Prabhupāda: Where is the evidence in the śāstras that God was killed? Big, big giant, God fought them and killed them. Rāvaṇa, Hiraṇyakaśipu, Kaṁsa. Very, very great giant and demon. And God was never killed by them. Is it not? Yes. Prahlāda Mahārāja said that, "What is this material power? My father was so materially strong, even demigods, Indra, Candra, they were afraid. And You killed him within a moment. So what is the use of this material power?" And the God could not kill these crucifiers? As soon as they attempted to kill, there would have . . . he has . . . would have fought. He had to show some power. And they say that he agreed to take all our sin, and he crucified. Is it not? They say? Haṁsadūta: Yes, this is the idea.
Prabhupāda: So God could not . . . Kṛṣṇa says, ahaṁ tvāṁ sarva-pāpebhyo mokṣa . . . (BG 18.66). That God can, without dying Himself, He can immediately and, I mean to say, vanquish all sinful action. Why He should be killed for that purpose? Just like the Pūtanā gave Kṛṣṇa poison. But Pūtanā was killed, and Kṛṣṇa was never ki . . . Kṛṣṇa cannot be killed by poison. Even Kṛṣṇa's devotees are not killed by poison. Prahlāda Mahārāja.
If we discuss in detail, we create animosities. Therefore we do not discuss, because Christian religion is followed by large number. We do not wish to make . . . we say: "Yes. He says 'Son of God,' we accept it." That's all. To accept a person God, that requires great evidences from śāstra, especially. And when He's present, He will prove the statement of the śāstra. Then we accept Caitanya Mahāprabhu, as God. There are evidences . . . (break) We should not allow anybody to pass on as God, because we are presenting real God. We must make process. The real process is to kill him. But that much power we haven't got. We cannot do that. Otherwise, we would have done so. Nobody should be allowed to claim as God. And severe punishment for him. Kṛṣṇa has shown this example. (break)
We explain two, three lines from Bhāgavatam—how much people appreciated. So we have to preach like that, the substance. Not the sentiment. But if we cannot, the saṅkīrtana is sufficient.
(break) . . . anumāna-pramāṇa. Anumāna, hypothesy, and pramāṇa, śāstra-pramāṇa. Śruti-pramāṇa, evidences from the Vedas, evidences from authorized persons. And anumāna also. That is not good evidence, but even if you take anumāna, that if I make . . . this table is created by somebody. That is all right. But to find out that somebody is still further progress. Similarly, we have to accept that this gigantic universe . . . as I said, that what is the purpose? If there is purpose, whose purpose? Who is acting?
In this way, we have to make progress. We are passing on, on the street. If I say: "Here is a big building. So someone is proprietor," this is one guess. But to know the proprietor, how he has constructed it, that is another thing. But if somebody says: "I am the proprietor," and we accept, immediately. Similarly, if someone says: "I am God," there is no need of evidence. "I am God." The people have to accept like that? There is no need of śāstra. Huh?
How much degraded people have become that without any little evidence, they're accepting a rascal as God. How much degraded they have become. That is another proof. Because he has shown, by pushing the eyes, a light. That's all . . . we have to see that how much degraded the persons have be . . . they have no even brain. What are the evidence? That he showed some light, and what else?