RE:JESUS THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA
by HHH on Jun 15, 2007 09:50 PM Permalink
and what happened to johny boiy whenhis time came? Did the poor guy ascend to heaven like he thought he would or he just found 50 tonnes of dirt over him...chhh chhh life can be such a bitc%
RE:JESUS THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA
by HHH on Jun 15, 2007 10:41 PM Permalink
You left out the nice ones to describe him..."jesus the zinch,zero,nada"..The Poor guy is being weighed down due to you morons who call yourselves his servants. Gosh sure you cannot drive servility out of your beings. You would be servants no doubt forever but not to god but some twisted gibberish being dished out by your select white masters. Poor pooch doesn;t know where to go. The master shoos him to go out in the world and bark a little and the world just shoos him back to the master where he goes circling back wagging his tail in hope of acceptance at some level from either sides....Again life is such a bitc*
RE:JESUS THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA
by HHH on Jun 15, 2007 09:48 PM Permalink
Take a hike cult follower Jacob. Keep those fantasy tales of your guy and his goons to your self and obviously your demented, degenarate bretherens.
"ANAND IYER EVERY DISCIPLE WAS TRANSFORMED MANY BEFORE CHRIST WAS CRUCIFIED AND SOME AFTER THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION. "
What bull crap? Are you guys just plain retards or have some sensible vein at some hidden strata of your being running through your body?
"OH WHAT A GLORIOUS GOD WE BELIEVE. HE LIVED A PURE AND BLEMISHLESS LIFE AND THATS WHAT HE WANTS EACH ONE OF US TO BE. "
Yuck...what hypocrisy? So you are saying your god was a dement?a parasite, a scavenger, a con artist? I mean isn't that what you are. Tell you what keep your god out of this. Dont give him a bad name because of you retards.
RE:JESUS THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA
by Sarath Chandra on Jun 15, 2007 08:31 PM Permalink
So what if all these people are stoned, crucified, beheaded? Many criminals these days the world over suffer the same fate. All terrorists after killing civilians and dying claim to be martyrs. Does this mean, christ and his disciples are criminals/terrorists?
I'd rather be convinced by the message, if it makes sense, than such "sacrifices". Try reason, not sympathy (in my view only inferior people try to whip up sympathy as they have no better weapon).
HHH, I think the conditions now are a lot different than say 15-20 years back in India and also around the world.
Radicals maybe on the rise, but mass opinion can more easily be mobilised these days by office going individuals, students. Earlier only radicals had motivation to take efforts and reach people because of its difficulty. Now all our voices can be heard much more easily, to a very wide audience.
So, I don't think it is necessary to be radicals to stop radicals from other religions. How many of these so called radicals do you really think are following whatever is said in their holy books? Religion has long since been removed from our daily lives. It is only used for (negative) arguments and identity.
Bottomline, I think the world can only get better. In this information world, truth has overwhelming odds to triumph, than deceit. This is what god, supposedly, always wanted.
RE:Rise of radicals?
by JGN on Jun 15, 2007 05:28 PM Permalink
Dear Sarath, you are absolutely right. There is no point in fighting in the name of religions and the so-called holy books. We all should learn to think rationally. In this age of science and technology, there is no place for religious fundamentalism. Please try to propogate atheism in your friend circle.
RE:Rise of radicals?
by HHH on Jun 15, 2007 07:44 PM Permalink
Atheism is not the answer. It would only lead to xian and muslim fanatics running amuck...
RE:Rise of radicals?
by Anand Iyer on Jun 15, 2007 05:44 PM Permalink
"religious fundamentalism". Bad term. Religion is based on "beliefs".
The meaning of "belief" is "a feeling that something exists or is true, especially one without proof."
So only a fool would "Believe" or entertain "beliefs".
"Beliefs" sow the seed of fundamentalism. Some "M" appears in India and say that caste should be birth-based. Someone appears outside India and say he has been sent down by Almighty and humanity should be divided as believers and non-believers and only what I say is true.
A believing mind is the fertile field in which charlatans sow seeds of religion by claiming taht they r divine. They tell big lies(people r accustomed only to telling small lies). When they hear a big lie, they "believe" it.
RE:Rise of radicals?
by Sarath Chandra on Jun 15, 2007 07:11 PM Permalink
JGN, when we try to propagate something (anything), I am not sure if we are not doing the same thing as any of the founders of these religions did.
I would rather say, use your reason and not take anything based on faith. I don't believe in a god nor disbelieve (but I have no conclusive proof either way). Hopefully, we (mankind) can come up with a theory where we can explain everything and there would be some shape we can give to the ultimate truth (which is supposedly god).
I personally would rather say, "this is what I think and these are my reasons, and of course I am open to hearing your reasons for thinking the way you are. If I am convinced of your reasons, I may change if I have the strength to, and what you do is your wish". The bottomline "No force on anybody (physical or emotional)"
RE:Rise of radicals?
by JGN on Jun 15, 2007 07:31 PM Permalink
Dear Sarath, I cannot just imagine that somebody sitting somewhere is controlling my thoughts and actions and I will go to some imaginary heaven/hell after my death. I hope you have read the scriptures of many religions. All of them are talking about betterment of the life here-after. If the god is so mercyful why there is so much disparities (social, economic, etc) on this earth? Why the all pervasive god could not have made all his creations equal in all respects? You might have also read the questions posted by Mr. Anand Iyer yesterday. Can anybody give a correct answer to those questions?
What I mean by propogate atheism, is not the same as propogating a religion/cult. Here we are only trying to make people understand the futility of religions and the so-called holy books.
You can get a large number of articles/books on atheism from the internet. I hope you will find them logical.
RE:Rise of radicals?
by Sarath Chandra on Jun 15, 2007 07:49 PM Permalink
Yes JGN, I don't believe in the traditional/popular god (nor do I in heaven/hell, life hereafter, holy books, etc). I do think we have freewill and control of our destiny.
Many people argue that for them god is the ultimate truth/knowledge, which all of us are after. Ofcourse, this is confusing issues. We can all say we are after the ultimate truth/knowledge and do away with the word "god", as this word really took on a very specific meaning.
I think my posts reflect whatever you said in this email and will in future too. And did you read "God's Debris" by Scott Adams. It has an interesting concept (for me) of life/creation. I am presently reading Marshal's "Necessity of atheism".
RE:Rise of radicals?
by Nostra Damus on Jun 02, 2008 07:51 PM Permalink
Sarath - The Buddha tried to teach this sensible lesson more than 2500 years ago, but only intelligent people like the Japanese and EAst Asians understood his teachings. I now wonder whether The Buddha was of Mongoloid origin. After all, he was born in Nepal on the border of Mongol territory.
We assume as a given that polyandry, polygamy, or, more radically, incest wrong. I think this is just a perception because we were told this is wrong from our birth.
There are many conceivable social conditions where polygamy and polyandry must be encouraged, if not outright necessary. And a detailed reading of these holy books show at least 1-2 instances of incest, if not more (I am guessing a lot more. Quran does not have it, I think, as it is relatively recently written. But there is this instance of mohammad marrying his foster son's wife?). Incest became a taboo because it is genetically disadvantageous and people with severe disabilities were born (as is acknowledged in many advanced biology classes).
I think, the decision of practising polygamy, polyandry, homosexuality, or dare I say, (hopefully nobody starts abusing) incest is not morally indefensible if it practiced by consenting individuals. Of these polygamy and polyandry is more so not the business of anybody else, if all individuals consent. Incest, on the other hand, I think, needs regulation as innocent kids with severe disabilities may be born.
RE:RE:Right and wrong?
by Sarath Chandra on Jun 15, 2007 04:27 PM Permalink
Good morning, I read that. It would be fun to say those things independent of Gita, and see what people opine.
I think most would like it, but once the source is revealed gita, it might lose some of its' appeal. Anyway, the message is more important than the messenger.
And saying "new religion" when you advocated primacy of reason (loosely "no religion" as no faith is involved) is a little ironic.
RE:Right and wrong?
by Anand Iyer on Jun 15, 2007 04:42 PM Permalink
No. i DID NOT use "new religion" at all. It was my dear friend George who used it. If he and u-my friends r comfortable thinking like that-fine.
I like Gita becoz it advocates "primacy of reason". See verse [18:63]. It is a good scripture becoz Krishna says logical things and "commends it to conscience of Arjuna and humanity". Bad scriptures r mandatory and illogical.
My conscience does not permit to pass off good things said by someone else as my own only to enhance its appeal.
RE:RE:Right and wrong?
by Anand Iyer on Jun 15, 2007 04:43 PM Permalink
Illogical scriptures have to be made mandatory-otherwise no one will obey them.
Whether Krishna be God or not what I like is he talks to Arjuna nad not talks down to him.
RE:RE:RE:RE:Right and wrong?
by Anand Iyer on Jun 15, 2007 04:47 PM Permalink
If I could condense it even more it will be "pescribed action(duties) carried out with proper mindset". "Proper mindset to be developed by personality development(Ch.12 and 16) and meditation".
RE:RE:Right and wrong?
by Anand Iyer on Jun 15, 2007 05:24 PM Permalink
My friend George thought that I was there to defend fairytales and incredulous things in hindu literature.I was here to oppose fairytales and incredulous things from bible which these eavngelist guys were imposing on everyone.
The moral of the story is that if u can blindly believe incredulous things in hindu scriptures, u can believe the incredulous things of Abrahamic faiths which becomes a greater threat to humanity.
From believing less dangerous things without questioning, one graduates to believing more dangerous things without questioning.
RE:Right and wrong?
by JGN on Jun 15, 2007 05:25 PM Permalink
Dear Anand, I am fine. As you know I am an Atheist. I had posted some verses from the Bible only due to some Christians abusing Hinduism (especially the Panchali episode). Please try to propagate Atheism as there is no point in fighting in the name of religions and the so-called holy books.
RE:RE:Right and wrong?
by Anand Iyer on Jun 15, 2007 05:29 PM Permalink
JGN Dear-Jor ka Jhatka dheere se. Dont take away the comfort of a God so suddenly.
So, Gitaism is a transitional phase. Probably Vyasa had intended it that way. Gita is rationalism sugar-coated with theology. He thought Humanity will follow verse no.,63 of Chapter 18(Relect on what I say and then act as u plaese) and graduate to rationality.
But this Manu moron(first abusive word I am using) came from somewhere and screwed up Bharat Varsha. Actually, the period of 3BC to 14AD in Indian history is dark age. Our decline accelerated due to destruction of our institutions. But that Manu moron
RE:Right and wrong?
by Sarath Chandra on Jun 15, 2007 05:16 PM Permalink
I guess I must improve my english. I did not say that you said its "new religion". I said it was not right for somebody to say so, when you didn't intent anything like that.
RE:Right and wrong?
by Anand Iyer on Jun 15, 2007 04:03 PM Permalink
I have not opposed incest per se in the biblical verses. That the father was seduced by wine by the daughters. It is deceit which is the greater immoral thing becoz it hurts or harms someone. Though personally I think incest is morally revolting, I am not here to impose my beliefs on others. If concerned people consent, well.... I am not to dictate moarality. Diito for all other things that u mentioned.
RE:Right and wrong?
by Sarath Chandra on Jun 15, 2007 04:20 PM Permalink
I did not keep in mind those specific incidents while typing the above message. I read some messages saying things assuming that polyandry is wrong.
These (polyandry and polygamy) have been practiced extensively in many past societies, and we would think it is right, if we were born then.
And yes, rape and deceit, obviously cannot be morally defensible.
RE:Right and wrong?
by Nostra Damus on Jun 02, 2008 07:55 PM Permalink
Though the Egyptians married their own sisters, incest is generally found revolting by most societies. Nowadays, it is not all that uncommon in the 'civilized' West, like among the Germans where a man kept as prisoner and raped his own daughters.
RE:Is this an Anti- Christ forum?
by Anand Iyer on Jun 15, 2007 02:59 PM Permalink
You Christians started it. U attacked hindus and man fun of us . You people criticised us in the most vicious language. Entry into hindu temples is hindu matter. U non-hindus had no business to post these abusive things.
We tolerated a lot. U keep asking us all the time to convert. So, we have no option to bring out the truth about Christ and Christianity.
You even said verses of Bhagvad Gita preaching "forgiveness" r nonsense. So, all this is your making.
RE:Is this an Anti- Christ forum?
by Nostra Damus on Jun 02, 2008 08:00 PM Permalink
i thought hinduism is open to all, even to those who criticise it ? Guess you guys are just as fanatical as Xtians and muslims.
