Vedas.

Originally posted by josephw
The difference is that the authors of the books of the Bible were inspired by God to write what God wanted said. You may not believe it, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Dasa believes that the Vedas are divinely inspired too. You may not agree with Dasa, but that doesn't make the fact that he believes it any less true.

Originally posted by FMF
Dasa believes that the Vedas are divinely inspired too. You may not agree with Dasa, but that doesn't make the fact that he believes it any less true.

You are absolutely correct. What I think or believe doesn't make anything true.

Truth exists independently of our beliefs. Truth therefore comes from without and is objectively observed. When truth is discovered it is then known.

Originally posted by josephw
The difference is that the authors of the books of the Bible were inspired by God to write what God wanted said.

You may not believe it, but that doesn't make it any less true.

really? says you. Prove that they were and the authors of the vedas weren't.

You may not believe it but is doesn't make it any more or less true.

Originally posted by josephw
Krishna is just another name for the devil.

When Christians like you and others here make constant references to "Satan" or "the devil" - the most fundamentally denunciatory and hostile accusation that a Christian can brandish - when talking to people who have different beliefs from you, it clearly has more to do with your own self-satisfaction and vanity, than it does with a meaningful discourse about spirituality.

Originally posted by josephw
You are absolutely correct. What I think or believe doesn't make anything true.

Truth exists independently of our beliefs. Truth therefore comes from without and is objectively observed. When truth is discovered it is then known.

You are right that our opinions or Dasa's opionions or an Atheist's or an
agnostic's opinion is not science or truth by itself. As you say physical truth
must be discovered and observed in science. That is one reason we know that
evolutuion is not truth. But spiritual truth can not be gained that way. It must
be revealed by God. That is the reason Christ has asked the Father to send the
Holy Spirit to reveal and teach us spiritual truth as well as physical truth as we
need to know it. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

Originally posted by RJHinds
Oh, I think I get it now. They are copying the real Jesus story with fictional
stories with similar characters. But Dasa thinks it is the other way around.

dasa is right on this one. the krsna story predates christianity by several centuries at the least.

Originally posted by josephw
Krishna is just another name for the devil.

To bad Dasa can't even spell it correctly. What a joke.

No, not the devil.
you may be referring to Lord Shiva, Lord of destruction, a little statue of whom resides atop of my pc to keep it working well

And he did spell it right. It's generally spelt like that with no "i"

Originally posted by FMF
When Christians like you and others here make constant references to "Satan" or "the devil" - the most fundamentally denunciatory and hostile accusation that a Christian can brandish - when talking to people who have different beliefs from you, it clearly has more to do with your own self-satisfaction and vanity, than it does with a meaningful discourse about spirituality.

Yeah, its a real conversation killer.
Also it shows how close minded some christians are, whereas hindus, generally are more open-minded.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
dasa is right on this one. the krsna story predates christianity by several centuries at the least.

Your opinion is not science and is most likely, not truth either. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Your opinion is not science and is most likely, not truth either. 😏

It is likely that JC got his training from hindus.

Maybe not true, but hard to disprove. The vedas and their avatars came before Jesus

Originally posted by RJHinds
Your opinion is not science and is most likely, not truth either. 🙄

that may be true, but the fact that the story of krsna predates the story of christ by several centuries is not my opinion, it's history.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
that may be true, but the fact that the story of krsna predates the story of christ by several centuries is not my opinion, it's history.

Couldn't it be revised history?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
It is likely that JC got his training from hindus.

Maybe not true, but hard to disprove. The vedas and their avatars came before Jesus

When was the exact date? And where can I check it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
When was the exact date? And where can I check it.

Exact date for what?
I believe the Upanishads, which spawned Hinduism, which spawned Buddhism is about 6000 years old.
Gutam Buddha is said to have been born around 500 BC.

Surely you can google and wiki and all that?

I myself never really cared for how old something is. Or what came first (except in certain instances).
After all, time itself is said to be nothing but an act of measurement , so I really dont want to promote that.

The other thing that buzzes me off is how if something is old then it is bona fide however if someone here and now claims insight into human nature they are dismissed instantly purely because they are not old (and hence are beyond being able to be checked)