The birth of baby Jesus.

Originally posted by RBHILL
So do you think God says it is ok for a man to F another man?
I am going to a lame college Basketball game tonight I will see you Tuesday morning California time.

All these rules and laws in the Bible are coming from the minds of superstitious and fearful men.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
You have Goggled the Vedas and have come up with false information because you are trying to find some fault.

To speculate and put forward false information about the Vedas is more of your dishonesty.

The Vedas are pre history and are eternal because God and the living entities are eternal.

The Vedas present true spiritual knowledge without error.

They are the one and only original true teachings for mankind.

mmmmm...no, I have an open mind and like to read. My information is accurate, and you are ignorant.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
I could imagine you are a professional man who has mastered the English language, but not common sense.

No common sense, me? You're very quick to resort to the flippant insults, aren't you.

You need to use language - and vocabulary - in its conventional sense if you are to gain any traction in your "discussions" with other spiritual people.

Flaunting your vanity and insulting other members of this community incessantly with your clumsy confusion about the difference between "dishonesty" and "disagreement" and your converging of "speculation", "belief", the so called "higher truth", and your own ego, all undermines your ability to enter into a genuine discourse.

It also does a gross disservice to your belief system.

Originally posted by FMF
No common sense, me? You're very quick to resort to the flippant insults, aren't you.

You need to use language - and vocabulary - in its conventional sense if you are to gain any traction in your "discussions" with other spiritual people.

Flaunting your vanity and insulting other members of this community incessantly with your clumsy confusion about the d ...[text shortened]... nto a genuine discourse.

It also does a gross disservice to your belief system.

You have no common sense because you avoid the point being presented and bring the comments back to the use of words.

Why do you avoid the point being made and turn everything into a English lesson?

What are you really defending.

It is you who misunderstands what is honesty and sincerity are.

Conventional ways are often a disguise for falsity.

The whole world lives by falsity and illusion, accept those who have spiritual insight and can see the reality of things.

The Vedanta teachings present reality.

Science presents falsity.

Substitute religion presents falsity.

What do you present.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Conventional ways are often a disguise for falsity.

Not so. Conventional meaning facilitates communication and debate, especially between people who disagree with each other. Your unconventional use of words precludes debate.

When you back off from automatically accusing virtually everyone of "lying" and concede that what is being discussed here are contrasting speculations, aspirations and hopes - i.e. belief systems - then there can be a genuine dialogue with you.

Until then, the only "falsity" in play is the slightly noxious blend of vanity and cod-certitude that characterizes almost every single one of your posts. Sort out your ego and your vocabulary, and show even just a modicum of decency and respect towards the community here, and you'll get yourself a discussion and also be that little bit more likely to persuade or make people think about what you believe.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
It is you who misunderstands what is honesty and sincerity are.

Disagreeing with you and your beliefs is not "dishonesty" or "insincere". You are misusing the words.

Originally posted by FMF
Not so. Conventional meaning facilitates communication and debate. Your unconventional use of words precludes debate. When you back off from automatically accusing virtually everyone of "lying" and concede that what is being discussed here are contrasting speculations, aspirations and hopes - i.e. belief systems - then there can be a genuine dialogue with you. ...[text shortened]... lso be that little bit more likely to persuade or make people think about what you believe.

You're preachin to the choir here my friend, but you're beating a dead horse. His insistance on the misuse of words tells me he is a simple troll flame-baiting us all.
I think we should simply ignore the man until he uses the correct terms, and not insult everyone here.
If he were funny, then I could handle the abuse. 🙂

Originally posted by FMF
Not so. Conventional meaning facilitates communication and debate, especially between people who disagree with each other. Your unconventional use of words precludes debate.

When you back off from automatically accusing virtually everyone of "lying" and concede that what is being discussed here are contrasting speculations, aspirations and hopes - i.e. belie ...[text shortened]... lso be that little bit more likely to persuade or make people think about what you believe.

Have you no honesty yourself...

You suggest that I automatically label persons dishonest.

What is this automatically you speak of?

You mean that when so called religious persons say that animal killing is fine with God, and I then rebuke them and expose that stand as complete nonsense and dishonest to even suggest such a thing.

Is this the automatic response that you talk of.

Are you suggesting that it is baseless and has no merit.

Do you also support animal cruelty and champion anyone else who subscribes to it.

Is animal cruelty wrong.

Are persons who support animal cruelty dishonest for failing to admit it is wrong.

What sane man could say it is right.

What you are doing is using freedom of speech and religion to defend absurdity.

Your false stand for freedom is nonsense,

Freedom to speak and believe and defend any nonsense.

You lack common sense on these issues.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
You suggest that I automatically label persons dishonest.

What is this automatically you speak of?

Stuff like this:

"....when [someone has beliefs that are different from mine] ...I then rebuke them and expose that stand as complete nonsense and dishonest to even suggest such a thing.

That's an example of the way in which you automatically label persons "dishonest".

Originally posted by FMF
Stuff like this:

[b]"....when [someone has beliefs that are different from mine] ...I then rebuke them and expose that stand as complete nonsense and dishonest to even suggest such a thing.

That's an example of the way in which you automatically label persons "dishonest".[/b]

I am labeling dishonest persons dishonest.

And you are saying it is not right to tell dishonest persons that they are dishonest.

This is your nonsensical stand for freedom of speech and religious beliefs, that we all must let everyone present any absurdity they wish, because we are all free.

And if I point out that absurdity as false and dishonest, you accuse me of automatically insulting people.

You see I dont care the slightest what a person individually believes, its not my business.......but if they teach their absurdity to the up and coming generation I will expose their nonsense.

Why are you defending their nonsense?

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Its just that you said quote "its not likely that this story came from the Vedas" end quote........

And I never said the story came from the Vedas.

I was saying and meaning, the theme is borrowed straight from the Vedas.....or the idea is straight from the Vedas.

do you see that?

I say this because the Bible is mostly fabricated.

And becau ...[text shortened]... ver say much of whats in the Bible because it is in error.

God does not subscribe to error.

"Its just that you said quote "its not likely that this story came from the Vedas" end quote........
And I never said the story came from the Vedas.
I was saying and meaning, the theme is borrowed straight from the Vedas.....or the idea is straight from the Vedas. do you see that?"

Still no reason to call the other person a numb skull. I understand you misunderstood me. That can happen. I forgive you. 😛

"I say this because the Bible is mostly fabricated. And because it is fabricated the theme of baby Jesus and King Harrod has been copied from the Vedas."

I don't understand your 'because'. As several posters have said already the theme of a godlike person born from a virgin is almost universal. As I explained the story of Mithras was much closer to Matthew to know and much more related to the story of Jesus (eg. both born at the 25th of December); so why do you think it is, fabricated or not, borrowed from the Vedas?

"It is made up. The compilers are trying to make the Bible the word of God, but it is not. It is the words of men, who are putting those words into Gods mouth.God is not talking to Moses.....it is mens words, not Gods. God would never talk of such mundane things as depicted talking to Moses."

The story of the birth of Jesus is from the gospel of Matthew, the NT. I'm interested if it is historical true or not. I am interested to hear which historical events may have led to this fascinating story. The influence of the Vedas is here very unlikely. "[/i]

Originally posted by souverein
"Its just that you said quote "its not likely that this story came from the Vedas" end quote........
And I never said the story came from the Vedas.
I was saying and meaning, the theme is borrowed straight from the Vedas.....or the idea is straight from the Vedas. do you see that?"

Still no reason to call the other person a numb skull. I under ...[text shortened]... to this fascinating story. The influence of the Vedas is here very unlikely. "[/i]

The Vedas are the first writings in the history of language itself.

Sanskrit is the worlds first and oldest language in the history of the world.

The Vedas are the first and original teachings of God and religion and life.

So when you hear when baby Jesus was born, King Harrod killed all the male children, you must know that that story was existing from Vedas from the beginning of time, and knowing that all the stories in the Bible are fabricated, one will know that that story is also fabricated.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
The Vedas are the first writings in the history of language itself.

Sanskrit is the worlds first and oldest language in the history of the world.

The Vedas are the first and original teachings of God and religion and life.

So when you hear when baby Jesus was born, King Harrod killed all the male children, you must know that that story was existi ...[text shortened]... t all the stories in the Bible are fabricated, one will know that that story is also fabricated.

The vedas are false teachings fabricated by evil men to lead humanity down the road to damnation.


(ha! this is easy and much more fun than actually bothering to offer arguments. )

Originally posted by vishvahetu
And you are saying it is not right to tell dishonest persons that they are dishonest.

What I am saying is that you are misusing the word "dishonest" and that "it is not right", as you put it, to misuse the word "dishonest".

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
The vedas are false teachings fabricated by evil men to lead humanity down the road to damnation.


(ha! this is easy and much more fun than actually bothering to offer arguments. )

Oh, don't be so Vedic...