Hurpur & Zacharia challenged

Debunking the Bible
RZIM Associtates

Past Dialogues

Debunking Evolution
Debunking Christianity
Debunking Islam
Debunking Buddhism
Debunking Judaism
Debunking the Baha'i faith
Debunking Zoroastrianism
Debunking Sikhism
Debunking Hinduism
Discussing true religion
Can a fool, fool God?
Five tests of true religion
Contact me:
Back to
Seach contents
Misguided religion has led to fanaticism and superstition. Predetermination takes the place of honest inquiry and truth is suppressed. All the fallacies of human reason must be exhausted or rejected, before the light of higher truth could meet with ready response.
"When the time of destruction is at hand the intellect becomes perverted." Vridha Chan. 16:

Topic of Discus sion

Email to Toronto Star in response to Tom Harpur�s column on theology.
August 6th, 2002.

Subject: Re: Tom Harpur's "Jesus only"
Cardinal Ambrozic certainly is within his right to make such a claim and if Tom Harpur and anyone else disagrees, their quarrel should be with the Bible and not the Cardinal.
"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, NO ONE comes to the FATHER except through ME." John 14:6.
This verse clearly supports the view of the Cardinal, how can anyone fault him, when the Bible is solely his scriptural guidance. While I can understand why many might want to propagate tolerance (religious) as essentially a good thing, the fact still remains that to dismiss one's view, however intolerant it might be, based on the scripture itself, is totally hypocritical.

It is rather absurd to ask conservatively-minded proponents of the Bible, as the Cardinal, to change their views when the message of the Bible continues to be the same now and as it were in the past.
The world is in dire need of honest and courageous people who would speak the truth as they see it (attack the Bible instead of the Cardinal), and not to bury it under the notion of religious tolerance for the sake of an artificial peaceful co-existence.

Critical thinking is essential to the development of good reasoning habits and therefore our young people must be encouraged to be inquisitive if the human race truly desires harmony.
Yours truly,
Vijai Singh

Critical Information
August 28th, 2002

You have been banned from this forum Please contact the webmaster or board administrator for more information.

Redemption is a fool's passport to a fool's paradise, a paradise of pain and misery.

All theories or facts, theological or scientific, must conform with

Let's be reasonable when it comes the most abstruse science of God (wisdom), the ignorant and the wise can never achieve the same rewards.

The debates as they occurred:
In reply to Tom Anderson- Tue Aug 06, 2002
Cardinal Ambrozic certainly is within his rights to make such a claim and if Tom Harpur and anyone else disagree, their quarrel should be with the the Bible and not the Cardinal.

This verse clearly supports the view of the Cardinal, how can anyone fault him, when the Bible is solely his scriptural guidance. While I can understand why many might want to propagate tolerance (religious) as essentially a good thing, the fact still remains that to dismiss one's view, however intolerant it might be, based on the scripture itself, is totally hypocritical.

It is rather absurd to ask conservatively-minded proponents of the Bible, as the Cardinal, to change their views when the message of the Bible continues to be the same now and as it were in the past.

Jesus says, "I AM the Way, the Truth and the Life, NO ONE comes to the FATHER except through ME" John 14:6
The world is in dire need of honest and courageous people who would speak the truth as they see it (attack the Bible instead of the Cardinal), and not to bury it under the notion of religious tolerance for the sake of an artificial peaceful co-existence.

Critical thinking is essential to the development of good reasoning habits and therefore our young people must be encouraged to be inquisitive if the human race truly desires harmony.

In reply to Frank King - Thu Aug 08, 2002
"Hey there, folks: I am a Christian (and a passionate one, at that!), no matter what anybody thinks."

  • Vj~ As I said before one is free to choose but only after impartial and thorough investigation (comparative studies of religions) guided by the correct knowledge. It is for the good of your own soul.

    In reply to Tom Harpur - Tue Aug 20, 2002
    Vj ~ Dear Tom,
    Thank you for your reply. We have spoken before, a few years ago when you brought up the subject of vegetarianism. You said it was ethical but wrong when it is used to distort that which is sacred. For the life of me and until this day I still cannot understand how something ethical can distort sacredness when it is about ethics and morals. Perhaps what you hold to be sacred is not sacred at all?

    Sorry for your impatience . Some of us do take vacations.

  • Vj ~ It is not impatience my friend, I only eager to help. You have led me to believe all these years by your works, that you are in dire need of hunting down the truths of religions. As for vacations, it is not entirely true "some of us" take it, it is most of us. But when one has acquired the truth of the three eternal entities (soul, matter and the Supreme) one is always on vacation.

    I've read your contributions with interest and, apart from the superior tone you feel tempted to assume, I've enjoyed them.

  • Vj ~ When you would have come to know the truth, you would know that it is superior and its tone is not merely an attempted assumption. I know you are a busy man, but have you read my site on true religion? If so, I would appreciate your comments on it.

    I can't t reply to every point obviously,

  • Vj ~ Well, what if I tell you that the opposite is the only way one can ascertain truth from untruth?

    He knows better than to adopt a literalist approach to scripture

  • Vj ~ I really don't see any other way of approaching it, it is a "scripture" smeared with historical references and history is literal. Are you saying, that Christ rising from the dead should not be taken literally? True scripture is allegorical in its entirety and as such is free of historical references.

    but as one who has been at the forefront of outlining this and attempting to deal with it I'm hardly the person you should attack re.

  • Vj ~ You were one of the pe0ple who took a stance against "Ambrozic outrageous position" so I am not falsely attacking you. As my response to the effect of your stance stated, you did not attack the Bible where the fault lies, but Ambrozic who is within his rights based on his scripture.

    In reply to Tom Anderson - Wed Aug 21, 2002
    I do not intend specific criticism of Vj, but he as well as I as well as everybody else might profit from the examination of personal belief systems in light of these 10 cognitive errors.

  • Vj ~ I couldn't agree more with the authors of the "10 cognitive distortions" Tom, but it would have benefited you and the others proper if they had a definition for cultic belief. In my view, all religious bodies that are based on mediators between man and God are of occult ideology. Therefore, these cognitive errors can only be applied to the belief systems of Christianity (Christ), Islam (Muhammad), Buddhism (Buddha), etc. where followers continuously dwell in the state of mental thralldom and view critical thinking as a disease.

    On the other hand, the VEDIC RELIGION that I propagate is the only exception, in that it has no mediator between man and God, it is in harmony with reasoning and science and it conforms with natural laws, and therefore, it is in full agreement with the "lengthy excerpts" you posted.

    It is a pity that man has relegated their intellects to such a perverted state in this age, that they don't even know what is true of benefit to their souls anymore. It is those void of rational thinking, write for the sake of writing.

    In reply to Tom Harpur - Aug 22.2002
    Dear VJ: This will be my last post in this series as I'm working on another book.

  • Vj ~ I am assuming that by now you are financially well off and the only reason you continue to write books is to seek relief from banality. Yes, boredom can cause excruciating discomfort especially for those who, through the lack of true knowledge, have to find other ways to keep themselves busy. I am yet to read any of your books, but judging from your columns on religions and television appearances, you really have nothing good for the benefit your own soul much less those you are busy selling your books to. Should you ever come to know the truth of the Vedic religion, you yourself would have no hesitation in disposing of to rubbish bin, all the books you have written.

    I will try to be gentle with you

  • Vj ~ By the nature of wisdom, wise men are always gentle in all circumstances, positive or negative, and never have to even try to be. In any circumstances, to be the opposite, would cause you more harm than good.

    but you must be made aware that your "the Vedic religion that I propagate is the only exception" approach is really just one more case of Ambrozicitis, ie.

  • Vj ~ It is entirely a different case, but if you are going to read only your own books and those books written by people like yourself, you will never know the difference. Again, since you have read the bible and still feels the fault lies with Ambrozic, how can I expect better from you in chastising me over my claim of true religion, even though you haven't read my site to know where I stand? Here is a BOOK entirely different from any you have read so far, if you can spare the time to read it, it may prevent you from the gravest sin of misleading others. True religion is in conformity with natural laws and if you know nothing of the functions of natural laws you certainly have a humongous problem.

    my religion is the best.

  • Vj ~ I don't know what you meant by "best", but, unlike you, my years of impartial search has led me to the one true religion, and that is what I propagate through my site. I have also laid out FIVE TESTS of true ("best") religion which you have failed to respond to. My truth is not copyrighted because it is only those altruistic in nature that renders justice to the human soul. I earlier asked you to comment on my site, and if you were anywhere close to being intelligent you should have done that before trying to question my wisdom.

    You thus prove the underlying thesis of my Aug 4 column in spades.

  • Vj ~ It is "spades" and will be continued to be spades for the ignorant who know nothing at all of the Vedic religion. I am perplexed that men like you who profess to be intelligent would make such comments before even attempting to investigate the truth of the Vedic religion as laid out by the proper authorities.

    Those who do me the courtesy of reading my books before taking too vigorous pot-shots at me know that I have the highest respect for Vedic religion and for Hinduism (see esp. my latest book, Finding the Still Point).

  • Vj ~ The two religion opposes each other, how can anyone intelligent respect truth and untruth at the same time. This shows, like other ignorant men, you only hustle to tolerate not knowing right from wrong just to get your books sold. I, on the other hand, have no fear of propagating the truth and if people are offended by it, I know it is for their own good.

    But, to say Vedic religion has no mediatorship is to fly in the face of the hard facts, my friend.

  • Vj ~ Perhaps "in the face" of fools, but not wise men. Take a good look at ONE who was best qualified to revive the ancient religion of the Vedas and tell me of only one mediator. The "hard facts" are that you run around steadfastly among idiots not realizing that you are in the same predicament as they are.

    "For many Hindus, the primary religious experience is mediated by a leader whom they believe to be divine in some way." (World Religions, Eastern Traditions, Oxford University Press, 1996, ed. Willard G.Oxtoby) I have been in India.

  • Vj ~ Now that I have shown his book, perhaps it will enlighten you to know who is an Arya (noble) and who is a Hindu (idol worshipper).

    I know the Vedic system.

  • Vj ~ Very far from the truth, you know zilch. Learn about the "Vedic system" from an Arya and not a Hindu, only then you will ever come to know the whole truth of the Vedic system, but I must warn you, if the truth hurts, only fools are hurt by it.

    Its transmission depends on the intermediacy of GURUS or teachers (dispellers of ignorance as the root word means).

  • Vj ~ There is no gurudom in the Vedic religion, and if you found it to be so, then you are not far removed from the ignorance of those who taught you otherwise. A true guru is an altruistic teacher who disseminates Vedic knowledge and plays no other part a pontiff or messiah to whom salvation is dependent. Certainly to this day, we pay homage to all these saints and sages of yore, but it is called glorification, it is the nature of wisdom to give thanks to those who have brought us enlightenment. This shows that, unlike other religions, salvation is not possible without the individual effort of acquiring true knowledge and putting it to practice. It is very simple logic, a fool (by forgiveness) and a wise man (by strenuous effort) can never reap the same rewards (salvation).

    It's precisely the abuse of this intermediacy that has led to countless notorious scandals both in the West and in India itself.

  • Vj ~ Speaking of Hinduism of course! Now, try to learn something of the Vedic religion itself, as taught by men (Rishis) whose thoughts (reasoning) are in harmony with each other.

    One thing continues to amaze me:

  • Vj ~ Now if you can bring yourself to investigate the Vedic religion through the thoughts of wise men, you would have two things to amaze you instead of one.

    the human propensity when it comes to religion, of taking the highest possible, almost idyllic view of their own faith as they compare/contrast it to the lowest possible view of the other person's. Think about it.

  • Vj ~ I already did, and it took me almost twenty years, it is the reason why I know, without a doubt, that there is one true religion. The contrast is, it is true and the others are totally false, not only by what it says but by its conformation to natural laws. It would do you much good to investigate thoroughly and impartially before attempting to refute me or any other scholar on the Vedic religion.

    In reply to tawmy- Aug 23, 2002
    hello singhvj,
    Your website is very difficult to comprehend, as much of the type is too small to read.

  • Vj ~ Thank you for your comments. I am sorry that you had difficulties in comprehending and reading, it shows that truth is not easy to come by. It takes years to ingrain the proper reasoning habits and then it must be guided by the correct knowledge before one can know truth from untruth.

    It is a sad state that you choose to 'dis' Tom Harpur without having read any of his books.

  • Vj ~ I have been reading his columns and have listened to many programs on vision tv hosted by him. It is enough to tell me what I can expect his books to be. Strange enough only last night on Michael Coran live I was listening to Ravi Zacharia defining truth. It was a long-winded definition where even an academic will have difficulty making any sense out of it. But if Christ is the truth, life and the only way to salvation that in fact from the Christian perspective is the truth. It is as simple as that, it means that there is no truth outside of Christianity. These men are fooling themselves because truth can only be established after thorough and impartial inquiries into all religions, as I have laid out on my site. Mr. Harpur deserved the "dis" since he did not bother to investigate the Vedic faith as laid out by me, before attacking me.

    For you, I highly recommend 'Would You Believe ?'.

  • Vj ~ Why would I want to stress on belief, when it is better to know? In our dialogue, it is Mr. Harpur who is at the bottom end of it and that is because of belief. At some time he will cease to debate with me because my truth is solely based on reasoning and in conformity with natural laws.

    Once having read that text , your wisest decision would be to return with a formal apology to all that have had to endure your 'wisdom'.

  • Vj ~ The truth is the truth, unless there is someone among you that can refute it rationally. Until then whoever is offended, I see it, as for their own good. Is it not the truth that hurts?

    Mr. Harpur has credentials/experience that far surpasses your narrow views.

  • Vj ~ So do Buddha, Krishna, Muhammad, etc. but they, unlike Mr. Harpur, are not going to the Christian heaven. When one can propagate a faith that gives an opportunity to all souls to strive for salvation, instead of abandoning the majority to eternal hell, that is the credential that surpasses all other views.

    Narrow thoughts have kept the warmongers in business for eons.

  • Vj ~ I am fully aware of the dark history of the Christian Church, it is the reason I keep reminding those, even though it offends, of the narrowness of false dogmas.

    If ALL read, and opened up to the wisdom of Tom Harpur , our world would be free of hatred/racism/war etc.

  • Vj ~ Tolerance for all religious faiths is not wisdom at all. What was or is responsible for barbarism and tyranny obviously cannot be the cure also. All these religions are the causes of divisions and they do not speak of harmony. Christianity itself, like many other faiths, stand divided, so how can it bring harmony, even if all "opened" up to Mr. Harpur's 'wisdom'.

    I can't say the same for your views ... funny ! ? !

  • Vj ~ I agree, anyone who sees 'wisdom' in Mr. Harpur's books certainly cannot find my views compatible.

    In reply to tawmy - Sat Aug 24, 2002
    hello Vj , Everytime you post I feel more, and more pity for you and your limited 'truth'.

  • Vj ~ Then I will have to assume that your truth is unlimited, how else would you know that mine is "limited"?

    Where has Mr. Harpur ever said that Christianity is the only path to the 'Light' ? (Lambda)

  • Vj ~ He did worse than that, insinuating that all religions are paths to God.

    YoU obviously will only see what yoU see, and believe what yoU believe, regardless of what another individual may have to offer as true insight.

  • Had you not been so clouded in ignorance, you would have noticed that I specifically laid out my definition ( my truth is solely based on reasoning (and science) and in conformity with natural laws. ) of what truth is supposed to be and if you believe that you and others have "true insight" then you must also define it as I did. If not, how are we to determine whose "insight" is "true"?

    Wars have not only been instigated by Christians, as you seem to have pointed out.

  • Vj ~ Very true, but with one exception The Vedic religion was not and is not like other present-day religions, nor is it exclusive and confined to the inhabitants of India. It is universal and does not derive its authority from any single person, no matter how holy or wise. It humbly maintains that truth was complementary and not exclusive and contradictory and as such it commands allegiance to all ages. This true religion of the Vedas never feared the advancement of science, nor was it guilty of terrors of the Inquisition. It never shed the blood of a Galileo, a Copernicus or a Bruno.

    I count my blessings that my suffering is at my own leisure in this fine country,

  • Vj ~ Count your blessings when you come to know, why there are pain and suffering for many while some are enjoying wealth and health? If sins are the causes of pain and misery, why do children to young to sin, suffer? Why are those maimed (blind, deaf, etc.) for no fault of their own? If all souls were created equally, why some live in luxury while others live in poverty? Can all these be the work of a just God?

    If yoUr truth is all encompassing why does history show it's waning ?

  • Vj ~ Because natural law dictates all that is finite, even righteousness, must decay - progression is always downwards. In the beginning, the company of the wise was in the majority and now that we are at the last age, they are very few.

    If all is finite, then why bother with this forum ?

  • Vj ~ Because it is the nature of wise men, however, few they are, to continue to disseminate the truth. Whether it is accepted or rejected it still has a positive effect on the propagator. Whereas in the beginning all souls were saved, in the end only a few might be saved after shown the way. I was hoping that you and Mr. Harpur would be among the few.

    In reply to Tom Harpur - Sat Aug 24, 2002
    He knows better than to adopt a literalist approach to scripture

  • If Cardinal Ambrozic took the above quote of the Bible in the literal sense, then why not explain the true meaning?

    .....One thing continues to amaze me: the human propensity when it comes to religion, of taking the highest possible, almost idyllic view of their own faith as they compare/contrast it to the lowest possible view of the other person's. Think about it.

  • Vj ~ Now, did I not lay out the FIVE TESTS of true religion on your messageboard before claiming its superiority to all other religions? The onus is on you Mr. Harpur to refute these five tests to prove me wrong, unless you choose to do what most have already done, ban me from their boards.

    In reply to tawmy - Sat Aug 24, 2002
    If we'd all keep searchin', readin', talkin', prayin' & thankin' , there would be no time for war ...

  • Vj ~ What makes you think that those who make wars do not search, read, talk, pray, and thank"? The 19 hijackers who crashed into the Pentagon and WTC, had to do them all, how else the results were effective? They had to search to find the crash sites, they read their Q'uran, they talked (planned), they prayed and they thank their benefactor for rewarding them with Paradise for their actions.
    In the absence of reasoning guided by the correct knowledge all searching, talking, reading and praying are useless. If you do not feel the pain in this life for your ignorance, you definitely will in your next birth

    In reply to Tom Harpur - August 24, 2002
    Dear VJ:
    You are becoming somewhat tedious, alas.

  • Before I decided to put up a site and messageboards, I gave thought to the"tedious" also and therefore was prepared for the out come, why aren't you?

    Worse, however, it turns out you are a FUNDAMENTAILIST/LITERALIST to a degree comparable with Rev.J.Falwell and Co.

  • Vj ~ It simply shows that even among Christians there are inconsistencies when it comes to understanding the 'word' of God. As I said before history is literal, therefore the Bible, which contains historical references, must be taken literally.

    You are the only one on the board insisting on a wholly literal, exclusivistic interpretation of an isolated verse in the NT!

  • There are many more, but this one stands out most vividly in Cardinal Ambrozic's case.

    Watch for my column of Sept. 1 where I will describe in detail how I, and most modern Christian scholars, understand the overly-quoted passage: "I am the way, the truth, and the life..."

  • Vj ~ If ancient scholars did not come to same understanding of it, it is hypocritical for modern scholar to make changes to hide the mistakes (Crusaders and Inquisitions) of those in the past. I am simply stating that if the Bible couldn't prevent tyranny and barbarism in the past, it cannot be the cure for future atrocities. And if the modern world is now experiencing less of it and has made vast progress in technology, the Bible, which earlier led Christians to believe the earth is flat, cannot be credited for these changes.
    Also let me remind you that while describing "I am the way, the truth, and the life...", don't forget to tell us why those in remote regions who never knew Christ was deprived of salvation.

    Meanwhile, I suggest you have the integrity to read at least my most recent book - and relax a little.

  • Vj ~ And where is your integrity, in reading the BOOK I suggested? Are you suggesting I go out and buy your book, while I am offering mine free? It shows the decline of the righteousness in this age where knowledge is free for the world and hardly anyone wants it, but trash, though costly, the ignorant masses crave for it.

    The state of perpetual happiness is when wise men find themselves in solitude contemplating the Divine and not reading especially copyrighted books. As a matter of fact, when wise men have the answers, what else can your book teach them?
    PS. I have replied to many of your columns, but my guess is, bigotry and prejudice will always prevail in the Christian world where the Toronto Star must sell its daily quota. I have also noticed that you have completely ignored my FIVE TESTS of true religion or it is coming next?

    In reply to tawmy - Mon Aug 26, 2002
    ... and remember, anyone that harms another living soul equally harms GOD. ( Cause and effect, what goes around )

  • Vj ~ You are just an empty drum making a lot of noise and you will continue to be unless you can establish the source of your 'knowledge'. God is all-bliss, all-powerful and all-knowing, He is not subjected to harm from the living or dead. Anyone that harms another living soul, except in self-defense, can only cause harm to one's own soul.
    "There is no turpitude in eating meat, drinking alcohol or committing adultery, it is the natural way of created beings, but abstinence brings great reward." Manu.
    All things (vegetation and insects, animals, etc.) that live and die have souls, so if you are not a vegetarian, you might want to do some reflection.

    hello Vj , Your reponses of late to postings here are in no way furthering your fear/pride/ego based, ambiguity ridden, agenda.

  • Vj ~ Wisemen have no "fear/pride/ego", whatever they disseminate is for the good of the human soul, of which you know nothing of. On the other hand, if there is, then it lies with the accuser who has no established source knowledge but is ever ready to contradict my faith without investigating it. It is called bigotry.

    Ultimately, your blind faith shows the quality of a lamb following a wolf. If in this lifetime you come to realize this, yoU will laugh with the rest of us that recognize those that chase their tails in futility.

  • Vj ~ A faith that is in harmony with reasoning, science and conforms with natural laws can never be blind. Or could it be, the one who came to such conclusion without investigating, is an idiot? If you weren't biased, you would have already pointed out its faults, as any sensible person would do. I have laid out FIVE TESTS and I haven't seen you or anyone else taking potshots at it yet. Why?

    In Tom Anderson - Tue Aug 27, 2002
    Wisemen have no "fear/pride/ego", whatever they disseminate is for the good of the human soul, of which you know nothing of.
    You do not come across as a wise man.

  • Vj ~ It will be easier on both of us, if you can put a definition to wisdom before claiming who is or not.

    You seem very rude, to what end I cannot fathom.

  • Vj ~ Perhaps if you don't let rudeness be an impediment to your search for the truth, it could be for your own good in the end.

    I have met so many like you at so many discussion forums (forae? fora?) -- you are a common breed, at least on the internet.

  • Vj ~ You are mistaken Tom, they are not like me at all. There are those who offend for the glee of it, I, on the other hand, keeping in mind that the truth does hurt, do it for the good of your own soul.

    Obviously you have a decent intellect, but by offending people you only make your message seem offensive. Is that your goal?

  • Vj ~ Give yourself a chance Tom, it takes time to ingrain the proper reasoning habits, much less to get the harsh message of truth across, especially one so unfamiliar to you. A surgeon is crude also when there is no choice but to turn to surgery, but it is all for the good of his/her patient. The same applies to our case. Here is a good EXAMPLE of a few of what began very sour, but ended up well.

    In reply to tawmy - Tue Aug 27, 2002
    Dear Vj,
    I apologize for having offended your 'senses' , or so I it appears by your wise responses to my posts.

  • Vj ~ I would have to agree with the latter since you are yet to define "wisdom". If there is an apology owing, it is to yourself. Do the right thing and investigate. You cannot determine a faith to be blind if you do not have a definition for true faith. It is as simple as that.

    I feel like family here with others that believe in acceptance, tolerance, and mutual respect.

  • Vj ~ I see no harm in it since it is the best you can do to your knowledge. But I, on the other hand, have no tolerance or respect for what is false and especially for those who propagate it. All I am saying investigate impartially before contradicting, the truth cannot be ascertained overnight.

    If I were racist, or bigoted with any premeditated malicious intent , I would have gone to 'your forum' and insulted you there, as yoU are here at Mr. Harpur's forum.

  • Vj ~ What then is preventing you from investigating my faith, before concluding it is blind? I see "malicious intent" alright, but not towards me, but your own soul.

    Might you consider developing your own forum, invite uninformed souls, such as ourselves, and see how many of us return to soak up your knowledge?

  • Vj ~ I do have my own forum but if one returns or not, it is not my loss.

    Does your GOD offend yoU, to make you conform to IT's condescending omnipotence ?

  • Vj ~ It is a false god that offends and it is also a false god that cannot protect the offended. I, on the other hand, I disseminate true knowledge to free humankind of all discomforts of life so that they can attain the ultimate goal of perpetual bliss. Note whatever is poison for you now, is nectar in the end. Success comes with much hardship it is the same in the quest for the search of the correct knowledge.

    Or are you acting your life's role totally on your own ?

  • Vj ~ True knowledge is eternal and belongs to the Divine, but when it is put into practice the wisdom is solely yours, no one can take it away and no one can inherit it. It is the only virtue that elevates the soul in the next life.

    I'll take the latter, with a hint of a complex Oedipus complex that you'll have to sort out before you might genuinely be respected, rather than just put up with.

  • Vj ~ If I were looking for respect, like Tom Harpur, I would have been propagating religious tolerance, but such respect, I cannot condone because it does more harm than good when it is earned through ignorance.
    I had to re-register. Perhaps someone is trying to send me a message.

    You have been banned from this forum Please contact the webmaster or board administrator for more information

    Back to contents

    Following is an email sent to Ravi Zacharia International (Christian) Ministries on August 08, 2002
    Last night on Michael Coran live I was listening to Ravi Zacharias defining truth. It was a long-winded definition where even an academic will have difficulty making any sense out of it. But if Christ is the truth, life and the only way to salvation that in fact from the Christian perspective is the truth. It is as simple as that, it means that there is no truth outside of Christianity.

    Mr. Zacharias is only fooling himself because truth can only be established after thorough and impartial inquiries into all religions, as I have laid out on my site where I have laid out FIVE TESTS to determine true religion.

    Truth can only be defined one way, it must be in harmony with reasoning and science and in conformity with natural laws.

    Reply from: Paul Copan
    To: 'singhvj
    Cc: Helyn Lilly
    Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 1:28 PM
    Subject: RE: Re Michael Coran live - defining truth
    Dear Vijai,
    Thanks for your note and writing to us at RZIM.

  • Vj ~ You are most welcome.

    'Sorry you didn't like Ravi's description of truth.

  • Vj ~ I am also sorry that Ravi couldn't find the time to personally respond to such an important issue which could bring harmony, not to Christians only but the whole world. Hopefully, he will have the courage to respond to this one.

    That's why people have personal assistants! It's time, not lack of courage. Come to one of his meetings and engage with him personally. I think your expectations may be a bit high for someone who gets hundreds of letters each month!

  • Vj ~ I could but neither you or him knows the true functions of natural laws. Moreso, too busy to investigate my research on "In search of the one true religion". To find truth one must first abandon what he now holds as 'truth' to begin the process of ingraining the proper reasoning habits as outlined on my site. Only then we can move forward.

    It's not a matter of having a lack of courage; it's simply that the worldview you've endorsed isn't intellectually compelling.

  • Vj ~ How could it be compelling when Christians on the whole lack the proper reasoning habits to ascertain the truth? Had you taken noticed of my site where the static intellect is responsible for the downfall of billions relegated to mental thralldom though mediators between man and God

    Unfortunately, you yourself have succumbed to logical errors and question-begging, as I've discussed and shall discuss below.

  • Vj ~ There is nothing logical about the Christian faith, so how could you possibly find errors in what is logical (rational)?

    It's certainly not an entailment of Jesus' divinity that no truth can be found outside of Christianity (e.g., 5x5=25, even though this isn't found in the Bible).

  • Vj ~ If the source of all learning (knowledge) is God, why is mathematics not found in the Bible?

    That's a non sequitur. Reflect on your premises a bit longer.

  • Vj ~ It is you who need to do the reflection and a lot of it too, my friend. It is not sensible on your part to dismiss it as "non sequitur", if the motive is truly seeking the truth.
    "We owe a lot to Indians (India), who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made." Albert Einstein
    Let's avoid the ad hominems and address the non sequitur issue. You are assuming that everything about God must be revealed in the Bible, that God is compelled to reveal everything about himself--the Infinite Mind reduced to pages in a book! It doesn't follow from God's being the source of all truth that he must reveal it all. That's what I mean by the non sequitur.
  • Vj ~ I am not assuming because I understand well His attributes of Just and Compassion. It follows good reasoning that God cannot deprive any of the inhabitants of His Divine instructions which necessitate the fact that being Omniscient He is compelled to reveal all. That's what I mean by the attribute of JUST.

    As Augustine said, "All truth is God's truth."

  • Vj ~ I can say "all truth is Satan's truth" also, but the point is, it is not who said it, but who can define what is the truth.

    My only point is that God is the source of truth, whether revealed in the Bible or not.

  • Vj ~ �If all religions of the world were in harmony with each other there would have been one religion, but since they all oppose each other, there is one true religion.� The Last Reformer. The question is, whose God are we talking about? My point is, your God created the universe out of nothing and two people at the beginning and my God created it out of the eternal primitive ether (matter) and thousands of people. Surely, you must notice that there is a huge difference by now.

    PC: Do you really find this argument compelling? Why can't thousands of people come from two?

  • Vj ~ As an intellectual, as you earlier boasted, may I inform you that incest leads to mental and physical infirmities. What is immoral (incest) now, was in the past and so it will continue to be in the future. It is called consistency - one truth for all and in all ages, past, present, and future. God is omniscient and thus there is no need for Him to take a "wait and see" attitude as you Christians made Him out to be.

    Furthermore, your appeal to the eternality of matter actually goes against contemporary big bang cosmology

  • Vj ~ May I remind you that we are discussing a faith based on the Bible and not a non-biblical theory of "contemporary big bang cosmology."

    Naturalistic cosmologists John Barrow and Joseph Silk (The Left Hand of Creation) declare that the present state of cosmology looks like the traditional metaphysical picture of creation out of nothing.

  • Vj ~ Well doesn't that show, like you, they are also ignorant of natural laws and the origin of the matter and soul as argued by my faith. The authors of the Bible didn't know incest leads to mental and physical infirmities, they didn't know of a spherical planet or plurality of the worlds and they didn't know that a wise man and a fool can't reap the same rewards, similarly, could it not be that they didn't know that out of nothing, nothing can come?

    Nobel Prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg says that he would like to affirm the eternality of matter rather than what looks like Genesis 1:1, but he can't in light of contemporary cosmology. (I could go on.)

  • Vj ~ That's true, he can't because he too, like many others who would like to have a rational answer to the question, has failed to investigate the one true religion of the Vedas.

    I didn't find your description of Christianity very helpful, but let that pass.

  • Vj ~ Obviously, it can't be helpful to you if all you know is only about Christianity. Maybe this will help - How is eternal life possible when the soul is finite? It is a law also, that all things finite (created) must decay or die. Eternal means that which has neither beginning nor end. In your scripture, only God fits that meaning, which means everything else must die. Unless your God allows Christians also to breach the meaning of words.

    Condescension is hardly necessary! Nor do I think your comments are fair ("Obviously...if all you know is Christianity"). Lighten up!

  • Vj ~ Then my previous response of an existing material cause of the universe, past and future creations, and the creation of thousands of people at one time should not come as a surprise to you.

    PC: No, they don't come as a surprise. But the oscilating universe model so favored by many Hindus doesn't have much physical basis:

  • Vj ~ Since we (Vedic) stress on intellectual reasoning our evidence are purely subjective and have very little to do with the physical. It is the reason why salvation, like a college or university degree, is earned by personal effort and practice and not a mere gift. As a matter of fact, the Hindus, do have a lot in common to Christianity, since they all dwell mostly on the physical.

    Regarding "eternal life," God graciously sustains one's personal existence beyond this earthly life. The soul is not inherently immortal.

  • Vj ~ Then like everything else "not inherently immortal" it must die. There can be no exception to the law of decadence except for what is eternal.

    PC: Yes, it must die unless God sustains it in existence....

  • Vj ~ God sustains its existence according to His laws and not over and beyond. I say His laws because these laws are not created, but as eternal as He is. Just as one is punished or rewarded for one sin or virtue, not any more or less, . Because He is always Just He cannot revoke or grant special favors because someone intercedes on His behalf. He is all-powerful and acts alone.

    Also, your understanding of "eternal" raises another issue. "Eternal" (especially in the Johannine corpus) has to do with life on another plane or participating in another realm of existence--namely, the live that God supernaturally bestows. It's a qualitative category. Scripture itself speaks of God's alone possessing inherent immortality, but this doesn't exclude his allowing us to have an existence beyond our earthly years.

  • Vj ~ If He does allow it, as I earlier explained, it will be a breach to not only natural laws, but to His Nature and Attributes also. Isn't it far more rational to believe that an Omnipotent God cannot breach His laws and if He does, that those who proclaimed it to be so, are totally ignorant of them?

    PC: I wonder why you say this. It's sort of like saying, "If the Olympic committee makes rules, then they can't ever be changed." But doesn't the Olympic committee have authority and power to do so?

  • Vj ~ I said it because man is fallible, and not God. He is all-perfect and the "Olympic committee" isn't. God's laws are unchangeable throughout all creations, man's laws are not in any creation.

    There is nothing logically or morally necessary about these natural laws, which are actually descriptive rather than prescriptive.

  • Vj~ Why is it not? Don't you, as an "intellectual", understand anything yet of what I have so often mentioned of natural laws which I maintain are steady and unchangeable. We always excrete by the backside, it is a law. Isn't it logical that you or no Christian have yet done it via the mouth? You should be thankful that these laws are unchangeable since it will certainly not be a rewarding moment to taste your filth even once.

    Why do you make the move from is to ought? Your premises are far from probable.

  • Vj ~ All things are probable until the correct knowledge is applied to it. Had the Bible been such a book, Christians would not have had to wait until Columbus's journey to the New World to prove it spherical. You can also say speculative, but one must speculate with good reasoning guided by the correct knowledge. It is the way successful speculators amassed great wealth.

    Furthermore, I found your tests for true religion to be question-begging.

  • Vj ~ That is the idea, critical thinking is a necessity to ingrain good reasoning habits in order to know the truth.

    I'm not sure you understood my point....

  • Vj ~ Whether you beg or I beg, our ultimate goal is ascertaining the truth, either way, it should be helpful.

    PC: What I mean be "question-begging" is that you are simply assuming what you want to prove (e.g., with regard to natural law as inviolable). There is plenty of literature on this matter that questions your assumption. If you're interested, I can supply it.

  • Vj ~ Any literature written by person or persons who are ignorant of the origin of matter, the material cause of the universe, cannot argue for or against the immutable laws of nature. It is simple as that and as I said before, ingraining the proper reasoning habits is essential to pursue the path of the one true religion. Besides if what I have supplied is of no interest to you, why would I be interested in what you can supply? The onus is on you to investigate my faith if you must come in defense of Christianity.

    For example, why must a religion exist in its entirety from the beginning of creation rather than be allowed to unfold?

  • Vj ~ As I said, God is all-wise and all-perfect and thus He cannot violate His own attributes of justice and compassion by depriving any human being of His truth (any part of His revelation). It simply means, that if your God is guilty of such a breach, then perhaps the truth may lie in another faith.

    Why does every person have to know exactly the same thing?

  • Vj ~ It is because we don't know "exactly the same thing", that we stand divided. Even among Christians, they differ on the interpretation of the Bible. I can never believe an omniscient and omnipotent God purposely meant it to be so.

    PC: Differences in interpretation do not undermine the availability of salvation to all--even to those who have never heard of Jesus or the Bible (there's plenty of material on this as well).

  • Vj ~ Don't you think the Muslims have plenty of materials for their cause also, but yet, neither are they going to your heaven nor you to theirs. If the subject of the materials is not in conformity with natural laws, there is nothing they can do to elevate the human soul. The soul is an eternal entity, but its actions are finite and thus rewards and punishments can never be everlasting (eternal).

    If God gives all people everywhere sufficient knowledge for salvation (Romans 1-2)--that salvation is in principle accessible to all--then where's the beef?

  • Vj ~ Whatever knowledge comes from God it must be by revelation and if the Bible was not known to those in remote regions, then it is God's fault and not man. This is why I say that revelation must occur in the very beginning where no one can blame God for being deprived of it. And if "all people" had "sufficient knowledge" as you quoted from your Bible, then why are Christians trying in vain to convert them to Christianity? In my revelation "beef" is forbidden if one is desirous of salvation, how is this "sufficient knowledge" in comparison to Christianity where it is not forbidden?

    PC: There is ample evidence within the natural world and the moral law within to hold people sufficiently accountable to God--

  • Vj ~ Again if the "ample evidence" is not in conformity with natural laws, it is false and thus people are accountable for their sins of worshipping a false god.

    although the good news of Jesus Christ and the forgiveness offered through him speaks with greater power.

  • Vj ~ The Bible is certainly tales of deception and mockery. If there is forgiveness, these two verses contradict it. "And then he shall reward every man according to his works." Matt14: 27. "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Galations 6:7

    Such an unfolding doesn't entail injustice on the part of God, who gives sufficient light to all people of his power and presence; people condemn themselves, and they are not condemned simply because they have not heard of Christ.

  • Vj ~ When the Christian God destroyed the whole world except Noah, his family and two of all creatures, it is God who condemned man since they were deprived of divine wisdom (Ten Commandments). How could they have avoided wickedness when they were deprived of the code of ethics and morals that were later given to those after Moses?

    Time to bone up on Christian theology here! Romans 2:14 speaks of people who--even apart from the law of Moses--have access to God's general revelation in via an awareness a basic moral law.

  • Vj ~ If they had access to knowledge that is apart from the "laws of Moses" and it was or is enough for salvation, what then is the necessity for the Bible or Christ?

    PC: Jesus's death provides the basis of salvation for all who cast themselves upon God's mercy, whether before the time of Jesus or after. And the Bible outlines the context for the significance of Jesus' death.

  • Vj ~ According to whom? A book and its authors who often contradicted each other.

    Now when we come to the four Gospels of the New Testament, we are surprised to see many discrepancies in them. The teachings of the first three synoptical Gospels are in many respects fundamentally different from those of the fourth Gospel. While the first three Gospels lay stress on the purity of heart and other ethical virtues, the fourth Gospel (John) lays emphasis on the absolute faith in the name of the only begotten son of God, without which a man is doomed to hell as he says

    "He that believeth on Him (Jesus Christ) is not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten son of God." (John 3-18).

    "So very marked and significant are contradictions between the first three Gospels and the fourth, that if the former is to be taken as giving in main a true picture, the latter can neither be historical nor the production of an eye witness." Rev. Sunderland

    (Regarding the question of the unevangelized, see; again).

  • Vj ~ I disagree with Mr. Craigs's view of "Politically Incorrect Salvation" on the grounds that man must be free to reject or accept only after being taught or shown the truth. Our system of justice works in a similar manner, that only after a thorough investigation by evidence of direct cognition, inference, history, and testimony a man is found guilty or not guilty. In other words, the laws are already in place and if they are violated it is due to man's own ignorance of these laws and not that of our constitution or God. This is what is called justice.

    Again, you've misunderstood Bill Craig's accessibilist position.

  • Vj ~ Even if I misunderstood Mr. Craig accessibilist position, don't you think that man should be free to reject or accept only after, and not before, being taught or shown the truth?

    Usually, the problem is humility vs. pride (making demands upon God that exempt us--at least in our own minds--from thinking that we have any obligation to God if he doesn't meet certain demands that we set).

  • Vj ~ So where is your humility to investigate my faith with impartiality? You should take a moment to read and study something that is entirely different from what you already know. Doesn't it sound somewhat encouraging?
    Christianity certainly places the onus on its followers to feel obligated to God, because they are constantly being driven by fear. This is the truth since they are brainwashed to believe that this is the only time the soul has the opportunity to live an earthly life.

    Your point that it must conform to immutable natural laws is, as critics of David Hume have noted, question-begging and arbitrary.

  • Vj ~ Does this mean that the knowledge of natural laws should be forbidden to Christians because it is "question-begging and arbitrary"?

    I don't think you're understanding my point here. Christians can obviously take "natural laws" into account, but that doesn't mean that the supernatural is excluded from consideration.

  • Vj ~ Are you saying that you are not sure? There is no mention of natural laws in the Bible, so how can those (Christians) who follow it take it into account?

    PC: Not at all--the Bible speaks of natural laws operating and the cycles of the seasons and so forth. But it doesn't see a God's acting in history through miracles--even sustaining the universe in being--as contradictory. Natural law is descriptive rather than prescriptive. It tells us how nature operates but does not address the question of whether it is possible for a God to interrupt certain natural processes.

  • Vj ~ Then, shouldn't you be looking elsewhere to find out what it doesn't tell you, how else would you know that what you believe in has any bearing on truth?

    Why are natural laws necessarily immutable? How do you know that they are necessarily immutable?

  • Vj ~ Because with out law and order there will be lawlessness and dire consequences of discomfort and destruction. Had these laws not been immutable, then the principle of excretion could have occurred at times via the gustatory (mouth) or the principle of hearing through the olfactory (nose), rain could come from something else but the clouds and resurrection of the dead and virgin birth would be daily occurrences, instead. It is because these laws are unchangeable and steady that we can determine truth by them. Any theory, theological or scientific, as man created out of dust or woman of a rib and the evolution of man from a lower creature, is a breach to natural law because it dictates, that the cause of the physical body was, is and will always be the reproductive element.

    Your answer is very telling about your lack of awareness of the literature available on this matter--and you accuse me of knowing only about Christianity! This turns out to be quite humorous!

  • Vj~ I find it quite humorous also that you are defending Christianity without investigating the faith that contradicts it.

    PC: Despite your accusation (though I'm sufficiently familiar with your "One True Religion"), my point still stands about your not having investigated Christianity very well.

  • Vj ~ It looks more like you haven't investigated my faith very well since you haven't raised any agreement or objections to it. Besides, what more is there to investigate when there is a dispute in the very first verse of the Bible, where no sensible person could believe that something can come out of nothing.

    You seem quite unfamiliary with the intellectual resources that are available in defending it. I can supply lots of resources here if you're interested.

  • Vj ~ It is not by "intellectual resources" alone, but intellectual reasoning, that one must first learn to ingrain before ascertaining truth from untruth.

    Let's take a basic example of something that could not be predicted by natural laws--the big bang? Take a look at an excellent sophisticated defense of such

  • Vj ~ Natural law does predict the "big bang", if that is the way it happened, manifestation of a form from the eternal Prakriti (the material cause), is a steady occurrence of every creation, past, present and will be for all creations to come. Creations and dissolutions are also eternal, otherwise for what other purpose does God exist eternally, if not to exercise is creative energy?

    If the "big bang" is all we have, then we do have something not naturally predictable--namely, something coming from nothing.

  • Vj ~ It is perhaps all you have, but not necessarily all that there is. This is why your inquires must not end with Christianity and the little you know of science. The highest of all scientific minds existed at the beginning of creation, since progression is always downwards, another law. So it will worth your while to do further investigation to know what the Rishis of yore knew.

    There is no way that science can show that this eliminates the miraculous (e.g., In Defense of Miracles, ed. Douglas Geivett and Gary Habermas [InterVarsity Press]). For example, what if there is good historical evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus?

  • Vj ~ History alone cannot validate truth. If the historical evidence you refer to, is from the Bible which could not have educated early Christians of a spherical earth theory, then it is contradictory, and cannot be held as a reliable source of determining truth.

    By the way, have you read the book? It's got some pretty decent defenses if your open to investigate the matter.

  • Vj ~ Why not read a book (The Light of Truth) that requires you to read no other books?

    PC: I'm not unfamiliar with your perspective. But again, I'd encourage you to look at the book because I'm finding there a lot of faulty assumptions in your thinking! So take a look at a book that thoroughly examines and exposes such assumptions.

  • Vj ~ Is this the quality of the intellectual prowess you boasted of, to conclude my 'assumptions' to be faulty when you know nothing of my faith? If I weren't familiar with the perspective of those books you recommend, how come I can raise all these objections to your faith, when you who is familiar with mine cannot even raise one objection so far.

    I never said that it did history along could validate truth; there may be good philosophical and theological reasons as well, but history could be another point of corroboration.

  • Vj ~ What else does the Bible has to validate truth? Certainly not the serpent speaking the human tongue or Cain having sexual intercourse with his sister to procreate the rest of the human race?

    PC: I said that philosophical and theological concepts are also important--concepts that have explanatory power and scope (e.g., themes of creation, redemption,

  • Vj ~ What about incest and the serpent speaking the human tongue, how does that validate true "philosophical and theological concepts"?

    the image of God, etc.).

  • Vj ~ God is a subtle spirit that pervades the created and the uncreated, for nothing with an "image" can do that. It is a grave sin to reduce God to such a despicable state, to attribute an image of Him and more so, that He communicates with the ignorant.

    Regarding the spherical earth idea, I'm not sure what you mean, but I think you may be referring to an objection that is easily overcome by the recognition of the language of accommodation (comparable to our "sunrise" and "sunset").

  • Vj ~
    "The Earth is permanently established. It will not move" [PSLAMS-93/1,96/10 and 104/5]
    "Again, the devil taketh him up unto an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;" Matt 4:8.
    PC: Regarding the first, note my point about accommodation. Regarding the second, see the parallel passage in Lk. 4 and reflect upon it!
  • Vj ~ What is there to reflect, it wouldn't matter if he was taken up the Everest, the highest peak in the world, he still could not have seen all the kingdoms of the world. Would it not be better than Christians to be encouraged to seek further inquires into the philosophical treatise, other than their own, rather than be encouraged to accommodate what is false?

    And why think that God, if he is so great, would have to be bound by the natural order rather than sovereign over it? I just don't see your criterion as compelling.

  • Vj ~ It is a demonstration of His proclamation of being all-wise and all-perfect. We are mortal beings, also bound by our own laws (and constitution) and it is those who adhere and obey these laws that we call good (wise) citizens. A king is bound by the laws of his kingdom also even though sovereign over it. The same with God and His laws.

    But this may merely reflect that he made these laws for the realm in which human beings generally operate, not for himself. Again, your reasons are not very compelling.

  • Vj ~ It is very compelling to those who truly understand the functions of natural laws and the nature, attributes, and characteristics of God. He is All-perfect, there is absolutely no reason for Him to be excluded. Christians confine their God to this planetary system alone whereas, for us, He pervades galaxies far beyond our imagination of counting and countless souls, and to think He can communicate to a single Christian among 6 billion on earth alone, whenever ever he/she needs healing, is totally absurd. Every time you speak of Christianity, you are undermining the truth, power, and divinity of an Omnipotent God.

    PC: Again, why must you think of natural laws as prescriptive rather than descriptive?

  • Vj ~ It is prescriptive because it is a specific aid to the remedy of determining false theories (scientific and theological), just as prescriptive medicine is for the benefit of a specific illness. However, it cannot do the job alone, if one is not willing to make the effort. It is "descriptive" for me because I know what the functions of these laws are and its operations within creation on the whole.

    Christians also believe that God not only is able to act at any point in space and time but that God speaks to all people in his creation--not just Christians.

  • Vj ~ You should speak about Christianity and not all people. If He could speak to those who deny His existence, I wonder why they are still atheists? Your belief is false, since God is all-wise and all-pure, only the wise and pure can get close to Him, by acquiring true knowledge through the practice of Yoga. Wisdom is the result of personal effort and cannot be handed to anyone.
    "True Knowledge alone is the inexhaustible treasure; the more you spend it, the more it grows. All other treasures run out by spending, the claimants inherit their shares as well. Thieves cannot steal this treasure, nor, can anyone inherit it."Swami Dayanand
    Your God speaks to any Tom, Dick, and Harry but cannot explain why so many are born in pain and misery, no fault of their own. Even an innocent child, too young to sin, is not spared of this injustice. Is this what you call merciful and compassionate?

    Regarding the no-conflict-with-science idea, you seem to assume that the only Christian position is a young-earth creationism, which is hardly representative of the spectrum of what Christians believe on the matter.

  • Vj ~ The discussion here, is what Christians believe and not what others believe. It is not what is believed to be, but what is known that will eventually lead to the truth. Whatever the "spectrum" of Christian belief on the age of creation now, is definitely not what early Christians believed. My point is, how can the Bible be the word of God when it cannot provide consistency for all those who interpret it.

    The issue more lies with how the biblical text should be understood. Augustine and others didn't hold to a 24-hour day creation. (Take a look at Hugh Ross' Creation and Time.)

  • Vj ~ Even if they don't, what do you as a Christian in this debate understand then of the age of creation?

    PC: I take creation to be billions of years old.

  • Vj ~ So if a tribesman of the Kalahari takes it to be thousands of years old, does that mean he is right also? I quite sure, you will not receive even your pension if you had to prove your age that way. What you now know or have a better judgment of through modern science, was deprived of those centuries ago. It is an injustice that the Bible, standing alone as God's 'word' couldn't have enlightened those who follow so diligently of so many things that have been made more sounder too good reasoning by science today. And yet as a declared "intellectual", you desist from lending such unwavering support of its authenticity as a guarantee for salvation.

    And maybe some of the points of ambiguity in the Bible are a helpful reminder for Christians to be a bit more modest in their assertions!

  • Vj ~ The Bible is definitely not the source of science so, how will it be possible for Christians "to be a bit more modest" in their assertions of anything scientific as the age of creation? If something (science) outside of your revelation is needed to persuade Christians to be more modest in their assertions, then your Bible cannot be the word of God and Christianity God's religion.

    PC: Even if it is not a science textbook, this doesn't mean that the Bible can't make specific points regarding how the world generally operates.

  • Vj ~ What good is that, if is there is no scientific truth in it? The general operation consists of every tiny fact relating to creation and dissolution within the laws of nature. The Bible is nowhere close to any of those. In fact, most die once and 'few' die more than once, what sensible person can live with such inconsistency.

    The weak, caged in misery, are daily being misled with the promise of salvation while the ego of hypocrites like Ravi Zacharias, Pat Roberston, the Pope, Jerrry Falwell, Jack Van Impe, and Benny Hinn are amassing themselves wealth. Had they known the law of karma (reincarnation) that they are the ones who are born to suffer many births in such an impoverished state, they would have thought twice about spreading this false Christian dogma. It stands to good reasoning that if you do not know the cause of pain and suffering, you cannot find the remedy.

    Also, it's ironic that the first modern scientists were theists who believed that miracles are indeed possible.

  • Vj ~ How authentic can such a statement be, when these "modern scientists" were all followers of false dogmas and were themselves totally ignorant of the functions of Natural Laws?

    Vj ~ NO RESPONSE here? Perhaps you are in the same boat as they are.
    PC: Sorry about the oversight; see Stanley Jaki's The Savior of Science, which addresses--and refutes--your position quite thoroughly.

  • Vj ~ Isn't it a pity that whatever references I made, you only have to use a mouse to click on it? And yet you find it difficult to do that, much less sending you out to hunt down a book somewhere in North America. Let's put it this way if you read the The Light of Truth you do not have read any more of those books or send me out to look for them.

    The sorts of historical objections you raise at your website (what's been done in the name of Christianity) tend to be ones that Christians should agree with (e.g., see Philip Sampson's Six Modern Myths About Christianity and Western Civilization [InterVarsity Press].)

  • Vj ~ This is my objection to historical references in revelation:
    "Revelation is a communication of something which the person to whom the thing is revealed did not know before. For if I have done, a thing, or seen it done, it needs no Revelation to tell me, I have done or seen it done nor enable me to tell it or write. Revelation, therefore, cannot be applied to anything done upon earth, of which man is himself actor or witness and consequently all the historical part of the Bible which is almost the whole of it, is not within the meaning and compass of the word Revelation and therefore is not the Word of God." Thomas Paine.
    Perhaps revelation gives the needed explanatory theological context to make sense of those events--a context that one doesn't gather from simply looking at discrete events. In addition, there are also truths (such as the very coherent doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation--see my book "That's Just Your Interpretation" [Baker].)
  • Vj ~ You don't make any sense at all with this debate alone, how can you expect your book to do better? Revelation is exactly what Thomas Paine explain it to be. And I will add that because it is for all creations past, present and the future, it cannot contain any historical reference.

    PC: I don't make sense?

  • Vj ~ i.e. You are void of reasoning!

    You haven't even understood what "question-begging" means!!

  • Vj ~ As I said whether I understood or misunderstood you, it is not an impediment to my salvation, because whatever you believe in is completely false.

    And your appeal to Paine's authority doesn't address my broader point of the explanatory theological context--look at the whole, not just the chunks!

  • Vj ~ The "whole" is that it (revelation) must be good for all creations, past, present as well as the future and as such it cannot contain any historical references. When we move on to the next creation we carry no names or memories of our past lives or past creations and as such all history made and researched finally dies with this creation.

    I could go on, but it seems that you've begged a number of questions from the outset.

  • Vj ~ It is those who have urged for critical thinking that will most likely go on. It is only this kind of personal effort that will eventually lead us all to the truth. Whatever we must accomplish professionally or otherwise, personal effort and the correct knowledge are the necessary requirements. It is the same when seeking the truth.

    So let's press on, shall we?

  • Vj ~ No problem!

    As I'm sure you're busy, no need to respond. I just thought you'd like to know that we got your e-mail and have taken note of your criticisms.

  • Vj ~ Wise men are never busy, as they have already taken the time and the effort to know, it has now become their nature, since time is of no essence to them, to disseminate true knowledge for the good of the human race. Anyone who is too busy to propagate truth, which is an unending mission, is a hypocrite.

    But let's make sure that we're really open to the truth--even if it involves a specific revelation. I find that you have ruled this out a priori without sufficient grounding (at least based on your initial responses to me).

  • Vj ~ I have given you links to my website so that you can have an insight into what we are discussing. The priority that must first take hold, is the ingraining of the proper reasoning habits to begin the journey of ascertaining the truth. I took the initiative to research your religion as the others to ascertain true religion, so you too must do your part. I can only show you the way the rest is up to you. So far, I must compliment you for the effort to continue this debate, which many would have long abandoned.

    PC: Thanks, Vijai. I'll keep looking at the materials you send. I'll be traveling a lot in the near future and have a number of lectures to prepare and book manuscripts to review. So you may not hear from me until I return from Moscow toward the end of October, but I'll try to get back with you as able.
    All the best, Paul Copan
    RZIM Associate

  • Vj ~ I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not seeking away out. I think I should let you know, that it is only true knowledge goes with the soul after this life, not lectures, books, wealth, relatives, your associates or a trip to Moscow. Perhaps, Ravi Zacharias in hiding can come to your rescue, what you think. (smile).

    From: Paul Copan
    To: 'Vijai Singh'
    Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002
    Subject: RE: Re Michael Coran live - defining truth
    Dear Vijai,
    Thanks for writing; I have to be quick As I read your responses, I'm afraid there's not much point in going on.

  • Vj ~ I understand my friend. This is the last (dark) age of this cycle, age of perverted intellects. Compulsion being so, only a very few will come to know of this truth. It is in accordance with the law of progression downwards.

    You are insisting on things that are simply unwarranted.

  • Vj ~ Very true! If it must be warranted you will have to abandon your present belief which I doubt you will do since it will result in the loss of the material life that your accustom to, perhaps family, friends, and associates.

    For example, you insist that God must distribute all knowledge to all equally for him to be just.

  • Vj ~ We are not all born equal, physically and mentally, but we are all equal in the eyes of the laws of man and God. Therefore, all laws had to be in place to confirm to justice.

    You say that natural laws must be eternal (is this based on "subjective evidence" through the senses?).

  • Vj ~ Matter and soul are also eternal, shouldn't you also question them? What is known by subjective evidence, is ascertained through intellectual reasoning guided by the correct knowledge.

    The Christian faith takes science seriously rather than discounting it as subjective when it runs counter to the Vedic faith.

  • Vj ~ How serious can they take it, when they don't know or want to know the origin of science?

    No, it's not a law that people necessarily excrete out the backside; most do, but others may have a cholostomy, which suspends your own natural law because of human intervention (so why couldn't it be the same with God's intervention in the natural world?).

  • Vj ~ A barren woman cannot produce children, but that does not mean the law of reproduction is violated. In the same way, rain comes from the clouds, but not all cloud formation produce rain. We also induce human or mechanical power to send objects against gravity, but it is still not a breach, because whatever goes up comes down, if not on its own, but certainly by gravity.

    The same can be said for other natural functions that are replaced by "non-natural" mechanisms.

  • Vj ~ We can never breach any of these laws. Not because we can replace the heart by a mechanical one it is a breach to natural laws. The same with any other functions.

    You insist that works--not grace--must save. (Which raises all kinds of questions: how do you know when you've done enough?

  • Vj ~ Very simple, when there is contentment or experiences of uninterrupted bliss (happiness). The question is not "when you've done enough" but where do you begin?

    Where would we ourselves be without the grace of other human beings in our lives, who extend forgiveness and compassion when we don't deserve it--let alone God?)

  • Vj ~ How would you know what is compassion when you don't think that God reveals all at the beginning of creation? It is only a wise man can show mercy and compassion because only he alone knows the cause and remedy of pain and suffering

    Regarding the relationship of justice and grace, I don't think you've understood Christian theology sufficiently in order to reject it in an informed way. (So there's an onus on you to understand Christianity more thoroughly before rejecting it. A good book on this subject is John Stott's The Cross of Christ.)

  • Vj ~ Why do you not try to understand the Vedic theology sufficiently also, if it is only to convince you that Christianity is indeed the right way? A good book is the Light of Truth

    It's hard for us as proud humans to accept grace, but it's the only thing we can turn as we don't have the resources within ourselves to deal with our sinfulness (see Death of a Guru [Harvest]--a compelling story of one Hindu who found this to be so).

  • Vj ~ It is the only thing you can turn to if you haven't the desire to look elsewhere. A Hindu is just as lost as a Christian, what could be compelling about that? The reasoning is the path to enlightenment and one void of it, can only rely on grace which is false hope.

    Although I could respond point for point, I won't.

  • Vj ~ I know, it is difficult to abandon your present lifestyle to accommodate true religion. You would have to avoid eating all those innocent creatures that you now care less about.

    Just for the record, when you wrote earlier, I did click on your web attachments to read more on natural law and Vedic religion, but I saw so much question-begging and faulty reasoning that I didn't bother to comment.

  • Vj ~ You should, who knows you could save your soul before Ravi Zacharias'.

    It was the same sorts of argumentation that you've presented.)

  • Vj ~ I know, truth is one for all and in all ages. Christians stand divided and it is because of changed "argumentation" of the Bible.

    Thanks for making the efforts, but I'm afraid I must invest my energies elsewhere.

  • Vj ~ Thank you too for responding and good luck my friend.
    Vijai Singh
    Ravi Zacharias a fraud?
  • <<< Prev
    Next >>>
    "Just as color cannot be perceived by ears, nor sound by eyes; in like manner, the Eternal Supreme Spirit is not perceptible to the senses. He can only be seen by a pure soul through the purity of heart, acquisition of knowledge and the practice of yoga. Just as one cannot reap the advantages of knowledge without acquiring it, likewise the Supreme Spirit cannot be seen without the practice of yoga and gaining the highest knowledge." The Light of Truth

    Back to top of page