Nope!
I don't see how that can be blasphemy to you. Blasphemy against what? You think all belief in God or deities is nonsense anyway, so how is it that such a particular set of ideas would be blasphemy?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jesus , Krishna- which of the two is the supreme-god?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
Nope!
I don't see how that can be blasphemy to you. Blasphemy against what? You think all belief in God or deities is nonsense anyway, so how is it that such a particular set of ideas would be blasphemy?
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
"Your perspective of Brahman as electrical energy is also incorrect as the vedas proclaim Brahman as pure consciousness."
Pure/primary Consciousness is of Brahman, we humans get consciousness/life from Him, He bestows it to us.
Regards
I can't speak for Aup, but my take is that blasphemy is all about internal coherence and responsibility of belief. Deities (or gods, since apparently some people differentiate between the two concepts) are there, as in so much else, of little consequence. Belief in deities, then, is not worth registering or seeking at all.
You and Aup are very different atheists.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Friend@LuisDantas
"Religion:Advocate of letting go of theism. Buddhist with an emphasis on personal understanding."
If one doesn't mind, is it not a long description of a religion? Please
Regards
"Religion:Advocate of letting go of theism. Buddhist with an emphasis on personal understanding."
If one doesn't mind, is it not a long description of a religion? Please
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Friend@LuisDantas
"Religion:Advocate of letting go of theism. Buddhist with an emphasis on personal understanding."
If one doesn't mind, is it not a long description of a religion? Please
Regards
"Religion:Advocate of letting go of theism. Buddhist with an emphasis on personal understanding."
If one doesn't mind, is it not a long description of a religion? Please
Regards
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Did I ever say that? They are not necessary for me. They are characters of mythology. But some people need the idea. They are not strong enough to stand alone or for their own reasons do not want to do that. I have never discouraged a theist.But when asked for what I consider truth, I have never hesitated. I am a Hindu. So, I speak against ideas that weaken Hinduism. Like creation of manifestations and Mahdis divide Islam, these new ideas will weaken Hinduism also. My favorite mantra is 'Guru ko maro goli' (Shoot the guru, when he/she goes against the unity of Hinduism). I do not like rainy season frogscroping up all around. People have their brains. They should think for themselves.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Fail - for the primary reason that you have not understood the a religion with vaious views can exist. I do not blame you, it is normal for a person from Abrahamic religions especially if he is not well-read. Your indoctrination comes from Quran and whatever Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wrote. As I told you earlier, your brain is incapable of understanding Hinduism or Buddhism.
Shoot the false claimant who weaken a religion. I have explained it in my post but you do not get it. Another example of the capabilities of your brain.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
"false claimant"
Please identify the word in the sentence "'Guru ko maro goli' " which one has translated as "false claimant".
Now I won't say that one has faked the meanings. One is a learned person.
Regards
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
"Shoot the guru, when he/she goes against the unity of Hinduism". I was talking about my religion. A person poses to be a religious leader and then says that he is a special recipient of a mission from God (I am this, I am that, God has sent me. God speaks through me). Such a person is basically a charlatan. He would harm his religion and should not be listened to.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Ha,ha.
Probably true, although I am at a loss to explain how so.
If one expects a one-word description, sure.
Reality tends not to conform to one-word expectations, and I value accuracy.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
He does claim a special status, and that is charlatanry, fooling people.
ajay0
Well-Known Member
Is it correct to belittle an inquirer in this manner !
Also what makes you think that you are capable of the same!
I have seen criticism levelled against you for your own faulty understanding of the Hindu religion, both in this and other forums too.
Paarsurrey has not made much insensible comments, if you ask me, based on my knowledge of the dharmic sects and any misunderstanding should be kept aside in the sidelines. Whether Krishna is an avatar or prophet , at least he is revered, and that is a positive in itself.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
"Whether Krishna is an avatar or prophet , at least he is revered, and that is a positive in itself."
@ajay0 brother!
Thanks and regards for your open-mindedness, please.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
For the simple reason that he is not an inquirer, he is a fault finder. He tries to be a proselytizer, something that he is not capable of doing. For him, Dr. Zaki Naik is a great religious philosopher.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I am tied to Hinduism and India, you are not.
Ajay, you're relatively new here. Aup and Paar both have over 10 000 posts, so they've been at this for quite awhile. Some of us other 'oldies' have read a lot of their words over substantial time, and have seen many repeat performances.
So you're not privy to all of that history, unless you're done a tonne of reading. I understand where you're coming from as perhaps I was once there myself. But if you try to explain something to somebody, watch others try to do the same, many many times, and you see no shift, there may be a tendency to let your frustration out occasionally. That is the nature of human discussion.
This applies to both Aup and Paar. Several others have debated Aup on about atheism and Hinduism, and several others have debated Paarsurrey about his Amadiyya lens from how he views the world. I've had the 'privilege' of watching and participating.
Not that you asked for it, but my advice would be not to waste your time. Both are inflappable in their convictions, but neither ever angers either.
So you're not privy to all of that history, unless you're done a tonne of reading. I understand where you're coming from as perhaps I was once there myself. But if you try to explain something to somebody, watch others try to do the same, many many times, and you see no shift, there may be a tendency to let your frustration out occasionally. That is the nature of human discussion.
This applies to both Aup and Paar. Several others have debated Aup on about atheism and Hinduism, and several others have debated Paarsurrey about his Amadiyya lens from how he views the world. I've had the 'privilege' of watching and participating.
Not that you asked for it, but my advice would be not to waste your time. Both are inflappable in their convictions, but neither ever angers either.