Bill Maher's Religulous

[donatello]

A number of you have probably seen this, but I saw it only yesterday. Bill Maher's Religulous is very funny. No doubt about that. However, I couldn't digest the seriousness he very suddenly seemed to wear near the end of the film. I was always on the verge of bursting out laughing, even during those last words of the film. What do you all think about the film?

[Ajita Kamal]

I think Maher is funny and a really smooth talker. I agree with some of his ideas on social issues. From that perspective there were many points in Religulous that I could appreciate. But in general it helps to think of it only as entertainment, not as a source for any serious thoughts about religion or freethought.

[donatello]

I wonder why many westerners, like Bill Maher (he mentions it in this film) and Christopher Hitchens think that Krishna was born of a virgin. The mythological account is quite clear about this point. He was the 8th son of Devaki.

[ayyawar]

That's a another propaganda started by zeitgeist moment, its new growing scientific cult, they are twisting some facts to make people accept their views.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw

In this video, they mocked god, by all the points they have told are not true.. and as far as i know, krishna didn't had 12 disciples, not born of virgin.. and zeitgeist moment is trying to come india too... We got to be little careful on this..

[Lije]

(05-Oct-2010, 03:03 PM)donatello Wrote: I wonder why many westerners, like Bill Maher (he mentions it in this film) and Christopher Hitchens think that Krishna was born of a virgin. The mythological account is quite clear about this point. He was the 8th son of Devaki.

I think it has to do with ISKCON. It's followers from the west just substitute Jesus with Krishna.

[ayyawar]

(05-Oct-2010, 08:49 PM)Lije Wrote: I think it has to do with ISKCON. It's followers from the west just substitute Jesus with Krishna.

I Disagree with that, ISKCON started their moment with prabhupada, and their main source was Bhagavat gita, It never mentioned Krishna has born of virgin.

I think christopher hitchens has less knowledge on hinduism or krishna's origin..

But, in history there were lot of smilier stories especially from Egypt
God sent his only son, Born of virgin, has 12 disciples, performed miracles, after death resurrected.

In Arguments they apply this to krishna too..

[Lije]

(05-Oct-2010, 09:55 PM)ayyawar Wrote:

(05-Oct-2010, 08:49 PM)Lije Wrote: I think it has to do with ISKCON. It's followers from the west just substitute Jesus with Krishna.

I Disagree with that, ISKCON started their moment with prabhupada, and their main source was Bhagavat gita, It never mentioned Krishna has born of virgin.

I think christopher hitchens has less knowledge on hinduism or krishna's origin..

But, in history there were lot of smilier stories especially from Egypt
God sent his only son, Born of virgin, has 12 disciples, performed miracles, after death resurrected.

In Arguments they apply this to krishna too..

I did not mean that ISKCON theology says that Krishna had a virgin birth. What I meant to say is its followers who usually were Christians earlier, tend to substitute Jesus with Krishna. Instead of accepting Jesus as their personal saviour, they submit to Krishna. Maybe it is that Hitchens and others don't see much difference between ISKCON and Christianity and hence think that Krishna had a virgin birth like Jesus.

[Ajita Kamal]

The idea of Krishna as born of a virgin is actually an extension of the idea that his was an "immaculate conception". This notion was re-introduced in modern times by Acharya S in her book "Suns of God". I haven't looked into it recently, but I know there are plenty of Hindu scriptures that mention how Krishna was an immaculate conception. In one account, Devaki got pregnant by eating a fruit. In another contradictory account, Yogamaya, Krishna's internal potency, transfered Anantadeva from the womb of Devaki to that of Rohini. After that Vasudeva meditated until Krishna "appeared in his heart" and in the heart (womb?) of Devaki.

I also found these references:

That Devaki was "chaste" - Srimad Bhagavatam (10.3.43): Devaki is specifically called "chaste" : "O supremely chaste mother...."

That Krishna was an immaculate conception- Srimad Bhagavatam (10.3.17): "You never entered the womb of Devaki; rather, You existed there already."

There are as many references to both Krishna and Devaki being mythical characters, as there are of Krishna being an incarnation of Vishnu. The fact is, these tales are replete with many fabrications, and contain parrallel interpretations. It's like one of those books where you get to decide how the story progresses by deciding between alternatives. In the context of understanding where the biblical myth of Jesus (a relatively recent messiah myth) came from, historians have pointed out the existence of immaculately conceived gods in multiple cultures, suggesting that these myths may have had one or two origins and then moved around through word-of-mouth till writing was invented and the now-different and localized forms of these myths were codified as divine scripture.