<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Apr 29 2008, 09:43 AM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Apr 29 2008, 09:43 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->MEERA NANDA
Prominent I.D. theorists (Philip Johnson, Michael Behe) and some Catholic creationists have endorsed Vedic creationism. http://www.flonnet.com/fl2301/stories/20...309700.htm
[right][snapback]81005[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Without knowing it, Nanda has said something revealing.
ISKCON repeating the pattern of cosying up with christo(islamism) while distancing itself from Hinduism. They see eye-to-eye on nearly all the christo points:
- creationism: playing with the big boys from the church. Rather than being like the masses of Hindus and taking facts in stride. Has a Hindu org anywhere ever caused such a riot over creationism? No. Only christoislamis have - from US, UK to Turkey. And ISKCON. Curious.
- monotheism. They say Krishna is jeebusjehovallah but won't allow anyone to equate any of the Hindu Gods to Krishna. (Even Vishnu - one of whose forms is Krishna - has to play second fiddle.) Which is odd considering that in Hindu literature all the Hindu Gods have been equated with Brahman but never with jeebusjehovallah for obvious reasons: Brahman isn't a non-existent tyrant.
- conversion frenzy. Church-planting movements amongst the heretic Hindoos. I mean, ISKCON building planting movements everywhere in India and aimed at Hindus in other countries.
- scripturalism and all that other jazz. Oddly enough they've reduced Hindu literature to only the versions penned by their own organisation. That is, it's generally about <i>their</i> version of Srimad Bhagavatam, <i>their</i> Bhagavad Gita As It Is, their little booklets.
The only stepping stone that Indian Hindu entrants into ISKCON now need to convert to full-fledged christianism is to get over the "idolatry" of ISKCON into the True Idolatry of the True Religion Catholispasm. And you thought it was hard.
Whereas ISKCON Indians will find mainstream Hinduism far less relatable/understandable once they've entered into the ISKCONian mindset: for one thing, Hindus have nothing to do with mono-poly(thei)sm. We don't go around evangelically spreading some good news and loudly insisting that Russia have a temple too like Someone Else from America did not too long ago. When we read Krishna in the Gita explaining to Arjuna "The Brahman revealed in the Vedas that you have heard of, I am that" we don't confuse ourselves by thinking this is some kind of 'Mutual Exclusion' declaration meaning that suddenly none of the other Hindu Gods can therefore be Brahman. <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> Typical christoislamic mistake that. Especially since their literalism is accompanied by their avoidance of other Hindu literature which declares the same (Brahman) about Devi, Shankara and our other Gods.
Hindus don't oppose evolution, though perhaps not all Hindus might find it following naturally from their observation. (Just like not all Hindus fit reincarnation into their understanding of the world as is the case with a relative of mine.) Then again: Hindus haven't always agreed about various Hindu ideas either. But that has given us no cause to bring in lawsuits to push our views onto others. It's a particularly christoislamic method to monopolise idea spaces and force their theologies onto others, trying to throttle others' thoughts.
And future ISKCON generations will only be increasingly closer qua mindset to Catholispasm and the Other Troo Religions, while finding Hindu Dharma entirely alien. Especially since they already "know" from their ISKCON education that Krishna is <i>supposedly</i> no other than jeebusjehovallah itself, while they've been taught how he is specifically not any other Hindu God. From there, it will be easy to turn them into sheep of the Troo Gawd. (Just author a few more ISKCON books bringing in how the babble is the truth and supercedes the BG As It Is, and you're done.)
Prominent I.D. theorists (Philip Johnson, Michael Behe) and some Catholic creationists have endorsed Vedic creationism. http://www.flonnet.com/fl2301/stories/20...309700.htm
[right][snapback]81005[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Without knowing it, Nanda has said something revealing.
ISKCON repeating the pattern of cosying up with christo(islamism) while distancing itself from Hinduism. They see eye-to-eye on nearly all the christo points:
- creationism: playing with the big boys from the church. Rather than being like the masses of Hindus and taking facts in stride. Has a Hindu org anywhere ever caused such a riot over creationism? No. Only christoislamis have - from US, UK to Turkey. And ISKCON. Curious.
- monotheism. They say Krishna is jeebusjehovallah but won't allow anyone to equate any of the Hindu Gods to Krishna. (Even Vishnu - one of whose forms is Krishna - has to play second fiddle.) Which is odd considering that in Hindu literature all the Hindu Gods have been equated with Brahman but never with jeebusjehovallah for obvious reasons: Brahman isn't a non-existent tyrant.
- conversion frenzy. Church-planting movements amongst the heretic Hindoos. I mean, ISKCON building planting movements everywhere in India and aimed at Hindus in other countries.
- scripturalism and all that other jazz. Oddly enough they've reduced Hindu literature to only the versions penned by their own organisation. That is, it's generally about <i>their</i> version of Srimad Bhagavatam, <i>their</i> Bhagavad Gita As It Is, their little booklets.
The only stepping stone that Indian Hindu entrants into ISKCON now need to convert to full-fledged christianism is to get over the "idolatry" of ISKCON into the True Idolatry of the True Religion Catholispasm. And you thought it was hard.
Whereas ISKCON Indians will find mainstream Hinduism far less relatable/understandable once they've entered into the ISKCONian mindset: for one thing, Hindus have nothing to do with mono-poly(thei)sm. We don't go around evangelically spreading some good news and loudly insisting that Russia have a temple too like Someone Else from America did not too long ago. When we read Krishna in the Gita explaining to Arjuna "The Brahman revealed in the Vedas that you have heard of, I am that" we don't confuse ourselves by thinking this is some kind of 'Mutual Exclusion' declaration meaning that suddenly none of the other Hindu Gods can therefore be Brahman. <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> Typical christoislamic mistake that. Especially since their literalism is accompanied by their avoidance of other Hindu literature which declares the same (Brahman) about Devi, Shankara and our other Gods.
Hindus don't oppose evolution, though perhaps not all Hindus might find it following naturally from their observation. (Just like not all Hindus fit reincarnation into their understanding of the world as is the case with a relative of mine.) Then again: Hindus haven't always agreed about various Hindu ideas either. But that has given us no cause to bring in lawsuits to push our views onto others. It's a particularly christoislamic method to monopolise idea spaces and force their theologies onto others, trying to throttle others' thoughts.
And future ISKCON generations will only be increasingly closer qua mindset to Catholispasm and the Other Troo Religions, while finding Hindu Dharma entirely alien. Especially since they already "know" from their ISKCON education that Krishna is <i>supposedly</i> no other than jeebusjehovallah itself, while they've been taught how he is specifically not any other Hindu God. From there, it will be easy to turn them into sheep of the Troo Gawd. (Just author a few more ISKCON books bringing in how the babble is the truth and supercedes the BG As It Is, and you're done.)