Instigator / Pro
14
1574
rating
207
debates
55.07%
won
Topic
#6260
(On-balance) THBT: Krishna is a better spiritual mentor than Jesus.
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
8
1500
rating
19
debates
50.0%
won
Description
Three parts shall exist to this debate.:
The first part is who had more wisdom.
The second part involves who was the better communicator. (The one who does a better job of educating and indoctrinating students and proteges into their teachings.)
The third part involves comparing which, if incorporated, has the potentiality for a more positive impact.
Rules:
1. One forfeit is the loss of a conduct point.
2. Kritiks are allowed.
3. BOP is shared.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Welcome 21Pilots. I’m looking forward to a thoughtful and insightful discussion.
Today, we delve into the subject that compares two separate figures from Hinduism and Christianity.
Framework
As I am arguing for Krishna, and Con is arguing for Jesus. That makes this an on-balance debate. To show who is the superior mentor, we must separate the following impacts into three segments.
- Who maxes out in wisdom. We can demonstrate this by showing who exercises sharper intellect, good judgment, and better reasoning.
- Who is the more effective communicator? As equally important as wisdom is the ability to impart wisdom and knowledge onto that of your followers and proteges, as it is a fundamental requirement of mentorship and teaching.
- Which of the teachings between the two figures will generate the most positive impact. We can observe this by comparing the total number of people who followed both, and which results had the strongest effect on their well-being.
Lesson #1
- Krishna emphasizes the cultivation of discipline and detachment.
That is, remaining committed to your responsibilities without attachment to outcomes. And that the fixation on achievements leads to a stress-based obsession that is born from superficiality. Some circumstances are simply beyond our control and by accepting this, we can avoid the unnecessary stress that workaholics, perfectionists, and overachievers put them through.
Lesson #2
- Balance leads to a fruitful life of contentment that remains sustainable.
The idea behind this is healthy eating, getting enough sleep, and a moderate amount of exercise will help you to avoid sickness and maintain a peak mindset that shall allow you to live comfortably. To avoid getting burnt out, this is simply a requirement.
Lesson #3
- Mastery of the mind will affect all aspects of your life.
Krishna teaches that for those who have conquered the mind, it works as a friend. But for those who have not, it becomes their enemy. This emphasizes the importance of meditation to otherwise combat the negative thoughts that would otherwise affect you, without working to overcome it.
Following Impacts
All three lessons operate to establish two specific impacts of Krishna.: His wisdom and the beneficial potentiality of his teachings. It accomplishes this by bolstering credibility and logos.
Con
#2
First round will be short for me because
Well,
Does Krishna have 2.83 billion people listening to his word daily?
You see, “spiritual mentor, to me, is not just about understanding. It’s also about learning, so to rephrase the question:
Do people really have the will to learn and understand Krishna’s word?
And if they do, are they actually able to interpret it to others who don’t know him.
You also said existence is irrelevant. That, to me is preposterous.
Well, doesn’t that basically mean fake news?
Will you believe Elon Musk eating Donald Trump while in a Lamborghini just because of the fact that existence is irrelevant?
Religion isn’t make believe, but the context behind it?
If you really had the heart of faith, you will be able to answer that question.
The lesson
Krishna emphasizes discipline and detachment—doing your duty without caring about the outcome. But Jesus teaches trust, not detachment. In Matthew 6, He says not to worry about your life because God provides. It’s not about letting go of results—it’s about depending on God.
Krishna also promotes balance—moderation in sleep, food, and exercise. But Jesus flips that idea. He says to seek first the kingdom of God, and everything else will fall into place. Spiritual focus comes before physical comfort.
Lastly, Krishna says to master the mind or it becomes your enemy. But Jesus doesn’t preach self-mastery—He teaches renewal through God. Romans 12 says we’re transformed by the renewing of our mind, not by controlling it, but by surrendering to God’s truth.
So while Krishna looks inward for peace, Jesus calls us to look upward—for faith, not control.
Krishna also promotes balance—moderation in sleep, food, and exercise. But Jesus flips that idea. He says to seek first the kingdom of God, and everything else will fall into place. Spiritual focus comes before physical comfort.
Lastly, Krishna says to master the mind or it becomes your enemy. But Jesus doesn’t preach self-mastery—He teaches renewal through God. Romans 12 says we’re transformed by the renewing of our mind, not by controlling it, but by surrendering to God’s truth.
So while Krishna looks inward for peace, Jesus calls us to look upward—for faith, not control.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Existence is not the scope because the non-theist consensus is that Jesus was a violent insurrectionist without powers or abilities. A delusional wannabe tyrant would lack the essential qualities that judge wisdom, communication, and impact. And Krishna would be disqualified from comparison because he doesn't exist.
So the only factors we should use to compare are the version of Jesus from The Bible and Krishna from Hindu Mythology.
For this next round, I shall focus on all three of these factors.:
Linguistic Abilities & Global Wellbeing
Krishna was able to speak the native language of Brajabhumi, was able to communicate with demigods in Sanskrit, and was even able to leverage his divinity to be able to communicate fluently with animals. According to the lore and mythology, Krishna can talk in any language regardless of its location or origin. This ability is telepathic in a way, that works through a voluntary empathy. He comprehends the thoughts of people actively channeling him and is able to communicate on their level.
The Gita, AKA Krishna's teachings have universal accessibility because a translation was made for more than 82 languages. There has been a reported reduction in the stress levels of people who follow his teachings, especially now that feelings of anxiety & self-doubt are affecting the modern world stronger than ever. His teachings have cultivated strong relationships between people and helped them develop stronger bonds.
Demographic & Timeframe
Hinduism and Krishna's teachings have been around for thousands of years longer than christianity or the bible, having been created sometime in the BC era.
The Bhagavad Gītā's longevity has endured for a while, and has managed the support of broader appeal with strong cultural diversity. Infact, an organization that was created in devotion to krishna called ISKON has more than 800+ temples around the world, and a million followers.
Pragmatic Lessons
A big foundation of wisdom is emotional intelligence. The lessons come up with the separate parts that make up and define emotional intelligence, each building off from each other and establishing their own framework.: Self-awareness, self-regulation, empathy, social awareness, relationship management, effective communication, active listening, conflict resolution, leadership, and more.
Which now raises the question, how does this compare/contrast to Jesus?:
- Krishna has about as many followers than Jesus, but has existed as a concept for significantly longer. Thereby having persisted longer by influencing whole societies and communities, spanning many thousands years longer than christianity has had a chance to.
- Krishna also communicated in every language, even speaking to animals. While Jesus, in the Bible, only demonstrated speaking three. This means that Krishna interacted and spoke with a wider variety of people, while those Jesus interacted with were only limited to three. Krishna also lived for 125 years, while Jesus only lived until 30. Both of these factors meant that Krishna had the ability to directly win over more converts more quickly and had the opportunity to appeal to a greater demographic, and a longer time to teach more people as well.
- Jesus emphasized belief and commitment to him, as well as the moral rules & guidelines of The New Testament. But none of these provided the range and depth of wisdom that Krishna's lessons and teachings provide. Jesus tells you what to do and what not to do. Krishna tells you what to do, what not to do, how to do it, and why you should do it. Krishna's instructions are broken down into specific detail while Jesus's lessons and quotes are so vaguely worded and loose, that they are too open to interpretation rather than being crystal clear.
From a mathematical and statistical perspective, Krishna has affected the same amount of people, but over longer generations of time. Meaning quantitatively, he is still winning according to influence and his longevity has remained a crucial standpoint. Now having made the comparison of Krishna's teachings. The Bhagavad Gita versus The New Testament also gave me the chance to illustrate why Krishna's lessons are also higher-quality than Jesus'.
Krishna spoke to and communicated with all cultures of people, and different species. While Jesus only spoke to and interacted with his local culture and neighboring cultures. We have Krishna's teachings being translated universally, and his temples reaching more than a million people.
This means he is wiser than Jesus, is better at communicating, and his potentiality for reaching people is overall greater as he demonstrated the greater impacts.
Con
#4
Existence is not the scope because the non-theist consensus is that Jesus was a violent insurrectionist without powers or abilities. A delusional wannabe tyrant would lack the essential qualities that judge wisdom, communication, and impact. And Krishna would be disqualified from comparison because he doesn't exist.So the only factors we should use to compare are the version of Jesus from The Bible and Krishna from Hindu Mythology.
this is where you go wrong, if Krishna doesn’t exist, then who created him at least? From research, I can be certain that it was made up of many poets and especially storytellers. So basically it’s not really Jesus’s teachings vs Krishna’s teachings, its Jesus’s teaching vs a excuse for opinions on the universe by storytellers and poets.
Jesus was one singular person, a son of god and part of the trinity. He wasn’t associated in a group project for god mythology.
One more thing to never ignore is that Jesus is physical, as even you have admitted. He has said the quotes from the bible both physically and mentally to all people. And at this point it has gained more than 2.4 billion followers.
So how does he do it?
How does one simply speak about some points of life and gain such amounts of followers?
There is a simple answer: because the word is true.
I will quote some of these quotes of the great man throughout my arguments.
Please remember that these words influenced millions. And even billions.
Three factors
Krishna was able to speak the native language of Brajabhumi, was able to communicate with demigods in Sanskrit, and was even able to leverage his divinity to be able to communicate fluently with animals. According to the lore and mythology, Krishna can talk in any language regardless of its location or origin. This ability is telepathic in a way, that works through a voluntary empathy. He comprehends the thoughts of people actively channeling him and is able to communicate on their level.
This part is completely irrelevant since none of those gods exist, and are just storytellers and poets expressing their opinions in a different way.
You say that Krishna’s teachings have changed relationships and bonds between people, but thats it. It is only the cure, not the change. In Luke 12:22-26 Jesus states:
“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear.
Life is more than food, and the body more than clothes.
Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them.
And how much more valuable you are than birds!
Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to your life?
Since you cannot do this very little thing, why do you worry about the rest?”
In this verse, Jesus states that even the birds are well kept and fed by God, and that’s merely birds. We, as his greatest creation, mustn’t worry about such small things in our life. Not even the big things, for the Lord will take care of us. While Krishna can speak to animals, God takes care of them, just like he will take care of us.
Hinduism and Krishna's teachings have been around for thousands of years longer than christianity or the bible, having been created sometime in the BC era.The Bhagavad Gītā's longevity has endured for a while, and has managed the support of broader appeal with strong cultural diversity.
Again, the literal timeframe as a whole was made by God. How long a religion was made or how short another was created has no relevance in anything really. Thats like saying since Karl Benz made a car thats older it’s automatically better than Elon Musk’s.
Infact, an organization that was created in devotion to krishna called ISKON has more than 800+ temples around the world, and a million followers.
just proves how much Jesus’s words influenced mankind:
2 million churches worldwide
2.4 billion followers
The difference between a man made god and a real one really shows here.
Krishna has about as many followers than Jesus, but has existed as a concept for significantly longer. Thereby having persisted longer by influencing whole societies and communities, spanning many thousands years longer than christianity has had a chance to.
Yeah ok, as I have repeated several times
2.4 BILLION followers not 24 followers.
Well the concept must’ve had a really big downfall, so much years longer, yet completely demolished by a book.
Krishna also communicated in every language, even speaking to animals. While Jesus, in the Bible, only demonstrated speaking three. This means that Krishna interacted and spoke with a wider variety of people, while those Jesus interacted with were only limited to three. Krishna also lived for 125 years, while Jesus only lived until 30. Both of these factors meant that Krishna had the ability to directly win over more converts more quickly and had the opportunity to appeal to a greater demographic, and a longer time to teach more people as well.
I feel like you’re just repeating your words at this point.
I don’t understand how talking to animals has anything to do with teaching.
I guess you haven’t read the bible, God spoke to few people, not Jesus.
Jesus was sent as a messenger of God, and has twelve followers who has been physically spoken to not 3.
And somehow Jesus has valid witnesses and Krishna has…?
I mean, if you want a therapy session with a blue skinned baby, sure go ahead.
Jesus emphasized belief and commitment to him, as well as the moral rules & guidelines of The New Testament. But none of these provided the range and depth of wisdom that Krishna's lessons and teachings provide. Jesus tells you what to do and what not to do. Krishna tells you what to do, what not to do, how to do it, and why you should do it. Krishna's instructions are broken down into specific detail while Jesus's lessons and quotes are so vaguely worded and loose, that they are too open to interpretation rather than being crystal clear.
Well that’s preposterous. Completely ignoring some main points of the bible.
Jesus teaches what to do, what not to do, how to do, why you do it and when you do it.
And lets not forget that it came out of his own mouth.
Here are some bible verses that support this, maybe you can learn from it as well.
WHAT TO DO
Matthew 22:37–38
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
This is the first and greatest commandment.”
HOW TO DO IT
Matthew 6:3–4
“But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
so that your giving may be in secret.
Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”
WHEN TO DO IT
John 9:4
“As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me.
Night is coming, when no one can work.”
WHY TO DO IT
John 14:21
“Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me.
The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”
The words may be somewhat vague, but thats what makes a faithful disciple, in Christianity, interpretation is important, anyone can follow clear and easy-to-follow commands, but true faith is from how you make out of those commands, and thats what changes your life. Like how Jesus changed many.
Your whole argument this round was based on time, age, popularity, and explaining life lessons to a toddler.
Which are some of the most important parts in which you should consider carefully.
BE aware of these influences, it can change and brainwash your mind.
Thank you for this argument sir Lancelot, it proves to us how dangerous fake religions are and the main things you should look for when avoiding them.
Looking forward to your response ^^
Source: The bible (must I explain more…?)
The son of God.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Thank you, 21Pilots.
Con does not appear to like the setup of this debate. He wishes to change the terms to compare existence, which such would be a truism even if this was successful. But here is why this cannot hold up.:
- A fair and meaningful discussion of substance would be impossible. I am barred from participation and disqualified on the basis that Krishna does not exist. On the other hand, Con raises his BOP too high that it's impossible to meet. It is for one impossible to prove Jesus's powers are real, and Christianity is true.
- Con already technically agreed to the framing of this discussion, when he accepted.
- You don't need to have belief in Krishna to weigh the value of the teachings. The teachings and lessons can be learned universally by any culture, background, or belief system. While following Jesus's teachings requires you to be christian.
I shall now proceed by finalizing my final arguments:
Rebuttals
This part is completely irrelevant since none of those gods exist, and are just storytellers and poets expressing their opinions in a different way.You say that Krishna’s teachings have changed relationships and bonds between people, but thats it. It is only the cure, not the change. In Luke 12:22-26 Jesus states:“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear.Life is more than food, and the body more than clothes.Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them.And how much more valuable you are than birds!Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to your life?Since you cannot do this very little thing, why do you worry about the rest?”In this verse, Jesus states that even the birds are well kept and fed by God, and that’s merely birds. We, as his greatest creation, mustn’t worry about such small things in our life. Not even the big things, for the Lord will take care of us. While Krishna can speak to animals, God takes care of them, just like he will take care of us.
This is problematic because we have no guarantee or way to take Jesus's words at face-value. Encouraging people to disregard their life, their diet, their hygiene, and their fashion is self-destructive advice that will be conducive to a poor-quality life. This opens up all kinds of risks to obesity, disease, and all the other unpleasant physical ailments that plague the body and the spirit. In favor of a divine hand-out that we don't know is a fantasy?
Krishna's teachings are both proactive and reactive. They teach how to erase and avoid the problems that are mental and physical. They teach self-sufficiency, independence, and self-reliance in the absence of divinity, so that supernatural miracles neither become a dependency nor a requirement. This is pragmatic advice because there are no guarantees of the supernatural or the divine, but these lessons are observably accurate and true. To which Con will agree these lessons are accurate.
Again, the literal timeframe as a whole was made by God. How long a religion was made or how short another was created has no relevance in anything really. Thats like saying since Karl Benz made a car thats older it’s automatically better than Elon Musk’s.
With no evidence or proof to show this.
just proves how much Jesus’s words influenced mankind:2 million churches worldwide2.4 billion followersThe difference between a man made god and a real one really shows here.
Tyranny and control by fear also shows influence. Albeit, a stronger negative influence.
But Krishna's influence and impact still wins out on the ability to affect more generations and societies over a longer course of thousands of years. Even a bigger fanbase today is irrelevant and semi-microscopic based on this factor. Statics demonstrate greater longevity, and psychology shows better mental health and a higher quality of life from following Krishna's standards of living.
I feel like you’re just repeating your words at this point.I don’t understand how talking to animals has anything to do with teaching.I guess you haven’t read the bible, God spoke to few people, not Jesus.Jesus was sent as a messenger of God, and has twelve followers who has been physically spoken to not 3.And somehow Jesus has valid witnesses and Krishna has…?I mean, if you want a therapy session with a blue skinned baby, sure go ahead.
The ability to communicate with all forms of life competently demonstrates versatility and verbal fluency. Both of which are factors that impact communication. And superior communication means a superior teaching ability. Krishna, like Jesus, were born into the world as babies, but both didn't become spiritual mentors until adulthood.
In Luke 3:23, Jesus didn't begin teaching until he was 30 years of age.
Krishna didn't speak The Gita until he was 89 years of age.
Well that’s preposterous. Completely ignoring some main points of the bible.Jesus teaches what to do, what not to do, how to do, why you do it and when you do it.And lets not forget that it came out of his own mouth.Here are some bible verses that support this, maybe you can learn from it as well.WHAT TO DOMatthew 22:37–38“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.This is the first and greatest commandment.”HOW TO DO ITMatthew 6:3–4“But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,so that your giving may be in secret.Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”WHEN TO DO ITJohn 9:4“As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me.Night is coming, when no one can work.”WHY TO DO ITJohn 14:21“Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me.The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”The words may be somewhat vague, but thats what makes a faithful disciple, in Christianity, interpretation is important, anyone can follow clear and easy-to-follow commands, but true faith is from how you make out of those commands, and thats what changes your life. Like how Jesus changed many.
We are missing several things from this.:
- Benefits of blind devotion to Jesus.
- Crucial life-skills.
- An incentive for following these teachings.
In the absence of effect, or motive. We do not have a reliable way of determining potentiality, or how these teachings demonstrate wisdom or superior communication ability. We are left with more questions and puzzles than answers.
Your whole argument this round was based on time, age, popularity, and explaining life lessons to a toddler.Which are some of the most important parts in which you should consider carefully.BE aware of these influences, it can change and brainwash your mind.Thank you for this argument sir Lancelot, it proves to us how dangerous fake religions are and the main things you should look for when avoiding them.
Con's post contains a strawman. The strawman being that you have to be a hindu to practice Krishna's teachings, or that you have to believe in Krishna's divinity and power. Even if you see Krishna as symbolic rather than literal, the teachings and lessons still have universal applicability. In this way, religion is irrelevant.
While Jesus's teachings are limited only to one category, those that believe in and follow The Bible.
Thank you for a compelling debate, 21Pilots.
I end here on this note.
Con
#6
Thank you sir lencelot for a interesting and informative argument.
It seems that you do not like the way that I use the bible to my advantage.
I am a Christian, hence I also argue as a Christian. I tried to make it as fair as possible.
But the fact that to me, one exists and one doesn’t makes it a bit confusing.
However this argument, I will argue for both evidence of Jesus( as you have mentioned somewhere in your argument) and the teachings of Krishna.
Here we go:
This is problematic because we have no guarantee or way to take Jesus's words at face-value. Encouraging people to disregard their life, their diet, their hygiene, and their fashion is self-destructive advice that will be conducive to a poor-quality life. This opens up all kinds of risks to obesity, disease, and all the other unpleasant physical ailments that plague the body and the spirit. In favor of a divine hand-out that we don't know is a fantasy?
Ok, so pro seems to be arguing as a atheist in this part of the argument. He forgot one thing in this argument, where is the evidence? IF such thing happened, there would be a significant decrease in Christianity no?
So I ask you fellow debaters: How did the Christian’s survive?
How did the 2.4 billion people who have read this verse survive?
It is normal for those who don’t believe in Christianity to ponder many things when reading the bible. And this is one of the most common. Pro seems to admire Krishna’s teachings because of how straightforward it is. But what I don’t understand is that if he admits that that Krishnas not real, then, I say this again, does that mean that the origin of these lessons are from a storyteller or poet? But here’s something thats even more interesting: those supposed “wise” storytellers and poets live a normal like all of us, there is no difference my fellow debaters!
Ok so what does that mean? You may ask.
Sure you may think that Jesus’s existence is false and fake, but that doesn’t mean that his words aren’t real. During the Roman Empire, it was said that the religion Christianity gained absolute popularity everywhere, this must mean that something great happened? Otherwise how is this possible? For the sake of this debate, I wont say that it was Jesus, but it was still someone wouldn’t it? Someone made this all possible.
And if such man existed. It is obviously clear that he was more popular, wiser, and influenced many people, hence turning them into Christians.
Again, the literal timeframe as a whole was made by God. How long a religion was made or how short another was created has no relevance in anything really. Thats like saying since Karl Benz made a car thats older it’s automatically better than Elon Musk’s.
With no evidence or proof to show this.
Exactly age alone doesn’t equal truth or superiority. If we judged value just by who came first, we’d still be using telegrams instead of smartphones. What matters isn’t when something began, but whether it holds up under evidence, reason, and impact. So unless there’s actual proof behind the claim, ‘older’ doesn’t mean ‘truer.
Tyranny and control by fear also shows influence. Albeit, a stronger negative influence.But Krishna's influence and impact still wins out on the ability to affect more generations and societies over a longer course of thousands of years. Even a bigger fanbase today is irrelevant and semi-microscopic based on this factor. Statics demonstrate greater longevity, and psychology shows better mental health and a higher quality of life from following Krishna's standards of living.
From what I can interpret: Pro is trying to say that Christianity is only popular because of force not belief. Which made me chuckle.
He also says that Krishna still has higher ground because he and his disciples had a “better life”.
This means that pro thinks that because someone has a better life, their god is automatically the better one. Which makes no sense.
So what about the first humans on earth? Krishna wasn’t even invented then, how did they survive? How did they live such a hard life but still survive? Did they praise any god at all?
We are let with more questions then answers.
Sure your statistics can show that those who believe Krishna live better both mentally and physically.
But true disciples of a God put their life on the line to spread the good news to others.
Thats why Christian’s lived a hard life throughout history. But what pro forgot was the reward. Christians believed that if they worked hard in their life, it will be received with good rewards. Now jewellery or gold like the Indian thief’s want, not some three wishes from a genie. But global happiness. And that, my fellow debaters, is how the world gained 2.4 billion followers of Christians.
It’s not because of force as pro states, but it’s because of the reward, in which Christian’s worked tremendously hard to receive.
The ability to communicate with all forms of life competently demonstrates versatility and verbal fluency. Both of which are factors that impact communication. And superior communication means a superior teaching ability. Krishna, like Jesus, were born into the world as babies, but both didn't become spiritual mentors until adulthood.
In Luke 3:23, Jesus didn't begin teaching until he was 30 years of age.
Krishna didn't speak The Gita until he was 89 years of age.
This still makes no chance: You are a human not a animal, this actually feels insulting: you are saying a god is basically the same level as an animal.
But to get to the complex point of this argument, versatility and verbal fluency is based on other languages of the world, not the language of other life forms.
Speak the language of an animal has no literal impact on us humans, it may amaze us, but it doesn’t change us.
Pros seconds part of the argument tells us that both teachers didn’t start their career until adult hood. But from this we can confirm that Jesus did teach earlier front he perspective of age, not Krishna. Jesus starting at the age of 30 seems a bit more normal in terms of a average human then a 89 year old blue skinned baby.
We are missing several things from this.:Benefits of blind devotion to Jesus.Crucial life-skills.An incentive for following these teachings.In the absence of effect, or motive. We do not have a reliable way of determining potentiality, or how these teachings demonstrate wisdom or superior communication ability. We are left with more questions and puzzles than answers.
It seems that pro has got mixed up with the verses. I simply stated the most easiest and simplest verses in the Bible that are related to this topic.
The Bible is a big book, therefore having millions of trillions of words. Hence. Stating every single verse form the Bible related to this topic will take up all the world count.
And thats my answer to pro’s questions and puzzles.
Con's post contains a strawman. The strawman being that you have to be a hindu to practice Krishna's teachings, or that you have to believe in Krishna's divinity and power. Even if you see Krishna as symbolic rather than literal, the teachings and lessons still have universal applicability. In this way, religion is irrelevant.While Jesus's teachings are limited only to one category, those that believe in and follow The Bible.
Well don’t you have to be Hindu to follow Krishna?
I feel like it would be quite awkward and weird if you learn from a god you don’t believe, That’s like a atheist following Jesus’s teachings. Makes absolutely no sense. Pro also says that Krishna’s lessons have “universal applicability” but all Gods have that. There are a lot of wise and smart men out there, my fellow debaters, and many of them invent their own myths to influence the world. That’s exactly what I was trying to tell in round 2. Do not fall for those influences, for it can be deadly.
One thing I do hate is being in the middle. I have a strong opinion on that topic, and I can summarize that those who are in the middle are cowardly pussy’s who don’t know what they’re doing. If you are gonna learn Krishna’s teachings, at least become Hindu to be around those others who want to learn it as well.
IF you’re gonna follow Hinduism, then follow it, if you’re gonna follow Christianity then follow it.
Thats what a true disciple is. That’s what a true man is. And that’s what make both Jesus and Krishna proud.
Thank you for a great debate sir Lancelot
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
RFV Thoughts Final.
Wisdom, Communication, and potentiality for a more positive impact.
Communication to Pro, for argument on the teachings enduring so long, and arguments against Christianity's sudden spread.
It 'was close though, and I did not find the multiple languages by Pro or the number of followers by Con, convincing arguments.
Wisdom and Potential for a More Positive Impact,
Pro focused a lot more on the here and now, rather than the hereafter.
Con took a decent but dangerous approach on 'proving Christianity true, while they have arguments against Krishna being true, 'and some arguments of impressive accomplishments of Christianity's growth and spread,
It's a 'high bar to 'prove one religion over another, to individuals 'not of a religion or another.
The Bible 'does have here and now wisdom, and there 'is value in the hereafter, to the people who believe in such.
And I imagine there 'are 'many people who are spiritual and believe in a hereafter. . .
But I think it needed more argument than Pro had to give for the here and now.
Arguments to Pro.
Sources were more basic knowledge than argument boosters, tie.
Both sides legible.
Both sides conduct, good enough.
Additional thoughts and RFV in comments #21, #20, #19 of debate.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
I am sorry that you both wasted so many words and time here. You both ignore the topic start making irrelevant points like: Who spoke more languages, who has more followers, who has been around for more. 21pilots cites some gospel verses and lancelot cites more as an argument. poor krishna is left uncited. plus this debate looks pretty much like 'my prophet is better'. anyways, minimal points made about 'spiritual mentoring'.
Some points about the actual topic and my modest critic:
Lancelot:
"The idea behind this is healthy eating, getting enough sleep, and a moderate amount of exercise will help you to avoid sickness and maintain a peak mindset that shall allow you to live comfortably. To avoid getting burnt out, this is simply a requirement. " -not so much for a spiritual mentor but a standing argument.
"Mastery of the mind will affect all aspects of your life."- same.
Pilots:
"Do people really have the will to learn and understand Krishna’s word?
And if they do, are they actually able to interpret it to others who don’t know him. "- i doubt how many 'christians' have actually read the bible and are able to interpret it...
"Will you believe Elon Musk eating Donald Trump while in a Lamborghini just because of the fact that existence is irrelevant? "- What?
"Krishna emphasizes discipline and detachment - doing your duty without caring about the outcome (misscitation i call but anyway). But Jesus teaches trust, not detachment. In Matthew 6, He says not to worry about your life because God provides."- almost the same things only that one says mental stability is achieved by discipline (Lancelot first argument) and the other says mental stability is achieved by leaving everything to god (makes sense for a believer).
It is clear that- however shallow- lancelot has more logical arguments. Pilots couldve made plenty if he focused on jesus and not comparing the 2.
I dont know who to choose as a 'better' one but i will judge based on the few arguments that are actually related to the topic.
Title and Description,
Hm, I know 'nothing of Krishna.
Three parts of debate, Wisdom, Communication, Potential of Positive Impact.
Pro Round 1
Detachment to Outcome, yet stay true to Duty.
Balance and Moderation in Life.
The Mind is a Powerful Tool.
Wisdom of Krishna and Potential Benefit of their Teachings.
Con Round 1
Suggests we can gauge the greatness of a mentor by the number of followers.
Not sure I agree, new ideas come about it life sometimes, just starting with 'one person, compared to 'everyone else in the world.
I 'do think there is value in using the crowd as a gauge, but it's a value a I take with salt and other considerations.
Con states that Pro said that "existence is irrelevant."
I can't seem to find where Pro said that, exact quotes can be valuable, partially due to Ctrl F on the keyboard.
"Religion isn’t make believe, but the context behind it?" - Pro Round 1
Alas the meaning of this line escape me.
I think Con twists, Detachment here, the way Pro stated it, was more about accepting some outcomes are beyond control.
Con's arguments for Jesus appear to be,
Depend on God, this 'sounds kind of bad to me, but I assume it is meant to take God as a rock, an anchor, something to take strength in and continue to try one's best. Trusting that this world and the after is for the best.
Spirituality, before physical comfort.
Surrendering to God’s truth, acceptance of something 'more than us, not getting too caught up in self pride and our 'own works.
RFV Thoughts
Wisdom, Communication, Potential of Positive Impact.
Debate is still just starting out, I'd vote it a tie, with Pro a bit ahead, due to more in depth description of benefits.
Con will need to argue 'why spirituality and God are to be valued and Wisdom.
Con makes 'some headway arguing number of followers, though not much. It could use a source and a compare and contrast. Also has flaw of what is being judged is 'Potential of Positive Impact.
Pro Round 2
I'm not 'loving the dive into 'powers, as a voter I'm more interested in their teachings.
Though debate 'is who is a better spiritual mentor.
Something of value in the debate, might be to define what is 'meant by spirituality.
Pro gave some very useful lessons in round 1, but I think they'd do good to further identify them as 'spiritual lessons.
Pro points out the 'many languages that Krishna's teachings have been translated into. But same with my reason of being unimpressed by Con's argument of number of followers, I am not impressed by number of translated languages. One can get more followers, or more translations, focus should be on what in the teachings makes it 'likely to get more followers or translations.
Three parts of debate, Wisdom, Communication, Potential of Positive Impact.
"A big foundation of wisdom is emotional intelligence." Pro Round 2
Describes various aspects of applications.
Claims Jesus is more vague than Krishna, in how each teaches lessons.
Argues Krishna's been around longer and thus 'assumably effected more people.
But again, I don't think that's a core of this debate.
Pro argues Krishna has spread to more people and cultures, and argues this
Pro is arguing Wisdom, Communication, and positive Impact.
The sources, judging by their names, seem more basic primers/information to the unlearned than sources 'proving any claims of Pro or claims over Con.
Con Round 2
I'm doubtful of the importance of a Spiritual Mentor 'existing,
Unless debate was about which is the 'true religion of reality,
But this debate could be who is a better mentor Obi Wan or Qui Gon JInn,
By that I am not arguing either is not real, just that I don't see their existing or not as important for the debate,
. . . Though I suppose one could argue what if they were in 'person teaching us, eh, just feels a sidebar to me.
Con argues the importance of Spirituality in the hereafter.
Which 'is important in debate, per 'what 'is 'spirituality.
Con argues Jesus words impacted faster, thus proving potential value.
I 'can see their argument of real vs man made, though I'm still not convinced it will have huge impact on debate.
I think Con mistakes Languages for Followers in Pros argument.
"blue skinned baby" Eh, not conduct hits, but I don't think such talk usually 'helps one's side in a debate.
Wisdom, Communication, and potentiality for a more positive impact.
I think Con makes Good arguments for Spirituality, ah wait, hm,
'If Christianity is true, then there 'would be a lot of Wisdom and potential of positive impact, in the importance placed in the hereafter,
But I think Con is neglecting arguments of the here and now in terms of Wisdom and Potential of positive impact.
Both sides seem a bit tied in Communication to me.
RFV Thoughts,
I'd still give a tie, but edge to Pro, though only one round left, part of tie is due to both debaters having possible different approaches to the debate, and the three items being pursued.
Pro Round 3
I'm not sure Con 'dislikes the setup, but that they may be approaching it differently.
Pro makes decent argument on the difficulty of proof, or at least of 'convincing people that Jesus or Krishna are Truly Divine and Existent.
Pro 'does focus a lot of the debate on 'worldly matters though.
Wisdom, Communication, and potentiality for a more positive impact.
Pro argues the Communication and Potential for Positive Impact, though I don't think myself that one 'has to be Christian to take useful Game Theory from it.
Still, Con is the one, not I who needs to argue such.
And Con 'has focused their arguments more in the hereafter. Which I don't think is 'terrible angle, but I'm not sure it was as 'good an angle in more regular interpretation of debate and description.
Pro argues the difficulty of face value words, and connects physical conditions with spiritual conditions.
Argues for Pragmatism, and what can be Observed.
I have not really been giving points to 'either side for the personal abilities of Krishna or Jesus, though I 'suppose such 'could play a factor.
. . . If one read the debate as which individual teaching you to your face, as opposed to reading about what they taught.
Pro argues against Con Communication argument, that tech and force could have been cause for influence.
Argues longevity of Krishna thought, is more proof towards their value, than being pushed by external individuals and groups.
Unless Con has something 'really good, I'm thinking Communication will go to Pro.
Argues against Cons arguments for devotion being Wisdom or Potential for Good.
Con Round 3
You're not 'wrong to argue the way you do, but will it convince people other than Christians?
And I 'do think the argument of which mentor is 'real has value, but that it might be a difficult argument to pull off.
Con makes arguments on the power/value of the concept/truth of the hereafter. Upon those who believe it, and it's fair to say that 'many of the Bibles teachings are of man as of 'more than this mortal coil.
Still, religions 'do pop up now and then.
It's a 'big. . . Field though, why religions occur, why some 'stay longer than others.
Con makes decent argument that first isn't best,
But I still think Pros argument of how long the teachings have lasted, show their value.
Though Con 'could compare and contrast numbers of 'current believers, Christianity has been around a long time too,
Though as Pro argued, there are possible reasons such as force for such.
Early Christians 'did make progress into the hearts of people and nations 'before they 'had nations and armies.
"blue skinned baby." Doesn't win points Con.
Con, "Well don’t you have to be Hindu to follow Krishna?"
Eh, I don't think so, nor Christian to follow 'some Christian wisdoms.
If Pro hadn't made the argument that you 'don't need to be Hindu to follow Krishna, I'd slide Communication back to a tie, but Pro 'did make such an argument, so Pro still get's communication,
Though it was 'close, due to Con's argument of older not meaning better.
"cowardly pussy’s" Eh, I'm still not counting it as a conduct hit, but certain words 'still effect perception of your argument as a whole.
Shit, I've been putting this off. I'll try and get my vote up when I get home tonight.
2 days to vote if you guys are still interested
Finally!!!!!
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
Thanks for the vote!
There's a week left to vote if you were still interested.
This was an interesting debate. Someone please ping me if I do not vote on this debate by the end of the voting period.
Thank you! you too!
I'll vote on this one by the end of this weekend.
Great job on this debate!
In Shaivism, Shiva is regarded to be Para Brahman, especially in his form of Parashiva, the supreme form of Shiva. According to the Shiva Purana, Shiva is described to be the only deity to possess both nirguna and saguna attributes, causing him to be the only one worthy of the epithet Ishvara.
Here is an example of Krishna acting more like Shiva:
(Maybe NSFW)
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-82497792edb43a6dbf5b986737502006-lq
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/de/ea/b1/deeab1903c22e69c54f9f754c31dab96.jpg
This is a 'fully Vishnu' example of Krishna.
Adoration to Lords Shiva, Vishna, and Brahma!
It is disputed between the Shiva focused sects and Vishnu focused sects, which one Krishna is actually 'is'.
Shiva worsippers see Krishna as above both and therefore Shiva enda up being Krishna backwards.
Google will tell you Krishna is definitely Vishnu because Vedas favour Vishnu-supremacy and Shiva worshippers adhere to othr takes on the entire hierarchy and hold Shiva equal or superior to Vishnu and Brahma. They also see Krishna as a hybrid above even Vishnu.
There are stories of him that fit Vishnu better (peaceful flute player taming animals) and ones that fit Shiva better (he tamed a snake but ended up fighting it slaying it getting bitten suring the fight hence why he is blue when plder but very pale prior, even peach skin in some depictions as a boy).
The boy Kannan interpretation of flute playing pacifist Krishna is the Vishnu one, the warrior guy who happened to also tame animals well is the Shiva onee
.
Thank you a lot. It is Lord Shiva the destroyer.
Hey, I noticed the profile pic change and I just wanted to say I approve.
Clever choice. The iconography gives it a great aesthetic
Are you interested in this?