Religion

wanagrow;422716 said:

Krishna is not born of virgin. His parents are Vasudeva and Devaki. He ultimately died when a arrow hit his legs. And his date of birth is also not on 25th december.

Click to expand...

I just checked Wikipedia, and it states same, "It was believed that Krishna was born not from a sexual connection between Devaki and Vasudeva, but was transferred to Devaki's womb."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devaki

Crazy Doc;422723 said:

Well... some sources say he was indeed born of a virgin (see below) and I never stated he was born on Dec 25, I said Mithra was born on Dec 25 and krishna from birth to death did many of the things jesus did, including immaculate conception (virgin birth):

"His advent was heralded by a pious old man (Asita), who could die happy knowing of his arrival, a story paralleled in the Bible by that of Simeon (Luke 2: 25).
Krishna was born in a cave, which at the time of his birth was miraculously illuminated.
Devaki, the radiant Virgin of the Hindu mythology, bore Krishna to the god Vishnu (second god of the Trimurthi (also called the Hindu Trinity).
"The divine Vishnu himself descended into the womb of Devaki and was born as her son Krishna." Boslooper, Thomas, The Virgin Birth, SCM Press, 1962, Pp 148 & 149; cited in: The Virgin Birth of Christ.

Click to expand...

I dont know where you have quoted from but i have read mahabharata . That i believe is the most original book. Vishnu enters devaki womb after the couple had conceived. i.e. The vishnu as a soul enters the infant. Devaki just has a vision of vishnu entering her womb.

I would strongly suggest you original references rather than second hand misleading information. And yah, krishna never had a resurrection after his death.

Crazy Doc;422724 said:

I just checked Wikipedia, and it states same, "It was believed that Krishna was born not from a sexual connection between Devaki and Vasudeva, but was transferred to Devaki's womb."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devaki

Click to expand...

Read Mahabharata, not wikipedia, where anyone is free to write anything he wishes. Ty

I checked it again. Here is what the story goes.

Kansa is a king in ancient india. Devaki is his sister.She is married to vasudeva. And there is a prophecy that the eighth child of vasudeva and devaki will kill kansa. kansa kills first seven childs. The eighth one, krishna, however miraculously escapes and later kills kansa.

There is no reference to devaki being a virgin while giving birth to eight kids. She has a normal married life.

How is this connected to birth of jesus? Is there any similarity at all?

wanagrow;422831 said:

I dont know where you have quoted from...

Click to expand...

I don't follow that-I gave my references, so yes, yes you DO know where I have quoted from.

wanagrow;422832 said:

Read Mahabharata, not wikipedia, where anyone is free to write anything he wishes. Ty

Click to expand...

Gotta disagree with you. They say wikipedia is 50x more accurate than any other encyclopedia. I could take any religious book and make a dozen conflicting claims-so your logic here is flawed. "Where you stand depends on where you sit" so from a debate standpoint-the objective sources are given MUCH MORE weight than those from specific perspectives. Now there are 700 Million Hindus in the world-I'm sure a couple of them are on Wikipedia and would dispute something not true-as is always done on Wikipedia. And you obviously know nothing about wikipedia-I dare you to go change that page on Devaki-and see what happens. You'll see they have a million rules and moderators are all over that thing and won't let something not referenced or backed up stay for more than 48 hours. Wikipedia is highly respected.

If I wanted to prove anything about Buddhism-like say that it has gods or does not, or that Shakyamuni was a god or a man or whatever. I can find a Buddhist book to back me up... and I could find another book to contradict myself. So again-only objective sources, LIKE WIKIPenis EnlargementDIA should be given much merit or weight on such debates. The question here is "did they have sex" and what I've found is, NO THEY DID NOT. You have admitted half of this-that the birth was divine if nothing else-that Vishnu magically enters her womb and is born as Krishna.
You haven't even given a reference showing they had sex. I've given you TWO REFERENCES that say that she is a virgin (therefore virgin birth as I claimed and you dispute) and that they did not have sex-that Krishna is "transferred" not "conceived" in her womb.

So far you have not backed up your point, I have backed up mine. Don't dispute a valid source like wikipedia, give us some quotes with references that PROVE/CLAIM THEY HAD SEX!!!!

It is highly respected and when I altered the penis enlargement page once to include information on clamping they altered it back within 5 minutes because I didn't place references. You cant simply go to Wikipedia and write shiet out, its very accurate and the most used on-line encyclopaedia nowadays.

Crazy Doc;422864 said:

Gotta disagree with you. They say wikipedia is 50x more accurate than any other encyclopedia. I could take any religious book and make a dozen conflicting claims-so your logic here is flawed. "Where you stand depends on where you sit" so from a debate standpoint-the objective sources are given MUCH MORE weight than those from specific perspectives. Now there are 700 Million Hindus in the world-I'm sure a couple of them are on Wikipedia and would dispute something not true-as is always done on Wikipedia. And you obviously know nothing about wikipedia-I dare you to go change that page on Devaki-and see what happens. You'll see they have a million rules and moderators are all over that thing and won't let something not referenced or backed up stay for more than 48 hours. Wikipedia is highly respected.

If I wanted to prove anything about Buddhism-like say that it has gods or does not, or that Shakyamuni was a god or a man or whatever. I can find a Buddhist book to back me up... and I could find another book to contradict myself. So again-only objective sources, LIKE WIKIPenis EnlargementDIA should be given much merit or weight on such debates. The question here is "did they have sex" and what I've found is, NO THEY DID NOT. You have admitted half of this-that the birth was divine if nothing else-that Vishnu magically enters her womb and is born as Krishna.
You haven't even given a reference showing they had sex. I've given you TWO REFERENCES that say that she is a virgin (therefore virgin birth as I claimed and you dispute) and that they did not have sex-that Krishna is "transferred" not "conceived" in her womb.

So far you have not backed up your point, I have backed up mine. Don't dispute a valid source like wikipedia, give us some quotes with references that PROVE/CLAIM THEY HAD SEX!!!!

Click to expand...

You first claim you dont know much abut hinduism but you are so dead sure of krishnas virgin birth. That is just so amazing.It would be very sad if your twenty years of buddhism has also come from wikipedia. I hope it has not.
Anyways, here is a online link i can give you.
http://www.longlongtimeago.com/llta_myths_krishna.html

The prophecy stated is "'The marriage of Devaki and Vasudev shall be blessed, for of this union shall be born eight sons,' said the voice. 'But let the demon Kansa beware - Devaki's eighth son will be his end.'"

peace out.

REDZULU2003;422866 said:

It is highly respected and when I altered the penis enlargement page once to include information on clamping they altered it back within 5 minutes because I didn't place references. You cant simply go to Wikipedia and write shiet out, its very accurate and the most used on-line encyclopaedia nowadays.

Click to expand...

As far as I understand, wikipedia can only be as accurate as the original books. Not more.

Crazy Doc;422864 said:

Gotta disagree with you. They say wikipedia is 50x more accurate than any other encyclopedia.

Click to expand...

And I say that a ancient text like mahabharata is infinite times more accurate than wikipedia.

Crazy Doc;422864 said:

PROVE/CLAIM THEY HAD SEX!!!![/B]

Click to expand...

The woman who gave birth to krishna , gave birth to seven kids before. It is up to you to prove how all them were born without copulation.

I don't suBathmateit to any religion personally. I've never felt the need to identify myself as a "......ian". I believe in a god as a creative force. I also believe we are all connected as energy on a higher plane...there are other dimensions as well as theorized by the likes of Einstein. Man's interpretation of the world around him, what happens (he hopes) when he dies, and a means to CONTROL people who might otherwise behave in unspeakable or unacceptable ways if they knew there were no real consequences for their actions....is what religions are. How a person decides to connect with the world and universe around them is up to them. I don't believe I'll die and go to "heaven" or "hell"...I'll rejoin the universe as a yet to be determined type of energy. I believe my form after I leave my body ...whenever that ends up being...will resemble something like what Hollywood has determined when people "ascend"...becoming an energy which exists on a higher plane. A sentient being of energy. Of course, I would not be visible to human eyes...as we as humans only see on our current third dimension. Will I remember "who" I was when I was human? Who knows. The human brain is made up of tissue and sure, is "powered" by electricity of sorts, but is different from a purely energetic state of consciousness.

A couple examples from the series "Stargate" of one ascending at physical death:

wanagrow;423061 said:

The woman who gave birth to krishna , gave birth to seven kids before. It is up to you to prove how all them were born without copulation.

Click to expand...

My point is valid, many people believe and have reason to believe Krishna shares aspects of Jesus' life. This includes a virgin birth and I have backed that up-I'm not obligated to do anything else, including begin to make it personal as you've done! But more importantly, from my perspective-I believe none of it. I don't believe in magical beings like Krishna or Jesus. I don't think some guy named Vishnu crawled into her belly with or without a penis. And I question if Jesus existed as a man, much less as a god. What's the saying? "Those who control the present control the past.." Santayana maybe? I forget who said it-but it rings true. Those who write the books control history. And when the pens are held by politicians like Constantine... be all the more suspicious of the motives and things they write.

I could really care less how Krishna was born, my original point is still quite valid-that the Jesus written about in the bible did NOTHING original, and that he is a "copycat god" at best.

Crazy Doc;423139 said:

My point is valid, many people believe and have reason to believe Krishna shares aspects of Jesus' life. This includes a virgin birth and I have backed that up-I'm not obligated to do anything else,

Click to expand...

All spiritual beings share common aspects, that doesnt means the are same person. And as i said before , seven kids were born before krishnas birth. If krishna came out of a virgin woman, then that implies all before him were virgin too! No book mentions anything unnatural about the birth of those seven kids. The Mahabharata doesnt even mentions the word virgin.

I have nothing personal against you , i apologise if I offended you. But, If I would ever study a religion ,I would go to original texts, not to wikipedia, or some guy who sells his own interpretatation of things to satisfy his ego or make a living. And this is also what I would advise anyone else to do.

God bless

wanagrow;425104 said:

All spiritual beings share common aspects, that doesnt means the are same person. And as i said before , seven kids were born before krishnas birth. If krishna came out of a virgin woman, then that implies all before him were virgin too! No book mentions anything unnatural about the birth of those seven kids. The Mahabharata doesnt even mentions the word virgin.

I have nothing personal against you , i apologise if I offended you. But, If I would ever study a religion ,I would go to original texts, not to wikipedia, or some guy who sells his own interpretatation of things to satisfy his ego or make a living. And this is also what I would advise anyone else to do.

God bless

Click to expand...

are we still talking about this?? If so, Krishna aside-the original point stands: Jesus is a copycat god.

Oh ya, and WHICH god are you blessing me with? *creepy*

Crazy Doc;425108 said:

are we still talking about this?? If so, Krishna aside-the original point stands: Jesus is a copycat god.

Oh ya, and WHICH god are you blessing me with? *creepy*

Click to expand...

Sorry I went quite busy for past some time.

Well, I have a lot of respect for Jesus. But that doesnt means I blindly follow what church says. I have started reading about hinduism mostly out of curisoity. It is the oldest religion which exists. It has a very mysterious feel to it. And of course, it has tantra! the spiritual side of sex. Thats the most interesting thing to me.

I currently have english translations of Mahabharata and Bhagwad Gita. Bhagwad gita is a small part of mahabharata and contains the most of krishnas teachings. Which he delivered to arjuna on a battlefield. And from whatever I have read so far. It is just so cool , so detailed about the real nature of things and of course as I said it before, i definitely find it much advanced and deeper than christian teachings.

wanagrow;425112 said:

Sorry I went quite busy for past some time.

Well, I have a lot of respect for Jesus. But that doesnt means I blindly follow what church says. I have started reading about hinduism mostly out of curisoity. It is the oldest religion which exists. It has a very mysterious feel to it. And of course, it has tantra! the spiritual side of sex. Thats the most interesting thing to me.

I currently have english translations of Mahabharata and Bhagwad Gita. Bhagwad gita is a small part of mahabharata and contains the most of krishnas teachings. Which he delivered to arjuna on a battlefield. And from whatever I have read so far. It is just so cool , so detailed about the real nature of things and of course as I said it before, i definitely find it much advanced and deeper than christian teachings.

Click to expand...

Well, western religion really has NO depth in my opinion. There are no connections, no explanations, just some wild claims. And frankly, it's not even interesting-the stories and so forth, very dry, very lame. I tried to read the book of mormon last year- I could only make it about 40 pages, I got so sick of every paragraph starting with "it then came to pass".... I about lost my mind.

Crazy Doc;425119 said:

Well, western religion really has NO depth in my opinion. There are no connections, no explanations, just some wild claims. And frankly, it's not even interesting-the stories and so forth, very dry, very lame. I tried to read the book of mormon last year- I could only make it about 40 pages, I got so sick of every paragraph starting with "it then came to pass".... I about lost my mind.

Click to expand...

One thing is that I am completely in favor of reincarnation. I have been through some past life regression sessions and this thing is definitely true.

wanagrow;425121 said:

One thing is that I am completely in favor of reincarnation. I have been through some past life regression sessions and this thing is definitely true.

Click to expand...

I haven't done that, but just theoretically speaking: Karma REQUIRES reincarnation. They simply go together and frankly-together they are the ONLY explanation (other than chance) for different starting points, ie why this guy is born king and that one born a peasant and so forth.

Christ finds a home near Japan's Eden: Terry McCarthy visits Shingo, where locals claim they are descended from Jesus, who, they say, is buried there...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...sus-who-they-say-is-buried-there-1469335.html