Does Death Mean Non-existence?

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

[quote] All enlightened souls escape the cycle of rebirth and attain 'unity.' (However you want to describe it). Krishna himself was an incarnation of Vishnu (Godhead of the Hindu Trinity of deities).

You might also be interested in this link which explores the connection between Krishna and Jesus:

www.near-death.com/reincarnation/jesus/krishna.htm ...[text shortened]... h Ministry)


The three primary deities of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva is called Trimurti.

Sure, but it was you who asked about Krishna, hence my reply. (And link).

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

Sure, but it was you who asked about Krishna, hence my reply. (And link).

Your reply. Not your answer though.
Well, maybe someone's answer.
I didn't go there yet.

This is the whole area some apologist call the Jesus Copycat theories. Ie. Jesus Christ is rehashed religious ideas from other religions.

Jesus is Krisha rehashed.
Jesus is Torus rehashed.
Jesus is Isis rehashed.
Jesus is Zoroaster rehashed.
The twelve disciples are the 12 signs of the zodiac rehashed.
etc.
etc.
Jesus Christ the copycat.

You're rather passionate about something you don't believe yourself. Is it because it is an alternative to the Bible that it holds interest for you?

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

Sure, but it was you who asked about Krishna, hence my reply. (And link).

Your reply. Not your answer though.
Well, maybe someone's answer.
I didn't go there yet.

This is the whole area some apologist call the Jesus Copycat theories. Ie. Jesus Christ is rehashed religious ideas from other religions.

Jesus is Krisha rehas ...[text shortened]... eve yourself. Is it because it is an alternative to the Bible that it holds interest for you?

It is healthy not to fixate on one thing. It makes your knowledge lobsided and open to embarrassing misunderstandings.

Feel free though to move the conversation away from reincarnation and over to Islam or Zen Buddhism. I'm cool/passionate about that too.

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

Sure, but it was you who asked about Krishna, hence my reply. (And link).

Your reply. Not your answer though.
Well, maybe someone's answer.
I didn't go there yet.

This is the whole area some apologist call the Jesus Copycat theories. Ie. Jesus Christ is rehashed religious ideas from other religions.

Jesus is Krisha rehas ...[text shortened]... eve yourself. Is it because it is an alternative to the Bible that it holds interest for you?

Pouting.

@FMF

Pouting.

Summarizing.

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

Sure, but it was you who asked about Krishna, hence my reply. (And link).

Your reply. Not your answer though.
Well, maybe someone's answer.
I didn't go there yet.

Actually, I gave you both, 'my answer' and a link to 'further information' about Krishna.

Unlike some, I always provide a reference or link to words in my post that are not my own.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

Unlike some, I always provide a reference or link to words in my post that are not my own.

Thanks. That way I can easily see how you're both wrong.

My priority is truth. Who gets credit for first writing it is
important, but kind of secondary.

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

Unlike some, I always provide a reference or link to words in my post that are not my own.

Thanks. That way I can easily see how you're both wrong.

My priority is truth. Who gets credit for first writing it is
important, but kind of secondary.

No, it isn't.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

My priority is truth. Who gets credit for first writing it is
important, but kind of secondary.

No, it isn't.

Yes it is. Truth.
You think I give a flip if anyone thinks I am not original, OR AM ?

I don't know what your priority is except maybe for avoiding it.

And who exactly have I not given credit to for words expressed in my posts anyway ?

Derek Prince?
Robert Govette?
Watchman Nee?
Ron Kangus?
Witness Lee?
Living Stream Ministry?

Why do you think my motive is to posture creativity and originality in talking about the Word of God?

When I want to exercise originality I compose music or write songs.

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

My priority is truth. Who gets credit for first writing it is
important, but kind of secondary.

No, it isn't.

Yes it is. Truth.
You think I give a flip if anyone thinks I am not original, OR AM ?

I don't know what your priority is except maybe for avoiding it.

And who exactly have I not given credit ...[text shortened]... ing about the Word of God?

When I want to exercise originality I compose music or write songs.

"And who exactly have I not given credit to for words expressed in my posts anyway?"


No idea. You didn't cite the source.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

No idea. You didn't cite the source.

Anytime at all you want me to indicate WHERE you can read more about the kinds of things I am writing here, just ask.

And I will indicate which parts I do not know if someone has put it exactly as I put it.

Questions come fast and furious here at times. One has to think on his or her feet. It is not possible that when debating I do no contemplating my own analysis to a problem based on my own experience and study of the Scriptures - a constant study going back to the early 1970s.

This would be like thinking every chess move made in a game had absolutely no original contemplation of the player.

@sonship

Let's be quite clear. I fundamentally disagree with you when you say 'your priority is truth' and 'who gets credit for first writing it is important, but kind of secondary'.

Copying someone else's work/truth and passing it off as your own (by not referencing the source) is plagiarism. If you had done such a thing at university with an assignment do you think a tutor would simply shrug at you submitting someone's else's work as your own and say, "Oh well, it's 'truth' that really matters. The fact that sonship copied Stephen's work and submitted it as his own really is quite secondary?"

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

I copied a paragraph from a book and latter sourced the book.
I helped any complainers to know who they could bring their complaint to.

Fair Use is not always that cut and dry. But if you want to say I plagiarized Robert Govette's book, go ahead. The book is a series of lectures and on page 10 in the article Eternal Punishment I copied (not cut and pasted) verbatim some words from that page. And did not indicate I was using his book until latter.

If anyone wants to say I should be embarressed at being caught using Govette's words, I'll accept that. Don't expect me to grovel over it.


And now I will to the best of my recollection re-write what I think I copied. because the truth matters. And all truth is God's truth. But I'm not completely certain how much I copied before. It may be on the thread "Questions to Divegeester". I will bolden the part that I know I copied.

"The Most High must win glory from every creature, whether friend of foe. That is the great reason of creation. The saved shall glorify God, by their endless happiness : the lost, by their endless woe. They will be hung in chains as an example to deter other worlds. That punishment is designed to deter others from like guilt, is again and again asserted of God."

Read more about Fair Use at one university's practice: -
https://www1.villanova.edu/villanova/generalcounsel/copyright/edumaterial/plagiarism.html

Fair Use
Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides limitations on the exclusive rights of copyright holders. Those limitations are commonly referred to as “fair use.” The test applied to determine whether an otherwise infringing use comes within the fair use exception is the “four factors” test.

“Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.”
The fair use exception to copyright is not a blanket exception for educational use. The four-factor test must be used to determine whether fair use applies. Unfortunately, the test is vague and fact-dependent. To determine if a potential use of a copyrighted work falls within the fair use exception, instructors should visit the Fair Use Checklist at Purdue University’s Copyright Management Center. Instructors may also consult with Department Chairs, Deans, UNIT or the Office of the Vice President and General Counsel.

@sonship said
But if you want to say I plagiarized Robert Govette's book, go ahead.

You plagiarized some demented nonsense that he wrote but passed it off as your own.

You were confronted later for having posted the demented nonsense.

You insisted that you had posted no such thing.

You insisted on being "quoted" in order to establish that your 'accusers' were not lying.

The quote was found.

You disappeared for a week.

You came back and tried to distance yourself from the words, revealing that they weren't yours but Robert Govette's.

You added that you had been "provoked".

Your plagiarism was pointed out to you.

You disappeared for about a week.

You reappeared and it didn't come up for a while.

You were confronted later for having posted the demented nonsense.

You insisted on being "quoted" in order to establish that your 'accusers' were not lying and also you insisted that you may have been "provoked".

The quote was found again.

You were confronted for your plagiarism.

You insist that it wasn't plagiarism but only if you define it in a certain way.

You insist that the fact you haven't been reported to the publisher by posters here is proof that it wasn't plagiarism.

And you insist that you were "provoked".

The important thing is that you were not wrong.

You were "provoked".

The plagiarism was not reported.

It wasn't plagiarism.

You'd rather be dead than have the kind of mind that posters who accuse you of plagiarism have.

You are "becoming like Jesus".

@FMF

Since you enjoy it so much read it again. (That is enjoy dismissing it as demented nonsense).

"The saved shall glorify God, by their endless happiness : the lost, by their endless woe. They will be hung in chains as an example to deter other worlds. That punishment is designed to deter others from like guilt, is again and again asserted of God."