[The_Reasoner]

Re: Introduction

So your god could break his own rules and do something that would be evil for humans to do and it would be okay because he's god? How is that right?

Not 'your' God. The God. breaks his own rules? He did not break any rule from Bhagwad Gita, and even if he did, are you saying we have the right to judge if he is right or wrong?

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: Introduction

In the exact same way Bible is true. God wrote it, he said it is true, and he doesn't lie. Right?
I never said I rejected Karma. I said, the principle from Bhagwad Gita tells us that we should do our work, and not because of getting Good karma, but it's meant to be done right. That doesn't mean I'm saying it's untrue. It says that your motive should be not to collect Good karma, but to do the right things. The karma will come along.

Prove to me that God wrote the bhagivad gita. Prove that it's true.

But do you think that if something bad happens to you, you deserve it, perhaps because of something you did in a past life?

Not 'your' God. The God. breaks his own rules? He did not break any rule from Bhagwad Gita, and even if he did, are you saying we have the right to judge if he is right or wrong?

So you are saying that your god could be the most vile, evil being and yet you still wouldn't question him; you would just blindly follow him whatever he told you to do?

[The_Reasoner]

Re: Introduction

He chose the form of a man.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

That art. If you draw or carve a weird thing that is not in the sky or the earth or the sea I can't see how that would be banned. Say a frog with a snail's head and 9 cat's legs. There's no such thing. So you could carve one of them and not fall foul of Ex. 20

But if you bowed down to it, I'm not so sure. What do you think Red?

Is that supposed to be penis/lingam? I thought it was a cobra/rattle

Think of it like this: If God had created only 10 types of beings, would that mean he shouldn't take form of some unknown being? Who are we to restrict him?
It's NOT supposed to be a penis. It's an Indian weapon called as Gada. Kind of like a hammer. The head-like thing is used to deliever crushing damage.

[Redeemed Papist]

Re: Introduction

Not 'your' God. The God. breaks his own rules? He did not break any rule from Bhagwad Gita, and even if he did, are you saying we have the right to judge if he is right or wrong?

I wipe my arse on your Bagwad Gita. It's not worth the paper it's written on. If it was the word of God it would match the King James Bible 1611 word for word and tell you all about Jesus.

You are blaspheming the Holy Spirit. We aren't judging if God is right or wrong; we're judging if you are right or wrong. And seeing as just about everything you are saying contradicts the Bible it's not exactly hard to do!

Let's get this out in the open once and for all. Do you believe that Jesus was the son of God who died on the cross (temporarily) for your sins then rose again from the dead? Yes or no!

[The_Reasoner]

Re: Introduction

Prove to me that God wrote the bhagivad gita. Prove that it's true.

But do you think that if something bad happens to you, you deserve it, perhaps because of something you did in a past life?

Ok. (This is the first step of the proof.)
First, tell me why do you think God wrote Bible. Prove it.

[Redeemed Papist]

Re: Introduction

Ok. (This is the first step of the proof.)
First, tell me why do you think God wrote Bible. Prove it.

Wahey! At last it shows itself to be an atheist troll. You're no more a Hindu than I am. That didn't take long.

God didn't actually write the Bible with a pen and paper. He got people to write it and told them what to write. How do we know this? The Bible tells us so! Checkmate, atheist!

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation

2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: Introduction

Ok. (This is the first step of the proof.)
First, tell me why do you think God wrote Bible. Prove it.

Because the Bible says so.

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

On top of that we have all the evidence from creation science and flood geology which absolutely confirms the Genesis account and support from archaeology.

Now it's your turn.

[The_Reasoner]

Re: Introduction

I wipe my arse on your Bagwad Gita. It's not worth the paper it's written on. If it was the word of God it would match the King James Bible 1611 word for word and tell you all about Jesus.

You are blaspheming the Holy Spirit. We aren't judging if God is right or wrong; we're judging if you are right or wrong. And seeing as just about everything you are saying contradicts the Bible it's not exactly hard to do!

Let's get this out in the open once and for all. Do you believe that Jesus was the son of God who died on the cross (temporarily) for your sins then rose again from the dead? Yes or no!

Dude, I am not biting your insults, ok? Stop trying. To give you a hint, you are embarrassing not just yourself, but every christian member along with you. This is what you learned from someone who is kind enough to bleed on a crucifix for his followers, it it? If you believe he was God, then you know he should have the power to wipe out the entire enemy army. But still he treated them kindly. Asked God to forgive them. Are you sure you are doing justice to your beliefs by behaving in such insulting manner? Think and then reply. Keep that in mind that anyone will be able to access the discussion we had just now. Do you want to show off that "True Christians" are just stuck up kids who like to be cool by being rude? I respect Jesus a lot I find it about impossible to believe you could even be associated with that inspiring legend.

Now about the corresponding. You know Hindu scripture was noted down in about 1200 years B.C. right? I didn't want to come down to your level, but this is it: The ones written afterwards should coincide with the original one. Not that the Original one should coincide with whatever comes later. If you use it like that, there are hundreds different trends which came later. Christianity is not consistent with most of them. Does that make it wrong?

[Adam Fag]

Re: Introduction

Think of it like this: If God had created only 10 types of beings, would that mean he shouldn't take form of some unknown being? Who are we to restrict him?
It's NOT supposed to be a penis. It's an Indian weapon called as Gada. Kind of like a hammer. The head-like thing is used to deliever crushing damage.

I don't know a lot about "unknown beings" my point was that when God said not to make an IMAGE he told us what sort of IMAGE and it's ANY IMAGE of ANY THING in the dome of heaven (Gen. 1) or on earth or in the sea. Blue people with 4 arms or frogs with snails heads do not exist

• in heaven
• on earth
• in the sea

so you could make an IMAGE of those if you felt like it.

You could NOT BOW to the thing though. It's got nowt to do with "did God choose such a form" it's just "can you carve or paint one" and as far as I can tell, you could.

Red did post God's view of carved weird things WHICH DO GET BOWED DOWN TO though. They are false gods and must be destroyed.

So if I make a bronze frog with a snail's head and 9 cat's legs that's OK.
If I BOW DOWN in front of it though then it's a FALSE GOD.

Once the thing has turned out to be a FALSE GOD (coz I bowed at it) then it, and I, should be destroyed.

But if it was a REAL thing, like a bronze cat or a wood squid or a gold bat, then it should not be made in the first place.

Do you bow to those things?

[The_Reasoner]

Re: Introduction

I don't know a lot about "unknown beings" my point was that when God said not to make an IMAGE he told us what sort of IMAGE and it's ANY IMAGE of ANY THING in the dome of heaven (Gen. 1) or on earth or in the sea. Blue people with 4 arms or frogs with snails heads do not exist

• in heaven
• on earth
• in the sea

so you could make an IMAGE of those if you felt like it.

You could NOT BOW to the thing though. It's got nowt to do with "did God choose such a form" it's just "can you carve or paint one" and as far as I can tell, you could.

Red did post God's view of carved weird things WHICH DO GET BOWED DOWN TO though. They are false gods and must be destroyed.

So if I make a bronze frog with a snail's head and 9 cat's legs that's OK.
If I BOW DOWN in front of it though then it's a FALSE GOD.

Once the thing has turned out to be a FALSE GOD (coz I bowed at it) then it, and I, should be destroyed.

But if it was a REAL thing, like a bronze cat or a wood squid or a gold bat, then it should not be made in the first place.

Do you bow to those things?

So basically you accept that form of Gods with human appearance are acceptable, right? (yes/no)

[Redeemed Papist]

Re: Introduction

Dude, I am not biting your insults, ok? Stop trying. To give you a hint, you are embarrassing not just yourself, but every christian member along with you. This is what you learned from someone who is kind enough to bleed on a crucifix for his followers, it it? If you believe he was God, then you know he should have the power to wipe out the entire enemy army. But still he treated them kindly. Asked God to forgive them. Are you sure you are doing justice to your beliefs by behaving in such insulting manner? Think and then reply. Keep that in mind that anyone will be able to access the discussion we had just now. Do you want to show off that "True Christians" are just stuck up kids who like to be cool by being rude? I respect Jesus a lot I find it about impossible to believe you could even be associated with that inspiring legend.

Now about the corresponding. You know Hindu scripture was noted down in about 1200 years B.C. right? I didn't want to come down to your level, but this is it: The ones written afterwards should coincide with the original one. Not that the Original one should coincide with whatever comes later. If you use it like that, there are hundreds different trends which came later. Christianity is not consistent with most of them. Does that make it wrong?

If you respected Jesus you would worship Him and repudiate your big gay monkey gods. That's it. really. You're overcomplicating this. And the Old Testament was written way before the New Testament, but, you know what! It told us of Jesus and that He would come to save us. And He did!

Where's the mention of Jesus in your crazy book about people turning into trees and tigers and all manner of ludicrous nonsense? It's not there. And there's a reason for that if you think it through.

There's a simple reason why Christianity doesn't agree with heathen religions. They're all false doctrines condemning you to Hell.

Look at this rambling fool. Hindus the chosen people? Get real.

[The_Reasoner]

Re: Introduction

Because the Bible says so.

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

On top of that we have all the evidence from creation science and flood geology which absolutely confirms the Genesis account and support from archaeology.

Now it's your turn.

The vedas speak of the all creator writing them down and passing it down to the sage, who then passed it on.
So basically, it is the same
According to the Puranas (more like mythical text books if you don't know what they are) The vedas were written by the All creator himself. as well. So aside from Vedas themselves, Puranas also testify that vedas are written by God himself.
So it is more like having Bible supporting itself, and one more book backing it's claim up.
To make things even more interesting, the vedas support correctness of puranas, and vice versa.
Bhagwad Gita, on the other hand was written down by Lord Ganesha, along with the greatest sage vyas's book: Mahabharata.
I'd like you to note that almost all of these is about 1000 year before christ was Born.

[Redeemed Papist]

Re: Introduction

The vedas speak of the all creator writing them down and passing it down to the sage, who then passed it on.
So basically, it is the same
According to the Puranas (more like mythical text books if you don't know what they are) The vedas were written by the All creator himself. as well. So aside from Vedas themselves, Puranas also testify that vedas are written by God himself.
So it is more like having Bible supporting itself, and one more book backing it's claim up.
To make things even more interesting, the vedas support correctness of puranas, and vice versa.
Bhagwad Gita, on the other hand was written down by Lord Ganesha, along with the greatest sage vyas's book: Mahabharata.
I'd like you to note that almost all of these is about 1000 year before christ was Born.

You actually think a book was written by a big elephant with multiple arms?

[The_Reasoner]

Re: Introduction

If you respected Jesus you would worship Him and repudiate your big gay monkey gods. That's it. really. You're overcomplicating this. And the Old Testament was written way before the New Testament, but, you know what! It told us of Jesus and that He would come to save us. And He did!

Where's the mention of Jesus in your crazy book about people turning into trees and tigers and all manner of ludicrous nonsense? It's not there. And there's a reason for that if you think it through.

There's a simple reason why Christianity doesn't agree with heathen religions. They're all false doctrines condemning you to Hell.

Look at this rambling fool. Hindus the chosen people? Get real.

Nope. You are wrong. Again. Respecting something doesn't mean you have to worship it.
So you are saying one that came originally was wrong, because it doesn't correspond with something that came much later? Nice logic. Read your post again and see if it makes sense yourself. Answer is, "No. It doesn't make sense". If you don't want to accept that both are true, you have to Go with the original one. Not the new one.

[Redeemed Papist]

Re: Introduction

Nope. You are wrong. Again. Respecting something doesn't mean you have to worship it.

blaaah

If you don't want to accept that both are true, you have to Go with the original one. Not the new one.

Of course it's wrong. The Bible tells us so. Are you being deliberately dense? I don't accept both are true. Your religion is a pack of lies. It's you who is trying to say both are true and that you worship our God.

Jesus came to give us the good news that we could be saved from our sinfulness from birth by accepting Him and worshipping Him. He died for us to make his point. What did your gay monkey god do for you apart from flinging poo?