Science says Bible and Quran are equivalent

[DrZoidberg]

DBT,
Brahman, Allah, Yahweh, and God the Father are all simply different names given to the same One Creator GOD. You mention contradiction based on the different faiths but neglect to even attempt to list any.

The concept of Brahma is nothing like Yahweh the God of the bible. Jews reject Jesus as the prophesied Messiah, Muslims claim that Jesus is a prophet, Christians claim that he is the Son of God, and so on. These are contradictions. They can't all be true. Either one is right and the rest are wrong or all are wrong.

This has nothing to do with 'culture' or cultural diversity, but what is true and what is false.

In this regard, faith has an extremely poor record of sorting fact from fiction.

That is the point you dance around.

Brahma and Brahman are different things. You got it right. Popsthebuilder got it wrong. Which makes me wonder how much Hindu scripture he has read. Or any scripture. It's contradictions all over the place.

If you have evidence you don't need faith. By applying simple logic we can deduce that a person who has faith, by necessity, knows they are wrong. If they knew they were right they wouldn't need faith.

 

[DBT]

The concept of Brahma is nothing like Yahweh the God of the bible. Jews reject Jesus as the prophesied Messiah, Muslims claim that Jesus is a prophet, Christians claim that he is the Son of God, and so on. These are contradictions. They can't all be true. Either one is right and the rest are wrong or all are wrong.

This has nothing to do with 'culture' or cultural diversity, but what is true and what is false.

In this regard, faith has an extremely poor record of sorting fact from fiction.

That is the point you dance around.

Brahma and Brahman are different things. You got it right. Popsthebuilder got it wrong. Which makes me wonder how much Hindu scripture he has read. Or any scripture. It's contradictions all over the place.

If you have evidence you don't need faith. By applying simple logic we can deduce that a person who has faith, by necessity, knows they are wrong. If they knew they were right they wouldn't need faith.

Yeah, the basic distinction being, Brahma is the creator god of Hinduism while Brahman is the "creative principle which lies realized in the whole world

Either way, popsthebuilder is wrong to associate these concepts, attributes or features with the god of the bible, Yahweh, or the god of the Quran, Allah.

Muslims of course claim that the latter two are one and the same god, but Orthodox Jews disagree....and on and on it goes, the absurdity of faith.

The same faith that can't see the atrocity of either old testament ethics or the ethics displayed in the Quran, or the new testament for that matter.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Brahma and Brahman are different things. You got it right. Popsthebuilder got it wrong. Which makes me wonder how much Hindu scripture he has read. Or any scripture. It's contradictions all over the place.

If you have evidence you don't need faith. By applying simple logic we can deduce that a person who has faith, by necessity, knows they are wrong. If they knew they were right they wouldn't need faith.

Yeah, the basic distinction being, Brahma is the creator god of Hinduism while Brahman is the "creative principle which lies realized in the whole world

Either way, popsthebuilder is wrong to associate these concepts, attributes or features with the god of the bible, Yahweh, or the god of the Quran, Allah.

Muslims of course claim that the latter two are one and the same god, but Orthodox Jews disagree....and on and on it goes, the absurdity of faith.

The same faith that can't see the atrocity of either old testament ethics or the ethics displayed in the Quran, or the new testament for that matter.

What I think is interesting in all the four religions is that the world already existed when these gods came along. But it was in a state of chaos. The Vedic texts adress this. As Brahma is referred to as the second creator. There's a bunch of versions of who or what is first creator.

My favourite is that it is Prajapati. But Prajapati isn't a single god. It's a temporary title any god can hold. This makes it circular. All gods are together the first creator.

Prajapati created life. Not anything concrete. Not even souls (Brahma did that). Prajapati just created the concept of life. How's that for abstract? I love Hinduism. It's impossible to take it literally. That's why I see it as a superior religion to Abrahamic religions. It's just a smarter religion.

edit: There are credible theories that the Abrahamic concept of souls entered into Judaism after the Babylonian capture. Jews there came into contact with Hindus. Mediterrenean Pagans didn't believe in a disembodied soul. They believed in a life force (the breath). But the breath contained nothing of what we today would call a soul. But it took a long time before the idea disseminated among the Jews. Even when Christianity was born this idea hadn't spread fully. In early Christian texts, after the second coming of Jesus, everybody buried would literally exit their actual graves and start walking around on Earth again, as they had before. Heaven (ie Kingdom of God) and Paradise at that point was a place on Earth.

 

[popsthebuilder]

DBT,
Brahman, Allah, Yahweh, and God the Father are all simply different names given to the same One Creator GOD. You mention contradiction based on the different faiths but neglect to even attempt to list any.

The concept of Brahma is nothing like Yahweh the God of the bible. Jews reject Jesus as the prophesied Messiah, Muslims claim that Jesus is a prophet, Christians claim that he is the Son of God, and so on. These are contradictions. They can't all be true. Either one is right and the rest are wrong or all are wrong.

This has nothing to do with 'culture' or cultural diversity, but what is true and what is false.

In this regard, faith has an extremely poor record of sorting fact from fiction.

That is the point you dance around.

I didn't say they all agreed flawlessly with one another. Just that they all ultimately understand that there is One Creator GOD and that the general nature of God and direction of man under God are generally the same. The divisiveness of man is related to fear, pride, and greed.

I dance around nothing. I'm very aware of the way some act with regards to other religions. I'm also aware of the fact that people who truthfully seek out the will of GOD without fear or greed are generally open to the idea that there is but one GOD. As if you can base the veracity of faith in GOD on the actions of man as opposed to the inspired word of GOD. You are focusing on the few differences and calling them contradictions, instead of agreeing that they all teach similar things all throughout their respective scriptures including the truthfulness of other faiths and the general conduct of the true followers which by the way does not teach division based on a name, but on works or actions.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The concept of Brahma is nothing like Yahweh the God of the bible. Jews reject Jesus as the prophesied Messiah, Muslims claim that Jesus is a prophet, Christians claim that he is the Son of God, and so on. These are contradictions. They can't all be true. Either one is right and the rest are wrong or all are wrong.

This has nothing to do with 'culture' or cultural diversity, but what is true and what is false.

In this regard, faith has an extremely poor record of sorting fact from fiction.

That is the point you dance around.

I didn't say they all agreed flawlessly with one another. Just that they all ultimately understand that there is One Creator GOD and that the general nature of God and direction of man under God are generally the same. The divisiveness of man is related to fear, pride, and greed.

I dance around nothing. I'm very aware of the way some act with regards to other religions. I'm also aware of the fact that people who truthfully seek out the will of GOD without fear or greed are generally open to the idea that there is but one GOD. As if you can base the veracity of faith in GOD on the actions of man as opposed to the inspired word of GOD. You are focusing on the few differences and calling them contradictions, instead of agreeing that they all teach similar things all throughout their respective scriptures including the truthfulness of other faiths and the general conduct of the true followers which by the way does not teach division based on a name, but on works or actions.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Ehe... Brahma has no will. Brahma is just the embodiment of creating/multiplying souls (but not the creation of the universe). Brahma has no more a will than the sea really wants to come in for the tides.

As far as ethical and moral teachings they do teach similar things. But they are very different conceptually. Pagan religions have no problems with mixing the abstract with the real. Because it's all potentially metaphor. They didn't bother with belief. For pagan religions the focus of their faith was the ritual. Not the belief. So a metaphorical interpretation isn't a threat to them. A non-believer in monotheism is a denier (of the one true God). Pagan religion isn't like this at all. They didn't really bother much with the true single one way to believe. They were open to diverging views. Another religion or another god was just yet another way to interpret whatever forces rule the world. When Christians showed up in Goa in the 15'th century the Hindus were just like, "oh, another one. Stick it in with the rest". That's a conceptually different type of religion. Hinduism doesn't need faith. Christianity and Islam does. Judaism actually follows the pagan tradition. They don't focus on belief. Only on ritual.

There is one massive difference on the teachings of Hinduism and Abrahamic religions. That is the relation to the body. In Abrahamic religions the body is dirty and horrible. We're to deny our bodies as much as possible. Torture it and bring it under control. Only focus on the soul. Hinduism is completely different. You've got to focus on the body. To take care of it, for it to allow you to work on your soul. They do see it as nothing but a vehicle. But a broken vehicle isn't going to do anybody any good. Asketism is one path to enlightenment within Hinduism. But the point of that is to see the separation of soul and body (if that's what the devotee needs). But it's just one of many paths to enlightenment. Hinduism is way more complex and advanced than Christians give it credit for. They're not even playing in the same division. Christianity and Islam are simplistic, and really quite silly religions. They've just taken the least refined bits of paganism and focused only on those. Christianity is the rejection of our humanity. While Hinduism embraces it.

I think you've forced down the square pegs in the round holes. Talking in terms of the One Creator God makes no sense when exploring paganism. I think you've taken Hinduism and pressed it through the Christian filter and found a Christianised version. Ie a dumbed down version IMHO. Hinduism is a way smarter religion than what you are giving it credit for.

 

[DBT]

The concept of Brahma is nothing like Yahweh the God of the bible. Jews reject Jesus as the prophesied Messiah, Muslims claim that Jesus is a prophet, Christians claim that he is the Son of God, and so on. These are contradictions. They can't all be true. Either one is right and the rest are wrong or all are wrong.

This has nothing to do with 'culture' or cultural diversity, but what is true and what is false.

In this regard, faith has an extremely poor record of sorting fact from fiction.

That is the point you dance around.

I didn't say they all agreed flawlessly with one another. Just that they all ultimately understand that there is One Creator GOD and that the general nature of God and direction of man under God are generally the same.

Still not true. The attributes and characteristics of Yahweh are nothing like that of Brahma, nor are either set of attributes and characteristics compatible with Islam's concept of Allah, and that's without considering the divisions within each religion in concern to such things as the Trinity, etc.

Nor did these religious beliefs begin with one creator god, the Israelites originally believed in the gods of other tribes but considered theirs to be the greatest, which gradually evolved into Monotheism.

I dance around nothing.

You say you don't, but then proceed dance around the point.....being that regardless of a belief in a universal god, the god that one religion believes in, Hinduism for example, does not relate to the god of another religion, Christianity or Islam.

Abrahamic faith teaches that god is infinitely superior to and transcendent from humankind, while Hindus believe in ultimate oneness (Brahman) through various manifestations of gods and goddesses becoming 'incarnate within idols, temples, gurus, rivers, animals, etc.

Even the God of Judaism is not the Triune God of Christian belief, which Judaism rejects. Somebody has to be wrong, not only on the details, but the very existence of the god they believe exists (for which there is no evidence).

I'm very aware of the way some act with regards to other religions. I'm also aware of the fact that people who truthfully seek out the will of GOD without fear or greed are generally open to the idea that there is but one GOD.

Being 'open to the idea' proves nothing other than someone is open to the idea of 'one god' - other 'seekers' may be 'open' to other ideas, new age, Buddhism, Witchcraft, etc, shopping for what suits their needs. None of this proves your proposition of the existence of one god that is compatible with Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Nor would Christians agree that their god is the god of Hinduism (which includes polytheistic beliefs, Shiva, Shakti, etc) or the god of Islam, Allah.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I didn't say they all agreed flawlessly with one another. Just that they all ultimately understand that there is One Creator GOD and that the general nature of God and direction of man under God are generally the same.

Still not true. The attributes and characteristics of Yahweh are nothing like that of Brahma, nor are either set of attributes and characteristics compatible with Islam's concept of Allah, and that's without considering the divisions within each religion in concern to such things as the Trinity, etc.

Nor did these religious beliefs begin with one creator god, the Israelites originally believed in the gods of other tribes but considered theirs to be the greatest, which gradually evolved into Monotheism.

I dance around nothing.

You say you don't, but then proceed dance around the point.....being that regardless of a belief in a universal god, the god that one religion believes in, Hinduism for example, does not relate to the god of another religion, Christianity or Islam.

Abrahamic faith teaches that god is infinitely superior to and transcendent from humankind, while Hindus believe in ultimate oneness (Brahman) through various manifestations of gods and goddesses becoming 'incarnate within idols, temples, gurus, rivers, animals, etc.

Even the God of Judaism is not the Triune God of Christian belief, which Judaism rejects. Somebody has to be wrong, not only on the details, but the very existence of the god they believe exists (for which there is no evidence).

I'm very aware of the way some act with regards to other religions. I'm also aware of the fact that people who truthfully seek out the will of GOD without fear or greed are generally open to the idea that there is but one GOD.

Being 'open to the idea' proves nothing other than someone is open to the idea of 'one god' - other 'seekers' may be 'open' to other ideas, new age, Buddhism, Witchcraft, etc, shopping for what suits their needs. None of this proves your proposition of the existence of one god that is compatible with Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Nor would Christians agree that their god is the god of Hinduism (which includes polytheistic beliefs, Shiva, Shakti, etc) or the god of Islam, Allah.

I agree that Yahweh has more characteristics in common with a God of war. I also understand that Judaism seems to have derived from polytheism. But I also know that the Torah was an oral tradition and that the Jewish people lead many astray. Though Hindi beliefs do reference many God's they still believe all is ultimately of one creator GOD.

Don't get me started on the misdirection of the masses for approx. 2000 years. Yes the trinity is a big no no for Islam. I never said the religions where the same, or that any of them where followed correctly by the masses. I was stating that they have much more similarities than differences when viewed strictly from a core scriptural point of view instead of basing opinion off of others opinions. You should try stating the actual differences in these faiths as opposed to simply stating the different names given to the one creator GOD by man. So far you mentioned the Trinitarian view which isn't even in the Bible being incompatible with Islamic Faith. You are correct, but that in no way changes the fact that the Qur'an and bible are nearly the same on all levels. You mention how Hindi believe acknowledges manifestations and multiple entities, but neglect the fact that they all come from one creator GOD. You also fail to mention that the Bhagavad Gita teaches the way to know of GOD and it's will is through the Krishna consciousness, which is described pretty much the same as the Crist consciousness, God head, or Holy Spirit. Again. Missing the point which is that the teachings and motivations and morals are the same, but the way they are described is different based on time and culture. If you want to get down to it; many characteristics of yahweh are similar to sheiva, and both Hinduism and Judaism could be seem as polytheistic in that somewhat ignorant light.

Again; my point d that the teachings and reasons for hose teachings are the same in all of them. Your point seems to be that they indeed all came from a different time and culture.

Pretty strange how (based on ancient core scripture) all these faiths are very similar.

If you really think that Allah and GOD aren't the same then look up the definition. I'll do you one better. Look up Bahia Faith, or Druze, then let's continue.

Anyone can state the obvious division among different religions. Also, anyone who is genuinely seeking without preconceived bias can see that they are all exceedingly similar at their core or root. Not to mention that most of those scriptures mention the coming together of faith in GOD.

I look forward to speaking with you further.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DBT]

If you really think that Allah and GOD aren't the same then look up the definition. I'll do you one better. Look up Bahia Faith, or Druze, then let's continue.

This is a good example of dancing around the point.....at no time did I claim that the term ''Allah'' and ''God'' is separable. Or 'Yahweh' and 'God' or 'Brahma' and God.

Allah refers to the Muslim version of 'God' (whatever that is supposed to mean), while ''Brahma'' refers to the Hindu version of ''God'' (whatever that is supposed to mean), while Yahweh refers to the OT version of God (whatever that is).....so all these words and terms refer to the concept of 'God' - whatever that is, who knows because we have no evidence - yet none of these versions or references can agree on the nature and attributes of this thing called 'God' - Allah, Yahweh, Brahma, etc.

Even worse, each version contradicts the other.

There lies your dance.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If you really think that Allah and GOD aren't the same then look up the definition. I'll do you one better. Look up Bahia Faith, or Druze, then let's continue.

This is a good example of dancing around the point.....at no time did I claim that the term ''Allah'' and ''God'' is separable. Or 'Yahweh' and 'God' or 'Brahma' and God.

Allah refers to the Muslim version of 'God' (whatever that is supposed to mean), while ''Brahma'' refers to the Hindu version of ''God'' (whatever that is supposed to mean), while Yahweh refers to the OT version of God (whatever that is).....so all these words and terms refer to the concept of 'God' - whatever that is, who knows because we have no evidence - yet none of these versions or references can agree on the nature and attributes of this thing called 'God' - Allah, Yahweh, Brahma, etc.

Even worse, each version contradicts the other.

There lies your dance.

I think you misunderstood Popsthebuilder. I can explain. He has read the "core" texts and while they may superficially talk about different gods. Popsthebuilder knows better. He has through serious deliberation and sincere introspection understood what the authors really meant to say all along. They just miss-wrote.

Did I get that correct Popsthebuilder?

 

[popsthebuilder]

If you really think that Allah and GOD aren't the same then look up the definition. I'll do you one better. Look up Bahia Faith, or Druze, then let's continue.

This is a good example of dancing around the point.....at no time did I claim that the term ''Allah'' and ''God'' is separable. Or 'Yahweh' and 'God' or 'Brahma' and God.

Allah refers to the Muslim version of 'God' (whatever that is supposed to mean), while ''Brahma'' refers to the Hindu version of ''God'' (whatever that is supposed to mean), while Yahweh refers to the OT version of God (whatever that is).....so all these words and terms refer to the concept of 'God' - whatever that is, who knows because we have no evidence - yet none of these versions or references can agree on the nature and attributes of this thing called 'God' - Allah, Yahweh, Brahma, etc.

Even worse, each version contradicts the other.

There lies your dance.

The direction of man by gods will is the same. The attributes used to describe GOD are similar. The differences are in the way they are described and only vary slightly. The one that somewhat stands apart from the other descriptions in a few cases is Yahweh, and even then, only in the commands of GOD in reference to an ancient time of war. For the most part even the Torah describes GOD as merciful and teaches man to be merciful and peaceful.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[popsthebuilder]

This is a good example of dancing around the point.....at no time did I claim that the term ''Allah'' and ''God'' is separable. Or 'Yahweh' and 'God' or 'Brahma' and God.

Allah refers to the Muslim version of 'God' (whatever that is supposed to mean), while ''Brahma'' refers to the Hindu version of ''God'' (whatever that is supposed to mean), while Yahweh refers to the OT version of God (whatever that is).....so all these words and terms refer to the concept of 'God' - whatever that is, who knows because we have no evidence - yet none of these versions or references can agree on the nature and attributes of this thing called 'God' - Allah, Yahweh, Brahma, etc.

Even worse, each version contradicts the other.

There lies your dance.

I think you misunderstood Popsthebuilder. I can explain. He has read the "core" texts and while they may superficially talk about different gods. Popsthebuilder knows better. He has through serious deliberation and sincere introspection understood what the authors really meant to say all along. They just miss-wrote.

Did I get that correct Popsthebuilder?

They didn't mis-write. It is the bias of man, greed, and fear that divides otherwise faithful people. Not GOD, or the direction of man under God.



Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think you misunderstood Popsthebuilder. I can explain. He has read the "core" texts and while they may superficially talk about different gods. Popsthebuilder knows better. He has through serious deliberation and sincere introspection understood what the authors really meant to say all along. They just miss-wrote.

Did I get that correct Popsthebuilder?

They didn't mis-write. It is the bias of man, greed, and fear that divides otherwise faithful people. Not GOD, or the direction of man under God.



Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Pagan gods (including Hinduism) are like forces of nature. They each embody aspects of the human condition. They're neither good nor evil. They're indifferent to humans. It would be fair to say they're like memetic rules in order to better understand the human condition. Life is random and terrifying. So gods are random and terrifying. Innocent people get caught between warring gods. Gods make arbitrary rules that you'd better follow or else. Not because it's somehow morally better, but because it's to appease this guy, who otherwise will get annoyed with you. The gods don't give a shit about you. There's no intrinsic meaning with your life. The Hindu message above all is, "yes, life is shit. Why not try to make the best of it?"

That's a world apart from the Abrahamic God. The Abrahamic God has human motivations and human values (which in itself is hilariously retarded). God is just a super human. He's a normal bloke but magnified times a million. He's your daddy, but the best possible daddy. Life is a game. God has made the rules and if you play the game according to the rules well you will be rewarded.

How exactly are these gods even remotely similar? And as DBT pointed out earlier the Abrahamic Gods are quite different. I'd go further. There's a version of God for every Christian sect. Arguably there's a specific version of God for every believer. The problem with the Abrahamic God is that God is the best and most perfect human. But what is best and most perfect differs. So God will have a variety of guises.

 

[popsthebuilder]

They didn't mis-write. It is the bias of man, greed, and fear that divides otherwise faithful people. Not GOD, or the direction of man under God.



Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Pagan gods (including Hinduism) are like forces of nature. They each embody aspects of the human condition. It would be fair to say they're like memetic rules in order to better understand the human condition. Life is random and terrifying. So gods are random and terrifying. Innocent people get caught between warring gods. Gods make arbitrary rules that you'd better follow or else. Not because it's somehow morally better, but because it's to appease this guy, who otherwise will get annoyed with you. The gods don't give a shit about you. There's no intrinsic meaning with your life. The Hindu message above all is, "yes, life is shit. Why not try to make the best of it?"

That's a world apart from the Abrahamic God. The Abrahamic God has human motivations and human values (which in itself is hilariously retarded). God is just a super human. He's a normal bloke but magnified times a million. He's your daddy, but the best possible daddy. Life is a game. God has made the rules and if you play the game according to the rules well you will be rewarded.

How exactly are these gods even remotely similar? And as DBT pointed out earlier the Abrahamic Gods are quite different. I'd go further. There's a version of God for every Christian sect. Arguably there's a specific version of God for every believer. The problem with the Abrahamic God is that God is the best and most perfect human. But what is best and most perfect differs. So God will have a variety of guises.

No, the problem is equating man to GOD.

And the message of Hinduism is to selfless, charitable, and good in all cases just like abrahamic faiths

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Pagan gods (including Hinduism) are like forces of nature. They each embody aspects of the human condition. It would be fair to say they're like memetic rules in order to better understand the human condition. Life is random and terrifying. So gods are random and terrifying. Innocent people get caught between warring gods. Gods make arbitrary rules that you'd better follow or else. Not because it's somehow morally better, but because it's to appease this guy, who otherwise will get annoyed with you. The gods don't give a shit about you. There's no intrinsic meaning with your life. The Hindu message above all is, "yes, life is shit. Why not try to make the best of it?"

That's a world apart from the Abrahamic God. The Abrahamic God has human motivations and human values (which in itself is hilariously retarded). God is just a super human. He's a normal bloke but magnified times a million. He's your daddy, but the best possible daddy. Life is a game. God has made the rules and if you play the game according to the rules well you will be rewarded.

How exactly are these gods even remotely similar? And as DBT pointed out earlier the Abrahamic Gods are quite different. I'd go further. There's a version of God for every Christian sect. Arguably there's a specific version of God for every believer. The problem with the Abrahamic God is that God is the best and most perfect human. But what is best and most perfect differs. So God will have a variety of guises.

No, the problem is equating man to GOD.

And the message of Hinduism is to selfless, charitable, and good in all cases just like abrahamic faiths

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

The Abrahamic God is just a human. But it's the best possible human. This bit about God making man into his image. Obviously it was the other way around. That's why the Abrahamic God comes across as so very human indeed. With all the same values and motivations.

Ok... you're going to have to back up this bit about Hindu gods being "selfless, charitable and good in all cases". Shiva... constantly destroys and re-creates both the world, animals and humans. How exactly is that being charitable? An arsonist setting fire to a school isn't being charitable. No matter if he then funds it's rebuilding. Still a dick move. Kali is (among other things) the god of time. What's so good about the passing of time? Or evil? It just is. I'm sure we'd all rather not age. Kali is the one that makes that happen. Brahma just multiplies souls. That's all Brahama... well... has done. Brahma has now stopped. Does nothing. In the Ramayana when Krishna shows up convicing Rama to keep fighting the battle. Making the point that good or bad is indifferent. The important thing is to do your duty. Just make sure you do as good a job as you can. How is that good? That's just some solid advice for life. But morally ambiguous. Ganeesh is another one of these. The remover of obstacles. If that's good or bad depends on the obstacle and what you want to do. Patron of art. Well..,. there's good and bad art. Hindu gods are indifferent to humans. They don't give a shit. Humans are just play things to the gods

 

[popsthebuilder]

No, the problem is equating man to GOD.

And the message of Hinduism is to selfless, charitable, and good in all cases just like abrahamic faiths

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

The Abrahamic God is just a human. But it's the best possible human. This bit about God making man into his image. Obviously it was the other way around. That's why the Abrahamic God comes across as so very human indeed. With all the same values and motivations.

Ok... you're going to have to back up this bit about Hindu gods being "selfless, charitable and good in all cases". Shiva... constantly destroys and re-creates both the world, animals and humans. How exactly is that being charitable? An arsonist setting fire to a school isn't being charitable. No matter if he then funds it's rebuilding. Still a dick move. Kali is (among other things) the god of time. What's so good about the passing of time? Or evil? It just is. I'm sure we'd all rather not age. Kali is the one that makes that happen. Brahma just multiplies souls. That's all Brahama... well... has done. Brahma has now stopped. Does nothing. In the Ramayana when Krishna shows up convicing Rama to keep fighting the battle. Making the point that good or bad is indifferent. The important thing is to do your duty. Just make sure you do as good a job as you can. How is that good? That's just some solid advice for life. But morally ambiguous. Ganeesh is another one of these. The remover of obstacles. If that's good or bad depends on the obstacle and what you want to do. Patron of art. Well..,. there's good and bad art. Hindu gods are indifferent to humans. They don't give a shit. Humans are just play things to the gods

The duty spoken of in the Gita is that of selflessness. In fact you can't even understand your duty or fulfil it without first being selfless. You know I'm not talking about the lesser gods but the creator of all things.

The abrahamic God is not a man. You must be referring to the standard con substantial Trinitarian view which I technically don't follow.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DBT]

No, the problem is equating man to GOD.

Your a priori assumption being that any form of 'God' exists...an assumption that has no foundation in evidence (what it says in this or that 'holy' book is not evidence for that proposition)

And the message of Hinduism is to selfless, charitable, and good in all cases just like abrahamic faiths

Simply not true. The god of the bible is described as the Author of Evil and a god of war, for example.

The difference between the bible god and the concept of Brahma/Brahma is that there is no separate god imposing his will upon creation, but Universal Being experiencing the World in the form of people animals and things.

You are making up your own narrative, a narrative that is completely divorced from what the bible, Quran, Gita, Upanishads, Veda, etc are actually saying about their own God/gods and their attributes and Characteristics.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Your a priori assumption being that any form of 'God' exists...an assumption that has no foundation in evidence (what it says in this or that 'holy' book is not evidence for that proposition)

And the message of Hinduism is to selfless, charitable, and good in all cases just like abrahamic faiths

Simply not true. The god of the bible is described as the Author of Evil and a god of war, for example.

The difference between the bible god and the concept of Brahma/Brahma is that there is no separate god imposing his will upon creation, but Universal Being experiencing the World in the form of people animals and things.

You are making up your own narrative, a narrative that is completely divorced from what the bible, Quran, Gita, Upanishads, Veda, etc are actually saying about their own God/gods and their attributes and Characteristics.

The author of of evil? Never read that in any core scriptures.

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.

Not that I won't ever read them, just haven't.

Somewhere along the line people loose what these ancient texts are trying to convey. It is my opinion that deviating from core scriptures is proof and a means for this.

Really that whole bit about God imposing will is uhm...needs to be backed up with quotation from scripture of some sort for me to even begin to take it seriously.

Lastly, people seem to think that one must follow the advise of a pastor or priest or something in order to follow what is right. Frankly, nothing could be further from the truth.

Not saying that it is bad to do so, but having Faith in GOD is one thing, and having Faith in what a man has told you of God is a whole other thing.

With that being said; I would advise any sincerely interested individual to seek truth for themselves with hope, and not rely on third party interpretation or experience/ observation.

And yes, that includes my interpretation as well.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The Abrahamic God is just a human. But it's the best possible human. This bit about God making man into his image. Obviously it was the other way around. That's why the Abrahamic God comes across as so very human indeed. With all the same values and motivations.

Ok... you're going to have to back up this bit about Hindu gods being "selfless, charitable and good in all cases". Shiva... constantly destroys and re-creates both the world, animals and humans. How exactly is that being charitable? An arsonist setting fire to a school isn't being charitable. No matter if he then funds it's rebuilding. Still a dick move. Kali is (among other things) the god of time. What's so good about the passing of time? Or evil? It just is. I'm sure we'd all rather not age. Kali is the one that makes that happen. Brahma just multiplies souls. That's all Brahama... well... has done. Brahma has now stopped. Does nothing. In the Ramayana when Krishna shows up convicing Rama to keep fighting the battle. Making the point that good or bad is indifferent. The important thing is to do your duty. Just make sure you do as good a job as you can. How is that good? That's just some solid advice for life. But morally ambiguous. Ganeesh is another one of these. The remover of obstacles. If that's good or bad depends on the obstacle and what you want to do. Patron of art. Well..,. there's good and bad art. Hindu gods are indifferent to humans. They don't give a shit. Humans are just play things to the gods

The duty spoken of in the Gita is that of selflessness. In fact you can't even understand your duty or fulfil it without first being selfless. You know I'm not talking about the lesser gods but the creator of all things.

The abrahamic God is not a man. You must be referring to the standard con substantial Trinitarian view which I technically don't follow.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Like I said, round pegs in square holes. The Vedas (and Tripitaka) focus on letting go of the ego. Not a command from God. It's more just good solid advice for life. Focus on what you want and your goals instead of focusing on getting your ass kissed and ego stroked. Success is more important than high status. Nowhere does it ask people to sacrifice themselves for others. That's nowhere to be found in Eastern philosophy.

But it is all over Abrahamic religious philosophy. Selflessness in Christianity means self sacrifice. Self denial rather than self growth. The selfish person is supposed to feel shame about it. Within Abrahamic faiths shame is used heavily as a tool for social control. I tried Googling what the Vedas have to say about shame and didn't find any singular message. Off the top of my head I can't recall anything either.

Duty in the Vedas isn't abut selflessness. Duty is about the balance in the universe. Along the lines "how would society manage to function if people started to stray from the jobs their cast dictate?". It's not a question of self sacrifice, it's more an argument along the lines of naturality. It's just right, and we're all better off this way. Total bullshit btw. Under no circumstances do I prescribe to this philosophy. I think it is counter productive, destructive and wrong. I'm just clarifying the message. All Eastern philosophies have the same view of duty and harmony/natural balance.

The Abrahamic God is jealous and vain. He feels threatened by people who doesn't submit to his will. He even resorts to threats if he doesn't get worship. He smites people left and right who don't submit to him. That's a guy who isn't too bright with a very small penis. Intelligent people rarely have to resort to threats. Jesus is all "you better do what I tell you or my dad's gonna get you". The Abrahamic God isn't just slightly human. He's extremely human indeed. All the best and worst aspects of humanity. That's why I'm saying that the Abrahamic God is a man.

I recommend reading up on Aristotle "the unmoved mover" theory. He was arguably the man who first invented the monotheism that later made it into Christianity (via Philo of Alexandria). This is his speculation on the attributes of a creator God. The first cause of the universe. He argues that all actions are taken from needs. We lack things, and it's that lack that makes us act. An omnipotent agent has no needs and has therefore no need to act, so therefore won't. That was a problem for the theory. Which is arguably why Christians (and Pharisees) gave God extremely human characteristics when they tried introducing monotheism to Judaism. BTW, he didn't say he believed this. The same guy also invented/theorized Abiogenesys, creation without a god all together.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover

 

[popsthebuilder]

The duty spoken of in the Gita is that of selflessness. In fact you can't even understand your duty or fulfil it without first being selfless. You know I'm not talking about the lesser gods but the creator of all things.

The abrahamic God is not a man. You must be referring to the standard con substantial Trinitarian view which I technically don't follow.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Like I said, round pegs in square holes. The Vedas (and Tripitaka) focus on letting go of the ego. Not a command from God. It's more just good solid advice for life. Focus on what you want and your goals instead of focusing on getting your ass kissed and ego stroked. Success is more important than high status. Nowhere does it ask people to sacrifice themselves for others. That's nowhere to be found in Eastern philosophy.

But it is all over Abrahamic religious philosophy. Selflessness in Christianity means self sacrifice. Self denial rather than self growth. The selfish person is supposed to feel shame about it. Within Abrahamic faiths shame is used heavily as a tool for social control. I tried Googling what the Vedas have to say about shame and didn't find any singular message. Off the top of my head I can't recall anything either.

Duty in the Vedas isn't abut selflessness. Duty is about the balance in the universe. Along the lines "how would society manage to function if people started to stray from the jobs their cast dictate?". It's not a question of self sacrifice, it's more an argument along the lines of naturality. It's just right, and we're all better off this way. Total bullshit btw. Under no circumstances do I prescribe to this philosophy. I think it is counter productive, destructive and wrong. I'm just clarifying the message. All Eastern philosophies have the same view of duty and harmony/natural balance.

The Abrahamic God is jealous and vain. He feels threatened by people who doesn't submit to his will. He even resorts to threats if he doesn't get worship. He smites people left and right who don't submit to him. That's a guy who isn't too bright with a very small penis. Intelligent people rarely have to resort to threats. Jesus is all "you better do what I tell you or my dad's gonna get you". The Abrahamic God isn't just slightly human. He's extremely human indeed. All the best and worst aspects of humanity. That's why I'm saying that the Abrahamic God is a man.

I recommend reading up on Aristotle "the unmoved mover" theory. He was arguably the man who first invented the monotheism that later made it into Christianity (via Philo of Alexandria). This is his speculation on the attributes of a creator God. The first cause of the universe. He argues that all actions are taken from needs. We lack things, and it's that lack that makes us act. An omnipotent agent has no needs and has therefore no need to act, so therefore won't. That was a problem for the theory. Which is arguably why Christians (and Pharisees) gave God extremely human characteristics when they tried introducing monotheism to Judaism. BTW, he didn't say he believed this. The same guy also invented/theorized Abiogenesys, creation without a god all together.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover

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

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

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.

Nothing to do with reward or attainment.

Of course most Christians may refute this.

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.



Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DBT]

Your a priori assumption being that any form of 'God' exists...an assumption that has no foundation in evidence (what it says in this or that 'holy' book is not evidence for that proposition)



Simply not true. The god of the bible is described as the Author of Evil and a god of war, for example.

The difference between the bible god and the concept of Brahma/Brahma is that there is no separate god imposing his will upon creation, but Universal Being experiencing the World in the form of people animals and things.

You are making up your own narrative, a narrative that is completely divorced from what the bible, Quran, Gita, Upanishads, Veda, etc are actually saying about their own God/gods and their attributes and Characteristics.

The author of of evil? Never read that in any core scriptures.

Well, your range and depth of reading the 'scriptures' must be extremely limited.

Which shows quite clearly in your response regarding the verses dispaying vindictiveness and brutality, which you claim mean something else when taken in 'context' (but do not) and up to and including authorship of evil and the incompatibility of god models between religions.


Whatever the Lord pleases, He does, In heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps.” (Psalm 135:6)

"And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? Or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? Have not I the Lord?" Exodus 4:11

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create
evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)

Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos
3:6, KJV)

"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? "
(Lamentations 3:38)

“The Lord is a man of war,” Exodus 15:3.

"The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man, He shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: He shall cry, yea roar; He shall prevail against His enemies". Isaiah 42:13

Like as the lion and the young lion roaring on his prey . . . so
shall the Lord of hosts come down to fight for Mount Zion" Isa. 31:4

“For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur," (Acts 4:27-28).