lpetrich

However, he was more than happy to threaten eternal damnation, and he vilified in rather extreme terms those scribes and Pharisees and those who would not listen to him.

Furthermore, in his argumentation with Pharisees, they come across as pushovers, which seems rather unlikely.

Ed

We won't fully understand God's justice until the afterlife, but we can see that all humans desire justice and this is evidence that a God that is concerned about justice exists and created us in his image. Also that justice actually exists and is not just an evolutionary and social construct.

No, I have dealt with both of those objections quite adequately in my older threads so I won't cover them here and now.


No, it is possible though not with absolute certainty and that is where the faith comes in. God does not want us to have a blind irrational faith, He wants us to have a rational faith because we were created to be rational and thinking beings.

Actually Hindus are pantheists not polytheists. Lp was referring to a single god with millions of parts, polytheists believe in a multitude of individual gods so they are plainly not the same thing. And hindus believe that there is a single god who manifests himself in millions of forms ultimately forms are just illusions.

You are right there is no problem of evil but because of that there is a multitude of other problems with hinduism. There is the problem of justice, if hinduism is true then there is no justice because there is no evil, everything is "good" because everything is god. Hitler would be a good man because he is part of god. Also there is the problem of individuality, we all strongly feel that we are separate persons, but if hinduism is true then in actuallity we are all one and our individuality is an illusion. Of course this also compounds the problem of justice because noone is responsible for crime except the god. And your example is actually a manmade creation that mirrors the unities and diversities inherent in the universe. Because the cities and states are all real separate individual entities within a unity of the US. If it was based on hinduism then the states would just be illuisons and not actual separate entities.

Jack the Bodiless

This is not true, and even you can see that it isn't true. That's why you keep inventing non-Biblical doctrines and ignoring what the Bible actually says.

The Bible says that innocents should be punished for the sins of others. The Bible says that God initially hardened Pharaoh's heart. The Bible says that God is unjust.
No, you have not.
We can all read what he wrote, Ed. "A triune one? Why not a hundred-part one or a million-part one?"

Hindus believe in a multi-part divinity. Their doctrine that all the gods share the same "essence" doesn't change that. You are simply wrong. And, apparently, you're a polytheist: Christians believe that there is only one God.

It is very likely that the Christian Trinity was copied from the Hindu one. Or did you not know that Hindus venerate a Trinity?
Nonsense. We all have distinct personalities, they can be "good" or "bad", and our actions determine our status in the next incarnation.
Already addressed. Please try to KEEP UP, Ed.
But they ARE illusions. Go to any state border, test the soil on either side, and you won't be able to detect any physical characteristic that distinguishes the territory of one state from the next.

In your world, there should be only three states (and no counties etc), all part of one nation, with physical borders.

Ed

I don't deny that some of the more specifics were derived from the Greeks and Romans but again as I said the overarching things were derived from judeo-christian principles.

Yes, but they had a theocratic view of government which remember was a borrowing from the ancient hebrew theocracy which Christ superceded as I have demonstrated in earlier threads.

Yes, see above.

lpetrich

If one waves one's hands about vague "principles", one can prove whatever one wants.

(The Divine Right of Kings...)
I'm not aware that Jesus Christ had proclaimed "No more divine right of kings!"

Furthermore, the Divine Right of Kings has been a common theory of government over the millennia; it does not have to come from the Bible. Seen in that light, it has been rather exceptional to view governments as the servants of their citizens rather than their divinely-appointed masters. And from the beginning to the end of the Bible, the divinely-appointed-master view of government is the only one that one sees. Try coughing democracy out of Romans 13 some time and you'll see what I mean.

Ed

Fraid so, reread all my threads especially my old EoG thread.


No, Hindus do not believe this, here is an e-mail from an actual Hindu expert:

Topic: Hindus

Expert:P. Ravi Sarma, M.D.
Date:10/16/2003
Subject:general hindusim

Question
HI
can u plz discuss the transformation of the concept of the Absolute, Deity, God from the early Vedic Period to the period of Vedanta philosophy of Madva in the 12th century CE. Plz also tell me that how the changing concepts of deity relate to the changing religious life of the people

Answer
The Vedic concept of God is as one who is beyond form and one who is without attributes (qualities that we can describe) (called Nirguna Brahman) However, since such a concept of a God (whom we can not describe or see) is difficult for people to relate to, the ancients said that God can be viewed as someone with qualities that we can describe (Nirguna Brahman) Therefore, several forms and attributes of God have come into popular religion (all the different hindu deities) Temple building did not really start until about 2 to 3000 years ago. The most prolific temple construction probably took place in South India during the 6th to 12th centuries, CE, during Pallava and Chola dynasties' rule.

Adi Sankara taught Advaita (Non dual) philosophy, namely, the individual soul and God are the same. When we reach salvation (Moksha) we become one with God. Ramanuja and Madhva taught Dwita (Dual) and Vishista Advaita (modified Advaita)The individual is different from God. In salvation, we will be in the presence of God, but we are not the same.

with best wishes,
ravi sarma


The second view (Dwita) is the minority view.

Jack the Bodiless

Again you are trying to direct the reader to "evidence given elsewhere" which doesn't actually exist.
...Which doesn't support your position (and why cite an article about Hinduism "from the early Vedic Period to the period of Vedanta philosophy of Madva in the 12th century CE", rather than today?)

Nobody here is claiming that Hindus worship hundreds of entirely separate deities. What I'm claiming is essentially what P. Ravi Sarma is claiming: that the various Hindu deities are "personal gods" which are actually aspects of a single, incomprehensible, impersonal divine essence. If you wish to simplify this to "Hindus worship only one God" and contrast this with what YOU worship, then you are admitting that YOU are a polytheist: you worship three entirely separate gods which do not partake of the same divine essence.

That makes you a heretic. And you've ignored the Bible again.

Ed

By studying the linguistic and historical context.

Well, that is not his usual method. He generally speaks to us thru his word, fellow believers, and circumstances.

There are certain general similarities among atheists and unbelievers.

Maybe but generally most people only feel that way about the Christian God. They usually replace Him with some god of their own imagining.

He is depicted that way, but from other parts of the scriptures we know that he does not change his mind. But this is how it appeared to the author and the ordinary Israelites, so he uses anthropomorphic language. The ancient Isreaelites had not yet learned all of God's attributes, ie one of which is that he does not change his mind.

My own and others experiences with dead people.

Well it may be prayer but it is ineffectual prayer.

Thank you.

Jack the Bodiless

Incidentally, Ed, do you even care that you're applying a double standard to Hinduism?

OK, this has never stopped you in the past...
Yes, it is obvious that we are individuals, and any religion that denies this cannot possibly be correct.

It is also obvious that we are not God-controlled robots, and any religion that says otherwise cannot possibly be correct.

In the case of Christianity, you used this to override all of God's attempts to coerce people in the Old Testament, to promote invented and un-Biblical doctrine. You even extended this into the NT to invent a claim that God now permits "freedom of religion", and invented a new sin for the Book of Ed: "physically coercing belief in the true God is now a sin".

Yet it never occurred to you that obviously millions of Hindus couldn't possibly be stupid enough to believe, for thousands of years, that human individuality didn't exist at all.

So, do you now expect us to believe that Hindus are unbelievably stupid in addition to being either insane or on drugs?

Ed

No, I didn't.

No, in the bible government is servant of God. But of course, since in the NT believers are God's representative on earth, this could be understood that the government should serve the people since the people are in the image of God. Also where do the blessings of liberity come from?

You are right the deist god does not get involved with the world but the God of the DOI does, ie he gives us inalienable rights. This is evidence that Jefferson was not referring to the deist god but the judeo-christian God. And also since the overwhelming majority of the signers were christians they would not likely sign a document that was purely deistic.

Read Acts 6:3.

Even though most were christians, they did not want to form a theocracy which would have been like Europe. And they did not want to be like Europe.

I have already demonstrated my above contention in one of my older threads so I won't rehash that again.

Jesus Christ as I demonstrated earlier.

See above.

Read your bible.

No, most of his anger was directed at BELIEVERS not unbelievers.

No, none of the differences are part of the essential teachings regarding salvation.