[Johny Joe Hold]

Our Friend Gandu--We receive no joy from your desire to end these very fruitful discussions. The unfortunate thing we have learned here is Hinduism just does not have the powerful history or intellect to compete with Christianity. Yes, with Hinduism there is some writing that is claimed to be older than that in the Bible. It does not include, however, solid evidence its gods exist or ever existed. This causes the gods to be tossed in the box with hundreds of other gods humans have foolishly worshipped in their 300,000 years of history. Christianity, on the other hand has a history that is rock solid including actual encounters with its God and his Son. God, of course, controls what happens in India and well as that in the U.S. He has decided to reward the U.S. with more prosperity and punish Hindu countries with less. We are forever grateful for His abundance. We offer Christianity to India if it wishes to receive the same blessing of abundance.

[GanduHindu]

Our Friend Gandu--We receive no joy from your desire to end these very fruitful discussions. The unfortunate thing we have learned here is Hinduism just does not have the powerful history or intellect to compete with Christianity. Yes, with Hinduism there is some writing that is claimed to be older than that in the Bible. It does not include, however, solid evidence its gods exist or ever existed. This causes the gods to be tossed in the box with hundreds of other gods humans have foolishly worshipped in their 300,000 years of history. Christianity, on the other hand has a history that is rock solid including actual encounters with its God and his Son. God, of course, controls what happens in India and well as that in the U.S. He has decided to reward the U.S. with more prosperity and punish Hindu countries with less. We are forever grateful for His abundance. We offer Christianity to India if it wishes to receive the same blessing of abundance.

My friend Mayor.

You're welcome to offer Christianity to India. I'll personally host your mission, provide you with a helipad strip and all the supplies that you need. It can be very hot over here so I will also arrange airconditioner units.

You can promote Christianity without requiring the natives to give up on their languages, culture and traditions.

If you're going to stick to your guns out of stubbornness and make Americans out of everyone, the consequences won't be good. Please follow the attached link. I am going to be terribly worried about your team's safety should you be in this country.


But should the SHTF, I will provide you armed Z-grade security. You'll certainly need that in this country.

True Christian or not,Jesus might not be there to protect you given my recent experiences with him on your forum where he just doesn't care about so many things we ordinary humans are scared about.

And I wish you well.

[GanduHindu]

Our Friend Gandu-- The unfortunate thing we have learned here is Hinduism just does not have the powerful history or intellect to compete with Christianity. Yes, with Hinduism there is some writing that is claimed to be older than that in the Bible. It does not include, however, solid evidence its gods exist or ever existed. This causes the gods to be tossed in the box with hundreds of other gods humans have foolishly worshipped in their 300,000 years of history. Christianity, on the other hand has a history that is rock solid including actual encounters with its God and his Son. .

I promise to think over it. I may not agree with you at the moment but I will give full attention to the points you've raised.

You will hear from me again.

[MitzaLizalor]

Hi, looking forward to the New Year with its renewed opportunities to present the love of Jesus in its proper context. Many do not appreciate that all babies are born vile and, as they grow, remain deserving of torture. If this were not so, what did Jesus die to save us from? And if it's necessary to generate a baby explicitly for the purpose of murdering the thing, so that sin may be overcome, why could Eve not have been made pregnant and that baby murdered? (Perhaps it's required for the baby to grow in a world of sin and be sacrificed as an adult but that would have been possible once sin was transmitted through Adam, himself contaminated by Eve, to a previously born child.) Without a knowledge of The Bible—by the simple expedient of reading it—these would be questions impossible to answer.

.

. . the key premise of your arguments are centered around the supposition that God blesses Moslems more than the Hindus because they're closer to the Moses' truth.

NOTE: When reporting an argument that could be made or which others make, I am not claiming that position for myself.

There are half-baked epistemological methods whereby the self-assessed epistemologist asks wet questions to elicit a response and, I'd presume, initiate a train of thought leading to some desired outcome in absentia. I do not do that. In referring to “Moses whose stuff is easy enough to read,” the point is that Mecca seems not to have read it! I have; pretty sure you have; what the mullahs teach, from the ravings we do hear (I've never been in a mosque to hear what they say there but can see what happens in places their message is taken on board) has nothing to do with Moses – so from their perspective citing him is a bad idea.

.

It's wrong on two levels. Firstly, as you correctly acknowledged, Moslems do indulge [in] a Stone Age belief

My speculation was that since there is prosperity at their HQ [The Arabian Peninsula -ed.] can we say they're closer to The Truth than animists? Or totem pole obsessives? According to The Bible there's no difference between one idol and a million idols and whether a baby lives with no idols at all makes no difference to what The Bible teaches about all having sinned. Only Jesus was pure: Mary was not pure: James was not pure: plastic Rita, a catholic idol, was not pure: Mohammed was not pure. I don't wish to appear crass so will leave Krishna, Siddhartha, Pythagoras and Confucius to simply say everyone was not pure. As a side note, I've read the Koran, Churchill's "The River War" and a few hadith – of which there are many. I have not read "Reliance Of The Traveller" but a few quotes pop up here & there so if I intend to cite those, I'll read it first. Simples!

.

I'm not gonna say something libelous to you such as accusing you of derangement, but clearly you're not even remotely informed on this subject. Some of the most war-torn, shockingly poor, destitute countries happen to be the Islamic ones. Have you considered Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Chechnya

I was not referring to the hellholes but to the prosperous nations. The Bible mentions that Prosperity and Truth may walk hand-in-hand but it is not always so. A bit like nonexistent records. Now clearly the Meccan creed is stone age extraordinaire, by my standard blasting every where it's gone. But strip mining any knowledge they find there, admittedly, claiming it for their own and eventually declaring it satanic. Al-Ghazali for instance resorted to drivel and was acclaimed for that!

MICHEL FOUCAULT AND NONEXISTENT RECORDS.

First the records you refer to. THEY EXIST. Therefore you are neither deluded nor deranged and those adjectives must apply to others. There are many such persons abroad, The Bible explains that's because we're in The Last Days but I know you don't accept its veracity, bringing us to Michel Foucault. I have read his book "Madness And Civilization" so feel free to quote him on the topic of insanity. THIS DOES NOT MEAN I'M CALLING YOU INSANE. But you may find his ideas interesting. Around the turn of the last century, insane asylums were closed (one or two remained in England for very long-term residents, aged 95 to 100-ish, unable to relocate, having been there since teenagers) but anyway, Foucault was French. I've noticed in Paris that English clothes are very readily identified and it's a good idea to restock from local boutiques so perhaps M. Foucault would disregard evidence from English asylums. I had a few pages bookmarked but the online resource (I don't "look things up on google") has restricted access and page 101 is no longer available. There's a pdf though—dunno how long for—and here's the relevant excerpt:

https://ia601804.us.archive.org/8/items/english-collections-k-z/Michel%20Foucault%20-%20Madness%20And%20Civilizati%20-%20Madness.pdf

INSANE PERSONS pp 93-94 (in the pdf)

The man who imagines he is made of glass is not mad, for any sleeper can have this image in a dream; but he is mad if, believing he is made of glass, he thereby concludes that he is fragile, that he is in danger of breaking, that he must touch no object which might be too resistant, that he must in fact remain motionless, and so on. Such reasonings are those of a madman; but again we must note that in themselves they are neither absurd nor illogical.

My comment: because given the (incorrect) premise, that he's made of glass, his logic is valid – just not sound, because the first premise is false.

ASPECTS OF MADNESS p. 116 ff (in the pdf) for this chapter.

My comment: scroll down to (116) for some historical examples. Read around a bit for context.

It was from a gap in available care, once asylums began closing, that a distinction between the mentally ill (who are not rational) and the insane (who are) could be seen, Foucault suggested. In citing him, or Julia Kristeva or Jacques Derrida as I occasionally do, I'm neither agreeing with them (mostly I do not) nor insinuating that they're describing you. If I wanted to do that, I'd do it in my own words. But you may care to read some of their stuff which makes infinitely more sense than anything coming from a mosque. At least they're internally consistent.

.

Winston Churchill . . . Dubai . . . oil rich economy and India . . . They even used Indian currency, called the "Gulf Rupees" which were minted in Delhi for the first 20 years of their existence . . . drunken princess . . . prefer the original Emiratis over Indian Hindus

Mostly covered, I think. I do not prefer Emiratis over Indians, partly because of their exploitation of guest workers. I do not take vacations. As for The Three Wise Men, where they came from is immaterial but they enriched Jesus and we do know that Phœnecians used Cornish tin (from the arsenic content) and had a base in Africa. The Bible does not say where they came from and is ambiguous regarding their star: the dative case suggests the star was in the east rather than his observers, however.

Yes, Devon and Cornwall are lovely places to visit (I source wool from there) and the denizens particularly accommodating. Unfortunately, many of them are outright heathens. But their understanding of Jesus, although deficient, is ∞% better than the "Isa" nonsense. Not even Foucault would consider it rational! Your comments have been very informative and I pray that you will move closer to Redemption as you consider what The Bible contains.

II Peter 3:9, 10 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

https://www.atomicnumber.net/list-of-elements-by-melting-point

[GanduHindu]

...
the point is that Mecca seems not to have read it! I have; pretty sure you have; what the mullahs teach, from the ravings we do hear (I've never been in a mosque to hear what they say there but can see what happens in places their message is taken on board) has nothing to do with Moses – so from their perspective citing him is a bad idea.[.......

can we say they're closer to The Truth than animists? Or totem pole obsessives? According to The Bible there's no difference between one idol and a million idols and whether a baby lives with no idols at all makes no difference to what

The Bible teaches about all having sinned. Only Jesus was pure: Mary was not pure: James was not pure: plastic Rita, a catholic idol, was not pure: Mohammed was not pure.

I have read the Koran and spent time with radical Muslims out of sheer curiosity. I can assure you that nothing in that creed compares to Christianity.

When I use the term "Abrahamic" faiths, I refer strictly to an association with the patriarch Abraham, whom both Muslims and Christians revere. However, Muslims believe it was Ishmael, not Isaac, who would have been sacrificed by Abraham. This fundamental discrepancy questions even this basic commonality. Since Christians follow the Jews in their belief in the original Abraham (as described in the Old Testament), I align with you.

Additionally, I have read the Koran's accounts of many other "prophets." For instance, David is referred to as Dawood in the Koran, but the importance of the Psalms is significantly diminished, which I find deeply distressing.

The Psalms are one of my favorite parts of the Bible. The fact that Muslims have deprecated it does not make sense to me.

[QUOTE=MitzaLizalor;n2071917]I don't wish to appear crass so will leave Krishna, Siddhartha, Pythagoras and Confucius to simply say everyone was not pure. [/QUOTE
]Eastern faiths convey entirely different messages and intentions regarding the purpose of human life. Some core commonalities include not believing in Adam and Eve and the absence of a judgment day. However, this doesn't mean humans can sin freely. As fundamentalist Christians who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, I respect your beliefs and prefer not to prolong this debate. It's best to exclude the names you mentioned, so I thank you for understanding.

Pythagoras doesn't quite fit into that list, as he didn't start a major world religion. However, this is not crucial at the moment.

As a side note, I've read the Koran, Churchill's "The River War" and a few hadith – of which there are many. I have not read "Reliance Of The Traveller"

Yes, I was referring to Churchill's "The River War." An excellent read if there is one.

I was not referring to the hellholes but to the prosperous nations.

There are very few exceptions to this in the Islamic world, with the Gulf states being an exception, though not all of them—Yemen remains a dire situation.

In the Levant, Lebanon was once a prosperous country when it had a Christian majority. Beirut was even known as the Paris of the Middle East. Unfortunately, it has now deteriorated significantly.

I am not anti-Muslim. My concern lies with the unsafe conditions in which children are raised in their countries. As a humanitarian, I feel compelled to help and am always ready to offer my assistance to Moslems although they'd want to kill me for telling them the truth.

My family's driver is a Muslim with two wives, which is not unusual in their culture. We take care of his entire extended family. In India, staff often work for families loyally for generations, becoming like family members. We don't treat them like servants but look out for all their needs, including education and healthcare. Thankfully, our Moslems are not radicalized.
.

The Bible mentions that Prosperity and Truth may walk hand-in-hand but it is not always so.

Indeed, Matthew 4:4 is a good one. Personally, I would rather go hungry than be devoid of the wisdom of the Bhagavad Gita. While I am not drawing direct comparisons to the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita holds great importance to me. It serves as a guidebook, helping one navigate the most complex problems of life.

A bit like nonexistent records. Now clearly the Meccan creed is stone age extraordinaire, by my standard blasting every where it's gone. But strip mining any knowledge they find there, admittedly, claiming it for their own and eventually declaring it satanic. Al-Ghazali for instance resorted to drivel and was acclaimed for that!

Let's leave the Muslims alone for now. I encounter their ignorance daily but accept it as my duty.

They face many challenges in their world. Even when I don't want to be involved, I find myself drawn in. Interacting with followers of Mohammed can be challenging due to their different worldview compared to non-Muslims

MICHEL FOUCAULT AND NONEXISTENT RECORDS.

First the records you refer to. THEY EXIST. Therefore you are neither deluded nor deranged and those adjectives must apply to others. ......THIS DOES NOT MEAN I'M CALLING YOU INSANE. But you may find his ideas interesting.

You've explained it well. I apologize for jumping to conclusions; it did feel like a personal remark. Regardless of whether I explore Foucault later, this was the only comment that felt unpleasant. Now that you've clarified, we're good again.

As for The Three Wise Men, where they came from is immaterial but they enriched Jesus and we do know that Phœnecians used Cornish tin (from the arsenic content) and had a base in Africa. The Bible does not say where they came from and is ambiguous regarding their star: the dative case suggests the star was in the east rather than his observers, however.

The presence of Cornish tin in Phoenecia sounds interesting. I shall look it up.

Yes, Devon and Cornwall are lovely places to visit (I source wool from there) and the denizens particularly accommodating. Unfortunately, many of them are outright heathens. But their understanding of Jesus, although deficient, is ∞% better than the "Isa" nonsense.

Your comments have been very informative and I pray that you will move closer to Redemption as you consider what The Bible contains.

I give you permission to pray for me to accept Jesus as my savior, if that's what you wish. I cannot stop you anyway.

I don't mind this at all. However, Jesus when he came to this forum has behaved like a DICK to me (given your British English preferences, that D- word should fall under acceptable formal speech. Having lived in England before, I have experienced how they like to cuss in every sentence. I actually like Americans for their sense of propriety.)

Anyway If Jesus's God, there's not much I can do about it, right?

I'd still like you to check the Bhagavad Gita as you have a strong sense of objective curiosity. It couldn't hurt, right? Totally up to you.

[MitzaLizalor]

Abraham
Pythagoras

It could be argued, although I do not argue this, that Pythagoras founded the religion of empiricism. Mostly we have remarks from his followers "The Pythagorean School" which tend to mysticism and may not [almost certainly don't! -ed.] reflect his personal views. Of course, once Thales grasped that triangles drawn inside circles yield right angles—how to get a circle was already established—the way was clear to draw squares on the sides of the triangles and do surveying. That may have been the start of things in Europe but mostly they were reinventing the wheel IMO, whereas ideas about music seem more original whether it was Pythagoras himself who came up with those measurements or not. Music already existed of course and instruments may be tuned without geometry.

Also written in Greek, we have Josephus. He covers Abraham, the naming of Africa, Heracles, this last marrying Abraham's granddaughter. I've just checked it out: there's only one intervening generation. Are there Sanskrit records relating to Heracles, Abraham and Pythagoras? I did make a timeline, which I can post if you wish, and would like to add in the Indus Valley for my own reference.

[GanduHindu]

IAre there Sanskrit records relating to Heracles, Abraham and Pythagoras?.

Heracles, definitely. A Greek traveler, Megasthenes, left behind a famous book, Indika, describing what he saw in India (as his descriptions are in Alexandrian/Koine Greek, they should be easily accessible to modern-day Greek speakers). He came over just a few years after Alexander's death, as the Alexandrian invasions paved the way for many such Greeks to visit India, or study here, as in Takshila.

Indika is one of the famous ones by early Greek authors visiting India, and Megasthenes is well-known over here. It was translated into Pali and Prakrit languages, from which it has survived into its modern format.

Please note that Sanskrit was and is a language used for all Hindu ritual ceremonies. But even in ancient India, no one spoke it in daily affairs. As Sanskrit lacks cuss words, it cannot be used to convey low-level ideas.

India's common stock pigs preferred Pali and Prakrit, which made their way into modern Indian languages such as Hindi. Just like the common stock swines of Northwestern Europe, the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, etc., preferred Old Saxon (which eventually became modern German), and Old English or Anglisch (which evolved into modern English).

You have the example of Classical Latin and Vulgate Latin, but at least they're mutually intelligible, however remotely.

Although Sanskrit roots are everywhere in all Indian words, the common stock hogs wanted to use words to convey their perverted ideas, as is their natural inclination. As most humans are corrupt and foulmouthed, we have few actual speakers of Sanskrit which cannot be used to describe anything vulgar or unclean. However, it's definitely used in all religious ceremonies of Hindus and is widely taught at our schools, so it still qualifies as a living language.


Abraham, not important to the ancient Hindus until the turn of the 4th or 5th century AD when his first mentions arrive, thanks to the first wave of Christians in Kerala and other places.


Pythagoras his work was predated by the Indian mathematician Baudhayana (800 BC - 740 BC), who lived before him. It is possible that Pythagoras plagiarized many of Baudhayana's ideas, including the famous Pythagorean theorem, and passed them off as his own to the Greeks. Here is a gist of what Baudhayana did, including the "Pythagorean" theorem, the square root of 2, circling the square.

Pythagoras himself may have become somewhat known in India, but only after Alexander's invasion and the subsequent exchange of ideas with Greece. Again, he was not celebrated as such, as his most famous idea, the Pythagorean theorem, was either independently derived by Baudhayana's school, or Pythagoras may have plagiarized it wholesale, so no one would call it Pythagoras' theorem. Pythagoras only became famous after the 14th-15th century European Renaissance. He is somewhat suspect in our eyes. (Not really; I personally think he was a genius and have studied some of his other work. I am talking about the perception.)

[Elmer G. White]

You have the example of Classical Latin and Vulgate Latin, but at least they're mutually intelligible, however remotely.

Mr. Hindu,

I've noticed that you emphasize linguistics over God's word. That is acceptable but will not help you to gain a prestigious spot beside Jesus in Heaven. As you also seem to appreciate precision, it is necessary to address your definitions.

• Classical Latin - OK. This was the form of literary Latin that was recognized as a standard by writers of the late Roman Republic and early Roman Empire. We must presume that not many people actually spoke it unless doing oration (see Cicero's "First Speech against Catiline" for further stylistical examples).
• Old or early, archaic or Priscan Latin - this was the language of the period of Latin literature prior to 75 BC. Many writers, such as Andronicus and Plautus, wrote in this less standardized form. It obviously merged gradually into the classical form. Grammatically, its early stages still had, exempli gratia, -os as the nominative ending of the 2nd declension unlike the -us of the classical form. This is why many students of Latin have difficulties understanding the difference between the 2nd and 4th declensions.
• Vulgate Latin - there was no such thing. Vulgate is just the name for the 4th century Latin translation of the Bible and its language was more or less of the Classical standard.
• Vulgar Latin was the colloquial spoken form of the language. It is preserved in graffiti (such as those in Pompeii) and in writings that deal with "errors".

It was a privilge to start treating you ignorance.

Hebrews 5:2
Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.

And the same verse in Latin (Vulgate):
Epistula Ad Hebraeos 5:2
qui condolere possit his qui ignorant et errant quoniam et ipse circumdatus est infirmitate

Now, let us consider how this would have been written in vulgar Latin: In Vulgar Latin, the subjunctive possit would probably have been replaced with the indicative (potest), as the subjunctive fell out of common use in many contexts. The infinitive condolere would have been replaced by a construction with a finite verb, e.g., "qui potest condolere" ("who is able to sympathize"). Instead of His we would see more explicit or simplified demonstratives, such as illis or ad illos, reflecting evolving Vulgar Latin pronouns. Generally, in classical Latin the word order was flexible, but vulgar Latin increasingly moved toward Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) order. Thus, circumdatus est infirmitate would have been written as est circumdatus infirmitate. Finally, the ablative of cause (infirmitate) would probably have been replaced by a prepositional phrase, e.g., per infirmitatem ("through weakness"). Regardless of all this, the common Ludi Plebeii would have had no problems understanding the sermon. Problems only started to arise during the period of late Latin (until AD 900). Thus, difficulties with mutual intelligibility would not have been around during the time of vulgar Latin but only after the Romance languages started to emerge as separate tongues.

Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Johny Joe Hold]

Thus, difficulties with mutual intelligibility would not have been around during the time of vulgar Latin but only after the Romance languages started to emerge as separate tongues.

Thank you, Professor White, for this post. An expert in linguistics was needed to correct earlier comments. We are steadily closing in on the truth: The only true god is God and His Son is Jesus Christ.

[Johny Joe Hold]

I feel called to add a thought that might help our Hindu friend and any others who might be visiting our site that also worship other gods.

Let's return to the claim made by anthropologists and archeologists who claim humans have been living on earth for 300,000 years. During nearly all of that time there were rich humans and poor ones. The temptation of the rich was always to control the poor. Time after time from prehistory to the present day the rich controlled the poor by creating gods and putting words in their god's mouth admonishing poor to behave in ways that benefited the rich. Pointy headed professors say this is a practice of maintaining social control over a society by invoking a supernatural being.

Our friend, Gandu, made it a point a few days ago there is written work in his faith that is older than the Bible. Actually, this is meaningless because the wealthy, the 1% who were literate, created gods 300,000 years before the wealthy 1% created the Hindu gods.

Fortunately, God gave us a foundation of truth that lives on in the Christian faith. By revealing himself to humans, God established he was not simply a tool of the wealthy 1%. He gave common people free will. He also gave them the Bible so that common people can have access to his Word. This love and opportunity for common people was God's gift that make the U.S. the most prosperous country in the world.