The False teachings of christianity.

I think every christian fundamentalist are very frustrated when they see an image of themselves in Vishvahetu. They reason much alike, their rethorics too.
This is why I rather put fundamentalists of any kind (vedic, christian, muslim, doesn't matter) under the same hat, rather than christians only.
It's easier to find common qualities among fundamentalists as a whole than christians in general.

Originally posted by black beetle
I am an atheist because according to my evaluation of the mind everything works fine without this human invention. And I quote whatever in my opinion holds water according to my own evaluation of the mind. Afterall the Bible, Vendanta and every other so called "holy scripture" is written by human beings alone, and in the projections of the human mind on ...[text shortened]... ow and by which means did you conclude that they are not false? What are you afraid of?
😵

You keep referring to Suta Gosvami as the source of Vedanta, but Suta Gosvami is not the source of Vedanta he is the speaker of Srimad Bhagavatam.

He spoke the Srimad Bhagavatam after hearing it from Sukadev Gosvami, so Suta Gosvami is an orator not the source of Vedanta that you seem to believe.

This is what happens when you google everything whilst you sit back in your chair, and from that position, as long as your computer is working, you become the source of all knowledge..........google this and wiki that.

So what you have done is googled Srimad Bhagavatam, because I have mentioned the word, and you have taken some information out of context, and made error.

vishva

Originally posted by vishvahetu
You keep referring to Suta Gosvami as the source of Vedanta, but Suta Gosvami is not the source of Vedanta he is the speaker of Srimad Bhagavatam.

He spoke the Srimad Bhagavatam after hearing it from Sukadev Gosvami, so Suta Gosvami is an orator not the source of Vedanta that you seem to believe.

This is what happens when you google everything whils ...[text shortened]... entioned the word, and you have taken some information out of context, and made error.

vishva

Kindly please go back to the second page of this very thread and check again the first two lines of my first post; methinks you will read the following:

"So the sole thing you can offer is a religious story by Sri Sukadeva Gosvami edited by Vasudeva (the so called “Lord” and father of Sri Krsna, what a rare bird among the theist doctrines) and told later by Suta Gosvami! Anyway..."

So kindly please tell me, how did you came to the conclusion that I said that, a story merely told by Suta Gosvami is written by Suta Gosvami too? It is quite clear I implied that the orator Suta Gosvami appears to reproduce accurately "a religious story by Sri Sukadeva Gosvami edited by Vasudeva". And, this is the reason why I keep up asking you why do you believe blindly Suta Gosvami's blind religious beliefs.

So, once more: why do you believe blindly Suta Gosvami's blind religious beliefs? If you don't beleive blindly his religious beliefs, prey tell, how and by which means did you came to the conclusion that these beliefs are a fact?
😵

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I think every christian fundamentalist are very frustrated when they see an image of themselves in Vishvahetu. They reason much alike, their rethorics too.
This is why I rather put fundamentalists of any kind (vedic, christian, muslim, doesn't matter) under the same hat, rather than christians only.
It's easier to find common qualities among fundamentalists as a whole than christians in general.

Sure thing😵

Originally posted by ua41
The old jewish lands where the cultural and trade crossroads between Europe, Asia and Africa. It makes a whole lot of sense for Jesus to have had some exposure to the Vedanta.

"making sense" is not the same as proving a thing to be factual.

Well?
😵

Originally posted by ua41
The old jewish lands where the cultural and trade crossroads between Europe, Asia and Africa. It makes a whole lot of sense for Jesus to have had some exposure to the Vedanta.

And due to its bizarre focus on lifting the killing of animals to a sin and on the false notion of living many lives, and lack of focus on God and God's plan for man and the very real notion of repentance and salvation, He rejected it as another example of the folly of man. By not focusing on reality, it's a lot of effort for nothing. But then, man is pretty darned good at that.

Originally posted by Suzianne
And due to its bizarre focus on lifting the killing of animals to a sin and on the false notion of living many lives, and lack of focus on God and God's plan for man and the very real notion of repentance and salvation, He rejected it as another example of the folly of man. By not focusing on reality, it's a lot of effort for nothing. But then, man is pretty darned good at that.

Even without using scriptural reference, a child can understand that killing the cow is wrong, and after the killing process the flesh has to be kept refrigerated, and they inject chemicals into it to stop it becoming grey and unsightly.

In Bhagavad Gita Chapter 2 Text 12 it says:

"Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings. nor in the future shall any of us cease to be."

Also Cht 2 verse 13:

"As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death, A sober person is not bewildered by such a change."

Also Cht 2 verse 16:

"Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the non existent material body there is no endurance, and of the eternal soul there is no change. This they have concluded by studying the nature of both."

The church says that the soul is created at the birth time, but this is clearly incorrect, and the soul enters the womb through the particle of semen from the man, and even medical science will confirm this.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
... the soul enters the womb through the particle of semen from the man, and even medical science will confirm this.

You think medical science has proved the existence of the soul?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
You think medical science has proved the existence of the soul?

medical science will concur that the living semen (not the dead semen) is reponsible for conception.

Anthing living is due to the presence of the soul.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
medical science will concur that the living semen (not the dead semen) is reponsible for conception.

Anthing living is due to the presence of the soul.

Unless it's a clone. Or a product of parthenogenesis. And since there is no evidence that the soul actually exists, this latter point remains hypothetical.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Unless it's a clone. Or a product of parthenogenesis. And since there is no evidence that the soul actually exists, this latter point remains hypothetical.

The soul is you, not your rotting body....the body is just blood, pus, stool, urine, mucus and this is not you, and if you spent more time in the spiritual life, and less time rejecting the soul, you would understand and see that the soul is you.

Matter cannot animate itself, if it can then why dont the scientist prove it and create one little ant...because they cant and they are bluffing.

If you are not the spiritual soul, then who is avalanchethecat, not the stool and urine above i hope.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
The soul is you, not your rotting body....the body is just blood, pus, stool, urine, mucus and this is not you, and if you spent more time in the spiritual life, and less time rejecting the soul, you would understand and see that the soul is you.

Matter cannot animate itself, if it can then why dont the scientist prove it and create one little ant...be ...[text shortened]... u are not the spiritual soul, then who is avalanchethecat, not the stool and urine above i hope.

If you spent more time thinking about these things rather than accepting the words of your money-hungry guru you would realise how ridiculously simplistic and unconvincing your (and I hesitate to use the word) 'argument' for the existence of the soul is. Whether or not such a thing exists neither you nor I know, and your continued pretence to the contrary serves only to mark you as a fraud.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
If you spent more time thinking about these things rather than accepting the words of your money-hungry guru you would realise how ridiculously simplistic and unconvincing your (and I hesitate to use the word) 'argument' for the existence of the soul is. Whether or not such a thing exists neither you nor I know, and your continued pretence to the contrary serves only to mark you as a fraud.

So then you have answered the question thus;

avalanchethecat is the stool and urine man, well then my explanation of madness has been proven.......and thus you are contributing to the troubles of the world, with nothing to offer except nonsense.

Attacking someone you know nothing of (guru) is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

If living things have souls, why is it right to eat vegetables/plants etc. but not cows and other animals?