semi christian girl interested in hindu guy

Originally Posted by BlackBillBlake
Out of your human imagination in this case, as you know zero about my concept of god.
I don't believe in a god who punishes people for an eternity. Such a god would be a monster, a vindictive and vicious tyrant. A demon.


I feel none of us can ever know anothers concept of god or their reality, for certain. As for the second point, I agree, that is quite obvious. Christ would never allow it. I am pretty confident he would forgive them. But then again, I just might roast in hades for that....

 

Ok dude
We get the point

Your God is the true god because he made 300 prophecies

So what do you want us to all do now
Convert to christianity ?
or commit sucide because our gods are an embarresment to us
because they are not capable of making 300 prophecies ?

The point of this thread is
Can a semi christian woman marry and live with a Hindu man ?
Yes
Because before we are all hindu,muslim,chrstian
we are all human

Arguement over
If this forum has a moderator please lock this thread

 

That may not be intirely true. While it doesn't advocate such a belief, those in Israel were aware of it. In the story of the healing of the blind man, he is asked if the blind man from birth was blind because of his sins or his parents. This implies a belief in re-incarnation, or at least karma. Since the Jews believed that all illnesses were bought on by God, there was something else at work, in this case re-incarnation.

 

The problem I see is this campbell34. I think you are generally talking to people on this forum who ultimately believe in a non-duality. They believe that everything is God, including all the so called good and evil people. It's only ignorance which makes us believe in a seperate existance. Therefore we are going to differ on nearly every subject because you belive in a dualistic world. That everything is seperate from everything including God.

If you believe ultimately that everything is God, then ideas such as eternal damnation just seem silly. Who will be judging who?

 

Christ states that now is the day of Salvation, now is the appointed time.
Christ forgivness is offered while we are alive. And that is why Jesus makes the statement, how shall they neglect so great a salvation. Salvation is a free gift, to all who ask Christ sincerely for it.

 

Trouble is that there are other books that say quite different things about god - and which book you believe often results from purely cultural influences. Niether is there much accord between the followers of these various texts. Christians think their religion is destined to become the world religion - muslims believe the same thing. So what we have is a recipe for ongoing conflict until people move beyond all of these outdated beliefs and embrace something wider and something new, Same goes for hindu fundamentalists too.
There is no objective reason to believe the bible over the koran or the bhagavad gita. It contains no proof of it's truth or authenticity.
And don't say that it comes down to practice - because the adherents of other religions will say exactly the same thing.

 

I would say in this case at best, karma. For the Bible clearly teaches that it is appointed unto man once to be born, and then the judgement. Which rules out re-incarnation.

 

You stated that there is no objective reason to believe the Bible over the koran or the bhagavad gita. It contains no proof of it's truth or authenticity. This is your statement. Have you ever fully read one of my post? Because the truth of the Bible can be seen in it's fulfilled prophecies, and in the recent archalogical finds which confirm what the Bible has been telling us all alone. Do you just put blinders on when you read my posts? This is where the problem comes in, when presented with facts, you pretend there are none, and completely ignore evidence given. And then you talk as if my whole arguement might rest on religious practice, which I have never even commented on. My belief in the Bible has nothing to do with cultural influences, but has everything to do with demonstrated factual information that cannot be denied.

http://www.bibleprobe.com/exodus.htm
http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/redsea.htm
http://www.harpazo.net/easterngate.html
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/MtSinaiPAX.htm

 

You stated it is only ignorance which makes us believe in a seperate existance.
I believe the real ignorance comes from those who ignore the proofs of the Bible.
When the Bible fortells a number of future events, and then they all happen just as the Bible said they would, then I listen. When the Bible tells you a story that is almost impossible to believe, and then they find the evidence of the event, then I listen. And such things are happening time and time again. I'm nolonger just a listener anymore, I'm a believer. When I'm presented with facts, I donot ignore them.

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/MtSinaiPAX.htm
http://www.harpazo.net/easterngate.html
http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/redsea.htm
http://www.bibleprobe.com/exodus.htm

 

Others claim similar things for their scriptures, so it doesn't actually make any difference. In the case of the bible, most scholars are agreed that large chunks have been subjected to editing by christians over the centuries. The koran would seem to be free from such tinkerings.
The prophecy stuff is all spurious - it is 100% dependent on a particular interpretation, and other interprepations are equally plausible and possible.
Myself, I've found that the I Ching is usually a very precise guide - but because I say that and could offer examples of where it has been correct, I wouldn't expect you to begin believing in it.

To say your belief in the bible has nothing to do with cultural influences is absurd. As an American you were born into a nominally christian country, and I suspect that you were probably not exposed much to the teachings of other religions. I wonder what your beliefs would be if you'd been born in China or India. Probably very different.

 

If others claim similar things for thier scriptures, please set before us that evidence. I hate bland statements without facts displayed. And as far as editing of the scriptures go. Anytime you have a translation you will have editing, but this does not change the orginal meaning, unless that was the intension of those doing the editing. There are a number of second century manuscripts in existance today, and they donot show any deviation from the original authors intent. What ever culture I was born into, I would of always sought out a faith that was supported by facts.

 

The Biblical answer to that question is no. The Bible states that Christians should not enter into such a relationship with a non believer. The reason being is, as a Christian, it is easier to serve God when the relationship is moving in the same spiritual direction. I have seen first hand where Christian men and woman marry non believers, and it makes life often very difficult for both individuals, especally the children. I came from a background like this. It eventually split our family in two.

 

The thing is are prophecies facts campbell34 like you state?

Most prophecies are so general they can either be applied to any event, or predict a very likely event happening. Such as the jews going back to their homeland.

Plus there is absoluely no proof Jesus Christ ever lived. As most of the prophecies no doubt are to do with his life, where are the facts?

Experts say the events of Jesus's life were written by people at least 70-80 years after Christs life. Now what are the chances that these supporters of Jesus wanted to add to his credibility amongst the people by changing events and making sure he fulfilled prophecies of the jewish scriptures.

 

If others didn't claim that their scriptures were inspired by God or the Divine, then there wouldn't be any ground of contention.
Your claims for the authenticity of the Bible are no more valid than the claims of any other religion for the validity of their scriptures, and in some cases, much less so.

 

How does this necessarily rule out reincarnation? What other verses in the Bible conclusively support this one verse? Couldn't this just as well imply that birth occurs once in a single lifetime, and that after death a person reaps the consequences of his actions in that life?

The Bible doesn't describe the nature of the soul and passages that suggest reincarnation are veiled. The definitive Vedic scripture, Bhagavad-Gita, discusses both reincarnation and the soul extensively, as you can see from these verses from the second chapter of the Gita*. God, Krishna, is instructing his disciple Arjuna on these questions:

2.11 The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: While speaking learned words, you are mourning for what is not worthy of grief. Those who are wise lament neither for the living nor for the dead.

2.12: Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.

2.13: As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.

2.14: The nonpermanent appearance of happiness and distress, and their disappearance in due course, are like the appearance and disappearance of winter and summer seasons. They arise from sense perception, and one must learn to tolerate them without being disturbed.

2.15: The person who is not disturbed by happiness and distress and is steady in both is certainly eligible for liberation.

2.16: Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent [the material body] there is no endurance and of the eternal [the soul] there is no change. This they have concluded by studying the nature of both.

2.17: That which pervades the entire body you should know to be indestructible. No one is able to destroy that imperishable soul.

2.18: The material body of the indestructible, immeasurable and eternal living entity is sure to come to an end; therefore, fight...

2.19: Neither he who thinks the living entity the slayer nor he who thinks it slain is in knowledge, for the self slays not nor is slain.

2.20: For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.

2.21: How can a person who knows that the soul is indestructible, eternal, unborn and immutable kill anyone or cause anyone to kill?

2.22: As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones, the soul similarly accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones.

2.23: The soul can never be cut to pieces by any weapon, nor burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind.

2.24: This individual soul is unbreakable and insoluble, and can be neither burned nor dried. He is everlasting, present everywhere, unchangeable, immovable and eternally the same.

2.25: It is said that the soul is invisible, inconceivable and immutable. Knowing this, you should not grieve for the body.

2.26: If, however, you think that the soul [or the symptoms of life] is always born and dies forever, you still have no reason to lament.

2.27: One who has taken his birth is sure to die, and after death one is sure to take birth again. Therefore, in the unavoidable discharge of your duty, you should not lament.

2.28: All created beings are unmanifest in their beginning, manifest in their interim state, and unmanifest again when annihilated. So what need is there for lamentation?

2.29: Some look on the soul as amazing, some describe him as amazing, and some hear of him as amazing, while others, even after hearing about him, cannot understand him at all.

2.30: He who dwells in the body can never be slain. Therefore you need not grieve for any living being.


I think opinions about the historic date of the original Gita vary pretty widely: earliest, around 3000 BC; latest, about the time of Christ. The real points are that it is a very ancient, profound, and comprehensive scripture that originated in a geographical area 2,500 miles east of the scene of Old and New Testament Biblical events, and is the product of a spiritual culture that is at least as old as the Jewish culture of the Old Testament.

*verse quotes from Bhagavad Gita As It Is, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami.

 

I'm not sure how many times I will have to repeat myself here, but it really gets old giving facts, and then having you come here with nothing more than bland empty statements. If there is any other religion that has prophecies that can be demonstrated as fact, please, put them before us, or drop the subject. You come here with your broad statements and no facts. And do you know why you only have broad statements? Because you have no facts. You come here only with your personal opinion. Only the Bible has fulfilled prophecies, and there is no other Book like it. Give me a Book outside of the Bible, that writes history before it happens.

 

No, most prophecies are not general at all, and if you ever study them you will find this to be so. Many of the prophecies had to happen in a very narrow window of time. The Masiah according to the Old Testament had to show up before the Second Temple was destroyed. And He had to fulfill the 300 prophecies. And your claim that the writers of the new Testament just got together and found a way to fit Jesus into the prophecies makes little sense, especially when most of these men were latter murdered in the most horrible of ways, and could of spared their lives, if they had only recanted. Unlikely they died for a lie. Also this would hardly explain why the prophecies of the Bible are still being fulfilled in our day. And these are not prophecies that you could claim everybody knew would happen. The writers of the Old Testament could not of guessed that someone like Hilter would show up 2,000 years later and kill a large percentage of Jews in Europe which caused a large exodus of them to return to Israel. Nor could they of known, that the Jews would retake Southern Israel first, and Jerusalem second, as the Bible said they would. The Old Testament writers could not of known that Israel would no longer be a devided nation, with only one leader. The Old Testament writers could not of known that Jerusalem would have a East Gate that would be buried, and then a second Gate would be built onto that one, and then the second Gate would be bricked up. And they could not of known that no one would ever be allowed to enter that Gate again, and any attempts made by anyone to break through the Gate would fail. NO THE PROPHECIES ARE NOT GENERAL, I COULD GO ON, BUT I HOPE YOU GET THE POINT.
And there are historical writings outside of the Bible that mentions Jesus, and they can be found in the writings of Cornelius Tacitus, Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, Flavius Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Emperor Trajan, Emporer Hadrian, The Jewish Talmud, Lucian, Mara Bar-Serapion, Valentius, Saturninus,
and most of these lived around the first century.

 

Luke 23:42,42
He said to Jesus, ''Lord remember me when you come into your Kingdom.''
Jesus said to him, ASSUREDLY I TELL YOU, TODAY YOU WILL BE WITH ME IN PARADISE.''
The thief on the cross, was not coming back to get it right a second time, or a third time, it was as Jesus said, ''TODAY YOU WILL BE WITH ME IN PARADISE.''

 

I think your idea of facts is just that - your idea. I don't really accept the so called facts you have come up with regarding prophecies.
You come here with no facts either - just your own narrow minded interpretation.
No one can say with absoute certitude that Jesus ever even existed.

If you're bored with repeating yourself - then shut up.

 

I have a strong feeling that the thief didn't have to come back again!

These verses don't say whether the repentant thief had lived only once or many times before. Seen from the standpoint of reincarnation, they indicate that the thief asked Jesus for mercy in the last moments of his life, and Jesus, having the power to do so, instantly released him from the cycle of repetitive birth and death and took him into eternal spiritual life.

This is another example of a Bible passage that can be seen in the light of both the prevalent Christian belief that we only have life, as well as in the light of philosophies that support the idea of reincarnation.