RadheRade1657

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.

They really do use that term! It's a mix between languages! Poyo is chicken in Spanish, and Pesco is fish in Latin! Even their name is mixed up! Oh jeez... don't even get me started on "organic cow farms". A lot of the people who get their meat from there actually pick out which cow they want slaughtered, and they're proud of themselves for that.

How do you know this? I think that Shiva's drum complements Krishna's flute quite nicely! I think it's you that look at the externals only: Kali Ma lives in the cremation ground, Radharani lives in Goloka; Kali Ma has black skin, Radharani has skin as light as the sun... so they must be completely different since their physical qualities are different.

I try to be Christ-Conscious in that I try to follow the message of Jesus (Love thy neighbor as thyself; love the Lord thy God with all thy soul, and with all thy might and with all thy strength). I don't see how following his message impedes my (rather slow) progression in Krishna consciousness in the slightest. Your painting of all Kali devotees as "ganja smokers" is ludicrous. That's like saying that just because some members of ISKCON were perverts that molested children that all ISKCON devotees are now pedophiles. Check your facts. You don't know every Kali devotee, and until you do, don't paint them all as drug-addicts.

Oh, yes! You've just revealed my great secret that I was raised Catholic (something that I've talked about on several threads before this one)! And, thanks for insulting the family that God chose for me to reincarnate into! You sound a little like Hitler. If you replaced "Christian" with "Jewish", you guys could be twins! I still really don't know how one can truly accept everything in any religious scripture (the Bible, the Vedas, etc...). That doesn't mean there isn't wisdom to be found in these scriptures, but not everything in them is based in fact. That is, unless you really believe that the sky is a firmament holding back water from a flat earth (which is something in both the Vedas and the Bible) and that it's supported by seven white elephants which sometimes stomp to create earthquakes (which is in the Vedas).

Oh yes, I'm sure that it is absolute fact that Indraaa Devaaa had to kill a draaagon so that the raaaiiin could come out of the great fiiirmaaament of the skyyy which "holds the waaatersss" back from the eeeaaarth. We don't have to accept the Vedas at face-value. To make such a claim is laughable at best. Besides that, Mr. Vedantist, the Rig Veda says, "Truth is one, but is called by many names." Oh, and thanks for teaching me that Jesus is now a faith! I never knew that before!

LOL... pesco-poyo-lacto-ovo 'vegetarians'.

Lots of candies contain things from animal suffering (e.g.- Starburst and Skittles both have gelatin in them, which is derived from animal cartilage).

Someone asked me what her lion's name was... anybody know?

I really liked the story about the Filipino girl that went to the Krishna temple Thanks for sharing this story and all the other ones on your website!

Kali dancing with Shiva in the cremation grounds surrounded by yoginis; Radharani dancing with Krishna in the forests of Vrindavan surrounded by Gopis... I really see no difference And, why does it really matter if I mix Christ Consciousness with Krishna Consciousness?

Oh! So sorry cbrahma Ji! Thank you! Now that I re-read your statement, I understand what you were saying perfectly, and I totally agree. Being a Vaishnava should be about love and belief in God, not about non-belief in this and that. That's not what makes you a Vaishnava. Love for God and His Avatars is.

There are many acceptable ways of treating the Lord. You can treat Him as a friend or even a lover if you wish. You don't usually address your close friend or lover as a Maharaja or anything else... you address them by their names. I think Indulekha's test is fine the way it is. It reflects her special relationship with Lord Krishna-Chaitanya and Sri Nityananda Prabhu

What else would you call faith in a deity other than 'belief'? Faith in the Atman? Faith in any non-physical, non-provable entity?

It's a great travesty to see all the suffering that is happening in this world because of a lack of love for man and for God.

Oh, this is your website? It's very nicely put together! I'll be sure to take a more in-depth look at it. I love Guadalupe. She's such a little sweet heart! I really like the pic of her defeating the Red Dragon... so dramatic!

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.

I'm not obsessively concerned with people not believing in Jesus. I just don't think it's appropriate to insult another's religious figure (especially when you believe in other, also non-provable religious figures).

I agree that to be Vaishnava you don't have to believe in Jesus. But I don't think that just because you choose not to believe in him that you need to insult him with smart little comments (such as putting him on the same level as cartoon characters).

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?

I full heartedly agree. Mary is just as much a form of the Divine Mother as Kali or Radharani. Did you read about the priest (his name escapes me) who said that he saw Mary and on the way back from the apparition site died with a smile on his lips? I, personally, think that he entered into Samadhi. Some people on here might say, "Samadhi can only be reached through the Sanatan Dharma!", but, hey, the Vedas themselves say that Truth is One but is called by many names! Have you ever heard of Guadalupe (http://www.sancta.org/)? That's my favorite of all the apparitions of Mary.

deleted

I read about Garabandal in my old Catholic days... pretty interesting. Did you know people used to drive needles into the children's flesh in order to see if they were really in a state of divine ecstasy or not?

Who cares if it wasn't "extraordinary"? Rapes happen all the time. They're not "extraordinary" either, but they are horrible crimes that no one ever deserves to go through. So, he deserved to be crucified for treason against the cruel Roman government? Oh, God forbid someone disobey a ruthless set of conquerors who massacred thousands of people all over the world! Oh, yes, let us all take refuge in Judas, who sold out his teacher for 30 shekels...

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.