Hinduism

[AveChriste11]

Just thought I’d pop in…

fascinating conversation Lee and Sufjon!

If I may be so bold, to recommend two books? The first one is “Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future” by Father Seraphim Rose (he deals with the subject of these Eastern religions, especially Hinduism)

And the other book is “The Guru, the Young Man, and Elder Paisios” by Dionysios Farasiotis…

As to Krishna… there are plenty of reasons you will find parallels between him and Christ. It’s for the same reasons the Church Fathers found parallels with Mithra.

The old has gone, the new has come. You cannot pour new wine into an old wineskin.

Sufjon, I know what you are saying – you are looking at Christianity through Hindu eyes. You must allow Christianity to speak for itself, completely separate from the worldview which the Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) springs from.

Christianity and the Abrahamic faiths are altogether ontologically different from their Eastern counterparts.

 

[Sonny1954]

I too find this discussion fascinating. I’ve hesitated getting involved because I am a long way from expert on Hinduism, nor can I quote the Christian Bible chapter and verse. But for what little it might be worth, I allow both faith traditions to stand on their own. Yes there are some points of divergence among them, but also know individuals of both faiths who love God dearly and follow their consciences and give their hearts to God. I don’t know what the Institutional opinion on this would be, but I cannot see God refusing either because of the religion they belong to.

I have noticed some posts relating to Hinduism saying that Krishna, Rama, Maa Durga are Satanic agents. I think that is nonsense. Hinduism was around for 3-4 thousand years before Christ. I don’t believe that God would give Satan free reign to spiritually pillage the human race with no divine alternative.

Returning to the Catholic and Hindu individuals I know who love God and seek him/her in their faith; they lead astonishing similar lifestyles in public and in the workplace. They both strive to see God in everyone with whom they come in contact.

Krishna said that all prayer–no matter to whom the suppllicant addresses it–is really a prayer to Him. Christ said the He was the way, the truth and the light. The ways of God are vast and unknowable. Maybe in some way which we will never understand on this material plane, they are both correct?

My $0.02

 

[AveChriste11]

I too find this discussion fascinating. I’ve hesitated getting involved because I am a long way from expert on Hinduism, nor can I quote the Christian Bible chapter and verse. But for what little it might be worth, I allow both faith traditions to stand on their own. Yes there are some points of divergence among them, but also know individuals of both faiths who love God dearly and follow their consciences and give their hearts to God. I don’t know what the Institutional opinion on this would be, but I cannot see God refusing either because of the religion they belong to.

I have noticed some posts relating to Hinduism saying that Krishna, Rama, Maa Durga are Satanic agents. I think that is nonsense. Hinduism was around for 3-4 thousand years before Christ. I don’t believe that God would give Satan free reign to spiritually pillage the human race with no divine alternative.

Returning to the Catholic and Hindu individuals I know who love God and seek him/her in their faith; they lead astonishing similar lifestyles in public and in the workplace. They both strive to see God in everyone with whom they come in contact.

Krishna said that all prayer–no matter to whom the suppllicant addresses it–is really a prayer to Him. Christ said the He was the way, the truth and the light. The ways of God are vast and unknowable. Maybe in some way which we will never understand on this material plane, they are both correct?

My $0.02

If I pray to Jupiter, I’m not really praying to Christ am I? The Church Fathers certainly would not have thought so.

As to the Hindus before Christ, we can only speak of what we know. Some schools of Hinduism were closer to Christian theology, some were not. Some were closer to the concept of the Christian God, some were not. Some believe in reincarnation and others believed we only had one life to live.

We would still affirm that “there is no salvation outside the Church.” For the fullness of truth can be found only through Christ, and partaking of the sacraments which dispense God’s graces unto us for the salvation of our souls. For “on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” I think regardless of our differences as I am Orthodox, we both still believe in the principles I am referring to.

 

[Marybeloved]

Just thought I’d pop in…

fascinating conversation Lee and Sufjon!

If I may be so bold, to recommend two books? The first one is “Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future” by Father Seraphim Rose (he deals with the subject of these Eastern religions, especially Hinduism)

And the other book is “The Guru, the Young Man, and Elder Paisios” by Dionysios Farasiotis…

As to Krishna… there are plenty of reasons you will find parallels between him and Christ. It’s for the same reasons the Church Fathers found parallels with Mithra.

The old has gone, the new has come. You cannot pour new wine into an old wineskin.

Sufjon, I know what you are saying – you are looking at Christianity through Hindu eyes. You must allow Christianity to speak for itself, completely separate from the worldview which the Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) springs from.

Christianity and the Abrahamic faiths are altogether ontologically different from their Eastern counterparts.

Could not have put it better, myself. For us, every “thing” is integral in itself, it’s existence true. That’s God’s goodness, that he gives true existence to that which is “other” than himself. Goodness of its nature, shares itself: That’s what we say. Everything is made for love. Even our material world is offered in love to God through the spiritual animal, mankind. Our union with God is one of love, a union of true and mutual self-gift, not identity. Otherwise (in Christian view) there’s no true love of true self-giving- That is, if no one has any true self but the same one.

Peace.

 

[Sufjon]

A problem I see with this view is that it makes God the author of evil. You mentioned in a reply to someone else in this thread that you believe it is God who does good and who does evil through the actions of people in this life (that he is the one feeding the hungry, or holding up the guy at the store, etc.). In contrast, Christianity teaches that “in Him there is no darkness” and that “he who does what is right is righteous, as He is righteous,” while “he who sins is of the devil,” and “anyone who claims to live in Him must walk as He also walked.” There really is no hope if indeed God is the author of evil as well as good! How can one hunger for righteousness and thirst for righteousness if God Himself is not righteous?! But thankfully, as Jesus taught, “Blessed are they who do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled.” There is a way out of sin, and there is One and One alone who can help us get free from it - and in Him there is no evil, but only goodness.

Hi Lee: This is a very complicated subject to discuss because to understand the Hindu perspective on this requires an immense amount of background, and I couldn’t explain it here. It is not so simple as people would suppose, but the simpler western approach of God being good and Satan being bad quickly runs into practical theological issues, in that it is assumed that God made everything and it is also assumed that God is perfect. The problem with this line of thought is quickly apparent. It is possible to combine the act of creating everything and being perfect so long as all potential outcomes are allowable in the initial intent. If they are not intended, then the creator is not perfect. If they are intended, then either the creator has some bad in Him, or you have to look for a third option. Good and evil are distinguishable as contrasts of one another, and it would seem at least that these contrasts are an inbuilt necessity in the physical realm. It seems that opposing forces act in a complimentary fashion, making one another possible in the same way that the flying buttress in a gothic cathedral pushes inward against the massive wall of the cathedral, holding the wall up. In turn, the massive wall pushing outward holds the flying buttress up. They make one another possible. Likewise, I am unable to have a concept of good unless I have encountered bad or evil at some point. Good and bad exist only as specific instances, but when all things are combined, there is a smoothing effect. The two atomic bombings in Japan in August of 1945 were a human tragedy of unimaginable scale, and cost over a quarter of a million lives. However, in the long run it is estimated to have saved a million lives. I see the smoothing effect here as you move outward from the stage. The specific instance of taking a quarter of a million lives is bad. The specific instance of saving million lives is good. Both specific instances occur in the outer or physical world, and the problem is our becoming enmeshed or invested in it. The problem comes from within rather than from outward, and therefore it naturally could be concluded that the answer also lies within. Outward states will always be full of good and bad, and there will never be a time when there is only good or only bad in the physical realm, because the physical realm needs both. We are visitors in this realm, not occupants. It is your inner state that determines whether you get knocked down by a wave or simply ride it. Simply put, you either become enmeshed in it or you transcend it. I suppose that it all might be summed up in the misconception that these bodies in this physical realm is the sum of what we are rather than expressions of what we are, or gross energy analogs of more subtle energies that exist closer to the core of our non-causal nature. This misidentification with our bodies and the world in which they function causes a good deal of confusion. It is the original sin and the barrier that has to be overcome.

The original sin was the willful choice of mankind to separate itself from God through setting itself up as God.

Sounds like a rather circuitous process to separate oneself from God to become what you in fact once were.

There’s a lot of truth to this - it does proclaim a message of Oneness, for God’s purpose in it is “to reconcile to himself all things.” It is in Christ, in being set free from sin and made righteous, in being brought from death to life (for the wages of sin is death), that humanity can be made whole and one again - “For by Your death and resurrection You have set us free - You are the Savior of the world,” as the Eucharistic prayer proclaims.

I see the truth in that.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

If I may be so bold, to recommend two books? The first one is “Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future” by Father Seraphim Rose (he deals with the subject of these Eastern religions, especially Hinduism)

And the other book is “The Guru, the Young Man, and Elder Paisios” by Dionysios Farasiotis.

Hi AveChristi: I checked them out and I would say that they seemed to have a rather profound lack of understanding of Hinduism. For instance, in expounding on the difference between Christian Prayer and Mantras, Dionysios Farasiotis.says:

“First of all, there are many mantras,and each refers to one of the many gods of the Hindu pantheon such as Krishna, Rama, Vishnu, or the goddess Kali.” If Dionysios Farasiotis.had bothered to look at other religions in a pragmatic or remotely scholarly manner, he would have known that Krishna, Rama and Vishnu are the same. They are not separate Gods. Rama and Krishna are human incarnations of Vishnu (The Father), just as Jesus is a human permutation of the Father. I could go on, but it suffices to say that these sources seemed to have an agenda and not a lot of knowledge. Pretty much the same as me saying “the many Christian Gods, like the Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit.” Same thing really. If I told you that, you would conclude that I was either an idiot or a liar. Everyone knows that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are God in three persons. Everyone with even a cursory knowledge of Hinduism know the same about Vishnu, Rama and Krisha. Why did you recommend these sources?

As to Krishna… there are plenty of reasons you will find parallels between him and Christ. It’s for the same reasons the Church Fathers found parallels with Mithra.

Okay.

The old has gone, the new has come. You cannot pour new wine into an old wineskin.

I think I get what you’re saying, but with that reasoning as a guide, then you might be ready to follow Mahavatar Babaji, who was an Avatar from just 150 years ago. Much later than Jesus. Like you said, “the old has gone, the new has come. You cannot pour new wine into an old wineskin.” Of course you wouldn’t agree with that, and by the same reasoning, I don’t agree to abandon Krisha because Jesus came later. Nor would I abandon Jesus because Krishna came earlier. Our belief is that they are both God in human form. I just don’t see the logic in what you said. Can you explain it if you would?

Sufjon, I know what you are saying – you are looking at Christianity through Hindu eyes.

Yes, that is true.

You must allow Christianity to speak for itself, completely separate from the worldview which the Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) springs from.

I am happy to allow Christianity to speak for itself, and I understand that Christian thought sees in itself a unique value not present in other religions. In turn, you might be able to appreciate that Hinduism can also speak for itself and we do not see a unique value in Christianity not present in other religions. We certainly see a value in it, but we would allow that same value to all.

Christianity and the Abrahamic faiths are altogether ontologically different from their Eastern counterparts.

I have read your scriptures and based on those I do not see those differences. In listening to the explanations of those scriptures that come from Christians, then yes I do see the differences that exist in Christian thought. That does not, however, necessitate that a difference exists. There is one god. All attempts to reach out to Him are sacred and are adored by Him.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[AveChriste11]

Hi AveChristi: I checked them out and I would say that they seemed to have a rather profound lack of understanding of Hinduism. For instance, in expounding on the difference between Christian Prayer and Mantras, Dionysios Farasiotis.says:

“First of all, there are many mantras,and each refers to one of the many gods of the Hindu pantheon such as Krishna, Rama, Vishnu, or the goddess Kali.” If Dionysios Farasiotis.had bothered to look at other religions in a pragmatic or remotely scholarly manner, he would have known that Krishna, Rama and Vishnu are the same. They are not separate Gods. Rama and Krishna are human incarnations of Vishnu (The Father), just as Jesus is a human permutation of the Father. I could go on, but it suffices to say that these sources seemed to have an agenda and not a lot of knowledge. Pretty much the same as me saying “the many Christian Gods, like the Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit.” Same thing really. If I told you that, you would conclude that I was either an idiot or a liar. Everyone knows that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are God in three persons. Everyone with even a cursory knowledge of Hinduism know the same about Vishnu, Rama and Krisha. Why did you recommend these sources?

I was mostly recommending these sources for our Christian friends. I understand what you are saying about Vaishnavism, I know the book was originally written in Greek and there were probably different people translating it into the other languages. It is true, we all have our misunderstandings about each other’s theology – we are fallible humans. Also you might know that our Hare Krishna (ISKCON) friends do not believe that Vishnu and Krishna are the same.

I think I get what you’re saying, but with that reasoning as a guide, then you might be ready to follow Mahavatar Babaji, who was an Avatar from just 150 years ago. Much later than Jesus. Like you said, “the old has gone, the new has come. You cannot pour new wine into an old wineskin.” Of course you wouldn’t agree with that, and by the same reasoning, I don’t agree to abandon Krisha because Jesus came later. Nor would I abandon Jesus because Krishna came earlier. Our belief is that they are both God in human form. I just don’t see the logic in what you said. Can you explain it if you would?

As you may know, we do not believe that everyone who comes along is really what he or she says. I have the Church, and the saints as my examples of how to live… I don’t plan on following anyone else.

I am happy to allow Christianity to speak for itself, and I understand that Christian thought sees in itself a unique value not present in other religions. In turn, you might be able to appreciate that Hinduism can also speak for itself and we do not see a unique value in Christianity not present in other religions. We certainly see a value in it, but we would allow that same value to all.

I do, I appreciate the many tenets of Hinduism. I know that the various philosophies which sprang up out of India form the foundation for Eastern thought, as “Hinduism” heavily influenced Sikhism, to some extent Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and Jainism.

I have read your scriptures and based on those I do not see those differences. In listening to the explanations of those scriptures that come from Christians, then yes I do see the differences that exist in Christian thought. That does not, however, necessitate that a difference exists. There is one god. All attempts to reach out to Him are sacred and are adored by Him.

Your friend
Sufjon

I understand what you are saying… the Church Fathers certainly did believe there were differences. We believe as both Catholic and Orthodox Christians, that the church fathers were the disciples of the Apostles – they taught everything which were passed down to them. You might compare it to the Guru/chela relationship.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Sufjon]

I was mostly recommending these sources for our Christian friends. I understand what you are saying about Vaishnavism, I know the book was originally written in Greek and there were probably different people translating it into the other languages. It is true, we all have our misunderstandings about each other’s theology – we are fallible humans. Also you might know that our Hare Krishna (ISKCON) friends do not believe that Vishnu and Krishna are the same.

Hi Andrew: I am very glad that we’re having a dialog I apologize for my directness, but I am not sure I’m following you very well. The Hare Krishna movement (more properly known as The International Society for Krishna Consciousness) was founded by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Saying that A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada didn’t know that Krishna is Vishnu is like saying that a Jesuit doesn’t know that Jesus is the Son of God. Can you tell me who told you that?

As you may know, we do not believe that everyone who comes along is really what he or she says. I have the Church, and the saints as my examples of how to live… I don’t plan on following anyone else.

That is good. The path you have is perfectly fine.

I do, I appreciate the many tenets of Hinduism. I know that the various philosophies which sprang up out of India form the foundation for Eastern thought, as “Hinduism” heavily influenced Sikhism, to some extent Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and Jainism.

Very true.

I understand what you are saying… the Church Fathers certainly did believe there were differences. We believe as both Catholic and Orthodox Christians, that the church fathers were the disciples of the Apostles – they taught everything which were passed down to them.

They certainly were the disciples of the Apostles, and I honor them, you and your faith. You are sacred to God.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[LayingHands]

Hi Andrew: I am very glad that we’re having a dialog I apologize for my directness, but I am not sure I’m following you very well. The Hare Krishna movement (more properly known as The International Society for Krishna Consciousness) was founded by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Saying that A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada didn’t know that Krishna is Vishnu is like saying that a Jesuit doesn’t know that Jesus is the Son of God. Can you tell me who told you that?

That is good. The path you have is perfectly fine.

Very true.

They certainly were the disciples of the Apostles, and I honor them, you and your faith. You are sacred to God.

Your friend,
Sufjon

Dear Sufjon, sister of my heart, you and I are on the same path…as a cradle catholic I want to present some knowledge that I believe will help you better understand Christianity overall, and how it is understood by many modern and old branches of all religions which are attached and have accepted as Truth, the history of Our Lord Jesus Christ…who was born, lived and rose to the Heavens, between birth 7-2 BC/BCE and died and rose, 30-36 AD/CE…

There was a passage of time and power, including the control of humanity by death of heresy and also the total destruction of another rising religion of the times…Gnostics, due to their rise in religious masses and expansion.

The first Christian Bishops created the First Old Roman Creed (Creed means “correct belief”) which was used as a declartion for those receiving baptism from the 3rd Century and Earlier…and the Second Roman Creed, which written and provided by Tertulian during the 2nd Century…would eventually completely, irrevocably, separate the Eastern and Western (Catholic) Churches.

The separation was caused by the changes of the definition of GOD and his SON, Jesus Christ, as being Created by GOD…Tertulian’s Trinitarian theology, re-creating Jesus Christ as becoming GOD, the SON and Holy Spirit, all together, began today’s Trinity of the Catholic Church. The uprising between the Eastern and Western Churches was caused by the separation of GOD, our One Almighty GOD to now become the Trinity…Jesus Christ as GOD, SON and HOLY SPIRIT.

Tertulian wrote the early 2nd Century Creed and was the founder of Western theology. He is today considered the Father of Latin Christianity and did not only originate the Trinitarian theology but advanced this oldest extant, using the latin written term, Trinity.

The Trinity became Creed…as 3 Persons, One substance.

At first, compared to the First Old Roman Creed, the Trinity was rejected as heresy, by the church at large, but, was later accepted as Christian orthodoxy.

Eventually, the Counsil adoted the Nicene Creed in 325 AD. The Council of 318 Fathers affirmed the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and applied to him the term, GOD. This formal declaration occurred in the face of the Arian controversy. Bishop Arius’s teaching was provoking a serious crisis because he declared Jesus Christ as Divine, but that GOD actually had CREATED Jesus. This teaching and doctrine made Jesus Christ LESS than his Father, GOD…AND CONTRADICTED THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY!

In 381 AD, a revised version of the Nicene Creed was adopted by the First Council of Constantinople, by 150 Fathers…the Trinity as previously created by Tertulian was forever adopted creed doctrine.

The first historical event I want you to remember is that the Church says Peter the Apostle was titled as “The First Patriarch of Antioch”. The Patriarch of Antioch are the original patriarchs of early Christianity who presided over the Bishops of Syria, Palestine, Armenia, Georgia, Mesopotamia, and INDIA!

This was a pleasant surprise for me, I was unaware INDIA was included as part of Christianity’s earliest history? Hare Krsna! ( Oh Lord, GOD!)

 

[Marybeloved]

Hi Sonny: This is true. Actually, we also have Avatars (incarnations of God in human flesh such as Jesus) who are or were female. The one I worship is on my signature picture. She was very recent. We would say that She, Krishna, Jesus and the other Avatars are of course all the same being, just different places and different bodies and different times. This is what many of us (myself included) believe.

Sufjon,

I’m curious about the Avatar pictured in your signature. Do you mind telling me a bit about her? Her name, her life, teaching etc etc- Just something short. Also, you say she was recent, how recent do you mean? Is that her real picture/photograph, for example, or an artistic expression?

Thanks.

 

[Sufjon]

Sufjon,

I’m curious about the Avatar pictured in your signature. Do you mind telling me a bit about her? Her name, her life, teaching etc etc- Just something short. Also, you say she was recent, how recent do you mean? Is that her real picture/photograph, for example, or an artistic expression?

Thanks.

Hi MaryBeloved. Yes, that’s a real photograph, probably when she was around 50. She lived into her eighties. Her name is Sri Anandamayi Ma, or Bliss Permeated Mother. Widely regarded as a saint (there is no formal sainthood process in our faith) She is regarded by many of Her devotees (myself included) as an Avatar. While She seems to have confirmed this in Her discussions, She was more interested in people seeing God everywhere - in themselves and in others in particular. There are a number of books about her, although strangely enough most accounts of her miracles appear in books that are not about her. While her miracles are numerous and very intriguing, books about her mostly stick to her teachings.

Biographical information:

aspiringindia.org/saints_sages/anandamayi-ma/anandamayi-ma/

A good collection of some of her teachings and conversations:

anandamayi.org/books/atmnda.htm

Pictures:

google.com/search?tbm=isch&hl=en&source=hp&biw=853&bih=525&q=anansamayi+ma&gbv=2&oq=anansamayi+ma&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2450l6178l0l6428l14l13l0l4l0l0l219l999l3.2.2l7l0#hl=en&gbv=2&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=anandamayi+ma&pbx=1&oq=anandamayi+ma&aq=0&aqi=g3g-m2g-S5&aql=&gs_sm=c&gs_upl=46053l46412l0l48674l2l2l0l0l0l0l203l296l1.0.1l2l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=4a6a3430146c4c69&biw=853&bih=525

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[desales09]

Holy macaroni - there is much to respond to! I feel inadequate. AveChriste, Layinghands, Marybeloved, thank you for joining the discussion. Sufjon, it is very apparent you are more educated and well-read than I am. As I said previously in the thread, my credentials do not include wide reading or extensive eduction - simply my (highly valued) Christian faith and knowledge of the Bible and Church doctrine. If anything, you inspire me to learn deeper about my faith and how it relates to other religions and world philosophies. This is not to “throw in the towel” on our discussion - I will try when I have a moment to respond to all of you, in the will of God.

Your friend, Lee

 

[Sonny1954]

Originally Posted by Marybeloved
Sufjon,

I’m curious about the Avatar pictured in your signature. Do you mind telling me a bit about her? Her name, her life, teaching etc etc- Just something short. Also, you say she was recent, how recent do you mean? Is that her real picture/photograph, for example, or an artistic expression?

Thanks.

If I may say, there are at least a couple of excellent English-language biographies of Shri Ma, the Mother of Bliss. Her tremendous love of God and devotion to Him made her a saint to whom I would commend to anybody’s attention. Her all-consuming faith in and love for God allowed her soul to be perpetually blissful in this very trying world. She became completely God-conscious in all she said and did. Her biography is beautiful and inspiring, yet humbling in the extreme.

 

[Sufjon]

Holy macaroni - there is much to respond to! I feel inadequate. AveChriste, Layinghands, Marybeloved, thank you for joining the discussion. Sufjon, it is very apparent you are more educated and well-read than I am. As I said previously in the thread, my credentials do not include wide reading or extensive eduction - simply my (highly valued) Christian faith and knowledge of the Bible and Church doctrine. If anything, you inspire me to learn deeper about my faith and how it relates to other religions and world philosophies. This is not to “throw in the towel” on our discussion - I will try when I have a moment to respond to all of you, in the will of God.

Your friend, Lee

Hi Lee: Thank you for the compliments, but I can assure you that I’m not all that smart. I am, however, very fortunate to have people like yourself and many others on this forum to talk to about God. This is a special place. At some point I will learn enough from it to move on, and make myself useful in a spiritual sense.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[desales09]

AveChriste: One of the books you recommended - “Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future” - happened to be in my bookcase. I’ve never read it - it was my brothers’, who was looking into Eastern Orthodoxy some time back. I glanced through it and found an interesting article from a former Hindu who converted to the Orthodox faith. Powerful stuff. I don’t think I would agree with all of Fr. Seraphim’s views in the book, but he definitely has some striking comments about the Ecumenical movement, of which I need to learn more. Sufjon, did you happen to read any of this book?

Sonny:

But for what little it might be worth, I allow both faith traditions to stand on their own. Yes there are some points of divergence among them, but also know individuals of both faiths who love God dearly and follow their consciences and give their hearts to God. I don’t know what the Institutional opinion on this would be, but I cannot see God refusing either because of the religion they belong to.

C.S. Lewis said there are two kinds of people, those who say to God “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, “All right, have it your way.” God does not look and see religious labels on people - “His eyes roam to and fro upon the earth to see those who are devoted to Him.” In the end the final judgment will merely reveal a choice each of us, individually, have made, whether we were conscious of it or not: “I love You, God, and my life bears witness to that fact” or “I hate You and reject You God.” Our fallen nature tends towards the hatred of God and His will in preference of ourselves and our own will. We set ourselves up on the throne of our lives, and are as planets that stray from the sun in the futile attempt to revolve around ourselves. Only the Lord Jesus Christ, through His death and resurrection, can free us from this pride, this sin, this rebellion - “And you shall call His Name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins.” “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree so that we might die to sin and live for righteousness.” Only by the supernatural grace of God - and not merely by our own efforts - can we be delivered from the reality of sin and death. The Catholic Church alone offers the full resources to enter into this life of Christ, through the sacraments and the teachings of Christ and His Apostles.

I have noticed some posts relating to Hinduism saying that Krishna, Rama, Maa Durga are Satanic agents. I think that is nonsense. Hinduism was around for 3-4 thousand years before Christ. I don’t believe that God would give Satan free reign to spiritually pillage the human race with no divine alternative.

I believe insofar as one speaks and teaches lies he is speaking the language of Satan, who also was around 3-4 thousand years (and more) before the incarnation of Christ. “He is a liar and the father of lies.” Jesus also said, “Beware of false prophets, for they come in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” Also in the Bible, “Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.” All this not to condemn the teachings of Krishna or the others - I simply have not read the Baghavid Gita (sp?) - but to highlight the fact that there is truth and lies, darkness and light, good and evil, and that these things have been around from the beginning. We can’t trust something just because it came prior to something else.

Returning to the Catholic and Hindu individuals I know who love God and seek him/her in their faith; they lead astonishing similar lifestyles in public and in the workplace. They both strive to see God in everyone with whom they come in contact.

Indeed, it is true that there are people from all religions who sincerely seek to know God and a higher reality, and this is good - it proclaims the truth that God has put in the human heart desire that only He can fulfill. Jesus said, however, that “those who worship God must worship Him in spirit and in truth.” People have many different ideas of God, and not all of these are true. It sounds narrow minded and intolerant in this day and age to say so; but God is not subordinate to man - man must subordinate himself to God. “Let God be true and every man a liar.”

 

[desales09]

Sufjon: In what little time I have at the moment, I will respond to some things you said, and will address the rest at a later time:

It is possible to combine the act of creating everything and being perfect so long as all potential outcomes are allowable in the initial intent. If they are not intended, then the creator is not perfect. If they are intended, then either the creator has some bad in Him, or you have to look for a third option. Good and evil are distinguishable as contrasts of one another, and it would seem at least that these contrasts are an inbuilt necessity in the physical realm.

What God intended was for us to have free will. Free will makes it possible for us to obey or disobey Him, to choose God or to reject Him. It is the abuse of this gift that makes evil possible. He did not intend for us to abuse it, but He did intend to leave us the possibility of doing so - for only free will makes the highest thing, which is love, possible.

 

[LayingHands]

Sufjon: In what little time I have at the moment, I will respond to some things you said, and will address the rest at a later time:

What God intended was for us to have free will. Free will makes it possible for us to obey or disobey Him, to choose God or to reject Him. It is the abuse of this gift that makes evil possible. He did not intend for us to abuse it, but He did intend to leave us the possibility of doing so - for only free will makes the highest thing, which is love, possible.

Yes…I am clapping, sister mine.

As Our Father GOD, Creator, Controller, Cause of ALL Causes…GOD is a loving and very tolerant father. As the only creations, humanity, created in his image, we are the only Living Entities who have GOD’s Conscienceness. All other Living Entities, the animals, fish, reptiles, plants, trees, DO NOT…Our ever patient, Supreme Father, The Personality of GODHEAD, also wants to make us happy and fulfill OUR thoughts, OUR desires and what ever it is we want and WILL for…GOD has placed a portion of himself, within every living entity’s heart…it is known as your SpiritSoul, which is Eternal.

Your Eternal Spiritsoul NEVER DIES…but YOUR decisions are responsible for your spiritsoul’s cycles of lives, by it’s OWN consience choices and decisions…

In reality, EVIL is performed by the WILL of the living human Entity, who has thought of, desired to, and willed the evil action…GOD gives the right for the Spiritsoul to FALL AND TO FORGET HIM…In humanity falling, the evil human beings become responsible for their evil actions…of this life AND of the next life, re-birth, transmigration or reincarnation too…into punishment and another body…be it animal, tree, fish, atom…

In conscienceness and living, in goodness, godliness and perfection of the Supreme Absolute TRUTH, the godly humanity, will no longer have to cycle…and the Salvation of GOD, is realized, as we live with GOD, after this death, in the Spiritual Heavens…with GOD…finally going back home, to GODHEAD.

It is understood by this Science of GOD, we are scheduled for DEATH, as soon as our next life has been determined…and bottom line is…YOU determine, conscienously, how you live in this life and in preparing your Spiritual body…who and how, YOU will become, in your next life.

In THE Science of GOD, the Bhagavad-gita AS IT IS…OUR Supreme Father GOD, teaches how we must live during this life of being a HUMAN BEING.

GOD relays why you were created…GOD explains what actions during this human life, must be performed to remember him, worship him, glorify him and always be with him…

In many ways HUMANITY has turned from GOD and has willed to forget him…due to their selfishness, not being answerable to ANYONE.

In many other ways, GOD’s knowledge, teaching and LAWS had been truly lost, remained confused, and was controlled by powerful, man created compositions.

GOD descended 5,000 years ago to begin the KNOWLEDGE of the Science of GOD, again…The translated scriptures are yet several thousands of years older than this…and know, GOD has descended many times, to save these sacred scriptures…

GOD said then “This Supreme Science was thus recieved through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understand it in that way. But in the course of time the succession was broken, and therefore, the science as it is, appears to be lost. That very ancient science of the relationship with the Supreme is today told by ME to you because you are my devotee as well as My friend; therefore, you can understand the TRANSCENDENTAL mystery of the science”

 

[ALotLessThumb]

My Response: I’ll be straightforward - I have not studied in depth these other figures.

Christ lived for the benefit of humankind. He lives still. He died and rose again to show you that in fact nothing ever dies. Why then do you focus so much on His death? He lives. As for the other Avatars, they lived for your benefit as well. As for the remission of sin, we would see a much deeper meaning in that, but I have explained this meaning before. In lieu of me repeating all that again, perhaps I could ask you a question instead. In your opinion, why do you suppose that God needed a messy and bloody human sacrifice to atone for what happened in a world He Himself created (including the free will feature), and in so doing, knew not only the probabilities, but the particulars in regard to the outcomes? Why the sacrifice? Can He not do as He likes? I think He had a much bigger meaning. What do you think that might be?

Very true, but they have also shown not only a willingness, but a proclivity to kill for Him as well. Die for Him, kill for Him - none of this (at least in my thinking) has any bearing on the truth of His message. It only means that people still don’t “get” Him. That aside, the truth of His message doesn’t conflict with the truth of the messages of other Avatars. In truth, no one dies for Jesus. One one kills for Jesus. They die and kill because of the ignorance of people.

The only lie is the belief that one can die for something. In fact. nothing can die, nor can anything be lost of it’s creator. They can only change form. What you are is infinite, sacred and part of the whole. You have no beginning and you have no end. These instruments of sentient measurement that we become attached to, they die and go on to form other things. You do not.

Your friend,
Sufjon

Perhaps, because of the shared linguistic family, the Hindu viewpoint is very similar to the pagan Greek conception, which conjures an immanent, Spinozan sort of god. And it is this that an objection arises in viewing the Passion of Christ in that light.

My objection starts with metempsychosis. If we are eternal soul and the body only the muddy vessel of decay, then there is no true birth and no true death; like all of nature we are eternal and uncreated, and simply change form. We have no existential problem because we have defined away the problem of mortality. If that is so then there is no true singularity (birth and death are the most obvious singularities in human existence) and the One unfolds itself undisturbed; there only are partial realizations of being, states of becoming, and so forth. That is “Platonism,” and Hegel’s theory of history is its most outrageously consistent application. As we have seen this has very, very bad consequences. Because the Immanent godhead becomes a passive player in the interactions of humans, who build societies upon violence, and try to conceal that level of violence in their ritual piety. Even the most benign of vegetational sacrifices hides a violent history- and once these mechanisms start breaking down, a new sacrifice and order must arrive from a new level of violence.

Christians witness to the existential problem of our singularities; we testify that we are unlike “eternal things” (nearly eternal things) like stars, electrons, etc., which exist for a very long time; their existence is not in question; from a philosophical standpoint they have an “existential” issue (existence is radically different from essence in Aquinas’ sense) but they do not have the same existential problem that we mortal humans do. If we make humans eternal through metempsychosis then why should we fear death at all? Or more to the point: Why should we live [as Deuteronomy 30 implores us to do] ?

That is the Greek/pagan point, with all of it’s philosophers and sophists drawn to the same conclusion of resignation and though it is logical and reasonable on its own terms, it doesn’t compare to the Judeo-Christian position that sees death for what it is: repugnant; impure; life is to be loved 'till there is no reconciliation with death. Only the expectation of resurrection in the flesh offers a consolation against the horror of death. Man is not created with an eternal soul that moves from body to body, but is created body and soul together. Christianity took this position against the pagan Greeks, and I maintain that this is an essential distinction- one fulfilled in the final sacrifice by Christ and his Victory over Death in the Resurrection.

To blur the distinction of life and death is to thrust us back into a darkness where the consequences of life and death are meaningless outside of the violence we apply onto it.

 

[Sufjon]

Sufjon: In what little time I have at the moment, I will respond to some things you said, and will address the rest at a later time:

What God intended was for us to have free will. Free will makes it possible for us to obey or disobey Him, to choose God or to reject Him. It is the abuse of this gift that makes evil possible. He did not intend for us to abuse it, but He did intend to leave us the possibility of doing so - for only free will makes the highest thing, which is love, possible.

Hi again: Therein lies the problem with this theory. For the statement “He did not intend for us to abuse it” to be true, then He must not be all knowing and perfect, because if He was all knowing and perfect, He would also know the probabilities at play in regards to how we would eventually act. He would know not just the probabilities, but the outcomes to the level of specific instance. You cannot be all perfect and create something that runs afoul. How is that possible?

Secondly, being built by His design and not our own, we have within us only the potentials we were equipped with. This means that not only the capability, but even the tendency to do wrong is built into our design. In other words, evil is in our toolkit and if we believe in one all powerful and all knowing source of all creation, our toolkit could only have come from one place - God. We were designed to do both good and evil. All things emanate from God, therefore. he is the architect and source of all good and all evil. Neither came into being without the full intent of that which made all things, is all knowing, and all perfect.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[henrikhank]

Laudetur Jesus Christus!
I was just listenting to a chant by some Hindus and it reminded me of Psalm 113 “[11] But our God is in heaven: he hath done all things whatsoever he would. [12] The idols of the gentiles are silver and gold, the works of the hands of men. [Psalms 113:12] [Latin] [13] They have mouths and speak not: they have eyes and see not. [14] They have ears and hear not: they have noses and smell not. [15] They have hands and feel not: they have feet and walk not: neither shall they cry out through their throat.” drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=113&l=12#x

text from the chant: “The spiritual master is always engaged in the temple worship of Sri Sri Radha and Krsna. He also engages his disciples in such worship. They dress the Deities in beautiful clothes and ornaments, clean Their temple, and perform other similar worship of the Lord. I offer my respectful obeisances unto the lotus feet of such a spiritual master.” harekrsna.com/practice/sadhana/morning/mangala-arati/gurvastaka.htm

Somehow I’m starting to belive in the theory that some of the sons of Abraham went to India and there started to practise syncetism, ie. mixing pre-vedic culture and OT culture.
Are there any good writings about this issue? and what do you think about it?