Ready to pull the trigger so quickly?
Show me the evidence.
Evidence? I'm talking from personal experience here. I know for a fact that
I've invoked Lady Luck's name plenty of times, and have heard it said more times than I can count.
I didn't say actions were belief, pay attention.
I said actual belief of something is evidenct through ones actions.
Another lie. This is what you said: "While they may proffess to not to believe, belief is actual in their actions, whether they realise it or not." So even if they don't believe, their actions make them believers,
even if they don't know it.
This is your last warning. The next lie you tell in the course of this discussion will end it and land you on my ignore list. Since I'm one of the very few who actually bothers to engage you on your loony ideas, I would take this condition very seriously.
The act of going to church and tucking in, doesn't make one a christian.
Exactly. But
no act makes one a Christian
without a belief in Christ. That's the point.
Well, they think something is there which is why they act in that way. They refer to ''luck'' as one would refer to any other diety, albeit ignorantly, so they the have the religious conviction (belief through action).
There's no deity, is the point. People who are what is common called "superstitious" have no conception of an actual deity to which they make the propitiation of wearing dirty laundry for a week, or following a particular routine. They may ascribe it to a sort of karma, or "the universe," but there is no deity. Unless, as I say, they
do believe that some kind of deity controls their luck. In which case, they're theists.
You can't do everything a muslim does, because you're not muslim.
You're right, but not in the way you think. The only action I could not perform is believing in Allah. I could, however, do everything else.
Other muslims will know almost immediately (if not immediately) that you are not a muslim.
No they wouldn't. If I was doing all of the things a Muslim does for their faith, then there would be no way to know that I wasn't. Just as there's no way to tell the secretly atheist priests still performing mass because they're afraid to admit to anyone (except a questioner during an anonymous study) that they don't have faith. Hell, even Mother Theresa lost her faith, and for 50 years no one was the wiser.
What a silly thing for you to say.
Right back atcha.
How would YOU determine whether or not I believe in Lady Luck?
I could only go by what you say. Even if you were a dirty underwear-wearing, step-counting, salt-over-the-shoulder superstitious freak, I'd have no reason to disbelieve you if you said you were doing it for another reason.
So you're saying that ''repitition'' is the factor that makes someone act in this way? Why would they think that this is the case, instead of a supernatural reason?
The reason
would be supernatural. But supernatural reasons do not necessitate a deity.
Well, let's see how you respond to my points.
Pretty well, I think. I ended up 19th on the all-time Jan-Smashing leaderboard for this session, so...
I'm not a scholar in the subject, but I do have some working knowledge of Ancient Greece. In fact I have no choice, it was taught to me at school, along with ancient rome. We weren't taught about any other culture, history, peoples, spirituality, other than those two. Evidence again of it's influence.
Everywhere I go I see greek and roman style structures. The films on the telly which depicted ''other cultures'' were predominantly greek and roman.
The Christian religion is basically the religion of rome.
The freemason movement dates back to egypt with heavy babylonian influence (mystery schools).
The other day I watched a documentary where someone managed to sneak into the annual meeting of the worlds most powerful leaders, at Bohemien Grove, where he witnessed (camara) these people worshiping a gigantic owl diety. Again, a babylonian diety.
We have the ''Olympics'' starting up soon, another greek concept. The idea of stadium performances to masses of people is something that we have not seen in other ancient cultures.
So one doesn't have to be a scholar to get a load of how we influenced by these ancient cultures.
You're knocking down straw men again, Jan. Nobody questioned the fact that ancient cultures influence modern ones. The whole concept of Western civilization is basically an invention from Ancient Greece. I was merely debunking your assertion that "everything came from the vedas. period."
I assume a thread, kept alive through ancient bloodlines, and secret societies.
More piffle. Do you even know what you mean by that? Which ancient bloodlines, exactly? Which secret societies?
The early devout followers of Christ, ie, his most trusted deciples, including Christ himself, were more vedic than jewish, or babylonian.
In what ways, specifically?
At the time of Christ, the original religion of Abraham, Moses, and the like, was finished, which is why Christ was there in first place.
It wasn't finished. He didn't replace old law, he reinforced it. You'd think that if you wanted to have a debate about this stuff, you'd at least
know it. Is that really too much to ask?
The Christian institute we see today, has nothing to do with following Christ
Well, that's probably the most accurate thing you've said in this entire thread.
Most of my posts here, are done through vedic spectacles, at least what I understand of it (it is absolutely vast). When I talk about God, or the principles of religion, it is through a vedic looking glass. Even my name Jan Ardena, is from the vedic literature.
Then why have you shown yourself to be so fundamentally lacking in understanding of it? All you've made are broad, vague pronouncements like "They are more vedic than Jewish," or "Vedas is the roadmap for life." You've offered nothing of substance, and nothing that couldn't have been said by someone who knew
nothing of the topic.
I tend to to discuss God in the bible, only because that's what most regard as God, or religion. But I have spoken regularly with wynn, and to some degree, Lg, about stuff from the vedic perspective.
I've never read LG's thoughts on it, but I know from experience that Wynn's knowledge of the vedas are about as broad as a hair follicle.
The notion of evolution, namely macro evolution, is undoubtedly a vedic concept, as is mathmatics, all the sciences, art, philosophy, politics, technology, religion, etc.
That's nonsense. It's every bit as nonsensical as the concept of evolution in the Bible, or fulfilled prophecy in the Bible. It simply is not true. Like Christian evangelicals (and believers in Nostradamus), Hindus have attempted to retrofit modern science into their ancient texts, and in the process have claimed that science stems from the "ultimate truth" of the vedas. It's bunk, and the fact that you regurgitate it here means that the scope of your understanding of the vedic texts is limited to what Wynn and LG sold you.
Essentially, there is nothing new, it goes round and round, each time becoming a little more gross and unintelligent.
Essentially, bollocks.
I've said to you in the past. If you want a scholarly account of vedic culture, then google it, or discuss it with wynn, or, Lg. But make the effort. I'm not going to waste my time wading through the vast amount of literature to show you a point, only for you to make an idiotic remark like, there's no evidence that God exists.
Translation: "I'm talking out of my ass, but Wynn and LG told me that it was all true, so take it up with them."
People do worship other people, and they do refer to them as a god (michael jackson, jimmy hendrix, john lennon, sai baba,johnny depp, alister crowley....),
but it's not theism mate. Sorry!
Again, nobody
really thinks Jimi Hendrix is a god. Nobody. That's not how they mean it. But supposing they did, then yes, it absolutely would be theism.
theism
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism).
That is the definition of theism. There are no more qualifiers than that. So if someone believes that Jimi Hendrix is in fact a literal god, then they are a theist. And no, you cannot change the definition of the word just because it blows your silly argument out of the water.
It's clear that you're attempting to belittle belief in God by equating it to belief in anything.
Straw man. I equated nothing. I simply defined theism for you, which is the belief in a god or gods. This says nothing of your experience as a theist, or what kind of impact belief has had on your life, or what it means or should mean to you to be a theist. I'm simply stating a fact.
You're basically showing that you have absolutely no respect for anything of that nature.
Well, I don't have any respect for religious faith. But that has nothing to do with this. You can't simply redefine a term because you don't like that it applies to more gods than your own. No, belief in Yahweh is not
special, and you don't get to pretend otherwise. Well, you
can, but if you try to say so here, you'll get checked on it.
IOW, you're very transparent.
Good. I wasn't trying to be opaque.
''God of Abraham'' is so called because He appeared to Abraham who ushered a new age of religion based on worship of God. A new linage, so to speak. So Abraham must have been an advanced soul, ready to undertake such a task.
No, he is called the "God of Abraham" because all of the religions which profess faith in it descend from Abraham. No faiths beyond those believe in Yahweh, and if you assert otherwise, you need to give evidence of the claim. Otherwise you're just talking out of your ass again.
That doesn't even make sense.
If God (regardless of scripture) is the origin of everything, and different cultures worship, or respect the idea the there is a one God from whom everything is coming, then they're speaking of the same personality/force/whatever, despite different names. Get over it.
Are you really having this much trouble with this concept, or is this an act? It's hard to tell sometimes.
First of all, there is no evidence to support the idea that all of the cultures in the world are describing a shared experience with the same being. None. Zero. Secondly, if you wanted to say that there was a non-denominational deity that created the universe, you need to both provide some evidence to support that claim,
and then provide evidence to show that the cultures of the world are all describing a shared experience with the same being.
Because--and I'm not sure if I mentioned this already--there is no evidence to support such a claim. Get over it.
So you're saying that although a hindu may worship Ganesha in return for a successful buisness, he does not believe in Vishnu (God)?
Vishnu is not Yahweh, and is therefore not the "God" character from the Judeo-Christian mythology. You are under the misapprehension that Vishnu and Yahweh are the same deity, but they are not.
I understand very well, thank you very much
Clearly you don't.
