Just a quick poll.

If you're Muslim, please substitute "The Qur'an" for "The Bible" in answering the poll.

If you are of a religion with some other sacred text, please substitute the most sacred text of your religion for "The Bible" in answering the poll.

Poll?

Patience, Oniw17. A thread with a poll always appears before the poll itself is written.

There are a range of texts that fall in the catagory of vedic literature that could be spread over two or perhaps three of the options - in short though the word of god is nondifferent from god, and when it gets corrupted due to inevitable time, it is re-established again, wither by god himself or an empowered representative, to suit the needs of time place and circumstance - in short however, any notion of philosophy presented in the name of the vedas, despite from wherever it may come from, it is expected that it can be validated through the bhagavad-gita

DId you respond to the poll, lightgigantic?

For comparison:

A 1996 Gallup poll of Americans found:

35% of Americans believe that the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God (i.e. option 1 in my poll).
48% of Americans believe that the Bible is the "inspired" word of God - still inerrant, but some of its passages must be interpreted symbollically in order to get to the true message.
17% of Americans have some level of doubt that God actually authored the bible.

In summary, that's 83% of Americans who basically believe that the Bible was written by God, the creator of the universe.

DId you respond to the poll, lightgigantic?
no, because you can only give one response in the poll

Bible has been created by man and his ethical spiritual believes. Since other peeps shared the belief it became powerfull. Anyways peeps needed explanation for their existence so with small brains they had most of them agreed on God and since most have agreed than God had been cited as the coauthor.

I wonder what the figures would be like from Europe?

I wonder what the figures would be like from Europe?

lots of peeps here on SF are from Europe. And thats what they think. God had nothing to do with bible.

That poll would be fascinating to conduct among a Muslim community, Sam, on your way.

That poll would be fascinating to conduct among a Muslim community, Sam, on your way.

she says she is muslim...but her beliefs are far from Islam

and muslim got Allah...not God...

no, because you can only give one response in the poll

Which is....?

Which is....?
I see what you mean about not reading posts

Oh... I see. Your pissed because your own particular mythology was excluded from the poll. Isn't your water wet enough? I thought you were making the contention in another thread that all religions are basically the same.

Couldn't you just do as James R recommended for the Muslims and insert the name of your own favorite myth?

Oh... I see. Your pissed because your own particular mythology was excluded from the poll. Isn't your water wet enough? I thought you were making the contention in another thread that all religions are basically the same.

Couldn't you just do as James R recommended for the Muslims and insert the name of your own favorite myth?
I had no problems with the poll or even JamesR - I have a problem with you however .... but thats a discussion for another thread
;)

So, assuming that the poll extends to all religious mythologies, which answer above would you give?

I wonder what the figures would be like from Europe?

Somewhat lower than the American figures. America is practically a theocracy.

no, because you can only give one response in the poll

I see eight options.

So, assuming that the poll extends to all religious mythologies, which answer above would you give?
I guess you will have to reread what i posted earlier to get an answer

It sounds like you're afraid to express your beliefs, lightgigantic. Why?

It sounds like you're afraid to express your beliefs, lightgigantic. Why?
really?
Its more like I am tired at having repeated them so many times. Couple that with posting replies to persons who don't read them, the fatigue tends to transform into annoyment

I see eight options.

And eight ain't enough.

Baron Max

Its more like I am tired at having repeated them so many times.

Is clicking a box so hard?

And eight ain't enough.

Ok, what's your opinion on the question, then?

What if one agrees with two statements in the poll? If one agrees with two but only gets one option, then one can only show agreement with one and leave others with the impression that one disagrees with all the others. Now i would not like to take part in a poll that causes me to reject a point i believe in true.

Therefore i do not vote.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

What if one agrees with two statements in the poll?

the last two I suppose...

Is clicking a box so hard?

I mentioned earlier, the vedas could fall into two or possibly three catagories - some parts are designated as eternal and some parts are designated as incidental - and to top it all off some parts are in the process of being corrupted by human interest, and will continue until they are re-established again

I said that my scripture was not inspired by God, perhaps because the God I am referring to is not in junction with the classical, Abrahamic, view of it.

Crom does not tell stories!

Adstar:

What if one agrees with two statements in the poll?

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


lightgigantic:

I suggest you click option 3.

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

Are you willing to explain why you believe what you believe, or are you afraid?

Are you willing to explain why you believe what you believe, or are you afraid?

I'd say that's pretty damned intimidating and accusational, don't you?!

Baron Max

Just asking the question, Baron. Were you one of the two?

LightGigantic is a Vaishnavist Hindu. He has made this known throughout the forum.

And so... ?

LightGigantic is a Vaishnavist Hindu. He has made this known throughout the forum.

Vaishnavites may not agree and may take it offensive. He is rather a 'hare krishna' cultist.

Vaishnavites may not agree and may take it offensive. He is rather a 'hare krishna' cultist.

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

Generally the observed etiquette for establishing sastric siddhanta (scriptural conclusion) is to debate with sastric presentations - the alternative, sensationalizing and confidence statements, only bear merit amongst the less intelligent.

Did Ramanuja Acharya and Madhvacharya put Krishna supreme over and above MahaVishnu/Narayana ?

James R.:

I affirmed Lightgigantic's religious affiliation on account of the fact that his answers are present in the doctrines of that religious school.

Did Ramanuja Acharya and Madhvacharya put Krishna supreme over and above MahaVishnu/Narayana ?

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

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

An avatar, though it is a 'purna-avatar' (Krshna) is in no way superior to Narayana/MahaVishnu. This is the stand of these Acharyas. What is your / hare krisha stand ?

An avatar, though it is a 'purna-avatar' (Krshna) is in no way superior to Narayana/MahaVishnu. This is the stand of these Acharyas. What is your / hare krisha stand ?
Generally such discussions only take place between vaisnavas - if a person is not convinced about the exclusive position of visnu, trying to elaborate upon the greater/lesser distinctions between incarnations simply results in more confusion

So for current intents and purposes, in the ultimate sense, there is no difference between any of visnu's incarnations, just like there is no essential difference between a person at their workplace and a person with their family (its still the same person).

BTW - this is the view of a vaisnava, regardless of whatever sampradaya they are coming under

Your ramblings resemble the power struggle of Star Wars nerds in regards to the power of Luke Skywalker versus the younger Anakin Skywalker.

I still stay Anakin would win...

Your ramblings resemble the power struggle of Star Wars nerds in regards to the power of Luke Skywalker versus the younger Anakin Skywalker.

I still stay Anakin would win...

I simply view your ramblings as mental concoctions - the evidence being that you are unable to maintain any analytic discussion on the subject

I simply view your ramblings as mental concoctions - the evidence being that you are unable to maintain any analytic discussion on the subject

Comprehending ability is a pre-requirement for getting into analysis.

Your amazing comprehensive power is repeatedly displayed, a sample :

An avatar, though it is a 'purna-avatar' (Krshna) is in no way superior to Narayana/MahaVishnu. This is the stand of these Acharyas. What is your / hare krisha stand
So for current intents and purposes, in the ultimate sense, there is no difference between any of visnu's incarnations, just like there is no essential difference between a person at their workplace and a person with their family (its still the same person).


When i compared an avatar with Vishnu, you were talking about comaprision between Vishnu's avatars.

For your information, Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu, Vishnu is not an avatar of anyone. No vaishnavite acharya would agree with a concocted notion that Vishnu is an avatar.

Comprehending ability is a pre-requirement for getting into analysis.

Your amazing comprehensive power is repeatedly displayed, a sample :


When i compared an avatar with Vishnu, you were talking about comaprision between Vishnu's avatars.

For your information, Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu, Vishnu is not an avatar of anyone. No vaishnavite acharya would agree with a concocted notion that Vishnu is an avatar.

given that vishnu and krsna are non different (ie they borrow from the same tattva) its not clear what the basis for your point is, since such a concept is the basis that unites all vaisnavas (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8221(196110)11%3A3%3C172%3AVTDOVA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R)

given that vishnu and krsna are non different (ie they borrow from the same tattva)..

It is vishnu-tattva, not krishna-tattva. Krishna was born and died. Vishnu is not. As an avatar, Krishna did miracles and showed a way to achieve liberation. He was human in carnal aspects, had human children by human wives (in thousands). Krishna bakti movement (starting as early as with vyasa) went over the board to make him at par with Vishnu (in many times, above Vishnu).

It is vishnu-tattva, not krishna-tattva. Krishna was born and died. Vishnu is not. As an avatar, Krishna did miracles and showed a way to achieve liberation. He was human in carnal aspects, had human children by human wives (in thousands). Krishna bakti movement (starting as early as with vyasa) went over the board to make him at par with Vishnu (in many times, above Vishnu).

then you have a strange view of the vedas (regarding the role srila vyasadeva), and will have great difficulty in understanding the bhagavad gita

BG 9.11: Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be.

regarding the nature of krishna's disappearance, there is a whole chapter on it
http://srimadbhagavatam.com/11/31/en

SB 11.31.11: My dear King, you should understand that the Supreme Lord's appearance and disappearance, which resemble those of embodied conditioned souls, are actually a show enacted by His illusory energy, just like the performance of an actor. After creating this universe He enters into it, plays within it for some time, and at last winds it up. Then the Lord remains situated in His own transcendental glory, having ceased from the functions of cosmic manifestation.

SB 11.31.12: Lord Kṛṣṇa brought the son of His guru back from the planet of the lord of death in the boy's selfsame body, and as the ultimate giver of protection He saved you also when you were burned by the brahmāstra of Aśvatthāmā. He conquered in battle even Lord Śiva, who deals death to the agents of death, and He sent the hunter Jarā directly to Vaikuṇṭha in his human body. How could such a personality be unable to protect His own Self?


in fact your view is certainly unique since not even sankacharya says (http://www.stephen-knapp.com/bhaja_govindam.htm)krishna is mundane

TEXT 1

bhajagovindam bhajagovindam
govindam bhajamuudhamate
sampraapte sannihite kaale
nahi nahi rakshati dukrijnkarane

Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda. Oh fool! Rules of Grammar will not save you at the time of your death.


basically, as long as you insist on declaring the vedas or parts of the vedas as concocted simply because it does not measure up to your standards, and remain unable to provide vedic quotes for your views, there will be great problems with your foray into the subject

then you have a strange view of the vedas (regarding the role srila vyasadeva), and will have great difficulty in understanding the bhagavad gita

BG 9.11: Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be.


Where is the question of deriding Krishna. He is a great avatar, no doubt. But, Vishnu is original, Krishna is more perfect image. It is more foolish to deride Vishnu in favour of Krishna.



in fact your view is certainly unique since not even sankacharya says (http://www.stephen-knapp.com/bhaja_govindam.htm)krishna is mundane

TEXT 1

bhajagovindam bhajagovindam
govindam bhajamuudhamate
sampraapte sannihite kaale
nahi nahi rakshati dukrijnkarane

Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda. Oh fool! Rules of Grammar will not save you at the time of your death.

He says, "Worship Govindha, instead of spending all the time exhibiting your literary prowess (?!) till the end".



basically, as long as you insist on declaring the vedas or parts of the vedas as concocted simply because it does not measure up to your standards, and remain unable to provide vedic quotes for your views, there will be great problems with your foray into the subject

Vedas don't concoct anything, it is your interpretation of them does.

I had to vote for "The Bible was probably neither inspired by or written by God. It is a human work alone." Although it was clearly not written by god, it was most certainly inspired by god .

The Vishnu/Krishna debate (or shall we say dribble?) is off-topic. Moderators?

Where is the question of deriding Krishna. He is a great avatar, no doubt. But, Vishnu is original, Krishna is more perfect image. It is more foolish to deride Vishnu in favour of Krishna.
Therefore I didn't deride him - instead I said that both krishna and vishnu are composed of the same tattva

its seems from your previous post, you don't agree

Originally Posted by everneo
It is vishnu-tattva, not krishna-tattva. Krishna was born and died. Vishnu is not. As an avatar, Krishna did miracles and showed a way to achieve liberation. He was human in carnal aspects, had human children by human wives (in thousands). Krishna bakti movement (starting as early as with vyasa) went over the board to make him at par with Vishnu (in many times, above Vishnu).




He says, "Worship Govindha, instead of spending all the time exhibiting your literary prowess (?!) till the end".

and he also says

TEXT 21
bhagavad giitaa kijnchidadhiitaa
gangaa jalalava kanikaapiitaa
sakridapi yena muraari samarchaa
kriyate tasya yamena na charchaa

Let a man read but a little from the Bhagavad-Gita, drink just a drop of water from the Ganga, worship Murari (Krishna) just once. He then will have no altercation with Yama (the lord of death).

once again, your view that Krishna is some sort of carnal creature does not fall in with even sankharacarya's views





Vedas don't concoct anything, it is your interpretation of them does.

then why do you belittle the statements of the Bhagavad gita, Srimad bhagavatam and puranas in sattva guna as compilations of convenience?

The Vishnu/Krishna debate (or shall we say dribble?) is off-topic. Moderators?
since the discussion is annexed by points regarding the validity of the vedas, its not clear why its off topic.........

Therefore I didn't deride him - instead I said that both krishna and vishnu are composed of the same tattva

its seems from your previous post, you don't agree

Originally Posted by everneo
It is vishnu-tattva, not krishna-tattva. Krishna was born and died. Vishnu is not. As an avatar, Krishna did miracles and showed a way to achieve liberation. He was human in carnal aspects, had human children by human wives (in thousands). Krishna bakti movement (starting as early as with vyasa) went over the board to make him at par with Vishnu (in many times, above Vishnu).




What ?

What ?
if krishna was born and died in the manner you allude to, he would have no status as visnu tattva and his words spoken in BG would be just as insubstantial as the words of any other infinitesimal iving entity subject to the pushings of illusion. (so if that's teh case, its not clear why so many authoritative persons, both inside the many branches of vaisnavism and outside of them, eg adwaita vada, have commentaries on the BG by their acharyas)

It is intersting, this poll.

There are two options: one believes there is God as these characters saw God or one believes there is no God as these characters saw God.

If there is God as they see, one would assume that these characters who claim to have these God-inspired thoughts indeed penned something inspired by the God that exists.

The question of communication remains: is what they penned exactly what God would have wanted them to pen?

If there is no God as they see, one would think that these people penned "naturally inspired" beliefs.

Who is to say what is and what isn't?

The world changes before our eyes everyday. Facts are those which are useful for today, but the same are superstitions for tomorrow.

Everyone has the right to believe.

It is intersting, this poll.

There are two options: one believes there is God as these characters saw God or one believes there is no God as these characters saw God.

If there is God as they see, one would assume that these characters who claim to have these God-inspired thoughts indeed penned something inspired by the God that exists.

The question of communication remains: is what they penned exactly what God would have wanted them to pen?

If there is no God as they see, one would think that these people penned "naturally inspired" beliefs.

Who is to say what is and what isn't?

The world changes before our eyes everyday. Facts are those which are useful for today, but the same are superstitions for tomorrow.

Everyone has the right to believe.

To further this, if they penned what god actually wanted them to pen, do you think it can be verified - in other words are words that are authorized by god symptomized by any particular quality or any particular detectable effect on the person who applies/hears the words?

To further this, if they penned what god actually wanted them to pen, do you think it can be verified - in other words are words that are authorized by god symptomized by any particular quality or any particular detectable effect on the person who applies/hears the words?I have no idea - nothing I've noticed.

What I can say is that verification of anything religious lies within the individuals themselves, probably until the day they die.

After death... now that's another story...

The "religious method" is nearly the opposite of the "scientific method" of finding truth. The former relies greater upon personal acceptance, the latter more on communal acceptance.

I don't believe there's a god, therefore no holy texts.

I don't believe there's a god, therefore no holy texts.

*************
M*W: Welcome to sciforums, mindtrick. That's a good assumption. I never quite thought of it like that, but you make a very good point. Those who claim god exists also claim their holy books are inspired by god. But, you're right = no god, no holy books! They are all man made and so are their books! What lies. What lies!

Waaaa! Waaaa!

*************
M*W: Welcome to sciforums, mindtrick. That's a good assumption. I never quite thought of it like that, but you make a very good point. Those who claim god exists also claim their holy books are inspired by god. But, you're right = no god, no holy books! They are all man made and so are their books! What lies. What lies!

actually its a highly illogical argument


And here's why:

to know for certain that a God does not exist would requires perfect knowledge of everything (omniscience). Acquiring this knowledge requires simultaneous access to all parts of the phenomenal world (omnipresence). Therefore, for an atheist to be certain of their claims, they would have to possess godlike characteristics. So it is quite obvious that humanity's limited nature precludes these special characteristics. To maintain the assertive atheist's dogmatic claim is therefore untenable. As logician Mortimer Adler has demonstrated, the atheist's endeavor to establish a universal negative is a self-defeating program.

Seems like you are just being inimical to god

LG strikes!

LG;1282550]actually its a highly illogical argument And here's why:

to know for certain that a God does not exist would requires perfect knowledge of everything (omniscience).

*************
M*W: Not so. Anyone of any degree of intelligence can fully know and understand that no god exists.

Acquiring this knowledge requires simultaneous access to all parts of the phenomenal world (omnipresence).

*************
M*W: Again, not so.

Therefore, for an atheist to be certain of their claims, they would have to possess godlike characteristics.

*************
M*W: To know one, it is not necessary to be one. If that were the case, every christian would also have to be godlike, and they're not. They're not even halfway intelligent to believe in the existence of a god. In fact, they're delusional.

So it is quite obvious that humanity's limited nature precludes these special characteristics. To maintain the assertive atheist's dogmatic claim is therefore untenable. As logician Mortimer Adler has demonstrated, the atheist's endeavor to establish a universal negative is a self-defeating program.

*************
M*W: The atheist does not "endeavor to establish a universal negative...". The atheist simply doesn't believe.

Seems like you are just being inimical to god

*************
M*W: I have no personal feelings of animosity toward a god, just as I have no personal feelings or animosity toward the tooth fairy or the Easter bunny.

*************
M*W: Not so. Anyone of any degree of intelligence can fully know and understand that no god exists.

That's not true. You can only know that certain gods belonging to certain religions don't exist. You can't say that there isn't any being out there pulling the strings of destiny. Or even that we don't live in a universe created by a scientist in another dimension, or that we don't only exist in someone's imagination for sure, without complete knowledge of everything.

*************
M*W: Again, not so.Elaborate.
*************
M*W: To know one, it is not necessary to be one. If that were the case, every christian would also have to be godlike, and they're not. They're not even halfway intelligent to believe in the existence of a god. In fact, they're delusional.
However, to know for sure that there is no god(s), you would indeed have to have god-like qualities.
*************
M*W: The atheist does not "endeavor to establish a universal negative...". The atheist simply doesn't believe.
I agree with you here, but why does it make a difference either way, since you said that you don't need infinite knowledge to know that there definitely is not a god(s).

That's not true. You can only know that certain gods belonging to certain religions don't exist. You can't say that there isn't any being out there pulling the strings of destiny. Or even that we don't live in a universe created by a scientist in another dimension, or that we don't only exist in someone's imagination for sure, without complete knowledge of everything.
Elaborate.

However, to know for sure that there is no god(s), you would indeed have to have god-like qualities.

I agree with you here, but why does it make a difference either way, since you said that you don't need infinite knowledge to know that there definitely is not a god(s).

*************
M*W: Well, if you study human nature all the way back to when human beings first attempted to think, you would know and understand how the concept of god came to be. God is a man made concept that developed into all the religions known to mankind. There was never a god. Atheism is nothing new. In fact, it's the oldest of all beliefs. It existed before ancient man created the idea of the sun being the creator god of the universe. To not believe in a god is the most ancient of all. For those who believe in a god, do so because they have a need to believe in something, even if it isn't real.

*************
M*W: Well, if you study human nature all the way back to when human beings first attempted to think, you would know and understand how the concept of god came to be. God is a man made concept that developed into all the religions known to mankind. There was never a god. Atheism is nothing new. In fact, it's the oldest of all beliefs. It existed before ancient man created the idea of the sun being the creator god of the universe. To not believe in a god is the most ancient of all. For those who believe in a god, do so because they have a need to believe in something, even if it isn't real.

Yes, but you still can't say that there's not even an infinitely small possibility that god(s) exist(s).

*************
M*W: Well, if you study human nature all the way back to when human beings first attempted to think, you would know and understand how the concept of god came to be.
and how do you propose to study this era when "human beings first decided to think" - it certainly doesn't seem possible to examine it empirically, since thinking about what one is thinking with seems a difficult proposition

God is a man made concept that developed into all the religions known to mankind. There was never a god.
your conclusion (in italics) is built on your premise (bold).
Now all you have to do is show that your premise is actually factual and not a mere tentative claim (good luck - after all, who are those persons in the world who claim to have direct perception of how all the religions in the world are socially developed phenomena?
- or even to make it a degree easier for you, but still nonetheless impossible to elaborate on, what is the process or methodology one can apply that would enable one direct perception of this apparent truth?)


Atheism is nothing new.
I would agree there

In fact, it's the oldest of all beliefs. It existed before ancient man created the idea of the sun being the creator god of the universe.
once again, since its the nature of empiricism to make the pursuit of history more nebulous the further you travel down the time line, its not clear on what authority you make these statements

To not believe in a god is the most ancient of all.
at the moment this is just a tentative claim
I can make a tentative claim too
"Belief in god is the most ancient of all"

For those who believe in a god, do so because they have a need to believe in something, even if it isn't real.
without premises for your claims you simply provide sound bites that can be slightly altered to present an opposite view point, eg :

For those who don't believe in a god, do so because they have a need to believe in something, even if it isn't real.

in otherwords you can say "belief in god is a sign of human fallibility" and I can also say "disbelief in god is a sign of human fallibility"

Yes, but you still can't say that there's not even an infinitely small possibility that god(s) exist(s).

*************
M*W: Not as I understand it. If others do, that's fine, but I cannot conceive of it at all, even though I thought I did at one time. It makes no sense to me.