Here's some food for thought...read it carefully!

[GospelDefense]

Resurrections

 

 

 

When you try to equate an alleged resurrection by another human being with the resurrection of Jesus Christ there are at least four particular things you have to keep in mind. First is the attestation. Can we trust the testimony of the witnesses who say they saw a resurrection? A standard rule of thumb is: the greater the claim, the greater the proof needed to show the event actually took place. In the case of a resurrection, you'd have to have significant proof that such an event took place or else you are not obliged to believe it. What we have here is an account by Paramahansa Yogananda that there were two people who appeared alive to others after they had been dead.

One of the questions I think it's reasonable to ask is: Can we trust the testimony of Paramahansa Yogananda? It's not enough to say that he is a holy man, so he wouldn't lie. I don't know that he would or wouldn't. I'm simply saying that these kinds of testimonies--especially those making extreme claims-- have to be viewed with some suspicion and be considered false until proven true. Do we have good evidence the resurrection actually took place? Can we trust the testimony?

 

In Jesus' case, there were many sightings. The sightings weren't just by individuals; there were group sightings. The resurrection was proclaimed in the presence of hostile witnesses. There were a lot of people around who had means, motive and opportunity to disprove the resurrection if the evidence was against it.

 

You also have the historic impact of the resurrection. We have the transformed lives of the apostles. We have the birth of the Church.

 

All of these things amount to compelling evidence that a resurrection took place because there is nothing else that can explain all of the undisputed factors surrounding the resurrection account itself.

 

It's very difficult to impeach the witnesses to Jesus' resurrection, but what of this other account? That's one question. I can't answer that. And if I can't answer that, then I can't throw my weight of approval on this alleged resurrection. Unless you have unimpeachable witness accounts of the resurrection, then I think the claim of a Hindu resurrection on par with Jesus' resurrection is seriously hindered.

 

There is a second issue, though, and it has to do with the bodily resurrection. Jesus rose bodily never to die again. There are two things here. One, Jesus didn't die again like Lazarus. Lazarus was raised from the dead, but Lazarus' resurrection was not like Jesus' because Lazarus wasn't raised to an immortal body. He was raised temporally in his old physical body with all of its limitations and then he died again. Jesus was raised in His glorified body never to die again.

 

That's why it's so important that the grave was empty; Jesus' body was raised from the dead. He didn't simply reappear in some spiritual form after He died. Jesus' resurrection wasn't merely a visitation of His spirit. The text specifically contradicts that option. It says the disciples thought they were seeing His spirit, but He said, no, touch my body. It was a manifestation of His resurrected body.

 

Remember, whenever anyone was resurrected in the Scriptures, the tomb was opened, the body itself was revivified--either temporally, as with Lazarus or Dorcas in the book of Acts, as in a resurrected physical body, or resurrected forever in an immortal resurrected body, as in the case of Jesus.

 

Now, here is the question: Where is Swami Yukteswar's physical body? We may have a manifestation of some sort of spirit here, if the Swami appears to people after he has died. But my question is, where is the body? An appearance of his spirit--even if I were to grant such a thing were possible--is different than a resurrection like Jesus accomplished. The same with Lahiri Mahasaya. The fact that Mahasaya was cremated doesn't obviate a resurrection, of course. It just makes it impossible to claim this alleged resurrection is the kind of resurrection described of Jesus in the Scriptures. There's no way to know.

 

A third distinction is that Jesus raised Himself from the dead. Now, that's pretty special, I think. That's different. In John 2:19-21 Jesus said to them, "Destroy this temple and in three days, I will raise it up." John goes on to explain, "He was speaking of the temple of His body."

 

So Jesus died and appeared according to the testimony of many unimpeachable witnesses, which gave birth to the church. That's why His resurrection is an event known world-wide, even today, 2000 years later. You don't have to read about it in the writings of an obscure Yogi. Jesus appeared in the same body He had before, that's why the tomb was empty, but it was an immortal body, transformed. He rose by His own volition. He raised His own dead body from the grave. These are entirely and utterly distinctive, ladies and gentlemen. There is nothing like this anywhere else.

 

Some will ask: Do you believe there could be other resurrections? My answer is yes, I believe there actually were other resurrections and there will be other resurrections. In the Scriptures we see people being raised from the dead, but these weren't like Jesus' resurrection. And in the future there will be raisings from the dead, but they still will not be like Jesus' resurrection. In each case, there will be something different. The ones in the past were not permanent. The ones in the future will be permanent, but they will be done and accomplished by a third party, not by the deceased themselves. So, Jesus' resurrection was utterly unique. First, it was attested to by unimpeachable evidence. Second, it was a true bodily resurrection, that's why the tomb was empty. Third, Jesus self-consciously raised Himself from the dead. Those are qualities that I don't see matched in any other alleged resurrection account--even by the good Swami Yogananda in his book, Autobiography of a Yogi .

 

What if all of those requirements were met? What if there was an unimpeachable testimony from the Hindu tradition of a bodily resurrection of an individual who raised himself from the dead? What then? Well, that brings us to a different kind of an issue. At best, what we would have are two contradictory world view claims that both seem to be supported by a remarkable resurrection--one from Jesus with a Jewish, theistic world view, the other from a Hindu with a pantheistic world view.

 

Their point is this: the fact that there could be resurrections in both traditions justifies the testimonies of both traditions. This means that both traditions are really saying the same thing about the nature of the world. That truth is this: The world is Hindu. In other words, the Hindu perception of ultimate reality is accurate, and the Bible and Jesus affirm this in an awkward, indirect kind of way.

 

 

 

 

Do all religions lead to God?

 

 

 

You see, there is a very misleading notion going around here by those who claim that all religions ultimately lead to God. They say that there is not one true religion, but that all religions are true. That is a misleading claim. The people who make those claims are often devotees of eastern religion, primarily Hinduism. What their claim actually means is that Hinduism is the only true religion and all other paths will ultimately lead to Hinduism. There is an exclusive claim here. Hinduism is true.

But I disagree. There is no complicity between the teachings of any Hindu and the teachings of Jesus Christ. There cannot be. They are diametrically opposed to each other. These views are not the same.

 

Jesus was a Jew. He was a theist. Hindus are pantheistic. These views can't both be correct at the same time, folks; they are contradictory. Therefore, one must look at other features to justify or substantiate the respective religious claims other than a resurrection, if they both share a resurrection. If there are two bona-fide resurrections here, then a resurrection obviously can't be enough to substantiate the broader religious claims.

 

I don't think there are two bona-fide resurrections here. Jesus' resurrection was unique. But even if there were, then we would have two miracles supporting two opposing points of view. They cancel each other out and you have to look at the details of the world view to determine who is right and who is wrong. Or maybe both of them are wrong. But they are certainly not both right. They can't be.

 

There's a much more fundamental issue here and one that's too often overlooked in discussions like these. It's the practice of straining through particular words in the Scriptures to find a way to reconcile the teaching of Jesus with, in this case, eastern religion. It's kind of a microscopic look at the trees that causes you to ignore the forest.

 

It is always possible to look at individual things that are said and imagine that this plays into your favorite theology. People do that all the time. In this case the theology is eastern mysticism. You look at some particular thing that Jesus said like, "With God all things are possible," or, "You are all sons of the most high," or, "The Kingdom of God is within you."

 

It is also possible to take statements of Tommy Lasorda and divine some deep spiritual meaning, but I will guarantee you there's no deep spiritual meaning in Tommy Lasorda's comments about the Dodgers. You can't just make a microscopic focus of the individual words or a sentence or two here or there. You really have to look at the body of work itself. You have to look at the broader context.

 

I want to tell you a secret in this regard. Jesus was not a Hindu. How do I know? I read His teachings. All of them. Jesus is not a Hindu. Period. Exclamation point. That doesn't mean that Jesus was necessarily right. He could have been totally wrong, for the sake of argument. The point is, He was not a Hindu. He was a Jew. Jews had a very particular religion, a very peculiar religion. It stood in stark contrast to the religions of the people around them. There is no possible way to make the views of Jesus the Jewish rabbi conform to Hindu theology. The great body of His teaching does not make such a thing possible.

 

Nothing could be more obvious in biblical teaching than that God is distinct from His creation. The whole relationship of Creator and creature, Judge and judged, Lawgiver and law obeyer, Master and servant, all depend on the fact that there is a genuine distinction between the first and the second.

 

But in the teachings of the Swamis there is no such distinction. As a matter of fact, our problem is that we think there's a distinction when there isn't. Therefore, if Jesus is teaching there is a distinction such that God is God and the creation is the creation, and the Swamis are teaching that God is the creation, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that they are talking about two different things. This is fundamental. This is not difficult. This is not hard. This is not meant to stretch your minds. It's very simple. I am astounded that people can get this so confused.

 

 

What does it mean to live in the will of the Father? The good Swami makes this comment, "A form of spiritual cowardice leads many worldly people to believe comfortably that only one man was the son of God. Christ was uniquely created, they reason, so how can I a mere mortal emulate Him?" He continues: "Paul wrote, 'God created all things by Christ' and when Jesus said 'Before Abraham was, I Am.' The sheer essence of the words is impersonality."

 

I don't get that, frankly. What the Swami is saying is that the essence of the words of Jesus and Paul here is the impersonality of ultimate being. Is he making that up? Read the verses yourselves. Is that in there? It takes a person to create, doesn't it? It's not an "imperson" that creates; it's a person. Further, Jesus the man was uniquely created. How could that be missed by anyone who reads the words written about Him? Further, He is the Creator. We are the created. What could be more obvious from the Bible?

 

When one studies the Bible, they see there is no possible connection between the Jesus and the gurus. We are talking about completely different, conflicting, contradictory, mutually-exclusive theologies. Either Jesus is right or Paramahansa Yogananda is right, or they are both wrong, but they are certainly not both right. It doesn't do any good to strain at these words and speculate on their relationship to Hindu theology when the whole broad scope of Jesus' teachings makes such an interpretation absolutely bizarre.

 

This brings us to the issue of interpretation. Jesus says, "I am the way, truth and the life. No one comes to the Father, but through me," John 14:6.

 

That strikes me as pretty straight forward. That's why the disciples, in reiterating this statement in Acts 4:12 say, "There is salvation in none other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

 

Here's the Yoga's interpretation of that passage. "Theologians have misinterpreted Christ's words in such passages as, 'I am the way the truth and the life no man cometh unto the Father but by me.' Jesus meant, never that He was the sole son of God, but that no man can attain to the unqualified Absolute, the transcendent Father beyond creation, until he has first manifested the 'Son' or activated Christ Consciousness within creation. Jesus, who had achieved entire oneness with that Christ Consciousness, identified himself with it in as much as his own ego had long since been dissolved." ( Autobiography of a Yogi , p. 198, footnote; emphasis in the original)

 

Can you make any sense out of that? I can because I have read it before. Basically, Jesus had Christ-consciousness, and the only way to the Father is through Christ-consciousness, not through Jesus, that unique individual. According to the Swami, we misunderstood Jesus. The theologians misunderstood Jesus. The apostles who lived with Him misunderstood Jesus. The Swami does not.

 

 

 

 

Why quote Jesus at all?

 

 

 

Now here's a question for you. Why quote Jesus at all? Why would anybody quote Jesus? It seems to me it's because Jesus is the source of the valued information. He knows what He's talking about. He's a guy with some insight. He knows a few things about spiritual things, so let's hear what He has to say and let's heed what He has to say. If that's the case, then it seems to me we should be very careful to find out what Jesus meant when He said particular things.

Do you notice how no attempt is made to justify the interpretation I just read of the Swami regarding Jesus' comments in John 14:6? There is no mention of the context of the writings themselves. No attempt was made to justify the interpretation from the life of Jesus Himself and the broad scope of His teaching. Instead, we hear a lot of mumbo-jumbo about activating the Christ-consciousness within and attaining the unqualified absolute--which are phrases and terms that bear no resemblance to the teaching of Jesus, in this passage or any other.

 

To put it in a simpler way, why should I believe this interpretation is accurate? There is such a thing as an accurate interpretation. And if there is such a thing as an accurate interpretation, then there are inaccurate ones, too. When people talk, they mean something in particular. That's why Jesus talked and taught. That means it is possible to misunderstand what His meaning is.

 

That is the question here. What is the meaning of Jesus? There is not a single word in the New Testament about the Christ-consciousness.

 

By the way, do you know what "Christ" means? It means Messiah. That's what it means. That is what it has meant for 2000 years. Cristos is the Greek rendering of the Aramaic Meshiac or Hebrew, which is Messiah, Anointed One. The Christ, the Messiah, was always a particular person, an office held, not a consciousness attained. This is not "my interpretation." Any other view just isn't there. And if you want to make up some other definition of Christ, you must add something to it, you must read it in.

 

It's like someone saying, "The idea that Jesus was male is just your interpretation. What about the place where he gave birth?What?" you say. "Where is that?Right here. Jesus said, 'I came that they might have life and might have it more abundantly.' See, He's giving birth to children here so He's a woman."

 

Do you see how absurd that is? It's not there in the words; you have to import the idea. Well, this is the same way. The Christ is the Messiah, the rescuer of Israel, the Person who held an office of anointed one. He isn't an ordinary guy who achieved a level of spiritual attainment that He called Christ- consciousness that we all can achieve, too. Jesus was not a Hindu.

 

People who play the "just your interpretation" game really need a Bible that has blank pages, because if one's interpretation has little to do with the words themselves, then the words themselves are not even necessary. In effect, people who play that game are writing their own Bible. The Bible itself becomes whatever your mere opinion says it says.

 

 

May the Peace of The Lord Jesus Christ Cover You!

 

 

Gospel Defense

 

 

The Gospel Defense http://www.mikemonroe.org

[GospelDefense]

Some critics of the Bible try to discredit the New Testament by saying that the books of which it consists were written centuries later than Christians claim. These people are either lying or they don't really know their subject. There are two complete Bible in existence that date from no later than 220 AD. One is the Codex Vaticanus, which is in the Vatican Library. The other is the Codex Sinaiticus, which is presently in the Russian Museum in Moscow. It is so called because it was found in an old monastery in the Sinai Desert. These Bibles existed over 1500 miles apart long before the rise of modern transportation. Their existence shows that the New Testament had to have been assembled decades before these Bible were made. The individual books, therefore, had to have been written even earlier.

 

Furthermore, there is a broad consensus of support from the writings of the Early Church Fathers* for believing that all the books of the New Testament were written by the men to whom they are attributed. There are so many quotes from the New Testament in their writings that if we lost the New Testament completely, we could reassemble all but a few, insignificant verses of it from the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

 

There is internal evidence within the Gospels to believe that, contrary to what critics and even some "Christian" Bible scholars say, that the first three - Matthew, Mark and Luke - were written no later than 65 AD. This is also true of the Book of Acts, and almost certainly true of the Epistles of Paul, Peter, James and Jude. The Gospel of John, his Epistles and the Book of Revelation, were later, but John wrote them. He was the only Apostle to die a natural death, and he is known to have been very long lived.

 

For example, in Luke 2:21-24, following the Christmas story, there is an account of two specific rituals that Joseph and Mary followed after the birth of Jesus, in obedience to the Law of Moses, as in Leviticus 12. The fact that that story is there, and is in perfect accordance with the Law of Moses, shows that the person who wrote the Book of Luke was closely acquainted with Old Testament Judaism. If a gentile writer in, say, the second or third century, had written the Gospel of Luke, he probably wouldn't have known about that. The rituals include a temple sacrifice, and that practice ended in 70 AD. The story is evidence that the Gospel of Luke was written in the First Century, by a person familiar with ancient Judaism.

 

Overall, the Bible as a whole is authentic and reliable. We have more evidence for the authenticity of the New Testament than for the old. People who say different are speaking from ignorance or deliberate refusal to accept the truth. You can trust the Bible to be what it says it is: The Word of God! The New Testament does in fact contain the New Covenant prophesied in the Old Testament.

 

* The Early Church Fathers were Christian leaders during the period from circa 100 - 400 AD. They left a considerable body of writing that tells us much about the history of the Bible and the early Church, including what Early Christians believed. Their writings did much (and still do) to shape the theology of Christianity. The study of their writings is by itself a major area of Christian scholarship.

 

 

 

The Truth of the Resurrection

 

When critics have finished attacking the Bible on scientific or authenticity grounds, the next thing they attack is the doctrine of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is agreed by both Christians and critics that Biblical Christianity stands or falls on whether or not Jesus Christ actually arose from the dead. If He did, then the Christian Faith is probably, even from a skeptics point of view, the one true religion it claims to be. (Skeptics, of course, usually will refuse to believe it, regardless of the evidence.) If He did not, as even St. Paul admitted (in so many words - I Corinthians 15:15-19) then the Christian Faith is worse than worthless.

 

Rather than deal with arguments against it, we will look at the most notable reason to believe that He did:

 

If Jesus had not risen from the dead,

there would never have been a Christian Faith.

 

After the Crucifixion, as the Bible tells us, the disciples were in hiding. When the women from the Tomb told them about the Resurrection, they didn't believe it. Some of them were starting to slip out of Jerusalem in small groups (Luke 24:13). Yet these men went on to change the world. What changed them?

 

The night before the Crucifixion, St. Peter vehemently denied even knowing Jesus. Yet six weeks later he stood before a large crowd and preached the Pentecost sermon that effectively started the Church. What changed him?

 

The Gospel of Mark tells of a young man who fled naked from the scene of Jesus' arrest - a very shameful thing at the time. Some scholars think the man was Mark himself - he is known to have been one of the youngest of Jesus' disciples. If so, why does he tell us this? Is it perhaps a subtle testimony to how much he had been changed? By what?

 

What had changed them all was the fact that they had seen Jesus alive after He died on the Cross. There is unwitting support for this idea from one of Christianity's most vicious critics; Hugh Schonfield, author of best-selling book, "The Passover Plot". In that book, written to discredit the Resurrection,

 

Schonfield admits that there wouldn't have been a Christian Faith if the disciples didn't really believe that Christ had arisen from the dead!

 

But the theory he puts forward to explain this is at least as hard to believe as the Resurrection. He says, in essence, that an imposter convinced the disciples that he was Jesus risen from the dead. This is not as plausible as it sounds. It isn't easy for an imposter to fool a person who really knows the person being impersonated. Schonfield probably didn't know this. Here is a true story that illustrates this point.

 

 

 

 

The Impersonation of "Monty"

 

In the months before the D-Day invasion in World War II, Allied intelligence went to great lengths with counter-espionage and disinformation efforts - successfully - to make the Nazis believe that the invasion would take place anywhere but Normandy. Part of their efforts was making it appear that an invasion of southern France was planned. They carried out several ingenious, carefully planned and executed hoaxes to accomplish this. One of these hoaxes involved the impersonation of British Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery.

 

"Monty" was the most popular officer in the British military. The Allies wanted the Germans to think he was planning an invasion of southern France. But he was too busy with preparations for the real invasion to take part in the hoax. So what they did was find a professional actor who closely resembled Monty. The actor followed Monty around for two weeks, watching everything he did, even how he shaved, and learned to impersonate him.

 

Now understand this: a professional actor knows how to study a real person if he is going to portray that person on stage or screen. He can change the way he talks to make himself sound more like the person he is portraying. (This is a vocal skill that in the theater world is called "dialects".) He can also apply makeup to increase the resemblance. So this guy's impersonation of Monty would have been good!

 

With his "training" complete, the bogus Monty was sent on a tour of Allied bases in the Mediterranean region. The idea was that "Monty's" high-profile "presence" there would make Nazi spies think the real Monty was planning the invasion of southern France. All went well until one day he gave a speech to a group of officers, one of whom had served with the real Monty. After the meeting, that officer took the bogus Monty aside and said to him,

 

"That was a great speech, Sir.

Now would you please tell me one thing:

Who the bleep are you?"

 

The officer who knew the real Monty saw right through the impersonation.

 

Now Hugh Schonfield wants us to believe that a person who probably didn't even know Jesus well, and without theatrical training, could fool a group of men who had lived with Him for over three years? To be successful, he would have had to have been close enough to Jesus for the disciples to have gotten to know him too, which is self-contradictory. No way that would have worked! If the disciples were sure that Jesus arose from the dead, then the only rational explanation is that He in fact did. There is no other realistic possibility.

 

It is worthwhile to note how much they believed it. Of the original 11 original Apostles (what the disciples were called after they were chosen by Jesus [Luke 6:13] ) who remained faithful, 10 died violent martyr's deaths (the exception being St. John). Of these, 9 died with no other Apostles near them (the exception being James the Elder). But none of them ever denied the truth of the Resurrection. Not even Thomas, who died with no other Apostle within a thousand miles of him (in India). The same is true of St. Paul, who met Jesus through a vision on the road to Damascus. No imposter fooled him!

 

Such is the evidence that the only rational, intellectually honest conclusion that one can come to after serious examination of the facts is that Jesus Christ arose from the dead. And because He did, the Christian Faith is in fact the one true religion it claims to be.

 

 

 

Of course, the story of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ could still be true, but, in theory, the teachings of the Christian Faith aside from that could be false. There is compelling reason to believe that the teachings of Christianity are true.

[I_love_krishna_]

First of all, who is lazarus...

 

Second of all, why the heck do you believe being ressurected is great?

 

In my view, being in this material world is the worst kind of a thing anybody would hope for, but you can't get out of it unless you realize, in your words"God" or in my words"krishna" .

 

 

[Guest guest]

Why is is he here spouting his so-called christian nonsense , dear jndas prabhu? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[gHari]

GospelWrangler,

 

I have already seen what you consider food, what you accept as truth. Your lack of discrimination for truth, your feigned expertise in topics you obviously have no understanding of, reveals that you are simply building your own ego with religion, while cheating yourself and the innocent in the process. So such food, as you call it, is simply a waste of time for a sincere lover of God; it is simply poison, it is not sanctioned by God. It is neither sponsored by the Holy Spirit nor is such mental word-juggling to be tolerated.

 

It is the attachment to worldly things, things related to your body, that leads to all these misconceptions of religion and the teachings of Lord Jesus. You obviously have no information about the eternal soul, through realization or even mentally. Hence your understanding of scripture is tainted, stilted, and polluted by this attachment to the temporary self, completely disregarding the eternal self (which if indeed eternal has existed and will exist forever; Jesus knew us before the creation of this world).

 

While feigning love of God, with the other hand you slap Him in the face. A cheater is all too obvious amongst the wise.

 

gHari

[Guest guest]

Dear gHari, Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Sri Guru and Gouranga!Thank you for you strong and forceful preaching against these nonsense preachings of so-called gospels .Hare Krishna.

[Guruvani]

Why does a Christian come into devotee forums and preach Christian propaganda? Devotees do not go to Christian forums and preach Krishna consciousness. I think that preaching Christian concepts in a devotee forum is rude, offensive and motivated by anger and envy of the Vaishnava faith.

If devotees wanted to hear Christian propaganda they would go to church on Sunday. If Christians wants to come to a devotee forum to hear and learn then that is fine, but coming here to preach manufactured religion in the name of Christianity hardly seems like a worthwhile endeavor. Most all devotees rejected Christianity to adopt the Vaishnava faith and they are not at all ignorant of Christian philosophy. Assuming that devotees are ignorant of Christian ideology and are suffering from lack of information is a very arrogant attitude as most all the original devotees of Prabhupada came from Judeo-Christian families and are well acquainted with Christian ideology and subsequently adopted Vaishnavism over and above Christianity and are not in need of being subjected to Christiian propaganda.

[I_love_krishna_]

I think they are trying to convert us, however there is no need of conversion here, because we do agree with them as we agree with krishna... he is everything.

 

krishna consciousness is like orange juice and Christianity is plain water... we would obviously want orange juice.. it tastes better /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

So please gospeldefense, learn about our religion, but don't try to convert people here, because such efforts will prove to be futile.

 

[Guest guest]

Apparently, our proselytizing Christian friend has some attraction to the devotees and Lord Krishna, otherwise he would not be in here associating with devotees and partaking of their discussions. We have heard from the shastra that aversion if something like attraction in denial. We can tolerate his misconceived efforts to preach his so-called Christian doctrine, because in the course of his efforts he is getting some acquaintance with the Vaishnava philosophy, which is his real inner intentions though he is trying very much to conceal that and deceive himself into denying that purpose.

We know better! We are not ignorant of Christian theology and most all American devotees know as much about Christian ideolgy as he does. The difference is that we went beyond Christian values when we came in touch with the Vaishnava philosophy that Prabhupada introduced in America with his Krishna consciousness movement.

We revere and respect the person of Christ, though we feel sure that there was more that he did not reveal as he himself said "there is much more that I could teach, but you could not bear to hear it".

[Guest guest]

Don't want to sound wise-ass but what harm is our Christian friend doing to this forum? Shouldn't a true devotee be indulgent? Shouldn't a true devotee have no enemies? But Krishna and Chaitanya met a lot of people adhering to other concepts. Yet they were good-hearted to everyone. Think we should try the same? :-)

[Guruvani]

I don'y think there is any harm in the preacher espousing his Christian propaganda here, but my point was that people like him take it that Hare KRishna devotees are just cult members who have never known the Christian tenents. I was simply trying to inform him that most all devotees were brought up in Judeo-Christian families and know well Christian philosophy. These Christian types can sometimes have a very narrow understanding of where these American Hare Krishna devotees came from. Many devotees were Christians before they became devotees. That is my point.

[theist]

It would be nice if one got the feeling that there was an actual person behind the post. Of course there is but the feeling I get is ine of a copy, paste and run job. No desire to relate as a person to anyone.

 

Maybe Gospel Defense will want to have a converstaion one day when he gets some more confidence. In general I have noticed that most Christian preachers do not like to listen. It is impossible to relate to a brick wall. Bill (5th wheel) being the refreshing exception.

 

I think we all have to watch out for this tendancy. I carry it within myself as well. It should be checked however if one really wants to communicate with anyone.

[theist]

and welcome to Guruvani. Thanks for participating and registering prabhu. There is strength in numbers. Also more fun. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

Hare Krsna

[Guest guest]

These philosophers say [Christian preachers] that the living entity’s life begins at

birth and ends with death. After death, he is

not born again. After death he attains the results

of his actions in that one lifetime.

Author’s Commentary

To accept this mixed-up religion one must first

believe these rather implausible things:

• The living entity’s life begins at birth and ends

at death.

• Before birth the living entity did not exist, and

after death the living entity will no longer stay

in the world of material activities.

• Only human beings have souls. Other

creatures do not have souls.”

Only extremely unintelligent persons believe

this religion. In this religion the living entity is

not spiritual in nature. By His own will God

created the living entities out of matter. Why

are the living entities born into very different

situations? The followers of this religion cannot

say. Why is one living entity born into a house

filled with sufferings, another living entity born

into a house filled with joys, another living

entity born into the house of a person devoted

to God, and another living entity born into a

wicked atheist’s house? Why is one person

born in a situation where he is encouraged to

perform pious deeds, and he performs pious

deeds and becomes good? Why is another

person born in a situation where he is

encouraged to sin, and he sins and becomes

bad? The followers of this religion cannot

answer all these questions. Their religion seems

to say that God is unfair and irrational.

Why do they say that animals have no souls?

Why do birds and beasts not have souls like

human beings? Why do the human beings

have only one life, and, because of their

actions in that one life, are rewarded in

eternal heaven or punished with eternal hell?

Any person who believes in a truly kind and

merciful God will find this religion completely

unacceptable. — Text 1.26.

— English translation by Sri Kusakratha Das. Krishna Books. Culver

City, California. www.gopaljiu.org

[Guest guest]

in ISKCON we are taught to see that KRSNA is in every 1's heart. therefore we should see him in this precher and not offend him but kindly ask him to refraine from preching his religion, but if he wishes to ask us questions about ours!

 

Hare KRSNA