30 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerYeah but the "Devas and Asuras" aren't as scientifically impalusible as a global flood, or a dead guy coming back to life.
Sure. And various devas and asuras are big parts of the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas, and the two epics -- the Ramayan and the Mahabharat.
Whats your point?
There's not enough water on earth to flood the planet for example
30 Oct 06
Originally posted by AvinashTyagiReally? Somehow that doesn't stop the planet being flooded anyway in the Matsya Purana* (remember? That's where we encounter the first of Vishnu's Dashavatar).
Yeah but the "Devas and Asuras" aren't as scientifically impalusible as a global flood, or a dead guy coming back to life.
There's not enough water on earth to flood the planet for example
Also, is a dead guy coming back to life more scientifically implausible than a dead guy coming back to life with an elephant's head**?
---
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)#India
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganesha#Decapitated_and_reanimated_by_Shiva
30 Oct 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerWell no more implausible than him being formed from earth in the first place😀 😉
Really? Somehow that doesn't stop the planet being flooded anyway in the Matsya Purana* (remember? That's where we encounter the first of Vishnu's Dashavatar).
Also, is a dead guy coming back to life more scientifically implausible than a dead guy coming back to life with an elephant's head**?
---
* http://en.wikipedia.org/ ...[text shortened]... ythology)#India
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganesha#Decapitated_and_reanimated_by_Shiva
I'm not saying there aren't fictional aspects in eastern philosophies as well, however there is also a scientific basis for much, you don't really have that in Christianity
30 Oct 06
Originally posted by AvinashTyagiYou've only claimed "there is ... a scientific basis for much [in eastern philosophies]" -- you've yet to provide any evidence to back that claim.
I'm not saying there aren't fictional aspects in eastern philosophies as well, however there is also a scientific basis for much, you don't really have that in Christianity
Further, the examples you raised from Christianity are no more implausible than similar cases in "eastern philosophies", so I don't really see how your argument holds up.
30 Oct 06
Originally posted by PenguinWell that takes this discussion away from man's beliefs and goes
Well what I meant was, there are hundreds of different religions out there (anything from around 50 to around 500 depending on how you subdivide them) and have been thousands in the history of humanity. All these religions claim to be The Truth. By definition, not more than one of these religions can be The Truth. The 'best' one is the one that really is The ...[text shortened]... true gods are the olympian ones and we're getting all the ceremonies wrong.
--- Penguin.
strait to the question is God real or not, and if so which one. I would
argue that the God of the Bible could be real, but that would still not
mean that everyone who claims to be a Christian is getting it right
when they define Him.
Kelly
30 Oct 06
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd you're not being disingenuous in ignoring that these "early Gospels" were written at least half a century (if not more) after the canonical ones (a point that is relevant when we're talking historicity)? Or that the ones "[denying] Jesus'[sic] divinity" actually still maintain that Jesus was divine (i.e. as the Logos), just of a lower order than the Father?
LH is rather disingenously ignoring that there were many early Gospels that denied Jesus' divinity and/or that he even existed in a flesh and blood form. These were, of course, deemed heretical. So all LH is establishing is that the Gospels that were accepted as part of the official doctrine mirror the official doctrine, a most unimpressive bit of evidence of the historicity of Jesus.
And which one specifically denies that Jesus existed in flesh and blood form?
30 Oct 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerLike I said, there are sections which refer to there being an infinite number of universes that are born and then over time die to be replaced by new universes, very similar to Brane cosmology and the cyclic theory.
You've only claimed "there is ... a scientific basis for much [in eastern philosophies]" -- you've yet to provide any evidence to back that claim.
Further, the examples you raised from Christianity are no more implausible than similar cases in "eastern philosophies", so I don't really see how your argument holds up.
You get passages talking of species of creatures changing over time in appearance, obviously evolution, and evidence of early man referred to as (Ape-men), which is obviously a reference to now extinct species of homo.
A few Koans reference the observer effect in science, just look at the Schroedengers cat paradox. Heck there is references to Atoms and Subatomic particles