History of Christianity

[bathindian]

bob x;249525]"Vishnu", first and foremost.

You do know that Krishna was an avatar of Vishnu?

About a hundred times-- as an assistant to Indra, who was the supreme god at the time.

That shows his humility and benevolent nature. He took birth as Indra's younger brother and with three strides won back his kingdom, and this when Indra couldn't do it in spite of his fearsome army.

What makes you think so? In the Vedas, it is just the name of that deity. It is very convenient to claim that the name was something else, but there is no textual justification for it.

It is a title, if you read the different books you will come across many people who were called Prajapati. It is a title of respect.
Please google- God Sri Krisnaji's 108 divine names

This is the reverse of truth. In the ancient texts, it is only used for a member of the priestly caste. Later texts give the word a more abstract meaning.

Where do you get all your information on Hinduism from? Wikipedia? If its from books then kindly name a few of your authors on this subject.

I OBSERVE the classic signs of paranoia in everything he writes.

Of course, anyone who has views contradictory to yours has to be a paranoid loon. Anyways what is it about his claims that you are so afraid of? Theoretically I could walk upto Mike Tyson and punch him in the face, things thereafter might not go as planned.

I read his stupid article. I have read many other accounts of the history of the period as well. Poincare' was unable to work out how it could be that the speed of light was a fundamental constant, although he saw that somehow it must be. It is one thing to see what direction it is necessary to move, and quite another to actually get there.

From that statement of yours should I presume that you are ready to put Prof. Raju in his place? Awesome !!! You have nothing to lose so I say go for it.

And Kurt Hovind has a reward for anyone who will "prove" evolution to him... but like Hovind, I am sure Raju will reject anything that is offered to him. I have no interest in wasting any time talking to someone who obviously cannot abide by any ordinary standards of evidence. The existence of Euclid is no more controversial than the existence of Alexander the Great or any other person from earlier times. Maybe I should challenge Raju to "prove" to me that there were any inhabitants of India before the British discovered it?

Classic strawman.

I am sure Prof. Raju will not reject everything that is offered to him, he is a very down to earth person. And let me guess, the ordinary standards of evidence must be those that are deemed 'conclusive' by you?

 

[bob x]

You do know that Krishna was an avatar of Vishnu?

I know that the Krishna cult SAYS that. That is precisely what I mean by "grabbing" old names and saying "Oh, that's really Krishna!" The fact is, no "Krishna" existed as a deity in Vedic times; it is a later invention, which is why they have to go back and say, "Vishnu is really Krishna; and Prajapati, that's really Krishna too."

That shows his humility and benevolent nature. He took birth as Indra's younger brother and with three strides won back his kingdom, and this when Indra couldn't do it in spite of his fearsome army.

Vishnu WASN'T ANYTHING EXCEPT "Indra's younger brother" in Vedic times. Only much later, when Vishnu has been re-conceptualized as a supreme deity, was it necessary to make up stuff about how he "humbly and benevolently" incarnated as Indra's younger brother.

It is a title, if you read the different books you will come across many people who were called Prajapati. It is a title of respect.
Please google- God Sri Krisnaji's 108 divine names

What I find is that it is a last name (or "caste" name in the sense of jati rather than varna), for those descended from the priests who at one time were devoted to Prajapati, before he became absorbed into other deities. And yes, of course I know that the Krishna cult has claimed "108" names for Krishna-- most of those names having previously been used as deity-names before "Krishna" had ever been conceived of.

Where do you get all your information on Hinduism from? Wikipedia? If its from books then kindly name a few of your authors on this subject.

When I say that the older texts only used the brahman root in the sense of "priest", the books I am referring to are the Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, and Atharva Veda. None of them have named authors.

Of course, anyone who has views contradictory to yours has to be a paranoid loon.

No, many people have views contrary to mine who are not paranoid loons. But anyone who talks about totally motiveless conspiracies of the sort that he concocts is, in fact, a paranoid loon.

Anyways what is it about his claims that you are so afraid of?

"Afraid"? Hardly. There is simply nothing about his claims that is worthy of respect.

From that statement of yours should I presume that you are ready to put Prof. Raju in his place? Awesome !!! You have nothing to lose so I say go for it.

What I have to lose is unreplaceable hours of my finite life-span. Does he suggest any neutral third-party who will decide whether the "challenge" of proving that there was such a person as Euclid has been met? Of course not, since I'm sure he knows in his heart that there aren't any third parties who would even consider it a serious question. No, it is all up to HIMSELF to judge whether HE is satisfied with the evidence, and since he is obviously not satisfied with what any ordinary person would consider evidence, there is no point in talking to him. His web-site is full of this kind of talk, about how the fact that hardly anyone thinks him worth the time to speak to must "prove" that what he is saying is irrefutable; this is absolutely classic crackpot talk, as you ought to know. Why don't go over to mojobadshah's sites proving that absolutely every great religious idea comes from Iran (every sacred word in Hebrew, Greek, Sumerian, or yes, Sanskrit is derived from Avestan), and the one he dredged up along the way proving that everything derives from Rumania (he linked to this because the ancient Rumanians, in his ideology, are actually Iranians), or the sites you can find linked to on the Islam board showing that the Arabs invented everything-- then see if you can understand why I find Raju's stuff tediously familiar.

Classic strawman.

Hardly. I am telling you that Raju's conduct is the very STEREOTYPE of the paranoid crackpot; they all do the same kind of things.

I am sure Prof. Raju will not reject everything that is offered to him, he is a very down to earth person. And let me guess, the ordinary standards of evidence must be those that are deemed 'conclusive' by you?

The "ordinary" standards of evidence are the kind of things are deemed conclusive by EVERYONE except Raju.

 

[radarmark]

While Dr Raju has some interesting ideas, but he really seems driven by Indian nationalism. Okay, don't get me wrong... the foundations for the calculus existed in India and the Jeuits did translate them. But the calculus ("built upon the shoulders of giants") per se was independently derived by Newton and Liebniz. Certainly geometry existed in India and certainly Euclid was a mystic but reading "The Elements" as the relatively recent work of Proclus is, frankly, a "little out there". Esp since Cicero mentions Euclid. Finally, Poincare was real, real close to getting relativity and there were five or six experimants leading physicists up to the edge of relativity. But niether Poincare or Lorentz formalized the theory. Did Einstein "steal" his relativity from Poincare and Lorentz? Certainly Dr Raju is entitled to believe this, but funny Poincare and Lorentz (as well as all the individuals who performed those experiments) did not question Einstein in 1905. If later in his life (after the failure of the Cosmological Constant as first developed and unified field theory) Einstein forgot whether or not he read Lorentz or Poincare or Michelson-Morley, I think we can forgive him.

Raju's standards of evidence in all three of these "discoveries" (Indian Taylor series work as Calculus, Euclid not Euclid, and Einstein being wrong) are very, very low. Kinda like Oliver Stone's standard in "JFK".

That being said, his work on time is quite goood.

 

[radarmark]

I consider myself a Christian (one who believes in the existence of Chr!st Jesus), though many of you may not. That is why I choose to post this here (“History of Christianity”).

There have been (I believe) two major heresies (call them “ways to stray from the path” if you do not care for that h word). The first is the ancient heresy of extreme dualism (call it original “Zoroastrianism”, or the Gnostic Heresy, or the Paulician Heresy or the Perfect Heresy [a la the Cathari Perfects]).

It basically sees the Kosmos (everything that there is) in a dualistic manner: good versus evil, light versus dark, spiritual versus physical. Its most extreme version ends up a Shaker-like manifestation (thou shalt not enjoy thyself, and thou shalt not propagate). A belief that all matter is evil.

The second is the quite recent heresy of monistic materialism (“do what thou wilt is whole of the law”, hedonism, epicureanism, and [what I call] scientism). It basically sees the Kosmos as mere matter and energy: “Beyond Good and Evil”, “The Virtue of Selfishness”, “The Illusion of Conscious Will”). In the most extreme form it ends up a Thelemic manifestation (pleasure is all there is and do what thy wilt). A belief that the is nothing but matter.

Yes, yes, yes… there exist a wide world of options in between. That is the key to Devanagari (Anekantavada)—roughly a combination of pluralism and inclusivism of Jainism— The Middle Way of Buddhism, and the daode (“Virtuous Way”)of Taoism. Similarly there are compromise of moderate ways in Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, and Baha’ism (or name your own current).

In my opinion the Christology and Theology of the waiting-worship stream of the Religious Society of Friends, most Reconstructionist Temples, Zurvanist-leaning Zoratrianism, Ahmadiyyis, Liberal Sunnis, and hundreds of groups not mentioned here (or that I have not even dreamt of) all qualify within this not-dualist/not-materialist mainstream (as I call it).

I defined “ways to stray from the path” in relation to (what I consider) mainstream Christianity. But a similar definition (“neither dualist nor materialist”?) can be applied across philosophies, metaphysics, and theologies. What does it indicate?

Radar believes that there is a connexion between philosophical and metaphysical notions and the spiritual. Further, he believes desecration of either matter (via dualism) or mind (via materialism) is evidentially provable.

 

[wil]

I consider myself a Christian....not because I believe in the exsitence of Jesus...but in the existence of a Christ Consciousness....(Paul, who knew not Jesus, said put the mind of Christ in your mind)

I am a follower of the words and teachings attributed to a man (whether he existed or not, or whether his teachings are culled from a number of rabbis of the time matters not to me) a man referred to as Jesus in the books of the bible. While I find solace, inspiration and great works in other texts...the bible and bible discussion is my primary source....hence Christian.

 

[radarmark]

Welle, my wording is slightly dated, but amounts to same thing (I am not sure at all that Jesus the Man existed).

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Thanks Wil, I've been curious about that. I like it.