What is bad about taking "Bhagavad Gita" as sacred

Argue for and against religions and philosophies which are not Christian

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
paarsurrey1
Sage
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm

What is bad about taking "Bhagavad Gita" as sacred

Post #1

Post by paarsurrey1 »

What is bad about taking "Bhagavad Gita" as sacred, please?

It doesn't entail that one should take everything in it blindly. Why should one be biased about a book? One could take everything reasonable in it and leave that is not reasonable. No harm in it, please.
Regards

___________
Post 64 , thread "What is God? "

User avatar
JP Cusick
Guru
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:25 pm
Location: 20636 USA
Contact:

Re: What is bad about taking "Bhagavad Gita" as sa

Post #2

Post by JP Cusick »

paarsurrey1 wrote: What is bad about taking "Bhagavad Gita" as sacred, please?

It doesn't entail that one should take everything in it blindly. Why should one be biased about a book? One could take everything reasonable in it and leave that is not reasonable. No harm in it, please.
I reject judging anything as "good or bad" and so the Gita is helpful to people who want to know more about God and about humanity and to know greater truths.

Inside the Gita itself it tells about how some people are just blind to the light and others can see clearly, and it praises anyone who shares the Gita with others while it reserves greater praise for those who do as it instructs.

My problem with the Gita is that there are many interpretations which do not give the message clearly and some really distort or even pervert the message, so that is very much like the complication created by having too many versions of the Bible.

My finding is that there are just two (2) versions of the Gita which carry the greatest weight in giving its message, and those 2 are here:

1) The Bhagavad-Gita (the Song Celestial) on PDF, by Sir Edwin Arnold, in 1885.
2) The Bhagavadgita in the Mahabharata, by J. A. B. van Buitenen, in 1981.

The first one by Sir Arnold is comparable to the King James Bible version of the Gita.
The second by Professor van Buitenen is the modern version.
Both of these are very well translated and they compliment each other IMO.
SIGNATURE:

An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11067
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: What is bad about taking "Bhagavad Gita" as sa

Post #3

Post by ttruscott »

paarsurrey1 wrote: What is bad about taking "Bhagavad Gita" as sacred, please?
Sacred: connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration; religious rather than secular.

As there is no distinction in the word sacred between GOD and false gods, it is sacred but that doesn't make its teachings correct nor morally right. Please consider Romans 1 which teaches that we have all seen the proof of YHWH's divinity and power yet all sinners have repressed that memory because they love sin more than the truth. Thus they turn to false gods, idols created from their own minds.

All false gods are a result of sin.
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

paarsurrey1
Sage
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm

Re: What is bad about taking "Bhagavad Gita" as sa

Post #4

Post by paarsurrey1 »

JP Cusick wrote:
paarsurrey1 wrote: What is bad about taking "Bhagavad Gita" as sacred, please?

It doesn't entail that one should take everything in it blindly. Why should one be biased about a book? One could take everything reasonable in it and leave that is not reasonable. No harm in it, please.
I reject judging anything as "good or bad" and so the Gita is helpful to people who want to know more about God and about humanity and to know greater truths.

Inside the Gita itself it tells about how some people are just blind to the light and others can see clearly, and it praises anyone who shares the Gita with others while it reserves greater praise for those who do as it instructs.

My problem with the Gita is that there are many interpretations which do not give the message clearly and some really distort or even pervert the message, so that is very much like the complication created by having too many versions of the Bible.

My finding is that there are just two (2) versions of the Gita which carry the greatest weight in giving its message, and those 2 are here:

1) The Bhagavad-Gita (the Song Celestial) on PDF, by Sir Edwin Arnold, in 1885.
2) The Bhagavadgita in the Mahabharata, by J. A. B. van Buitenen, in 1981.

The first one by Sir Arnold is comparable to the King James Bible version of the Gita.
The second by Professor van Buitenen is the modern version.
Both of these are very well translated and they compliment each other IMO.
Gita is helpful to people who want to know more about God and about humanity and to know greater truths.
That is good.
God is ONE and his message has been the same in all ages. The debris of time make His message obscure sometimes, due to a number of factors, so God revives His message by sending it again on a messenger/prophet.
Nevertheless, the ancient one doesn't lose its utility altogether. Rather, it leads one to the revived message and the messenger/prophet if one is interested in the guidance, sincerely.
Regards

paarsurrey1
Sage
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm

Re: What is bad about taking "Bhagavad Gita" as sa

Post #5

Post by paarsurrey1 »

ttruscott wrote:
paarsurrey1 wrote: What is bad about taking "Bhagavad Gita" as sacred, please?
Sacred: connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration; religious rather than secular.

As there is no distinction in the word sacred between GOD and false gods, it is sacred but that doesn't make its teachings correct nor morally right. Please consider Romans 1 which teaches that we have all seen the proof of YHWH's divinity and power yet all sinners have repressed that memory because they love sin more than the truth. Thus they turn to false gods, idols created from their own minds.

All false gods are a result of sin.
GOD and false gods
Hinduism people, many of them hold Krishna as God like most Christians hold Jesus as God. Who of Krishna and or Jesus is the truthful God or none of them, please?

Regards

User avatar
JP Cusick
Guru
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:25 pm
Location: 20636 USA
Contact:

Re: What is bad about taking "Bhagavad Gita" as sa

Post #6

Post by JP Cusick »

paarsurrey1 wrote: Hinduism people, many of them hold Krishna as God like most Christians hold Jesus as God. Who of Krishna and or Jesus is the truthful God or none of them, please?
Some people say that Christ and Krishna are the same person.

They even say that Christ and Krishna are the same word in different languages.

Krishna = Christ-na

If the Gospel is true that Jesus the Christ was the work (the speaker) of God from the beginning then it does make sense that Christ would keep appearing throughout human history, and thereby Krishna could indeed be the same person as Christ.

And in either case then Krishna and Christ are secondary Gods, as like demiGods or sons of God, so they would not be the Father God.
SIGNATURE:

An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:

paarsurrey1
Sage
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm

Re: What is bad about taking "Bhagavad Gita" as sa

Post #7

Post by paarsurrey1 »

JP Cusick wrote:
paarsurrey1 wrote: What is bad about taking "Bhagavad Gita" as sacred, please?

It doesn't entail that one should take everything in it blindly. Why should one be biased about a book? One could take everything reasonable in it and leave that is not reasonable. No harm in it, please.
I reject judging anything as "good or bad" and so the Gita is helpful to people who want to know more about God and about humanity and to know greater truths.

Inside the Gita itself it tells about how some people are just blind to the light and others can see clearly, and it praises anyone who shares the Gita with others while it reserves greater praise for those who do as it instructs.

My problem with the Gita is that there are many interpretations which do not give the message clearly and some really distort or even pervert the message, so that is very much like the complication created by having too many versions of the Bible.

My finding is that there are just two (2) versions of the Gita which carry the greatest weight in giving its message, and those 2 are here:

1) The Bhagavad-Gita (the Song Celestial) on PDF, by Sir Edwin Arnold, in 1885.
2) The Bhagavadgita in the Mahabharata, by J. A. B. van Buitenen, in 1981.

The first one by Sir Arnold is comparable to the King James Bible version of the Gita.
The second by Professor van Buitenen is the modern version.
Both of these are very well translated and they compliment each other IMO.
My problem with the Gita is that there are many interpretations which do not give the message clearly and some really distort or even pervert the message, so that is very much like the complication created by having too many versions of the Bible.
So, if NT Bible is held sacred despite such problems, the same way "Bhagavad Gita" should be held sacred despite the problems. The problems could be removed or thrashed out and there are means to do it.
Regards

paarsurrey1
Sage
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm

Post #8

Post by paarsurrey1 »

Further to my above post:

The same way Vedas, Buddhist Scriptures, Zoroastrian Scriptures or for that matter any religious scriptures of all the revealed religions should be held sacred. The mistakes if any could be removed, and there are means to do that.
And there is no harm in this. Right, please?
Regards

paarsurrey1
Sage
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm

Re: What is bad about taking "Bhagavad Gita" as sa

Post #9

Post by paarsurrey1 »

JP Cusick wrote:
paarsurrey1 wrote: What is bad about taking "Bhagavad Gita" as sacred, please?

It doesn't entail that one should take everything in it blindly. Why should one be biased about a book? One could take everything reasonable in it and leave that is not reasonable. No harm in it, please.
I reject judging anything as "good or bad" and so the Gita is helpful to people who want to know more about God and about humanity and to know greater truths.

Inside the Gita itself it tells about how some people are just blind to the light and others can see clearly, and it praises anyone who shares the Gita with others while it reserves greater praise for those who do as it instructs.

My problem with the Gita is that there are many interpretations which do not give the message clearly and some really distort or even pervert the message, so that is very much like the complication created by having too many versions of the Bible.

My finding is that there are just two (2) versions of the Gita which carry the greatest weight in giving its message, and those 2 are here:

1) The Bhagavad-Gita (the Song Celestial) on PDF, by Sir Edwin Arnold, in 1885.
2) The Bhagavadgita in the Mahabharata, by J. A. B. van Buitenen, in 1981.

The first one by Sir Arnold is comparable to the King James Bible version of the Gita.
The second by Professor van Buitenen is the modern version.
Both of these are very well translated and they compliment each other IMO.

paarsurrey1
Sage
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm

Re: What is bad about taking "Bhagavad Gita" as sa

Post #10

Post by paarsurrey1 »

paarsurrey1 wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:
paarsurrey1 wrote: What is bad about taking "Bhagavad Gita" as sacred, please?

It doesn't entail that one should take everything in it blindly. Why should one be biased about a book? One could take everything reasonable in it and leave that is not reasonable. No harm in it, please.
I reject judging anything as "good or bad" and so the Gita is helpful to people who want to know more about God and about humanity and to know greater truths.

Inside the Gita itself it tells about how some people are just blind to the light and others can see clearly, and it praises anyone who shares the Gita with others while it reserves greater praise for those who do as it instructs.

My problem with the Gita is that there are many interpretations which do not give the message clearly and some really distort or even pervert the message, so that is very much like the complication created by having too many versions of the Bible.

My finding is that there are just two (2) versions of the Gita which carry the greatest weight in giving its message, and those 2 are here:

1) The Bhagavad-Gita (the Song Celestial) on PDF, by Sir Edwin Arnold, in 1885.
2) The Bhagavadgita in the Mahabharata, by J. A. B. van Buitenen, in 1981.

The first one by Sir Arnold is comparable to the King James Bible version of the Gita.
The second by Professor van Buitenen is the modern version.
Both of these are very well translated and they compliment each other IMO.
Inside the Gita itself it tells about how some people are just blind to the light and others can see clearly, and it praises anyone who shares the Gita with others while it reserves greater praise for those who do as it instructs.
I understand the phenomenon in the following manner:

[2:7] Those who have disbelieved — it being equal to them whether thou warn them or warn them not* — they will not believe.
[2:8] Allah has set a seal on their hearts and their ears, and over their eyes is a covering; and for them is a great punishment.

https://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/s ... r.php?ch=2
*because they have shut the doors/windows/ventilators of the room of their hearts so the light cannot come into their selves or in other words the room of their self is in pitch darkness they are unable to see or they have become blind at heart for that matter unless they open some doors/windows/ventilators of the room of their heart, they cannot see the truth.
In this way they have themselves sealed their hearts and naturally, they deprive themselves and fail to get to heaven as they have opted the punishment of the hell, it is their own doing.

Is it clear, please?

Regards

Post Reply