Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do you dismiss the existence of the Church as evidence that Jesus existed and had followers?
What concrete legacy did Krishna leave that exists today?
For the same reason I dismiss the existence of the Hindu "church" as evidence that Krishna existed. Don't forget Hinduism has over a billion followers today and it was around 4000 years before Christianity and 500 years before Abraham. In fact the name, Abraham derives from Brahma and Abraham's wife, Sarai derives from the Hindu god, Saraiswati
Genesis 17:15, ESV: And God said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name.
For the same reason I dismiss the existence of the Hindu "church" as evidence that Krishna existed. Don't forget Hinduism has over a billion followers today and it was around 4000 years before Christianity and 500 years before Abraham. In fact the name, Abraham derives from Brahma and Abraham's wife, Sarai derives from the Hindu god, Saraiswati
Genesis 17:15, ESV: And God said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name.
I'd say that is pretty convincing evidence the Hebrew faith partly derives from the Hindu faith.
Would you say that is evidence Krishna and Vishnu were real? Krishna's legacy can be found in India just as Jesus' legacy can be found in the West.
Hinduism does not have an objective, visible, organized society like Christianity does. The Church was founded by somebody. Hinduism does not have an equivalent.
I have no reason or grounds to deny the existence of Krishna/Vishnu. The fact that they have a substantial following to me is an indication that they are likely real manifestations of some spiritual entity or entities.
Hinduism does not have an objective, visible, organized society like Christianity does. The Church was founded by somebody. Hinduism does not have an equivalent.
I have no reason or grounds to deny the existence of Krishna/Vishnu. The fact that they have a substantial following to me is an indication that they are likely real manifestations of some spiritual entity or entities.
So Hinduism wasn't founded by somebody?
Is a substantial following an indication that the entity being worshipped is not imaginary? Or is it simply an indication that the belief system has a lot of cultural hegemony / inertia and possibly adherents find the beliefs and practices sufficiently pleasing?
I don't think one could properly say that Hinduism was "founded" by anybody, since it's not a structured thing. One could say that somebody first established the basic ideas and concepts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Is a substantial following an indication that the entity being worshipped is not imaginary? Or is it simply an indication that the belief system has a lot of cultural hegemony / inertia and possibly adherents find the beliefs and practices sufficiently pleasing?
I would say that the fact that religion and faith are endemic to humanity is evidence that more exists than what we can see in the natural world.
Since I do believe in the Resurrection of Christ, that guiding principle causes me to view non-Christian religions in a particular way.
There is definitely something to the cultural hegemony / inertia factor, but that in and of itself doesn't mean that any particular belief system is necessarily true or false.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter who is right or wrong. We all choose our path in this world, God's will is done no matter what we choose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike
What if God's will is that you actually do some work to discern which is the true path, and holds you accountable at the end for the decisions you've made?
First off I don't presume to know God's will. Secondly --- There are 8 billion people in this world, billions more have come and gone; many never even hearing of Christ's message. Finally Christ's suffering was for all of humanity.
The one thing we all have in a common ground to stand on, one with another is, our humanity. (not accountability)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
At the end of the day it doesn't matter who is right or wrong. We all choose our path in this world, God's will is done no matter what we choose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
Well, if there IS a God I agree with you. But Christians will never accept your definition of God. They believe in a greay-bearded man in the sky and a something-or-other which incarnated as a human being. That's quite a difference from what you and Mystic believe. So how does Mystic call himself a Christian when he doesn't accept the classic Christian definition of God?
Christians only accept the definition that is within their doctrine. When the Christians arrived in North America in the 1600s their attempt to 'save' the indigenous people of this region was met with ambiguity. However, eventually the natives were accepting of the Christian ways of 'spirituality' in that they agreed to incorporate this spirituality into their found beliefs. (Frontline, "God in America") But that wasn't enough ...
We are human and we do human things. The Bible records (not the only record) that of early (ancient civilizations) humans and their belief in something bigger than themselves. We have the origin story of our humanity. People took that and created a religion(s) from it, just as people took land and created societies from it. Within societies there are those that will disagree, as there are all types of people that make up that social structure.
If you can answer why that is --- then you'll have an understanding about Mystic and so much more.
Last edited by Ellis Bell; 11-18-2022 at 02:24 PM..
Hinduism does not have an objective, visible, organized society like Christianity does. The Church was founded by somebody. Hinduism does not have an equivalent.
I have no reason or grounds to deny the existence of Krishna/Vishnu. The fact that they have a substantial following to me is an indication that they are likely real manifestations of some spiritual entity or entities.
But you believe these spiritual entities that were manifested were evil demons of the Christian type from Satan's minions, right?
Well, Mike, you'd have to get into the Veda to answer that just like you have to get into the Bible to answer what Jesus did. But outside the Bible there isn't anything to prove what Jesus did, just like outside the Veda there's isn't anything to prove what Krishna did. Catching my drift? In the secular world--reality--neither the gospels Jesus or the Veda Krishna ever lived. Both are articles of a faith in a divine being for which there is no evidence either ever existed.
In essence you have defined faith, "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
In essence you have defined faith, "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
No he hasn't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
