Monday, April 8, 2013

Response to a Comment about Hare Krishna

I have sort of felt Compelled by one of my Commenters to do this Post, so as not to Appear a Coward if I do not Post and Respond to all that she says.  In what Follows, I've decided to Post and Respond to her Comment, One Paragraph at a Time.

This First Paragraph is in Response to something I had said in relation to someone's Idea that Krishna and Jesus are the same Person:

Paragraph #1
Satyavati Said - "oh no... Krishna and Jesus are NOT the same person.  Srila Prabhupada said: 'Jesus is our Guru.' ...did you not get the comment I tried to post several days ago when you were talking about how reincarnation is meaningless?  (It isn't.)  Krishna, if you'd like to put this into Christian terms, is the Father.  Jesus is His son.  No conflict there."

Response:  No, I did not get the Comment you Posted a Few Days ago about Reincarnation.  If Jesus is Teaching something different than Lord Krishna, there is a Conflict.

Paragraph #2
Satyavati Said - "Jesus also said, as I mentioned in my comment (the one that I guess you didn't get), that He had not told His disciples everything, because they weren't ready for it.  Paul essentially said the same thing when he said he was giving the Christians milk and not meat because they weren't ready for it.  So right there you've got essentially a double-dilution of teachings.  Jesus Himself said there was more that He wasn't telling."

Response: We can Debate about what Jesus meant when He said that He was not telling them everything, yet what Christians believe is that these things were Revealed later to the Disciples after Christ's Resurrection and then Written about by them in the the rest of the New Testament, including the Letters Written by Paul.  Here is the Verse you are Speaking of...

"12) I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.  13) Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will show you things to come."  (John 16:12-13, KJV)

The Context of the John Scripture is the Guidance and Revelation of the Holy Spirit, which was Received by the Apostles at Pentecost, which Occurred shortly after Christ's Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven, yet there were no such Revelations about Reincarnation and the Like given later to the Apostles.  What was Revealed to them instead was the Meaning of Christ's Death and Resurrection, which the Disciples did not fully understand Prior to the Occurrence of these two events.  There were also things revealed to them about the Christian Life and about Christ's Return.

The other Scripture that you are Referring to is in 1 Corinthians and Refers Specifically to the Corinthians, which was a rather immature Church that Paul was having Trouble with.  In fact, this was the Church that was involved in all that Disunity and Quarrels, which is even evidenced within the Context of the Milk and Meat Passage that you were referring to.  In 1 Corinthians 3:1, Paul does not even Address the Corinthians as Spiritual, but as Carnal "Babes in Christ".  The NASB and the NIV versions of the Bible translates this as "Infants in  Christ" and "Mere Infants".

"1) And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.  2) I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye' were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye' able.  3) For ye' are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye' not carnal, and walk as men?  4) For while one saith, 'I am of Paul'; and another, 'I am of Apollos'; are ye' not carnal?  5) Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye' believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?  6) I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.  7) So then, neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase."  (1 Corinthians 3:1-7, KJV)

You are Taking Verses Out of Context, Satyavati, in order to make your Points.

Paragraph #3
 Satyavati Said - "Now, as far as 'your scriptures and mine would be the same'.... the Vedas are the oldest scriptures on earth.  Everything else comes after them; so you can take that for what it is.  And as far as God being consistent... you don't need to be a Biblical scholar to see the glaring and overwhelming difference between the God of the OT and Jesus in the NT.  I don't know if 'consistency' is a good word in this case."

Response: The Reason why there appears to be inconsistencies between the God of the Old Testament and Jesus is because they represent an Old & a New Covenant.  In fact, that is what the Word Testament means; Covenant.  In the Old Testament, they were Under the Law, but in the New Testament, we are Under Grace.

When I made the Statement about our Scriptures being the same, I was not actually making a Validity of Scripture argument.  I'll get to that later.  Instead I was making an argument against your God and the God of Christianity being the same Person.  Without Pointing out too large a number of Contrasts, I'll just start with one.  If I understand it right, Hare Krishna is a Vegetarian and does not approve of Animal Sacrifices.  Ok, just based on that One alone, how can the Yahweh/Jehovah of the Old Testament, that instructed the Jews to Sacrifice Bulls, Lambs and Goats, Possibly be Lord Krishna?  Yet the God that Jesus continually spoke of was none other than the God of Abraham.  That is the God of the Old Testament.

"31) But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, 32) I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?  God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."  (Matthew 22:31-32, KJV)

Paragraph #4 
Satyavati Said - "Now, as far as this goes: 'If your Scriptures say one thing and mine another, then one of them is Inaccurate. There can not be two Truths. What is True is True and what is False is False.' ...haven't we just finished a discussion on how two things can be perceived differently and yet both be true? Or was I asleep during that whole conversation? Either way, if we want to get into denying one in favor of the other (which I am not personally advocating), it still comes back to the Vedas are oldest, and everything else came as an afterthought."

Response: In the Discussion that you are Referring to, we were talking about the Reality of both Relative Truth and Absolute Truth, not just the Reality of Relative Truth. Apparently you were only asleep during the half of the conversation that you were not in agreement with. :) You are making it sound as if Scripture is about Perception and Relative Truth and not about Absolute Truth and this is something that I can not Agree with.

As to the Validity of the Scriptures Issue, Accuracy can not be established simply based on something Age and nothing else. If it could, then it would be well established that the World is Flat and that the Earth is the Center of the Galaxy, rather than the Sun, and any Further Knowledge that we have Accumulated on the Subject would be disregarded as an "After Thought".

Paragraph #5
Satyavati Said - "Did you know that in the Vedas, at the end of Kaliyuga, the fourth age (the one we are now living in, which will go on for another 427,000 years), it states that Lord Kalki will come, on a white horse and with a sword, to devastate everything? Does that sound the least bit familiar to you? And yet there it is, in the Vedas, thousands of years prior to any Hebrew, Jewish, Christian scripture. I'm not knocking the Bible. We respect all scripture; the Bible, the Quran, and so on. I'm just pointing out, there it is."

Response: To Compare these two Scriptures in more Detail, would require more Study, yet even if they did sort of Match, that doesn't Matter because there are other forces out there besides God that may be privy to Future Events. At first Glance, though, it would seem that since there are 4 Horsemen Listed in Revelation, not only one, that in order for all four to do their Part, the First one is not going to be able to Devastate and Destroy everything.

As to the Koran, there is a Conflict here because the Koran says "Allah Forbid that He Bore a Son." Well, the Bible says that Jesus is God's "Only Begotten Son". Both of these Statements can not be True. One of them is False. You can respect all of the Scriptures if you want to, Satyavati, but my Point is that since they do not agree with each other, they can not all be true.

Paragraph #6
Satyavati Said
- "Also, your comment that Jesus said 'no one comes to the Father except through Him'; we understand Jesus to be Guru (which means teacher, which is the same as Rabbi, which is what the disciples called Him), and true enough, no one comes to Krishna except through Guru.  So I don't see a problem there."

Response: Well, Ok. Though I don't agree with the Argument, at least you do have one besides just that Jesus is a Liar. There is one other Statement that He made, though, that goes against the "All Paths Lead to God" Idea and that is... 

"13) Enter ye' in at the strait gate, for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat, 14) Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."  (Matthew 7:13-14, KJV)

The Biggest Problem, though, is simply that since the various different Scriptures do not agree with each other, they can not all be True.

Paragraph #7
Satyavati Said - "We are not sectarian.  We don't tell people to stop being Christian, or Muslim, or whatever they are.  There is no difficulty.  You can very happily be Christian and chant Hare Krishna.  Is it a problem?  Does it impose?  It's a very simple thing.  No one has to 'stop' being whatever it is they are...why should they?  The goal of all religions is the same."

Response: "Why Should They?"  Well, now let's see.  Since the Scriptures do not match each other and therefore, can not all be true, those who are True Seekers of the Truth are going to have to Leave or "Stop" that which is not True.  Is it really such a great Value to Prevent the Truth from "Imposing" on our Lives?

The Goal of all Religions, Satyavati, is NOT the same.  The Goal of Christianity is Heaven.  The Goal of Buddhism is Nirvana, which in it's Original Form involved a Reuniting with the Cosmos and achieving a State of Nothingness.

Paragraph #8
Satyavati Said - "I'm not about this 'it must be yours or mine and thus one must be real and one must be false' mentality.  I don't see any problem whatsoever.  It's not a 'religious' thing.  Krishna says to Arjuna in Bhagavad Gita, 'Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me.'  'Religion' is an external concept.  Just surrender, that's all.  Is it difficult?"

Response: The Only Way to Escape the "This is True and This is not" Mentality is to not Believe in the Existence of any Absolutes. If we were to walk up to a field of Grass and one Person says that the Grass is Green and the other says that it is Hot Pink, sure Both People have the Right to their Opinion, but only one of these Opinions is a Reflection of what is True.

Christians will also tell you that their Faith is really more of a Relationship than a Religion and those who are the most Connected to the Relationship, rather than to the Religion, or any of the Rituals, are the ones who are the True Believers. This does not change, however, the fact that there is such a thing as Absolute Truth and therefore, when Various Religious Texts do not Agree with each other, they can not all be True.

I guess what it comes down to is what is it that we should Value more.  Unity or Truth.  Yes, Truth can be Sacrificed for the Sake of Unity, yet what Good is Unity if the Final Destination ends up being something other than Heaven?  I will Give you One Last Verse and then I'll Close and this may seem like a rather difficult one to Ponder, but here it is... Jesus said...

"34) Think not that I am come to send peace on earth.  I came not to send peace, but a sword.  35) For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.  36) And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.  37) He that loveth father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me, and he that loveth son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.  38) And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after Me, is not worthy of Me."  (Matthew 10:34, KJV)

As odd as it may seem to some of my Readers, Peace and Unity with all of the Various Religions of the World was not Christ's Goal.  That is not what He was about.  He Believed in Truth and felt that it was of even Higher Value than Peace.  In fact, He Believed in Truth so Strongly, that He Stirred up enough Conflict (No, not Peace, but Conflict) to cause Himself to be Crucified and in doing so brought Salvation to the World.


Lista said...

So I hear Silence again. Well, neither the less, I've been wanting to Add some thoughts about a couple of the Verses that are in this Post and ended up Rewriting my Response to Paragraph 2 a little, so please do go back and Reread it if your first pass was prior to the Posting of this Comment.

Meanwhile, I Ran across something else in Philippians, a Church that was much more Mature in Christ. Paul tells this Church of how some Christians are more sincere in their Motives, thus more Mature, than others...

"15) Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will. 16) The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds, 17) But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defense of the gospel." (Philippians 1:15-17, KJV)

Later Paul Thanks this Church for all of their Generosity and Support...

"14) Notwithstanding ye' have well done, that ye' did communicate with my affliction. 15) Now ye' Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye' only. 16) For even in Thessalonica, ye' sent once and again unto my necessity." (Philippians 4:14-16,KJV)

In spite the Spiritual Maturity of the Philippians, Paul made no Mention to them of Reincarnation.

And the Discussion of the Milk and the Meat would not be Complete without also Considering the Verse in Hebrews...

"8) Though He were a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He suffered, 9) And being made perfect, He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him; 10) Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

"11) Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye' are dull of hearing. 12) For when for the time ye' ought to be teachers, ye' have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. 13) For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe.

"14) But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. 6:1) Therefore, leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God." (Hebrews 5:8-6:1, KJV)

I Quoted a lot of the Context because I thought it was interesting that the Concept of Obedience was there, for those who are Ready for Meat are Ready to Obey. The Whole Purpose of this Passage was to Encourage the Hebrews to Move on from the Need for Milk and to start Receiving the Meat and Paul was beginning to Introduce the Meat to them, yet there is no Mention of Reincarnation in Hebrews, even though it continues for 13 Chapters.

BB-Idaho said...

"The Whole Purpose of this Passage was to Encourage the Hebrews to Move on from the Need for Milk and to start Receiving the Meat and Paul was beginning to Introduce the Meat to them, yet"..Paul failed: the stiff-necked Chosen
People stayed that way, and Paul was left with the Gentiles. The
arguments between Paul and St. Peter
suggest the antipathy between the apostles led by Jesus' brother James and the upstart Paul. Of course the winners wrote the books and we may never know the real history....

Lista said...

I actually sort of Hate to leave this Comment here unresponded to, yet there are several things that I Need to both Look Up and Say. All I'm going to say for now is that the Meaning of the Galatians Passage in the Article is Distorted a little and I will explain more about that later This Evening.

Lista said...

It seems rather odd to me that you would say that Paul Failed. His Primary Ministry was to the Gentiles, not the Jews, and yet there were Many Many Converts, both Jews and Greeks and you do not measure Success by those who you do not Reach, but by those that you do.

The First Scripture that is Addressed in your Linked Article is Galatians 2:11-14, which can be Viewed in one of two ways.

If it Occurred after the "Council of Jerusalem", also known as "the Jerusalem Council", then it was nothing more than Peter being Weak, Giving in to Peer Pressure and going against what he believed in, just as it says, he was "Fearing the Party of the Circumcision", or the Judaizers, for this Scripture does not say that he was Strongly Pushing the Idea of Circumcising the Gentiles, but only that...

"Prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, FEARING the party of the circumcision." (Galatians 2:12, NASB)

The way that is Worded just Screams Peer Pressure, which is quite Different then holding a Strong Conviction of Opposition to any of the Ideas of Paul.

More than likely, though, this Event Occurred Prior to the "Jerusalem Council", in which case, the Lord had not Spoken to him yet in a Vision that Changed his Whole Outlook on the Issue and helped him to get past any of his Reservations relating to Interacting with the Gentiles.

To Really Understand what Galatians 2:11-14 means, it must be Understood in the Entire Context of what God was doing in Peter's Life at the time. I don't know how to Make this short. To get the entire Story, you Pretty much have to Read the Entire 10th Chapter of Acts.

The Real Key to the Story is in Peter's Vision, that is Recorded in Acts 10:9-16. In this Vision, we see that God is trying to Tell Peter something and he was Resistant to it at first, for when the Lord said to him "Kill and Eat" (Verse 13), he said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean." (Verse 14), but the Lord said, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." (Verse 15) and the Lord had to Repeat this Vision 3 times before Peter Finally Understood the Message.

You see, to those who Understand the Scriptures, it is no Secret that Peter was Reluctant at First to Eat with the Gentiles and this is why God had to Prepare him with a Vision before he sent him to Preach the Gospel to the Gentile, Cornelius.

Lista said...

I have two more Comments to Submit in order to Finish my thoughts on the Link that BB left.

The Jerusalem Council is Recorded in Acts 15. Again, I don't know how to Shorten this. What's best is that you just Read the Entire Chapter.

At the Beginning of the Chapter we see that Paul and Barnabas are in conflict with those who Believe that all Believers, both Jews and Greeks, must be Circumcised and the Whole Purpose of the "Jerusalem Council" was to resolve this Issue.

By the Time the "Jerusalem Council" took Place, God had done a work in Peter's Heart and he was in Full Agreement with Paul and Barnabas on the Matter and so was James. In fact, Verse 25 says that the Disciples had "Become of one mind".

It just so Happens that the Article that BB has left a link to says a Number of Things that are Misleading. One is the Statement that, "This Apostolic Decree is still observed by the Greek Orthodox Church, however the Historical Reliability of the Acts of the Apostles is Disputed."

The reason why this Statement is Misleading is because it does not say who Disputes the Historical Reliability of Acts, Implies that it is a Christian Debate and that it is Only the Greek Orthodox Church that still Embraces this Decree, yet the Truth of the Matter is that the Protestant Church is in Full agreement with the Catholics on this Matter and that the only ones that are Disputing it are those who are Opposed to all sorts of Christian Doctrines.

The other Statement that is Misleading is "the rest of the Jewish Christians in Antioch sided with Peter, including Paul's long-time associate Barnabas."

The Reason why this is Misleading is because it totally Disregards the Peer Pressure Issue and makes it sound as if there is a Sharp Conflict between Firmly Held Ideas, rather than just Compromised Ideas due to Peer Pressure. This Statement also disregards and makes no mention of Peter's Vision and how the Lord Spoke to him and Caused him to Change and get over some of his earlier Reservations relating to the Gentiles. The Article Makes no Mention at all of anything in Acts Chapter 10, which is so very Key to the Overall Story.

Lista said...

This Article is Misleading because it leaves far too much out and Implies things based on only some of the Scriptures, which were viewed outside of the Context of all that was happening at the Time.

As to the Later Conflict between Paul and John, which resulted in a Split; Barnabas with John and Paul with Silas; People are Imperfect and as a Result sometimes Disagreements Occur. This Conflict, however, had nothing to do with the Issue of Circumcision that was Discussed at the "Jerusalem Council".

The Conclusions are also Misleading, for I have been to many Christian Churches and have never once heard the Conclusions of the "Jerusalem Council" Challenged by any Christian that I have ever met. The Jehovah Witnesses Interpret the Phrase "Abstain from........and from Blood" (Acts 15:20) (Blood Transfusions) a little Differently than the Rest of the Church, yet aside from that, I am unaware of any Conflict that I have ever run across in any of the Churches that I have ever been a Part of.

The Phrase "Abstain from Blood", simply means that we are to Cook our Meat thoroughly so that there is no Blood and that is very Wise Advice.

I do not see any reason why we shouldn't have more Faith in the Catholic Encyclopedia, than in some Guy named L. Michael White. Who gave him Authority over anything? I sure didn't. The Statement "St. Paul's Account of the Incident leaves no doubt that St. Peter saw the Justice of the Rebuke." makes perfect sense and in light of the Full Context of Acts Chapters 10 & 15, this Article has made far too much of "The Incident at Antioch".

I'm Afraid, BB, that you have a Habit of Leaving Links on my Blog that Misrepresent Facts. You do not appear to have a very keen eye to distinguish between an Article that presents a good argument and one that doesn't.

BB-Idaho said...

Dr. White is considered one of the foremost experts on the beginnings of Christianity. You may not 'give him authority', but Southern Methodist, Yale and U of Texas, as well as his Christian peers do.
I am sorry that you regard any information contrary to your view
as 'misrepresented facts'. Perhaps
your two-edged sword "You do not appear to have a very keen eye to distinguish between an Article that presents a good argument and one that doesn't." points towards yourself?

Satyavati devi dasi said...

Okay, Lista. Judging from what I'm reading here, your comfort zone means that it's important to you to believe that your beliefs are 'true' and everything else is counterfeit. In order to 'prove' this you've obviously spent a lot of time and done a lot of research and all that is very admirable. However, please know that anything you do in this regard isn't for me. It may be for other people who come and read your blog, or for yourself, or for BB, but it isn't for me. I told you: I don't have issues with Christianity. I have plenty of issues with people who claim to be Christians but that's an entirely different matter.

There are a couple of things I'd like to point out, though.

You appear to have confused my mention of Lord Kalki with one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Lord Kalki comes on a white horse, not a pale one, and his advent is described right here in Revelations 19: 11And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.12His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.13And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.14And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.15And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

The advent of Lord Kalki was written in the Vedas millenia before the Bible was written, but there it is.

Moving on: you mention Buddhism rather often and so I would like to point out to you that Buddhism is not a religion, it's a philosophy, and actually it is an atheistic philosophy. Buddha was a man, Prince Siddhartha, who achieved enlightenment. Buddhists believe that by following his methodology they too can achieve enlightenment, the same as he did. So there is no 'God' in Buddhism; Buddha is not a 'God'. I should point out just for the sake of consistency that Buddha, too, is mentioned in detail in the Vedas.

The point is that using Buddhism as a counterpoint is not a valid argument; it's apples and oranges.

One thing you mentioned is that 'the goal of Christians is to get to Heaven'. Now, you are absolutely right; this is not our goal. Our goal is to achieve pure, unadulterated, unmotivated, unconditional, unselfish love of God. It doesn't involve a 'heavenly reward' or any of that. So yes, if the goal of Christians is to get to heaven, that is an entirely different goal than what we aim for. Actually a devotee doesn't mind wherever he is, even if that place is hellish; he simply wants to love God, totally unconditionally and totally without motivation.

This brings me to my next point, where you mention regarding relationships with God. Krishna consciousness, bhakti yoga, is about reestablishing one's eternal relationship with Sri Krsna, the Supreme Personality. It is about learning how to perform pure devotional service. We have an eternal relationship with Krsna, but due to our material association, we've forgotten it. So the goal is to wake up, smell the coffee, and reestablish that relationship. That's what it's all about.
So basically, thank you for the very nice research you've done. It's obvious that you invested a lot of time in it and I hope that it made you feel more comfortable with your beliefs. However, for myself, in Bhagavad Gita Krsna tells us to abandon all varieties of religion-to get past the sectarian-and to just surrender to Him, to reestablish that relationship with Him. So my plan is to concern myself not with varying 'religious designations' which come and go with times and fashions, but with establishing a personal relationship with the Supreme Person.

Lista said...

I do not just Regard any Information contrary to my View as Misrepresented Facts. I have Explained why they are Misrepresented Facts. If they were not so, I would not have been able to present evidence that they are. I've even become Skeptical of terms such as "Christian Peers" because the Church has become so Diluted from what it Originally was, that the Title Christian doesn't mean much any more. There are "Christian Sources" out there now that are in full support of things that are no Longer Christian, so the Title Christian no Longer means anything.

I still hold to what I said in that "You do not appear to have a very keen eye to distinguish between an Article that presents a good argument and one that doesn't." I'm not going to Back down from that Statement because that is what I have Observed, but we can let every Reader decide that one for themselves.

I'll deal with most of Satyavati's Comment Tomorrow. For now I'm just going to respond to her very first Sentence...

"Okay, Lista. Judging from what I'm reading here, your comfort zone means that it's important to you to believe that your beliefs are 'true' and everything else is counterfeit."

This is nothing more than an Accusation and Assumption of Motive. You are Assuming that you know my motives for believing what I do, and say that it is because of Comfort Zone. You do not Know my Motives and an Accusation is not an Argument. What it is actually is a Distraction from Rational Thought.

BB is basically doing the Same thing when he says, "I am sorry that you regard any information contrary to your view
as 'misrepresented facts'."
In saying this, he is Assuming that my Motive for Regarding things as Misrepresentation of Facts is only that it is Contrary to my View. What I say, is Forget what anyone's Motives might be. That's just a Distraction. Instead Read what I have Presented and allow Reason to tell you whether or not it is Right.

And Let the Reader decide for themselves which of us does or does not have a "keen eye to distinguish between an Article that presents a good argument and one that doesn't."

That statement, by the way, has nothing to do with Motive or the Assumption of what anyone's motives are.

Lista said...

I'm still holding to the decision to Respond to most of Satyavati's Comment Tomorrow, starting with the 4 Horses of the Apocalypse; White, Red, Black and Pale. Yes, the First one is White. Look it up for yourself, Revelation 6:1-8. I'll give you a Link and some Further Explanation Later.

Tomorrow's Comments are Probably going to end up being divided into two. For now, what I want to say is more Brief.

I know very well, Stayavati, that what I am doing right now is not for you and it is not for BB either, for neither of you are likely to be Persuaded by me. If you are Persuaded, it will be God that does it, not me. So No, You are right that this Effort that I am Currently Expending is not for either of you. Instead, it is for the Web Search Hits that I get from time to time to a whole bunch of my Pages and then there is the Added Bonus that I am Learning something in the Process.

Thanks, Satyavati, for Acknowledging that not everyone who claims to be a Christian necessarily is one. Thanks also for Acknowledging that what I am doing here on my Blog does require a considerable Time Commitment of Study and Research. Since this Time and Effort is not for either you or BB, any Decision to discontinue the Dialogue could very easily be a Rational one that has nothing to do with Cowardice.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

I guess my question for you would be: persuaded of what? Exactly what would I be persuaded of?

Lista said...

Naturally it would be nice to Persuade you to become a Christian, Satyavati, yet as we have already Discussed, it is possible that this won't happen. There is really no point in you continually Insisting on the fact that there is no Chance of that, because we have already discussed that and therefore, need to move on.

Another key thing to realize is that unless all Religions Match and do not Contradict each other, they can not all be True. This is all a Side Line, though, because as we have already Discussed, this is also for whomever else might be Listening.

Now for the White Horseman, As I've already said, I Looked it up again and it just so happens that what I said at First is Correct, for the First Horse is indeed White. The second is Red, the Third is Black and the Fourth is Pale.

Here is a Link to the Reference if you want to Read it... Revelation 6:1-8

When the White Horse is Mentioned in Revelation 19:11-15, this is the Second time in which a White Horse is Mentioned.

Christians say that this Horseman is Jesus, not Krishna, who you have compared to the Father, not to Jesus, or actually I guess you called him Lord Kalki. I don’t suppose that your Religion makes any Parallels between Lord Kalki and Jesus, does it? Or does he happen to be the Son of Krishna?

The Rational for calling this Horseman Jesus is that "He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.", (Revelations 19:13,NASB) and John 1:1 says…

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1, KJV)

The Rest of this Passage, John 1:1-17, contains within it Ample Evidence that that which is Being Described is Jesus and that the other Person Mentioned is John the Baptist.

Lista said...

Ok, so maybe you were thinking of a different Event and it may or may not have been a Different Horseman. I'm not sure, since both of the Horses are White. The Fact that a piece of the End Times was written in the Vedas, though, doesn’t prove anything other than the fact that there may be other Spiritual Forces that also knew about the End Times. Christians are not going to Dispute the Idea that these events were known about by both God and Jesus and who knows who else, since the Beginning of Time. That is even before the World was Created and any of the Scriptures were written.

Perhaps it can be Argued that Buddhism is not a Religion, yet since it is a part of Comparative Religion Classes all over, this Fact does not appear to be very highly Emphasized and if the Point that we are Making is just that since Scriptures do not Match, they can not all be True, what about the Fact that the Koran says, "Allah Forbid that He beget a Son" and the Vedas, if I understand it Correctly, Forbid the Killing of Animals, yet Yahweh/Jehovah approves Animal Sacrifices?

I do not actually Need the Example that I gave relating to Buddha to make any of my Points, for you have basically Admitted that the Goal of Hare Krishna and Christianity is not the Same, and thus have admitted that when you originally stated that the Goal of all Religions is the Same, it was an Incorrect Statement.

I wouldn’t hardly call Christianity "a Religious Designation which comes and goes with times and Fashions". That’s a bit of a Stretch, don’t you think? Since Christianity came out of Judaism, it has been around for quite a long time.

Lista said...

Getting back to your Question, Satyavati, when you made the following Statement, it sounded as if you were implying that you were not going to be Persuaded of anything. Perhaps I misunderstood why it is that you made this Statement.

"However, please know that anything you do in this regard isn't for me. It may be for other people who come and read your blog, or for yourself, or for BB, but it isn't for me."

Why was it important to you, Satyavati, to make sure that I Understood that anything that I might say isn't for you? Why does that Matter anyway? If you are getting nothing out of Reading my Blog and my Comments, than why are you here?

There are some Definite Points that I am trying to Make, but if you hear me, you hear me and if you don't you don't. My Points are, that I do not Think that Hare Krishna and Yahweh/Jehovah are the same person, that the Goal of all Religions is not the Same and that as long as there are Contradictions between the Scriptures of the Various Different Religions, they can not all be True.

BB-Idaho said...

Lord Kalki is the eschatological Hindu version; he rides in at the end of the next time cycle. We note that the white horse is a common symbol among
diverse religions. In most OT scripture it is associated with war: Solomon's chariots etc. This does not, of course, suggest that all religions are 'true' or even
share dogma. It simply suggests that ancient peoples held a high regard for the apparently rare white horse.

Lista said...

White Horses seem to represent Power, War, Judgment and in some cases also Purity and Righteousness.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

The difference here, Lista, (and if I am wrong please correct me) is that you appear to believe that if the Vedas don't match the Bible then the Vedas must necessarily be wrong and therefore 'untrue'.

Lord Kalki is the last avatar of Krishna, and comes to end Kaliyuga and begin time again. He is not Jesus; He is Krishna. The Bible does not assert that the horseman of Rev 19 is Jesus; it is convenient to make that association, but it isn't explicitly stated. However, in the Vedas, it is very clear that Lord Kalki is an avatar of Lord Sri Krsna.

When I mention that 'religious designations' come and go with time, they do. Judaism and Christianity have been around a long time, but not forever. The Protestant Reformation, which brought with it all the endless divisions into sects and factions, was just a few hundred years ago. Other religious groups are even younger. What Krsna says is that all of these designations are actually meaningless; that all that matters is establishing a relationship with Himself, personally. 'Religious designations' are designations of man, material, not permanent. A relationship with the Supreme, on the other hand, is neither material nor impermanent.

To the contrary, there have been times in history when animal sacrifices were common and proscribed for certain purposes. However, this proscription was given to those with a lesser understanding. We are vegetarians because in Bhagavad Gita Sri Krsna outlines what things He will accept as offerings. Dead animals are not one of them. We don't eat or take anything that has not been offered to the Lord, and if He doesn't want dead animals, then certainly we aren't going to be offering them. Beyond this is also the understanding that every living creature is a spirit soul. But you can also appreciate I am sure that it was in the OT that animal sacrifices were commanded; and that ended in the NT.

So yes, you are absolutely right and I was mistaken in saying that the goal of bhakti yoga (Krsna consciousness) and Christianity are the same. If I understand you correctly Christians follow their religious beliefs in order to get a heavenly reward following this life. Devotees of Krsna, on the other hand, don't care about rewards. The goal, like I said, for us, is strictly to learn to love the Lord perfectly and without motive. No rewards, heavenly castles or crowns needed.

It is a logical assumption that God can have as many names as He likes. To believe otherwise would be to place a limit on Him. Similarly it is a logical assumption that He may appear in any form and in any time or place He wishes. That is all His prerogative. So it stands to reason that He has millions of names that describe all His endless qualities. One of these names is Krishna, which means All-Attractive. No one can be more attractive than God Himself. That's just simple logic.

Anyone can chant the names of God and associate with Him in that way. There's no previous qualification needed or any hard and fast rules or requirements. Anyone can do it; it doesn't matter what their 'religious designation' is (this is only a material designation in the end anyway) and it doesn't matter what else they're doing. They can be walking down the street, driving a car, digging a ditch, whatever. At the same time they can remember Krsna, associate with Him by chanting His name, and take another step in learning to love Him. It's really so simple, just as simple as that.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

One other thing I would like to point out is that the fact that there may be differences between the Bible and the Vedas does not mean, on an objective level, that the Bible is necessarily true and the Vedas necessarily false. It is as easy to use that flawed logic to say it is the Bible that is false and the Vedas true, especially considering that the Vedas are the oldest of scripture. I may be wrong but it appears to me that your approach to this is that if the Vedas and the Bible have a discrepancy then the Vedas are necessarily untrue. This is a flaw in logic-HOWEVER-as you accept 'Christian' as your religious designation then you are bound to this belief. On an objective level the argument has no merit, because there is no objective standard for determining one to be truth and the other not. The closest argument I could present to objectivity is to say that the Vedas were present millenia before the Bible. Other than that there is no objective standard, and the argument becomes fueled solely by subjective belief.

And as far as 'persuading me to be a Christian'... I don't see any issues here. I can chant Hare Krsna and read the Bible and respect Lord Jesus and not have any problem at all with all of that... so why would there be any persuading necessary? What would there be left to persuade me of? To stop chanting? But why?

Lista said...

This time, my response to you will be Submitted in 3 Parts. I could Submit all Three Parts tonight, yet due to Time Restraints and Tiredness, I'm only going to Publish Part One and do the other Two Tomorrow Morning.

Yes, Satyavati, I Believe that the Bible is True and because I Believe that, the Natural Result is that that which contradicts it is not True. I have every right to Believe that way and you have every right to disagree with me. Since all of the Scripture can not be True, each of us has to Choose which one we believe in. I've Chosen the one that Offers Salvation for Sins by way of the Great Compassion of Christ on the Cross. To me, this Amazing form of Compassion, even to the extent of the Cross, is far more "All Attractive" than anything written anywhere in any Holy Book.

You said… "Devotees of Krsna, on the other hand, don't care about rewards." and that there are "No rewards, heavenly castles or crowns needed." Is this really Possible, or have all "Sinned, and come short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23, KJV)? Based on Romans 3:23, some might say that what you are suggesting is not Realistic, is perhaps a little Legalistic and maybe even a bit Arrogant. That's just a thought. I certainly couldn't Live up to that. I, at times, have Motivation Problems and in my Humanness, Need Incentives in order to get myself Moving.

Come to Think of it, a Compassionate God that is Willing to Reward and, out of Love, Give something in Return to His Followers is to me, much more "All Attractive" than a God that just Expects Things and is not willing to give anything back in Return. Perhaps that's just me, but I'm just saying.

I have already explained why Christians have Concluded that the Horseman in Revelation 19:11-15 is Jesus, based on the Fact that "His name is called The Word of God". This Name Leads to an Explanation that represents far more than just Convenience. Of course, All are free to read the Explanation and Decide for themselves.

I guess I'll say one last thing Quick relating to the Last of your two Comments. It's a little frustrating when it feels like I have to Keep Repeating myself in relation to the Validity of the Scripture Argument, but here it goes. Once again, just as I have already said in the Original Post "Accuracy can not be established simply based on something’s Age and nothing else. If it could, then it would be well established that the World is Flat and that the Earth is the Center of the Galaxy, rather than the Sun, and any Further Knowledge that we have Accumulated on the Subject would be disregarded as an 'After Thought'."

Lista said...

I had Told myself at one time that I wasn't going to do more than 3 Comments in a Row with no other Comments in between, yet I keep Thinking of more things to say. Perhaps someone else will Comment and give me the Chance to Continue, or Perhaps I'll have to do another Post. Meanwhile, here is the Second of the Part Three Comment that I was Working on Yesterday.

The God of Judaism and Christianity has been around since the Beginning of time. Just because He chose at a certain time in History to regard the Jews as His Chosen People, does not mean that that was "a Passing Fad". The Jews are still God’s chosen People & no true Christian will Deny this.

Also, just because God sent His Son to Die on the Cross, in order to Save Mankind from their Sins and to bring in a "New Covenant", this also does not represent a "Passing Fad". There are Old Testament Scriptures that Prophecy of these Coming Events, showing that God was involved in this "Religion" far before the Events took Place. And anyway, Fads are the Result of the Whims of man, not the Movement of God. Now Granted, there are Christian Groups that do Follow the Fads of man, but the True Church, at it's Core, is Committed to the Scripture that says…

"And be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (Romans 12:2, KJV)

Reformations happen, Satyavati, for the sake of Returning People back to the Original Truth. Reformations only Happen because of the Natural Tendency of Human Beings to Drift away from the Truth, so that a Correction is Needed in Order to get People Back on Track. Making Corrections, Styavati, in order to Return People to the Truth is not the Same as a "Passing Fad"

You keep saying, Satyavati, that "All that Matters is Establishing a Relationship with Himself." That is Hare Krishna. You say that as if your Belief System has a Patent on that Idea and no other Belief System had made that Claim, but you couldn't be more wrong, for Christians will say exactly the same thing, which is that "Christianity is not so much about Religion, but about a Relationship with Jesus Christ." I strongly Believe this and have also heard it said many times by many Christians.

So now let me ask you this… Is it really Fair for you to Insist that Chanting and Yoga is not a "Religion", but a Relationship, but when Christians Pray or Sing Worship Songs to God, it is a "Religion"? Is it really Fair to Insist that you are the ones who Stress Relationship and that Christians do not? "Religion" is nothing more than a Word, Satyavati, that outsiders use to describe a set of Beliefs. Are you going to Deny that you have a "Set of Beliefs"?

If you Believe that what really Matters is not Religious Rituals, but Relationship, then you are in Full Agreement with what Christians have been saying as well. The Difference is that the Relationship that Christians form is with Jesus Christ.

Lista said...

Here is the Last of the Three Comments that I Wrote Yesterday...

I do not Believe that Yahwey/Jehovah is the Same Person as Lord Krishna. You can disagree if you want to, yet the very First Story in the Bible about Sacrifice showed Yahwey's Initial Preference to Animal Sacrifices. Cain offered Vegetables to God and Abel Offered a Lamb. Abel's Offering was Accepted and Cain’s was not. The result of this was that Cain become so Jealous over the Ordeal that he Murdered his Brother.

The Reason for the Sacrifice of a Lamb was because it was Symbolic of what was to come later in that Jesus would come and be the Final Sacrifice; "The Lamb of God" that takes away the Sins of the World. And Yes, this Sacrifice was so Holy and Complete that afterwards, no further Sacrifice was Needed. In fact, the Veil of the Temple was torn in two, so that there was no longer anything separating us from the Holy of Holies, where God Himself Resides. This Opened the way for us to "Come Boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.” (Hebrews 4:16, KJV)

Christians do Pray and Ask the Lord's Blessing over our Food before we Eat, yet as to Sacrifice, Christians see Sacrifice as Containing a Different purpose beyond just giving something to God. Since "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23, KJV) and "The wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23a, KJV), a Sacrifice was Needed that actually involved Death. In the Old Testament, the Animal Actually Takes on the Penalty of Death in our Place, so that we will not have to be put to Death because of our Sin. Roman 6:23 goes on to say, though, that "The gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:23b, KJV). When Jesus Died, He became the Final Sacrifice. Since He was Both Divine and also Perfect and Holy, He was all that was Needed and in His death, He Took the Penalty of Sin for the Sake of the Entire World, so that "whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16b, KJV) Any Scripture that does not Contain this Message, does not contain the Path to Salvation.

If what Jesus said is True in that "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.", then if you do not Believe this Statement, then you could have problems in the After Life. If this statement is not True, then it will be Ok for you to Believe what ever you wish, but if it is true, then there will be a Problem if all that you have Believed in is Hare Krishna. Naturally, you can Believe what you choose to, yet to Answer your Question, this is why I would love to Persuade you to Believe in the Death and Resurrection of Jesus and that the reason for this was for your Salvation.

Brenda said...

It is true that no man can come to God except through Jesus, but it is also true that no man can come to Jesus except he is called by God. There again it is also true that God's word can not go out and return to Him void. However, it is the Holy Spirit who convinces and convicts.
God bless all of you.

Lista said...

You have said this before, Brenda, and some would say that because it is God that both Calls and Convicts that it is a Waste of our Time to Keep Pursuing People who do not appear to be Persuadable, but then again, I'm not Pursuing anyone. I simply Post to my Blog and those who appear to be Unpersuadable come to me.

I would love to have a Blog like yours in which Christians come together and share with each other, yet that is not what God has given me. Instead I am here Studying Diligently in the hopes that I will always have a Response to those who choose to challenge me.

Thanks again for Commenting. It is always nice to get a Friendly Comment from a like minded soul. Thank you.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

I don't have issues with Christianity, Lista.

Never have.

Lista said...

I Wonder why it is that you Keep saying this. If it was me, simply saying that I have no Problems with those who Follow Christ would be an Understatement, because I Greatly Appreciate what Christ did and to say that I have no Problems with Him would be far less than saying that I Greatly Appreciate Him. It just seems odd to me that a person could do anything other than Appreciate what Christ did and the Phenomenal Love that He has Expressed towards all of Mankind, including you.

I guess that what Brenda says is True in that unless you are Called by God Himself, you are not going to be Moved in a way that causes you to see the full Depth of this Message.

I am feeling led to not say much more to you at this time, unless you feel that you have more to say to me. Meanwhile, I may eventually Finish my Thoughts on this Subject in another Post. We will have to see how God Leads.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

Because I don't feel like I need to be persuaded of anything.

The fact of not nominally 'being a Christian' doesn't mean that I take any issue or have any disagreement with Jesus or His teachings, and as far as I'm concerned there is no dilemma or dichotomy with chanting Hare Krishna at the same time. I don't see why one cannot do both, and so I do.

That's all.

Lista said...

Jesus' Teachings include the 10 Commandments.

"16) And, behold, one came and said unto Him, 'Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?' 17) And He said unto Him, 'Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but one, that is, God, but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.' 18) He saith unto him, 'Which?' Jesus said, 'Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19) Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Matthew 19:16-19, KJV)

This may not be the Complete List, yet Jesus knew that the one he was talking to did know the 10 Commandments.

In another Place, Jesus says, "17) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18) For verily I say unto you, 'Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19) Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven, but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20) For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye' shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" (Matthew 5:17-20, KJV)

The Very First of the Ten Commandments is "3) Thou shalt have no other gods before Me."

And yet in another Place, Jesus says, "24) No man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one, and love the other, or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye' cannot serve God and mammon." (Matthew 6:24, KJV)

So you see, by Breaking the First of the 10 Commandments, you ARE in Disagreement with Jesus' Teaching. You are just not Willing to Admit it. Since Hare Krishna and Yahweh/Jehovah are not the Same Person, you are breaking the Very First of the 10 Commandments, are Chanting the Wrong Name and are Serving another God besides Jehovah and this is against the Teaching of Jesus.

Lista said...

Oophs... The Reference for "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." is Exodus 20:3, KJV.

Lista said...

Also, since Jesus had no Intention of Doing away with the Law or the Prophets from the Old Testament, the Introduction of Christianity was not a New "Fad". Instead it was a Continuation of what Began as Judaism.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

First of all, like I said, God has unlimited names. To think otherwise is to place Him under limits. God is by definition limitless in all ways.
You can call Him Yahweh, YHWH, Jehovah, Krishna, Govinda, Gopala, Syamasundara, the list goes on and on. In the same way that God has unlimited qualities He has unlimited names to describe those qualities.

So since we've already proven that there is no objective, logical argument that does or does not prove that the Bible is true and all other Scriptures false, there is equally no objective, logical argument that proves that Jehovah and Krishna are in any way different.

Because of the faith you hold you are required to believe that they are, but there isn't any objective standard you can appeal to in order to prove it.

So you and I will have to part ways in this case, Lista, is all.

BB-Idaho said...

There are 279,000,000 Pentecostals & 1,000,000,000 Hindus-so we may assume something compelling about
that eastern religion..rather than attack it. As far as breaking commandments, we note the famous
Pentecostal TV rich preacher dude,
Jimmy Swaggart. When caught with a prostitute in 1988, he cried and repented on TV. When caught AGAIN
in 1991 he said "The Lord told me
it's flat none of your business".
One of those do as I say and not as I do things? ...or perhaps another of the tediously long line of 'wolves in sheep's clothing?
(..and perhaps why there are also
1,000,000,000 agnostics in the world as well)

Lista said...

I've decided to Combine some of the shorter Comments that I Wrote Yesterday into two Longer Ones to Make room for more Comments before we reach the place where I generally stop at #40.

Actually, Satyavati, I HAVE Presented an Objective and Logical Argument for the fact that Yahweh/Jehovah and Krishna are not the same Person. You are just not Willing to Hear it.

"Because of the faith you hold, you are required to believe that they are."

You are again proclaiming that you know my Motives for Believing as I do, but you do not.

Go Ahead and "Part Ways", Satyavati. Perhaps a day or two of Space from each other would be Nice and would give us each a chance to Take a Breath.

There is Hypocrisy within every Religion, BB, just as we have Discussed many Times and I Think that it is quite Convenient that you used Pentecostals, rather than just Christians when making this Comparison. Who says I'm Attacking anyone. If I am, I do not Mean to. I'm Defending my Own Faith and Explaining how it Differs from the Faith of someone else who is Continually Commenting here.

Certainly, you are not going to say that the Blog Author should remain Silent on her own Blog and not see to it that the Religion that she believes in is fully Presented, on her own Blog. Just think for a Minute about what you are suggesting.

There is a Statement that I do not Believe in and that I will not Allow to Stand unchallenged on my Blog and that is the Statement that "All Paths Lead to God". I have every Right to Stand Against that Statement and should not Be Accused of Attacking anyone if I do Stand against that Statement. I have a Right to Both Believe and Defend that Position, Especially on my Own Blog and am not Pursuing nor Forcing anyone to Read or Listen to me.

Lista said...

You know, Interestingly, BB, your Comment sounds just a little like an Attack on Christianity. It is not an Argument about what is Truth, but instead about what Negative Things can be said about a Particular Person. I was just talking to someone about how what People Talk about is a Reflection of how Intelligent the Conversation is.

The Highest Level is Ideas, the Next Level Down is Events and the Lowest Level is People. Since I know that you are an Intelligent Person, BB, I also know that you could talk on the Highest of these Levels if you Tried.

Please don't take that as an Insult, BB, I'm trying to Complement you by telling you that I believe that you are Capable of much Better.

The Purpose of my 11:38 AM Comment, Yesterday was not to Attack Hinduism. I read it again just to make sure and the Purpose was to show Evidence that Satyavati is not in Agreement with the Teachings of Jesus, even though she claims that she is. Hinduism was not even the Subject being discussed there.

There was a Specific Purpose for every one of my Comments and I do not Recall the Purpose of Attacking Hinduism ever being one of them.

I guess I'll be Bold and Ask you to Tell me which of my Comments you think might of been Offensive and then I can Explain the real Reason for the Comment and even Apologize if Necessary.

Brenda said...

Just a thought as I was reading BB's last comment:- We should never blame the boss for His workers.

Lista said...

Thanks, Brenda. That is a Very Good Word.

BB-Idaho said...

We should never blame the workers for their boss.

Lista said...

At first Glance, I thought that you were being Repetitious, yet I guess you did Turn that around some didn't you? It's just that Brenda was Talking about not Blaming God or Jesus for the Behavior of Jimmy Swaggart. I'm not entirely Certain, though, what your Comment is referring to.

BB-Idaho said...

No analogies, just talking about workers, bosses and where the
"buck stops". As for the God
analogy, is He not as responsible for Jimmy Swaggart as St. Francis?
...or are they responsible for their own behavior?

Lista said...

Everyone is Responsible for their Own Behavior.

BB-Idaho said...