Harikrish

Franklin replied: no

Hard Atheist/Anti-Theists are dumb. Change my mind.

Franklin wrote: I looked at Paradise and found poor people forming the majority of its inhabitants; and I looked at Hell and saw that the majority of its inhabitants were women. ""

"The Prophet said: "I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful. " It was asked, "Do they disbelieve in Allah? " (or are they ungrateful to Allah? ) He replied, "They are ungrateful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favors and the good (charitable deeds) done to them. If you have always been good (benevolent) to one of them and then she sees something in you (not of her liking), She will say, 'I have never received any good from you. "

Man is that the modern American women today or what??

I haven't a clue what you consider an argument for theism. I don't know what "theism" is to you.

This seems to me like an off topic tangent. So while I think "Life" is an ironclad argument for theism, I will not debate it here.

Make a seperate thread if the topic interests you that much. I would find it interesting enough to post there.

The point here is that the OP says that deism is functionally identical to atheism, and my considered opinion is that this may seem so because arguments for theism must first establish deism.

The OP also misunderstands his own word - "functionally". He apparently thinks this functionality should "inform" our daily lives, our system of government, our laws, and/or our sense of morality.

He is clearly incorrect, as deism has implications that atheism clearly does not have. And as expected, diests have worldviews very different than that of atheists.

But I wanted to handle the reason why he thought deism was the same as atheism first, before complicating the argument with the "functionality" side show.

Terran

"Me: I exist around the timeline prophesied in reference to a rebuilding of Jerusalem in 1535 AD. 434 years and 490 years translate into 1969 and 2025 AD...483 years for the announcement of the messiah, translates into the year 2018, right now, this very moment. And here I am, in 2018, announcing myself as the man of prophecy. The timeline for me is more accurate than for Jesus, and the very estimate accurately represents my arrival to the very exact year. While the timeline is rounded, it is rounded very close and closer than with Jesus to the point of the estimate for my arrival being in total accuracy to the very year, this very moment. The rebuilding of Jerusalem in reference to my timeline, was in times of trouble as the 1000 year war between Christians and Muslims continued to escalate until Christians eventually won 400 years ago. Unlike with Jesus, after my arrival, war in Jerusalem has continued between Jews and Arabs to this very day, with no end in sight, despite the matter being the focus of the world stage and every effort from the rest of the world to establish Middle Eastern peace in futility, to the point of ISIS emerging, and the threat of a world war over how different powers are dealing with ISIS and who gets possession of Jerusalem."

Your reasoning is flawed.

Prophecy refers to Daniel's people. Are you a Jew?

The prophecy refers to a people following the Mosaic Covenant. Do you follow the Old Covenant law? (Demonstrate how you can)

The prophecy describes the once again destruction, not multiple destructions. That happened in AD 70. That excludes you from being the fulfillment.

If you pay attention to the audience of address, the timeline, the events during the destruction, this can all be demonstrated to have happened in the 1st century.

To add to their similarity, Taoism's original name was Daoism.

Both views on reality revolve around the idea that questioning God's motive is a zero-sum game since we're not God but are inside the simulation/creation. Both hold morality to be nothing more than a natural processed that we evolved over time. What exactly differentiates one from the other, except that one originated in China and the other has ambiguous origin?

The prognosis for Christianity is already out, and things are going exactly as Jesus said they would.

Christianity will outlast all other religions. Hinduism for example, is clearly going to decline. It adds members by birth, and for the last 3,000 years has not been able to leave the dusty Indian valley of its birth.

Now that the government of India has banned Hinduism's caste system, young people are ignoring the religion in droves. Hinduism will clearly die.

The list of people and religions predicting the death of Christianity is long, and secularists tend to think numbers is what validates a religion.

But Christians know that truth is what validates a religion, regardless of size. Christianity is still the largest religion, and remains the fastest growing in terms of actual numbers of new converts, and will remain so for a long time.

Young people are leaving the catholic church. Other churches around the world are growing.

So then, when he says, "such a religion must be destroyed," what religion is he talking about?

I have, therefore, no hesitation in saying that such a religion must be destroyed, and I say there is nothing irreligious in working for the destruction of such a religion. Indeed I hold that it is your bounden duty to tear off the mask, to remove the misrepresentation that is caused by misnaming this Law as Religion. This is an essential step for you. Once you clear the minds of the people of this misconception, and enable them to realize that what they are told is Religion is not Religion, but that it is really Law, you will be in a position to urge its amendment or abolition.

Dodging questions and re-spamming your post will not work for long.

Remember, this site is moderated.

Franklin wrote: Im not African, not even close, I am super white

I am white from America, I am a popular singer and on tour, I went to Taniza now in Australia, I am originally from New Hampshire, get it right due

Welcome back. I saw your name crossed out and i assumed the worst.Yes god has morals.Almost half the bible is him talking about how he is going to destroy "bad" people and is going to give eternal life to "good" people.plus he is the biggest prude to ever exist. I believe that example like children dieing from lack of love.Show's hating someone or loving someone is more then just chemicals in the brain.

Most of your posts are calling Ethang a nigger

Yet the authors conclusion was to call for the destruction of Hinduism as the originator and sustainer of the vile, slave making caste system.

I have, therefore, no hesitation in saying that such a religion must be destroyed, and I say there is nothing irreligious in working for the destruction of such a religion.

Only if you can't read.

So then, when he says, "such a religion must be destroyed," what religion is he talking about?

So you claim, but African slavery is not the topic here, Hinduism is.

I have, therefore, no hesitation in saying that such a religion must be destroyed, and I say there is nothing irreligious in working for the destruction of such a religion. Indeed I hold that it is your bounden duty to tear off the mask, to remove the misrepresentation that is caused by misnaming this Law as Religion. This is an essential step for you. Once you clear the minds of the people of this misconception, and enable them to realize that what they are told is Religion is not Religion, but that it is really Law, you will be in a position to urge its amendment or abolition.

Franklin wrote: I never claimed that

Franklin wrote: actually I havent blocked you anymore

Franklin wrote: stop spamming pls

Yet the authors conclusion was to call for the destruction of Hinduism as the originator and sustainer of the vile, slave making caste system.

I have, therefore, no hesitation in saying that such a religion must be destroyed, and I say there is nothing irreligious in working for the destruction of such a religion.

So you claim, but African slavery is not the topic here, Hinduism is.

Franklin wrote: Om on American schedule.

Yet the authors conclusion was to call for the destruction of Hinduism as the originator and sustainer of the vile, slave making caste system.

There are advantages in the Nazi system too when seen as a purification module.

Correctly your law minister said about you - "Virtue has become caste-ridden, and morality has become caste-bound. There is no sympathy for the deserving. There is no appreciation of the meritorious. There is no charity to the needy. Suffering as such calls for no response."

Luckily India saw no advantages and outlawed the caste system. But by [your] absence of conscience the Hindu is a great obstacle in the path of the removal of untouchability.

Lol. First you restrict them to poverty, and then blame and punish them for being poor! Just as your law minister said, "The Hindus do not want a system in which nobody will be anybody. They also do not want a system in which everybody may be somebody. They want a system in which they will be somebodies and others will be nobodies.

Your law minister spoke about the Hindus need to have a class "lower" than he, "It gives them a class which they can look down upon. I guess that must be why you are now trying to compare. The caste system has made you need to compare everything as if the world was a caste system.

I'd rather stay on topic. Christianity has nothing to do with Hinduism or African slavery. The OP asked if Hinduism was a religion. Ambedkar an Indian, a Hindu, and an intellectual did not think so.

He called Hinduism evil and advocated its destruction.

I think this is a really good way to put it. From the incessant flirty comments to the bizarre poetry (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/924/raps-by-darters) he's flaunted his sexuality in a way that is questionable at best, and comes off REALLY badly when read in the wrong light. He even made a sexual comment about me, saying he would nominate my ass for the hall of fame. I've self doxxed on DDO multiple times so I know that he knows what I look like, meaning it wasn't just a normal comment. I didn't say anything because I don't care, but somebody else could've absolutely been offended or hurt by a comment like that.

I truly don't think he meant anything sinister in his comment to the minor. But it doesn't matter. It was a totally unacceptable way for a moderator to behave, and it was at that moment that I would imagine a lot of people suddenly started viewing his sexual behavior in the past in a *very* different light which caused the tremendous backlash.

Gods moral system effect's us biologically.

Giving to the poor can help with an assortment of different diseases like Hiv/aids and other chronic diseases and can even add years to one's life. This is because Gods moral system effects us biologically.

This disproves Evolution because Morals are not something taught to us by our parents.

This is like if i murdered children and my eyes turned red or yellow to show that i am evil.

Show us your wisdom

To better answer the OP's question, we need an opinion from first an Indian, and then a Hindu. Second, he should be educated and intelligent enough to make people not familiar with Hindu custom and culture understand it.

That person is...

Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar (14 April 1891 – 6 December 1956), popularly known as Babasaheb, was an Indian jurist, economist, politician and social reformer who inspired the Dalit Buddhist movement and campaigned against social discrimination towards Untouchables (Dalits), while also supporting the rights of women and labour.

He was Independent India's first law minister, the principal architect of the Constitution of India and a founding father of the Republic of India.

Ambedkar was a prolific student, earning doctorates in economics from both Columbia University and the London School of Economics, and gained a reputation as a scholar for his research in law, economics and political science.

In his early career he was an economist, professor, and lawyer. His later life was marked by his political activities; he became involved in campaigning and negotiations for India's independence, publishing journals, advocating political rights and social freedom for Dalits, and contributing significantly to the establishment of the state of India. In 1956 he converted to Buddhism, initiating mass conversions of Dalits.

On 9 May, 1927, he presented the thesis paper Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development before a seminar conducted by the anthropologist Alexander Goldenweiser.

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/txt_ambedkar_castes.html

The caste problem is a vast one, both theoretically and practically. Practically, it is an institution that portends tremendous consequences. It is a local problem, but one capable of much wider mischief,...

....if Hindus migrate to other regions on earth, Indian caste would become a world problem."

Indeed the ideal Hindu must be like a rat living in his own hole, refusing to have any contact with others. There is an utter lack among the Hindus of what the sociologists call "consciousness of kind." There is no Hindu consciousness of kind. In every Hindu the consciousness that exists is the consciousness of his caste. That is the reason why the Hindus cannot be said to form a society or a nation.

The effect of caste on the ethics of the Hindus is simply deplorable. Caste has killed public spirit. Caste has destroyed the sense of public charity. Caste has made public opinion impossible. A Hindu's public is his caste. His responsibility is only to his caste. His loyalty is restricted only to his caste. Virtue has become caste-ridden, and morality has become caste-bound. There is no sympathy for the deserving. There is no appreciation of the meritorious. There is no charity to the needy. Suffering as such calls for no response. There is charity, but it begins with the caste and ends with the caste. There is sympathy, but not for men of other castes.

A Hindu is born in a caste and he dies as a member of that caste. There is no Hindu without caste, cannot escape caste and being bounded by caste from birth to death he becomes subject to social regulations and traditions of the caste over which he has no control.

Not having conscience, the Hindu has no such thing in him as righteous indignation against the inequities and injustices from which the Untouchable has been suffering. He sees no wrong in these inequities

and injustices and refuses to budge. By his absence of conscience the Hindu is a great obstacle in the path of the removal of untouchability.

Untouchability may be a misfortune to the Untouchables. But there is no doubt that it is a good fortune to the Hindus. It gives them a class which they can look down upon.

The Hindus do not want a system in which nobody will be anybody. They also do not want a system in which everybody may be somebody. They want a system in which they will be somebodies and others will be nobodies. The Untouchables are nobodies.

This makes the Hindus some bodies. The system of untouchability sustains the natural pride of the Hindus and makes them feel as well as look big.

I have, therefore, no hesitation in saying that such a religion must be destroyed, and I say there is nothing irreligious in working for the destruction of such a religion. Indeed I hold that it is your bounden duty to tear off the mask, to remove the misrepresentation that is caused by misnaming this Law as Religion. This is an essential step for you. Once you clear the minds of the people of this misconception, and enable them to realize that what they are told is Religion is not Religion, but that it is really Law, you will be in a position to urge its amendment or abolition.

This great Indian and Hindu would answer the question of the OP with a resounding, "No".

This is a very strong accusation and one that is not based in fact. I don't think bsh realized he was a minor. I think it was a joke in very poor taste. I don't believe bsh is an evil child predator.

Franklin wrote: I never claimed I was a doctor, it's a video game reference, i dont live in the republican of tanzia, its a joke

Harikrish wrote: Buddha achieved enlightenment in his life time.

Funny that you should mention Buddha, whose teachings were eventually rejected in most of the Indian subcontinent. His ideas fell outside of mainstream Hindu thought, making him a schismatic. If you embrace Buddha then your relation to Hinduism is that of a Christian to Judaism.

Launching a new troll enterprise, are we.

I must say, it's not your best work. Far too long, far too obvious.

In the broader sense, sure. Christianity is a religion and there have always been people willing to kill on account of religions. You really think there's never been a Muslim murdered by an angry Hindu? Or a Christian convert murdered by a local angry Hindu?

You do realize there's like 100-200 hundred million people in India who live their entire lives regarded as trash because their religion said they were born trash. It took Western (*cough* Christian *cough*) influences to formally abolish this perverse system but even today many Hindus take it seriously.

And I suppose the Hindu gods never killed anyone?

And I suppose everything in Hindu scripture is scientifically accurate?

The Bible's pretty clear that people choose whether to accept or reject truth. The Jews rejected Jesus and that was their own failing.

Yes and no. The Gospel was proclaimed "first to the Jews" but "then to the Gentiles". As a universally applicable narrative it would make no sense to offer salvation only to those members of a single small ethnic group.

The church was institutionalized, yes. But Christianity was about 280 years old by this point.

This reflects the choices and shortcomings of people, not of God. At the same time, though, these "30,000 denominations" agree on 80-90% of stuff. The core doctrines of the Christian faith are accepted by all of these save maybe the Mormons and similar fringe groups.

Says who? You? You can't, sure. You're a fallible human being with your own sins to pay off. But God, without blemish, the Creator of the Universe? I don't see why not.

It's important to note also: there are varying interpretations of what Jesus accomplished on the cross. The common view is simple atonement, but in keeping with the larger Biblical narrative Jesus is also described as a conquering King who was mighty enough to redeem men from the hold of sin. The cross, while atoning, also served to demonstrate God's infinite power and love.

Jesus is God, not a mere man.

Also, what do you think God meant? "Do not murder people/needlessly throw away their lives in vile pagan rituals" or "I will arbitrarily limit myself from accomplishing what I seek to accomplish, the redemption of humanity, because that interpretation of my words is the one that will make some smug guy on the internet thousands of years later sound right"?

Anyone can do what you're doing: take the words of a religious text and twist them to mean things the original author never had in mind. The fact that it is grammatically possible to so twist words does not in itself discredit anything whatsoever. It merely reflects limitations of human communication. Otherwise, anyone could do the same to Hindu texts and thereby discredit Hinduism.

So they tried to seize Him, but no one laid a hand of Him, because His hour had not yet come.

(John 7:30)

"Put back your sword," Jesus said to him. "For all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Are you not aware that I can call on My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen this way?

(Matthew 26:52-54)

So Pilate said to him, "Do You refuse to speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You and authority to crucify You?" Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me if it were not given to you from above.

(John 19:10-11)

Yup, sounds rather voluntary to me.

Franklin wrote: how,explaun theyselves

Franklin wrote: I am out of school, a school day lasts until 2:45 but a work day lasts to 5,

So, even though Scripture gives these honest examples of dissent it does not present an unfavourable reading of who Jesus is and what He came to do overall, but more of what some of the JEWS of the day perceived Him.

Franklin wrote: wherver ethang goes, harikrish follows

Franklin wrote: Please note that is incorrect, He lives In India as he is never on during the Indian workday but during the American workday like right now

Mike has been overwhelmed at work which he loves so much :/

I am not in favor or opposed, we lost one head mod and we got another one, it's that simple. I am sure the current team that we have is also great.

(In response to post #6)

There's two main categories of things to look for in a religion:

1. Theology

2. Cosmology

Broadly defined, theology is the "core message" of a religion that distinguishes it from other belief systems. "Worship Vishnu" as opposed to "Worship Zeus" does not count as such. Rather, that would count as a cosmological (again, broadly defined) detail. Cosmology entails the name and physical description of deity, the history of what that deity did, and so on. It entails a description of a Universe rife with supernatural elements.

Christianity has a truly excellent theology, universal in scope, answering the most important questions in life.

For example: "I've done some really crummy things in life, or at least had really bad and inexcusable thoughts. People in general think I'm a good guy but I don't feel like that's really the case. Assuming a moral Universe, is there some kind of cosmic consequence for my underlying bad nature?"

Indian religions (and to be clear, there is no unity in these either) assume rather that "Life is inherently full of suffering" and (in Hinduism) bad karma is the reason. This begs the question, of course: If we were originally of a pure divine essence, did that pure divine essence commit sin?

In addition, "Life has more suffering than not" is a generalization which obviously isn't always true. And yet the universal instinct of Indian religion is to find "liberation" from existence regardless of its conditions.

In Christianity, though the effects of individual sin may not be observable in life, it still exists in the larger sense, though perhaps invisible in the material world. This lends some credence as to why somebody needs God even if they're living a fabulously awesome life on earth.

Another thing: Hinduism, however good its theology, has an insanely impractical cosmology. Like for example "The eight armed blue guy slew the demon, carved out his entrails to form the Himalayan mountain range". Not an actual Hindu idea but it's often something as zany as this, something thoroughly incompatible with our modern scientific understanding of the world.

How do you answer to this?

Franklin wrote: Guys the meaning of life is the search for the meaning of life

Harikrish, even in a topic about what is supposed to be your faith, you still can't avoid bashing Christianity. Does anyone actually believe you are a biblical scholar? I don't think anybody here respects your self declarations.

Harikrish, if I don't believe you understand my faith, how do you expect to persuade me? Do you really think anyone else is going to find you convincing? I tell you, you only speak to those who will likely agree with anything anti-Christian.

But this topic is about Hinduism, not Christianity. I say that Hinduism is not actually a single religion but many different religions with a common heritage. Is that really so controversial? If I am in err, surely you being a Hindu could better explain and point out my misconception.

Pope Francis, who is not an Orthodox Patriarch, did not say that Jesus was a failure, he said the opposite.

"We can get caught up measuring the value of our apostolic works by the standards of efficiency, good management, and outward success which govern the business world.

Not that these things are unimportant!

We have been entrusted with a great responsibility, and God’s people rightly expect accountability from us.

But the true worth of our apostolate is measured by the value it has in God’s eyes.

To see and evaluate things from God’s perspective calls for constant conversion in the first days and years of our vocation and, need I say, it calls for great humility.

The cross shows us a different way of measuring success.

Ours is to plant the seeds: God sees to the fruits of our labors.

And if at times our efforts and works seem to fail and produce no fruit, we need to remember that we are followers of Jesus . . . and his life, humanly speaking, ended in failure, in the failure of the cross."

What he is actually saying is that while it looked as if Jesus failed, we are still talking about him today and many have been enlightened since his "failure". What looked like a failure was in fact not a failure, but a victory.

As it is written,

"But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:

But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body."

Christ at the crucifixion was the seed, thst body on the cross. The fruit of that is The Church, which is the body of Christ.

And Pope Francis is encouraging those who do much work for the faith and see very little for it not to be discouraged,  because from the very beginning things looked bleak. Yet the church is still here.

I believe Pope Francis has a good preaching there, but I would like to remind you thst I belong to The Orthodox Catholic Church, not the Roman Catholic Church which broke away from the rest of the church due to their corrupting the true faith as guarded by The True Orthodox Catholic Church.