Not having made a critical study of our Indian religious books, you really will not understand what I am talking about here. Lastly, I have no problems with people believing in x, y or z to be an avatar or in believing that avatars can magically create sarees of infinite length. What people wish to do, is their own business.

 

Cheers

[Somesh Kumar]

Hi Shvu,

 

A humble suggestion to you.

 

Please develop the submissive attitude in understanding the religious concepts, especially the lilas or the pastimes of Bhagavaan. Otherwise you will always be away from the most wonderful experience and the aim of human life that is the <u>prema for Krishna</u>.

 

Krishna said in Bhagavad Gita

"Naham prakaasha sarvasya, yoga-maaya samvrutah,

Mudhoyam nabhijaanaati, maamebhya param avyayam"

 

So he has called the person who does'nt understand his superior position as fool.

 

And why the person cannot understand His superior position?

 

The reason is that person is fully under the control of the material energy. Also applying too much logic can not be of any help.

 

Can you use this same logic with which you've condemned the lilas of Bhagavaan and save yourself from your death?

 

Sorry, if I am a bit harsh here. Forgive me if I've hurt you!

 

I pray that Krishna give you the intelligence to understand Him and surrender on to Him!!!

 

[karthik_v]

Dear Avinashji,

 

 

What will you consider as shastric basis?

 

 

Good question. Those who have read my previous posts know that I have little regard for shastras, especially of the kind of Manusmriti. I consider most of them to be highly interpolated. So, even if somebody produces a line from a highly interpolated Bhavisya purana in support of their claim that Jesus was an avatara, I won't be impressed. Here my question was addressed to those who base their judgements on shastric utterings. So, I wanted to know from those persons, who to shastras, if there is a shastric basis for Jesus' avatarhood. Hope that clarifies. The corollary to my question is that if they can accept Jesus' avatarhood without a shastric basis, then why do they reject someone else' claim that Sai Baba is also an avatar.

 

PS: I have little regard for Sai Baba either.

 

Dear Guestji [i suggest that you become Questji!],

 

 

But what I do know is that the Vedas are a complete fabrication of Muslim influence. Ismael Akbar was very shrewd in completely rewriting the very basis of Hinduism. What exists today in the name of Hinduism is nothing but Islam by another name.

 

 

I ignored you because you never substantiated your claims with any references. Since you are persistent, I need to put things in perspective for you. Have you heard of Sayanacarya and his comentary on the vedas? Would you care to check on his chronology and let me know if he lived before or after Akbar? While doing so, could you also clarify for yourself as to whose kingdom Sayanacarya lived in? And then come back and tell me if the version of the 4 vedas we have now is any different from the one to which Sayanacarya wrote a commentary for?

 

Once you find the find the answers to these questions, could you please send a mail to the moderator requesting him to delete the factually inaccurate post you have made? Or just admit so here? That would elevate you in our eyes.

 

Dear Shvu,

 

I don't discount the possibility of miracles. Nor do I to the school of logic that claims that reality is limited to what we observe. Our perception of the reality is dependent on a few variables such as the facts at our disposition and the tools for perceiving the same. The fanatical church of the middle ages did perceive a sun that went around the earth and Prophet Mohammad earnestly believed that the sun set in a muddy pond, just to wake up the next morning [in the east] after a nice slumber! Perception, with limited facts, is not everything.

 

Nevertheless, I apply a different yardstick to decide whether a book abounds in hyperbole - that I do by looking for contradictions within the same book. By that yardstick, our puranas and the Bible are full of hyperbole.

 

The Hindus accept their scriptures without bothering whether they are historical. It is not necessary to show that Krishna was historical before a Hindu accepts the BG. On the other hand, Christianity is dependent on historical incidents, rather myths, that surround Jesus. Without recourse to resurrection, multiplying loaves, chasing the pigs down the hill etc., there is little validity to the claim that he was the Son of the God. So, when one can show the contradictions in the NT and using other evidences can establish that he was a myth, the religion itself can't stake any claims to divine origins. That is not the case with Hinduism. Countless Hindus have practised the religion and introspected on the BG without subscribing to the notion that Krishna was God incarnate. In fact, without even subscribing to the notion of avatars.

[karthik_v]

Dear Avinashji,

 

There is one more reason why I demanded shatric basis for the avatarhood of Jesus, the rebel rabbi. It is common sight for ISKCON devotees to pounce on a Sai Baba devotee when he claims that Sai Baba is an avatar. Our devotee will flash BG, SB and eloquently reel out all the avatars mentioned therein and demand to know if Sai Baba is one of them. The relentless attack will go on until the petrified Baba devotee takes to his heel.

 

I dont find anything wrong when an ISKCON devotee does that. After all, I am not magnanimous and I dont think Sai Baba is God either. So, a sectarian person like me feels that we can indulge in an all out attack on what we don't like. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

 

What surprises me the most is when the same ISKCON devotee puts SB aside and meekly accepts that Jesus is an avatar. That is when I feel it is pertinent that I remind him of the arguments he deployed against Sai Baba.

 

Of course, I must admit that ISKCON alone is not at fault here. RKM does the same thing. R K Parahamsa also thought that Jesus and Mohammad were prophets. He even met them in his trance! [Mohammad must have taken a day off from his busy schedule with the heuris /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif] Looks like this is a Bengali affliction. Can't blame them either. Kolkata was the Rajdhani during the British era and Bengalis were the first of Macaulay's children. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

 

Paramacarya of Kanchi Sankara mutt once told that any true religion cannot have a point of origin in time, because that way those who lived before that are denied salvation. Since Christianity and Islam both originated at a specific time, they cannot be true religions. The only true religion is sanatana dharma - the religion based on the apaurusya vedas.

[shvu]

 

 

What surprises me the most is when the same ISKCON devotee puts SB aside and meekly accepts that Jesus is an avatar. That is when I feel it is pertinent that I remind him of the arguments he deployed against Sai Baba.

 

 

It is perhaps the "Prabhupada said so" approach. Prabhupada attested Jesus as an avatar and so he was an avatar. Prabhupada did not speak of Sai Baba (I think) and since Sai Baba is not related to ISKCON, he cannot be an avatar, period.

 

A confused stand I have seen in ISKCON, is the inability to reconcile beween the original Indian Vaishnava sectarianism and the necessity to preach to people of other religions. Hence, they have no issues stating Allah is none other than Krishna, but are held back from saying the same about Shiva. Therefore, according to ISKCON, Shiva is a demi-god, while Allah is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, which implies it is better to be a muslim than to be a Shaiva, worshipping a demi-God.

 

Cheers

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Devotees of ISKCON do not accept Jesus as God, but as a shaktyavesha-avatara, an empowered living entity. Thus there is a clear difference between someone saying Sai Baba is God, and someone saying Jesus was an empowered saint.

 

Personally, I rely on the words of the saints to identity the liberated souls, not on a confused notion of history.

[Guest guest]

 

you may not believe in the ability of Krishna to lift govardhana hill or other aspects of his lila that seem fantastic and impossible, that is fine, still what is possible in a world like ours when we know that this material reality is an illusion,any physicist will tell you

that what appears to be a solid material world is in fact mostly empty space,and that matter itself is a transformation of energy,at it's most basic level it has

no mass, when these things are understood,

then something like the lila of Krishna is more

appreciable.

 

The entire universe is a manifestation of the consciousness of God, if that all pervading

being decides to take human form and perform a play ,say lifting a hill,in fact that illusion can be created

by him.

When you understand that the material world is a unified field of consciousness masquerading as matter,then you can appreciate the fact that matter is part of God's consciousness,and can be manipulated at will by him in any way he desires.

[karthik_v]

There is no need to doubt that God or Krishna can perform miracles. After all, if we accept that there exists a Creator, who is all powerful, then it automatically follows that he can do anything - even things that seem impossible or to be violating the physical laws.

 

A scientist wouldn't accept a creator God, because he always seeks empirical evidence. So, approaching religion with a scientific bent of mind is futile. Of course, even a scientist wouldn't insist that empiricism explains everything, because, he also knows that there is no Grand unifying theory and there are exceptions to virtually physical law.

 

So, a certain element of faith is involved in science as well as religion. A scientist trusts that what he perceives is indeed what is true. A spiritualist trusts the creator as the starting point.

 

Now talking of miracles, Hinduism isn't dependent on miracles for its survival. Lord Rama didn't perform any miracle, yet he is worshipped. Many acaryas like Sankara, Ramanuja, Caitanya [atleast outwardly] and Prabhupada didn't perform any miracle, yet they are revered. Hinduism is a religion that is always open to introspection and doesn't depend on dogmatic pronouncements that have to depend on miracles. The prime focus of Hinduism is not make a believer adhere to an authority or a performer of miracle in a dogmatic manner. Rather, the focus is on making a person relate to a tenet, experience it and internalize it. That is precisely the reason why Hinduism survived the onslaught of Islam and Christianity, both of which were evil and tyrannical. Every other religion in this world got decimated when faced with the same. You can't decimate a way of life, can you?

 

So, in Hinduism, faith in an acarya or God goes hand in hand with that process of internalization. On the other hand, the very basis of Christianity is dogma. Its foundation is very much dependednt on the miracles that are attached to Jesus. So, the entire religion and the faith that goes with that, falls apart if you can easily show [as has been done many times over] that those miracles are mere myths. Please note that for Christianity to be valid, the historicity of Jesus and a historical validation of the miracles that go by his name are essential.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

I wonder why you are very quick to disregard any statement by Shankara that you are uncomfortable with as interpolation, despite there being no such evidence, yet you would not consider that the teachings of the bible may have been interpolated and not a true representationof Jesus's message.

[Guest guest]

Bhaktajoy here.

 

Lord Jesus came to teach about love.His teachings were simple and sublime.Love God and thy neighbour unconditionally and you will go to heaven.

[Guest guest]

Bhaktajoy here.

 

If you read near death experiences you will know that Jesus was an avatara.Whenever I have prayed to Jesus he has taken care of me.I know deep in my heart that he is very close to God.He is perfected son of God.According to nde's our soul shine with light of 100W bulb,Jesus 10,000 and God zillions.

 

Shvu is making things complicated.It is not necessary.Mental speculation and knowledge process is of no use if we cannot love God and his creation.

[karthik_v]

Dear J N Das prabhuji,

 

 

I wonder why you are very quick to disregard any statement by Shankara that you are uncomfortable with as interpolation, despite there being no such evidence, yet you would not consider that the teachings of the bible may have been interpolated and not a true representationof Jesus's message.

 

 

You may say I am a dreamer

I am not the only one.

Hope some day you will join us

And the world will be One. - John Lennon. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

Seems like even a few religious leaders, who are actually following Advaita, agree with me. Even a cursory analysis of Sankara's commentary on Brahma sutra reveals that some parts were later day interpolation, as they contradict his sayings elsewhere in the same treatise. I can post in detail, when I get some time. That would be a seperate thread in itself.

 

Interpolation, even otherwise, is a distinct possibility. Sankara mutts, all of them, have been without a head for long periods of time after the Muslim invasion. Some were actually resurrected by the barbaric Muslim kings. In those days, the works were preserved only on manuscripts written on palmyrah leaves. They lasted only for a short time. It doesn't take a great effort for someone to rewrite them, to suit his fancy.

 

Actually, I have written before that the entire Bible is a doctored version. As Nietszhe said, the last Christian died on the cross. [it may not necessarily refer to Jesus though]. It was re-written atleast thrice and may not reflect anything that Jesus taught - assuming that he taught anything different from OT. But, this also raises a pertinent question: How do you know what Jesus taught? I am attacking the very fundamental of Christian belief - that Jesus resurrected. Historically and even biblically that stands unsubstantiated or even contradicted and negated.

 

Above all, my objection is only to raising Jesus to the status of an avatar - shaktyavesha or otherwise. Such a pronouncement has no shastric basis. For a practising Hindu, Jesus is no better than a Sufi fakir, a Parsi priest or a Jewish rabbi - and as insignificant. It is also worthwhile noting that the acaryas outside of Bengal never cared about Jesus. For them, he was as foreign as Cuban cigar - and as irrelevant and useless in their sublime spiritual pursuit.

[karthik_v]

Dear Guest,

 

 

According to nde's our soul shine with light of 100W bulb,Jesus 10,000 and God zillions.

 

 

Wow! I would refrain from going anywhere near a 10,000 watts bulb. Too hot for anyone's comfort and too bad from an enery conservation point of view. I guess such a bulb is better turned off /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

Doubt: Did the Jews who crucified him wear shock proof gloves or did they use non-conducting nails? I would think that driving a nail through a 10,000 watts object is quite dangerous.

[karthik_v]

Dear Bhaktajoy prabhu,

 

 

Lord Jesus came to teach about love.His teachings were simple and sublime.Love God and thy neighbour unconditionally and you will go to heaven.

 

 

If you love thy neighbour, can you hand out rape as a punishment to her? Or, can you sell him in slavery? Every time, I think of Jesus' teachings as unconditional love, these things from the Bible stare at me? What should I do?

[Raguraman]

Hare Krishna,

 

 

Just a question. I have not seen mentioned in any familiar scriptures (tomy knowledge) about different types of avatars. However GVs talk about Saktyvesa avatara etc. Can anyone throw some light on this.

 

Except the words of GV acharyas, I have yet to see scriptural verses that mention Jesus as an avatar.

 

Can anybody produce the verses of Bhavishya purana pertaining to Jesus.

[Guest guest]

Dear Raguraman,

 

Bhavishya Purana is one of the most highly interpolated text and ideally belonging to the stable of Aurangazeb. Very rarely, if ever, you will see acaryas from other mutts quoting from this. So, a quote from that book is by no means an indication that Jesus is an avatara. If I remember correctly what I have read, it talks of one Isa preaching to mlecchas and that is taken to be Jesus.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

But, this also raises a pertinent question: How do you know what Jesus taught?

 

 

...the same way you decide that what you dont like in Shankara's writings are interpolation.

 

You are holding on to a terrible double standard. When Shankara talks about pouring lead in the ears of a shudra, you claim (without basis) that it is interpolation. Can you show a statement in Shankara's writings where he says Shudras should be taught the Vedas? On the contrary he states the opposite. But you will criticize Jesus for things he never even said. You will quote a passage from the old testament and claim "Jesus said this." But 1) the old testament is not spoken by Jesus, 2) could have been interpolated at later times, 3) there was no bible during Jesus's time.

 

Here are the facts:

 

1) Shankara speaks negatively about shudras.

2) The Puranas speak negatively of Shudras.

3) The Dharma-shastras speak negatively of shudras.

4) The Niti-shashtras speak negatively about shudras.

5) The Bhagavad Gita speaks negatively about shudras.

6) All of these books were preserved in libraries in South India, and protected from the Muslims.

7) Karthik doesn't like to speak negatively about Shudras, so books in categories 1 - 6 must all be interpolated.

 

8) The present bible is a perfect representation of what Jesus taught, and therefore we should criticize him based on things he never said.

 

Thats the double standard I am talking about. You should at least have the strength to criticize Shankara along the same lines as Jesus, or people will simply interprete your stance as religious intolerance. Everyone likes to say my religion is best and all others are false.