Thats alright buddy, no worrieswith all due respect, I have given my views. I do not want to delve deeper into this subject. Please PM me if you think I should certainly reply.
Thats alright buddy, no worrieswith all due respect, I have given my views. I do not want to delve deeper into this subject. Please PM me if you think I should certainly reply.
Patently false. Jesus himself categorically stated it was far more likely for a pagan to enter "the kingdom of God" than for hypocrite rabbis who practiced everything but what they preached.Every religion has it's own philosophy and Christianity is no exception.
The basic concept of this philosophy is either believe in Jesus, it is holy and go to heaven or go to hell and burn for ever as not believing Jesus is sin. And it will happen in Day of Final Judgement in Jesus's 2nd coming who is 1900 years late. This stupid theory claims Earth is flat, and universe is World centric, and when Scientists proved that wrong they were tortured.
Logically? Jesus' death was meant to give mankind a 'new start' in its relationship with God: a 'new covenant' (pact) as it were, as with the covenant with the Jewish people. It was not meant to "wipe out' sins forever ever after.It is full with hypocrisy. They say God sacrificed his son to erase people's sin, if so then why we are told that if we commit sin we will go hell or we will punished in Final Judgement? Is not our sin already washed by Jesus many years ago??
the "Son" part is figurative. In ancient aramaic, in which the Bible was written, son was meant to denote a part of you. the reference "son" is used to indicate what Christians believe is the identity between God in spirit and God in man.Final thing, I cant understand no offence, Christian God is not married then how Jesus can be his son? If any one clears this, I will appreciate that.
I respect your views and sentiments and am personally not religious, but I felt the urge to correct your misconceptions.I am not intended to offensive, I have respect to Jesus for his kindness and honesty but not for Christians.
We Hindus dont worship idols, it is act of symbolism. Christians say God's power is beyond we can imagine, so idol worship is false, if God has really such power than how ordinary people will imagine God tp worship if it is beyond our ability to imagine him? So we need idols.
Christians respect Crucifix, we respect idols, it is act of symbolism. In which logic Christians dont worship Crucifix but they see Jesus in it same way we see our God in idols.
If that be so then Bible should be a philosophical document. It is not.Every religion has it's own philosophy and Christianity is no exception.
Stick to the topic if you can.All these hard core hindutvas that are on dfi, what would they do if hinduism is pointed out for all its bluffing and shortcomings.
I guess the moment such a thread is started it would be closed or deleted, but all other religions can be bashed.
You guys dont want discussion about any religion in detail, why the hypocrisy ??? Why having a religious section at all ???
You bash all non-hindus as SICKULAR and say that you are the only truly secular people but your own secularity is openly evident in the very fact that you allow threads that give an opportunity to bash other religions and promptly close all other discussions which might threaten your twisted and stale logics.
Is it possible to give birth without losing virginity?If that be so then Bible should be a philosophical document. It is not.
Christianity is based on:
4. Jesus was born of a virgin.
But Bible prohibits to do idol worship, it is clearly written that idol worship is sin, then how can a Pagan can go to heaven? More ever sir if Jesus's main aim was to expel Hypocrite Rabbis then is it not clear that hence Rabbis were priest of Judaism, so Jesus was actually a social reformer of contemporary Jewish society? So he did not start any new religion?Patently false. Jesus himself categorically stated it was far more likely for a pagan to enter "the kingdom of God" than for hypocrite rabbis who practiced everything but what they preached.
Can you explain it a bit? If it is meant here that when God is in man then he is "son" and and when "God" is in spirit then he is god, if so then since Jesus and Christian God were there simultaneously so does not it mean Christians also have multiple Gods?the "Son" part is figurative. In ancient aramaic, in which the Bible was written, son was meant to denote a part of you. the reference "son" is used to indicate what Christians believe is the identity between God in spirit and God in man.
Man, if anything, it is the other way around. There are many "Christian" universities in the western hemisphere which teach all kinds of BS courses at the Bachelors, Master's and even PhD level combining theology and philosophy and making more and more sophisticated sounding arguments about the importance of having a belief system.Looks like O'Reilly might have picked up talking points from our resident followers of a certain "way of life"
Enough of this BS. I do not need to reply to your twisted statements.Stick to the topic if you can.
You take pride in your faith, so do I take in mine. As for hypocrisy, you can set a debate the respective philosophy and I accept the challenge. But for record, in history, christians have always declined such a challenge from Hindu philosophers. And you are not even a student of philosophy.
A very, very typical response from an ignorant Christian.Enough of this BS. I do not need to reply to your twisted statements.
You guys who go to great lengths to denounce christianity are really terrified of what affect it is going to have on your own faith.
If you have the guts, acknowledge my statement as true and come out with a relevant response or else in plain english "shut up".
PS: I am not accusing all hindus or muslims or any other faith.
First , please don't call me "sir". I haven't received my Knighthood, yet.Is it possible to give birth without losing virginity?
@Rage sir I have few questions
The Bible, consisting of "Old testament" and "New testament" says a lot of different [and apparently contrasing] things. Christians are firm in that their focus lies squarely on the New testament, that the Old testament (containing books of the Jewish Torah) serves almost exclusively to give context to the New and that Jesus specifically " came to give new meaning" to the Old testament.But Bible prohibits to do idol worship, it is clearly written that idol worship is sin, then how can a Pagan can go to heaven? More ever sir if Jesus's main aim was to expel Hypocrite Rabbis then is it not clear that hence Rabbis were priest of Judaism, so Jesus was actually a social reformer of contemporary Jewish society? So he did not start any new religion?
The idea is that God manifested himself in man, his greatest creation, so that he could save man from its collective sins by figuratively taking the sins of the world and bearing them on the cross. that is the 'ontological' idea. For future generations, that purposive act was to serve to make mankind the actions that led to such an act, to repent for them and to reform them. this is encapsulated in the phrase b one of the disciples of Jesus, John: "So loved the world, that God sent his only Son...."Can you explain it a bit? If it is meant here that when God is in man then he is "son" and and when "God" is in spirit then he is god, if so then since Jesus and Christian God were there simultaneously so does not it mean Christians also have multiple Gods?
there are apparently references to a Roman political prisoner named Jesus [Yeshua] in Roman Judea that bears resemblance to the Jesus of latter times.How ever what amazes me most that there is no reference of Jesus in contemporary writings, it came only after almost 100 years later's writing.
I may be wrong, but some of his "miracles" were captured in writing by some of his four apostles, as they say, a few years after his death.I personally believe Jesus was a kind hearted, honest man social reformer and stood up against superstition and hypocrisy and simplified process of worshipping God, just like Hindu Religion's Ramkrishna Dev or Dayananda Saraswati. And all of Jesus performing miracles were added later by mystique poets from Rome, Greece. I may be wrong.
Very good. I would like to add that the word "Christian" means "Followers of Christ" and it has come into being only after Jesus Christ. Before Christ, there were only Jews and Gentiles which is a general term to describe non-Jews.First , please don't call me "sir". I haven't received my Knighthood, yet.
The Bible, consisting of "Old testament" and "New testament" says a lot of different [and apparently contrasing] things. Christians are firm in that their focus lies squarely on the New testament, that the Old testament (containing books of the Jewish Torah) serves almost exclusively to give context to the New and that Jesus specifically " came to give new meaning" to the Old testament.
In other words, Christian doctrine and theology hold that Jesus's [radical, at the time] views were meant to change the literalist interpretations of the Old testament that pervaded Jewish rabbinism and that, in their view, had led to a hypocritical society that focused on outward manifestations of faith without changing the character, or the "soul", within. Such iudica in the "New testament" form the pivot of the Christian departure from Jewish tradition in practice, belief and tradition, such as in the injunction of "ritual purification" before entering the beth or synagogue that was made elaborate and convoluted b a process of corporeal washing in Jewish Rabbinism, whereas Jesus' stated such an injunction was intended to convey a "washing of the soul" rather than a washing of the limbs; or in the example mentioned below our post b @Eesh where that rather dire Old testament warning is intended to convey a juxtaposed image of a vengeful God [one that 'wipes out the earth'] with a merciful one [one that "sent his son to redeem it": the one that the Christians believe in]. Christian focus and belief has primarily been of a New testament God, one that is merciful and forgiving, which is why "sinners"- of which Christians consider themselves a part- can also go to "heaven" [contingent upon acknowledgement and reform] in Christian diuum.
The idea is that God manifested himself in man, his greatest creation, so that he could save man from its collective sins by figuratively taking the sins of the world and bearing them on the cross. that is the 'ontological' idea. For future generations, that purposive act was to serve to make mankind the actions that led to such an act, to repent for them and to reform them. this is encapsulated in the phrase b one of the disciples of Jesus, John: "So loved the world, that God sent his only Son...."
there are apparently references to a Roman political prisoner named Jesus [Yeshua] in Roman Judea that bears resemblance to the Jesus of latter times.
I may be wrong, but some of his "miracles" were captured in writing by some of his four apostles, as they say, a few years after his death.
IMO this is the one of the stupidest, most idiotic and confused major philosophical belief system that has ever existed. You first have to acknowledge that you are a "sinner", even though you might have never hurt a fly in your whole life. And this extends even to babies in the womb-they too are sinners!! Why? Because apparently their hypothetical ancestor who lived thousands of years ago ate an apple that he wasn't supposed to. In the interim, some dude who called himself the "son" of God, came to earth and died for our sins, but despite his horrific tortured end, we still continue to be born in sin. Some Christians think that since Jesus died for our sins, now we have the license to commit as much sin as we want, because we're all already saved....but others disagree. On the other hand even the most righteous non-Christian is still condemned to hell even though he may never have even heard of Jesus or Christianity his whole life. Just imagine how many millions of people around the world and throughout the ages, from Confucius to Buddha to the Mayans and Aboriginals-all are being roasted eternally in hell because they never came in contact with Christianity. :shocked:"To receive Jesus in our hearts means we have first acknowledged that we are sinners and that we are incapable of saving ourselves or of appeasing God in any way. We acknowledge before God that we are helpless and worthy of damnation. But with this, we also acknowledge that Jesus is the one who paid the penalty for our sins. We realize that there is no possible way that we can make things right with God by our own works. When we accept Jesus as our Savior we are accepting the call to repentance from sin. God then calls us His children: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name," (John 1:12)."
Many scientists and philosophers now accept that our actions and thoughts are indeed determined by physical laws, and in that sense we don't really choose freely, but philosophers have concocted ingenious rationalizations for why we nevertheless have free will of a sort. It's all based on redefining "free will" to mean something else. Some philosophers claim that if we can change our actions in response to reason, then we've shown free will. But of course the words and deeds of other people are simply environmental influences that can affect our brain molecules. That's how love begins.
Other philosophers argue that while we may not be able to choose our actions, we can choose to veto our actions — in other words, we don't have free will but do have "free won't." But from the standpoint of physics, instigating an action is no different from vetoing one, and in fact involves the same regions of the brain.
Finally, some argue that we have free will if our actions are consistent with our personalities and past behaviors. But that says nothing about whether we "choose' our actions; only that our genetic and environmental makeup affects our actions in a consistent way. As Sam Harris noted in his book Free Will, all the attempts to harmonize the determinism of physics with a freedom of choice down to the claim that "a puppet is free so long as he loves his strings."
The belief in the salvation of Jesus is not a philosophy, that is religion. Living by his teaching is philosophy. Nowhere in the Bible does it the claim the Earth is flat and the universe revolves around the world.Every religion has it's own philosophy and Christianity is no exception.
The basic concept of this philosophy is either believe in Jesus, it is holy and go to heaven or go to hell and burn for ever as not believing Jesus is sin. And it will happen in Day of Final Judgement in Jesus's 2nd coming who is 1900 years late. This stupid theory claims Earth is flat, and universe is World centric, and when Scientists proved that wrong they were tortured.
When you accept Christ, all your previous sin is washed away but you are still responsible for when you sin again. This requires repentance.It is full with hypocrisy. They say God sacrificed his son to erase people's sin, if so then why we are told that if we commit sin we will go hell or we will punished in Final Judgement? Is not our sin already washed by Jesus many years ago??
It is called immaculate conception. There is no sex so he doesn't have to be married, just as artificial insemination is not a sin.Final thing, I cant understand no offence, Christian God is not married then how Jesus can be his son? If any one clears this, I will appreciate that.
You should have respect for everyone until an individual does something to lose theirs.I am not intended to offensive, I have respect to Jesus for his kindness and honesty but not for Christians.
You don't have to see God to worship him, he is a part of all of us.We Hindus dont worship idols, it is act of symbolism. Christians say God's power is beyond we can imagine, so idol worship is false, if God has really such power than how ordinary people will imagine God tp worship if it is beyond our ability to imagine him? So we need idols.
There is a difference between symbolism and idolatry. When you start believing the object is a conduit to God, then you have a problem.Christians respect Crucifix, we respect idols, it is act of symbolism. In which logic Christians dont worship Crucifix but they see Jesus in it same way we see our God in idols.
:thumb:The belief in the salvation of Jesus is not a philosophy, that is religion. Living by his teaching is philosophy.
You should have respect for everyone until an individual does something to lose theirs.
You don't have to see God to worship him, he is a part of all of us.
Is it written in Bible or believers says so ?When you accept Christ, all your previous sin is washed away but you are still responsible for when you sin again. This requires repentance.
We see that in Hinduism as well.It is called immaculate conception.Final thing, I cant understand no offence, Christian God is not married then how Jesus can be his son? If any one clears this, I will appreciate that.
I beg to differ on this, My argument is very simple.There is a difference between symbolism and idolatry. When you start believing the object is a conduit to God, then you have a problem.
This is a question to all !You don't have to see God to worship him, he is a part of all of us.
Then why in Medieval age scientists were persecuted? Why Galileo was tortured? Christian Church supported Geocentric theory. Not to mention Earth is 6000 years old and it was created by God.Nowhere in the Bible does it the claim the Earth is flat and the universe revolves around the world.
May be, but no where Bible says God can be of both genders, God is simply called Father, not Mother why? I agree ancient Aramaic and Arabic "he" was used, dont know much about it, but today we can certainly call God Mother, no we dont why? And now here Bible says God can be both called he and she.It is called immaculate conception. There is no sex so he doesn't have to be married, just as artificial insemination is not a sin.
He/she is not among us. We know God is very powerful so if God was within us, then no one could kill each other as killing each other means killing God. Further if we all have Gods among us, then from our brutal fighting among us, it appears we all have different Gods within us as 1) if we have same God then he/she would not allow their different organs to fighting among them as same God is among us, so which God is among us is certainly different. We all know man cant kill God, but God can kill. If we all have Gods within us, then we are all God, and hence we kill each other so God kills each other and such God is not peace loving for sure.You don't have to see God to worship him, he is a part of all of us.
I dont see difference. If God's ours beyond of ability to imagine, then we must accept some thing as symbol of God, in addition adding idols make worshipping place beautiful. Idolatry this word came from worshipping in front of idol which others thought we are worshipping idols actually. Infact idol was created to reflect God through symbol to common public. Much like Crucifix. You respect Crucifix, we respect idols, but we dont worship nor respect them. They are symbol of God.There is a difference between symbolism and idolatry. When you start believing the object is a conduit to God, then you have a problem.
It is very difficult to gauge the mindset of the medieval age. Perhaps that is why it is called "Medieval"Then why in Medieval age scientists were persecuted? Why Galileo was tortured? Christian Church supported Geocentric theory. Not to mention Earth is 6000 years old and it was created by God.
May be, but no where Bible says God can be of both genders, God is simply called Father, not Mother why? I agree ancient Aramaic and Arabic "he" was used, dont know much about it, but today we can certainly call God Mother, no we dont why? And now here Bible says God can be both called he and she.
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
Hitler's Christian Links | History & Culture | 8 | ||
Muslims killed 32 Christians and destroyed homes in Nigeria. | West Asia & Africa | 4 | ||
J | Oppression of Christians in China by the Chinese Communist Party | China | 19 | |
‘Pakistan Christians Starving For Not Embracing Islam’ | Pakistan | 0 |