Hinduism

[GEddie]

Abraham had only two sons; both lived in the Middle East. Who would have made this journey?

On the other hand, Solomon had a trade mission to India, so some Hebrews might have made this journey earlier.

In any case, there’s no reason to assume syncretization between Israel and India. Stone idols and their worship and appurtenances were well established in the territories of the Davidic kingdom, with lamentable crossover with the people of the covenant.

ICXC NIKA

 

[desales09]

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,

No, this does not follow, my friend. Here we are speaking of God, and of creatures He has created with free will. He could have created us as robots who have no possibility of going wrong; but then love would not be possible. God, being perfect, though He foresaw that we would abuse this gift of free will, wanted love to be possible. This does not make Him the author of evil - the evil consists in us rejecting His will, which is perfect. His will is this: “Be ye perfect, as your Heavenly Father is 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.

This is true - but again, the fact that He knew we would disobey does not make Him the author of our disobedience. He did not create us to disobey - He created us to love, to serve, and to know Him, and one another.

You cannot be all perfect and create something that runs afoul. How is that possible?

Again, free will. God does not desire robots, He desires creatures that freely choose to love Him. There is no other way for this other than the way He designed it.

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.

No - not the tendency. He did not design us to go against His will. That is a contradiction in terms.

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.

No - the tools for doing good or evil are in the “toolkit,” but the tools themselves are not evil. Our choice to use them for such is. A hammer is made to drive a nail, but can also be used to pound in a skull. That is no fault of the hammer manufacturer, who designed it for the former purpose.

We were designed to do both good and evil.

No, my friend - your reasoning is faulty. “God is not subject to evil, and does not tempt to such.” Please reconsider such an abhorrent doctrine. There is no darkness in God.

Your friend,
Lee

 

[Sufjon]

No, this does not follow, my friend. Here we are speaking of God, and of creatures He has created with free will. He could have created us as robots who have no possibility of going wrong; but then love would not be possible. God, being perfect, though He foresaw that we would abuse this gift of free will, wanted love to be possible. This does not make Him the author of evil - the evil consists in us rejecting His will, which is perfect. His will is this: “Be ye perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect.”

This is true - but again, the fact that He knew we would disobey does not make Him the author of our disobedience. He did not create us to disobey - He created us to love, to serve, and to know Him, and one another.

Again, free will. God does not desire robots, He desires creatures that freely choose to love Him. There is no other way for this other than the way He designed it.

No - not the tendency. He did not design us to go against His will. That is a contradiction in terms.

No - the tools for doing good or evil are in the “toolkit,” but the tools themselves are not evil. Our choice to use them for such is. A hammer is made to drive a nail, but can also be used to pound in a skull. That is no fault of the hammer manufacturer, who designed it for the former purpose.

No, my friend - your reasoning is faulty. “God is not subject to evil, and does not tempt to such.” Please reconsider such an abhorrent doctrine. There is no darkness in God.

Your friend,
Lee

I think this is a relatively simple matter. We presume that God:

-Is perfect.

-Is all knowing.

-Is infallible.

-Created ALL things,

The only conclusion that I can draw from that is that evil did not spring up by surprise. If it did, then He is not all knowing, infallible or didn’t create all things. The three cannot go together if all that came to be was not allowable in the design. Now, God having created what we see to be evil does cause some real problems in considering the mainstream Christian view of what Jesus said and did and in regards to the nature of the world in which we live. The capacity to do wrong is inherent in the idea of free will, because if that capacity wasn’t there, then it wouldn’t be free will. Having placed that capacity there, it would be well known by an all knowing and infallible creator that in the course of eternity (which is a very long time), it is not only probable, but likely that this potential would come to fruition. To think otherwise is to ascribe a very low level of intelligence to the creator.

God did not create the world and then sometime later espy evil and say - “ooh snap - where did that thing come from?” Did He?

Your friend
Sufjon

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[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.

I do sincerely appreciate your reply, but can I ask if there is a point in there somewhere that you’re trying to make?

 

[henrikhank]

Abraham had only two sons

only two

 

[Sufjon]

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

Hi henrikhank: I am not sure about very early contact between Hindu culture and Abrahamic, however, we believe there was significant contact around the time of Christ. There are reports of ancient texts in the possession of Himalayan monks that show Jesus himself in India between the ages of 12 and 30. I can’t account for the veracity of any of that, but it has been commonly held lore in the north of India pretty much back to the time of Christ. He was referred to by Hindus as St. Issa. It is reported that he made a pretty big impression in India, and news of His crucifixion spread back very quickly. We would say that the teachings of Jesus very much match those of the Indian Rishis, Sadhus and Avatars, however, our understanding of their meanings are very different. I can verify that the words of Jesus closely parallel the ideas in the Upanishads, and the Gitas, but again, we do take a very different meaning out of them. Most Hindus would indeed agree that Jesus was for real. Our differences would lie in the meaning. Specifically, we would see our religions complimenting each other very well, however the average Christian would not see the match, and of course everyone is free to see what they will.

If you do find more ancient parallels, I would be very interested in hearing about what you find. It’s a very intriguing idea you have, and you have my attention.

Your friend
Sufjon

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?

 

[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.

I think you are confusing Greece with India. Every time I go to reply to your post I realize that I actually can’t understand what your point was. Not to say that you don’t have one. Perhaps I’m just thick or something, I don;t know.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[meltzerboy]

I think this is a relatively simple matter. We presume that God:

-Is perfect.

-Is all knowing.

-Is infallible.

-Created ALL things,

The only conclusion that I can draw from that is that evil did not spring up by surprise. If it did, then He is not all knowing, infallible or didn’t create all things. The three cannot go together if all that came to be was not allowable in the design. Now, God having created what we see to be evil does cause some real problems in considering the mainstream Christian view of what Jesus said and did and in regards to the nature of the world in which we live. The capacity to do wrong is inherent in the idea of free will, because if that capacity wasn’t there, then it wouldn’t be free will. Having placed that capacity there, it would be well known by an all knowing and infallible creator that in the course of eternity (which is a very long time), it is not only probable, but likely that this potential would come to fruition. To think otherwise is to ascribe a very low level of intelligence to the creator.

God did not create the world and then sometime later espy evil and say - “ooh snap - where did that thing come from?” Did He?

Your friend
Sufjon

Your friend
Sufjon

Hi Sufjon: I’d like to add a few comments to this discussion. First, Christianity and Judaism believe that G-d lives outside of time, so that eternity does not mean “a very long time,” but, rather, without time. G-d created the perception of time, just as He created nature, and exists apart from both. Second, according to Jewish thought, we are born with the potential for good (we do not believe in original sin) and also an evil inclination. However, the evil inclination is really the equivalent of Freud’s aggressive drive, which can be used for either good or bad purposes. For example, survival depends on the evil inclination and includes behaviors such as eating, drinking, sex, work, and play. These same behaviors can at times be misused and abused, and that is what we call sinful behavior. But it is Mankind that chooses to misuse its own tools of survival, not G-d. The sins we commit, however, while contrary to G-d’s will, also may serve the purpose of bringing us closer to G-d by means of our atonement for these sins. There is a similar case, part and parcel of Christianity, to be made for personal suffering, which raises our emotional level beyond that which it would have been if we had lived a life of only happiness. In a sense, therefore, both sin and suffering serve a higher good, much as love does. In either case, our G-d-given free will elevates us beyond what would otherwise be a flat existence without human or spiritual depth.

 

[CopticChristian]

Hi Sufjon: I’d like to add a few comments to this discussion. First, Christianity and Judaism believe that G-d lives outside of time, so that eternity does not mean “a very long time,” but, rather, without time. G-d created the perception of time, just as He created nature, and exists apart from both. Second, according to Jewish thought, we are born with the potential for good (we do not believe in original sin) and also an evil inclination. However, the evil inclination is really the equivalent of Freud’s aggressive drive, which can be used for either good or bad purposes. For example, survival depends on the evil inclination and includes behaviors such as eating, drinking, sex, work, and play. These same behaviors can at times be misused and abused, and that is what we call sinful behavior. But it is Mankind that chooses to misuse its own tools of survival, not G-d. The sins we commit, however, while contrary to G-d’s will, also may serve the purpose of bringing us closer to G-d by means of our atonement for these sins. There is a similar case, part and parcel of Christianity, to be made for personal suffering, which raises our emotional level beyond that which it would have been if we had lived a life of only happiness. In a sense, therefore, both sin and suffering serve a higher good, much as love does. In either case, our G-d-given free will elevates us beyond what would otherwise be a flat existence without human or spiritual depth.

I would like to add a vote of confidence for Meltzerboy and say Amen.

 

[Marybeloved]

Hi Sufjon: I’d like to add a few comments to this discussion. First, Christianity and Judaism believe that G-d lives outside of time, so that eternity does not mean “a very long time,” but, rather, without time. G-d created the perception of time, just as He created nature, and exists apart from both. Second, according to Jewish thought, we are born with the potential for good (we do not believe in original sin) and also an evil inclination. However, the evil inclination is really the equivalent of Freud’s aggressive drive, which can be used for either good or bad purposes. For example, survival depends on the evil inclination and includes behaviors such as eating, drinking, sex, work, and play. These same behaviors can at times be misused and abused, and that is what we call sinful behavior. But it is Mankind that chooses to misuse its own tools of survival, not G-d. The sins we commit, however, while contrary to G-d’s will, also may serve the purpose of bringing us closer to G-d by means of our atonement for these sins. There is a similar case, part and parcel of Christianity, to be made for personal suffering, which raises our emotional level beyond that which it would have been if we had lived a life of only happiness. In a sense, therefore, both sin and suffering serve a higher good, much as love does. In either case, our G-d-given free will elevates us beyond what would otherwise be a flat existence without human or spiritual depth.

Meltzerboy, the evil inclination you speak of is what we call original sin- It doesn’t take away our freedom of choice for good, it’s just an inclination to evil. Nor does it mean that we are born evil or not good. In Catholicism, all being/existence is good, human beings are essentially good. Grace on the other hand is an inclination/tending/pull to God. Actual sin means a free act of one’s own will against/contrary to the divine will. works of merit (good) are free acts done in cooperation with grace in conformity with the Divine will.

 

[henrikhank]

There are reports of ancient texts in the possession of Himalayan monks that show Jesus himself in India between the ages of 12 and 30. I can’t account for the veracity of any of that, but it has been commonly held lore in the north of India pretty much back to the time of Christ. He was referred to by Hindus as St. Issa. It is reported that he made a pretty big impression in India, and news of His crucifixion spread back very quickly. We would say that the teachings of Jesus very much match those of the Indian Rishis, Sadhus and Avatars, however, our understanding of their meanings are very different. I can verify that the words of Jesus closely parallel the ideas in the Upanishads, and the Gitas, but again, we do take a very different meaning out of them.

Please tell me more about St Issa. We don’t beleive that Jesus went to India but the Apostles Thomas did. and are you saying that the Indian Rishis in fact didn’t beleive in Hinduism, that they beleived in the Bible?

 

[AveChriste11]

Please tell me more about St Issa. We don’t beleive that Jesus went to India but the Apostles Thomas did. and are you saying that the Indian Rishis in fact didn’t beleive in Hinduism, that they beleived in the Bible?

Nicholas Notovitch exploited these stories, claimed to found an actual manuscript – but mostly he probably never met any Llamas or monks as he claims, nor did he find any manuscript that he supposedly translated. I found this interesting…

tentmaker.org/books/FamousBiblicalHoaxes.html

One may find many books in New Age and used book stores about the missing years of Jesus’ life from the ages of twelve to thirty. Supposedly this information is clearly documented. The stories began in the late eighteen hundreds with a book published by Nicolas Notovitch in 1894 in French. Since then many copies have appeared in other languages including English. One such edition in English is entitled: The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ. Many other New Age or Spiritualist authors have taken this information and have incorporated it into their own works and systems. New Age writers such as Elizabeth Clare Prophet have made many thousands of dollars from the first book by Notovitch.

 

[AveChriste11]

Please tell me more about St Issa. We don’t beleive that Jesus went to India but the Apostles Thomas did. and are you saying that the Indian Rishis in fact didn’t beleive in Hinduism, that they beleived in the Bible?

Nicholas Notovitch exploited these stories, claimed to found an actual manuscript – but mostly he probably never met any Llamas or monks as he claims, nor did he find any manuscript that he supposedly translated. I found this interesting…

tentmaker.org/books/FamousBiblicalHoaxes.html

One may find many books in New Age and used book stores about the missing years of Jesus’ life from the ages of twelve to thirty. Supposedly this information is clearly documented. The stories began in the late eighteen hundreds with a book published by Nicolas Notovitch in 1894 in French. Since then many copies have appeared in other languages including English. One such edition in English is entitled: The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ. Many other New Age or Spiritualist authors have taken this information and have incorporated it into their own works and systems. New Age writers such as Elizabeth Clare Prophet have made many thousands of dollars from the first book by Notovitch.

 

[AveChriste11]

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?

Abraham had sons with Keturah and they went to the East into Persia and India… to start those civilizations.

 

[Marybeloved]

Hi henrikhank: I am not sure about very early contact between Hindu culture and Abrahamic, however, we believe there was significant contact around the time of Christ. There are reports of ancient texts in the possession of Himalayan monks that show Jesus himself in India between the ages of 12 and 30. I can’t account for the veracity of any of that, but it has been commonly held lore in the north of India pretty much back to the time of Christ. He was referred to by Hindus as St. Issa. It is reported that he made a pretty big impression in India, and news of His crucifixion spread back very quickly. We would say that the teachings of Jesus very much match those of the Indian Rishis, Sadhus and Avatars, however, our understanding of their meanings are very different. I can verify that the words of Jesus closely parallel the ideas in the Upanishads, and the Gitas, but again, we do take a very different meaning out of them. Most Hindus would indeed agree that Jesus was for real. Our differences would lie in the meaning. Specifically, we would see our religions complimenting each other very well, however the average Christian would not see the match, and of course everyone is free to see what they will.

This story is from some Russian journalist who forged the story in the late 19th century. Later another investigator traced the place where the scrolls on “st.Issa” were supposedly kept and the keepers said no such writings/scrolls/story exists.

The only documentation about Jesus are the New Testament and early christian writings and the historical secular writings that mention him in Rome and around Palestine around that time. Christ was a simple carpenter from Nazareth, very well know in his town (isn’t this the son of the carpenter?, No prophet is accepted in his home town) plus no such thing was ever found amongst his followers, relatives and early church. That journalist who concocted the whole thing also said some things that are obviously false- Apparently, Jesus came from India to Tibet and was taught by Buddhists who would not exist in that area for 6 more centuries!

This is just a story created to force Jesus into a mold someone made for him- It simply is false. It should not be taken seriously by anyone.

Peace.

 

[Sonny1954]

I believe that everything that happens, good and bad, is God’s will; either his active will or passive will. His active will if he intervenes in human affairs to cause it, like the destruction of the world by the Great Flood, or his passive will if he know something is going to happen and could prevent it, but choose to allow it.

Also, I have trouble seeing humanity as basically good from the Christian perspective, since every babe is born with its soul blackened by sin. For centuries some Christians believed that such unbaptized babies were condemned to eternal Hell. Even today, there is some debate, I believe, about the fate of such children. Any entity created with a soul inherently disfigured by sin cannot be basically good. On the other hand a former Dominican Priest, a Fr. Fox, wrote a book in the 1980s in which he wrote that babies are not burdened with original sin but gifted with an original blessing, and he was excommunicated when he wouldn’t retract that belief.

Hinduism, by contrast, believes that no sin is capable of separating us eternally from God, since our soul is made of the same “spiritual material” as God Itself. Our sins, born of spiritual ignorace, carry with them punishments by which we are purified or brought closer to God, but they can never separate us from God forever.

 

[desales09]

I think this is a relatively simple matter. We presume that God:

-Is perfect.

-Is all knowing.

-Is infallible.

-Created ALL things,

The only conclusion that I can draw from that is that evil did not spring up by surprise.

I agree - nothing can come as a surprise to an all-knowing Being. Nothing is outside the scope of His omniscience. We are completely agreed on this.

Now, God **having created what we see to be evil **.

This is where we diverge. After having created everything, “God saw that it was good.” After having created us “in His image and likeness,” God “saw that it was very good.”

The capacity to do wrong is inherent in the idea of free will, because if that capacity wasn’t there, then it wouldn’t be free will.

This is very true - the capacity, the potential to do either right or wrong is included in our free will.

Having placed that capacity there, it would be well known by an all knowing and infallible creator that in the course of eternity (which is a very long time), it is not only probable, but likely that this potential would come to fruition. To think otherwise is to ascribe a very low level of intelligence to the creator.

Again - we are totally agreed that God “foreknew” (actually, that’s the wrong word - He’s outside of time and sees everything as an ever-present NOW) that we would abuse His gift of free will. This neither makes Him, nor His gift of free will, evil. Again - please note this - to create us without free will would indeed make disobedience, and therefore moral evil, impossible (we would not be moral beings at all, because we would have no choice) - but then love would also be impossible. God wanted creatures who could love. Could there possibly be any evil in such a purpose? Your arguments seem to be saying that there is - but in fact the only evil is that we chose not to live in the purpose for which He designed us.

That’s all evil is - it is the abuse of a good gift of God. Evil is not a “thing” that was created at all. It is merely the perversion, twisting, corrupting of the good things God created - and He only created good things - through the misuse of our free will. This is why St. Paul said to Christians in the book of Romans: “Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness.” Free will in action.

 

[meltzerboy]

Meltzerboy, the evil inclination you speak of is what we call original sin- It doesn’t take away our freedom of choice for good, it’s just an inclination to evil. Nor does it mean that we are born evil or not good. In Catholicism, all being/existence is good, human beings are essentially good. Grace on the other hand is an inclination/tending/pull to God. Actual sin means a free act of one’s own will against/contrary to the divine will. works of merit (good) are free acts done in cooperation with grace in conformity with the Divine will.

However, I think the difference is in Judaism, we don’t believe we inherited original sin from Adam and Eve.

 

[LayingHands]

henrikhank:
Please tell me more about St Issa. We don’t beleive that Jesus went to India but the Apostles Thomas did. and are you saying that the Indian Rishis in fact didn’t beleive in Hinduism, that they beleived in the Bible?

Yes, please tell us more of St. Issa…if there is written India literature, whereby, Jesus Christ was in INDIA during the missing years, up until 30 AD…this is certainly something every Christian should study…

Since, Peter the Apostle, was The 1st Patriarch of Antioch, CA 37 to Ca 53…and The Patriarch of Antioch are the Original patriarchs of early Christianity…and the presided over the Bishop of Syria…and the Bishop of Palestine, and the Bishop of Armenia, and the Bishop of Georgia, and the Bishop of Mesopotamia…and the Bishop of INDIA…was Thomas the Apostle…the Bishop of INDIA?

 

[Sufjon]

Hi Sufjon: I’d like to add a few comments to this discussion. First, Christianity and Judaism believe that G-d lives outside of time, so that eternity does not mean “a very long time,” but, rather, without time. G-d created the perception of time, just as He created nature, and exists apart from both. Second, according to Jewish thought, we are born with the potential for good (we do not believe in original sin) and also an evil inclination. However, the evil inclination is really the equivalent of Freud’s aggressive drive, which can be used for either good or bad purposes. For example, survival depends on the evil inclination and includes behaviors such as eating, drinking, sex, work, and play. These same behaviors can at times be misused and abused, and that is what we call sinful behavior. But it is Mankind that chooses to misuse its own tools of survival, not G-d. The sins we commit, however, while contrary to G-d’s will, also may serve the purpose of bringing us closer to G-d by means of our atonement for these sins. There is a similar case, part and parcel of Christianity, to be made for personal suffering, which raises our emotional level beyond that which it would have been if we had lived a life of only happiness. In a sense, therefore, both sin and suffering serve a higher good, much as love does. In either case, our G-d-given free will elevates us beyond what would otherwise be a flat existence without human or spiritual depth.

Interesting view Metzerboy. As usual Does not conflict with my view that evil didn’t pop up on it’s own.

your friend
Sufjon