PDA

View Full Version : Christianity is simpler



cbrahma
22 December 2006, 09:09 PM
I'm going to continue with my Christian faith. There is still some corruption but it doesn't demand total subjugation of one person by another. Nobody should have that kind of power. And it's not so damn complicated.

satay
22 December 2006, 09:35 PM
I'm going to continue with my Christian faith. There is still some corruption but it doesn't demand total subjugation of one person by another. Nobody should have that kind of power. And it's not so damn complicated.
Namaste,
Yes, you are right about that. Thank you for sharing with us. Good luck on your journey.

Ps: I will move your thread to the christian forum.

cbrahma
22 December 2006, 10:31 PM
Thanks. Keep everything under control.

satay
22 December 2006, 11:19 PM
Thanks. Keep everything under control.

organizing is part of maintaing the forums. thanks for the understanding.

satay
23 December 2006, 12:15 AM
Cbrahma,
how do you explain to yourself the fact that christianity teaches that 'man is inherently unholy or sinful'?

I ask because you gave the impression that you were somewhat attracted to sanatana dharma and as you know it teaches that we are all divine and inherently good i.e. complete opposite of christianity's teaching.

just curious to know what you think...

cbrahma
23 December 2006, 08:20 AM
Don't twist. I know my bible. "All are righteous deeds are as filthy rags" doesn't mean we are inherently evil. That's not logical. It means that nothing we do by our own power , that is good deeds, is enough to connect us to God's most intimate Self. That's because he is approached by his own volition, called Love. The means whereby we are reconciled with the Father is through Grace not works. Certainly not a complicated sado-masochistic set of rituals.


Cbrahma,
how do you explain to yourself the fact that christianity teaches that 'man is inherently unholy or sinful'?

I ask because you gave the impression that you were somewhat attracted to sanatana dharma and as you know it teaches that we are all divine and inherently good i.e. complete opposite of christianity's teaching.

just curious to know what you think...

satay
23 December 2006, 11:26 AM
namaste crbrahma,


Don't twist.

no, I am not twisting anything. our sprits are unholy is something that another christian jaggin said in a thread on the christian forum. Please go to 'holy spirit' thread in the christian forum and read his post.




I know my bible. "All are righteous deeds are as filthy rags" doesn't mean we are inherently evil. That's not logical. It means that nothing we do by our own power , that is good deeds, is enough to connect us to God's most intimate Self. That's because he is approached by his own volition, called Love. The means whereby we are reconciled with the Father is through Grace not works. Certainly not a complicated sado-masochistic set of rituals.

Okay, but isn't it your understanding that all men are born sinful due to the disobedience of adam. That is certainly my understanding of the original sin. Maybe you can explain to us what the original sin is then.

Or are you asserting that our souls are divine?

cbrahma
23 December 2006, 11:47 AM
Nonsense. Spirit is spirit and flesh is flesh. Sin is certainly the reason for imperfection, for the fall of Adam. It doesn't make souls unholy. That is preposterous theology. If we were essentially unholy, then salvation would be pointless if not impossible. We are redeemable by the blood of Perfect Sacrifice by One who was sinless.

Znanna
23 December 2006, 01:44 PM
Don't twist. I know my bible. "All are righteous deeds are as filthy rags" doesn't mean we are inherently evil. That's not logical. It means that nothing we do by our own power , that is good deeds, is enough to connect us to God's most intimate Self. That's because he is approached by his own volition, called Love. The means whereby we are reconciled with the Father is through Grace not works. Certainly not a complicated sado-masochistic set of rituals.

Ahem. There are some who would say that a complicated sado-masochistic set of rituals is a quite effective means of losing the ego.

:D

(Sorry, couldn't resist that hehe.)

But more to the point, Jesus the Christ said (John 17:21):

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.


To me, the presumption that we are not already "one in us" is anti-Christian. Please do not mistake the Church (the form) for the Spirit (the One).

In my opinion, the great perversion of the Church is that it preaches precisely the opposite.



Namaste,
ZN

cbrahma
23 December 2006, 01:58 PM
Yes we are one but Jesus requests our Faith (in baptism) for that one-ness to be fulfilled, totally effective as it were. The one-ness that He prayed to the Father for, was achieved by his death and resurrection. The new Covenant is the worship and service to the Father in Spirit and in Truth.

atanu
23 December 2006, 03:17 PM
Yes we are one but Jesus requests our Faith ------.


Who are these we? Only some set of people?

Znanna
23 December 2006, 03:28 PM
Yes we are one but Jesus requests our Faith (in baptism) for that one-ness to be fulfilled, totally effective as it were. The one-ness that He prayed to the Father for, was achieved by his death and resurrection. The new Covenant is the worship and service to the Father in Spirit and in Truth.

"Born again in Christ" requires holy waters, yes, but the Christian Church has interpreted form for substance, in my opinion.

("Amrita")

And, the "new Covenant" ... well, honestly I don't even consider that Scriptural.


YMMV


ZN

atanu
23 December 2006, 04:17 PM
Nonsense. Spirit is spirit and flesh is flesh. Sin is certainly the reason for imperfection, for the fall of Adam. It doesn't make souls unholy. That is preposterous theology. If we were essentially unholy, then salvation would be pointless if not impossible. We are redeemable by the blood of Perfect Sacrifice by One who was sinless.


As you have later accepted ZNN's citation, how would you separate the so-called sin from God in whom all were once one?

saidevo
23 December 2006, 11:18 PM
Nonsense. Spirit is spirit and flesh is flesh. Sin is certainly the reason for imperfection, for the fall of Adam. It doesn't make souls unholy. That is preposterous theology. If we were essentially unholy, then salvation would be pointless if not impossible. We are redeemable by the blood of Perfect Sacrifice by One who was sinless.


It seems to me that the Christian concept of sin is that of karma and that the very word sin is synonymous with the word karma. Christianity distinguishes between the original sin and other actual (personal) sins. The original sin resulted in the birth of humanity with a weakness in human nature that invites death.

A child gets its body from its parents and the soul from God. But the child, because it is bound to die, inherits the original sin. Since the child is only a soul before it gets a body, the original sin in the form of karma attaches to the soul.

Actual or personal sins result by doing evil (sin of commission) or refraining from doing good (sin of omission). In Roman Catholic theology an actual sin is specifically any willful thought, desire, word, action or omission forbidden by the law of God. Is that not act of creating karma?

The remission of the original sin comes from baptism. The remission of actual or personal sins is obtained by sincere repententence, faith in Jesus and prayer for his grace.

If sins are viewed as accretion of bad karma, then any sin attaches to the soul, which in Christianity rots in Eternal Hell, and not to the body, which perishes.

(For once let me not talk about the inadequacy of this religious philosophy here. :))

saidevo
23 December 2006, 11:36 PM
This is how Sri Yukteswar expounds the story of Adam and Eve and the original sin in the book Autobiography of a Yogi, Chapter 16:



“The Adam and Eve story is incomprehensible to me!” I observed with considerable heat one day in my early struggles with the allegory. “Why did God punish not only the guilty pair, but also the innocent unborn generations?”

Master was more amused by my vehemence than my ignorance. “GENESIS is deeply symbolic, and cannot be grasped by a literal interpretation,” he explained. “Its 'tree of life' is the human body. The spinal cord is like an upturned tree, with man's hair as its roots, and afferent and efferent nerves as branches. The tree of the nervous system bears many enjoyable fruits, or sensations of sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch. In these, man may rightfully indulge; but he was forbidden the experience of sex, the 'apple' at the center of the bodily garden. {FN16-14}

“The 'serpent' represents the coiled-up spinal energy which stimulates the sex nerves. 'Adam' is reason, and 'Eve' is feeling. When the emotion or Eve-consciousness in any human being is overpowered by the sex impulse, his reason or Adam also succumbs. {FN16-15}

“God created the human species by materializing the bodies of man and woman through the force of His will; He endowed the new species with the power to create children in a similar 'immaculate' or divine manner. {FN16-16} Because His manifestation in the individualized soul had hitherto been limited to animals, instinct-bound and lacking the potentialities of full reason, God made the first human bodies, symbolically called Adam and Eve. To these, for advantageous upward evolution, He transferred the souls or divine essence of two animals. {FN16-17} In Adam or man, reason predominated; in Eve or woman, feeling was ascendant. Thus was expressed the duality or polarity which underlies the phenomenal worlds. Reason and feeling remain in a heaven of cooperative joy so long as the human mind is not tricked by the serpentine energy of animal propensities.

“The human body was therefore not solely a result of evolution from beasts, but was produced by an act of special creation by God. The animal forms were too crude to express full divinity; the human being was uniquely given a tremendous mental capacity-the 'thousand-petaled lotus' of the brain-as well as acutely awakened occult centers in the spine.

“God, or the Divine Consciousness present within the first created pair, counseled them to enjoy all human sensibilities, but not to put their concentration on touch sensations. {FN16-18} These were banned in order to avoid the development of the sex organs, which would enmesh humanity in the inferior animal method of propagation. The warning not to revive subconsciously-present bestial memories was not heeded. Resuming the way of brute procreation, Adam and Eve fell from the state of heavenly joy natural to the original perfect man.

“Knowledge of 'good and evil' refers to the cosmic dualistic compulsion. Falling under the sway of MAYA through misuse of his feeling and reason, or Eve-and Adam-consciousness, man relinquishes his right to enter the heavenly garden of divine self-sufficiency. {FN16-19} The personal responsibility of every human being is to restore his 'parents' or dual nature to a unified harmony or Eden.”

As Sri Yukteswar ended his discourse, I glanced with new respect at the pages of GENESIS.

“Dear Master,” I said, “for the first time I feel a proper filial obligation toward Adam and Eve!”

atanu
24 December 2006, 02:09 AM
This is how Sri Yukteswar expounds the story of Adam and Eve and the original sin in the book Autobiography of a Yogi, Chapter 16:

Still the question of separating so-called sin from God would be impossible. His creation of Adam and Eve could be faulted.

This story is told in Vedas and Puranas in slightly different manner. Prajapati himself desires his daughter Usha and He punishes himself for the impropreity.

Sarabhanaga Ji has very nicely presented this eternal conflict (apparent loss of perfection) in one of the Shaiva posts.

Why put the blame on Adam and Eve? They are just shadows.

satay
25 December 2006, 12:53 AM
This is how Sri Yukteswar expounds the story of Adam and Eve and the original sin in the book Autobiography of a Yogi, Chapter 16:

namaste saidevo,
It is the greatness of hindu sages that they can explain a nonsense looking story such beautifully, however, I don't understand why our sages do it.

Why not ask the christians to explain to us the stories of their scritpures as they understand it?

satay
25 December 2006, 12:59 AM
The original sin resulted in the birth of humanity with a weakness in human nature that invites death.



Could you please explain in detail? How was the 'original sin' possible to begin with?!

Don't answer: free will
well, you can if you would like but then I will come back with more questions. :)



A child gets its body from its parents and the soul from God. But the child, because it is bound to die, inherits the original sin. Since the child is only a soul before it gets a body, the original sin in the form of karma attaches to the soul.


This doesn't make any sense to me. What's the relation between 'death' and 'inheritance' of original sin? If soul is from God and it never existed before according to christianity then where and why does it inherit original sin? If the original father is God who is without sin...how and from where the soul that he creates inherits sin? I fail to understand...

satay
25 December 2006, 01:05 AM
Nonsense. Spirit is spirit and flesh is flesh. Sin is certainly the reason for imperfection, for the fall of Adam. It doesn't make souls unholy. That is preposterous theology.


Yes, nonsense. I agree with you. Perhaps you and jaggin are from different schools of thought in christianity? Where he believes that souls are unholy you don't seem to agree with him. Perfectly okay by me.



If we were essentially unholy, then salvation would be pointless if not impossible. We are redeemable by the blood of Perfect Sacrifice by One who was sinless.

Well, see this sort of contradiction doesn't make any sense to me.

Allow me to explain, if we are not unholy as you said then that implies that we are 'holy'. In that case then there is no such thing as 'salvation' and there is no need of anyone's blood or sacrifice, especially the one you call 'sinless'. If we are not unholy and thus holy therefore, we must all be 'sinless' so therefore, there is no need for redemption from one who was sinless.

Anyhow, let's keep this simple eh? ;)

saidevo
25 December 2006, 05:49 AM
Namaste Satay,


Could you please explain in detail? How was the 'original sin' possible to begin with?!

Don't answer: free will
well, you can if you would like but then I will come back with more questions. :)

This doesn't make any sense to me. What's the relation between 'death' and 'inheritance' of original sin? If soul is from God and it never existed before according to christianity then where and why does it inherit original sin? If the original father is God who is without sin...how and from where the soul that he creates inherits sin? I fail to understand...

I should have perhaps added the [Quote] marks to the contents of my post. They are almost verbatim reproductions of the Christian perspective detailed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin. Only the word karma is my addition to the concepts.

My thinking was like this: a soul if it needs to take a human body, then it means that it needs to have a karma attached to it, or else there will be no birth (Hinduism). So I thought that the Christian concept of sin should be that of karma, because the seven deadly sins and other types they elaborate are the result of human desires, which generate both good and bad karma. Hinduism convincingly explains it as a cycle of reincarnation, but if you trace the origin of a soul, when it took a first body eons ago (and this could have been the body in the mineral or vegetable kingdom), can we attribute a cause for that birth? Brahma created his mind-born and other sons directly and they were born with no karma tag with the sole purpose of procreation for the other souls to take birth. But what about an ordinary soul? In Hinduism its origin is indeterminate, is it not? Our puranas that talk of creation mainly deal with the present Brahma, saying that there were other Brahmas before him, other cycles of shristi and pralaya.

What about Christianity? The Bible says that the world was created in six days and that it is only 6,000 years old! So God needed a cause for the birth of the first set of humans and this perhaps gave them the need for the original sin, which is actually a desire to eat the Fruit of Knowledge and see if they would be doomed--a human curiosity under temptation. Christianity is divided on the actual meaning of the original sin and what I have quoted in my post are only some of the explanations.

The whole point of my post is that if sin is karma, will it attach to the body or soul?

jaggin
16 January 2007, 11:53 AM
Yes, nonsense. I agree with you. Perhaps you and jaggin are from different schools of thought in christianity? Where he believes that souls are unholy you don't seem to agree with him. Perfectly okay by me.



Well, see this sort of contradiction doesn't make any sense to me.

Allow me to explain, if we are not unholy as you said then that implies that we are 'holy'. In that case then there is no such thing as 'salvation' and there is no need of anyone's blood or sacrifice, especially the one you call 'sinless'. If we are not unholy and thus holy therefore, we must all be 'sinless' so therefore, there is no need for redemption from one who was sinless.

Anyhow, let's keep this simple eh? ;)

Christianity although fundamentally simple can be very complex when one goes beyond the fundamentals. The Roman Catholic Church tried to insure an orthodox path by keeping people from reading the Bible and only allowing people to follow the teachings of the church. Now due to the Reformation anyone can read the BIble and have a different view from other believers.

He is talking about the essential nature of the spirit. God created it and said it was good. However at some point evil emerged and some followed after that evil.

On earth it is a different story. Usually a person doesn't remember much from past lives but tendencies towards good or evil do survive. However a child will grow up in this world learning evil because the knowledge of good and evil is present in the people surrounding the child. Children do not have any knowledge of good and evil. They will touch a hot stove until they learn that it is not a good thing to do. Once the child knows that something bad will happen when he touches a hot stove, his essential nature will determine whether he does it anyway.

When the Kingdom of God comes on earth, the knowledge of evil will be removed and only those who love what is good will be allowed in the Kingdom.

caleb
22 May 2008, 07:39 PM
If Hindus are interested in the Christians own ideas of this and not working it through Hindu philosophy terms and catagories, the most influential philosopher for these issues who set the course of Christian thought on this subject is the Catholic Saint and Doctor of the Church Augustine. Martin Luthor adapted his theology from St Augustine

Although i find that Hindu and pagan ideas do a better job of explaining Christianity, it is always good to look at the internals of the tradition and look to the best within them.

Ofcourse, in the heart of Augustinism you will find the East-born philosophy of Plotinus. That man at one time was a real Western guru, but his lineage just did not survive unbroken. It was through Augustine that his ideas really can into the Christian mind.

jaggin
25 June 2008, 08:06 AM
Yes, nonsense. I agree with you. Perhaps you and jaggin are from different schools of thought in christianity? Where he believes that souls are unholy you don't seem to agree with him. Perfectly okay by me.



Well, see this sort of contradiction doesn't make any sense to me.

Allow me to explain, if we are not unholy as you said then that implies that we are 'holy'. In that case then there is no such thing as 'salvation' and there is no need of anyone's blood or sacrifice, especially the one you call 'sinless'. If we are not unholy and thus holy therefore, we must all be 'sinless' so therefore, there is no need for redemption from one who was sinless.

Anyhow, let's keep this simple eh? ;)

It is a question of temporality. At one time we were without sin but Satan rebelled against God and has managed to deceive everyone to do the same. The Bible says that everyone is a sinner except God and the reason that Jesus is without sin is that He is God in the flesh.

Since everyone is a sinner, everyone needs the Savior who only can be God because He is the only one without sin. Sinners don't want to save anyone; they would like everyone to sin like them so they can feel good about their sin.

satay
25 June 2008, 08:24 AM
namaskar Jaggin,


At one time we were without sin but Satan rebelled against God and has managed to deceive everyone to do the same.

I have often wondered about this 'satan'.

In christian mythology clearly it seems that satan is more powerful than God so much so that he was not only able to rebel himself but influence the whole man kind to the point that the bible god becomes so helpless that he has to sacrifice his own son to save mankind.

Does christian mythology talk about how was it that satan became more powerful than God?

indianx
25 June 2008, 09:54 AM
Tell that to the more than 38,000 denominations that exist, each with their own differing interpretation of your bible.

I would contend your proposition that Christianity is simpler. I think it is more dogmatic, that is, there is more room to label views as 'heretic' and burn the people who espouse them at the stake, but I wouldn't say that it's simpler.

dhruva023
25 June 2008, 04:06 PM
I also want to know who this satan is.

I seems more famous then god.

Sagefrakrobatik
28 June 2008, 10:53 PM
Tell that to the more than 38,000 denominations that exist, each with their own differing interpretation of your bible.

I would contend your proposition that Christianity is simpler. I think it is more dogmatic, that is, there is more room to label views as 'heretic' and burn the people who espouse them at the stake, but I wouldn't say that it's simpler.

I dont know how you can say Hinduism is simpler than Christianity with all of your Puruanas Vedas and Upainshads. There is one book we use its called the Bible.

indianx
29 June 2008, 10:00 AM
It seems to me that in this context, what you mean by simplicity is more accurately characterized by the word 'sparsity'. There's a sparsity of thought in Christianity, compared to Hinduism. Hinduism encourages an individual to take the seeds of truth he finds in the Vedas and Upanishads and to grow them, in a manner that allows him to progress spiritually. Christianity sets a rigid line which has to be followed and if an individual deviates from that line, he is labeled as a heretic. That is not simplicity.

Hinduism to me can be characterized with the statement 'Tat Tvam Asi'. There's no need for an original sin, there's no need for an everlasting hell, there's no need for some divine presence to appear on earth as a human in order to be killed and thereby, fantastically excusing all the sins that were ever committed and will be committed. It might demand less of you. You might murder, pillage, rape, but, of course, as long as you redeem yourself by dropping the standard campaign lines in your prayers, you'll float to that magical abode, when you die.

Now, as for your comment regarding the "Puruanas Vedas and Upainshads", they serve the purpose of providing a number of paths to understand and apply the meaning of that statement provided above. That does not necessarily make Hinduism more complicated. It provides the essential theology more depth.

jaggin
29 July 2008, 09:20 AM
I also want to know who this satan is.

I seems more famous then god.

Satan is a title and means adversary. He is called that because he is the adversary of God. His name is Lucifer and he was created as an angel and held the highest position after God. He was not saitisfied with second place and rebelled against God convincing a number of angels to follow him. He has as much power as any other angel but most of his power comes from lies. All thoughts have power. Beliefs have even more power. The war between Satan and God is largely one between Satan's falsehoods and God's truth.

There is no doubt that God is more powerful than Satan but God is not committed to eradicating the rebellion by fiat or destruction. It is my belief that it is His desire to return everyone to the truth by persuasion.

Znanna
29 July 2008, 07:52 PM
How can one "know" Godz except by exception ... which seems to be by definition "satan."

????



ZN/simpler than what

saidevo
29 July 2008, 08:45 PM
How can one "know" Godz except by exception ... which seems to be by definition "satan."

????

ZN/simpler than what

Does this mean

• Satan is what God is not
• God is what Satan is not
• We are what both are/are not?

vcindiana
29 July 2008, 09:12 PM
Please let me explain how I understand this Satan and God things. I love food like most of us. I know there is mouth watering cheese cake in the refrigerator. I have already tasted a little bit of the cake. If I eat more cheese cake it is not good for my health. But Satan in me says “It’s OK VC, you can eat more, nothing bad happens to you, as a matter of fact it is so delicious, Yummy Yummy, and You can forget the world pushing your taste buds to its new height. But God in me is saying “Stop it VC! Don’t even think about the refrigerator. You know what greasy food does to your coronaries and stomach. Not only that, God says to go out and exercise. It is a constant battle, we all face and I won’t be surprised many do yield to the temptation of this world.
It is up to us choose God or Satan.
Good Night, Love VC

saidevo
29 July 2008, 09:56 PM
VC's example is simplistic, but it effectively explains the Trinity of Existence in Christian theology:

God is the voice of Wisdom in humans, and Satan the voice of Temptation that leads to sin and evil. Humans are ploarized between these two forces. The only way to liberation is by listening to God's voice, though it happens only by His grace, by inviting Christ to take charge.

In this simplistic model of the Trinity of Existence, God and Satan share the praise and blame for the spiritual progress of mankind, with Jesus the Christ struggling to exhort humans towards God.

Life is not so simple after all, as a choice between two things. As humans we have both goodness and evil in us. All the goodness is not necessarily divine, nor all the evil necessarily Satanic. We do many things from what we must do and many others from what we must not, by exercising by our own freewill and by the force of circumstances. Where does that leave or lead us--to Heaven or Hell?

Perhaps this simplistic model of Existence explains why no Christian as yet has gone to Heaven or none to Hell. The Judgment Day is still to come, and there is no scope for reincarnation, so living humans are toiling in this world that is more hellish and the dead are sleeping in the Lethe's dullness of timeless eternity!

It would be too simplistic--and chidlish--, in my opinion, to say that all Christians who have invited Jesus for guidance in their lives are sinless and go to Heaven; that all other Christians to Hell. A man does not become eligible for Heaven just by inviting Jesus; nor can a man be all good and do all good once he invites Jesus; nor is it fair that a man who seeks God directly, doing both good and bad is not eligible for Heavens for the fact that he has not invited Jesus for guidance.

ScottMalaysia
31 July 2008, 11:02 PM
I have often wondered about this 'satan'.

In christian mythology clearly it seems that satan is more powerful than God so much so that he was not only able to rebel himself but influence the whole man kind to the point that the bible god becomes so helpless that he has to sacrifice his own son to save mankind.

Does christian mythology talk about how was it that satan became more powerful than God?

Actually, most Christians believe that Jesus Christ is God Himself (even though Jesus says "My Father is greater than I"), so that would mean that God would have to sacrifice part of Himself to save mankind.

Regarding Satan: the way some see it is if there is a being who is all good, holy and pure, then there must be another being who is equally evil, unholy and impure - therefore, Satan.


Please let me explain how I understand this Satan and God things. I love food like most of us. I know there is mouth watering cheese cake in the refrigerator. I have already tasted a little bit of the cake. If I eat more cheese cake it is not good for my health. But Satan in me says “It’s OK VC, you can eat more, nothing bad happens to you, as a matter of fact it is so delicious, Yummy Yummy, and You can forget the world pushing your taste buds to its new height. But God in me is saying “Stop it VC! Don’t even think about the refrigerator. You know what greasy food does to your coronaries and stomach. Not only that, God says to go out and exercise. It is a constant battle, we all face and I won’t be surprised many do yield to the temptation of this world.
It is up to us choose God or Satan.


This seems like a pretty good analogy to use. When I was a Christian, I was told that the Devil tempts us to sin, as well as your own bodily temptations. I think this is just a way to excuse some of their guilt "Oh, the Devil tempted me to do it"

Interestingly, the Jewish view of Satan is radically different to that of Christianity. They believe that he is an angel whose job it is to test mankind and truly see if they choose God. They don't believe that he is evil, or a fallen angel - he's just an angel with a dirty job.

ScottMalaysia
31 July 2008, 11:12 PM
I have often wondered about this 'satan'.

In christian mythology clearly it seems that satan is more powerful than God so much so that he was not only able to rebel himself but influence the whole man kind to the point that the bible god becomes so helpless that he has to sacrifice his own son to save mankind.

Does christian mythology talk about how was it that satan became more powerful than God?

Actually, most Christians believe that Jesus Christ is God Himself (even though Jesus says "My Father is greater than I"), so that would mean that God would have to sacrifice part of Himself to save mankind.

Regarding Satan: the way some see it is if there is a being who is all good, holy and pure, then there must be another being who is equally evil, unholy and impure - therefore, Satan.


Please let me explain how I understand this Satan and God things. I love food like most of us. I know there is mouth watering cheese cake in the refrigerator. I have already tasted a little bit of the cake. If I eat more cheese cake it is not good for my health. But Satan in me says “It’s OK VC, you can eat more, nothing bad happens to you, as a matter of fact it is so delicious, Yummy Yummy, and You can forget the world pushing your taste buds to its new height. But God in me is saying “Stop it VC! Don’t even think about the refrigerator. You know what greasy food does to your coronaries and stomach. Not only that, God says to go out and exercise. It is a constant battle, we all face and I won’t be surprised many do yield to the temptation of this world.
It is up to us choose God or Satan.


This seems like a pretty good analogy to use. When I was a Christian, I was told that the Devil tempts us to sin, as well as your own bodily temptations. I think this is just a way to excuse some of their guilt "Oh, the Devil tempted me to do it"

Interestingly, the Jewish view of Satan is radically different to that of Christianity. They believe that he is an angel whose job it is to test mankind and truly see if they choose God. They don't believe that he is evil, or a fallen angel - he's just an angel with a dirty job.

Znanna
01 August 2008, 07:25 PM
Does this mean

• Satan is what God is not
• God is what Satan is not
• We are what both are/are not?


Namaste,

What I think I was saying ...

... is that "knowing" Godz as in subjecting Godz to some form of analysis ... is anti-thetical, IMO.

The exception of course, would be to "be ONE with" Godz, which isn't knowledge or experience, simply is :)


Love,
ZN

jaggin
08 September 2008, 09:01 AM
VC's example is simplistic, but it effectively explains the Trinity of Existence in Christian theology:

God is the voice of Wisdom in humans, and Satan the voice of Temptation that leads to sin and evil. Humans are ploarized between these two forces. The only way to liberation is by listening to God's voice, though it happens only by His grace, by inviting Christ to take charge.

In this simplistic model of the Trinity of Existence, God and Satan share the praise and blame for the spiritual progress of mankind, with Jesus the Christ struggling to exhort humans towards God.

Life is not so simple after all, as a choice between two things. As humans we have both goodness and evil in us. All the goodness is not necessarily divine, nor all the evil necessarily Satanic. We do many things from what we must do and many others from what we must not, by exercising by our own freewill and by the force of circumstances. Where does that leave or lead us--to Heaven or Hell?

Perhaps this simplistic model of Existence explains why no Christian as yet has gone to Heaven or none to Hell. The Judgment Day is still to come, and there is no scope for reincarnation, so living humans are toiling in this world that is more hellish and the dead are sleeping in the Lethe's dullness of timeless eternity!

It would be too simplistic--and chidlish--, in my opinion, to say that all Christians who have invited Jesus for guidance in their lives are sinless and go to Heaven; that all other Christians to Hell. A man does not become eligible for Heaven just by inviting Jesus; nor can a man be all good and do all good once he invites Jesus; nor is it fair that a man who seeks God directly, doing both good and bad is not eligible for Heavens for the fact that he has not invited Jesus for guidance.

I am sure that some Christians think of it as the only way, however I do not. I believe that God is available to everyone who seeks Him. However there is a big difference between hearing God's wisdom and following it. The Holy Spirit within a Christian empowers him to follow the wisdom.

In Christ there is no free will but only the will of God. We believe that God empowers us to overcome the circumstances and that we are not subject to them.

I believe that my wife and I came down from Heaven. It isn't impossible to go to Heaven it is just that (as the Buddhists say) we have attachments to this world and don't want to leave it.

There are many judgement days. I suppose you are referring to the so called last judgement.

There is no evidence that the dead sleep even though a dead person may look like he is asleep. The spirit has no need of sleep as the body does. However much of what a spirit does depends on belief. If a spirit believes it is dead it might remain dormant even though it doesn't need to.

As far as I know there is no eligibility requirement for Heaven. That is what Jesus dieing for our sins means. No sin can keep us from Heaven.

I would not rule it out but for me it took a realization of the Holy Spirit's power within to keep me from sin and that did not happen immediately for me.

I don't know how anyone could find the way to Heaven without the guidance of Jesus. He says it happens but it must be a very rare occurrence. I don't think it is in God's interest or our interest for us to spend too much time in Heaven. Time is better spent on earth learning to overcome sin. I don't see what the problem is. God has provided a way to Heaven if a person needs to take it. If a person's need is great God could simply snatch them into Heaven if it suited His purpose. I believe in a just God who does not require a person to go through more than they need to go through.

bhargavsai
08 September 2008, 02:43 PM
Simplicity or Confusing is what a mind makes. Every Path is a path, and it is wrong to compare one thing to another. It is not the path which decides liberation, it is the human being who has to have the desire and perseverance to succeed.

Sanatana Dharma is an Abstraction. It gives different views to people in different level of spirituality. A saint sees God everywhere, whereas a person filled with desires may see only rituals, and a confused person will mad rituals. Sanatana Dharma is like Java programming Language, where a class consists of abstraction, and a system administrator can see lower level details, and a normal user just sees class, this normal user has no idea that class contains much more things....

And whatever spiritual practices we are doing are ultimately to reach a state of no suffering. Now one can call this stilling of mind or submitting to God, or surrendering to God, or heaven, or meditation or anything, but all is one and one is all.

Pranams.

saidevo
08 September 2008, 11:36 PM
Namaste Jaggin.

Thanks for decorating my text in your quote!



I am sure that some Christians think of it as the only way, however I do not. I believe that God is available to everyone who seeks Him. However there is a big difference between hearing God's wisdom and following it. The Holy Spirit within a Christian empowers him to follow the wisdom.


I am glad that you think that God is available to everyone who seeks Him. However, you contradict yourself when you say that "the Holy Spirit within a Christian empowers him to follow the wisdom". What is the nature of this Holy Spirit that is exclusive only to Christians? If it is from the one God, why should it not empower anyone who seeks it in any form--Jesus, Krishna or Buddha?



In Christ there is no free will but only the will of God. We believe that God empowers us to overcome the circumstances and that we are not subject to them.


In reality, we see many good Christian souls suffering from various afflictions just like Hindus or the people of other faiths do. Is that God's and Christ's will to let them suffer and also empower them to bear it? This doesn't seem logical to me.



There is no evidence that the dead sleep even though a dead person may look like he is asleep. The spirit has no need of sleep as the body does. However much of what a spirit does depends on belief. If a spirit believes it is dead it might remain dormant even though it doesn't need to.


In Christian theology, there are only three orders of reality: heaven, hell and the world. Where do the departed souls that are awaiting judgment live?



As far as I know there is no eligibility requirement for Heaven. That is what Jesus dieing for our sins means. No sin can keep us from Heaven.


"No sin can keep us from Heaven."?! Good Lord, what does it mean? Is the 'us' you talk of just Christians or people of other faiths too? If Jesus died on the cross for all the past, present and future sins of mankind, then there need be no standard of ethics for humanity in today's world, since you say no sin can keep us from heaven? Everyone is free to do what he/she thinks right, however illegal or perverse it may be?



I would not rule it out but for me it took a realization of the Holy Spirit's power within to keep me from sin and that did not happen immediately for me.


That's what: 'realization' of God's power within us that progressively makes us immune to sin; and this 'realization' can be by 'inviting' any form of God, not just Jesus.



I don't know how anyone could find the way to Heaven without the guidance of Jesus. He says it happens but it must be a very rare occurrence. I don't think it is in God's interest or our interest for us to spend too much time in Heaven. Time is better spent on earth learning to overcome sin. I don't see what the problem is. God has provided a way to Heaven if a person needs to take it. If a person's need is great God could simply snatch them into Heaven if it suited His purpose. I believe in a just God who does not require a person to go through more than they need to go through.


I don't see the logic of these statatements: "Time is better spent on earth learning to overcome sin" you say; agreed. This is the whole logic of the Hindu concepts of rebirth and karma. But life is short! If a person reaches heaven when his/her life ends here on earth, and it is not in his/her interest to spend too much time there, where does he/she go? Come back to earth by another birth to learn more to overcome his/her remaining sins?

"God has provided a way to Heaven if a person needs to take it." Agreed, but a person who does not need to take to Heaven can't remain for ever on earth? What happens to people who commit suicide? Is that God's will too? Where do such persons end up in their afterlife?

Clearly, at least to me, the concepts of life, death, world, heaven, hell, God and Satan in Christianity are so illogical that they border on absurdity. And it is a puzzle that most Christians defend them though many grow out of them!

Sudarshan
11 September 2008, 04:04 AM
Please let me explain how I understand this Satan and God things. I love food like most of us. I know there is mouth watering cheese cake in the refrigerator. I have already tasted a little bit of the cake. If I eat more cheese cake it is not good for my health. But Satan in me says “It’s OK VC, you can eat more, nothing bad happens to you, as a matter of fact it is so delicious, Yummy Yummy, and You can forget the world pushing your taste buds to its new height. But God in me is saying “Stop it VC! Don’t even think about the refrigerator. You know what greasy food does to your coronaries and stomach. Not only that, God says to go out and exercise. It is a constant battle, we all face and I won’t be surprised many do yield to the temptation of this world.
It is up to us choose God or Satan.
Good Night, Love VC


Nice explanation VC.

However, one point needs to be added. This Satan does not exist independent of God and he cannot. All his actions are the actions of God - that is the real truth.

Your ability to 'choose' God's voice or the voice of Satan is strcitly speaking pre-ordianed. It is already known to God what you will do under every circumstance because he is all knowing. God already knows even the precise date and year you will get moksha - how will you change anything by your 'freewill'?!!!

The freewill to choose good and bad is a phenomenal truth and is not an absolute truth. If the concept of freewill were true then God cannot be all knowing.

Yes, the freewill does exist at our level ( but God sees eveything as deterministic and as only per his will). But this freewill is an illusion. That is why we say that 'man proposes and god disposes'. Everything in the universe is a product of the one divine will - including that of Satan.

God is not evil or cruel in doing this because he has not chosen to apply his laws on anyone external to himself - sarvam khalvidam brahma. Secondly, all these are true only at the phemnomenal level and there is really no one undergoing suffering and sorrow except from the perspective of the ignorant. The Atma was ever blissful, is ever blissful and will be ever blissful and is not tainted by the samsAra.

The first karma people are seeking for is really from God. That is the whole leela about. Some people think that karma is unoriginated and all the souls have been taking birth after birth from an infinite past. This is totally illogical and it disposes off the need for God in our salvation because it shows God is totally useless against his own laws and is unable to liberate anyone even after infinite time. So karma definitely has an origin and has its origin in God. Yes, it is not easy to understand.

vcindiana
11 September 2008, 07:51 AM
The first karma people are seeking for is really from God. That is the whole leela about. Some people think that karma is unoriginated and all the souls have been taking birth after birth from an infinite past. This is totally illogical and it disposes off the need for God in our salvation because it shows God is totally useless against his own laws and is unable to liberate anyone even after infinite time. So karma definitely has an origin and has its origin in God. Yes, it is not easy to understand.


This is very interesting, do you mean as a Hindu there is no such thing as Karma Concept ? I am not a believer in Karma, I just do not believe a young woman suffering from a breast cancer is due to bad thing she did in her past life. I guess theologically in ancient days people all over the world whether Hindus or Jews came with this concept that the sicknesses were because of their past Karma or Sins. The concept is not all bad in a sense to keep people in track.

I agree it is not easy to understand, each one has to dig and find truth that sets one free. We all have different understandings and there is no need to fight each other. There is only one thing we all agree that is to LOVE ONE ANOTHER.

Love..............VC

bhargavsai
11 September 2008, 11:04 AM
Hello VC.

I would like to give you an example. Consider a person, who kills you by ruthlessly thrashing your head, and then goes on living a happy life. Will you agree it? Will you let him go free? Yes, great people will forgive.

But nature does not work on forgiveness or love, nature works under a law.

If a women gets breast cancer, consider her past births or life... She might have made someone sick with cancer.

As we say in Newtons law of motion, Every action has equal and opposite reaction. The only difference is that mind and thoughts are subtle matter, and these matter may react depending on the conditions.

Om Namaha Shivaya...

saidevo
11 September 2008, 11:31 AM
The concepts of Karma and Rebirth are not sanctioned in orthodox Christian teachings, though some believe that their echos are found in the Bible. We can therefore understand the difficulty of a Christian towards even agreeing to--let alone believing--such concepts, however scientifically, metaphysically or philosophically they are explained.

This is perhaps the reason that Christianity seeks to explain the evils of the world as acts of Satan and blame it on people falling to his temptation. However, as Sudarshan has pointed out, most Christians fail to see that if God is all-knowing and all-powerful, he needs must include Satan within him!

That the world today is ruled by such a religion whose logic cannot even satisfy a peasant if he starts thinking can only be the effect of Kali PuruSha in his age that we live in.

Sudarshan
20 September 2008, 02:51 PM
This is very interesting, do you mean as a Hindu there is no such thing as Karma Concept ? I am not a believer in Karma, I just do not believe a young woman suffering from a breast cancer is due to bad thing she did in her past life. I guess theologically in ancient days people all over the world whether Hindus or Jews came with this concept that the sicknesses were because of their past Karma or Sins. The concept is not all bad in a sense to keep people in track.

I agree it is not easy to understand, each one has to dig and find truth that sets one free. We all have different understandings and there is no need to fight each other. There is only one thing we all agree that is to LOVE ONE ANOTHER.

Love..............VC

kArmic law is a relative law just like the other laws of science such as Newton's laws. They have their domain of truth but we cant really say that it is an absolute truth. Under Newton's law we might say that mass is an absolute constant but under high velocities this law breaks down completely. Similarly, at the level of God's thought plane reality is very different from that of the human mind.

The case of a person suffering from breast cancer is certainly due to some sins committed by the person. The law of karma is kind of immutable ( except under special circumstances but even these special circumstances could be considered as part of the law itself). Unlike Christianity, the Hindu religion does not really say that God forgives the sins of man though repentence may weaken the effects of karma. There are some karma that are classified as dRDa( strong) and some are adRDa( weak). The strong karmas are irrevocable and you have to face the consequences of your deeds. There are so many people in the world thinking that they are getting away with their nototious needs but the long arms of karma will spare none. The adRDa karmas are lesser sins which can be mitigated through prayers and other means. There are many people who blame God for deserting them inspite of fervent pleas - these are all strong karmas at play into which God rarely acts. To overcome dRDa karmas you must know about spiritual truths trough the practice of Yoga and samAdhi.

The only thing the law of karma fails to explain is its origin. Many vedantins hold that karma is beginningless and all jIvas have been in beginningless ignorance due to this unaccounted first karma. I have pondered a lot over this question and found 'beginningless bondage' to be quite illogical and it shows God in very poor light for allowing the souls to be bound for an infinitely long period. So it is inevitable that there is a point of time at which a soul is born and associated with an unexplained karma. Just like sparks from a blazing fire, jIvas are born from Brahman and return to him. No one knows the cause - vedanta says that the Lord himself desired to become many 'tadaikshata bahu syaaM prajaayeyeti tattejo.asR^ijata tatteja
aikshata bahu syaaM prajaayeyeti tadapo.asR^ijata'.

Therefore the whole existance is just an expression of God's unlimited freedom of expression. He became the ruler, the subject and everything that exists. He has applied the kArmic law on himself as well - but all this is only a kind of matrix and not absolute reality. There is really no second to God so there is no question of cruelty or partiality in God's dominions - he sees only himself and nothing else. The law of karma thus is not absolute reality since no one is in real bondage and suffering the miseries from that level. God is too big and noble a person to permit any real suffering to anybody especially when he is all powerful to liberate every single person in bondage at a moment's notice.

jaggin
21 September 2008, 08:51 AM
Namaste Jaggin.

Thanks for decorating my text in your quote!



I am glad that you think that God is available to everyone who seeks Him. However, you contradict yourself when you say that "the Holy Spirit within a Christian empowers him to follow the wisdom". What is the nature of this Holy Spirit that is exclusive only to Christians? If it is from the one God, why should it not empower anyone who seeks it in any form--Jesus, Krishna or Buddha?

In reality, we see many good Christian souls suffering from various afflictions just like Hindus or the people of other faiths do. Is that God's and Christ's will to let them suffer and also empower them to bear it? This doesn't seem logical to me.



In Christian theology, there are only three orders of reality: heaven, hell and the world. Where do the departed souls that are awaiting judgment live?



"No sin can keep us from Heaven."?! Good Lord, what does it mean? Is the 'us' you talk of just Christians or people of other faiths too? If Jesus died on the cross for all the past, present and future sins of mankind, then there need be no standard of ethics for humanity in today's world, since you say no sin can keep us from heaven? Everyone is free to do what he/she thinks right, however illegal or perverse it may be?



That's what: 'realization' of God's power within us that progressively makes us immune to sin; and this 'realization' can be by 'inviting' any form of God, not just Jesus.



I don't see the logic of these statatements: "Time is better spent on earth learning to overcome sin" you say; agreed. This is the whole logic of the Hindu concepts of rebirth and karma. But life is short! If a person reaches heaven when his/her life ends here on earth, and it is not in his/her interest to spend too much time there, where does he/she go? Come back to earth by another birth to learn more to overcome his/her remaining sins?

"God has provided a way to Heaven if a person needs to take it." Agreed, but a person who does not need to take to Heaven can't remain for ever on earth? What happens to people who commit suicide? Is that God's will too? Where do such persons end up in their afterlife?

Clearly, at least to me, the concepts of life, death, world, heaven, hell, God and Satan in Christianity are so illogical that they border on absurdity. And it is a puzzle that most Christians defend them though many grow out of them!

I am answering the latter part of this first. Yes, the Spirit of God is available to everyone. The difference is that the Paraclete (the Spirit of God within a person) can be given control by a person so that it is not the person who lives but God who lives within and the person becomes an observer. This is like having God present in a body as Jesus exemplified. I have never encountered the same thing in other religions but that doesn't guarantee exclusivity. The Paraclete is availabe to everyone also irrespective of religion.

In view of later posts, let me say that I believe there is Karma at work sometimes. Other times suffering can be an opportunity for healing and for other beneficial results. Satan shouldn't be able to attack Christians but there can be reasons why it happens.

I agree Christian theology doesn't have much to say about this. IMO the spirit is free until God decides to send it back into a body.

Again this is available to anyone. Heaven is a place where no evil is allowed. Usually the miscreants don't like that kind of restriction. And God doesn't have to take a person into heaven if he feels it would be better to send the person back to life. If a person has been in Heaven for a while and wants to return to physical life, then the judgement kicks in. It is easy to be good if you don't have any choice but God would like us to get to the place where we can be good without His help.

Sudarshan
21 September 2008, 02:36 PM
I am answering the latter part of this first. Yes, the Spirit of God is available to everyone. The difference is that the Paraclete (the Spirit of God within a person) can be given control by a person so that it is not the person who lives but God who lives within and the person becomes an observer. This is like having God present in a body as Jesus exemplified. I have never encountered the same thing in other religions but that doesn't guarantee exclusivity. The Paraclete is availabe to everyone also irrespective of religion.


Is the Paraclete the entity referred to in the biblical passage that says 'the kingdom of God is within you'?( Luke 17.21). This is the antaryAmi idea that is supported by all upanishads, mainly found in the Brihadaranyaka.

Why do you say that your idea is not present in any other relgion. We also accept that Lord alone is the doer, through the agency of nature. And if we leave everything to him, then he will do the rest. Why do you think this an idea exclusive to christianity? But do you give everything to him, that is the million dollar question.




Again this is available to anyone. Heaven is a place where no evil is allowed. Usually the miscreants don't like that kind of restriction. And God doesn't have to take a person into heaven if he feels it would be better to send the person back to life. If a person has been in Heaven for a while and wants to return to physical life, then the judgement kicks in. It is easy to be good if you don't have any choice but God would like us to get to the place where we can be good without His help.
[/quote]

This looks like svarga/yama loka of the purANas, and not the param padam from where there can be no return.

What exactly do you mean by being Good? It is a purely subjective word you know.

For the standards of the spiritual kali yuga, a person is considered good if he indulges in charity, he believes in God and performs his religeous duties correctly and works for the welfare of others. Those who dont do it are called demons. Moksha for kali yuga standard is getting temporary heaven.

From the standards of the spiritual dvApara yuga, only the most perfect karma yogi who finally suceeds in winning the spiritual battle of kurukshetra is considered good, and everybody else is called a demon. Moksha at this level is the attainment og devatA-hood. ( becoming angel like)

From the standards of the treta yoga, anyone who is not an evolved jnana yogi like Janaka and Dasharatha are called demons. Even great yogis such as Ravana are called demons because he simply fails to meet the standards of the yuga and not because he is some wicked devil. If you know the fact, the sudarshana chakra of vishNu was unable to kill Ravana---he is beyond the manas tatvam.( the lower mind) The moksha of this level is Ishvara sAujya - i.e permenent place in God's kingdom.

From the standards of the krita yuga, anyone who does not know the ultimate truth vAsudeva eva idaM sarvaM( God alone exists) is called a demon. That is anyone without the highest perfection of being completely established in Brahma tattva is called a demon. Very great people such as hiraNyakashipu are called demons simply because he is not the embodiment of perfection and still sees some dualty. Moksha at this level is Brahmanhood, beyond which there is nothing.

Which level of goodness is expected by the christian god to enter the christian heaven? From that we will know what the christian moksha corresponds to.

saidevo
27 September 2008, 10:21 AM
Namaste Jaggin.



Yes, the Spirit of God is available to everyone. The difference is that the Paraclete (the Spirit of God within a person) can be given control by a person so that it is not the person who lives but God who lives within and the person becomes an observer. This is like having God present in a body as Jesus exemplified. I have never encountered the same thing in other religions but that doesn't guarantee exclusivity. The Paraclete is availabe to everyone also irrespective of religion.


The Paraclete being the worker and the person the observer, is as with the Tree of Knowledge, a twist of ignorance on the part of the Bible writers in misunderstanding the message of the Upanishads. Check below as to how the world-renowned Jagadguru Kanchi Paramacharya explains the situation:



The Upanisadic story speaks of two birds perched on the branch of a pippala tree. One eats the fruit of tree while the order merely watches its companion without eating. The pippala tree stands for the body. The first bird represents a being that regards himself as the jivatman or individual self and the fruit it eats signifies sensual pleasure. In the same body (symbolized by the tree) the second bird is to be understood as the Paramatman. He is the support of all beings but he does not know sensual pleasure. Since he does not eat the fruit he naturally does not have the same experience as the jivatman (the first). The Upanisad speaks with poetic beauty of the two birds. He who eats the fruit is the individual self, jiva, and he who does not eat is the Supreme Reality, the one who knows himself to be the Atman.

It is this jiva that has come to be called Eve in the Hebrew religious tradition. "Ji" changes to "i" according to a rule of grammar and "ja" to "ya". We have the example of "Yamuna" becoming "Jamuna" or of "Yogindra" being changed to "Joginder ". In the biblical story "jiva" is "Eve" and "Atma" (or "Atman") is "Adam". "Pippala" has in the same way changed to "apple". The Tree of Knowledge is our "bodhi-vrksa". "Bodha" means "knowledge". It is well known that the Budhha attained enlightenment under the bodhi tree. But the pipal (pippala) was known as the bodhi tree even before his time.

The Upanisadic ideas transplanted into a distant land underwent a change after the lapse of centuries. Thus we see in the biblical story that the Atman (Adam) that can never be subject to sensual pleasure also eats the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. While our bodhi tree stands for enlightenment, the enlightenment that banishes all sensual pleasure, the biblical tree affords worldly pleasure. These differences notwithstanding there is sufficient evidence here that, once upon a time, Vedic religion was prevalent in the land of the Hebrews.

(Ref: http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part2/chap2.htm)




In view of later posts, let me say that I believe there is Karma at work sometimes. Other times suffering can be an opportunity for healing and for other beneficial results. Satan shouldn't be able to attack Christians but there can be reasons why it happens.


Who provides the opportunity, Satan, for healing by God or His Holy Spirit or even a pastor? If God provides the opportunity, why should he let his subject suffer, being a God of Love? On what basis do God and/or Satan select as to who is to suffer? Do you see how such 'ideas' are at war and clamour for the throat of each other, presenting a ludicrous picture as religious concepts?

Karma is the only answer, friend, to all our good and bad acts and suffering. And the Law of Karma is just and impartial: when karma is playlng out, even God would prefer to reduce the intensity of suffering and give the sufferer the mental courage to bear it, rather than cancel the karmic law.



And God doesn't have to take a person into heaven if he feels it would be better to send the person back to life. If a person has been in Heaven for a while and wants to return to physical life, then the judgement kicks in. It is easy to be good if you don't have any choice but God would like us to get to the place where we can be good without His help.


Is this idea of judgement and sending back a person to life if he does not want heaven is your own or is it there in the Bible? If it is there, then it would be a case of rebirth?

"God would like us to get to the place where we can be good without His help."? Don't you think that this idea contradicts the idea of Paraclete? If a person can be good without the help of God, why should he/she need a Paraclete? By the way, where is that place where we can be good without God's help? It can't be in the space limits of Satan, right?

A more logical concept would be that we enjoy the fruits of our being good in this life, in the heavens after death. Still we would be having left-over karma of our bad deeds, so we would need to come back here on another birth, and then another, until we wipe out all our bad karma. And if we desire to ascend further up the heavens, we would need to forgo our good karma as well.

jaggin
07 October 2008, 08:45 AM
Is the Paraclete the entity referred to in the biblical passage that says 'the kingdom of God is within you'?( Luke 17.21). This is the antaryAmi idea that is supported by all upanishads, mainly found in the Brihadaranyaka.

Why do you say that your idea is not present in any other relgion. We also accept that Lord alone is the doer, through the agency of nature. And if we leave everything to him, then he will do the rest. Why do you think this an idea exclusive to christianity? But do you give everything to him, that is the million dollar question.





This looks like svarga/yama loka of the purANas, and not the param padam from where there can be no return.

What exactly do you mean by being Good? It is a purely subjective word you know.

For the standards of the spiritual kali yuga, a person is considered good if he indulges in charity, he believes in God and performs his religeous duties correctly and works for the welfare of others. Those who dont do it are called demons. Moksha for kali yuga standard is getting temporary heaven.

From the standards of the spiritual dvApara yuga, only the most perfect karma yogi who finally suceeds in winning the spiritual battle of kurukshetra is considered good, and everybody else is called a demon. Moksha at this level is the attainment og devatA-hood. ( becoming angel like)

From the standards of the treta yoga, anyone who is not an evolved jnana yogi like Janaka and Dasharatha are called demons. Even great yogis such as Ravana are called demons because he simply fails to meet the standards of the yuga and not because he is some wicked devil. If you know the fact, the sudarshana chakra of vishNu was unable to kill Ravana---he is beyond the manas tatvam.( the lower mind) The moksha of this level is Ishvara sAujya - i.e permenent place in God's kingdom.

From the standards of the krita yuga, anyone who does not know the ultimate truth vAsudeva eva idaM sarvaM( God alone exists) is called a demon. That is anyone without the highest perfection of being completely established in Brahma tattva is called a demon. Very great people such as hiraNyakashipu are called demons simply because he is not the embodiment of perfection and still sees some dualty. Moksha at this level is Brahmanhood, beyond which there is nothing.

Which level of goodness is expected by the christian god to enter the christian heaven? From that we will know what the christian moksha corresponds to.[/quote]

There is no question that nothing happens without God but God is not always in direct control of man's will. With the Paraclete God is not in control of man's will either but he is in control of the body just as He was when He was Jesus.

I have one holdout. I am not yet prepared to die for Him.

There is no place from which a person can't return. God doesn't have prisoners in Heaven. He can bind people in a place of torment if He wishes. I think you are probably talking about the seven heavens where each heaven toward the final one is an exaltation from the previous heaven. God won't kick anyone out of the final heaven but he can drop a person into a lower heaven if he hasn't reached the final heaven.

God is good. Therefore God's word is good. There is nothing subjective about that at all. However what God says to one person may not be relevant to another person.

A Christian can go to the final Heaven. The only requirement is belief in Jesus.

jaggin
07 October 2008, 08:51 AM
Namaste Jaggin.
The Paraclete being the worker and the person the observer, is as with the Tree of Knowledge, a twist of ignorance on the part of the Bible writers in misunderstanding the message of the Upanishads. Check below as to how the world-renowned Jagadguru Kanchi Paramacharya explains the situation:
Who provides the opportunity, Satan, for healing by God or His Holy Spirit or even a pastor? If God provides the opportunity, why should he let his subject suffer, being a God of Love? On what basis do God and/or Satan select as to who is to suffer? Do you see how such 'ideas' are at war and clamour for the throat of each other, presenting a ludicrous picture as religious concepts?
Karma is the only answer, friend, to all our good and bad acts and suffering. And the Law of Karma is just and impartial: when karma is playlng out, even God would prefer to reduce the intensity of suffering and give the sufferer the mental courage to bear it, rather than cancel the karmic law.
Is this idea of judgement and sending back a person to life if he does not want heaven is your own or is it there in the Bible? If it is there, then it would be a case of rebirth?
"God would like us to get to the place where we can be good without His help."? Don't you think that this idea contradicts the idea of Paraclete? If a person can be good without the help of God, why should he/she need a Paraclete? By the way, where is that place where we can be good without God's help? It can't be in the space limits of Satan, right?
A more logical concept would be that we enjoy the fruits of our being good in this life, in the heavens after death. Still we would be having left-over karma of our bad deeds, so we would need to come back here on another birth, and then another, until we wipe out all our bad karma. And if we desire to ascend further up the heavens, we would need to forgo our good karma as well.

This is not the mind of the body and mind of the spirit of man that you are talking about. The Spirit of God takes control of the mind of the body and the spirit of man becomes an observer. The Buddhists like to call it possession by God. However it is a voluntary possession.

jaggin
08 October 2008, 08:08 AM
Namaste Jaggin.

Who provides the opportunity, Satan, for healing by God or His Holy Spirit or even a pastor? If God provides the opportunity, why should he let his subject suffer, being a God of Love? On what basis do God and/or Satan select as to who is to suffer? Do you see how such 'ideas' are at war and clamour for the throat of each other, presenting a ludicrous picture as religious concepts?

Karma is the only answer, friend, to all our good and bad acts and suffering. And the Law of Karma is just and impartial: when karma is playlng out, even God would prefer to reduce the intensity of suffering and give the sufferer the mental courage to bear it, rather than cancel the karmic law.



Is this idea of judgement and sending back a person to life if he does not want heaven is your own or is it there in the Bible? If it is there, then it would be a case of rebirth?

"God would like us to get to the place where we can be good without His help."? Don't you think that this idea contradicts the idea of Paraclete? If a person can be good without the help of God, why should he/she need a Paraclete? By the way, where is that place where we can be good without God's help? It can't be in the space limits of Satan, right?

A more logical concept would be that we enjoy the fruits of our being good in this life, in the heavens after death. Still we would be having left-over karma of our bad deeds, so we would need to come back here on another birth, and then another, until we wipe out all our bad karma. And if we desire to ascend further up the heavens, we would need to forgo our good karma as well.

The most quoted story is that of a man born blind. His disciples asked Him who had sinned the man or his parents. Jesus said neither but this was intended for the glory of God and then he healed the man's blindness. Suffering is not a bad thing. It is the ultimate act of love by God as Jesus suffers having been lashed 40 times and crucified. No I do not see how you can find this to be ludicrous. If Karma was Lord of the universe I would agree but I believe that God is the Lord of everything including Karma.

This is a very confused statement but I will try to answer it. First of all, is Karmah really a law? The Buddhists have a different view of Karma that is more like a law. To them Karma is the natural result from an act. If you trip and fall the result is you scrape your knee. That is their idea of Karma. The idea that people pay for their sins is not Karma in that sense although it can happen. There is no law that says a person must pay for their sins. However God does hold people accountable for their sins and He is just.
As God balances the scales that would certainly qualify as the kind of Karma you are talking about but God also has the prerogative to wipe a persons slate clean and justify the person by his faith. I could incur all kinds of need for Karma but my slate is clean because of my faith in Jesus.

I don't know of any case where God sends a person back to life from Heaven. A person dies and then God judges. God can judge that a person needs to be sent back to life. The Bible is fairly mute on the subject except for Jesus who says that John the Baptist is Elijah. Only the most evil do not want Heaven and rarely would a person want to leave Heaven however many people choose to return to be close to people that they love, (I believe that the Buddhists call this affinity and it can be for the physical life as well as for love). The Buddhists talk about a Boddhavista who comes down from heaven for the sole purpose of teaching people how to live. I chose to leave Heaven so that I could minister to people. My wife chose to leave Heaven to be with me. She does not like it here and would not have come otherwise. Isn't it amazing what love can do!

It is not a contradiction it is a contraposition. In both cases God wants us to be Holy. His greatest desire is for us to be Holy without help but because of our weakness He gives us help. It is like a boy (or girl) learning to ride a bicycle. At first the dad has to hold the bicycle but He doesn't want to still have to be doing that when the boy is a teenager and sometimes He has to let go and let the person fall, get up and try again with His help.

reflections
08 October 2008, 08:56 AM
Namaste Jaggin,
As your discussions are nicely going on, I will not disturb all of it. I would just like to give some idea about the law of karma. I am not a scholar. So, this is copy and post from Himalayan academy:



Karma literally means "deed" or "act" and more broadly names the universal principle of cause and effect, action and reaction which governs all life. Karma is a natural law of the mind, just as gravity is a law of matter. Karma is not fate, for man acts with free will, creating his own destiny. The Vedas tell us, if we sow goodness, we will reap goodness; if we sow evil, we will reap evil. Karma refers to the totality of our actions and their concomitant reactions in this and previous lives, all of which determines our future. It is the interplay between our experience and how we respond to it that makes karma devastating or helpfully invigorating. The conquest of karma lies in intelligent action and dispassionate reaction. Not all karmas rebound immediately. Some accumulate and return unexpectedly in this or other births.
http://www.himalayanacademy.com/basics/fourf/

It is not a punishment given by God.

Plus, positive karmas are like golden prison, negative karmas are like iron prison. But, both signifies the bondage. The idea of liberation is to do selfless acts as duty without expectation of rewards.

Regarding forgiveness, I believe God forgives unconditionally. He does not need to sacrifice himself. Many Hindus don't believe that. But, I believe following from Bhagvad Gita. Yes, if a devotee took his forgiveness for granted and falls again and again, then it is a different issue.

BG 18-66
Relinquishing all the idea of religion/righteous conduct, surrender unto me exclusively. I will deliver you from allsinful reactions. Do not Despair.

BG 9-30
Even if one commits the most abominable action, if he is engaged in devotional service he is to be considered saintly because he is properly situated in his determination.

That does not mean a devotee will never suffer. Suffering is not negative. Especially Vaishanava thinks of it as a grace of Krishna, as a call to go back home. Once a devotee surrenders, it is not only Karma but grace of Krishna is working. At this moment, I am not able to find reference for this.

Plus, A person might be suffering due to his Karma. But, a Hindu is still supposed ot be non envious, friendly and compassionate (Refer BG-12 for more qualities) towards him, for such are the characteristics for devotees.


Regards,
reflections.

atanu
08 October 2008, 09:16 AM
There is no question that nothing happens without God but God is not always in direct control of man's will. With the Paraclete God is not in control of man's will either but he is in control of the body just as He was when He was Jesus.



Namaste Jaggin,

I have not read this post very deeply. A rapid scan led to a question based on what you say above. The query is: What is a man's Will that is not under control of God? Does it have eternal existence apart from God? Before Adam, where was this Man's will? And is Adam (as a primeval Man) independent and eternal? Where was your own will before you (and all of us) came out of wombs? Advaita gurus tell us that what appears to be the independent streak of Man's will is woven into the grand design of Sat-Chid-Ananda. A Man ( not different from a thinking mind really) only thinks "I have been dis-obedient and I have bad karma accumulated", because there is a confusion that "I am this Body".

The body has no will and no cognitive power. So, all your assumptions and statements are wrong and based on ignorance.



It is not a contradiction it is a contraposition. In both cases God wants us to be Holy. His greatest desire is for us to be Holy without help but because of our weakness He gives us help.


-Again, I do not follow this. Who are 'these' and 'us'? Are these all eternal independent wills and God a controller of these unruly wills?


This is not the mind of the body and mind of the spirit of man that you are talking about. The Spirit of God takes control of the mind of the body and the spirit of man becomes an observer. The Buddhists like to call it possession by God. However it is a voluntary possession.


It is clear that you consider God an entity different from 'us', but both linked through something you call Paraclete. So, Paraclete should be Vishnu, the greatest common factor, the all pervading. Also, there has to be a knowledge apparatus that has to know God, Paraclete, and us. What is that knowledge factor? You say that spirit of man becomes an observer. So, the spirit of Man must be that knowledge apparatus that knows that God is working.:) :D :Roll:

------------------

The God you are talking about -- the God that works is Prakriti. Yes, a man must observe the Prakriti do all work and remain as spirit and then such a Man is Shiva - the God beyond, from whom is the Prakriti. I hope you will be able to see that you are worshipping the mere movement of the unchanging God and do not have any inkling of the fixed infinite God from whom all movements originate.


Please contemplate on the parable of blind man and Jesus's reply that neither the father nor the son were sinners.

Regards,

Om

Sudarshan
12 October 2008, 04:23 PM
There is no question that nothing happens without God but God is not always in direct control of man's will. With the Paraclete God is not in control of man's will either but he is in control of the body just as He was when He was Jesus.


I hope that you realize that your God is not omniscient.

Why dont you answer this question? Does your God know whether you will go to hell or heaven at this moment? If he does so, it is clear evidence that nothing happens without the control/knowledge of God. If your God does not know I wonder why we must worship another ignoramus like us...:D

Anyone who claims that something is beyond the control of his God must first realize that such a God is an ignorant God, that is no God at all.

I used the term 'your God' because my God is different and not ignorant of anything nor anything happens outside his line of control. How can that even happen?

Karsthans
12 October 2008, 06:07 PM
Very interesting discussion, however, referring to the title "christianity is simpler" it should be made clear, what really is the essence of the christian belief. It leads to nowhere, if people of non christian origin try to reconcile their Religion with what they think christianity is saying. Christianity is claiming not to provide some myths behind which a deeper truth is hiding. No, they claim that is the plain truth, literally word by word to be understood by even the most simply and humble. It is not a philosophy, it doesn`t require deep thoughts, in fact too much thinking will lead You astray.
In the beginning the christian God created a perfect world without death and suffering. Through the transgression of God`s command the first humans comitted the original sin and as God is completely holy and rightous, no sinner can be near him.
As Paul explicitely tells: Death is the consequence of sin, in fact the original sin. From that fixed point in history on, the world is like we see it: Full of death, misery, illness. So current state of the world is man`s responsibility.
Man himself can do nothing to come near to God as he is completely corrupted because of original sin. The Law given to Moses would only be a way to God if completely fullfilled. As this is not possible, the Law of Moses was only introduced to show mankind its sins like in a mirror an to prove the complete corruption of man. There are detailed instructions of animal sacrifices as a way to wash away sins, however God somehow looses interest in this bloody affair through the centuries and in the end it seems to have been meant as a dead end road, too.
Now God has invented a way, how to reconcile mankind with himself: Blood again plays a vital role, but this time it is not a goat or a bull to be sacrificed, but a completely sinless human being. To make such a man possible God himself has to become a mortal but sinless human (his mother should be free from original sin, too, but this is a catholic fancy, strongly rejected by other denominations). This blood now washes away all sins commited or in future of those (only of those) who believe in this sinless Man, who is the Son of God and God at the same time. Of course those believers go on sinning, but on judgement day their sins are just not to be seen, because they are covered by the blood of Jesus.
As no sins are to be found (they simply disappeared or are covered up), those individuals can come near to god again.
So the only thing necessary is belief. How to get this belief? Remember, the completely corrupted man cannot do anything good by himself: This belief is given by the grace of God and only through grace. What about the others, not believing? They don`t get the grace. Consequently, everyone who believes does so by the grace of God and not by his own will and God of course knew this from the beginning of times on, those who don`t believe are from the beginning of Time "chosen" to perish.
This is the calvinistic point of view, catholics somehow still see some collaboration of man in salvation, but I think this view is nearest to that, what the bible, especially Paul says.

Now I think, it has no reason to argue, whether it is fair and nice of God to do such things to have such and no other plan of salvation for mankind.
God can do what he wants, right? Either accept this as God`s one and only way of salvation..or Burn.

I think this belief can be falsified best by looking at the claim "death is the consequence of sin". We know who is supposed to be the sinner: Adam. Through the generation listings of the bible we have an aproximate time when it happened: something between 6000 years and -be generous- let`s say 10.000 years (supposed the divine relevation simple left out some generations in those lists. Before this: No death, no earthquakes, no floods, no super novae, no meteorite impacts (all this would cause some collateral damage), after "the apple": Hell breaks loose.
Now You will understand why young earth creationists make such a thing out of the 6000 Years: In fact it is completely reasonable to claim it. If this would not be true, the whole problem of death would have nothing to do with man`s existence, no need for a "New Adam"(Jesus) to appear and to be sacrificed. A world dominated by constant birth and death would not be a perfect world of a perfect God, it would be contradictory to what Paul claims is reason for death and consequence of sin.
OK. Now just one more Question: Is the world 6000 years old?

izi
12 October 2008, 10:11 PM
"Man himself can do nothing to come near to God as he is completely corrupted because of original sin."

This wreaks of falsehood. If man is is not indelibly a part of god...if god does not fill man...then god isn't much of a god, is it? Not even a very good demigod...

maybe he needs to find a new job, lol

Personally my belief is that i am an extension of god looking at myself at my own reflections all around...and Ananta is my favorite reflection...

I like Krsna

God decides - I decide

god wills - I will

if one is empty and does not lust after results or gain, then you are really free to see this I think. The "I" needs to be only that consciousness flowing through you fully. And no one I think is able to truly encompass the whole universe at once and communicate this at the same time on a level that we can discuss on a message board. And at the very same time we are affecting the world and our universe on a transdimensional - what you might call mind bogglingly intense and expansive way just by being alive. Every single living being has this innate power and effect on the world. i think by admitting to ourselves our power to let this consciousness of full godhead flow into us we can bring the world out of darkness. It is nothing to fear because it IS us. And it must not be regarded as external or it will simply not work. This world will die as countless others before it. It's all such a game. I think we are in a good position to change this but first we have to let go of such childish pranks as Christianity, it really is a foolish little tangle to ensnare minds in. No one needs to fear god or feel insignificant. I think we need to take responsibility. We need to know what "god" is and what works and what doesn't work. India has put forth some of the very best answers to this question. I think Christianity may have some good answers - "god loves you" and whatnot...but these are stupid and meaningless soundbites if they are not coupled with intelligence. The times we are facing require indepth study and real meaning, something to fill the growth of human potential expanding in to fill its niche.

I think this is why it's important not to cause suffering on animals or other living creatures, it makes it so difficult not to want when the need is so primal as in fear or pain. That,I think is the real reason for avoiding meat.

jaggin
25 October 2008, 09:27 AM
Namaste Jaggin,
As your discussions are nicely going on, I will not disturb all of it. I would just like to give some idea about the law of karma. I am not a scholar. So, this is copy and post from Himalayan academy:

http://www.himalayanacademy.com/basics/fourf/

It is not a punishment given by God.

Plus, positive karmas are like golden prison, negative karmas are like iron prison. But, both signifies the bondage. The idea of liberation is to do selfless acts as duty without expectation of rewards.

Regarding forgiveness, I believe God forgives unconditionally. He does not need to sacrifice himself. Many Hindus don't believe that. But, I believe following from Bhagvad Gita. Yes, if a devotee took his forgiveness for granted and falls again and again, then it is a different issue.

BG 18-66
Relinquishing all the idea of religion/righteous conduct, surrender unto me exclusively. I will deliver you from allsinful reactions. Do not Despair.

BG 9-30
Even if one commits the most abominable action, if he is engaged in devotional service he is to be considered saintly because he is properly situated in his determination.

That does not mean a devotee will never suffer. Suffering is not negative. Especially Vaishanava thinks of it as a grace of Krishna, as a call to go back home. Once a devotee surrenders, it is not only Karma but grace of Krishna is working. At this moment, I am not able to find reference for this.

Plus, A person might be suffering due to his Karma. But, a Hindu is still supposed ot be non envious, friendly and compassionate (Refer BG-12 for more qualities) towards him, for such are the characteristics for devotees.


Regards,
reflections.

That definition of Karma is what Buddhists aver. However I have heard it said in an Indian context (Sometimes people equate that with Hinduism) that if a prson is born blind it is because it is Karma from a previous life. Being born blind is not a natural result of sin from a previous life and even a spirit that is carrying sin into the next life will not cause blindness at birth. A person who puts out a man's eyes in a previous life deserves to be born blind. It is justice carried out by God's judgement.

I believe that God forgives unconditionally also. However the very act of forgiveness is a suffering by God (An ancient meaning of suffer in English is allow). God's holiness suffers if He has to allow evil and forgiveness does just that. I agree that everyone should believe that God will forgive them but I have run accross many who do not including Christians who just haven't been able to receive the message. God is love and that love requires Him to do His utmost to reveal the message of forgiveness. The cross represents that utmost that He can do.

jaggin
25 October 2008, 09:58 AM
Namaste Jaggin,

I have not read this post very deeply. A rapid scan led to a question based on what you say above. The query is: What is a man's Will that is not under control of God? Does it have eternal existence apart from God? Before Adam, where was this Man's will? And is Adam (as a primeval Man) independent and eternal? Where was your own will before you (and all of us) came out of wombs? Advaita gurus tell us that what appears to be the independent streak of Man's will is woven into the grand design of Sat-Chid-Ananda. A Man ( not different from a thinking mind really) only thinks "I have been dis-obedient and I have bad karma accumulated", because there is a confusion that "I am this Body".

The body has no will and no cognitive power. So, all your assumptions and statements are wrong and based on ignorance.




-Again, I do not follow this. Who are 'these' and 'us'? Are these all eternal independent wills and God a controller of these unruly wills?




It is clear that you consider God an entity different from 'us', but both linked through something you call Paraclete. So, Paraclete should be Vishnu, the greatest common factor, the all pervading. Also, there has to be a knowledge apparatus that has to know God, Paraclete, and us. What is that knowledge factor? You say that spirit of man becomes an observer. So, the spirit of Man must be that knowledge apparatus that knows that God is working.:) :D :Roll:

------------------

The God you are talking about -- the God that works is Prakriti. Yes, a man must observe the Prakriti do all work and remain as spirit and then such a Man is Shiva - the God beyond, from whom is the Prakriti. I hope you will be able to see that you are worshipping the mere movement of the unchanging God and do not have any inkling of the fixed infinite God from whom all movements originate.


Please contemplate on the parable of blind man and Jesus's reply that neither the father nor the son were sinners.

Regards,

Om

The answer to that is a will that is tainted by evil.

The will is a spiritual characteristic that lasts as long as a spirit lasts. That will is separate from God until it is conjoined with God's will.

Since everything goes in cycles it was on earth and in the heavens.

Adam was eternal (without time because there was no death) before becoming primeval. No one is totally independant. Adam was totally in God's will having no knowledge of evil but that was a provision from God. With the knowledge of evil comes the sense of independance but that independance brings death.

I can't speak for the rest of you but I was in Paradise (Commonly called Heaven) before returning to earth.

I am not sure what you are saying. Do you think bad deeds simply go away because the person is disembodied?

This isn't very charitable of you but you can't expect me to accept your point just because you say so.

The mind of the body certainly has a will of its own. Most often this is referred to as ego. RE: Mr 14:38 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

atanu
25 October 2008, 11:10 AM
The answer to that is a will that is tainted by evil.




Namaste Jaggin,

May be it is just a play of words or may be not. We do not give this Will a name of Evil but we say that it is Ignorance or at worst an Asuric tendency. May be the perspective may lead some christians to see Evil outside themselves?. We simply say that it is the ignorance of duality that rules the Christian reformist zeal.

No hard feelings but the above is just a statement of facts.

Regards

Om

atanu
27 October 2008, 07:51 AM
The will is a spiritual characteristic that lasts as long as a spirit lasts. That will is separate from God until it is conjoined with God's will.



Namaste Jaggin,

That is fine, IMO.





Adam was eternal (without time because there was no death) before becoming primeval. No one is totally independant. Adam was totally in God's will having no knowledge of evil but that was a provision from God. With the knowledge of evil comes the sense of independance but that independance brings death.

Our position is that what is beyond time is always beyond time. Adam could not have been beyond time until some point of time and then suddenly death catches up with him. Please ponder.







I am not sure what you are saying. Do you think bad deeds simply go away because the person is disembodied?

Bad deeds do not belong to the untaintable spirit. So-called Bad deeds belong to the realm of mind and physical actions.



This isn't very charitable of you but you can't expect me to accept your point just because you say so.

I cannot understand as to what exactly is not charitable. Yet, I say Sorry. But I am not asking anything to be accepted without consultation, comparison, and debate.





The mind of the body certainly has a will of its own. Most often this is referred to as ego. RE: Mr 14:38 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.


See, the flesh on its own cannot give rise to a will. Can it? Can the matter give rise to spirit? The idea of "The mind of the body " is really what we call the "Ignorance", such as "I am this body" and truly this is "EGO". "EGO" as per Vedanta has no reality.

So-called Bad deeds belong to the realm of this EGO -- in the belief that "I am a doer of good and bad deeds".

Om

Sudarshan
29 October 2008, 06:53 AM
I believe that God forgives unconditionally also. However the very act of forgiveness is a suffering by God (An ancient meaning of suffer in English is allow). God's holiness suffers if He has to allow evil and forgiveness does just that. I agree that everyone should believe that God will forgive them but I have run accross many who do not including Christians who just haven't been able to receive the message. God is love and that love requires Him to do His utmost to reveal the message of forgiveness. The cross represents that utmost that He can do.

God is love and he created all these awful hells?

If God is love personified the world as we see it now wont even exist, because it is within the power of God to put an end to this awful world of suffering. That is what vedanta also says - the world we see does not really exist in the way we see it - it is too horrible to be the creation of a being with unconditional love. If love is unconditional, why faith should be a prerequisite to recieve it? So there is nothing such as unconditional love in God.

Christians talk tall about the power of God and the utmost he can do for us. Let us say you were just bitten by a snake and know that you will die in twenty minutes. Would you rush to a hospital or do you have enough faith in the power of God to save you without that? Would you start praying or go to the hospital. Answer me.

God has the power to save you from the snake bite and much more. But how many people have enough faith in him to take any chances? This exposes our lack of faith in him to the core...it is only tall talk..this applies to christians as well.

God does not really forgive unconditionally. If that were true there wont be too many noble people suffering out here. How come their prayers have all been ignored by God? Any sin committed must either be accounted for by suffering the consequences, or through the very knowledge of the process of eradication of karma through the power of jnAna. A deep repentence will definitely weaken the effects of the karma, but I dont really think there is any escaping from certain sins such as murder of chidren, genocide etc and other grevious sins whether you repent or not. Wherever your actions have harmed others, the sin is irrevocable. On the other hand, sins committed against oneself such as gambling, alcoholism, immoral behaviours etc which do not harm others can definitely got over by the grace of God. Man must take full responsibilty for all his actions and must face the consequences - saying that there is some higher being to forgive your sins has led to very wrong thinking patterns that have caused people to kill, hurt and harm others without caring for the consequences just because they thought they were "special to God". God is impartial towards all. He will judge you exactly as per your actions, the same rule applies to whatever religion or culture you belong to. Geting his grace is very much dependent on the way you live, and there is nothing such as unconditional love.

jaggin
09 November 2008, 08:08 AM
Namaste Jaggin,

May be it is just a play of words or may be not. We do not give this Will a name of Evil but we say that it is Ignorance or at worst an Asuric tendency. May be the perspective may lead some christians to see Evil outside themselves?. We simply say that it is the ignorance of duality that rules the Christian reformist zeal.

No hard feelings but the above is just a statement of facts.

Regards

Om

Not all cnoices are made out of ignorance. There are people who know something is wrong and do it anyway. You will have to explain "Asuric tendency" to me and where it comes from.

When we ask Jesus to be Lord and Savior, we are asking God who is good to control our lives. Goodness resides within and evil is outside.

Saying something doesn't make it a fact. Christians have a zeal for God that is motivated by God. The question then becomes do you see yourself as outside of God's will? However that may be, Christians are capable of returning to ego and following their own ignorant views instead of following God. This is not however a singularly Christian problem. Would you deny your own duality?

I have come across duality in the church I used to attend. An unauthorized concept was seen as an opposing concept. On the other hand can you really say that opposing concepts are both true?
I love the brothers in Christ who hold an opposing view and God certainly has given me a love for all people so I am not going to be offended by an opposing view. All I am saying is that you have to justify what you say with evidence.

I think it is more likely that the facts you are viewing have a different source than ignorance or duality. I think it is a tendency to pre-judge.
Let us say that a Christian Missionary commits a murder. Does this mean that Christianity believes in murder? If you believe that you have prejudged Christianity without hearing an explication of faith. The same can be said of the Christian Missionary who sees some act and judges it by the appearance of the act without developing an understanding of the faith behind it. I am ignorant but withhold judgement until I know more and even then a judgement of your views does not necessarily mean that it is a judge of Hinduism because you might have disparate views from the reality of the religion.

atanu
09 November 2008, 08:49 AM
-
I think it is more likely that the facts you are viewing have a different source than ignorance or duality. I think it is a tendency to pre-judge.


Namaste Jaggin,

It is a pleasure to discuss with you for several reasons but mainly because you are objective.

I request you to please decide as to whether the Tendency to pre-judge is not preceded by the sense "I am this body" or not? And whether the sequence of thoughts "I have a superior belief and those others must be saved" come later or not?



Regards.

Om

jaggin
14 January 2009, 06:06 PM
Namaste Jaggin,

It is a pleasure to discuss with you for several reasons but mainly because you are objective.

I request you to please decide as to whether the Tendency to pre-judge is not preceded by the sense "I am this body" or not? And whether the sequence of thoughts "I have a superior belief and those others must be saved" come later or not?



Regards.

Om

Perhaps. I think everyone makes assessments based on what they know. If a person only knows what is in his mind, it is less informative than what he could know in his spirit and that is even less than a person could know by being in communication with God.

I suspect the superior belief is that Jesus saves.

I am reminded of the parable of the laborers who worked all day for the same pay as those who worked only part of the day.

I would update it a little by saying those who came early had to work hard to keep from sin, those who came mid-day didn't have to work as hard because God would guide them but at the end of the day there is no need to work because God performs the work for them. I say why get angry at those who don't have to work hard for trying to tell you how to avoid it. On the other hand although I could try to be proud that I don't have to work so hard, it wouldn't do any good because it was a gift to me and nothing I did for myself.

izi
15 January 2009, 02:30 PM
Christianity is a death cult intent on destroying what's left of our planet and focused on lining the pockets of those who know how to manipulate the weak and stupid.

atanu
16 January 2009, 09:18 AM
-I am reminded of the parable of the laborers who worked all day for the same pay as those who worked only part of the day.

I would update it a little by saying those who came early had to work hard to keep from sin, those who came mid-day didn't have to work as hard because God would guide them but at the end of the day there is no need to work because God performs the work for them. I say why get angry at those who don't have to work hard for trying to tell you how to avoid it. On the other hand although I could try to be proud that I don't have to work so hard, it wouldn't do any good because it was a gift to me and nothing I did for myself.

Namaste jaggin,

Yes, why get angry at all? Why get worked up? Why try to reform others? I would rotate the parable head down. Why try so hard, trying to tell that "I do less work and suffer less because I am more closer to God than you"?

This hard trying is not less work. This hard trying is symptomatic of inner unrest and this hard trying is cause of more suffering.

Om

izi
19 January 2009, 09:52 PM
I respectfully disagree atanu. While it may be easy to place the blame of suffering on work, it is only our own perception that makes work into *suffering*.

"sri-bhagavan uvaca--the Personality of Godhead said; sannyasah--renunciation of work; karma-yogah--work in devotion; ca--also; nihsreyasa-karau--all leading to the path of liberation; ubhau--both; tayoh--of the two; tu--but; karma-sannyasat--in comparison to the renunciation of fruitive work; karma-yogah--work in devotion; visisyate--is better."

Krsna

So I guess the question is, what is work in devotion?

NN

atanu
20 January 2009, 05:17 AM
I respectfully disagree atanu. While it may be easy to place the blame of suffering on work, it is only our own perception that makes work into *suffering*.

NN



Namaste naomi,

But I agree with what you say above.

Om

yajvan
21 January 2009, 02:28 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~



"sri-bhagavan uvaca--the Personality of Godhead said; sannyasah--renunciation of work; karma-yogah--work in devotion; ca--also; nihsreyasa-karau--all leading to the path of liberation; ubhau--both; tayoh--of the two; tu--but; karma-sannyasat--in comparison to the renunciation of fruitive work; karma-yogah--work in devotion; visisyate--is better."


Namasté Naomi,
Thank you for this śloka… If I may, let me offer another point of view to extend the idea on one key word sannyāsa . I will then offer my humble POV for your kind consideration.

Sannyāsa kinda looks like this:
saṃyamin संयमिन् is one who restrains or curbs or subdues; it is self-controlled.
saṃyas संयस् is to make effort. It is rooted in yas यस् - to strive, or exert one's self.
Some like to break up the word to say saṃ + ni + ās which roughly means to throw down completely. What is thrown? All worldly ties.
What is key is saṃ or sam सम् - this is to join together, union, thoroughness , completeness.

It is easy to see where the notion of 'work' may come from, that is in saṃyas, to make effort (work) or to strive (yas). Yet to look at it at face value ' renunciation of work' , we would perhaps be missing its most valuable message. That of union, saṃ.

But to what ? to the Supreme (anuttara). This notion of renunciation is not so much what one does, but what one is. This renouncing is that ' I am not this ' , I am not what I see or what I do. It is just that 'I am' or ahaṁ.

No one can escape action even for a second says Kṛṣṇa. What then is the renunciation? That I am not the action that is performed… that is done by the 3 guna-s says Kṛṣṇa. He tells us in Chapter 2, verse 45 to be without the 3 guna-s. It is the 3 guna-s that perform actions in this world, and Kṛṣṇa says be without them.

Then what is left? Saṃ or union with the SELF, that is outside the world of action, of work, of 3 guna-s; Resting in the SELF. This IMHO is the renunciation Kṛṣṇa is teaching us.

It is said there is two kinds of saṃyamin:
vividiṣā विविदिषा - to find, discover, obtain.
vidvat विद्वत् - one who knows , knowing , understanding , learned , intelligent , wise.

One is finding the way, and the other is the dawn of the SELF being realized.

praṇām

jaggin
02 March 2009, 07:51 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~



Namasté Naomi,
Thank you for this śloka… If I may, let me offer another point of view to extend the idea on one key word sannyāsa . I will then offer my humble POV for your kind consideration.

Sannyāsa kinda looks like this:
saṃyamin संयमिन् is one who restrains or curbs or subdues; it is self-controlled.
saṃyas संयस् is to make effort. It is rooted in yas यस् - to strive, or exert one's self.
Some like to break up the word to say saṃ + ni + ās which roughly means to throw down completely. What is thrown? All worldly ties.
What is key is saṃ or sam सम् - this is to join together, union, thoroughness , completeness.

It is easy to see where the notion of 'work' may come from, that is in saṃyas, to make effort (work) or to strive (yas). Yet to look at it at face value ' renunciation of work' , we would perhaps be missing its most valuable message. That of union, saṃ.

But to what ? to the Supreme (anuttara). This notion of renunciation is not so much what one does, but what one is. This renouncing is that ' I am not this ' , I am not what I see or what I do. It is just that 'I am' or ahaṁ.

No one can escape action even for a second says Kṛṣṇa. What then is the renunciation? That I am not the action that is performed… that is done by the 3 guna-s says Kṛṣṇa. He tells us in Chapter 2, verse 45 to be without the 3 guna-s. It is the 3 guna-s that perform actions in this world, and Kṛṣṇa says be without them.

Then what is left? Saṃ or union with the SELF, that is outside the world of action, of work, of 3 guna-s; Resting in the SELF. This IMHO is the renunciation Kṛṣṇa is teaching us.

It is said there is two kinds of saṃyamin:
vividiṣā विविदिषा - to find, discover, obtain.
vidvat विद्वत् - one who knows , knowing , understanding , learned , intelligent , wise.

One is finding the way, and the other is the dawn of the SELF being realized.

praṇām

In that case Krishna has already told you what I have told you. The only question remains: Did He tell you how to achieve union with God and that God does not view it as an equal partnership but as He the Master?

Just renouncing the world doesn't guarantee union with God because there are evil spiritual forces that could take advantage of that renunciation. Certainly The Buddha encountered those evil forces and overcame them.

jaggin
02 March 2009, 08:03 AM
Christianity is a death cult intent on destroying what's left of our planet and focused on lining the pockets of those who know how to manipulate the weak and stupid.

Anybody can use polemics. I could say a bunch of nasty false things about Hinduism just as easily but a true Christian would not use falsehood to destroy a person's faith. Our exhortation from the Apostle Paul is to "speak the Truth in Love."

Love does not destroy what is good but ony that which is evil.

atanu
03 March 2009, 06:19 AM
In that case Krishna has already told you what I have told you. The only question remains: Did He tell you how to achieve union with God and that God does not view it as an equal partnership but as He the Master?



Namaste jaggin,

God has not told anyone that He is the Master and others are His slaves.


Yes, Sages have said so, and thus God has names Pasupati, Prajapati, or Gopala. This is true till God is worshipped as the biggest wave by other waves in an ocean. But when the ocean as one -- Narayana, is known these master-servant imaginations lose meaning.

In Hinduism, the highest (which is beyond the Highest) is considered the Self -- the self of all and also that which is before All. Thus He is called Param Atman or Brahman and also Purusha -- one who is before the light. This Self is called Advaita -- one without a second, devoid of parts, and not amenable to partition.

Remaining as a part, one cannot know Brahman, since He is not amenable to partitioning. One cannot unite with Brahman as a second and know Him. Since, He is the Atman -- the Self. He cannot be known as another person second to oneself. Therefore all scriptures (and Shri Krishna in Gita) teach that the 'Brahman-God-Truth' -- the source of the MIND, is known in Samadhi alone -- when the MIND is dead/inactive.

There are mystics among Christians who know these. But like in Hinduism where devotion to God as Master is emphasized till the renunciation of Ego is complete, I believe that for majority of Christians this only is the requirement and thus is taught as if it the ultimate truth.

Seeing of differences in 'this and that' is due to persistence of Ego (which I do not deny is true for us and for 99.9999999% of devotees) but one who has uprooted the false ego of "I" as body or mind completely, has "No Other' who can be a Master.

The God (as you said in another post) is 'and he is before all things, and in him all things consist'. You at present consider the word "consist" to mean 'hold together'. When however, we recognise that what he holds together cannot be anything but Him, the knowledge dawns.


Please examine the plausibilty of what has been said here with an open mind and please do not dismiss away with one reading.

Om

srivijaya
04 March 2009, 11:03 AM
Why not ask the christians to explain to us the stories of their scritpures as they understand it?

Namaste satay,
The Christians nowadays find themselves in an uncomfortable position of their own making. The process of the adoption by the Romans and standardizing the teachings was instrumental in purging all mystical interpretations of the biblical texts. Gnostics and other deeply spiritual groups were purged in favor of a more literal approach.

atanu
05 March 2009, 06:30 AM
Namaste satay,
The Christians nowadays find themselves in an uncomfortable position of their own making. The process of the adoption by the Romans and standardizing the teachings was instrumental in purging all mystical interpretations of the biblical texts. Gnostics and other deeply spiritual groups were purged in favor of a more literal approach.

I think this is excellent. Not many will realise and point out the loss that such straitjacketing eventually causes to the rejuvenation process.

Om

jaggin
03 April 2009, 08:56 AM
Namaste satay,
The Christians nowadays find themselves in an uncomfortable position of their own making. The process of the adoption by the Romans and standardizing the teachings was instrumental in purging all mystical interpretations of the biblical texts. Gnostics and other deeply spiritual groups were purged in favor of a more literal approach.

It is one thing to be mystical but another to abandon truth in the name of mysticism. The gnostics contradicted God and held the truth in low esteem.

jaggin
03 April 2009, 09:29 AM
Namaste jaggin,

God has not told anyone that He is the Master and others are His slaves.


Yes, Sages have said so, and thus God has names Pasupati, Prajapati, or Gopala. This is true till God is worshipped as the biggest wave by other waves in an ocean. But when the ocean as one -- Narayana, is known these master-servant imaginations lose meaning.

In Hinduism, the highest (which is beyond the Highest) is considered the Self -- the self of all and also that which is before All. Thus He is called Param Atman or Brahman and also Purusha -- one who is before the light. This Self is called Advaita -- one without a second, devoid of parts, and not amenable to partition.

Remaining as a part, one cannot know Brahman, since He is not amenable to partitioning. One cannot unite with Brahman as a second and know Him. Since, He is the Atman -- the Self. He cannot be known as another person second to oneself. Therefore all scriptures (and Shri Krishna in Gita) teach that the 'Brahman-God-Truth' -- the source of the MIND, is known in Samadhi alone -- when the MIND is dead/inactive.

There are mystics among Christians who know these. But like in Hinduism where devotion to God as Master is emphasized till the renunciation of Ego is complete, I believe that for majority of Christians this only is the requirement and thus is taught as if it the ultimate truth.

Seeing of differences in 'this and that' is due to persistence of Ego (which I do not deny is true for us and for 99.9999999% of devotees) but one who has uprooted the false ego of "I" as body or mind completely, has "No Other' who can be a Master.

The God (as you said in another post) is 'and he is before all things, and in him all things consist'. You at present consider the word "consist" to mean 'hold together'. When however, we recognise that what he holds together cannot be anything but Him, the knowledge dawns.


Please examine the plausibilty of what has been said here with an open mind and please do not dismiss away with one reading.

Om

Mt 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, even the Christ.

I am glad that you recognize the oneness of God, however God is one everywhere. Without a separate intelligence it is impossible to know anything. However there is a difference between intelligent receptivity and active thinking. Active thinking gets in the way of intelligent receptivity. After all you can't hear what a person is saying if you are always thinking about what you are going to say.

An inactive mind is good for contacting God because it increases receptivity but if the mind is dead it may receive nothing of God. Once I have made contact with God my options increase. I can just listen as in a student/master (teacher) relationship. I can question and converse. Questioning is part of the student/master relationship. Conversing is part of the friendship relationship.

The mind may have an ego of its own but so does the mind of the spirit. God can have control over the mind of the body and leave the mind of the spirit free. So this may appear to be a loss of identity without it really being so. God didn't create us to Himself but for us to be others. However God created us as good beings and that has been subverted. So some people identify that subversion with being other than God. The otherness that God created us to be was not a subverted otherness.

sunyatisunya
19 April 2009, 01:32 PM
Atheism is a lot simpler than Christianity if you have a brain.

atanu
20 April 2009, 01:49 AM
Mt 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, even the Christ.


Namaste jaggin,

I see that most other versions, other than King James's, say 'Neither be ye called teachers: for one is the teacher, the Christ'. You know that Kings have redddish perspective. Moreover, we also know that Guru is One only -- the forms may vary in time and space. The Guru is called Sadashiva -- that which is tranquil always, that which is good always, that which is beneficial always.

I am glad that you recognize the oneness of God, however God is one everywhere. Without a separate intelligence it is impossible to know anything.
Yes. In deep sleep you know nothing because of this phenomenem. And deep sleep is the sustainer. But Yogis who 'do not sleep but are actually in deep sleep' are omniscient and not like stone, since all happenings proceed from that single mass of intelligence which a yogi is.

An inactive mind is good for contacting God because it increases receptivity but if the mind is dead it may receive nothing of God. Once I have made contact with God my options increase.

Exactly, jaggin. The options increase to chaos and to infinity, without any resolution. I re-iterate:


Remaining as a part, one cannot know Brahman, since He is not amenable to partitioning. One cannot unite with Brahman as a second and know Him. Since, He is the Atman -- the Self. He cannot be known as another person second to oneself. Therefore all scriptures (and Shri Krishna in Gita) teach that the 'Brahman-God-Truth' -- the source of the MIND, is known in Samadhi alone.But that is not to negate, deny, or belittle the ways of increasing receptivity and perceptivity through Dvaita worship (when God is Master, before all things and all beings) and through Vishistadvaita (when God holds everthing and every being in Himself). However, finally, the indivisble cannot be known as such in a divided mode.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

jaggin
04 August 2009, 08:58 AM
Atheism is a lot simpler than Christianity if you have a brain.

Actually men through thinking too much convolute things, making them much more comlpex than they need to be. My experience is that the more intelligent a person is, the more complex the view.

What I find amusing is that atheists tend to rely on logic but don't seem able to follow the rules of logic.

jaggin
04 August 2009, 09:28 AM
Namaste jaggin,

I see that most other versions, other than King James's, say 'Neither be ye called teachers: for one is the teacher, the Christ'. You know that Kings have redddish perspective. Moreover, we also know that Guru is One only -- the forms may vary in time and space. The Guru is called Sadashiva -- that which is tranquil always, that which is good always, that which is beneficial always.

Yes. In deep sleep you know nothing because of this phenomenem. And deep sleep is the sustainer. But Yogis who 'do not sleep but are actually in deep sleep' are omniscient and not like stone, since all happenings proceed from that single mass of intelligence which a yogi is.


Exactly, jaggin. The options increase to chaos and to infinity, without any resolution. I re-iterate:


Remaining as a part, one cannot know Brahman, since He is not amenable to partitioning. One cannot unite with Brahman as a second and know Him. Since, He is the Atman -- the Self. He cannot be known as another person second to oneself. Therefore all scriptures (and Shri Krishna in Gita) teach that the 'Brahman-God-Truth' -- the source of the MIND, is known in Samadhi alone.But that is not to negate, deny, or belittle the ways of increasing receptivity and perceptivity through Dvaita worship (when God is Master, before all things and all beings) and through Vishistadvaita (when God holds everthing and every being in Himself). However, finally, the indivisble cannot be known as such in a divided mode.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

That is true enough but the student teacher relationship is that of master and servant. Then there is the Lord and servant relationship:

Mt 24:45 Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath set over his household, to give them their food in due season?Mt 24:46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.

That is basically what Christianity is all about except for the universality of the promise as opposed to Gurus who find that path another way (If they really have found it).

You will have to explain how this can be and what it means. I am not familiar with the concepts or the terminology.

That would only be so if the mind were in control, which it is not or if God were to be chaotic and present His infinity to our finite minds which He is not and does not.

This is illogical reasoning on your part. If a mind is God then it can't be anything but God. God can only be known if there is a separate mind to know Him.

I get this a lot from the Muslims. God is not divided simply because He can express His itelligence to multiple minds. He is God wherever He is.

atanu
06 August 2009, 01:26 AM
That is true enough but the student teacher relationship is that of master and servant. Then there is the Lord and servant relationship:




Namaste jaggin,

We have no problem with that at all. Guru (God) and shisya (student) relationship is a relationship of Master and Servant, from the perspective of shishya. But students perspective is not complete.


That is basically what Christianity is all about except for the universality of the promise as opposed to Gurus who find that path another way (If they really have found it).

Yes. That is what general Christioanity is all about -- to doubt others.



You will have to explain how this can be and what it means. I am not familiar with the concepts or the terminology.

That is since, you yourself have deadened your wisdom to your own knowledge that "and he is before all things, and in him all things consist'".

He is before the Mind that thinks about Him. What mind can think or know that which was before the mind?

This is our simple point.



This is illogical reasoning on your part. If a mind is God then it can't be anything but God. God can only be known if there is a separate mind to know Him.

On the other hand, I think that you are illogical, since you claim that you will know that which was before the mind.




I get this a lot from the Muslims. God is not divided simply because He can express His itelligence to multiple minds. He is God wherever He is.


What about stones then? And what about the air that pervades and connects so called multiple minds?


I again say that you have not meditated on and he is before all things, and in him all things consist'".


You are trying to understand the above from the perspective of a fleshy jaggin as an independent reality. But it is not so. "BEFORE ALL THINGS and ALL THINGS IN HIM", does not leave scope for a fleshy jaggin to know GOD who is full.

A tukda (piece) cannot know the full.

Om Namah Shivaya

yajvan
09 September 2009, 08:39 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

Someone has posted as of late, that passing-on and speaking the word of Jesus was to be directed to the Jewish community ( vs. any and all) only.

Can anyone direct me to that post or to the bibilcal reference that mentions this... I would like to get some information on this.

thank you,

praṇām

jaggin
03 November 2009, 07:54 AM
Namaste jaggin,

We have no problem with that at all. Guru (God) and shisya (student) relationship is a relationship of Master and Servant, from the perspective of shishya. But students perspective is not complete.

Yes. That is what general Christioanity is all about -- to doubt others.

That is since, you yourself have deadened your wisdom to your own knowledge that "and he is before all things, and in him all things consist'".

He is before the Mind that thinks about Him. What mind can think or know that which was before the mind?

This is our simple point.

On the other hand, I think that you are illogical, since you claim that you will know that which was before the mind.

What about stones then? And what about the air that pervades and connects so called multiple minds?

I again say that you have not meditated on and he is before all things, and in him all things consist'".

You are trying to understand the above from the perspective of a fleshy jaggin as an independent reality. But it is not so. "BEFORE ALL THINGS and ALL THINGS IN HIM", does not leave scope for a fleshy jaggin to know GOD who is full.

A tukda (piece) cannot know the full.

Om Namah Shivaya

I appreciate your patience with me. I can get mental blocks sometimes until the light comes on. Does 'Namaste' mean 'peace'?

I suppose it might appear that way but the truth is that it is experiential. The apostle Thomas doubted but not likley from his jewish traditions that did have resurrections but from a material view of life that is experiential. It is so with me also; I have not seen how this can happen yet and I don't find the authoritativeness necessary to take the Vedas on faith.

That which was before the mind is still there after it (immutability of God).

I agree that it would be illogical to say the mind knew something before it existed but that is not what I am saying.

I think you need to simplify this for me. Are you saying that I am an airhead, lol.

If you are saying the intelligence and knowledge of God is greater than mine, you are quite right but God in His essence is homogenous throughout the universe. For instance: God is good. This is true throughout the universe because God is not divided into a good piece and a bad piece.

atanu
03 November 2009, 08:38 AM
I appreciate your patience with me. I can get mental blocks sometimes until the light comes on. Does 'Namaste' mean 'peace'?
Namaste jaggin,

Namaste simply means "I bow to you." It is a prostration to God resident within every heart. I appreciate you for being with us for so long, indicating patience and perseverance.


I think you need to simplify this for me. Are you saying that I am an airhead, lol.
LOL. Since 'He is before all and all are in Him', I say, following the Vedanta, that the "I am" is Him only. Your and my bodies and minds are things.



For instance: God is good. This is true throughout the universe because God is not divided into a good piece and a bad piece.
Exactly. So, there is ultimately no missionary posture required, since as you say "God is not divided into a good piece and a bad piece" and I add that neither was there anything before Him, as "He was before all." True teachers are those who have experienced "He is before all things, and in him all things" and not the missionaries who are infected with the ignorance of the false understanding 'I am something and I will liberate others.'

Om Namah Shivaya

jaggin
11 December 2009, 08:26 AM
Namaste jaggin,

Namaste simply means "I bow to you." It is a prostration to God resident within every heart. I appreciate you for being with us for so long, indicating patience and perseverance.


LOL. Since 'He is before all and all are in Him', I say, following the Vedanta, that the "I am" is Him only. Your and my bodies and minds are things.


Exactly. So, there is ultimately no missionary posture required, since as you say "God is not divided into a good piece and a bad piece" and I add that neither was there anything before Him, as "He was before all." True teachers are those who have experienced "He is before all things, and in him all things" and not the missionaries who are infected with the ignorance of the false understanding 'I am something and I will liberate others.'

Om Namah Shivaya

Namaste Atanu,

Yes, I do understand that and that our spirits are not God also. However because all things are created by God then they consist within His thinking just as a painting is not the artist but it reflects the thinking of the artist.

However a false missionary undestaning does not mean that God will not put people to work for Him on behalf of others.

atanu
11 December 2009, 10:09 AM
Namaste Atanu,

Yes, I do understand that and that our spirits are not God also. However because all things are created by God then they consist within His thinking just as a painting is not the artist but it reflects the thinking of the artist.

However a false missionary undestaning does not mean that God will not put people to work for Him on behalf of others.

namaste jaggin,

I had said "Since 'He is before all and all are in Him' the "I am" is Him only."


You agreed but it just got complicated because of entry of a new term 'our souls'. When we say "OM (I am) is Him", we mean that "I am this Body-Mind" is ignorance, since the body-mind is not intelligent of its own.

I am not sure as to what you mean by 'our spirits'? Are our spirits broken pieces of God spirit? Or are our spirits different from God Spirit in nature? As per you, God has remained God but the created spirits exist in His mind. This part is OK. Yet, we are intelligent unlike pure dream pictures. How so? Moreover, why should these picture like souls strive for salvation and eternal life? The souls had a created beginning and thus will have an end. Then what is the meaning of the eternal life for a soul?

I am just trying to understand for better appreciation. Since what you are saying is almost similar to advaita understanding of dreamlike creation. Will you please explain in detail, just as you requested sanjaya in that other thread.

Om Namah Shivaya

sanjaya
11 December 2009, 04:12 PM
However a false missionary undestaning does not mean that God will not put people to work for Him on behalf of others.

I don't know that "doing the Lord's work" is a common mode of thinking in Hinduism (we tend not to differentiate between the sacred and secular), but I would certainly agree that God can put people to work for him. There have been many people throughout Indian history who have been directed by God to record the life and teachings of Hindu saints and gurus for others to read. This, for example, is how we know about Shirdi Sai Baba. However, this doesn't mean that anyone who says that they work for God is telling the truth. Many of the twentieth century's genocidal dictators said that they were working for God on behalf of others.

Missionaries are the same in their philosophy. They engage in cultural genocide by Westernizing people throughout the world. I do not think that this is something God would sanction. So the question becomes: how do you determine if someone who says he works for God is telling the truth?

Eastern Mind
11 December 2009, 04:20 PM
So the question becomes: how do you determine if someone who says he works for God is telling the truth?

You don't. God isn't involved in wars other than that he is ALL and in ALL, the monistic advaitic sense. This is just nonsense. Simplistic nonsense.
An analogy if I may: Watch the athletes in football games who are God worshipping. They always seem to thank God for the victory. You don't see the game's losers thanking God. Its just silly.

As far as competition goes, I like the Dalai Lama's quote: "The real winners are the losers as then you get to develop character."

sanjaya
11 December 2009, 07:30 PM
You don't. God isn't involved in wars other than that he is ALL and in ALL, the monistic advaitic sense. This is just nonsense. Simplistic nonsense.
An analogy if I may: Watch the athletes in football games who are God worshipping. They always seem to thank God for the victory. You don't see the game's losers thanking God. Its just silly.

Thank you, I think this is a helpful analogy.

Still, I'm left wondering what one ought to say concerning Jaggin's suggestion that God "puts people to work" converting others to Christianity.

atanu
12 December 2009, 12:07 AM
You don't. God isn't involved in wars other than that he is ALL and in ALL, the monistic advaitic sense. This is just nonsense. Simplistic nonsense.
An analogy if I may: Watch the athletes in football games who are God worshipping. They always seem to thank God for the victory. You don't see the game's losers thanking God. Its just silly.

As far as competition goes, I like the Dalai Lama's quote: "The real winners are the losers as then you get to develop character."

Namaste EM:

That is good. Andre Agassi has got written a sarcastic yet funny book. He shoots others but no one is offended -- because the humour and love shines through. He has written that He hated Michael Chang when Michael thanked God for his win over Agassi. Agassi says "I hate that guy. As if God was standing on his side of the court".

Nevertheless, it is also true that in classical Hinduism, Brahmins are counted as knowers of Brahman and thus are supposed to be channels for communicating knowledge/grace to others who might not be aware of grace at all.

But Sanjaya is correct in asking: "Still, I'm left wondering what one ought to say concerning Jaggin's suggestion that God "puts people to work" converting others to Christianity".

This is my question as well. But let us let jaggin tell us more of his understanding, else the thread will lose meaning.

Om namah Shivaya

jaggin
14 January 2010, 07:26 AM
namaste jaggin,

I had said "Since 'He is before all and all are in Him' the "I am" is Him only."


You agreed but it just got complicated because of entry of a new term 'our souls'. When we say "OM (I am) is Him", we mean that "I am this Body-Mind" is ignorance, since the body-mind is not intelligent of its own.

I am not sure as to what you mean by 'our spirits'? Are our spirits broken pieces of God spirit? Or are our spirits different from God Spirit in nature? As per you, God has remained God but the created spirits exist in His mind. This part is OK. Yet, we are intelligent unlike pure dream pictures. How so? Moreover, why should these picture like souls strive for salvation and eternal life? The souls had a created beginning and thus will have an end. Then what is the meaning of the eternal life for a soul?

I am just trying to understand for better appreciation. Since what you are saying is almost similar to advaita understanding of dreamlike creation. Will you please explain in detail, just as you requested sanjaya in that other thread.

Om Namah Shivaya

"Soul" is misused today in English as equivalent to spirit. The Bible says that the spirit wsa breathed in to the body and it became a living soul. Are you saying that your mind lacks intelligence? What is clear is that you can't take your physical mind with you when your body dies. That is not a problem however, because the spirit has intelligence also. I found this Biblical passage recently and thought it appropriate: Rom 8:6 For the mind of the flesh is death; but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace: (Spirit is capitalized because it refers to the Holy Spirit because an evil spirit would not produce such fruit)

Our spirits are not exactly like God's spirit, He is infinite but we ae finite. I have a separate consciousness from God.

For a better analogy we would have to go to the motion picture (movie). The producer has his actors and they act according to the script. (This the Calvinists tell us is predestination) There are some who believe that God has created and then just let things run on their own but I believe God is not only producer but also director, telling the cast what to do and managing the props. A apinting doesn't just exist in the painters mind, it has an existence of its own but only because those thoughts were made substantive.

A destructive spirit has decided to thow dirt on the painting. The painter wishes to restore it to its original condition. For the movie analogy a rival director is trying to get people to act contrary to the script and the actors have to choose which director they will follow.
A created spirit had a beginning but that does not mean that it has a determined end although that is possible. Sometimes in English "eternal" simply means outside of time which is a persons status outside of physical life. The "life" that Jesus refers to is the unblemished painting and "death" the tainted painting.

sanjaya
14 January 2010, 11:36 AM
"Soul" is misused today in English as equivalent to spirit. The Bible says that the spirit wsa breathed in to the body and it became a living soul. Are you saying that your mind lacks intelligence? What is clear is that you can't take your physical mind with you when your body dies. That is not a problem however, because the spirit has intelligence also. I found this Biblical passage recently and thought it appropriate: Rom 8:6 For the mind of the flesh is death; but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace: (Spirit is capitalized because it refers to the Holy Spirit because an evil spirit would not produce such fruit)



Jaggin, with all due respect, I think you may be taking your own scripture out of context. I just read the sentences around Romans 8:6, and it says this:
For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.I took this from the English Standard Version of your Bible, which my Christian friends tell me is both academically respectable and accepted in most evangelical and fundamentalist circles. The words you quoted seem to imply that there are two minds. But what I have above seems to acknowledge only one mind which is capable of setting itself on earthly desires or on spiritual desires. The former leads to death (and presumably eternal hell), and the other leads to heaven. It even goes so far as to say that people who have their minds set on worldly desires are displeasing to God. But I don't see anything about each individual separately possessing a mind of the flesh and a mind of the Spirit. Anyway, I'd be interested to hear what you think about this.

As an aside, even this contradicts Hindu teaching, where Krishna says,

With whatever motive people worship Me, I fulfill their desires accordingly. People worship Me with different motives. (BG 4.11)But perhaps this is a discussion for another thread.

However, I would be interested to know why the Christian understanding of the human soul implies (as was suggested earlier), that it's necessary to conduct missionary activity. This, I think, is the crucial portion of Christian theology that we Hindus flatly reject. And it is not just an academic discussion, because Christian missionary theology directly affects the actions that Christians take against Hindus in India and abroad, and perhaps this deserves some greater analysis.

Chris
14 January 2010, 01:33 PM
I'm going to continue with my Christian faith. There is still some corruption but it doesn't demand total subjugation of one person by another. Nobody should have that kind of power. And it's not so damn complicated.

I have had people suggest to me that I should follow Christianity because it is simpler. You don't have to cultivate spirituality, you don't even have to live a moral life (though they would encourage it), because every Christian no matter how debauched, selfish, and evil is saved - and every non-Christian however thoughtful, pure and kind will be tortured eternally.

The thing is I don't buy that. First of all I know that God (Shiva) is good and loving and would not torture any of his children forever - certainly not those who strive for goodness and right. Secondly, what do you think heaven would be like, populated by Christian child abusers, mass murderers, and generally non spiritual people? Christians themselves say that people can not go to heaven as they are, they will be "purified" first. If you believe this instant magical change you have to ask yourself, is it really the Christian going to heaven, or some other "good" but different person? This instant purification is like snatching a child away and replacing it with an adult. It is not the same person, to become an adult a child must learn, work hard, and change slowly. The only way that someone can reach God (moksha) is through slow process of change.

sanjaya
14 January 2010, 05:13 PM
I have had people suggest to me that I should follow Christianity because it is simpler. You don't have to cultivate spirituality, you don't even have to live a moral life (though they would encourage it), because every Christian no matter how debauched, selfish, and evil is saved - and every non-Christian however thoughtful, pure and kind will be tortured eternally.

The Christian would respond to this by saying that no one is "good" in the eyes of God, because every person has committed some degree of sin in his or her life, and is therefore not free of guilt. But by believing in Christianity, you're absolved of all sin.

The fallacy I see here is that Christian theology recognizes no gradient in sinfulness. Essentially, the petty thief or pickpocketer is placed in the same category as Hitler (or pick another well-known terrible sinner of your choice). Christians say that by classifying all sin as equally deserving of hell, they are exposing sin for what it really is. But by failing to recognize different degrees of sin, they are really trivializing immoral behavior. No one really believes that a thief is on par with a murderer. But by making all sins equally heinous, a person can feel absolved of his guilt by telling himself that he's no better or worse than anyone else. It takes away all personal responsibility for sin. I'm no psychologist, but maybe this is why we see so many sex scandals in Christian churches, and why the Christian West is especially immoral. When you believe that your sins are no worse than telling a white lie, of course your appreciation for your own evil deeds will be diminished.

jaggin
16 January 2010, 09:02 AM
I don't know that "doing the Lord's work" is a common mode of thinking in Hinduism (we tend not to differentiate between the sacred and secular), but I would certainly agree that God can put people to work for him. There have been many people throughout Indian history who have been directed by God to record the life and teachings of Hindu saints and gurus for others to read. This, for example, is how we know about Shirdi Sai Baba. However, this doesn't mean that anyone who says that they work for God is telling the truth. Many of the twentieth century's genocidal dictators said that they were working for God on behalf of others.

Missionaries are the same in their philosophy. They engage in cultural genocide by Westernizing people throughout the world. I do not think that this is something God would sanction. So the question becomes: how do you determine if someone who says he works for God is telling the truth?

There are three ways God can get people to work for Him.

1. He can work behind the scenes moving them in a direction without them realizing it.

2. He can have commands set down in writing

3. He can personally call people to do things.

Obviously with Krishna you have the third instance but that doesn't rule out other instances.

Of course there are the delusional and liars in every community.

I doubt that you can see the motives of either party but Jesus says that you will know them by their fruit.

You may view this as an evil but that doesn't mean that God sees it that way. The question is: Does culture assist God or block Him. If it blocks Him He may have no qualms in removing it. Is a culture automatically evil? I think not but certainly there would be a western perception that some practices would be ungodly. I suspect a large part of that comes from a lack of cultural understanding. I think there is a difference between earlier missionaries and later ones. The church has become more sensitive to cultrual issues lately and has also realized that people of the same culture are better missionaries.

jaggin
16 January 2010, 09:30 AM
Namaste EM:

That is good. Andre Agassi has got written a sarcastic yet funny book. He shoots others but no one is offended -- because the humour and love shines through. He has written that He hated Michael Chang when Michael thanked God for his win over Agassi. Agassi says "I hate that guy. As if God was standing on his side of the court".

Nevertheless, it is also true that in classical Hinduism, Brahmins are counted as knowers of Brahman and thus are supposed to be channels for communicating knowledge/grace to others who might not be aware of grace at all.

But Sanjaya is correct in asking: "Still, I'm left wondering what one ought to say concerning Jaggin's suggestion that God "puts people to work" converting others to Christianity".

This is my question as well. But let us let jaggin tell us more of his understanding, else the thread will lose meaning.

Om namah Shivaya

I am reminded of the time my father -in-law sat me down with a medical dictionary (I was 27) to teach me the facts of life. About half we through he must have recognized the smirk on my face because he asked me: You know this stuff already don't you?

It is helpful not to have to teach things that are already known. What God is doing new in Christianity needs to be taught. I have been told that soemthing like it occurs in Hindu culture but it isn't a common thing. It probably isn't a main tenet of the Hindu religion and might not even be in the scriptures; so it is not that likely a person would hear about it. If it isn't easy to find or simply does not exist in scripture then it is not as simple as Christianity which has it as a main tenet.

A man came to Jesus one day and said: "What am I lacking." Jesus asked Him what he was doing and he said that he was trying to be a good person. Jesus didn't tell him that was a bad way to do things but congratulated him and then invited him to come and follow Him. Following a book isn't necessarily a bad thing and following a guru might not be too bad either if the person is enlightened but following God personally is best.

jaggin
16 January 2010, 09:58 AM
Jaggin, with all due respect, I think you may be taking your own scripture out of context. I just read the sentences around Romans 8:6, and it says this:
For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.I took this from the English Standard Version of your Bible, which my Christian friends tell me is both academically respectable and accepted in most evangelical and fundamentalist circles. The words you quoted seem to imply that there are two minds. But what I have above seems to acknowledge only one mind which is capable of setting itself on earthly desires or on spiritual desires. The former leads to death (and presumably eternal hell), and the other leads to heaven. It even goes so far as to say that people who have their minds set on worldly desires are displeasing to God. But I don't see anything about each individual separately possessing a mind of the flesh and a mind of the Spirit. Anyway, I'd be interested to hear what you think about this.


As an aside, even this contradicts Hindu teaching, where Krishna says,
With whatever motive people worship Me, I fulfill their desires accordingly. People worship Me with different motives. (BG 4.11)But perhaps this is a discussion for another thread.

However, I would be interested to know why the Christian understanding of the human soul implies (as was suggested earlier), that it's necessary to conduct missionary activity. This, I think, is the crucial portion of Christian theology that we Hindus flatly reject. And it is not just an academic discussion, because Christian missionary theology directly affects the actions that Christians take against Hindus in India and abroad, and perhaps this deserves some greater analysis.

How does one "set your mind?" The mind of the spirit controls the mind of the flesh by setting it. Westerners refer to this as conscience. Your spirit can just sit back and let your mind wander all over the place and those whose spirit doesn't have good control over the mind suffer from that but a person who is spiritually aware will control the mind. This is not simple Christinity becasue in simple Christianity you put God in control of your mind and spirit. That sounds simple but in practice the physical mind is always striving against conscience and God. It is at enmity with God but our conscience can be in harmony with God.

I see no contradiction. Motives for doing something are not the same as motives for not doing something. I am motivated by conscience and a mind set on wordly things. The fact that God understands that and uses it is no surprise or as Jesus said if a man asks for bread will God give him a scorpion?

atanu
16 January 2010, 10:29 PM
"Soul" is misused today in English as equivalent to spirit. The Bible says that the spirit wsa breathed in to the body and it became a living soul. Are you saying that your mind lacks intelligence? What is clear is that you can't take your physical mind with you when your body dies. That is not a problem however, because the spirit has intelligence also. I found this Biblical passage recently and thought it appropriate: Rom 8:6 For the mind of the flesh is death; but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace: (Spirit is capitalized because it refers to the Holy Spirit because an evil spirit would not produce such fruit)

Our spirits are not exactly like God's spirit, He is infinite but we ae finite. I have a separate consciousness from God.


Namaste jaggin,

These things go on forever without resolution.

You have written very good things, especially "the spirit was breathed in to the body and it became a living soul". Also good is "Our spirits are not exactly like God's spirit, He is infinite but we ae finite. I have a separate consciousness from God. "

Till this there is no disagreement. But further Hindu scriptures teach one to strive and know the unbroken, single, unborn spirit in one's heart. I agree that 95% of Hindus believe and stress on the points that you stress -- that we are separate. But we are actually not seprate since the HOLY SPIRIT is never divisible.

Moreover, what does it mean when the Bible teaches "Be ye perfect as thy Father in Heaven is"? can there be two different types of perfectness? Anyway, IMO, these are not for arguments, since it is the HOLY SPIRIT that controls but those strong of ego sense will not even get the hint. Rather they will murder Jesus and then pick selectively to do mischief as per the ego drive.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
16 January 2010, 10:40 PM
How does one "set your mind?" The mind of the spirit controls the mind of the flesh by setting it. Westerners refer to this as conscience. Your spirit can just sit back and let your mind wander all over the place and those whose spirit doesn't have good control over the mind suffer from that but a person who is spiritually aware will control the mind. This is not simple Christinity becasue in simple Christianity you put God in control of your mind and spirit. That sounds simple but in practice the physical mind is always striving against conscience and God. It is at enmity with God but our conscience can be in harmony with God.



Namaste jaggin,

This is just excellent and this is what I have been trying to convey. The dual minds, the conscience and the mind of the flesh are 'TWO BIRDS' often spoken in our scriptures.

Those scriptures further follow that on removal of ignorance only one light, called sadashiva (ever auspicious) is found as the truth.

Om Namah Shivaya

sanjaya
18 January 2010, 03:49 AM
Jaggin, thank you for explaining about the physical and spiritual mind. I disagree with your fundamental assumption that the physical mind is somehow at enmity with God (i.e. I contest the belief in original sin). But this is another issue altogether.


I am reminded of the time my father -in-law sat me down with a medical dictionary (I was 27) to teach me the facts of life. About half we through he must have recognized the smirk on my face because he asked me: You know this stuff already don't you?

It is helpful not to have to teach things that are already known. What God is doing new in Christianity needs to be taught. I have been told that soemthing like it occurs in Hindu culture but it isn't a common thing. It probably isn't a main tenet of the Hindu religion and might not even be in the scriptures; so it is not that likely a person would hear about it. If it isn't easy to find or simply does not exist in scripture then it is not as simple as Christianity which has it as a main tenet.

Is it your contention that God teaches people new things via Christianity, but not Hinduism? I would say that quite the opposite is true. Christians believe that the canon of scripture is closed. Catholics and Orthodox may only receieve additional revelation from the Church (and what this "Church" is is also a matter of debate). Protestants believe that there is no new revelation from God at all, and that the knowledge contained in your Bible is sufficient. Hindus, on the other hand, are the ones who believe that God is always teaching us new things. Sri Krishna says,

Whenever there is a decline of Dharma and a predominance of Adharma, O Arjuna, then I manifest Myself. I appear from time to time for protecting the good, for transforming the wicked, and for establishing world order. (BG 4.07-08)
And indeed, we Hindus recognize many saints who have appeared throughout the centuries as incarnations of God. Christians treat the incarnation of God the Son as a unique event, never to be repeated. But we believe that God becomes incarnate as a man on a regular basis. God teaches us new things quite often. Can you say the same? If you are suggesting that we Hindus are in need of Christianity because of regular revelation from God, then I think your argument is contradicted by the fact that Hindu theology, and not Christian doctrine, teaches that God has new things to tell us.

As a sidenote, your argument also presupposes that the Bible is true. If I reject the Bible as divinely inspired by God, then what remaining incentive do I have to consider what Christianity has to tell me about God?


A man came to Jesus one day and said: "What am I lacking." Jesus asked Him what he was doing and he said that he was trying to be a good person. Jesus didn't tell him that was a bad way to do things but congratulated him and then invited him to come and follow Him. Following a book isn't necessarily a bad thing and following a guru might not be too bad either if the person is enlightened but following God personally is best.

I believe you are alluding to Mark 10:21. The passage says that the man was rich, and that he didn't follow Jesus because Jesus also asked him to give all he had to the poor. Again, it seems to me the context of this passage suggests that Jesus was teaching this man to not be attached to his worldly wealth; I'm not sure it was a general teaching.

Whatever the case, you're once again not addressing Sri Krishna's teaching about his continued incarnations. You portray Christianity as a means of following God directly, and Hinduism as a means of following God via a book or a guru. Again, I don't think this argument holds water when analyzing the two religions. Christianity, whether Catholic or Protestant, places a church heirarchy between God and men. Men must submit to elders and pastors as church authorities. Hindus have no such heirarchy. Protestant Christianity places a strong importance on the Bible. Rarely do you see Hindus revering a religious Scripture above God himself. Who's really following God, and who's really following the book or guru?

My friend, your arguments are very eloquent, which doesn't surprise me considering the tradition of intellectual excellence among Christian apologists. But they don't ultimately hold up when one looks at the specifics of the Christian religion.

rahulg
21 January 2010, 10:44 AM
Christianity is simpler in the sense that it favors the path of grace. Hindus, on the other hand, favor both effort and grace. Christians find this illogical, because if one makes the effort and attains the goal, then grace would be redundant (as effort itself would've done the trick for us).

If, on the other hand, one believes totally in grace as the liberating factor, then effort wouldn't be necessary. And, as Hindus believe in both, Christians feel this leads to a contradiction.

Learned members can throw more light on this.

nirotu
21 January 2010, 03:52 PM
Christianity is simpler in the sense that it favors the path of grace. Hindus, on the other hand, favor both effort and grace. Christians find this illogical, because if one makes the effort and attains the goal, then grace would be redundant (as effort itself would've done the trick for us).

If, on the other hand, one believes totally in grace as the liberating factor, then effort wouldn't be necessary. And, as Hindus believe in both, Christians feel this leads to a contradiction.

Learned members can throw more light on this.

You have put it beautifully. Nothing more to add or take away from it. Christians do belive that with personal efforts, devoid of grace, there is a strong "I-ness" attached to it.

Blessings,

sanjaya
21 January 2010, 07:25 PM
Regarding the issue of grace, I think that Hinduism only seems like a self-centric religion when it is described in the Christianized "grace versus works" language. Many Hindu saints have talked about the grace of God, but they mean a very different thing than Christians. In Hinduism we do not contrast grace and works. Instead we have the system of karma. There are other members here who could explain it better than me, but essentially karma holds people accountable for their actions without being devoid of mercy. God is not going to forgive an especially heinous sin merely by repentance, and sinners must make amends for their deeds. However, by performing devotion to God, the results of past sins can be ameliorated. And most importantly, God does not eternally condemn anyone. Such a punishment isn't fit for any sort of sin.

Just to present the other side of the issue that Rahul and Nirotu discussed, to many of us the Christian doctrine of salvation by grace apart from works seems somewhat flawed, and perhaps even destructive. Anyone who knows an evangelical is familiar with the law court analogy. A hypothetical criminal stands before a judge, and is found guilty. According to the law, the criminal must be punished. As the evangelical would point out, a judge who releases a convicted criminal with no appropriate sentence ought to be defrocked, and so the judge must execute the sentence. In this analogy God is the judge, the convict is man, and the crime is sin. The punishment, of course, is eternal condemnation to hell. The solution the evangelical offers is salvation by God's grace through the atonement of Christ. Here Jesus takes the punishment that man deserves, and so God's justice is satisfied without having to send man to hell.

The problem with all this is that the solution doesn't make sense in the context of the analogy. Judges aren't storing up wrath for every crime committed that can be spent on anyone, and certainly not an innocent person. The law court analogy is not a very good one. Furthermore, the doctrine of salvation by grace ultimately trivializes sin. The Christians will tell us that any sin is heinous, and is thus worthy of eternal condemnation. So it might seem like they are treating sin more seriously than us Hindus. But this doctrine equalizes all sin. So a relatively minor offense, say, a white lie, is equally offensive to God as mass murder. Rarely will you find anyone, even among Christians, who believes that seemingly trivial sins are as bad as the more heinous ones. Never have I found a person who was pierced with guilt for years because he coveted his neighbor's car. Thus it will be human nature for the person to reduce the more heinous sins in significance. Perhaps this is why religious politicians who have affairs can so easily say that God will forgive them. Christianity allows a person to make adultery out to be no worse of a sin than misusing God's name. This, I think, is the greater degree of selfishness. It allows terrible sinners to absolve themselves of all guilt by simply saying "we're all sinners." The Christian understanding of grace and works only makes sense if you first assent to the principle that all sin is infinitely offensive to God. Christians love to make analogies to real-world scenarios, but I can find none that fits this doctrine.

It isn't my intent to offend Christians, but I think that the objection I raise is a legitimate one that needs to be addressed. I believe the Hindu view of grace makes far more sense than the Christian one. We need God's grace because in this Kaliyuga, we would not even choose to think about God unless he first came into our lives. But we need to work to earn liberation from this world, because sin must be dealt with by our own actions. If we do not work to amend the damage caused by our sins, how else do we get rid of our sinful tendancies?

rahulg
21 January 2010, 11:04 PM
It isn't my intent to offend Christians, but I think that the objection I raise is a legitimate one that needs to be addressed. I believe the Hindu view of grace makes far more sense than the Christian one. We need God's grace because in this Kaliyuga, we would not even choose to think about God unless he first came into our lives. But we need to work to earn liberation from this world, because sin must be dealt with by our own actions. If we do not work to amend the damage caused by our sins, how else do we get rid of our sinful tendancies?

I am not a Christian, but I do believe that everybody is a sinner to some degree; this is undeniable. Is there one person in this world who hasn't committed sin in thought, word, or deed? Impossible!

This isn't to create guilt nor has it anything to do with a sin-measuring contest, but to show our utter helplessness before the Almighty. For instance, we lie for trivial reasons, which betrays our lack of control over our tongue. We also do crazy things for power, authority, wealth etc. Though some would say this is a 'greater' sin than the previous one, it does reveal the same truth: that man is totally helpless.

So the bottom line here is that man is so powerless that he needs the all-powerful God to shower his grace and liberate him. It is in this context that I understand the concept of sin and grace. As man cannot but sin, he would do well to rely on the Almighty to liberate him. A sinner relying upon himself to get rid of his sins would be irrational, because, if he were capable, he wouldn't be a sinner to begin with!

sanjaya
22 January 2010, 01:23 AM
Hello Rahul. You bring up some good points, and I hope that I can address them in a Hindu context. Though I am not the most knowledgable Hindu, I will try nonetheless.


I am not a Christian, but I do believe that everybody is a sinner to some degree; this is undeniable. Is there one person in this world who hasn't committed sin in thought, word, or deed? Impossible!

I fully agree that all people have committed sin, and it is for this reason that we must do Satyanarayana Puja to be freed from the consequences of our sinful deeds. But I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to suggest that mankind is intrinsically sinful. Such a theory would not explain why many people do good deeds without any expectation of reward. It is treu that there are many bad people in the world. But there are also many good people. And contrary to the teachings of Christianity, all people are not inherently bad. Would you agree with this?


This isn't to create guilt nor has it anything to do with a sin-measuring contest, but to show our utter helplessness before the Almighty. For instance, we lie for trivial reasons, which betrays our lack of control over our tongue. We also do crazy things for power, authority, wealth etc. Though some would say this is a 'greater' sin than the previous one, it does reveal the same truth: that man is totally helpless.

It is true that many people behave irrationally to obtain the fleeting benefits of authority and wealth. But as I said above, many people also do altruistic acts. All people are not equally sinful. This is the side of the coin which I believe Christianity ignores completely. With regard to our utter helplessness before God, there is a rather profound truth to be found in the Satyanarayana Katha. Even Brahma and other devas are drowned in God's maya. How can we, with our limited knowledge, hope to comprehend his various forms? Like the Sadhu, we can only pray according to our limited knowledge, and rely on God's grace. But as we know from our Scriptures and our saints, God is not some monarch or judge to be feared. He is our friend, and holds nothing against us. Where, then, is there a place for this foolish idea of the "fear of God?" Only the evil should fear God.

Returning to the issue, our helplessness before God is not a reason to neglect the importance of how we live our lives. In Christianity, God's grace alone saves, and good works are merely the evidence of that salvation. This is the "good news" (or gospel) of Christianity. But it is only good news if you accept the notion that all sin constitutes an infinite offense against God. Should God be reduced to such a petty being that he regards even the most trivial sin as an infinitely vile transgression against his sovereignty (i.e. his kingly right to rule)? Are we to reduce God to some Greek tyrant who is afraid to lose his power? Everything I know about Hinduism suggests that God is a father figure who values our good above all, not a petty king who desires his glory above all else (as if it were even possible for God to ever appear less glorious than he is).

It seems to me that we are helpless before God in the same way that children are helpless before their parents. No good parent will hold anything against his child, but will do only what is good for him or her. Our helplessness before God is not a teaching that is unique to Christianity. Anyone who believes in an omnipotent God can easily derive this fact. The only thing unique to Christianity is the belief that God's hand is eagerly on the switch to the guillotine.


So the bottom line here is that man is so powerless that he needs the all-powerful God to shower his grace and liberate him. It is in this context that I understand the concept of sin and grace. As man cannot but sin, he would do well to rely on the Almighty to liberate him.A sinner relying upon himself to get rid of his sins would be irrational, because, if he were capable, he wouldn't be a sinner to begin with!

Let's be careful about saying that man cannot but sin. This is true, but it is also true that man also has a natural tendancy to do good. Some people tend to do more good than evil, and some more evil than good. The latter of course get more attention. And maybe in this Kaliyuga, they are even more numerous. But I don't think we can summarily conclude that all men are more evil than good. I agree that reliance on God is a necessity, and that blind atheism will never suffice. But nor do I believe that the grace of God is to be used as an excuse to eschew our responsibility to practice righteousness. The idea that we can somehow transfer our sin to God, and his righteousness to us (i.e. the Christian doctrines of imputed sin and imputed righteousness) seem to lead people to abandon all responsibility for their sin. While I do not believe that man is capable of attaining moksha without God, I also do not believe that God will liberate man from this world without his active participation. In this way, both God's grace and our actions in this world play a role in our salvation.

I would be most intereste to hear what you think of all this, my friend.

rahulg
22 January 2010, 06:02 AM
I fully agree that all people have committed sin, and it is for this reason that we must do Satyanarayana Puja to be freed from the consequences of our sinful deeds. But I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to suggest that mankind is intrinsically sinful. Such a theory would not explain why many people do good deeds without any expectation of reward. It is treu that there are many bad people in the world. But there are also many good people. And contrary to the teachings of Christianity, all people are not inherently bad. Would you agree with this?

The fact that people are even capable of committing sin is proof that they're not intrinsically good. If milk is poisoned even a little, it is poison. Even people who do good have the propensity to do evil, which means the seed of evil is already there. That would make everyone a sinner (irrespective of their actions), and this isn't a judgmental thing either. Or, to give an analogy, no matter how much you improve the sewer, it'll retain its stench; that is its very nature. Humans are sinners in this sense, not because every human being has personally committed mass murder or something of the sort.



Should God be reduced to such a petty being that he regards even the most trivial sin as an infinitely vile transgression against his sovereignty (i.e. his kingly right to rule)? Are we to reduce God to some Greek tyrant who is afraid to lose his power? Everything I know about Hinduism suggests that God is a father figure who values our good above all, not a petty king who desires his glory above all else (as if it were even possible for God to ever appear less glorious than he is).

Why compare sins? Why can't we just say as long as we have sin, we won't reach Him? Whether it's a small sin or a great one, we can't reach Him as long as we're not clean. Maybe, it is to emphasize this that they say all sins must be treated in the same way...just to make sure we don't excuse certain sins and focus exclusively on others.



Let's be careful about saying that man cannot but sin. This is true, but it is also true that man also has a natural tendancy to do good.

This has been explained earlier. The very propensity to commit evil points to our sinful nature; there's no way we can get around that.


The idea that we can somehow transfer our sin to God, and his righteousness to us (i.e. the Christian doctrines of imputed sin and imputed righteousness) seem to lead people to abandon all responsibility for their sin. While I do not believe that man is capable of attaining moksha without God, I also do not believe that God will liberate man from this world without his active participation. In this way, both God's grace and our actions in this world play a role in our salvation.

One may argue that a compassionate God would rather do that than let the souls suffer through a million births performing all kinds of actions. As you can see, the argument could work both ways. If God's grace is so complicated that we must take birth again and again, and perform all sorts of austerities, then this sort of grace could be considered more torturous than punishment!

If, on the other hand, we say that God accepts us once we accept Him, that would at least make God look somewhat reasonable.

Eastern Mind
22 January 2010, 07:42 AM
Vannakam: I was reading this over and thought I'd put in my two cents on 'sin'. I think the Hindu version of sin and the Christian version are different. The Hindu concept would be more 'that (action) which leads us away from the divine'. It just doesn't have the negative stigma that Christianity has. In Hinduism, everyone (normal, non-realised beings) is clouded by the triple bondage of anava, karma, and maya. Therefore we make mistakes. Some are reborn from the devaloka. Others are reborn from the narakaloka. So yes we all make mistakes in judgment, and suffer the karmic consequences of those mistakes. Life is a training ground, and mistakes are the lessons. We have no way other than that to absolve ourselves of mistake.

This all goes back to the good-bad duality in Christianity. I don't believe in intrinsic evil. There is no absolute 'bad' as in the devil. However, I do believe in ignorance (anava) . Hindus just don't think in this dualistic way, unless of course they are partially Christianised by the western media and western thought period.

Just my two cents.

Aum Namasivaya

rahulg
22 January 2010, 09:44 AM
Vannakam: I was reading this over and thought I'd put in my two cents on 'sin'. I think the Hindu version of sin and the Christian version are different. The Hindu concept would be more 'that (action) which leads us away from the divine'. It just doesn't have the negative stigma that Christianity has. In Hinduism, everyone (normal, non-realised beings) is clouded by the triple bondage of anava, karma, and maya. Therefore we make mistakes. Some are reborn from the devaloka. Others are reborn from the narakaloka. So yes we all make mistakes in judgment, and suffer the karmic consequences of those mistakes. Life is a training ground, and mistakes are the lessons. We have no way other than that to absolve ourselves of mistake.

This all goes back to the good-bad duality in Christianity. I don't believe in intrinsic evil. There is no absolute 'bad' as in the devil. However, I do believe in ignorance (anava) . Hindus just don't think in this dualistic way, unless of course they are partially Christianised by the western media and western thought period.

Just my two cents.

Aum Namasivaya

Thanks for the interesting comments. This is another thing that has always bothered me about Hinduism, the outright rejection of duality. If we do away with good-evil duality, then what are we left with? How would one describe mass murder? How would one describe charity?

Replacing the word 'evil' with 'ignorance' doesn't cut it. Not knowing nuclear physics would make me ignorant but not evil. But committing mass murder cannot be brushed aside as ignorance; it's an evil act. Conflating the two doesn't sound right. Why is it so hard to accept that there's evil, anyway?

Eastern Mind
22 January 2010, 10:29 AM
Thanks for the interesting comments. This is another thing that has always bothered me about Hinduism, the outright rejection of duality. If we do away with good-evil duality, then what are we left with? How would one describe mass murder? How would one describe charity?

Replacing the word 'evil' with 'ignorance' doesn't cut it. Not knowing nuclear physics would make me ignorant but not evil. But committing mass murder cannot be brushed aside as ignorance; it's an evil act. Conflating the two doesn't sound right. Why is it so hard to accept that there's evil, anyway?

I gave you my comments, and I stand by them. There is no point arguing. It was just my two cents (opinion). You are welcome to your opinion. But it's just your opinion, based on your subconscious or experiences in life. As is mine. I can also say, "Why is it so hard to believe there is no intrinsic evil?" Most Hindus believe God permeates all, including murderers. I can say with utmost conviction that I personally do not believe in evil.

But hey, variety is the spice of life. If we all agreed, there would be no need for discussion at all. Yours in Peace.

Aum Namasivaya

nirotu
22 January 2010, 10:40 AM
Vannakam: I was reading this over and thought I'd put in my two cents on 'sin'. I think the Hindu version of sin and the Christian version are different. The Hindu concept would be more 'that (action) which leads us away from the divine'. It just doesn't have the negative stigma that Christianity has. In Hinduism, everyone (normal, non-realised beings) is clouded by the triple bondage of anava, karma, and maya. Therefore we make mistakes. Some are reborn from the devaloka. Others are reborn from the narakaloka. So yes we all make mistakes in judgment, and suffer the karmic consequences of those mistakes. Life is a training ground, and mistakes are the lessons. We have no way other than that to absolve ourselves of mistake.

This all goes back to the good-bad duality in Christianity. I don't believe in intrinsic evil. There is no absolute 'bad' as in the devil. However, I do believe in ignorance (anava) . Hindus just don't think in this dualistic way, unless of course they are partially Christianised by the western media and western thought period.

Just my two cents.

Aum Namasivaya

Dear EM:
Sorry, I have to disagree with you. Sin is considered as “missing the mark” or “failing to live up to the standards set by God”. The definition is true no matter which religion you adhere to. It is unfortunate that we are playing with words and semantics. Just because the word “sin” is primarily professed by Christians does not in anyway make it different than doing or referring to “bad karma”.

As Rahul so eloquently presented, you see, one does not have to be a Christian to know certain central truths of Christianity.

There is a mis-conception regarding judgment too. Many people are drawn to the magnanimous love of God, but they hesitate to acknowledge the righteousness and holiness of God. The righteousness demands that sin be punished. For God’s justice to prevail, sin and rebellion against God must be dealt with.

As Rahul points out, sin is a sin, however small or big it is. Nonetheless, God wasn't motivated to save us through pity or even a sense of obligation as our Creator. He was motivated solely by love. God loves us. Therefore, acknowledging and accepting grace is accepting God's love. Anyone who prays only to escape hell and doesn't receive God's love is missing the whole point of salvation through His grace.

Another misconception is that Grace is only bestowed upon Christians. I disagree with this notion because; the God of all Grace works in all His children, humbling the proud and exalting the humble, to make them ripe and sweet. Our task is to take hold of God’s grace to endure our afflictions with patience, without growing weary.

There is a vast difference between being saved by “good works (karma)” alone and being saved unto good works. Good works do not gain us salvation but they do affirm that salvation has been received into one's life. Good works cannot produce a new nature but a new nature should produce good works.

Therefore, there is nothing more frustrating than trying to live for God. If history is any witness, we have seen this time and again. Instead we need to recognize our weakness and let Him live through us. In return, we must acknowledge His benevolent grace working in us producing good results.

Blessings,
,

Eastern Mind
22 January 2010, 10:52 AM
Nirotu: As I indicated before, I have no wish to argue. You are entirely welcome to your beliefs. One of the beauties of Hinduism is that extension of this right. That is one of several reasons I am a Hindu, and not a Christian. Having said that, when a person of any faith mixes up their belief as if it were fact, and wants to go about convincing all other non-believing sinners who are bound to go to hell, then I politely withdraw from the conversation, having seen its futility.

Adieu my friend.

Aum Namasivaya

sunyata07
22 January 2010, 10:55 AM
If we do away with good-evil duality, then what are we left with?


Namaste Rahulg,

We would be left with Ultimate Reality, or God consciousness. Belief in any existing duality assumes there are two equal, opposing forces (in this case "good" and "evil") that are locked in an eternal struggle. It would mean that one force only exists and derives its meaning from the polar force and vice versa. These are mental constructs that we have created to make life convenient and for abstraction of thought. In our limited human perspective we have applied this not only to right and wrong, positive and negative, joy and misery but also to this concept of good and evil, as if somehow the universe is constrained by such a simplistic underlying reality! They are useful ideas, certainly, and so natural in our cognitive evolution that it is little wonder people apply this thinking to nearly every aspect of their everyday thinking: "today was hot/cold", "this makes me happy/sad". Indeed, they are helpful, but they as intrinsic forces they are not real.

Ultimate Reality cannot be contained by words or concepts. We have set parameters and labels to guide our actions in an attempt to define and understand our world, but in the end even God is beyond such concepts. That is why I can understand why Hinduism opts to describe evil actions as being rooted in ignorance - which is the real evil because it is not even conscious of itself. It is only because the doer does not yet truly understand the repercussions of his actions on other things, the relations between all things in existence; it is because he has not realised his true Self that he continues to engage in evil or cruel acts.

sanjaya
22 January 2010, 06:44 PM
The fact that people are even capable of committing sin is proof that they're not intrinsically good. If milk is poisoned even a little, it is poison. Even people who do good have the propensity to do evil, which means the seed of evil is already there. That would make everyone a sinner (irrespective of their actions), and this isn't a judgmental thing either. Or, to give an analogy, no matter how much you improve the sewer, it'll retain its stench; that is its very nature. Humans are sinners in this sense, not because every human being has personally committed mass murder or something of the sort.

My friend, this is a very Christian analogy. Like most of their doctrines, the doctrines about sin are argued from analogies and not facts. We must remember that an analogy is something that can be used to illustrate a fact, but it cannot be offered as proof. If Christians have convinced you of their beliefs via their word-pictures, I urge you to consider alternatives.

Consider, for example, that this argument can easily be reversed. The fact that humans do any good at all could just as well show that we have the seed of goodness as well. To say that we are "sinners" because we have all committed sin in our lives makes about as much sense as saying that those of us who wore diapers as infants are bedwetters to this day.

Why are we to believe that God will hold a person's sins against him when he has already mended his ways and altered his behavior? Why are we to believe that one has to convert to Christianity to be forgiven of his sin? I find nothing in Hinduism to support this belief. But if anyone knows better (as very well could be the case), please tell me.


Why compare sins? Why can't we just say as long as we have sin, we won't reach Him? Whether it's a small sin or a great one, we can't reach Him as long as we're not clean. Maybe, it is to emphasize this that they say all sins must be treated in the same way...just to make sure we don't excuse certain sins and focus exclusively on others.

To answer your questions, I believe that we must compare sins because it is obvious that there are varying degrees of sin. Mass murder is not the same as adultery. Adultery is not the same as littering. Christianity would have you believe that God sends all three types of sinners to the same hell. Does this agree with your sensibilities?

You may believe that equalizing all sins will prevent someone from excusing the lesser sins. But to test this hypothesis, you can look at the evangelical church. There are certain favorite sins that receive a lot of attention, and sins that don't. Sex is a popular one. College ministries focus most of their time on keeping their members away from pornography and sex before marriage. By no means is this a bad thing. But how often do these organizations concern themselves with the poor, or the various underdeveloped countries of the world? These sorts of things seem to take a back seat to sex. Christians even encourage one another to vote for political candidates who will protect their rights to accumulate wealth at the expense of the poor. And given the number of Christian sex-scandals, the system doesn't appear to work very well. I find it quite ironic that with far less lecturing, Indian Hindus have fewer problems as far as sins of a sexual nature go. I don't believe that this method of equalizing all sin does a very good job of reducing immorality.


This has been explained earlier. The very propensity to commit evil points to our sinful nature; there's no way we can get around that.

But as I said above, this theory does nothing to explain the propensity of many people to do good. It only works if you accept the analogy of sin as poison in the water.


One may argue that a compassionate God would rather do that than let the souls suffer through a million births performing all kinds of actions. As you can see, the argument could work both ways. If God's grace is so complicated that we must take birth again and again, and perform all sorts of austerities, then this sort of grace could be considered more torturous than punishment!

As long as we're speaking from our personal definitons of compassion, is the threat of an eternal hell compassionate? I would gladly take ten thousand birth from the wombs of asuras before an eternity of torment. I find Sri Krishna's means of dispensing grace to be far superior to the Christian God's.


If, on the other hand, we say that God accepts us once we accept Him, that would at least make God look somewhat reasonable.

In some sense, isn't required to be reasonable, since he answers to no one. Christians insist that God is reasonable, and justify it by saying that everyone is deserving of hell, thus implying that to save anyone at all is gracious. Since they offer an explanation, I think it is open to criticism.

In Christianity, being accepted by God isn't as simple as accepting him. Specifically, you must accept Jesus. This is quite unreasonable, not because of any wrongdoing on the part of Jesus, but because many people are not familiar with this particular incarnation of God. Not only this, but accepting Jesus is insufficient. Christians require that you accept specific doctrines about Jesus, and that you convert to Christianity. Allow me to pose this question to you as a fellow Hindu: is it reasonable that Western Christians acquire a free pass to heaven simply by obeying their parents and following in their devotion, whereas we Hindus are required to denounce our parents, our culture, and everything that makes us distinctively Indian, in order to practice Christianity and live a Western lifestyle? As long as we are assuming that God is reasonable, I think the Christian theory of salvation must be ruled out.


Thanks for the interesting comments. This is another thing that has always bothered me about Hinduism, the outright rejection of duality. If we do away with good-evil duality, then what are we left with? How would one describe mass murder? How would one describe charity?

Replacing the word 'evil' with 'ignorance' doesn't cut it. Not knowing nuclear physics would make me ignorant but not evil. But committing mass murder cannot be brushed aside as ignorance; it's an evil act. Conflating the two doesn't sound right. Why is it so hard to accept that there's evil, anyway?

Personally I believe that there is a distinction between good and evil. As an aside, I would like to highlight a positive aspect of Hinduism. I don't personally share EM's or Sunyata's view on this issue. But we don't go around referring to one another as damned heretics. If you become a Christian, you must "fight the good fight" of the faith, which involves defending the faith against heresies. In Christianity, a person who publically denies the infallibility of the Bible, the doctrine of creationism, etc., will be swiftly disciplined. Entire books have been written about these two issues alone, condemning other Christians who don't share the orthodox view. In Hinduism we can get along in spite of differences of opinion. As EM mentioned, we even celebrate them! Christians have fought entire wars over differences of doctrine. There have been wars between Catholics and Protestants in England, political upheavals over Calvinism in Europe, and persecution of anabaptists by the Reformers and Catholics, just to name a few. And these were over differences of doctrine like the nature of the Christian eucharist, or the means by which to administer baptism. I doubt you'll ever see a Hindu killing for Vaishnavism.

sanjaya
22 January 2010, 07:09 PM
Hi Nirotu. I hope you will not be offended by my comments thus far, or the ones to follow. While I believe that sincerety when expessing one's belief is important, I do respect people regardless of religion, and it's my hope that we can have a discussion with that spirit in mind. With that said, I would like to comment on some of the things you've said.


Sorry, I have to disagree with you. Sin is considered as “missing the mark” or “failing to live up to the standards set by God”. The definition is true no matter which religion you adhere to. It is unfortunate that we are playing with words and semantics. Just because the word “sin” is primarily professed by Christians does not in anyway make it different than doing or referring to “bad karma”.

I believe the distinction is more than mere semantics. The above is an etymological argument. I'm sure that sin is derive from some Hebrew word that refers to poor marksmanship. But the way in which the Bible uses the word paints a different picture. To make a theological argument because of the word's etymology is like saying that physicists who talk about nuclei are referring to genetic material (the phrase "nuclear fission" is derived from the biological principle of binary fission). The Bible refers to sin as something so terrible that it must be atoned for by the death of God's only Son, or paid for by an eternity in hell. Do you believe that the Christian God would send someone to eternal hell for missing the mark?


As Rahul so eloquently presented, you see, one does not have to be a Christian to know certain central truths of Christianity.

Does this imply that Christianity is a true religion which is written into our very being? Or is it simply a consequence of the fact that Christian nations have colonized most parts of the world, and thus injected a Christian worldview into most cultures? Indeed, the fact that I'm talking about sin instead of dharma and adharma is probably a consequence of my being born and raised in the West. Most Hindu Scriptures I've read refer to "sin" in the English translations, but this is not what you'd find in the original Sanskrit. I think the fact that we speak the same language (in terms of Christian doctrine) can probably be ascribed to the popularity of Christianity in the world.


There is a mis-conception regarding judgment too. Many people are drawn to the magnanimous love of God, but they hesitate to acknowledge the righteousness and holiness of God. The righteousness demands that sin be punished. For God’s justice to prevail, sin and rebellion against God must be dealt with.

I agree that it's a bit foolish to cherry-pick the parts of the Christian religion that one likes while discarding the rest. But I personally would have to reject all of these Christian concepts: the magnanimous love of God, and the righteousness and holiness of God. Don't get me wrong, I agree that God is loving, righteous, and holy. But I don't see anything loving about God saving a person from hell for mere intellectual assent to a doctrine. Yes, Christianity teaches that one must also repent of all sin, trust wholly in Jesus, and be sanctified. But repentance and sanctification can happen without converting to Christianity. When I point this out to many Christians, they tell me that without faith in Jesus, such repentance is not genuine. Perhaps I'm thinking too much like a scientist, but I find this claim untestable. There are plenty of non-Christians who live the same righteous lives as Christians. I don't know whose righteousness is real and whose is disingenuous, but the only detectable difference I see is intellectual assent to the belief that Christ's righteousness is imputed to the believer by faith in him.

I also reject the Christian definitions of God's righteousness and holiness, beause I don't subscribe to the law-court analogy (as I mentioned in an earlier post, I find this analogy to not even be self-consistent). I do not believe that God's holiness is dependent on him dealing punishment for every sin that has been committed, even when the sinner has already repented. Thus, I don't believe that there must be a substitute for sin. Can you offer a convincing argument as to why I should believe this? I would prefer one that either doesn't use the law-court analogy, or one that uses it consistently (i.e. there has to be a figure that corresponds to the substitute for sin, who might exist in a real court of law). This is not rhetoric; my question is genuine, and I'd like to hear your answer.


As Rahul points out, sin is a sin, however small or big it is. Nonetheless, God wasn't motivated to save us through pity or even a sense of obligation as our Creator. He was motivated solely by love. God loves us. Therefore, acknowledging and accepting grace is accepting God's love. Anyone who prays only to escape hell and doesn't receive God's love is missing the whole point of salvation through His grace.

But a Hindu can just as easily claim that God saves us because he loves us. In the Kaliyuga, God has given us the Satyanarayana Puja to receive absolution from sin. As Lord Vishnu told Narada Muni, he has done this because he doesn't want man to suffer as a result of our past sins. And the Hindu theology makes no mention of treating all sin equally. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on my objections to the equalization of all sin, which I've described at length.


Another misconception is that Grace is only bestowed upon Christians. I disagree with this notion because; the God of all Grace works in all His children, humbling the proud and exalting the humble, to make them ripe and sweet. Our task is to take hold of God’s grace to endure our afflictions with patience, without growing weary.

Perhaps you could explain this in more detail. Do you believe that one can be saved without being a Christian? I know this is a popular belief among liberal Christians. It isn't consistent with orthodox Christianity, but I would like to hear why you disagree with those people, if indeed you do.


There is a vast difference between being saved by “good works (karma)” alone and being saved unto good works. Good works do not gain us salvation but they do affirm that salvation has been received into one's life. Good works cannot produce a new nature but a new nature should produce good works.

Again, I find this to be an untestable claim. How does one explain non-Christians who appear more righteous than some Christians?


Therefore, there is nothing more frustrating than trying to live for God. If history is any witness, we have seen this time and again. Instead we need to recognize our weakness and let Him live through us. In return, we must acknowledge His benevolent grace working in us producing good results.

I'm not sure that history attests to this fact. I know many Hindus who have gained great fulfillment from doing regular devotion to God and pleasing him with worship and good deeds. In fact I hope to one day be such person. The problem I find with Christianity is that you never know if your intellectual assent to the doctrine is sufficient for salvation. Good works are measurable, but assent to doctrine isn't.

Anyway, I look forward to hearing from you, and I hope that I have not caused any offense.

rahulg
22 January 2010, 11:41 PM
Consider, for example, that this argument can easily be reversed. The fact that humans do any good at all could just as well show that we have the seed of goodness as well. To say that we are "sinners" because we have all committed sin in our lives makes about as much sense as saying that those of us who wore diapers as infants are bedwetters to this day.

I think we're going in circles, so let me put it this way: what does it mean to be sinless? To be devoid of all sin, meaning there shouldn't even be a trace of it. Is man sinless, then? Obviously not, and it's the height of arrogance to claim otherwise. That he can do good deeds doesn't change the fact that he's NOT sinless. A mass murderer can do good deeds...does he cease to be a sinner owing to his good deeds? It's in this context one says man is a sinner, and I see no contradiction here.



To answer your questions, I believe that we must compare sins because it is obvious that there are varying degrees of sin. Mass murder is not the same as adultery. Adultery is not the same as littering. Christianity would have you believe that God sends all three types of sinners to the same hell. Does this agree with your sensibilities?

Even if one accepts the argument that sin A is greater than sin B, the fact remains that man is a sinner. And, a sinner has to repent and seek God's mercy, not indulge in a sin-measuring contest.


As long as we're speaking from our personal definitons of compassion, is the threat of an eternal hell compassionate? I would gladly take ten thousand birth from the wombs of asuras before an eternity of torment. I find Sri Krishna's means of dispensing grace to be far superior to the Christian God's.

If we accept God as all-knowing, then surely He must know who deserves what?



Personally I believe that there is a distinction between good and evil. As an aside, I would like to highlight a positive aspect of Hinduism. I don't personally share EM's or Sunyata's view on this issue. But we don't go around referring to one another as damned heretics. If you become a Christian, you must "fight the good fight" of the faith, which involves defending the faith against heresies. In Christianity, a person who publically denies the infallibility of the Bible, the doctrine of creationism, etc., will be swiftly disciplined. Entire books have been written about these two issues alone, condemning other Christians who don't share the orthodox view. In Hinduism we can get along in spite of differences of opinion. As EM mentioned, we even celebrate them! Christians have fought entire wars over differences of doctrine. There have been wars between Catholics and Protestants in England, political upheavals over Calvinism in Europe, and persecution of anabaptists by the Reformers and Catholics, just to name a few. And these were over differences of doctrine like the nature of the Christian eucharist, or the means by which to administer baptism. I doubt you'll ever see a Hindu killing for Vaishnavism.

This is basically a political problem, not a religious one. I am not talking about differences in opinion at all but the outright rejection of evil in this world by doing verbal acrobatics (calling it karma, ignorance etc.). This is not only illogical but dangerous to the individual and society.

atanu
23 January 2010, 12:36 AM
Dear EM:
Sorry, I have to disagree with you. Sin is considered as “missing the mark” or “failing to live up to the standards set by God”. The definition is true no matter which religion you adhere to. It is unfortunate that we are playing with words and semantics. Just because the word “sin” is primarily professed by Christians does not in anyway make it different than doing or referring to “bad karma”.

As Rahul so eloquently presented, you see, one does not have to be a Christian to know certain central truths of Christianity.

There is a mis-conception regarding judgment too. Many people are drawn to the magnanimous love of God, but they hesitate to acknowledge the righteousness and holiness of God. The righteousness demands that sin be punished. For God’s justice to prevail, sin and rebellion against God must be dealt with.

As Rahul points out, sin is a sin, however small or big it is. Nonetheless, God wasn't motivated to save us through pity or even a sense of obligation as our Creator. He was motivated solely by love. God loves us. Therefore, acknowledging and accepting grace is accepting God's love. Anyone who prays only to escape hell and doesn't receive God's love is missing the whole point of salvation through His grace.

Another misconception is that Grace is only bestowed upon Christians. I disagree with this notion because; the God of all Grace works in all His children, humbling the proud and exalting the humble, to make them ripe and sweet. Our task is to take hold of God’s grace to endure our afflictions with patience, without growing weary.

There is a vast difference between being saved by “good works (karma)” alone and being saved unto good works. Good works do not gain us salvation but they do affirm that salvation has been received into one's life. Good works cannot produce a new nature but a new nature should produce good works.

Therefore, there is nothing more frustrating than trying to live for God. If history is any witness, we have seen this time and again. Instead we need to recognize our weakness and let Him live through us. In return, we must acknowledge His benevolent grace working in us producing good results.

Blessings,
,


Namaste Nirotu,

The most common meaning of Sin is: transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.

The connotation is not incorrect yet limited as we will see below. I agree with EM and, as usual, I disagree with your view, which is of one static plane. Though I will not continue the argumentation against faith and beliefs, but let me point out a few fallacies.

I can never understand why a God who is omniscient and also omnipotent allows the Evil at all, unless evil is just a name (but with wrong connotation) of a natural tendency arising out of a dualistic view "I am this body and that is the world with other bodies". This view alone leads to all mistakes that are called sins by the so-called pious ones who are usually hard of heart and thus bigger sinners.

The usual answer from christians (and some Hindus also) is that God gives freedom of choice and the pious are saved and the sinners are condemned to hell. This is naive answer, since God being omniscient and omnipotent there should arise no such choice -- unless it is His play alone. Did God not know that Adam would enjoy the material life?

Common christian view, as usual, depicts a single plane of consciousness and fails to address the fact that one's world view itself is a product of one's own state of consciousness -- the attractions and the aversions. It fails to consider the fact that an evil person may become saint or a saint may become evil. Common christian view fails to take into account the progress of enlightenment. It fails to take into account that God Himself is seated within every being who enjoys the joys of duality. The enjoyments become painful, eventually, for the ego and surely not for the immanent God.

Evil or Sin are words which have negative connotation and those negatives are are surely real. Hindu teachings do not contradict this. But these are words signify natural tendencies of separateness/egotism, which are absent in the Atman itself. Thus for us the word 'evil' is offshoot of the more fundamental problem of ignorance.

Christianity as is being understood and taught today is not simple but, IMO, is naive.

Om Namah Shivaya

shian
23 January 2010, 01:24 AM
what the one Christian friend say :

"You better do anything can give you pleasure in this life, why you do fast, why not use drug, why not go to disco everydays etc. Because without believe in Jesus, your fast and anything of cultivation is nothing. So do you want in this life do fast and reject any wordly pleasure and then after die you will burn in hell."

Because what, because this believe, without Jesus is no heaven.

so , from this view, i think , what christian doctrine do to human mind ? because they all belive, without receive Jesus as God you all will not enter heaven.
so in other ways, they think without Jesus whatever a kind things you do is nothing.

And than , if someone is receive baptist in christian, they also curse their ancestor.
Because how come such ancestor know about Jesus ? How come their grandpa and grandma who lived in different culture can easy receive Jesus as God ? so if they entering christian, they believe a person who not receive Jesus is burn in hell, so ? what about their ancestor ? also burn in hell ?

why we must curse our ancestor to receive someone who we cant give proof if this person is the creator ?

we know and have proof about our parent is true creator of us.
what happen if their parents in this life cant receive Jesus ? do they will say parents (the true creator who nurse us and give everythings to us) is burn in hell only for receive someone who is only "belived" as our creator .

rahulg
23 January 2010, 07:21 AM
This is naive answer, since God being omniscient and omnipotent there should arise no such choice -- unless it is His play alone. Did God not know that Adam would enjoy the material life?

If God is omniscient, does that mean man shouldn't have free will?:confused: Man must be free to love God -- or not. But it should be his choosing, not God's compulsion.


Evil or Sin are words which have negative connotation and those negatives are are surely real. Hindu teachings do not contradict this. But these are words signify natural tendencies of separateness/egotism, which are absent in the Atman itself. Thus for us the word 'evil' is offshoot of the more fundamental problem of ignorance.

In a circuitous way, you're saying that God is sinless and it is man who commits sin; only you have called it egotism, because you seem to be allergic to the word 'sin.'

jaggin
23 January 2010, 08:04 AM
Namaste jaggin,

These things go on forever without resolution.

You have written very good things, especially "the spirit was breathed in to the body and it became a living soul". Also good is "Our spirits are not exactly like God's spirit, He is infinite but we ae finite. I have a separate consciousness from God. "

Till this there is no disagreement. But further Hindu scriptures teach one to strive and know the unbroken, single, unborn spirit in one's heart. I agree that 95% of Hindus believe and stress on the points that you stress -- that we are separate. But we are actually not seprate since the HOLY SPIRIT is never divisible.

Moreover, what does it mean when the Bible teaches "Be ye perfect as thy Father in Heaven is"? can there be two different types of perfectness? Anyway, IMO, these are not for arguments, since it is the HOLY SPIRIT that controls but those strong of ego sense will not even get the hint. Rather they will murder Jesus and then pick selectively to do mischief as per the ego drive.

Om Namah Shivaya

This is a splendid concept except for one thing: Getting to know him does not take striving but comes as a free gift (Grace). The day I stopped striving and started receiving was the best day of my life.

Perhaps I should have used the word individual instead of separate. It is true that God is always present. The separation is one of consciousness not of distance.

A person can attempt to be perfect according to Dharma, which is not an exact equivalence and each religion's Dharma has been extended by God to satisfy cultural needs. The book I am reading now talks about how God does not deal with Christians culturally but personally. On the site Religious Forums I am now discussing an age old controversy in the Christian church of which holds sway - Law or Grace. Law (Dharma) is cultural; Grace is personal (Although there are instances of Grace in a cultural context in the Bible)

There are two egos per person: the ego of the mind and the ego of the spirit. It is spiritual ego that wishes to strive for perfection, the mind ego might pretend to strive for perfection but only wishes to make a good appearance. In Grace there is no ego since everything is done by the Holy Spirit. (Or as the Apostle Paul put it "so that no man can boast", Eph 2: 8,9)

jaggin
23 January 2010, 08:59 AM
what the one Christian friend say :

"You better do anything can give you pleasure in this life, why you do fast, why not use drug, why not go to disco everydays etc. Because without believe in Jesus, your fast and anything of cultivation is nothing. So do you want in this life do fast and reject any wordly pleasure and then after die you will burn in hell."

Because what, because this believe, without Jesus is no heaven.

so , from this view, i think , what christian doctrine do to human mind ? because they all belive, without receive Jesus as God you all will not enter heaven.
so in other ways, they think without Jesus whatever a kind things you do is nothing.

And than , if someone is receive baptist in christian, they also curse their ancestor.
Because how come such ancestor know about Jesus ? How come their grandpa and grandma who lived in different culture can easy receive Jesus as God ? so if they entering christian, they believe a person who not receive Jesus is burn in hell, so ? what about their ancestor ? also burn in hell ?

why we must curse our ancestor to receive someone who we cant give proof if this person is the creator ?

we know and have proof about our parent is true creator of us.
what happen if their parents in this life cant receive Jesus ? do they will say parents (the true creator who nurse us and give everythings to us) is burn in hell only for receive someone who is only "belived" as our creator .

A Christian recommending sin is not worthy of the appelation. Jesus asked is God, god of only the living or also of the dead. So the God who sees all rewards or punishes according to a persons actions (and thoughts). So the problem isn't that you couldn't be rewarded for good actions but that your actions will be sinful and require punishment. How will you escape punishment? The answer is simple: don't sin. The problem is that without Jesus you will sin. I don't know any way to get to Heaven without Jesus. Hell appears to be a last day judgement.

God forbid! One of the ten commandments is to honor your mother and father. Roy Masters works hard on this issue. Our mothers and fathers were sinners. How can we be reconciled to that fact? Jesus put it this way to me on the problem of other people's sin: "Are you part of the problem or part of the solution?" So we honor our mothers and fathers not because they were perfect but because they were mothers and fathers.

Again I believe their concept is incorrect. I believe in re-incarnation which means that they are required to spend more time in this evil world just like you and me. In the last days you will have the option to accept Jesus and enter into a good world or be absent from life (although not in Heaven). Hell is one of the possibilities for those not going into the good world.

I would not say that. I believe that everyone will have had a chance to hear about Jesus before the end comes. Unfortunately, although you can influence others for good, you can't decide for them, you can only decide for yourself.

smaranam
23 January 2010, 03:31 PM
The answer is simple: don't sin. The problem is that without Jesus you will sin. I don't know any way to get to Heaven without Jesus. Hell appears to be a last day judgement.

In the last days you will have the option to accept Jesus and enter into a good world or be absent from life (although not in Heaven). Hell is one of the possibilities for those not going into the good world.[/COLOR][/B]

I would not say that. I believe that everyone will have had a chance to hear about Jesus before the end comes. Unfortunately, although you can influence others for good, you can't decide for them, you can only decide for yourself.

Namaste

I presume, being a Christian of deep faith, you know what you are saying while using the words Jesus , heaven and hell.

Some of our other friends on either side of the fence - Christian and Non-christian,
may have a narrower view of "Jesus" and hence all the contradictions, disagreements, unnecessary dogmas.

How do we define Jesus, heaven and hell ?

Jesus can't possibly be just the historical body, person from Nazreth.
Jesus to me is the spirit , the grace-of-Jesus, the AtmA.

Since AtmA is ONE, Jesus and ParamAtmA , His Father, and all devtaas are interconected. Grace coming from one is grace coming from all.

sanjaya
23 January 2010, 03:57 PM
Hi Rahul, thank you for your response. Please allow me to comment on what you've said.


I think we're going in circles, so let me put it this way: what does it mean to be sinless? To be devoid of all sin, meaning there shouldn't even be a trace of it. Is man sinless, then? Obviously not, and it's the height of arrogance to claim otherwise. That he can do good deeds doesn't change the fact that he's NOT sinless. A mass murderer can do good deeds...does he cease to be a sinner owing to his good deeds? It's in this context one says man is a sinner, and I see no contradiction here.

We may be going in circles, so for the purposes of this discussion let's stipulate to this "all men are sinners" theory, and get to the root of the issue. Even if all men are guilty of sin, how is Christianity the answer to this problem? Lord Vishnu promises that if we do Satyanarayana Puja every month on the full moon day, then he will take our sins away. And this is not a "works based" solution to sin (to put it in very Christianized language), anymore than assent to Christian doctrine would be. Christians will say that their religion is the key to absolution from sin because the Bible says so, but we have our own Scriptures that make the same claim. What compelling reason is there to believe in Christianity?


If we accept God as all-knowing, then surely He must know who deserves what?

Sure, but this presupposes that we know what God is telling us. Christians say that you will go to hell if you don't believe in their religion, and they might (correctly) say that it's God's right to save and condemn whoever he wants for whatever reason he chooses. The problem isn't in the level of authority they assume God has. The problem is that we don't believe in the Bible. In order for us to believe that the Christian doctrine of salvation is true, we must first accept the Bible as truth. How do you determine whether a book is of divine origin? Since Christians don't believe that God incarnates himself as a man on a regular basis, all we have to go on is the book itself. We must use our reason to determine what a divinely inspired book would look like and then see if the Bible meets these expectations. Personally I find nothing in the Bible to suggest a divine origin. Christian apologetics is so shoddy and intellectually dishonest that it doesn't do a very good job of compelling me.


This is basically a political problem, not a religious one. I am not talking about differences in opinion at all but the outright rejection of evil in this world by doing verbal acrobatics (calling it karma, ignorance etc.). This is not only illogical but dangerous to the individual and society.

Is it really dangerous to society? Many Hindus don't believe in good and evil, but very rarely do you see a Hindu killing in the name of his religion. I'm not saying that I don't believe in absolute good and evil. But one potential problem is that people will tend to regard themselves as good, and will regard those of other religions as evil. In every European Christian crusade, the crusaders were alwas portrayed as good, and the enemy as evil. In the hands of Christians, this doctrine can be used for all manners of evil. It's ironic that ardent belief in evil often leads to evil. Personally, I care more about a person's behavior than his philosophical views.


God forbid! One of the ten commandments is to honor your mother and father. Roy Masters works hard on this issue. Our mothers and fathers were sinners. How can we be reconciled to that fact? Jesus put it this way to me on the problem of other people's sin: "Are you part of the problem or part of the solution?" So we honor our mothers and fathers not because they were perfect but because they were mothers and fathers.

I think his point is identical to the one I made earlier. Western Christians seem to have a free pass with regard to salvation. For a Westerner born in an evangelical Christian family, placing one's faith in Christ is a very simple matter of trusting in Jesus and practicing the family religion. Even a Western liberal Christian has an easy time converting to the evangelical version of his faith, since he is not really leaving his family's faith at all. Not so for Hindus. We are expected to abandon the religion of our family and ancestors, believe that they are condemned to hell, and unite ourselves to a church filled with culturally foreign people. Essentially, we are asked to make a near infinitely more radical change in lifestyle than Western Christians. Do you see the asymmetry here? Honoring your father and mother is not possible when you reject the faith in which they have raised you. The claim that all mothers and fathers are also sinners is a non-answer to my charge that Western Christians get to be good sons to their fathers by obeying their directives to attend church, whereas Hindus are expected to be bad sons by rejecting our fathers' devotion to the Lord, and regarding our families' murthis as "worthless idols." This is why Hindus are so opposed to missionary activity and conversion to Christianity. It destroys the strong family bond that is central in Indian culture. You might be tempted to respond that "we must obey God rather than man." But as I said above, you'd first need to convince me that the Bible really is the word of God.

sanjaya
23 January 2010, 04:13 PM
Jesus can't possibly be just the historical body, person from Nazreth.
Jesus to me is the spirit , the grace-of-Jesus, the AtmA.

Since AtmA is ONE, Jesus and ParamAtmA , His Father, and all devtaas are interconected. Grace coming from one is grace coming from all.

Despite my lack of anything good to say about Christianity, I feel the same way about Jesus. This, however, isn't enough for evangelical Christians. They want conversion. Why, I wonder, do they require us to denounce Hinduism and adopt Christian lifestyles?

smaranam
23 January 2010, 04:40 PM
Despite my lack of anything good to say about Christianity, I feel the same way about Jesus. This, however, isn't enough for evangelical Christians. They want conversion. Why, I wonder, do they require us to denounce Hinduism and adopt Christian lifestyles?

Namaste Sanjaya

Yes, I know what you mean. If the evangelical Christians or any fundamentalists insist on a narrower view , why worry about what they say ? How does their requiring any adherence from us make any difference to the Truth ?

Also, how can they say a Hindu way of life is not Christian ?

We only need the Absolute Truth , one without a second,
and that is of the Sacchidananda AtmA.

Aham Brahmasmi.

We can remove ignorance of our fellow Hindus, especially the vulnerable younger ones, who are in potential danger of being brainwashed into Dogmas.

We can help those who come to the door of Sanatana Dharma. Not much else needs to be done from our side :)

We are fortunate to not be in the dilemma.

If someone knowingly embraces Jesus's teachings, there is nothing wrong as long as they truly stick to the ways of the AtmA, which we find more frequently on the Sanatana Dharma side.

I truly appreciate many things Jesus taught.

I am the way the truth and the life. This is the definition of Jesus the world needs to know. Jesus == way,truth,life.

praNAm

satay
23 January 2010, 04:41 PM
namaskar,
'Disobedience' is 'implied' in free will. If Bible god didn't want disobedience then he shouldn't have given free will and instead made robots without free will. By giving free will, bible god introduced a chance, a probablity of adam not choosing to love him. And in fact, Adam did do exactly that. So it is not adam's fault but Bible god's fault to begin with.

God's punishing people, crying foul, calling it sin after giving free will to people and if they happen to not choose in favour of god makes him a sadist. For this reason, we hindus shun this type of sadist god.

If you don't want disobedience then shouldn't have given us free will and don't cry foul if we don't vote in your favour.:rolleyes:

rahulg
23 January 2010, 09:47 PM
namaskar,
'Disobedience' is 'implied' in free will. If Bible god didn't want disobedience then he shouldn't have given free will and instead made robots without free will. By giving free will, bible god introduced a chance, a probablity of adam not choosing to love him. And in fact, Adam did do exactly that. So it is not adam's fault but Bible god's fault to begin with.

God's punishing people, crying foul, calling it sin after giving free will to people and if they happen to not choose in favour of god makes him a sadist. For this reason, we hindus shun this type of sadist god.

If you don't want disobedience then shouldn't have given us free will and don't cry foul if we don't vote in your favour.:rolleyes:

I'd be careful before making such comments because Christians could say the same thing about us.

In Hinduism, we're supposed to be Brahman. But since we're caught in maya, we've forgotten that we're Brahman and so we have to take birth countless times in countless different species (from amoeba to human!) until we get rid of maya. Sounds like punishment to me.

And since this punishment is imposed on us by Brahman (and Brahman happens to be our true selves), we're in effect punishing ourselves for not being ourselves! This sounds like masochism.

For this reason, I wouldn't judge Christians on this matter, because our case is quite as fragile.

sanjaya
23 January 2010, 11:54 PM
Namaste Sanjaya

Yes, I know what you mean. If the evangelical Christians or any fundamentalists insist on a narrower view , why worry about what they say ? How does their requiring any adherence from us make any difference to the Truth ?

The way this conversion obsession works is interesting. Christians believe that they are conveying a great gift to us. Imagine it: if you knew that all humans are destined for hell, but you knew a way out, wouldn't you joyfully tell everyone else? But the problem is that a lot of people (including Hindus) don't buy into the initial assumption that all humans are destined for hell. So when we refuse their gift, their joy turns into contempt for us. The Jews made the mistake of failing to convert to Christianity. Look what the Christians have done to them over the past two thousand years. A vibrant and culturally rich people have been reduced largely to jaded atheists who believe that God has abandoned them to slaughter. The same might have happened to us if the medieval church made their way to India more quickly.


Also, how can they say a Hindu way of life is not Christian ?

To them it doesn't matter that we worship God with devotion, that we dedicate our lives to him, and that we practice a code of strong morality. As long as we fail to join their chuch and assent to their doctrines, I suppose that we are just idol worshipers lost in darkness.


We can remove ignorance of our fellow Hindus, especially the vulnerable younger ones, who are in potential danger of being brainwashed into Dogmas.

We can help those who come to the door of Sanatana Dharma. Not much else needs to be done from our side :)

This is a good point, and this is why I post about Christianity as often as I do. I'm very concerned about Hindus who come to the United States to study at universites, only to be sucked into Christian ministries via "friendship evangelism," and ultimately converted. If I can convince college-aged Hindus here to not convert or even participate in these Christian social activities (which are really just conversion attempts), then I will feel that the time I spend here is valuable.



If someone knowingly embraces Jesus's teachings, there is nothing wrong as long as they truly stick to the ways of the AtmA, which we find more frequently on the Sanatana Dharma side.

I truly appreciate many things Jesus taught.

I believe you're quite right. Even the canonical gospels portray Jesus as teaching largely about care for the poor and proper treatment of our fellow man. I'm surprised that the Christian political agenda is so antithetical to this.


I'd be careful before making such comments because Christians could say the same thing about us.

In Hinduism, we're supposed to be Brahman. But since we're caught in maya, we've forgotten that we're Brahman and so we have to take birth countless times in countless different species (from amoeba to human!) until we get rid of maya. Sounds like punishment to me.

And since this punishment is imposed on us by Brahman (and Brahman happens to be our true selves), we're in effect punishing ourselves for not being ourselves! This sounds like masochism.

For this reason, I wouldn't judge Christians on this matter, because our case is quite as fragile.

I feel that this does not accurately represent Hinduism. But in the interest of focusing on the important issue, I'll get down to brass tacks here: namely the reason why I believe Hindus should never convert to Christianity. Christians are distinctive from Hindus in that they actively entice others to convert. When we say no, we ought to give a reason as to why. Thus, it's important to point to all of the logical flaws and immoral teachings in Christianity. The soundness of Hinduism is irrelevant here, because pointing to flaws in Hinduism does nothing to strengthen the case for conversion to Christianity. To do otherwise is like arguing that we should consume trans fat because cyanide is unhealthy.

The Christian ministries' claims of multiculturalism are rather deceptive. Make no mistake: converting to Christianity means giving up a cultural trait that is distinctively Indian. Christianity is, and always has been, a Western religion. It will require you to adopt an entirely new lifestyle. You said that our case is fragile. But I would respond: since when were we required to make any defense for our faith? It's enough, I think, to practice our religion and be left in peace. If you are considering becoming a Christian, I hope that you will reconsider. I've studied their religion in detail, and found nothing of spiritual value that can't already be had in Hinduism.

Sudarshan
24 January 2010, 12:02 AM
Just a few comments on the role of grace and effort in this thread.

Now there are two perspectives to look from. One from that of God and one from the human side.

God is all knowing and knows and sees all past, present and future. There is nothing a human being is going to change by his effort because things happen exactly as known to the Almighty. If there were any scope for probabiilities, the Almighty would cease to be omniscient. So everything is deterministic if one has to admit God to be all knowing.

From the human side, we have limited knowledge. We see everything happening due to a mixture of determinism and probability. We say that "If I study well I would pass". But God's consciousness does not think like this and his will, effort,knowledge are eternal and not made in time. From God's own persprctive, his grace is not conferred to us based on our will or efforts. His grace was always available to us and we only had to opt for it. In this sense we say that God's grace is truely causeless because God never takes any decision within the adjunct called Time.

We cannot discount the human side of things just because the ALmighty sees Reality very differently from us. Infact, God sees only himself - this is the Absolute truth. But the world he fashioned out of himself presents to us not the Absolute truth where we have to abide by certain laws until we get to the Absolute truth. Grace is not readily available here - it is not difficult to prove this. The world we live in is mixed with immense falsehood where we must learn to separate truth from the false to avail of the grace of God. It does take human effort to do this, otherwise all of us would be saints right now. Human effort lies in taking to the path of sattva and avoiding rajas and tamas. Whenever the human is pulled down by the weight of his karma into rajas and tamas, he must cling to the hand of grace and never let it go!

Saints dont need the grace of God, they have already attained him. It is the sinners who need the grace of God and it does not need perfection on our part to seek his grace. But we should we humble when we seek that grace. We must not say "I did this, I did that.., please grace me!!". Gods grace comes down upon one who has shed his ego and one who is not asking for any reward, not even the reward of heaven or moxa. A worst sinner can be redeemed by giving up his "I" ness. Human effort is needed but the very effort we take must be considered God's grace for it to be fruitful. But grace is not meant to be used as an excuse for being lazy - we have to do our duty and God will do the rest.

Sudarshan
24 January 2010, 01:32 AM
Don't worry; I am not at all considering such a thing. As a human being, I feel that Jesus' teachings are simple and based on love and peace. Hinduism, on the other hand, seems vague and confusing, with multiple gods, strange customs, karma, reincarnation (the very idea that you have to keep taking birth until god is pleased is quite frightening!). It's a matter of being honest and admitting certain things; that's all. That doesn't mean I am giving up one religion for another.



Hinduism is a big university, teaching all classes and subjects from kindergarden to the doctorate level. Needless to say, it may appear vague and confusing to the uninitiated. Thus Hinduism has a variety of beliefs, traditions, customs, Gods etc each serving to the necessity of different individuals. Not all of us learn the same thing in every class and course!!


Christianity, unlike Hinduism does not cover all aspects of the university of religion and has courses only for some classes and subjects - and may appear simple. Primary school arithmetic is very simple to learn too....

You have used emotions to judge the relative merits and demerits of religions. You have mentioned "fright" as the cause of your rejecting theories like karma and reincarnation. Our being afraid of certain things is not proof of their not being the truth. If that were the case, the doctrine of original sin and eternal damnation need be rejected outright because they are downright fightening. The concept of God as creator needs to be rejected because the world itself looks very frightening everyday ( with dozens of suicide bombings every week).

It's a matter of being honest and admitting certain things!

atanu
24 January 2010, 01:37 AM
This is a splendid concept except for one thing: Getting to know him does not take striving but comes as a free gift (Grace). The day I stopped striving and started receiving was the best day of my life.

Perhaps I should have used the word individual instead of separate. It is true that God is always present. The separation is one of consciousness not of distance.

A person can attempt to be perfect according to Dharma, which is not an exact equivalence and each religion's Dharma has been extended by God to satisfy cultural needs. The book I am reading now talks about how God does not deal with Christians culturally but personally. On the site Religious Forums I am now discussing an age old controversy in the Christian church of which holds sway - Law or Grace. Law (Dharma) is cultural; Grace is personal (Although there are instances of Grace in a cultural context in the Bible)

There are two egos per person: the ego of the mind and the ego of the spirit. It is spiritual ego that wishes to strive for perfection, the mind ego might pretend to strive for perfection but only wishes to make a good appearance. In Grace there is no ego since everything is done by the Holy Spirit. (Or as the Apostle Paul put it "so that no man can boast", Eph 2: 8,9)

Namaste Jaggin,

In Grace there is no ego since everything is done by the Holy Spirit. Kudos. My addition to the above, as per teaching of my teachers, is that Grace is never absent. It is not contingent upon Jesus or upon Muhammad. However, before I can understand you fully and before i (or possibly we) can benefit in and by our understanding of each other, i need to understand further.

First. I do not have the same concept as you of perfectness being contingent upon time, culture, and individual concept. Simply because the teaching "Be ye perfect -----", pertains to God's perfection which needs to be attained ( and is attainable). Else it would not have been taught.

Second. In the light of your own citation "God before all things and all things in God", I find the concept of separate consciousness a fallacy. It is at best an observation (experience) at one level of awareness of consciousness. But the awareness varies whereas that which is the source of awareness is one immutable thing called Pragnya in Hinduism. Pragnya means Pra (Pre) Jnana (knowledge-awareness) -- that which is before the awareness. Pragnya, as per Vedanta, is the Lord manifest. So, God is before all things and all things are in God.

The christian idea of punishment and reward is worldly -- within the domain of Time and Mind, which take birth from Pragnya. A man's awareness transcends Time and Mind in deep sleep, in swoon, in trance, and in Nirvikalpa Samadhi, which shows that the true Soul-Spirit is ever beyond tainting and ever beyond time.

Some say that the knowledge of Advaita is not to be disclosed inappropriately. These people, however, talk of 'Surrendering' very freely. I remind them that the 'Surrendering' is taught to Hindus as the most secret knowledge that should not be imparted to non-believers.

Because we see what happens then. Christains say "We alone are surrendered. Jesus alone is the light" (as if before Bible there was no light). Muslims say "We alone are surrendered". Among the Hindus, a certain sect also claims "We alone are surrendered to true God and we alone are in receipt of Grace." Lack of awareness, knowledge and experience of "God before All things and All things are in God", makes the surrender a very petty affair -- a sectarian affair.

Hindus receive grace, IMO, in more Universal way: Consciousness is Brahman. Brahman is All. I am That. You are That. This Soul-Spirit (the true soul) is Brahman. Brahman is One without a Second.


Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
24 January 2010, 03:13 AM
If God is omniscient, does that mean man shouldn't have free will?:confused: Man must be free to love God -- or not. But it should be his choosing, not God's compulsion.


Namaste rahulG,

Our scriptures teach that God is seated in Heart. Now, If a man has free will that would mean that the choice that eventually would be made was unknown even to God. Similar with omnipotence. If some evil happens and one is punished then what was God doing with His omnipotence?

I will try to explain the Vedanta understanding (though it is beyond the realm of mental understanding):

Isha U.


8. That (Self) is all-pervading, radiant, bodiless, soreless, without sinews, pure, untainted by sin, the all-seer, the lord of the mind, transcendent and self-existent. That (Self) did allot in proper order to the eternal Prajapatis known as samvatsara (year) their duties.

Although, the Self is the true Isha (Lord) but the duties of maintaning order etcetra are assigned to TIME-Year (samvatsara). It is the Time that is the Nidhi-Vidhi (the laws etc.). The Self (and also the knower of the Self) are beyond time. But it is said in the Veda that the Self adheres to the rules and laws of Savitar (Sun-Time) with perfection.



In a circuitous way, you're saying that God is sinless and it is man who commits sin; only you have called it egotism, because you seem to be allergic to the word 'sin.'

No. I think I tried to explain that the connotations are entirely different. Even with all benevolence, Sin cannot have a positive or neutral connotation. Which means that eventually Sin will get to stick to God, because He not only is omnipotent and omniscient but also the source of all.

For us that is unimaginable. The connotation with Avidya is entirely different. Moreover, it is not Avidya but it is called vidyaavidya -- something that is neither vidya nor avidya but which gives rise to either of these two in the mind.

Vidyaavidya as the nature is resident with Brahman. The sages see the Vidya -- one Brahman without a Second. We see avidya -- the Universe comprised of discrete beings and non-beings.

In a more practical way: we may ask that how can a selfish man who hoards for the future be held responsible for his selfishness and for his trying to safegaurd his own future? How can a man who is selfish be called a sinner? Also, as the Spirit-Soul-Atman is not tainted, the Sin cannot inhere in a soul. But the very nature of Atman-Soul-Spirit can contain vidyaavidya -- which is neutral but may lead to vidya (correct view) or to avidya (incorrect view).

-----------------------

As Sudarshana said Hinduism deals with the Kindergarten to the Post Doctoral.

Om namah Shivaya

Chris
24 January 2010, 03:51 AM
I truly appreciate many things Jesus taught.

I am the way the truth and the life. This is the definition of Jesus the world needs to know. Jesus == way,truth,life.

praNAm

Coincidentally one of the few Christians I respect posted something very similar on facebook (http://www.facebook.com/sunofmysoul?v=feed&story_fbid=269079610039&ref=mf).


"Strangely, we have come to a moment in human history when the message of the Sermon on the Mount could indeed save us, but it can no longer be heard above the din of dueling doctrines. Consider this: there is not a single word in that sermon about what to believe, only words about what to do. It is a behavioral manifesto, not a propositional one.

yet three centuries later, when the Nicene Creed became the official oath of Christendom, there was not a single word in it about what to do, only words about what to believe!"

This was a quote from a book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Saving-Jesus-Church-Worshiping-Following/dp/006156821X/)by Robin Myers.

atanu
24 January 2010, 03:57 AM
Ahem. There are some who would say that a complicated sado-masochistic set of rituals is a quite effective means of losing the ego.

:D

(Sorry, couldn't resist that hehe.)

But more to the point, Jesus the Christ said (John 17:21):

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

To me, the presumption that we are not already "one in us" is anti-Christian. Please do not mistake the Church (the form) for the Spirit (the One).

In my opinion, the great perversion of the Church is that it preaches precisely the opposite.

Namaste,
ZN


I believe that the above stated what needed to be stated.

Om

Sudarshan
24 January 2010, 04:03 AM
Namaste rahulG,

Our scriptures teach that God is seated in Heart. Now, If a man has free will that would mean that the choice that eventually would be made was unknown even to God. Similar with omnipotence. If some evil happens and one is punished then what was God doing with His omnipotence?



Yep! The so called freewill that man cherishes is just an illusion in the bigger scheme of things. It is God's will all the way.......down to the slightest movement of a blade of grass, so isn't he the controller of the so called freewill as well? The freewill of man is only a medium of expression of the freewill of the unlimited independence of the supreme being. The freewill of man is not independent of the will of God, which would render God incapable of even reading the minds of men in advance. Man thinks what God wants him to think. Man does what God wants him to do. Man is a puppet to the extreme degree in the hands of God.

Infact, the kaushitaki brAhmaNa 3.9 states it too openly-

na hyanyatarato ruupa.n ki.nchana siddhyenno etannaanaa tadyathaa
rathasyaareshhu nemirarpitaa naabhaavaraa arpitaa evamevaitaa
bhuutamaatraaH
praj~naamaatraa svarpitaaH praj~naamaatraaH praaNe arpitaa eshha
praaNa eva
praj~naatmaanando.ajaro.amR^ito na saadhunaa karmaNaa bhuuyaanno
evaasaadhunaa
karmaNaa kaniiyaaneshha hyevaina.n saadhukarma kaarayati ta.n
yamanvaanuneshhatyeshha evainamasaadhu karma kaarayati ta.n yamebhyo
lokebhyo
nunutsata eshha lokapaala eshha lokaadhipatireshha sarveshvaraH sa
ma aatmeti
vidyaatsa ma aatmeti vidyaat.

This vital breath, truly, is the Self of intelligence: It is bliss, ageless, immortal. He does not become greater with good action nor indeed lesser with bad action. This one truly indeed causes him whom he wishes to lead up from this world to perform good action. This one also indeed causes him whom he wishes to lead downwards to perform bad action. He is the protector of the world; he is the sovereign of the world; he is the Lord of all. ‘He is myself’ – this one should know. ‘He is my Self’ – This one should know.


Christianity ( or rather the manistream version of it) says that God created world and man with the full knowledge that the world would be a miserable place. If God did not know all these how could you call him God? Why create at all? I have never heard one good explanation for any christian so far. If God created man and man had no existance prior to his creation, and God created misery for man, then man has a moral right to ask God - why did you create me if you could not give me happiness?!

The problem is solved in the dualistic schools of vedanta by positing the beginningless existance of souls where God is not responsible for the very existance of man per se because he did not create any souls.

Chris
24 January 2010, 04:27 AM
I'd be careful before making such comments because Christians could say the same thing about us.

In Hinduism, we're supposed to be Brahman. But since we're caught in maya, we've forgotten that we're Brahman and so we have to take birth countless times in countless different species (from amoeba to human!) until we get rid of maya. Sounds like punishment to me.

And since this punishment is imposed on us by Brahman (and Brahman happens to be our true selves), we're in effect punishing ourselves for not being ourselves! This sounds like masochism.

Well, there are various beliefs within Hinduism about the evolution of a soul up to the point of human incarnation, not all Hindus believe that souls in animals are differentiated in the way human souls are. In any case if you consider this to be punishment or masochism then you would also have to consider the growing of a child and learning to be punishment, and and self learning as masochism.


For this reason, I wouldn't judge Christians on this matter, because our case is quite as fragile.

I agree that the existence of sin with free will applies to Hindus as much as Christians. The difference is the response to it. The Hindu response is that we have to grow through devotion, dharma and spiritual paths (yoga). Eventually we will become pure and realise moksha.

The Christian response is basically do nothing. It is not a problem that you are impure - then problem is that someone needs to be punished for it, and that has been done. All that matters is what you believe, not what you do. If you go to heaven you will be purified and sin free then (I guess the free will argument is forgotten once you are in heaven).

To me this is as though religions are trainers preparing people for a race. Different religions might have different techniques, but in general the Eastern trainers will have programs of exercise and diet.

The "Christian" trainer on the other hand says "it doesn't matter - there is no point in training. We have this magic snake oil we will give you before the race. Just keep eating your chips and watching tv but believe in the snake oil".

As people from other teams say their times are improving and they can feel results the Christian trainer becomes more desperate, calling the other trainers liers and claiming their only aim is to keep people from the snake oil.

Of course, doing nothing and relying on the snake oil is a lot simpler than following a training program and for some that is reason enough in itself to follow the Christian trainer.

Eastern Mind
24 January 2010, 07:31 AM
To me this is as though religions are trainers preparing people for a race. Different religions might have different techniques, but in general the Eastern trainers will have programs of exercise and diet.

The "Christian" trainer on the other hand says "it doesn't matter - there is no point in training. We have this magic snake oil we will give you before the race. Just keep eating your chips and watching tv but believe in the snake oil".

As people from other teams say their times are improving and they can feel results the Christian trainer becomes more desperate, calling the other trainers liers and claiming their only aim is to keep people from the snake oil.

Of course, doing nothing and relying on the snake oil is a lot simpler than following a training program and for some that is reason enough in itself to follow the Christian trainer.

Vannakkam Chris: Nice analogy. I'll borrow it of the chance ever comes up. But that's not likely. Seems now that I'm retired, I never encounter Christians any more. I'm not missing it. Any yes, there are a few I had a lot of respect for as well.

Aum namasivaya

rahulg
24 January 2010, 08:52 AM
Namaste rahulG,

Our scriptures teach that God is seated in Heart. Now, If a man has free will that would mean that the choice that eventually would be made was unknown even to God.

Why so? Why do you believe that if man has free will, his choices will be unknown to God? One doesn't follow the other...there is no correlation at all.


I will try to explain the Vedanta understanding (though it is beyond the realm of mental understanding):

Isha U.


8. That (Self) is all-pervading, radiant, bodiless, soreless, without sinews, pure, untainted by sin, the all-seer, the lord of the mind, transcendent and self-existent. That (Self) did allot in proper order to the eternal Prajapatis known as samvatsara (year) their duties.



Etc. etc. All this has nothing to do with the subject matter. Most of these ideas are just verbal acrobatics, anyway.

rahulg
24 January 2010, 09:00 AM
The freewill of man is only a medium of expression of the freewill of the unlimited independence of the supreme being.

Why would the 'unlimited independence of the supreme being' even need a medium in the form of man? Is God powerless, then? Is man then a robot? Will spirituality apply to robots?


The freewill of man is not independent of the will of God, which would render God incapable of even reading the minds of men in advance. Man thinks what God wants him to think. Man does what God wants him to do. Man is a puppet to the extreme degree in the hands of God.

Suppose I know what you're going to do next, does that mean you have no free will?


Christianity ( or rather the manistream version of it) says that God created world and man with the full knowledge that the world would be a miserable place. If God did not know all these how could you call him God? Why create at all? I have never heard one good explanation for any christian so far. If God created man and man had no existance prior to his creation, and God created misery for man, then man has a moral right to ask God - why did you create me if you could not give me happiness?!

Even with the Hindu idea of creation, the same problem persists: man can always God why he's making him go through countless births for liberation and so on? The moral argument cuts both ways.


The problem is solved in the dualistic schools of vedanta by positing the beginningless existance of souls where God is not responsible for the very existance of man per se because he did not create any souls.

How come the souls are existing from the very beginning along with God? Are they as powerful as God, then?

Chris
24 January 2010, 09:13 AM
Suppose I know what you're going to do next, does that mean you have no free will?

If you know with absolute certainty what I am going to do next then I have no free will to do otherwise. To illustrate this, think of the situations in which you really could say with absolute certainty what I would do next. The only things you could be sure about would be like if I fell off the roof of a house, would I hit the ground or not.

rahulg
24 January 2010, 09:52 AM
If you know with absolute certainty what I am going to do next then I have no free will to do otherwise. To illustrate this, think of the situations in which you really could say with absolute certainty what I would do next. The only things you could be sure about would be like if I fell off the roof of a house, would I hit the ground or not.

This is the point I am contesting. Even if the whole world knows that you'll hit the ground, it doesn't stop you from making a decision to jump; that means you've exercised your free will to do something, even if that 'something' is known to everybody on the planet.

Put simply, the knowledge of what you're going to do (call it X) doesn't change the fact that you've exercised your free will to perform X. The two have absolutely no correlation at all.

Sherab
24 January 2010, 09:58 AM
Even with the Hindu idea of creation, the same problem persists: man can always God why he's making him go through countless births for liberation and so on? The moral argument cuts both ways.

God doesn't create karma, we create karma ourselves. How this comes about depends on what philosophical system you decide to study, and so on.

But god does not "give" karma.

In fact, i'd say karma only operates within the "maya-paradigm", and not within the abode of Gods, etc.

atanu
24 January 2010, 10:15 AM
This is the point I am contesting. Even if the whole world knows that you'll hit the ground, it doesn't stop you from making a decision to jump; that means you've exercised your free will to do something, even if that 'something' is known to everybody on the planet.

Put simply, the knowledge of what you're going to do (call it X) doesn't change the fact that you've exercised your free will to perform X. The two have absolutely no correlation at all.

Namaste rahulG,

If you know certainly that I will take a jump and maim myself (that is burn in Hell forever) and being omnipotent you do not stop the event so that I do burn in Hell, then you are not compassionate God but a SADIST.

You brushed aside the Isha U. knowledge as mere verbal acrobatics without even inspecting. It does not bother me that you seem to hold that your comprehension exceeds those of Vedic sages. It bothers me however that i put it up there.

Om Namah Shivaya

yajvan
24 January 2010, 10:52 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~

Namaste Chris



If you know with absolute certainty what I am going to do next then I have no free will to do otherwise. To illustrate this, think of the situations in which you really could say with absolute certainty what I would do next. The only things you could be sure about would be like if I fell off the roof of a house, would I hit the ground or not.

I have been following this conversation... I hope it is okay to share my POV on this...

First I believe there is free will or ~free selection~ of actions. The Bhāgavad gītā supports this and we have talked much about this here on HDF ( if you wish I can point to the posts if you care to pursue past conversations).

Now that said, I can say with 100% certainty of multiple next actions you will have. With certainty, you will take another breath as you read this post. You may wish to hold your breath, but with certainty you will take another breath.


With certainty you will ( and I will ) die because we have a body - there is no choice that the body will fall. So that is a future action I can predict with certainty. Even the most realized beings on this earth have past away - if there is a body there is death. I can tell you with 100% certainty that millions of cells are dying in your body and mine as I type. This whole process is outside of our awareness, yet it occurs on 'auto pilot'.

All these things are actions - all these things fall under 'what will occur next' (or in the future), yet you still have free will. These actions did not stop you from a choice you can make, yet they are not random and they will occur.

Hence this 'free will' must be more then what is being discussed , no?

praṇām

Chris
24 January 2010, 11:05 AM
This is the point I am contesting. Even if the whole world knows that you'll hit the ground, it doesn't stop you from making a decision to jump; that means you've exercised your free will to do something, even if that 'something' is known to everybody on the planet.

Put simply, the knowledge of what you're going to do (call it X) doesn't change the fact that you've exercised your free will to perform X. The two have absolutely no correlation at all.

You misunderstood what I was saying. You can only be sure that I will hit the ground after I fall or jump. After that point I have no free will as to whether I will hit the ground - which is why you can say for certain that I will hit the ground. Before I fall or jump I have free will so you cannot know for certain that I will fall or jump.

Onkara
24 January 2010, 01:36 PM
Does it matters if there is free will or not? :)
Whilst the individual is separate from God in any respect then that individual should act consciously, in other words they should be very aware of what they do and to whom. As God is omniscient.

If the individual has dissolved in God then there will be only consciousness of action, in other words everything that happens will be with sattva; with good intentions. As God is consciousness (cit).

smaranam
24 January 2010, 01:53 PM
This is a good point, and this is why I post about Christianity as often as I do. I'm very concerned about Hindus who come to the United States to study at universites, only to be sucked into Christian ministries via "friendship evangelism," and ultimately converted. If I can convince college-aged Hindus here to not convert or even participate in these Christian social activities (which are really just conversion attempts), then I will feel that the time I spend here is valuable.


I can see that Sanjaya. May the Lord bless you always.

Once, members of a church of Latter Day Saints wanted me to join them. I was naive and said, I would be glad to. Then understood they wanted us to leave our Dharma !

The Latter Day Saints got the msg : that my Krshna and Bhagavad Gita are not replacable, and despite being Hindu, I feel Jesus looks over me. But not ONLY Jesus.

satay
24 January 2010, 02:50 PM
namaskar,

No. What you wrote here is wrong understanding of Hinduism.

Maya is not punishment and neither is karma but I digress since the thread is about christianity and in the christian section. Bible god is a sadist.


I'd be careful before making such comments because Christians could say the same thing about us.

In Hinduism, we're supposed to be Brahman. But since we're caught in maya, we've forgotten that we're Brahman and so we have to take birth countless times in countless different species (from amoeba to human!) until we get rid of maya. Sounds like punishment to me.

And since this punishment is imposed on us by Brahman (and Brahman happens to be our true selves), we're in effect punishing ourselves for not being ourselves! This sounds like masochism.

For this reason, I wouldn't judge Christians on this matter, because our case is quite as fragile.

saidevo
25 January 2010, 12:47 AM
The same can be said of Krishna as well. Being omnipotent, he could've stopped the war with a snap of his fingers. He didn't. Was he sadist as well?


This is a silly question. Karma, reincarnation, universal identity of the soul with Brahman and the inevitable death of the human physical body are concepts that are the backbone of Hinduism, where physical death is only a passage to subtler worlds.

In Christianity however, there is no official concept of karma and reincarnation, no identity of all souls with Brahman, physical death is final which is to be feared, and the dead human body that is buried is supposed to be revived by God on the Judgment Day.

Chris
25 January 2010, 01:02 AM
This is a silly question. Karma, reincarnation, universal identity of the soul with Brahman and the inevitable death of the human physical body are concepts that are the backbone of Hinduism, where physical death is only a passage to subtler worlds.

In Christianity however, there is no official concept of karma and reincarnation, no identity of all souls with Brahman, physical death is final which is to be feared, and the dead human body that is buried is supposed to be revived by God on the Judgment Day.

Agreed,
I am not a Vishnavite, but I think that Vishnavites would say that the war was necessary dharma. It is a situation that the various parties concerned had got into, and Krishna helped the resolution.

I would liken this to a father, who when a son gets into debt wants him to learn from it. He helps the son plan how to repay the money and maybe helps with part but not all of it.

The Christian's god's actions are like a father who has several children getting into debt. He says: "Some of you I will pay off your debts in full and give you a fortune, whether you keep on spending or not. Others, even if you pay off your debts and save money I will take it all from you and cast you out to starvation."

saidevo
25 January 2010, 09:56 AM
namaste Chris.


Agreed,
I am not a Vishnavite, but I think that Vishnavites would say that the war was necessary dharma. It is a situation that the various parties concerned had got into, and Krishna helped the resolution.

I would liken this to a father, who when a son gets into debt wants him to learn from it. He helps the son plan how to repay the money and maybe helps with part but not all of it.

The Christian's god's actions are like a father who has several children getting into debt. He says: "Some of you I will pay off your debts in full and give you a fortune, whether you keep on spending or not. Others, even if you pay off your debts and save money I will take it all from you and cast you out to starvation."


You have given good analogies which put the Christian religious concepts into perspective. To say that KRShNa being omnipotent could have stopped the war at the snap of his fingers, whereas he didn't, so he can be considered as a sadist is plain ignorance. For that matter KRShNa could have made Duryodhana a most virtuous man like yudhiSThira, which would have simplied matters far more easily and much earlier.

The Hindu God does not interfere in an individual's karmic interplay. This is one reason the Hindu itihAsas and purANas talk so much about the earlier births of their principal characters. Since the main concept of karma and reincarnation which is the most essential reason for creation and the worldly life is absent in Christianity, we find their concepts of God primitive.

God is one and the same across all religions; it is the religious dogma that gives him attributes implying limitations, even absurdities.

satay
25 January 2010, 06:16 PM
namaste rahul,

I am curious, where did you learn hinduism from? From your parents or christian missionaries? Just curious. You can choose not to answer.

nirotu
25 January 2010, 07:45 PM
Hi Nirotu. I hope you will not be offended by my comments thus far, or the ones to follow. While I believe that sincerety when expessing one's belief is important, I do respect people regardless of religion, and it's my hope that we can have a discussion with that spirit in mind. With that said, I would like to comment on some of the things you've said.
We need to be tolerant of those with whom we disagree on doctrines that do not affect our understanding of moksha or salvation, swarga(heaven) or hell(Naraka). So, whichever side we fall, we can be gracious to those who don't believe as we do.


I believe the distinction is more than mere semantics. The above is an etymological argument. I'm sure that sin is derive from some Hebrew word that refers to poor marksmanship. But the way in which the Bible uses the word paints a different picture. To make a theological argument because of the word's etymology is like saying that physicists who talk about nuclei are referring to genetic material (the phrase "nuclear fission" is derived from the biological principle of binary fission). The Bible refers to sin as something so terrible that it must be atoned for by the death of God's only Son, or paid for by an eternity in hell. Do you believe that the Christian God would send someone to eternal hell for missing the mark?It is unfortunate that the words like “sin” and “hell” which are popularized by Christians, are somehow considered anathema amongst non-Christians. BTW, the origin of “hell” goes as far back as Vedas.

Just as Vedas, the Bible affirms that God is unalterable truth and His universe cannot be an anarchic one. That said, however, it is believed that far beyond as a creator, He finds Himself also the judge of His creation/sustenance. Therefore, the judgment of God seems to be dominating note of the Bible. Honestly, the justice of God is seen also in Hinduism. It is said that Vishnu, or God as love, is ready to help us, but He waits for our effort. He does not offer His aid against our will. He cannot save us even when we sin, unless we repent. God is tempered by His justice, which assumes that divine justice must be satisfied before God. Even those who haven’t heard of Christ are accountable for God’s revelation in nature.

The essential point as I understand is that every human being that is living regardless of his/her faith feels the necessity of redemption. The necessity shows that there are elements from which we are to be redeemed. If all that is equally divine without any blemish, there would be no need for redemption or judgment. If there is judgment, there is verdict that follows.

Whether He commits them to eternal hell or heaven is a matter of opinion. If you ask Catholics you will see an in between layer Hades where perdition is granted. If you ask an evangelical you will see Hell as a definite destination for them. Then there are liberal christians who think that good God has given our lifetime as an opportunity to prove us worthy in His eyes. So, if we live serving to the will of the Father, there absolutely is no need to think of hell or heaven.

I have no direct knowledge of what hell is. The way I understand it that it is based upon the Greek mythological concept of Tartarus which got into Hebrew thinking through Hellenization. There is no mention or description of the word "hell" in the Tennach or the Pentateuch ("OT"). In the Hebrew scriptures there is only mention of Sheol, or the "the grave" to which everyone goes. But in the books of Revelation it does speak of those who work inequity being "outside the Kingdom of God."

IMO, the hell is not a literal fire and brimstone, I do believe it is some state of anxiety or separation from God. However, I do believe that there is enough hell on this earth and, that, there is enough misery on earth that is just as bad. Also, God doesn’t send people to hell, they choose it. Therefore, what worries me most is how to spend the time I have at hand in the present life. I consider my lifetime as an opportunity to change myself to be living according to God’s word.


Does this imply that Christianity is a true religion which is written into our very being? Or is it simply a consequence of the fact that Christian nations have colonized most parts of the world, and thus injected a Christian worldview into most cultures? Indeed, the fact that I'm talking about sin instead of dharma and adharma is probably a consequence of my being born and raised in the West. Most Hindu Scriptures I've read refer to "sin" in the English translations, but this is not what you'd find in the original Sanskrit. I think the fact that we speak the same language (in terms of Christian doctrine) can probably be ascribed to the popularity of Christianity in the world.
The fact remains, regardless of whose worldview it is, that the need of redemption is clear from every view. Thus, the need itself proves there is something, some defect from which are to be redeemed. Christianity simply defines that defect.


I agree that it's a bit foolish to cherry-pick the parts of the Christian religion that one likes while discarding the rest. But I personally would have to reject all of these Christian concepts: the magnanimous love of God, and the righteousness and holiness of God. Don't get me wrong, I agree that God is loving, righteous, and holy. But I don't see anything loving about God saving a person from hell for mere intellectual assent to a doctrine. Yes, Christianity teaches that one must also repent of all sin, trust wholly in Jesus, and be sanctified.
What do we understand when we say trust wholly in Jesus? What did Jesus teach? To trust a person you must trust him for what he is and what he stand for. The way I understand is that Jesus did not teach new morals that did not already exist in ancient Vedas. In fact, the Bible does not pretend to contain all that is worthwhile in the area of morals. In that sense, to believe in Jesus or in his teaching has to have meaning beyond morals. The way I see is that it is not a question of presence or absence of morals (which already exists in scriptures of any faith) but the failure of people to keep these standards. Jesus points clearly the gulf that separates the actual nature, which is bad, from the ideal in every man who heeds to his sayings. To Chrstians, that is a revelation.


But repentance and sanctification can happen without converting to Christianity. When I point this out to many Christians, they tell me that without faith in Jesus, such repentance is not genuine. Perhaps I'm thinking too much like a scientist, but I find this claim untestable. There are plenty of non-Christians who live the same righteous lives as Christians.
If you get a chance please read Acts of the Apostle, chapter 10. Here is a story of a heathen man, never knew who Jesus Christ was but prayed to God continuously, despite being a Roman Army general. He did charities, helped poor and the needy. In verse 6 it says, God spoke to him through His angel that his prayers have ascended as a memorial to God. Can a prayer of a non-Christian prayed not in the name of Jesus be heard by God? This verse says yes. It may surprise you that prayers of many Christians which are prayed in the name of Jesus are not heard by the Father. Yet, when you continue in this chapter, you will see why God sent Peter to him. Again, that is an eye opener to me.


I don't know whose righteousness is real and whose is disingenuous, but the only detectable difference I see is intellectual assent to the belief that Christ's righteousness is imputed to the believer by faith in him.
To be imputed by Christ righteousness is to abide by what he taught you. As He says, “if you abide in my teachings, I will abide in you forever”. If Christ is righteous by virtue of His obedience in fulfilling the will of the Father, why is it not true to us when we abide in Him? All that scripture is saying is that the righteousness of Jesus Christ in perfectly fulfilling the law of God has been graciously credited to all believers if you believed in him.


I also reject the Christian definitions of God's righteousness and holiness, beause I don't subscribe to the law-court analogy (as I mentioned in an earlier post, I find this analogy to not even be self-consistent). I do not believe that God's holiness is dependent on him dealing punishment for every sin that has been committed, even when the sinner has already repented. Thus, I don't believe that there must be a substitute for sin. Can you offer a convincing argument as to why I should believe this? I would prefer one that either doesn't use the law-court analogy, or one that uses it consistently (i.e. there has to be a figure that corresponds to the substitute for sin, who might exist in a real court of law). This is not rhetoric; my question is genuine, and I'd like to hear your answer.Jesus was not the fulfillment of atonement to our salvation. Not every one is saved either. NO, His sacrifice made the possibility of salvation real. He simply made the provision to be saved, which is far from saying he saved us all. It is like depositing $1 M in every one’s bank account in the entire world and I will make provision for everyone to enjoy the benefits of having it. You will get the benefit of the money if you accept that and cash it. You have to do your part making it possible for you. If you don’t, you will never know about its existence.


But a Hindu can just as easily claim that God saves us because he loves us. In the Kaliyuga, God has given us the Satyanarayana Puja to receive absolution from sin. As Lord Vishnu told Narada Muni, he has done this because he doesn't want man to suffer as a result of our past sins. And the Hindu theology makes no mention of treating all sin equally. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on my objections to the equalization of all sin, which I've described at length.I don’t think Christianity says that either. This is how I understand it; God judges everyone by the works they did based on the revelation given to them. All it says is that we are all accountable for our actions regardless of our faith. However, it makes special provision for those who abide in the atoning works of Jesus. Those who heed to His words would have repented from committing bad karma, but, still are accountable for their actions. Therefore, just because I accept Jesus does not absolve me from my consequences.

Having said that, I will add, that since God is Holy, He expects us to be holy or at least strive to be holy. Trying to be holy on our own is not possible where in grace comes in play. Grace is god’s ability in us to do things which we could not do with our natural ability.


Perhaps you could explain this in more detail. Do you believe that one can be saved without being a Christian? I know this is a popular belief among liberal Christians. It isn't consistent with orthodox Christianity, but I would like to hear why you disagree with those people, if indeed you do.

To be a Christian means the one who follows the teachings of Christ. If you accept the teachings of Christ does it matter if you do or don’t have a label branding you as one?


Again, I find this to be an untestable claim. How does one explain non-Christians who appear more righteous than some Christians?
I am not here to say that every Christian is righteous nor am I here to say every Hindu is unrighteous. Only God is the judge to determine who is and who is not righteous in His sight. Our goal in life is to live a life with a conscience that is blameless before God and men. Given that, I find trying on our own efforts has proved futile. If God is the creator and sustainer, He also has presented a man with the ideal which he should elect, the law which he should obey, if he is to realize his destiny. Many times we believe we can, on our own bootstraps, achieve or fulfill the law and yet we fail because we forget our origin, forget our place in God’s plan due to selfish pursuits. This is nothing short of man’s alter ego playing dominant role.


I'm not sure that history attests to this fact. I know many Hindus who have gained great fulfillment from doing regular devotion to God and pleasing him with worship and good deeds. In fact I hope to one day be such person. The problem I find with Christianity is that you never know if your intellectual assent to the doctrine is sufficient for salvation. Good works are measurable, but assent to doctrine isn't.
A Christian, in my view, believes in good works also. But he thinks they are logical outcome of his dependence on God and His grace.

Blessings,

nirotu
25 January 2010, 07:53 PM
Yep! The so called freewill that man cherishes is just an illusion in the bigger scheme of things. It is God's will all the way.......down to the slightest movement of a blade of grass, so isn't he the controller of the so called freewill as well? The freewill of man is only a medium of expression of the freewill of the unlimited independence of the supreme being. The freewill of man is not independent of the will of God, which would render God incapable of even reading the minds of men in advance. Man thinks what God wants him to think. Man does what God wants him to do. Man is a puppet to the extreme degree in the hands of God.

DearSudarshan:

It is good to see you on board. Well, as usual I am willing to wear black hat amongst you.

Regarding God’s foreknowledge and free will of man.

Over the years we have developed a view of God whereby God was defined in terms of what a God ought to be to be God. It usually based on scripture and revelation from God about Himself in human history. The “omni-“doctrine is a result of that and is consistent with scripture.

The question raised here is “does God have foreknowledge of human freedom?” If He does, then it cannot be considered as human freedom.

Based on Omni theses, if God knows something will happen, and then it will happen. There is a great difference between a human being “knowing” and God “knowing”. Our knowledge is influenced and conditioned by myriad of factors, so many inter connections of which we are not totally aware of. Therefore, our perception at best is flawed. However, God’s “knowing” about Himself, about His creation is never hindered by any of those things. In that case, we cannot really understand how God can know the future event and human beings still have genuine freedom.

This can be understood if we attempt to look from God’s perspective, where He is infinite and exists outside of time and space. He can see the past and future all at once because He is outside the time and space. There is no time for God since He exists in the eternal. That’s why God’s relation to humanity has been incarnational. From this perspective, we could say that God knows the possibilities of the future, but that human beings create the future by their decisions, a part of human freedom that God has granted to us.

I do believe that God’s expressed will in history still is contingent on human decision. Although, God does not control our decisions, He knows the possibilities inherent in human. Thus, this world is not determined but contingent. The only foreknowledge God has is that He knows what He will do in response to human decision, but that “will” is not absolute, in that it is not imposed upon humanity; it is always in relation to genuine God-enabled human freedom.

Then again, if you believe there is no such thing as human freedom or free-will then one must ask if there is any motive for anything since the set of circumstances that lead one to not commit adultery are the same as the set that lead one to commit adultery. We would all see motives of Hitlers, Bin Ladens of this world and great Saints are same, orchestrating God’s predetermined plan.


Blessings,

sanjaya
26 January 2010, 02:15 AM
Hi Nirotu. Thanks for responding to my points.


We need to be tolerant of those with whom we disagree on doctrines that do not affect our understanding of moksha or salvation, swarga(heaven) or hell(Naraka). So, whichever side we fall, we can be gracious to those who don't believe as we do.

Yes I agree. Unfortunately I've found that for most evangelicals, this tolerance is only given based on the non-Christian's willingness to "play ball," and consider conversion to Christianity. But if you are indeed willing to lend such tolerance without the potential of conversion, then I commend you for it.


It is unfortunate that the words like “sin” and “hell” which are popularized by Christians, are somehow considered anathema amongst non-Christians. BTW, the origin of “hell” goes as far back as Vedas.

May I ask for a reference to the Vedic text which discusses eternal condemnation?


Just as Vedas, the Bible affirms that God is unalterable truth and His universe cannot be an anarchic one. That said, however, it is believed that far beyond as a creator, He finds Himself also the judge of His creation/sustenance. Therefore, the judgment of God seems to be dominating note of the Bible. Honestly, the justice of God is seen also in Hinduism. It is said that Vishnu, or God as love, is ready to help us, but He waits for our effort. He does not offer His aid against our will. He cannot save us even when we sin, unless we repent. God is tempered by His justice, which assumes that divine justice must be satisfied before God. Even those who haven’t heard of Christ are accountable for God’s revelation in nature.

I don't know that the parallel you suggest between Hinduism and the Bible exists. Most of us would view it as absurd to say that God "cannot" do anything. Furthermore, the idea of "divine justice [being] satisfied before God" is completely absent in Hinduism. God is not sitting on a judge's bench with a death sentence, ready to execute it either on the sinner or his substitute. This is a Christian idea; it isn't even found in Judaism.

As for God's revelation in nature (the so-called "general revelation"), the Bible is quite clear that general revelation is not sufficient for salvation. What good does it do man to know enough that he can be condemned to eternal hell by God, but not to be saved unless he has specific knowledge of the Christian gospel?


The essential point as I understand is that every human being that is living regardless of his/her faith feels the necessity of redemption. The necessity shows that there are elements from which we are to be redeemed. If all that is equally divine without any blemish, there would be no need for redemption or judgment. If there is judgment, there is verdict that follows.

I doubt the idea that man feels a need for redemption. This too seems like an idea invented by Christianity in order to produce a need for the gospel. But let's stipulate to it for argument's sake. Hinduism already offers a solution to the problem of sin. Why should I trade it for Christianity's version, which requires adopting Western culture?


Whether He commits them to eternal hell or heaven is a matter of opinion. If you ask Catholics you will see an in between layer Hades where perdition is granted. If you ask an evangelical you will see Hell as a definite destination for them. Then there are liberal christians who think that good God has given our lifetime as an opportunity to prove us worthy in His eyes. So, if we live serving to the will of the Father, there absolutely is no need to think of hell or heaven.

It may help if you elaborate on "serving to the will of the Father." What do you make of a person who believes in God's grace and rejects the gospel? Because this is what is true of most Hindus. We're fine with the idea that God grants us grace. What we take issue with is this idea that you must believe in a penal substitutionary atonement doctrine, convert to Christianity, stop worshiping Hindu gods, and start going to church in order to be saved. And of course we do not share your belief that the ultimate destination of men is heaven or hell. Rather than believing in this two state system, we hold to a belief in reincarnation.


I have no direct knowledge of what hell is. The way I understand it that it is based upon the Greek mythological concept of Tartarus which got into Hebrew thinking through Hellenization. There is no mention or description of the word "hell" in the Tennach or the Pentateuch ("OT"). In the Hebrew scriptures there is only mention of Sheol, or the "the grave" to which everyone goes. But in the books of Revelation it does speak of those who work inequity being "outside the Kingdom of God."

You're quite right that the Old Testament makes no mention of hell, that's why Jews don't believe in it. The New Testament refers to hades, which is a Greek idea concerning the abode of the dead. It also refers to gehenna thirteen times, twelve from the lips of Christ. There's also an odd reference to tartarus in the second epistle of Peter. All of these are translated as hell in the King James Bible, only gehenna is translated thusly in modern Bibles. Interestingly, Jesus rarely connects hell with failure to believe certain things about him (in fact he seems to connect it to good works in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats). If people could be eternally condemed for not believing something, you'd think that God would bother to mention it in the Old Testament. Given that he didn't, what do you believe about this Christian doctrine?


IMO, the hell is not a literal fire and brimstone, I do believe it is some state of anxiety or separation from God. However, I do believe that there is enough hell on this earth and, that, there is enough misery on earth that is just as bad.

I think that even the most ardent evangelical would agree that hell is not a literal fire and brimstone. Obviously, anxiety and separation from God is far worse than literal immolation. The point is, what justice do you see in applying this penalty to people who fail to believe in Jesus.


Also, God doesn’t send people to hell, they choose it.

No offense intended, but I feel that this is a cop out. No Hindu wants to go to hell. We just don't want to convert to Christianity. How does this constitute choosing hell?


Therefore, what worries me most is how to spend the time I have at hand in the present life. I consider my lifetime as an opportunity to change myself to be living according to God’s word.

Fair enough, except that part of living by "God's word" involves propagating it to Hindus. this is the part that we object to.


The fact remains, regardless of whose worldview it is, that the need of redemption is clear from every view. Thus, the need itself proves there is something, some defect from which are to be redeemed. Christianity simply defines that defect.

Again, so does Hinduism. And Hinduism also provides a solution to the defect, one that doesn't involve conversion. Are you really OK with Hindus accepting that humans are in need of God's grace, but continuing to worship Hindu gods and refusing to attend church?



What do we understand when we say trust wholly in Jesus? What did Jesus teach? To trust a person you must trust him for what he is and what he stand for. The way I understand is that Jesus did not teach new morals that did not already exist in ancient Vedas. In fact, the Bible does not pretend to contain all that is worthwhile in the area of morals. In that sense, to believe in Jesus or in his teaching has to have meaning beyond morals. The way I see is that it is not a question of presence or absence of morals (which already exists in scriptures of any faith) but the failure of people to keep these standards. Jesus points clearly the gulf that separates the actual nature, which is bad, from the ideal in every man who heeds to his sayings. To Chrstians, that is a revelation.

Again, Hinduism also does not teach some sort of morality-based lifestyle. It teaches us to fully surrender ourselves to God and give him our complete devotion. Sri Krishna even says to abandon religion and follow him. In drawing parallels between Hinduism and Christianity, you've eliminated the need for religious conversion.



If you get a chance please read Acts of the Apostle, chapter 10. Here is a story of a heathen man, never knew who Jesus Christ was but prayed to God continuously, despite being a Roman Army general. He did charities, helped poor and the needy. In verse 6 it says, God spoke to him through His angel that his prayers have ascended as a memorial to God. Can a prayer of a non-Christian prayed not in the name of Jesus be heard by God? This verse says yes. It may surprise you that prayers of many Christians which are prayed in the name of Jesus are not heard by the Father. Yet, when you continue in this chapter, you will see why God sent Peter to him. Again, that is an eye opener to me.

Thank you for the reference. Actually I've read Acts 10, as well as the entire Bible. I know about the four gospels, the letters of the apostles, and the entire Old Testament (granted I read the Old Testament while studying Judaism, but translations are virtually identical). I'm familiar with Christian doctrine, including the story of the centurion Cornelius, who was baptized by Peter. It does teach that a non-Christian is capable of praying to God. But given that Peter declared that salvation came to Cornelius' household on the day he and his family were baptized, it also suggests that conversion to Christianity is necessary for salvation. What do you make of this?



To be imputed by Christ righteousness is to abide by what he taught you. As He says, “if you abide in my teachings, I will abide in you forever”. If Christ is righteous by virtue of His obedience in fulfilling the will of the Father, why is it not true to us when we abide in Him? All that scripture is saying is that the righteousness of Jesus Christ in perfectly fulfilling the law of God has been graciously credited to all believers if you believed in him.

Here you seem to be saying that having Christ's righteousness imputed to you is contingent on how you live. So are you sggesting a doctrine of salvation by grace through faith, or by works? If a person's salvation is dependent on grace, but grace is dependent on works, then it is effectively just based on works. Wouldn't you agree?


Jesus was not the fulfillment of atonement to our salvation. Not every one is saved either. NO, His sacrifice made the possibility of salvation real. He simply made the provision to be saved, which is far from saying he saved us all. It is like depositing $1 M in every one’s bank account in the entire world and I will make provision for everyone to enjoy the benefits of having it. You will get the benefit of the money if you accept that and cash it. You have to do your part making it possible for you. If you don’t, you will never know about its existence.

Once again, these analogies don't seem to account for the fact that "doing your part" involves living in a certain manner, which includes conversion. Forgive me if I've misunderstood, but it seems like an elaborate way of teaching that salvation is dependent on certain actions, while maintaining sola gratia on paper.


I don’t think Christianity says that either. This is how I understand it; God judges everyone by the works they did based on the revelation given to them. All it says is that we are all accountable for our actions regardless of our faith. However, it makes special provision for those who abide in the atoning works of Jesus. Those who heed to His words would have repented from committing bad karma, but, still are accountable for their actions. Therefore, just because I accept Jesus does not absolve me from my consequences.

It seems to me that being "accountable for their actions" is meaningless if there's no consequence for the immoral behavior. As you yourself say, the consequence of sin is borne by Christ. This has no analog in a real legal court. If you commit murder, a (relatively) sinless person can't sit in the electric chair for you. And as for the equalization of all sins, this is precisely what happens when eternal hell is the only punishment for any sin. To return to the Christian law-court analogy, imagine that execution was the only punishment that existed for any crime. This would mean that people who lie on their taxes receive the same punishment as murderers. Does this seem like justice to you? This seems to me like the inescapable conclusion of belief in eternal hell.


Having said that, I will add, that since God is Holy, He expects us to be holy or at least strive to be holy. Trying to be holy on our own is not possible where in grace comes in play. Grace is god’s ability in us to do things which we could not do with our natural ability.


Again, the idea that "he expects us to be holy" is a Christian axiom, one that Hindus don't share. God in Hinduism is well aware that Christians can't be as holy as him. Sri Krishna once said that by reciting the Vishnu Sahasranama (1008 names of God), one can be rid of all worldly troubles. Now this is by no means an impossible task. My own father, who is by no means superhuman, has the entire text memorized and repeats it daily. But because God recognizes that not everyone will be able to do this, he says that to merely repeat the name of Lord Rama is enough to reap the same benefits. In Christianity, it is believed that no man can keep God's law perfectly, and thus salvation by belief in Jesus is the only means of salvation. But Jews know that this is a poor interpretation of their Bible. I've spoken to Jews about this, and they find it peculiar that God would create a complex legal system despite that it's impossible to keep, and then abolish it. Your own Bible says this:
For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it. (Deuteronomy 30:11-14)
It says plainly that the law of God is doable. God even gave a warning that they should not claim that God's law can't be fulfilled. So you don't need to be perfect to fulfill it. I think the Rabbinic Jewish understanding of the Old Testament makes much more sense than the Christian interpretation. Discussions about Christian grace are well and good, except that Christianity also abolishes God's law. Believing in Christianity isn't supposed to give you grace to fulfill the law, the grace allows someone else to fulfill the law on your behalf. Again, how would you feel if law-abiding citizens could serve prison sentences on behalf of convicts. That would be an injustice of the worst kind!


To be a Christian means the one who follows the teachings of Christ. If you accept the teachings of Christ does it matter if you do or don’t have a label branding you as one?

If you're trying to say that religious conversion isn't necessary, then I agree. But again, would you as a Christian really accept the idea that Hindus can worship our gods as we always have, treat our fellow men as we would like to be treated, and not be targeted for conversion?



I am not here to say that every Christian is righteous nor am I here to say every Hindu is unrighteous. Only God is the judge to determine who is and who is not righteous in His sight. Our goal in life is to live a life with a conscience that is blameless before God and men. Given that, I find trying on our own efforts has proved futile. If God is the creator and sustainer, He also has presented a man with the ideal which he should elect, the law which he should obey, if he is to realize his destiny. Many times we believe we can, on our own bootstraps, achieve or fulfill the law and yet we fail because we forget our origin, forget our place in God’s plan due to selfish pursuits. This is nothing short of man’s alter ego playing dominant role.


A Christian, in my view, believes in good works also. But he thinks they are logical outcome of his dependence on God and His grace.

I too would not be so conceited as to say that Hindus are morally superior to Christians in any way. For better or worse, I've found that moral behavior isn't a function of religious belief (well there's Islam, but let's not go there). Granted, I've found the worst behavior in evangelical Christianity, but this is largely averaged out by other Christian denominations.

I agree that God's grace is necessary for moksha. But we return to my salient point: that grace is available to Hindus without even looking to Christianity. So I still see no need for conversion, especially given the detrimental effect it has on Hindus.

jaggin
26 January 2010, 08:10 AM
Jaggin, thank you for explaining about the physical and spiritual mind. I disagree with your fundamental assumption that the physical mind is somehow at enmity with God (i.e. I contest the belief in original sin). But this is another issue altogether.


Is it your contention that God teaches people new things via Christianity, but not Hinduism? I would say that quite the opposite is true. Christians believe that the canon of scripture is closed. Catholics and Orthodox may only receieve additional revelation from the Church (and what this "Church" is is also a matter of debate). Protestants believe that there is no new revelation from God at all, and that the knowledge contained in your Bible is sufficient. Hindus, on the other hand, are the ones who believe that God is always teaching us new things. Sri Krishna says,
Whenever there is a decline of Dharma and a predominance of Adharma, O Arjuna, then I manifest Myself. I appear from time to time for protecting the good, for transforming the wicked, and for establishing world order. (BG 4.07-08)
And indeed, we Hindus recognize many saints who have appeared throughout the centuries as incarnations of God. Christians treat the incarnation of God the Son as a unique event, never to be repeated. But we believe that God becomes incarnate as a man on a regular basis. God teaches us new things quite often. Can you say the same? If you are suggesting that we Hindus are in need of Christianity because of regular revelation from God, then I think your argument is contradicted by the fact that Hindu theology, and not Christian doctrine, teaches that God has new things to tell us.

As a sidenote, your argument also presupposes that the Bible is true. If I reject the Bible as divinely inspired by God, then what remaining incentive do I have to consider what Christianity has to tell me about God?



I believe you are alluding to Mark 10:21. The passage says that the man was rich, and that he didn't follow Jesus because Jesus also asked him to give all he had to the poor. Again, it seems to me the context of this passage suggests that Jesus was teaching this man to not be attached to his worldly wealth; I'm not sure it was a general teaching.

Whatever the case, you're once again not addressing Sri Krishna's teaching about his continued incarnations. You portray Christianity as a means of following God directly, and Hinduism as a means of following God via a book or a guru. Again, I don't think this argument holds water when analyzing the two religions. Christianity, whether Catholic or Protestant, places a church heirarchy between God and men. Men must submit to elders and pastors as church authorities. Hindus have no such heirarchy. Protestant Christianity places a strong importance on the Bible. Rarely do you see Hindus revering a religious Scripture above God himself. Who's really following God, and who's really following the book or guru?

My friend, your arguments are very eloquent, which doesn't surprise me considering the tradition of intellectual excellence among Christian apologists. But they don't ultimately hold up when one looks at the specifics of the Christian religion.

Namaste Sanjaya: I wasn't skipping your post but delaying so I can give it my full attention.

Maybe you just haven't lived as long as I have, lol. I don't view so called "original sin" as a problem of the physical mind but as a spiritual problem ie. a weak conscience. Adam and Eve lived in a state of grace within their physical frame because their consciences were free of evil. It takes an evil conscience to just let go of the physical and allow lust to reign.

I wasn't speaking generally but specifically. The Christian concept is a new concept to a Hindu and was to the Jew as well. God can do whatever He wants. I cant speak for Hinduism but I am aware that there are divisions in Christianity between those who believe that God can reveal new things and those who believe He can have nothing new to say.

This isn't necessarily about new things but a restoration of things that should be. A generation that doesn't know God (such as those subjected to the atheistic teachings of Communism) have no knowledge of things we already know and it needs to be restored to them. It is new to them but not to the world.

Every event is a unique event but even Christians recognize that Abraham was visited by God (although not by birth). In how many of those incarnations did God lay down His life to save yours?

[COLOR=olive]Yes. And many Christians that I talk to have the same experience.

I am not suggesting this. I am saying that when God has something to say it is better for you to listen. Closing off the Christian message because it isn't Hindu sounds like either a problem with pride or a psychological problem.

This fits in well with what I just said in the previous paragraph. Obviously this is a consideration even for Christians. When the Reformation came, the leaders revisited the books of the Bible to see if our antecedents having made serious errors on other things might also have made errors on the formation of the Biblical Canon. As a result they eliminated the Apochypha from the Bible. On the other hand how would you consider the Uphanishads? They appear to be the ruminations of men rather than inspired and I believe that often enough the concepts found therein are not correct. At least the writers of the Vedas appear to have known what they were talking about.

The Buddhists would probably disagree with you. They place a great degree of importance on the issue of attachment. There are many instances where Jesus taught about the same thing particularly Mat 5. However the main issue of the rich man was whether He really loved God with all his heart (Jesus says: where your treasure is your heart will be also).

It isn't Chistianity that does this but men who do it. However there is a safety feature in this: a person can recognize thru the help of others if they are listening to a false spirit. It wasn't meant to be a block but a safety net. I have read a book by a Sikh who believes that any spiritual journey should have a spiritual guide (not a master).

If I were a Hindu I wouldn't rely on those scriptures either, lol. However the issue is not that of following because all religions attempt that.

I am sure that we will have many discussions about this. I look forward to it. Truth will always stand up to a challenge but falsehoods are impossible to defend.

jaggin
26 January 2010, 08:35 AM
Namaste

I presume, being a Christian of deep faith, you know what you are saying while using the words Jesus , heaven and hell.

Some of our other friends on either side of the fence - Christian and Non-christian,
may have a narrower view of "Jesus" and hence all the contradictions, disagreements, unnecessary dogmas.

How do we define Jesus, heaven and hell ?

Jesus can't possibly be just the historical body, person from Nazreth.
Jesus to me is the spirit , the grace-of-Jesus, the AtmA.

Since AtmA is ONE, Jesus and ParamAtmA , His Father, and all devtaas are interconected. Grace coming from one is grace coming from all.




I suppose I qualify as a rarity but I didn't get to this point overnight. I suspect that I did not have anywhere near a definitive concept until I started debating. However the words are not mine but come from God and all the credit is due Him.

It would be easy to view Jesus as just a man or another finite spirit like us but the reality is that He is the incarnation of the infinite Spirit of God.

If by atma you mean all spirits then Christians do not believe that all spirits are one. However the Spirit of God is one even though He is omnipresent. I am not familiar with the term "devtaa."

BTW welcome to Hindu Dharma Forums. I have found the posters on here to be informative and helpful and I think you will also.

jaggin
26 January 2010, 09:04 AM
Hi Rahul, thank you for your response. Please allow me to comment on what you've said.



We may be going in circles, so for the purposes of this discussion let's stipulate to this "all men are sinners" theory, and get to the root of the issue. Even if all men are guilty of sin, how is Christianity the answer to this problem? Lord Vishnu promises that if we do Satyanarayana Puja every month on the full moon day, then he will take our sins away. And this is not a "works based" solution to sin (to put it in very Christianized language), anymore than assent to Christian doctrine would be. Christians will say that their religion is the key to absolution from sin because the Bible says so, but we have our own Scriptures that make the same claim. What compelling reason is there to believe in Christianity?



Sure, but this presupposes that we know what God is telling us. Christians say that you will go to hell if you don't believe in their religion, and they might (correctly) say that it's God's right to save and condemn whoever he wants for whatever reason he chooses. The problem isn't in the level of authority they assume God has. The problem is that we don't believe in the Bible. In order for us to believe that the Christian doctrine of salvation is true, we must first accept the Bible as truth. How do you determine whether a book is of divine origin? Since Christians don't believe that God incarnates himself as a man on a regular basis, all we have to go on is the book itself. We must use our reason to determine what a divinely inspired book would look like and then see if the Bible meets these expectations. Personally I find nothing in the Bible to suggest a divine origin. Christian apologetics is so shoddy and intellectually dishonest that it doesn't do a very good job of compelling me.



Is it really dangerous to society? Many Hindus don't believe in good and evil, but very rarely do you see a Hindu killing in the name of his religion. I'm not saying that I don't believe in absolute good and evil. But one potential problem is that people will tend to regard themselves as good, and will regard those of other religions as evil. In every European Christian crusade, the crusaders were alwas portrayed as good, and the enemy as evil. In the hands of Christians, this doctrine can be used for all manners of evil. It's ironic that ardent belief in evil often leads to evil. Personally, I care more about a person's behavior than his philosophical views.



I think his point is identical to the one I made earlier. Western Christians seem to have a free pass with regard to salvation. For a Westerner born in an evangelical Christian family, placing one's faith in Christ is a very simple matter of trusting in Jesus and practicing the family religion. Even a Western liberal Christian has an easy time converting to the evangelical version of his faith, since he is not really leaving his family's faith at all. Not so for Hindus. We are expected to abandon the religion of our family and ancestors, believe that they are condemned to hell, and unite ourselves to a church filled with culturally foreign people. Essentially, we are asked to make a near infinitely more radical change in lifestyle than Western Christians. Do you see the asymmetry here? Honoring your father and mother is not possible when you reject the faith in which they have raised you. The claim that all mothers and fathers are also sinners is a non-answer to my charge that Western Christians get to be good sons to their fathers by obeying their directives to attend church, whereas Hindus are expected to be bad sons by rejecting our fathers' devotion to the Lord, and regarding our families' murthis as "worthless idols." This is why Hindus are so opposed to missionary activity and conversion to Christianity. It destroys the strong family bond that is central in Indian culture. You might be tempted to respond that "we must obey God rather than man." But as I said above, you'd first need to convince me that the Bible really is the word of God.

There is no question of this. Jesus said it would happen. It isn't that He wishes for it to happen but there doesn't seem to be a remedy for it. So the question becomes do you really show your parents respect by following that which you know to be false just because they follow it? Would you torture your children for fun just because your parents did that to you?

I wouldn't even attempt to do that. As Pat Robertson put it: Don't ask me; ask God.

I suspect an ethnocentric missionary would take that view. I doubt that God really expects that view. The Church would do well to remember that Jews thought Gentiles ought to become Jews in order to be considered Christian. Paul convinced the leaders of the Church that this was not the will of God. I don't remember Paul preaching against another religion other than to reveal its false concepts and He was willing to accept that part of a religion that wasn't false. What does tend to happen is that people who have found something really good tend to forget about whatever they had before that wasn't as good. Or to paraphrase Paul: I put away my childish toys when I became a man.

Sherab
26 January 2010, 09:51 AM
Ask God?

The flaw here...

He already has asked God!

All you've been asking is a war-like asura.

sanjaya
26 January 2010, 02:48 PM
Namaste Sanjaya: I wasn't skipping your post but delaying so I can give it my full attention.

No offense taken. Most of us on this forum have full time jobs, and likely, posting on HDF isn't the first thing on our minds when we wake up in the morning. Thank you for writing a thorough response that addresses most of my points. Please allow me to respond.


There is no question of this. Jesus said it would happen. It isn't that He wishes for it to happen but there doesn't seem to be a remedy for it. So the question becomes do you really show your parents respect by following that which you know to be false just because they follow it? Would you torture your children for fun just because your parents did that to you?

I see that you freely admit that the problem I stated does indeed exist. Converting to Christianity requires that Hindus disobey our parents and cultural traditions. This explains the failure of Christian missionaries in India over the past five centuries. As to your point about showing parents respect by following a religion that is false, your statement incorrectly presupposes two things: that Hinduism is false, and that I believe it to be false. You've yet to offer any convincing proof that Hinduism is false, and that Christianity is true. If you expect Hindus to abandon all that we hold dear, you'd better have such evidence. Do you have any evidence that doesn't rely on shoddy evangelical apologetics?





I wouldn't even attempt to do that. As Pat Robertson put it: Don't ask me; ask God.

Sherab put it best: I already did, and he told me not to take the Bible seriously. As I told you, Hinduism is experiential, we can get messages from God that don't come from a book. So it looks like you and I have conflicting messages from God. If you believe in the idea of objective truth, you might want to suggest a way to discern true divine messages from false ones.

As an aside, I don't know that quoting Pat Robertson will earn you any credibility. He is especially hated among Hindus for the various comments he has made about us.


I suspect an ethnocentric missionary would take that view. I doubt that God really expects that view. The Church would do well to remember that Jews thought Gentiles ought to become Jews in order to be considered Christian. Paul convinced the leaders of the Church that this was not the will of God. I don't remember Paul preaching against another religion other than to reveal its false concepts and He was willing to accept that part of a religion that wasn't false. What does tend to happen is that people who have found something really good tend to forget about whatever they had before that wasn't as good. Or to paraphrase Paul: I put away my childish toys when I became a man.

But you just told me that Hindus are expected to abandon the religion of our family and ancestors. I said that conversion to sChristianity, "destroys the strong family bond that is central in Indian culture." You responded "There is no question of this. Jesus said it would happen." So which is it?


Maybe you just haven't lived as long as I have, lol. I don't view so called "original sin" as a problem of the physical mind but as a spiritual problem ie. a weak conscience. Adam and Eve lived in a state of grace within their physical frame because their consciences were free of evil. It takes an evil conscience to just let go of the physical and allow lust to reign.

I doubt this is a problem of a lack of experience. The Christian doctrine of original sin just isn't found in Hinduism. You probably shouldn't presuppose it in discussions with Hindus, because time will be wasted when we challenge your Christian presuppositions.



I wasn't speaking generally but specifically. The Christian concept is a new concept to a Hindu and was to the Jew as well. God can do whatever He wants. I cant speak for Hinduism but I am aware that there are divisions in Christianity between those who believe that God can reveal new things and those who believe He can have nothing new to say.

It's not a new concept to Hindus at all. We're the ones saying that God can do whatever he wants. Christians are the ones saying that God is constrained by his own sense of justice to send all people to hell for failing to believe in Jesus. It's always seemed to me that Christians have a rather shallow view of God.

Alas, the issue here is revelation, not soteriology. The New Testament claims that there is an office of prophet, through whom God can speak. Yet I've never seen a single Christian prophet who wasn't involved in some television money scandal. In practice, the Christian God seems to have nothing new to say. Wouldn't you agree?


This isn't necessarily about new things but a restoration of things that should be. A generation that doesn't know God (such as those subjected to the atheistic teachings of Communism) have no knowledge of things we already know and it needs to be restored to them. It is new to them but not to the world.

Christian platitudes such as this sound nice on paper. But you still haven't offered any compelling reason for me to believe that the "restoration of things that should be" requires the Christian gospel.


Every event is a unique event but even Christians recognize that Abraham was visited by God (although not by birth). In how many of those incarnations did God lay down His life to save yours?

Ah yes, this is the old "my God died for me and yours didn't!" routine. In this sense more than any other, I find Christianity to be akin to a sales pitch. First Christians tell me about a problem I didn't know I had (sin that needs to be punished by God with eternal hellfire), and then offer me the perfect solution (the Christian gospel) at seemingly no cost (sola gratia and sola fide), only to tell me about the hidden fees (abandoning my current religion and culture and living like a Christian) after I've made the purchase. Asking me how many avatars of God laid down their lives for me is like asking me how many times God has provided a new horse for my buggy. Of what benefit would it be to me for God to give me something I don't need? And this is to say nothing of the problems with this penal substitution doctrine, which states that your sins can be absolved merely by believing in a religious teaching...but that's another discussion altogether.



I am not suggesting this. I am saying that when God has something to say it is better for you to listen. Closing off the Christian message because it isn't Hindu sounds like either a problem with pride or a psychological problem.



You said this in response to my question about whether Christians can say that God teaches them new things. If your answer is yes, I'm curious to know how you can reconcile this with your belief that scripture alone is sufficient for salvation. But to respond to this, I already believe that God speaks to people regardless of their religion. I believe that God will speak to a person even if he practices a religion like Christianity, which contains very little truth. The Gita says this much:
Whosoever desires to worship whatever deity — using any name, form, and method — with faith, I make their faith steady in that very deity. Endowed with steady faith they worship that deity, and obtain their wishes through that deity. Those wishes are, indeed, granted only by Me. (7.21-22)So your claim that Christians can hear the voice of God is fully consistent with Hinduism. But I'm not sure it's consistent with your religion.





I am not suggesting this. I am saying that when God has something to say it is better for you to listen. Closing off the Christian message because it isn't Hindu sounds like either a problem with pride or a psychological problem.

By no means have I ignored the Christian message completely. I've read the entire Bible. I've read books by Christian theologians. I've read the ante-Nicene church fathers. I've also gone to churches and even Bible studies. Hopefully without engaging in hubris, I think I'm qualified to say that I probably know more about Christianity than most Christians. And it is from this well-informed posture that I've judged Christianity to be devoid of any spiritual benefit that can't already be found in Hinduism. If you were to say that I should continue listening to a message that I've already judged unreliable, I'd have to liken this to the creationists who cry "teach the controversy," when the controversy between evolution and creationism has already been decisively settled. Forgive me, but my perception is that Christians are fighting for a lost cause.





This fits in well with what I just said in the previous paragraph. Obviously this is a consideration even for Christians. When the Reformation came, the leaders revisited the books of the Bible to see if our antecedents having made serious errors on other things might also have made errors on the formation of the Biblical Canon. As a result they eliminated the Apochypha from the Bible.

I'm actually quite familiar with the Reformation. The criteria on which your spiritual fathers decided to remove the apocrypha are quite dubious. It seems like it had more to do with the apocrypha's teachings about prayers for the dead, which can be found in the books of Macabees, and which agree with Roman Catholic teaching. Of all the apocryphal books that were removed, it seems like the Reformers had sound reasoning only for removing Judith (because it contains many anachronisms and glorifies violence). However, you seem to be advocating a principle that I wouldn't expect to hear from a Protestant. You believe that the Biblical canon is not set in stone. Are you willing to admit that in theory, you would reject the entire Bible based on compelling evidence? Many Hindus would be willing to say this about our Scriptures (granted, our definition of "compelling evidence" doesn't include ahistoricity, since we don't believe in Scriptural infallibility as you do). If your answer is yes, then I'm surprised that you haven't removed your creation account due to its conflict with modern science. I'm also surprised that you haven't removed all four gospels, whose contradictions far outweigh the contradictions between the apocrypha and the Tanakh.

But this is all a digression. Allow me to return to my main point. You are trying to use the Bible to convert Hindus to Christianity, but you don't give us any reason to believe that the Bible is either inerrent or inspired. Pointing to your willingness to reconsider your own canon (even if the Reformers did so for dubious reasons) does nothing to convince us.


On the other hand how would you consider the Uphanishads? They appear to be the ruminations of men rather than inspired and I believe that often enough the concepts found therein are not correct. At least the writers of the Vedas appear to have known what they were talking about.

Maybe they are. I don't doubt that at least some of what is found in Hindu Scripture is not "inspired" by God (in the sense that you'd understand inspiration). As a scientist I am forced to reject several teachings found in Hindu Scripture. Most notably, as an astronomer I am forced to reject the causal explanations for Vedic astrology. Like many Hindus, I respect logic, reason, and evidence above superstition. But Scripture plays a far less central role in Hinduism than it does in Christianity. I seriously doubt your judgment about the Uphanishads, since I have always found wisdom in their teachings. But you could show the whole of Hindu Scripture to be a fraud, and it still wouldn't convince us to convert to Christianity. The reason is that Hinduism isn't what's on trial here; Christianity is. You can't argue someone into Christianity by attacking Hinduism.



The Buddhists would probably disagree with you. They place a great degree of importance on the issue of attachment. There are many instances where Jesus taught about the same thing particularly Mat 5. However the main issue of the rich man was whether He really loved God with all his heart (Jesus says: where your treasure is your heart will be also).

Yes, those Buddhists who live in poverty would likely disagree with me. But they would probably disagree with Jesus too. By the first few chapters of Acts, it's clear that Jesus' instructions didn't include vows of poverty, since Christians outside Jerusalem didn't give all of their possessions to the poor as the Jerusalem Christians did. And modern Christians make it a point to vote for political candidates who protect personal property rights. So whatever Jesus taught, it's clear that poverty isn't a requirement in modern Christianity. Anyway, this is also a digression; you're free to interpret your scripture however you wish insofar as it doesn't negatively affect Hindus.



It isn't Chistianity that does this but men who do it. However there is a safety feature in this: a person can recognize thru the help of others if they are listening to a false spirit. It wasn't meant to be a block but a safety net. I have read a book by a Sikh who believes that any spiritual journey should have a spiritual guide (not a master).

Hinduism and Christianity do share a belief that spiritual progress can't be made in a vacuum. But I'm not sure about your belief that the church heirarchy is the design of men. The Bible itself says that God instituted many offices, such as apostle, prophet, pastor, etc. It further places deacons in positions of service, elders (Greek episkopoi) in places of leadership, and pastors in teaching roles. Most denominations complicate this a bit furter, but the heirarchy can be found in the Bible. See the pastoral epistles of Paul to Timothy, and the one to Titus.



If I were a Hindu I wouldn't rely on those scriptures either, lol. However the issue is not that of following because all religions attempt that.

Contrary to your backhanded comment (unless I'm misunderstanding your intent), Hindu reverence of God above Scripture is not due to any deficiency on the part of the Scripture. To put it simply, we don't believe, as you do, that a book can be living in the same way that God is.



I am sure that we will have many discussions about this. I look forward to it. Truth will always stand up to a challenge but falsehoods are impossible to defend.

Agreed. As your own Bible quotes Rabbi Gamaliel as saying, the will of God can't be opposed by men. But that doesn't mean that we can analyze religious issues objectively and scientifically. There are many problems that I see with Christianity, namely its teachings don't correspond to reality. Christian platitudes will not suffice; these problems need to be addressed directly. This is doubly true if Christians are looking to sell your religion to Hindus.

Eastern Mind
26 January 2010, 03:25 PM
Vannakkam Sanjaya: Your persistence is admirable.

Aum Namasivaya

jaggin
28 January 2010, 07:01 AM
Despite my lack of anything good to say about Christianity, I feel the same way about Jesus. This, however, isn't enough for evangelical Christians. They want conversion. Why, I wonder, do they require us to denounce Hinduism and adopt Christian lifestyles?

You should be ashamed to admit that.

Is this an antithetical statement to your previous statement?

Of course! It would be absurd to preach good news only to wish someone to reject it. It would be sort of like saying "You can accept Jesus as your savior from sin or stay dead but I'm hoping that you will stay dead." Where is the love in that?

My guess is that having the message of hope gives them a superiority complex but that is only half of it. How many Christians will be able to even half understand Hinduism. Most likely Christians go by observance and what is to be observed? A bowing down to idols? However not only Christians have this view but Muslims also are apt to perceive it that way.
So, if the perception is idol worship then the whole religion is viewed as tainted.

jaggin
28 January 2010, 07:22 AM
Namaste Sanjaya

Yes, I know what you mean. If the evangelical Christians or any fundamentalists insist on a narrower view , why worry about what they say ? How does their requiring any adherence from us make any difference to the Truth ?

Also, how can they say a Hindu way of life is not Christian ?

We only need the Absolute Truth , one without a second,
and that is of the Sacchidananda AtmA.

Aham Brahmasmi.

We can remove ignorance of our fellow Hindus, especially the vulnerable younger ones, who are in potential danger of being brainwashed into Dogmas.

We can help those who come to the door of Sanatana Dharma. Not much else needs to be done from our side :)

We are fortunate to not be in the dilemma.

If someone knowingly embraces Jesus's teachings, there is nothing wrong as long as they truly stick to the ways of the AtmA, which we find more frequently on the Sanatana Dharma side.

I truly appreciate many things Jesus taught.

I am the way the truth and the life. This is the definition of Jesus the world needs to know. Jesus == way,truth,life.

praNAm

A difference doesn't automatically denote falsehood. However truth in its very nature is more narrow than the myriad of perversions of truth into falsehoods. However Jesus is the Truth and that narrows it down considerably.

I didn't address this in the previous post so it may be appropriate to address it here. There is no Christian way of life per se. Jesus is the Way.
A person who has Jesus as his Lord will do that which pleases Him. If that happens to co-incide with a Hindu lifestyle there is no problem.

I could not agree more. It is simple isn't it?

jaggin
28 January 2010, 07:55 AM
Just a few comments on the role of grace and effort in this thread.

Now there are two perspectives to look from. One from that of God and one from the human side.

God is all knowing and knows and sees all past, present and future. There is nothing a human being is going to change by his effort because things happen exactly as known to the Almighty. If there were any scope for probabiilities, the Almighty would cease to be omniscient. So everything is deterministic if one has to admit God to be all knowing.

From the human side, we have limited knowledge. We see everything happening due to a mixture of determinism and probability. We say that "If I study well I would pass". But God's consciousness does not think like this and his will, effort,knowledge are eternal and not made in time. From God's own persprctive, his grace is not conferred to us based on our will or efforts. His grace was always available to us and we only had to opt for it. In this sense we say that God's grace is truely causeless because God never takes any decision within the adjunct called Time.

We cannot discount the human side of things just because the ALmighty sees Reality very differently from us. Infact, God sees only himself - this is the Absolute truth. But the world he fashioned out of himself presents to us not the Absolute truth where we have to abide by certain laws until we get to the Absolute truth. Grace is not readily available here - it is not difficult to prove this. The world we live in is mixed with immense falsehood where we must learn to separate truth from the false to avail of the grace of God. It does take human effort to do this, otherwise all of us would be saints right now. Human effort lies in taking to the path of sattva and avoiding rajas and tamas. Whenever the human is pulled down by the weight of his karma into rajas and tamas, he must cling to the hand of grace and never let it go!

Saints dont need the grace of God, they have already attained him. It is the sinners who need the grace of God and it does not need perfection on our part to seek his grace. But we should we humble when we seek that grace. We must not say "I did this, I did that.., please grace me!!". Gods grace comes down upon one who has shed his ego and one who is not asking for any reward, not even the reward of heaven or moxa. A worst sinner can be redeemed by giving up his "I" ness. Human effort is needed but the very effort we take must be considered God's grace for it to be fruitful. But grace is not meant to be used as an excuse for being lazy - we have to do our duty and God will do the rest.

This is an interesting treatise and fun to read even if it does tend to wander a bit.

We can't choose to have God give us a free gift. He either does or He doesn't and our choice doesn't enter in to it. Our only option is to accept or reject that gift. For instance God offers to save you from your sin. You can accept that offer or reject it. However if you did not know that He was making that offer, you could pray for a remedy for sin and receive that grace as an answer to prayer. However that grace was always there; the prayer only brought knowledge of it.

There is a choice to study or not to study. A person has a nature to sudy or not. For instance a ball will roll down an incline but a cube will not. Each has a different nature. Just as the scientist knows the nature of balls and cubes, God knows our nature. Next there is the will of God. If God does not wish a person to pass, no amount of study will help. Jonah is a prime example. He tried to take a boat ride far from Ninevah but he ended up in Ninevah anyway because God wanted him there.

sanjaya
28 January 2010, 11:49 AM
You should be ashamed to admit that.

Well, to be clear, I was talking about the issues relating to this thread. I don't mean to say that Christianity is all bad. But in any case, there's nothing shameful about what I've said at all. Christians have an abysmal record in their interactions with Hindus over the past several centuries. I'm sure you'll agree that it would be unreasonable to expect us to embrace Christians or their Christianity with open arms.


Is this an antithetical statement to your previous statement?

Not at all. I don't blame Jesus in the slightest for the misdeeds of his followers.



Of course! It would be absurd to preach good news only to wish someone to reject it. It would be sort of like saying "You can accept Jesus as your savior from sin or stay dead but I'm hoping that you will stay dead." Where is the love in that?

I suppose from an evangelical perspective it does make sense. And this, I think, is central to why Christianity has done more evil than good in the world. As you say, the initial message is loving. If I thought that people go to an eternal hell when they die, and I knew a way out of it, I would probably want to preach the message to everyone I know as well. But I've also noticed that when we non-Christians reject your message, Christians often turn belligerent, and their love becomes hatred. This is a natural human tendancy. I'm sure that some evangelists and missionaries bring their message out of love, and when that love is spurned, it can turn into hate.

I am able to see this from the Christian perspective. Now perhaps you would extend us the same courtesy. At your convenience and as your time allows, I would appreciate responses to the important issues I raised in my earlier post. But if your time doesn't allow such a response, then just consider this one issue. You are asking Hindus to reject our families, our culture, and our very faith in God in order to be saved from a hell that we don't believe in. Yet you can't offer any convincing evidence that your religion is true, and that ours is not. In Hinduism, people can experience God, but Christians reject these experiences as the work of demons. Maybe if your historical claims about the Bible could be verified, we might have reason to accept your charge of demonic communion and convert. But the closest thing you have to evidence is the poor arguments of people who would have us believe that dinosaur bones were put in the ground by Satan to test our faith. This is not mere rhetoric on my part. At every point on which reality disagrees with the Bible, Christians would have us believe in their book over reality, and they offer poor academics to convince us that our perception of reality is wrong. How can you ask us to give up our faith in God for a religion that doesn't even correspond to reality?



My guess is that having the message of hope gives them a superiority complex but that is only half of it. How many Christians will be able to even half understand Hinduism. Most likely Christians go by observance and what is to be observed? A bowing down to idols? However not only Christians have this view but Muslims also are apt to perceive it that way. So, if the perception is idol worship then the whole religion is viewed as tainted.

If I'm reading you right, you're asking us to buy into the arguments against Hinduism which are made by people who don't even understand Hinduism? If Christians misunderstand Hinduism, then you'd think that they could at least take the time to understand Christianity. As I said earlier, I've noticed that even I know more than most Christians about their own religion. I feel that if they studied it a bit further, they would run into the same logical problems that I have, and this alone might help you understand why we won't convert.

But maybe I'm misinterpreting you. Maybe you, as someone who has a better knowledge of Hinduism than most Christians, are pointing out that many Christians ask us to denounce Hinduism simply because they don't properly understand us. Arre you telling us that you are not asking us to denounce Hinduism and adopt Christian lifestyles? If so, then maybe you should tell us, in no uncertain terms (i.e. no vague platitudes), what Christians want from us, and why we should oblige your request.


A difference doesn't automatically denote falsehood. However truth in its very nature is more narrow than the myriad of perversions of truth into falsehoods. However Jesus is the Truth and that narrows it down considerably.

I know this was addressed to Smaranam, but please allow me to comment. Once again, you've got a problem at the presuppositional level. All your statements about truth are well and good, but they don't help your cause if you can't establish Christianity as the truth. Personally I believe in the idea of objective truth. And since we Hindus have experiential evidence of the truth of Hinduism, your pleas to embrace objective reality will only lead us to discard Christianity as one of the myriad of perversions of the truth.

Furthermore, I'm not sure you're accurate in your claim that truth is more narrow than falsehood. I could think of a few examples of truth that are more general than previously believed falsehoods.

Chris
28 January 2010, 03:31 PM
If I'm reading you right, you're asking us to buy into the arguments against Hinduism which are made by people who don't even understand Hinduism? If Christians misunderstand Hinduism, then you'd think that they could at least take the time to understand Christianity. As I said earlier, I've noticed that even I know more than most Christians about their own religion. I feel that if they studied it a bit further, they would run into the same logical problems that I have, and this alone might help you understand why we won't convert.

I have found this too, and it is interesting to see the bile and the hatred that Christians spew out towards those who do start to question the inconsistencies. I have seen someone accused of "siding with satan", "not putting their faith in Christ", "speaking evil", and worse for sugesting that a loving God might not actually send all non-Christians to hell. One Christian even told another how they were "looking forward to watching you being tortured for ever in hell".

I think the explanation for this is that fundamentalist Christianity is fear based, and the other followers have to do everything possible to stop themselves from thinking these thoughts. If they did they might turn out not to be "true Christians" and be tortured for ever for thinking these thoughts.

smaranam
29 January 2010, 10:45 AM
It would be easy to view Jesus as just a man or another finite spirit like us but the reality is that He is the incarnation of the infinite Spirit of God.

If by atma you mean all spirits then Christians do not believe that all spirits are one. However the Spirit of God is one even though He is omnipresent. I am not familiar with the term "devtaa."

BTW welcome to Hindu Dharma Forums. I have found the posters on here to be informative and helpful and I think you will also.

Namaste

Thank You :)
I see that you have been here for a few years. There are indeed very informative people here, they are all my Gurus.

I am sorry about not replying earlier. I had not been coming here and following the threads.

I was not talking about spirits in plural as individual souls i.e. us.
Devtaa in the context of this post means a form of God to put it simply.

So, any prayer/ worship / devotion to all forms of the Supreme as well as incarnations on earth and empowered Saints , is really received by the Absolute Supreme Divine, the Father, and grace is bestowed, prayers are answered really by the Father. Krshna assures this in the Bhagavad Gita, and says - I am THAT Supreme Destination, PAraBrahman.

Hence devotion and surrender is really meant , not for the FORM, rather the Principle (Tattva) behind the the form - this is what Jesus must have meant too. Since all these forms either ARE the Supreme (God, the Father) or representatives of Him, they are interconnected and ONE.

This is the broad thinking of Sanatana Dharma.

praNAm

smaranam
29 January 2010, 10:54 AM
Coincidentally one of the few Christians I respect posted something very similar on facebook (http://www.facebook.com/sunofmysoul?v=feed&story_fbid=269079610039&ref=mf).


"Strangely, we have come to a moment in human history when the message of the Sermon on the Mount could indeed save us, but it can no longer be heard above the din of dueling doctrines. Consider this: there is not a single word in that sermon about what to believe, only words about what to do. It is a behavioral manifesto, not a propositional one.

yet three centuries later, when the Nicene Creed became the official oath of Christendom, there was not a single word in it about what to do, only words about what to believe!"

This was a quote from a book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Saving-Jesus-Church-Worshiping-Following/dp/006156821X/)by Robin Myers.

Namaste

I haven't been to Facebook, but this is a nice way to put it -
what we should do rather than simply what we believe.

When Jesus said reach the Father thru' "Me" as in way truth life Love,
He was only asking people to follow Karma(way,life) Bhakti(love) and Jnana(truth) Yogas, to uncover the Divine.

praNAm

sanjaya
29 January 2010, 11:53 AM
I didn't address this in the previous post so it may be appropriate to address it here. There is no Christian way of life per se. Jesus is the Way.
A person who has Jesus as his Lord will do that which pleases Him. If that happens to co-incide with a Hindu lifestyle there is no problem.

There's one other point that I neglected to raise earlier. I've heard many evangelical Christians try to entice Indian Hindus to convert with this promise that we are not losing our culture, and a "Hindu lifestyle" that pleases Jesus is acceptable. But this is ultimately an empty promise. You and I both know that a Hindu lifestyle is not compatible with Christianity. Our worship of our gods is considered "idolatry" or polytheism by Christians. Hindus also believe in revering our parents above God. This too is considered idolatry. But take away things like this, and there is no Hindu culture. All you are left with is foolish things like the "Jesus puja," which are cheap imitations of Indian culture which have fully subtracted out the very things that define us. You may not believe that there is a Christian lifestyle, but it certainly looks that way to an outside observer. And it isn't compatible with Hindu culture.

jaggin
30 January 2010, 08:20 AM
Namaste

Thank You :)
I see that you have been here for a few years. There are indeed very informative people here, they are all my Gurus.

I am sorry about not replying earlier. I had not been coming here and following the threads.

I was not talking about spirits in plural as individual souls i.e. us.
Devtaa in the context of this post means a form of God to put it simply.

So, any prayer/ worship / devotion to all forms of the Supreme as well as incarnations on earth and empowered Saints , is really received by the Absolute Supreme Divine, the Father, and grace is bestowed, prayers are answered really by the Father. Krshna assures this in the Bhagavad Gita, and says - I am THAT Supreme Destination, PAraBrahman.

Hence devotion and surrender is really meant , not for the FORM, rather the Principle (Tattva) behind the the form - this is what Jesus must have meant too. Since all these forms either ARE the Supreme (God, the Father) or representatives of Him, they are interconnected and ONE.

This is the broad thinking of Sanatana Dharma.

praNAm


I suppose by forms of God you mean forms that God uses (such as a human body) since God is without form.

This is what Jesus says also.

Exactly. because to worship the form would be idolatry.

There is a oneness of God that does not require an inteconnection. The forms themselves may have no connection at all.

jaggin
30 January 2010, 08:53 AM
There's one other point that I neglected to raise earlier. I've heard many evangelical Christians try to entice Indian Hindus to convert with this promise that we are not losing our culture, and a "Hindu lifestyle" that pleases Jesus is acceptable. But this is ultimately an empty promise. You and I both know that a Hindu lifestyle is not compatible with Christianity. Our worship of our gods is considered "idolatry" or polytheism by Christians. Hindus also believe in revering our parents above God. This too is considered idolatry. But take away things like this, and there is no Hindu culture. All you are left with is foolish things like the "Jesus puja," which are cheap imitations of Indian culture which have fully subtracted out the very things that define us. You may not believe that there is a Christian lifestyle, but it certainly looks that way to an outside observer. And it isn't compatible with Hindu culture.

Yes, I most likely had my tongue in cheek. Jesus invariably changes people over to His way of thinking. However if something is inconsistent with the will of God why would you hold on to it?

That depends on what is meant by Christianity. In its essence Christianity has only a few simple requirements. No doubt there is an extended Christianity that might be less compatible but there is no requirement to follow it.

I am sure that there are traditional lifestyles that Christians lead but that isn't the same thing. For instance a Jewish Christian leads a more Jewish lifestyle than most Christians would. They are entirely different lifestyles but not incompatible lifestyles.

The question would then become whether Jesus would have a problem with it.

Yes. I believe that Jesus would have a problem with that. You can't serve two masters. You will either have Jesus as your Lord or not.

I would like to explore that because I don't believe you are being realistic about it.

sanjaya
30 January 2010, 11:57 AM
Hi Jaggin, thank you for responding to my latest comments. If you have a chance, I would also appreciate a response to my comments in post 161.


Yes, I most likely had my tongue in cheek. Jesus invariably changes people over to His way of thinking. However if something is inconsistent with the will of God why would you hold on to it?

Before I address this, I would like to talk once again about presuppositions. I often hear Christians telling Hindus to obey the will of God, to believe in the truth, etc. Again, you're mistakenly assuming that I believe in the Bible to begin with. Obviously, if I find that something I'm doing is inconsistent with the will of God, I'm not going to hold on to it. But you have yet to give me even the slightest compelling reason to believe that practicing Hinduism isn't fully consistent with God's will. I don't mean any offense, but I believe that you and most other Christians skirt this issue because once Christianity is held up to the test of objective truth, it fails. The lack of extrabiblical evidence for the existence of Jesus or records of his ministry, the additional gospels and Acts, the contradictory epistles, and other such things all show that Christianity stands on a weaker foundation than most Christians would believe. Christians often spend a lot of time refuting post-modernism and arguing for the existence of an objective truth. Here I am, fully agreeing with you that there is such a thing as objective truth, and you've failed to make the next step, and show that Christianity is true. Until you do, I could ask you the same questions that you are asking me.
I believe that religious conversion is against God's will, so why are you an apologist for a religon that does what God hates?

But as to the other point you raised (about living a Hindu lifestyle as a Christian), the problem is that Christian missionaries have always been speaking sardonically to us. They come to Hindus with claims of multiculturalism, saying that God draws his covenant people out of all races. But at the end of the day, being a Christian means being a Westerner, and the very things that define Hindus are forbidden in a Christian context.



That depends on what is meant by Christianity. In its essence Christianity has only a few simple requirements. No doubt there is an extended Christianity that might be less compatible but there is no requirement to follow it.

The "simple requirements" are restrictive enough. The requirement to renounce one's culture and family in order to be a Christian is derived from the Bible, and this is enough reason for Hindus not to convert.



I am sure that there are traditional lifestyles that Christians lead but that isn't the same thing. For instance a Jewish Christian leads a more Jewish lifestyle than most Christians would. They are entirely different lifestyles but not incompatible lifestyles.

This is another empty promise. One needn't look further than the Christian group "Jews for Jesus." This group is vilified by the rest of the Jewish community. It's seen for what it is: Christians playing dress up in order to entice Jews to convert. Is this what you would turn Hindus into? Would you have us be Christian hybrids who are recognized by other Hindus as tools for conversion?



The question would then become whether Jesus would have a problem with it.

I see that you're fond of the Socratic method, but I think you need to start providing real answers to these questions, because I doubt you would like the conclusions I've made. In the canonical gospels, to the extent that they are accurate renditions of Jesus' teachings, Jesus doesn't even address the issue of other religions. His teachings mainly concern care for the poor, love of God, and hypocrisy. And this is to say nothing of the extracanonical gospels, which agree even less with evangelical exclusivism. On that basis I would say that Jesus does not have a problem with Hinduism.



Yes. I believe that Jesus would have a problem with that. You can't serve two masters. You will either have Jesus as your Lord or not.

If this is your interpretation of Jesus' teachings, then this is yet another reason why Hindus won't become Christians. We don't hold to the same view of God as you do, and we tend to regard our parents as God. To us this doesn't constitute serving two masters, but as serving one God. Now, I can see that Christians would never approve of this, which goes to show why conversion to Christianity would only be spiritually destructive to us.



I would like to explore that because I don't believe you are being realistic about it.

Am I not? Evangelical churches in India are almost always at odds with Hindu culture. They divide families and villiages rather than creating unity. This is because evangelical Christianity requires a great degree of isolationism. I think I'm being very realistic about this, but feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong.

jaggin
02 February 2010, 08:43 AM
No offense taken. Most of us on this forum have full time jobs, and likely, posting on HDF isn't the first thing on our minds when we wake up in the morning. Thank you for writing a thorough response that addresses most of my points. Please allow me to respond.

I see that you freely admit that the problem I stated does indeed exist. Converting to Christianity requires that Hindus disobey our parents and cultural traditions. This explains the failure of Christian missionaries in India over the past five centuries. As to your point about showing parents respect by following a religion that is false, your statement incorrectly presupposes two things: that Hinduism is false, and that I believe it to be false. You've yet to offer any convincing proof that Hinduism is false, and that Christianity is true. If you expect Hindus to abandon all that we hold dear, you'd better have such evidence. Do you have any evidence that doesn't rely on shoddy evangelical apologetics?

Sherab put it best: I already did, and he told me not to take the Bible seriously. As I told you, Hinduism is experiential, we can get messages from God that don't come from a book. So it looks like you and I have conflicting messages from God. If you believe in the idea of objective truth, you might want to suggest a way to discern true divine messages from false ones.

As an aside, I don't know that quoting Pat Robertson will earn you any credibility. He is especially hated among Hindus for the various comments he has made about us.

But you just told me that Hindus are expected to abandon the religion of our family and ancestors. I said that conversion to sChristianity, "destroys the strong family bond that is central in Indian culture." You responded "There is no question of this. Jesus said it would happen." So which is it?

I doubt this is a problem of a lack of experience. The Christian doctrine of original sin just isn't found in Hinduism. You probably shouldn't presuppose it in discussions with Hindus, because time will be wasted when we challenge your Christian presuppositions.

It's not a new concept to Hindus at all. We're the ones saying that God can do whatever he wants. Christians are the ones saying that God is constrained by his own sense of justice to send all people to hell for failing to believe in Jesus. It's always seemed to me that Christians have a rather shallow view of God.

Alas, the issue here is revelation, not soteriology. The New Testament claims that there is an office of prophet, through whom God can speak. Yet I've never seen a single Christian prophet who wasn't involved in some television money scandal. In practice, the Christian God seems to have nothing new to say. Wouldn't you agree?

Christian platitudes such as this sound nice on paper. But you still haven't offered any compelling reason for me to believe that the "restoration of things that should be" requires the Christian gospel.

Ah yes, this is the old "my God died for me and yours didn't!" routine. In this sense more than any other, I find Christianity to be akin to a sales pitch. First Christians tell me about a problem I didn't know I had (sin that needs to be punished by God with eternal hellfire), and then offer me the perfect solution (the Christian gospel) at seemingly no cost (sola gratia and sola fide), only to tell me about the hidden fees (abandoning my current religion and culture and living like a Christian) after I've made the purchase. Asking me how many avatars of God laid down their lives for me is like asking me how many times God has provided a new horse for my buggy. Of what benefit would it be to me for God to give me something I don't need? And this is to say nothing of the problems with this penal substitution doctrine, which states that your sins can be absolved merely by believing in a religious teaching...but that's another discussion altogether.







You said this in response to my question about whether Christians can say that God teaches them new things. If your answer is yes, I'm curious to know how you can reconcile this with your belief that scripture alone is sufficient for salvation. But to respond to this, I already believe that God speaks to people regardless of their religion. I believe that God will speak to a person even if he practices a religion like Christianity, which contains very little truth. The Gita says this much:
Whosoever desires to worship whatever deity — using any name, form, and method — with faith, I make their faith steady in that very deity. Endowed with steady faith they worship that deity, and obtain their wishes through that deity. Those wishes are, indeed, granted only by Me. (7.21-22)So your claim that Christians can hear the voice of God is fully consistent with Hinduism. But I'm not sure it's consistent with your religion.






By no means have I ignored the Christian message completely. I've read the entire Bible. I've read books by Christian theologians. I've read the ante-Nicene church fathers. I've also gone to churches and even Bible studies. Hopefully without engaging in hubris, I think I'm qualified to say that I probably know more about Christianity than most Christians. And it is from this well-informed posture that I've judged Christianity to be devoid of any spiritual benefit that can't already be found in Hinduism. If you were to say that I should continue listening to a message that I've already judged unreliable, I'd have to liken this to the creationists who cry "teach the controversy," when the controversy between evolution and creationism has already been decisively settled. Forgive me, but my perception is that Christians are fighting for a lost cause.






I'm actually quite familiar with the Reformation. The criteria on which your spiritual fathers decided to remove the apocrypha are quite dubious. It seems like it had more to do with the apocrypha's teachings about prayers for the dead, which can be found in the books of Macabees, and which agree with Roman Catholic teaching. Of all the apocryphal books that were removed, it seems like the Reformers had sound reasoning only for removing Judith (because it contains many anachronisms and glorifies violence). However, you seem to be advocating a principle that I wouldn't expect to hear from a Protestant. You believe that the Biblical canon is not set in stone. Are you willing to admit that in theory, you would reject the entire Bible based on compelling evidence? Many Hindus would be willing to say this about our Scriptures (granted, our definition of "compelling evidence" doesn't include ahistoricity, since we don't believe in Scriptural infallibility as you do). If your answer is yes, then I'm surprised that you haven't removed your creation account due to its conflict with modern science. I'm also surprised that you haven't removed all four gospels, whose contradictions far outweigh the contradictions between the apocrypha and the Tanakh.

But this is all a digression. Allow me to return to my main point. You are trying to use the Bible to convert Hindus to Christianity, but you don't give us any reason to believe that the Bible is either inerrent or inspired. Pointing to your willingness to reconsider your own canon (even if the Reformers did so for dubious reasons) does nothing to convince us.



Maybe they are. I don't doubt that at least some of what is found in Hindu Scripture is not "inspired" by God (in the sense that you'd understand inspiration). As a scientist I am forced to reject several teachings found in Hindu Scripture. Most notably, as an astronomer I am forced to reject the causal explanations for Vedic astrology. Like many Hindus, I respect logic, reason, and evidence above superstition. But Scripture plays a far less central role in Hinduism than it does in Christianity. I seriously doubt your judgment about the Uphanishads, since I have always found wisdom in their teachings. But you could show the whole of Hindu Scripture to be a fraud, and it still wouldn't convince us to convert to Christianity. The reason is that Hinduism isn't what's on trial here; Christianity is. You can't argue someone into Christianity by attacking Hinduism.




Yes, those Buddhists who live in poverty would likely disagree with me. But they would probably disagree with Jesus too. By the first few chapters of Acts, it's clear that Jesus' instructions didn't include vows of poverty, since Christians outside Jerusalem didn't give all of their possessions to the poor as the Jerusalem Christians did. And modern Christians make it a point to vote for political candidates who protect personal property rights. So whatever Jesus taught, it's clear that poverty isn't a requirement in modern Christianity. Anyway, this is also a digression; you're free to interpret your scripture however you wish insofar as it doesn't negatively affect Hindus.




Hinduism and Christianity do share a belief that spiritual progress can't be made in a vacuum. But I'm not sure about your belief that the church heirarchy is the design of men. The Bible itself says that God instituted many offices, such as apostle, prophet, pastor, etc. It further places deacons in positions of service, elders (Greek episkopoi) in places of leadership, and pastors in teaching roles. Most denominations complicate this a bit furter, but the heirarchy can be found in the Bible. See the pastoral epistles of Paul to Timothy, and the one to Titus.




Contrary to your backhanded comment (unless I'm misunderstanding your intent), Hindu reverence of God above Scripture is not due to any deficiency on the part of the Scripture. To put it simply, we don't believe, as you do, that a book can be living in the same way that God is.




Agreed. As your own Bible quotes Rabbi Gamaliel as saying, the will of God can't be opposed by men. But that doesn't mean that we can analyze religious issues objectively and scientifically. There are many problems that I see with Christianity, namely its teachings don't correspond to reality. Christian platitudes will not suffice; these problems need to be addressed directly. This is doubly true if Christians are looking to sell your religion to Hindus.

Actually I am retired but wife is handicapped so I have to get at housework. I would like this to be the frist thing I think of in the morning but sometimes it is not so there goes any chance that I am perfect, lol.

Your point is well taken. I wan't referring to Hinduism as false but simply saying that if parents wanted you to follow a false way then it shouldn't be an issue because you wouldn't follow the false way and wouldn't be honoring your parents by doing so. In the same light if parents were to say to you don't become a Christian because that way is bad you wouldn't be under any obligation to follow their lead.

This is true of all religions. The Bible says that it is the inspired word of God and that He speaks the truth. The only other way you have than scriptures is to hear God speak to you personnaly. I can give you my testimony as well that what Jesus said is true but I am just another writer talking about his experiences just as the Biblical writers were.

Up to now God had not seen fit to give me confirmation that I was hearing from Him. I just accepted it on faith but lately people have been challenging my hearing. God spoke to me one sunday morning and said "they have slipped something in." When the time came to read the confession of sin, the words "in the name of Jesus," were added on the end when those words would not usually be there. The understanding was given me by God that confession could not be made in that name because God is not the author of sin. What kind of confirmation have you had? Obviously both can't be true. However there could be reason why a person could be told not to take the Bible seriously for instance: if it confused the person, if it was not being understood correctly, if it were not relevant to what the person was asking about. I don't take the Bible seriously when it says to stone adulterers. That law existed for Israel for the time that God was keeping that nation under the law.

That doesn't surprise me; he is very outspoken and evangelistic. However he has to stand on his own merit before God and he isn't likely to be perfect any more than me. However the fact remains that He hears from God and many of his teachings are inspired.

I would be intested in a short description of how Hinduism accounts for sin. Original sin (as viewed by Christian scholars) isn't original. However its reintroduction into the world does have an origen.

Are you going to try to tell me that Hinduism doesn't believe that God is just? How does one then account for Karma? Are you going to say like the Buddhists that it is somehow a natural affliction (although I wouldn't deny there is some of that)? How about Krishna and his attitude that a war had to be fought against an evil leader? Isn't that God expecting justice to be done? What is God really punishing for lack of belief in Jesus: isn't it actually an unwillingness to repent sin and be saved from it?

No. I wouldn't say that. However that doesn't mean that God has something new to say to the world or through a book.

That is what my parents said to me, that I didn't need it because I was already a good person. What they don't know won't hurt them but I know better. However Jesus says that by congratulating yourself on your lack of need you will not be justified before God.

I like this. I feel that I am getting to know you. However I will have to discuss the rest later because this is getting long.

sanjaya
03 February 2010, 02:44 AM
Hi Jaggin, thank you once again for your response.


Your point is well taken. I wan't referring to Hinduism as false but simply saying that if parents wanted you to follow a false way then it shouldn't be an issue because you wouldn't follow the false way and wouldn't be honoring your parents by doing so. In the same light if parents were to say to you don't become a Christian because that way is bad you wouldn't be under any obligation to follow their lead.

You seem to be implying that consideration of others is always to be subordinated to the truth. Am I correct in my reading of your comments? If so, let me show you from your own Bible that this is not true. In Romans chapter 14 of your Bible, the issue of so-called "non-essential doctrines" is raised. There are statements made like "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind" (verse 5) and "the faith that you have, keep between yourself and God" (verse 22). The application most evangelicals make from this text is drinking. Many Christians are against drinking alcohol, and equally many believe that it is perfectly acceptable when done in moderation. However, this is not an issue on which the Bible is unclear; it is very clear in saying that drinking is acceptable. Any abstinent Christian who is skilled in Biblical exegesis will not attempt to argue that consumption of alcohol is sinful. Rather, he will point to the generally deleterious effects of alcohol and the common use of alcohol by "heathens" in modern society, and then make the argument that it's best not to drink alcohol, even though it is permitted by the Bible. This would correspond to the "weak" Christians who are vegetarians (see verse 2). But the Bible is also clear on how these abstinent Christians are to be treated by those who partake. Drinking Christians are instructed to allow these Christians to abstain, even if they do so for incorrect reasons.

Now, I'm not trying to draw you into a discussion about drinking. Nor am I under any delusions that the Bible would be supportive of Hinduism. My point is this: in the case I described above, objective truth is subordinated to one's consideration for others. So you are quite wrong, I think, to so strongly insist that the truth is more important that obedience to one's parents.

Of course, at some level this is all a moot point. Until you can produce some evidence that Christianity is the truth, all the arguments in the world abut objective truth only serve to weaken the case for Christianity.


38868]This is true of all religions. The Bible says that it is the inspired word of God and that He speaks the truth. The only other way you have than scriptures is to hear God speak to you personnaly. I can give you my testimony as well that what Jesus said is true but I am just another writer talking about his experiences just as the Biblical writers were.

Up to now God had not seen fit to give me confirmation that I was hearing from Him. I just accepted it on faith but lately people have been challenging my hearing. God spoke to me one sunday morning and said "they have slipped something in." When the time came to read the confession of sin, the words "in the name of Jesus," were added on the end when those words would not usually be there. The understanding was given me by God that confession could not be made in that name because God is not the author of sin. What kind of confirmation have you had? Obviously both can't be true. However there could be reason why a person could be told not to take the Bible seriously for instance: if it confused the person, if it was not being understood correctly, if it were not relevant to what the person was asking about. I don't take the Bible seriously when it says to stone adulterers. That law existed for Israel for the time that God was keeping that nation under the law.

Yes, it is true of all religions. Unless you can give me some reasonable way to discern true divine revelation from false revelation (note: physical and historical evidence counts!), you have no way of arguing in favor of the truth of Christianity. As far as evidence goes, the Bible fails in every regard. It inaccurately describes the creation of the universe, it describes events for which there is no historical or archeological record, and it makes philosophical presumptions that aren't intutitively obvious. As for your testimony about what impact Jesus has had on your life, I could counter it with the revelation that I have received from Lord Vishnu. Our seemingly contradictory revelations make sense to me: Hindus believe that God gives different dharma to different people, and that he doesn't favor one religious group over another. You're the one who believes that demons are capable of whispering lies in our ears, so it seems to me that you've got a serious philosophical and theological problem that needs to be reconciled.

But ask yourself this: do you really believe that demons are telling us lies everytime a Hindu is motivated by divine revelation from God to do good? When a Hindu chooses peace over violence because of what God has taught us in Hindu Scripture, is this the doctrine of a demon? I was under the impression that Satan's house cannot stand if it is divided. When Hindus do good, you say that we have a demon. Sound familiar? But as Jesus said in Matthew 11:19, "wisdom is justified by her deeds." I contend that every time a Hindu does good, it demonstrates that we do not need a penal substitutionary atonement theology to receive salvation.





That doesn't surprise me; he is very outspoken and evangelistic. However he has to stand on his own merit before God and he isn't likely to be perfect any more than me. However the fact remains that He hears from God and many of his teachings are inspired.

You're free to believe what you will about Pat Robertson, just as we are free to believe that he is an evil man (and I think his track record warrents such an assessment). But virtually all Hindus who know him believe that he laughable at best. If you don't want to be mistaken for a fanatical Christian when speaking to Hindus, I would avoid bringing him up.



I would be intested in a short description of how Hinduism accounts for sin. Original sin (as viewed by Christian scholars) isn't original. However its reintroduction into the world does have an origen.

There are many Hindu views concerning sin. As has been stated on this forum, most believe that it is a result of spiritual ignorance. Personally I believe that man has the freedom to choose between good and evil (which is also taught in chapter 30 of Deuteronomy, by the way). But the solution to the problem of sin is fairly well agreed upon. Mankind can be alleviated of the burdens of sin by performing Satyanarayana Puja. It is said that this puja, when performed to Lord Narayana with devotion, brings happiness and peace of mind in this life, and salvation in the next. This is how one can be liberated from his sin.


But, as is often the case in Hinduism, simpler solutions are offered in place of complicated ones. As straightforward as the Satyanarayana Puja is, there is another way. It says,
Set aside all meritorious deeds and religious rituals, and just surrender completely to My will with firm faith and loving devotion. I shall liberate you from all sins, the bonds of Karma. (BG 18.66)
Mere surrender to God is alone enough to liberate one from sin, apart from any religious ritual or assent to doctrine. So as you can see, we already have a means by which God deals with sin (to put it in very Christian terms). And if I may be so bold as to say, I feel that this means is superior to the many contradictory atonement theories (e.g. penal substitution, Christ the Victor, ransom theology) offered by Christianity. In Christianity, there are multiple ways to interpret the atonement, and each way necessitates that the other doctrines are damnable. I prefer mere surrender to the Lord, without the need for conversion to Christianity.



Are you going to try to tell me that Hinduism doesn't believe that God is just? How does one then account for Karma? Are you going to say like the Buddhists that it is somehow a natural affliction (although I wouldn't deny there is some of that)? How about Krishna and his attitude that a war had to be fought against an evil leader? Isn't that God expecting justice to be done? What is God really punishing for lack of belief in Jesus: isn't it actually an unwillingness to repent sin and be saved from it?

On the contrary, of course we believe that God is just. What we reject is that eternal condemnation to hell constitutes justice. Most of us would differ from our Buddhist friends, who view karma as a law of nature. But observe Sri Krishna: he dealt with the Kauravas' sin in their mortal lives. He didn't sentence them to an eternity of torment for their finite sinful deeds. And if you note the end of the Mahabharata epic, you'll find that even their ultimate destination is heaven, because ultimately we are all in God's maya, and God will reunite all of us with himself in the future.

I would ask you how you can believe that God is just while sentencing sinners to hell. But I know the response. Evangelicals tell me that even a minor sin is a transgression against God, and that violating God's holiness is an infinitely heinous offense because God is infinitely holy. I think you can see why I find that to be an unsatisfying explanation.



No. I wouldn't say that. However that doesn't mean that God has something new to say to the world or through a book.

If you say so. But how many contemporary Christian prophets (or even recently deceased ones) can you name who weren't crooks? What I mean to say here is that in Christianity, there doesn't seem to be much of an allowance for continuing revelation from God. The canon, as it were, is closed.


That is what my parents said to me, that I didn't need it because I was already a good person. What they don't know won't hurt them but I know better. However Jesus says that by congratulating yourself on your lack of need you will not be justified before God.

Lest there be any confusion here, let me say that I would not be so arrogant as to claim that I don't need God. What I'm saying is that I don't need a vicarious atonement, because I don't believe that one person can die for another's sins, or that this atonement can be somehow transferred by faith. I'm sure that you could choose another atonement theory, and I'd have similar problems with it. I believe I've enumerated my objections in previous posts.



I like this. I feel that I am getting to know you. However I will have to discuss the rest later because this is getting long

Of course. Please feel free to respond at your convenience. My best wishes to you and your wife.

jaggin
04 February 2010, 08:16 AM
By no means have I ignored the Christian message completely. I've read the entire Bible. I've read books by Christian theologians. I've read the ante-Nicene church fathers. I've also gone to churches and even Bible studies. Hopefully without engaging in hubris, I think I'm qualified to say that I probably know more about Christianity than most Christians. And it is from this well-informed posture that I've judged Christianity to be devoid of any spiritual benefit that can't already be found in Hinduism. If you were to say that I should continue listening to a message that I've already judged unreliable, I'd have to liken this to the creationists who cry "teach the controversy," when the controversy between evolution and creationism has already been decisively settled. Forgive me, but my perception is that Christians are fighting for a lost cause.

I'm actually quite familiar with the Reformation. The criteria on which your spiritual fathers decided to remove the apocrypha are quite dubious. It seems like it had more to do with the apocrypha's teachings about prayers for the dead, which can be found in the books of Macabees, and which agree with Roman Catholic teaching. Of all the apocryphal books that were removed, it seems like the Reformers had sound reasoning only for removing Judith (because it contains many anachronisms and glorifies violence). However, you seem to be advocating a principle that I wouldn't expect to hear from a Protestant. You believe that the Biblical canon is not set in stone. Are you willing to admit that in theory, you would reject the entire Bible based on compelling evidence? Many Hindus would be willing to say this about our Scriptures (granted, our definition of "compelling evidence" doesn't include ahistoricity, since we don't believe in Scriptural infallibility as you do). If your answer is yes, then I'm surprised that you haven't removed your creation account due to its conflict with modern science. I'm also surprised that you haven't removed all four gospels, whose contradictions far outweigh the contradictions between the apocrypha and the Tanakh.

But this is all a digression. Allow me to return to my main point. You are trying to use the Bible to convert Hindus to Christianity, but you don't give us any reason to believe that the Bible is either inerrent or inspired. Pointing to your willingness to reconsider your own canon (even if the Reformers did so for dubious reasons) does nothing to convince us.

Maybe they are. I don't doubt that at least some of what is found in Hindu Scripture is not "inspired" by God (in the sense that you'd understand inspiration). As a scientist I am forced to reject several teachings found in Hindu Scripture. Most notably, as an astronomer I am forced to reject the causal explanations for Vedic astrology. Like many Hindus, I respect logic, reason, and evidence above superstition. But Scripture plays a far less central role in Hinduism than it does in Christianity. I seriously doubt your judgment about the Uphanishads, since I have always found wisdom in their teachings. But you could show the whole of Hindu Scripture to be a fraud, and it still wouldn't convince us to convert to Christianity. The reason is that Hinduism isn't what's on trial here; Christianity is. You can't argue someone into Christianity by attacking Hinduism.

Yes, those Buddhists who live in poverty would likely disagree with me. But they would probably disagree with Jesus too. By the first few chapters of Acts, it's clear that Jesus' instructions didn't include vows of poverty, since Christians outside Jerusalem didn't give all of their possessions to the poor as the Jerusalem Christians did. And modern Christians make it a point to vote for political candidates who protect personal property rights. So whatever Jesus taught, it's clear that poverty isn't a requirement in modern Christianity. Anyway, this is also a digression; you're free to interpret your scripture however you wish insofar as it doesn't negatively affect Hindus.

Hinduism and Christianity do share a belief that spiritual progress can't be made in a vacuum. But I'm not sure about your belief that the church heirarchy is the design of men. The Bible itself says that God instituted many offices, such as apostle, prophet, pastor, etc. It further places deacons in positions of service, elders (Greek episkopoi) in places of leadership, and pastors in teaching roles. Most denominations complicate this a bit furter, but the heirarchy can be found in the Bible. See the pastoral epistles of Paul to Timothy, and the one to Titus.

Contrary to your backhanded comment (unless I'm misunderstanding your intent), Hindu reverence of God above Scripture is not due to any deficiency on the part of the Scripture. To put it simply, we don't believe, as you do, that a book can be living in the same way that God is.

Agreed. As your own Bible quotes Rabbi Gamaliel as saying, the will of God can't be opposed by men. But that doesn't mean that we can analyze religious issues objectively and scientifically. There are many problems that I see with Christianity, namely its teachings don't correspond to reality. Christian platitudes will not suffice; these problems need to be addressed directly. This is doubly true if Christians are looking to sell your religion to Hindus.

Perhaps that is why Christianity is simpler. I couldn't find it in Hinduism ie the scriptures. Christianity is summed up pretty well in John 14 so I don't see how you could have missed it. However if you didn't miss it then where is it in Hinduism?

The Bible tells us that the battle is already won. In reality all we are doing is presenting the tems of surrender. A funny thing happens in wars, sometimes there are people who haven't heard the war is over and continue fighting. There was a Japanese person on an island who was in that position of not knowing that his country had surrendered.

As I said before none of those methods would be used to determine the Canon but rather God's will as expressed through the Holy Spirit.

It is not my calling or preference to convert anyone to anything. I am definitely not trying to sell something. I tend to think of myself as an evangelist ie that I promote a good message. However my situation at present is simply to do God's will. Perhaps He has conversion in mind but if so he hasn't revealed it to me. I will grant that you find enough Christians who do believe in conversion and selling a religion.

That makes sense but I hope that you don't place reason above God's inspired word. Your wish to expunge the creation story from the Bible suggests that you might have that attitude. I used to think poorly of the Qu'ran's statement that men were formed from a blood clot until science revealed that animals could be cloned. It wouldn't even take God to do that as long as there was a civilization far enough advanced to do it. The Bible's creation from dust is more advanced but Norse mythology suggests that creation was done by the gods and the Bible intimates it by using the collective "we."

You are right. Poverty is not a requirement in Chrsitianity nor is it in Buddhism. In both there is the idea that a person should not become attached to people and things. Monasticism has been used by some to detach themselves but there is no guarantee that it would work. It is a question of the mind and heart. However there is no doubt that things and people can be distractions even without attachment.

Christians don't view scripture as the living Word but we view Jesus as the living Word. We view scripture as faith building to lead a person into a relationship with Jesus as Lord and Savior.

atanu
04 February 2010, 09:31 AM
The Bible tells us that the battle is already won. In reality all we are doing is presenting the tems of surrender. A funny thing happens in wars, sometimes there are people who haven't heard the war is over and continue fighting. There was a Japanese person on an island who was in that position of not knowing that his country had surrendered.



Namaste Jaggin,

First, your way of posting is a bit peculiar -- one gets no idea as to which point of purvapakshi (Sanjaya in this case) you are refering to. Second, your language skill is such that one does not get the idea that you are talking of 'Battle already won by christains over others' or 'Battle already won by all due to grace of God'.

You may wish to clarify. It is excellent, if you are telling us the latter, which is re-telling the highest Vedantic truth that bondage is thought. But, hardly one christian out of millions believe the latter understanding. I do not know yet what you mean.

Om Namah Shivaya

sanjaya
04 February 2010, 02:07 PM
Perhaps that is why Christianity is simpler. I couldn't find it in Hinduism ie the scriptures. Christianity is summed up pretty well in John 14 so I don't see how you could have missed it. However if you didn't miss it then where is it in Hinduism?

I'm not surprised that you didn't find any spiritual benefits in Hinduism. An Eastern religion wouldn't make much sense to a Westerner, anymore than your Western religion makes sense to me. There are cultural differences in place, and since culture is attached to religion, it affects what sort of spirituality will speak to us. That's why conversion is almost always a bad idea. Now in Hinduism this isn't a problem, since we don't believe that you go to hell for choosing the wrong faith. But I feel that the Christian soteriology has led to Christianity's many failed attempts at multiculturalism.

To answer your question though, I notice that you've selected a passage of Christian scripture that deals heavily with God's war against sin. As I've stated in a previous post, Hinduism has its own solution to the problem of human sinfulness. And I've explained why I find Hinduism's solution to be preferable.



The Bible tells us that the battle is already won. In reality all we are doing is presenting the tems of surrender. A funny thing happens in wars, sometimes there are people who haven't heard the war is over and continue fighting. There was a Japanese person on an island who was in that position of not knowing that his country had surrendered.

I must reiterate one of my main problems with Christianity: namely, the lack of correspondence to reality. Statements about how God's victory over sin and death was won on the cross seem rather meaningless to me, because it's all just lofty theology. It is clear that there has been no obvious change in the world since Christ's crucifixion, and indeed the early church struggled with their need to believe that the world has already been redeemed, even though there are no signs of that redemption. You can quote the Bible all day, but ulimately there must be some experiential way to validate its claims.





As I said before none of those methods would be used to determine the Canon but rather God's will as expressed through the Holy Spirit.

Sound reason and compelling evidence aren't methods of determining the Biblical canon? We've got a problem here, because "God's will as expressed through the Holy Spirit," is too subjective to be meaningless. How does the Holy Spirit express God's will? I suppose I'm asking a rhetorical question here, because I know that there's no way to distinguish the words of the Holy Spirit from the words of men.



It is not my calling or preference to convert anyone to anything. I am definitely not trying to sell something. I tend to think of myself as an evangelist ie that I promote a good message. However my situation at present is simply to do God's will. Perhaps He has conversion in mind but if so he hasn't revealed it to me. I will grant that you find enough Christians who do believe in conversion and selling a religion.

If you don't intend to solicit conversion, then to what end do you share your Christian faith? It's true that people of all religions publically express their religious faith, and most of these people are not interested in conversion. But I've never met an evangelical Christian who shared his religious beliefs with others for an end goal other than enticing other to convert. As you say, some Christians do behave like salesmen, while others like yourself behave with dignity. But as you yourself said in an earlier post, there's no point in preaching your message if we don't ultimately convert to Christianity. Is this correct?



That makes sense but I hope that you don't place reason above God's inspired word.

By "God's inspired word," are you referring to the Bible? If so, then keep in mind that I don't believe that the Bible is God's inspired word. As such, I place any credible source of information above the Bible.

If you're referring to the Hindu Scriptures that I do believe to be God's inspired word, then I should point out that I make the basic assumption that God is reasonable. To not place a paramount importance on logic and reason is as flawed as assuming that God can make spherical triangles. I do believe that God's teachings may not always agree with my personal beliefs, but being teachable is very different from discarding reason.

[quote=jaggin;38979]Your wish to expunge the creation story from the Bible suggests that you might have that attitude. I used to think poorly of the Qu'ran's statement that men were formed from a blood clot until science revealed that animals could be cloned. It wouldn't even take God to do that as long as there was a civilization far enough advanced to do it. The Bible's creation from dust is more advanced but Norse mythology suggests that creation was done by the gods and the Bible intimates it by using the collective "we." [/QUOTE

Who said about removing anything from the Bible? What you choose to place in your Biblical canon is your own affair. Insofar as it doesn't affect me, I have no interest in dictating what you should believe. You're free to place the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible in your canon, just as the Ethiopian church is free to have two canons that both differ from the Protestant canon in multiple ways, and just as the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are free to have Old Testament apocryphas that differ from each other and from your Bible. The Biblical canon isn't as well agreed upon as many would think. But again, that's not my business.



Christians don't view scripture as the living Word but we view Jesus as the living Word. We view scripture as faith building to lead a person into a relationship with Jesus as Lord and Savior.

Hebrews 4:12 says "The word of God is living and active." Many evangelicals take this to mean that the Bible is a living document. I take it you interpret "the word" to mean Jesus rather than the Bible. But I don't see how this supports your earlier claim that Hindu Scripture is untrustworthy.

smaranam
05 February 2010, 12:08 PM
I suppose by forms of God you mean forms that God uses (such as a human body) since God is without form.

This is what Jesus says also.

Exactly. because to worship the form would be idolatry.

There is a oneness of God that does not require an inteconnection. The forms themselves may have no connection at all.


Namaste

Just want to say that I did not reply to the above post thinking - let the ones well-equipped to speak , speak, rather than my meddling into this thread.

Because I can never do any justice to the Dharma by any amount of words.

Just so this silence does not lead to misunderstandings :

Forms of God does not mean just human forms - those are avatArs , descent of God
, His Divinity into a chosen human form. Those are included too.
Forms of God with no traces of materiality show facets of God's infinite power, love, divinity, attributes .
Its a mapping of His abstract nature into a relatively concrete albeit spiritual form - which humans can relate to.

Hindus have inherited the rich heritage of Vedas, Vedic culture, teachings/impressions (samskAr) - enough to show devotion to the aspects of the abstract listed above, in the Divine Form.

To make a mental image of the Divine Form even more concrete, (for communication with the masses) , Hindus worship Him in the form of concrete 'statues' we call "archa Vigraha".

The devotion is towards the spirit within and principle behind the form, which is in fact WITHIN US. God resides within our heart.

Then why "bow down to statues" ? Because that is an easy communicable way to bring out the divinity, devotion, surrender, servitude, love, care, respect, and oneness within us. This is how we progress into better humans, uncover the subtler aspects of our own Self.


Unfortunately, on the surface this appears to some as - Hindus are "bowing down to statues".

Above explains why worshipping a form in the proper spirit
is not idolatory. In fact, by that logic , insisting that "Jesus (the form) is the only way" is idolatory ! This is what my earlier post was saying.

Jesus obviously did not intend to point at "his form", but to what it stood for.
Another thing many people of Abrahamic faiths miss , is desh (place/country) , kAla (time/era) , pAtra (subject / people involved).

Sanatana Dharma teaches us that all scriptural rules should be applied but not imposed without taking into consideration the place, time and subjects factor.

[I] Again, "Do you believe in Jesus ?" Yes. What is there to not believe ?
That does not mean that Hindus should throw away such rich and deep spirituality and submit to Christianity.

Christians have been asked to preach to those who need the preaching, and those who themselves come knocking on their door.

We do not preach to our Mother just because we don't understand Her.

We do not cut down the tree and the roots now that we have one specific kind of sapling, flower, fruit.

May we all see light

May none of us be the blind men in the story of "Six Blind Men and the Elephant". We are all pointing to the same elephant. Limitations of Language make us differ.

I do not want to say anything else on this thread.

praNAm

sanjaya
05 February 2010, 06:22 PM
Above explains why worshipping a form in the proper spirit
is not idolatory. In fact, by that logic , insisting that "Jesus (the form) is the only way" is idolatory ! This is what my earlier post was saying.

It's worth pointing out that if we take the Bible as literally as evangelical Christians do, then the worship of Jesus would also be "idolatry." The Old Testament says that one may not worship a man as God. And this isn't just some arcane strawman argument. The reason Jews cite for not converting to Christianity is that they believe the Old Testament forbids worshiping any man as God.

Obviously I don't believe that worshiping Jesus is wrong in any way. I myself would feel perfectly comfortable worshiping him (though obviously not in a church or with evangelicals). However, I think the Christian worship of Jesus makes it rather inconsistent to refer to Hinduism as idolatry.

Even the New Testament says that the real idolatry is not worship of images, but covetousness, i.e. attachment. Worshiping material possessions instead of God constitutes ignorance, and probably even sin. But Hindu worship of God teaches us to detach ourselves from our possessions. I have to wonder why Christians ignorantly refer to this as idolatry.

jaggin
12 March 2010, 08:21 AM
Hi Jaggin, thank you once again for your response.

You seem to be implying that consideration of others is always to be subordinated to the truth. Am I correct in my reading of your comments? If so, let me show you from your own Bible that this is not true. In Romans chapter 14 of your Bible, the issue of so-called "non-essential doctrines" is raised. There are statements made like "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind" (verse 5) and "the faith that you have, keep between yourself and God" (verse 22). The application most evangelicals make from this text is drinking. Many Christians are against drinking alcohol, and equally many believe that it is perfectly acceptable when done in moderation. However, this is not an issue on which the Bible is unclear; it is very clear in saying that drinking is acceptable. Any abstinent Christian who is skilled in Biblical exegesis will not attempt to argue that consumption of alcohol is sinful. Rather, he will point to the generally deleterious effects of alcohol and the common use of alcohol by "heathens" in modern society, and then make the argument that it's best not to drink alcohol, even though it is permitted by the Bible. This would correspond to the "weak" Christians who are vegetarians (see verse 2). But the Bible is also clear on how these abstinent Christians are to be treated by those who partake. Drinking Christians are instructed to allow these Christians to abstain, even if they do so for incorrect reasons.

Now, I'm not trying to draw you into a discussion about drinking. Nor am I under any delusions that the Bible would be supportive of Hinduism. My point is this: in the case I described above, objective truth is subordinated to one's consideration for others. So you are quite wrong, I think, to so strongly insist that the truth is more important that obedience to one's parents.

Of course, at some level this is all a moot point. Until you can produce some evidence that Christianity is the truth, all the arguments in the world abut objective truth only serve to weaken the case for Christianity.

Yes, it is true of all religions. Unless you can give me some reasonable way to discern true divine revelation from false revelation (note: physical and historical evidence counts!), you have no way of arguing in favor of the truth of Christianity. As far as evidence goes, the Bible fails in every regard. It inaccurately describes the creation of the universe, it describes events for which there is no historical or archeological record, and it makes philosophical presumptions that aren't intutitively obvious. As for your testimony about what impact Jesus has had on your life, I could counter it with the revelation that I have received from Lord Vishnu. Our seemingly contradictory revelations make sense to me: Hindus believe that God gives different dharma to different people, and that he doesn't favor one religious group over another. You're the one who believes that demons are capable of whispering lies in our ears, so it seems to me that you've got a serious philosophical and theological problem that needs to be reconciled.

But ask yourself this: do you really believe that demons are telling us lies everytime a Hindu is motivated by divine revelation from God to do good? When a Hindu chooses peace over violence because of what God has taught us in Hindu Scripture, is this the doctrine of a demon? I was under the impression that Satan's house cannot stand if it is divided. When Hindus do good, you say that we have a demon. Sound familiar? But as Jesus said in Matthew 11:19, "wisdom is justified by her deeds." I contend that every time a Hindu does good, it demonstrates that we do not need a penal substitutionary atonement theology to receive salvation.

There are many Hindu views concerning sin. As has been stated on this forum, most believe that it is a result of spiritual ignorance. Personally I believe that man has the freedom to choose between good and evil (which is also taught in chapter 30 of Deuteronomy, by the way). But the solution to the problem of sin is fairly well agreed upon. Mankind can be alleviated of the burdens of sin by performing Satyanarayana Puja. It is said that this puja, when performed to Lord Narayana with devotion, brings happiness and peace of mind in this life, and salvation in the next. This is how one can be liberated from his sin.


But, as is often the case in Hinduism, simpler solutions are offered in place of complicated ones. As straightforward as the Satyanarayana Puja is, there is another way. It says,
Set aside all meritorious deeds and religious rituals, and just surrender completely to My will with firm faith and loving devotion. I shall liberate you from all sins, the bonds of Karma. (BG 18.66)Mere surrender to God is alone enough to liberate one from sin, apart from any religious ritual or assent to doctrine. So as you can see, we already have a means by which God deals with sin (to put it in very Christian terms). And if I may be so bold as to say, I feel that this means is superior to the many contradictory atonement theories (e.g. penal substitution, Christ the Victor, ransom theology) offered by Christianity. In Christianity, there are multiple ways to interpret the atonement, and each way necessitates that the other doctrines are damnable. I prefer mere surrender to the Lord, without the need for conversion to Christianity.

Of course. Please feel free to respond at your convenience. My best wishes to you and your wife.

No. I wouldn't say that. I think you make a good case for showing consideration for others when it makes little or no difference.

I can attest to it. I have knowledge of it, so how does that pose a philosophical problem for me? It is a problem for you if you do not know it.

Of course not. All I am saying is that if you ar hearing one thing and I hear something contrary then one of us is not hearing the truth and I know quite well where I stand.

The problem is not when you do good but when you sin.

This is something I don't know anything about so you will have to explain it.

This is the essence of Christianity and Islam. However you will notice that the verse doesn't tell you how to do this. It does tell you that you will need faith to do it. Christianity and Isalm say that as well. So the question becomes has God provided a way to surrender to His will that you know of?

BTW If I thought you had all the information you need to be saved, by being a Hindu then I would have no problem with that. I am beginning to think Krishna is who He claims to be. That last statement is so typical of Him.

sanjaya
12 March 2010, 05:41 PM
Hello Jaggin, it's been awhile since we last spoke; it's good to hear from you again. I hope you've been well.


No. I wouldn't say that. I think you make a good case for showing consideration for others when it makes little or no difference.

So you do see my point. Despite what evangelical Christians claim about the truth being of supreme importance, it is not the case. You recognize that there are cases where the truth makes very little difference. In the case of conversion to Christianity, the fundamental issue isn't truth. The issue is the doctrine of hell. You believe that Hindus will go to hell unless we convert, and that is why you seek to convert us. Am I correct in what I've said? Please feel free to correct anything I've said, as I don't wish to misrepresent evangelical Christian doctrine.



I can attest to it. I have knowledge of it, so how does that pose a philosophical problem for me? It is a problem for you if you do not know it.

Thank you for asking that question. This is an important point that I feel needs to be resolved, so allow me to clarify. Please see my response to your next statement:



Of course not. All I am saying is that if you ar hearing one thing and I hear something contrary then one of us is not hearing the truth and I know quite well where I stand.

You have correctly identified the dilemma. Hindu and Christian doctrine are contradictory to one another. Christianity states that any doctrine contrary to what is found in your scripture is a lie from Satan, communicated via his demons. Do you see the problem this poses? If Christianity said that the night sky was pink, and I observe the sky only to find that it is black, then Christianity would tell me that my eyes are being deceived by Satan (I know the Bible does not say this, but I bring up the point as an illustration).

Now, let's say we Hindus have religious experiences which tell us certain things about God (things that contradict Christianity). You're asking us to disregard these experiences as coming from demons, and to trust your book instead.

You said it yourself: one of us is not hearing the truth. You also said that you know where you stand, but your self-awareness is not at issue here. Most people who post regularly on a forum like this are spiritually-minded, and have fairly well-formed beliefs. We are know where we stand. The question is: what test can you do to give even the slightest indication that what you're hearing is the truth, and that what I'm hearing is not?




The problem is not when you do good but when you sin.

Again we have the problem of assumptions. You're assuming a priori that sin has to be atoned for in some penal manner. You probably got this from Hebrews 9:22, which states that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. However this belief is not shared by Hindus or any other non-Christians. It isn't even found in the Torah, which is why Jews don't believe it. Do you see the problem here? You're inventing a problem that we didn't know we had (sin that needs to be dealt with), and then providing a solution for it (belief in the Christian doctrine of substitutionary atonement).

Add to this the fact that Hinduism does provide a means for obtaining forgiveness of sin, namely observance of the Satyanarayana Puja (I'll provide the explanation below). This is different fron penal substitution, since no one suffers for sin. Indeed sin itself is defined somewhat differently. But as you can see, we don't have any need for your religion. Do you have any objection to what I've said?


This is something I don't know anything about so you will have to explain it.

Satyanarayana Puja is one of the most commonly practiced pujas (religious services) conducted among Hindus. It does not require a priest, and can be done by anyone. My family has done it for years. A person who wishes to do the puja gathers his friends and relatives, obtains some simple offerings (usually milk and fruit), makes an offering to God, and reads the Satyanarayana Katha, which describes the origin of the puja. Preferably the puja is done on the full moon day, but can be done at any time.

The Katha states that the puja originated because the sage Narada once came to earth, and saw the people suffering as a result of their sins. Narada asked Vishnu what could be done about this, and Vishnu told him that mankind can rid itself of its sins by performing the puja. The important point here is that the puja is specifically prescribed as a means of liberation from sins. So the question remains the same: why would we ever give up our faith and culture to practice an alien religion such as Christianity?



This is the essence of Christianity and Islam. However you will notice that the verse doesn't tell you how to do this. It does tell you that you will need faith to do it. Christianity and Isalm say that as well. So the question becomes has God provided a way to surrender to His will that you know of?

Let's be reasonable Jaggin; now you're just trying to distill simple language. You might as well ask the Gita to define length or time. I could just as well make a similarly unreasonable demand of the Bible. I could just as well point to the Bible's claim that faith is a gift from God, and then ask how we can get that gift from him.

The answer to your question can't be extracted from a single verse of Scripture, but the meaning of Sri Krishna's statement is obvious. Surrender to God simply means trusting him and living a good life. Conversion to Christianity is not required, nor even recommended. What you are doing here is pointing to what you see as a gap in Hindu theology, and filling the gap with whatever you wish (in this case the Christian gospel). Surely you see that this is bad logic.



BTW If I thought you had all the information you need to be saved, by being a Hindu then I would have no problem with that. I am beginning to think Krishna is who He claims to be. That last statement is so typical of Him.

I'm not sure what you mean, perhaps you could elaborate.

Anyway, I look forward to hearing from you again!

Explorer
22 March 2010, 03:48 AM
I myself have found the Christian faith to be a thoroughly funny one, and.. how to say this.. if the Bible were a website, it would be filled with a LOT of ads, covering the real content :)

I mean, in a few words, what's the essence of it ? Follow the Old testament of the jews, with its plentiful cruelty that nobody in their right mind would think to apply today, OR follow the teaching of Jesus ?

If the Old testament is to be followed, then what of the aberrant rules like kill your kids if they are disrespectful to you ? And others like it, Christians will know them better than I do.

If it's not to be followed, then why does the Bible need to even contain the Old testament in it ? Strip it down, to the actual teaching of Jesus, so people can follow the actual way he taught. Do all of us on this planet really need to know the history of Israel ? Was God present only there on this planet ? Makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Jesus: If he ever existed, I'm sure he must have been a wise and good man, teaching great wisdom and spirituality. Did he really exist ? Are there historians from that time talking about the many deeds he supposedly did ?

Well not really. And please correct me if I'm wrong on this. It's all after the fact. Like a LOT of time after the fact. As accurate as you and I writing about our great-great-grandfather's lives and teachings.

We know about the Romans, we have historical evidence they were there and what they did, how they ruled, chronicles exist from that time. About Jesus, only the Bible is talking. Huge entry in Jerusalem with immense crowds, and only the Bible heard of it.

So my beef is not with Jesus, but much more with this document that the faith is based on. Is it reliable by any journalist's standards ? Not really. Was it translated, re-translated, modified countless times, so that now many different versions exist ? Yes it was. Can this be used to follow the actual initial teaching that was there ? I say definitely not. Great teaching probably, but it is now lost.

If Jesus were a Kung Fu master with a unique style, and there was a document like the Bible about him, people might know of what he did, but they could NOT learn and practice his style in actual combat / competition today. To no fault of the master, just the method of transmission was not faithful enough. The details are missing. There are many gaps that everyone fills with their own understanding, as they see fit. After a certain amount of distortions you have to consider the initial art as lost, and move on, regrettable as it is.

The Church has burned people for stating facts that we now know to be true. Shouldn't that be some evidence that the document, and way based on it, are both flawed and leading away from truth, rather than towards it ?

jaggin
12 June 2010, 08:15 AM
Namaste Jaggin,

First, your way of posting is a bit peculiar -- one gets no idea as to which point of purvapakshi (Sanjaya in this case) you are refering to. Second, your language skill is such that one does not get the idea that you are talking of 'Battle already won by christains over others' or 'Battle already won by all due to grace of God'.

You may wish to clarify. It is excellent, if you are telling us the latter, which is re-telling the highest Vedantic truth that bondage is thought. But, hardly one christian out of millions believe the latter understanding. I do not know yet what you mean.

Om Namah Shivaya

The latter. A crusading spirit entered the church but there is no indication in the Bible that Jesus ever condoned it. Saul (later Paul) had a crusading spirit against Christians and Jesus took exception to it. In actuality though the battle is not won by "all" but by God. It is still up to the individual to accept the grace that is offered.

I am not even familiar with the concept "bondage is thought." Can you explain it to me? I know that I am not bound by my thinking. Of course there is the concept in Christianity that you are what you think.

jaggin
12 June 2010, 09:16 AM
Namaste

Just want to say that I did not reply to the above post thinking - let the ones well-equipped to speak , speak, rather than my meddling into this thread.

Unfortunately, on the surface this appears to some as - Hindus are "bowing down to statues".

Above explains why worshipping a form in the proper spirit
is not idolatory. In fact, by that logic , insisting that "Jesus (the form) is the only way" is idolatory ! This is what my earlier post was saying.

Jesus obviously did not intend to point at "his form", but to what it stood for.
Another thing many people of Abrahamic faiths miss , is desh (place/country) , kAla (time/era) , pAtra (subject / people involved).

Sanatana Dharma teaches us that all scriptural rules should be applied but not imposed without taking into consideration the place, time and subjects factor.

[i] Again, "Do you believe in Jesus ?" Yes. What is there to not believe ?
That does not mean that Hindus should throw away such rich and deep spirituality and submit to Christianity.

Christians have been asked to preach to those who need the preaching, and those who themselves come knocking on their door.

We do not preach to our Mother just because we don't understand Her.

We do not cut down the tree and the roots now that we have one specific kind of sapling, flower, fruit.

May we all see light

May none of us be the blind men in the story of "Six Blind Men and the Elephant". We are all pointing to the same elephant. Limitations of Language make us differ.

I do not want to say anything else on this thread.

praNAm



I hope you aren't practicing hit and run. If you didn't consider what you had to say worthy of writing it, why did you bother to do so. If it is worthy then you should be willing to talk about it more.

Take notice that someone previously referred to receiving wisdom from a butcher. There is no way for you to know how inspiring your words might be.

I definitely agree. However Christians do not worship the form of Jesus although the Roman Catholics probably come close to it. I dont have a problem with forms per se but I do think they offer the temptation to worship the form instead of what it represents and it also provides opportunity to misconstrue what the form represents. I heartily agree that Jesus never presented His form as something to be worshipped. Even the cross and the resurrection that highlight the form are representing something else.

No doubt, but that is not because it isn't there. That is definitely the difference between having a rigid law and a living Word that Jesus represents.

So if you believe that you should ask Jesus to be your Lord and Savior that must mean you have done so already. What Jesus asks you to give up is His prerogative not mine. Whether Jesus would require you to submit to Christianity is only answerable by Him.

You speak for yourself. Christians bring the message of the gospel because we are required to do so. If a person has already heard the message we don't need to bring it again. You will be held accountable for what you do with it. Sometimes we bring a message to someone who has heard it because we do not know yet that they have heard it. I sometimes change my approach and bring the message again in a different way because it seems that people hear the words but just don't get the message.

That depends on whether the tree is diseased or healthy. Chistianity is a grafted in branch of the tree of Judaism so it is not out of the question for that to happen. However God takes exception to grafting in dead branches or live branches to dead trees. As far as I can tell Hinduism is a live tree.

atanu
12 June 2010, 11:25 AM
The latter. A crusading spirit entered the church but there is no indication in the Bible that Jesus ever condoned it. Saul (later Paul) had a crusading spirit against Christians and Jesus took exception to it. In actuality though the battle is not won by "all" but by God. It is still up to the individual to accept the grace that is offered.

I am not even familiar with the concept "bondage is thought." Can you explain it to me? I know that I am not bound by my thinking. Of course there is the concept in Christianity that you are what you think.


Namaste jaggin

Thank you for the above and we be will be friends forever. For most of us 'the ALL' is also God, so the battle is always won by Lord. Veda therefore says Rudra yields to no second. Names may be different but the understanding is same.

Hinduism is many layered. That thought is bondage is an advanced teaching. One may think seriously that one is a General Manager and get bound. Another may just play the role (always thinking of God) and remain free.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya