Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity fitting together?

[Michael19682]

With all due respect, Ahimsa. You did not use the word Polydeus, or Monodeus. Likely because the English language contains no such word in common usage. You may have over the past few days of your research, stumbled upon ‘post hoc’ or otherwise, the reason for the use of the greek in English. Who is to say?

 

[Ahimsa]

With all due respect, Ahimsa. You did not use the word Polydeus, or Monodeus. Likely because the English language contains no such word in common usage…

True, I did not use “polydeus”. In modern English, however, the “theos” in “polytheism” is not limited to the ancient Greek limited definition of “theos” (and even the ancient Greek definition of “theos” apparently underwent change; in Homer, “theos” and “daimon” were pretty much synonymous).

In English, the “theos” in “polytheism” refers to a divinity. This divinity can be a limited, though powerful and/or awe-inspiring, “god” (masculine, feminine, or neuter in gender); or this divinity can be the One Ultimate Reality.

From the OED, “polytheism” is the “The doctrine or belief that there is more than one god; worship of several gods.”

What is a god? From the OED, the first definition is: “A superhuman person…who is worshipped as having power over nature and the fortunes of mankind; a deity.”

From the Bible, we see that angels of various kinds have had power over nature and have impacted the fortunes of mankind. The Book of Revelation would be a prime example of such a biblical text, but there are many other examples, in Exodus, 2 Samuel, Acts, etc. From an objective standpoint, I would suggest that angels could be categorized as “gods” (as defined by the most prominent English dictionary).

Granted, I sympathize with the shock you might feel to hear Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam, characterized as “polytheistic” religions. But, I submit that such shock is only because “polytheism” has been used by members of Abrahamic religions as a “dirty word” directed towards Hindus, Jains, and Indigenous Peoples of the world (not to mention the ancient Europeans), with “polytheism” being deemed inferior to monotheism.

There was very often a sense of superiority that the “monotheist” had against the “polytheist”, but that was only because the monotheist defined “theos” one way when talking about the Abrahamic faiths and defined it another way when talking about non-Abrahamic religions. When discussing the Abrahamic faiths, “theos” was defined as “the One Ultimate Being”: so naturally, such faiths were “monotheistic”. But when discussing non-Abrahamic faiths, “theos” was expanded to include all sorts of supernatural (and natural) beings, even if those beings were not all-powerful, not all-knowing, and were in fact lesser beings and creations of One Ultimate Being. So, there was a bit of unfairness going on, in this whole “monotheism” vs. “polytheism” business. I just want to set the record straight: “monotheism” is found across the globe, in Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic faiths; and “polytheism” is found across the globe, in Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic faiths.

 

[Michael19682]

We do not worship any but the “One Ultimate Being” The others, though they may exist-- particularly referring to the reality of the Saints–are adored, thanked, and objects of devotion, but strictly speaking–in as strict a sense as your definition from the OED–we do not worship them and all Catholics know that the ultimate power (particularly the power to forgive sins) is in the Trinity. Hence by the OED definition, Catholics are not polytheistic. And frankly, I could care less what the OED says. Important a book as it is: it seldom is, as you have discovered, “sympathetic” to Roman Catholicism. They know nothing of the changing language patterns than ebb and flow with the human mental instruments capricious proclivities and penchants. The main purpose of that book and most things British is to divide and conquer, to makes bits and pieces of humanity so that foreign oil and resources may be exploited LOL.

Take Care Ahimsa,

Whether you know it or not, you are a friend

 

[Kelley_Green]

Polytheists strike me as having created constructs to dissect God into smaller portions so that they might better comprehend aspects of God, but when you start piecing all of these ‘smaller’ gods together, they appear to add up to a comprehensive monotheistic God. I’ve never come across literature or concepts from pagans that would suggest they understood an overarching architect concept. Hindu’s apparently do have that concept.

 

[Kelley_Green]

I see a problem with that statement, but of course my perspective is coming from a different set of life experiences than yours. The problem is that many practitioners of the other religions you have discounted also include Jesus in their faiths. Making Christ the measure by which a religion is considered true or false is problematic when that which you have determined to be false also includes Christ. My sense is that what you are really saying is that your particular way of approaching Jesus is correct and the rest are false. Of course that same problem exists among all the different Christian sects, so it is not really something that illustrates the differences between Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism.

The answer to this thread title is YES, we do ‘fit’ generically by virtue of divine providence as blood relations so-to-speak. OUR maker left prints on our being and tribal prejudices blind us to this fact. This is not to be construed that you or I should abolish ourselves/ customs/ traditions/ sovereignty. We should not be thinking in terms of religious mergers and acquisitions, or some utopic ideal of homogenized religious experiences issued as new world order uniform. When we all answer the respective higher calling to our maker in full earnestness, we all fit seamlessly in the grander tapestry of life without loss of individual/ religious/ national identity. There is no quarrel surely as one foot does not argue with the other foot. When we fail to answer that higher calling or defend tumors at the expense of truth (the higher calling/ contrary moral code) there is strife, chaos, and utter neglect.

The truth is these ‘cages’ as Krishnamurti references or constructs as I call them are necessary for a time surely as every child born requires nurture to aspire for full adulthood. There is no way around it in the cycle of life spurring human evolution along. The greater lesson becomes lost each generation when the constructs we create trying to articulate truth as we see it with our crude languages & origin perspectives become the object of intellectualized worship and the higher calling gets lost in the din of constructs. Each of these cages/ constructs are but training wheels useful only so far until we discover we’re clinging to training wheels, which need to slough off or leave us stuck in a plateau of self satisfied arrogance. There is the spiritual snobbery you speak of, and none are immune.

Whatever commanding heights spiritual individuals aspire, it’s meaningless when their feet trample children to death in it’s pursuit. There is much talk among spiritual circles aspiring to create a higher order & advancing human evolution. Pragmatically on terra firma these cannot help but be irrational demands imposed upon those least evolved to live up to higher standards. I’d like for you to consider another branch of Christendom called the Amish. Their aversion to free society became cause to insulate themselves. I respect their discipline. We protect them as fellow Americans. They also do not write policy applicable to all, but our policies are applicable to them so we go to pains to accommodate them.

There are many fears afoot. There are many prejudices among Christians which they are obliged to confront, so I’m very glad you’re addressing this forum. God for them is much closer to the ground when God applies only to their town in their chosen child status. I do not see these insecurities evaporating when they have vested interest in lying to themselves. Meantime, I hope you’ll consider your own motives and objectives in your desire to understand Christianity and announce them as straightforwardly as possible. When using the language of forging alliances the alarm bells looking for the trojan horse are going off. When agreements made became the means of predators to corrupt, there became an aversion to agreements.

I’m sorry you’ve been treated so rudely by so many. I share your sentiments. I will pray with you. I desire world peace. I desire improved diplomatic relations and greater understanding as a species no matter the miles and customs that separate us. American colloquialism ‘good fences make good neighbors’ is the best we can do as universal agreement. It’s for your own protection as much as it is for their own. So the other answer to this question fitting together as universal religion… no, only God has the power to deliver that in the end. Reframing the question to examine how we might go about fitting together respecting our distinct traditions and differences might be the better question to pursue.

Once upon a time when Catholics were evangelizing they came upon slaves in the Carribean. These slaves had an African religion based on voodoo and they appeared to be eager to adopt Christianity. What it became was Santeria; an amalgamation of the worst of both worlds amplifying superstition and lack of reverence for life to a whole new low. Hopefully we can all learn from that and do better in our relations. The world is much smaller with telecommunications and travel. The world is much smaller in our ability to inflict mass destruction. Boundaries aren’t something to avoid. They’re needful, and spiritually minded aspirations will have to take a back seat to pragmatic concerns. I adamantly disagree with supremacist thinking, but we would all do well to realize what it is we all mean to defend by way of healthy traditions, heritage, and moral codes. When we can articulate that fully relations will improve immeasurably.

 

[hn160]

Remember that a catholic, a really hardcore one, would see praying with a prodestant the same as praying with a Buddhist. Also, just because you worship at the same time in the same place does not mean you are worshiping the same thing. When I sit meditation with my Buddhist friends I am not worshiping a Buddhist deity, rather I am taking what they have taught me (mindfulness, peace, awareness of self) and directing my awareness toward God. What a fantastic thing! To sit and realize the fullness of your living, the peace of your breathing, and let your very life be a prayer to God. A praise of thanks!!!

If you see a sin in that, than I am afraid we have little to discuss.

If a Christian joins in prayer with non-Christian, it credence that all religions are equal, all religions worship the same god/gods as the Christian God and all paths lead to the Christian God. If you meditate with Buddhist, you are giving them the impression that it doesn’t matter who you worship, it is all the same.

 

[Ahimsa]

We do not worship any but the “One Ultimate Being” The others, though they may exist-- particularly referring to the reality of the Saints–are adored, thanked, and objects of devotion, but strictly speaking–in as strict a sense as your definition from the OED–we do not worship them and all Catholics know that the ultimate power (particularly the power to forgive sins) is in the Trinity. Hence by the OED definition, Catholics are not polytheistic. And frankly, I could care less what the OED says. Important a book as it is: it seldom is, as you have discovered, “sympathetic” to Roman Catholicism. They know nothing of the changing language patterns than ebb and flow with the human mental instruments capricious proclivities and penchants. The main purpose of that book and most things British is to divide and conquer, to makes bits and pieces of humanity so that foreign oil and resources may be exploited LOL.

Take Care Ahimsa,

Whether you know it or not, you are a friend

I agree that “worship” these days often has the meaning of “give ultimate worth”, and, in that sense, Christians should only give ultimate worth to, or worship, the One Ultimate Being. But, surely, as a Catholic you know that “worship” also has a broader meaning of “reverence” or “respect” or “veneration”, such that English Bibles used to lump (and maybe some still do lump) latria, dulia, and hyperdulia all into one word “worship”.

Now, by arguing for “polytheism” as a partial description of the Abrahamic traditions, I’m not arguing that Abrahamists should, or do, give ultimate worth to any one other than the One Ultimate Being. But, it does seem clear that Abrahamists do give a degree of reverence, respect, and honor to, say, saints and angels. So, if one rejects using “polytheist” as a label for, say, Christianity, then the only fair thing would be to reject using the label of “polytheist” for, say, Hindus. I think, in fact, that that was your original point: that Hinduism should not be labeled “polytheist”.

 

[Michael19682]

I agree that “worship” these days often has the meaning of “give ultimate worth”, and, in that sense, Christians should only give ultimate worth to, or worship, the One Ultimate Being. But, surely, as a Catholic you know that “worship” also has a broader meaning of “reverence” or “respect” or “veneration”, such that English Bibles used to lump (and maybe some still do lump) latria, dulia, and hyperdulia all into one word “worship”.

Now, by arguing for “polytheism” as a partial description of the Abrahamic traditions, I’m not arguing that Abrahamists should, or do, give ultimate worth to any one other than the One Ultimate Being. But, it does seem clear that Abrahamists do give a degree of reverence, respect, and honor to, say, saints and angels. So, if one rejects using “polytheist” as a label for, say, Christianity, then the only fair thing would be to reject using the label of “polytheist” for, say, Hindus. I think, in fact, that that was your original point: that Hinduism should not be labeled “polytheist”.

Nicene Creed: “We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen…”

To say these words is to begin to enter into the mystery of unity with God through faith or belief. To believe IN God means to be, in a sense, IN his very being. Very similar to Hinduism. Perhaps exactly the same. Saints though ‘venerated’, ‘revered’ and ‘respected’ cannot be fully that unity of indwelling presence. This is because as worshiped they are separate beings from God–even if, whilst worshiped, they have greater faith than we do because theirs is direct knowledge of God: they behold his presence in Heaven.

When we receive Eucharist, we become fully equal with the divinity in our Grace. Only, again unlike the Saints proper, we do not have yet manifested our immortal bodies of light in Heaven and so with the slightest impure thought however subtle in the mind or heart our Grace is lessened and we need constant communion through the Holy Apostolic Church via sacrament yet may still be regarded as in a state of Grace…

A Saint can no longer give us his/her body to eat and be nourished by. At least not that I’ve been told of…But Jesus’ the Lord can with the help of our priest who consecrates it.

It’s interesting that you bring up this point of veneration and connect it to Hinduism. It’s exactly where I knew you would be going. So my answer was pre-prepared and delivered without pretension I hope. The prayer to Saint Jude, the most Holy Apostle, and servant and friend of Jesus’ says that Jude has the power to invoke a privilege. This privilege is the help of hopeless cases. It is done through the consolation and help of Heaven. This implies that Heaven is capable of communicating hope and giving help to the earthly. Whether under the directorship of God or not, Jude saves. I have experienced his salvation and testify to it. I need no other proof. But I know also that it was God’s Heaven that saved me.

You might think that I have backed myself into a wall or impossible route on trying to explain the Saints and their powers whilst explaining One Ultimate Being as singular and proof of their separate power.

Its really simple but requires a subtlety of thought. But I have received help while in a hopeless situation before. Thus the hopelessness of trying to reconcile fully what must wait for death of the concupiscent-body is not going to hinder me in the least.

The best thing for someone like me who has been in a lot of personal trouble is to regard all of Heaven as a unity with God as the king. John 15:5 expresses this mystery using the vine as imagery. “Apart from me, you can do nothing.”

True Christianity and the Roman Church especially in its sacraments represent a kind of technical implementation of the Eastern Philosophy if you choose to be of the bent that the Easter is the supreme way of seeing things. But it was done by God himself. Yet also by man, as Jesus’ was fully man. Thus, since we are fully men, we can co-create with God in these threads in as much as we can comprehend them as men. Only, ours will have inevitable waste material; for it is not ‘my’ words, but the Lord’s which are “spirit and life” to the highest degree.

 

[Sufjon]

The answer to this thread title is YES, we do ‘fit’ generically by virtue of divine providence as blood relations so-to-speak. OUR maker left prints on our being and tribal prejudices blind us to this fact. This is not to be construed that you or I should abolish ourselves/ customs/ traditions/ sovereignty. We should not be thinking in terms of religious mergers and acquisitions, or some utopic ideal of homogenized religious experiences issued as new world order uniform. When we all answer the respective higher calling to our maker in full earnestness, we all fit seamlessly in the grander tapestry of life without loss of individual/ religious/ national identity. There is no quarrel surely as one foot does not argue with the other foot. When we fail to answer that higher calling or defend tumors at the expense of truth (the higher calling/ contrary moral code) there is strife, chaos, and utter neglect.

The truth is these ‘cages’ as Krishnamurti references or constructs as I call them are necessary for a time surely as every child born requires nurture to aspire for full adulthood. There is no way around it in the cycle of life spurring human evolution along. The greater lesson becomes lost each generation when the constructs we create trying to articulate truth as we see it with our crude languages & origin perspectives become the object of intellectualized worship and the higher calling gets lost in the din of constructs. Each of these cages/ constructs are but training wheels useful only so far until we discover we’re clinging to training wheels, which need to slough off or leave us stuck in a plateau of self satisfied arrogance. There is the spiritual snobbery you speak of, and none are immune.

Whatever commanding heights spiritual individuals aspire, it’s meaningless when their feet trample children to death in it’s pursuit. There is much talk among spiritual circles aspiring to create a higher order & advancing human evolution. Pragmatically on terra firma these cannot help but be irrational demands imposed upon those least evolved to live up to higher standards. I’d like for you to consider another branch of Christendom called the Amish. Their aversion to free society became cause to insulate themselves. I respect their discipline. We protect them as fellow Americans. They also do not write policy applicable to all, but our policies are applicable to them so we go to pains to accommodate them.

There are many fears afoot. There are many prejudices among Christians which they are obliged to confront, so I’m very glad you’re addressing this forum. God for them is much closer to the ground when God applies only to their town in their chosen child status. I do not see these insecurities evaporating when they have vested interest in lying to themselves. Meantime, I hope you’ll consider your own motives and objectives in your desire to understand Christianity and announce them as straightforwardly as possible. When using the language of forging alliances the alarm bells looking for the trojan horse are going off. When agreements made became the means of predators to corrupt, there became an aversion to agreements.

I’m sorry you’ve been treated so rudely by so many. I share your sentiments. I will pray with you. I desire world peace. I desire improved diplomatic relations and greater understanding as a species no matter the miles and customs that separate us. American colloquialism ‘good fences make good neighbors’ is the best we can do as universal agreement. It’s for your own protection as much as it is for their own. So the other answer to this question fitting together as universal religion… no, only God has the power to deliver that in the end. Reframing the question to examine how we might go about fitting together respecting our distinct traditions and differences might be the better question to pursue.

Once upon a time when Catholics were evangelizing they came upon slaves in the Carribean. These slaves had an African religion based on voodoo and they appeared to be eager to adopt Christianity. What it became was Santeria; an amalgamation of the worst of both worlds amplifying superstition and lack of reverence for life to a whole new low. Hopefully we can all learn from that and do better in our relations. The world is much smaller with telecommunications and travel. The world is much smaller in our ability to inflict mass destruction. Boundaries aren’t something to avoid. They’re needful, and spiritually minded aspirations will have to take a back seat to pragmatic concerns. I adamantly disagree with supremacist thinking, but we would all do well to realize what it is we all mean to defend by way of healthy traditions, heritage, and moral codes. When we can articulate that fully relations will improve immeasurably.

Hi Kelley: It sounds like you have spent a lot of time in thought in your lifetime, and I admire your courage and individuality.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Kelley_Green]

Hi Kelley: It sounds like you have spent a lot of time in thought in your lifetime, and I admire your courage and individuality.

Your friend
Sufjon

The world has been exceptionally generous to invite me to break bread with them and share themselves. It is their spirit of goodwill you see.

In the context of religious tolerance, I don’t think most Christians posting in this thread taking for granted their majority status realize that the answers they hand Hindu’s in America are the answers Hindu majority in India is being instructed to hand the Christian minority who will only turn around caterwauling about being persecuted. Persecuted by their own philosophy?

If they knew-- if they could see themselves clearly-- they’d understand that following the lead they set would result in an eviction notice to all Christians in India because ‘they don’t fit’. China- same exact thing. I hope Christianity would formally rise to the occasion and grow out of it’s arrogant provincial attitudes inappropriate for global relations. People who don’t mean to get along are unfit for civilization and if they’re serious about absolute freedom it’s best they simply excuse themselves from it.

 

[Kelley_Green]

The best thing for someone like me who has been in a lot of personal trouble is to regard all of Heaven as a unity with God as the king. John 15:5 expresses this mystery using the vine as imagery. “Apart from me, you can do nothing.”

True Christianity and the Roman Church especially in its sacraments represent a kind of technical implementation of the Eastern Philosophy if you choose to be of the bent that the Easter is the supreme way of seeing things. But it was done by God himself. Yet also by man, as Jesus’ was fully man. Thus, since we are fully men, we can co-create with God in these threads in as much as we can comprehend them as men. Only, ours will have inevitable waste material; for it is not ‘my’ words, but the Lord’s which are “spirit and life” to the highest degree.

Michael I don’t think you realize what it is you are defending. You’re right AND you are wrong. There is no question about Christianity’s legitimacy as a religion. There is no threat to IT per se because the truth is destined to prevail. The only legitimate threat to it’s integrity happens within individuals & leadership who fail to honor it properly with their own lives.

There is no doubt in my mind the life path you’re on is legitimate. That Jesus Christ is our savior as Catholics. No one of another faith in this thread has even hinted a breath in that direction but Christians speak as if it has been spoken. You’re primed to have an argument justifying your existence when it’s never been in question.

The grave doubt in my mind is that God spoke only to a single bunch of Rabbi’s in the middle east estranged from the rest of the planet. That’s highly improbable. It’s also highly improbable that our apostles were so perfected that they could communicate all they learned in a single book and that we should venerate testimony above the actual subject (Jesus Christ/ God) they were describing. So this is not to discredit what is there as illegitimate, but the contextual understanding that their cultural sensibilities at the time allowed them to turn a blind eye to slavery as if God gave tacit permission. There are many such issues along those lines. We were not perfect then in our understanding and we are not perfect now in our understanding.

This chosen child philosophy is an allegory not to be taken literally. Living that philosophy out in it’s literal sense divorces the Church from all of humanity and sets a tone justifying the dehumanization of all others who fail to fall in line with what amounts to be a severely outdated world view. Once upon a time the Vatican’s world view did not include the American continents but new facts present themselves and 300yrs later they’ll finally admit the world is round. This philosophy is a between the lines declaration that none may exist who fail to be like minded the same exact way Muslim extremists have declared and the Vatican rightfully renounced. Christians espousing the chosen child philosophy are in as much declaring Hindu’s to be infidels. This philosophy is not in keeping with the spirit of new covenant but it has asserted itself wrongfully.

I’d like to know what makes you convinced it’s not God’s will that these other religions exist distinctly for reasons beyond what the early church was able to glean. Why should Christians refuse to accept on faith that it’s simply part of God’s mystery? Furthermore, how far should Christendom animate themselves ‘playing God’ in the name of evangelism with the objective of world dominion/ universal conversion as Muslims have declared with cold war 2nd attitudes disrupting all humanitarian discourse around the globe?

 

[Michael19682]

Michael I don’t think you realize what it is you are defending. You’re right AND you are wrong. There is no question about Christianity’s legitimacy as a religion. There is no threat to IT per se because the truth is destined to prevail. The only legitimate threat to it’s integrity happens within individuals & leadership who fail to honor it properly with their own lives.

My Sister Kelley, how indebted I am for your reply.
I just wanted to say that when you say the truth is destined to prevail, I could only recall these verses: Mt 16:18ff: Mt 18:20
“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.”
So Kelley, for me it is a matter of participating in the defense of our Church. Jesus does not there say why the church will not be overcome by evil. We believe it is because of the protection of the Holy Spirit of God. But still, we men and women must act in compliance with that spirit. It’s okay to say “What’s the difference it can’t happen!” Remember also that Jesus said, “Where two or three are gathered in my name there I am in the midst of them.” That scares and elates me. An agony and an ecstasy if you will. Imagine if the church were reduced to 2 or 3 people. It can happen! We must defend against that possibility!

God Bless You.

 

[Ahimsa]

Imagine if the church were reduced to 2 or 3 people. It can happen!

It already did happen, at the foot of the cross. And yet, things turned out pretty good.

 

[Sufjon]

If a Christian joins in prayer with non-Christian, it credence that all religions are equal, all religions worship the same god/gods as the Christian God and all paths lead to the Christian God. If you meditate with Buddhist, you are giving them the impression that it doesn’t matter who you worship, it is all the same.

You may be surprised to find that we already have the idea that we are equal. God chooses to reveal Himself to people in what way He sees fit. Because He connects with you or Pastor Rod in one way doesn’t make that the right way. It makes it the way you have. God made both Jim and Sufjon, this person and that, and all come to Him to the best of their abilities. He prefers none over the other. The one who thinks that he or she is somehow superior, or sees the other as somehow less fit is simply the one who has further to go. But don’t worry - you’ll get there. We all do.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[cvidal11]

A friend of mine lent me his World Religions(Huston Smith) text book. I ended up reading the chapters on Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism. The 3 religions all shared notable storys and teachings such as:

Mara trying to tempt Buddha (Jesus in the desert with the Devil)
The ideas of acceptance of God.
The stages of life (Sacraments),
The idea of letting go of material items to follow God or a deeper calling.
The 10 Commandments and Path of Renunciation (refrain from certain things for God)
Love, joy, and peace and a lifestyle free from guilt.

These are all deep basic ideas that all trace back to morality, and the idea of 1 God; living a better lifestyle. In a sense, they all seem the same on ground level. Is it possible to be Christian but agree and follow some Hinduist and Buddhist ideas?

.

 

[hn160]

You may be surprised to find that we already have the idea that we are equal. God chooses to reveal Himself to people in what way He sees fit. Because He connects with you or Pastor Rod in one way doesn’t make that the right way. It makes it the way you have. God made both Jim and Sufjon, this person and that, and all come to Him to the best of their abilities. He prefers none over the other. The one who thinks that he or she is somehow superior, or sees the other as somehow less fit is simply the one who has further to go. But don’t worry - you’ll get there. We all do.

Your friend
Sufjon

So you are saying that God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Trinity, The Three in One is coming to Hindus as their many gods as truth or Buddhist through Buddha as truth. I don’t think so, it is probably the work of the Devil.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Now, by arguing for “polytheism” as a partial description of the Abrahamic traditions, I’m not arguing that Abrahamists should, or do, give ultimate worth to any one other than the One Ultimate Being. But, it does seem clear that Abrahamists do give a degree of reverence, respect, and honor to, say, saints and angels.

Of course, none of these labels does full justice to each religion’s complexity. As a consequence, use of the same word often associated with ancient European paganism to describe Christianity due to its reverence and devotion to saints, angels, and the Blessed Virgin Mary, would be nothing short of a massive equivocation.

As Contarini’s posts have, I think, demonstrated, these concepts are quite subtle and nuanced. As with many other matters, the study of comparative religion presents two temptations which all responsible thinkers must avoid like the plague: the first is to see no similarities, no continuities, among various world faiths; the other is to miss what makes each one unique and irresponsibly interpret them all only in light of what they have in common or in light of superficial aesthetic similarities.

So, if one rejects using “polytheist” as a label for, say, Christianity, then the only fair thing would be to reject using the label of “polytheist” for, say, Hindus. I think, in fact, that that was your original point: that Hinduism should not be labeled “polytheist”.

That is the solution I favor too: Christianity - and perhaps even more obviously so Judaism and Islam - cannot in any sense be accurately called polytheistic. But I definitely agree that neither can Hinduism. I do prefer to associate Hinduism with monotheistic pantheism, but - as this thread itself has demonstrated - even that label, if it is to do justice to Hindu theology, must be disassociated from its materialist connotations in order to be accurate.

 

[rossum]

So you are saying that God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Trinity, The Three in One is coming to Hindus as their many gods as truth or Buddhist through Buddha as truth. I don’t think so, it is probably the work of the Devil.

Then that leaves with the problem of separating the words of the Devil in Buddhist texts from the word of God:

• “Love others as you love yourself.” - Bhadramayakaravyakarana sutra 91.
• “Love your neighbour as yourself.” - Mark 12:31

So, how to we tell the difference between the words of the Devil and the words of God?

rossum

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Then that leaves with the problem of separating the words of the Devil in Buddhist texts from the word of God:

• “Love others as you love yourself.” - Bhadramayakaravyakarana sutra 91.
• “Love your neighbour as yourself.” - Mark 12:31

So, how to we tell the difference between the words of the Devil and the words of God?

rossum

I know this wasn’t directed at me, but for what it’s worth, this goes back to the old Euthyphro dilemma: is a thing good because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it’s good?

I believe that the Golden Rule is a universally accessible - and, in fact, already universally accessed - ethical norm. As such, I’ll strive to follow it even if the Devil tells me to for some reason!

 

[Ahimsa]

I believe that the Golden Rule is a universally accessible - and, in fact, already universally accessed - ethical norm. As such, I’ll strive to follow it even if the Devil tells me to for some reason!

How would you know whether someone who told you to follow the Golden Rule, is actually the Devil?