The problem with atheism...

[Tinker683]

Jan,

Read Bhagavad Gita as it is.

Ah yes, the infamous " My-View ". I could also ask the 1200 different types of Chrisitan doctrines about what they think of these text, Then I could ask all the Wiccans, the New Agers, the Muslims, the Jews, The Hindu's, etc...

My point: Your one of millions of different prespectives on God, with it's own little list of right and wrongs and do's and do nots.

Why should I take your view over everyone elses?

No!

I think you are

Why did you reject God?

I reject God for the very reason because I'm writing it here. Christians would have me believe that God is concerned with own well-being of all of his creatures, yet doesn't seem to go out of his way to give anyone a REASON to believe. ( With the exception, of course, of the whole hell-fire bit, but then I wouldn't even want to serve such an Ogre )

In truth, my reasons for rejecting God is a long story. BUT, I would be happy to post such a story, if you really wanted to hear it.

Lets forget religous institutions, i believe they rejected God long ago.

Oh my goodness. Reject religous institutions, because they're not talking about God?

While I'm laughing at such a prospect, I have to ask you, again: Why are you right, and they are all wrong?

Go on!!! Live a little

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but if I am to infer that you mean for me to go ahead and make presumptions, I'd rather not. I've found doing such a thing has aweful results, and so I choose to keep an open mind about people.

Understand the nature of God by reading BG as it is, you will begin to realise.

Your awefully good at making assumptions. Wanna acually throw some evidence in here?

Do you often have less respect for a person you're not angry with, than a rabid dog? What is the difference between a dog and a rabid dog, apart from one has rabies? It is the use of the word 'rabid' that gave your anger away.

Well, you did get me there. My use of the word rabid was to illustrate violent tendencies, rather than an acually diease. That was my error, and I apologize.

However, I would like to explain why it is I am angry at religon. I'm angry it because it teachs intolerance. The Bible has many verses ( Which I would be more than happy to qoute for you, just dare me. Go on, dare me. ) that dehumanizes people and teachs you that your allowed to treat them awefully. It is responsible for the tens of thousands of lives in the Crusades, the Inquisition, the middle east, Sept. 11, Northern Ireland, need I go on?

Based on these horrors, I figure the world would be better off without the dogamtic thinking of religion.

Then why waste your time posting?

Honestly, and I admit this is really weak: To feel validated

I live in a predominatly Southern Baptist community. My parents are baptists, I goto a Chrisitan private school ( It's either that or the public schools, and I'll be damned if I ever set foot in the high school again ) and my beloved is a born-again Chrisitan.

My parents think I'm in denial, nobody knows about it at my school ( for obvious reasons ) and my g/f is extremely tolerant. I'm so lucky to have her

So naturally, I'm sorta lonely here. It's forums like these that remind me that I'm not a bad person =\

One moment He exists, then he doesn't, make your mind up.

I never asserted that a God existed. Could you please show me where I did?

I think you're taking the

Could you please reiterate this? I didn't understand what you were saying.

Until next time

 

[Cris]

Jan,

I agree, but being ignorant of God is not very intelligent.

There are millions of fantasy ideas lurking in fiction literature across the world. I have read some of them, but I am easily ignorant of most of them. The fantasy concept of God is just one more fantasy that has equal irrelevance to all the other fantasies.

Read Bhagavad Gita as it is.

There is much of value that many people could learn from the gita but it has more relevance for mankind if the references to god are omitted. While my mediation programme is entirely based on the gita it is also quite independent of any need for the existence of gods or spirituality.

Understand the nature of God by reading BG as it is, you will begin to realise.

The God of the gita is really quite different to that of the Christian faith, and I doubt many if anyone here will take time out to read the gita. So your answer here is not really very helpful to anyone without some knowledge of the gita story.

How did you realise He was a myth?

I suggest because he is a concept imagined by mankind as opposed to something that was detected or observed. The term fantasy is more appropriate than myth, but most of the earlier fantasies take the form of mythological stories that the earlier primitive peoples would find memorable.

The thing that I find interesting and curious is how people, such as you, come up with such a steadfast faith in your own knowledge of something that is not demonstrable.

Common sense.

And in practice many things that are termed common sense are quite erroneous. Much of science tends to defy common sense but is nevertheless quite true. What you are really doing is using dubious perceptions to deduce something that appears to explain what you observe whether it is true or not.

Cris

 

[Adam]

A tad funny really. When you get right down to it, after all the rhetoric and nonsense, the christian mythology is no more valid or realistic than H. P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu stories or Peter Pan. There is simply no logical difference.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Tinker683
Ah yes, the infamous " My-View ". I could also ask the 1200 different types of Chrisitan doctrines about what they think of these text, Then I could ask all the Wiccans, the New Agers, the Muslims, the Jews, The Hindu's, etc...

The Bhagavad Gita is superior in that it is non-sectarian and that it was spoken by God Himself.

My point: Your one of millions of different prespectives on God, with it's own little list of right and wrongs and do's and do nots.

And my point is, understand God from God Himself.

Why should I take your view over everyone elses?

Don’t take my view, develop your own view.

Christians would have me believe that God is concerned with own well-being of all of his creatures, yet doesn't seem to go out of his way to give anyone a REASON to believe.

Don’t worry about what christians say, some may be God-conscious and some not, but the title ‘Christian’ does not make the person God-conscious.
Human nature, has a lot to do with attraction, for people to wholeheartedley take to something, there has to be some level of attraction, this makes the human, especially in this time, vunerable.
I request you to try and understand, even a little, the ‘Bhagavad Gita As It Is,’ and through that you will have some idea of the nature of God.
Why come to such a dead end conclusion, when at the moment your knowledge of God is seriously limited, at least give yourself the chance to understand, before you lose your precious life, which is destined to happen.

( With the exception, of course, of the whole hell-fire bit, but then I wouldn't even want to serve such an Ogre )

This is the material world, this means it is relative. On the one hand we see in the western world fabulous wealth, a millionaire on every corner, (probably a little exajurated) new billionaires popping up as we speak, then in Africa we see people living in sub-human conditions, eating probably in some cases on a fortnightly basis, drinking dirty polluted water, when they can get it. And that’s just on this planet.

The universe is vast beyond our calculation and understanding, there are innumerable planets, and according to vedic literature some of these planets are heavenly and some are hellish, the idea is not much different than the duality I described within this planet.
So if you believe God is a ogre, then do you believe that the rich and powerful governments, including the US past and present are ogres?

In truth, my reasons for rejecting God is a long story. BUT, I would be happy to post such a story, if you really wanted to hear it.

Yes!
If you think it is too long for the thread, then post it to me personally.

Oh my goodness. Reject religous institutions, because they're not talking about God?

OK!
Somewhere in the bible it says it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as it he were a woman, or in other words homosexuality is offensive to God.
Now we see where homosexuals are being ordained as preists, now put aside any thoughts of personal prejudice, if there are any, what does that tell you about the ‘church,’ and its relationship with God?

While I'm laughing at such a prospect, I have to ask you, again: Why are you right, and they are all wrong?

It is not a matter of ‘I’m right,’ it is a matter of simple deduction that even a child can do.

Your awefully good at making assumptions. Wanna acually throw some evidence in here?

What evidence do you require?

That was my error, and I apologize.

No need to, we all make errors and God knows this perfectly.

I'm angry it because it teachs intolerance.

Seeing as you are familiar with the bible how is ‘love thy neighbor as thyself’ or ‘thou shalt not kill’ or ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ intolerance.
It is because of a lack of these qualities why intolerance occurs, just think about it.

It is responsible for the tens of thousands of lives in the Crusades, the Inquisition, the middle east, Sept. 11, Northern Ireland, need I go on?

It is not religion that causes these atrocities, it is lack of religion or irreligion which creates lust, greed and envy amongst human beings, that causes these things, as I stated earlier.
This part of sci-forum is labelled ‘religion,’ but where is the religion on this board, it is not the cause of this board, it is lack of religion that is the cause.

Could you please reiterate this? I didn't understand what you were saying.

Just an old English expression which could mean ‘your having me on’ or ‘you can’t be serious.’

I know, crap explanation but I hope you understand.

Love.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Adam
Answer: neither. There should be legsilation in place so that upon entering public office and executing that office's duties, any indidvidual, regardless of their beliefs, performs the duties of that office without any concern (regarding performance of official duties) other than the welfare of the state and its people.

You brought up Bush. I said I don't like him being in office either. I would also dislike Idi Amin being in office, or Paul Rubin, or the local leader of the Men Must Die feminism coalition. It is not small-minded, as you like to say, to prefer that a rule be set in place which governs the external infleunces which might act upon one's performance of offical duties. It seems to me that such a rule, or set of rules, might be conducive to the equitable running of a state.

I don't want to prohobit christians and other folk from running for public office. I want the state and its people protected from anyone who would use that office to further their own personal desires.

While I don't disagree with the ideal you present I do think that, like many ideals, it's unattainable. How exactly can you legislate against external influences upon an individual? It's impossible. While you appear to be a rather rational, skeptical, scientifically-minded person you are not without external influences, prejudices, and ingrained assumptions. The very languages we think, speak, and write with have these things built in.

You propose that public office should be performed without any concern other than the welfare of the state and it's people but how do you define welfare? By what moral measure would you use to determine whether an official is performing their office appropriately? Even when you can determine what public welfare is, which group of people are you defining it for? Should each state representative look only to the welfare of their constituents, or should they act in the National interest, globally? What if the welfare of two groups is in conflict? Once again you are looking for an ideal, with which I agree, but by what standard do you define it's measure?

Another problem here is that everyone has their own personal desires. The officer who wants to provide funds to house the homeless is acting out of personal desires and beliefs. Closer to what you probably mean would be "protection from officers using the office for their own personal interest at the cost of the public interest." Still, I don't believe you can always separate the two. Harder yet would be proving such an accusation.

~Raithere

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Raithere
Nope. Admit it, whether or not you believe, he doesn't. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
It's really difficult to have a debate with a transcendentalist.

Its true though, isn’t it?

I wish I was a transcendentalist.

Common sense would indicate that the Sun revolves around the Earth yet this is not so. You need a bit more explanation than that.

Common sense is not a fixed mental position, whoever thought the sun revolved around the Earth probably had a good reason to think so according to his understanding at that time, even though he was wrong, where common sense comes into play, for him/them is understanding that they were wrong, once the truth had been shown.

I see life coming from life in all aspects of life, to me it is common sense to conclude that life started with someone, and not from an explosion, nothing or that Chithulu chap.
I think you will find that even great men of science like Einstein, Newton and others have come to a similar conclusion after all there laborious efforts to find the origin of life and the universe.

Do you not know the answers yourself or are you just lazy?

Maybe I could offer explanations, but it would be best for you to read the book in your own time and space, clearing your mind of any pre-conceived ideas you may have about God or religion, if you are serious.
That and obviously my explanations are not satisfactory to you.

I have read the BG and find it entirely unimpressive in it's explanation of the world.

That is not the purpose of BG.
Its purpose is, understanding your real position in the material world, understanding your identity as a soul, part and parcel of the Supreme Soul God, how one can reawaken his relationship with God and how one can go back home, back to Godhead upon leaving his material body.

I find nothing in it to recommend it over any other ancient text as far as truth is concerned.

It is the essence of all religious and ancient texts, it is not a competition to see which text is best. Jesus was vaishnav, Muhammad was vaishnav. Why? Because they only lived to serve God, nothing else.
All bona-fide religions are descended from veda. If you can grasp even small amount of the Gita, you will have some idea why God is so worshipable, but only if you desire.

A bunch of poorly reasoned transcendental philosophy and circular logic.

I don’t see it like that, I think it is the greatest book I have ever had the priviledge to read.

Love.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Tinker683]

Jan,

The Bhagavad Gita is superior in that it is non-sectarian and that it was spoken by God Himself.

Oh, really. Hot damn everyone, Jan Ardena has solved the religon issue. Everybody else in the world is wrong, and the Bhagavad Gita is answer to all of our prayers.

Yeah, sure it was made by God. The same way Dumbo the elephant was responsible for the Industrial Revolution.

So tell me Jan: How is it that the BG was written by God? How do you acually know this? Moses claimed that God was the one who gave him the Ten Commandments. Mohammed(sp?) calimed the Quran was told to him by the angel Gabriel. Abraham claimed that God acually spoke to him, and Jacob acually had a fist fight with God!

And now here you are, claiming the exact something.

Do you mind proving to me that it was, indeed, written by God?

Don’t take my view, develop your own view.

Done and done. God doesn't exist, I'm superfly snooka, and I have have more money than God. Hows that for theology?

Don’t worry about what christians say....

Usually I don't, except when they try to intrude on my freedom.

This is the material world, this means it is relative.

Your comparison is, sadly, accurate- They are many governments that treat their citizens this way.

But I would argue that a human establishment is for more flexible the supposed-will of a diety. Humans can form programs, charities, benefit plans for the more unfortunate.

The God of the Bible doesn't want us to learn anything, wants us to live in despair and meekness ( Because then we would be living in " worldly pleasures. " ) and if you don't do the minor task of prclaiming God your deity, your chucked into a firey pit for infinity.

I'd much rather deal the governments, than some vicious God-head like that.

Yes!

Well, alright, since you asked. I'll post later tonight when I get home from work, or sometime on the weekend ( If my beloved and I wish to do sometihng tonight. )

OK! Somewhere in the bible it says it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as it he were a woman, or in other words homosexuality is offensive to God. Now we see where homosexuals are being ordained as preists, now put aside any thoughts of personal prejudice, if there are any, what does that tell you about the ‘church,’ and its relationship with God?

I only think your proving my point here- If those who proclaim the "truth of God" can't even follow their own doctrines, why I think anything of what they have to say about God, then?

It is not a matter of ‘I’m right,’ it is a matter of simple deduction that even a child can do.

And what have you deduced? That everyone else is wrong, and the BG is the ordained Word of God?

If thats the case, you still need to prove it.

What evidence do you require?

Well, for one, God comming right here, right now, in my house before me, to tell me that Jan Ardena is correct, that the BG is the word of God. If God can't do that, then he's either ignoring me ( which, if in the case of the BG, renoucing God involves some ype of punishment, would be criminal negligance ) or he isn't there, OR he isn't that powerful. And if God isn't powerful enough, then God is not God.

Seeing as you are familiar with the bible how is ‘love thy neighbor as thyself’ or ‘thou shalt not kill’ or ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ intolerance. It is because of a lack of these qualities why intolerance occurs, just think about it.

I agree. It is because of the lack of tolerance, of compassion, of empathy, that hatred, bigotry, and intolerance happen.

However, I would argue that we do not need a God to dictate these nessicties to human beings. We're quite capable of mustering these feelings on our own. I most certainly do not need a God to tell me to be nice to another person: I've always known that, even before I was ever aware of God.

It is not religion that causes these atrocities, it is lack of religion or irreligion which creates lust, greed and envy amongst human beings, that causes these things, as I stated earlier. This part of sci-forum is labelled ‘religion,’ but where is the religion on this board, it is not the cause of this board, it is lack of religion that is the cause

Your use of the word religion seems to imply that your making it synonomous with "empathy" or "compassion". This is not only incorrect, and un-nessecary use of words. I do not need to use the word " religion " to describe the above emotion. The words assigned to them fit just fine.

If I have construed it incorrectly, then please do correct me.

Until next time

 

[Xev]

Nelson:

No, I studied Religion.
Haven't I explained that? Haven't you understand? Then what's the problem?

I am merely stunned that you came to such a conclusion.

Do you know how many people already interpreted the Bible in the same way you do? That's why we had Holy Wars, because they didn't interpreted those passages.

As an athiest, I am in no danger of starting any Holy Wars.

I agree. But many atheists are also selfish...

As are many Christians. Humans are inherently selfish.

Adam:

or the local leader of the Men Must Die feminism coalition.

Well, I can't see why you would have a problem with that.

(There might be one Brit who understands that pun)

Jan:

it is lack of religion or irreligion which creates lust,greed and envy amongst human beings

Well, one out of three ain't bad - it is a well known and established fact that athiests are better in bed.

I offer my immediate recognition of Adam's accidental double-entendre as evidence.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Common sense is not a fixed mental position, whoever thought the sun revolved around the Earth probably had a good reason to think so according to his understanding at that time, even though he was wrong, where common sense comes into play, for him/them is understanding that they were wrong, once the truth had been shown.

Your argument of 'common sense' was in answer to my question: How do come up with such a steadfast faith in your own knowledge of something that is not demonstrable? We agree that common sense is fallible. So I ask my question once again.

I see life coming from life in all aspects of life, to me it is common sense to conclude that life started with someone, and not from an explosion, nothing or that Chithulu chap.

What then, if your understanding was changed? What if you really took a look at evolution, physics, biology and saw that there was a more accurate description of what occurs? Better yet, one that is verifiable and supported with actual evidence. This is precisely what I and some other's here are proposing; that you "see the sun move across the sky" and make a 'common sense' evaluation which is incorrect.

I think you will find that even great men of science like Einstein, Newton and others have come to a similar conclusion after all there laborious efforts to find the origin of life and the universe.

Einstein and Newton were physicists, not biologists, their opinion on the origin of life is of no more authority than FDR's or Michael Jackson's. However, even in the areas where their authority does apply, there are new facts, new theories, and evidence that disproves some of their opinions.

Maybe I could offer explanations, but it would be best for you to read the book in your own time and space, clearing your mind of any pre-conceived ideas you may have about God or religion, if you are serious.

I have… and I found it lacking. I have seriously explored several religions, looking for truth. I found little truth in them. Definitely not enough truth to swallow all the unproven, unfounded baggage that goes with them. I would like to know why you believe and whether you can back those reasons up.

That and obviously my explanations are not satisfactory to you.

Hard to tell when you don't really give any. Why don't you try me.

That is not the purpose of BG. Its purpose is, understanding your real position in the material world, understanding your identity as a soul, part and parcel of the Supreme Soul God, how one can reawaken his relationship with God and how one can go back home, back to Godhead upon leaving his material body.

Why should I believe it is true? How can I determine it's authority? How can you demonstrate that it's precepts are more valid than any other religion or that of science? If you can, please do so. If not, stop insisting that it's the truth because your argument is unfounded.

All bona-fide religions are descended from veda.

How so, when there are religions older than 1500BC?

"Veda ... oldest scriptures of Hinduism and the most ancient religious texts in an Indo-European language. ... The Veda is the literature of the Aryans who invaded NW India c.1500 BC and pertains to the fire sacrifice that constituted their religion. The Vedic hymns were probably first compiled after a period of about 500 years during which the invaders assimilated various native religious ideas. The end of the Vedic period is about 500 BC."

I don’t see it like that, I think it is the greatest book I have ever had the priviledge to read.

And that is fine. It's an extremely interesting read, I'll give you that. But if you are going to assert that it is 'truth' you'll need more than your own faith to prove it. I can just as easily find a faithful Christian that says what they believe is the truth and that your belief is false. Why should I beleve you over them?

~Raithere

 

[Tiassa]

Still sounds familiar

Using the example you cited, Ashcroft and all. Should his activities be curtailed because of his beliefs? Or, using what ahs been said before, does he: A) deserve punishment; or B) deserve nothing good from anyone?

Try being more specific. The example I cited? From where? From you? You have claimed that religious people should be forbidden fromholding office.

As far as what someone deserves (e.g. nothing good from anyone) the example I provided is Randall Adams, convicted and sentenced to death for murdering a police officer.

Right now, the paragraph of yours that I've cited above seems to be combining two points in order to evade answering either one of them.

I don't want to prohobit christians and other folk from running for public office.

So you're withdrawing your bigoted statement or withdrawing it? Here, you can examine it again while you make your choice:

• From what little I know of the guy, he should be removed from office. Not for his persinal views, not for anything particular about him, but because it's simply a very bad idea to put such religious people in state office.

I don't want to prohobit christians and other folk from running for public office. I want the state and its people protected from anyone who would use that office to further their own personal desires.

So it seems a revision of your words. Is this the standard you would prefer to defend? Now then, why don't you draft the legislation, and explain just how you're going to do that? In the United States, at least, it's impossible without rewriting the Constitution.

Have fun.

Again, I would suggest you don't know my thoughts or motives and are assuming much

It's a nice counterpoint, and even follows the pattern of American politicians: make a broad statement, get called out, withdraw, revise, present irrelevant example in your defense. Good show, Adam, but it was a stale tactic before I was born.

The thoughts of others are considered. owever, my own thoughts are more improtant because they are mine. I would expect your own thoughts to be as important to you, Ashcroft's to be as important to him, et cetera. I can not possibly have a lack of sympathy for the human condition since I am human, and the human condition is my condition.

That's quite funny. Especially since you treat your thoughts as if they're more important in the general scheme of life than other people's. Of course they're important to you. But in your attempts to exclude others from the civic process, you have elevated your own standards above all other people's.

I prefer action over philosophy in books? Read Scaramouche. A nice mix of the two. 100% about "the human condition". Reminds me, I have a book called The Human Condition somewhere.

Yes, and I have one called The Inhuman Condition which is right impressive.

Well, you do of courser prefer pure fiction, and have objections to the supposedly deep:

I prefer to read pure fiction. I find that supposedly deep and insightful commentaries on society are generally written by sell-out pretend crusaders trying to make some money off True Believers and modern-day wannabe Bohemian art-student rejects. They grab a few facts and wrap a big bunch of opinions around them, it's nothing more than what you can find in any newspaper, and I don't like newspapers. I find my own thoughts about the world far more interesting than theirs anyway. (Wanting to die ....)

Imean, you wrote that questionmark in there about preferring action over philosophy in books. It was only something I got from you, so why are you surprised?

Superstition does not become the natural state. The natural state is not superstition, but to have superstitions and then to sort the wheat from the chaff.

So the logical process of sorting out the wheat from the chaff is inborn, and not learned?

\That process of learning, changing, and sorting the wheat from the chaff is what should be fixed in place as the natural state, if for some reason it is considered not already.

As you see, that process is as variable as it can be. Some people cling to it and start canceling out any portion of the mysterium they don't understand. Some people push it away and hold their fears of Devils and inadequacy their entire lives. Some people get along with it very well.

I am neither deliberately representing nor misrepresenting myself.

So that's not Adam who believes people should be prohibited from holding office because of their religion, or whatever that standard has become in your poor excuses afterwards. Oh, look, we get another one of 'em, too.

What you know, if you actually read my posts, is that I hold a single standard for all humans, even atheists. An atheist, too, should be scrutinised while serving a public office.

It is from your posts that I derive these things about you. It's quite easy, since many of those ideas come up in your other points. Yet you retreat from even your own words because ... why? Because you're not thinking their implications through? There is a great difference from scruitinizing a servant of the public while in office and preventing that person from holding office on arbitrary standards.

No, you learned one thing. And does this mean you object to the needs of the individual?

Specifically, it means that I object to making the needs of the individual so important as to harm the self or others.

So of all the "natural" circumstances humans opt out of, bloodthirsty competition among the herd shouldn't be one of them?

That's the way the world works. There's always a bigger fish. (Sound familiar?)

"But yes, I apply critical analysis to myself as much as to the outside world."

Well, if I need clarification on this point it's only because the rest of your posts don't seem to reflect such things. Your scrambling revision toward scrutiny of public officials ... well? Write a standard that can be put in place that achieves any dimension of what you've written from the bigoted standard all down through the washed-out excuses. I think you'll find that what you're proposing is problematic at best, and very near impossible at the worst.

What are my dictionaries? Apart from the usual web resources, I generally use: Websters, Funk & Wagnalls, Pears, MacMillan.

Well, that's good. (Then you're familiar with the definitions I'm providing, such as those that are documented from Webster's.)

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Godless]

For Jan, a sumary of the infamous GITA

I have to point it out, I got interested in your Gita since you always quote from this ancient book, so I did a little research on my own of this book, this is what I found:

The Historical Context of The Bhagavad Gita
and Its Relation to Indian Religious Doctrines


Soumen De


The Bhagavad Gita is perhaps the most famous, and definitely the most widely-read, ethical text of ancient India. As an episode in India's great epic, the Mahabharata, The Bhagavad Gita now ranks as one of the three principal texts that define and capture the essence of Hinduism; the other two being the Upanishads and the Brahma Sutras. Though this work contains much theology, its kernel is ethical and its teaching is set in the context of an ethical problem. The teaching of The Bhagavad Gita is summed up in the maxim "your business is with the deed and not with the result." When Arjuna, the third son of king Pandu (dynasty name: Pandavas) is about to begin a war that became inevitable once his one hundred cousins belonging to the Kaurava dynasty refused to return even a few villages to the five Pandava brothers after their return from enforced exile, he looks at his cousins, uncles and friends standing on the other side of the battlefield and wonders whether he is morally prepared and justified in killing his blood relations even though it was he, along with his brother Bhima, who had courageously prepared for this war. Arjuna is certain that he would be victorious in this war since he has Lord Krishna (one of the ten incarnations of Vishnu) on his side. He is able to visualize the scene at the end of the battle; the dead bodies of his cousins lying on the battlefield, motionless and incapable of vengeance. It is then that he looses his nerve to fight.


The necessity for the arose because the one hundred cousins of the Panadavas refused to return the kingdom to the Pandavas as they had originally promised. The eldest of the Pandav brothers, Yudhisthir, had lost his entire kingdom fourteen years ago to the crafty Kaurava brothers in a game of dice, and was ordered by his cousins to go on a fourteen-year exile. The conflict between the Pandavas and the Kauravas brewed gradually when the Kauravas refused to return the kingdom to the Panadavas and honor the agreement after the fourteen-year exile, and escalated to a full scale war when the Kauravas refused to even grant Yudhisthir's reduced demand for a few villages instead of the entire kingdom. As the battle is about to begin, Arjuna, himself an acclaimed warrior, wonders how he could kill his own blood relatives with whom he had grown up as a child. He puts the battle on hold and begins a conversation with Krishna, one of the ten but most important incarnations of the Universal Hindu God, Vishnu. The Bhagavad Gita begins here and ends with Krishna convincing Arjuna that in the grand scheme of things, he is only a pawn. The best he could do is do his duty and not question God's will. It was his duty to fight. In convincing Arjuna, the Lord Krishna provides a philosophy of life and restores Arjuna's nerve to begin the battle -- a battle that had been stalled because the protagonist had lost his nerve and needed time to reexamine his moral values.


Even though The Bhagavad Gita (hereafter referred to as the Gita) is one of the three principal texts that define the essence of Hinduism, and since all over the world Hindus chant from the Gita during most of their religious ceremonies, strictly speaking the Gita is not one of the Hindu scriptures. In light of its inseparable links to one of the two great Hindu epics (Mahabharata and Ramayana) which most Indians hold very dear to their hearts, and because Krishna, the most venerated and popular of the incarnations of Lord Vishnu, figures so prominently in it, the Gita over the years has not only become very popular but has ascended to spiritual heights that are afforded only to the Vedas (and the subsequent reinterpretive philosophies that followed them) and the Upanishads in the ancient Indian literature. The concept and symbol of God were extremely complicated issues (see below) in the ancient Hindu religious literature prior to the writing of the Gita. The notion of God and the paths to salvation are integral parts of all religions. The manner in which Hinduism originally dealt with these two fundamental issues was very complex and appeared to be too speculative at times. This was one of the reasons for which Buddhism branched out as a separate religion. When Buddhism was beginning to grow in popularity, Hinduism met with its first challenge: To provide a clear-cut, easy-to-worship symbol of God to its followers. For a variety of reasons, Lord Krishna was the obvious choice. Many have even suggested that it was one of the most pivotal choices ever made by ancient scholars to `humanize' the concept of God in the Hindu religion. Molded in the original image of Lord Vishnu, Krishna is an affable Avatar (reincarnation of God) which for the first time provided concrete guidelines for living to all mortals. The average Hindu might not know much about Brahma, but every one knows who Lord Krishna is. Mahatma Gandhi read the Gita often when he was in seclusion and in prison.


But, the universal popularity of the Gita has not detracted Indian scholars from deviating from the fundamental truth about Hinduism. The Gita is not the Hindu scripture even though the literal translation of "Bhagavad Gita" is "The Song of God". The Nobel laureate Indian poet, Rabindra Nath Tagore, rarely quoted from the Gita in his philosophical writings; instead, he chose to refer to the Upanishads, to quote from it, and to use its teachings in his own works. Of course, the teachings of the Upanishads are included in the Gita; they are visible in multiple chapters of the Gita. The kinetic concepts of karma and yoga, which appeared for the first time in the Upanishads (explained below), appear repeatedly in the Gita, often in disguised forms.


As with almost every religious Indian text, it is difficult to pinpoint when exactly the Gita was written. Without a doubt, it was written over a period of centuries by many writers. From the contents of the Gita, it is abundantly clear that both the principal teachings of the Upanishads and of early Buddhism were familiar to the writers of the Gita. So, it has been approximated that the Gita was written during the period 500-200 BCE. Even though India is one of the few nations which has a continuous documented history, very few Indian religious texts exists for which the exact date of publication is established without controversy.


Despite its universal appeal, the Gita is replete with contradictions both at the fundamental level and at the highest level of philosophical discourse. To the discerning eye, it would seem that what has been said in the previous chapter, is contradicted in the very next chapter. This is the fundamental complaint against the Gita, and this fact would appear to be ironic given the fact that the Gita was originally written to reconcile the differences between two of the six major ancient Indian philosophies (Darshans) that evolved over the early years of Hinduism and became integral parts of ancient Indian religious literature. The irony disappears however when one understands what the Gita purported to achieve at the level of philosophical and religious discourse. This fact is crucial not only for the understanding of the principal themes of the Gita but also to locate the essence of the Gita in the overall picture of ancient Indian doctrines. The Gita attempted, for the first time, to reconcile the teachings of two very abstract Indian religious doctrines into one whole. The task was a formidable one.


The Gita tried to include the fundamentals of two ancient Indian philosophies into one document and reconcile the principal differences between them. At the outset, one must note that the two doctrines (Darshans) were often extremely difficult to understand. Hence the inevitable contradictions or duality of interpretation. The Six Darshans of ancient India were actually of differing origin and purpose, but all were brought into the scheme by being recognized as viable ways of salvation. They were divided into three groups of two complementary schools of thought (Darshans) or doctrines: Nyaya and Vaisesika; Sankhyya and Yoga; and Mimamsha and Vedanta. The Bhagavad Gita attempted to reconcile the Sankhyya philosophy with those of the Vedanta doctrine. One must note in passing that the Sankhyya school of thought led to Buddhism while the Vedanta philosophy is at the root of modern Hinduism. In this article, we are only going to discuss briefly the two Darshans -- the Sankhyya and the Vedanta -- the Gita attempted to reconcile.


The Sankhyya is the oldest of the six Darshans while the Vedanta is the most important of the six systems. The various subsystems of the Vedanta doctrine has led to the emergence of modern intellectual Hinduism. The primary text of the Vedanta system is the Brahma Sutras, and its doctrines were derived in great part from the Upanishads, which marked the beginning of Hinduism as is understood and practiced today. Even though the Vedas are India's ancient sacred texts, modern Hinduism begins with the Vedanta (end of Vedas) and attains its zenith with the Brahma Sutras.


The Sankhyya philosophy traces the origins of everything to the interplay of Prakriti (nature) and Purusha (the Self, to be differentiated from the concept of the soul in the latter Indian philosophies). These two separate entities have always existed and their interplay is at the root of all reality. The concept of God is conspicuous by its absence. There is no direct mention of God but only a passing reference as to how one should liberate himself to attain the realization of Is war (a heavenly entity). A very significant feature of Sankhyya is the doctrine of the three constituent qualities (gunas), causing virtue (sattva), passion (rajas), and dullness (tamas). On the other hand, the Vedanta school of thought deals with the concept of Brahman the ultimate reality that is beyond all logic and encompasses not only the concepts of being and non-being but also all the phases in between. It is one of the most difficult concepts in the entire Indian philosophy. At the highest level of truth, the entire universe of phenomena, including the gods themselves, was unreal -- the world was Maya, illusion, a dream, a mirage, a fragment of the imagination. The only reality is Brahman.


One can see quite clearly the sources for the Gita's contradictions. It was dealing with not only two widely-differing Darshans but also with two of the most abstract philosophical systems. We know that the Gita was written long after the emergence of modern Hinduism. So it was able to draw on a wide variety of philosophical themes -- both ancient and relatively modern by comparison, and often opposing -- still present in modern Hinduism. Yet, to consolidate the two schools of thoughts proved to be an extremely difficult task -- a fact which the lyricism of the Gita, in the words of Lord Krishna himself, could not camaflouge. Any serious reader would arrive at the conclusion that even though the Gita mentions the Sankhyya, it more or less elaborates on ideas that originated with the Upanishads.


The fundamental tenets of Hinduism took shape during the period 800-500 BCE. They were set down in a series of treaties called the Upanishads. The Upanishads arise at the end of the Vedas, which earns it the name Veda-anta, which literally means "end (anta) of the Vedas." Almost all philosophy and religion in India rests upon the wealth of speculation contained in these works. The Upanishads center on the inner realms of the spirit. Encompassing the meaning of spiritual unity, the Upanishads point directly to the Divine Unity which pervades all of nature and is identical to the self.


There are four "kinetic ideas" -- ideas that involve action or motion -- that represent the core of Indian spirituality. The ultimate objective is control of the passions and to realize a state of void -- a concept very similar to that of Buddhism. The four kinetic ideas are "karma, maya, nirvana, and yoga" and they appear in the Gita. But one must remember that they appeared for the first time in the Upanishads. A brief summary of the four ideas are provided below.

Karma: The law of universal causality, which connects man with the cosmos and condemns him to transmigrate -- to move from one body to another after death -- indefinitely. In the Gita, Krishna makes an allusion to the eternal soul that moves from body to body as it ascends or descends the ladder of a given hierarchy, conditioned on the nature of one's own karma -- work of life or life deeds.
Maya: refers to cosmic illusion; the mysterious process that gives rise to phenomena and maintains the cosmos. According to this idea, the world is not simply what is seems to the human senses -- a view with which the 20th century western scientists wholly agree. Absolute reality, situated somewhere beyond the cosmic illusion woven by maya and beyond human experience as conditioned by karma. Both Tagore, the renowned Indian poet and Albert Einstein, the famous scientist, agreed on this conclusion. Absolute reality, in their minds, was beyond human perception.

Nirvana: The state of absolute blessedness, characterized by release from the cycle of reincarnations; freedom from the pain and care of the external world; bliss. Union with God or Atman. Hindus call such mystical union with ultimate reality as Samandhi or Moksha.

Yoga: implies integration; bringing all the faculties of the psyche under the control of the self. Essentially, the object of various types of yoga is mind control, and the system lays down the effectual techniques of gaining liberation and achieving divine union. The word yoga is loosely applied to any program or technique which leads toward the union with God or Atman. There are five principal kinds of yoga: Hatha(physical), jnana (the way of knowledge), bhakti (the way of love), karma (the way of work), and rajah (mystical experience).

The Western world's interest in The Bhagavad Gita began around the end of the eighteenth century when the first English translation of the Gita was published. All religious texts of ancient India were written in Sanskrit. In November 1784, the first direct translation of a Sanskrit work into English was completed by Charles Wilkins. The book that was translated was The Bhagavad Gita. Friedreich Max Mueller (1823-1900), the German Sanskritist who spent most of his working life as Professor of Comparative Philology at Oxford University, served as the chief editor of the Sacred Books of the East. (Oxford University Press). The Gita was included in this famous collection. Since then, the Gita has become one of the most widely-read texts of the world. True, there are unexplained contradictions and paradoxes in this brief book, but its wide-ranging implications based on the two ancient Darshans of India and its allegorical meanings are still being examined and reinterpreted.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So in a sence you Gita is just another history of ancient people, however this was also used as a quide much like the bible, with the jewish story. Believe whatever you want to believe Jan, but your infamous Gita is also full of contradictions which have been corrected, therefore which means it has been re-written pretty much the same as the bible. So you can't say that the Gita is the word of god, cause this would make your god as fallacious as the christian god. The Gita is the work of man, just as the bible was.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Re: For Jan, a sumary of the infamous GITA

Originally posted by Godless
Believe whatever you want to believe Jan, but your infamous Gita is also full of contradictions....

Such as...???

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Xev
Well, one out of three ain't bad - it is a well known and established fact that athiests are better in bed.

Are you saying that 99.999% of the worlds population are better in bed?
What at….sleeping?

I offer my immediate recognition of Adam's accidental double-entendre as evidence.

And I offer you my sympathy.

Love.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Raithere,


Do you love somebody?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Tinker683
I'd much rather deal the governments, than some vicious God-head like that.

See how God is merciful, He has given you what you want.

I only think your proving my point here- If those who proclaim the "truth of God" can't even follow their own doctrines, why I think anything of what they have to say about God, then?

If you don't want God in your life, then thats cool, don't sweat about it.

If thats the case, you still need to prove it.

I think it was you who said you have a christian girlfriend who you love, if so, prove to me you love her.

If God can't do that, then he's either ignoring me ( which, if in the case of the BG, renoucing God involves some ype of punishment, would be criminal negligance ) or he isn't there, OR he isn't that powerful. And if God isn't powerful enough, then God is not God.

Try and summon the president of USA to your house and see if he comes, and he’s only a man.
If you want to see God, there are rules and regulations you have to adhere to in order to purify yourself, these rules and regs are documented in the vedas.
If you want to live a life of pure self indulgence, then you can, but you have to pay the price at the end of your life, that is what you call punishment. If you look at your life now, based on the philosophy of karma, you created this situation from your last life.

However, I would argue that we do not need a God to dictate these nessicties to human beings.

You don't even know how you came to be, or how this universe came to be, how do you know whether you need a God or not.

We're quite capable of mustering these feelings on our own.

Then why is there so much suffering in this world, suffering which is all mainly due to man??

I most certainly do not need a God to tell me to be nice to another person: I've always known that, even before I was ever aware of God.

Here's one of your favourite questions; Prove it?

Your use of the word religion seems to imply that your making it synonomous with "empathy" or "compassion".

Religion is a means by which one learns to love God.
The majority of users on this board are anti religion, so where is the religion on this board titled ‘religion.’

This is not only incorrect, and un-nessecary use of words. I do not need to use the word " religion " to describe the above emotion. The words assigned to them fit just fine.

Neither do I.

Love.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Raithere,
Do you love somebody?

More than one even.

~Raithere

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Raithere
More than one even.

Can you prove it?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Godless]

Re: Re: For Jan, a sumary of the infamous GITA

Originally posted by Jan Ardena

Originally posted by Godless
Believe whatever you want to believe Jan, but your infamous Gita is also full of contradictions....

Such as...???

Love

Jan Ardena.

Well since you ask, apparently you have accepted the LIE of the Gita and it's philosophical teachings. Here have a look:

HINDUISM AND THE BHAGAVAD-GITA
I think it is a dangerous thing to say that destruction as well as creation are needed in this world. It could too facilely be used to justify every variety of outright evil.

Karma is defined in this book as "a moral law of cause and effect." I like this a lot. It means that justice is not dependent on the whim of a personal god, but is as intrinsic as...hydrogen. Of course the human wolverines could take the line that you've earned any and all misery that comes to you -- but maybe acts of compassion toward the miserable are part of their karma, too!

Moksha is the Hindu escape from the perpetual round of birth and death, sin and recompense, the ensnaring bonds of the past. This description bears a faint resemblance to the Christian idea of salvation. The way to moksha is to detach yourself from desire; the goal, to escape to the "full awareness of divine, ultimate reality," where "change and time are no more."

I'd go nuts. This description of moksha occurs on p. 18 of the book, and so early in my search I have rediscovered that I DON'T WANT TO GO TO HEAVEN AT ALL!

I can see that "The meek shall inherit the earth" is another doctrine I'm likely to carry over from Jehovah's Witnesses.

Dharma (which means both teaching and duty) is how you can achieve moksha. There are several ways to follow dharma: you can meditate; you can study, like a theologian; you can spend your life in "desireless" (selfless?) work, like a nun or a Peace Corps volunteer; or you can love God, like a Pentecostal. There is nothing abstract or calm or platonic about this love. It is "ardent, even erotic." Which explains why Harry and I have had so much fun since I began hanging out at Starr King.

It occurs to me that Starr King is probably very much a bhakti (devotional) church, despite its humanist culture, if the Sunday services are anything to go by.

You will find more blatant contradictions in the Bhagavad-Gita than we are accustomed to perceiving in the Bible (though they certainly exist there, too). The Hindu reaction to such a charge is: "So?"

The theme, or rather the "excuse" for the Bhagavad-Gita, is the Mahabharata, an epic battle of prehistoric times. So it begins by dealing with this bloody battle in prospect. War throws good and evil, freedom and oppression, and the search for God into sharp relief.

Arjuna faces the question: should he go to war? Krishna (the Krishna, but nobody knows that yet) explains that the soul is immortal and Krishna loves you, therefore you can stand anything. The soul needs purifying, precisely because it is immortal, and that's arduous work, in which Krishna will sustain the Hindu believer.

Arjuna is not comforted, apparently. Beyond mere physical fear for himself, he is appalled to the point of prostration by the horrors that will be visited on others. If this is a normal, healthy reaction, then every war is indeed an orgy of destruction, and no banalities about valor will change that. Why do people go to war? Krishna says, eventually, that he ought to do his duty as a warrior, but this goes against the Hindu grain. Hindus know as well as James that warfare springs from desire.

On reading about this puzzlement of Arjuna's, I got a glimmer of possible insight into why Hinduism teaches reincarnation.

If you truly understand how much misery and blood guilt war can bring, it boggles the mind to think of the karmic debt incurred by the participants. It might seem impossible that seventy years would be enough time to pay it off. Or that seventy years of recompense might be enough for the victims. Or, for instance, it might be beyond belief that Hitler and his cronies could have grown so murderous in the span of a single human lifetime.

Hinduism is as ambivalent about war as any modern pacifist who says to himself, "--but I would have fought Hitler." "The Gita, like the New Testament, suggests that true divinity is spiritual in the sense of too reasonable, good and creative to get dead-ended into approving people's mutual maiming."

And yet Krishna advises Arjuna to fight -- his relatives, no less -- on the grounds that that is his duty. Not slaughter per se, but defense of his country. For Arjuna, a soldier, to be a pacifist (like a priest) would panic everybody. (Say, I ought to read Karl Shapiro's "The Conscientious Objector" again.) "We are not yet at the stage [of human history] where the individual conscience has evolved sufficiently to stand up to social pressures." So Krishna pressures him to kill, coaxing him with earthly or heavenly rewards, threatening him with the wrath of the gods and the loss of his good name.

Well, in the ordinary case, this won't do.

But what if Arjuna had been an Allied soldier? Maybe there is such a thing as a holy war that can be fought with carnal weapons, the authors say, but the chances of being involved in one are not high.

The authors say Krishna's arguments have been disproved by two millennia of human history.

How does detachment, desirelessness, apply to a god like Krishna? Supposedly it merely means that he is not easy to disappoint, is slow to anger, as the God of the Bible is said to be. Now, in learning from all the world's religious traditions, we have to "leave the chaff and take the wheat," as Emerson put it. A long description of Krishna's splendor and divinity follows his short-sighted urging of Arjuna to war. Is that sufficient "wheat"?

Say, this reminds me of the vision of "Behemoth" in Sheri Tepper's book, Shadow's End.

To quote Krishna, "Demonic men do not understand either acting or turning away. In them there is no purity, or even good conduct or truth. They say the world is without reality, without foundation, without a lord, not made by one thing following another but only moved by desire."

I find this a very bewildering statement. For one thing, branding any category of people as "demonic men" seems to provide fertile ground for the religious intolerance Hinduism is famed for not having. Further, I know very few people like this. To say that the world is "without a lord" is not necessarily to say that it is without reality or foundation or moved only by selfish desire. Krishna doesn't recognize the possibility of ethical atheism or agnosticism, at least not here.

But the Carmodys make great capital out of this passage [16:7-8]. They say that "the demonic make the will to power, the desire to possess, the key to understanding politics. In Western terms, the demonic see the world much as Thomas Hobbes and Sigmund Freud did: libido, desire, is all." Well, this makes better sense, but I'm not sure how they wring it out of this verse. It sounds awfully Fundamentalist to me. They say that the demonic are connected neither to divine principles -- not to any moral principles higher than themselves -- nor connected to the realities of everyday human life, like hunger and thirst and getting old, which would humble them.

Sounds like Ollie North, who could not see anything one hair's-breadth higher than "patriotism", and who probably hasn't missed a meal in twenty years.

The Hindus apparently have as much trouble believing in the love of God as I do. But in both Hindu and Christian tradition, perception of the love of the eternal God for man is supposed to be the root of self-confidence and people's love for each other.

I've never been able to get that to work. A Catholic priest, I forget who, once wrote "The love of God will drive a man to drink." The thought of a personal god who wants into my life horrifies me -- has for at least the past year. What have I got that he wants? "You are loved by me surely," says Krishna. What on earth attracts him?

Contemplation, or meditation, is another route to moksha, and it sounds terrifying the way the Carmodys describe it. It sounds like when you make proper contact with God, you cease to exist. That's the same as death, as far as I can see.

But the authors draw a distinction between meditation (which you do with you brain) and contemplation (which you do with your heart). No wonder the Watchtower Society warns people away from it.

But when Westerners contemplate god they come back talking about being "taken outside themselves and shown the unity of all things," and it is evidently identical to the Indian mystic who thinks he is dissolving into the cosmos. The Carmodys instead compare it to a child utterly at ease in its mother's arms, asking, "What resource is better able to secure people in the mature sense of self-worth necessary for peace-making?"

Well, it is still appalling even when described this way. How can a human being survive the direct experience of the love of God? Such warmth is heat of volcanic intensity. I can't see why it wouldn't burn you to death.

Or maybe it would just transform you permanently. Maybe that's all that mystics mean when they talk about the annihilation of the soul. Tear down and rebuild. Maybe I could do that.

 

[Xev]

Are you saying that 99.999% of the worlds population are better in bed?

Er, ah, no. Athiests compose about 1-5% of the world's population.

You are back to your Orwellian twisting of words again, honey.

What at….sleeping?

Dunno, never fallen asleep on a partner, never had him or her fall asleep on me. I bow to your superior experiance in the matter.

 

[Tinker683]

Jan,

See how God is merciful, He has given you what you want.

Puh-leez. "Merciful" doesn't belong the same sentence when referring to any God that damnes people to eternal hell.

If you don't want God in your life, then thats cool, don't sweat about it.

Believe you me, I don't. It religionists who come to my door trying to explain me that they have something I need, that I disdain. So as soon as they finish doing that, I'll finally be able to stop thinking about it.

Try and summon the president of USA to your house and see if he comes, and he’s only a man. If you want to see God, there are rules and regulations you have to adhere to in order to purify yourself, these rules and regs are documented in the vedas. If you want to live a life of pure self indulgence, then you can, but you have to pay the price at the end of your life, that is what you call punishment. If you look at your life now, based on the philosophy of karma, you created this situation from your last life.

Firstly: God is not a man. God can talk to everybody on this planet, at this very moment, and can hold conversation with them easily.

Secondly: Again, Why are you right? Why should the vedas hold more authority than the Wiccan rede, or the Bible? All of these have something to say reguarding God.

You don't even know how you came to be, or how this universe came to be, how do you know whether you need a God or not.

Acually, I do know how I came to be. My Mother and father played hide-the-bolonni, and I was the result. I don't know where the universe is, but I do know that I don't need to appeal to the authority of an imaginary being inorder to try and make some sense out of it. I'm pretty confident that, one day, humanity may just discover where the universe came from.

And if they do discover a God, it will be interesting to see which god they'll find.

Then why is there so much suffering in this world, suffering which is all mainly due to man??

Because human begins can make mistakes. We don't proclaim to be perfect, unlike the god(s) in the vedas, the bible, or the tul'mud. And if we become extinct, it will either to due to something beyond our control ( like a meteor ) or because of ourselves.

In any case, if God did exist, he has a lot to answer for.

Here's one of your favourite questions; Prove it?

Easily. My mother raised me to know what was right and wrong waaay before I grandmother took me to church for the first time.

NOW You prove to me the BG is right, and the others are not, or I am no longer going to reguard any further statements you make about the BG. I have asked you multiple times to prove the BG, and you have not. I expect, the next thread, that you atleast try.

Until next time Jan.