All Comments (36)

I mean, all these claims about the 'Objective truth' of the Bible have nothing to do with truth or objectivity: these are not observations, they are *insistences* borne out of a very human and very observable *desire for certainty.*

They do not justify any of the ritualized observances, invectives, or abstinences that some Christians construe as 'An Attack on Our rue Religion' not to *obey.*

They do not justify the 'special place' you claim, particularly not when you claim, 'My subjective belief makes what I say objectively true.'

It just doesn't work that way.

"Richmond says: It could be objectively true, and you could be objectively wrong. Ever wonder about that? I have consistently made the distinction between religious truth and the "civil right to be wrong.""

Yet you consistently place your personal ideas that you must personally be 'right' above the *rights* of others to have their own ideas and not be erased in American society.

Do I ever wonder about 'Christians being objectively right?'

No, not anymore. Frankly, to be ungentle, you *are* wrong, by any objective standard, even of internal consistency.

Your absolutist claims are not only refuted by reason and observation, otherwise utterly unsupportable, but also demonstrable fallacious logically.

You have no 'objective truth,' certainly not one that has a leg to stand on in violating the American constitution, what's *smart to do,* or in denigrating the rights and viewpoints of others as you so blithely presume you're entitled to do.

The basis of your claimed authority in these matters just isn't there.

That's off the table.

Just because you *claim a religious belief that your particular religion is objectively-and-exclusively-true* ...doesn't mean it actually is.

This is where you guys get into trouble.

You over-reach. And use this over-reaching to claim you're *better* than others while claiming the most ridiculous things.

Yes, many people do believe that 'Only goodness comes from the Bible and goodness only comes from the Bible.' This is a dogmatic *sorting error* about human experience, whatever you try to accuse people of making of it.

When you try to bring it all down to Christian triumphalism and justification of exclusion of others from their rights as American citizens, ...forget about it.

It doesn't hold water.

The Bible doesn't agree with *itself,* (even on the supposed nonexistence of other Gods) never mind have a *shred* of evidence to relate its demands to anything *outside* the Bible.

It just doesn't.

There's some beauty and wisdom in your faith, generally totally ignored in the name of capitalism and trying to control others' sex lives, but it's there.

It just has no objective privilege whatsoever.

Paganplace said: "You thinking your religion has copyright on access to the Divine does *not* mean this is objectively true, or justifies bigoted behavior, or that the government should countenance the exclusion of other Americans from representation."

Richmond says: It could be objectively true, and you could be objectively wrong. Ever wonder about that? I have consistently made the distinction between religious truth and the "civil right to be wrong." Hindus do and ought to have the right to practice their religion freely in this country, because America gives people the right to practice and defend their religious beliefs. Christianity should not be given preeminence in the US, even if it is objectively God's revelation to all humankind.

Paganplace said: "People believe that goodness can only come from the Bible and only badness can come from other-than-the-Bible cause *that's what they're taught.*"

Richmond says: What people are you talking about? Christians? That's as absurd as saying all language comes from the dictionary and all non-dictionary language is babble. Christians believe that the Bible contains good truth but also that revelation can come from other places as well... We also believe that God speaks in consistent ways through His revelation. The consistent revelation from the Bible and other places is that there is a fundamental unity to the Godhead. There are not three million True Gods, there is one God.

Richmond: You thinking your religion has copyright on access to the Divine does *not* mean this is objectively true, or justifies bigoted behavior, or that the government should countenance the exclusion of other Americans from representation.

Justifying assaults by saying 'It's the Will of God,' is the root of the word 'bigotry,' from people justifying abuses and atrocities with the phrase 'Bi Gott.' (By God.)

That's not America, however small your view of the Divine is.

The Greek origin of the word 'Christ' comes from the word for 'Anointed,' ...particularly one who'd been through the Eleusinian Mysteries, related to Demeter and a dying and regenerating grain God.

You could call many people 'Christs' based on that alone.

The mythic parallels are certainly interesting, but, ....it's not the only myth, never mind the only authority: just one among many, with many different things to say about many aspects of life.

People believe that goodness can only come from the Bible and only badness can come from other-than-the-Bible cause *that's what they're taught.*

Doesn't make this true.

It just means they *want* it to be.

There's more to life, too.

Richmond,

I truly wish if everyone can imbibe the character of Christ and the world would be a better place. Christ in Sanskrit means that one which is to be attracted. Krishna means the same. In fact the ancient name of Christ is still used in India by the name of Isha Mashi, which ancient Isreali's used it. Sadly, even the followers of Christ, had their politics and were envious of Mary's hold on Christ. That is the human nature and all pushers of religion when it becomes a centrally organized religion, where often it has been seen getting corrupted with power, money and sex (not long time back Church could be bribed to wash your sins).

I do not understand why you do not still understand that Hinduism is not a polytheist religion. It is a man made concept and that too show a first division between Persians and Indians, e.g. Suryas (or Devas) vs A-Suryas. This was the basis of a philosphical split but there was still intermingling between the group and no violence was there. In fact most of the Indian Spiritual Saints of Scriptures trace their lineage to the Persian side. This was about allowing iconic worship vs just being a pure worshiper of symbol of one God, called Fire, which Vedas also worshiped as a messenger to God, in sacrificial oblations. In fact the word "Agnus Dei" in Latin in Christinity goes to Agni Dev and symbolizes the same concept. This was the basis of formation of nations called Syria and A-Syria (Surya and A-Surya as prnounced by Arabs even today). Jews got their theosphy from Babylonians, which were ruled by Persians Zorastrians (A-Suryas), and also from Egyptians, which were already influenced by Persians, and before that there were hardly monotheists. Plus they were the nomads who shot off from Babylonia. Their "Coming of Age" Ceremony, where a thread is tied is same as Zorastrians and Hindus. You can call the Suryas as Brahman-ic Religion and A-Suryas as A-Brahaman-ic Religion, e.g. Abrhaham.
Their is so much similarity between stories of Brhama and Abrahma. Often the religion invents parables as stories of moral value and lessons in faith, and often people take up the names of the characters in the stories, and soon myth and facts start mixing to become religious history, which people from religion call it History, and others call it Mythology (how much of it from Hindu is believed by outsiders and how much of it from Bible is pushed to people as History, like Christmas being the birth date of Christ - read Mead/King mentioned later). You should also read on similarities of history between Krishna and Christ and colonist Britishers in 16 century thought that Hindus had copied the stories, forged all the vast amount of scripture, you can call it an Ocean (before it Bible is a drop in an ocean), spread across the land from Afganistan/Uzbekistan to Burma, and from Kashmir/Tibet/Tachuria to South with so many factions of Brahmins, where there was no communication and transportation needed for such an organized mass effort, and it was famous for its divisive rulers which Muslim Conquerors Britishers exploited. Then how historical sites like Ashokas Pillars and Elephants caves with idols depicting Krishna, and scripts mentioning Krishna, even ome Pillars erected by Greeks, could be fabricated. Please read Anacalypsis by Geofry Higgins.

Please read Books by Mead and King on Gnostics at www.sacred-texts.com and see for yourself how much of politiking went on in first 300 years between founding fathers of Roman Church and the rest of the followers of Christ. How one group was bad mouthed by others, which was believed as the truth, till recent discoveries of Gnostics Books in Egypt, which were burried in farmland to escape destruction at hands of the Founding Fathers of Christianity, which is well recorded. Please read how much of theosphy, icons, symbols were borrowed from Hinduism indirectly and directly into modern Christianity.

We all know how much pillage, destruction of temples and libraries went around the world in the name of Christianity by its zealots who wanted to convert the world to their enlightened religion. How enlighting! And this was repeated by Islam Conquerors, and now same is happening since 9/11 which we call terrorism!

We all know what went on around 1000 AD by the Christian Knights and how Protestants and Catholic fought over what should be in Bible and which language. How many people were put to the stake and how many reformists and translators were haunted and killed?

I was shocked to read the teaching of Jesus Christ were same as what is taught in Indian Gita and scriptures. In facts things like Yogic and Devotional teachings were also there but dropped by Roman Church. That may explain why Christ was missing for 15 years and is said to have visited different spiritual places and temples in India. In fact there is a reference of Christ in Bhavishya Purana and a Kashmir King.

It is a fallacy of human mind to push one idea of Divinity to others. Period. The relationship between God and Individual Soul is a very personal one.

At the core of Hinduism, they tell you to seek God inside you, which is what Christ said, "Do not seek Me in outside the world but inside yourself", which means a process where Jesus became Christ. In Vedanta and Gita, is said the one-ness of Individual Soul with the Universal Soul and where one becomes without perceived duality, without You and Me, without Happiness and Sorrow but with Eternal Peace and Happiness, without Anger and Hatred but with Love and Compassion, and so on.

Hinduism has never bothered to convert anyone. And like all religions, we also have our fair share of problems, but history tells us that most peaceful people have been Hindus. Read William Durant on Hindus in Our Oriental Inheritage.

The shouting at the senate was nothing but highlighting devilish behavior driven by ignorance, superstition, jealousy and politics.

Tell me did Jesus said go and covert everyone in the world and divide the Christians into all the sects, Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Protestonts, Mormons, Lutherians, and so on. Everyone has his/her right to communicate to his/her God, in his and her whatever image.

The journey of Spiritualism happens over the years for many, and concepts change, and no one has a right to force his or her views, and one can only suggest. But the best Church and Temple is in the Hearts of Human Soul! Why encroach on to it with our Filth!!

Sunil, You can say that again : ) : ) : )

I grant that thousands of years ago, much of the Middle East may have been dominated by some sort of proto-religion that is similar to Hinduism.

That said, the Muslims, Hebrews, and Christians believe that this one God sent a series of prophets to refine our understanding of Him, so that after hearing this "special revelation" we would no longer be following the same religions that we started with. Surely the Creator of the 16-dimensional Universe had the power to create sentience and communicate to His creation in a special way to bring humanity closer and closer to right worship of the One True God. We are not there yet, but we are farther along than we were 10,000 years ago.

As for your claims that "Mary is worshipped as God" or "'Jesus is God' means God did not exist before the Common Era" ... uh... it gets complex. Most Christian theology holds that the Word of God (Logos) -- the fundamental creation principle operating in the Universe -- was present at the beginning of time. The Bible is seen as "the Word made paper" ... Jesus is seen as "the Word made flesh" ... Mary is seen as somebody special, and is esteemed with special status (*not* divinity) only among the sects that regularly practice "veneration" of saints (Catholics, Othodox traditions of worship style).

There is something special about a Jesus who is considered fully human and fully divine... the offspring of the fully-divine Holy Spirit crossed with the fully-humanness of the Virgin Mary. The promised "Christ," as foretold in the prophetic writings, was anointed (by funeral oil rather than kingship anointing) to lead people to right worship of the Creator God. It is the claim of Christianity that only God Himself could lead his people to him, but this is only possible if this "Immanuel" somehow (perhaps through 16-dimensional physics!) dwells among us and points us in the right direction.

(Yeah, I told you it was complex so sorry if I talked a little esoterically there!)

The protesters were not protesting the need for people to be led from darkness to light, or the need to be led from untruth to truth... They were protesting that the Greeks, Egyptians, Persians, Bablonians were in need of being led away from their polytheism by a God that chose the Israelites to be a "Light to all nations". The Judeo-Christian tradition witnesses to the fact that the God of All Creation that led His people Israel away from captivity in Egypt, away from captivity in Persia and Babylon, and steadfastly encouraged them to witness to the Oneness of God. The tiny ragtag group of Christ-followers then carried this witness to the polytheistic Greeks and Romans, where God shaped these cultures into Christ-following communities like the Greek Orthodox church and the Roman Catholic Church.

I personally don't have a problem with the prayer that was given, but I value the opportunity to discuss monotheism that this protest singlehandedly offered. I do not value the Protest but the thought of the Protest.

Grace and Peace,
RT

Sorry for the multiple posts. I thought the thing was hanging.

If you are a Theosphy expert, you should know Hinduism does not preach Polytheism but allows multiple forms of Icons as symbols. It preaches one essential essence of Divinity or God Existence with many forms and expressions, and for the ease of Human Understanding, which Christian Theology put them as Angels, representating different powers of the One Being. Symbols are invented to help and later they themselves become the expression of the very thing that the symbol was developed to be used as a "handle to grip" on the "elusive idea" about an entity called God. It is our fallacy to even think of Him as an entity which He is not since He is beyond our senses!

God is beyond 3-dimensional space amd time, and science has come to admit their being 16 dimensions, and He is very well beyond that even! So how a tiny human brain can understand Godhood, and we are like Blind People hitting on different parts of an elephant amd fighting and debating over the description of God Elephant as "Monotheist Trunk", "Polytheist Legs", "Dual Eyes", "Monotheist Tail", "Dualist Ears", "Polytheist Teeth", "Dualist Tusks", "Montheist Body", and so on. And among each categories of 'iest', we still fight what they actually mean! Look at so many division of Churches. Some even worship Madonna and/or Mary as God. Some worship Jesus as God, and so on. Some Christians fight over saying there is only one God and that the is the God talked about in Bible and by Jesus. So that means there was no God before Jesus.

Best part I can quote from Bhagwat Gita, which Krishna says, "Worship of Any Gods(Angels), in whatever form and way, Devotion expressed to them in whatever form and way, is My Worship". Here Krishna is not the Individual God but talking as the Supreme. So far their is principle of Non Violence followed to all living beings, animate and in-animate, which means incuding to plants and nature's elements, any thing is allowed in name of God, so far the thought counts. Do not look at the Gift but at the thought of the Gift.

All serious research into Theosphy and Philosphy perceived to be as original from Jews, Greeks, and Egypts would go back to Hinduism and Vedas.

WHat we call Hinduism is the last remanant of the Proto Indo European religion practised by all Europeans and Middle East People, including Greek, Egypt, Persians, Bablonias, Israelites, and so on.

In fact, the United Nations should declare this religion and its language as the living inheritance of our Human Ancestry. Now DNA study also backs this up, where 40,000 BC North Western of Indian Penisula saw the Indo Europeans passing into Europe.

Only Devils can protest to this Prey to the God which was said in the Senate:

Lead us from the Un-Truth to the Truth, Lead us from the Darkness to the Light, Lead us from the Ignorance to the Engligtment, Lead us from the Death to the Immortality.

Everthing is Brahaman, as per Vedas, was Brahman, is Brahman, and shall be Brahaman. Which means Brahman is the Super Soul and we are just the part and parcel of that.

Love, and Peace to All which are part of Brhaman.

Amen. Amin. Aum.

If you are a Theosphy expert, you should know Hinduism does not preach Polytheism but allows multiple forms of Icons as symbols. It preaches one essential essence of Divinity or God Existence with many forms and expressions, and for the ease of Human Understanding, which Christian Theology put them as Angels, representating different powers of the One Being. Symbols are invented to help and later they themselves become the expression of the very thing that the symbol was developed to be used as a "handle to grip" on the "elusive idea" about an entity called God. It is our fallacy to even think of Him as an entity which He is not since He is beyond our senses!

God is beyond 3-dimensional space amd time, and science has come to admit their being 16 dimensions, and He is very well beyond that even! So how a tiny human brain can understand Godhood, and we are like Blind People hitting on different parts of an elephant amd fighting and debating over the description of God Elephant as "Monotheist Trunk", "Polytheist Legs", "Dual Eyes", "Monotheist Tail", "Dualist Ears", "Polytheist Teeth", "Dualist Tusks", "Montheist Body", and so on. And among each categories of 'iest', we still fight what they actually mean! Look at so many division of Churches. Some even worship Madonna and/or Mary as God. Some worship Jesus as God, and so on. Some Christians fight over saying there is only one God and that the is the God talked about in Bible and by Jesus. So that means there was no God before Jesus.

Best part I can quote from Bhagwat Gita, which Krishna says, "Worship of Any Gods(Angels), in whatever form and way, Devotion expressed to them in whatever form and way, is My Worship". Here Krishna is not the Individual God but talking as the Supreme. So far their is principle of Non Violence followed to all living beings, animate and in-animate, which means incuding to plants and nature's elements, any thing is allowed in name of God, so far the thought counts. Do not look at the Gift but at the thought of the Gift.

All serious research into Theosphy and Philosphy perceived to be as original from Jews, Greeks, and Egypts would go back to Hinduism and Vedas.

WHat we call Hinduism is the last remanant of the Proto Indo European religion practised by all Europeans and Middle East People, including Greek, Egypt, Persians, Bablonias, Israelites, and so on.

In fact, the United Nations should declare this religion and its language as the living inheritance of our Human Ancestry. Now DNA study also backs this up, where 40,000 BC North Western of Indian Penisula saw the Indo Europeans passing into Europe.

Only Devils can protest to this Prey to the God which was said in the Senate:

Lead us from the Un-Truth to the Truth, Lead us from the Darkness to the Light, Lead us from the Ignorance to the Engligtment, Lead us from the Death to the Immortality.

Everthing is Brahaman, as per Vedas, was Brahman, is Brahman, and shall be Brahaman. Which means Brahman is the Super Soul and we are just the part and parcel of that.

Love, and Peace to All which are part of Brhaman.

Amen. Amin. Aum.

If you are a Theosphy expert, you should know Hinduism does not preach Polytheism but allows multiple forms of Icons as symbols. It preaches one essential essence of Divinity or God Existence with many forms and expressions, and for the ease of Human Understanding, which Christian Theology put them as Angels, representating different powers of the One Being. Symbols are invented to help and later they themselves become the expression of the very thing that the symbol was developed to be used as a "handle to grip" on the "elusive idea" about an entity called God. It is our fallacy to even think of Him as an entity which He is not since He is beyond our senses!

God is beyond 3-dimensional space amd time, and science has come to admit their being 16 dimensions, and He is very well beyond that even! So how a tiny human brain can understand Godhood, and we are like Blind People hitting on different parts of an elephant amd fighting and debating over the description of God Elephant as "Monotheist Trunk", "Polytheist Legs", "Dual Eyes", "Monotheist Tail", "Dualist Ears", "Polytheist Teeth", "Dualist Tusks", "Montheist Body", and so on. And among each categories of 'iest', we still fight what they actually mean! Look at so many division of Churches. Some even worship Madonna and/or Mary as God. Some worship Jesus as God, and so on. Some Christians fight over saying there is only one God and that the is the God talked about in Bible and by Jesus. So that means there was no God before Jesus.

Best part I can quote from Bhagwat Gita, which Krishna says, "Worship of Any Gods(Angels), in whatever form and way, Devotion expressed to them in whatever form and way, is My Worship". Here Krishna is not the Individual God but talking as the Supreme. So far their is principle of Non Violence followed to all living beings, animate and in-animate, which means incuding to plants and nature's elements, any thing is allowed in name of God, so far the thought counts. Do not look at the Gift but at the thought of the Gift.

All serious research into Theosphy and Philosphy perceived to be as original from Jews, Greeks, and Egypts would go back to Hinduism and Vedas.

WHat we call Hinduism is the last remanant of the Proto Indo European religion practised by all Europeans and Middle East People, including Greek, Egypt, Persians, Bablonias, Israelites, and so on.

In fact, the United Nations should declare this religion and its language as the living inheritance of our Human Ancestry. Now DNA study also backs this up, where 40,000 BC North Western of Indian Penisula saw the Indo Europeans passing into Europe.

Only Devils can protest to this Prey to the God which was said in the Senate:

Lead us from the Un-Truth to the Truth, Lead us from the Darkness to the Light, Lead us from the Ignorance to the Engligtment, Lead us from the Death to the Immortality.

Everthing is Brahaman, as per Vedas, was Brahman, is Brahman, and shall be Brahaman. Which means Brahman is the Super Soul and we are just the part and parcel of that.

Love, and Peace to All which are part of Brhaman.

Amen. Amin. Aum.

If you are a Theosphy expert, you should know Hinduism does not preach Polytheism but allows multiple forms of Icons as symbols. It preaches one essential essence of Divinity or God Existence with many forms and expressions, and for the ease of Human Understanding, which Christian Theology put them as Angels, representating different powers of the One Being. Symbols are invented to help and later they themselves become the expression of the very thing that the symbol was developed to be used as a "handle to grip" on the "elusive idea" about an entity called God. It is our fallacy to even think of Him as an entity which He is not since He is beyond our senses!

God is beyond 3-dimensional space amd time, and science has come to admit their being 16 dimensions, and He is very well beyond that even! So how a tiny human brain can understand Godhood, and we are like Blind People hitting on different parts of an elephant amd fighting and debating over the description of God Elephant as "Monotheist Trunk", "Polytheist Legs", "Dual Eyes", "Monotheist Tail", "Dualist Ears", "Polytheist Teeth", "Dualist Tusks", "Montheist Body", and so on. And among each categories of 'iest', we still fight what they actually mean! Look at so many division of Churches. Some even worship Madonna and/or Mary as God. Some worship Jesus as God, and so on. Some Christians fight over saying there is only one God and that the is the God talked about in Bible and by Jesus. So that means there was no God before Jesus.

Best part I can quote from Bhagwat Gita, which Krishna says, "Worship of Any Gods(Angels), in whatever form and way, Devotion expressed to them in whatever form and way, is My Worship". Here Krishna is not the Individual God but talking as the Supreme. So far their is principle of Non Violence followed to all living beings, animate and in-animate, which means incuding to plants and nature's elements, any thing is allowed in name of God, so far the thought counts. Do not look at the Gift but at the thought of the Gift.

All serious research into Theosphy and Philosphy perceived to be as original from Jews, Greeks, and Egypts would go back to Hinduism and Vedas.

WHat we call Hinduism is the last remanant of the Proto Indo European religion practised by all Europeans and Middle East People, including Greek, Egypt, Persians, Bablonias, Israelites, and so on.

In fact, the United Nations should declare this religion and its language as the living inheritance of our Human Ancestry. Now DNA study also backs this up, where 40,000 BC North Western of Indian Penisula saw the Indo Europeans passing into Europe.

Only Devils can protest to this Prey to the God which was said in the Senate:

Lead us from the Un-Truth to the Truth, Lead us from the Darkness to the Light, Lead us from the Ignorance to the Engligtment, Lead us from the Death to the Immortality.

Everthing is Brahaman, as per Vedas, was Brahman, is Brahman, and shall be Brahaman. Which means Brahman is the Super Soul and we are just the part and parcel of that.

Love, and Peace to All which are part of Brhaman.

Amen. Amin. Aum.

If you are a Theosphy expert, you should know Hinduism does not preach Polytheism but allows multiple forms of Icons as symbols. It preaches one essential essence of Divinity or God Existence with many forms and expressions, and for the ease of Human Understanding, which Christian Theology put them as Angels, representating different powers of the One Being. Symbols are invented to help and later they themselves become the expression of the very thing that the symbol was developed to be used as a "handle to grip" on the "elusive idea" about an entity called God. It is our fallacy to even think of Him as an entity which He is not since He is beyond our senses!

God is beyond 3-dimensional space amd time, and science has come to admit their being 16 dimensions, and He is very well beyond that even! So how a tiny human brain can understand Godhood, and we are like Blind People hitting on different parts of an elephant amd fighting and debating over the description of God Elephant as "Monotheist Trunk", "Polytheist Legs", "Dual Eyes", "Monotheist Tail", "Dualist Ears", "Polytheist Teeth", "Dualist Tusks", "Montheist Body", and so on. And among each categories of 'iest', we still fight what they actually mean! Look at so many division of Churches. Some even worship Madonna and/or Mary as God. Some worship Jesus as God, and so on. Some Christians fight over saying there is only one God and that the is the God talked about in Bible and by Jesus. So that means there was no God before Jesus.

Best part I can quote from Bhagwat Gita, which Krishna says, "Worship of Any Gods(Angels), in whatever form and way, Devotion expressed to them in whatever form and way, is My Worship". Here Krishna is not the Individual God but talking as the Supreme. So far their is principle of Non Violence followed to all living beings, animate and in-animate, which means incuding to plants and nature's elements, any thing is allowed in name of God, so far the thought counts. Do not look at the Gift but at the thought of the Gift.

All serious research into Theosphy and Philosphy perceived to be as original from Jews, Greeks, and Egypts would go back to Hinduism and Vedas.

WHat we call Hinduism is the last remanant of the Proto Indo European religion practised by all Europeans and Middle East People, including Greek, Egypt, Persians, Bablonias, Israelites, and so on.

In fact, the United Nations should declare this religion and its language as the living inheritance of our Human Ancestry. Now DNA study also backs this up, where 40,000 BC North Western of Indian Penisula saw the Indo Europeans passing into Europe.

Only Devils can protest to this Prey to the God which was said in the Senate:

Lead us from the Un-Truth to the Truth, Lead us from the Darkness to the Light, Lead us from the Ignorance to the Engligtment, Lead us from the Death to the Immortality.

Everthing is Brahaman, as per Vedas, was Brahman, is Brahman, and shall be Brahaman. Which means Brahman is the Super Soul and we are just the part and parcel of that.

Love, and Peace to All which are part of Brhaman.

Amen. Amin. Aum.

If you are a Theosphy expert, you should know Hinduism does not preach Polytheism but allows multiple forms of Icons as symbols. It preaches one essential essence of Divinity or God Existence with many forms and expressions, and for the ease of Human Understanding, which Christian Theology put them as Angels, representating different powers of the One Being. Symbols are invented to help and later they themselves become the expression of the very thing that the symbol was developed to be used as a "handle to grip" on the "elusive idea" about an entity called God. It is our fallacy to even think of Him as an entity which He is not since He is beyond our senses!

God is beyond 3-dimensional space amd time, and science has come to admit their being 16 dimensions, and He is very well beyond that even! So how a tiny human brain can understand Godhood, and we are like Blind People hitting on different parts of an elephant amd fighting and debating over the description of God Elephant as "Monotheist Trunk", "Polytheist Legs", "Dual Eyes", "Monotheist Tail", "Dualist Ears", "Polytheist Teeth", "Dualist Tusks", "Montheist Body", and so on. And among each categories of 'iest', we still fight what they actually mean! Look at so many division of Churches. Some even worship Madonna and/or Mary as God. Some worship Jesus as God, and so on. Some Christians fight over saying there is only one God and that the is the God talked about in Bible and by Jesus. So that means there was no God before Jesus.

Best part I can quote from Bhagwat Gita, which Krishna says, "Worship of Any Gods(Angels), in whatever form and way, Devotion expressed to them in whatever form and way, is My Worship". Here Krishna is not the Individual God but talking as the Supreme. So far their is principle of Non Violence followed to all living beings, animate and in-animate, which means incuding to plants and nature's elements, any thing is allowed in name of God, so far the thought counts. Do not look at the Gift but at the thought of the Gift.

All serious research into Theosphy and Philosphy perceived to be as original from Jews, Greeks, and Egypts would go back to Hinduism and Vedas.

WHat we call Hinduism is the last remanant of the Proto Indo European religion practised by all Europeans and Middle East People, including Greek, Egypt, Persians, Bablonias, Israelites, and so on.

In fact, the United Nations should declare this religion and its language as the living inheritance of our Human Ancestry. Now DNA study also backs this up, where 40,000 BC North Western of Indian Penisula saw the Indo Europeans passing into Europe.

Only Devils can protest to this Prey to the God which was said in the Senate:

Lead us from the Un-Truth to the Truth, Lead us from the Darkness to the Light, Lead us from the Ignorance to the Engligtment, Lead us from the Death to the Immortality.

Everthing is Brahaman, as per Vedas, was Brahman, is Brahman, and shall be Brahaman. Which means Brahman is the Super Soul and we are just the part and parcel of that.

Love, and Peace to All which are part of Brhaman.

Amen. Amin. Aum.

Paganplace,

"Personally, Gaby, I think the time to argue against Senate prayers is *not* the rare occasions when someone that doesn't represent the Abrahamic God gets a chance to speak.

Every other day, if you like.

This day is about diversity... If we cast it in terms of 'Their God or none' it doesn't better represent America, only makes it about 'Their God.'"

I understand your concern, but since this is the first time that I have come across a topic that mixes religion with government. Therefore, I thought is was an appropriate time to bring up my feelings.

Also, I do agree that if you allow prayer in the Senate, then allow all faiths to be represented. However, this whole thing about religion in government gets my goat.

Hrm. For one, I'm sorry I seem to have gotten it in my head you're named 'Raymond.' :) Skimming of headers can become habit too easily. :)

Still, what you're defending here, ...is bald-faced hate.

If you haven't seen the recordings, ...do so. Shut down windows and pause till it loads, if you have to.

If that's not 'yucky' to your God, well... forget about it anyway.

I am opposed to federal Faith-based help-the poor initiatives on the grounds of Establishment Clause as well as on the grounds of the Golden Rule.

I do this as neither a progressive nor a conservative... but simply as a person who believes in limited government, especially as it pertains to any kind of religious establishment.

Government can and ought to operate with a minimum of deference to one or another particular religion. Even so, I believe that religion provides useful insights and that the basic moral framework most religions agree on ought to be represented even if public policies need not necessarily be defended in explicitly religious terms.

Fair 'nough, Raymond, we could actually use the help out here with the practicalities.

Before you go defending hate as 'theologically correct,' you might consider that theocracy may promise 'faith based' help for the poor, even if they're actually cutting services to the poor and kicking a fraction of what they cut back to the churches for a captive politicized audience and a little ritualized 'feel-good' 'We're helping the poor more by spending these kickbacks for the political power on Bibles and displays of 'compassion' for the faithful while the poor are up S creek when it doesn't serve our ends...'

You want, as a Christian, to see the 'good' always advertised about Christianity, ...stop scrabbling to close everyone else out.. Stop defending the greedy who give lipservice to your theological superiority while betraying everything you're being told only you can do....

In government, Christianity has gone from an -ity to an -ism.

Guess who the -ism serves.

No I haven't watched it yet, but it's cuz of my poor internet connection. I really do want to get to another computer and watch it.

I am sure it is yet another kooky display Christian Zealotry. I used to ignore that stuff as totally off the map absurd until I realized that many non-Christians actually think of Christians as all being that wierd. In the church I grew up with we just talked about Love and helping the poor and caring for our neighbors like Jesus taught. It wasn't conservatives versus progressives... it was just church.

On this:

"There is fundamental and unsolvable problem with inviting expressions of faith into the public domain: who gets invited? "

Obviously tricky, but not 'fundamental and insoluble.'

Solution?
It's called courtesy.

If you think someone else's religion must not be given voice, *shut up a minute.*

This ain't rocket science.

If there's a million Hindus in America, there's at least as many Pagans, actually.

So, maybe someone non-Abrahamic comes up once in a Presidency. Fine. If on the rare occasion someone *besides* an Abrahamic tradition comes up, well, if Senators can't realize they represent people *they* are supposed to be representing, too, then, in the tongue of my recent ancestors,

Stifle it.

The rest of us are actually pretty well-practiced at it.

".. that is, they were talking about a person being yucky but the *act of prayer to poytheistic deities* being yucky. If you are going to speak out against their protest, at least get the facts straight... otherwise you are just being belligerent."

Having been called an 'abomination' a few times, then having those who did it support those who do so, by saying, 'Oh, it's just 'love the sinner, hate the sin, even if we don't treat you as a human being, but *as* a walking 'sin,''

Well, That's belligerent.

Have you *watched* the actual video of what these people did? I don't care if it had a Papal blessing and the personal blessing of Queen Elizabeth, ....*that's* belligerent.

There is fundamental and unsolvable problem with inviting expressions of faith into the public domain: who gets invited? The only way we've come to address this issue is by counting the congregations. If there are one million hindus in the country, then they finally get to pray before the senate. Their churches probably get the big tax breaks. What of the Wiccans? They got a symbol on military tombstones, but they haven't been invited to the senate yet. I'm guessing they still pay taxes on their houses of worship. The question therefore becomes: Who does the government recognize as a religion? This is crossing the "establishment" line. Numbers do not validate religion. Small groups or individuals need to be assured... no, *guaranteed* that the government does not favor large congregations simply by virtue of their size. The question must be ERASED by removing all references to religion completely out of the public square. Everyone pays taxes. No tombstone symbols. No more prayers where the business is to write new laws. This is absolutely no detriment to anyone... everyone still gets to go home and pray until the four horsemen come.

Paganplace quoted me and responded: "“you are totally misrepresenting what most Christians believe." Nah, I'm just starting with what you said, and what the people you supported said."

RT says: That right... sort of... you *started* with what I said but... then you added to it and asserted that I "applauded" their tactless shouting down of a prayer. I did not "applaud" this or "support" this action, but I can understand the *theological underpinnings* of wanting to defend monotheistic understanding of God. You again misrepresent what Christians think when you use words like "calling them abominations" ... the protestors clearly said "This is an abomination!" and *not* "Rajan Zed is an abomination" ... that is, they were talking about a person being yucky but the *act of prayer to poytheistic deities* being yucky. If you are going to speak out against their protest, at least get the facts straight... otherwise you are just being belligerent.

Paganplace said: " They're nasty bigots. They're screaming, 'Bi Gott, Bi Gott, our belief in our superiority overrides courtesy, the law, and the dignity in society of millions of Americans.' And so are you."

read the above quote... reread it over and over.. .and ask yourself if you really believe these words. Ask yourself if this is a fair representation of what "those people" really think or if maybe it is a angry stereotype you have that you want to attribute to me and about Christians in general. If you find yourself really and truly believing that all Christians are a bunch of hissy-fit-throwing rednecks, then consider whether this is perhaps bigotry on your part.

"“you are totally misrepresenting what most Christians believe."

Nah, I'm just starting with what you said, and what the people you supported said.

You try to say them shouting down guests of our Congress... Clergy, by calling people 'abominations' ....just means, 'Oh, they're theologically correct, but don't worry, they're just saying God thinks they're 'yucky' like he's picking second-graders for a kickball game...'

You say, 'They're not 'yucky' (abominations who shall be put to death and their blood shall be upon them') people, they just *choose to wallow in filth' if they don't *obey my religion like this was some kind of theocracy.*

Which is it, deathly important that you childishly insult people, or people screaming that the country will fall if it's acknowledged there are different beliefs than yours in it?

Either way, it's unsupportable.

This is America.

If your 'God loves all people' give the xenophobia and homophobia and Dominionism a rest.

They're nasty bigots. They're screaming, 'Bi Gott, Bi Gott, our belief in our superiority overrides courtesy, the law, and the dignity in society of millions of Americans.'

And so are you.

That's what *bigotry* *is.* Thinking what you think of someone is more important than the people themselves are.

Bi Gott.

Bigotry.

Rich: "For the record, I agree with Gaby… I am fine with abolishing the official Congressional prayer invocation."

On that we agree. I would prefer no prayer in government meetings - I consider it an inappropriate time and place. But if we're going to allow one religion to do it, we have to allow all.

To Lep: (“Your religion does not determine everyone else's.”) No my religion doesn’t determine everyone else’s… but the rightness or wrongness of any religion is how well it conforms to the ultimate reality. If it’s possible to be wrong, then it’s possible for some religions to be “more right” than others. The claim of Christianity and other religions is that there is a basic “oneness” of to God. To the degree that a religion contradicts this claim

Paganplace… I did not “applaud” their actions, but I do not see them as the nasty bigots as you seem to. Let me be clear, their sentiments were theologically supportable but the actions thy took were clearly in poor taste. Please do not lump me in with the Creationists and Happy Holdays protesters and Abortion clinic firebombers and the Prayer in schools people. Christianity is far more diverse than that. It’s the crazies that make the news and all the other Christians suffer for it.

When you say “So, all those things that say gay people are an 'abomination,' and thus must be put to death...” and “Cause you say he thinks we're 'yucky.' …“you are totally misrepresenting what most Christians believe. Fred Phelps and his “godhatesfags.com” cult is repudiated by 99.9999% of Christians. The bible is consistent in its use of “abomination” in describing “yucky” *actions* rather than “yucky” *people.* God loves all people, even when they choose to wallow in the mud.

For the record, I agree with Gaby… I am fine with abolishing the official Congressional prayer invocation.

Ok, I said that was it, but I gotta rant and rave a sec, here.

'Yucky?'

We're supposed to exclusively obey a God who wants to burn most of the people who ever existed in eternal lakes of fire...

Cause you say he thinks we're 'yucky.'

You want us to base government on this.

Umm.

Dude.

You spoke of knowing where our 'bread is buttered,' what am I, a Cajun sandwich for the faithful?

Phhhbt. :)

And one more thing for Raymond:

"The word "abomination" simply means "yucky"..."

So, all those things that say gay people are an 'abomination,' and thus must be put to death...

They're supposed to be put to death cause they're called 'yucky?'

I'd just as soon that not be the only religious voice in my government... If you don't mind so very much.

Gods.

I mean, to be honest, so often this issue gets attention when another religion is treated as 'freaky' enough to 'question the implications' of prayers or whatnot in front of Congress.

It's not a freakshow. Whatever you may think of other religions, these represent the real lives of real Americans.

This tradition should represent *all* Americans to those who are supposed to represent us.

In a less Constitutionally-sensitive area, it's very much like the 'controversy' of Wal-mart employees being able to say 'Happy Holidays' instead of assuming everyone's Christian.

Before Christians made a stink, 'Happy Holidays mostly just referred to the holiday season... Christmas to New Year and twelve Days of Christmas, but also was ...a nice thing to say for the rest of us.

Didn't used to bother me, ...now it's become a little faith-check for people to find out who's a believer or not. Some ways it's said have become arrogant and even possibly-intimidating.

Around here a lot of Christians shun non-Christians. In some ways it went from someone wishing you happiness on what might-as-well-be-Merry Thursday-When-Most-Are-Partying...

To some kind of challenge.

It not only defeats the supposed purpose, but actively *causes division and the opposite sentiment.*

It's gotten weird, the more it gets politicized. I never had a problem saying 'Merry Christmas' to people who were clearly Christian, ...turning it into a profession of faith of a kind turned that from simple well-wishing to being asked to mislead, or suffer.

This is what politicizing religion in *government* has brought us.

People flipping out if it's noted that not all Americans are 'Abrahamic' and trying to use religious language to *stop* it.

Given this is the representative branch of our government, that's not just a statement on religion, that's a statement on who gets represented by our government.

Go ahead and abolish the practice entirely later, if you like, but not cause it diversified.

If we're going to abolish it, let's do that together.

All of us.

By then, we may not care so much.

Not like there's a country needing attention or anything.

Rich: "Even as their tactics were *tactless*... from a religious perspective, their sentiments are right on. What they considered "abomination" was the public worship of false (fake) gods."

And they have what objective, verifiable evidence that their concept of deity is the True One? And even if they could prove it, the First Amendment gives me the right to worship a holy trinity of navel lint, toe jam, and ear wax if I so choose.
And if Christians have the right to offer public prayers to their deity at government functions, then so do I, and so does anyone of any other religion.
We all have the same rights, or we have none.

"rather *polytheistic Hindu worship* is an abomination, "yucky", to the One God who should get *all* credit for creating and sustaining the universe."

Your religion does not determine everyone else's.

Personally, Gaby, I think the time to argue against Senate prayers is *not* the rare occasions when someone that doesn't represent the Abrahamic God gets a chance to speak.

Every other day, if you like.

This day is about diversity... If we cast it in terms of 'Their God or none' it doesn't better represent America, only makes it about 'Their God.'

Personally, I find public display of faith by government officials distasteful. If our esteemed Senators want to pray, they should go to their church of choice and do it there, before coming to the "office".

I would much prefer a clomplete separation of church and state in all governmental institutions.

That would exclude military chaplains, however, they are unique insofar that most soldiers and their families relocate every 2-3 years and never are anywhere long enough to establish bonding with the non-military community.

Oh, and that 'story you heard about?' That's kind of the basis of the topic for the week, here. :)

Wow, Raymond.

*shaking head.*

"Taking a stand against polytheism" as you applaud that disgraceful display of intolerance, attempting to shout down one of the few presentations of another view than your own, may be your own religious... well, bigotry, but it is *not the business of government.*

Not the time or place.

Good article by Rev. Brooks-Thistlethwaite, but she's apparently unaware of the actual violence and oppression that polytheists can suffer at the hands of Christians 'taking a stand.'

I mean, it's not exactly Beirut, but tell that to someone who had their pets slaughtered or shop firebombed, who's been attacked, raped, or 'exorcised,' ...never mind the more random threats and abuses.

I don't think Christians here in America are really familiar with having people 'taking a stand against polytheism' disrupting their services, having their kids dragged away from holiday services cause someone decided being Pagan is 'Satanic Abuse' and started a personal witch-hunt,

I certainly wouldn't go to asking the government to trying to 'take a stand' against 'imaginary Gods,' ...if so, I commend you to the attentions of the more-bitter atheists here to see where that gets you.

If religion is to be represented in Congress, then that, like Congress is supposed to, should represent America.

All of America.

I didn't say what they were doing should be *legal*. They were definitely committing a crime and were rightly arrested and charged -- which is probably exactly what they wanted. Getting arrested makes for great media coverage, a fact that Jessie Jackson and the A.N.S.W.E.R Coalition exploit regularly. Right or wrong, they were using this method to take a very public stand against polytheism.

Even as their tactics were *tactless*... from a religious perspective, their sentiments are right on. What they considered "abomination" was the public worship of false (fake) gods.

The word "abomination" simply means "yucky"... and the protesters, if they were using the word correctly, would have *not* said *Hindu people*, but rather *polytheistic Hindu worship* is an abomination, "yucky", to the One God who should get *all* credit for creating and sustaining the universe.

Peace,
RT

Rich: "I recall that some Christians recently took some flak in the news for protesting a Hindu prayer incantation in front of the legislature. Because Hindus are generally polytheistic, these Christians were protesting the polytheistic witness of the prayer, not necessarily the lawmaker's right to pray or to practice his religion."

You didn't hear the whole story. The Christians in question intterrupted the Mr. Zed (an American Hindu chaplain, not a Senator) who had been invited to give the invocation by screaming from the gallery that this was an abomination before God, this is a Christian nation, etc. They were asked to desist, and as soon as he began his prayer anew, they began their screaming anew. After the third such interruption, they were removed from the gallery (still screaming) and were charged with the misdemeanor crime of disrupting a session of Congress.
They were not simply expressing a difference of opinion regarding religious preferences, they considered his prayer to be an evil akin to an act of treason.

This was a good essay, and a good history lesson on the Establishment Clause.

On addition I would make would be that the "Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom" was penned by Thomas Jefferson in Richmond Virginia in 1779. It served as the basis for the First Amendment Establishment clause, also written by Jefferson, and it is also remarkable as the first written canonization of natural right of Freedom of Religion.

I recall that some Christians recently took some flak in the news for protesting a Hindu prayer incantation in front of the legislature. Because Hindus are generally polytheistic, these Christians were protesting the polytheistic witness of the prayer, not necessarily the lawmaker's right to pray or to practice his religion. The beauty of the US system is that polytheism, as well as public demonstration against prayer to imaginary gods are both permitted here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom
"Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."