Thanks for one’s comments.
Marriage is to take place between adults or when they attain marriageable age* that could be different in different regions/times of the world as per the law of the land, and if there is no specific law in this respect then as per the prevailing customs and traditions in vogue in the society .
Regards
As stated by “Classic Encyclopedia”: [Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911 edition]
“In northern countries males enter upon sexual maturity between the age of fourteen and sixteen, sometimes not much before the eighteenth year, females between twelve and fourteen. In tropical climates puberty is much earlier.”
I do believe in afterlife. This is not the real-life we live , it is just like a dream while we see a dream we think it is real but when we wake up then we realize that it was not a real event.
I believe that Buddha was a non-Jewish prophet/messenger of G-d and Jesus was a Jewish prophet/messenger of G-d, they both were in different ages, so they need not to accept one another, by name. I believe that they both are in heaven and are very close to G-d. They both received enlightenment from the same G-d, it is for this, that their teachings and many events have much similarity.
Hence, neither Buddha needs to convert to become a Christian, nor Jesus needs to become a Buddhist. They both were treading the same truthful path that lead to G-d. Right, please?
While I do not contest one’s understanding of “evidence” as a term used in science yet it is to be noted that it is only useful in physical and material realms, which on its own merit is much valuable, but human life is much more than that and there are fields where science is of little to no use. The word “evidence” is borrowed by science from the language which used it much before “science” took its present form. Limits and bounds of science are obvious, therefore.
There are evident observations, one won’t deny, which are used in knowing the non-evident . The methodology in which with the help of evident we know the non-evident is understood to be evidence.
Regards
Science is in the process of knowing, it does not claim that its knowledge even in the “the material world” is perfect. Does it, please?
Not to speak of the other aspect of human activities and life, which are beyond the limits of science and its bounds. Right, please?
Regards
I do believe in afterlife. This is not the real-life we live , it is just like a dream while we see a dream we think it is real but when we wake up then we realize that it was not a real event.
The above poster belongs to Shaivism of the Hinduism conglomerate of religions. Please name the prophets/messengers of Hinduism religions for our information, please.
Regards
‘Fully God and fully man’….or, ‘God & man’? Is there a difference? Post #22 paarsurrey
Did Jesus claim that he was a fully God and a fully man? If yes, please quote from him.
Regards
Thanks or elaborating one’s point.
I believe both concepts “Fully God and fully woman” as also “fully God and fully man” are equally wrong concepts. Jesus did not claim to be “fully God and fully man”, he never said any such thing.
Others are welcome to differ with me with reason and arguments, if any.
Regards
Please elaborate as to what kind of word Jesus is. Please quote from Jesus where he said about himself being a word to support one’s view. I don’t find he ever said as such. Right, please?
Regards
I agree with one here. People attribute things to Jesus that neither he said not he even implied to say. One is right, I believe, such things are just hearsay and hear say is improper to be admitted.
Regards
s said: ↑
Jesus and the Father are both ‘God’.
blü 2 said: ↑
I agree with one. Jesus did not believe such things and did not even imply to say them, in my opinion. It is the Church who is forcing to put things in Jesus’ mouth, I believe.
Regards
Jesus had both bones and flesh. Right, please?
He was not just a spirit, like every other human being he had a physical body and a soul. His teachings were from G-d and he followed them whole-heartedly and in this sense he was with G-d and from G-d like any other Jewish or non-Jewish prophet-messenger of G-d. Jesus’ Second Coming, I believe, has already taken place in the spiritual or attributive/symbolic form of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908, it is not a reincarnation.
Does it help, please?
Regards
So it means that when one talked of Jesus having blood and flesh one took it symbolically for Jesus being a human nothing more nothing less, one did not take it literally. Right, please?
It only shows that Christians have a wrong perception/understanding of Jesus’ resurrection after the event of Cross. Jesus did not die on the Cross, he was only seriously wounded and after treatment in the tomb he was able to walk. Jesus showed his wounds to the disciples so that they know that G-d has heard his prayers in the Garden and saved his life. This is what I believe and understand, others could believe differently with sound reasons and arguments, if any. Right, please?
Creative x 1