Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 97
  1. #21
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    951
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinBrowning View Post
    First of all, Jesus Christ was a real man who lived 2,000 years ago in Judea.
    There are those who disagree with this claim. I won't get into this debate here, but by all means take this up with Zhav in one of the many Jesus myth threads. I'm just pointing out that this point is being disputed.

    It's believed that Christ not only taught,
    Note the key word you are working with. If he did actually exist, him teaching is certainly possible.

    but performed healing miracles,
    How are you sure of this? Remember that if your support is the bible, this is no different than the vedas supporting the many miracles that Krishna supposedly did. I would also like to extend a challenge to you to give me some solid support for any healing miracle.


    died as a sacrifice for our sins,
    How are you sure of this?


    and rose from the dead three days later.
    How are you sure of this? Further more, it is impossible to die and then come back to life. And let's be clear and not play any semantics or word games here as many people are so inclined to do sometimes with this point. To die and come back from the dead 3 days later is simply not possible.


    Krishna is merely believed to be a teacher.
    What, according to you? I'd ask you to support or retract, but this is false at face value. I'd be like me saying that Jesus was just believed to be a carpenter. It's quite clear there is much more to Krishna than to be "merely believed to be a teacher." He's the supposed earthly encarnation of the supreme godhead, Vishnu. He supposedly did many mircles. Millions of people firmly believe that he is god. It sounds like you don't know much about him, really. I suggest you at least do what Chad did and run a quick google/wiki search on him.


    He died, like Mohammed and Buddha. No one believes otherwise.
    What are you talking about? First of all, if Jesus existed, he too died. It's the claim of Christains that after he died he rose from the dead, which has yet to be proven. Next, while Krishna also died, this was only his body/physical form which died. Krishna according to the vedas and to the hearts of millions of faithful Hindus out there, is eternal. In the Bhagavad Gita he makes this know by displaying his Viśvarūpa, or universal form, or as wiki summs it up:

    an epiphany of a being facing every way and emitting the radiance of a thousand suns, containing all other beings and material in existence.
    So yes, yes people do infact believe otherwise Kev. Very much so.

    Who is more relevant and able to influence my life, both here and eternally--a dead man, or a living man who conquered death?
    How exactly am I to know for sure that your claims are true? How exactly am I to know that the claims about Krishna are false?

    And how exactly does Jesus influence your life? How is this influence demonstratable? If it is not demonstratable, how are we to know this influence (or Jesus as god in general) exist at all? And how are we to know that this influence is not Krishna?

  2. #22
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    232
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinBrowning View Post
    First of all, Jesus Christ was a real man who lived 2,000 years ago in Judea.
    As PZ mentioned, that is disputable.

    It's believed that Christ not only taught, but performed healing miracles, died as a sacrifice for our sins, and rose from the dead three days later. Krishna is merely believed to be a teacher.
    No, patently false. To quote from Wikipedia, Krishna is believed to be a "divine incarnation", and a "heroic warrior and teacher". Like Jesus, Krishna is believed to have performed miracles such as lifting the Govardhana hill, slaying demons as a child, and much more.

    Who is more relevant and able to influence my life, both here and eternally--a dead man, or a living man who conquered death?
    Krishna was not only a dead man; he is believed to have been an avatar of Vishnu, the Preserver of the World. As such he is extremely relevant and able to influence your life, no less, if not more, than Jesus.

  3. #23
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    770
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    There are many reasons to continue to believe something (Krishna, Jesus, Odin, etc.) without any evidence (i.e. on Faith) or despite evidence to the contrary or a lack of evidence:

    1. My family introduced me to the beliefs when I was young. I was entirely dependent on my family for survival at that time. I chose to believe with them rather than risk conflict with my sole providers. I was rewarded for my behavior and I quickly "learned" to emulate those around me, both in behaviors and belief systems.

    2. My peer group continued to reinforce my beliefs. By sharing a common ideology, set of customs, traditions, etc., my beliefs were advantageous to me socially and personally. On occasions when I "strayed", I was guilt-tripped back onto the "path".

    3. My beliefs answer difficult questions such as "what happens when I die?" and "where did we come from" and "what am I supposed to be doing?" and "what is the meaning of all of this?"

    4. My beliefs make me feel special (I was created, Loved by an infinite being), they assuage my guilt (I am forgiven, born again).

    5. My beliefs reduce my anxiety (I will not truly die, so long as I believe).

    6. It's easier to go on believing what we have believed in the past rather than admit we were wrong.

    7. It's fun to argue with people who are of a different set of beliefs, it's enjoyable to feel "holier than thou" and "of the one true faith" and to think of others as inferior.

    8. Being of the one true faith excuses me of horrendous deeds such as mass murders of "heathens", inquisitions, religious wars, etc. and allows me to force my faith on others with a clear conscience.

    9. I don't have to leave my church, lose all my friends, give up my favorite holidays and traditions, be exiled from my family, be "looked down upon", etc.

    10. I've been told that other faiths are "false" or that its members are uncivilized, barbarians.

    11. I will receive justice and great rewards in the afterlife, even if that does not happen in this life (my enemies will be punished and I will receive a dozen virgins).

    In short, religion is seductive. It lures people by appealing to our narcissism, freeing us from shame, soothing our deepest fears. It resolves the deepest of existential problems. It is reinforced socially and psychologically in a thousand different ways, giving us a sense of belonging, purpose, brotherhood. It binds communities together in a cohesive, cooperative fashion that promotes survival of religious group members and the spread of the religion itself.

    With all of these motivators operating in the depths of our psychology, even the wisest of us would have difficulty seeing the truth. Furthermore, the existential truths appears much more frightening:

    1. Everyone dies, we will die, you will die, I will die.
    2. There is no meaning in any of it other than what you make for yourself.
    3. There are limits to our relationships with others. We cannot "merge" and hence there is always an element of aloneness.
    4. We must live with the consequences of our decisions.
    5. There will be no rewards for our good behavior from celestial father-figures. There will be no punishment of the wicked by them, either. There is no fairness or justice other than what we create.

    In my opinion, resolution of these existential problems, in the absence of faith, is more difficult but also more rewarding.
    It is less important what you believe, than why you believe it.

  4. #24
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    Quote Originally Posted by Prime Zombie View Post
    There are those who disagree with this claim.
    No credible historian disagrees that Jesus was a real man.


    Further more, it is impossible to die and then come back to life.
    Not for God, who created life.

    It's quite clear there is much more to Krishna than to be "merely believed to be a teacher." He's the supposed earthly encarnation of the supreme godhead, Vishnu. He supposedly did many mircles.
    I wasn't denying that he is believed to have done miracles or to be a god. His significance to humans is primarily his teachings. He is not believed to have saved humans in any way. Christ backed up his philosophical musings with real, self-denying love, and physically rose from death. Although Krishna is claimed to have lived on after death in some spiritual state, he did not bodily resurrect, and no one believes so. Jesus Christ is fundamentally different in this miraculous act than any other religious leader. Krishna, Mohammed, Buddha, and all the others died and stayed dead. Christ conquered death and sin. While other religious leaders and philosophers in history talked the talk, Christ walked the walk.

    And how exactly does Jesus influence your life?
    He not only influences it but has transformed me. I strive to live to serve Christ, as He lives in other people, rather than myself. This present life fades quickly. I'm only 22 and I'm already about 1/4 done with my life, if I live a full human lifespan. My whole attitude towards other people has changed. Before I knew Christ (and this took until about halfway through high school, even though I was raised to believe in God), I valued others only as far as they were of benefit or convenience to me. I often treated those I was angry at with contempt or apathy. Now, I usually respond to those who lash out at me in anger with a spirit of loving patience and forgiveness.

  5. #25
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rotorua NZ
    Posts
    213
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinBrowning View Post
    Jesus Christ is fundamentally different in this miraculous act than any other religious leader. Krishna, Mohammed, Buddha, and all the others died and stayed dead.
    Actually, all of the following gods are said to have risen from the dead:

    Osiris:

    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    that the great mystery festival, celebrated in two phases, began at Abydos on the 17th of Athyr(November 13) commemorating the death of the god, which is also the same day that grain was planted in the ground. “The death of the grain and the death of the god were one and the same: the cereal was identified with the god who came from heaven; he was the bread by which man lives. The resurrection of the God symbolized the rebirth of the grain.” (Larson 17) The annual festival involved the construction of “Osiris Beds” formed in shape of Osiris, filled with soil and sown with seed. The germinating seed symbolized Osiris rising from the dead. An almost pristine example was found in the tomb of Tutankhamun
    Adonis:

    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    an annually-renewed, ever-youthful vegetation god, a life-death-rebirth deity whose nature is tied to the calendar
    Tammuz/Dumazi (who incidentally, was origianally a man, the Sumerian King Damuzi - lover to the goddess Innana):

    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    Dumuzi was [...]consigned to the Underworld himself, in order to secure Inanna's release,[3] though the recovered final line reveals that he is to revive for six months of each year
    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    Dumuzi according to the Sumerian mythographers rises from the dead annually and, after staying on earth for half the year, descends to the Nether World for the other half
    Zalmoxis:


    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    Zalmoxis (Greek Ζάλμοξις, also known as Salmoxis, Σάλμοξις, Zamolxis, Ζάμολξις, or Samolxis Σάμολξις) was a legendary social and religious reformer, regarded as the only true god by the Thracian Dacians (also known in the Greek records as Getae Γέται). According to Herodotus (IV. 95 sq.), the Getae, who believed in the immortality of the soul, looked upon death merely as going to Zalmoxis, as they knew the way to become immortals

    [...]

    According to Herodotus, at one point Zalmoxis traveled to Egypt and brought the people mystic knowledge about the immortality of the soul, teaching them that they would pass at death to a certain place where they would enjoy all possible blessings for all eternity.

    Zalmoxis then had a subterranean chamber constructed (other accounts say that it was a natural cave) on the holy mountain of Kogaion, to which he withdrew for three years (some other accounts considered he actually lived in Hades for these three years).

    After his disappearance, he was considered dead and mourned by his people, but after three years he showed himself once more to the Getae, who were thus convinced about his teachings: an episode that some considered to be a resurrection
    Baldr:

    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    His death is seen as the first in the chain of events which will ultimately lead to the destruction of the gods at Ragnarok. Baldr will be reborn in the new world, according to Völuspá

    Why isn't Jesus just another one of these celestial zombies?

    Stormer
    Politics and the fate of mankind are formed by men without ideals and without greatness. Those who have greatness within them do not go in for politics- Albert Camus

    I say violence is necessary, it is about as American as cherry pie- Rap Brown

  6. #26
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    Quote Originally Posted by StOrMeR View Post
    Actually, all of the following gods are said to have risen from the dead:
    Strange that none of those supposed gods are worshipped anymore, while Christ is worshipped by billions of people. Perhaps it's because they didn't rise from the dead, or even live in the first place, while Christ did. I could invent a story too about a god who rose from the dead, but it would die out rather quickly. Kind of like all the supposed gods you listed.

  7. #27
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    232
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    Quote Originally Posted by Zorak View Post
    In short, religion is seductive.
    Well argued; it's true, but the reasoning behind it seems a possible overgeneralization. I am unsure which of the 11 points you attribute to which religion, but I will note: many people reach and stick to their beliefs through reason, not through social pressure. Not all religions postulate firm truths, comforting beliefs or things such as after-lives. Not all religions call other religions "false". These things would qualify your conclusion with: "the seductiveness of religions might vary radically, such that seduction can even become a minute factor in belief." But your overall conclusion still stands.

    With all of these motivators operating in the depths of our psychology, even the wisest of us would have difficulty seeing the truth.
    Agreed, although the strength of these "motivators" and the resulting "difficulty" might vary.

    Furthermore, the existential truths appears much more frightening:
    Support that they are truths, and not just claims?

    1. Everyone dies, we will die, you will die, I will die.
    Do you mean we will have no after-life? If yes, support?

    2. There is no meaning in any of it other than what you make for yourself.
    Support?

    3. There are limits to our relationships with others. We cannot "merge" and hence there is always an element of aloneness.
    Again, support? Can you prove that we do not completely "merge" during dionysian events such as hearing music?

    4. We must live with the consequences of our decisions.
    5. There will be no rewards for our good behavior from celestial father-figures. There will be no punishment of the wicked by them, either. There is no fairness or justice other than what we create.
    Support?

    In my opinion, resolution of these existential problems, in the absence of faith, is more difficult but also more rewarding.
    And it's also possible that only faith can resolve these "problems".


    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________


    Quote Originally Posted by KevinBrowning View Post
    [Krishna's] significance to humans is primarily his teachings. He is not believed to have saved humans in any way.
    He did save humans multiple times. He killed not only minor demons that preyed on villages, but also slew the major demon Kansa. Moreover, Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu, who constantly saves all humans, by preserving the World.

    Christ backed up his philosophical musings with real, self-denying love...
    So did Krishna. He demonstrated "real, self-denying love" when he risked his life multiple times to slay demons.


    Although Krishna is claimed to have lived on after death in some spiritual state, he did not bodily resurrect... Jesus Christ is fundamentally different in this ltimiraculous act than any other religious leader.
    So what if Krishna did not resurrect bodily? He did not want to! Why would he? Moreover, if he lived on spiritually, isn't that more important?

    He not only influences it but has transformed me. I strive to live to serve Christ, as He lives in other people, rather than myself. This present life fades quickly. I'm only 22 and I'm already about 1/4 done with my life, if I live a full human lifespan. My whole attitude towards other people has changed. Before I knew Christ (and this took until about halfway through high school, even though I was raised to believe in God), I valued others only as far as they were of benefit or convenience to me. I often treated those I was angry at with contempt or apathy. Now, I usually respond to those who lash out at me in anger with a spirit of loving patience and forgiveness.
    I'm glad for you! But Krishna could have influenced and "transformed" you the same way as Jesus, as he transforms many believers.
    Last edited by Muse; May 26th, 2008 at 01:31 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    "Are you coming to bed?"
    "I can't. This is important."
    "What?"
    "Someone is wrong on the internet."
    -- from xkcd comic strip "Duty Calls": http://xkcd.com/386/

  8. #28
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rotorua NZ
    Posts
    213
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinBrowning View Post
    Strange that none of those supposed gods are worshipped anymore, while Christ is worshipped by billions of people. Perhaps it's because they didn't rise from the dead, or even live in the first place, while Christ did.
    Actually I think you will find it was secular influences which determined this, such as the taking over of the regions in which these religions flourished and the imposition of the occupier's own religion, the best example of this would be the Roman Empire's adoption of Christianity and the subsequent Catholic imposition of the Christian faith in these regions, or the Islamic conquest.
    One of those listed is a documented Sumerian King, for example, with at least as much evidence behind his existance as that of Christ's.

    Also, does a religion need believers in order to be true? If all the Christians in the world were killed would that mean that Christianity would cease to be 'true' (in your eyes)?

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinBrowning View Post
    I could invent a story too about a god who rose from the dead, but it would die out rather quickly. Kind of like all the supposed gods you listed.
    Or like the early Church fathers.

    Also, these stories did not 'die out quickly', take the example of Osiris which survived for thousands of years, just like Christianity.

    Other points raised in this post:
    Does the number of followers in a religion affect it's validity?

    Does the amount of time a religion has been worshipped affect its validity?

    Stormer
    Politics and the fate of mankind are formed by men without ideals and without greatness. Those who have greatness within them do not go in for politics- Albert Camus

    I say violence is necessary, it is about as American as cherry pie- Rap Brown

  9. #29
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    770
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    Quote Originally Posted by Muse View Post

    Support that they are truths, and not just claims.


    Do you mean we will have no after-life? If yes, support?
    Please define "after-life".


    Quote Originally Posted by Muse View Post
    And it's also possible that only faith can resolve these "problems".
    I'm intrigued, what do you mean?
    It is less important what you believe, than why you believe it.

  10. #30
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    232
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    You have still to support your "existential truths". Support or retract.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zorak View Post
    Please define "after-life".
    "...the continuation of existence of the soul, spirit or mind of a human (or animal) after physical death..." (from Wikipedia)

    I'm intrigued, what do you mean?
    1) It is possible that reason is inherently limited in scope and can never attain certain truths; only faith can attain them. Thus, faith supplements reason.
    One example would be the philosopher Kant. He claimed that there exist 2 worlds: the perceived and the objective world. We only know the perceived world; the objective world is beyond reason. Reason's failure here makes room for faith. Not only that, reason's failure makes faith necessary.

    2) It is possible that faith and reason are antithetical to each other, with faith being more epistemologically sound.
    Philosophies such as fideism claim this.

    Then there are philosophies which I cannot fit into either of the above 2 categories. Philosophies such as: (a) reformed epistemology: beliefs are warranted if they're grounded and answer all objections. (b) Wittgenstenian fideism: different areas use different languages, and the language of one are can not be applied to another area. Thus, religion has its own language and rules of faith; one cannot apply reason there.

    You seem to adhere to "Enlightenment evidentialism", according to which beliefs are only justified if they're proportionate to the evidence.

    In case you're interested, here're some links:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/re...-epistemology/
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-religion/
    "Are you coming to bed?"
    "I can't. This is important."
    "What?"
    "Someone is wrong on the internet."
    -- from xkcd comic strip "Duty Calls": http://xkcd.com/386/

  11. #31
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    951
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    So no Christian can give any good reasons as to why we should believe Jesus is god over Krishna. The two earthly gods have the same (supposed) evidence, which is thousand year old eye-witness accounts, and the faith of lots of people on each side.

    Christians have been quick to just dismiss the idea of Krishna because they disagree with the tenants of Hinduism. Several rebuttals have been given challenging the Christians to show exactly how/why Hinduism is false, and these challenges have been ignored.

    So I will make a claim based on the possiblities as I see it (and have already mentioned earlier):

    1. The historical support for Jesus as an earthly god is true, but the support for Krishna as an earthly god is false.

    Conculsion: Jesus existed as an earthly god and Krishna did not. Thus, the Christian god exists.

    2. Same as 1, but in favor of Krishna.

    Conclusion: Krishna existed as an earthly god and Jesus did not. Thus, Vishnu exists.

    3. Both Jesus and Krishna have historical support as earthly gods, and both are true.

    Conclusion: Both Jesus and Krishna existed as earthly gods. Both the Christian god and Vishnu exist.

    4. Same as 3, but both are false.

    Conclusion: Neither the Christian god or Vishnu exist.



    First, I will open the idea that perhaps there are other possiblites, and welcome suggestions. If there are no other possiblities, I would of course suggest that option 4 above is the truth. In short, neither Jesus or Krishna are god. We have no modern evidence to support either theory, nor should the eye-witness accounts of men from thousands of years ago be taken seriously regarding such grand claims. This is of course not to say that all ancient text are false. Claims that are backed by archeology, history, etc. about events that took place are one thing. Turning water into wine, coming back from the dead after 3 days, lifting a mountain with one's pinky finger, killing a snake-demon, etc. are all impossible and these claims should not be taken seriously.

  12. #32
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    Quote Originally Posted by Prime Zombie
    That's funny, because I think you are doing the same thing. Much of what you have to say are red-herrings, but I will address them anyhow. Remember, you are supposed to be showing me why Jesus as god exists and Krishna as god does not.
    The OP asks why Christ is the one true God and not Krishna. It doesn't say prove why they exist, only why the one is false and why the other is not.

    My argument addresses that.

    Many Christians may or may not get to Jesus on their path. Some will get all that gnashing of teeth.
    Now this is definitely a red herring, read it and learn what a red herring is.

    You are trying to compare a failure to follow the true path to the acceptance of multiple paths. The two are not equivalent. The former is not at all relevant.
    Umm... see that bold part? Yeah... that's kind of what I wanted you to elaborate on. All of your bones to pick with Hinduism can be written off by your lack of understanding of the religion and/or Vishnu's actions/will. I want something concrete. Say, why the bible (which is where Christians get their faith) is "right" and the vedas are wrong.

    I don't think you've read the vedas, and you've done little more than some googling/wikiing on the basics of Hinduism. I'm just pointing out that you could be wrong, and they could be right. There is of course another option which I subscribe to, which is that no gods exist.

    Prime Zombie, If you have read the Veda's which I don't think you have, you would know just how true my argument of self-contradiction is.

    Hindu sects recognize the Veda's as the foremost authority. But what is said in the Vedas contradicts what is said claimed by the followers of Krishna.

    Hinduism is originally a typical polytheistic religion. Most people believe that Brahma, Vishnu, or Shiva are the main gods. But that was not always the case. According to the Rig Veda the supreme god is Indra and Indra is mentioned first in the second hymn of the Rig Veda and the fourth hymn is dedicated entirely to Indra, and its that way up until like hymn 9 or 10. After that it switches back and forth for a while. Vishnu doesn't appear until much later in the Rig Veda.

    Vishnu is mentioned in the Rig Veda as a friend/companion of Indra and Krishna is mentioned nowhere in the Vedas. If we are talking about Hinduism's most sacred texts, the Vedas, then the worship of Krishna has no foundation or support.

    So the Vedas do not support the worship of Krishna, but yet they are the most sacred texts. All of this, contradicts the fundamental of Vaishnavism and does not support it. Nor does it support those sects devoted to Shiva or other gods.

    However, Hindus believe that all of this is true, all of these contradictions are true. That each one of these paths is acceptable and that all of this is found in the Vedas, texts which hold Indra and other gods which are not really worshiped anymore as being the supreme gods.

    Self-contradictions like that do not exist in the Bible. There is one God in Christianity and there has always been one God any other God is false and it says that time and again. Christ states, there is no other path besides me.

    You make the claim that Hinduism is not self-contradictory, but that Christianity is. I have shown that the Vedas do not support this.

    Yet you make continued claims that Christianity does self-contradict, but Hinduism does not. Support.
    Last edited by chadn737; June 1st, 2008 at 08:51 PM.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  13. #33
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    770
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    Quote Originally Posted by Muse View Post
    We only know the perceived world; the objective world is beyond reason. Reason's failure here makes room for faith. Not only that, reason's failure makes faith necessary.
    To some extent I agree. There is a gap between what we perceive through our senses, the "perceived world", and the actual universe. However, this is not a "failure" of reason. It is a barrier that we can overcome by making and testing reasonable hypotheses. For example, when astronomers realized that they had problems with "missing mass" they developed a theory to explain this and have begun testing it:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

    However, that doesn't mean it's logical, reasonable or, as you insist "necessary" to make assumptions about the universe or leaps of faith that involve gods, afterlives, souls, spirits, ghosts, etc.
    It is less important what you believe, than why you believe it.

  14. #34
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    951
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    The OP asks why Christ is the one true God and not Krishna. It doesn't say prove why they exist, only why the one is false and why the other is not.

    My argument addresses that.
    If Christ is the one true god, and Krishna is not, then Krishna does not exist (and vice-versa of course), as there can only be one true god. So existence of these gods is an inescapable conclusion to this debate, sorry.



    Now this is definitely a red herring, read it and learn what a red herring is.

    You are trying to compare a failure to follow the true path to the acceptance of multiple paths. The two are not equivalent. The former is not at all relevant.
    EDIT: I'm not sure what happened here, but I had a reply to this point, and it got deleted somehow.

    A path to hell and a path to heaven are still two different paths. What complicates matters is that there are other possible outcomes of other possible denominations of Christianity. For example the Catholics and Purgatory, and the Mormons and the many different kinds of afterlives they believe in. Also, each Christian denomination could be said to be a different path unto itself, and there are many different denomination. Further more, you totally ignored reincarnation and how all of Hinduism can be seen as one path as re-birth(s) eventually end with Krishna/Vishnu.


    Prime Zombie, If you have read the Veda's which I don't think you have, you would know just how true my argument of self-contradiction is.
    No, I've not read all of the Vedas, that much is true. But even if I were, I'd still would not believe in Vishnu, nor would reading it all of a sudden validate your argument.

    Hindu sects recognize the Veda's as the foremost authority.
    Support. Further more, you're really biting off more than you can chew here, concidering this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiki
    The Mahābhārata (Devanāgarī: महाभारत), /maɦaːbʱaːrət̪ə/ is one of the two major Sanskrit epics of ancient India, the other being the Rāmāyaṇa.

    With more than 74,000 verses, long prose passages, and about 1.8 million words in total, the Mahābhārata is one of the longest epic poems in the world.[1] Including the Harivaṃśa, the Mahabharata has a total length of more than 90,000 verses.

    It is of immense importance to the culture of the Indian subcontinent, and is a major text of Hinduism.
    So how are the Vedas more imporant than the Mahabharata? Or the Ramayana? And even if the Vedas are more important than all other Hindu texts, how does this mean that Krishna did not exist and did not preform all those miricles and is not the avatar of Vishnu?

    But what is said in the Vedas contradicts what is said claimed by the followers of Krishna.
    What exactly in the Vedas contradicts what is claimed by the followers of Krishna/Vishnu? I'd like exact quotes please.


    Hinduism is originally a typical polytheistic religion. Most people believe that Brahma, Vishnu, or Shiva are the main gods. But that was not always the case. According to the Rig Veda the supreme god is Indra and Indra is mentioned first in the second hymn of the Rig Veda and the fourth hymn is dedicated entirely to Indra, and its that way up until like hymn 9 or 10. After that it switches back and forth for a while. Vishnu doesn't appear until much later in the Rig Veda.
    Just because Vishnu doesn't appear until much later in the Rig Veda does not mean that he does not exist. Nor does it mean that Krishna did not exist as an earthly encarnation.

    Vishnu is mentioned in the Rig Veda as a friend/companion of Indra and Krishna is mentioned nowhere in the Vedas. If we are talking about Hinduism's most sacred texts, the Vedas, then the worship of Krishna has no foundation or support.
    Just because Krishna is not mentioned anyplace in the Vedas does not mean he did exist. You have also yet to establish that the Vedas are the most secred text of Hinduism. Also, you are assuming that other holy text in Hinduism have no merit, which is clearly not the case:

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiki
    The Bhagavad Gita (Sanskrit भगवद्गीता, Bhagavad Gītā, "Song of God") is a Sanskrit text from the chapter Bhishma Parva of the Mahabharata epic, comprising 700 verses.[1]

    Krishna, as the speaker of the Bhagavad Gita, is referred to within as Bhagavan[2] (the divine one). The verses themselves, using the range and style of Sanskrit meter (chhandas) with similes and metaphors, are written in a poetic form that is traditionally chanted; hence the title, which translates to "the Song of the Divine One". The Bhagavad Gita is revered as sacred by Hindu traditions,[3] and especially so by Vaishnavas (followers of Vishnu). It is commonly referred to as The Gita.

    So the Vedas do not support the worship of Krishna, but yet they are the most sacred texts. All of this, contradicts the fundamental of Vaishnavism and does not support it. Nor does it support those sects devoted to Shiva or other gods.
    See above. Even if this is true, it does not support the claim that Krishna did not exist and was not the earthly encarnation of Vishnu.

    However, Hindus believe that all of this is true, all of these contradictions are true. That each one of these paths is acceptable and that all of this is found in the Vedas, texts which hold Indra and other gods which are not really worshiped anymore as being the supreme gods.
    ...And? Look. I know you think it's all pretty KoOkY. Keep in mind that I agree with you. I don't buy all this Hindu mumbo-jumbo. I don't buy the Christian mumbo-jumbo either. What I'm trying to find out is why exactly you still buy Christianity. I have yet to read a convincing answer.

    Self-contradictions like that do not exist in the Bible. There is one God in Christianity and there has always been one God any other God is false and it says that time and again. Christ states, there is no other path besides me.
    If you are saying that the bible does not have contradictions, that's a whole other can of worms that I'm not going to address. Obviously many would beg to differ with you, myself included. And even if the bible has no contradictions, how exactly do you know it's true?

    You make the claim that Hinduism is not self-contradictory, but that Christianity is. I have shown that the Vedas do not support this.
    First of all, I only pointed out that there are interpretations out there that view Hinduism as non-contradictory. Indeed there are many Hindus that believe that Hinduism is perfect. Further more, you are not really trying to suggest that the Vedas support that Christianity is non-contradictory, are you?

    Yet you make continued claims that Christianity does self-contradict, but Hinduism does not. Support.
    Ha! Nice dodge try (again)!

    I've only pointed out that there are those that view Christianity as contradictory. That's not for debate.

    By all means, start yourself up a thread all about whether or not Christianity is self-contradictory.




    So anyhow... how exactly is Krishna not god again?

    Remember, he's got the same stuff Jesus has:

    "Holy book" with "eyewitness accounts" of his existence.

    During his existence he performed miricles, and upon his death he was resurrected.
    Last edited by Prime Zombie; June 2nd, 2008 at 08:53 AM.

  15. #35
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    770
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    Quote Originally Posted by Muse
    You have still to support your "existential truths". Support or retract.
    Muse, you have suggested that the existential truths are merely "claims". In the spirit of true science, I will grant you the change of labeling. One cannot know, with complete certainty, much of anything. However, these "existential claims" can be better supported than virtually any other claims made here or anywhere else and are far better supported than your opposing claims. For example, you asked that I retract the "claim" that man is mortal. You are suggesting the possibility of an afterlife. Whereas I could refer you to the obituaries column in your local newspaper to support my claim, this afterlife of yours apparently requires me to examine undetectable, immortal "souls". I could ask many questions about this afterlife and these souls of yours. "Where do they come from? What are they made of? What do they look like? Where are they?", etc. While you attempt to answer these questions, bear in mind that we can detect millions of things that cannot be seen with our naked eye: we can observe microorganisms, molecules, even sub-atomic particles. We can observe the individual movements of a hummingbirds wings and chemical reactions that occur in less than one one-trillionth of a second. We can explore the depths of outer space, seeing things so distant that we could not possibly conceive of it. We can also observe invisible forces such as electro-magnetism, gravity, Van der Waal's forces, etc. And yet we cannot observe the "soul", of which you speak. Perhaps you can explain how something that is undetectable in every way, something that cannot interact in any way with any material known to man . . . how this intangible thing can be necessary for us to live?

    I'm sorry, Muse, but I will not be retracting my earlier "claims" just yet. Nor do I have to work much harder to support them when all you have to contradict them is the "soul". This debate, if you choose to engage in it, will be an uphill battle for you. Since you're the one who believes in invisible entities and places and I'm the one who believes in the incredibly obvious, I would argue that the burden rests with you to present evidence for souls and spirits and God and all that.

    Keep in mind that there are a limitless number of possible invisible entities and places floating around. They could be malevolent, indifferent or beneficial. They could help out with some, none, or all of the existential problems that we face. However, there is a statistically significant tendency for organized religions to propose invisible things and places that are incredibly seductive to us. We'd all prefer to have magical invisible immortal souls, we'd like to be special, chosen ones, called upon to do important and meaningful things. We'd prefer that an omniscient and omnipotent father-figure was hearing all our prayers, loving us, forgiving us, protecting us. However, wishful thinking is not reason. In fact, we should assume that we would be tempted to believe in such things and even to "observe" them, as people in the desert "observe" an oasis in the distance.

    The tragedy is that many people become so obsessed with their mirages that they will die for them and kill for them. Many people would rather believe in ghosts and miracles than work collectively to create the best world we can with what we really have.
    It is less important what you believe, than why you believe it.

  16. #36
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    You don't think there's a difference between Trinitarian doctrine and polytheism?
    Of course there is. Trinitarian doctrine has a lot more denial and pretentiousness than polytheism.

    At least self-described Christians (overwhelmingly) consistently believe in the same core doctrines--Christology, Trinitarianism, etc.--Hindus, according to chad, often hold contradictory beliefs about the existence of Hindu gods.
    Your core beliefs are every bit as contradictory as theirs. You'd know this if the majority of you weren't forcibly indoctrinated.

    Imagine if there was significant dispute within Christianity about whether God existed.
    There was. It happened about 1800 years ago over Jesus. Orhtodoxy won out and labeled everyone else as "heretics".

  17. #37
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    232
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    Quote Originally Posted by Zorak View Post
    To some extent I agree. There is a gap between what we perceive through our senses, the "perceived world", and the actual universe. However, this is not a "failure" of reason. It is a barrier that we can overcome by making and testing reasonable hypotheses. For example, when astronomers realized that they had problems with "missing mass" they developed a theory to explain this and have begun testing it:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
    1) Fallacy of Hasty Generalization. Just because we found out Dark Matter, doesn't mean we can find out other missing things. 2) Dark Matter is just one example from one subclass of possible unknowable things. Conduct this thought experiment: you wear red-lens spectacles that you cannot remove. The whole world will appear red! You have never any way of knowing the true color of the world. Or, another thought-experiment: you are chained so as to stare in only one direction. You can never see or get any clue as to the things behind you. Do you think you can know anything of the world behind you using reason? These are the kinds of "actual" world objects I mean. Objects that are impossible to know through reason in any way. Or you can use other analogies too: brain-in-a-vat, or some demon is deluding you, or the Matrix. Do you get what I'm saying?

    However, that doesn't mean it's logical, reasonable or, as you insist "necessary" to make assumptions about the universe or leaps of faith that involve gods, afterlives, souls, spirits, ghosts, etc.
    When I used "necessary", I referred to your earlier sentence:
    In my opinion, resolution of these existential problems, in the absence of faith, is more difficult but also more rewarding.
    1. Things of the actual world cannot be known through reason.
    2. Some solutions to the "problems" might belong to the actual world
    3. Therefore, these solutions cannot be known through reason.
    4. If we wish to attain things in the actual world, faith is necessary.
    5. Therefore, if we wish to attain the solutions, faith is necessary.


    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________


    Zorak, we agree that we have no evidence for or against spiritual possiblities. We agree that man is physically mortal. But then you claim that man is spiritually mortal, too! How can you claim that if we have no evidence whether such a spirit exists? I am positing the possibility of a spirit, an afterlife. I am an agnostic: I do not know whether God, spirit etc exist, so I confess my ignorance and suspend judgement. You, on the other hand, fallaciously equate a lack of proof with disproof, and claim there exists no God etc.

    The burden of proof is on you, my friend. Support that there is no after-life; that there is no God; and that there is no objective purpose for man's life (your 2nd claim).

    Quote Originally Posted by Zorak View Post
    ...yet we cannot observe the "soul", of which you speak. Perhaps you can explain how something that is undetectable in every way, something that cannot interact in any way with any material known to man . . . how this intangible thing can be necessary for us to live?
    By being who we are; by housing our thoughts, memories, desires, our feeling of "self", the dozens of things that neuroscience cannot yet explain.

    Since you're the one who believes in invisible entities and places and I'm the one who believes in the incredibly obvious, I would argue that the burden rests with you to present evidence for souls and spirits and God and all that.
    1) Strawman. I believe in the possibilty of invisible entities. (2) You don't just believe in the incredibly obvious. You also believe in unsupported claims such as "there exists no after-life".
    Last edited by Muse; June 5th, 2008 at 10:00 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    "Are you coming to bed?"
    "I can't. This is important."
    "What?"
    "Someone is wrong on the internet."
    -- from xkcd comic strip "Duty Calls": http://xkcd.com/386/

  18. #38
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    951
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    I'm bumping this thread so that certain theists can stop their whining about so-called "contrived" deities being invalid.

    Well here you go guys, your chance to take another crack at this "non-contrived" (of course I use this term very loosely and based on their gripes) deity. Please be so kind as to read the entire thread first so we don't have to repeat ourselves (again).

    So. Jesus vs. Krishna. As it stands they are both "non-contrived" and both are on equal ground as far as substantiating their existence goes:

    Millions of believers? Check.
    Hence, the intuitive "knowledge"/"knowitinmyheart!" claims? Check.
    Old holy books? Check.
    Eyewitness accounts? Check.
    Claims of documented miracles? Check.

    Actual objective, testable, credible evidence? Che...oops.

    Okay Christians, what exactly is the difference here again?


    On a side note, being home sick from work has it's plus sides

  19. #39
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pray for our troops
    Posts
    5,340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    Quote Originally Posted by Prime Zombie View Post
    My aim is really to cut right down to the meat of why Christians are Christians and not Hindus/Hare Krishnas. Why is one true and not the other?
    ...one thing you have left out is:

    What scriptural prophecies are there in another religion to foretell the coming of krishna?

    The coming of Christ was foretold in Jewish scripture according to Christians. That is largely why the Old Testament -- Jewish scripture -- is included in the Christian Holy Bible. In fact the first Christians were Jews and initially it was possible to be both Jewish and Christian. Christianity was viewed initially as a Jewish sect. Only after the Great Disporia is Christianity viewed as separate from Judaism. So what other major religion foretold the coming of Krishna? In the Judeo/Christian tradition all prophets are foretold, and Christ the Messiah was foretold as well.

    Additionally, not knowing much about krishna -- Did Krishna have a group of selected followers (at least 12 or a significantly large number) who, despite persecution, imprisonment, and death -- refused to renounce their beliefs and continued to preach their beliefs...and then fostered generations of similar believers who for centuries carried on despite brutal persecution and mass executions?

    I'm not looking to debate this, because faith is not something one can debate between believers and non-believers -- I am just looking for you to clarify the supposed similarities you claim.

  20. #40
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    767
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    ...one thing you have left out is:

    What scriptural prophecies are there in another religion to foretell the coming of krishna?

    The coming of Christ was foretold in Jewish scripture according to Christians. That is largely why the Old Testament -- Jewish scripture -- is included in the Christian Holy Bible. In fact the first Christians were Jews and initially it was possible to be both Jewish and Christian. Christianity was viewed initially as a Jewish sect. Only after the Great Disporia is Christianity viewed as separate from Judaism. So what other major religion foretold the coming of Krishna? In the Judeo/Christian tradition all prophets are foretold, and Christ the Messiah was foretold as well.
    I could be tottally wrong here but wasn't the 'christ' the Jews expected, not the same 'christ' that christians believe Jesus to be. So what I'm saying is, the 'prophet' that is talked about in Jewish scripture isn't actually Jesus. Therefore 'Jesus' wasn't foretold, it was scripture written about someone/something else.

    I seem to remember something about the 'christ' was supposed to be on a horse and break through gates.... But Jesus came on a donkey etc
    .::The Swindall::.

    "...In the beginning, man created god"

 

 
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Conversing with the Past.
    By Mr. Hyde in forum Writing Club
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 8th, 2006, 03:31 AM
  2. Are they still Christian, ye or ne?
    By mustang5 in forum Religion
    Replies: 138
    Last Post: February 27th, 2006, 11:07 AM
  3. Transplanted Jesus 2
    By Pibs in forum Religion
    Replies: 155
    Last Post: November 30th, 2005, 10:39 AM
  4. PIBS' transplanted Jesus thread
    By Zhavric in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 101
    Last Post: November 20th, 2005, 07:57 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •