Religious texts

I believe:

  • The Bible is the direct word of God. It is devoid of all error and every word is literally true.

    Votes: 2 6.3%

  • The Bible is the inspired word of God, written by men but inspired by God. It is devoid of error.

    Votes: 1 3.1%

  • Parts of the Bible are symbolic rather than literal. God's word requires some interpretation.

    Votes: 2 6.3%

  • The Bible contains some human errors, but is mostly a true record of God's will.

    Votes: 1 3.1%

  • The Bible was written by men. There is some doubt as to whether it truly reflect's God's will.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • There's no way to know if the Bible is the word of God, or of man alone.

    Votes: 1 3.1%

  • The Bible was probably neither inspired by or written by God. It is a human work alone.

    Votes: 6 18.8%

  • The Bible is solely a work of man. God had no part in writing or inspiring it.

    Votes: 19 59.4%
  • Total voters
    32
James R said:
It sounds like you're afraid to express your beliefs, lightgigantic. Why?
Click to expand...
really?
Its more like I am tired at having repeated them so many times. Couple that with posting replies to persons who don't read them, the fatigue tends to transform into annoyment
 
What if one agrees with two statements in the poll? If one agrees with two but only gets one option, then one can only show agreement with one and leave others with the impression that one disagrees with all the others. Now i would not like to take part in a poll that causes me to reject a point i believe in true.

Therefore i do not vote.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
James R said:
Is clicking a box so hard?
Click to expand...
I mentioned earlier, the vedas could fall into two or possibly three catagories - some parts are designated as eternal and some parts are designated as incidental - and to top it all off some parts are in the process of being corrupted by human interest, and will continue until they are re-established again
 
I said that my scripture was not inspired by God, perhaps because the God I am referring to is not in junction with the classical, Abrahamic, view of it.
 
Adstar:

Adstar said:
What if one agrees with two statements in the poll?
Click to expand...

Most of the options are mutually exclusive. Of the ones that overlap, I suggest clicking the one which best represents your view.


lightgigantic:

I suggest you click option 3.
 
By the way, does anybody want to own up to clicking the first option? Apparently, two of you did.

Are you willing to explain why you believe what you believe, or are you afraid?
 
everneo said:
Vaishnavites may not agree and may take it offensive. He is rather a 'hare krishna' cultist.
Click to expand...

on the contrary, I challenge you that I have presented anything that is divergent from the conclusions drawn up my ramanuja acharya (1017–1137 AD) madhvacharya (1238-1317 AD)
or even drawn up by Vyasadeva himself in the compilation of Srimad Bhagavatam or Bhagavad gita.
There is scope for presenting the subtle distinctions of gaudiya vaisnavaism
, but it hasn't been approached yet by any thread topics on this site (and probably never will)

Generally the observed etiquette for establishing sastric siddhanta (scriptural conclusion) is to debate with sastric presentations - the alternative, sensationalizing and confidence statements, only bear merit amongst the less intelligent.
 
Did Ramanuja Acharya and Madhvacharya put Krishna supreme over and above MahaVishnu/Narayana ?
 
James R.:

I affirmed Lightgigantic's religious affiliation on account of the fact that his answers are present in the doctrines of that religious school.
 
everneo said:
Did Ramanuja Acharya and Madhvacharya put Krishna supreme over and above MahaVishnu/Narayana ?
Click to expand...

No - thats why its not an essential aspect of the arguments I present - that said they don't belittle the Srimad Bhagavatam or Bhagavad-gita or present ideas that are adverse to the notion of surrender to vishnu.
 
lightgigantic said:
No - thats why its not an essential aspect of the arguments I present - that said they don't belittle the Srimad Bhagavatam or Bhagavad-gita or present ideas that are adverse to the notion of surrender to vishnu.
Click to expand...

An avatar, though it is a 'purna-avatar' (Krshna) is in no way superior to Narayana/MahaVishnu. This is the stand of these Acharyas. What is your / hare krisha stand ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top