- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 0 Hour
- Reading permission
mindless bickering is bad; discussion is good
揑 never was a Christian , never will become one so there has never been the question of having renounced it ever?
Please remember that I asked why you 搑ejected?Christianity. To reject something is to simply not accept when presented the choice. It doesn抰 necessitate a previous acceptance of the belief in question.
揓ust as the knowledge of gravity was revealed to Newton, similarly, in India, many Rishis or Seers of Yore were awakened to certain transcendental Eternal Truths.?
Hmmm? Newton arrived at the laws of gravity by the Scientific Method. Did the Rishis arrive at the Eternal Truths by the Scientific Method? I don抰 see how you can make a parallel between the two. Instead, I suspect you抮e simply appealing to a historical figure that抯 regarded as authoritative (Newton) and making an unsubstantiated and unsustainable parallel between him and the creator(s) of the belief you hold.
How exactly did the Rishis 揳waken?to these Eternal Truths, and what makes their method reliable?
Upon what are you basing your belief system? In other words, are you adhering to any systematic worldview or are you picking pieces from whatever seems to make sense to you personally? Am I right in believing that you adhere to a form of Buddhism?
I抳e got three problems with the notion of kharma.
The first is that I抳e never received a satisfying explanation of exactly what constitutes good and bad kharma. On what basis is this standard determined?
The second is that kharma denies the existence of evil. That is to say, nothing is truly 搘rong? simply unfavorable to your future life. Thus, if someone is torturing a baby simply to take pleasure in hearing it scream, the person that believes in kharma has no basis for condemning such an action. They can simply state that the overall ramifications of the action are not favorable. I have a very difficult time considering something as heinous as the described torture of babies as simply an unfavorable action.
The third problem is that the law of kharma doesn抰 seem to have any effect on the people that believe it. You might object by arguing that you抮e not doing terrible things, but look at societies that are predominantly Buddhist or Hindu and believe in kharma. Thailand, where prostitution is the nation抯 largest source of income and the virginity of young children are often sold to monks who seek to 揳bsolve themselves of desire? is a good example.
揟his transformation depends on the three gunas that govern the events of the world. They are sattva (goodness, virtue), rajas (power, passion) and tamas (dullness, inertia).?
Again, I don抰 see any explanation for the existence of Evil, and I don抰 think one can formulate a solid worldview apart from positing it抯 existence and presence in this world.
揟here is, however, a danger of describing the Supreme Being in negative terms. This renders it totally impersonal and dispels a positive image of God. Buddha circumvented this problem by calling the eternal spirit nothing but righteousness or dharma, the codes of ethical living that all humans should follow.?
Can you please explain how that circumvented the problem? I don抰 see how 搑ighteousness/dharma?ascribes a personality to 揋od? Indeed, it seems very logical to say that if God can only be described in terms of what 搃t?is not, aside from righteousness, then personality could never be clearly ascribed to 搃t? Now the question becomes, if 揋od?is truly the standard of righteousness, then anything that described 揋od?is better than anything that isn抰 an attribute of God. Thus, the claim is that the impersonal is better than the personal. However, we don抰 live our lives that way. If impersonal is truly better than the personal, then why don抰 you treat a rock better than you treat a family member?
揃uddha said that the cause for all suffering was sorrow (dukkha) and it can only be countered by renouncing 憈hirst?(tanha, desire), by living a life of moral and ethical standard (refer to Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path).?
So basically, you achieve enlightenment by desiring to have no desire? Isn抰 this a very basic and problematic contradiction?
揘o civilization anywhere in the world, with the probable exception of China, has been as continuous as that of India.?
Just because you抮e not moving doesn抰 mean you抮e in the right place. Just because it抯 old doesn抰 mean it抯 right.
揑t is this sacredness and sense of belonging to a dynamic , continuous , living and vibrant legacy that are an anathema to these forces of darkness and peddlers of the human soul .?
I guess you mean Christianity when you talk of soul-peddlers. I wonder if you would ask the Indian and Chinese converts to Christianity which belief system they consider more dynamic, continuous, living and vibrant? Keep in mind that the traditional beliefs of those regions don抰 describe the supreme reality (ie: 揋od? as vibrant, living, or dynamic. How odd that a belief that doesn抰 even consider God, the standard of righteousness, as those things somehow is filled by them?
Finally, can you describe anything particular about the Christian faith (using the Bible, not bad examples of bad so-called Christians or westerners) that would qualify it as a 揻orce of darkness?or the missionaries, many of whom are native to the particular countries, as soul-peddlers?
Concerning Celtic and Pagan religions- Where do you get your ideas from? What tradition or writings were left with that describe what the Celtic people believed? Furthermore, what are your explanations concerning the origin of this world/universe, meaning in life, the moral standard by which one should live, the destiny of humans, the condition of humanity, and how we can escape/solve the central problems that face us as humans. (ie: origin, meaning, morality, destiny, condition, and salvation) Each worldview/philosophy must answer these questions and Paganism should be no different.
There抯 a common misconception here that Christianity is somehow against the environment. Instead, the Bible makes clear that although humans are superior to the environment and given the right to use it, they抮e also held accountable for using it well with the understanding that it all belongs to God to begin with. Secondly, nature is actually seen in a better light though the eyes of a Christian because they see God through what is created without mistaking the creation as part of God. Psalm 19 speaks of how God continually is 搒peaking?though the created world, thus the Christian enjoys not only the beauty of the blessing of this natural world, but also can worship and interact with the Person that created it all to begin with. To use an analogy, the Christian has a bride in her wedding dress and loves her, while the Buddhist or Hindu looks at the wedding dress and perceives that some form is beyond the dress, but neither perceives nor interacts with that 揻orm?
I still maintain that although there are many varied belief systems throughout the world, none can satisfy the demands of the mind, cries of the heart, and thirsts of the spirit as well as the love relationship with the Living God found only in the person of Jesus Christ.