+!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 🙂

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.

+!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.

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.

@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.

@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.

=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.

!+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.

Correcting a typo

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

Should have read “alternative”

!+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 🙂

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.

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.

@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?

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 🙂

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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

@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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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]”

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

@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.”

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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”

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.

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.

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.

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**.”

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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”

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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),***

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.

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.

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

@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

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.

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?

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.

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.)

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?

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.

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.

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.

@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.

resting

@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?

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.

@ 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.

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?

@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.

@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

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.

Thank u sir for ur reply.Thanks again that u cleared it promptly sir.one thing is certain that u r from THE GOD.

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

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.”

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?

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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

+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.

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.

+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.

“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

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

@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.

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

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.