FarSeeker

Never mind.

[ January 05, 2002: Message edited by: FarSeeker ]</p>

FarSeeker

Sorry to repeat this but both that last statement and the title of this thread is untrue. Considering that Hindus are burning Christian churches, beating and killing Christian Indians, we must have persuaded a few.
Perhaps these things are beneath hinduwoman's notice?

General Zod

What is perfect cannot become imperfect by its own actions. If a perfect being made an action that destroyed its perfection, then you have a perfect being making an imperfect action. Oops.

Dr. Retard

"From nothing, nothing comes" or "ex nihilo, nihil fit" is a slogan that goes back to Xenophanes, an Eleatic philosopher whose theology is hardly atheist, but perhaps best described as pantheist. Many, many people have appealed to the principle, often Christian philosophers supporting a cosmological argument (e.g., Aquinas, Clarke, Craig). To call this very common metaphysical principle a "saw of Atheists" is akin to calling the Golden Rule "that Hungarian principle." No doubt some Hungarians have endorsed the Golden Rule, but that doesn't do the trick.

First, atheism is rarely based on that fallacy. Positive atheism, the kind where the atheists are persuaded that God doesn't exist, usually stems from arguments for God's nonexistence (like the argument from evil or the arguments from incoherence). Negative atheism, the kind where the atheists merely lack theistic belief, usually stems from absence of evidence for God's existence; of course, absence of evidence is fine grounds for absence of belief.

Second, what is the point of bringing up Marxist atheists? The original point was that atheism is not exclusivist like Christianity. Bringing up another group of atheists only bolsters the point. Hell, bring up pagan atheists and Republican atheists while you're at it.

Third, what is the point of bringing up Peter Singer? I don't get this at all. And, you ask, who says Marxists are more right than Peter Singer? Beats me, maybe stupid people say that. Why does it matter?

And lastly, I must address this:


Now come on, can you not spot the comedic difference between the two? In one, people of one faith gave reverence to a icon of another faith due to the mistaken belief that it was of their own. In the other, people with some theological position praise a philosopher-economist due to the mistaken belief that his influence will further their goals. There's no comedy in the second one.

Here's an equally unfunny, but true, story:

Lots of Christians praised Marx and his teachings because they thought that his influence would liberate the poor from their indigence.

What a kneeslapper! Now let's try a funny story, a fictitious one, that would be like the first story:

These atheists decided to have a statue of Bertrand Russell made for their school, but there was a mixup at the sculptor's studio and they ended up getting a statue of Jesus!

Maybe these examples will illuminate the comedic facts of the situation.

lpetrich

Dark-skinned??? That's why I find your "scholarship" strange, RyanS2. Most present-day Jews and Palestinians are on the light-skin end of the human-skin-color continuum; common sense suggests that a historical Jesus Christ (if any) had looked very much like them.

Relative to northern Europeans, perhaps; he still looked rather light-skinned to me.

And how are they more trustworthy than the Hindus' own texts?

This is shoddy psuedo-scholarship. The Bhagavad-Gita departs from the New Testament in some very significant ways; read it and see.

RyanS2

"Dark-skinned??? That's why I find your "scholarship" strange, RyanS2. Most present-day Jews and Palestinians are on the light-skin end of the human-skin-color continuum; common sense suggests that a historical Jesus Christ (if any) had looked very much like them."

I suppose this all depends upon how one defines a dark-skinned person. Again, this is a subjective interpretation, (for instance, the Jewish definition of a dark-skinned person versus the definition of dark-skinned in Western Africa), so, I brought you the World's foremost forensic experts.

"Relative to northern Europeans, perhaps; he still looked rather light-skinned to me."

Right here we're going to stalemate each other on a personal and hence, subjective, opinion on a subject. Otherwise, we're going to sound like we're debating on whether or not "Stairway to Heaven" is the greatest rock song of all time.

"And how are they more trustworthy than the Hindus' own texts?"

Dunno, this depends on how much faith you place in these missionaries to be honest. They could all be pious frauds and deceivers. Dr. Michael Magee and Acharya note that there are differences and variations in some of the older Hindu stories versus the new ones. (Give Gods times and they change sex, lose powers, and even become evil.) So, they use the original writings of the Christian missionaries to note some of these changes.

"This is shoddy psuedo-scholarship. The Bhagavad-Gita departs from the New Testament in some very significant ways; read it and see."

I have. So, you are under the impression that the early Christian missionaries were over-zealous to their approach to foreign religions without understanding the historical context of the assertions? Does that still apply now? For instance, Rev. St. Clair's, "The Original Origins of the Koran" details that the Koran is primarily derived from apocryphal New Testament and Jewish writings, with a helping of Zoroastrian influence. The Muslims can make the same critique, yet Rev. Clair's book is one of the most often used ones in debates, (next to Patricia and Michael Crone's).

lpetrich

That reconstruction is not nearly as dark-skinned as you are trying to imply -- you are trying to imply some Christ - Krishna connection on the basis of skin color, and I'm arguing that that claim simply does not follow. That reconstruction is completely consistent with the appearance of many Jews and Levantine Arabs (Palestinians, Lebanese, ...), which is clearly on the light-skinned side by overall human standards.

I'm not implying that. I'm concerned that they may see other religions as evil Devil worship or that they project Christianity onto the religions that they encounter. Remember that they have an ulterior agenda: seeking converts. Please try to have some critical sense.

Being a clergyman does not necessary keep one from being a careful scholar; I think that he had done a good job in such comparisons.

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

RyanS2

"That reconstruction is not nearly as dark-skinned as you are trying to imply -- you are trying to imply some Christ - Krishna connection on the basis of skin color"

Again, we're going to be getting on tautology if we keep this up. I'll concede here though, let's be fair to Hindu art, Krishna is usually depicted as a somewhat blue-skinned fellow in Hindu art. Not nearly as dark as Kali though. Skin color is the least of the consistencies between the stories of Krishna and Yeshua.

"I'm not implying that."

I never said you were. Some Christians were extremely zealous in their approach to foreign religions, with or without an agenda. Some of the writers were simply writing on the basis of mocking Hinduism, (and other religions).

"Being a clergyman does not necessary keep one from being a careful scholar; I think that he had done a good job in such comparisons."

Yes, in all actuality he is one of the careful reviewers, IMO, of the religious similiarities. (Though he is very careful to avoid sticky issues, but I can understand why), but you're missing how small the differences are in the comparisons between various religions and Christianity versus the differences between other religions and Islam.

ecco

From FarSeeker:

[q]"How do they know that theirs is the only path..."
The same way Atheists "know" theirs is the only path.[/q]

As an atheist I would have to disagree. Most of us come to atheism as a result of questioning and looking to science for answers. The teachings of the Koran and the Bible, to mention just two religions, are quite different. Even within Christianity, there are major differences. ALL SCIENCE BOOKS teach that the universe is billions of years old, that the earth is round, that gravity is what attracts bodies to each other, that water is composed of Hydrogen and Oxygen molecules, etc, etc, etc. NO SCIENCE postulates the existence of gods. ALL RELIGIONS do not believe in Jesus, Allah, Genesis, etc, etc, etc.

The point being, FarSeeker, Albert Cipriani: How do you know that “your path” is the “only” path to everlasting life? A Southern Baptist would give Albert Cipriani little chance of ever getting into heaven.

Keenanvin

Errmm.. I may be a bit late ( and have yet to learn about the "quote" feature of this board), but I do beleive that Albert Stated :
"What is perfect can become imperfect and vice versa. There's no law against it."
Yeah.... There is a rule agasint it. If a being is perfect then he/she/it will do nothing to violate it's perfectness, it will eat breathe and sleep perfectness. Any THOUGHT of become imperfect would contradict the whole nature of being perfect, would it not? To respond to the idea of an imperfect being become perfect, may I ask one question. "HOW?" If a being is imperfect how can he/she become perfect? If he or she was imperfect to begin with, then how can he/she become perfect? Perfection, by definition means "per·fec·tion (pr-fkshn)
n.
The quality or condition of being perfect. "
Perfect-"per·fect (pûrfkt)
adj.
Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.
Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen.
Thoroughly skilled or talented in a certain field or area; proficient.
Completely suited for a particular purpose or situation: She was the perfect actress for the part.

Completely corresponding to a description, standard, or type: a perfect circle; a perfect gentleman.
Accurately reproducing an original: a perfect copy of the painting.
Complete; thorough; utter: a perfect fool.
Pure; undiluted; unmixed: perfect red.
Excellent and delightful in all respects: a perfect day. "

Being imperfect means one lacks perfectness, hence it defeats the purpose of "Being without defect or blemish."
I'm not sure if the sense I am making is applying to my own little world, as I don't get out much, but hopefully this helps someone. -Kv