How good is good enough to get to Heaven?

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Hell is an aweful word
What kind of God would send someone to hell ?
Realy when you think about it ....
God created the dna that controls the bad person , its half his fault at least that his dna mechanism sometimes goes faulty and people turn bad , they didnt mean to turn bad , it just happens .
So God imho should be reasonable about it .
I think at worst HELL is the 500 Quadrillion years of nothingness we felt prior to our births.
Not God like to send someone to hell as we know it

 

[1robin]

1 The suffering of one makes the whole exercise worthless .

That is philosophically incoherent. Then all of reality is pointless which is exactly the case if God is dismissed.

2 You claimed there is a standard one must adhere to , and that the individual I mentioned failed miserably ! When in reality she did more of Gods work in a single day than you or I will ever do in a life time.

What I said is the standard will not be met by anyone. The Bible Mother Theresa believed in says:
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
Meaning me, you, and even she completely failed. The standard is perfection as God is perfect. We can never achieve this but Christ did. When we are born again his perfect record is legally applied to us and our imperfect record is applied to him and was dealt with on the cross. I am still faulty but legally righteous and can enter heaven.
I will certainly agree she was a great women and better than me and most but she would be the first to tell you (and she did) that she relied on Christ not her merit to get to heaven.

And yes as i have witnessed the suffering of one i will reject heaven.

So you are assuming a false optimality that God is not responsible to meet and by virtue of this invented and arbitrary standard plucked from thin air you reject the one possible source for a future reckoning and an ending to the suffering our actions cause, but instead you blame on God. That is the worst case of cutting off your nose to spite your face I am aware of and the most pessimistic and irrational thing I have ever heard of. You are literally putting out all the other candles as well as the only eternal candle because your candle flickered. Mother Theresa never built what she did with this thinking. She overcame problems and did not invent false optimalities nothing even should meet in a world with faulty humans running it but she did not give up and that is why almost the whole world has heard of her but not of you.

 

[1robin]

Robin, Hindus don't 'hide' their religion.

I do not think I ever said they did. I think you are confusing a hypothetical with a literal in my claims.

The fact that we don't try to conquer other nations and force our religion and laws onto others doesn't mean we stop people from learning about our culture and beliefs.

Not this again. Please review what I have said about this earlier in this thread. The vast majority of Christian missionaries healed the sick, dug the wells, and suffered a lifetime of misery and oppression to bring light where darkness of false theology rules. They had no guns and no armies. Do not confuse what the Gold hungry Cortez or Pizzaro did with Christianity even though they did stop ignorant savages from cutting each other’s hearts out by the thousands per day.

You will find that there are non-Indian Hindus like myself all over the world and that there is plenty of evidence to show that Hinduism existed in other parts of the world a long time ago.

That was not really the point. My point was that the greatest universality of a religion is consistent with it being from a true and loving God. My religion or my covenant within a much older religion is far younger than Hinduism but is present in all nations and even converted the world's greatest empires who attempted to wipe out Christianity for good. Mine has a much more consistent with an actual God than Hinduism does historically IMO.

I already said my piece about the caste system. If you want to learn more, please feel free to ask the Hindus on this forum. The Hindu group here at RF are made of those from a variety of Hindu denominations and yet not a single one will argue that caste system is integral to Hinduism or that it has any scriptural basis.

That is a bold claim. I got my understanding from two experts on Hinduism from India and are world renounced scholars. No mere poster on a site by himself will or should convince me these experts are wrong. One of them Ravi Zacharias has the highest of credentials and attempted suicide based on the emptiness and confusion he found in Hinduism.

All will argue that it is purely a cultural phenomenon that has existed for a particular period of time, just as social hierarchies have existed in other nations for various periods of time, and that it will doubtlessly cease to exist one day while Hindu religion carries on.

I will agree that there is probably more going on than Hinduism in the caste system however there is any easy way to illustrate the difference. My very competent scholars claim otherwise but let's pretend Hinduism and the caste system had nothing to do with each other. Why did the people at the bottom rung flee to Christianity and not Hinduism to escape that system? Hindus actually left Hinduism for Christianity to escape the caste system, why if not connected? That is even considering that the protégées missionaries at the time were very harsh and not the more common gentle missionaries in other places.

Otherwise, thank you for accepting my choice to end our debate. Perhaps in future we can create a new thread to debate in instead of derailing an existing one.

Sorry, please put this debate ending statements at the beginning not the end of your posts. By the time I get to the end I have typed more than I am willing to erase.

 

[1robin]

Hell is an aweful word

What kind of God would send someone to hell?

The word Hell is composed of 4 letters that have no power to depress. It is the concept not he word that is tough to handle. The word it's self does not even appear in the Bible's original language. God sends no one to Hell. He even suffered unimaginable pain and misery to keep anyone from going there. Hell was made for the demons and Satan. However if you neglect so great a gift then you choose to go to the one place God does not exist on purpose.

Really when you think about it ....
God created the DNA that controls the bad person , its half his fault at least that his DNA mechanism sometimes goes faulty and people turn bad , they didn’t mean to turn bad , it just happens .

DNA does not make me set off Bomb, gamble all my money away, or cheat on my wife, that's an excuse. Modern moral relativism has rejected accountability and morality as well but is still left with the problem of evil and so uses DNA or anything else handy like society as a scapegoat. DNA might explain why a lion kills a gazelle but it does not explain why a lion would ever want to wipe every gazelle on Earth out as we Humans do at times. Our DNA is very animalistic but our evil is on a whole other level.

So God imho should be reasonable about it .

He is not responsible for any of it yet he did rectify the problem our rebellion created and it is perfectly free. That is not reasonable it is loving.
New International Version (©2011)
how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him.
You are not only neglecting it but contending with it. If God exists and provided the solution at no cost to us but of a very very dear cost to him then what do you think will be the inevitable result of the rejection of it.

I think at worst HELL is the 500 Quadrillion years of nothingness we felt prior to our births.

First you do not recall any of what you describe but you are on the right track. IMO I believe Hell will be the one place God does not exist, non-existence. Hell might be a real but temporary place but I think at some point it and everyone or thing in it is annihilated. He created your soul and gave it to you so that you may choose to dwell with him in contentment forever. Instead we twist and distort that soul until it rebels at its creator and chooses to be independent from it so he grants your wish and eventually takes back the soul. That is perfect justice and more than we deserve.

Not God like to send someone to hell as we know it

Whatever God is our capacity to determine what he should is about the most arrogant and meaningless thought even theoretically possible. An ant would be more justified in telling Newton what calculus should be.

The trees might want to reconsider their choice in representatives. Just kidding.

 

[Madhuri]

Ravi Zacharias grew up in a Christian household, became an atheist at 17 and then tried to commit suicide. I'm not sure why you would consider him an expert on Hinduism.

The fact remains that caste system did not exist in the early days of Hinduism and is not something taught in the actual scriptures. My point earlier was that just as many atrocities committed in the name of Christianity are not based in scripture, the caste system is exactly the same.

I personally do not think that you know much about Hindu beliefs. And I also think that how you and I judge whether something is valid/true is very different. I don't see your reasoning as evidence of truth.

I think it's obvious I can't resist replying to you. If you like, we can start a debate elsewhere?

 

[Sumit]

Ravi Zacharias grew up in a Christian household, became an atheist at 17 and then tried to commit suicide. I'm not sure why you would consider him an expert on Hinduism.

Ravi Zacharias has poor knowledge of Hinduism. As Robin again and again stated his name on posts so I read his book "Jesus among other gods" but this books shows he don't even know basics of Hinduism.

 

[LuisDantas]

I realize this is a diverse board but I think we can all agree that we are all sinners to varying degrees.

Sorry to disappoint you then. I don't personally use the concept of sin, and I suppose my conception of Heaven is significantly different from yours as well (it does not involve an afterlife, much less a discrimination due to merit).

The Pure Lands are not attained due to personal merit, nor would they make sense if that were the case. They are a precious conquest, a gift, that is attained by skill. Often enough not our own skill.

If Heaven is real then God must have some standard of imperfection that one must meet if they are to reach the pearly gates or else we are all destined to burn. What is that standard?

I don't believe that there is a God who chooses people to either burn (forever?) or live in bliss for any criteria. That would involve very difficult contradictions, particularly if the same God were also supposed to have created them and have supreme power over them.

Of course, I don't believe in any God at all, either.

To the extent that I can talk about being in Heaven or Hell, it is because actions and circunstances greatly influence our quality of life, as well as those of others. Likewise, our own environment is created mostly by others. So basically "Hell" is the "chastisement" of those who failed to learn to earn others' cooperation and good will, while "Heaven" is the bliss of being fortunate enough to be among those who love us.

Personal merit only enters the equation indirectly, because skill (not virtue proper) allows one to influence the environment and eventually have it "paying back". But one of the earliest stages of developing that skill is in fact realizing that we can't "leave others behind" without compromising the whole premise.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Sorry to disappoint you then. I don't personally use the concept of sin, and I suppose my conception of Heaven is significantly different from yours as well (it does not involve an afterlife, much less a discrimination due to merit).

The Pure Lands are not attained due to personal merit, nor would they make sense if that were the case. They are a precious conquest, a gift, that is attained by skill. Often enough not our own skill.





I don't believe that there is a God who chooses people to either burn (forever?) or live in bliss for any criteria. That would involve very difficult contradictions, particularly if the same God were also supposed to have created them and have supreme power over them.

Of course, I don't believe in any God at all, either.

To the extent that I can talk about being in Heaven or Hell, it is because actions and circunstances greatly influence our quality of life, as well as those of others. Likewise, our own environment is created mostly by others. So basically "Hell" is the "chastisement" of those who failed to learn to earn others' cooperation and good will, while "Heaven" is the bliss of being fortunate enough to be among those who love us.

Personal merit only enters the equation indirectly, because skill (not virtue proper) allows one to influence the environment and eventually have it "paying back". But one of the earliest stages of developing that skill is in fact realizing that we can't "leave others behind" without compromising the whole premise.

Unless I misinterpret what you're saying, you seem to promote a view of yourself that dwarfs the most "holy" attitude that I've ever see from any Christian. Are you really telling me you've never sinned against anyone much less God? Are you telling me you are a spotless model of human behavior? You can't honestly tell me you believe that... can you?

 

[Madhuri]

Ravi Zacharias has poor knowledge of Hinduism. As Robin again and again stated his name on posts so I read his book "Jesus among other gods" but this books shows he don't even know basics of Hinduism.

Yeah, not surprising.

 

[LuisDantas]

Unless I misinterpret what you're saying, you seem to promote a view of yourself that dwarfs the most "holy" attitude that I've ever see from any Christian.

Is that so?

That would be odd. I neither said nor even hinted anything about my own personal religious merits.

I just said that they are immaterial when it comes to what is generaly meant with heaven and hell.

No specific person's are.

Are you really telling me you've never sinned against anyone much less God?

Why, of course I am. I don't acknowledge the concept of sin as valid, for starters. And I most certainly don't have to fight "sin". Good thing too, since I am busy enough fighting ignorance.

Are you telling me you are a spotless model of human behavior?

Not as such. I just don't bother seeking pointless guilt.

You can't honestly tell me you believe that... can you?

Actually, I can. That would be just about as absurd as believing the opposite, which I have been pressure into doing when I was raised as a nominal Catholic, and later by a confused pair of Kardecist parents (pretty much the only kind of Kardecist practicioners that exists, but I digress).

It is just not possible to reach very useful religious conclusions about me if they are based on the concept of sin.

I suspect I am fairly usual in this respect.

 

[1robin]

Ravi Zacharias grew up in a Christian household, became an atheist at 17 and then tried to commit suicide. I'm not sure why you would consider him an expert on Hinduism.

I guess if Wikipedia says it, it must be true. Wikipedia covers several very important years in about two sentences. I got what I said from Ravi himself on RZIM. His family were Hindus until they converted to Christianity, his ancestors were Hindu Brahmans. In his own words he said that the fact his parents converted so easily was such a shock that it started a downward spiral with the loss of his superficial agreement with Hinduism. Yes later on he gave it up all together and became an atheist. The turmoil that started by his parents conversion, was added to by oppression from his father, and amplified by self-doubt eventually led him to attempt suicide. However according to him the reading of the Bible saved him from death and he later converted.

Atheisms Nightmare Ravi Zacharias

Ravi Zacharias (full name Frederick Antony Ravi Kumar Zacharias, born 1946) is an Indian-born, Canadian-American evangelical Christian philosopher, apologist and evangelist. Zacharias is a descendant of two rich religious traditions, first Hindu priests (of the Nambudiri Brahmin caste), and later as Christian ministers. In one of his lectures, Zacharias asserts that a Swiss-German priest spoke to one of his ancestors about Christianity, and thereafter that branch of the family was converted and the family name was changed from Nambudiri to Zacharias.
Atheisms Nightmare Ravi Zacharias | Atheist-Fools.com



If you disagree with this tell Ravi, that is where I got it from but it does not really matter that much. The important point is he is one of the greatest theological philosophers in history and condemns Hinduism in detail. As for what makes him qualified to do so:

Ravi received his Master of Divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He has also been honored by the conferring of a Doctor of Divinity degree from Houghton College, a Doctor of Laws degree from Asbury College, and a Doctor of Divinity degree from Tyndale College and Seminary, Toronto.

http://www.jesus.org/author-bios/about-ravi-zacharias.html
visiting professor at Wycliffe Hall of Oxford, where he teaches apologetics and evangelism.[4] Zacharias studied as a visiting scholar at Cambridge University and held the chair in Evangelism and Contemporary Thought at Alliance Theological Seminary from 1981 to 1984.[5] Commentator Chuck Colson referred to Zacharias as "the great apologist of our time."[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravi_Zacharias

He has written over 25 books and countless published works. Being from India and having had such a strange experience with Hinduism he has spent much of his time in the study of it and is considered an authority on Hinduism and comparative theology in general.

The fact remains that caste system did not exist in the early days of Hinduism and is not something taught in the actual scriptures. My point earlier was that just as many atrocities committed in the name of Christianity are not based in scripture, the caste system is exactly the same.

I withdraw the claim, but not because it is wrong but because it is impossible to prove. However as I have said Hindus left Hinduism for Christianity for the specific reason of escape from the caste system. BTW Dinesh D’Souza is one of the best sources of this in addition to Ravi. Their actions speak louder than any verse ever could. Given that fact I can't help but think Hinduism at the very least did not offer an alternative to the caste system.

I personally do not think that you know much about Hindu beliefs. And I also think that how you and I judge whether something is valid/true is very different. I don't see your reasoning as evidence of truth.

It is certainly a theology I know less than many. Christianity is my primary and Islam is my secondary and way down the list in 7 or 8 is Hinduism. However it is not from my studies but from the study of the great scholars of which I gave two extraordinary examples as to where I draw my conclusion from.

I think it's obvious I can't resist replying to you. If you like, we can start a debate elsewhere?

I think it the defense of Hinduism you can't resist not my engaging wit. I do not know if I have enough to contribute to justify a thread. I really do not think about Hinduism that much and usually only respond to things. Hindus are not blowing up buildings and marathons so they usually do not attract my attention.
defend with nothing beyond preference and in opposition to all scholarship. I think I have shown in more than enough ways that your beliefs are non-biblical and contrary to textual and historical evidence. That is where my responsibility ends.

 

[1robin]

Ravi Zacharias has poor knowledge of Hinduism. As Robin again and again stated his name on posts so I read his book "Jesus among other gods" but this books shows he don't even know basics of Hinduism.

That is quite absurd. Am I to dismiss the claims of a man with at least 3 earned degrees and many honorary doctorates in the very subjects that would include a thorough knowledge of the faith of the Country and ancestors he grew up with in India and adopt the claim of a poster in a forum who did not provide a single example of what he claims. Ravi has written over 20 scholarly reviewed and praised books and countless published articles. He is requested by Presidents, leaders of Nations (even behind the iron curtain), countless of the world's finest colleges, many programs where scholarly experts on theology are requested, and sits on boards and is a visiting scholar of several prominent colleges (including Oxford and Trinity). What are you credentials?

Atheisms Nightmare Ravi Zacharias
Ravi Zacharias (full name Frederick Antony Ravi Kumar Zacharias, born 1946) is an Indian-born, Canadian-American evangelical Christian philosopher, apologist and evangelist. Zacharias is a descendant of two rich religious traditions, first Hindu priests (of the Nambudiri Brahmin caste), and later as Christian ministers. In one of his lectures, Zacharias asserts that a Swiss-German priest spoke to one of his ancestors about Christianity, and thereafter that branch of the family was converted and the family name was changed from Nambudiri to Zacharias.

Third, the Christian Scriptures are historically outstanding, deserving serious consideration. In several tests the Bible surpasses the Hindu Vedas, and all other books of antiquity, for that matter. One could even say that the history of the Bible is so compelling that to doubt the Bible is to doubt history itself, since it is the most historically verifiable book of all antiquity. The only book more historically verifiable than the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) is the New Testament. Consider the following:

1) More manuscripts exist for the New Testament than for any other of antiquity—5,000 ancient Greek manuscripts, 24,000 in all including other languages. The multiplicity of manuscripts allows for a tremendous research base by which we can test the texts against each other and identify what the originals said.

2) The manuscripts of the New Testament are closer in age to the originals than are any other document of antiquity. All of the originals were written within the time of the contemporaries (eyewitnesses), in the first century A.D., and we currently have parts of manuscript as old as A.D. 125. Whole book copies surface by A.D. 200, and the complete New Testament can be found dating back to A.D. 250. Having all the books of the New Testament initially written within the times of eyewitnesses means that they did not have time to devolve into myth and folklore. Plus, their truth claims were held accountable by members of the church who, as personal witnesses to the events, could check the facts.

3) The New Testament documents are more accurate than any other of antiquity. John R. Robinson in Honest to God reports that the New Testament documents are 99.9% accurate (most accurate of any complete antique book). Bruce Metzger, an expert in the Greek New Testament, suggests a more modest 99.5%.
Fourth, Christian monotheism has advantages over pantheism and polytheism. It would not be fair to characterize Hinduism as only pantheistic ("God is all") or only polytheistic (having many gods). Depending on the stream of Hinduism to which one ascribes, one may be pantheistic, polytheistic, monistic ("all is one"), monotheistic, or a number of other options. However, two strong streams within Hinduism are polytheism and pantheism. Christian monotheism has marked advantages over both of these. Due to space considerations, these three worldviews are compared here in regards to only one point, ethics.

Polytheism and pantheism both have a questionable basis for their ethics. With polytheism, if there are many gods, then which god has the more ultimate standard of ethics for humans to keep? When there are multiple gods, then their ethical systems do not conflict, do conflict, or do not exist. If they do not exist, then ethics are invented and baseless. The weakness of that position is self-evident. If the ethical systems do not conflict, then on what principle do they align? Whatever that aligning principle is would be more ultimate than the gods. The gods are not ultimate since they answer to some other authority. Therefore, there is a higher reality to which one should adhere. This fact makes polytheism seem shallow if not empty. On the third option, if the gods conflict in their standards of right and wrong, then to obey one god is to risk disobeying another, incurring punishment. Ethics would be relative. Good for one god would not necessarily be "good" in an objective and universal sense. For example, sacrificing one's child to Kali would be commendable to one stream of Hinduism but reprehensible to many others. But surely, child sacrifice, as such, is objectionable regardless. Some things by all reason and appearance are right or wrong, regardless.

Pantheism does not fare much better than polytheism since it asserts that ultimately there is only one thing—one divine reality—thus disallowing any ultimate distinctions of "good" and "evil." If "good" and "evil" were really distinct, then there would not be one single, indivisible reality. Pantheism ultimately does not allow for moral distinctions of "good" and "evil." Good and evil dissolve into the same indivisible reality. And even if such distinctions as "good" and "evil" could be made, the context of karma voids the moral context of that distinction. Karma is an impersonal principle much like a natural law such as gravity or inertia. When karma comes calling on some sinful soul, it is not a divine policing that brings judgment. Rather, it is an impersonal reaction of nature. But morality requires personality, personality which karma cannot lend. For example, we do not blame a stick for being used in a beating. The stick is an object with no moral capacity or duty. Rather, we blame the person who used the stick abusively. That person has a moral capacity and a moral duty. Likewise, if karma is merely impersonal nature, then it is amoral ("without morality") and is not an adequate basis for ethics.

Christian monotheism, however, roots its ethics in the person of God. God's character is good, and, therefore, what conforms to Him and His will is good. What departs from God and His will is evil. Therefore, the one God serves as the absolute basis for ethics, allowing a personal basis for morality and justifying objective knowledge about good and evil.

Read more: I am a Hindu, why should I consider becoming a Christian?

What exactly is wrong with this? I have used many of these numbers in debates and have researched them in detail and know they are accurate.

As for his book it received reviews that totaled 66 out of 87 that strongly agree. It has an average on amazon of 4.1 out of 5. On Google 99 out of 114 positive reviews.

 

[Sumit]

That is quite absurd.

Yes, sometimes it’s hard to digest the truth.

Am I to dismiss the claims of a man with at least 3 earned degrees and many honorary doctorates in the very subjects that would include a thorough knowledge of the faith of the Country and ancestors he grew up with in India

I think he should make paper planes with those three degrees , atleast they will fly for few meters but his lie against Hinduism do not even take off. No University in world can teach Hinduism. Hinduism can only be learned by satguru and knowledge comes with effort.

Ravi has written over 20 scholarly reviewed and praised books and countless published articles.

If books is scale to measure knowledge than He cannot beat Stephen Knapp. He wrote more than 50 books over vedic Dharma.
The Books by Stephen Knapp

and adopt the claim of a poster in a forum who did not provide a single example of what he claims.

As Ravi is not here so do you have enough knowledge to defend his claims Knockout ?? (you only look like a copy paster or a good typist ).

 

[1robin]

Yes, sometimes it’s hard to digest the truth.

It is also hard to find it in your posts.

I think he should make paper planes with those three degrees , atleast they will fly for few meters but his lie against Hinduism do not even take off. No University in world can teach Hinduism. Hinduism can only be learned by satguru and knowledge comes with effort.

The Hubris of the less credentialed. Emoticons will not make an argument you couldn't.

If books is scale to measure knowledge than He cannot beat Stephen Knapp. He wrote more than 50 books over vedic Dharma.
The Books by Stephen Knapp

If books were the sole parameter I mentioned, this might apply. I listed quite a few credentials for Ravi that Mr knapp is lagging well behind in. If total numbers are the issue then the Bible beats every other book in human history.

As Ravi is not here so do you have enough knowledge to defend his claims Knockout ?? (you only look like a copy paster or a good typist ).

Since I am the only one so far that has posted any evidence or substance then I think the burden is yours. I also noticed you did not post a single claim concerning the tiny portion of Ravis book I posted even though I specifically asked you to point out any flaw in it. However I have used the numbers contained in what I posted in many posts and have researched them quite a bit (the Bible is the most textually accurate book in ancient history of any kind). If you wish, contend with those stats I gave and we can debate them.

 

[Sumit]

It is also hard to find it in your posts.

You didn't tried, take this flower and try again :clover:

Emoticons will not make an argument you couldn't.

Sometimes they do.

If books were the sole parameter I mentioned, this might apply. I listed quite a few credentials for Ravi that Mr knapp is lagging well behind in. If total numbers are the issue then the Bible beats every other book in human history.

Well it's you who tried to define Ravi as a genius as he wrote 20 books or have 3 piece of papers (degree).

Since I am the only one so far that has posted any evidence or substance then I think the burden is yours.

Evidence?? Of what?? All I saw in your posts is large amount of copy paste or experience of any third person like Ravi Zaicharias.

I also noticed you did not post a single claim concerning the tiny portion of Ravis book I posted even though I specifically asked you to point out any flaw in it.

If you wish, contend with those stats I gave and we can debate them.

I asked you "can you defend him on your own without copy pasting from google and without going off topic "?? If you can then I will.

 

[1robin]

You didn't tried, take this flower and try again :clover:

You must rely on an entire army of these emoticons.

Sometimes they do.

Let me know when that happens please.

Well it's you who tried to define Ravi as a genius as he wrote 20 books or have 3 piece of papers (degree).

An emoticon in every statement, is that your version of a chicken in every pot. Not 3 more like 8 or 9 degrees. I love how if credentials are you side then people act like they are licenses for omniscience but if they are not then they are mere pieces of paper. The papers each represent hundreds of hours in the finest institutions with the finest available instructors and in the presence of the best information. Add in a few more thousand hours as a resident or visiting scholar of Oxford, Trinity, and many other top universities. Something Knapp lacks in comparison. Only if they are inconvenient are this stats dismissed. Ravi does not need my help. He is one of the most universally respected and requested theological philosophers alive if not the most.

Evidence?? Of what?? All I saw in your posts is large amount of copy paste or experience of any third person like Ravi Zaicharias.

It was you who brought up his books inadequacies. So I posted a selection from that book. It is also you who have not contended with a single claim within what I posted from the book. Evidence does not cease to be evidence whether I copied and pasted it from the book you criticized or not. Your doing your best to cast whatever is not in you favor in a bad light even if that light is invalid and completely contrived. However the numbers he used in what I posted, have been used by me for far longer than his book has been around and I am more familiar with them than he is, or apparently you. You may consider those figures mine as I could post them plus many more with context from memory if needed. Prove them wrong or give it up. They alone are enough to show the Bible's vast superiority over all other theological works.

I asked you "can you defend him on your own without copy pasting from google and without going off topic "?? If you can then I will.

Of course I can and I will agree to do so if you can give me a single reason that it is necessary. 95% of everything either of us know came from someone else. Just because you may cough it up and type it does not make it any less borrowed than if copied and pasted. This is a hollow complaint but I will do it, if you can invent a justification for demanding I do so. The issue is whether Christianity (the Bible) is from God or if Hinduism is from (it's vast armada's of Gods), not what I can quote from memory. Who cares what my capabilities are, it is God's that matter?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not this again. Please review what I have said about this earlier in this thread. The vast majority of Christian missionaries healed the sick, dug the wells, and suffered a lifetime of misery and oppression to bring light where darkness of false theology rules. They had no guns and no armies. Do not confuse what the Gold hungry Cortez or Pizzaro did with Christianity even though they did stop ignorant savages from cutting each other’s hearts out by the thousands per day.

Ah... the White Man's Burden. I weep for them. :sarcastic

 

[Sumit]

You must rely on an entire army of these emoticons.

Yes, they helps a lot. Thanks to RF for such beautiful emoticons. :meditate:

Not 3 more like 8 or 9 degrees.

Good, he can make 9 paper planes with 9 degrees.

I love how if credentials are you side then people act like they are licenses for omniscience but if they are not then they are mere pieces of paper.

When it is about learning Hinduism, degree are just piece of paper. :sarcastic

The papers each represent hundreds of hours in the finest institutions with the finest available instructors and in the presence of the best information. Add in a few more thousand hours as a resident or visiting scholar of Oxford, Trinity, and many other top universities.

I already said Hinduism is a religion that no University can teach. Hinduism is learned by Guru

Something Knapp lacks in comparison.

I think you are master in Googling so just type "Stephen Knapp" and "Ravi Zacharias" and then see number of search results. Stephen Knapp has 122,000,000 search results and Ravi has only 936,000. :biglaugh:

So I think you think you can defend Ravi claims
Here I will start with small question--
In his book "Jesus among other god" he writes "In Hinduism, all good and evil fuse into one ultimate reality Brahman". So now please define "Evil" acc to Hinduism and how evil fuse with Brahman??

 

[1robin]

Yes, they helps a lot. Thanks to RF for such beautiful emoticons. :meditate:

You can use all the help available I guess.

Good, he can make 9 paper planes with 9 degrees.

When industries must have competance and expertise it is the degreed men not those who out of insecurity or jealousy are arrogant and petty enough to dismiss credentials for the sake of convenience. In almost every arena, people who need competance recruit from colleges not forums or Hindu enthusiast sites made to sell books.

When it is about learning Hinduism, degree are just piece of paper. :sarcastic

That was not coherent.

I already said Hinduism is a religion that no University can teach. Hinduism is learned by Guru

I Suppose then that you are the arbiter of all knowledge. Men teaching other men is how all knowledge is passed along, including Hinduism. The greater the instructor, the available information, and the rigorous testing the more meaningful a scholar's claims are. When you stop the armchair quarter backing maybe you can actually address the issue instead of tearing down your betters.

I think you are master in Googling so just type "Stephen Knapp" and "Ravi Zacharias" and then see number of search results. Stephen Knapp has 122,000,000 search results and Ravi has only 936,000. :biglaugh:

Well this is symptomatic of your entire argumentative style. Ravi Zacharias is a very rare name. Steve knapp is quite common. There is a president of a college and a race car driver that produce most of the hits on that name. Type in his name but add in hinduism and you get a far more realistic number of 63,000 not that hits have anything to do with anything (Hitler has 67 million).

So I think you think you can defend Ravi claims

Here I will start with small question--
In his book "Jesus among other god" he writes "In Hinduism, all good and evil fuse into one ultimate reality Brahman". So now please define "Evil" acc to Hinduism and how evil fuse with Brahman??

Those statements are incoherent. English is not your first language is it? Nothing wrong with that but I need you to clarify whatever it is you were trying to say.

 

[Sha'irullah]

This is sad, Christianity and its constant assumption that mankind is somehow redeemable by actions. Looking at the actions of Christians today coming from America alone this seems to provide quite the opposite expectation.
No man is perfect and we are all sinners and are born to commit sin. SO using this logic how can one stop sinning if all that god does is forgive sin? That makes us sinner regardless.
According to this logic god should forgive all as the Bible assert this is the unique trait of god above man. Yet still he cast people into hell.
God in his infinite and almighty glory would not care about sin as we have all sinned and would be all thrown into the fiery pit of hell. Original sin and concept of heaven for the believers and hell for the sinners is entirely contradictory itself as well.
If you do believe in hell then the only logical debate is the Qur'anic perspective of the scales of justice weighing ones sins and good deeds.