krishnas 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2002 Originally posted by theist: krishnas, What do you think of Bhaktivinode Thakurs eatting of flesh foods? I don't think of it. Why should I? Does it suddenly become acceptable because Bhaktivinode (allegedly) did it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krishnas 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2002 Originally posted by Gauracandra: There is some disagreement on the fish statement. In some Steven Rosen book he mentions how from one interpretation Jesus only fed bread to the multitudes. I'd have to look up his statements in that regard. Even still, he would be relating to individuals on their level. For the Bible condoning animal sacrifice, I have mentioned before that the Biblical view is that originally everyone was vegetarian. But even in Vedic traditions there are sanctions for meat eating and animal sacrifice. The notion of Jesus as God incarnate on earth suffering pain is also a disagreement amoung some groups of Christians. There was one group called the Cathars (who were wiped out) that did not believe that Jesus's body suffered. In fact they say (if I recall correctly) that Jesus was always a spirit, and was so pure that I think he never even touched the ground. In each of these cases, however, we are simply showing our favor towards interpretations that happen to be convenient towards our position. They are hardly mainstream interpretations, and even then, they are most certainly not the only interpretations. And when we get right down to it, how do we know that those interpretations are correct? Just because they seems consistent with our perspective does not make them true to the Biblical tradition. Ultimately, most of us are not qualified to rewrite Biblical history/mythology, and we would be better off just leaving the Bible to the Christians and simply presenting our view. Perhaps if Christians then suggest that they have difficulty accepting some of what we say, we can then point out that there are other ways of interpreting their scriptures. My point here is, leave Biblical interpretation to the Christians. I don't see how we can objectively show that Christianity is bona fide, from a Vedic standpoint. But I am happy to be proven wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
karthik_v 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2002 Krishnas: My point here is, leave Biblical interpretation to the Christians. That raises an interesting question: Which Christians? - The ones that are mainstream today [that is the descendents of Constantine's tradition], the one's who followed Origen, the one's who burnt the books...which ones? I don't see how we can objectively show that Christianity is bona fide, from a Vedic standpoint. But I am happy to be proven wrong. I would agree with this. We cannot show that Christianity is consistent with the vedic as we cannot show that advaita isn't. I don't think of it. Why should I? Does it suddenly become acceptable because Bhaktivinode (allegedly) did it? Another good point. It only shows that nobody is perfect. Everyone, including the acaryas, has his share of defects. If any, this only goes to show that dogmas and blind following must be repulsed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krishnas 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2002 Originally posted by shvu: Let me make it more clear. Krishnas says some acts of Jesus "are not consistent with Vaishnava ethics" and consequently he (Jesus) is not upto devotees who follow Vaishnava ethics. Not exactly. My point is simply that we cannot *prove* that Jesus is a pure devotee. Maybe he is, but I still don't see how we can assert this and be taken seriously. If someone were to object, all we have is faith to back us up, and I for one don't like adopting positions based on blind faith. Of course, every system of belief must ultimately start with some axiom, and in Vedaanta this is veda-apaurusheyatva. But the Jesus arguments are based on additional assumptions that are not warranted in this context. My point is, where has it been said that following Vaishnava ethics is a required qualification to be be a pure devotee? What is the meaning of "pure devotee" if we are going to ignore shaastric definitions of the same? Bhagavad-giitaa says it very clearly that one who does not follow scriptural regulations cannot attain the supreme goal: yaH shaastra-vidhim utsR^ijya vartate kaama-kaarataH | na sa siddhim avaapnoti na sukha.m na paraa.m gatim || giitaa 16.23 || yaH - anyone who; shaastra-vidhim - the regulations of the scriptures; utsR^ijya - giving up; vartate - remains; kaama-kaarataH - acting whimsically in lust; na - never; saH - he; siddhim - perfection; avaapnoti - achieves; na - never; sukham - happiness; na - never; paraam - the supreme; gatim - perfectional stage. He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination. (bhagavad-giitaa 16.23) This being the case, how can it be argued that Jesus is a pure devotee? We hear of his almost hateful invective against "idol-worshipers," see him creating fish for fishermen, eating meat and wine, etc. It can be argued that all of these incidents are misinterpretations. But even considering this, who are we to say one way or another? My point is simply that we should avoid preaching ideas that happen to be convenient towards our world view when it is obvious we can offer no scholarly defense of them. The second point I made is, can the purity of a devotee be measured? If following Vaishnava ethics is a test of purity, then by the same logic, I cam make a similar argument that Jesus did so many out_of_way things which the Vaishnava devotees did not and hence he must have been *more* pure. I stated the example to show any standards for determining purity of devotees is something that we make up on our own. Cheers As I am sure you are aware, Vedas and Puraanas are not regarded as man-made. Vaishnavas are obligated to judge according to Vedic descriptions, and this includes claims of Jesus's alleged devotion and similar deviations. The point is not to "measure" one's purity, but simply to see if a devotee does in fact live up the descriptions of a pure devotee as given in shaastra. So far, I do not see how Jesus does. Consequently, I believe it would be wise to leave off from undue glorification of him. yours, - K Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krishnas 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2002 Originally posted by karthik_v: Krishnas: My point here is, leave Biblical interpretation to the Christians. That raises an interesting question: Which Christians? - The ones that are mainstream today [that is the descendents of Constantine's tradition], the one's who followed Origen, the one's who burnt the books...which ones? Who cares? As long as it isn't us. I don't see how we can objectively show that Christianity is bona fide, from a Vedic standpoint. But I am happy to be proven wrong. I would agree with this. We cannot show that Christianity is consistent with the vedic as we cannot show that advaita isn't. Advaita can be shown to be inconsistent with Vedic thought. I'm not sure I agree with this comparison, but perhaps I misunderstood you. Advaitists accept the same pramaanas as Vaishnavas in theory, and thus there is scope for interreligious dialogue. But Christians have a completely different standard of epistemology. I don't think of it. Why should I? Does it suddenly become acceptable because Bhaktivinode (allegedly) did it? Another good point. It only shows that nobody is perfect. Everyone, including the acaryas, has his share of defects. If any, this only goes to show that dogmas and blind following must be repulsed. *I* did not say that Bhaktivinod Thakur had defects. I am merely pointing out that our loyalty is to shaastra first and foremost. Even the guru must be obedient to shaastra. I very much doubt that Bhaktivinode actually ate meat. The reference I saw to this is in a writing of his in which he simply criticizes himself out of Vaishnava humility. But even if it were true that he did this, why are we concerned with it, when it supposedly happened before his second birth into spiritual life? This is not a very honest comparison. If the issue was that Jesus ate meat previously, and then repented, then we would have no issue with Jesus' diet. But the Bible records his consumption of meat even while preaching. - K ------------------ www.achintya.org Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krishnas 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2002 Originally posted by shvu: If we set out to compare the level of purity in devotees, since the other folks did not walk on water, bring dead people back to life, etc, one can say Jesus was a *better* devotee than them. Cheers How is walking on water, bringing dead people back to life, curing lepers, etc tantamount to pure devotion? What is pure devotion to Krishna if these acts are pure devotion? Shaastras mention various yogic siddhis like becoming lighter than the lightest, instantly making any object appear from other planets, journeying to other planets, etc. But none of these are accepted as bhakti. I don't follow your arguments. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
karthik_v 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2002 I don't know why people cannot accept Jesus as a pure devotee. Just read the following teachings of Jesus and you will have no doubt that he was a pure devotee full of compassion. Only fools will think that Jesus actively supported slavery, cruel punishments of the innocent and selling of one's own daughter. For the doubting Harrys, I have many more like these How did Jesus say a slave should treat his master? A slave must completely obey and fear his master, even if his master is cruel and unjust. "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward" [Peter 2:18]. "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ" [Ephesians 6:5]. What is God's policy on physical punishment of your slave? "A servant will not be corrected by words: for though he understand he will not answer” [Proverbs 29:19]. “And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake” [Exodus 21:26-27]. What does God say is to happen to a male slave after six years of service? “If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever” [Exodus 21:2-6]. Does God allow you to sell your daughter into slavery? Yes. And the situation is not unbearable for her since, if her master takes her as his wife and she does not please him, he must set her free. “And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation, he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife: her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish” [Exodus 21:7-10]. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
karthik_v 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2002 Krishnas: Advaita can be shown to be inconsistent with Vedic thought. I would be interested in knowing how. But, that may require a seperate thread in itself. You are most welcome to start one and I will participate. A few more shall be interested as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shvu 1 Report post Posted July 13, 2002 Vaishnavas are obligated to judge according to Vedic descriptions, and this includes claims of Jesus's alleged devotion and similar deviations. The point is not to "measure" one's purity, but simply to see if a devotee does in fact live up the descriptions of a pure devotee as given in shaastra. So far, I do not see how Jesus does. Consequently, I believe it would be wise to leave off from undue glorification of him... Agreed. From a Vaishnava perspective, Jesus certainly does not qualify as a "pure devotee" because he ate meat, etc. You argue from the position that a pure devotee is one who conforms to Vaishnava ethics, which also means that anyone who digresses from such a model is not pure. I was looking at the big picure and hence the difference in opinion. Cheers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
karthik_v 0 Report post Posted July 13, 2002 Here is further proof that Jesus was a very merciful, pure devotee. I hope atleast now those who doubt that he was the chosen one, dispel such doubts from their hearts. I must add that no other spiritual master has reached this level of kindness as displayed by Jesus For your reading pleasure: What does God say should happen to a master who beats his slave to death? He should not be punished if the slave survives for a couple days after the beating. "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money." [Exodus 21:20-21]. Of course, nobody claims that Jesus ever revered gomata, but one gets a feeling that he desired special treatment for gopati [oxen] Also note that Jesus, the saviour of the weak has displayed special kindness towards slaves and servants. Read on: What punishments does God mandate when an ox gores a free man and when an ox gores a slave? "If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death. . . . If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned [Exodus 21:28-32]. Of course, everybody knows that the love Jesus displayed was universal. No, he wasn't sectarian by any means. Yet, some fools still don't believe so. Thos who suspect that Jesus was ever partial in favour of his people should read this: What was the plight of those not born Israelites? They were to be taken by the Israelites as slaves, and their children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc. were destined to be slaves. "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever" [Leviticus 25:44-46]. How profound? Is there anybody out there who still doesn't believe that Jesus was a pure devotee full of compassion? Did you note in that quote from Exodus 21:28-32, Jesus assigning a value of 30 shekels to the life of a slave? Does some fool think that there was some kind of cosmic justice when Judas "sold" Jesus for the same 30 shekels? Well, such a fool doesn't realize that Jesus was a pure devotee Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
karthik_v 0 Report post Posted July 13, 2002 But the ultimate compassion and equanimity of Jesus doesn't surface until you read the following verse. One gets a feeling that Prophet Mohammad got his inspirations from Jesus. Does it mean that Prophet was also a pure devotee? What effect does God say warfare has on slavery? Whereas the men in any community invaded must be killed, the women and children are to be taken as slaves. "And when the Lord thy God hath delivered [a city] into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee. [Deuteronomy 20:13-14]. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gauracandra 1 Report post Posted July 13, 2002 A word of note on the quotes Karthik has posted, attributed to Jesus. None of them Jesus says. All the quotes given, while in the Bible, are not uttered by Jesus, as they all come from the Old Testament. The few that do come from the New Testament also are not uttered by Jesus. THis is very easy for me to tell with my King James version for the simple reason that all statements by Jesus are colored, and none of those quotes are so colored. [This message has been edited by Gauracandra (edited 07-13-2002).] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krishnas 0 Report post Posted July 13, 2002 Originally posted by Gauracandra: A word of note on the quotes Karthik has posted, attributed to Jesus. None of them Jesus says. All the quotes given, while in the Bible, are not uttered by Jesus, as they all come from the Old Testament. The few that do come from the New Testament also are not uttered by Jesus. THis is very easy for me to tell with my King James version for the simple reason that all statements by Jesus are colored, and none of those quotes are so colored. [This message has been edited by Gauracandra (edited 07-13-2002).] In any case, they don't matter, because of their irrelevance. None of those quotes address the points I brought up - namely the specific digressions of Jesus' behavior (as documented in the Bible) from Vedic injunctions (such as killing of fish, eating of meat, etc). Ignoring these digressions, and then insisting that Jesus is still a pure devotee of Lord Krishna because he had a very merciful attitude towards slavery strikes me as a bizarre logic to say the least. So what if someone were to argue that Mother Theresa, Swami Vivekananda, and Sathya Sai Baba are also pure devotees because of their welfare activities? If shaastra cannot be use to question an individual's qualifications as a devotee, then let's just throw them out and award the title of "pure devotee" to anyone we happen to like. yours, - K ------------------ www.achintya.org Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
atma 0 Report post Posted July 13, 2002 Srila Prabhupada on Lord Jesus: "The Srimad Bhagavatam states that any bonafide preacher of God consciousness must have the qualities of titiksa (tolerance) and karuna (compassion). In the character of Lord Jesus Christ we find both these qualities. He was so tolerant that even while he was being crucified, he didn't condemn anyone. And he was so compassionate that he prayed to God to forgive the very persons who were trying to kill him. (of course, they could not actually kill him. But they were thinking that he could be killed, so they were commiting a great offense.). As Christ was being crucified he prayed "Father, forgive them. They know not what they are doing."..... A Vaisnava is unhappy to see the suffering of others. Therefore, Lord Jesus Christ agreed to be crucified - to free others from their suffering... Jesus Christ was such a great personality -the son of God, the representative of God. He had no fault. Still, he was crucified. He wanted to deliver God consciousness, but in return they crucified him - they were so thankless. They could not appreciate his preaching. But we appreciate him and give him all honor as the representative of God. Of course, the message that Christ preached was just according to his particular time, place and country, and just suited for a particular group of people. But certaintly he is the representative of God. Therefore we adore Lord Jesus Christ and offer our obeisances to him. Once, in Melbourne, a group of Christian ministers came to visit me. They asked,"What is your idea of Jesus Christ?". I told them, "He is our guru, he is preaching God consciousness, so he is our spiritual master." The ministers very much appreciated that. Actually, anyone who is preaching God's glories must be accepted as a guru. Jesus Christ in one such great personality. We should not think of him as an ordinary human being. The scriptures say that anyone who considers the spiritual master to be an ordinary man has a hellish mentality. If Jesus Christ were an ordinary man, then he could not have delivered God consciousness.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
atma 0 Report post Posted July 13, 2002 In my humble opinion Karthik and Krsnas are offensive,maybe out of ignorance, sarcasm doesn't help Karthik and all those quotes as Gauracandra pointed out were not by Jesus. Just follow Srila Prabhupada and appreciate the devotees of the Lord who came to this material world to deliver us, fallen souls. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shashi 0 Report post Posted July 13, 2002 Originally posted by karthik_v: Did you note in that quote from Exodus 21:28-32, Jesus assigning a value of 30 shekels to the life of a slave? Karthik uyou are very embarassing me as you have one indian names also. You are showing nothing. Jesus is not being found in Exodus which is being the ages before Jesus. For Jesus you must be looking Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. You must now be apologizing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shashi 0 Report post Posted July 13, 2002 Originally posted by atma: Srila Prabhupada on Lord Jesus: "The Srimad Bhagavatam states that any bonafide preacher of God consciousness must have the qualities of titiksa (tolerance) and karuna (compassion). In the character of Lord Jesus Christ we find both these qualities. He was so tolerant that even while he was being crucified, he didn't condemn anyone. And he was so compassionate that he prayed to God to forgive the very persons who were trying to kill him. (of course, they could not actually kill him. But they were thinking that he could be killed, so they were commiting a great offense.). As Christ was being crucified he prayed "Father, forgive them. They know not what they are doing."..... A Vaisnava is unhappy to see the suffering of others. Therefore, Lord Jesus Christ agreed to be crucified - to free others from their suffering... Jesus Christ was such a great personality -the son of God, the representative of God. He had no fault. Still, he was crucified. He wanted to deliver God consciousness, but in return they crucified him - they were so thankless. They could not appreciate his preaching. But we appreciate him and give him all honor as the representative of God. Of course, the message that Christ preached was just according to his particular time, place and country, and just suited for a particular group of people. But certaintly he is the representative of God. Therefore we adore Lord Jesus Christ and offer our obeisances to him. Once, in Melbourne, a group of Christian ministers came to visit me. They asked,"What is your idea of Jesus Christ?". I told them, "He is our guru, he is preaching God consciousness, so he is our spiritual master." The ministers very much appreciated that. Actually, anyone who is preaching God's glories must be accepted as a guru. Jesus Christ in one such great personality. We should not think of him as an ordinary human being. The scriptures say that anyone who considers the spiritual master to be an ordinary man has a hellish mentality. If Jesus Christ were an ordinary man, then he could not have delivered God consciousness.' This is good beginnings for the page 2 in discussions. Thank you too much AtmaJi. Cryings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krishnas 0 Report post Posted July 13, 2002 Originally posted by atma: In my humble opinion Karthik and Krsnas are offensive,maybe out of ignorance, sarcasm doesn't help Karthik and all those quotes as Gauracandra pointed out were not by Jesus. Just follow Srila Prabhupada and appreciate the devotees of the Lord who came to this material world to deliver us, fallen souls. And that I must say, is the typical ISKCON response. "I can't answer your question, therefore you are offensive. Let's not think about we believe. Just blindly follow. If you blindly follow us, you are great and pure devotee, but if you do not follow us, then you are insincere, mayavadi, offensive, impersonalist" etc etc I'm just glad that this wasn't Srila Prabhupada's standard. How unfortunate that many of his followers have sunk to this. [This message has been edited by krishnas (edited 07-13-2002).] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krishnas 0 Report post Posted July 13, 2002 Originally posted by karthik_v: Krishnas: Advaita can be shown to be inconsistent with Vedic thought. I would be interested in knowing how. But, that may require a seperate thread in itself. You are most welcome to start one and I will participate. A few more shall be interested as well. Are you serious? Advaita has already been refuted many times over by Madhva, Ramanuja, et. al. Where exactly are you coming from with this? Maybe you can start an Advaita thread and I will comment. I'm surprised that there is anyone on this forum that still believes in it. ------------------ www.achintya.org Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
karthik_v 0 Report post Posted July 13, 2002 Hari Bol Gauracandra Prabhu, Shashiji and Atmaji, In fact, every teaching of Jesus has come to us only through the 4 books that made the cut in 315 CE and a host of other books that were purged. Simply put it, whatever we consider as offensive or compassionate has all been recounted by his disciples. No authority in the church has ever stated that Jesus was either opposed to these sayings or was even uncomfortable with them. Also, it is not as if that Jesus did away with old testament. He did accept many parts of it and they found their way into NT. The verses I have quoted are among them. So, if Jesus didn't coin those messages, then he is atleast guilty of having propagated them. In my eyes, that still doesn't reduce the value of Jesus. I never believe that anyone is perfect. Not Jesus not Srila Prabhupad. Even a realized soul has his share of defects. So, while Jesus has been quoting these repulsive verses, SP has been quoting some repulsive verses from Manusmriti etc.. But, they also gave very sublime messages for the mankind. I would like to ask you as to why these verses are in the Bible, if they are not approved by the tradition which follows Jesus. And the main reason I am quoting these verses is because in ISKCON several speakers glorify Jesus as a pure devotee while launching uninformed, scathing attacks on Sankara and Lord Siva. Some even go to the extent of calling the teachings of Adi Sankara as Yellow stool. So, I am just providing the counter-balance Krishnas: Are you serious? Advaita has already been refuted many times over by Madhva, Ramanuja, et. al. Where exactly are you coming from with this? And I have come across Advaita practitioners claim that the philosophies of both Ramanuja and Madhva have been shown to be defective by many advaita acaryas. I have also come across several debates where the likes of Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian have very convincingly argued, with shruti basis, that advaita is the only true vedic tradition. Let me start a new thread and let us see arguments from both sides. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
karthik_v 0 Report post Posted July 13, 2002 One clear sign of a pure devotee is that he has absolutely unconventional views on sex. Of course, Jesus doesn't disappoint us in this department either How does God say you can determine whether your wife is cheating on you? Have a priest give her holy water to drink. If she’s an adulteress, her belly will swell and her thigh will rot. "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man’s wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him, and a man lie with her carnally . . . then the man shall bring his wife unto the priest . . . and the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel . . . And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot [Numbers 5:11-27]. Now I know as to why Christianity never took roots in Arabia. Simple, water is scarce in those deserts That is why another pure devotee, Prophet Mohammad, had to come up with ways that didn't require water for identifying an adultress Okay, most people these days don't know what role a woman should play in sex. Such fools must listen to Jesus, the pure devotee According to Jesus, what is a woman’s sexual role? To submit to her husband’s whims, for women were created to serve men and to satisfy men’s sexual needs. "For the man is not of the women; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman: but the woman for the man" [Corinthians 11:8-9]. "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord" [Colossians 3:18]. "For this cause God gave them up into vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman." [Romans 1:26-27]. "[Thy husband] shall rule over thee" [Genesis 3:16]. Are there X-rated descriptions in the teachings of Jesus, the pure devotee? Some fools think the following qualify that, but they know not that Jesus was a pure devotee: "For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses [Ezekiel 23:20]. "Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times" [Proverbs 5:19]. "Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?" [Kings 18:27]. I have always wondered what effect a combination of sexual perversions [resulting from oppression] and violence will produce when a pure devotee experiences them. All I had to do was look upto Jesus According to the Bible, what is an example of the payment a man of God had to provide to a king to marry his daughter? 100 foreskins of enemies of the king that the husband-to-be must slaughter [but, to curry favor, 200 foreskins was preferable]. And Saul was afraid of David, because the Lord was with him, and was departed from Saul . . .And Michal Saul’s daughter loved David: and they told Saul, and the thing pleased him. . . . And Saul said [to his servants], Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king’s enemies. . . . Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king’s son-in-law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife [samuel 18:12-27]. Beautiful, isn't it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
karthik_v 0 Report post Posted July 13, 2002 There are some fools who criticize ISKCON for its prudish stance on sex. Idiots they are for they don't realize that Jesus, the pure devotee had an even stringent standard for sex Who is holiest to God? A man who avoids sex through castration. "For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off" [isaiah 56:3-5]. "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it" [Matthew 19:12]. Now don't be audacious and ask me if Jesus was a eunuch himself. You will go to hell. Which act does God consider disgraceful? Having sex with your dead brother's wife but refusing to impregnate her. "And Er, Judah's first born, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him. And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also" [Genesis 38:7-10]. "If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger; her husband's brother shall go in unto her . . . And if the man like not to take his brother's wife . . . then his brother's wife shall come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot and spit in his face . . . And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed" [Deuteronomy 25:5-10]. Though I am an admirer of Jesus, the pure devotee, the following one stumps me altogether. Can some knowledgeable person comment on this saying of Jesus? Under what circumstances does the Bible say a woman must have her hands cut off for touching her husband's genitals? When she touches them in an effort to protect her husband from an attacker. "When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her" [Deuteronomy 25:11-12]. What are God's policies regarding the treatment of women captured in war? A pure devotee must advocate fair treatment of women. Jesus doesn't disappoint in this department either The victor may choose any of the women he wants to be his wife. The victor may choose any of the women to be his wife but if she's bad in bed, while he may kick her out, he may not sell her as a slave. "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, and seeth among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and remain in thine house . . . And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her" [Deuteronomy 21:10-14]. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
karthik_v 0 Report post Posted July 13, 2002 Also, never forget that Srila Prabhupad often quoted Exodus 20:13, Thou shall not kill to condemn meat-eating among the Christians. Is this not from the Old Testament? Of course, it is. Were these words originally spoken by Jesus? Not at all. He was just repeating what was there in OT. So, is it someohow okay to quote passages from NT [which were in turn borrowed from OT] that are convenient to us and which project Jesus as a pure devotee and somehow not okay to quote those passages that portray him in bad light? I don't understand this logic. To me any passage originally coined by Jesus or just repeated by him from OT both mean the same - that they have his stamp of approval. Anything wrong with my logic? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krishnas 0 Report post Posted July 13, 2002 Originally posted by karthik_v: Krishnas: Are you serious? Advaita has already been refuted many times over by Madhva, Ramanuja, et. al. Where exactly are you coming from with this? And I have come across Advaita practitioners claim that the philosophies of both Ramanuja and Madhva have been shown to be defective by many advaita acaryas. I have also come across several debates where the likes of Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian have very convincingly argued, with shruti basis, that advaita is the only true vedic tradition. Let me start a new thread and let us see arguments from both sides. I know Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian and have argued with him often. A few years back, he would argue that Advaita must be correct, because the Vedas are inconsistent. I pointed out that if the Vedas are inconsistent, then how does that prove Advaita, since they must be inconsistent with regards to Advaita. His response was to get upset and start hurling insults at ISKCON. Some scholar. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krishnas 0 Report post Posted July 13, 2002 Originally posted by karthik_v: One clear sign of a pure devotee is that he has absolutely unconventional views on sex. Of course, Jesus doesn't disappoint us in this department either Many ISKCON devotees have "unconventional" views on sex. That doesn't make them pure devotees. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
