Science says Bible and Quran are equivalent

[DBT]

Also; GOD doesn't impose his will on any one in any form or Faith. You really seem to be making things up at this point.

Lastly, I read only core writings. Based on those; your opinion is very far off.

Sorry, I have to say that your reading and your understanding appears to so limited that you don't understand the subject matter to any depth.

God doesn't impose His Will? Rubbish:

“Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,” - Romans 9:21-23

 

[Kharakov]

Check out the Yajur Veda, Prapathaka V

 

[skepticalbip]

Also; GOD doesn't impose his will on any one in any form or Faith. You really seem to be making things up at this point.

Lastly, I read only core writings. Based on those; your opinion is very far off.

Sorry, I have to say that your reading and your understanding appears to so limited that you don't understand the subject matter to any depth.

It seems to me that popsthebuilder has just invented his own religion which he calls the "core" of other religions. His reading of religious scripture is apparently just looking for any passage that agrees with his "core" belief which he takes for the "true religion" discounting the 98% of the rest of the text as nothing but the misunderstanding of the humans who wrote it.

So when he declares what "GOD" does, he is describing what his god does not the god as recognized by any of the worlds religions.

Anyway, that is the best I can figure from his posts, otherwise they make no sense at all to me.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Sorry, I have to say that your reading and your understanding appears to so limited that you don't understand the subject matter to any depth.

It seems to me that popsthebuilder has just invented his own religion which he calls the "core" of other religions. His reading of religious scripture is apparently just looking for any passage that agrees with his "core" belief which he takes for the "true religion" discounting the 98% of the rest of the text as nothing but the misunderstanding of the humans who wrote it.

So when he declares what "GOD" does, he is describing what his god does not the god as recognized by any of the worlds religions.

Anyway, that is the best I can figure from his posts, otherwise they make no sense at all to me.

If 98% of what I am saying is attributed to GOD is refuted by the very books I claim to read then you should be able to show it as opposed to making baseless claims.

Its called universal reconciliation. You can look it up if you like. Or research the Bahia or Druze, or read any ancient scripture without preconceived bias or notions.

But since you claim I'm 98% full of craps, and my Faith isn't backed by scripture, then you really should prove it. Not only would you be verifying your baseless assertion, but you would both teach me something and shut me up at the same time.

Good luck,

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DBT]

If 98% of what I am saying is attributed to GOD is refuted by the very books I claim to read then you should be able to show it as opposed to making baseless claims.

You said that God does not impose His Will upon anyone, but I showed you verses from the Bible that say that He does just that (according to the source material and not an actual god), impose His Will upon everyone....and that's just one example.

The problem is that you just brush aside or ignore all the contradictions that are pointed out to you, just to repeat and assert your own beliefs....beliefs that are not supported by the very books you base them on.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Focusing on what YOU WANT, and YOUR GOALS is selfish if you where wondering.

Not necessarily. Focusing on what you want at the expense of what other people want/needs is selfish. Focusing on what you want in a socially conscious way is healthy/good (according to the Vedas). While ignoring what you want is unhealthy. I should find some quotes to back this up. Sorry for not doing that yet.

And the Christ never instructed any to do any thing out of fear.

Ok, here's a bunch of quotes of Jesus making threats. Ie, trying to make people act out of fear. To paraphrase, you better do what I tell you, or else. It's not an appeal to reason. It's not an appeal to ethics/morality. It's just a threat. Do this because I'm telling you to and for no other reason.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+3&version=KJV

3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

3:12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+8&version=KJV

12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Further down in this same section Jesus tells his disciples to board a boat in rough seas. Jesus has a nap. The disciples wake him and are jumpy. His reply is "yea, of little faith". He then magically makes the sea calm. This isn't an appeal to what is healthy or ethical. This is an appeal to ignore what you feel is right and simply obey anyway. Further down he has a heard of pigs commit suicide as a threat to the pig herders "possessed by the devil". How isn't this a threat? Do what I want or I'll kill your pigs.

Let's try another book. Mark

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+6

11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

How isn't this a threat? If a city won't "receive" the disciples the city will be destroyed.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1&version=KJV

20 And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.

Zacharias had the nerve to ask Jesus what was going on. He was made mute simply for asking. How isn't that a threat? Do what I want (obey blindly) or else you might get a physical disability.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+12&version=KJV

Here's a pretty clear one.

5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

This one is telling us to fear God straight up. The motivation for obedience is fear.

I can go on. I found threats for disobedience in every single book. It's everywhere in the Bible. Do what I want or else. Nobody can be so blind they can't see it.

Shame isn't some make believe thing to keep religious folk in check. It is a natural indicator that one has done is is contemplating doing something against the very nature of their being.

That makes no sense. If something goes against the nature of my being I wouldn't need being told about it. It would be intuitive. Jesus said that just thinking about having sex with someone you're not married to is adultery. Let's ignore the obvious. That it isn't adultery. Let's focus on the shame of it. Here Jesus is using imposed shame as a tool of social control.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+5&version=KJV

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Nothing to do with reward or attainment.

Heaven is used as a carrot. And Hell is used as a threat. It's all over the Bible. Do you really need passages quoted?

Of course most Christians may refute this.

I doubt most Christians has read the Bible.

I have yet to study the Vedas and may never. But based on the Bhagavad Gita one is to relinquish self in order to understand and follow their true direction in life, not be indifferent.

Peace

What was the point?

Oh yeah; that the abrahamic religions and Hinduism are different in their beliefs, motives, and teachings based on the bible and Gita. I haven't seen anything to support that yet. Not in my own reading or in the conversation here.

I am fervently listening though, as I am not against the idea, just that what I have found seems to be quite the opposite from that claim.

But it's not about relinquishing self. It's about ridding yourself of mental bagage that just get in the way and fuck your life up for you. But you seem to have gotten the gist. It's about picking the battles you can win. And rising above the one's you can't.

I think it's more helpful to see the Bhagavad Ghita as a self help book. While the Bible is a legal book. Both the Bible and the Bhagavad Ghita belong to the same genre of books. "morality tales". These were hugely popular in the antique world. The number one genre. The Bible evolved from this tradition as well. But the Bible has gone beyond it. This is something different entirely. This is a law book. The Bible is a blend of morality tales and the Code of Hammurabi.

You can take the advice from the Hindu gods or leave it. The gods won't care. The Abrahamic God cares like a mother fucker and will come down like a ton of bricks if you don't obey.

I'll go digging to find you some Bhagavad Ghita quotes. It's just harder than the Bible. I'll get back to you.

 

[DBT]

The threat of Karma;

''Consider all your acts as acts of devotion to me, whether eating, offering, giving away, performing austerities. Perform them as an offering to me. In this way you will be free from karma, you will be liberated and you will come to me'' (9,27).

"Those who are envious and mischievous, who are the lowest among men, I perpetually cast into transmigration, into various demoniac species of life" (16,19).

And also: "Those who worship me and surrender all their activities unto me, being devoted to me without hesitation, engaged in devotional service and meditating unto me, I deliver them quickly from the ocean of birth and death" (12,6-7).

 

[DrZoidberg]

The threat of Karma;

''Consider all your acts as acts of devotion to me, whether eating, offering, giving away, performing austerities. Perform them as an offering to me. In this way you will be free from karma, you will be liberated and you will come to me'' (9,27).

"Those who are envious and mischievous, who are the lowest among men, I perpetually cast into transmigration, into various demoniac species of life" (16,19).

And also: "Those who worship me and surrender all their activities unto me, being devoted to me without hesitation, engaged in devotional service and meditating unto me, I deliver them quickly from the ocean of birth and death" (12,6-7).

This is a great example:

This is about practicing Bahti Yoga * Which is just one of many ways to attain enlightenment. This is a Smorgasbord. Krishna says there is a hierarchy of values/virtues. Karma is basically the Golden Rule. But with a pinch of woo (since the universe keeps this tally somehow), So what does it say?

1) When you try to follow the Golden Rule, which is the least virtuous action to take? It's self sacrifice. This goes right against Christianity/Abrahamic faiths. Since they put self sacrifice at the top. And quite rightly Krishna explains that self sacrifice is being passive aggressive and is a dick move.

2) What's the next most virtuous thing? To keep breathing (Pranayama). So what's this about? It's about always being present in the moment. In Yoga * when your breathing becomes forced or irregular it means that you are in mental distress. You're pushing yourself beyond your capacity. It means take a step back and reflect on wtf you are doing. If you don't keep a calm head you're going to do stupid unhelpful shit. Also, in stark contrast to Abrahamic faiths were you're not supposed to trust your heart. You steam roll any emotion with faith and push on, trusting God.

3) So what is the most virtuous way to apply the Golden Rule. It's detached action. Don't just follow your emotions like a child. Be aware of your emotions, but follow your brain. Reach your goals doing the least damage to others or in the way which helps others the most. Also only care about spiritual rewards. Material gains are worthless.

* Not to be confused with the type of Yoga westerners in tights do in Yoga studios.

The bit about surrendering to Krishna is pretty open to interpretation. But I think "Yoga" is the clue. Yoga in Hinduism is simply just strategies for life. It's how to live a successful life. Or how to succeed in reaching your goals in life. And within Yoga there's quite a lot of focus on surrendering. It's easy to build up mental defences making you a contrarian, making you miss the big picture. It's about accepting the randomness of life. Accepting that which you cannot do anything about. Making you focus on that which you can do something about. Surrendering to the universe is (in Hindu practice) the most helpful stance to hold when doing stuff or interacting with others.

It's also good to remember the setting for this piece. This is Krishna talking to Arjuna in the middle of a battle. At some point mid-battle Arjuna becomes scared and battle shy. He doesn't want to fight any more. And starts making excuses for himself to surrender. He's having an internal debate. The cynic might say that he's become scared and is now a coward. Krishna swoops down, freezes time and then has a a series of dialogues which really is just life coaching. Krishna is step-by-step helping Arjuna through this time of crisis. And most importantly not telling Arjuna what to feel or think, but letting him figure it out for himself. This is obviously the preferred model for how a Guru should talk to their devotees. This is what the book is about. This is a manual for life. And what is the result of the dialogues with Krishna? When Krishna has talked Arjuna into resuming the fight he disappears in a puff of smoke and let's Arjuna get on with it. He then wins the battle.

And why is chopping heads the most virtuous path for Arjuna? His cast dictates it. He's an Kshatriya Rajput. Subjugating people is what his caste is supposed to do. I think the setting is intentional. Bhakti Yoga is translated to practice in self love, world love and God love. In think we're supposed to react to the fact that Arjuna's way to show love is to chop people's heads off. How could killing people be love? Because the ultimate inner truth for a Kshatriya is to dominate. No, I don't think it makes sense either. But in context it does.

 

[skepticalbip]

It seems to me that popsthebuilder has just invented his own religion which he calls the "core" of other religions. His reading of religious scripture is apparently just looking for any passage that agrees with his "core" belief which he takes for the "true religion" discounting the 98% of the rest of the text as nothing but the misunderstanding of the humans who wrote it.

So when he declares what "GOD" does, he is describing what his god does not the god as recognized by any of the worlds religions.

Anyway, that is the best I can figure from his posts, otherwise they make no sense at all to me.

If 98% of what I am saying is attributed to GOD is refuted by the very books I claim to read then you should be able to show it as opposed to making baseless claims.

That isn't what I said. 100% of what you say about your god can likely be found in selected verses of religious texts with selective interpretation - this is what you are calling the "core" of the religion. It is the other 98% of those texts that you ignore and attribute to the misunderstanding of the human authors who wrote it.

 

[popsthebuilder]

If 98% of what I am saying is attributed to GOD is refuted by the very books I claim to read then you should be able to show it as opposed to making baseless claims.

That isn't what I said. 100% of what you say about your god can likely be found in selected verses of religious texts with selective interpretation - this is what you are calling the "core" of the religion. It is the other 98% of those texts that you ignore and attribute to the misunderstanding of the human authors who wrote it.

No. If I go off
of 2% of what is written in scriptures and against 98% of it then you should be able to show it.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[skepticalbip]

That isn't what I said. 100% of what you say about your god can likely be found in selected verses of religious texts with selective interpretation - this is what you are calling the "core" of the religion. It is the other 98% of those texts that you ignore and attribute to the misunderstanding of the human authors who wrote it.

No. If I go off
of 2% of what is written in scriptures and against 98% of it then you should be able to show it.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Read back through this thread. That is exactly what several people have been doing. However, you have completely ignored all examples just as you ignore the 98% of the religious texts that do not support your "core".

 

[popsthebuilder]

No. If I go off
of 2% of what is written in scriptures and against 98% of it then you should be able to show it.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Read back through this thread. That is exactly what several people have been doing. However, you have completely ignored all examples just as you ignore the 98% of the religious texts that do not support your "core".

Dude, what have I ignored?

Of the religious texts I read, I ignore 0%. People's opinions aren't religious texts. Texts I haven't read of course, can't really be used as a basis for what you are claiming.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[skepticalbip]

Read back through this thread. That is exactly what several people have been doing. However, you have completely ignored all examples just as you ignore the 98% of the religious texts that do not support your "core".

Dude, what have I ignored?

Of the religious texts I read, I ignore 0%. People's opinions aren't religious texts. Texts I haven't read of course, can't really be used as a basis for what you are claiming.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Dude!

The direct quotations from the religious texts are not the "opinions" of those who posted them - they are direct quotations which you have ignored by not responding. You have claimed to have read the Bible and Koran so the quotations from those books you have supposedly read you have ignored or assumed were written by authors who didn't understand your "core".

 

[popsthebuilder]

Dude, what have I ignored?

Of the religious texts I read, I ignore 0%. People's opinions aren't religious texts. Texts I haven't read of course, can't really be used as a basis for what you are claiming.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Dude!

The direct quotations from the religious texts are not the "opinions" of those who posted them - they are direct quotations which you have ignored by not responding. You have claimed to have read the Bible and Koran so the quotations from those books you have supposedly read you have ignored or assumed were written by authors who didn't understand your "core".

Did you post scripture? I must have missed it.

If you're talking about someone else's posts then there could be any number of reasons why I ignored it.

If you're speaking of the one that someone tried to say that Jesus threatened people, then yeah, I'm not wasting my time with nonsense. There is a difference in warning someone for their sake, like Christ warned his followers and religious people, and threatening someone as if you don't care for them or hold contempt towards them.


Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DBT]

If you're speaking of the one that someone tried to say that Jesus threatened people, then yeah, I'm not wasting my time with nonsense. There is a difference in warning someone for their sake, like Christ warned his followers and religious people, and threatening someone as if you don't care for them or hold contempt towards them.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

It's not what 'someone tries to say' but what the verses themselves happen to say...which clearly state the penalty for not not believing, for not having faith.

''He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.'' Mark 16

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Matthew 25:41

A clear case of carrot and stick, either reward or a threat of eternal damnation simply on the basis of faith (a poor tool for sorting fact from fiction.)

 

[popsthebuilder]

If you're speaking of the one that someone tried to say that Jesus threatened people, then yeah, I'm not wasting my time with nonsense. There is a difference in warning someone for their sake, like Christ warned his followers and religious people, and threatening someone as if you don't care for them or hold contempt towards them.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

It's not what 'someone tries to say' but what the verses themselves happen to say...which clearly state the penalty for not not believing, for not having faith.

''He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.'' Mark 16

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Matthew 25:41

A clear case of carrot and stick, either reward or a threat of eternal damnation simply on the basis of faith (a poor tool for sorting fact from fiction.)

You bring up a good point, as do others. What is difficult to grasp for many is that, similar to the Qur'an, the bible is speaking of those who are religious on some level, not those who have no knowledge of God through ignorance.

There is only one unforgivable sin. That is blasphemy.

Those who know not of GOD cannot blaspheme GOD.

Those who do not know of GOD or it's will for man will not be unjustly punished for their lack of belief, but will be weighed against their actions.

Hell, and heaven are for a prescribed time, and not eternal. (Now; if someone wants to say that I refute what is written in the Bible, that's about as close of an instance as they will get.)

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You bring up a good point, as do others. What is difficult to grasp for many is that, similar to the Qur'an, the bible is speaking of those who are religious on some level, not those who have no knowledge of God through ignorance.

There is only one unforgivable sin. That is blasphemy.

Those who know not of GOD cannot blaspheme GOD.

Those who do not know of GOD or it's will for man will not be unjustly punished for their lack of belief, but will be weighed against their actions.

Hell, and heaven are for a prescribed time, and not eternal. (Now; if someone wants to say that I refute what is written in the Bible, that's about as close of an instance as they will get.)

Well then, isn't mentioning the guy the most selfish and evil act possible? All the various missionaries, priests, Sunday School teachers, etc have condemned billions of people to torture which none of them would have experienced if they'd just STFU.

That torture being for a prescribed time doesn't make their actions somehow less evil. If they're causing people to unecessarily suffer through an hour/millenia/eon of torture which they'd otherwise not had to experience, how is conveying information about God not one of the worst things somebody could do?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well then, isn't mentioning the guy the most selfish and evil act possible? All the various missionaries, priests, Sunday School teachers, etc have condemned billions of people to torture which none of them would have experienced if they'd just STFU.

That torture being for a prescribed time doesn't make their actions somehow less evil. If they're causing people to unecessarily suffer through an hour/millenia/eon of torture which they'd otherwise not had to experience, how is conveying information about God not one of the worst things somebody could do?

Hey! Maybe you're on to something, here.
Maybe that's why the gods people talk about are all so obviously man-made constructs. Because the ONE TRUE GOD is actually known only to a haldful of people, who preserve the mystery and NEVER EVER TALK ABOUT HIM!

Maybe the realistic, compelling god-concept is kept out of human knowledge as much as possible, for all would fall short of salvation. The precious few charged with bringing His Holy Word to mankind have chosen, instead, to keep the secret, nobly deciding to condemn themselves to Hell, so that the rest of humanity can get into Heaven on a loophole.

 

[Underseer]

You should act a particular way and strive to do all because you know in your heart (selfless conscience) that it is the right thing to do. Not because of any reward in this material plane, or whatever you think may or may not lie after it.

With this, I can wholeheartedly agree.

I find that one cannot do this with religion driving their actions and words, at least not those that have been written down and called the 'Abrahamic religions', which only lead you away from 'good conscious'.

Yep.

Christians are more moral than the Bible. (Certain exceptions noted.)

Muslims are more moral than the Koran. (Certain exceptions noted.)

I would trust the moral judgment of a Muslim long before trusting the moral advice of the Koran, and the same goes for Christians. If Christians and Muslims actually followed their holy books word for word, this world would be a truly horrifying place. Thankfully, it is obvious that morality is coming from the individuals, not from the books. The books merely try to take credit for what the individuals would likely have chosen anyway.

 

[popsthebuilder]

With this, I can wholeheartedly agree.

I find that one cannot do this with religion driving their actions and words, at least not those that have been written down and called the 'Abrahamic religions', which only lead you away from 'good conscious'.

Yep.

Christians are more moral than the Bible. (Certain exceptions noted.)

Muslims are more moral than the Koran. (Certain exceptions noted.)

I would trust the moral judgment of a Muslim long before trusting the moral advice of the Koran, and the same goes for Christians. If Christians and Muslims actually followed their holy books word for word, this world would be a truly horrifying place. Thankfully, it is obvious that morality is coming from the individuals, not from the books. The books merely try to take credit for what the individuals would likely have chosen anyway.

Yeah, you know how those inanimate objects are always trying to take credit for shit.



Faith in selfless Unity for Good.