meenakshiamman

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

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

I don't see how I'm bashing Jesus? I mean, this is an open discussion. If someone proves me wrong, I'm fine with that. This is just currently how I stand, but I don't claim to have these beliefs set in stone. I find these debates to be productive and I feel I learn from them every time.

The difference between the contradiction that you listed and contradictions in the Bible (which I agree that they both set themselves up for contradictions) is that on a general basis, people accept these contradictions and realize that they exist. In the Bible however, Christians turn a complete blind eye to it, thus creating their own version of Jesus in their minds.

There's not a particular problem with this, however. They can do what they want, but it's hard to say "I worship Jesus" when I'm not sure what he was even about.

I suppose this is a big deal for me as I was raised all-protestant. Christian schools and all. I lived it. The vagueness of the Bible as well as such contradictions sparked a lot of strange beliefs in American Protestantism. When I realized that these people I grew up with were merely picking and choosing what suited them from the scriptures...my beliefs were quite shaken.

I am not blaming Jesus for this. Nor the Christians that do this. (most of them don't know any better) However, I don't believe that any form of Christianity really exists that can honestly say they understand Jesus or know why they are worshipping him.

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

 

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

I came in to talk religion because I find it fascinating and genuinely enjoy discussing it. I see no problem with this.

However, it seems that we've hijacked your thread. Therefore, we didn't really miss the boat, but merely ignored it.

Well, we really don't know when Jesus lived or when he really died. The Catholic Church decided those dates (as well as his age at death) in the 400's. So, it's hard to tell if there may have been a large census (maybe not the whole world, as the gospels claim, but maybe a large part of their world).

His ancestral town could've been his father's town. We don't know how far back the writer was going. My father is one of my ancestors. It could've meant it as the town he was born and raised in, which was later translated as "ancestral".

Yes. You are right about the two conflicting stories of the place of birth. But, you must remember that there is also a smaller town called Bethlehem right outside of Nazareth, so it could've been that they went to this small town to register.

Many people date the Srimad Bhagavata Purana to the Tenth century C.E. That doesn't mean it wasn't around before that. We don't know which gospels came first and which gospels came later.

Who are we to say that the virgin-birth didn't really happen just because the term "virgin" in the book of Isaiah may have meant "young woman" rather than "virgin" (something which is hotly debated by scholars on both sides of the debate) ? The birth of Jesus could still have been virginal, and later when the gospel writer (in this case, Matthew) looked for a prophecy to show that it had been foretold earlier.

Oh, please tell me that you're not taking from the one book, "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors", which makes such ludicrous claims as Krishna having been crucified on a tree. You really can't trust that book as far as you can throw it... by a long shot.

We don't know how far along Mary was in her pregnancy. She could've been seven months along and delivered early. Besides that, if they did go to the smaller Bethlehem right outside of their town, then it wouldn't have been an arduous journey or anything.

How is the Gospel of Mark anti-semetic? And, even if it is a compilation of several sources before it, that adds even more credibility to the stories found therein. Showing that the stories were in circulation possibly even during Jesus' life.

The Gospel of Luke claims at it's beginning to be Luke's letter to a wealthy man who wanted to know of Jesus, not as a rebuttal to earlier gospels.

So what if Atheist scholars speculate that parts of the gospels are forgeries? The same scholars are also the ones that date the Srimad Bhagavatam at the Tenth century C.E. And I'm sure that they would consider the story of Sri Meenakshi Devi as implausable and try to point out inconsistencies in Her story.

I will agree that perhaps these scriptures were based on a real person. However, we do not know if even the people writing these scriptures really knew him or not. Also, due to the many contradictions between them, we do not know which is truthful or not.

Therefore how can we even worship him or claim to know anything about him or his true teachings?

In order to do this would be to take all of the scriptures attributed to him at face value...even if you want to believe in a virgin birth, there are many other things to consider. Which do you take as fact or fiction? If these scriptures were not so inconsistent and contained so many contradictions (in facts) and had not so obviously been tampered with over time, perhaps there would be something left to have faith in.

In order to do all of the above, one would have to make up their own version of Jesus in their head for the purpose of worship. Which many have done.

As for Mark being anti-sementic, well, I will have to make a second post on that tomorrow. I think I'm too sleepy for this one tonight.

No, I have not read the book you mentioned. The above post was from many things that I've read over time and have been stored as a mish-mash in my head.

This is also not an attack on Christians (which I believe I stated above)...I respect Christians but am rather exhausted with the main idea that the Bible is without error or that Jesus is a cemented idea.

I feel that Krishna and Shiva are linked. Do they not both worship one another? I find it hard to separate the two in my mind.

I think calling him a demi-god is a downright insult, personally. Is this to say that all of those who have worshipped him as the ultimate for thousands of years are now being called fools?

The historical discrepancies of the infancy narratives are a huge controversy which is hardly settled into anything like solid empirical fact.

Around these discrepancies those with anti-Christians sentiments circle like vultures hungry for the potential dissolution of Jesus' very existence.

 

History is hardly an exact science, and if fictionalized narratives were sufficent proof of one's non-existence, then anyone who writes a fictionalized autobiography (of which there are several examples) must be writing them as a fictional character.

In any case, logically, lack of evidence of birth does not call existence in to question. My mother's birth certificate seems to have been misplaced, impossible to obtain. Am I to conclude by that fact that she is a figment of my imaginary imagination?

 

BTW, the same dry academics who poke around in biblical discrepancies would be the first to consign the Gita and the Srimad Bhagavatam to allegorical fiction.

No, but there is other proof of your mother's existence. (Such as a photograph, her physical presence, written letters etc.)

I only focused on Christ's birth to use as an example. I could've used many more.

Still, the only evidence we have of Jesus' existence are the Gospels...and the Gospels are so untrustworthy that how can we really believe they were based on fact to begin with?

BTW, this is not in any way Anti-Christian. I was born into a strict Protestant family...I was told to take everything the Bible said at face value. So, to find later that so many errors existed, seriously changed my entire spiritual outlook.

This, however, does not mean that I disrespect Christians in any way and could easily worship Jesus just as much as I could worship Krishna or Lord Shiva.

What's the proof that none of these things happened? There's no evidence that Kansa massacred infants after Sri Krishna's birth, but we believe it happened. Some could say that the lack of evidence of this massacre makes it invalid, but we still believe it. There's no proof that Parashuram killed thousands of Kshatriyas. Or that there was ever a race of talking monkey-people that met Lord Rama and helped him rescue Sita Devi from a demonic king with ten heads. Does that make all of these stories untrue, just because there's no historical evidence for them?

So, what exactly is there that disproves Jesus? Lack of evidence? Well, this can be applied to any religious figure, so if one is going to take that point of view, then that person should be a Deist or Atheist. They're the only forms of belief that have any real basis in science or provable fact.

For starters, Jesus' birth story is rather easy to disprove.

It would've made absolutely no sense for Jesus to have been born in Bethlehem. It would've made no sense for Joseph to have gone to his "ancestral" town to be taxed. (his father's town perhaps...but his distanced ancestral town?)

There is no record of a "worldwide" census, which would've obviously have been documented.

There are also conflicting scriptures that say Jesus was born in Nazareth or Galilee, even a scripture where people are mocking him, claiming he can't be the Messiah "because he wasn't born in Bethlehem"...which is it?

As for a virgin birth: Romans 1:3: "...Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh."

No such thing is listed in the earliest of Gospels, as well as the Gospel of Mark. If these are supposed to be biographical scriptures on Jesus' life, why would they not be mentioned?

None of the Gospels seems to even be able to agree on who Jesus was even related to.

Also, the idea of the virgin birth seems to come from a mistranslation of an older scripture which would've translated as "young girl" and not "virgin".

Some of the more miraculous aspects of Jesus' life seems to closely parallel the life of Krishna, as well as the God Horus and seemed to be an attempt to appeal to people of Pagan faiths.

Why also would Joseph have taken Mary to Bethlehem, obviously late in her pregnancy? Only men were taxed at the time.

The Gospel of Mark is almost completely compiled of re-written scriptures that were written many years before Mark. It is also quite anti-jewish, reflecting the sentiments at the time. This is the original of the four basic Gospels and the others reference it heavily.

The Gospel of Luke was apparently written as an argument against earlier Gospels. Supposedly it's author felt that previous Gospels were not "accurate" enough. Why then would all four of these Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) be included together and are supposedly complimentary?

It is believed by some that several parts of the Gospels have been a forgery, added later to the scriptures.

When we completely base our opinions of Jesus on these Gospels that are obviously not very trustworthy...then how can we believe in His existence?

Sorry for such a long post. I could've added much more to it, only I have to go to work.

Well, there's also no physical evidence of the existence of Sri Rama or Kanya Kumari, or any other avatar within Hinduism (excepting a few recent ones). There's hardly any evidence for Buddha. There's virtually no evidence for Lao Tzu or Confucius either. All religion is based on faith. To believe in Maheshwara or Sri Meenakshi Devi is based solely on faith, nothing else. So, what I was trying to say with the statement you quoted was: Why is it okay for one to have faith in Rama, but not to have faith in Jesus?

Yes, but the Jesus thing is a bit complex. It's not just that we can't prove he exists...it's that we can prove that things attributed to him never happened at all.

Again, this doesn't mean that he didn't exist, but that obviously whoever wrote the Gospels (or whoever decided to edit them later) was rather untruthful.

What makes you so sure that Jesus never existed? I bet you would be very angry if a Christian said such a thing about Lord Rama (who can't be historically proven any more than Jesus), but there you go saying it about Lord Jesus (who can't be historically proven anymore than Sri Rama). Hmmm... well if that's not blatant hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

Allow me (if it's ok) to put a semi-ex-christian, non-vaishnava influenced stance on this.

There is very little if any proof of Jesus' existence. At least, if you believe everything said about him in the Gospels.

The thing is that so many times and locations etc. are mentioned in accordance to His lifetime that one can in theory research these references and see if they add up.

For example, it has mostly proven that Jesus could not have been born in Bethlehem. Even though that is the popular consensus.

This does not exactly prove that he didn't exist, but that perhaps what has been written about him is not exactly truthful.

I take the Vaisnava viewpoint on Krsna.

 

I don't care if you take things at face value or not. I am expressing my viewpoint as you do yours.

 

I have answered your last two sentences time and again in previous posts.

I am rather surprised at this answer as I do care and have genuine questions of which I was hoping an answer. Who better to ask than a devout follower?

The only real answer I've gotten to my last question is that you believe your path to be superior to others. You have never stated exactly why.

I am genuinely concerned on this topic and these questions are in no way meant to be an attack on you or anyone else.

Well what is expected off children at play in school play ground.

 

 

 

 

That we must, only problem, is not to recognize that he has thousand of names and forms. They say he is infinite but then they want to capture him in their little box.

 

of course we should have time for other deities, if we have affection for them.

 

Srva dharma pari tajya--- we hear this very often yet after the war Lord Krishna advise Pandava to worship Lord Shiva, to atone for the sin of killing in the war, now we hardly hear of this do we.

 

 

 

It is very obvious what is implied. In Vedas they are all Devas there is no such thing as half God.

 

In the Bhagavadgita (or in any Hindu scripture), Lord Krishna NEVER uses the term “demigod” ~ the word only appears in misguided (and misleading) translations.

 

As an adjective, deva means “heavenly, divine, or highly excellent”.

 

As a noun, deva means God or Deity (cf. Latin DEVS ) ~ and deva is a common name for Lord Indra.

 

As a plural noun, devA refers to the Gods ~ especially the 33 prime Deities ~ and deva can refer generally to any image of Divinity or Deity.

 

Sanskrit DEVA is exactly cognate with Latin DEUS, which plainly indicates GOD.

 

The prefix DEMI- means HALF, so that DEMI-GOD means HALF-GOD or PARTLY GOD.

 

Why use such a belittling term for ANY Deity? Gods are Gods!

 

Indra is the King of Gods, Agni is the God of Fire, Sarasvati is the Goddess of Knowledge ~ there is NO half-measure about it.

 

And there is only ONE Mahadeva, who is certainly not a “partial” deity!

 

Agni is Fire ~ the perfect conception of Fire ~ and wherever the nature of Fire is present, there is Agnideva ~ the Fire God ~ the Lord of Fire ~ Fire in its essence ~ the very Self of Fire.

 

Terms such as “controller”, “administrator”, or “demigod”, are all rather pathetic titles for such a Deity.

 

And Lord Indra can not adequately be described as the “controller of rain”.

 

There is one Sun, but there are many Days ~ and all are Adityas.

 

One God with many aspects ~ all equally divine ~

By Sarabhanga.

 

 

 

Yes we must become like swan and the pick the best from what ever source. Vivek, yama and niyam are important, loose that and the ego takes over.

 

 

 

Well you are not the only one, a lot of Hindus have been duped, on the strength of wonderful worship and beautiful chanting (a Hindu way of life since time in memorial)little do they know of all the going on and fall in moral standard and general disregard for the Hindu sentiment.

 

 

Jai Shree Krishna

Thank you for your beautifully put post. I think that this is very much in line with my sentiments.

Because Krishna is in everything. Why ignore Krishna? Krishna is within the stone wood and paint that you have constructed your deity with.

 

Only one person is omnipresent and that is Krishna. You other deoties cannot say that.

 

 

 

Demi-god is a post and not an eternal designation. You can rise up and become a Brahma for instance. The king of heaven Indra can be fired and replaced by Krishna at anytime. You can also become an Indra. You cannot ever take Krishna's position however.

 

Why is Krishna in everything and not other deities?

Why is He the only omnipresent deity? What proof is there that other deities cannot?

I am being told to take things at face value too often when I ask these questions.

All religions claim that their ultimate deity is omnipresent and blows all other deities out of the water.

What makes them different from you or other Krishna consciousness followers?

Why so elite?

Why must we have to see Krsna in everything? Is there not a time and place to see other deities as well? Or perhaps some of us are not at the right stage for Krsna worshipping?

Also, exactly what constitutes as a demi-god to the Krsna Consciousness movement?

All religions do have an equal thread in that all people are looking for something bigger than themselves. A great surrender of their egos for a greater Spirit or cause.

Still, I am becoming weary of this elitist attitude. I have enjoyed my time at an ISKCON temple, but I have heard things that have sent alarm bells off in my head. I've heard Buddhists being called a "cult" and I've also heard Saivites being criticized and supposedly "blown out of the water" by the Krsna Consciousness movement.

This does not exactly set well with me.

Thank you very much for your answer. I have on a general basis always thought the way that you do.

Still, I am friends with many strict Vaishnavas and somehow feel a pressure that I should worship Krsna only and should not bother elsewhere. This pressure could only be in my head however.

I am going to try and ask this question as responsibly as possible.

Does one have to always worship Lord Krsna and His Consort? If so, why?

I only ask because, I feel a great need to worship others such as Devi Durga and Lord Siva...probably even more so than I feel a need to worship Lord Krsna.

Is this a bad thing? I ask out of sincerity. While I thoroughly enjoy worshipping Lord Krsna, I mostly do not worship Him at home. Although I have a picture of Lord Vishnu on my modest in-home altar.

Also, (and this probably requires a separate thread sometime) other sects believe in certain deities to be Supreme other than Lord Krsna. What is to be believed?

I don't claim to be a very advanced spiritual person, but I have many questions.

The pastor in this case is adapting his ideas all of "Hinduism" and comparing them to Christian scriptures. Modern Christianity teaches that the Bible is word for word what they believe in and is the basis for everything. The Bible is God and they will consult it for everything and every situation.

The only way to give a reply that would be taken seriously is to somehow compare vedic philosophy with biblical philosophy in a reverse sense.

I am not advanced enough to do this personally, but it will be the only way to talk to someone like this. Respectfully of course.

Thank you sreeram. I am not anti-hindu. I am anti-false designations.

 

Atrocities and atrocious things have been offered to God and gods all through history and in parts of the world and they should be seen with the light of reason and condemned soundly.

 

A case in point. We read in the Old Testament about the Jews offering animal sacifices to please God. They had rituals for sprinkling the blood around the altar and so many other nonsense rituals. As if the Lord of Divine Love could be pleased by such acts of cruelty.

 

Again, one has to understand in context. It has been thought by some that the "God" as listed in the old testament is not the same one as listed in the new. This is just a theory.

The God of the old testament was certainly thought of as being angry with His people. There are scriptures that talk of God bathing the mountain sides with the blood of His followers.

When you realize this, and see the absolute fear of the Jews (at the time) to their God, you can understand why they would give blood sacrifices to try and please his supposed insatiable appetite.

I'm not supporting this in any way. But often when you look a bit deeper, you begin to understand why these people are lead into these paths of thoughts and desperate actions.

Devi worship always seems to bring a bad stigma. Why so?

Haven't numerous films and stories been written about supposed Devi rituals and "cults"? Especially for worshippers of Kali Maa.

The thing is that these rituals are deemed necessary by the people practising them. If outsiders are not willing to educate and/or help these people, I see no room for judgment. Just pray to Devi to help guide her followers out of their darkness.

Even in parts of India animals are still offered to placate the Goddess. The blood is thought necessary to keep the ground fertile and keep evils at bay. Even the vegetarians support this as they fear what will happen if such rituals aren't performed.

We see that these rituals are often done in fear and often by those who are limited in education.

Only by love, support and prayers can we change such things...not simply turning our heads in disgust.

I'm not trying to start anything. I'm still in the "naive newbie" stage.

Whether I believe in Krsna or Jesus to me is besides the point. Reaching for the Divine is still the goal. At least that is where I stand at the moment.

All this about Jesus for me is actually a rather recent revelation...which is why I am bringing it up. I am keen to talk about it.

But who knows, next week I could want to talk about something else.

I don't think that I even believe Jesus existed anymore. This is of no offense to anyone and I am in no way bitter.

However, it has been researched and pretty much confirmed that almost anything said about him and by him in the "Gospels" was all pretty much re-worked scriptures that had already been written a long time before that. Also, there are many other problems with the Gospels and yet, they are the only proof that we have of Jesus' existence.

There was a very thorough and thoughtful article that I had read once that would put it more clearly. If I can find it, I will post it.

Still, I wish people could get along better than they do. At the very least, they should realize that we are all the same and that no spiritual belief is alien unto another. We all worship God to some degree.

Yes I am an offender to Mother Cow. I know it and I feel remorse. I will accept all of you accusations upon my head. You may criticize me all you want because I can say nothing to refute you.

 

However I will tell you straight up that spending ones whole child life in the hospital is no picnic.

 

Taste buds? Factually I don't like the taste of milk. Please forgive me but it seems that was an accusation that had no basis.

 

Your most insignificant servant eternally,

indulekhadasi

Again, he is speaking of commercial milk.

If there is really and truly NO alternative for you other than commercial milk...then I am sure that there is no blame on you.

It's the same scenario...if a person is locked in a room his/her entire life and only is given meat to eat. What do you do? Eat it or starve?

But if the person has other options other than the meat, he obviously has to make a conscious decision as to what is the best for his body and for the wellbeing of others around him.

Both scenarios are the same. This is about making good, conscious and well informed decisions for everyone's betterment.

Also, there are a lot of myths surrounding milk. Almost all of it's nutritious properties can be substituted in other types of foods.

There are many web pages and books written on the subject of a very fulfilling and nutritious diet sans meat and dairy. There has even been research to suggest that over consumption of dairy products can lead to common health issues.

You don't even have to give it all up to make a difference....but there are many legitimate and good reasons to give it up.

I don't understand why people complicate simple matters. One shouldn't kill cows, period. If others do, it's not our fault, nor are we responsible in any way. The argument that one is indirectly responsible is quite silly and illogoical, because it can be extended to practically any situation.

 

Someone mentioned Vietnam war in this connection, not realizing that they're responsible for the slaughter simply by paying taxes. So the argument could work both ways, so it's better not to over analyze this. Surrender to Krishna, that's all we can do. Sarva-Dharmaan Parityajya, maamekam sharanam-vraja....

This is a totally different situation as war goes on whether without our say so and taxes have to be paid whether we want to pay them or not.

However, we can choose whether to pay these people for their kinds of "services" and can protest for the industry to change. It doesn't "have" to be this way. We can stop the slaughter of thousands upon thousands of cows....we don't just have to live with it because it "happens".

This isn't over analyzing...this industry is hurting everyone, not just cows. (see my earlier posts)

Why would you want to be a part of such a thing? You are literally paying DIRECTLY for these products and services, with full knowledge of how the companies work etc. and still you don't care?

At the very least you could search for a more ethical company to buy from...but these factory farms are not worth a single penny of our money.

Again, it's not us or the cows or even the milk! It's supporting these awful people who do awful things and directly paying them to do it!

They wouldn't be killed so early if more people gave up eating meat. Cows would have more freedom and there would be less of a reason to keep so many of them at factories.

The list of consumers needs to be downsized. If you were to stop eating meat AND buying milk from these companies/factories, you would be one less person they would have to supply.

The reason that they will kill the cow is because it is too costly to keep her. Supply and demand...people want SO much milk from this industry that they do not have the room and capability to keep up with a "useless" cow that doesn't give milk. This also goes for the male calfs.

If the demand for such products were smaller...they would be able to keep more cows alive. That is if they don't kill them all for the meat eaters.

This is why being vegetarian is only half the battle.

If you saw this kind of exploitation being done to any other animal...or a human for that matter...would you want anything to do with it? Why is it justifiable for cows?

The thing is, if we boycott these factories, petition our government...and the companies that run these places. Let them know that we DON'T approve of their methods...and enough people back it up, then only can we change this awful cycle.

And of course...pray.

But the bottom line is: in your world every cow born is killed as soon as someone gets hungry for it.

 

The answer is to reform the dairy industry. If we destroy it, then there is no infrastructure left to try to save at least some cows for some period in a humane way. All the farms will become ranches. It will be a major setback. All cows will die.

 

Reforming the dairy industry is all well and good...but the dairy industry has no intention of doing such a thing.

As long as people are willing to pay for their products, they will stop at nothing to supply them with what they want.

This is all about greed.

Also there is an overpopulation of cows at the moment. If we can condense their population to farms instead of factories...we will probably be more in balance as a whole.

Besides, if public sentiment is obviously geared toward asking for a more ethical milk industry...the industry will respond in kind. There has already been a reaction to this sentiment in the form of "organic" milk and other products such as "cage free" eggs. But we can do better than this.

There are ways of communicating to this industry...but if we all continue to buy their products as if nothing were wrong, they will not be inclined to change anything.