Catholic devotee of Christ Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 LOL! Come on:rolleyes:...did you guys really write it. Or did the heart of man;). 2 Timothy chapter 3 <sup> </sup>16 All scripture is inspired by God and useful for refuting error, for guiding people's lives and teaching them to be upright. 17 This is how someone who is dedicated to God becomes fully equipped and ready for any good work. Does this specify Jewish scripture? Christian scripture? No. It says ALL scripture. I understand Ganesha wrote the Mahabharata. I will leave it up to you, bija, to decide who wrote it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suchandra Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 2 Timothy chapter 3<sup> </sup>16 All scripture is inspired by God and useful for refuting error, for guiding people's lives and teaching them to be upright. 17 This is how someone who is dedicated to God becomes fully equipped and ready for any good work. Does this specify Jewish scripture? Christian scripture? No. It says ALL scripture. I understand Ganesha wrote the Mahabharata. I will leave it up to you, bija, to decide who wrote it! My dear Nimai Pandita, what You have said is all true. Our scriptures have developed only recently, and they are certainly not logical and philosophical. PURPORT The sastras of the yavanas, or meat-eaters, are not eternal scriptures. They have been fashioned recently, and sometimes they contradict one another. The scriptures of the yavanas are three: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran. Their compilation has a history; they are not eternal like the Vedic knowledge. Therefore although they have their arguments and reasonings, they are not very sound and transcendental. As such, modern people advanced in science and philosophy deem these scriptures unacceptable. Sometimes Christian priests come to us inquiring, “Why are our followers neglecting our scriptures and accepting yours?” But when we ask them, “Your Bible says, ’Do not kill.’ Why then are you killing so many animals daily?” they cannot answer. Some of them imperfectly answer that the animals have no souls. But then we ask them, “How do you know that animals have no souls? Animals and children are of the same nature. Does this mean that the children of human society also have no souls?” According to the Vedic scriptures, within the body is the owner of the body, the soul. In the Bhagavad-gita (2.13) it is said: dehino ’smin yatha dehe kaumaraṁ yauvanaṁ jara tatha dehantara-praptir dhiras tatra na muhyati “As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. The self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change.” Because the soul is within the body, the body changes through so many forms. There is a soul within the body of every living entity, whether animal, tree, bird or human being, and the soul is transmigrating from one type of body to another. When the scriptures of the yavanas-namely, the Old Testament, New Testament and Koran-cannot properly answer inquisitive followers, naturally those advanced in scientific knowledge and philosophy lose faith in such scriptures. The Kazi admitted this while talking with Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. The Kazi was a very intelligent person. He had full knowledge of his position, as stated in the following verse. Adi 17.169 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bija Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 I understand Ganesha wrote the Mahabharata. I will leave it up to you, bija, to decide who wrote it! hats off to Roy Harper... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catholic devotee of Christ Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 My dear Nimai Pandita, what You have said is all true. Our scriptures have developed only recently, and they are certainly not logical and philosophical.PURPORT The sastras of the yavanas, or meat-eaters, are not eternal scriptures. They have been fashioned recently, and sometimes they contradict one another. The scriptures of the yavanas are three: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran. Their compilation has a history; they are not eternal like the Vedic knowledge. Therefore although they have their arguments and reasonings, they are not very sound and transcendental. As such, modern people advanced in science and philosophy deem these scriptures unacceptable. Sometimes Christian priests come to us inquiring, “Why are our followers neglecting our scriptures and accepting yours?” But when we ask them, “Your Bible says, ’Do not kill.’ Why then are you killing so many animals daily?” they cannot answer. Some of them imperfectly answer that the animals have no souls. But then we ask them, “How do you know that animals have no souls? Animals and children are of the same nature. Does this mean that the children of human society also have no souls?” According to the Vedic scriptures, within the body is the owner of the body, the soul. In the Bhagavad-gita (2.13) it is said: dehino ’smin yatha dehe kaumaraṁ yauvanaṁ jara tatha dehantara-praptir dhiras tatra na muhyati “As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. The self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change.” Because the soul is within the body, the body changes through so many forms. There is a soul within the body of every living entity, whether animal, tree, bird or human being, and the soul is transmigrating from one type of body to another. When the scriptures of the yavanas-namely, the Old Testament, New Testament and Koran-cannot properly answer inquisitive followers, naturally those advanced in scientific knowledge and philosophy lose faith in such scriptures. The Kazi admitted this while talking with Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. The Kazi was a very intelligent person. He had full knowledge of his position, as stated in the following verse. Adi 17.169 What following verse? I don't see any following verse! As for the Meat eaters comment. Well,... Genesis 1:29 God also said, 'Look, to you I give all the seed-bearing plants everywhere on the surface of the earth, and all the trees with seed-bearing fruit; this will be your food. 30 And to all the wild animals, all the birds of heaven and all the living creatures that creep along the ground, I give all the foliage of the plants as their food.' And so it was. Man was not meant to eat meat. It is not until after the flood that God gave man permission to eat meat. Genesis 9:3<table width="100%" border="0" bordercolor="#000000" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td class="boxborder001" colspan="4" style="padding-top: 15px;" valign="top">3 Every living thing that moves will be yours to eat, no less than the foliage of the plants. I give you everything, </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="boxborder001" colspan="4" style="padding-top: 15px;" valign="top"> 4 with this exception: you must not eat flesh with life, that is to say blood, in it. </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="boxborder001" colspan="4" style="padding-top: 15px;" valign="top">5 And I shall demand account of your life-blood, too. I shall demand it of every animal, and of man. Of man as regards his fellow-man, I shall demand account for human life. I am not real sure here, but it sounds to me like God is going to take into account every animal we kill. </td></tr></tbody></table> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bija Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 I am not real sure here, but it sounds to me like God is going to take into account every animal we kill. by catholic you quoted Romans before...I recall there is similar comments by Paul that says 'mans conscience will condemn him'. Something like that? A flash of all the things that have hurt other living entities comes at times of great stress for some, even at the point of death. Enlightening... Some therapies like Iboga-click really bring harm home to the conscience...and transforms the man. I am sure the passover will be of similar healing for the progression of us all...what to say of the innocent animals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catholic devotee of Christ Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 you quoted Romans before...I recall there is similar comments by Paul that says 'mans conscience will condemn him'. Something like that? Yes. In Romans chapter 14 he goes on about what some people think is bad and others think is good. summing it up with 22"Within yourself, before God, hold on to what you already believe. Blessed is the person whose principles do not condemn his practice. 23 But anyone who eats with qualms of conscience is condemned, because this eating does not spring from faith-- and every action which does not spring from faith is sin. Similarly,in the Gita we read in 3:13 that spiritual people partaking of vegetarian food that has been offered in puja receive a multitude of blessings. While those who eat it for the sake of filling their stomachs are eating in sin.(from memory, I don't have a copy...I guess i could google it... A flash of all the things that have hurt other living entities comes at times of great stress for some, even at the point of death. Enlightening... Some therapies like Iboga-click really bring harm home to the conscience...and transforms the man. I am sure the passover will be of similar healing for the progression of us all...what to say of the innocent animals. I do not personally use drugs. I have in the past.I know that a lot of cultures do. Under the supervision of a qualified spiritual director,...blah,blah,blah I am not going to make a judgment call on the use of drugs.I will tell you why I do not use them. Why would I want to cause my sensory perceptors and neural synapses to misinterpret data? That is all I will say on that. And on that note... goodnight:sleep: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bija Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 sleep tight... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiley Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 What following verse? I don't see any following verse! As for the Meat eaters comment. Well,... Genesis 1:29 God also said, 'Look, to you I give all the seed-bearing plants everywhere on the surface of the earth, and all the trees with seed-bearing fruit; this will be your food. 30 And to all the wild animals, all the birds of heaven and all the living creatures that creep along the ground, I give all the foliage of the plants as their food.' And so it was. Man was not meant to eat meat. It is not until after the flood that God gave man permission to eat meat. Genesis 9:3<table width="100%" border="0" bordercolor="#000000" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td class="boxborder001" colspan="4" style="padding-top: 15px;" valign="top">3 Every living thing that moves will be yours to eat, no less than the foliage of the plants. I give you everything, </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="boxborder001" colspan="4" style="padding-top: 15px;" valign="top"> 4 with this exception: you must not eat flesh with life, that is to say blood, in it. </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="boxborder001" colspan="4" style="padding-top: 15px;" valign="top">5 And I shall demand account of your life-blood, too. I shall demand it of every animal, and of man. Of man as regards his fellow-man, I shall demand account for human life. I am not real sure here, but it sounds to me like God is going to take into account every animal we kill. </td></tr></tbody></table> Eating meat before or after a flood is equally illogical. Protein comes in the form of amino acids. Meat eaters get their amino acids from animal muscle tissue. Animals get their amino acids from the plants that they eat. The amount of land needed to produce X grams of beef protein is far less than the amount of land needed to produce the equivalent amount of soybean or hemp protein - meat consumption is a very inefficient way to acquire protein. Why would a supreme being suggest such a thing? If man was going to figure it out, he could have on his own. If he didn't figure it out he would have been much better off just eating whatever plant matter that the primates and bears who came off the ark found to eat (according to the myth there were only eight humans to feed). Or manna could have fallen from heaven as it did for Moses much later. Or sufficient stores of hemp, soybeans, almonds, apples, bananas, oranges, etc. could have been zapped into existence with the same ease that those animal skins were zapped into existence for the naked Adam and Eve (even though non-violent alternatives like cotton or wool would have sufficed). This kind of irrationality needs apologists to work full time trying to explain away the many inconsistencies and contradictions. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/<br> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catholic devotee of Christ Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 Eating meat before or after a flood is equally illogical. Protein comes in the form of amino acids. Meat eaters get amino acids from animal muscle tissue. The animals get their amino acids from the plants that they eat. You can get all nine of the essential amino acids from animal or plant products. Meats, chicken, fish, eggs, and dairy products are good sources of protein. You can also get all of the amino acids your body needs from soybean products, such as tofu and soymilk. But hang on. Almost all plant-based foods contain at least one of the nine amino acids. If you eat a variety of dried beans, nuts, seeds, vegetables, and grains (like wheat, corn, oats, and rice), you can get all the protein your body needs. Over the course of a day, your body combines the amino acids into protein packages, giving you a complete set.The amount of land needed to produce X grams of beef protein is far less than the amount of land needed to produce the equivalent amount of soybean or hemp protein - it is a very inefficient way to acquire protein. :deal:Here are some facts taken from an article from Cornell University:http://www.css.cornell.edu/forage/forage.html “If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million” “Animal protein production requires more than eight times as much fossil-fuel energy than production of plant protein while yielding animal protein that is only 1.4 times more nutritious for humans than the comparable amount of plant protein.” “Chicken meat production consumes energy in a 4:1 ratio to protein output; Beef cattle has ratio of 54:1; Lamb meat stands at 50:1, 13:1 for turkey meat and 14:1 for milk protein to 17:1 for pork and 26:1 for eggs.” “More than half the U.S. grain and nearly 40 percent of world grain is being fed to livestock rather than being consumed directly by humans.” “Each year an estimated 41 million tons of plant protein is fed to U.S. livestock to produce an estimated 7 million tons of animal protein for human consumption.” “On average, animal protein production in the U.S. requires 28 kilocalories (kcal) for every kcal of protein produced for human consumption. Grain production, on average, requires 3.3 kcal of fossil fuel for every kcal of protein produced.” “U.S. agriculture accounts for 87 percent of all the fresh water consumed each year.” Why would a supreme being suggest such a thing? If man was going to figure it out, he would have. If he didn't figure it out he would have been much better off just eating whatever plant matter that the primates and bears who came off the ark found to eat (according to the myth there were only eight humans to feed). Or manna could have fallen from heaven as it did for Moses much later. Or sufficient stores of hemp, soybeans, almonds, apples, bananas, oranges, etc. could have been zapped into existence with the same ease that those animal skins were zapped into existence for the naked Adam and Eve (even though non-violent alternatives like cotton or wool would have sufficed). This kind of irrationality needs apologists to work full time trying to explain away the many inconsistencies and contradictions. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ Hmmm Polemics don't hold much weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bija Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 Genesis 1:29 God also said, 'Look, to you I give all the seed-bearing plants everywhere on the surface of the earth, and all the trees with seed-bearing fruit; this will be your food. 30 And to all the wild animals, all the birds of heaven and all the living creatures that creep along the ground, I give all the foliage of the plants as their food.' And so it was. posted by catholic This verse has always caught my attention. I would like to know what the original word for 'food' was. If it was just talking about the belly, or more about sustenance and survival. Everything is complete within nature for the sustenance of man. But still he seems to have a hard time of it. There is sufficient plant matter for food. There is plant matter for housing and clothing. There is plant matter (medicine) for physical health. And yes, there is plant matter psycho-spiritual well being (shamanic medicine). Modern man, in a display of ethno-centric ignorance, has lost that harmony with nature. Content with chemical production. Nylons and other toxins for clothes, junk food wrapped in polymers for food, houses painted in toxins...toxic harmful artificial chemicals used for medicine (and sold at every corner drug store for mass profit)...and for psycho-spiritual well being some even turn to illicit-drugs (due to emptiness and hoplessness). This type of modern man has fragmented and compartmentalized nature into categories of good and bad, just like his fragmented disconnected self. And as resources run short, as economies rise and fall, and many other symptoms of an organism out of balance...this man claims to be superior in intelligence than his ancestors from the forest. Modern man has combined east and west. The rational of the west and the internal practice of the east are allies in the development of a healthy man. I would suggest, now such an evolved species, needs to look back to nature...to the way of the forest priest... East and west have both claimed superior culture, and both traditions have seen the aboriginal as a primitive. I would suggest they have much to learn from an original culture, that has been evident in all parts of the world...that knows what real food and sustenance is! When the time comes that the great East/West mind can humble itself...then the world will receive its healing. Huxley suggests that a soma will arise to keep the fragmented mind of man in harmony. This mass produced beast. I would suggest we do not need to go that path...our soma can be mother nature, and our sustenance can be the grace of God. Let's face it Catholic, man loves his drugs...the drug store is a busy place in most neighbourhoods. Man also loves his poison. And sometimes that poison is even religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catholic devotee of Christ Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 This verse has always caught my attention. I would like to know what the original word for 'food' was. If it was just talking about the belly, or more about sustenance and survival.I am pretty sure it was sustenance and survival. 'akal aw-kal' a primitive root; to eat (literally or figuratively):--X at all, burn up, consume, devour(-er, up), dine, eat(-er, up), feed (with), food, X freely, X in...wise(-deed, plenty), (lay) meat, X quite. Everything is complete within nature for the sustenance of man. But still he seems to have a hard time of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bija Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 I am pretty sure it was sustenance and survival. 'akal aw-kal' a primitive root; to eat (literally or figuratively):--X at all, burn up, consume, devour(-er, up), dine, eat(-er, up), feed (with), food, X freely, X in...wise(-deed, plenty), (lay) meat, X quite. that really interesting..thx 1:29 — And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food."See – The Hebrew word is hinneh. It means to ‘behold.’ This is God saying, “Hey! Pay attention! I’m talking to YOU!” Of course, everything God says is important, but when God says “See” or in the KJV “Behold,” He wants us to pay special attention to what He is about to say. I have given . . . – The Hebrew word is nathan. It means that Adam and Eve were given permission to eat the fruit. God made the fruit for man, and He allowed man to use it for sustenance. Later, King David’s profit would be Nathan (See 2 Samuel 7) Nathan means ‘giver.’ . . . every herb . . . – The Hebrew word is ‘eseb. And it refers to all the plants that are green. It can also mean to ‘glisten’ or ‘be green.’ . . . to you it shall be . . . – The Hebrew word is hayah. It means that this was God’s purpose for creating the fruits and herbs. “. . .it shall be for food.” All of God’s creation has a purpose. Nothing He creates is void of purpose and/or meaning. The fruit of thinking too much...seems to be a good fruit;). bija is a thinker too. So there is no prohibition in God's order, only council: in...wise(-deed, plenty) That is why I love this verse, it 'empowers' us to choose and live well. I am glad Moses broke the first set of tablets with all those rules. But why Moses? Why so many rules... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catholic devotee of Christ Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 I am glad Moses broke the first set of tablets with all those rules. But why Moses? Why so many rules... Matthew 22 34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." on a side note... I wonder if there is a connection between 'Saddhucees' and 'Saddhu'. There is much in linguistics to suggest this. The same with 'Abraham' and 'Brahmin'. What do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bija Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 It is possible for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandu_69 Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 <table border="0" bordercolor="#000000" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="boxborder001" colspan="4" style="padding-top: 15px;" valign="top"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="boxborder001" colspan="4" style="padding-top: 15px;" valign="top"> yesNo. from the Catechism of the Catholic Church 847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: <dl><dd>Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. </dd></dl></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="boxborder001" colspan="4" style="padding-top: 15px;" valign="top"> </td></tr></tbody></table> Purely on the basis of Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Outside the Church there is no salvation" 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?<sup>335</sup> Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. This is "vatican 2"-http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm\ Nothing changed much dear catholic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bija Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. This is from a non-sectarian view of spirituality where the catholic tradition is as valid as other world traditions. The distinctions and contradictions become harmonised, so that one who is hindu can even see his faith in this Church structure. The whole concept is that the human family is now one church, by realization of the presence of God. This is the crux where many fundamentalists disagree...even within the catholic church. The in-ability to see the spirit of God in all men and spiritual paths...and rejection of the work of the Holy Spirit is what the above verse is pointing toward. Now, if that ideal is not held in some countries, it is possible that those countries have other social issues, which are blocking this progression of thought. This is the liberal catholic view, as far as I understand. Such thinking scared the heck out of many catholics, who bound by their tradition and belief believed there was 'no' truth beyond there dogma. Such thinking still scares the heck out of many orthodox and fundamentalist thinkers today...what to say of the nationalists:eek4:. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catholic devotee of Christ Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 <table width="100%" border="0" bordercolor="#000000" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td class="boxborder001" colspan="4" style="padding-top: 15px;" valign="top"></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="boxborder001" colspan="4" style="padding-top: 15px;" valign="top"> Purely on the basis of Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Outside the Church there is no salvation" 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?<sup>335</sup> Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. This is "vatican 2"-http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm\ Nothing changed much dear catholic Keep interpreting it your own way. I grow weary of your vincible ignorance. You have no desire to learn. You only wish to refute. And your evidence is incorrect. I presented the evidence. You gave me polemics and speculation. When you get Catechized correctly, then you can try and tell me about my faith. Go back to post #21:smash: </td></tr></tbody></table> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bija Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation Now you must understand the catholic apologist needs to reconcile his one pointed faith in the person Jesus, with the broader cosmic dimension. Therefore all this dialogue and written word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandu_69 Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Keep interpreting it your own way. I grow weary of your vincible ignorance. You have no desire to learn. You only wish to refute. And your evidence is incorrect. I presented the evidence. You gave me polemics and speculation. When you get Catechized correctly, then you can try and tell me about my faith. Go back to post #21:smash: yes your post 21 is about catechism paragraph 847 and i posted 846.Where are u confused??? where is the ploemics from my side??.I merely copy pasted paragraph 846. the difference between vatican 1 and 2 is that of immunity provided on acount of being not exposed to church. Those who are aware of church but chose to remain outside of church are not saved.This point is eloquently described in paragraph 846.Where is the question of interpretation here???. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncientMariner Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Hello All, I was in love with a girl for last 5-6 years and now she had suddenly started ignoring me, she don't pick up my calls and when i some how contacted her she start crying and just tell me leave her. Please help me with some mantras or any other technique with which i can get her back. you can directly send me reply on l.predictions@gmail.com too Thanks That is sad to hear. I have been there before and it is brutal. If you can overcome this pain of lost love you can overcome anything because it is the hardest one ever. The chanting of the Hare Krishna mantra helps somewhat and reading Srimad Bhagavatam where it says setbacks are actually gifts from the Lord. That is the only way to approach it, pretty much only choice you have and if it is your destiny to be with her then the Lord will bring you back together. Like my Dad told me before sometimes the Lord's greatest gift is unanswered prayer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bija Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Like my Dad told me before sometimes the Lord's greatest gift is unanswered prayer. nice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catholic devotee of Christ Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 First, chandu, I wish to apologize for my frustration. I have failed in my communication. For this, I am angry at myself and I took it out on you. I posted the paragragh from the Catechism, but failed to expound upon it from the modern Catholic point of view. 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: <dl><dd>Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.</dd><dt>:deal:It is important to remember that this is written BY Catholics FOR Catholics and those who seek conversion into the Church. Those who have accepted its truth are now bound to it. </dt><dt>847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: </dt></dl><dl><dd>Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.</dd><dt>Those who are not in the Catholic Church are not bound by its doctrine.-"those too may achieve eternal salvation." </dt></dl>Allow me to expound upon this from the Christian scriptures. I would like for bija and bhaktajan to know that I appreciate their efforts to compare this with the scriptures from their tradition Romans chapter 2 <table width="100%" border="0" bordercolor="#000000" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td class="boxborder001" colspan="4" style="padding-top: 15px;" valign="top">14 So, when gentiles,(non-Jewish) not having the Law,(the doctrine of the Jewish people) still through their own innate sense behave as the Law commands,(do those things naturally) then, even though they have no Law, they are a law for themselves. </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="boxborder001" colspan="4" style="padding-top: 15px;" valign="top"> 15 They can demonstrate the effect of the Law engraved on their hearts, (they show how the Law is a natural part of their being)to which their own conscience bears witness; since they are aware of various considerations,(they are able to discern right from wrong) some of which accuse them,(some things cause them shame or guilt) while others provide them with a defence (some things they are content with). . . on the day when, </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="boxborder001" colspan="4" style="padding-top: 15px;" valign="top"> 23 If, while you are boasting of the Law, you disobey it, then you are bringing God into contempt. (If you act like you know about these things, but do not adhere to it, then you are giving God a bad name.) 24 As scripture says: It is your fault that the name of God is held in contempt among the nations. (People who talk the talk but don't walk the walk are the reason why everyone hates God.) I have taken the liberty of copying and pasting what I posted before in post#21, because I think you are truly trying to understand what the modern Catholic church teaches and that you don't necessarily have an agenda to try and make my faith look bad. "Jesus never said he was the ONLY way. In John 14:6 we read, ”I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me.” In the original Greek version of this scripture, the word for “comes” is erchetai and it is very present tense meaning it does not apply to all people for all time. This verse applied ONLY to those people Jesus was talking to at that time. In the Aramaic Bible, Jesus’ own language, the word for “I” in this scripture is ena-ena or I-I. The meaning is NOT the same as ena which is an individual “I.” ("me") Ena-ena is a cosmic “I” or I AM THAT I AM(YWHW,or Jehovah) (Ex. 3:13 -14). In another scripture, Jesus tells us that we make a mistake if we think he is good, "Why do you call me good?"‘Jesus answered.’ "No one is good-except God alone" (Luke 18:19). And again: "By myself I can do nothing" (John 5:30). The way to reconcile “I am the way...” And “Don’t call me good...” is to understand that it is the I AM(YHWH-Iam that I am-even more correctly I am the ever becoming) (ena-ena) that is talking in John 14:6. The I AM is bigger than Jesus in the same way that all the water on this earth is more than any individual lake. By analogy, Jesus, Buddha and Krishna ...(John 10:16,I have other sheep, which are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will hear my voice. They will become one flock with one shepherd.)...are lakes filled with the one living I AM. In another scripture, Jesus clearly says the only requirement for attaining eternal life is loving God and loving our neighbor: Luke 10:25-28 “On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. ‘Teacher,’ he asked, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ ‘What is written in the Law?’ he replied. ‘How do you read it?’ He answered: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ‘You have answered correctly,’ Jesus replied. ‘Do this and you will live.'" If believing in Jesus were necessary to attain eternal life, Jesus would have been guilty of lying to the temple official in this scripture. Not a single time did Jesus ever warn about other religions. Rather, he said, “And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.” (Luke 9:49-50). " In Luke 9:49,50 it says, 49 John spoke up. 'Master,' he said, 'we saw someone driving out devils in your name, and because he is not with us we tried to stop him.' 50 But Jesus said to him, 'You must not stop him: any one who is not against you is for you'. Just because there is confusion because of the EVangelical TV preachers' "Sola Scripture" interpretation of the Bible seeping in to the ideas of Cathoics who are not in full communion with the church does not make it so. aif this doesn't make it easier for you to understand the official church stance on this issue, then I believe it is because you do not want to. </td></tr></tbody></table> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandu_69 Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 [url="http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/member.php?u=17338"] If you have not noticed i have consistently refrained from quoting jesus christ.I am merely responding to the teachings of catholic church which is the subject you raised. I quoted 846 in response to your postng the 847 paragraph. "In another scripture, Jesus clearly says the only requirement for attaining eternal life is loving God and loving our neighbor: . But this doesnt reflect in paragraph 846 of catechism? does it?. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiley Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 My dear Nimai Pandita, what You have said is all true. Our scriptures have developed only recently, and they are certainly not logical and philosophical.PURPORT The sastras of the yavanas, or meat-eaters, are not eternal scriptures. They have been fashioned recently, and sometimes they contradict one another. The scriptures of the yavanas are three: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran. Their compilation has a history; they are not eternal like the Vedic knowledge. Therefore although they have their arguments and reasonings, they are not very sound and transcendental. As such, modern people advanced in science and philosophy deem these scriptures unacceptable. Sometimes Christian priests come to us inquiring, “Why are our followers neglecting our scriptures and accepting yours?” But when we ask them, “Your Bible says, ’Do not kill.’ Why then are you killing so many animals daily?” they cannot answer. Some of them imperfectly answer that the animals have no souls. But then we ask them, “How do you know that animals have no souls? Animals and children are of the same nature. Does this mean that the children of human society also have no souls?” According to the Vedic scriptures, within the body is the owner of the body, the soul. In the Bhagavad-gita (2.13) it is said: dehino ’smin yatha dehe kaumaraṁ yauvanaṁ jara tatha dehantara-praptir dhiras tatra na muhyati “As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. The self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change.” Because the soul is within the body, the body changes through so many forms. There is a soul within the body of every living entity, whether animal, tree, bird or human being, and the soul is transmigrating from one type of body to another. When the scriptures of the yavanas-namely, the Old Testament, New Testament and Koran-cannot properly answer inquisitive followers, naturally those advanced in scientific knowledge and philosophy lose faith in such scriptures. The Kazi admitted this while talking with Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. The Kazi was a very intelligent person. He had full knowledge of his position, as stated in the following verse. Adi 17.169 Would you please link me to the source of the above quote? Thanks. <br> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bija Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 http://vedabase.net/cc/adi/17/169/en Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.