[MitzaLizalor]

DECORATIVE GOURDS

Jonah 4:5 6 7 Jonah went out of the city, and sat on the east side of the city, and there made him a booth, and sat under it in the shadow, till he might see what would become of the city. And the LORD God prepared a gourd, and made it to come up over Jonah, that it might be a shadow over his head, to deliver him from his grief. So Jonah was exceeding glad of the gourd. But God prepared a worm when the morning rose the next day, and it smote the gourd that it withered.

There are a lot of decorative gourds out there. Some are vaguely attractive, maybe painted with an interesting pattern, some of them are even carved. Happily, because He loves us and doesn't want to have us tortured, it's easy to know which ones are forbidden as decor in the Christian home.

ACCEPTABLE DECOR	FORBIDDEN
.	.

There are two categories of gourd. Plain and dried or with a vibrant design seem OK, although I wouldn't want to remind God of Jonah's recalcitrance personally. The second category is a sly attempt to get forbidden items accepted as innocent ornaments around the house, any likeness of any thing in Heaven or earth (including the waters, so glass dolphins are out) being explicitly prohibited.

Deuteronomy 5:8

Category 1
A. A plain striped gourd
B. A plain striped gourd (different shape)
C. Attractive gourd with carved panel and turquoise cabochon
D. Darker hued plain gourd
E. Small undecorated gourd, quite attractive
F. Vibrant painted gourd

I have no idea what 1F is supposed to be but no such thing exists in reality so designs of this type should be OK. When in doubt, do not purchase. The next category is more problematic.

Category 2 ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN BY GOD
A. Hideous decorated gourd with spider, probably made in a rehab. workshop: yuk
B. Nicely stained with carved leaves (leaves are things of earth and thus forbidden)
C. Intricate pierced work, fine in itself BUT contains dragonflies
D. Although not decorated, this glass gourd is itself an idol (see dolphins, above)
E. Psychedelic gourd with tree: absolutely forbidden!
F. Giraffe - words fail me

Satan will try anything to throw up a wall between God and His love for us. Sneaky attempts like this are perhaps more subtle than trendy buddha statues but anyone who's read The Ten Commandments (pretty basic I'd have thought) knows that leaves, psychedelic trees, glass gourds or dolphins, stylistically dubious spiders and so on are very cleary and absolutely FORBIDDEN.

God loves us enough to warn us: the least we can do is pay attention.

Thank you Jesus

[Johny Joe Hold]

To think of a cow as an edible meat animal is beyond blasphemous to my holy Hindu ears. It cuts me so deeply. Of course, you wouldn't understand. Had you asked me to forgo my life, I would have done it sooner than hearing such a vile pronouncement.

Don't you get it? We Hindus view beef-eating by Westerners with the same horror and revulsion as you do the cannibals of Papua New Guinea or someplace else. O Krishna! We're clearly living in the Age of immortal sins - the Kali Yuga. All humanity has disappeared. People have become just like the animals.

I think I need some counselling at the nearest Hindu temple as I'm traumatized beyond words.

HinduasIsay, I can help you. Get yourself a Bible, then read it. You will see in Genesis 1:28-31, man is to rule over all animals. It's not the other way around. It is clear in the Bible cows are just a kind of oxen; get yourself a stick and work them to death. Cattle have manipulated humans and humans need to take control. Remember (no you will not remember because you are not Biblically trained) that when Moses came down the mountain after conferring with God his people were worshipping a golden object. It was not a pig or a goat. It was a calf. Moses was livid and all of us learned not to worship cows from that.

That said, neither you nor we Christians should be careless about what we consume. Figs, for example, are out. Jesus smote a fig tree because it did not provide him what he wanted when he wanted it. This Christmas don't give figs as a gift. (Mark 11:12-25)

[GanduHindu]

.....he will pack it to the ceiling with frozen steaks. Once Indian people get a taste of outdoor grilled prime rib that will be the end of sacred cows.

O Mayor, my friend, what have you done? These vile utterances of yours have traumatized me more deeply than all the beatings and abuse I received in my childhood at a Hindu Gurukool (an institution equivalent to 11 years of American private prep-school before transferring to college).

To think of a cow as an edible meat animal is beyond blasphemous to my holy Hindu ears. It cuts me so deeply. Of course, you wouldn't understand. Had you asked me to forgo my life, I would have done it sooner than hearing such a vile pronouncement.

Don't you get it? We Hindus view beef-eating by Westerners with the same horror and revulsion as you do the cannibals of Papua New Guinea or someplace else. O Krishna! We're clearly living in the Age of immortal sins - the Kali Yuga. All humanity has disappeared. People have become just like the animals.

How could you consider eating a poor milch cow that sustained you as a toddler with her nectar-like milk? I presume for Americans, that should be even more of a concern as more American women care more about their earthly figure. Breastfeeding their own children has been out of fashion for so many decades. It's the poor cow that sustained you and your children, and will sustain your children's children.

And when those children grow up a bit, they will partake of the same meat of the poor cow. What was its crime? That it stopped being productive. And then it goes to an American abattoir to be stripped of every ounce of its flesh. This is extremely barbaric and evil beyond words. Did you forget all the ice-creams and milk shakes you had as a child, and possibly as an adult.

If you wish to partake of good red meat, there's so much variety God has provided you. Pigs, deer, buffaloes, sheep, turkeys, chickens, quails, and for you Americans, bison. I heard a bison steak is supposed to be lip-smacking. Eat all these lower inferior animals to your belly's content. Why do the poor cows have to undergo so much trauma at your American slaughterhouses? The insatiable appetite for beef of McDonald's and Burger King consumers is beyond evil. We Indians saw it fit to prohibit these two American corporations from selling any beef in our land.

Doesn't the Christian Bible envisage a beautiful Heaven where the wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat hay like guess what, a cow (Isaiah 65:25). Even Chick-fil-A wants you to eat more chicken, and spare the poor cows.

I think I need some counselling at the nearest Hindu temple as I'm traumatized beyond words.

[Johny Joe Hold]

It said:As we saw in a previous post, when interlopers arrived in India, displacing the indigenes, they brought some language or other with them. Over several centuries that transmogrified into Sanskrit, necessitating a cunning plan.
How to keep local babbling out of the new language?
How to stop interbreeding?
From a position of strength, due to slightly faster transport—and it doesn't need to be much faster—so that interlopers could always catch indigenes and, conversely, escape if they were chased, the plan whilst cunning was also simple.

I feel you're quite close to Christ and hope this is helpful for you.

Thank you Sister Mitza. I hope our friend, Hindu doo-doo, now understands Hinduism came to be big through force. That's just the opposite of Christianity. Christians from Europe came to the U.S. and preached the gospel. The tribes fell on their knees, tossed their feathers and started dressing appropriately. Same in South America where the Spanish priests rescued the natives from their sin. Now a majority in several of those countries are Protestants, thank you Jesus.

India has 30 million Christians. It is on the cusp of a giant Christian revival. Our Pastor Zeke is making plans for block buster sermons with alter calls across India. When the Airbus 320 is delivered, he will pack it to the ceiling with frozen steaks. Once Indian people get a taste of outdoor grilled prime rib that will be the end of sacred cows.

Christians in India - Search

[MitzaLizalor]

It said:

..criticisms of Hinduism and Brahminical philosophy by Sramana scholars occurred primarily during the 6th century BCE to around 8th century CE in ancient India. This period witnessed a flourishing of diverse philosophical schools, including Yoga, Buddhism, Jainism, Ajivikas, and other Sramana traditions that engaged in debates with orthodox Vedic practices.

The Sramanas rejected the rigid social hierarchy enforced by the Brahmins, which placed individuals into fixed social classes from birth.

As we saw in a previous post, when interlopers arrived in India, displacing the indigenes, they brought some language or other with them. Over several centuries [or millennia -ed.] that transmogrified into Sanskrit, necessitating a cunning plan.
•1• How to keep local babbling out of the new language?
•2• How to stop interbreeding?
From a position of strength, due to slightly faster transport—and it doesn't need to be much faster—so that interlopers could always catch indigenes and, conversely, escape if they were chased, the plan whilst cunning was also simple.

Maintaining themselves at the pinnacle, divers strata were contrived to embody degrees of uncleanness. Thus was prevented pollution of what by now was Sanskrit (or near enough) due to marrying some low wretch (or if you did, nobody would talk to you so it didn't matter) while also one's ethnic purity could be preserved. To some extent it worked but trade would help to refine the languages, partly from new ideas requiring new words but also new objects – manufactured items from Iran or China perhaps and indeed as referenced above, other than for ivory-tower merchants, the cultural hegemony of "orthodox Vedic practices" had itself to evolve. Perhaps you think of this as a mutation?

I feel you're quite close to Christ and hope this is helpful for you.

[GanduHindu]

Fool-you-with-Hindu, we here at Landover Baptist understand something that seems out of reach to you. It is that The Holy Bible, written by God whom we know to exist, is more reliable than sans scribble. Some critical thinking about sans scribble would help you.

Noted it down. I will literally heed your advice, friend.

Literally.

[GanduHindu]

Fool-you-with-Hindu, we here at Landover Baptist understand something that seems out of reach to you. It is that The Holy Bible, written by God whom we know to exist, is more reliable than sans scribble. Some critical thinking about sans scribble would help you.

Noted it down. I will literally heed your advice, friend.

Literally.

[Johny Joe Hold]

The first substantial Christian presence in India emerged with the British soldiers who emigrated en masse in the latter half of the 18th century

Fool-you-with-Hindu, we here at Landover Baptist understand something that seems out of reach to you. It is that The Holy Bible, written by God whom we know to exist, is more reliable than sans scribble. Some critical thinking about sans scribble would help you.

[GanduHindu]

They were largely unheard of in my country, as well as in China and much of Southeast Asia.

"I must mention, though, that Thomas, one of the Twelve Apostles, did arrive in India. However, his missionary activities were primarily restricted to the state of Kerala in the extreme southwest. In fact, Christianity didn't really spread throughout India for another fifteen centuries, until the arrival of Portuguese and Spanish Jesuit missionaries, especially Saint Francis Xavier.

The first substantial Christian presence in India emerged with the British soldiers who emigrated en masse in the latter half of the 18th century

[GanduHindu]

It's worth mentioning that many will read The Bible in it's original form.

In other words, you seem to be acknowledging that the King James Version Bible may not be entirely "inerrant." It is possible that some translation errors could have crept in from the original sources, whatever they may be.

While God's Word in the Bible is perfect, human translators can sometimes make mistakes. This also applies to the King James Version (KJV) Bible. It's good that we can agree on this point

You've mentioned Alexander and Mesopotamia and the Indo-European language group and highlighted one or two equivalent ideas from a few different sources, whether in Sanskrit or Greek or English.

Many of you have learned history primarily from a Western perspective. While it's true that Europe has been a central figure since the 16th century, this hasn't always been the case.

Countries like India and China have had continuous, unbroken civilizations for thousands of years, with records that date back much further.

For example, my family temple in India maintains a registry that records the names of my direct male ancestors, dating back to around 300-400 BCE. One of my ancestors before that record was even the compiler of one of the Vedas, although the exact date of this event is unknown.

Books like Mahabharata and the Ramayana, in their original forms in Sanskrit, contain the exact names of each and every ruler and their progeny, the number of years they ruled, when they died. Knowing Sanskrit is essential for a debate on Hindu civilizations just like knowing Latin might be necessary for uncovering the original sources in Bible.

It's quite amusing when someone on this forum claims that Jesus' revelations in the 1st century AD supposedly changed everything we know about human existence. Just my family records alone challenge that notion. 😊

There had been some competition with Dutch traders...... English Royal Charter ......spices,....The translators would have been aware of these discussions

Vasco daGama was the first modern European to visit India, 1498.
Ralph Fitch was the first Englishman to show up at an Indian capital city, 1600.

But the spice trade goes many, many centuries before that. The Moslem Arabs (and later, Turks) were protective of the trade routes to India, as they could demand higher prices from Europeans.

In fact, India was known for its spices even during the times of Queen Cleopatra (whose government had extensive trade with India).

It's not like some drunken Englishman showed up on India's shores, and suddenly, everything was known to the West. That's the history taught to you in a Eurocentric education system. That doesn't make it true.

. Are you suggesting for instance that Brahma & Sarasvati is one such idea, having a parallel in Abraham & Sarah? ...Christ and Krishna

I've come across those theories before, but they sound unfamiliar and like modern-day Internet fabrications to me. We have YouTube creators to thank for spreading misinformation to masses who lack critical thinking skills.

Abraham and Jesus were initially relevant only to Middle-Eastern Jews living in the Levant. However, their teachings eventually took hold in the form of Christianity, spreading to Europe and subsequently, to America.

They were largely unheard of in my country, as well as in China and much of Southeast Asia.

We glean from the Vedic hymns that inward trade existed from the earliest incursions into India, suggesting that some commodities critical for cultural cohesion did not exist in the new territories. During this period there'd be ample opportunity for ideas to flow back and forth – but difficult at this distance to determine where any one idea originated.

Some ideas may have flowed back and forth. But India was largely insulated from whatever the Levant Jews were up to in and around Israel.

That's the reason I mentioned Alexander of Macedon. He was the earliest common link between the East and the West in antiquity. He traveled deep inside India, and brought historians with him.

Is the Bhagavad Gita of any help here?

Unlikely. The Gita predates Alexander, and even Buddha who lived c.500 BCE. That's why there are no references to any of them.

There are also no references to Middle-Eastern Jews in the Vedas, and in Gita. The likely explanation is that they were irrelevant to the Indians.

[MitzaLizalor]

It's worth mentioning that many will read The Bible in it's original form.

You've mentioned Alexander and Mesopotamia and the Indo-European language group and highlighted one or two equivalent ideas from a few different sources, whether in Sanskrit or Greek or English.

There had been some competition with Dutch traders, most of whom operated in The East Indies [approx. modern Indonesia], resulting in an English Royal Charter and a focus on India for spices, among other things. This was before King James, during the reign of Elizabeth; during that period similarities between language groups was of academic interest and various solutions were proposed. The translators would have been aware of these discussions since it was precisely within their field of study.

Movement of languages parallels movement of culture, and between these languages a common origin was discerned. That suggests an early culture—the Proto-Indo-European as it's called—and since culture consists of objects and ideas, there'd be such elements disseminated along with the language, or languages, as they became. Are you suggesting for instance that Brahma & Sarasvati is one such idea, having a parallel in Abraham & Sarah? (Those were not their original names, of course.) Or that Christ and Krishna are divergent forms of a much earlier idea, migrating hither and thither along with the evolving languages? This would make them allegories.

Galatians 4:22-25 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

We glean from the Vedic hymns that inward trade existed from the earliest incursions into India, suggesting that some commodities critical for cultural cohesion did not exist in the new territories. During this period there'd be ample opportunity for ideas to flow back and forth – but difficult at this distance to determine where any one idea originated.

Is the Bhagavad Gita of any help here?

[GanduHindu]

What happens when the monotheist chooses the wrong god?

How can monotheism be wrong? Why would the Creator of all human beings concern Himself with the specific names or languages used to address Him? If I were to create an ant farm, feeding and sustaining the ants without them having any direct awareness of my presence, and if I chose to punish the disruptive ants, my role would indeed be god-like to them.

Why would their chosen name for me matter, as long as they acknowledge my sustenance and express gratitude? I would continue to provide for them.

As long as they behave well, refrain from stealing from each other, and avoid harming one another for selfish reasons, I would be benevolent towards them.


Also, in trying to disprove Hinduism, you’re invoking Occam's Razor, which suggests that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. However, this principle cannot be applied universally in all situations.

For instance, if you have a headache and attribute, it with a simple explanation solely to stress, taking an aspirin alone might not help. A minor headache could be a symptom of a more serious condition such as meningitis, blood vessel disorders, or a brain tumor, any of it requires a medical diagnosis to confirm. The simplest explanation is always true theory doesn't always work: complexities can arise from time to time.

If you aim to refute and debunk the Gita, I would need more than an overly simplified explanation. That journey begins with thoroughly reading and understanding it.

Consider this: I have read both the Bible and the Gita, while you have only read one of the two. Your expertise in the Bible, no matter how extensive, is irrelevant to me if you don't know the first thing about the Gita. If you want to debunk Hinduism, you need to try harder than your current approach.

Lies fed to you by Satan and his henchmen.

You please decide first whether you want to continue our discussion based on logic alone, or faith.

It's like how you say it in American, can't paddle on two boats simultaneously.

You cannot link the lack of Hinduism to people going there. What about people coming from there?

That's not true. People have been visiting India for thousands of years as born witness in historical records. India had extensive maritime trade with Mesopotamia, and further down, even with the Greek-Roman Empires. Hint: Spices.

Es:1:1: Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, (this is Ahasuerus which reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces.
If I ask you to walk from the Pentagon to the White House, I do not expect you to start in the center of the Pentagon and end in the Oval Office.
Easton's Bible Dictionary states of Shushan: "Once a magnificent city, it is now an immense mass of ruins." Sounds like India, doesn't it?

Still looks like a bona fide translation error in English.

Saying Ahaseurus who reigned from India, is entirely different in meaning from Ahaseurus's empire bordering India.

Surely the 13th century BCE Jews had full awareness of property rights. Saying India was a property of the Persian Empire would have been libelous was factually incorrect. While they were living too far for Indians to sue them for libel, I consider the Jews very smart. They wouldn't have made this fundamental legal error.

I'm very certain it was the lazy, beer-swilling English-speaking scribes under King James I responsible for this major typo. They had never travelled to India, and didn't care about such a basic legal error which was liable for suing even in medieval courts.

And that's what you're reading in the King James Bible.

Now tell me, why should I trust your English language Bible when it gets one of the only things it mentions about India factually wrong.

[GanduHindu]

Just a few points:Antiquity does not equate to truth.What happens when the monotheist chooses the wrong god?

And just who decided to give that god that name? Do you seriously think that anyone would name their god "He Who gets it right most of the Time"? This is simply a marketing ploy by the less than honest.
See above.This would seem to imply some collusion. What do you conclude from that?
I don't think that says much. Their gods live at the top of Mount Olympus, and Olympus is not hard to climb and that from someone who has an elephant god and some woman with 8 arms - have you ever considered the biology of those characters? They are more like something out of DC Comics.

It's quite simple: the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. There is nothing to dispute.See above. Lies fed to you by Satan and his henchmen.

You cannot link the lack of Hinduism to people going there. What about people coming from there?
I'm glad you're not saying that.
Es:1:1: Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, (this is Ahasuerus which reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces.
If I ask you to walk from the Pentagon to the White House, I do not expect you to start in the center of the Pentagon and end in the Oval Office.
Easton's Bible Dictionary states of Shushan: "Once a magnificent city, it is now an immense mass of ruins." Sounds like India, doesn't it?

Many of your points seem to rely on the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam. For instance, claiming that the Bible is true simply because no one has demonstrated it to be false.

However, let's set those logical nuances aside and focus on faith. The Bible frequently emphasizes that faith in God should transcend human reasoning. Similarly, we hold the Bhagavad Gita in equally high regard. While you may see our religion as flawed, we don't perceive it that way.

One reason I find it difficult to relate to you is because of my family's traditions. My priestly lineage holds significant influence in Hinduism, and my family are custodians of an important Hindu temple.

You might be aware of the four Veda books which are fundamental to Hinduism: Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Atharva Veda, and Sam Veda. One of my direct ancestors compiled one of these Vedas thousands of years ago, and it holds elite status in Hinduism. That's quite a substantial family legacy.

And these aren't what you might call 'fairy tales.' The Vedas are composed in Sanskrit, the origin of all Indo-European languages, including English. Not only am I well-versed in Sanskrit, but I also know many Vedic hymns. Although I learned much of it reluctantly, fearing beatings and starvation at my religious school, I endured significant pain and sacrifice to reach my current understanding of Hinduism.

How do I know? In Hinduism, we have a system called "gotra" that signifies lineage. My new friend, the Mayor on this forum, keeps asking me for direct evidence of the Hindu God. Well, all such testimonies are contained within the four Vedas and the Bhagavad Gita, which can be seen as a fulfillment of the Vedas.

You claim I'm believing in false gods, but why should I trust the words of Internet posters like Ezekiel Bathfire or Mr. Johnny Joe Hold over thousands of years of continuous, unbroken family tradition? No offense to either of you —I love you both and the USA—but believing two random individuals I just met online over a direct family inheritance spanning thousands of years is quite challenging.

Please note that I accept my family lineage and the burden of Vedic responsibility with all due humility. Being born into a priestly family is not an achievement I earned, and no one should boast about their ancestry. However, it is an unchangeable part of who I am.

--

If the Christian God were the only true deity and all others were false, why would He have placed me in such a priestly Hindu environment? I understand the argument that the God of the Bible tests everyone, yadda yadda. But still.

From my perspective, as inspiring and beautiful as the Bible is, it doesn't even come close to matching the intellectual depth and clarity of the Bhagavad Gita. No offense to Jesus, but if he were so powerful, he could have prevented the Gita from being so much more impressive than the Bible

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Just a few points:

Hinduism predates anything the Greeks had to offer.

Antiquity does not equate to truth.

Hinduism is monotheistic.

What happens when the monotheist chooses the wrong god?

The first of these three concepts is called the Brahman, (which means the Ultimate Triuth),

And just who decided to give that god that name? Do you seriously think that anyone would name their god "He Who gets it right most of the Time"? This is simply a marketing ploy by the less than honest.

The second is Para-matma (which means Supreme Soul),

See above.

And there's So-ham (Which literally means "I AM THAT I AM"" the same as Exodus 3:14

This would seem to imply some collusion. What do you conclude from that?

Clearly, Hindu belief systems are far superior to anything the ancient Greeks could conceive.

I don't think that says much. Their gods live at the top of Mount Olympus, and Olympus is not hard to climb

So, you need to improve your benchmarking if you want to prove Hinduism as false.

and that from someone who has an elephant god and some woman with 8 arms - have you ever considered the biology of those characters? They are more like something out of DC Comics.

So far I haven't disputed anything the Bible says.

It's quite simple: the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. There is nothing to dispute.

I'm just saying so far you've not been able to provide a single shred of logical evidence that would prove Hinduism as false.

See above.

Based on the Bible alone, I know what you're saying cannot be correct. I have evidence.

Lies fed to you by Satan and his henchmen.

Hinduism is not mentioned in the Bible by name

You might argue that Hinduism wasn't important enough for Middle Eastern Jews, but the truth is, India was impenetrable like a fortress.

You cannot link the lack of Hinduism to people going there. What about people coming from there?

The Bible says India belongs to the eastern end of the Persian Empire. ... I am not saying the Bible is incorrect but the English language translations of Esther 1:1

I'm glad you're not saying that.
Es:1:1: Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, (this is Ahasuerus which reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces.
If I ask you to walk from the Pentagon to the White House, I do not expect you to start in the center of the Pentagon and end in the Oval Office.

and Esther 9:9 require further scrutiny.

Easton's Bible Dictionary states of Shushan: "Once a magnificent city, it is now an immense mass of ruins." Sounds like India, doesn't it?

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Gandu... I'm trying to grasp your logic... give me a minute.