Error: No CURL Found - Social Networks AutoPoster needs the CURL PHP extension. Please install it or contact your hosting company to install it.

Is Black Magic Real? – Faithfreedom.org

Is Black Magic Real?

Ali Sina

Ali Sina is the author of Understanding Muhammad and Muslims.

195 Responses

  1. why? says:

    +!Phoenix Says:
    +!————————————————————
    Ah, the express ticket to heaven… just kill yourself but it is not suicide even though the dictionary clearly says that killing yourself is suicide.
    Even muslims slay and are slain in pursuit of heaven, does the motivation somehow negate the atrocity? With that mentality one could easily justify any moral evil.
    +!———————————————————–

    Muslims slay others and murder others in the process and hence it is a morally decadent behavior.

    However, Sati does NOT kill anybody else. It is done in pursuit of heaven, to relieve family members and husband from sins. Just as a son inherits both good (merits, fruits of good deeds) and bad (demerits, fruits of bad deeds) from father and mother (just like genetic features), so does a wife and husband share the fruits of good deeds and bad deeds, whether in this world or the other.

    Garuda Purana 10.48 ”The Woman who ascends the funeral pyre, when her husband is dead, becomes equal to Arundhati, and attains the heaven. She who goes with her husband purifies three families her mother’s, her father’s, and that into which she was given.”

    Kurma Purana 2.34.108b-109 ”A woman who enters the funeral pyre along with her husband, shall uplift him even if is a Brahmana-slayer, an ungrateful fellow or one defiled by great sins. learned men know this to be the greatest expiation for women.”

    Didn’t you claim that one who dies for others is a martyr? There is nothing logically or morally inconsistent in this behavior with belief in a perfect God.

    However, believing that Jeebus (who is allegedly equal to a Perfect God) died as a “sinless sacrificial goat” for atonement of sins of mankind is logically and morally inconsistent with belief in a perfect God. Hence Jeebus atonement is delusional belief of a suicidal maniac. 🙂

  2. why? says:

    +!Phoenix Says:
    ——————————————-
    I’m going to skip over your other comments because they contain no valid info, except personal projection.
    ——————————————-

    Yes…you will have to skip over for you have no logical argument against.

    Which one is personal projection? Logical arguments against jeebus believing himself to be a “sacrificial goat” and inconsistency of such belief with a perfect God is NO “personal projection”.

    What is “personal projection” is asserting your opinion and claiming something without evidence or arguments as you did against Sati.

    +!Phoenix Says:
    ——————————————-
    Let’s take a look at Jesus’ “high risk behavior”:

    In the following verses Jesus heals a man on the Sabbath. The Pharisees accuse of breaking the law. Jesus defends himself rationally but they decide to plot and kill him anyway.
    ——————————————-

    This is strawman..and real funny indeed :)…so you have NO logical argument against Jeebus claiming to be God OPENLY IN FRONT OF ANGRY PUBLIC and making a blasphemous claim knowing fully well he will end up getting stoned to death yET YOU CALL THIS ARGUMENT AS MY “PERSONAL PROJECTION”.

    Since you cannot answer back against even one argument, now you are deceptively engaging in strawman fallacies. Where did I say that the Jeebus healing on sabbath as “high-risk behavior”?

    My claim is “Jeebus claimg to be God in front of all public, a blasphemous claim, is high-rish behavior whih is unnecessary. Nobody is saved by these claims.”

    Deal with it that Jeebus is a suicidal maniac 🙂

  3. Phoenix says:

    In case of sati, the reason given is pursuit of heaven for the individual committing sati. There is nothing logically/morally inconsistent here in this belief. It is perfectly possible that a loyal chaste widow will attain heaven as Vedic texts claim. If it is possible, then motivation shows that it is NOT suicide.//

    Ah, the express ticket to heaven… just kill yourself but it is not suicide even though the dictionary clearly says that killing yourself is suicide.
    Even muslims slay and are slain in pursuit of heaven, does the motivation somehow negate the atrocity? With that mentality one could easily justify any moral evil.

  4. Phoenix says:

    I’m going to skip over your other comments because they contain no valid info, except personal projection.
    ===========
    I was expecting this stupid argument from you.
    A critic of Islam, does this in order to save his society from perceived observed danger.
    Jeebus made a claim that he is God as per John 8 given above. Jeebus is NOT trying to protect anybody here. Jeebus, by himself, entertained death sentence by his unnecessary high-risk behavior, knowingly fully well that he will be stoned to death for claiming to be God.//

    Let’s take a look at Jesus’ “high risk behavior”:

    In the following verses Jesus heals a man on the Sabbath. The Pharisees accuse of breaking the law. Jesus defends himself rationally but they decide to plot and kill him anyway.
    ——————————————————————————————-
    “Matthew 12:7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’[a] you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
    9 Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10 and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to bring charges against Jesus, they asked him, ****“Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”*****
    11 He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”
    13 Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. 14***** But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.”*****
    ————————————————————————————-
    *Notice that Jesus actually approved of saving a man’s life, even on the Sabbath. And you call this high-risk behavior and deserving of death. Shame on you.

  5. why? says:

    !+Phoenix Says:
    +!———————————————
    I nearly forgot, Bhadra was given an escape clause. She decided to become a slave to her ghost husband and slept with his rotting corpse. How exactly is that independence from a man?
    +!—————————————————-

    So what…the fact remains she lived and lead a life independent of her husband for her children after she obtained children of her own. That is all that matters here. Rest of your garbage is irrelevant.

    +!Phoenix Says:
    +!———————————————
    Did I say sati is compulsory? I specifically said no sane and rational woman would commit suicide, especially torture by fire. The motivation behind these sick acts are inspired by your scriptures. That’s it. Clearly the Hindu translator agrees with me as well as you, except your reasons may differ but nonetheless inspired by your scriptures. Do I need to spell this out further. Your scriptures inspire suicide. You can sugar coat those verses as much as you like but only the mentally sick commit such acts.
    +!——————————————–

    All you have done here is assert your opinions. Your opinions are irrelevant to me, unless you have logical argument to support your claim. If every motivation is mere “sugar coating”, then even a soldier is committing “indirect suicide” by going towards his death.

    It is precisely the motivation that defines whether one commits suicide or NOT. If the motivation is for higher good (either for others or self) with correct knowledge, then it is NOT suicide.

    Now, you could claim, Jeebus also had higher good as his motivation. THIS IS THE KEY POINT AND ARGUMENT THAT SHOWS JEEBUS IS A MENTALLY SICK SUICIDAL INDIVIDUAL.

    JEEBUS’ CLAIM of HIGHER GOOD:

    To atone for sins of mankind, he came to sacrifice himself.

    ARGUMENTS AGAINST JEEBUS’ CLAIMS:

    1. Logical inconsistency and absurd claim of Jeebus:

    Why would a perfect God, require a perfect sacrifice to convince himself to forgive his own creation?

    Here God created and/or sustained beings susceptible to sins knowingly. How can a perfect God create such imperfect creatures? Besides, why would a perfect God punish anybody and require them for paying for sins for His mistake of creating/sustaining creatures susceptible to sins? This is logically inconsistent with a perfect God.

    2. Moral and logical inconsistency:

    Again, here the only being that requires convincing is God Himself as He is The sole creator of the laws of justice, the sole Judge, Jury and Executioner?

    So in order to convince Himself, God creates an arbitrary rule of needing a perfect sacrifice of perfect sinless being in order to forgive sins. Then He subjects His own son to cruelty, torture and death and then gets convinced to forgive His own creation through His own rules.

    Now this is beyond absurd. Why would a perfect God need all these nonsense, when He can readily forgive without any acrobatics here?

    Why would a perfect God, require an innocent person to be killed in order to forgive the guilty? This is immoral and inconsistent with the idea of the perfect God.

    CONCLUSION:

    THE ABOVE REASONS CLEARLY SHOW THAT JEEBUS’ CLAIMS OF SACRIFICE FOR ATONEMENT OF SINS IS LOGICALLY NOT POSSIBLE WITH A BELIEF IN EXISTENCE OF A PERFECT GOD.

    THESE LOGICAL REASONS SHOW JEEBUS IS A DELUSIONAL MENTALLY UNSTABLE/RETARDED INDIVIDUAL WITH SUICIDAL INSTINCTS.
    ====================================

    In case of sati, the reason given is pursuit of heaven for the individual committing sati. There is nothing logically/morally inconsistent here in this belief. It is perfectly possible that a loyal chaste widow will attain heaven as Vedic texts claim. If it is possible, then motivation shows that it is NOT suicide.

  6. why? says:

    +!Phoenix Says:
    +———————————
    Jesus didn’t say those things to have himself murdered. You are asserting something without evidence.

    Firstly, Jesus did not contemplate suicide, you are question begging.
    +———————————-

    I have given CLEAR NON-AMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE FROM GOSPEL FROM JEEBUS’ OWN MOUTH THAT HE WANTED TO COMMIT SUICIDE SEVERAL TIMES, WHICH YOU HAVE DECEPTIVELY AVOIDED.

    ———————————————————
    John 10:18

    No one takes it from me, but **I lay it down of my own accord**. **I have authority to lay it down** and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
    ————————————————————-

    CLEARLY YOUR JEEBUS HIMSELF DIAGREES WITH YOU. JEEBUS SAYS EXPLICITLY THAT HE LAYS DOWN HIS LIFE ON HIS OWN ACCORD willingly. WHEN YOU DO IT ON YOUR OWN ACCORD, IT IS SUICIDE…..When Jeebus said “This command I received from my Father”, Jeebus is referring to his suicidal mission as per his father’s design.

    YOUR JEEBUS HIMSELF SAYS HE COMMITS SUICIDE AND NO ONE ELSE TAKES AWAY HIS LIFE. THERE IS NO NEED FOR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE THAT PSYCHOLOGICALLY JEEBUS WAS THINKING TO COMMIT SUICIDE WHATEVER THE REASONS OR CAUSES MAY BE IN JEEBUS’ MIND.

    John 18:11

    Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”

    What does the above verse mean?

    http://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/18-11.htm
    ===============================
    Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

    the cup which my Father hath given me: by the cup is meant, the wrath of God, and punishment due to sin, endured by Christ in his sufferings, and is said to be given him by his Father; because he called him to these sufferings, they were appointed and determined by him; yea, he was even ordered, and commanded by his Father, to drink of this cup;
    ===================================

    IT IS UNAMBIGUOUSLY CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE VERSE THAT JEEBUS BELIEVED THAT HE HAS TO SUFFER AND ACCEPT DEATH AS IT IS THE DESIGN OF HIS FATHER (JEEBUS’ gOD) for atonement of sins.

    +Phoenix Says:
    +———————————
    You can’t be suicidal and evade death simultaneously. There’s a clear contradiction in your logic.

    Secondly,In your second version, it makes no mention of the individual evading death. The individual deliberately seeks death and does nothing to avoid being killed. This is not consistent with Jesus’ actions.
    +———————————

    This is NOT at all a contradiction. Pathological psychological ambivalence is part of mind-set of a suicidal individual.

    ————————————————————-
    https://books.google.co.in/books?id=qPIyCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=suicide+%22contradictory+feelings%22&source=bl&ots=Bx1mXeuQct&sig=j8_1cRbk6uN6rfaXgzUv6QOT_Hk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjo2uXO4_LLAhWDCI4KHa1ADaIQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=suicide%20%22contradictory%20feelings%22&f=false

    Title: Suicide: An unnecessary death

    edited by Danuta Wasserman

    FROM PAGE 149

    No generalizations can be made. However, **a suicidal person is almost always ambivalent about the choice of life and death to the very last.**…………..The pathological ambivalence is a matter of inadequate integration of different aspects and their cognitive and intellectual contents. Good and evil identification concepts, **the wish to live and the wish to die**, a need to be extremely dependent and a need to be extremely independent, and love and hate often strongly co-exist and **compete with each other in suicidal person**.
    ————————————————————

    Clearly suicidal Jeebus had contradictory feelings (Pathological psychological ambivalence) about life and death, just like almost every other suicidal individual.

    +Phoenix Says:
    +———————————
    Contrary to many anti-christian claims, Jesus was quite secretive about his identity and messages, that’s one of the reasons he spoke in parables.

    Mark3:11 Matthew8:3 Luke 9:20 Mark4:11
    +————————————–

    None of the above verses proves anything. Jeebus clearly made a blasphemous claim OPENLY IN FRONT OF A BLOOD THIRSTY AUDIENCE AND HENCE PROVOKED THEM TO KILL HIM. THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH SUICIDAL BEHAVIOR OF INDIVIDULS COMMITTING “INDIRECT SUICIDE”

    John 8

    58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
    59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

    Clearly this is an example of high-risk behavior leading to one’s death. Here Jeebus made a blasphemous claim in public, knowing fully well that one will be awarded capita punishment by stoning for claiming to be God. This is NOT just some belief for which one dies, **but a blasphemous claim made in public**.

    +Phoenix Says:
    +———————————
    Using your reasoning , that would mean every critic of islam is suicidal, because they know they could be killed but continue their public censures despite living under constant death threats such as Geert wilders.
    +———————————-

    I was expecting this stupid argument from you.

    A critic of Islam, does this in order to save his society from perceived observed danger.

    Jeebus made a claim that he is God as per John 8 given above. Jeebus is NOT trying to protect anybody here. Jeebus, by himself, entertained death sentence by his unnecessary high-risk behavior, knowingly fully well that he will be stoned to death for claiming to be God.

  7. Ron says:

    @Truth Seeker
    In your worldview (faith) do you know the reasons for those magic tricks described in the article and the video?
    How is it possible?
    Also is Arya Samaj a Hindu sect formed by Swami Dayananda? Does it believe in Hindu gods?
    Is it anything to do with Aryan supremacy or beliefs/culture?

  8. Phoenix says:

    I have clearly shown from Mahabhartha at the least 2 instances where women were able to live without their husbands and continued to live taking care of their children long after their husbands’ death.
    One such character is Bhadra and another character is Kunti. Both lived for their children taking care of their children long after their husbands’ deaths. So your claims that “hindu women not being able to survive without their husbands” is an irrational claim against evidence provided in Mahabhartha. Even one or two instances here is enough to disprove your irrational claims.//

    I nearly forgot, Bhadra was given an escape clause. She decided to become a slave to her ghost husband and slept with his rotting corpse. How exactly is that independence from a man?
    =====
    The verse clearly says that when husband is dead, sons take care of her. So sati is NOT compulsory.
    Your claim is that Hindu women commit sati because they cannot live without her husband.
    This claim is proved wrong by your own quote where Hindu women have other choices as being taken care of by sons or other guardians after her husband’s death.
    Since sati is NOT compulsory and Hindu women have other choices, it shows that those Hindu women who commit sati willingly, neglecting other choices, do it for a higher purpose other than their inability to live//

    Did I say sati is compulsory? I specifically said no sane and rational woman would commit suicide, especially torture by fire. The motivation behind these sick acts are inspired by your scriptures. That’s it. Clearly the Hindu translator agrees with me as well as you, except your reasons may differ but nonetheless inspired by your scriptures. Do I need to spell this out further. Your scriptures inspire suicide. You can sugar coat those verses as much as you like but only the mentally sick commit such acts.

  9. Phoenix says:

    The fact that the authorities or Roman soldiers did NOT find anything guilty with him does NOT negate the fact that Jeebus knowingly made a blasphemous claim knowing fully well that he iwll be stoned to death as per Moses’ laws for making such blasphemous claims.
    The fact that Jeebus did NOT hand himself over to Roman authorities also does NOT negate the fact that Jeebus provoked Jews into killing him with blasphemous claims//

    Jesus didn’t say those things to have himself murdered. You are asserting something without evidence. You can’t be suicidal and evade death simultaneously. There’s a clear contradiction in your logic.
    ==========
    The second version involves people who are already contemplating suicide and who, for whatever reason, decide that provoking law enforcement into killing them is the best way to act on their desires. These individuals may commit a crime with the specific intention of provoking a law enforcement response.”//

    Firstly, Jesus did not contemplate suicide, you are question begging.
    Secondly,In your second version, it makes no mention of the individual evading death. The individual deliberately seeks death and does nothing to avoid being killed. This is not consistent with Jesus’ actions.
    ========
    Now, whether he escaped here or not is irrelevant. The point raised here is that Jeebus clearly was fully aware that he will be awarded death sentence for making blasphemous claims and yet made such claims. Why make blasphemous claims with death hanging over you and escape, instead of NOT making such claims openly. A intelligent sane person, even if he believes in some blasphemous ideals would NOT make it public for he know that he will be hunted and killed. Yet, Jeebus made blasphemous claims publicly knowing fully well that he will be killed for those claims. This is suicidal behavior and clearly shows “indirect suicide” was on Jeebus’ mind//

    Contrary to many anti-christian claims, Jesus was quite secretive about his identity and messages, that’s one of the reasons he spoke in parables.

    Mark3:11 Whenever the impure spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, “You are the Son of God.” 12 But he gave them strict orders not to tell others about him.”

    Matthew8:3 Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” Immediately he was cleansed of his leprosy. 4 Then Jesus said to him, “See that you don’t tell anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.”

    Luke 9:20 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”Peter answered, “God’s Messiah.”
    21 Jesus strictly warned them not to tell this to anyone.

    Mark4:11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables
    ======
    Clearly this is an example of high-risk behavior leading to one’s death. Here Jeebus made a blasphemous claim in public, knowing fully well that one will be awarded capita punishment by stoning for claiming to be God. This is NOT just some belief for which one dies, **but a blasphemous claim made in public**. //

    Using your reasoning , that would mean every critic of islam is suicidal, because they know they could be killed but continue their public censures despite living under constant death threats such as Geert wilders.

  10. Truth Seeker says:

    @Ali Sina

    My sincere advise please refrain yourself taking dig at Hinduism next time. Because Hinduism is vast philosophy. You have no Idea of all. Hinduism not based on particulars set of belief like Islam & Christianity. You can see also here difference in thoughts of Why? & me. He believe devoutly in Mahabharta, Manu Samriti, Trinity of God, but I believe only partly in him. I regards most Yog Darshan, Sankhya Darshan, Veda, Upnishad. I believe text of Mahabharta 90% corrupted and 50% Manu Samariti too corrupted. He believe in Trinity of God. But I do not believe. He is against Arya Samaj Ideology but I agree most of their Ideology.

    What are common in us:-

    1. Belief in Karma (Actions). Our this life is result of our previous life Karma and our next life also will be based on our this life Karma (Actions). God is not partial, he does not act randomly that he will make someone rich from birth and someone born as a poor since birth unlike God of Muslims & Christians.

    2. We do not believe this present universe creation & destruction was/will be first and last act of God like Christian & Muslims believe. But we believe this happens like day and night since eternity. …………Creation-Destruction again creation destruction…….. not starting and ending point.

    2. To Give highest respect to legendary people borne in India.

    3. Belief in Goodness, humanity. No matter, if you do not believe in God or believe wrongly but do righteous act, dedicated to nation, humanity. You may get heaven (Swarg) in your next life as result of your noble acts. But in Islam & Christianity non-belief in Jesus & Muhammad leads one in eternal hell.

  11. Truth Seeker says:

    @Phoenix/Why

    India has been victim of Islamic demons since last 1000 years. Greatest tragedy of India in history its division due to Islam. Now, these Islamic followers wants to bring Europe also under their flag. Make the correct use of your precious time exposing Islam, Muhammad, Quran and free the Muslims from slavery of Muhammad and Arabs. It will be great humanitarian act.

  12. Truth Seeker says:

    @Phoenix /Why?

    I think Islam is much larger problem before us than your fight over tinny matters. We must all focused how to eliminate Islamic demons from the world. Please stay your focus on this. Hindu and christian are very nice people.

  13. why? says:

    +!Phoenix Says:
    +!===============================
    Correcting a typo

    “Now let’s look at your “alternate” definition once more”

    Should have read “alternative”
    +!===============================

    Correcting your lack of English knowledge

    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/alternate

    adjective

    11. constituting an alternative:
    The alternate route is more scenic.

  14. why? says:

    =Phoenix Says:
    +=!—————————————————————–
    What does this even mean:”the commentary goes beyond what it says”? The whole point of commentary is for the translator to provide an explication of the passages. This is also done by cross-referencing passages which are related. That is exactly what the commentator of Srimad bhagavatam did.
    +=!—————————————————————–

    I simply do NOT agree with your baseless claims. The explication of a any commentator NEED not be necessarily right. To find whether the commentator is right, you have to clearly come wit evidence from the passages. You have NOT provided any logical reason for the claims of commentator.

    !Phoenix Says:
    !—————————————————————–
    It is obviously plain, clear and simple, the woman cannot survive with out her husband. The commentator then refers us to other passages from the smriti which relates to the verse, i.e., a woman cannot be independent from a man.
    —————————————————————

    Manu smriti verses are unrelated and misinterpreted as well.

    What a woman claims during painful moments cannot be taken as reality.

    For example you claimed that the character Bhadra from Mahabharatha could NOT live without her husband. Yet, the same Mahabharatha clearly said that she continued to live after her dead husband with/for her children.

    This is an example where Bhadra, who also claimed similarly that

    “O virtuous one’, she said, ‘Women serve no purpose when their husbands are dead. She who liveth after her husband is dead, draggeth on a miserable existence that can hardly be called life.”

    ended up living for her children.

    This episode is enough to show that words of women in pain are NOT be taken as a scriptural injunction in Hindu scriptures.

    !Phoenix Says:
    !—————————————————————–
    It’s not about feeling crap, this is an utterly bullshit defense. It is about hindu women not being able to survive without their husbands. Hindu law, makes that very clear. Both Manu and the mahabharata confirms this.
    Therefore the commentary remains accurate, since your only defense is a) she did not commit sati because she felt like crap, and b) the commentary goes beyond what it says. Both are irrational defenses and they have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
    !—————————————————————–

    I have clearly shown from Mahabhartha at the least 2 instances where women were able to live without their husbands and continued to live taking care of their children long after their husbands’ death.

    One such character is Bhadra and another character is Kunti. Both lived for their children taking care of their children long after their husbands’ deaths. So your claims that “hindu women not being able to survive without their husbands” is an irrational claim against evidence provided in Mahabhartha. Even one or two instances here is enough to disprove your irrational claims.

    !Phoenix Says:
    !—————————————————————–
    Here are the related verses from manu:
    Manu 5:147. By a girl, by a young woman, or even by an aged one, nothing must be done independently, even in her own house.
    148. In childhood a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband,when her lord is dead to her sons; a woman must never be independent.
    !—————————————————————-

    So what…..The verses claim that a woman should be taken care of by the guardians at all stages of her life and should NOT be left independent for they are to be protected at all times.

    The verse clearly says that when husband is dead, sons take care of her. So sati is NOT compulsory.

    Your claim is that Hindu women commit sati because they cannot live without her husband.

    This claim is proved wrong by your own quote where Hindu women have other choices as being taken care of by sons or other guardians after her husband’s death.

    Since sati is NOT compulsory and Hindu women have other choices, it shows that those Hindu women who commit sati willingly, neglecting other choices, do it for a higher purpose other than their inability to live.

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe33/sbe3382.htm#fr_1218
    ==================
    11. A wife is considered half the body (of her husband), equally sharing the result of his good or wicked deeds; whether she ascends the pile after him, or chooses to survive him leading a virtuous life, she promotes the welfare of her husband.

    If a woman adheres to a vow of ascetic celibacy (brahmacarya) after her husband has died, then when she dies, she obtains heaven, just like those who were celibate. Further, three and a half krores or however many hairs are on a human body – for that long a time (in years) a woman who follows her husband (in death) shall dwell in heaven. – Parasara Smriti, 4.29-31
    ============================

    If fear of inability to live is the only factor driving Hindu women to sati, then Hindu law does provide guardians for livelihood for such women, such as their sons (your own Manu smriti verses) or even the King.

    Medatithi comments for verse 5:147
    ————————————
    It has been declared thus-‘In the absence of any sapinda (husband’s side)-relation of her husband, someone her father’s side shall be the woman’s protector; on the total extinction of both the families, the King has been declared to be the woman’s guardian’
    ————————————

    Clearly, for a Hindu woman who has no relatives on husband side or her father’s side is directly taken care of by the King himself. If you claim, Hindu women commit sati out of fear of lviving alone, then this claim is NOT supported by Hindu sacriptures, as Hindu women are always taken care of and protected by somebody as per Hindu law.

    If Hindu women despite these options to live, still chose sati, then it can be ONLY the goal of heaven and life with husband in heaven as the goal of sati.

    Since some Hindu women have this choice to live and yet chose sati, it shows they have higher purpose in their mind, namely heaven and living with their husband in heaven as given in Hindu scriptures rather than fear. You have been proven wrong yet again.

  15. why? says:

    +!Phoenix Says:
    !—————————————————————–
    What does this even mean:”the commentary goes beyond what it says”? The whole point of commentary is for the translator to provide an explication of the passages. This is also done by cross-referencing passages which are related. That is exactly what the commentator of Srimad bhagavatam did.
    !—————————————————————–

    I simply do NOT agree with your baseless claims. The explication of a any commentator NEED not be necessarily right. To find whether the commentator is right, you have to clearly come wit evidence from the passages. You have NOT provided any logical reason for the claims of commentator.

    !Phoenix Says:
    !—————————————————————–
    It is obviously plain, clear and simple, the woman cannot survive with out her husband. The commentator then refers us to other passages from the smriti which relates to the verse, i.e., a woman cannot be independent from a man.
    —————————————————————

    Manu smriti verses are unrelated and misinterpreted as well.

    What a woman claims during painful moments cannot be taken as reality.

    For example you claimed that the character Bhadra from Mahabharatha could NOT live without her husband. Yet, the same Mahabharatha clearly said that she continued to live after her dead husband with/for her children.

    This is an example where Bhadra, who also claimed similarly that

    “O virtuous one’, she said, ‘Women serve no purpose when their husbands are dead. She who liveth after her husband is dead, draggeth on a miserable existence that can hardly be called life.”

    ended up living for her children.

    This episode is enough to show that words of women in pain are NOT be taken as a scriptural injunction in Hindu scriptures.

    !Phoenix Says:
    !—————————————————————–
    It’s not about feeling crap, this is an utterly bullshit defense. It is about hindu women not being able to survive without their husbands. Hindu law, makes that very clear. Both Manu and the mahabharata confirms this.
    Therefore the commentary remains accurate, since your only defense is a) she did not commit sati because she felt like crap, and b) the commentary goes beyond what it says. Both are irrational defenses and they have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
    !—————————————————————–

    I have clearly shown from Mahabhartha at the least 2 instances where women were able to live without their husbands and continued to live taking care of their children long after their husbands’ death.

    One such character is Bhadra and another character is Kunti. Both lived for their children taking care of their children long after their husbands’ deaths. So your claims that “hindu women not being able to survive without their husbands” is an irrational claim against evidence provided in Mahabhartha. Even one or two instances here is enough to disprove your irrational claims.

    !Phoenix Says:
    !—————————————————————–
    Here are the related verses from manu:
    Manu 5:147. By a girl, by a young woman, or even by an aged one, nothing must be done independently, even in her own house.
    148. In childhood a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband,when her lord is dead to her sons; a woman must never be independent.
    !—————————————————————-

    So what…..The verses claim that a woman should be taken care of by the guardians at all stages of her life and should NOT be left independent for they are to be protected at all times.

    The verse clearly says that when husband is dead, sons take care of her. So sati is NOT compulsory.

    Your claim is that Hindu women commit sati because they cannot live without her husband.

    This claim is proved wrong by your own quote where Hindu women have other choices as being taken care of by sons or other guardians after her husband’s death.

    Since sati is NOT compulsory and Hindu women have other choices, it shows that those Hindu women who commit sati willingly, neglecting other choices, do it for a higher purpose other than their inability to live.

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe33/sbe3382.htm#fr_1218
    ==================
    11. A wife is considered half the body (of her husband), equally sharing the result of his good or wicked deeds; whether she ascends the pile after him, or chooses to survive him leading a virtuous life, she promotes the welfare of her husband.

    If a woman adheres to a vow of ascetic celibacy (brahmacarya) after her husband has died, then when she dies, she obtains heaven, just like those who were celibate. Further, three and a half krores or however many hairs are on a human body – for that long a time (in years) a woman who follows her husband (in death) shall dwell in heaven. – Parasara Smriti, 4.29-31
    ============================

    If fear of inability to live is the only factor driving Hindu women to sati, then Hindu law does provide guardians for livelihood for such women, such as their sons (your own Manu smriti verses) or even the King.

    Medatithi comments for verse 5:147
    ————————————
    It has been declared thus-‘In the absence of any sapinda (husband’s side)-relation of her husband, someone her father’s side shall be the woman’s protector; on the total extinction of both the families, the King has been declared to be the woman’s guardian’
    ————————————

    Clearly, for a Hindu woman who has no relatives on husband side or her father’s side is directly taken care of by the King himself. If you claim, Hindu women commit sati out of fear of lviving alone, then this claim is NOT supported by Hindu sacriptures, as Hindu women are always taken care of and protected by somebody as per Hindu law.

    If Hindu women despite these options to live, still chose sati, then it can be ONLY the goal of heaven and life with husband in heaven as the goal of sati.

    Since some Hindu women have this choice to live and yet chose sati, it shows they have higher purpose in their mind, namely heaven and living with their husband in heaven as given in Hindu scriptures rather than fear. You have been proven wrong yet again.

  16. why? says:

    !+Phoenix Says:
    !+—————————————————————————————-
    Here, I have pin pointed the exact words which defines indirect suicide in your definition. ***people commit suicide by getting other to kill them***. Now the next honest question to ask is: “Did Jesus get (provoke) others inorder to kill him?”

    We know from scriptural sources that:
    a) The authorities had no problem with Jesus and he managed to exonerate himself at their councils.
    b) He did escape death (stoning and being thrown off a cliff) on a number of occasions.
    c) Jesus did not hand himself over to the authorities, an insider gave him up in exchange for money and a group of soldiers were sent at night to capture him.
    !+—————————————————————————————-

    As per your own claim Jeebus did provoke somebody to kill him on several occasions.

    “b) He did escape death (stoning and being thrown off a cliff) on a number of occasions.” clearly says Jeebus provoked Jews to kill him with blasphemous claims like “Before Abraham, I am” where Jeebus claimed he is God.

    The fact that he escaped does NOT disprove the fact that jeebus provoked somebody (Jews) knowingly to kill him.

    The fact that the authorities or Roman soldiers did NOT find anything guilty with him does NOT negate the fact that Jeebus knowingly made a blasphemous claim knowing fully well that he iwll be stoned to death as per Moses’ laws for making such blasphemous claims.

    The fact that Jeebus did NOT hand himself over to Roman authorities also does NOT negate the fact that Jeebus provoked Jews into killing him with blasphemous claims.

    !$Phoenix Says:
    !—————————————————————————————-
    The second version involves people who are already contemplating suicide and who, for whatever reason, decide that provoking law enforcement into killing them is the best way to act on their desires. These individuals may commit a crime with the specific intention of provoking a law enforcement response.”

    *If there’s anything in the above examples of which resembles Jesus’ actions then please point it out. There is simply nothing you can compare him with.
    !—————————————————————————————-

    Lets take your second version here. Here the suicidal person, does NOT voluntarily hand over himself as per point (c.) of yours to cops, but commits a crime that will force law enforcers to kill him.

    Similarly Jeebus committed blaspemy against Moses’ laws knowing fully well that he will be awarded capital punishment for such crimes.

    Jeebus was acutely aware of the Moses’ laws for his time. This acute knowledge of Jeebus (of Moses’ laws) is clear from gospel accounts where Jeebus especially

    (a.) escapes traps of Jews with a fake adulteress sent to him
    (b.) escapes traps of Jews with a question whether to pay tribute to Caesar or not

    Now, whether he escaped here or not is irrelevant. The point raised here is that Jeebus clearly was fully aware that he will be awarded death sentence for making blasphemous claims and yet made such claims. Why make blasphemous claims with death hanging over you and escape, instead of NOT making such claims openly. A intelligent sane person, even if he believes in some blasphemous ideals would NOT make it public for he know that he will be hunted and killed. Yet, Jeebus made blasphemous claims publicly knowing fully well that he will be killed for those claims. This is suicidal behavior and clearly shows “indirect suicide” was on Jeebus’ mind.

    $Phoenix Says:
    !—————————————————————————————-
    I specifically asked you which high-risk behavior Jesus engaged in.
    !—————————————————————————————

    John 8

    58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
    59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

    Clearly this is an example of high-risk behavior leading to one’s death. Here Jeebus made a blasphemous claim in public, knowing fully well that one will be awarded capita punishment by stoning for claiming to be God. This is NOT just some belief for which one dies, **but a blasphemous claim made in public**.

    Now besides this, Jeebus himself explicitly says that he has been planning for his death long before the actual arrest by Roman soldiers.
    ———————————————————
    John 10:18

    No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
    ————————————————————-

    CLEARLY YOUR JEEBUS HIMSELF DIAGREES WITH YOU. JEEBUS SAYS EXPLICITLY THAT HE LAYS DOWN HIS LIFE ON HIS OWN ACCORD willingly. WHEN YOU DO IT ON YOUR OWN ACCORD, IT IS SUICIDE…..

    YOUR JEEBUS HIMSELF SAYS HE COMMITS SUICIDE AND NO ONE ELSE TAKES AWAY HIS LIFE. THERE IS NO NEED FOR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE THAT PSYCHOLOGICALLY JEEBUS WAS THINKING TO COMMIT SUICIDE WHATEVER THE REASONS OR CAUSES MAY BE IN JEEBUS’ MIND.

  17. Phoenix says:

    Even if the context is sati, the commentary goes beyond what it says…The wife of the brAhmana laments to a man-eater (cannibal) and begs him not to eat. The reason she gives is that she cannot live without her husband and therefore man-eater should allow her husband to live.
    Now any woman who loves her husband in such a situation may give umpteen reasons for saving her husband as in verse 9.9.32.//

    What does this even mean:”the commentary goes beyond what it says”? The whole point of commentary is for the translator to provide an explication of the passages. This is also done by cross-referencing passages which are related. That is exactly what the commentator of Srimad bhagavatam did.

    Here’s the verse:
    SB 9.9.32:***Without my husband, I cannot live for a moment***. If you want to eat my husband, it would be better to eat me first, ***for without my husband I am as good as a dead body.”****

    It is obviously plain, clear and simple, the woman cannot survive with out her husband. The commentator then refers us to other passages from the smriti which relates to the verse, i.e., a woman cannot be independent from a man.

    //In verse 9.9.36, it is explicitly said **Then, being inclined to go with her husband** she commits sati. NOTE, the verse does NOT say she committed sati because she felt like crap.//

    It’s not about feeling crap, this is an utterly bullshit defense. It is about hindu women not being able to survive without their husbands. Hindu law, makes that very clear. Both Manu and the mahabharata confirms this.
    Therefore the commentary remains accurate, since your only defense is a) she did not commit sati because she felt like crap, and b) the commentary goes beyond what it says. Both are irrational defenses and they have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

    PURPORT
    In the Vedic culture there is a system known as satī or saha-maraṇa, in which a woman dies with her husband. According to this system, if the husband dies, the wife will voluntarily die by falling in the blazing funeral pyre of her husband. Here, in this verse, the feelings inherent in this culture are expressed by the wife of the brāhmaṇa. ****A woman without a husband is like a dead body***. Therefore according to Vedic culture a girl must be married. This is the responsibility of her father. A girl may be given in charity, and a husband may have more than one wife, but a girl must be married. This is Vedic culture. A woman is supposed to be always dependent—in her childhood she is dependent on her father, in youth on her husband, and in old age on her elderly sons. According to Manu-saṁhitā, she is never independent. Independence for a woman means miserable life. In this age, so many girls are unmarried and falsely imagining themselves free, but their life is miserable. Here is an instance in which a woman felt that without her husband she was nothing but a dead body.
    =========

    Here are the related verses from manu:
    Manu 5:147. By a girl, by a young woman, or even by an aged one, nothing must be done independently, even in her own house.
    148. In childhood a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband,when her lord is dead to her sons; a woman must never be independent.

  18. Phoenix says:

    Correcting a typo

    “Now let’s look at your “alternate” definition once more”

    Should have read “alternative”

  19. Phoenix says:

    Poor delusive stupid fellow…..It is clear you do NOT have any other argument. IT is NOT ONLY base jumpers and mountaineers classified as indulging in “indirect suicide behavior”……
    Just denying alternate definition of “indirect suicide” I provided with reference is NOT going to help you….I am NOT going to waste my time with you again…Do you think readers do NOT know you are just in denial and deceptively overlooking definitions I provided. Stupid loser..//

    Nowhere did I say ONLY base jumpers and mountaineers are engaged in indirect suicide activities. They are merely examples, as are smokers of high-risk behaviors with unintended death outcomes. I specifically asked you which high-risk behavior Jesus engaged in. For some bizzare and irrational reason you have dismissed the medical dicitonary definition in favor of your own. Now let’s look at your “alternate” definition once more:
    =========
    “Karin Andriolo (1998) has described a number of cultures in which ***people commit suicide by getting other to kill them***………This method of committing suicide has been called indirect suicide, vicarious suicide, or masked suicide.”

    Here, I have pin pointed the exact words which defines indirect suicide in your definition. ***people commit suicide by getting other to kill them***. Now the next honest question to ask is: “Did Jesus get (provoke) others inorder to kill him?”

    We know from scriptural sources that:
    a) The authorities had no problem with Jesus and he managed to exonerate himself at their councils.
    b) He did escape death (stoning and being thrown off a cliff) on a number of occasions.
    c) Jesus did not hand himself over to the authorities, an insider gave him up in exchange for money and a group of soldiers were sent at night to capture him.
    ====
    Now, let’s look at the examples of how an individual behaves who commits indirect suicide from YOUR SOURCE.

    Suicide by Cop: Committing Suicide by Provoking Police to Shoot You”

    Here’s an overview from wikipedia. I’m using wiki this time because the citation can be verified.

    “There are two broad categories of “suicide by cop”. The first is when someone has committed a crime and is being pursued by the police and decides that they would rather die than be arrested. These people may not otherwise be suicidal but may simply decide that life is not worth living if they are incarcerated and thus will provoke police to kill them. The second version involves people who are already contemplating suicide and who, for whatever reason, decide that provoking law enforcement into killing them is the best way to act on their desires. These individuals may commit a crime with the specific intention of provoking a law enforcement response.”

    *If there’s anything in the above examples of which resembles Jesus’ actions then please point it out. There is simply nothing you can compare him with.

  20. why? says:

    !+Phoenix Says:
    !-========================================================
    I said “Commentaries by Hindus (**which goes beyond what the verse means**)”.//

    But the context is here is sati. The commentary explains some of the causes of sati. So how can the commentary go beyond what the verse mean, if it relates to sati?

    SB 9.9.36:Thus the wife of the brāhmaṇa cursed King Saudāsa, known as Mitrasaha. Then, being inclined to go with her husband, she set fire to her husband’s bones, ***fell into the fire herself, and went with him to the same destination***

    Therefore the verse and commentary is accurate.

    SB 9.9.32:Without my husband, I cannot live for a moment. If you want to eat my husband, it would be better to eat me first, for without my husband I am as good as a dead body.”

    You won’t get away with your crap here.
    !-=======================================================

    watch me 🙂

    Even if the context is sati, the commentary goes beyond what it says…The wife of the brAhmana laments to a man-eater (cannibal) and begs him not to eat. The reason she gives is that she cannot live without her husband and therefore man-eater should allow her husband to live.

    Now any woman who loves her husband in such a situation may give umpteen reasons for saving her husband as in verse 9.9.32.

    In verse 9.9.36, it is explicitly said **Then, being inclined to go with her husband** she commits sati. NOTE, the verse does NOT say she committed sati because she felt like crap. IT IS SPECIFICALLY SAID in verse 9.9.36 **Then, being inclined to go with her husband**…….This is what the scripture says too, that one commits sati to be with one’s husband in heaven and NOT because they fell like crap. You just proved my point…thank you for that Phoenix 🙂

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe33/sbe3382.htm#fr_1218
    ==================
    11. A wife is considered half the body (of her husband), equally sharing the result of his good or wicked deeds; whether she ascends the pile after him, or chooses to survive him leading a virtuous life, she promotes the welfare of her husband.

    If a woman adheres to a vow of ascetic celibacy (brahmacarya) after her husband has died, then when she dies, she obtains heaven, just like those who were celibate. Further, three and a half krores or however many hairs are on a human body – for that long a time (in years) a woman who follows her husband (in death) shall dwell in heaven. – Parasara Smriti, 4.29-31
    ============================

    There you loser 🙂

  21. why? says:

    +!Phoenix Says:
    !+=============================================
    So what exactly was Jesus’ high-risk behavior? And if it’s unintended then how can you say he intended to die? Smokers do not smoke so they can die. Base jumpers and mountaineers don’t engage in their activities so they can die?
    +!=============================================

    Poor delusive stupid fellow…..It is clear you do NOT have any other argument. IT is NOT ONLY base jumpers and mountaineers classified as indulging in “indirect suicide behavior”……

    Just denying alternate definition of “indirect suicide” I provided with reference is NOT going to help you….I am NOT going to waste my time with you again…Do you think readers do NOT know you are just in denial and deceptively overlooking definitions I provided. Stupid loser..

    ALTERNATE DEFINITION OF INDIRECT SUICIDE:
    ===============================
    https://books.google.co.in/books?id=zY0O7OIhd2MC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=indirect+suicide+suicide+by+cop&source=bl&ots=OFUA4EdVOZ&sig=va6Rju9L0vtOkT3e6nz1qYUhBP8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_9Jy9j-vLAhWKA44KHS-dAXUQ6AEIJjAC#v=onepage&q=indirect%20suicide%20suicide%20by%20cop&f=false

    BOOK Title: “Suicide by Cop: Committing Suicide by Provoking Police to Shoot You”

    Authors: By Mark Lindsay, David Lester

    “Karin Andriolo (1998) has described a number of cultures in which people commit suicide by getting other to kill them…………**This method of committing suicide has been called indirect suicide, vicarious suicide, or masked suicide. Masked suicide is a public performance, and therefore, a public property.** The suicide conforms to the cultural norms and values and thus confirms them. **The suicidal person of this type also does not act impulsively, but rather seeks a cause, and the scenario offers solemnity, symbolism, and purpose. The ritual induces control and calmness in the suicide.**”
    ================================

    NOTE THIS:

    **The suicidal person of this type also does not act impulsively, but rather seeks a cause, and the scenario offers solemnity, symbolism, and purpose. The ritual induces control and calmness in the suicide.**

    IT DESCRIBES JEEBUS’ SUICIDE PROCESS SO WELL.

    Phoenix Says:
    !+=============================================
    And your analysis of Gill’s exposition is: “IT IS UNAMBIGUOUSLY CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE VERSE THAT JEEBUS BELIEVED THAT HE HAS TO SUFFER AND ACCEPT DEATH AS IT IS THE DESIGN OF HIS FATHER (JEEBUS’ gOD)”

    Here you have merely asserted that Gill’s exposition on this verse exposes a suicide mission because Jesus accepted the fact that he had to suffer death.
    =============================================

    No..NOT just that……Jesus told Peter that he will undergo torture and death **as it is designed by his father (jeebus’ god)**. A design is a plan for something. Here the plan is for jeebus to be “sacrifical goat”.

    Again Jeebus himself explicitly says that he and his father planned for jeebus’ sacrificial offering much before this event as per the command of his father (jeebus’ god).

    John 10:18

    **No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord.** **I have authority to lay it down** and authority to take it up again. **This command I received from my Father.**”

    When it is said “**I lay it down of my own accord.**”, it is suicide ONLY.

  22. Phoenix says:

    3. Commentaries by Hindus (**which goes beyond what the verse means**) is not considered as evidence for anything. I do NOT expecially subscribe to ISKCON nonsense, as I do NOT subscribe to Arya Samaj or some other organizations.//

    And yet you are constantly giving commentaries from the bible.
    !+====================================
    I said “Commentaries by Hindus (**which goes beyond what the verse means**)”.//

    But the context is here is sati. The commentary explains some of the causes of sati. So how can the commentary go beyond what the verse mean, if it relates to sati?

    SB 9.9.36:Thus the wife of the brāhmaṇa cursed King Saudāsa, known as Mitrasaha. Then, being inclined to go with her husband, she set fire to her husband’s bones, ***fell into the fire herself, and went with him to the same destination***

    Therefore the verse and commentary is accurate.

    SB 9.9.32:Without my husband, I cannot live for a moment. If you want to eat my husband, it would be better to eat me first, for without my husband I am as good as a dead body.”

    In the Vedic culture there is a system known as satī or saha-maraṇa, in which a woman dies with her husband. According to this system, if the husband dies, the wife will voluntarily die by falling in the blazing funeral pyre of her husband. Here, in this verse, the feelings inherent in this culture are expressed by the wife of the brāhmaṇa. A woman without a husband is like a dead body. Therefore according to Vedic culture a girl must be married. This is the responsibility of her father. A girl may be given in charity, and a husband may have more than one wife, but a girl must be married. This is Vedic culture. A woman is supposed to be always dependent—in her childhood she is dependent on her father, in youth on her husband, and in old age on her elderly sons. According to Manu-saṁhitā, she is never independent. Independence for a woman means miserable life. In this age, so many girls are unmarried and falsely imagining themselves free, but their life is miserable. ****Here is an instance in which a woman felt that without her husband she was nothing but a dead body. -******

    You won’t get away with your crap here.

  23. Phoenix says:

    He stopped Peter NOT to stop him from hurting others, but because Peter was trying to stop jeebus from committing ritual suicide.
    Peter, tried to stop soldiers from arresting Jeebus. If Jeebus was merely afraid of Peter getting slaughtered, Jeebus would NOT have replied anything about “cup” or his “father”. Jeebus would have retorted perhaps “foolish Peter, don’t you know you will be slaughtered.”//

    1) The army came specifically for Jesus not Peter.
    2) Jesus was responsible for himself, not Peter
    3) Why would Jesus let Peter fight a losing battle against a Roman army ?

    Let\s see your supposed evidence that cup and father means he wanted to commit suicide.
    =======
    Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
    the cup which my Father hath given me: by the cup is meant, the wrath of God, and punishment due to sin, endured by Christ in his sufferings, and is said to be given him by his Father; because he called him to these sufferings, they were appointed and determined by him; yea, he was even ordered, and commanded by his Father, to drink of this cup;//

    And your analysis of Gill’s exposition is: “IT IS UNAMBIGUOUSLY CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE VERSE THAT JEEBUS BELIEVED THAT HE HAS TO SUFFER AND ACCEPT DEATH AS IT IS THE DESIGN OF HIS FATHER (JEEBUS’ gOD)”

    Here you have merely asserted that Gill’s exposition on this verse exposes a suicide mission because Jesus accepted the fact that he had to suffer death.

    Let’s turn to the dictionary again and check if accepting your death is suicide

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/suicide
    1. The act or an instance of intentionally killing oneself.”

    Now from the same dictionary
    Martyr:1. One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.
    2. One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle.”

    There you have it. Jesus did not intentionally kill himself. However, the definition of martyr is consistent with Jesus’ death. But wait, you will probably say something stupid like “it was assisted indirect suicide”
    ====
    Here Jeebus believed that he is a “sacrifical goat” as per his god’s idea and even stopped Peter for hindering his “assisted suicidal ritual sacrifice”. //

    From the same dicitonary
    Indirect suicide:Death as the unintended outcome of high-risk behaviour, such as BASE jumping or mountain climbing”

    So what exactly was Jesus’ high-risk behavior? And if it’s unintended then how can you say he intended to die? Smokers do not smoke so they can die. Base jumpers and mountaineers don’t engage in their activities so they can die?

  24. why? says:

    Truth Seeker,
    +!================================================
    Leave aside scriptures . I like to know your point of view about widow marriage. Are you against widow marriage? Do you still support Sati Partha & even cast system prevailed in today’s society?
    Do you support polygamy too?
    !+================================================

    Hmmm……This is a philosophical question. It depends on the world view a person has.

    I cannot leave aside scriptural position on what is dharma and adharma.

    However, what happens with one’s personal lives (widow remarriage) is beyond my control. It depends on their karma and intrinsic nature of souls involved. I cannot be judgmental on that. In such situations, it is better to act with compassion than be judgmental.

    As for Sati, what I have heard (I have NOT found pramana or scriptural support), that sati is forbidden in Kali yuga, just like animal sacrifices are forbidden. Sati was meant for highly realized souls and highly advanced souls (all Mahabbhartha characters of sati are aparoksha jnanins who could see spiritual realm pratyaksha, directly) who are advanced in path of yoga. In Kali yuga, men and women are fallen and therefore forbidden. This is why none of the south Indian orthodox schools do not have much discussion about sati at all and almost nil incidences of sati.

    Caste system (varnavyavastha) is real and will exist even if you deny it. Hierarchy is natural from animal world to human world. This is natural and intrinsic to all categories of living beings. No two souls have same capacities, same nature or qualities. This same hierarchy and difference is clearly seen in this world. What differences and hierarchy is found in spiritual world, it reflects on this world too. What good, evil and mixture of evil and good is found in spiritual realm is also found in this worldly realm. Caste system (varna) is classification of living beings, based on souls capacity and accumulated karma at a particular instance of time. In each life the soul assumes a body, it is given a body suitable for its spiritual development. This body type defines Varna or caste. If it indulges in duties as per the Vedic injunctions, it will prosper spiritually and in worldly pursuits. However, if it indulges in activities NOT meant for its state at a articular time, it results in fall spiritually and destruction in worldly life eventually once their punya is depleted.

    Polygamy is enjoying multiple women. This will result in one’s life when one does too many kamya (desire ridden) karmas like charity (dana), rituals etc. with the aim of getting worldly benefits. The excess punya one gains transforms into enjoyment with women as per their karma. So it is NOT a question of whether I support something. Whether I support something or not is irrelevant. I see it as karmic results which a person enjoys or suffers. There are also hierarchy of souls (ranging from upper most echelon of Vedic deities to straw of blade of grass) who will enjoy certain benefits according their “intrinsic quality (svabhava) of souls”. Some souls higher in hierarchy will have more ananda (intrinsic capacity for happiness) and means of enjoyment than others. One should NOT envy such souls and call it wrong. Others have lesser capacity. If the soul with lesser capacity (manushya/human souls) gets what it does NOT deserve, it results in suffering rather than enjoyment, even if these souls momentarily enjoy. Thus manushya/human souls are destined for one wife (even the soul is male or female) as per their capacity. Such soul pairs are called as niyat pati (soul husband) and niyat patnis (soul wife). So for human souls, polygamy is NOT good generally. They should make every attempt to marry only their soul pair. This is why there is a saying that marriage is made in heaven, because every human male soul has a female pair meant to be his wife for eternity.

  25. Steve says:

    Phoenix
    “In fact, the only way the could catch was because he was betrayed by an insider who sent an army to come and arrest him at night.
    This demonstrates sufficiently that Jesus was not suicidal” Bull in fact according to the bible Jesus knew he would be betrayed. “Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.” (John 6:64). “21 But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table.
    22 The Son of Manwill go as it has been decreed. But woe to that man who betrays him!

    Jesus doesn’t try to escape or to to stop Judas from betraying him even though he “knew from the beginning”.

    One of the commentators (Matthew Henry) writes ” Christ said, Behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. There have been those that have eaten bread with Christ and yet have betrayed him. 2. He foretels that the treason would take effect (Luke 22:22): Truly the Son of man goes as it was determined, goes to the place where he will be betrayed; for he is delivered up by the counsel and foreknowledge of God, else Judas could not have delivered him up. Christ was not driven to his sufferings, but cheerfully went to them. He said, Lo, I come. ”
    Did you read, Christ was not driven to his sufferings, indeed he went cheerfully? This means he committed suicide, no one forced him and he was happy to suffer and die nailed to a cross.

    Their is not point denying it because it’s in the bible and it’s the main doctrine of Christianity.

    “But I have a question for you too Steve, does Hinduism promote human sacrifice or not?” I don’t know I am not a Hindu, and don’t know anything about Hinduism, ask the Hindus here and Why and other Hindus seem to respond to your allegations about their religions practices

  26. Truth Seeker says:

    @Why?

    Leave aside scriptures . I like to know your point of view about widow marriage. Are you against widow marriage? Do you still support Sati Partha & even cast system prevailed in today’s society?
    Do you support polygamy too?

  27. why? says:

    Truth seeker (Ajay),

    You need not hide what you are. It does not matter anyway.

    Truth seeker Says:
    !+========================================
    (NARI) Oh Widow! You (ETAM) this (GATASUM) leaving the dead (JEEVLOKAM)alive husband (ABHYEHI) get.
    Meaning: – If a widow is able to get child then she must leave the dead and get.
    !+==========================================

    First of all JEEVLOKAM = “living world” and NOT “alive husband”. This is cheating.

    udīrṣva = rise up

    nāry =O Woman

    abhi jīvalokaṃ = to the world of living

    ghatāsun = dead, one who (whose breath) has gone

    etam = You; upa = near; śeṣa = lies down ehi = this

    Truth seeker Says:
    ========================================
    (HASTAGRABHASYA) husband you got your hand in marriage (DIDHISHOHO PATYUHU TAV IDAM JANITVAM UDEERSHVA) who for the dead husband and for yourself produce (ABHI SAMBABHOOTH) so by this procedure become happy.
    ==========================================

    abhi sambabhoota = aabhimukhyena (wish or desire directed towards husband) samyak (properly) prapnuhi (attained or got) as per Sayana

    hastaghrābhasya = the one who held your hand

    didhiṣo = thy husband, the suitor

    tva idaṃ = you here

    patyurjanitvam = wifehood to husband

    Rise, woman, come to the world of the living (i.e. go to the home of living, namely sons, grandsons etc.). Come, the man near you is lifeless. You have been united (saM-babhUtha = attained enjoyment fully) as the wife of this husband, the suitor who took you by the hand.–Tr.RL Kashyap [Rig Ved 10/18/8].

    THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO SECOND HUSBAND HERE NECESSARILY.

  28. why? says:

    Phoenix Says:
    +!====================================
    3. Commentaries by Hindus (**which goes beyond what the verse means**) is not considered as evidence for anything. I do NOT expecially subscribe to ISKCON nonsense, as I do NOT subscribe to Arya Samaj or some other organizations.//

    And yet you are constantly giving commentaries from the bible.
    !+====================================

    I said “Commentaries by Hindus (**which goes beyond what the verse means**)”.

    Prove me logically that bible commentaries also go beyond it and I will accept my fault. The commentaries I quote are short and precise in explanation of what the verse means.

    John 18:11

    Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”

    What does the above verse mean?

    http://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/18-11.htm
    ===============================
    Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

    the cup which my Father hath given me: by the cup is meant, the wrath of God, and punishment due to sin, endured by Christ in his sufferings, and is said to be given him by his Father; because he called him to these sufferings, they were appointed and determined by him; yea, he was even ordered, and commanded by his Father, to drink of this cup;
    ===================================

    IT IS UNAMBIGUOUSLY CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE VERSE THAT JEEBUS BELIEVED THAT HE HAS TO SUFFER AND ACCEPT DEATH AS IT IS THE DESIGN OF HIS FATHER (JEEBUS’ gOD).

    Prove the commentary is wrong in explaining what the verse means…YOU ARE AN IMBECILE OF FIRST ORDER.

    Phoenix Says:
    ===================================
    1. Show me an explicit verse which says that sati can be committed just because wife feels bad. Unless you have such an evidence, you are merely assuming that which does not exist. //

    I don’t need to. The mere fact that they commit sati proves these women are abused beyond repair.
    =====================================

    YOU ARE MERELY MAKING ASSERTIONS WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Assertions do NOT prove anything.

    I have clearly shown that JEEBUS IS MENTALLY RETARDED FOR BELIEVING IN ILLOGICAL/IMMORAL INCONSISTENT IDEA OF “INDIRECT SUICIDE” WITH BELIEF IN A PERFECT GOD.

    Show me proper logic for your EMPTY ASSERTIONS/CLAIM.

    The fact is you cannot as you are one dumb ass moron 🙂

  29. Truth Seeker says:

    @Why?

    Firstly, I am not Arya Samaji and I have no association with them. I myself check every mantra in Sanskrit before referring here and I have also knowledge of Sanskrit language. I can give word to word translation to prove my claim if you have any objection please put before me, I will be interested to change my stand if found wrong.
    Rigveda mantra 10/18/8:

    UDEERSHVA NARYABHI JEEVLOKAM GATASUMETAMUPA SHESH EHI.
    HASTGRABHASYA DIDHISHOSTAVEDAM PATYURJANITVAMABHI SAM BABHOOTHA.

    (NARI) Oh Widow! You (ETAM) this (GATASUM) leaving the dead (JEEVLOKAM)alive husband (ABHYEHI) get.
    Meaning: – If a widow is able to get child then she must leave the dead and get.

    (HASTAGRABHASYA) husband you got your hand in marriage (DIDHISHOHO PATYUHU TAV IDAM JANITVAM UDEERSHVA) who for the dead husband and for yourself produce (ABHI SAMBABHOOTH) so by this procedure become happy.

  30. why? says:

    Phoenix Says:
    +!=========================================
    You have just proven by using this verse that Jesus opposed suicide. Had he given Peter the go ahead, it would have been a suicide mission but Jesus stopped him, otherwise Christianity would have had the exact Islamic and Hindu concept of “slay and be slain”.
    !+=========================================

    He stopped Peter NOT to stop him from hurting others, but because Peter was trying to stop jeebus from committing ritual suicide.

    Peter, tried to stop soldiers from arresting Jeebus. If Jeebus was merely afraid of Peter getting slaughtered, Jeebus would NOT have replied anything about “cup” or his “father”. Jeebus would have retorted perhaps “foolish Peter, don’t you know you will be slaughtered.”

    Why did Jeebus mention something about “**drink the cup the Father has given me**” in this context?

    PHOENIX, NO MATTER HOW DECEPTIVELY YOU TRY TO HIDE JEEBUS’ SUICIDAL BEHAVIOR I WILL EXPOSE IT HERE.

    John 18:11

    Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not **drink the cup the Father has given me**?”

    What does the above verse mean?

    http://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/18-11.htm
    ===============================
    Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

    the cup which my Father hath given me: by the cup is meant, the wrath of God, and punishment due to sin, endured by Christ in his sufferings, and is said to be given him by his Father; because he called him to these sufferings, they were appointed and determined by him; yea, he was even ordered, and commanded by his Father, to drink of this cup;
    ===================================

    IT IS UNAMBIGUOUSLY CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE VERSE THAT JEEBUS BELIEVED THAT HE HAS TO SUFFER AND ACCEPT DEATH AS IT IS THE DESIGN OF HIS FATHER (JEEBUS’ gOD).

    Here Jeebus believed that he is a “sacrifical goat” as per his god’s idea and even stopped Peter for hindering his “assisted suicidal ritual sacrifice”.

    Phoenix Says:
    =================================================
    GOSPEL VERSES AS EVIDENCE FOR JEEBUS PLANNING SUICIDE FOR LONG TIME
    John 10:15 Young’s Literal Translation
    according as the Father doth know me, and I know the Father, and my life I lay down for the sheep//

    So the keywords here in all these verses are “lay down my life”, which you equate as suicide.
    ==================================================

    John 10:18

    No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

    CLEARLY YOUR JEEBUS HIMSELF DIAGREES WITH YOU. JEEBUS SAYS EXPLICITLY THAT HE LAYS DOWN HIS LIFE ON HIS OWN ACCORD. WHEN YOU DO IT ON YOUR OWN ACCORD, IT IS SUICIDE…..

    YOUR JEEBUS HIMSELF SAYS HE COMMITS SUICIDE AND NO ONE ELSE TAKES AWAY HIS LIFE.

    Phoenix Says:
    =================================================
    Moron, Jesus did not provoke the authorities to kill him. I showed you they did intend to free him. They did not find him guilty of any crime worthy of capital punishment.
    =================================================

    Then why did they torture him to death? Your claims and events in gospel contradict each other.

    Clearly, Jeebus did provoke somebody (Jews) to cause his death. This is “indirect suicide” only.

  31. why? says:

    Truth Seeker,

    We have our differences, as you follow Arya Samaj which I do NOT approve of. So lets agree to disagree for we even have disagreement at a very basic level as to what constitutes pramana and what texts constitutes Vedas.

    Truth Seeker Says:
    !+===========================================
    On the contrary Veda have the mantra where women advised not to repent over dead Husband and marry again. Read mantra again

    “O woman, get up and adopt the worldly life again. It is futile to lie with this dead man. Get up and become the wife of the man who is holding your hand and who loves you. [Rig Ved 10/18/8].

    Thus the mantras give the noble lesson that a widow should not continue repenting on dead one but start life afresh and continue with her responsibilities. These mantras form the foundation in which widow-remarriage is encouraged and Sati Pratha is discouraged
    !+===========================================

    None of the texts (Shruti or Smriti) authorize remarriage for a widow. This is pure lies Arya Samajis spread, just as other usual misinterpretations and mistranslations spread by them. You are suggesting one of the heinous sins prohibited in the Vedic texts.

    The verse itself is totally mistranslated to mean something else.

    udīrṣva nāryabhi jīvalokaṃ ghatāsumetamupa śeṣa ehi |
    hastaghrābhasya didhiṣostavedaṃ patyurjanitvamabhi sambabhūtha || [Rig Ved 10/18/8].

    Rise, woman, come to the world of the living (i.e. go to the home of living, namely sons, grandsons etc.). Come, the man near you is lifeless. You have been united (saM-babhUtha) as the wife of this husband, the suitor who took you by the hand.–Tr.RL Kashyap [Rig Ved 10/18/8].

    Ashvalayana grahya sutra IV 2 explains what this verse means.

    Rig Ved 10/18/7 to Rig Ved 10/18/13 is called as Pitrmedha (sacrificial rites for the departed).

    http://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe29/sbe29147.htm

    18. Her brother-in-law, being a representative of her husband, or a pupil (of her husband), or an aged servant, should cause her to rise (from that place) with (the verse), ‘Arise, O wife, to the world of life’ (Rig-veda X, 18, 8).

    THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO REMARRIAGE HERE AT ALL. THIS IS ALL YOUR IMAGINATION.

    Rest of the post is irrelevant, whether it in in singular or dual. Why? You are not marriying 4 wives at the same time. It does NOT prove or disprove anything, as this verse.

    This verse is NOT against sati at all. These are mantras spoken at death of husband by the brother-in-law, asking the wife to return to children.

    WE SHOULD ARGUE ELSEWHERE.

  32. Phoenix says:

    3. Ccommentaries by Hindus (which goes beyond what the verse means) is not considered as evidence for anything. I do NOT expecially subscribe to ISKCON nonsense, as I do NOT subscribe to Arya Samaj or some other organizations.//

    And yet you are constantly giving commentaries from the bible.

    1. Show me an explicit verse which says that sati can be committed just because wife feels bad. Unless you have such an evidence, you are merely assuming that which does not exist. //

    I don’t need to. The mere fact that they commit sati proves these women are abused beyond repair.

  33. Phoenix says:

    Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”
    Here Jeebus believed that he is a “sacrifical goat” as per his god’s idea and even stopped Peter for hindering his “assisted suicidal ritual sacrifice”.//

    You have just proven by using this verse that Jesus opposed suicide. Had he given Peter the go ahead, it would have been a suicide mission but Jesus stopped him, otherwise Christianity would have had the exact Islamic and Hindu concept of “slay and be slain”.
    =====
    GOSPEL VERSES AS EVIDENCE FOR JEEBUS PLANNING SUICIDE FOR LONG TIME
    John 10:15 Young’s Literal Translation
    according as the Father doth know me, and I know the Father, and my life I lay down for the sheep//

    So the keywords here in all these verses are “lay down my life”, which you equate as suicide.

    Let’s turn to the dictionary once more.
    http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/lay-down-your-life-for-sth
    -to ​die for something you ​believe in ​strongly: Today we ​remember those who ​laid down ​their ​lives for ​their ​country.”

    Another dictionary definition:
    http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/lay+down+life
    lay down one’s life (for someone or something)
    Fig. to sacrifice one’s life for someone or something. Would you lay down your life for your country? There aren’t many things for which I’d lay down my life.”

    Now let’s look at the FULL definition of martyr from the dicitonary
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/martyr
    1 : a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion
    2 : ***a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle***
    ======
    ALTERNATE DEFINITION OF INDIRECT SUICIDE://

    “Suicide by Cop: Committing Suicide by Provoking Police to Shoot You”

    The suicidal person of this type also does not act impulsively, but rather seeks a cause, and the scenario offers solemnity, symbolism, and purpose. The ritual induces control and calmness in the suicide.*

    Moron, Jesus did not provoke the authorities to kill him. I showed you they did intend to free him. They did not find him guilty of any crime worthy of capital punishment.

  34. why? says:

    Phoenix Says:
    !+_=======================================
    Nothing else hey? Let’s see what the Srimad bhagavatam has to say on the matter.
    http://vanisource.org/wiki/SB_9.9.32
    SB 9.9.32 Without my husband, I cannot live for a moment. If you want to eat my husband, it would be better to eat me first, for without my husband I am as good as a dead body.”
    +!-=========================================

    So what……None of these proves anything regarding scriptural reasons for performance of Sati. The scriptural reason remains the same, namely to attain heaven and be with her husband.

    Any wife who loses husband will lament with bitter words. It is basic human nature to feel bad during death of loved ones. These words do NOT make it a scriptural reason for doing sati.

    1. Show me an explicit verse which says that sati can be committed just because wife feels bad. Unless you have such an evidence, you are merely assuming that which does not exist.

    2. I can show you with evidence, that pain of wife does NOT sanction herself to commit sati. Only heaven and company of husband sanctions sati. In case wife has children to look after, even if wife feels like crap without husband, she has to live by Hindu law.

    This is evident in the life of Pandu and his two wives, namely Kunti and Madri. Pandu dies due to intimacy with one of his wives due to a curse of a brAhmin. On his death, Kunti wanted to do Sati. But Madri says the King Pandu dies on her account (King wishing to be intimate with her) and therefore she should burn with her husband’s body (for causing unintentionally his death and also for Pandu’s sake) and be with her husband in heaven.

    The Mahabharata/Book 1: Adi Parva/Section CXXV
    =========
    O revered one, if I survive thee, it is certain I shall not be able to rear thy children as if they were mine. Will not sin touch me on that account? But, thou, O Kunti, shall be able to bring my sons up as if they were thine. The king, in seeking me wishfully, hath gone to the region of spirits; therefore, my body should be burnt with his. O revered sister, withhold not thy sanction to this which is agreeable to me. Thou wilt certainly bring up the children carefully. That indeed, would be very agreeable to me. I have no other direction to give!
    ==================

    The above incident shows that when a wife (Kunti) has some responsibility and duties in this world, her first priority is discharging those duties and NOT shying away from them (even if they are in pain). Therefore, Hinduism does NOT teach suicide of wives through sati, but doing duties which is paramount one’s wife. If the wife has no other worldly duty and husband is dead, then seeking heaven or leading a celibate life are the duties of widow.

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe33/sbe3382.htm#fr_1218
    ==================
    11. A wife is considered half the body (of her husband), equally sharing the result of his good or wicked deeds; whether she ascends the pile after him, or chooses to survive him leading a virtuous life, she promotes the welfare of her husband.

    If a woman adheres to a vow of ascetic celibacy (brahmacarya) after her husband has died, then when she dies, she obtains heaven, just like those who were celibate. Further, three and a half krores or however many hairs are on a human body – for that long a time (in years) a woman who follows her husband (in death) shall dwell in heaven. – Parasara Smriti, 4.29-31
    ============================

    3. Ccommentaries by Hindus (which goes beyond what the verse means) is not considered as evidence for anything. I do NOT expecially subscribe to ISKCON nonsense, as I do NOT subscribe to Arya Samaj or some other organizations.

  35. why? says:

    Phoenix Says:
    +-!==================================================
    In fact, the only way the could catch was because he was betrayed by an insider who sent an army to come and arrest him at night.
    This demonstrates sufficiently that Jesus was not suicidal.

    My response to Steve applies to you as well. Jesus did not hand himself over to the Roman soldiers, they sneaked up on him and he did escape death several times as I’ve proven above. There is no suicide unlike your mentally retarded hindu widows, who volunteered to be tortured to death.
    +!-==================================================

    None of your quotes disqualify Jeebus’ belief that he is the “sacrificial goat” and that he committed “indirect suicide”.

    Your quotes, if anything, only shows that Jeebus believed in those instances, that it is NOT the right time to commit suicide yet. 🙂 That is all..You can dance all the way, but cannot escape the following fact.

    Again soft minded one…..THIS THE KEY POINT…You cannot slyly avoid this argument.

    John 18:11

    Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”

    What does the above verse mean?

    http://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/18-11.htm
    ===============================
    Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

    the cup which my Father hath given me: by the cup is meant, the wrath of God, and punishment due to sin, endured by Christ in his sufferings, and is said to be given him by his Father; because he called him to these sufferings, they were appointed and determined by him; yea, he was even ordered, and commanded by his Father, to drink of this cup;
    ===================================

    IT IS UNAMBIGUOUSLY CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE VERSE THAT JEEBUS BELIEVED THAT HE HAS TO SUFFER AND ACCEPT DEATH AS IT IS THE DESIGN OF HIS FATHER (JEEBUS’ gOD).

    Here Jeebus believed that he is a “sacrifical goat” as per his god’s idea and even stopped Peter for hindering his “assisted suicidal ritual sacrifice”.

    WHETHER he escaped before or not is irrelevant, as it merely shows that jeebus believed it is not yet time to commit suicide.

    Many suicide victims plan for suicide, but do not commit it as planned. They end committing suicide when time is opportune. They do NOT suddenly commit suicide. They may take some time in doing it.

    Similarly, here Jeebus from the beginning believed that he is the “sacrificial goat”. There is clear evidence in the same gospels that Jeebus always believed in this suicidal atonement.

    GOSPEL VERSES AS EVIDENCE FOR JEEBUS PLANNING SUICIDE FOR LONG TIME

    John 10:15 Young’s Literal Translation

    according as the Father doth know me, and I know the Father, and my life I lay down for the sheep,

    John 10:11

    “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

    John 10:17

    The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life–only to take it up again.

    John 10:18

    No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

    THESE VERSES CLEARLY SHOW THAT JEEBUS WAS PLANNING INDIRECT SUICIDE THROUGH RITUAL SACRIFICE, SUICIDE BY ROMAN SOLDIERS. JEEBUS SIMPLY MASKED HIS SUICIDE WITH GRANDIOSE CLAIMS WHICH IS TYPICAL FOR PEOPLE WHO COMMIT INDIRECT SUICIDE.

    AGAIN READ THE BOOK DEFINITION OF INDIRECT SUICIDE:

    ALTERNATE DEFINITION OF INDIRECT SUICIDE:
    ===============================
    https://books.google.co.in/books?id=zY0O7OIhd2MC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=indirect+suicide+suicide+by+cop&source=bl&ots=OFUA4EdVOZ&sig=va6Rju9L0vtOkT3e6nz1qYUhBP8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_9Jy9j-vLAhWKA44KHS-dAXUQ6AEIJjAC#v=onepage&q=indirect%20suicide%20suicide%20by%20cop&f=false

    BOOK Title: “Suicide by Cop: Committing Suicide by Provoking Police to Shoot You”

    Authors: By Mark Lindsay, David Lester

    “Karin Andriolo (1998) has described a number of cultures in which people commit suicide by getting other to kill them…………**This method of committing suicide has been called indirect suicide, vicarious suicide, or masked suicide. Masked suicide is a public performance, and therefore, a public property.** The suicide conforms to the cultural norms and values and thus confirms them. **The suicidal person of this type also does not act impulsively, but rather seeks a cause, and the scenario offers solemnity, symbolism, and purpose. The ritual induces control and calmness in the suicide.**”
    ================================

    NOTE THIS:

    **The suicidal person of this type also does not act impulsively, but rather seeks a cause, and the scenario offers solemnity, symbolism, and purpose. The ritual induces control and calmness in the suicide.**

    IT DESCRIBES JEEBUS’ SUICIDE PROCESS SO WELL.

  36. Truth Seeker says:

    @Phoenix & Why?

    Your allegation:

    “__________Vedic culture there is a system known as satī or saha-maraṇa_______”

    Absolutely false, you have no idea. Please spend some time here.
    http://agniveer.com/

    On the contrary Veda have the mantra where women advised not to repent over dead Husband and marry again. Read mantra again

    “O woman, get up and adopt the worldly life again. It is futile to lie with this dead man. Get up and become the wife of the man who is holding your hand and who loves you. [Rig Ved 10/18/8].

    Thus the mantras give the noble lesson that a widow should not continue repenting on dead one but start life afresh and continue with her responsibilities. These mantras form the foundation in which widow-remarriage is encouraged and Sati Pratha is discouraged

    Your allegation:
    “_____________a husband may have more than one wife___________”

    There is no single mantra in the entire 4 Vedas that even give a hint of supporting more than one wife or more than one husband.

    Rigveda 10.149.4 compares love between God and devotee like that between dedicated wife and husband. Both “Jaaya” meaning wife and “Patim” meaning husband are used in singular number implying strict monogamy.. Rigveda 10.85.20 appeals a bride to expand happiness for her husband. Again both husband and wife are referred in singular.

    Rigveda 10.85.23 appeals to wife and husband to always have self-control. Its obvious from reference to self-control and singular numbers for both wife and husband that monogamy alone is recommended.

    All mantras relating to marriage are addressed in dual number to a couple of husband-wife implying one wife for husband and one husband for wife. Some examples are Rig Veda 10.85.24, 10.85.42, 10.85.47 and almost entire 14th Chapter of Atharva Veda which deals with subject of marriage. Most mantras pray for faithful relation for entire life-time.
    Please note that Sanskrit has a dual number apart from singular and plural, specifically to remove this confusion that people may have.

  37. Phoenix says:

    One more verse on jesus escaping death:

    Matthew12:14But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.15.Aware of this, Jesus withdrew from that place. A large crowd followed him, and he healed all who were ill”

  38. Phoenix says:

    You are making claims without any evidence. Bhadra knew She will be with her husband in heaven as this is the only reason she finished her life. Nowhere it is said she felt worthless without her husband. The reason for widows committing sati in Hinduism in in pursuit of heaven and nothing else//

    Nothing else hey? Let’s see what the Srimad bhagavatam has to say on the matter.
    http://vanisource.org/wiki/SB_9.9.32
    SB 9.9.32 Without my husband, I cannot live for a moment. If you want to eat my husband, it would be better to eat me first, for without my husband I am as good as a dead body.”

    PURPORT
    In the Vedic culture there is a system known as satī or saha-maraṇa, in which a woman dies with her husband. According to this system, if the husband dies, the wife will voluntarily die by falling in the blazing funeral pyre of her husband. Here, in this verse, the feelings inherent in this culture are expressed by the wife of the brāhmaṇa. ****A woman without a husband is like a dead body***. Therefore according to Vedic culture a girl must be married. This is the responsibility of her father. A girl may be given in charity, and a husband may have more than one wife, but a girl must be married. This is Vedic culture. A woman is supposed to be always dependent—in her childhood she is dependent on her father, in youth on her husband, and in old age on her elderly sons. According to Manu-saṁhitā, she is never independent. Independence for a woman means miserable life. In this age, so many girls are unmarried and falsely imagining themselves free, but their life is miserable. Here is an instance in which a woman felt that without her husband she was nothing but a dead body.

    I will continue to hold you to this

  39. Phoenix says:

    WHAT JEEBUS DID IS INDIRECT SUICIDE AS PER ABOVE DEFINITION. INSTEAD OF SUICIDE BY COP, JEEBUS COMMITTED SUICIDE BY ROMAN SOLDIERS.//

    My response to Steve applies to you as well. Jesus did not hand himself over to the Roman soldiers, they sneaked up on him and he did escape death several times as I’ve proven above. There is no suicide unlike your mentally retarded hindu widows, who volunteered to be tortured to death.

  40. Phoenix says:

    @Steve
    //Yes he did commit suicide – “John Calvin presented the same Christological view of “The Lamb as the agent of God” by arguing that in his trial before Pilate and while at Herod’s Court Jesus could have argued for his innocence, but instead remained mostly quiet and submitted to Crucifixion in obedience to the Father, for he knew his role as the Lamb of God”.//

    You have concluded Jesus committed suicide because “Jesus could have argued for his innocence but instead remained mostly quiet and submitted to Crucifixion”

    Let’s turn to the evidence which is contrary to your false accusations. After interrogating Jesus, Pilate concludes the following:

    Luke 23:4 Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, “I find no basis for a charge against this man.”

    Pilate then sends Jesus to Herod who insists Jesus must perform a miracle on demand. Jesus refuse and Herod conludes:
    Luke23:14 and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. 15 Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death. 16 Therefore, I will punish him and then release him.”

    Jesus was in fact successful in convincing both leaders (Herod and Pilates) of his innocence. This is sufficient to destroy your suicide claim but I’ll go one step further and prove that neither did Jesus exhibit suicide tendencies and did in fact escape death several times.

    *Here, instead of allowing himself to be thrown off a cliff, Jesus dodge the crowd and went his own way
    Luke 4:30 “28 All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. 29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff. 30 But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way.”

    *Here Jesus hid from being stoned to death for blasphemy
    John 8:58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.”

    * Here Jesus escapes being arrested
    John10:37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.”

    In fact, the only way the could catch was because he was betrayed by an insider who sent an army to come and arrest him at night.
    This demonstrates sufficiently that Jesus was not suicidal.
    =======
    But I have a question for you too Steve, does Hinduism promote human sacrifice or not?

  41. why? says:

    PHOENIX SAYS:
    +-=======================================
    My bad, both wives are equally mentally sick. The one killed herself because she thought she was a worthless piece of garbage without her husband and the other one willfully became a slave and had sex with a corpse.
    +-=======================================

    Now where is the evidence for your claims? Where it is said one killed herself because “she thought she was a worthless piece of garbage”?

    You are making claims without any evidence. Bhadra knew She will be with her husband in heaven as this is the only reason she finished her life. Nowhere it is said she felt worthless without her husband. The reason for widows committing sati in Hinduism in in pursuit of heaven and nothing else. As per Hindu scriptures, a widow committing sati enters heaven with her husband. So this is allowed in Hinduism as it results in greater happiness.

    =====================================
    http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe33/sbe3382.htm#fr_1218

    11. A wife is considered half the body (of her husband), equally sharing the result of his good or wicked deeds; whether she ascends the pile after him, or chooses to survive him leading a virtuous life, she promotes the welfare of her husband.

    If a woman adheres to a vow of ascetic celibacy (brahmacarya) after her husband has died, then when she dies, she obtains heaven, just like those who were celibate. Further, three and a half krores or however many hairs are on a human body – for that long a time (in years) a woman who follows her husband (in death) shall dwell in heaven. – Parasara Smriti, 4.29-31

    ======================================

    You may not believe in this claim of Hinduism, but there is nothing morally inconsistent with this belief. One can give up one’s life, if a higher objective greater than one’s life is obtained by this. Nothing in sati is logically/morally inconsistent with a belief in perfect God. Here God rewards wife for her unflinching loyalty, love and sacrifice she makes for her husband.

    If your jeebus can kill himself thinking he is dying for sins of mankind, why can’t a Hindu widow kill herself for entering into heaven?

    Now at the least I logically showed that jeebus’ belief that he is dying for sins of mankind, is logically and morally inconsistent with a belief in a perfect God. Hence jeebus’ belief that he died for sins of mankind is nonsense as it is logically/morally inconsistent with a belief in existence of a perfect God.

    PHOENIX SAYS:
    =======================================
    Yes, and he excercised his ascetic power through his corpse.
    =========================================

    So what…if your “unholy ghost” can show his power through his spirit form of making some other man’s wife pregnant without husband’s knowledge like an adulterer, why can’t a husband make his wife pregnant with his ascetic power through his own corpse? What is morally wrong in this? At the least the husband did NOT immorally make some other man’s wife pregnant, like your demonic unholy ghost who behaves like an adulterer 🙂

    PHOENIX SAYS:
    =======================================
    I did and you called it a mistranslation AS ALWAYS, and said it was not a literal human sacrifice, even though your hindu brethren intrepret it literally by committing these acts.
    ======================================

    I had provided, Shathapatha Brahama, a Hindu Vedic text, which describes the process of Purushamedha (literally translated as “human sacrifice”) having no real human sacrifice. I quote it below again.

    =======================================================
    http://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44111.htm

    1. And as to why it is called Purushamedha:–The stronghold (pur) doubtless is these worlds, and the Purusha (spirit) is he that blows here (the wind), he bides (sî) in this stronghold (pur): hence he is the Purusha. And whatever food there is in these worlds that is its ‘medha,’ its food; and inasmuch as this is its ‘medha,’ its food, therefore (it is called) Purushamedha. And inasmuch as at this (sacrifice) he seizes 1 men (purusha) meet for sacrifice (medhya), therefore also it is called Purushamedha.

    13. Then a voice 2 said to him, **‘Purusha, do not consummate (these human victims 1): if thou wert to consummate them, man (purusha) would eat man.’** **Accordingly, as soon as fire had been carried round them, he set them free,** and offered oblations to the same divinities 2, and thereby gratified those divinities, and, thus gratified, they, gratified him with all objects of desire.
    =======================================================

    Clearlt it says ” **‘Purusha, do not consummate (these human victims 1): if thou wert to consummate them, man (purusha) would eat man.’** **Accordingly, as soon as fire had been carried round them, he set them free,**”…

    However, your christianity itself is based on human sacrifice, which is logically and morally inconsistent with a belief in a perfect God.

  42. why? says:

    Phoenix Says:
    ===============================================
    The wiki link you gave has a citation missing therefore it is false until completed. Every scholar knows this that’s why a true scholar never uses wikipedia as a reference, besides the fact that anyone can access it and modify its contents.
    Unlike you I have quoted a medical dictionary, not some
    ===============================================

    You stupid fellow, why don’t you read completely before wasting my time again and again. There is a reference from a book as well.

    You do not believe me. Here is a book on google books which will convince sane readers.

    https://books.google.co.in/books?id=zY0O7OIhd2MC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=indirect+suicide+suicide+by+cop&source=bl&ots=OFUA4EdVOZ&sig=va6Rju9L0vtOkT3e6nz1qYUhBP8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_9Jy9j-vLAhWKA44KHS-dAXUQ6AEIJjAC#v=onepage&q=indirect%20suicide%20suicide%20by%20cop&f=false

    Title: “Suicide by Cop: Committing Suicide by Provoking Police to Shoot You”

    Authors: By Mark Lindsay, David Lester

    “Karin Andriolo (1998) has described a number of cultures in which people commit suicide by getting other to kill them…………**This method of committing suicide has been called indirect suicide, vicarious suicide, or masked suicide. Masked suicide is a public performance, and therefore, a public property.** The suicide conforms to the cultural norms and values and thus confirms them. **The suicidal person of this type also does not act impulsively, but rather seeks a cause, and the scenario offers solemnity, symbolism, and purpose. The ritual induces control and calmness in the suicide.**”

    THIS IS PERFECT DESCRIPTION OF JEEBUS COMMITTING INDIRECT SUICIDE THROUGH SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE RITUAL OF SUFFERING AND TORTURE. JEEBUS COMMITTED INDIRECT SUICIDE SEEKING SOME IMAGINARY CAUSE, ATONEMENT FOR SINS.

    NOTE

    Now even if citation is missing in wiki, so what. It makes sense logically that one who tries to kill himself knowingly by adopting a path that leads to his death is in fact committing suicide.

    Is this that difficult to understand?

    YOU ARE IN DENIAL HERE….SHOWS YOU HAVE NO LOGICAL DEFENSE AGAINST THIS STUPIDITY AND EVIL OF JEEBUS.

    Phoenix Says:
    ===============================================
    Now let’s go to an actual dictionary:
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/martyr

    -a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.
    -a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause:a martyr to the cause of social justice.

    Look at the definitions above. Martyrs do in fact willfully (intentionally) die for their faith, cause, beliefs, etc. That’s not in dispute. What’s in dispute is whether he committed suicide/indirect suicide.
    ================================================

    Nice try moron…..How deceitfully you removed the word “suffers” from “willingly **suffers** death”?

    To say “willfully (intentionally) die” will also include suicide attempts where suicide victims also “willfully (intentionally) die”. You ARE A MORON INDEED.

    The definitions says “willingly **suffers** death rather than renounce his or her religion” and “who is put to death or endures great suffering” and NOT “willfully (intentionally) die”…..

    To say “willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion” means they are prepared to die at tormentors hands rather than leave their **belief, which is obviously other than death**.

    Lets see the meaning of the word “suffers”.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/suffer

    suf·fer (sŭf′ər)
    v. suf·fered, suf·fer·ing, suf·fers

    v.tr.
    1.
    a. To experience, undergo, or feel (something painful, injurious, or unpleasant): suffer a heart attack; suffer a debilitating illness; suffer pain.
    b. To undergo or be subjected to (a negative experience or development): a team that suffered a defeat; a species that suffered a decline in population; a business that suffered huge losses.
    2.
    a. To put up with; tolerate: She does not suffer fools easily. See Synonyms at endure.
    b. To permit; allow: “They were not suffered to aspire to so exalted a position as that of streetcar conductor” (Edmund S. Morgan).

    So when it is said, “”willingly suffers death” (used as transitive verb), it means “willingly tolerates or allows or permits death”. SO IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT A MARTYR DOES NOT PLAN TO DIE OR IT IS NOT HIS GOAL TO DIE, BUT MERELY TOLERATES DEATH (AS NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE) AS AN UNINTENDED OUTCOME RATHER THAN LEAVE HIS BELIEF, WHICH IS OTHER THAN DEATH.

    HOWEVER, JEEBUS WILLINGLY INTENDED DEATH ITSELF AS HIS BELIEF. THUS HE IS NO MARTYR, BUT A SUICIDE VICTIM.

    ===============================================
    Now let’s look at the definition of indirect suicide from a medical dictionary

    http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionaryDOTcom/Indirect+Suicide

    “Death as the unintended outcome of high-risk behaviour, such as BASE jumping or mountain climbing”

    You have even admitted that Jesus meant to die, his death was not an accident. His death is consistent with martyrdom.
    ===============================================

    SUICIDE victims also intentionally want (or mean) to die. So what is the difference between a martyr and a person committing suicide?

    Do you mean the difference (between a martyr and suicide victim) is ONLY in the mode or methods in which death is achieved? That is nonsense.

    The difference lies in the goal of a martyr and suicide victim. The goal of a martyr is other than death and death may be an unintended outcome of sticking to his goal. Does this mean a martyr is committing “indirect suicide”? That is nonsense definition.

    HIS DEATH IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH MARTYRDOM FOR MARTYRS’ GOAL IS NOT TO DIE. A SUICIDE VICTIM’S END GOAL IS DEATH ITSELF, HOPING TO END SOME PAIN TO HIMSELF OR OTHERS. JEEBUS’ GOALS ITSELF IS TO DIE IN THIS MANNER, AND HENCE JEEBUS IS A SUICIDE VICTIM.

    ALTERNATE DEFINITION OF INDIRECT SUICIDE:

    https://books.google.co.in/books?id=zY0O7OIhd2MC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=indirect+suicide+suicide+by+cop&source=bl&ots=OFUA4EdVOZ&sig=va6Rju9L0vtOkT3e6nz1qYUhBP8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_9Jy9j-vLAhWKA44KHS-dAXUQ6AEIJjAC#v=onepage&q=indirect%20suicide%20suicide%20by%20cop&f=false

    BOOK Title: “Suicide by Cop: Committing Suicide by Provoking Police to Shoot You”

    Authors: By Mark Lindsay, David Lester

    “Karin Andriolo (1998) has described a number of cultures in which people commit suicide by getting other to kill them…………**This method of committing suicide has been called indirect suicide, vicarious suicide, or masked suicide. Masked suicide is a public performance, and therefore, a public property.** The suicide conforms to the cultural norms and values and thus confirms them. **The suicidal person of this type also does not act impulsively, but rather seeks a cause, and the scenario offers solemnity, symbolism, and purpose. The ritual induces control and calmness in the suicide.**”

    =====================================

    WHAT JEEBUS DID IS INDIRECT SUICIDE AS PER ABOVE DEFINITION. INSTEAD OF SUICIDE BY COP, JEEBUS COMMITTED SUICIDE BY ROMAN SOLDIERS.

  43. Ron says:

    *3500 pounds

  44. Ron says:

    Hi Steve ,

    The explanations on the site for many of the magic tricks are not there (e.g, face mask changing).
    In Paris (and in other big cities) you can see these shows and it defies logic and science that a person 2 feet away from you will change his face mask in less than a second and that too multiple times.

    Also the mask will be symmetrical across the face so it is not a rearrangement of crystals on the skin.
    It is not an hypnotic illusion as cameras don’t get hypnotised or record illusions (Your own camera will record real facts)

    What about a long fully baked baguette appearing from a closed fist?

    They are not optical illusions as they happen in bright light and under many eyes.

    Even if you attend the talent shows which happen live (there are no stooges and here the possibilities of the entire panel of judges being stooges for 3 or 4 magicians is very very unlikely) you will see some mind boggling tricks.

    Also the levitations of the entire platform having 20 people would need strong thick cables (which will be visible) not thin cables and they have to handle a weight of minimum 3500..

    Ali Sina’s explanation seems likely true.

  45. Steve says:

    @Phoenix
    “Look at the definitions above. Martyrs do in fact willfully (intentionally) die for their faith, cause, beliefs, etc. That’s not in dispute. What’s in dispute is whether he committed suicide/indirect suicide.” Yes he did commit suicide – “John Calvin presented the same Christological view of “The Lamb as the agent of God” by arguing that in his trial before Pilate and while at Herod’s Court Jesus could have argued for his innocence, but instead remained mostly quiet and submitted to Crucifixion in obedience to the Father, for he knew his role as the Lamb of God”.
    Jesus was sent by his father (God) to die for the sins of humanity. Does this concept make any sense? This is like a father sending one of his sons to take the place of his brother who committed a crime against the father, and for him to take his punishment. Even without the brothers consent and knowledge, and then by the other – innocent brother – being punished then he the brother who committed the crime is forgiven by the father. This idea is insane and is made even more insane by the fact the so called sin is what we inherited from our ancestors Adam and Eve (who never existed) whose crime was to eat an apple from a tree that their creator had in his garden. Like Hitchens said “born sick and commanded to be well”. No thinking person can defend this insane doctrine – especially when you claim you don’t even believe Jesus was crucified in the first place which raises the question of why you are writing all these messages defending his “martyrdom” which you say you don’t believe ever happened anyway.

  46. Phoenix says:

    Then why are you spending all this time defending something you don’t even believe happened? And no Jesus was not a martyr he was a sacrificial goat that was sent by his “heavenly father” to die and suffer on a cross for the sins of humanity. This is the major doctrine of Christianity, so their is no point trying to deny it.//

    I have defended Deism, Buddhism and even Hinduism against Atheist or Islamic attacks before, yet I have never claimed to be any of these.
    Regarding Jesus death, the issue here is whether he committed suicide which has now been relegated to indirect suicide but with no avail and whether his crucifixion cause his followers to commit human sacrifice. Anything else is purely semantics.
    So did Jesus commit suicide, did he inspire others to commit suicide or did his death inspire his followers to commit human sacrifices?
    I have no reason to believe any of the above is true.

  47. Phoenix says:

    First, the Bhadra (wife of Shri Krishna) is different from Bhadta (the wife of Vyushitaswa). These are two different Queens you moron//

    My bad, both wives are equally mentally sick. The one killed herself because she thought she was a worthless piece of garbage without her husband and the other one willfully became a slave and had sex with a corpse.
    =======
    “do thou also beget offspring upon me, like the illustrious Vyushitaswa, by the exercise of that ascetic power which thou possessest.”

    Yes, and he excercised his ascetic power through his corpse.
    ====
    You have NOT provided any such verse. You are a LIAR and whatever you provided thinking it is such a glorification has been shown to be wrong.//

    I did and you called it a mistranslation AS ALWAYS, and said it was not a literal human sacrifice, even though your hindu brethren intrepret it literally by committing these acts.

  48. Phoenix says:

    Gee, you cannot fool the people based on selective definitions of terms and technicality of definitions and hide your embarrassment of your faith, that Jeebus is mentally unstable or a retard who committed indirect suicide.
    ====
    The wiki link you gave has a citation missing therefore it is false until completed. Every scholar knows this that’s why a true scholar never uses wikipedia as a reference, besides the fact that anyone can access it and modify its contents.
    Unlike you I have quoted a medical dictionary, not some
    =========
    By the way Jeebus behavior did NOT result in his death unintentionally. Jeebus intentionally wanted to die in this case you dumb ass moron. For the umpteenth time your bible itself says so as it is evident.//

    Now let’s go to an actual dictionary:
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/martyr

    -a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.
    -a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause:a martyr to the cause of social justice.

    Look at the definitions above. Martyrs do in fact willfully (intentionally) die for their faith, cause, beliefs, etc. That’s not in dispute. What’s in dispute is whether he committed suicide/indirect suicide.

    Now let’s look at the definition of indirect suicide from a medical dicitionary

    http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionaryDOTcom/Indirect+Suicide

    “Death as the unintended outcome of high-risk behaviour, such as BASE jumping or mountain climbing”

    Smoking is another example of indirect suicide. Now, do any of these apply to Jesus. You have even admitted that Jesus meant to die, his death was not an accident. His death is consistent with martyrdom.

  49. Steve says:

    Phoenix, you replied to me,
    “I did not say I believe in the crucifixion of Jesus. I have never promoted that here, so I don’t need to defend it.” Then why are you spending all this time defending something you don’t even believe happened? And no Jesus was not a martyr he was a sacrificial goat that was sent by his “heavenly father” to die and suffer on a cross for the sins of humanity. This is the major doctrine of Christianity, so their is no point trying to deny it.

  50. why? says:

    Phoenix Says:
    ==============================================
    But why? (aka continuum) is an extreme far right hindu fundamentalist who hates christians far more than any other group. He needs to be taken to task, even if it’s harsh.
    ==============================================

    It is beyond your intellectual capacity to do this phoenix, LOL 🙂

    I do NOT hate christians, but most definitely I hate christianity or islam and every desert religion. To hate evil is nothing wrong.

  51. why? says:

    Phoenix says:
    ===========================================
    Ok, you got me. I thought hindu widows only had two choices, either volunteer to step on the pyre or the family will force them into the fire, but apparently there’s another choice…become a slave and sleep with a corpse. Hmmm, hinduism take free will to a whole new dimension. Let’s turn to the evidence.

    While the Mahbharata only mentions four of the eight queens entered the fire (BTW, Bhadra was the 7th queen). Vishnu Purana states that all eight queen enters the fire.

    do thou also beget offspring upon me, like the illustrious Vyushitaswa, by the exercise of that ascetic power which thou possessest.’”

    1) She willingly became a slave
    2) She slept with a corpse

    Thanks for digging your own grave. I will continue to hold you to this
    ==========================================

    Thank you for embarrassing yourself without understanding anything.

    First, the Bhadra (wife of Shri Krishna) is different from Bhadta (the wife of Vyushitaswa). These are two different Queens you moron 🙂

    “do thou also beget offspring upon me, like the illustrious Vyushitaswa, by the exercise of that ascetic power which thou possessest.”

    Read the above quote carefully.

    Second, Kunti is telling her husband just like Vyushitaswa, who by his ascetic spiritual power, who although dead, but in spirit form and with his supernatural ascetic powers gave children to his wife Bhadra, similarly give Kunti children with Pandu’s ascetic power.

  52. why? says:

    PHOENIX SAYS:
    ===========================================
    Really? Where do scholars say it was a suicide ritual? Besides, I thought appealing to scholars amount to appeal to authority or merely the writers opinion as you have so often stated.
    ========================================

    Your post on scholar’s opinion does nothing to refute my points. All you were doing here is appeal to authority.

    Second, the scholars do NOT say it is ritual suicide or suicide ritual. Neither do they say it is martyrdom. Henc your post is irrelevant and waste of my time.

    PHOENIX SAYS:
    ===========================================
    Didn’t I give a verse from the Mhabharata glorifying human sacrifice? Even the footnote confirmed that hindus do indeed perform the rituals.
    ===========================================

    You have NOT provided any such verse. You are a LIAR and whatever you provided thinking it is such a glorification has been shown to be wrong.

  53. why? says:

    Phoenix Says:
    ==============================================
    “assisted indirect suicide” ??? You’ve just made up your own crap, there’s no such thing. Let’s turn to the dicitionary once more :
    ===============================================

    Jeebus committed indirect suicide. He does it with assistance from Roman soldiers. What is wrong with this term even if I made it up. It is a logical conclusion.

    Phoenix Says:
    ==============================================
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/martyrdom
    “the suffering of death on account of adherence to a cause and especially to one’s religious faith”
    ==============================================

    Except here jeebus’ religious faith consists of dying itself. The goal of Jeebus here is death itself for atonement of sins.

    Again soft minded one…..THIS THE KEY POINT…You cannot slyly avoid this argument.

    John 18:11

    Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”

    What does the above verse mean?

    http://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/18-11.htm
    ===============================
    Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

    the cup which my Father hath given me: by the cup is meant, the wrath of God, and punishment due to sin, endured by Christ in his sufferings, and is said to be given him by his Father; because he called him to these sufferings, they were appointed and determined by him; yea, he was even ordered, and commanded by his Father, to drink of this cup;
    ===================================

    Here Jeebus believed that he is a “sacrifical goat” as per his god’s idea and even stopped Peter for hindering his “assisted suicidal ritual sacrifice”.

    Phoenix Says:
    ==============================================
    Now for the definition of Indirect suicide:
    thefreedictionaryDOTcom/Indirect+Suicide
    “Death as the unintended outcome of high-risk behaviour, such as BASE jumping or mountain climbing”
    ==============================================

    CLEARLY YOU CHRISTIAN LIARS HAVE A HABIT OF CHOOSING DEFINITIONS THAT SUITS YOU, JUST LIKE YOU CHERRY PICK BIBLE.

    I have given already a link with an alternate definition.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods#Indirect_suicide

    “Indirect suicide is the act of setting out on an obviously fatal course without directly committing the act upon oneself. Indirect suicide is differentiated from legally defined suicide by the fact that the actor does not pull the figurative (or literal) trigger. ”

    As per this definition, Jeebus set himself on a fatal course knowingly and therefore is committing an indirect suicide.

    You do not believe me. Here is a book on google books which will convince sane readers.

    https://books.google.co.in/books?id=zY0O7OIhd2MC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=indirect+suicide+suicide+by+cop&source=bl&ots=OFUA4EdVOZ&sig=va6Rju9L0vtOkT3e6nz1qYUhBP8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_9Jy9j-vLAhWKA44KHS-dAXUQ6AEIJjAC#v=onepage&q=indirect%20suicide%20suicide%20by%20cop&f=false

    Title: “Suicide by Cop: Committing Suicide by Provoking Police to Shoot You”

    Authors: By Mark Lindsay, David Lester

    “Karin Andriolo (1998) has described a number of cultures in which people commit suicide by getting other to kill them…………This method of committing suicide has been called indirect suicide, vicarious suicide, or masked suicide. Masked suicide is a public performance, and therefore, a public property. The suicide conforms to the cultural norms and values and thus confirms them. The suicidal person of this type also does not act impulsively, but rather seeks a cause, and the scenario offers solemnity, symbolism, and purpose. The ritual induces control and calmness in the suicide.”

    THIS IS PERFECT DESCRIPTION OF JEEBUS COMMITTING INDIRECT SUICIDE THROUGH SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE RITUAL OF SUFFERING AND TORTURE. JEEBUS COMMITTED INDIRECT SUICIDE SEEKING SOME IMAGINARY CAUSE, ATONEMENT FOR SINS.

    Phoenix Says:
    ==============================================
    Gee, I wonder which one applies to Jesus? I’m going to lean towards martyrdom. But notice that indirect suicide has an “unintended outcome”.

    Once again you’ve just embarrased yourself. I will continue to hold you to this.
    ===============================================

    Gee, you cannot fool the people based on selective definitions of terms and technicality of definitions and hide your embarrassment of your faith, that Jeebus is mentally unstable or a retard who committed indirect suicide.

    By the way Jeebus behavior did NOT result in his death unintentionally. Jeebus intentionally wanted to die in this case you dumb ass moron. For the umpteenth time your bible itself says so as it is evident.

    John 18:11

    Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”

    What does the above verse mean?

    http://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/18-11.htm
    ===============================
    Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

    the cup which my Father hath given me: by the cup is meant, the wrath of God, and punishment due to sin, endured by Christ in his sufferings, and is said to be given him by his Father; because he called him to these sufferings, they were appointed and determined by him; yea, he was even ordered, and commanded by his Father, to drink of this cup;
    ===================================

  54. Phoenix says:

    @Trutseeker

    Look, I’m sure you’re a nice guy and probably cherry picks all the good stuff from your books, which i’m fine with. But why? (aka continuum) is an extreme far right hindu fundamentalist who hates christians far more than any other group. He needs to be taken to task, even if it’s harsh.

    I have no beef with hindus in general but this guy won’t quit until he learns a lesson.

  55. Phoenix says:

    You are merely asserting without evidence something which does not exist at all. If Queen Bhadra did NOT kill herself, then she really did NOT believe those words she said literally. Had she believed literally as brainwashed victims do, she would have committed some form of suicide.
    The fact that she did NOT, shows that she made some comments out of extreme love and attachment to her now dead husband. You have failed to prove your case. Just making assertions do NOT prove it. Deal with it.//

    Ok, you got me. I thought hindu widows only had two choices, either volunteer to step on the pyre or the family will force them into the fire, but apparently there’s another choice…become a slave and sleep with a corpse. Hmmm, hinduism take free will to a whole new dimension. Let’s turn to the evidence.

    While the Mahbharata only mentions four of the eight queens entered the fire (BTW, Bhadra was the 7th queen). Vishnu Purana states that all eight queen enters the fire.

    Vishnu Purana 5:XXXVIII
    ARJUNA having found the bodies of Krishńa and of Ráma, performed for them, and the rest of the slain, the obsequial rites. ***The eight queens of Krishńa***, who have been named, with Rukminí at their head, embraced the body of Hari, and ***entered the funeral fire***”

    Althought the Mahbharata does not mention how she dies, it does mention something incredibly sick. take a look:

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01122.htm
    (p253)…”O tiger among men, I will obey thee (as thy slave) and will ever do what is agreeable to thee and what is for thy good…
    “Kunti continued, ‘It was thus, O Pandu, that the beautiful Bhadra wept over the death of her lord. And the weeping Bhadra clasped in her arms the corpse in anguish of heart. Then she was addressed by an incorporeal voice in these words, “Rise up, O Bhadra, and leave this place. O thou of sweet smiles, I grant thee this boon. I will beget offspring upon thee. ***Lie thou down with me on thy own bed***, after the catamenial bath, on the night of the eighth or the fourteenth day of the moon.’ Thus ***addressed by the incorporeal voice, the chaste Bhadra did, as she was directed, for obtaining offspring***. And, O bull of the Bharatas, ***the corpse of her husband begat upon her seven children*** viz., three Salwas and four Madras. O bull of the Bharatas, do thou also beget offspring upon me, like the illustrious Vyushitaswa, by the exercise of that ascetic power which thou possessest.'”

    1) She willingly became a slave
    2) She slept with a corpse

    Thanks for digging your own grave. I will continue to hold you to this

  56. Phoenix says:

    Nowhere the scholars say or claim that jeebus’ suicidal ritual sacrifice is indeed logically a martyrdom. So the entire post is irrelevant or at the least argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam) also appeal to authority and does NOT even address my arguments.//

    Really? Where do scholars say it was a suicide ritual? Besides, I thought appealing to scholars amount to appeal to authority or merely the writers opinion as you have so often stated.
    =====
    The link does NOT prove anything. It merely says some Hindus believe in some nonsense. Did it show any scriptural evidence, unlike what I have shown? none….
    Just because some heretical Hindus do some nonsense, it does NOT prove anything against orthodox vedi Hinduism.//

    Didn’t I give a verse from the Mhabharata glorifying human sacrifice? Even the footnote confirmed that hindus do indeed perform the rituals.

  57. Phoenix says:

    Here Jeebus believed that he is a “sacrifical goat” as per his god’s idea and even stopped Peter for hindering his “assisted suicidal ritual sacrifice”.
    This instance clearly shows that Jeebus believed in some nonsense and willingly committed assisted indirect suicide.//

    “assisted indirect suicide” ??? You’ve just made up your own crap, there’s no such thing. Let’s turn to the dicitionary once more :

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/martyrdom
    “the suffering of death on account of adherence to a cause and especially to one’s religious faith”

    Now for the definition of Indirect suicide:
    thefreedictionaryDOTcom/Indirect+Suicide
    “Death as the unintended outcome of high-risk behaviour, such as BASE jumping or mountain climbing”

    Gee, I wonder which one applies to Jesus? I’m going to lean towards martyrdom. But notice that indirect suicide has an “unintended outcome”.

    Once again you’ve just embarrased yourself. I will continue to hold you to this.

  58. Truth Seeker says:

    @Phoenix

    You are inspite of being a follower of Ali Sina & Jesus fill with hatred and arrogance. Just to prove your false agenda to humiliate Hindus, you are bringing nonsense stuff from here and there. You are not follower of Jesus but Muhammad from your acts.

    Everything written in Sanskrit is not Hinduism. Hinduism is oldest culture in the world and Sanskrit Oldest language. That is why there time to time many books were written by many people on the code of conduct in society. Some were scholar, some were hypocrite among these writers. Many things were inserted later days in the work of ancient people.

    If Sati Partha were true Kunti mother of 5 Pandus would have decided to sit on pyre after death of her husband.

    Same as all three queens of king Dashrath, wife of Bali, Wife of Ravana, wife of Meghnaad.

    I can give you many example to prove my claim. I think you will understand this and stop this bashing.

  59. why? says:

    Phoenix Says:
    ================================================
    Nowhere did I say Bhadra committed Sati. This is a complete straw man. I said the verse demonstrates how Hindu women are brainwashed to believe they are nothing without their husbands. There are plenty of verses which dehumanize women. These women are indoctrinated since childhood to believe they are nothing without men.

    Your religion promotes mental illness, deal with it
    ================================================

    You are merely asserting without evidence something which does not exist at all. If Queen Bhadra did NOT kill herself, then she really did NOT believe those words she said literally. Had she believed literally as brainwashed victims do, she would have committed some form of suicide.

    The fact that she did NOT, shows that she made some comments out of extreme love and attachment to her now dead husband. You have failed to prove your case. Just making assertions do NOT prove it. Deal with it.

    Also your stupid jeebus clearly believed in ritual barbaric self-sacrifice, showing clearly that jeebis is mentally unstable just like your apostles. Clearly it is your religion that promotes mental illness. Deal with this as well 🙂

    Phoenix Says:
    ================================================
    I did not say I believe in the crucifixion of Jesus. I have never promoted that here, so I don’t need to defend it.
    ================================================

    You do NOT believe in it, but defend Jeebus’ assisted indirect suicidal ritual sacrifice as a martyrdom. It makes perfect sense. 🙂

  60. why? says:

    Phoenix Says:
    ==============================================
    and since wikipedia is your favorite online encyclopedia, let’s see what they have to say about Jesus” death:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr#Christianity

    “The concept of Jesus as a martyr has recently received greater attention. Analyses of the Gospel passion narratives have led many scholars to conclude that they are martyrdom accounts in terms of genre and style.[9][10][11] Several scholars have also concluded that Paul the Apostle understood Jesus’ death as a martyrdom.[12][13][14][15][16][17] In light of such conclusions, some have argued that the Christians of the first few centuries would have interpreted the crucifixion of Jesus as a martyrdom.[5][18]”
    ================================================

    Irrelevant to my arguments. All it says is that scholars consider the gospel passion narratives as “martyrdom accounts”, i.e. these bible writers understood Jeebus’ suicide as martyrdom accounts.

    Nowhere the scholars say or claim that jeebus’ suicidal ritual sacrifice is indeed logically a martyrdom. So the entire post is irrelevant or at the least argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam) also appeal to authority and does NOT even address my arguments.

  61. why? says:

    Phoenix says:
    ===========================================
    Tell me, how does one man,Peter, with a sword plan to win a fight against an army of Roman soldiers? How would Jesus’ have escaped that? And did Jesus tell Judas to hand him over to the guards so he could be killed?
    BTW, your link on Indirect suicide has a citation missing, so I can dismiss your definitions on lack of evidence.
    ==========================================

    He could have at the least tried to escaped by NOT stopping Peter and giving a fight. But instead, your jeebus explicitly told Peter, that he is going to die as designed by his “god”.

    John 18:11

    Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”

    What does the above verse mean?

    http://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/18-11.htm
    ===============================
    Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

    the cup which my Father hath given me: by the cup is meant, the wrath of God, and punishment due to sin, endured by Christ in his sufferings, and is said to be given him by his Father; because he called him to these sufferings, they were appointed and determined by him; yea, he was even ordered, and commanded by his Father, to drink of this cup;
    ===================================

    Here Jeebus believed that he is a “sacrifical goat” as per his god’s idea and even stopped Peter for hindering his “assisted suicidal ritual sacrifice”.

    This instance clearly shows that Jeebus believed in some nonsense and willingly committed assisted indirect suicide.

    Phoenix says:
    ===========================================
    Moreover, your link also incriminates Hinduism.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods#Autosacrifice
    Some forms of Durga worship in Indian Hinduism involve a male devotee offering himself as a sacrifice through ritual self-decapitation with a curved sword. This is designed to obtain a favor from the deity for a third party.[96][97]”

    Nice job moron. You’ve just proved your religion is indeed demonic.
    ============================================

    The link does NOT prove anything. It merely says some Hindus believe in some nonsense. Did it show any scriptural evidence, unlike what I have shown? none….

    Just because some heretical Hindus do some nonsense, it does NOT prove anything against orthodox vedi Hinduism.

  62. Phoenix says:

    Steve

    I did not say I believe in the crucifixion of Jesus. I have never promoted that here, so I don’t need to defend it.

  63. Phoenix says:

    There is NO sati committed by the Queen Bhadra here. She is merely lamenting on the death of her husband. Where does it say that Hindu women commit Sati because of this reason?//

    Nowhere did I say Bhadra committed Sati. This is a complete straw man. I said the verse demonstrates how Hindu women are brainwashed to believe they are nothing without their husbands. There are plenty of verses which dehumanize women. These women are indoctrinated since childhood to believe they are nothing without men.

    Your religion promotes mental illness, deal with it

  64. Phoenix says:

    And since wikipedia is your favorite online encyclopedia, let’s see what they have to say about Jesus” death:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr#Christianity

    “The concept of Jesus as a martyr has recently received greater attention. Analyses of the Gospel passion narratives have led many scholars to conclude that they are martyrdom accounts in terms of genre and style.[9][10][11] Several scholars have also concluded that Paul the Apostle understood Jesus’ death as a martyrdom.[12][13][14][15][16][17] In light of such conclusions, some have argued that the Christians of the first few centuries would have interpreted the crucifixion of Jesus as a martyrdom.[5][18]”

  65. Phoenix says:

    Now suicide need not just be killing oneself with one’s own hands.
    One can commit suicide by simply lying down under a bus or a train. This is suicide by road or rail accident.
    ======
    I gave you two definitions of suicide. I did not imply the latter is the only correct definition.

    “The act or an instance of intentionally killing oneself”
    “Suicide is killing yourself on purpose, dying at your own hand”
    ===
    So Jeebus committed an indirect suicide by willful exposure to Roman soldiers who were searching him for nailing him in a cross and killing him.Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”//

    Tell me, how does one man,Peter, with a sword plan to win a fight against an army of Roman soldiers? How would Jesus’ have escaped that? And did Jesus tell Judas to hand him over to the guards so he could be killed?
    BTW, your link on Indirect suicide has a citation missing, so I can dismiss your definitions on lack of evidence.

    Moreover, your link also incriminates Hinduism.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods#Autosacrifice
    Some forms of Durga worship in Indian Hinduism involve a male devotee offering himself as a sacrifice through ritual self-decapitation with a curved sword. This is designed to obtain a favor from the deity for a third party.[96][97]”

    Nice job moron. You’ve just proved your religion is indeed demonic.

  66. Steve says:

    @Ron
    This site is explains how these magic tricks are performed. http://www.secrets-explained.com

  67. Ron says:

    This discussion is morphing into something else.
    What is to be answered is what explanation can your faith/worldview give to these tricks of magic shown in the videos wherein the physical laws of nature are broken and there is no scientific explanation?

    Ali Sina emphatically says that they are by unseen demonic spirits, what does atheism have to say on this?
    What does Eastern religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Islam have to say on this? How are these magicians doing these tricks?

  68. Steve says:

    @Phoenix
    See this
    Christopher Hitchens – Vicarious Redemption
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=By9JJSVzlTw

    [from Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001)]

    “I have been called arrogant myself in my time, and hope to earn the title again, but to claim that I am privy to the secrets of the universe and its creator — that’s beyond my conceit. I therefore have no choice but to find something suspect even in the humblest believer. Even the most humane and compassionate of the monotheisms and polytheisms are complicit in this quiet and irrational authoritarianism: they proclaim us, in Fulke Greville’s unforgettable line, “Created sick — Commanded to be well.” And there are totalitarian insinuations to back this up if its appeal should fail. Christians, for example, declare me redeemed by a human sacrifice that occurred thousands of years before I was born. I didn’t ask for it, and would willingly have foregone it, but there it is: I’m claimed and saved whether I wish it or not. And if I refuse the unsolicited gift? Well, there are still some vague mutterings about an eternity of torment for my ingratitude. That is somewhat worse than a Big Brother state, because there could be no hope of its eventually passing away.
    In any case, I find something repulsive about the idea of vicarious redemption. I would not throw my numberless sins onto a scapegoat and expect them to pass from me; we rightly sneer at the barbaric societies that practice this unpleasantness in its literal form. There’s no moral value in the vicarious gesture anyway. As Thomas Paine pointed out, you may if you wish take on a another man’s debt, or even to take his place in prison. That would be self-sacrificing. But you may not assume his actual crimes as if they were your own; for one thing you did not commit them and might have died rather than do so; for another this impossible action would rob him of individual responsibility. So the whole apparatus of absolution and forgiveness strikes me as positively immoral, while the concept of revealed truth degrades the concept of free intelligence by purportedly relieving us of the hard task of working out the ethical principles for ourselves.”

  69. why? says:

    Phoenix says:
    =============================================
    3) The above is incomparable to the Hindu widows, who sometimes volunteered to step on the pyre because, and I’m quoting your scriptures, they believed their lives “serve no purpose when their husbands are dead” and “She who liveth after her husband is dead, draggeth on a miserable existence that can hardly be called life”.
    Now, turning to psychology. Why do people commit suicide?

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/curious/201405/why-do-people-kill-themselves-new-warning-signs
    Scroll down to the last paragraph of no.1
    “In general, people do not commit suicide because they are in pain, they commit suicide ***because they don’t believe there is a reason to live and the world will be better off without them***”
    =============================================

    You are as usual a LIAR quoting only half-truths. Where does the verses say that the lady committed Sati based on the reason she has given. You are a damn lying scoundrel Christian. The fact is the said Queen lives alive with her children even after the death of her husband.

    ======================================
    http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01122.htm

    Then Bhadra, his beautiful queen, was plunged into woe, and as she was sonless, O tiger among men, she wept in great affliction. Listen to me, O king, as I narrate to you all that Bhadra said with bitter tears trickling down her cheeks. ‘O virtuous one’, she said, ‘Women serve no purpose when their husbands are dead. She who liveth after her husband is dead, draggeth on a miserable existence that can hardly be called life.
    ……….

    “Kunti continued, ‘It was thus, O Pandu, that the beautiful Bhadra wept over the death of her lord. And the weeping Bhadra clasped in her arms the corpse in anguish of heart. Then she was addressed by an incorporeal voice in these words, “Rise up, O Bhadra, and leave this place. O thou of sweet smiles, I grant thee this boon. I will beget offspring upon thee. Lie thou down with me on thy own bed, after the catamenial bath, on the night of the eighth or the fourteenth day of the moon.’ Thus addressed by the incorporeal voice, the chaste Bhadra did, as she was directed, for obtaining offspring. And, O bull of the Bharatas, the corpse of her husband begat upon her seven children viz., three Salwas and four Madras. O bull of the Bharatas, do thou also beget offspring upon me, like the illustrious Vyushitaswa, by the exercise of that ascetic power which thou possessest.'”
    ================================

    There is NO sati committed by the Queen Bhadra here. She is merely lamenting on the death of her husband. Where does it say that Hindu women commit Sati because of this reason?

  70. why? says:

    Phoenix says:
    =============================================
    Difference between Jesus’ death and the suicidal Hindu widows. First let’s start with the dictionary definition of suicide.

    “The act or an instance of intentionally killing oneself”
    “Suicide is killing yourself on purpose, dying at your own hand”

    1) Jesus did not die at his own hands, he was crucified by Roman soldiers.
    ==============================================

    Now suicide need not just be killing oneself with one’s own hands.

    One can commit suicide by simply lying down under a bus or a train. This is suicide by road or rail accident.

    Similarly, one can commit suicide by exposing oneself to dangerous wild animals or dangerous people as well, without trying to escape and saving one’s own life.

    All of these are suicide only, where death of oneself is the end goal of suicide. In this respect, Jeebus clearly fits the suicide by exposure to unnecessary danger, Roman soldiers hunting him for punishment. When Peter struck or in many other instances, Jeebus had opportunity to escape, but reminded Peter that he (jeebus) plans to die a torturous death at the hands of Roman soldiers.

    John 18:11

    Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”

    Here Jeebus believed that he is a “sacrifical goat” as per his god’s idea. Whatever may be the reason (depression or some ideal, rational or superstitious), suicide is killing oneself knowingly by exposure to danger or by one’s own hands.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide

    Suicide is the act of intentionally causing one’s own death.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++

    (Modes or methods of suicide can differ with people)

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods

    A suicide method is any means by which a person completes suicide, purposely ending their life.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods#Vehicular_impact

    Suicide is accomplished by positioning oneself on a railway track when a train approaches or in advance, or driving a car onto the tracks.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods#Indirect_suicide

    Indirect suicide is the act of setting out on an obviously fatal course without directly committing the act upon oneself. Indirect suicide is differentiated from legally defined suicide by the fact that the actor does not pull the figurative (or literal) trigger. Examples of indirect suicide include a soldier enlisting in the army with the express intention and expectation of being killed in combat. Another example would be provoking an armed officer into using lethal force against them. This is generally called “suicide by cop”. In some instances the subject commits a capital crime in hope of being sentenced to death.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    So Jeebus committed an indirect suicide by willful exposure to Roman soldiers who were searching him for nailing him in a cross and killing him.

    John 18:11

    Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”

    When Jeebus had the chance to escape, he believed superstitiously that he is a “sacrificial goat” and exposed himself willfully to unnecessary danger through Roman soldiers, thereby causing his death.

    Jeebus wished to die through torture as a religious atonement for sins. Thus this is INDIRECT RITUAL SUICIDE committed by Jeebus.

    Phoenix says:
    =============================================
    2) Jesus’ death was martyrdom because he died for a great cause. Even martyrs know they are going to die.
    =============================================

    A martyr may know that he is risking his life for a principle or for others, but he does NOT willfully plan on dying or plan on undergoing torture and pain or both. Jeebus planned on dying through torture. This is NOT the way a sane martyr thinks.

    May be Jeebus is an “insane suicidal martyr” who committed “INDIRECT RITUAL SUICIDE” through exposure to Roman soldiers.

    Second you claim that any alleged “great cause” or “reason” is enough to disqualify “suicidal behavior”. Still this suicide can be categorized as “rational suicide” at the most. Example of “rational suicide” is a soldier jumping on a grenade to save others. In this case the danger is real and readily observable and so it is rational.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide#Rational

    Rational suicide is the reasoned taking of one’s own life,[88] although some feel that suicide is never logical.[88] The act of taking one’s life for the benefit of others is known as altruistic suicide.[89] An example of this is an elder ending his or her life to leave greater amounts of food for the younger people in the community.[89] Suicide in some Inuit cultures has been seen as an act of respect, courage, or wisdom.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Does Jeebus’ death constitute “rational suicide”? The danger to others which Jeebus believes in is most definitely NOT rational or observable. So it is NOT “rational suicide”.

    PROBLEM DEFINITION:

    Now can Jeebus’ death saving from satan be logically consistent with a belief in perfect God? Lets see this.

    CLAIM:

    God in order to save humanity from sins, sent his only son to be sacrificed as a “sacrificial goat” to atone for the sins of mankind.

    ANALYSIS:

    (a.) God in order to save His own creation from His own judgment, sacrificed His own son to Himself, to convince Himself to forgive His own creation from His own judgment.

    Does a perfect God create absurd rules for justice?

    Imagine a judge do this in order to forgive murderers, where the judge sends his own son or himself to be hanged. You would send the judge to a mental asylum as he is not fit mentally.

    Then why would anyone expect God to act like a mentally retarded individual, where He punishes innocent in order to forgive the guilty? Clearly this is NOT how a perfect God behaves. This is a morally inconsistent behavior for a perfect God to have and hence logically not consistent position for a perfect God.

    (b.) Second, it is the perfect God who created all of mankind as per bible. A perfect being will create only what is perfect and good.

    If any evil or sins of mankind exists, then it is because of the creator Himself has created mankind with sins. If mankind was created “perfectly good”, then no evil can exist. Free-will is irrelevant here. A “perfect good” being will NOT chose evil even out of its free-will as it is against its “perfectly good” nature.

    Since evil exists as per Christianity, which requires a sacrifice for atonement of sins, then God did NOT create mankind that is “perfectly good”. It is absurd and illogical for God to punish His own creation for He has created such an imperfect mankind. It is even more logically inconsistent and morally reprehensible to believe that a “perfect God” would require an innocent sacrificial offering to forgive the guilty.

    Thus the entire belief is immoral, illogical, inconsistent with the idea of perfect God.

    Hence the belief that Jeebus is the “sacrificial goat” for atonement of sins of mankind is logically and morally inconsistent idea with existence of a perfect God.

    CONCLUSION:

    Since Jeebus believed in an idea of “voluntary human sacrifice” which is logically inconsistent and morally inconsistent with the idea of a perfect God, Jeebus essentially committed a “ritual indirect suicide” based on superstitious, illogical and irrational ideas.

    Just because one has an apparently altruistic idea of self-sacrifice, it does NOT imply it is necessarily good and correct. An apparently altruistic idea of self-sacrifice can be based on superstitious stupidity and leads only to pure evil. Only right knowledge can lead to truly altruistic idea.

  71. why? says:

    Phoenix Says:
    ===============================================
    Idiot, they did not kill themselves, crucifixion is a pagan style capital punishment and a prophecy is not a command but a prediction you imbecile.
    ===============================================

    Jeebus freak’s head is hot and steaming now. 🙂

    Now lets see what the paragraph says again regarding Andrew.

    “Andrew was crucified on an x-shaped cross in Greece. After being whipped severely by seven soldiers, they tied his body to the cross with cords to prolong his agony. **His followers reported that when he was led toward the cross**, Andrew saluted it in these words: “**I have long desired and expected this happy hour. The cross has been consecrated by the body of Christ hanging on it.**” He continued to preach to his tormentors for two days until he died.”

    Did you read that Phoenix, especially the words of Andrew (“**I have long desired and expected this happy hour. The cross has been consecrated by the body of Christ hanging on it.**”)?

    Now I remember something about your stupidity and evil go together.

    Phoenix Says “Yup, there’s a correlation between stupidity and evil. No woman in her right mind would kill herself, especially torture by fire.”

    Now would a man in his right mind long and desire to be killed through torture in a cross? I have to agree that stupidity and evil go together, especially with christian apostles and jeebus followers.

    At the least the women who performed Sati never longed for burning in the pyre of their husbands, but out of pain and longing to be with their husbands in other world desired to end their lives. This is at the least understandable human emotion, where they preferred to end their lives without their husband rather than live without their husband.

    However, your crazy retarded apostles *expected*, *desired* and *even longed* for to be tortured to death, just as mentally retarded jeebus also longed to die for sins of others as a “sacrificial goat” for God.

    John 18:11

    Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”

    Talk about stupidity and evil go together..

    Phoenix Says:
    ===============================================
    In Philippines your christians crucify themselves to imitate jeebus suffering in the cross.//

    They are not killing themselves you moron. Human sacrifice always involve intentional murder.
    ===============================================

    No they are NOT killing themselves, but repeat every year a barbaric self-torturing ritual with the help of others to imitate and feel the pain and suffering of their “man-god”.

    Now who in the right mind would want to be tortured with painful rituals year after year, especially being crucified in a barbaric 2000 year old punishment?

    It is clear that christians are mentally retarded and stupid individuals and these crackpots like you think that others should follow their religion.

    Yup, there’s a CLEAR correlation between stupidity and evil. Christianity is plain stupid and evil.

    Thank you for proving it with clarity Phoenix. 🙂

  72. Phoenix says:

    Hindu widows who did not volunteer to sacrifice her life for her dead husband were forced by her family to step on the pyre, either way she had no choice. Suicide thoughts is a mental illness, this illness is a result of the abuse inspired by hindu scriptures.

    Suicidal thoughts is a mental illness. This is why jeebus was a mentally retarded, stupid and evil.//

    Difference between Jesus’ death and the suicidal Hindu widows. First let’s start with the dictionary definition of suicide.

    “The act or an instance of intentionally killing oneself”
    “Suicide is killing yourself on purpose, dying at your own hand”

    1) Jesus did not die at his own hands, he was crucified by Roman soldiers.
    2) Jesus’ death was martyrdom because he died for a great cause. Even martyrs know they are going to die.
    3) The above is incomparable to the Hindu widows, who sometimes volunteered to step on the pyre because, and I’m quoting your scriptures, they believed their lives “serve no purpose when their husbands are dead” and “She who liveth after her husband is dead, draggeth on a miserable existence that can hardly be called life”.

    Now, turning to psychology. Why do people commit suicide?
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/curious/201405/why-do-people-kill-themselves-new-warning-signs
    Scroll down to the last paragraph of no.1
    “In general, people do not commit suicide because they are in pain, they commit suicide ***because they don’t believe there is a reason to live and the world will be better off without them***”

    This is exactly what Hindu widows are taught to believe, unless of course their families force them onto the pyre.

    “Mahabharata 1:CXXXI:(p.253)’Women serve no purpose when their husbands are dead. She who liveth after her husband is dead, draggeth on a miserable existence that can hardly be called life. O bull of the Kshatriya order, death is a blessing to women without husbands.”

    The above does not apply to Jesus’ death.

  73. Phoenix says:

    Andrew was crucified on an x-shaped cross in Greece. After being whipped severely by seven soldiers, they tied his body to the cross with cords to prolong his agony. His followers reported that when he was led toward the cross, Andrew saluted it in these words: “I have long desired and expected this happy hour. The cross has been consecrated by the body of Christ hanging on it.” He continued to preach to his tormentors for two days until he died.

    CLEARLY THERE IS A TRADICTION OF YOUR APOSTLES IMITATING JEEBUS’ HUMAN SACRIFICE AND ACCEPTED BY CHRISTIANS AS SUCH.//

    Idiot, they did not kill themselves, crucifixion is a pagan style capital punishment and a prophecy is not a command but a prediction you imbecile.
    =========
    In Philippines your christians crucify themselves to imitate jeebus suffering in the cross.//

    They are not killing themselves you moron. Human sacrifice always involve intentional murder.

  74. Truth Seeker says:

    @Ali Sina
    ————–God’s essence is spirit—————–

    I Agree. You are in the line of Veda and Hindus here.
    ______________We too are eternal and omnipresent_______________

    We are eternal. You are again speaking in the style of Hindus and their oldest book Veda.

    But we are Omnipresent it is new thing for me. I will try to digest it because I am a truth seeker. How are we omnipresent? What is difference in your omnipresence and God omnipresence? Why are you not God but Jesus? You are omnipresent and Jesus too, But Jesus is God you are not God. In this sense Muhammad also omnipresent? Do you believe you are exist in rocks, hills etc. But why there is no movement in them if you exist in them too as movement occurs in your body.

  75. Truth Seeker says:

    @phoenix

    Remarriage in Veda

    “O woman, get up and adopt the worldly life again. It is futile to lie with this dead man. Get up and become the wife of the man who is holding your hand and who loves you. [Rig Ved 10/18/8].

    Thus the mantras give the noble lesson that a widow should not continue repenting on dead one but start life afresh and continue with her responsibilities. These mantras form the foundation in which widow-remarriage is encouraged and Sati Pratha is discouraged
    Further:
    Yajurveda 13.16: O woman, you are firm and possess tremendous will-power. You support us all. The Supreme Lord has filled you with virtues of valor and knowledge. May even the entire army of enemies that comes like sea be unable to harm you. Even the vultures may not be able to harm you. May you strengthen the world. (In other words, the rest of the society should vow to protect the woman so that she can support us all. It is this message that led to brave legends preferring to die rather than compromise dignity of women.)

    . Yajurveda 13.18: O woman, you are as strong as earth and are on very high pedestal. Protect the world from path of vices and violence.

    Yajurveda 20.84: May the scholarly woman purify our lives with her knowledge, noble actions and guidance.

  76. why? says:

    Phoenix Says:
    =========================================
    You missing the crux of the matter: The mother murdered her babies. How are you not seeing the evil in that? They did not JUST die which could also imply natural causes but they were MURDERED as BABIES.
    =========================================

    Now you claimed this as human sacrifice and when proven you are wrong, you are going quite off the topic unnecessarily all because the stupidity of your religion stands exposed. I will still explain

    Because the mother (she is Goddess Ganga) knew that the lifetime of the babies (incarnated Gods called Vasus) was fixed at that time to die. Whether the baby was drowned or not, they already died at that moment. There is no evil when Gods act as per foreknowledge of events. Gods take life of every human being as per the foreknowledge of their completion of lifetime.

    If an ignorant human being kills a man that would be murder, but when an executioner kills a criminal as per verdict of law, then it is NOT considered murder. But if the executioner kills outside of the law, he will be punished as a murderer.

    Similarly, when Gods or Goddesses act as the ministers of Karmic laws, there is absolutely no sin or moral evil even though they appear as murder or infanticide. Here, the Vasus perpetrated a crime and had to reap the consequences of their evil acts. So they are indeed punished here and the Goddess as previously agreed relieved them of their sins.

    Phoenix Says:
    =========================================
    4) Unlike Hinduism, Jesus was not murdered as a child and no christian has ever emulated the crucifixion as an act of human sacrifice.
    ===========================================

    oh they do…..you are just not aware of these things.

    Have you heard of the several stories of “12 apostles” of jeebus who sacrificed themselves just like their “god” jeebus to imitate jeebus? Some were crucified even upside down…

    The most commonly accepted church tradition in regard to the death of an apostle is that the apostle Peter was crucified upside-down in Rome in fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy (John 21:18).

    Andrew was crucified on an x-shaped cross in Greece. After being whipped severely by seven soldiers, they tied his body to the cross with cords to prolong his agony. His followers reported that when he was led toward the cross, Andrew saluted it in these words: “I have long desired and expected this happy hour. The cross has been consecrated by the body of Christ hanging on it.” He continued to preach to his tormentors for two days until he died.

    CLEARLY THERE IS A TRADICTION OF YOUR APOSTLES IMITATING JEEBUS’ HUMAN SACRIFICE AND ACCEPTED BY CHRISTIANS AS SUCH.

    In Philippines your christians crucify themselves to imitate jeebus suffering in the cross.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2126024/Christians-NAILED-crosses-gruesome-Good-Friday-enactment-Jesuss-death-Philippines.html

    Christians NAILED to crosses in gruesome Good Friday re-enactment of Jesus’s death in the Philippines

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2126024/Christians-NAILED-crosses-gruesome-Good-Friday-enactment-Jesuss-death-Philippines.html

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru_AVIrnMp0

    Hope you enjoyed the videos and pictures.

  77. Truth Seeker says:

    @phoenix

    Yajna never meant animal sacrifice in the sense popularly understood. Yajna in the Vedas meant a noble deed or the highest purifying action.

    —————————————–
    Adhvara iti Yajnanaama – Dhvaratihimsaakarmaa tatpratishedhah
    Nirukta 2.7

    According to Yaaska Acharya, one of the synonyms of Yajna in Nirukta or the Vedic philology is Adhvara.

    Dhvara means an act with himsa or violence. And therefore a-dhvara means an act involving no himsa or no violence. There are a large number of such usage of Adhvara in the Vedas.

    Agne yam yagnamadhvaram vishwatah pari bhuurasi
    Sa id deveshu gacchati
    Rigveda 1.1.4

    O lord of effulgence! The non-violent Yajna, you prescribe from all sides, is beneficial for all, touches divine proportions and is accepted by noble souls.
    —————————————-

    The Rigveda describes Yajna as Adhvara or non violent throughout. Same is the case with all the other Vedas. How can it be then concluded that the Vedas permit violence or slaughter of animals?

    The biggest accusation of cattle and cow slaughter comes in the context of the Yajnas that derived their names from different cattle like the Ashwamedh Yajna, the Gomedha Yajna and the Nar-medh Yajna. Even by the wildest stretch of the imagination the word Medha would not mean slaughter in this context.

    It’s interesting to note what Yajurveda says about a horse
    ——————————————————–
    Imam ma himsirekashafam pashum kanikradam vaajinam vaajineshu
    Yajurveda 13.48

    Do not slaughter this one hoofed animal that neighs and who goes with a speed faster than most of the animals.
    ———————————————————-

    Aswamedha does not mean horse sacrifice at Yajna. Instead the Yajurveda clearly mentions that a horse ought not to be slaughtered.

    In Shathapatha, Ashwa is a word for the nation or empire

    The word medha does not mean slaughter. It denotes an act done in accordance to the intellect Alternatively it could mean consolidation, as evident from the root meaning of medha i.e. medhru san-ga-me

    Raashtram vaa ashwamedhah
    Annam hi gau
    Agnirvaa ashwah
    Aajyam medhah
    (Shatpath 13.1.6.3)

    Swami Dayananda Saraswati wrote in his Light of Truth:

    A Yajna dedicated to the glory, wellbeing and prosperity of the Rashtra the nation or empire is known as the Ashwamedh yajna.

    “To keep the food pure or to keep the senses under control, or to make the food pure or to make a good use of the rays of Sun or keep the earth free from impurities[clean] is called Gomedha Yajna”.

    “The word Gau also means the Earth and the yajna dedicated to keep the Earth the environment clean is called Gomedha Yajna”

    “The cremation of the body of a dead person in accordance with the principles laid down in the Vedas is called Naramedha Yajna

  78. why? says:

    Phoenix Says:
    ===========================================
    Yup, there’s a correlation between stupidity and evil. No woman in her right mind would kill herself, especially torture by fire.

    Few points to consider
    1) Definition of Martyr
    -a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion
    : a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle”

    2) With that definition in mind, yes Jesus voluntarily suffers death for his beliefs
    3) He did not kill himself but was killed by Roman soldiers.
    ==============================================

    Now lets use the connection between stupidity and evil your jeebus displayed.

    He voluntarily surrendered to Romans despite knowing fully well that he will be nailed to a cross and had enough chances to escape the capture. But Jeebus believing that he is the “sacrificial goat” for all sins of mankind and went willingly to be tortured.

    No man in his right mind would kill himself, especially torture by getting nailed to a cross and die after 3 days of painful gore. Yup, there’s a correlation between stupidity and evil.

    Jeebus did voluntarily die for his beliefs that he is a “sacrificial goat” for rest of the mankind. Which stupid (except stupid and evil jeebus) in his right mind would believe that God requires such a human sacrifice?

    Phoenix Says:
    ===========================================
    Hindu widows who did not volunteer to sacrifice her life for her dead husband were forced by her family to step on the pyre, either way she had no choice. Suicide thoughts is a mental illness, this illness is a result of the abuse inspired by hindu scriptures.
    ============================================

    Suicidal thoughts is a mental illness. This is why jeebus was a mentally retarded, stupid and evil.

  79. why? says:

    Phoenix Says:
    ================================================
    Here’s the main problem, each time I expose a violent, hateful or just plain insane verse then it always boils down to an incorrect translation, despite the fact that every hindu website uses these translations and MOST IMPORTANTLY, why are there not a single reliable complete english translation of hindu texts?
    The words are either mistranslated, or the dictionary only gives an approximate translation but hardly ever an accurate meaning.
    ================================================

    That is because Sanskrit is unique language designed to explain certain spiritual concepts not readily understandable for unqualified right from the beginning and is called as the language of Gods. The correct import of the Vedic words in Sanskrit is hidden from unqualified people. This is why there are too many nonsense translations.

    Phoenix Says:
    ================================================
    Of course, every english translation is wrong, except Wikipedia, despite the fact that nearly anyone can modify a Wiki article.
    ================================================

    You purposefully missed the verses from Shatapatha Brahmana, a Vedic text, on Purushamedha. The wiki is to just show I am not making up stuff. You have to relate one and two to make a conclusion. I think you are stuck at one and cannot go beyonf with your (lack of any) intellectual capacity.

    Phoenix Says:
    ================================================
    You should tell that to your fellow hindus who have a long history of performing human sacrifice that they have the wrong translations.
    ================================================

    This is pure strawman and irreevant to discussion here….

  80. Phoenix says:

    You nit witted dumb ass….It is the Gods (Vasus) who were born as these babies. Te curse was they should be born as human and die//

    You missing the crux of the matter: The mother murdered her babies. How are you not seeing the evil in that? They did not JUST die which could also imply natural causes but they were MURDERED as BABIES.
    =====
    WHAT THE VERSES SAY? UH WHAT THAT SOUNDS LIKE HUMAN SACRIFICE GOD WANTED THROUGH HIS SON….HERE GOD HIMSELF WANTED A HUMAN SACRIFICE AND SACRIFICED HIS SON…THIS IS HUMAN SACRIFICE, ALTHOUGH DONE WILLINGLY BY JEEBUS AS SUICIDAL HUMAN SACRIFICE//

    Few points to consider
    1) Definition of Martyr
    -a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion
    : a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle”

    2) With that definition in mind, yes Jesus voluntarily suffers death for his beliefs
    3) He did not kill himself but was killed by Roman soldiers.
    4) Unlike Hinduism, Jesus was not murdered as a child and no christian has ever emulated the crucifixion as an act of human sacrifice.

  81. Phoenix says:

    Nowhere it is said that son of Pandu forced the wives of dead husband. The verse clearly says the four wives wanted by their own free-will to ascend the pyre of dead husband. They did NOT want to live without their husband//

    Yup, there’s a correlation between stupidity and evil. No woman in her right mind would kill herself, especially torture by fire. Hindu widows who did not volunteer to sacrifice her life for her dead husband were forced by her family to step on the pyre, either way she had no choice. Suicide thoughts is a mental illness, this illness is a result of the abuse inspired by hindu scriptures.

    http://vanisource.org/wiki/SB_4.28.50
    “At that time, however, a wife who did not wish to die with her husband was sometimes forced to do so by her relatives. Formerly that was not the case. The wife used to enter the fire voluntarily.”
    =======
    In hinduism, a widow is considered good as dead. She has no purpose to live.

    Mahabharata 1:CXXXI:(p.253)’Women serve no purpose when their husbands are dead. She who liveth after her husband is dead, draggeth on a miserable existence that can hardly be called life. O bull of the Kshatriya order, death is a blessing to women without husbands.

    1:CXXVI:(p.264)His wife Madri, beholding him placed in the funeral pyre and about to be consumed, herself ascended the same pyre, and sacrificing her life thus, hath gone with her lord to the region reserved for chaste wives.

  82. Phoenix says:

    It does not mean words can mean whatever you want, it means you do NOT have the capacity to understand the words of one language through translations to other language//

    Here’s the main problem, each time I expose a violent, hateful or just plain insane verse then it always boils down to an incorrect translation, despite the fact that every hindu website uses these translations and MOST IMPORTANTLY, why are there not a single reliable complete english translation of hindu texts?
    The words are either mistranslated, or the dictionary only gives an approximate translation but hardly ever an accurate meaning.
    ====
    The footnote that **Human sacrifices were performed sometimes in former days** is the foolish authors opinion. I have said before that the idiot translator Mohan Ganguly is the worst translations I have seen. There are many such Indian translators for many Hindu scriptures.//

    Of course, every english translation is wrong, except Wikipedia, despite the fact that nearly anyone can modify a Wiki article.
    ====
    The joker translator has given puruṣamedha = human sacrifice. There are others who translate “Purusha Sukta” as hymn of a man. There can be no foolishness beyond this//

    You should tell that to your fellow hindus who have a long history of performing human sacrifice that they have the wrong translations.

    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nepal-10-year-old-boy-killed-suspected-human-sacrifice-chase-away-evil-spirits-1512642
    “The shaman performed a pooja [Hindu prayer ritual]. Rudal snatched the head and arms, Suryabhan grabbed the legs and I slit his throat with a sickle,” Kodai told the Post”

  83. Dr H RJ says:

    1) Listen phoenix, sanatan dharma(popularly known by geographic term Hindu=Indian)literally means ETERNAL ESSENCE(Nature)i.e.Humanity,There is nill ,YES NILL sacrifices in it there is no animal sacrifices allowed leave the story of human sacrifice. 2).Yes there can be verious egs contradicting above only becoz Hinduism is amalgamation of all worldly belifs in human society ,misleading sects,customs etc etc .3)Also at the hands of cunning invader Scriptures suffered purposefully implanted fake stories. 4). Also mistranslation s by only 1st std Sanskrit educated so called morons caused this purposeful confusion to mislead . 5)Sanskrit is the only scientific language with all its laws,mother of great number of languages 6)if u doubt plz check origin of word phoenix if u have courage ,also don’t let me expose origin of name of so called son of god 7)IF UR Genuine for truth ,understand one single,very simple PASAYDAN(boon for UNIVERSAL Humanity extending to all living and NONLVING entities)..INDIA has tremendous treasure of this type trulove,wisdom in every corner at every place ,
    at every time in history ,at every location of geography ,In every Indian language…… u have to take many births to understand only one sentence of any true INDIAN SAINT (Plz follow original translation and not by any humty dumty 0.1% learned translator again)……..from a fellow human being

  84. why? says:

    Ali Sina Says:
    =============================================
    Why fractals of God should remain perfect? I believe the example of water droplets rising from the ocean and mixing with impurities on earth is a very good example to describe why souls when separate from their Divine source can become impure.
    ==============================================

    Time for memory recall again.

    ========================
    Ali Sina March 24, 2016 at 5:43 am

    “I had already explained that we are fractals, copies, pieces of God and not His artifacts.”
    ========================

    You said “fractals” are “pieces of God”. How can “pieces of God” or “part of God” get corrupted? Please define all terms you use precisely before we proceed constructively.

    Your example of water droplets will work only if all the spirits are entirely different from God and are NOT part pf the essence of God. Even then, there is a problem. Who created the conditions for pollution of all spirits or souls?

    Ali Sina Says:
    ===========================================
    God wrote the laws and everything is created through those laws.
    ===========================================

    As per you, it is God who created the laws of nature which lead to pollution of souls. Thus He is the first cause of evil.

    If you say, souls chose to go to Universe to be born and get polluted, how can souls which are “intrinsically good” chose what is bad or evil for them? This is a second problem, which you have NOT even started to attempt to answer.

    Ali Sina Says:
    ===========================================
    Note that when water is contaminated its nature is not change. It is possible to remove all that impurities from water and restore it to its pristine purity. The essence of all souls is divine, even those of criminals and mass murderers like Hitler and Muhammad. The contaminators are not part of the soul. That is why souls spend a time in hell. They go to hell to burn their impurities. Eventually all souls return to God. However, since time loses its significance, even one day in hell can feel like eternity.
    ==========================================

    If impurities are NOT part of the souls, then the souls are still pure. If the souls are pure, then souls will NOT do any evil. Then where does the evil come from?

    Mere logic and reductionism will NOT help you answer any of these questions clearly.

  85. why? says:

    Phoenix says:
    ============================================
    It’s human sacrifice because babies were killed in agreement with the gods to free them from a curse. Using your own words: “This is suicidal self-human sacrifice.”
    ============================================

    You nit witted dumb ass….It is the Gods (Vasus) who were born as these babies. Te curse was they should be born as human and die.

    Phoenix says:
    ============================================
    He was murdered for what he believed. Did the Romans who crucified him, do so to please their pagan gods? Of course not. You don’t call someone who lays down his life to save others a human sacrifice, that’s just plain insane. We call it martyrdom. Christians have never emulated Jesus’ crucifixion by killing their children to appease God. Hindus perform human sacrifices quite regularly.
    =============================================

    No matter what you claim, your bible explicitly and clearly claims that you jeebus was sacrificed by your God as atonement for the sins of mankind.

    Romans 3:25

    **God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement**, through the shedding of his blood–to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished–

    Hebrews 9:28

    **So Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many;** and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

    WHAT THE VERSES SAY? UH WHAT THAT SOUNDS LIKE HUMAN SACRIFICE GOD WANTED THROUGH HIS SON….HERE GOD HIMSELF WANTED A HUMAN SACRIFICE AND SACRIFICED HIS SON…THIS IS HUMAN SACRIFICE, ALTHOUGH DONE WILLINGLY BY JEEBUS AS SUICIDAL HUMAN SACRIFICE…

  86. why? says:

    Phoenix Says:
    ==============================================
    Sati (burning live widows) is also a form of human sacrifice. Today, everyone involved in sati would be arrested for murder. Hinduism supposedly respects females and punishes their killers but their sages could not recognize the evil in burning women alive.

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m16/m16007.htm

    The four wives of that heroic son of Sura ascended the funeral pyre and were consumed with the body of their lord. All of them attained to those regions of felicity which were his. The son of Pandu burnt the body of his uncle together with those four wives of his, using diverse kinds of scents and perfumed wood. As the funeral pyre blazed up, a loud sound was heard of the burning wood and other combustible materials, along with the clear chant of Samans and the wailing of the citizens and others who witnessed the rite.
    ===============================================

    Nice try quoting one-half of the verse deleting other.

    Nowhere it is said that son of Pandu forced the wives of dead husband. The verse clearly says the four wives wanted by their own free-will to ascend the pyre of dead husband. They did NOT want to live without their husband.

    Now if jeebus farts and kills himself for others it is self-sacrifice, but when Hindu wives ascend pyre for they did not want to live after their husband is dead it is human sacrifice and murder.

    Go and get a life jeebus freak.

  87. why? says:

    Phoenix Says:
    ===============================================
    Mahabharata 13:25
    (p.131)He that bathes in Analamva or in eternal Andhaka, or in Naimisha, or the tirtha called Swarga, and offers oblations of water to the Pitris, subduing his senses the while, **acquires the Merit of a human sacrifice**

    Here’s the footnote at the bottom of the page:

    “131:2 It is difficult to understand the connection of the second line of verse 31. It does not mean enters the eternal region called Andhaka that rests on nothing. **Human sacrifices were performed sometimes in former days**.”
    ===============================================

    The footnote that **Human sacrifices were performed sometimes in former days** is the foolish authors opinion. I have said before that the idiot translator Mohan Ganguly is the worst translations I have seen. There are many such Indian translators for many Hindu scriptures.

    Here is the actual Sanskrit verse.

    32 naimiṣe svargatīrthe ca upaspṛśya jitendriyaḥ
    phalaṃ puruṣamedhasya labhen māsaṃ kṛtodakaḥ

    The joker translator has given puruṣamedha = human sacrifice. There are others who translate “Purusha Sukta” as hymn of a man. There can be no foolishness beyond this.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purushamedha

    Purushamedha (or, ‘Naramedha’, literally translated, “human sacrifice”) is a Śrauta ritual, closely related to the Ashvamedha.[1] The Vajasaneyi Samhita-Sataphana Brahmana-Katyayana Srauta Sutra sequence of White Yajur Veda texts contains the most details.[1] Since there is no inscriptural or other record of Purushamedha ever being performed, some scholars suggest it was invented simply to round out sacrificial possibilities.[1] In Shatapatha Brahmana 13.6.2, an ethereal voice intervenes to halt the proceedings.

    =======================================================
    http://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44111.htm

    1. And as to why it is called Purushamedha:–The stronghold (pur) doubtless is these worlds, and the Purusha (spirit) is he that blows here (the wind), he bides (sî) in this stronghold (pur): hence he is the Purusha. And whatever food there is in these worlds that is its ‘medha,’ its food; and inasmuch as this is its ‘medha,’ its food, therefore (it is called) Purushamedha. And inasmuch as at this (sacrifice) he seizes 1 men (purusha) meet for sacrifice (medhya), therefore also it is called Purushamedha.

    13. Then a voice 2 said to him, ‘Purusha, do not consummate (these human victims 1): if thou wert to consummate them, man (purusha) would eat man.’ Accordingly, as soon as fire had been carried round them, he set them free, and offered oblations to the same divinities 2, and thereby gratified those divinities, and, thus gratified, they, gratified him with all objects of desire.
    =======================================================

    There is no actual “human sacrifice” in Purushamedha. Purusha does not even refer to man, but to God. There is explicit reference in verse 13 where it says do NOT consummate human beings in this sacrifice.

  88. why? says:

    Phoenix says:
    =================================================
    This is why Sandscript is virtually a dead language. Words can mean whatever you want it to mean.
    Slaying women is a minor sin equal to stealing grain and the consequences are merely loss of caste.
    =================================================

    It does not mean Sanskrit is dead language, it means you are braindead moron.

    It does not mean words can mean whatever you want, it means you do NOT have the capacity to understand the words of one language through translations to other language.

    Stealing grains by fraudulent means (robbing a person of all his food) is equal to slaying a person.

    Loss of caste is NOT some minor effect as you imagine. Being a mletcha (outcaste) on the bottom of the ladder, it is unlikely you would understand the significance for you are already in the ditch.

  89. Phoenix says:

    Here’s more proof that Hinduism promotes human sacrifice.

    Mahabharata 13:25
    (p.131)He that bathes in Analamva or in eternal Andhaka, or in Naimisha, or the tirtha called Swarga, and offers oblations of water to the Pitris, subduing his senses the while, **acquires the Merit of a human sacrifice**

    Here’s the footnote at the bottom of the page:

    “131:2 It is difficult to understand the connection of the second line of verse 31. It does not mean enters the eternal region called Andhaka that rests on nothing. **Human sacrifices were performed sometimes in former days**.”
    ====
    Sati (burning live widows) is also a form of human sacrifice. Today, everyone involved in sati would be arrested for murder. Hinduism supposedly respects females and punishes their killers but their sages could not recognize the evil in burning women alive.

    Sati is found in the Vedas
    Rg Veda 10:18:7 Let these unwidowed dames with noble husbands adorn themselves with fragrant balm and unguent.Decked with fair jewels, tearless, free from sorrow,first let the dames go up to where he lieth.
    8 .Rise, come unto the world of life, O woman: come, he is lifeless by whose side thou liest…”
    Atharva Veda 18:3:1 Choosing her husband’s world, O man, this woman lays herself down beside thy lifeless body”
    ———-
    Mahabharata 16:Mausala Parva:Section 7 The son of Pandu burnt the body of his uncle together with those four wives of his, using diverse kinds of scents and perfumed wood. As the *funeral pyre blazed up, a loud sound was heard of the burning wood and other combustible materials, along with the clear chant of Samans and the wailing of the citizens and others who witnessed the rite.”

    *It’s important to note that the son of Pandu would’ve been considered a mass murderer by todays standards, as the FBI considers a mass murderer as someone who murders 4 or more people. Also note that nowhere in hindu scriptures is he condemned or killed per capital punishment.

    There are many more examples from the puranas and mahabharata but that should do for now.

  90. Phoenix says:

    Now how is this human sacrifice? Which Hindu God is satisfied by killing these children? No one. These children were not sacrificed for any purpose to any Hindu God. Their lifetime was over the moment they were born to undergo the experience of human birth and death as per the curse.//

    It’s human sacrifice because babies were killed in agreement with the gods to free them from a curse. Using your own words: “This is suicidal self-human sacrifice.”
    ====
    Others kill human being in a any human sacrifice. Here your bible demon god used others to make a willing jeebus suicidal human sacrifice as per your bible. Your bible demmon god and jeebus were both aware that jeebus is to be sacrificed as atonement for sins of mankind. I am NOT claiming this, it is your bible which teaches that which you conveniently neglected. This is suicidal self-human sacrifice//

    He was murdered for what he believed. Did the Romans who crucified him, do so to please their pagan gods? Of course not. You don’t call someone who lays down his life to save others a human sacrifice, that’s just plain insane. We call it martyrdom. Christians have never emulated Jesus’ crucifixion by killing their children to appease God. Hindus perform human sacrifices quite regularly.

    http://www.cuf.org/2002/07/learning-from-jesus-the-martyr/
    ======

    (p.131)He that bathes in Analamva or in eternal Andhaka, or in Naimisha, or the tirtha called Swarga, and offers oblations of water to the Pitris, subduing his senses the while, **acquires the Merit of a human sacrifice**”

    Here’s the footnote at the bottom of the page:

    “131:2 It is difficult to understand the connection of the second line of verse 31. It does not mean enters the eternal region called Andhaka that rests on nothing. **Human sacrifices were performed sometimes in former days**.”

  91. Phoenix says:

    The word Upapataka is “lesser sin” or “minor sin” compared only to sins which are classified as higher than that. It does NOT mean that this sin is a “minor sin” or “insignificant sin” in absolute sense. Legal punishments in Hinduism are also proportional to the moral sins which one has committed. Thus the capital punishment in Hinduism for slaying of women (as do men from Shudra or Kshatriya or Vasihya castes) is indicative of the degree of “moral sin” namely upapataka here.//

    This is why Sandscript is virtually a dead language. Words can mean whatever you want it to mean.
    Slaying women is a minor sin equal to stealing grain and the consequences are merely loss of caste.

    “Stealing grain, base metals, or cattle, intercourse with women who drink spirituous liquor,**slaying women**, Sudras, Vaisyas, or Kshatriyas, and atheism, (are all) minor offences, causing loss of caste (Upapataka)”

    Moving on though

  92. why? says:

    Phoenix Says:
    ==========================================
    The story is quite simple. The vasus approached the goddess Ganga to have them freed from a curse. They were then delivered as babies and soon as they were born they were killed. Only then could they enter their celestial abode. This exactly why there are so many human/child sacrifices in present day india.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/mar/05/india.theobserver

    So remember that Ganga the goddess was approached by Vasus to kill them as babies in order to free them from a curse.
    ===========================================

    Hindus (theguardian link) do many things that are NOT according to Vedic scriptures. Does it mean Vedas sanction such acts? NO.

    Who are the Vasus? These are a class of Vedic Gods who were cursed by a Rishi (special class of sages) in Vedic times to be born as a human and die for their wrong doing.

    So they approached Ganga to relieve them from the curse. They were born as human being to Ganga and their lifetime was fixed at to be very short and they died as a baby.

    Now how is this human sacrifice? Which Hindu God is satisfied by killing these children? No one. These children were not sacrificed for any purpose to any Hindu God. Their lifetime was over the moment they were born to undergo the experience of human birth and death as per the curse.

    Phoenix Says:
    ==========================================
    Jesus did NOT kill himself ,nor did any of his followers kill him. He was murdered by the state.
    In all human sacrifices, the victim is killed by worshippers.
    ==========================================

    If jeebus killed himself, it would be suicide.

    Others kill human being in a any human sacrifice. Here your bible demon god used others to make a willing jeebus suicidal human sacrifice as per your bible. Your bible demmon god and jeebus were both aware that jeebus is to be sacrificed as atonement for sins of mankind. I am NOT claiming this, it is your bible which teaches that which you conveniently neglected. This is suicidal self-human sacrifice.

    Phoenix Says:
    ==========================================
    I have shown clearly that the word pAtaka means “sin” and “upapAtaka” means “minor sin”. Both the terms are NOT legal terms, but terms denoting “moral sin”, a grave sin higher than mere “pApa = sin”.//

    So killing women is a minor “moral” sin but a major criminal offense. Got it. This is plain sick. Kiiling women is not that evil but it’s very criminal. Plain stupid and evil.
    ===========================================

    You are a brainless idiot, that is what the conclusion is here.

    Manu11:67. Stealing grain, base metals, or cattle, intercourse with women who drink spirituous liquor,**slaying women**, Sudras, Vaisyas, or Kshatriyas, and atheism, (are all) minor offences, causing loss of caste (Upapataka)

    The translations can give only a approximate feel about the usage and degree of feel of the words.

    Again sins are classified as MAHANMAHATTARPATAKA ,SUMAHATTARPATAKA ,SUMAHAPATAKA, MAHAPATAKA , PATAKAs , UPAPATAKAS and Papa and Kshudra papa.

    The word Upapataka is “lesser sin” or “minor sin” compared only to sins which are classified as higher than that. It does NOT mean that this sin is a “minor sin” or “insignificant sin” in absolute sense. Legal punishments in Hinduism are also proportional to the moral sins which one has committed. Thus the capital punishment in Hinduism for slaying of women (as do men from Shudra or Kshatriya or Vasihya castes) is indicative of the degree of “moral sin” namely upapataka here.

    I hope you make proper effort to understand the meaning of the words in proper context and NOT make useless assertions without understanding properly.

  93. @Truth Seeker

    God’s essence is spirit. Spirit is not bound by time or by space. So God is eternal and omnipresent. We too are eternal and omnipresent. We are temporarily having a temporal experience. One of the reasons we come to this world is to experience time and space.

  94. Steve says:

    Ali Sina
    “However, the fact that I don’t have an answer to these questions is not ground for rejecting God.” God is either evil, impotent or indifferent, this is the logical conclusion to the problem of evil and suffering. The answers that the apologists of these religions give are ridiculous.

    “Do we have all the answers about the universe? Of course not!” We don’t need to know all the answers about the universe to safely rule out the existence of an all loving, all powerful and all knowing God.

    “In response to your argument that if God wrote the laws of the universe He is responsible of whatever happens in the universe, this is not true. Because one of the laws is randomness or in this case free will. All creatures are given free will. This means nothing is written on stone.” It wouldn’t be random to the being who created the whole universe and who knows everything about it and how exactly everything in his universe will unfold. Furthermore you before said God Is omnipotent (and if your are omnipotent it follows you will also be omniscient) are you now saying God is not omnipotent? If so how is he God?
    “We can do one thing and the universe evolves in one way and we can do something else and the universe evolves in another way. We are really the ones that write the future of the world.” Everything that we do we are caused or programmed to do.

    “The whole purpose of creation, as I understand is that God wanted to have someone to love” How can this creation have a purpose if it is completely random as you said before and even God doesn’t know how it’s going to turn out?

    ” You can only love free beings like your pet. You can never love robot even though it may be a lot more smarter than a pet.” We and animals are robots, indeed in the case of pets we humans have breed these traits into these animals, if we didn’t they would still live in the wild (like their ancestors) and obviously you can’t have a wild animal living in your house. We say we have “free will” and make choices because we don’t have the computing power to predict human behaviour.

    “If God created us free, it follows that we can also rebel. You cannot blame God for the rebellion of His creatures. God created free souls not zombies or robots. Zombies and robots cannot love. .” Why didn’t God Create only people he knew (because he is omniscient and knows everything that will happen) would freely choose to serve him? Let’s say I am brilliant scientist and I plan to create a being (like God did) equipped with the mysterious “free will”, and the purpose of this being is to create more love in the world. Now let’s say I am also omniscient- like God – and I know if I Create this being it will turn into a monster who hates me and everybody else and will kill, rape and torture people in the future (through his own free choice) which obviously results in mayhem and lots of suffering, I will be forced to hunt down and destroy my failed creation. Now why would I create a being I knew would FREELY CHOOSE to do evil, when the purpose of this creation was to create more love? I wouldn’t create such a being, yet God does create evil people and spirits who he knows before he even created them would FREELY CHOOSE to do evil. Therefore God is to blame.

    “That would have defeated the whole purpose of creation” What defeats the whole purpose of creation, is creating people who he knew – if he decided to create them – would become evil and wreck havoc on the world. Also if you say randomness is built into our universe and even God doesn’t know what’s going to happen, then such a universe can’t have any purpose and would be a waste of time creating it.

  95. Phoenix says:

    Now where does the verse from Mahabharatha say that the children were drowned for satisfying any Deity? This is your assumption as you think with your behinds.
    Any Hindu who knows this story will laugh at you Phoenix for the moron you are claiming this is human sacrifice. You are a stupid jeebus freak//

    The story is quite simple. The vasus approached the goddess Ganga to have them freed from a curse. They were then delivered as babies and soon as they were born they were killed. Only then could they enter their celestial abode. This exactly why there are so many human/child sacrifices in present day india.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/mar/05/india.theobserver

    So remember that Ganga the goddess was approached by Vasus to kill them as babies in order to free them from a curse.
    ====
    SHALL WE CALL IT THEN SELF-HUMAN-SACRIFICE?
    Doesn’t jeebus/bible believe as per bible that he sacrifices himself as atonement for sins?//

    Jesus did NOT kill himself ,nor did any of his followers kill him. He was murdered by the state.
    In all human sacrifices, the victim is killed by worshippers.
    ========
    I have shown clearly that the word pAtaka means “sin” and “upapAtaka” means “minor sin”. Both the terms are NOT legal terms, but terms denoting “moral sin”, a grave sin higher than mere “pApa = sin”.//

    So killing women is a minor “moral” sin but a major criminal offense. Got it. This is plain sick. Kiiling women is not that evil but it’s very criminal. Plain stupid and evil.

  96. why? says:

    Manu smriti 4:30

    pāṣāṇḍino vikarmasthān baiḍālavratikāñ śaṭhān /
    haitukān bakavṛttīṃś ca vākmātrenāpi nārcayet // Mn_4.30 //

    This is the explanation of Medhatithi.

    pāṣāṇḍino = impostors with external marks for filling stomach

    vikarmasthān = those who are engaged in occupations meant for other castes.

    baiDAlavratikāñ = those who are cat like, those who do religious activities merely for self-esteem, for gifts etc. and NOT because of belief in scriptures.

    śaṭhān = Hypocrites, those who speak one thing and do another

    haitukān = atheists, who do not accept other world, those who deny any good in dAna or charity, and Vedic rituals.

    (My emphasis: These are materialists usually who deny morality itself and believe only in enjoyment, whether morally reprehensible or not)

    bakavṛttīṃś = those who live like herons, these are also hypocrites.

    vākmātrenāpi = even with mere speech

    nārcayet = NOT worship

    The context is feeding and honoring brAhmins in religious rituals which is worship of God within them.

    The key word is nārcayet = na (NOT) + arcayet (worship).

  97. Truth Seeker says:

    @Phoenix

    Your objection.

    “Manu 4:30. Let him not honour, even by a greeting, heretics, men who follow forbidden occupations, men who live like cats, rogues, logicians, (arguing against the Veda,) and those who live like herons”

    Read the verse in Sanskrit of Manu Samariti he mentioned not to greet hypocrite (“Pakhandi” is word in Sanskrit written by Manu) not heretic as you written. Please do some study ownself instead of copy paste from here and there to malign the others. You are also hypocrite from your such acts.

    Second, Manu written against occupation of animals Flesh, alcohol etc. (“Vikarmsthan” is word written by Manu for it.) Manu said people engaged in such business/occupation should be not greeted in society.

    You have written logicians (Haitukaan Sanskrit word ) which is wrong translation in the context of Shaloka. Haitukaan derived from “Hetu” which means “motive” which can be for good or bad. Everything we do or say involve some ( Hetu ) motive. Whatever Muhammad said had the motive, same had the Jesus and now Ali Sina too. But you know the difference. Word (Hetu) should be interpreted according to context of Shaloka. As sholka mentioned about people who are hypocrite, engaged in immoral occupation, cheater, duplicitous etc. Therefore, “Haitucan” are people who bullshit for their personal interest. Such people should not be respected.

    And in the very next shaloka Manu said scholars (“Snaatan” is Sanskrit word written by Manu) should be respected. Scholars are greatest logicians. One can not be scholar without doing logics. Here Manu emphasized to greet who talk logically or true scholar.

  98. why? says:

    Phoenix Says:
    =============================================
    First let’s firmly establish the meaning of human sacrifice: “Human sacrifice is the act of killing one or more human beings, usually as an offering to a deity, as part of a ritual.”

    With that definition in mind, let’s go here: Mother drowns her babies in the river to please the gods.
    Mahabharata 1:XCVIII (p.210) And the king, while thus enjoying himself with his wife, had eight children …But, O Bharata, those children, one after another, as soon as they were born, were thrown into the river by Ganga who said, ‘This is for thy good.’ And the children sank to rise no more
    =============================================

    Now where does the verse from Mahabharatha say that the children were drowned for satisfying any Deity? This is your assumption as you think with your behinds.

    Any Hindu who knows this story will laugh at you Phoenix for the moron you are claiming this is human sacrifice. You are a stupid jeebus freak.

    Phoenix Says:
    =============================================
    You’re confusing self-sacrifice with human sacrifice. Look up the two meanings.

    I’m done with this fool.
    =============================================

    uhummm..err…what..what definition we have for human sacrifice? “Human sacrifice is the act of killing one or more human beings, usually as an offering to a deity, as part of a ritual.”

    SHALL WE CALL IT THEN SELF-HUMAN-SACRIFICE?

    Doesn’t jeebus/bible believe as per bible that he sacrifices himself as atonement for sins?

    Romans 3:25

    God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood–to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished–

    So Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
    Hebrews 9:28

    WHAT THE VERSES SAY? UH WHAT THAT SOUNDS LIKE HUMAN SACRIFICE GOD WANTED THROUGH HIS SON….HERE GOD HIMSELF WANTED A HUMAN SACRIFICE AND SACRIFICED HIS SON…

    Freaking barbaric jeebus freaks worship a demonic god needing blood and human sacrifice.

  99. why? says:

    Phoenix Says:
    =========================================
    “Manu 4:30. Let him not honour, even by a greeting, heretics, men who follow forbidden occupations, men who live like cats, rogues, logicians, (arguing against the Veda,) and those who live like herons”

    Anyone with eyes can plainly read what is written here. Nowhere does it say “when doing rituals”. You are just making shit up because your demonic beliefs are logically indefensible, since it explicitly dishonors the custodians of logic.
    =========================================

    I will try one more time with this fool.

    You are the perfect example of “logician” arguing against Vedic scriptures with no understanding of the verses….

    Even after explaining so much, if you insist on strawman, means you are NOT prepared to listen and only interested in finding fault where there is none. I understand that your christian belief is logically exposed by me and that is irritating you like hell.

    The key word in the verse itself is the word “honor”. Which Sanskrit word is translated as such? “archayet”

    The word “archana” means “worship”. “Archayet” means worship like activity involved in attending to certain special guests, especially brAhmin guests who need to be fed, talked to and given gifts from the articles used in religious rituals to worship Gods. This one word is enough to show that the context is in performing religious rituals only. The verse says that one should NOT worship heretics even with words,

    Now even Medatithi, the commentator of Manu smriti (translation by Ganganath Jha) confirms what I say. You can confirm what I say is truth or lies by yourself. I am giving this not just for you, but for readers to confirm as well.

    This will expose the fool here to everybody.

    Phoenix Says:
    =========================================
    BS, the translators meaning is verified by the sanskrit dictionary.
    =========================================

    Your translator is wrong and an idiot like you. The idiot could NOT differentiate between a “moral evil”, which is pAtaka and a criminal offense.

    Here is another dictionary. Try it yourself and see what meaning you get.

    http://www.aa.tufs.ac.jp/~tjun/sktdic/
    ==============================
    Type the word “paataka” in search area and see. The following meanings you get.

    search `paataka’ in `Apte Dic’

    meanings of “paataka” [1]

    m.{a-stem}

    1.sin

    #30300

    meanings of “paataka” [2]

    n.{a-stem}

    1.sin

    #30301
    ================================
    Type the word “upapaataka” in search area and see. The following meanings you get.

    search `upapaataka’ in `Apte Dic’

    meanings of “upapaataka”

    n.{a-stem}

    1.a minor sin

    #13620
    ======================================

    Phoenix Says:
    =========================================
    And here you are being a complete hypocrite. Suddenly the less embarrassing verse from the same translator is accurate. Look, I do not care for any contradictions, in fact I expect to find them in your book , as your leaders opposed logic and skepticism.

    9.232. Forgers of royal edicts, those who corrupt his ministers, **those who slay women**, infants, or Brahmanas, and those who serve his enemies, **the king shall put to death**//

    This means absolutely nothing. Your demonic sages contradict themselves constantly. Just as I do not care for all of Stalin’s good deeds, whether he built schools and orphanages, I also do not care for any “good” verses from your sages and gods. I only focus on the evil they do. Their evil words and deeds cancel out all their good words and deeds. So don’t waste my time with this crap again.
    =========================================

    hoho…hold on there demon Mamzer jeebus worshiper….

    I have shown clearly that the word pAtaka means “sin” and “upapAtaka” means “minor sin”. Both the terms are NOT legal terms, but terms denoting “moral sin”, a grave sin higher than mere “pApa = sin”.

    So whatever verse you quoted gives ways for expiation for sins in order to escape torment in hell. This has no limitations on legal rulings by Kings or judges. Manu smriti verse 9.232 clearly talks about legal rulings by a King who is judge as well. Whether one does repentance and expiation of sins or not, legally the King is duty bound to award death sentence. Thus there is no contradiction at all demon jeebus worshiper. All contradiction is in your mind due to your frustration.

  100. why? says:

    Ali Sina Says:
    =============================================
    Why fractals of God should remain perfect? I believe the example of water droplets rising from the ocean and mixing with impurities on earth is a very good example to describe why souls when separate from their Divine source can become impure.
    ==============================================

    Time for memory recall again.

    ========================
    Ali Sina March 24, 2016 at 5:43 am

    “I had already explained that we are fractals, copies, pieces of God and not His artifacts.”
    ========================

    You said “fractals” are “pieces of God”. How can “pieces of God” or “part of God” get corrupted? Please define all terms you use precisely before we proceed constructively.

    Your example of water droplets will work only if all the spirits are entirely different from God and are NOT part pf the essence of God. Even then, there is a problem. Who created the conditions for pollution of all spirits or souls?

    Ali Sina Says:
    ===========================================
    God wrote the laws and everything is created through those laws.
    ===========================================

    As per you, it is God who created the laws of nature which lead to pollution of souls. Thus He is the first cause of evil.

    If you say, souls chose to go to Universe to be born and get polluted, how can souls which are “intrinsically good” chose what is bad or evil for them? This is a second problem, which you have NOT even started to attempt to answer.

    Ali Sina Says:
    ===========================================
    Note that when water is contaminated its nature is not change. It is possible to remove all that impurities from water and restore it to its pristine purity. The essence of all souls is divine, even those of criminals and mass murderers like Hitler and Muhammad. The contaminators are not part of the soul. That is why souls spend a time in hell. They go to hell to burn their impurities. Eventually all souls return to God. However, since time loses its significance, even one day in hell can feel like eternity.
    ==========================================

    If impurities are NOT part of the souls, then the souls are still pure. If the souls are pure, then souls will NOT do any evil. Then where does the evil come from?

    Mere logic and reductionism will NOT help you answer any of these questions clearly.

  101. Phoenix says:

    Where exactly is human sacrifice in Hinduism? There is none. You are as usual farting from your jeebus’ dirty behinds.//

    First let’s firmly establish the meaning of human sacrifice: “Human sacrifice is the act of killing one or more human beings, usually as an offering to a deity, as part of a ritual.”

    With that definition in mind, let’s go here: Mother drowns her babies in the river to please the gods.
    Mahabharata 1:XCVIII (p.210) And the king, while thus enjoying himself with his wife, had eight children …But, O Bharata, those children, one after another, as soon as they were born, were thrown into the river by Ganga who said, ‘This is for thy good.’ And the children sank to rise no more
    ====
    It is clear that you are a christian believer as you have many times exposed yourself. The entire christianity is based on a human sacrifice for sins, which your jeebus himself believed he is human sacrifice to his “demonic god”.//

    You’re confusing self-sacrifice with human sacrifice. Look up the two meanings.

    I’m done with this fool.

  102. Phoenix says:

    Nowhere it says that a “logician” is barred legally from making contact with believers.
    What it says is that believers should NOT make contact with unbelievers or heretics or “unbelieving logicians” when doing religious rituals//

    “Manu 4:30. Let him not honour, even by a greeting, heretics, men who follow forbidden occupations, men who live like cats, rogues, logicians, (arguing against the Veda,) and those who live like herons”

    Anyone with eyes can plainly read what is written here. Nowhere does it say “when doing rituals”. You are just making shit up because your demonic beliefs are logically indefensible, since it explicitly dishonors the custodians of logic.
    ===
    The translation is wrong and misleading//

    BS, the translators meaning is verified by the sanskrit dictionary.

    ====
    //Now I clearly quoted an unambiguous verse from the same Manu smriti which legally gives capital punishment for slaying women. I wonder how you missed it purposefully. READ THE VERSE BELOW THICK SKULL WHICH I QUOTED BEFORE//

    And here you are being a complete hypocrite. Suddenly the less embarrassing verse from the same translator is accurate. Look, I do not care for any contradictions, in fact I expect to find them in your book , as your leaders opposed logic and skepticism.
    ========
    9.232. Forgers of royal edicts, those who corrupt his ministers, **those who slay women**, infants, or Brahmanas, and those who serve his enemies, **the king shall put to death**//

    This means absolutely nothing. Your demonic sages contradict themselves constantly. Just as I do not care for all of Stalin’s good deeds, whether he built schools and orphanages, I also do not care for any “good” verses from your sages and gods. I only focus on the evil they do. Their evil words and deeds cancel out all their good words and deeds. So don’t waste my time with this crap again.
    =========
    In West you have politicians and members of parliament given special privileges as they work for the law. When they enter other countries they have diplomatic immunity and such other privileges. Senators are exempted from arrest, except under serious breach of laws//

    Do I really even need to point out that there are no brutal instructions contained in any of our laws regarding the treatment of any race, culture or religious group? You simply cannot compare the psychotic Manu with our Legislative Branch.

    Besides the brutal caste and unjust caste punishments, here are some punishements resembling the Islamic Sharia:

    Manu 8:322. For (stealing) more than fifty (palas) it is enacted that the hands (of the offender) shall be cut off; but in other cases, let him inflict a fine of eleven times the value.
    8:334. With whatever limb a thief in any way commits (an offence) against men, even of that (the king) shall deprive him in order to prevent (a repetition of the crime).

    Vishnu smriti 5:77. He who has stolen a cow, or a horse, or a camel, or an elephant, shall have one hand, or one foot, cut off;
    5:78 He who has stolen a goat, or a sheep, (shall have) one hand (cut off).
    5:81. A stealer of gold, silver, or clothes, at a value of more than fifty Mâshas, shall lose both hands”

  103. Truth Seeker says:

    @Ali Sina
    You said
    …………………..Why fractals of God should remain perfect—————-

    Not necessary, I concur. But perfect does not need to change itself by making fractals (souls) out of himself. And it violates the Idea of God omnipresence as ocean is not omnipresent because adding and deducting can be possible only in a thing/entity has restricted magnitude like ocean. But God magnitude is believed by Yogi all pervasive like the sky.
    How do you know Soul and God can not have separate eternal existence as believed by many? It is communion (living with God’s consciousness) of soul not merging with God or I can say in more simple words living, like two friends live together though both have their own separate existence.

  104. Ali Sina says:

    @Why

    Much of your criticism of Christianity is true. Christianity is not what Jesus brought. He brought love. Christianity is created by people. If you want to know what Jesus thought, watch this

    https://youtu.be/45DH3Jeqazg

  105. Ali Sina says:

    While we can discuss God and reality ad infinitum with no result as humanity has done it for
    millennia, the best way to learn the truth is to listen to those who have been to the other side like this story. We often ask why we are not like this person or that person. I notice a lot of shortcoming in myself which I feel I am handicapped by them. But Jesus told this woman that we choose the kind of person we want to be before coming to this world. Obviously it is because we needed this kind of experience. So instead of complaining, let us make the most of what we have. This is a beautiful story.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42spxrWr1fg

  106. @Steve,

    You are asking my questions. I had the same question forever. Since I accepted God I have been praying every day that I may get the answer to these question while I am still in this body. God has answered many of my questions, but more remain unanswered. However, the fact that I don’t have an answer to these questions is not ground for rejecting God.

    Do we have all the answers about the universe? Of course not! There is more things we don’t know than we know. Every time we unlock a door we enter into a room with many other doors that are locked.

    It seems to me that God does not want to answer some of the questions. Watch this video. This man says he met God who refused to answer some of his question. God told him that He would explain everything when he goes back for good but now he must return to his body.
    https://youtu.be/AziiHUZY71Y

    I read other stories of people who said even when they were shown many things, they were told that they cannot take that with themselves and will forget everything upon returning to their body.

    So while I do not have any answer to most of your questions, I know one thing for certainty that God exists. When I meet Him I will ask those questions.

    In response to your argument that if God wrote the laws of the universe He is responsible of whatever happens in the universe, this is not true. Because one of the laws is randomness or in this case free will. All creatures are given free will. This means nothing is written on stone. We can do one thing and the universe evolves in one way and we can do something else and the universe evolves in another way. We are really the ones that write the future of the world.

    “He could have created laws that resulted in much less (if any) suffering as well creating only people who he knew would freely choose to serve him and not those who he knew would end up spending eternity in hell.”

    The whole purpose of creation, as I understand is that God wanted to have someone to love. Why people adopt pets? They want someone to love. You adopt a cat, a dog, a parrot or a rabbit, you feed them, take care of them and provide for their every needs. Why? It is because you want someone to love. God “created” souls (now please don’t chastise me of using this common word) so He can love them. But love is the child of freedom. You can only love free beings like your pet. You can never love robot even though it may be a lot more smarter than a pet.

    If God created us free, it follows that we can also rebel. You cannot blame God for the rebellion of His creatures. God created free souls not zombies or robots. Zombies and robots cannot love. That would have defeated the whole purpose of creation.

  107. @Why

    Why fractals of God should remain perfect? I believe the example of water droplets rising from the ocean and mixing with impurities on earth is a very good example to describe why souls when separate from their Divine source can become impure.

    Note that when water is contaminated its nature is not change. It is possible to remove all that impurities from water and restore it to its pristine purity. The essence of all souls is divine, even those of criminals and mass murderers like Hitler and Muhammad. The contaminators are not part of the soul. That is why souls spend a time in hell. They go to hell to burn their impurities. Eventually all souls return to God. However, since time loses its significance, even one day in hell can feel like eternity.

  108. why? says:

    Phoenix Says:
    =================================================
    Their only “offense” was questioning the Vedas, rejecting it and refraining from performing animal sacrifices. It’s obvious your Vedic religion is not centred around the golden rule but on whatever pleases the gods, this includes human sacrifices. Anyone who wishes to read the page can go here:
    http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/vp/vp092.htm
    =================================================

    Go read the entire link again. Please come back and explain the meaning of the word “Daityas”.

    Second, the context of discussion is the rules that are to be followed by Hindus during performance of religious rituals to satisfy Gods. It is obviously done to satisfy Gods in this context, and golden rule takes a back seat with respect to performance of religious rituals which is done to satisfy Gods and NOT people. I hope you get it numb skull.

    Where exactly is human sacrifice in Hinduism? There is none. You are as usual farting from your jeebus’ dirty behinds.

    Phoenix Says:
    =================================================
    Firstly, I do not promote the bible so I’m under no obligation to defend it. Nor have I stated my religious beliefs here. Secondly, I’m pretty sure the part about Jesus demanding human sacrifices is false.
    ===================================================

    It is clear that you are a christian believer as you have many times exposed yourself. The entire christianity is based on a human sacrifice for sins, which your jeebus himself believed he is human sacrifice to his “demonic god”.

    Phoenix Says:
    =================================================
    More cow crap. What are you on? There is nothing sinful about being a logician, questioning your beliefs and not killing animals.
    =================================================

    It may be nothing wrong in your merely logical belief, but NOT as per Hindu scriptures. Whether you believe in it or not or call it cow crap or whatever, it is irrelevant to me or Hindu scriptures.

    You made a farting claim through your jeebus’ dirty behinds that Hinduism discriminates against nonbelievers by legally not allowing unbelievers to talk, associate or greet etc. to believers under all circumstances.

    I showed you that, these verses are conditional on believers ONLY under the circumstance of believers doing certain religious rituals for fear of defilement or pollution. The presence of an unbeliever during performance of religious rituals in Hinduism is defiling to the ritual. The verses you quoted are all limited to this circumstance only.

    You have failed to prove anything.

  109. why? says:

    Phoenix Says:
    =============================================
    OK, so the logician who is barred from making contact with believers is involved in a forbidden act, i.e., the study of logic. Do I even need to spell out the stupidity here? You’re clearly thinking out your ass.
    =============================================

    Its clear that you are dumber than a block of wood.

    Nowhere it says study of logic itself forbidden.

    Nowhere it says that a “logician” is barred legally from making contact with believers.

    What it says is that believers should NOT make contact with unbelievers or heretics or “unbelieving logicians” when doing religious rituals. I hope this much is clear for you. Should I make dumb it down even more?

    Phoenix Says:
    =============================================
    Upapataka means minor offence, exactly as the translation says. And your issue is with the type of punishment reserved for such an offense
    =============================================

    The translation is wrong and misleading.

    To understand the degree of sin, you must know the usage of the word pAtaka. It is NOT an offense in legal terms. pAtaka is higher degree sin (moral evil), when compared to a lesser degree sin (pApa is used for normal sin).

    Now I clearly quoted an unambiguous verse from the same Manu smriti which legally gives capital punishment for slaying women. I wonder how you missed it purposefully. READ THE VERSE BELOW THICK SKULL WHICH I QUOTED BEFORE.

    9.232. Forgers of royal edicts, those who corrupt his ministers, **those who slay women**, infants, or Brahmanas, and those who serve his enemies, **the king shall put to death**.

    Phoenix Says:
    =============================================
    You then go on to say…//The above verse clearly says murderer of women goes to hell//

    OK but hell is not a capital punishment. Capital punishment is authorized by the state. Once again, just more pathetic bullshit.
    =============================================

    I thought you have only a comprehension disability, but you also dumb and blind as a BAT.

    9.232. Forgers of royal edicts, those who corrupt his ministers, **those who slay women**, infants, or Brahmanas, and those who serve his enemies, **the king shall put to death**.

    Phoenix Says:
    =============================================
    I thought using Muhammad as an example would’ve sufficed but I’ll dumb it down further for you. Yes, the king has to protect both believers and non-believers, but:

    1) The status of believers and non-believers are not equal, therefore their treatments are not equal. For example: I’m sure the king also has to protect all caste members despite the obvious prejudices against lower castes.
    2) Just as lower castes are “protected”, this does not afford them the right to do as they please or behave as the upper castes. There are clear laws restricting their freedoms and if violated retribution is expected. Same applies to unbelievers, the supposed laws protecting them does not nullify the unjust laws which discriminate against them.
    3) The “protection” merely serves to prevent anarchy, even Muhammad did this.

    If it’s still not clear I’ll try to dumb it down even further for you.
    ==============================================

    So what…No law allows anybody to act as they please. Every law has a hierarchical structure and special privileges extended to certain group of people. What you call as “prejudice” is privilege in west.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_%28legal_ethics%29

    A privilege is a certain entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis.

    In West you have politicians and members of parliament given special privileges as they work for the law. When they enter other countries they have diplomatic immunity and such other privileges. Senators are exempted from arrest, except under serious breach of laws.

    ===========================================
    http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm

    They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses
    ===========================================

    In Kingdoms, Kings and ministers are given special privileges as compared to peasants. In democratic system, elected representatives are given special privileges. You see election of representatives as qualification for some privileges in democracy.

    Similarly in Hindu system, where brAhmins and Kshatriyas are the preservers of Hindu laws and ministers of such laws are given special privileges with respect to that law. Here in Hinduism, the quality of people and their qualification is measured in terms of their karma. There is nothing wrong in this.

    Now, you make a comparison to Muhammad and Hindu law of protecting non-believers.

    Can you cite one example, where Hinduism suggests that practice of non-Hindu religions is to be regulated in anyway? Unbelievers are free to practice their religion, build their religious places and teach them among themselves or others.

    For example, Muhammad had laws preventing construction of churches. Does Hindu law prevent construction of churches or even propagation of other faiths? Can you show such a law?

    An apostate in catholic states and Islamic states were killed under the name of inquisition. Can you show similar laws or events within Hinduism?

    You are comparing the requirement of Hindus involved in religious activities not to greet or talk or associate with unbelievers to Muhammad’s teachings of not greeting unbelievers under all conditions. They are NOT the same.

    In Hinduism, nonbelievers as well as believers have rights to do anything for a living, except meddling with Vedic teachings (teaching Vedas or such) and its laws. No law will allow outsiders to meddle and change the laws.

    Unless you have compelling evidence that Hinduism teaches explicitly to discriminate unbelievers as bad as your bible or as Muhammad did, you are speaking through your behinds of your jeebus.

  110. Phoenix says:

    What is the relevance of Buddha’s reasons here? It is irrelevant.
    The reason for those verses to reject talking (or even seeing them) to heretics or unbelievers or duracharis (those who engage in forbidden acts) is as per the verses within Hindu scriptures is pollution or defilement of the people performing sacrifices and pollution of rituals, thereby causing destruction of one’s families. This is a requirement in Hinduism. As evidence, I said, I have myself seen such things happen to many families, including mine, in terms of diseases or sudden loss of wealth, health etc. Now, whether you believe it or not, it is irrelevant to me or Hinduism//

    Look, I’m ashamed to even have this discussion with you. You are intellectually draining. What fricking crime did they commit? Their only “offense” was questioning the Vedas, rejecting it and refraining from performing animal sacrifices. It’s obvious your Vedic religion is not centred around the golden rule but on whatever pleases the gods, this includes human sacrifices. Anyone who wishes to read the page can go here:
    http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/vp/vp092.htm
    ====
    Didn’t your jeebus provide fishes as food? If killing animals is so bad, why did your god in OT order so many animal sacrifices hypocrite? Damn he even demanded human sacrifices.//

    Firstly, I do not promote the bible so I’m under no obligation to defend it. Nor have I stated my religious beliefs here. Secondly, I’m pretty sure the part about Jesus demanding human sacrifices is false.

    //Second, It is NOT physical violence I am talking about here. I am talking about results of NOT performing certain rituals (especially ancestral rites). It leads to sins and destruction of families as loss children, wealth, health etc as mere discomfort of ancestors in other world leads to such results//

    More cow crap. What are you on? There is nothing sinful about being a logician, questioning your beliefs and not killing animals.

  111. Phoenix says:

    The verse is from one of the dharma shastras, Narada smriti. It means THIS IS A LAW that is to be followed by all Kings under normal circumstances of their rule, unless an injustice has occurred individually from people belonging to either party.//

    I thought using Muhammad as an example would’ve sufficed but I’ll dumb it down further for you. Yes, the king has to protect both believers and non-believers, but:

    1) The status of believers and non-believers are not equal, therefore their treatments are not equal. For example: I’m sure the king also has to protect all caste members despite the obvious prejudices against lower castes.
    2) Just as lower castes are “protected”, this does not afford them the right to do as they please or behave as the upper castes. There are clear laws restricting their freedoms and if violated retribution is expected. Same applies to unbelievers, the supposed laws protecting them does not nullify the unjust laws which discriminate against them.
    3) The “protection” merely serves to prevent anarchy, even Muhammad did this.

    If it’s still not clear I’ll try to dumb it down even further for you.
    ======
    Now go and understand the context properly why some verses say to avoid even contact with heretics or unbelievers or other people involved in forbidden acts when performing religious rituals. Do NOT come back with strawman.//

    OK, so the logician who is barred from making contact with believers is involved in a forbidden act, i.e., the study of logic. Do I even need to spell out the stupidity here? You’re clearly thinking out your ass.
    =======
    So here upapAtaka means “lesser among the worst sins”. Lesser to what? to sins classified as pAtaka (worst sins) and those above it. It does NOT mean it is NOT a sin to kill women or kill Kshatriyas. The capital punishment goes to all killers legally, however for expiation of sins they are classified.//

    Upapataka means minor offence, exactly as the translation says. And your issue is with the type of punishment reserved for such an offense
    See dictionary http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?beginning=0+&tinput=++upapataka&trans=Translate

    You then go on to say…//The above verse clearly says murderer of women goes to hell//

    OK but hell is not a capital punishment. Capital punishment is authorized by the state. Once again, just more pathetic bullshit.

  112. Steve says:

    Ali Sina
    “It is a mistake to think God is the creator of the universe. God wrote the laws and everything is created through those laws” The first sentence contradicts the second. God created those laws so he created everything. To use the example of simulated universe these let’s say I write the laws of my universe and everything in my universe evolves according to this programmed formula (which I wrote). This means I know how my universe will evolve (since I programmed it and wrote every piece of information), now why did God create a universe that he knew would contain vast amounts of suffering (for both humans and animals, (many of whom can only survive by killing and eating other animals)? Why he created a universe where evil people and their evil ideas come to power and which results in suffering for millions? Which results in billions of his beloved humans going to hell for eternity? In addition he knew these laws would result in highly powerful evil beings (satan and his demons). Why did God create laws he knew would result in all this? He could have created laws that resulted in much less (if any) suffering as well creating only people who he knew would freely choose to serve him and not those who he knew would end up spending eternity in hell. In addition he could intervene at any time to stop things such as terror attacks and natural disasters, this doesn’t brake any law. If I catch a ball before it hits the fall have I broken the law of gravity? No, therefore God could intervene.

    Also before you said God is omnipotent, now you seem to be saying he is not.

    “Let us say you are a programmer and write a software for playing chess. Then you put two computers to play chess together. You don’t decide on what moves should be made and in what orders. That is the decision computers make” I would decide since I wrote the software, I would know (before I even start the game) the result of every game (and every single move made in every game). Again God – the programmer – would also have know how this universe would unfold. Unless you believe that God is not omniscient as well now? Their is no such thing as free will everything obeys the laws of physics, and even if their was free will as myself and why have demonstrated this doesn’t solve the problem of evil.

    “We are the creators of this universe, not God.” So how is he God then if he didn’t Create anything? As well as omnipotent?

    “He is only responsible for writing the software” Yes the software that is responsible for how this universe evolves and unfolds!

    “Through those laws we evolved the way we did and we are utterly free to change the way we live” Only if that power is given us, if those laws didn’t exist we wouldn’t have evolved in the first place, everything we do and think is programmed in us, even the thought of your own existence has been programmed.

    “Infinity does not exist. It is only a concept much like zero.” Not true, existence itself is infinite.

    “So how can God be something that does not exist?” God IS existence.

    “A lot of things we attribute to God is our fantasy. The God we have created is only a straw man and an easy target for materialist and atheists. Many of the criticism of atheists are correct. That is because the theists have created a fictitious god and an ideal straw man.” So you believe in a omnipotent and omnipresent all loving God or not? If so you believe in the traditional theist God. If the God you believe in just set up the laws and then let the universe unfold without intervening then you are a deist. Where God is either indifferent or unknowable but I assume you are not a deist since you believe in a God that listens to prayers and loves humans and is concerned about what goes on in their world.

  113. why? says:

    Phoenix Says:
    ==========================================
    “The king should accord protection to compacts of associations of believers of Vedas (Naigamas) as also the non-believers (Pashandis) and others” (Narada Smriti, Dharma Kosha)”

    This means nothing, even Muhammad offered protection to infidels. But most importantly , the rules are that any negative verse always supercedes a seemingly positive verse.
    ===========================================

    It is very clear that you are an idiot.

    The verse is from one of the dharma shastras, Narada smriti. It means THIS IS A LAW that is to be followed by all Kings under normal circumstances of their rule, unless an injustice has occurred individually from people belonging to either party.

    The historical evidence in medieval times is the Vijayanagar Kingdom, where the Kings protected all citizens of various faiths, including Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Jains, Buddhists etc.

    You cannot foolishly compare a law to whimsical decisions made by some individual like Muhammad.

    Now go and understand the context properly why some verses say to avoid even contact with heretics or unbelievers or other people involved in forbidden acts when performing religious rituals. Do NOT come back with strawman.

    Phoenix Says:
    ==========================================
    Manu11:67. Stealing grain, base metals, or cattle, intercourse with women who drink spirituous liquor,**slaying women**, Sudras, Vaisyas, or Kshatriyas, and atheism, (are all) minor offences, causing loss of caste (Upapataka)
    ==========================================

    9.232. Forgers of royal edicts, those who corrupt his ministers, those who slay women, infants, or Brahmanas, and those who serve his enemies, the king shall put to death.

    Clearly capital punishment is for those who slay women. So why slaying women is called “minor offense” (a clue wrong misleading translation)?

    Sins are MAHANMAHATTARPATAKA ,SUMAHATTARPATAKA ,SUMAHAPATAKA, MAHAPATAKA , PATAKAs , UPAPATAKAS and Papa and Kshudra papa.

    pAtaka = grievous sins ; pApa = sins

    Now what is upapataka? What does it mean? It is translated as “minor offense”. The word pAtaka means “worst sins”. The word papa means ordinary sins. Upa means that which is lesser than or that which sits near to something. So here upapAtaka means “lesser among the worst sins”. Lesser to what? to sins classified as pAtaka (worst sins) and those above it. It does NOT mean it is NOT a sin to kill women or kill Kshatriyas. The capital punishment goes to all killers legally, however for expiation of sins they are classified.

    8.89. (Saying), ’Whatever places (of torment) are assigned (by the sages) to the slayer of a Brahmana, to the murderer of women and children, to him who betrays a friend, and to an ungrateful man, those shall be thy (portion), if thou speakest falsely.

    The above verse clearly says murderer of women goes to hell.

    Phoenix Says:
    ==========================================
    Manu 11:139. For killing adulterous women of the four castes, he must give, in order to purify himself, respectively a leathern bag, a bow, a goat, or a sheep.”

    Manu 8:371. If a wife, proud of the greatness of her relatives or (her own) excellence, violates the duty which she owes to her lord, the king shall **cause her to be devoured by dogs*** in a place frequented by many.

    So don’t bother me with “good” verses if there are others which contradict them, period.
    ============================================

    8:371 talks about a woman who constantly prostitutes herself with many men and disobeys the law because of her powerful relatives. The punishment is severe in this case. This is no just adultery.

    11:139 is wrong reference. It is actually 11:138. Again in this verse it refers to a woman who is adulterous by nature (inconstant and has multiple men in her life as per Medhatithi), he can purify himself from this sin by said methods. However, the capital punishment is still applicable legally. This verse merely talks about expiation methods for the sins.

    9.232. Forgers of royal edicts, those who corrupt his ministers, those who slay women, infants, or Brahmanas, and those who serve his enemies, the king shall put to death.

    The above verse is clear on capital punishment, except for brAhmin offenders.

  114. why? says:

    Phoenix,

    You are one numb skull tool.

    Phoenix Says:
    ========================================
    The entire paragraph above is senseless. You’re clearly just making shit up. One of the reasons that Buddha rejected the Vedas was precisely because of the violence (especially animal sacrifices )and injustice inherit within the Vedic religion. I have no reason to believe the apostates were drunks who slept with prostitutes. Your defamation of Buddhists and Jains simply have no merit. Read this paragraph below from the Puranas.
    =========================================

    What is the relevance of Buddha’s reasons here? It is irrelevant.

    The reason for those verses to reject talking (or even seeing them) to heretics or unbelievers or duracharis (those who engage in forbidden acts) is as per the verses within Hindu scriptures is pollution or defilement of the people performing sacrifices and pollution of rituals, thereby causing destruction of one’s families. This is a requirement in Hinduism. As evidence, I said, I have myself seen such things happen to many families, including mine, in terms of diseases or sudden loss of wealth, health etc. Now, whether you believe it or not, it is irrelevant to me or Hinduism.

    Second, I have given you different classes such as heretics or unbelievers or duracharis (among believers/unbelievers). I did NOT equate them all. You presume too much without understanding much.

    Phoenix Says:
    ========================================
    Your analogy is still false because it is the inverse which is true. The Vedic followers were the violent ones not the apostates. Here’s evidence from the Puranas, where the apostates (Buddha) call for refrain from slaughtering animals:
    ========================================

    Didn’t your jeebus provide fishes as food? If killing animals is so bad, why did your god in OT order so many animal sacrifices hypocrite? Damn he even demanded human sacrifices.

    Second, It is NOT physical violence I am talking about here. I am talking about results of NOT performing certain rituals (especially ancestral rites). It leads to sins and destruction of families as loss children, wealth, health etc as mere discomfort of ancestors in other world leads to such results.

  115. Phoenix says:

    Manu 4:30. Let him not honour, even by a greeting, heretics, men who follow forbidden occupations, men who live like cats, rogues, logicians, (arguing against the Veda,) and those who live like herons”

    The context is while one is involved in performing rituals, he shall NOT entertain such people.//

    Yes, you must not entertain a logician because their presence could cause the destruction of your entire family. Just more senseless dribble.
    ====
    i’m going to skip over your other crap and go right to the end.

    “The king should accord protection to compacts of associations of believers of Vedas (Naigamas) as also the non-believers (Pashandis) and others” (Narada Smriti, Dharma Kosha)”

    This means nothing, even Muhammad offered protection to infidels. But most importantly , the rules are that any negative verse always supercedes a seemingly positive verse.
    If there’s a verse in the bible which says don’t steal you would completely ignore it and focus on the verses mentioning spoils of war. Likewise, in Hinduism when a verse mentions protection of women, I only focus on the ones which trivializes killing women or explicitly commands their killing. Such as these below:

    Manu11:67. Stealing grain, base metals, or cattle, intercourse with women who drink spirituous liquor,**slaying women**, Sudras, Vaisyas, or Kshatriyas, and atheism, (are all) minor offences, causing loss of caste (Upapataka)

    Manu 11:139. For killing adulterous women of the four castes, he must give, in order to purify himself, respectively a leathern bag, a bow, a goat, or a sheep.”

    Manu 8:371. If a wife, proud of the greatness of her relatives or (her own) excellence, violates the duty which she owes to her lord, the king shall **cause her to be devoured by dogs*** in a place frequented by many.

    So don’t bother me with “good” verses if there are others which contradict them, period.

  116. Phoenix says:

    Hindus (especially upper three castes) are required to do some specific rituals yearly for one’s ancestors. If not done properly, it leads to destruction of entire family. This is NOT mere belief, many families are ruined by such improper performance of ancestral rites. When an unbeliever/heretic/durachari (one who does not follow scriptural rules like beef eating, drinking alcohol, those who associate with prostitutes, sleep around etc.) even looks at such rituals being performed it brings to naught everything and affects the families’ present and future generations//

    The entire paragraph above is senseless. You’re clearly just making shit up. One of the reasons that Buddha rejected the Vedas was precisely because of the violence (especially animal sacrifices )and injustice inherit within the Vedic religion. I have no reason to believe the apostates were drunks who slept with prostitutes. Your defamation of Buddhists and Jains simply have no merit. Read this paragraph below from the Puranas.

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/vp/vp092.htm
    (p.340) Some then spake evil of the sacred books; some blasphemed the gods; some treated sacrifices and other devotional ceremonies with scorn; and others calumniated the Brahmans. “The precepts,” they cried, “that lead to the injury of animal life (as in sacrifices) are highly reprehensible.”
    ====

    NO. The analogy simply shows that just as one would take priority in protecting family and one’s property over golden rule with respect to criminals, here conserving and gaining spiritual merits in Hinduism take priority over treating heretics kindly. It is all about what takes priority.”

    Your analogy is still false because it is the inverse which is true. The Vedic followers were the violent ones not the apostates. Here’s evidence from the Puranas, where the apostates (Buddha) call for refrain from slaughtering animals:

    (p.339)”The foes of the gods being thus induced to apostatize from the religion of the Vedas, by the delusive person sent by Vishńu, became in their turn teachers of the same heresies, and perverted others; and these, again, communicating their principles to others, by whom they were still further disseminated, the Vedas were in a short time deserted by most of the Daitya race. Then the same deluder, putting on garments of a red colour, assuming a benevolent aspect, and speaking in soft and agreeable tones, addressed others of the same family, and said to them, ***”If; mighty demons, you cherish a desire either for heaven or for final repose, desist from the iniquitous massacre of animals (for sacrifice),***

  117. why? says:

    Further EVIDENCE THAT “your guy” worshiped the same “god aka yahway alias jehovah” of old testament.

    7. “Your lord” made several references to statements made by “god aka yahway alias jehovah” in old testament.

    Jesus said to him, “It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the LORD your God.'” (Matthew 4:7; cf. Luke 4:12)

    Reference found in OT

    “You shall not tempt the LORD your God as you tempted Him in Massah.” (Deuteronomy 6:16)

    “Then Jesus said to him, ‘Away with you, Satan! For it is written, “You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.'” (Matthew 4:10, cf. Luke 4:8)

    Reference found in OT

    “You shall fear the LORD your God and serve Him, and shall take oaths in His name.” (Deuteronomy 6:13)

    And He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a ‘den of thieves.'” (Matthew 21:13, cf. Mark 11:17, Luke 19:46)

    Reference found in OT

    Even them I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on My altar; For My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations. (Isaiah 56:7)

    “Has this house, which is called by My name, become a den of thieves in your eyes? Behold, I, even I, have seen it,” says the LORD. (Jeremiah 7:11)

    Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?'” (Matthew 21:42, cf. Mark 12:10, 11, Luke 20:17)

    Reference found in OT

    he stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD’s doing; it is marvelous in our eyes. (Psalm 118:22, 23)

    NOTE:

    THERE IS HELL LOT OF A REFERENCES BY “your lord” TO THE “god aka yahway aka jehovah” of OT. The following link provides it.

    https://jewsforjesus.org/publications/newsletter/september-2008/05

    THERE ARE TOO MANY EVIDENCES THAT “your lord” worshiped the same “god aka yahway aka jehovah” of OT. If you deny all these evidences blindly, then you are living in an imaginary world of blind belief Ali Sina.

  118. why? says:

    Ali Sina Says:
    =======================================
    It is true that Jesus made some reference to the God of Abraham and Moses. He did not denounce Yahweh. It is my belief that he did not want to rock the boat. People would have rejected him outright and perhaps even his disciples would have turned away from him. So instead, he explained the qualities of his heavenly Father.

    When we compare the qualities of Yahweh and the God of Jesus, it is clear that these two are very different beings.
    =======================================

    Sina, please do not make empty assertions. Show me with evidence, why you think so?

    If your lord addressed his “god” as god of abrhaham, Moses, Isaac ad Jacob, then why do you want to doubt it?

    There is no reason that your lord had a different “god” in his mind, unless there is strong evidence as such. where is the evidence? Please give it before we proceed. Here is why I think your lord did not have any other god, but yahway aka jehova in mind.

    1. There is no evidence in the gospel where your lord denounce any of the laws of OT, be it stoning, slavery or any other barbaric punishments.

    We had a long discussion on this topic in previous posts, where I have clearly shown this is so. Your lord claims explicitly, that his “god” commanded the laws of stoning and other capital punishment and believed in it. If your guy did not believe in these laws, why he would say “For God commanded” such things.

    You cannot simply claim your guy was merely lying to satisfy others. Surely, your lord will not spread calumny on his own “god” telling others that his “god” commanded unrighteous barbaric punishments.

    Matthew 15:3

    For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; [a] and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’

    John 7:23
    “If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath so that the Law of Moses will not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made an entire man well on the Sabbath?

    2. Your lord believed in literal creation of Adam and Eve and that Abel died at the hands of his vegetarian brother Cain. He believed in OT prophets.

    Matthew 19:4–6 (Explicit reference to Adam and Eve)

    Matthew 23:35 (NASB95)

    35 so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

    3. He even believed some guy Jonah lived in stomach of a whale.

    Matthew 12:40 (NASB95)

    40 for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

    4. He believed literally in story of Noah of OT. Read verse 38.

    Matthew 24:37–38 (NASB95)

    37 “For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.

    38 “For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,

    5. Your guy believed in Moses stories literally and even called his “god” as the “god” of Moses, Abraham, Jacob, Isaac etc. This shows your lord believed in all these prophets truly existed and that they worshipped the same “god” your lord worshiped.

    John 3:14

    14 `And as Moses did lift up the serpent in the wilderness, so it behoveth the Son of Man to be lifted up,

    Mark 12:26 `And concerning the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the Book of Moses (at The Bush), how God spake to him, saying, I [am] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;

    Luke 20:37Young’s Literal Translation (YLT)

    37 `And that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the Bush, since he doth call the Lord, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;

    6. Here, your lord again EXPLICITLY CLAIMS, THAT HIS FATHER IS THE SAME GOD OF MOSES WHO PROVIDED MANNA (BREAD) FROM HEAVEN. CLEARLY, YOUR LORD’S “god” and MOSES’ “god aka yahway alias jehova” ARE IDENTICAL.

    John 6:32

    Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven.

    ===========================================================

    NOTE:

    There is every evidence from gospels that “your lord” literally believed in yahway or jehova of MOSES, ABRAHAM etc. as his “god alias father”.

    Your rejection is based on your imaginary beliefs.

  119. why? says:

    Ali Sina Says:
    ================================================
    The God of Hindus and that of Muslims contain both good and evil. That is because Hindus are pantheists. They take the refection of God as God. There is imperfection in the reflection. But God is sanctified from imperfection.

    Muhammad was influenced by the paganism of his time, which was similar to Hinduism as some Hindu scholars have shown. As the result his god is very much like Shiva, a god of creation as well as destruction who embodies both good and evil.
    =================================================

    You are strawmaning here Ali Sina.

    First, orthodox Hinduism is anything but pantheism. There are different schools of thought. Some of Monistic (only one Being exists), Monotheism (Only ONE independent being who controls all exists), panentheism etc. There is no pantheism in any of the Vedic schools of thought within Hinduism. Besides Hinduism is NOT monolithic.

    In Vedic interpretaion of Hinduism, we can broadly see only two categories of thought. One is Monism and another is Monotheism (in many forms with variations).

    Now you have NOT shown why destruction (destruction is not annihilation in Hinduism) is necessarily evil? Give me a logical reason as to why you think destruction is evil only? Again, Shiva is said to be Lord of destruction, because He destroys Universe in cycles and leads to creation again.

    You assume creation is always good and destruction is always evil.

    I can give you an example of creation is which is evil. Your god creating laws of physics which lead to evil in nature as per your claim. This creation is evil logically.

    Destruction of such evil nature is necessarily good, which Lord Shiva does. Lord Shiva is also the destroyer of evil demonic entities like your “evil god” 🙂 . This destruction is also good logically. Destruction can also be of perverted knowledge (considering good as evil and evil as good) which you have. This destruction is also good.

    GIVE ME A PROPER LOGICAL REASON FOR YOUR CLAIMS. I AM NOT INTERESTED IN YOUR ASSERTIONS.

    Only in Hinduism, God is all good and only in Hinduism’s framework this is possible. No matter how you dance, you cannot avoid ascribing evil to your god, unless Hinduism’s framework can be applied.

  120. why? says:

    Ali Sina Says:
    ===========================================
    When droplets of water evaporate from the surface of the ocean they are pure and clean. They travel on land and associate with impurities. There are waters that are so contaminated that drinking a drop of them can kill you.

    Likewise, all souls are created as fractals of God and are pure in their essence. Some however, acquire the impurities of this world and become evil.

    Memory Recall for Ali Sina:

    I had already explained that we are fractals, copies, pieces of God and not His artifacts.

    “Nature is also a fractal of God and like all God’s fractals it is free and consequently imperfect.”
    ============================================

    Now I am really confused. Talk about making self-contradicting statements.

    First, didn’t you call nature as fractal of God, one whose essential nature is “intrinsically all good”?

    How did nature turn out to be evil then?

    Again your free-will argument is not sufficient answer for evil. An “intrinsically good” entity, given it is against its intrinsically good nature, will not chose bad or evil even out of its free-will, as it is against its own nature.

    As per you statement, it is your god who wrote the laws of physics of nature? Nature just behaves as it should as per the laws of physics which God wrote as per you Ali Sina.

    Ali Sina Says:
    ===========================================
    God wrote the laws and everything is created through those laws.
    ===========================================

    So God is responsible for the evil that exists in nature. If it were not for these laws, evil would NOT exist.

    So, you “god” is evil or mixture of good and evil.

    Second, if something which is fractal of God (i.e. copies, pieces of God), which is intrinsically good, can become evil, why can’t God Himself become evil as well? If pieces of God become evil, then God is corruptible?

    Why worship such a corruptible God, who is mixture of good and evil? It seems you are following “pantheism”. It seems you worship a sort of pantheistic “god” and you blame others.

  121. Ali Sina says:

    @Steve

    There is a lot of misconceptions about God. People who have met God come back with a very different description of Him than what generally we are told by religions.

    God is not the creator of everything. Everything is the product of evolution. Nature has its own mind and evolution follows natural laws.

    Think of a river. It bends and turns, is some places it is calm and in other places it is furious. It definitely has a shape and a design. Who created the river and who designed it? No one! It is created by its own. Water goes down following the law of gravity and as the result it fills the lower places first. Since the earth has uneven topography this combination results in the shape of the rivers. The same we can say about mountains, lakes, seas, clouds and all geographic features of earth. Since all these make the earth, we can say that no one created the earth. If no one created the earth then no one created other planets, the stars the galaxies and the universe. All these come to exist following natural laws of physics. God has nothing to do with any of this.

    The same argument can be made about the living organisms. They evolve on their own. There is no design involved in the evolution of the world.

    It is a mistake to think God is the creator of the universe. God wrote the laws and everything is created through those laws.

    Let us say you are a programmer and write a software for playing chess. Then you put two computers to play chess together. You don’t decide on what moves should be made and in what orders. That is the decision computers make. The only difference is that computers are in this case programmed to act randomly. They do not have intelligence to make choices. Living beings can choose and make conscious decisions.

    As conscious beings, which includes all life forms, including amoeba and even viruses that are not alive, even atoms and electrons we are all players and make choices. In other world this universe is the result of how we conscious beings have played our game. We are the creators of this universe, not God. If you compare this world to a virtual reality played inside a computer, the characters in the virtual reality create their own reality, mostly through randomness. The programmer has no say how the game is played. He is only responsible for writing the software. God set the laws of the universe. Through those laws we evolved the way we did and we are utterly free to change the way we live. We can even change our DNA. And now we can do that through science.

    In regards to God being infinite, this is another big misconception. God is perfect and something perfect cannot be infinite. You can’t add or subtract anything from something perfect without diminishing its perfection. That is the very definition of perfect. Infinity means you can keep adding to it and it never reaches completeness. Infinity does not exist. It is only a concept much like zero. So how can God be something that does not exist?

    A lot of things we attribute to God is our fantasy. The God we have created is only a straw man and an easy target for materialist and atheists. Many of the criticism of atheists are correct. That is because the theists have created a fictitious god and an ideal straw man.

  122. Steve says:

    Ali Sina
    “Some however, acquire the impurities of this world and become evil.” God created this world and God is supposed to have created everything, and God is said to be perfect so everything he creates must also be perfect.

    “This is one reason I do not believe in an infinite God. And infinite God must contain evil and an evil god cannot be God.” If your God is not infinite then it cannot be God. If God must be one thing that is infinite. If this being you believe is God is not infinite then it follows 1)He can’t be the creator of all things 2) He can’t be omnipotent 2) He can’t be omnipresent 3)He can’t be omniscient. This is why the Muslims and Christians believe their God is infinite- otherwise he is just an ordinary created being.

    Also your God either cannot do anything to stop the evil – in which case he is impotent or he chooses not to in which case he himself is evil

  123. Ali Sina says:

    @Why

    When droplets of water evaporate from the surface of the ocean they are pure and clean. They travel on land and associate with impurities. There are waters that are so contaminated that drinking a drop of them can kill you.

    Likewise, all souls are created as fractals of God and are pure in their essence. Some however, acquire the impurities of this world and become evil.

    The God of Hindus and that of Muslims contain both good and evil. That is because Hindus are pantheists. They take the refection of God as God. There is imperfection in the reflection. But God is sanctified from imperfection.

    Muhammad was influenced by the paganism of his time, which was similar to Hinduism as some Hindu scholars have shown. As the result his god is very much like Shiva, a god of creation as well as destruction who embodies both good and evil.

    This duality can exist only outside God. Within God there is no evil. This is one reason I do not believe in an infinite God. And infinite God must contain evil and an evil god cannot be God.

    It is true that Jesus made some reference to the God of Abraham and Moses. He did not denounce Yahweh. It is my belief that he did not want to rock the boat. People would have rejected him outright and perhaps even his disciples would have turned away from him. So instead, he explained the qualities of his heavenly Father.

    When we compare the qualities of Yahweh and the God of Jesus, it is clear that these two are very different beings.

  124. Truth Seeker says:

    @Phoenix

    “-….This verse explicitly forbids giving respect to logicians, because using logic could cause hindus to abandon their faith, as confirmed in the following two verses.———–
    ——————-“

    I do not know from where you bring this garbage but Veda Cleary says a

    ‘To accept truth through a continuous process of rejecting falsehood every moment to best of one’s abilities in the most sincere manner is Vedic religion’

    This is beautifully described in Yajurveda 1.5:
    “Agne bratapate bratam chaarishyaami tach
    chhakeyam tanme raadyataam edam
    ahamanritaat satyam upaimi swahaa.” (Yajurved 1.5)

    “O Supreme Force governing the world! You function as per unchangeable laws which remain the same throughout without slightest of deviations. May I also seek inspiration from You to be unflinchingly principled in my life. Thus I resolve to seek truth constantly by eliminating the false from my life every moment to the best of my abilities, intentions and efforts. May I be successful in this noble decision of mine.”
    Further :-
    Drishtavä roopay vayakarot satya anratay prajäpati,
    Ashradhäm anratay dadhät shradham satyay prajäpati. (Yajur Veda 19: 77)
    Yajurved 19.77
    – All humans at all times should have passion only for adoption of truth and rejection of falsehood. This should be a continuous process and one should keep detaching faith from what one discovers to be false and keep attaching faith to what one discovers to be true based on analysis, logic, facts and evidence.
    संगछध्वं संवदध्वं सं वो मनांसि जानताम |
    देवा भागं यथा पूर्वे संजानाना उपासते ||
    Rigveda 10.191.2
    – walk together in the path of truth without bias, injustice and intolerance
    – talk to each other to enhance knowledge, wisdom and affection without malice and hatred
    – keep working together to enhance knowledge and bliss
    – follow the path of truth and selflessness as exemplified by noble people
    समानो मन्त्रः समितिः समानी समानं मनः सह चित्तमेषाम |
    समानं मन्त्रमभि मण्त्रये वः समानेन वोहविषा जुहोमि ||
    Rigveda 10.191.3
    – Your analysis of right and wrong should be unbiased and not specific to particular set of people
    – You should organize together to help everyone enhance their health, knowledge and prosperity
    – Your minds should be devoid of hatred and should see progress and happiness of all as one’s own progress and happiness and you should only act for enhancement of happiness of all based on truth
    – Work together to eradicate falsehood and discover truth
    – Never ever deviate from path of truth and unity

  125. why? says:

    Phoenix says:
    =========================================
    How does **especially at seasons of devotion.** justify treating apostates/heretics with contempt? Note that their only crime was to abandon the Vedas as stated in the following verse.
    ==========================================

    This is NOT contempt here, but loss of spiritual merits and dangers one will face when some specific rituals are being done. I will quote it below.

    “The ancestral rite, although performed with zeal and faith, pleases neither gods nor progenitors if it be looked upon by apostates”

    Hindus (especially upper three castes) are required to do some specific rituals yearly for one’s ancestors. If not done properly, it leads to destruction of entire family. This is NOT mere belief, many families are ruined by such improper performance of ancestral rites. When an unbeliever/heretic/durachari (one who does not follow scriptural rules like beef eating, drinking alcohol, those who associate with prostitutes, sleep around etc.) even looks at such rituals being performed it brings to naught everything and affects the families’ present and future generations.

    When the ritual is performed perfectly, it brings happiness to entire family. This is why it is said with such strong words, in order to complete the rituals properly.

    Outside of the rituals, people need to behave normally.

    Phoenix says:
    =========================================
    Your false analogy attempted to indelibly link these apostates with socieities worst criminals.
    =========================================

    NO. The analogy simply shows that just as one would take priority in protecting family and one’s property over golden rule with respect to criminals, here conserving and gaining spiritual merits in Hinduism take priority over treating heretics kindly. It is all about what takes priority.

    Phoenix says:
    =========================================
    Manu 3:161. An epileptic man, who suffers from scrofulous swellings of the glands, one afflicted with white leprosy, an informer, a madman, a blind man, and he who *cavils at the Veda must (all) be avoided.
    ===========================================

    3:167. A Brahmana who knows (the sacred law) should shun at (sacrifices) both (to the gods and to the manes) these lowest of twice-born men, whose conduct is reprehensible, and who are unworthy (to sit) in the company (at a repast).

    Clearly the context shows with respect to rituals.

    Phoenix says:
    =========================================
    Manu 4:163. Let him avoid atheism, *cavilling at the Vedas, contempt of the gods,hatred, want of modesty, pride, anger, and harshness.

    *( cavil = unnecessarry objections)
    ==========================================

    This has nothing to do with heretics, but a recommendation to followers.

    Phoenix says:
    =========================================
    Manu 4:30. Let him not honour, even by a greeting, heretics, men who follow forbidden occupations, men who live like cats, rogues, logicians, (arguing against the Veda,) and those who live like herons”

    This verse explicitly forbids giving respect to logicians, because using logic could cause hindus to abandon their faith, as confirmed in the following two verses.
    ==========================================

    Again, you are NOT getting it. Read the entire chapter. It is with respect to brAhmins who are involved in a life long rituals. This rule for example is NOT applicable to other situations. The very next verse makes it clear again.

    4:31. Those who have become Snatakas after studying the Veda, or after completing their vows, (and) householders, who are Srotriyas, one must worship by (gifts of food) sacred to gods and manes, but one must avoid those who are different.

    The context is while one is involved in performing rituals, he shall NOT entertain such people.

    Medatithi for example comments on this verse that it is allowed to feed others under unavoidable circumstances.

    Phoenix says:
    =========================================
    Laws of Manu 2:10. But by Sruti (revelation) is meant the Veda, and by Smriti (tradition) the Institutes of the sacred law: those two must not be called into question in any matter, since from those two the sacred law shone forth.
    11. Every twice-born man, who, relying on the Institutes of dialectics, treats with contempt those two sources (of the law), must be cast out by the virtuous, as an atheist and a scorner of the Veda”
    ========================================

    Medatithi, the commentator of Manu smriti, again makes it clear what “cast out” means? It does NOT mean casting out and making it impossible for him to live, but casting him (twice-born, the brAhmin heretic) from teaching Vedas to others, participating in conducting rituals and such.

    NOTE the point that this verse particularly talks about casting out a “twice-born man”, not other heretics or unbelievers.

    Phoenix says:
    =========================================
    And you’ve given no evidence that Hindu scriptures do indeed extend tolerance towards non-believers.
    =========================================

    First of all, you made the claim that Hinduism scriptures does not treat unbelievers properly. You have to prove this is so with proper evidence. You have NOT shown any.

    I will also provide explicit evidence for religious tolerance in Hinduism, unlike your demonic bible.

    Narada Smriti, requires the king to protect non-believers too.

    “Pashandanaigama sreni poogavraata ganadishu
    Samrakshet samayam Raja Durge Janapade Tatha”

    “The king should accord protection to compacts of associations of believers of Vedas (Naigamas) as also the non-believers (Pashandis) and others” (Narada Smriti, Dharma Kosha)

  126. Marcus Smith says:

    Ali Sina, I’ve always been an admirer of yours but I fear that you have lost your way. Your site is described as; “created by secularist ex-muslims” but you seem to have completely forsaken secularism and impartiality with it. All belief; Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism etc. is a creation of the human mind. I wrote to you after 9/11 quoting Krishnamurti’s famous phrase; “Truth is a pathless land” and I’ve noted that you have used that quote yourself on several occasions. Strange then that you seem to have forgotten it so completely.
    Did such a person as Jesus actually exist? Nazareth did not even exist as a city when Jesus is supposed to have lived there. Watch “Religion comes from ancient astrology and sun worship” on You Tube and you will see what I suspect are the true origins of Christianity.
    The fact that Christianity is mostly benign and Islam mostly isn’t is down to the fact that Islam is an Arab imperialist cult and not because it’s controlled by imaginary demons. You’re beginning to sound as absurd and irrational as the Koran itself when you say things like that!
    Thought is always limited and belief is based squarely on thought (mostly other people’s). Consider this; what if Being itself is Divine and What Is (manifested existence) is divine revelation? Things exist in relation to each other like light and darkness, you cannot know one without the other; so goodness and evil must exist side by side. Alan Watts talks about this quite a bit and calls it “the game of black and white”. The separate self is created by thought which creates disorder in belief. If you start arguing against Muslims with your own beliefs your disorder will only match theirs, causing further disorder and conflict. It is belief that causes evil through conflict.
    Try reading Krishnamurti’s “First and Last Freedom” or Alan Watts “The Book on the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Really Are” or Douglas Harding’s “On Having No Head”. As long as the idea of a “me” in here, a separate world “out there” and, separate again, a God “over there” (or not, according to one’s belief) carries on then so will conflict and division. The answer is to look and see and then you will see that that which is observing is also the observed and then there is no division and no need for belief.

  127. Phoenix says:

    This is the context, where a King is involved in ashvamedha ritual. This is where such a advice is given. The very first verse you quoted gives this context , namely **especially at seasons of devotion.**. //

    How does **especially at seasons of devotion.** justify treating apostates/heretics with contempt? Note that their only crime was to abandon the Vedas as stated in the following verse.

    (P.342): “Let therefore a prudent person carefully avoid the conversation, or the contact, and the like, of those heretics who are rendered impure by their desertion of the three Vedas. The ancestral rite, although performed with zeal and faith, pleases neither gods nor progenitors if it be looked upon by apostates”
    ===========
    Now where did I mention these were thieves and murderers. It was an analogy that just like you will not give shelter to such people who can destroy your properties and life, in this context of performing certain religious rituals, you will not give shelter to such heretics who will destroy all the merits of your religious rituals and send you to hell. Again this is all contextual in Hinduism//

    Your false analogy attempted to indelibly link these apostates with socieities worst criminals. And you’ve given no evidence that Hindu scriptures do indeed extend tolerance towards non-believers. All the evidence I’ve seen points to the contrary. Here are just a few more and notice that apostates,atheists, skeptics and heretics includes questioning Vedas.

    Manu 3:161. An epileptic man, who suffers from scrofulous swellings of the glands, one afflicted with white leprosy, an informer, a madman, a blind man, and he who *cavils at the Veda must (all) be avoided.

    Manu 4:163. Let him avoid atheism, *cavilling at the Vedas, contempt of the gods,hatred, want of modesty, pride, anger, and harshness.

    *( cavil = unnecessarry objections)

    Manu 4:30. Let him not honour, even by a greeting, heretics, men who follow forbidden occupations, men who live like cats, rogues, logicians, (arguing against the Veda,) and those who live like herons”

    This verse explicitly forbids giving respect to logicians, because using logic could cause hindus to abandon their faith, as confirmed in the following two verses.

    “Laws of Manu 2:10. But by Sruti (revelation) is meant the Veda, and by Smriti (tradition) the Institutes of the sacred law: those two must not be called into question in any matter, since from those two the sacred law shone forth.
    11. Every twice-born man, who, relying on the Institutes of dialectics, treats with contempt those two sources (of the law), must be cast out by the virtuous, as an atheist and a scorner of the Veda”

  128. why? says:

    Phoenix Says:
    ==============================
    There you have 8 emphatic instructions opposing non-believers and that’s only from a small passage I extracted.
    ==============================

    Everything in context.

    “Let therefore a man carefully avoid the discourse or contact of an unbeliever, **especially at seasons of devotion.** ”

    This is the context, where a King is involved in ashvamedha ritual. This is where such a advice is given. The very first verse you quoted gives this context , namely **especially at seasons of devotion.**.

    Phoenix Says:
    ==============================
    Nice try but there is no mention of thieves and murderers in the passages I cited.
    ===============================

    “These are the unrighteous heretics to whom a man must not give shelter”

    Now where did I mention these were thieves and murderers. It was an analogy that just like you will not give shelter to such people who can destroy your properties and life, in this context of performing certain religious rituals, you will not give shelter to such heretics who will destroy all the merits of your religious rituals and send you to hell. Again this is all contextual in Hinduism.

    In Hinduism sages usually disappear into forests and do religious rituals like fasting, meditation, yajnas (fire rituals) etc. for fear of pollution from heretics and to avoid discourse with heretics. This rule is NOT applicable when one is NOT engaged in such religious rituals.
    ============================================================================
    Your bible calls all unbelievers as EVIL. Obviously you have no answer for this.

    Apparently Ali Sina also has no answer.

    2 Corinthians 6:14:

    Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?

  129. Phoenix says:

    @Ali Sina

    You’ve mentioned the Marcionite sect before. See this debate between a Marcionite and a Judaizer.

    http://www.monio.info/2010/11/06/a-dialogue-between-a-marcionite-and-a-judaizer/

  130. Phoenix says:

    Will you give shelter to a thief or murderer?//

    Nice try but there is no mention of thieves and murderers in the passages I cited. in fact the entire page is dedicated to condemning heretics/unbelievers/atheists/infidels. See for yourself http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/vp/vp092.htm

    Vishnu Purana 3:18 (p.345)…Let therefore a man carefully avoid the discourse or contact of an unbeliever, especially at seasons of devotion,…how much greater need must there be of expiation after encountering one who has wholly abandoned the Vedas? one who is supported by infidels, or who disputes the doctrines of holy writ?Let not a person treat with even the civility of speech, heretics, those who do forbidden acts, pretended saints, scoundrels, sceptics and hypocrites. Intercourse with such iniquitous wretches, even at a distance, all association with schismatics, defiles; let a man therefore carefully avoid them….These are the unrighteous heretics to whom a man must not give shelter, and speaking to whom effaces whatever merit he may that day have obtained. Men, indeed,fall into hell as the consequence of only conversing with those who unprofitably assume the twisted hair, and shaven crown; with those who feed without offering food to gods, spirits, and guests; and those who are excluded from the presentation of cakes, and libations of water, to the manes.”

    I’ll extract the words from this passage which explicitly censure non-believers:
    1) avoid the discourse or contact of an unbeliever”
    2)greater need must there be of expiation after encountering one who has wholly abandoned the Vedas?”
    3)one who is supported by infidels”
    4)or who disputes the doctrines of holy writ?”
    5) Let not a person treat with even the civility of speech, heretics, those who do forbidden acts, pretended saints, scoundrels, sceptics and hypocrites.”
    6) Intercourse with such iniquitous wretches, even at a distance, all association with *schismatics, defiles; let a man therefore carefully avoid them” [*NB: Schismatics are those who create a split in a religion]
    7) .These are the unrighteous heretics to whom a man must not give shelter”
    8) Men, indeed,fall into hell as the consequence of only conversing with those who unprofitably assume the twisted hair, and shaven crown; with those who feed without offering food to gods…”

    There you have 8 emphatic instructions opposing non-believers and that’s only from a small passage I extracted.

  131. Ron says:

    watch this video
    Dead 2 Hours, visits Heaven! – Dean Braxton

  132. Steve says:

    Phoenix
    “I’ll leave it at that, as you gave me nothing new to evaluate without having to repeat myself. I’ve learnt to just let go once a discussion goes around in circles.” I think it is you that has nothing to respond with, all your arguments are fallacies or nonsense. 1)Red herring, talking about dualism and other irrelevant things. 2) Claiming their was a paradox when even the likes of William lane Craig admits their is no paradox. 3) Claiming I was straw manning when I said God creates evil and evil people, no it’s not a straw man as God is believed to be the creator of all things. 4) Claiming that our cognitive faculties are unreliable and we can’t observe when other people suffering. Ignoring the fact that not being able to observe other people’s mental states is a mental illness, why did God equip us with unreliable cognitive faculties that give us a false appearance of suffering when in reality they are not suffering? Why did the perfect being who is all loving do that? This is a new argument so you should try to answer it.

    +Why
    “how can demons or others choose evil even out of their free will when they are “intrinsically good”? This is a logical contradiction.” Yes he doesn’t realise that the free will defence doesn’t do anything to answer this problem. No doubt he would say something like “If they can’t choose to do evil that violates their free will”, however that reply is covered by the fact they *could* choose to do evil but (given their “all good” nature) they won’t choose to do it (which is different from saying they *cannot* choose to do it). Also he hasn’t answered why God created demons and evil people in the first place (as well as natural disasters and terror attacks) and why he doesn’t destroy or banish satan and the demons. Ali Sina don’t say earthquakes, bullets and bombs have free will as the free will defence has been refuted by myself and Why. (And saying nature and everything in it such as tornadoes, bullets and bombs have free will is a truly bizarre claim anyway, in any case the free will defence has been refuted.)

  133. why? says:

    Phoenix says:
    ==============================================
    Vishnu Purana 3:18 (p.343)In consequence of the fault committed by Śatadhanu, by speaking to an infidel when he was engaged in a solemn fast, he was born again as a dog”

    Vishnu Purana 3:18 (p.345)…These are the unrighteous heretics to whom a man must not give shelter,

    As you can see per the above passages, one should not speak to infidels, nor treat heretics and sceptics with civility, nor provide them with shelter. These acts are not based on the golden rule. They are no different than Islamic tribalism.
    ===============================================

    The verse talks about when one is engaged in religious rituals and spiritual practices, one should NOT talk or associate with unbelievers who revile Vedas. It also talks about NOT giving shelter to unrighteous heretics. Will you give shelter to a thief or murderer? I find nothing wrong in these verses. Besides, it is NOT a commandment to follow for Hindus, it is a recommendation for those who do certain rituals to avoid sins.

    It is your bible which has verses which calls all unbelievers as outright evil. Where is the golden rule here?

    2 Corinthians 6:14:

    Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?

  134. why? says:

    ALi Sina Says:
    ==============================
    You are right. The Old Testament describes a god that is very much different from the God of Jesus. This discrepancy was noted by Marcion of Sinope an important leader in early Christianity.
    ==============================

    Based on what? What was Marcion’s criteria for this conclusion and your criteria for agreeing with Marcion in this respect? This fellow was born perhaps 2 centuries after the alleged “incarnation” of our “god”.

    All you have got is some NDE experiences, which you cherry pick just like you cherry pick verses from bible.

    The new testament verse clearly says that “your lord” clearly agrees to yahway or jehovah of Moses as his “god”. Give me a convincing evidence as to why I should NOT take numerous references by your “lord” to jehova of OT as his “god”.

    EVIDENCE THAT MR. LORD OF YOURS BELIEVED IN GOD OF OT and that he believed literally in OT stories

    EXPLICIT STATEMENTS OF BELIEF IN OT GOD, moses, abraham, etc.

    Mark 12:26 `And concerning the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the Book of Moses (at The Bush), how God spake to him, saying, I [am] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;

    Matthew 12:40 (NASB95)

    40 for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth

    Matthew 24:37–38 (NASB95)

    37 “For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.

    38 “For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,

    Matthew 23:35 (NASB95)

    35 so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

    What criteria you have to reject these statements of your lord?

  135. why? says:

    Ali Sina Says:
    ====================
    “Yes demons are fractals of God and were created good. They chose rebellion and evil through the faculty of their free will.”
    ====================

    That is a typical illogical argument I hear from Christians.

    A robot is neither good nor bad. They do what they are programmed to do. So they cannot be defined as good or bad, just like nature behaves as per certain laws (gravitational law, conservation of energy or momentum etc.).

    If demons were created intrinsically good, why did they chose rebellion? An intrinsically good being will chose good out of their own free-will.

    You believe your “god” is intrinsically good and you believe that your “god” always chooses good and does good out of his (your god’s) own free-will.

    You also claim “God does not possess any quality that He has not bestowed on humans or animals.”

    So by your logic, if your “god” invested all spirits with “intrinsically good qualities” just like your god’s qualities (a “god” who chooses good always even out of his free-will as he is “intrinsically good”) how can demons or others choose evil even out of their free will when they are “intrinsically good”? This is a logical contradiction.

    When I questioned “Where did evil come from?”, it was rhetorical to make you think about your logically contradicting propositions. However it is clear tat you do not get it at all.

    You say “Evil comes from lack of love”. Again, when your god and everything in nature is fractal (implying they are all “intrinsically good” just like your “god) of your “god”, how can there be lack of love? You say because of free-will.

    Sorry, free-will does is NOT sufficient answer for evil to exist.

    If an “intrinsically good” being chooses evil out of its free-will and propagates evil, then what good is it to call that being “intrinsically good”? It is mere label with no real meaning and in reality such a being is either evil or mixture of good and evil.

    Ali Sina, you are merely BSing around with no real argument. I hope you get it.

    Again your “god” is a clear example of logical contradiction and cannot exist or your “god” is a mixture of good and evil, just like your previous x-god allah you used to worship. You have merely changed label of the “god” you worship.

    Ali Sina Says:
    ====================
    God does not contain both good and evil as Muslims and Hindus believes.
    ====================

    Please, do not just make assertive statements. You have to prove it logically. From what I have seen, you are a confused individual with no clear concepts. You should learn about Hinduism before making concrete statements on it.

    Only in Hinduism’s framework, is it possible to NOT associate God with any evil. You have NOT provided any logical counter argument as to why destruction is necessarily only evil.

    You also make an unfounded claim that even nature is evil. It is NOT a conscious entity to subscribe moral evil to nature. If by some bizarre theory you claim nature is also conscious or that it develops intelligence, then your “god” who created nature which is mixture of good and evil is also similarly evil or mixture of good and evil. The same argument which I gave for the first quote stands valid here as well.

  136. Phoenix says:

    After this destruction will start in them and they will dissolve into its primordial matter (Which are three different types of particle claimed by Hindu Satva, Raj & Tama/ I think Scientist say them God Particle) from which this bodily universe made.//

    i seriously doubt there could be even anything close to resembling a Higgs Boson mentioned in hindu scriptures. The Vedas and Puranas could barely give an accurate account of the observant macro-world, how would they be able to describe the more complex and invisible (to the naked eye) subatomic world? There are way too many scientific errors in the “authoritative” Vedas.
    ====
    Why Can not be this present life we got like family, nation, parents, culture is result of our previous life actions? Are you promoting theory of Karma of Hindus?//

    Karma per hinduism is egregiously false. It is firstly not centred around the golden rule but rather centered around the unjust caste system. According to vishnu puranas, it is bad karma to speak to an infidel and you could return as a dog in your next life.

    “Vishnu Purana 3:18 (p.343)In consequence of the fault committed by Śatadhanu, by speaking to an infidel when he was engaged in a solemn fast, he was born again as a dog”

    Vishnu Purana 3:18 (p.345)…Let therefore a man carefully avoid the discourse or contact of an unbeliever, especially at seasons of devotion,…one who is supported by infidels, or who disputes the doctrines of holy writ?Let not a person treat with even the civility of speech, heretics, those who do forbidden acts, pretended saints, scoundrels, sceptics and hypocrites. Intercourse with such iniquitous wretches, even at a distance, all association with schismatics, defiles; let a man therefore carefully avoid them….These are the unrighteous heretics to whom a man must not give shelter, and speaking to whom effaces whatever merit he may that day have obtained…Men, indeed,fall into hell as the consequence of only conversing with those who unprofitably assume the twisted hair,”

    As you can see per the above passages, one should not speak to infidels, nor treat heretics and sceptics with civility, nor provide them with shelter. These acts are not based on the golden rule. They are no different than Islamic tribalism.

  137. Phoenix says:

    Steve,

    I’ll leave it at that, as you gave me nothing new to evaluate without having to repeat myself. I’ve learnt to just let go once a discussion goes around in circles.

  138. Darknile says:

    I forgot to mention, one of the perceived aspects of Hell is that all who commit their souls to evil and wickedness is that they will be blessed to be in the presence of “God” for a moment during judgment, (Including Satan and it’s ilk.) just to know what they intentionally turned away.

    One person once said, part of being doomed to “Hell” that you will always be able to see “Heaven” and what you had the chance to obtain but will never be able to reach it. Yeah, I’m sure something like that could easily cause some serious wailing and gnashing of teeth and cursing of being mislead by the evil ones.

  139. Darknile says:

    Having experience all manner of things in my life, I have to agree Ali Sina that there is so much going on in the universe, planes/dimensions etc, than we can ultimately comprehend. I must correct you on one thing, Satan and others like it’s ilk do not “reside” nor do they “rule” Hell. That is their prison and punishment for rebelling against Love, Joy, and all that is Good. Having been blessed to have temporarily be in the presence of “God” or whatever divine being it was has opened my mind to just how amazingly infinite and fantastic our actual reality really is. I wouldn’t say that black magic “exists”, its just that some people have been either foolish or mostly ignorant enough to play around with malevolent entities and spirits without knowing what it may cost them in the long run. Whatever the cost is, malevolent entities revel in the foolishness and results of those individuals choices. An odd statement about types of Extraterrestrial beings, mentioned one very violent and aggressive species/race that uses, “Black Magic” as their religious background and have an undeniable air of malevolence about them.

    Just my perspective, but after all the information and life experiences I’ve had over my measly 38 years of life, I’ve come to the conclusion of the following. 1. Extraterrestrial and inter-dimensional life does exist, 2. “God” or an ultimately divine being does exist… maybe on another dimension or I’m gathering to be the ULTIMATE plane of existence/dimension “Heaven”. With that theory, “Hell” is a dimension this entity formed to leave all the malevolent and evil spirits, entities away from it to their own devices which obviously leads to their own misery and possible destruction. 3. Being blessed as a living thinking being, our “spirits” are only being housed temporarily by our bodies.

    Just another theory, but the meaning of “life” is only to continuously develop and improve our “spirits” until we can finally join “God” in their ultimate plane of existence. Our physical bodies continually die and our spirit can be housed in a new physical body, until finally when our spiritual existence have evolved enough in the “right direction” that we no longer will die, but will find ourselves in “Heaven” with the Divine.

    From my own personal experience, the Christian bible states that “God is Love”. And when I was allowed for a brief moment to be in the presence of “God” I can only describe 2 things, First imagine how much your mother loved you or whichever relative you’ve felt most loved by, and multiply that times infinity.

    I felt Love x the Infinite which is overbearing in my current state, and I felt so completely undeserving of such Love that I completely prostrated myself in it’s presence and only got to see it’s “face/s” for 2 seconds. And on top of that while I was not able to look up, I was able lift my head enough to look in front and to the sides of me and I saw many other “people” prostate in it’s presence. When I say prostate, I mean literally on my hands and knees with my forehead to the ground. That is what “God” is. Love, Joy, Purity, and all that is Good you could ever imagine. When you walk in it’s light, you can sense what is wrong, evil, and corrupt without a second glance.

  140. Steve says:

    Ali Sina
    “Yes demons are fractals of God and were created good. They chose rebellion and evil through the faculty of their free will. This is as much true as for humans as it is for demons.” So let see what you said 1) God is all good. 2)Because God is all good he will not choose evil given his nature as “all good” for example he won’t lie. 3)Humans and “spiritual entities” are copies of God, or as bible says humans are created in Gods image. 4) Since they are copies of God it means humans are “all Good”, so then how do beings which are “all good” choose to do evil?

    “God has no control over what people,demons or angels do.” This contradicts your belief that God is all powerful.
    “Some choose to serve Him and some choose to rebel against Him.” What didn’t God (since he is omnipotent, (which also means he must be omniscient) only create beings he knew would freely choose to serve him? And why did he create beings he knew would rebel against him and who he knew he would have to send to hell for all eternity?
    “Evil comes from lack of love. Since God is described as love, you can say that evil exists where God does not exist. When you don’t have love you don’t care about others. The only remedy to evil is love. With love you can’t do evil. ” Yes but where did it come from? 1)God is all powerful 2)God is all loving 3) God is perfect 4)God is the Creator of all things. So where did evil come from then if not from God?
    “Nature is also a fractal of God and like all God’s fractals it is free and consequently imperfect.” How can nature be imperfect? God creates everything, and God is perfect and a perfect being cannot create something which is imperfect. And don’t say free will as I answered that. For example let’s imagine I am on a diet let’s also imagine I am perfect like God and will always make the best choice and won’t mess my diet up. So It follows logically that I will always choose to eat the most healthiest food. Likewise God and everything he makes (like nature, humans and so on) since their nature is all good, it logically follows they will only ever choose to do the good YET they don’t. This is a massive problem for you and your doctrine.
    “Take the example of life or intelligence. There is no starting point for the emergence of these faculties in matter. They appear gradual as the matter become more structured and more organized.” Yes their is only change but the form changes for example a boy becomes a man. That is a process of change but “boy” and “man” are two different things with different identities, despite the fact you cannot find a absolute starting point of when the boy became a man.

  141. Ali Sina says:

    @Truth Seeker

    “Why Can not be this present life we got like family, nation, parents, culture is result of our previous life actions?”

    It is possible. One thing is certain that we are much older than we think. Since we are uncreated we are eternal like our heavenly father from whom we originate.

    We have come to this world many times to experience it differently. It is possible that in one life you come as an abusing husband and in the other life you come as an abused wife.

    This should not be considered as reward and punishment but as experience. So if I cheat and steal from someone in this life, I will choose to come back next time as a victim to experience how it feels to be on the other side of the abuse. I need that experience without which I cannot learn my lesson and cannot grow. Once we learn all the lessons in this world we graduate to never come back. The lessons to be learned are love, compassion, forgiveness, sympathy, honesty, devotion, patience, etc. These lessons can only be learned through tribulations.

    We have to have all human experience needed so we can fully understand life on Earth – how it feels to suffer, to suffer discrimination, to be abused, to be poor and hungry. We don’t have any recollection of our past lives but we accumulate all the experiences until we learn what it takes to be a human. That is how we can develop love and empathy, because when we see others suffering, we know that we have been there too.

  142. Ali Sina says:

    @Why

    “By the way do you know that bible itself says that God creates evil. The favorite book you cherry pick also says God creates evil and darkness. “

    You are right. The Old Testament describes a god that is very much different from the God of Jesus. This discrepancy was noted by Marcion of Sinope an important leader in early Christianity.

    Marcion rejected Yahweh, the deity described in the Hebrew Scriptures and affirmed the Father of Christ is the true God. While he was denounced by the Church fathers as heretic, I am more or less in agreement with Marcion in the sense that I believe Old Testament is a book of fables and its god is not the God of Jesus or the one near death experiencers describe.

    I am not rejecting the entirely of the Old Testament. This book indeed contains gems of truth and as I often say is a goldmine of divine wisdom. Yet like any gold mine it has more dirt than gold and it would be a mistake to take everything in that book as verbatim word of God.

    Marcion had a great role in the development of the New Testament and noticing the discrepancy between the vengeful god of the Old Testament and the one described by Jesus, concluded that these two gods are incompatible and hence developed a ditheistic system of belief around the yeas 144 AD that postulated two gods – a higher transcendent one and a lower world creator and ruler.

    While I am not a ditheist I am very much in agreement with Marcion that the God of Jesus is not the same vengeful deity of the Old Testament. I actually don’t believe that Yahweh ever existed and if he did he was/is a lower spirit created by God.

    Now, Christians may denounce me as heretic. But my faith in Jesus and in God is not based on the Bible, a book that I believe is responsible for the disbelief of many otherwise sincere and good people. My faith derives on the testimonies of thousands of people who had NDE, met God and Jesus in person and many of them also do not believe in much of the Bible.

    Had Marcion succeeded we would have had a very different Christianity today and most likely the Old Testament would not be part of our faith. I don’t know why Marcion’s teachings became heresies while the doctrine of the Church Fathers where accepted as true. But one thing I know and that is the Church has been under the control of Satan since its early days.

    The following is from Wikipedia

    “Marcion declared that Christianity was in complete discontinuity with Judaism and entirely opposed to the Tanach (Hebrew Bible). Marcion did not claim that the Jewish scriptures were false. Instead, Marcion asserted that they were to be read in an absolutely literal manner, thereby developing an understanding that Yahweh was not the same god spoken of by Jesus. For example, Marcion argued that the Genesis account of Yahweh walking through the Garden of Eden asking where Adam was, had proved Yahweh inhabited a physical body and was without universal knowledge (omniscience), attributes wholly incompatible with the Heavenly Father professed by Jesus.

    According to Marcion, the god of the Greek Old Testament, whom he called the Demiurge, the creator of the material universe, is a jealous tribal deity of the Jews, whose law represents legalistic reciprocal justice and who punishes mankind for its sins through suffering and death. Contrastingly, the god that Jesus professed is an altogether different being, a universal god of compassion and love who looks upon humanity with benevolence and mercy. Marcion also produced his Antitheses contrasting the Demiurge of the Old Testament with the Heavenly Father of the New Testament.

    Marcion held Jesus to be the son of the Heavenly Father but understood the incarnation in a docetic manner, i.e. that Jesus’ body was only an imitation of a material body, and consequently denied Jesus’ physical and bodily birth, death, and resurrection.”

    Important note: I don’t know who is this Jibus you are talking about. My Lord is called Jesus. If you want to talk about your Jibus, please take your discussion elsewhere. You will be ignored if you talk about your favorite friend. I don’t know who the hell is your Jibus and I am not interested to talk about him.

  143. Ali Sina says:

    @Why

    Yes demons are fractals of God and were created good. They chose rebellion and evil through the faculty of their free will. This is as much true as for humans as it is for demons.

    Machines have not free will. So if you invent a robot that does harm it is entirely your fault. But soul are free. You can raise a child providing everything for him to become a good person and teach him the love of God. But you have no control over his decisions and he may choose to become a thief, a murderer or a Muslim terrorist. God has no control over what people, demons or angels do. Some choose to serve Him and some choose to rebel against Him.

    “Where did evil come from?’

    Evil comes from lack of love. Since God is described as love, you can say that evil exists where God does not exist. When you don’t have love you don’t care about others. The only remedy to evil is love. With love you can’t do evil.

    God does not contain both good and evil as Muslims and Hindus believes. Nature contains both good and evil. Nature gives birth and sustains life and it destroys. It is in constant revolution and evolution and is in harmony. But God is not nature. Nature is also a fractal of God and like all God’s fractals it is free and consequently imperfect. God “creates” nothing without bestowing on it His freedom. Even electrons are free. The level of freedom in electrons is so basic that we can hardly call it free. Yet it is the freedom of electrons that give rise to diversity in matter and this universe. As matter grows in complexity it acquires more freedom and more existence.

    Take the example of life or intelligence. There is no starting point for the emergence of these faculties in matter. They appear gradual as the matter become more structured and more organized.

  144. Truth Seeker says:

    @Ali Sina

    What is wrong to say (God of destruction) as “Why” Said below. Do you believe this universe earth, sun, planets, stars will remain eternally? Even scientist also affirm earth, sun, and all other bodies in universe have a age (life time/ usage time). After this destruction will start in them and they will dissolve into its primordial matter (Which are three different types of particle claimed by Hindu Satva, Raj & Tama/ I think Scientist say them God Particle) from which this bodily universe made.

    Why said :

    “When you have an old dilapidated building, destruction of this building is necessary and leads to construction of a new building. When you have cancerous cells, destruction of these cells is necessary for patients’ health. Similarly, destruction of old body of souls or death of old people creates relief for those souls from the pain and diseases of worn out old body. Similarly destruction can take place at different scales (even at Universal level) and in Hinduism God is destroyer of Universe and creator of new Universe, just like souls leave old torn out bodies and accept new bodies at rebirth. Destruction (destruction in Hinduism is NOT annihilation) is NOT necessarily evil or bad.”

  145. Truth Seeker says:

    @Ali Sina
    You said if we are here to grow spiritually by developing in ourself Godly attributes like love, compassion, forgiveness, courage, non-hatred with our fellow beings and even with animals. Only then acquiring these we can enter in the kingdom of God. God wants to see his image in ourselves. If we develop in our self exact opposite of Godly attributes like selfishness, hatred, ruthlessness, cruelty, we do not get entry in God’s kingdom but in kingdom of shaitan because we have developed in our self attributes of Shaitan. So, we deserve kingdom of Shaitan. Our this life action, behaviors, attitude will decide our future life. Why Can not be this present life we got like family, nation, parents, culture is result of our previous life actions? Are you promoting theory of Karma of Hindus?

  146. why? says:

    Ali Sina Says:
    =====================================================================
    Some philosophies and religions describe God as both good and evil, He is the God of live and death, of creation and of destruction. They are describing a different God not the God from whom we derive.
    =====================================================================

    I know you are taking a dig at my religion Ali Sina.

    When you have an old dilapidated building, destruction of this building is necessary and leads to construction of a new building. When you have cancerous cells, destruction of these cells is necessary for patients’ health. Similarly, destruction of old body of souls or death of old people creates relief for those souls from the pain and diseases of worn out old body. Similarly destruction can take place at different scales (even at Universal level) and in Hinduism God is destroyer of Universe and creator of new Universe, just like souls leave old torn out bodies and accept new bodies at rebirth. Destruction (destruction in Hinduism is NOT annihilation) is NOT necessarily evil or bad.

    By the way do you know that bible itself says that God creates evil. The favorite book you cherry pick also says God creates evil and darkness.

    Yeshayahu- Isaiah – Chapter 45:7

    Who forms light and creates darkness, Who makes peace and creates evil; I am the Lord, Who makes all these.

    Rashi’s commentary:

    Who forms light: for the righteous.

    and creates darkness: for Babylon, and the same applies to “Who makes peace and creates evil.”

    Amos – Chapter 3:6

    Will a shophar be sounded in the city and the people not quake? Will there be evil in the city if the Lord has not done it?

    Mishlei – Proverbs – Chapter 16

    The Lord made everything for His praise-even the wicked man for the day of evil.

    Rashi’s commentary:

    The Lord made everything for His praise: Heb. למענהו. He made everything for His praise, as in (Ps. 147:7): “Praise (ענו) the Lord with thanksgiving.” Another explanation: To testify concerning Him. That is to say that His work testifies concerning Him, about His mighty acts. Both are in the Aggadah of Psalms (Midrash Tehillim 19:1).

    even the wicked man: He made, to leave him for the day of evil. All this is for His praise.

    ===========================================

    CLEARLY AS PER THE LAST QUOTED VERSE, BIBLE GOD HAS MADE EVERYTHING, INCLUDING THE WICKED AND EVIL PEOPLE, KNOWING FULLY WELL THAT A WICKED PERSON WILL CREATE EVIL ON A PARTICULAR DAY.

    DOES ANYBODY NEED ANY MORE PROOF THAT AS PER BIBLE AND JEEBUS, WHETHER EVIL OR GOOD, ALL COME FROM THE SAME BIBLICAL GOD JUST AS ALLAH CLAIMS FROM QURAN.

    Further the verses cited above says, any evil in any city is also due to this biblical god.

    Now lets see what Jews say about their god according to OT.

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0007_0_07647.html
    =quote==================================
    In a monotheistic world view, a persistent problem is to account for the existence of evil in its many forms – natural catastrophes, pain and anguish in human life, moral evil, and sin. These facts must be fitted somehow within the design of the Creator as it is realized in the course of human history.

    First there is the issue of the existence of evil itself. The rabbis insisted that as good derives from God so, ultimately, does evil. This insistence was intended to discount any implications of duality, the idea of a separate deity from whom evil springs being complete anathema to the rabbis, who even say, “Man should bless God for the evil which occurs in the same way that he blesses Him for the good” (Ber. 33b). The same antidualistic motif is contained in the verse, “I am the Lord, there is none else; I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil” (Isa. 45:6–7).
    =====end quote=============================

    Luke 20:37 Young’s Literal Translation (YLT)

    37 `And that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the Bush, since he doth call the Lord, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;

    I think that settles it. The god of jeebus whom jeebus himself mentioned as “the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” is none other than the god of old testament and IS CLEARLY NO DIFFERENT THAN ALLAH. JUST LUKE ALLAH, ALL EVIL AND GOOD ARE FROM OT GOD TOO.

  147. why? says:

    Ali Sina Points:
    ============================================================
    1. God created all the spirits from his own being. Everything that is alive has a soul and all souls are from God. We are His fractals and like Him we are free, All souls are free.

    2. Satan is was also created free.

    3. “Yes that is my understanding. God does not possess any quality that He has not bestowed on humans or animals.”

    4. “Yes God is the very embodiment of goodness. There is no evil in Him, no shadow, no deceit, no eventfulness, He is pure love. That is what people who met him say. They say God is the very essence of God. He is not someone who loves. He is love. ” (answer to the question “is God intrinsically good”)

    5. All the evil exists outside God. If you belong to God no evil can touch you. Evil can destroy your body but your soul remains bathed in the love of God.
    ============================================================

    Since God created all spirits from His own essential being as per point 1,

    whose essential being is all good as per point 4

    and God has also bestowed all of His qualities in humans or animals (I assume Satan/demons as well here as satan/demons are also fractals)

    Conclusion is all spirits are intrinsically good?

    If Satan/demons/humans/all spirits were created intrinsically good (fractals) just like God is intrinsically good, then where did evil come from?

    Ali Sina, your “god” is logically impossible and hence imaginary or at the least you are wrong about your “god” and he is NOT all good, but evil as well.

  148. Steve says:

    Ali Sina
    “Demons are not more powerful” 1)How do you know? and 2) Why hasn’t God destroyed or banished them then if he is more powerful than them?

    “This world is really a play ground.” So people worshipping demons and gaining supernatural ability to use to unleash evil on the world is just “play” then and no big deal?

  149. Ali Sina says:

    @ Steve,
    Demons are not more powerful. The fact is that they only use humans do do their bidding and so does God. Humans are free to choose one or the other.
    In regards to natural calamities they are calamities for the survivors. This world is really a play ground. People who die get out of the game but no one really dies. Some get to come back if their work is not done.

  150. Steve says:

    Ali Sina

    “Yes God can do things that are impossible for man.” So it should be possible for a being which can do “impossible things” to intervene to prevent evil people from committing their crimes as well as natural disasters happening, while he is their he could also destroy or banish all the demons and satan, yet for some reason the morally perfect being choices not to do any of this.

    “However, it is logical to say that if God gave us freedom he has no say in the choices that we make. If he stops us making our choices then we are not free.” If God stops a bomb going of or an earthquake this is not violating anybody’s free will.

    “Demons give power to those who accept them as masters and commit crimes in their names.” The point is, is that satan and the demons seem to have at least roughly the same amount of power as “God” (and maybe are even more powerful). E.g magicians with supernatural powers, inventing false religions and philosophies, helping bring evil people like Hitler to power etc, so how is God, God if their are beings which are just as powerful if not more so than him?

  151. Lizzie says:

    Black magic as practised by witches is very real. You won’t hear much about this as they are very secretive about what they do.
    They can and do cast spells which can make you very ill. They also send oppressions(demons at night designed to give you diseases such as cancer and dementia). They will deny this if challenged and make out you have mental health problems. This is part of their strategy.
    I have members of a coven in my own family and have suffered at their hands.
    These people do not necessarily gain riches from their satan worship but are intrinsically evil and like to harm others.
    I consider Islam demonic and believe that far from speaking to the Angel Gabriel Mohammed learned the Koran and his craft from a satanic emissary.
    If the fruits of Islam are murder,oppression,bloodshed,pedophillia,cruelty and harm how can this possibly be from God? How can muslims justify Mohammed,his evil life and the wickedness of many of the hadiths?

  152. Ali Sina says:

    @Dr H RJ

    “One thing is certain that u r from THE GOD.”

    Aren’t we all? Every soul is from God. There is no other source. The problem is some of us have turned our back to Him. God makes no distinction between his creatures. We are all divine because we carry the spirit of God within us. All we need to do is recognize our divine origin and return to Him.

  153. Ali Sina says:

    @Steve
    “But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

    Yes God can do things that are impossible for man. Not only God, as you can see in the video I posted above, even magicians can do things that are impossible to do for us.

    But these things are only impossible as long as we are trapped in the material world. The other worlds have different laws. The laws of the other world override the laws of this world. Once we leave this world we can do the same things.

    But God cannot do is the absurd. 2+2= 5 is absurd. The truth is that since we do not know about the other worlds and the laws governing them we don’t know what is possible and what is not.

    However, it is logical to say that if God gave us freedom he has no say in the choices that we make. If he stops us making our choices then we are not free. This is logical and we can agree with it even when we do not know the laws governing the other worlds.

    Jesus turned water into wine, walked on water, multiplied fish. These things are impossible without a spiritual power. It happens that several magicians are now replicating what Jesus did. It is because both Jesus and these magicians made use of the laws of the other world to override the laws of physics. This proves that there is a spiritual world that succeeds this world.

    The difference is that Jesus used the powers of the other world to heal and to save mankind. Demons and their agents use the same power to deceive. They use the same powers for very different aims.

    The Bible does not deny that demonic forces have spiritual powers and can do marvels and deceive. It talks about the power of the magicians serving at the court of Pharaoh who could transform a stick into a snake. We should not be dazzled if by those who can use spiritual forces. They could be helped by demons. Demons give power to those who accept them as masters and commit crimes in their names.

    A book of magics called PanParadox by Vixor says in its introduction.

    “This book is a black link to one’s dark subconsciousness. The bewitched texts in this book are partly intended to wake the black flame of Lucifer, your enraged flame n your spiritual inner. This is black Chaos magical knowledge and some parts may suggest criminal deeds. No criminal acts which are explained in this book are recommended. And I, the author, Vexior, take no responsibilities for the readers’ development, nor any deeds and actions. [PanParadox by Vixior]

    Another book of magic says “On this Path there is a point of termination whee those who travel the night may nt return. This is the path of absolute darkness. It is of utter selfishness and leaves no room for the comforts of humanity. This is the path of the Black Adept.” [Mark Alan Smith The Red Knight p. 10]

    One can use any power for good or for evil. You can use your physical power to save someone or to kill someone. You can use your intellectual power to invent things that would make the life easier or to destroy lives. Jesus and demons used the same spiritual power available to all spirits but for very different goals. Ye shall know them by their fruits.

  154. Steve says:

    +Phoenix
    “Your argument generally consists of an anthropomorphic fallacy. You are assigning qualities and duties to God which are exclusively reserved for humans. ” According to Christians their God is a God of love – a loving father no less.

    “Also, you admit that humans can and do prevent crime, so why should God interfere with an already operational system?” Yep limited humans have ways to prevent crime which works at least some of the time but yet – the all loving, all knowing, all powerful creator doesn’t do anything at all to stop it.

    “Well I’ve shown you the paradox still exists since your argument relies on a source that’s incompatible with Materialism.’ You haven’t shown any paradox – now matter how much you repeat it.

    “Newsflash! Psychology is not an empirical science. If you wish to include psychology as a moral authority then it will only serve to validate dualism. Cognitive Behavorial Therapy is one way in which psychology implicates a dualistic approach.” What? I gave a definition of what a evil person is – that’s all. You are bringing up more red herrings dualism and such things have nothing whatsoever to do with this subject about a good/loving God and suffering and evil.

    “No, God does not create evil people or evil for that matter. I don’t know where you get this. This is a strawman.” God = the creator of all things (which includes all the suffering, all the natural disasters and all the evil people). If you don’t believe that then how is he/she/it God?

    “When you witness evil it is only because you already have a preconceived notion of what entails evil. ” Yes the person and their behaviour that we observe fits into the definition of “evil”. Just like if we observe a “man” it is because he fits into the definition of “man”.

    “Here’s a thought to ponder on: If evil is measured through the sense and when a deaf-blind (someone who is deaf and blind) man does not see or hear an evil act occuring then according to your reasoning it was not evil, because he was unable to measure it.” If I am deaf and blind I cannot measure or observe whether the people that pass me in the street are men or women but that doesn’t mean that men and women don’t exist.

    “You’re mistaking God with a policeman. Preventing and detecting crime is the job of our police, it’s what they signed up for not God. The “sky daddy” perjorative is also a straw man which no serious dualist promotes.” If a loving father (which is what the Christians say their God is) knows his children are suffering and does nothing is he a good and loving father? Of course not and that is exactly what your God does – and he is supposed to be all loving, source of all goodness, all powerful and all the rest of it.

    “Well you have failed to demonstrate how suffering is objective. That is, every experience that one person calls suffering’ applies to everyone else. This must be data from a scietific study of course.” Unless you believe in solipsism, (which is a insane position) then suffering is just as objective as is say a persons biological sex.

    “Okay then why don’t you share that data with us. Clearly you know something the rest of us don’t” The data is all the observable evidence for it. For example how do we determine a person hair colour? Isn’t it by observing? Likewise we know when other are suffering or happy by observing them. For example how do you know that this cat is angry? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1hPxGmTGarM Isn’t it by observation? Do you have Aspergers or something?

  155. Ali Sina says:

    @Why

    “Is God intrinsically good?’

    Yes God is the very embodiment of goodness. There is no evil in Him, no shadow, no deceit, no eventfulness, He is pure love. That is what people who met him say. They say God is the very essence of God. He is not someone who loves. He is love.

    All the evil exists outside God. If you belong to God no evil can touch you. Evil can destroy your body but your soul remains bathed in the love of God.

    Some philosophies and religions describe God as both good and evil, He is the God of live and death, of creation and of destruction. They are describing a different God not the God from whom we derive.

    “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” James 1:17

  156. Phoenix says:

    @Steve

    Tomorrow’s Good Friday, I’ll be too busy to be on the web. I’ll continue the discussion on Saturday

  157. Phoenix says:

    You are not making any sense “evil” (my definition which I gave at the start of this message) does exist//

    I’ve also explained above why psychology does not validate Philosophical Materialsm. Empricism is the foundational principle of Philosophical Materialists. Psychology is not a natural science, so your definition is a failure.
    ===
    The police and intelligence agencies stop criminals from committing crimes but they are not violating anybody’s free will, likewise God could do the same – but again chooses not to//

    Your argument generally consists of an anthropomorphic fallacy. You are assigning qualities and duties to God which are exclusively reserved for humans. Also, you admit that humans can and do prevent crime, so why should God interfere with an already operational system?
    ====
    You see that, even Craig agrees on that point and here you are making up some bull about some paradox which doesn’t exist.//

    Well I’ve shown you the paradox still exists since your argument relies on a source that’s incompatible with Materialism.

  158. Phoenix says:

    That’s how Christians may define it however this is the definition I am using (from psychology today) “Evil’ people are those who are unable to empathise with others.//

    Newsflash! Psychology is not an empirical science. If you wish to include psychology as a moral authority then it will only serve to validate dualism. Cognitive Behavorial Therapy is one way in which psychology implicates a dualistic approach.
    ===
    Remember your God (in your belief) created all the evil people AND all the natural disasters as well//

    Your argument contains something similar to a loaded question. No, God does not create evil people or evil for that matter. I don’t know where you get this. This is a strawman.
    ===
    We measure or observe through our senses//

    When you witness evil it is only because you already have a preconceived notion of what entails evil. The senses is not the benchmark, the ability to recognize evil presupposes an already existing principle. This is principle is what I’m searching for from you. Where did you derive it from? Your senses? That’s circular reasoning.
    Here’s a thought to ponder on: If evil is measured through the sense and when a deaf-blind (someone who is deaf and blind) man does not see or hear an evil act occuring then according to your reasoning it was not evil, because he was unable to measure it.
    ====
    Yep so if the Belgium intelligence agencies knew that terrorist attack was going to happen and choose to do absolutely F**k all to stop it, I guess they can say “who said its our duty to stop terror attacks?”. I am guessing you wouldn’t accept that response from them, so why should I accept that response from your God (the supposed all loving, all powerful father in the sky)?//

    You’re mistaking God with a policeman. Preventing and detecting crime is the job of our police, it’s what they signed up for not God. The “sky daddy” perjorative is also a straw man which no serious dualist promotes.
    ===
    People suffering is not subjective, it’s clear you don’t know what your talking about here//

    Well you have failed to demonstrate how suffering is objective. That is, every experience that one person calls suffering’ applies to everyone else. This must be data from a scietific study of course.
    ===
    No it’s a real observable thing, just like intelligence, height, weight, health and so on, it’s not a “human construct”//

    OK, then why don’t you share this data with us. Clearly you’re in possession of something which the rest of us don’t have. For example, I know that shoe size is generally proportional to the person’s height, which has a metric system. And I know that weight is the force of gravity on an object (w=mg). Tell me what system do you use to measure evil and what is the equation to convert evil into good.

  159. Dr H RJ says:

    Thank u sir for ur reply.Thanks again that u cleared it promptly sir.one thing is certain that u r from THE GOD.

  160. Steve says:

    Phoenix
    “Evil can be defined as the violation of a moral law.” That’s how Christians may define it however this is the definition I am using (from psychology today) “Evil’ people are those who are unable to empathise with others. As a result, their own needs and desires are of paramount importance. They are selfish, self-absorbed and narcissistic. In fact, other people only have value for them to the extent that they can help them satisfy their own desires, or to which they can exploit them. This applies to dictators like Stalin and Hitler, and to serial killers and rapists – I would argue that their primary characteristics is an inability to empathise with others. They can’t sense other people’s emotions or their suffering, can’t see the world from other people’s perspective, have no sense of their rights. Other human beings are just objects to them, which is what makes their brutality and cruelty possible.”

    “Who or what exactly is the evil perpertrator here? When someone suffers from hunger or a mental illness since birth, is that evil? If so, who is the cause of this “evil”?” If a person created another human being – knowing they would suffer – then that person would fit into the definition of evil (given above). This is exactly what the Christian God does – creates people who he knows will suffer and cause others to suffer. Remember your God (in your belief) created all the evil people AND all the natural disasters as well.

    “And what instrument do you use to measure evil?” We measure or observe through our senses.

    “Who said its God’s duty to dismantle bombs? Why should God be responsible for someone else’s choices. God cannot violate anyones free will, even those of terrorists.” Yep so if the Belgium intelligence agencies knew that terrorist attack was going to happen and choose to do absolutely F**k all to stop it, I guess they can say “who said its our duty to stop terror attacks?”. I am guessing you wouldn’t accept that response from them, so why should I accept that response from your God (the supposed all loving, all powerful father in the sky)?

    “1) Whatever is subjective is not real
    2) Evil is subjective
    C) Therefore Evil is not real” People suffering is not subjective, it’s clear you don’t know what your talking about here.

    ” Evil is subjective because it is a human construct according to Atheists” No it’s a real observable thing, just like intelligence, height, weight, health and so on, it’s not a “human construct”.

    “But your conclusion regarding evil states it does not exist, hence the paradox.” You are not making any sense “evil” (my definition which I gave at the start of this message) does exist.

    “I understand why the free will concept eludes you, since you’re a materialist who accepts determisnism as the axiom for all existence” I’ll repeat what I said to Ali Sina “The police and intelligence agencies stop criminals from committing crimes but they are not violating anybody’s free will, likewise God could do the same – but again chooses not to.”

    “There’s no red herring involved. You must first get out of the paradox you’re in” There is no paradox, it is just something that you have made up. Interestingly even William Lane Craig agrees, in his debate with Stephan Law this’s was said at some point (this is from memory so not an exact quote).” Law: I can be a moral nihilist and still run this argument, I don’t even need to buy into the concept of evil, all I have to do is observe all the suffering in the world and that this observation is incompatible with the existence of an all loving, all powerful creator God. Craig: Granted. ” You see that, even Craig agrees on that point and here you are making up some bull about some paradox which doesn’t exist.

  161. Phoenix says:

    Evil means suffering very clearly defined//

    I don’t know which dictionary you’re using but you should go and get your money back. Evil can be defined as the violation of a moral law. Suffering is defined as undergoing physical or mental pain or a hardship.
    In your world when someone experiences pain such as an injury in sport – it’s because the opponents are evil or because the sport is evil? Who or what exactly is the evil perpertrator here? When someone suffers from hunger or a mental illness since birth, is that evil? If so, who is the cause of this “evil”?
    ====
    We observe “evil” just like we can measure height or weight or intelligence or any other thing we can observe and measure. You are speaking nonsense to try to explain away why your God allows suffering and evil people to exist//

    And what instrument do you use to measure evil?
    ====
    The free will defence doesn’t answer anything for example God could have made it so that the bombs in the terrorist attack in Belgium the other day didn’t go of, this would not have violated anybody’s free will and all those people would not have been blown to bits. Yet God – the perfectly good being – chose to do nothing//

    Who said its God’s duty to dismantle bombs? Why should God be responsible for someone else’s choices. God cannot violate anyones free will, even those of terrorists.
    ===
    You haven’t shown any paradox.//

    Ok, I’ll state it clearer here:

    1) Whatever is subjective is not real
    2) Evil is subjective
    C) Therefore Evil is not real

    I believe you have declared premise 1 to be the case on my blog. It is a given for most Atheists. Premise 2: Evil is subjective because it is a human construct according to Atheists. Being a human construct means it has a beginning and an end. The conclusion follows logically from the premises. Now from this conclusion you you assert that God does not exist because evil exists. But your conclusion regarding evil states it does not exist, hence the paradox.
    ===
    God is aware and does nothing right?//

    I understand why the free will concept eludes you, since you’re a materialist who accepts determisnism as the axiom for all existence.
    ===
    Answer this and don’t try to get out of it with red herrings//

    There’s no red herring involved. You must first get out of the paradox you’re in

  162. Steve says:

    Ali Sina
    “We are spirit beings, not created by God but his fractals. A cell in your body contains all your DNA. So your entire body exists in each and every cell in you. That is is the meaning of the fractal. The whole exists in each minute part.” If we are copies of God how come we are all different? Also how can people choose evil and the demons exist if they are copies of God and God supposedly is all good and will only ever choose to do good things (given his status as the perfectly good being)?

    “We are like his copies. You can copy something at infinitum and that thing will not diminish.” So humans are also Gods then and even satan and his demons? In that case what is special about your “god” then if their are (just on this planet) billions of gods? Indeed it seems you believe satan and his demons have at least as much power as “God” and maybe even more power than him, how he is he God if satan and the demons have at least as much power as him?

    “Let me make an example. Suppose you are a great programmer. You write a piece of software, the best and the most amazing. Not even you can use that software for a purpose other than what it is created for. And even you who are its author will not be able to make it work if you change a comma in it.” If I create a simulated universe and I control and made all the laws and wrote every piece of information in that universe. I can create What ever I want or intervene whether I like for example if I saw millions of people was about to die as a result of a huge earthquake, I could simple press a button which would stop the earthquake from happening. Your God could also do that but he choices not to – even though he is supposed to be all good, and views humans as his children who he loves.

    ” If God stops us doing evil then we are no longer free” The police and intelligence agencies stop criminals from committing crimes but they are not violating anybody’s free will, likewise God could do the same – but again chooses not to.

  163. Steve says:

    Ali Sina
    “It depends on your definition of omnipotence. If by omnipotent you mean doing the impossible then of course God cannot do the impossible. 2+2=4. Any other outcome would be impossible and God cannot change that. God cannot do something absurd.” Your view contradicts the bible (which you say believe in)

    Isaiah 46:10-11 – “I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.’ From the east I summon a bird of prey; from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose. What I have said, that I will bring about; what I have planned, that I will do.”

    Isaiah 44:24 – “This is what the LORD says— your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself.”

    Romans 4:17 – “As it is written: ‘I have made you a father of many nations.’ He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not.”

    Hebrews 1:3 – “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.”

    “But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26)

    Luke 1:37 “For nothing will be impossible with God.”

  164. Steve says:

    Phoenix
    ” is what you are saying despite the fact that evil is not clearly defined in your epistemology.” Evil means suffering very clearly defined.

    “You have no absolute yardstick to measure evil with, yet God, as you insist cannot exist in the face of your presumption.” We observe “evil” just like we can measure height or weight or intelligence or any other thing we can observe and measure. You are speaking nonsense to try to explain away why your God allows suffering and evil people to exist.

    “But to answer your question, yes, God does have sufficient reasons for allowing evil to take place and one of them is Fee Will.” The free will defence doesn’t answer anything for example God could have made it so that the bombs in the terrorist attack in Belgium the other day didn’t go of, this would not have violated anybody’s free will and all those people would not have been blown to bits. Yet God – the perfectly good being – chose to do nothing.

    “Steve, I’ve already pointed out your paradox” You haven’t shown any paradox.

    “In a sense yes, God is aware of every evil and God is consciousness.” God is aware and does nothing right?

    “Let me rephrase that:
    What exactly are your moral principles, WHAT MAKES THEM MORAL, how did you derive them, are they consistent with your overall materialist worldview (i.e., all knowledge is sensory derived and proven empirically) and are they “a one size fit all or do they only apply to Steve?” And let me repeat what I said before , “the atheist doesn’t even have to believe in “absolute moral law” all they have to do is observe all the evil, hate, sadism suffering etc and that this observation is incompatible with the existence and character of the Christian God (all powerful, all loving etc).” Answer this and don’t try to get out of it with red herrings

  165. why? says:

    Ali Sina Says:
    ============================================================
    “Yes that is my understanding. God does not possess any quality that He has not bestowed on humans or animals.”
    ============================================================

    Is God intrinsically good?

  166. Phoenix says:

    Let me rephrase that:

    What exactly are your moral principles, WHAT MAKES THEM MORAL, how did you derive them, are they consistent with your overall materialist worldview (i.e., all knowledge is sensory derived and proven empirically) and are they “a one size fit all or do they only apply to Steve?

    Go ahead show us your work !

  167. Phoenix says:

    Steve

    “I am not interested this answer is just an excuse from Craig so he doesn’t have to admit his God doesn’t exist and in an attempt to make sure his God cannot be disproven”

    Your premise is based on a paradox. “Because evil exists therefore God cannot exist.” is what you are saying despite the fact that evil is not clearly defined in your epistemology. You have no absolute yardstick to measure evil with, yet God, as you insist cannot exist in the face of your presumption. But to answer your question, yes, God does have sufficient reasons for allowing evil to take place and one of them is Fee Will.

    “This is a red herring in this context, the atheist doesn’t even have to believe in “absolute moral law” all they have to do is observe all the evil, hate, sadism suffering etc and that this observation is incompatible with the existence and character of the Christian God (all powerful, all loving etc)”

    Steve, I’ve already pointed out your paradox. Your entire argument fails prima facie. Go ahead and show us what exactly your moral principles are, how you derived them and are they a one size fits all or do they only apply to you? You cannot make moral judgements if your worldview promotes subjective morals.

    “So where evil is, God is not, which means he cannot be omnipresent.”

    In a sense yes, God is aware of every evil and God is consciousness.

  168. Ali Sina says:

    @Why
    No God did not create our spirits. I only used the colloquial terminology when I said God created our spirit. I had already explained that we are fractals, copies, pieces of God and not His artifacts.

    “So all the essential qualities (intrinsic properties) of God, exists in each spirit. Am i right? ”

    Yes that is my understanding. God does not possess any quality that He has not bestowed on humans or animals.

  169. Ali Sina says:

    @Steve

    You said,
    “As to why God allows demons (and of course humans) to commit evil acts depends on who you ask, if you ask Ali Sina in his version of Christianity God is not omnipotent so can’t do anything about it anyway (which raises the question of how such a being can be God). “

    It depends on your definition of omnipotence. If by omnipotent you mean doing the impossible then of course God cannot do the impossible. 2+2=4. Any other outcome would be impossible and God cannot change that. God cannot do something absurd.

    Just as this world is run by precise physical laws, the other worlds that are invisible to us also are controlled by laws. Those world are made of different substances and abide by different laws. God is omnipotent because He knows all these worlds and all their laws. But He cannot violate them.

    Let me make an example. Suppose you are a great programmer. You write a piece of software, the best and the most amazing. Not even you can use that software for a purpose other than what it is created for. And even you who are its author will not be able to make it work if you change a comma in it.

    God is the author of this universe and we are His co-creators. Neither God nor we can violate the laws that run the universe.

    Since we are like God, we are like him free. If God stops us doing evil then we are no longer free. That cannot be because we are God’s fractals. We are like him. The cells in your body carry your DNA. If you change the DNA in your cells then you are no longer you. If God takes away our freedom we would no longer be his fractals or like him. God did not want to create robots. He wanted free creatures so He can love and they can love Him.

    Even if one day humans create the most sophisticated robot, we can never establish the kind of relationship we have with other humans and with our pets. God wants a relationship with us. He cannot have relationship with automatons. God does not want mindless slaves. God wants lovers.

    Our body is 50% from our mother and 50% from our father. But our soul is 100% from God. Our soul is God’s child. We resemble our heavenly father 100%. He cannot take away our freedom any more than you can change your DNA and still claim to be the child of your parents.

    Only we can stop evil and God has sent all the guidance we need to do it.

  170. why? says:

    Ali Sina says:
    ====================================================
    @Why?

    God created all the spirits from his own being.

    @Steve,

    We are spirit beings, not created by God but his fractals.
    =====================================================

    Are spirits created or not Ali? Consistency is not your thing I guess.

    Ali Sina says:
    ====================================================
    A cell in your body contains all your DNA. So your entire body exists in each and every cell in you. That is is the meaning of the fractal. The whole exists in each minute part.
    ====================================================

    So all the essential qualities (intrinsic properties) of God, exists in each spirit. Am i right?

    Ali Sina says:
    ====================================================
    Of course I do not believe in Pantheism. I am not suggesting that God is the sum of all things. No matter how many souls part from God He remains intact and perfect. We are like his copies. You can copy something at infinitum and that thing will not diminish.
    ====================================================

    So you are essentially following Penenthesim in some form.

  171. Ali Sina says:

    @Steve,

    We are spirit beings, not created by God but his fractals. A cell in your body contains all your DNA. So your entire body exists in each and every cell in you. That is is the meaning of the fractal. The whole exists in each minute part.

    Of course I do not believe in Pantheism. I am not suggesting that God is the sum of all things. No matter how many souls part from God He remains intact and perfect. We are like his copies. You can copy something at infinitum and that thing will not diminish.

    What is created is our body. This body and this physical universe is the creation of the collective consciousness of all conscientious souls. We are in total control. We can even change our DNA. We are changing everything through science. But science is the invention of our conscious mind. So we are creators.

    Now, when I say our freedom is an illusion I am talking about a very different subject. As I said I do not understand this well and it is a source of confusion for me. I do not really what to pontificate on things that I do not understand. From the little that I understand it appears to me that while we chose to come to this world freely somebody uses our emotional energy for his own benefit. I wish I know more about this. However, I have come to think, and I could be totally wrong, that when we generate love and kindness we provide emotional energy for good spirits maybe even for God and when we generate hate, anger and other negative feelings, we provide subsistence for evil spirits.

    There are passages in the NT that seem to confirm my understanding. For example Jesus said when we love others we love God and when we hurt someone we hurt God. Does this mean that God nurishes the emotional energy that we generate?

    People who have had NDE invariably say that the purpose of creation is love. God wanted to love someone so he created spirits from his own self and gave them total freedom so He can love them and they can love him.

    Anyway I am not suggesting that anyone should believe anything I say. Maybe these answers are not for us to know until we go back to Home.

  172. why? says:

    Ali Says,

    “God created all the spirits from his own being. We are His fractals and like Him we are free, All souls are free.”

    =======================================

    Your sentences are very vague and ambiguous?

    When you say “from his own being” and “We are His fractals” what do you mean?

    Are we made from His own essence? By fractals do you mean patterns of our behavior matching God’ behavior. A fractal or pattern matches across scales…

  173. Ali Sina says:

    @A.H.

    Yes. After reading and watching the testimonies of hundreds of people with NDE I had no choice but to accept God and Jesus as His son.

    I was not really looking to believe in God. I was left with no choice. One thing i pride myself with is that I strive to be fair and not obstinately reject things that are contrary to my views. The belief in God and in Jesus were contrary to everything i believed. But because i was fair I could not reject them.

    I did not go searching for Jesus. He came searching for me. I don’t know why. I believe he saw in me sincerity and because I loved God’s creatures, humans and animals. So even when i had turned my back to God, He did not turn His back to me.

    If you are sincere and if you have love in your heart God will come after you, whether you care to know Him or not. He will not leave His own abandoned in the wilderness.

    I do not suggest anyone to accept Christ. But i suggest be kind, loving and be fair. If you do that, God will leave His 100 sheep to come and rescue you. He does not ignore a single lost sheep. He cares for each and everyone of us with a love that you’d think He only loves you.

  174. Ali Sina says:

    @Why?

    I really had decided to ignore your comments. But I will answer this question. I read it only because it was very short and will answer it.

    God created all the spirits from his own being. Everything that is alive has a soul and all souls are from God. We are His fractals and like Him we are free, All souls are free.

    If we are free it means that God has no control over what we do. Either we are in control of our thoughts or God. It can’t be both.

    Satan is was also created free. Muhammad the liar said angels have are not free and will only do what God says, like robots. That is not true. Even mosquitoes are free. Even amebae are free.

    Just as some of humans choose to disobey God and instead of love hate on another, Satan chose to disobey God. he created his own kingdom and went against God. That is what freedom is about and you can do the same if you chose so.

    Contrary to common belief God is not in charge of everything. He put us in charge. We are co-creators. God has an organization made of angels and humans. You can choose to work for God or work of Satan.

    When you love others you work for God and when you promote hate and violence you work for Satan. .

  175. Ali Sina says:

    @Dr H RJ

    You are right. Christians committed many atrocities. Were they following the teachings of Christ?

    In my opinion the Vatican Church became and instrument of the devil from the early on. It is even today an institution that is controlled by the Devil. While many Catholics are very devout and spiritual people, the Church is far from it. This Pope in particular is working for the anti Christ.

    Jesus who sat with all sorts so sinners and loved all people without exception had no tolerance for the Pharisees. He called them a brood of vipers because they misled people in the name of God. Islam is worse than that and Vatican has no scruples to promote ecumenical conferences with Muslims. The Pope visits mosques, takes off his shoes as the sign of respect and kisses the Quran. All this is blasphemy. Islam is from Satan. I don’t think he does this out of ignorance. The Catholic church as been used by Satan for centuries. Do not blame Christ for what the Church does. If there is one group of people that Jesus hate are people who deceive mankind in the name of God.

  176. Ron says:

    I was given the below explanation by some Christians who are doing missions work and I have no reason to distrust them.

    God created angels (spirit beings with free will) and humans (spirit with soul and body and free will).
    The spirit beings who rebelled against God (Bible says 1/3 of them and they are in multitudes) became demons. These are the ones some of which are familial are used by sorcerers, occultists, shamans, pagans etc to achieve their black magical feats or superhuman feats.

    God has given free will and never takes it back from his creation. If you create a robot and program it to say “I love you”. It doesn’t love you (nor hate you) but it is not saying I love you out of its own free will.
    But if you adopt an orphan or look after a destitute and that human says they love you then it is out of free will they love you. To worship and love God it has to be free will otherwise there is no real love nor worship. The good angels are worshipping the triune God (God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit) who are three in one and true Christians worship and believe in this God.

    You can achieve temporal fame, success, wealth etc through making yourself as slave and making a pact with these fallen angels (demons) and ending up in eternal Hell or you can accept Jesus as your personal Saviour and worship this true triune God and you may or may not have fame, success, wealth on earth but surely you will have compassion on the poor, needy, destitute, sick, orphans, old and those in prison and the unsaved and have a burden for praying for them. You will also end up in Heaven in afterlife.

    Also many people who started in the occult initially thought that they were the ones controlling the spirits but later on they were being controlled by the evil spirits.

    In most parts of Africa the local population are afraid of the shamans/witchdoctors but surprisingly the witchdoctors are afraid of evangelist pastors/priests and missionaries who preach in the name of Jesus.

    I am surprised that Ali Sina learned about the above so fast.

    Watch this testimony

  177. Steve says:

    +Phoenix
    “Why do want to know what the reasons are that God permit evil to take place?” I am not interested this answer is just an excuse from Craig so he doesn’t have to admit his God doesn’t exist and in an attempt to make sure his God cannot be disproven.

    “There is no absolute moral law in Philosophical Materialism, so there cannot be any absolute evil.” This is a red herring in this context, the atheist doesn’t even have to believe in “absolute moral law” all they have to do is observe all the evil, hate, sadism suffering etc and that this observation is incompatible with the existence and character of the Christian God (all powerful, all loving etc).

    “If God is absolute good then evil is opposite and the absence of God.” So where evil is, God is not, which means he cannot be omnipresent.

    +Why
    “He is a confused individual and is afraid he would be caught contradicting himself or making illogical statements.” Certainly, I already caught him contradicting himself in this article about free will.

  178. Phoenix says:

    Steve

    Why do want to know what the reasons are that God permit evil to take place? There are first of all no universal and objective Atheist moral principles, the closest is the Darwinian “survival of the fittest”, under which all behavior which benefits my survival is acceptable. There is no objective evil in your world, there is only what suits my needs at any particular moment in time.

    There is no absolute moral law in Philosophical Materialism, so there cannot be any absolute evil.

    If God is absolute good then evil is opposite and the absence of God.

    If morality is a mere human construct then it is relative and its value depends on our opinions. Which is exactly what Atheists promote.

  179. why? says:

    Steve,

    I understand what you say. However, I am doubtful if Ali Sina will answer this question himself. He is a confused individual and is afraid he would be caught contradicting himself or making illogical statements.

    A.H. Says about Catholic belief:
    ===================================
    “The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing.”

    This “fall” consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign.

    Scripture witnesses to the disastrous influence of the one Jesus calls “a murderer from the beginning”, who would even try to divert Jesus from the mission received from his Father.
    ===================================

    In a matter of 2-3 points, the Church has managed to contradict itself one after another.

    1. Church claims that devil and other demons were created “naturally good” by God, but somehow they became evil by their own doing.

    Why would a “naturally good (I assume intrinsically good)” being chose to do evil? This is a logical contradiction.

    Did they become evil after doing evil act or before doing evil act?

    If they became evil after doing evil act, why did they do the first evil act being created “naturally good”?

    If they became evil first before doing evil act, why did they become evil first being created “naturally good”?

    If you claim they simultaneously became evil while doing evil act, how did evil suddenly come into existence being created “naturally good”?

    2. How could a being created “naturally (intrinsically) good” chose evil? How did evil enter into a being created “naturally good”? This is a logical contradiction.

    3. If jeebus called devil as a “a murderer from the beginning” implying murderer from the moment of its creation, then it logically contradicts the position that God created devil “naturally good”.

    Christianity is full of logical contradictions.

  180. Phoenix says:

    These videos are really interesting, they’re causing me to re-evaluate my current paradigms and precepts.

    Here’s another interesting one:

  181. Steve says:

    +Why
    “Who created demons in your belief?” According to Ali Sina people create themselves and have this mysterious “free will”, (even though he contradicts himself in this article and says “our freedom is an illusion”). Presumably he believes demons just like humans have free will and created themselves. As to why God allows demons (and of course humans) to commit evil acts depends on who you ask, if you ask Ali Sina in his version of Christianity God is not omnipotent so can’t do anything about it anyway (which raises the question of how such a being can be God). If you ask an apologist for mainstream Christianity like William lane Craig (who Phoenix mentioned) his reply is that God has “sufficient reasons” for allowing evil beings and evil acts to exist, though he never gets round to explaining what these “reasons” are.

  182. A..H. says:

    ” I also became a Christian thanks to these stories”

    Do I understand you well that afterreading of these stories you declared yourself a Christian?

  183. A.H. says:

    “who created demons in your belief”

    Of course Ali can speak for himself.

    But the Catechism of the Catechism of the Catholic Church about this issue reads:

    II. THE FALL OF THE ANGELS

    391 Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy.266 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called “Satan” or the “devil”.267 The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: “The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing.”268

    392 Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels.269 This “fall” consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter’s words to our first parents: “You will be like God.”270 The devil “has sinned from the beginning”; he is “a liar and the father of lies”.271

    393 It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels’ sin unforgivable. “There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death.”272

    394 Scripture witnesses to the disastrous influence of the one Jesus calls “a murderer from the beginning”, who would even try to divert Jesus from the mission received from his Father.273 “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.”274 In its consequences the gravest of these works was the mendacious seduction that led man to disobey God.

    395 The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God’s reign. Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries – of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature – to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but “we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him.”275

  184. why? says:

    Ali,

    Who created demons in your belief?

  185. Dr H RJ says:

    Ali’s sir Thanks to u for unfolding truth,I liked u r wisdom,reading for 2years.sir but it seems u changing from.FREEFAITH humanitarian-humanist to Jesus lover to Christian faith.Jesus may be non historic but the christ s character is lovable, but what about massacre ofnon believers by the fanatic christian,intra sect genocide(protestant,anglican,orthodox recent one of Armenian genocide s only because of faith).Extermination of numerous great cultures eg Red Indians,Torture of great scientist by Vatican ..Inhumane Inquisition (Goan by Loyola,st Francis) with sanctification by pope.PerhapsThey r more cruel,more cunning than ur original faith.At least clear separation of Jesus and Theocratic institution is expected from a brave,sincere man like u,ifI am not correct plz guide me and likewise ,thank u

  186. Phoenix says:

    Ali Sina,

    May I recommend you take a look at some of William Lane Craig’s writings and read some of the debates he has had with Atheists. His articles could be invaluble for you, as he is currently one of the most respected and renowned Christian philosophers of this generation. This could aid you in understanding the typical arguments Atheists use to attempt to debunk God and the methods used to analyze and expose their fallacies.

    http://www.reasonablefaith.org/william-lane-craig

  187. Ali Sina says:

    @Truthseeker,

    I learned about Hell and demons from NDE. I admit that the whole concept was extremely difficult to swallow. The very thought that a loving God has also a vengeful side that would even burn people who did not believe in him was so absurd. If God is pure love then how could he have also operate a lake of fire for souls. These two claims just don’t add up. Either God is pure love or He is vengeful and ruthless.

    I had to read about 1000 storeis of NDE and watch hundreds of videos to finally understand this. And when I understood it I realized Jesus had already explained it. How could I read it and not get it?

    Yes Hell is real and so are demons. But God does not send anyone to hell. People choose to go to hell and as Jesus said this pains God. Some people who met God felt His pain. That is the only thing that pains God. He did not make Hell and He does not send anyone to Hell. God made us free just like Himself and He cannot take that freedom away. We can choose to go to Heaven or to Hell depending on our actions.

    Some people choose to hate God. I had a very good friend a very smart woman who dedicated her life to debunking Christ. When she learned I accepted Jesus she cut her ties with me and our friendship ended. I did my best to reach out to her but her last words to me were “I want my old Ali back.” She passed away and I pray for her soul. But she was hostile to God. Now I hope God will overlook her hostility and will accept her in His kingdom. But He can’t force anyone. If you don’t love God and don’t want to go to His house, no one can force you.

    Now, I actually don’t think God really cares whether we believe in Him or not. I read testimonies of many atheists who said they went to heaven and were loved with a kind of love that they had not known. On the other hand many people who claimed to be Christians went to Hell. The reason is that God does not care about what we profess with our mouths. He wants us to show our love to Him by loving others. The only question asked is “what did you do for your fellow human?”

    The above video is further evidence of the supernatural. No, I did not see these demonic magicians personally, but to deny these videos is nothing short of obstinacy.

    I did not believe in demons through demonic magician but they give us undeniable evidence that supernatural exists.

  188. Walter Sieruk says:

    In a matter of interest,in the New International Vision translation of the Bible in the Book of Revelation in 21:8. In gives a list of those who will not be allowed to enter heaven. One of the people who will tragically ,instant of going to heaven, will be thrown into the Lake of Fire. Will be “those who practice magic arts.” That’s something that’s very important to think about.

  189. Truth Seeker says:

    @Ali Sina

    I like to ask

    Whatever you wrote about black magic is based on you tube Video or you have seen with your own eyes then believed there was no trick but completely powers got by doing spells and rituals surrendered to specific demonic force.

  190. Uthaman says:

    No one born as a Muslim correctly interprets truths about Islam like you Ali Sina. Satan is looking to destroy this world using Islam. I find it is impossible to convince muslims about satanic conspiracy behind Islam. If we try, they are all getting filled with anger and hatred.

  191. Ron says:

    Even, for some time when I had not ready any holy books of any religion I felt that Islam was not a bad religion though I felt that religion was for the weak and the opium of the masses as Marx said.

    I felt that magic was just hidden science and black magic was hocus pocus, mumbo jumbo and nothing else.

    Its only when I suddenly over a period of time went on meeting or bumping into converts (converts to Christianity) whom I considered naive and foolish but who were on fire for Christ I was amazed.

    I was amazed that accepting Christ had given them so much of boldness, compassion and readiness to take the burden and pray for others and help others physically and financially and prayerfully when they themselves were in doldrums. I just felt that I need to have that transformation by the Holy Spirit and get Jesus into my life.

    In my travels, I met people who had dabbled into the occult then being slaves into it and leading a horrendous life.

    Ali Sina speaks wisdom and I believe that people like madifjan et al should read these articles.

    May the peace of Christ be with all of us

  192. keithellerby says:

    Great article, Ali Sina always makes me think and question my beliefs. Thank you.

  193. sammy says:

    Excellent evaluation Ali,for someone who used to be a Muslim, it is admirable you have been able to break free from the dark indoctrination of your birth, into the light of Jesus.
    On the matter of black magic, I have also come to the realisation that these so called “magicians” who profit from peoples ignorance, have somehow “tapped” into the demonic force energy which allows them to deceive for wordly goods.
    It is to be hoped that they realise before it is too late what they are doing for the future of their souls. They need our prayers to be sure.

  194. Ajay says:

    Whenever I read Ali Sina, I think he is addressing me because these were the doubts in my mind too for a long time.

%d bloggers like this: