S
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
If Jesus is only a form of God, then why are Hindus wrong for worshipping many forms of God?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
1
1voice
Guest
Pretty much.Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Every separate thing has a god attributed to it?
I
InJesusItrust
Guest
aTell your friends to try this… pray (specifically) in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth who died for sin and the salvation of man (asking him to reveal himself and the truth) and see, for themselves, what God’s response is.
This is a good recommendation. None of the other gods have a courtesy of revealing themselves. For the longest time I was an atheist because I bought the lie that God does not care about religion. The Triune God answered my prayers when I tried seeking Him.
S
SonofAdam
Guest
Bis-millah,
Actually, one main characteristic of the Creed of pagans stems back to this principle:
They say God is a body or dwells/dwell-ed in a body.
I think the original question can be worded a different way:
If God manifested Himself as Jesus (incarnate) - which is flesh [a limited creation] then couldn’t He also incarnate Himself in the form of Brahma or all the other ‘million’ forms * that Hinduism adheres to?
To say that God can only be manifested in 3 Persons is not based on rationality alone [and I’m assuming that the Thomas Aquinas quoted by the first responder to the main question tried to show], rather that is based on bias towards the question because the question of ‘why only 3 and not 4, 5, 100, 300 as well?’ can justly be asked by the Hindu.
Then you would have to get into the discussion as to what attributes does a thing must have in order to prove that it ISN’T God? Besides their must be a rationality why you don’t think God is, lets say, the sun or a statue sitting inside of a museum. This is asked to form the foundation so the true Monotheists can rationally show the pagan why what he/she worships isn’t God. If not, then you have destroyed all rationality to disprove the pagans Creed because you have allowed finiteness, limits etc to be allowed or applied for you and not for them; hence the question.*
Actually, one main characteristic of the Creed of pagans stems back to this principle:
They say God is a body or dwells/dwell-ed in a body.
I think the original question can be worded a different way:
If God manifested Himself as Jesus (incarnate) - which is flesh [a limited creation] then couldn’t He also incarnate Himself in the form of Brahma or all the other ‘million’ forms * that Hinduism adheres to?
To say that God can only be manifested in 3 Persons is not based on rationality alone [and I’m assuming that the Thomas Aquinas quoted by the first responder to the main question tried to show], rather that is based on bias towards the question because the question of ‘why only 3 and not 4, 5, 100, 300 as well?’ can justly be asked by the Hindu.
Then you would have to get into the discussion as to what attributes does a thing must have in order to prove that it ISN’T God? Besides their must be a rationality why you don’t think God is, lets say, the sun or a statue sitting inside of a museum. This is asked to form the foundation so the true Monotheists can rationally show the pagan why what he/she worships isn’t God. If not, then you have destroyed all rationality to disprove the pagans Creed because you have allowed finiteness, limits etc to be allowed or applied for you and not for them; hence the question.*
S
SonofAdam
Guest
Bis-millah,
@ Ben Sinner
Actually, one main characteristic of the Creed of pagans stems back to this principle:
They say God is a body or dwells/dwell-ed in a body or bodies.
I think the original question can be worded a different way or you may run into a Hindu who might ask you:
If God manifested Himself as Jesus (incarnate) - which is flesh [a limited creation] then couldn’t He also incarnate Himself in the form of Brahma or all the other ‘million’ forms * that Hinduism adheres to?
To say that God can only be manifested in 3 Persons is not based on rationality alone [and this is what the Hindu desires your answer to be based upon] because the question of ‘why only 3 and not 4, 5, 100, 300 as well?’ will be asked by the Hindu and because he doesn’t believe in the bible.
Then you would have to get into the discussion as to what attributes does a thing must have in order to prove that it** ISN’T God?** Besides their must be a rationality why you don’t think God is, lets say, the sun, a house, a car, a tree or a statue sitting inside of a museum etc [these all have the same attributes and characteristics.] If not, then you have destroyed the use of rational argument to disprove the pagans Creed because you have allowed finiteness, limits etc to be allowed or applied for you and not for them; hence the question by the Hindu in the beginning. [in the re-worded question].
If the question can be dealt with in a consistent way without self contradiction then that is the right direction. However, if you share the same principle [mentioned above] with paganism then the same questions addressed to the Hindu could also be addressed to you as well.*
@ Ben Sinner
Actually, one main characteristic of the Creed of pagans stems back to this principle:
They say God is a body or dwells/dwell-ed in a body or bodies.
I think the original question can be worded a different way or you may run into a Hindu who might ask you:
If God manifested Himself as Jesus (incarnate) - which is flesh [a limited creation] then couldn’t He also incarnate Himself in the form of Brahma or all the other ‘million’ forms * that Hinduism adheres to?
To say that God can only be manifested in 3 Persons is not based on rationality alone [and this is what the Hindu desires your answer to be based upon] because the question of ‘why only 3 and not 4, 5, 100, 300 as well?’ will be asked by the Hindu and because he doesn’t believe in the bible.
Then you would have to get into the discussion as to what attributes does a thing must have in order to prove that it** ISN’T God?** Besides their must be a rationality why you don’t think God is, lets say, the sun, a house, a car, a tree or a statue sitting inside of a museum etc [these all have the same attributes and characteristics.] If not, then you have destroyed the use of rational argument to disprove the pagans Creed because you have allowed finiteness, limits etc to be allowed or applied for you and not for them; hence the question by the Hindu in the beginning. [in the re-worded question].
If the question can be dealt with in a consistent way without self contradiction then that is the right direction. However, if you share the same principle [mentioned above] with paganism then the same questions addressed to the Hindu could also be addressed to you as well.*
- Status
- Not open for further replies.