Friday, November 25, 2005

Who is GOD ?


An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his
class on the problem
science has with God, The Almighty. He asks one of
his new students to
stand and.....

Prof: So you believe in God?
Student: Absolutely, sir.

Prof: Is God good?

Student: Sure.
>
> Prof: Is God all-powerful?

Student : Yes.

Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he
prayed to God to heal
him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are
ill. But God
didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm?

(Student is silent.)

Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again,
young fella. Is God
good?

Student :Yes.

Prof: Is Satan good?

Student : No.

Prof: Where does Satan come from?

Student : From...God...

Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in
this world?

Student : Yes.

Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make
everything.
Correct?

Student : Yes.

Prof: So who created evil?

(Student does not answer.)

Prof: Is there sickness? Hatred? Ugliness? All these
terrible things
exist in the world, don't they?

Student :Yes, sir.

Prof: So, who created them?

(Student has no answer.)

Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to
identify and observe
the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever
seen God?

Student : No, sir.

Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?

Student : No , sir.

Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God,
smelled your God?
Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for
that matter?

Student : No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.

Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?

Student : Yes.

Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable
protocol, science
says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to
that, son?

Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.

Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science
has.
Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?

Prof: Yes.

Student : And is there such a thing as cold?

Prof: Yes.

Student : No sir. There isn't.

(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this
turn of events.)

Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more
heat, superheat,
mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But
we don't have
anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below
zero which is no
heat, but we can't go any further after that. There
is no such thing as
cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the
absence of heat. We
cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the
opposite of heat,
sir, just the absence of it.

(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)

Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there
such a thing as
darkness?

Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?

Student : You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the
absence of something.
You can have low light, normal light, bright light,
flashing light....
But if you have no light constantly, you have
nothing and it's called
darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If
it were, you would
be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?

Prof: So what is the point you are making, young
man?

Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical
premise is flawed.

Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?

Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of
duality. You argue
there is life and then there is death, a good God
and a bad God. You are
viewing the concept of God as something finite,
something we can
measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.
It uses electricity
and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully
understood either
one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be
ignorant of the
fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.
Death is not the
opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell
me, Professor. Do you
teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

Prof: If you are referring to the natural
evolutionary process, yes, of
course, I do.

Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your
own eyes, sir?

(The Professor shakes his head with a smile,
beginning to realize where
the argument is going.)

Student : Since no one has ever observed the process
of evolution at
work and cannot even prove that this process is an
on-going endeavour,
are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not
a scientist but a
preacher?

(The class is in uproar.)

Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever
seen the Professor's
brain?
(The class breaks out into laughter.)

Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard
the Professor's brain,
felt it, touched or smelled it?.....No one appears
to have done so. So,
according to the established rules of empirical,
stable, demonstrable
protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir.
With all due
respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures,
sir?

(The room is silent. The professor stares at the
student, his face
unfathomable.)

Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith,
son.

Student : That is it, sir.. The link between man &
god is FAITH. That is
all that keeps things moving & alive.

You know who this young man was ?
...
..
..
..
--------------------------------------------
ALBERT EINSTEIN.......
--------------------------------------------
Impossible spells I 'M' Possible

Friday, November 18, 2005


The Aryan Invasion Theory
One of the most controversial ideas about Hindu history is the Aryan invasion theory.

This theory, originally devised by F. Max Muller in 1848, traces the history of Hinduism to the invasion of India's indigenous people by lighter skinned Aryans around 1500 BCE.

The theory was reinforced by other research over the next 120 years, and became the accepted history of Hinduism, not only in the West but in India.

There is now ample evidence to show that Muller, and those who followed him, were wrong.

Why is the theory no longer accepted?
The Aryan invasion theory was based on archaeological, linguistic and ethnological evidence.

Later research has either discredited this evidence, or provided new evidence that combined with the earlier evidence makes other explanations more likely.

Modern historians of the area no longer believe that such invasions had such great influence on Indian history. It's now generally accepted that Indian history shows a continuity of progress from the earliest times to today.

The changes brought to India by other cultures are not denied by modern historians, but they are no longer thought to be a major ingredient in the development of Hinduism.

Dangers of the theory
The Aryan invasion theory denies the Indian origin of India's predominant culture, but gives the credit for Indian culture to invaders from elsewhere.

It even teaches that some of the most revered books of Hindu scripture are not actually Indian, and it devalues India's culture by portraying it as less ancient than it actually is.

The theory was not just wrong, it included unacceptably racist ideas:
1 .it suggested that Indian culture was not a culture in its own right, but a synthesis of elements from other cultures
2 .it implied that Hinduism was not an authentically Indian religion but the result of cultural imperialism
3 .it suggested that Indian culture was static, and only changed under outside influences
4 .it suggested that the dark-skinned Dravidian people of the South of India had got their faith from light-skinned Aryan invaders
5 .it implied that indigenous people were incapable of creatively developing their faith
6 .it suggested that indigenous peoples could only acquire new religious and cultural ideas from other races, by invasion or other processes
7 .it accepted that race was a biologically based concept (rather than, at least in part, a social construct) that provided a sensible way of ranking people in a hierarchy, which provided a partial basis for the caste system
8 .it provided a basis for racism in the Imperial context by suggesting that the peoples of Northern India were descended from invaders from Europe and so racially closer to the British Raj
9 .it gave a historical precedent to justify the role and status of the British Raj, who could argue that they were transforming India for the better in the same way that the Aryans had done thousands of years earlier
10 .it downgraded the intellectual status of India and its people by giving a falsely late date to elements of Indian science

Saturday, November 12, 2005

IF GOD HAD VOICE MAIL......


IF GOD HAD VOICE MAIL......

We have all learned to live with "voice mail" as a necessary
part of modern life. But have you wondered, what if God decided
to install voicemail?"


Imagine praying and hearing this:
Hi! Thank you for calling GOD.
Please select one of the following options:
Press 1 for Requests
Press 2 for Thanksgiving
Press 3 for Complaints
Press 4 for All Other Inquiries.
Else wait for our Customer Support Executive.

What if God used the familiar excuse...? "I'm sorry; all of our
angels are busy helping other sinners right now. However, your
prayer is important to us and will be answered in the order it as received,
so please stay on the line."

Can you imagine getting these kinds of responses as you call God in Prayer:


If you would like to speak to Ganeshji, Press 1.
For Lord Hanuman, Press 2.
For Lord Krishna, Sorry He is on Annual Leave!
For Jesus, please call next week, he is at CANNES FILM FESTIVAL promoting
his passion.
For a directory of other God's & Angels, Press 3.

If you would like to hear Narad sing a Bhajan while you are holding, please
press 4.

To find out if a loved one has been assigned to Heaven, Press 5,
Enter his or her PAN number, then press the 0 key.

If you get a negative response, try area code 420 for (Hell).
Our computers show that you have already prayed once today.
Please hang up and try again tomorrow.

This office is closed for the weekend to observe a religious
holiday.

Please pray again Monday after 9:30 AM. If you need emergency
assistance when this office is closed, contact your local Priest at your
neighborhood Temple.


THANK GOD!
HE/SHE DOESN'T HAVE VOICE MAIL AND LISTENS WHENEVER WE PRAY!

Tuesday, November 08, 2005






First they came for East Punjabi/Sindhi Hindus
And I did not speak out,
Because I was not a East Punjabi/Sindhi Hindu


Then they came for Bangladeshi Hindus
And I did not speak out,
Because I was not a Bangladeshi Hindu


Then they came for the Kashmiri Hindus
And I did not speak out,
Because I was not a Kashmiri Hindu


Then they came for the Jammu Hindus
And I did not speak out,
Because I was not a Jammu Hindu


Then they came for the Assamese Hindus
And I did not speak out,
Because I was not a Assamese Hindu


Then they came for the West Bengali Hindus
And I did not speak out,
Because I was not a West Bengali Hindu


Then they came for the Kerala Hindus
And I did not speak out,
Because I was not a Kerala Hindu


Then when they finally came for me,
There was no one left to speak out.