Is Hinduism the eldest of Islam and Christianity and budism?

[anon5216]

No, it cannot deliver what it promises.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are many people who are quite positive that Hinduism did deliver what it promised to them.

There IS certainly great power in it’s rituals, but they are simply handles for demons to yank hindu adherents around with.
This may be how you define it, but that’s just your opinion (and perhaps the Catholic Church hierarchy’s opinion as well - but non the less, opinion).

How do you intend to “test”, or “evaluate”, hinduisms “value” to you as a “path to God”?
Follow it to it’s conclusion and assess.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m willing to attempt to reach the spiritual status of an Aurobindo Ghose or at least a Ramana Maharshi and then discuss these questions with any of you (or any Catholic anywhere) who has reached the spiritual status of a Padre Pio.

Unfortunately, I’m not there yet, and can’t guarantee it’ll happen soon or ever in this life. Much more likely that one of the millions upon millions of Catholics becomes another Padre Pio.

Now, there will be more Hindus like Aurobindo Ghose and Ramana Maharshi, but I certainly can’t promise you they would agree to participate in my proposed discussion in my place.

 

[Sam_777]

It seems Hinduism is older then I thought,

There is an official Satan religion (aka Yazidis religion) which is older than all religions on this earth:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=293841

 

[ralphinal]

Why not? LOL
Age of system is the primary evidence The Catholic Church has that it is the True Christian faith.

Because Christianity is based upon one historical figure. Hinduism is not.

The faith founded by Jesus Christ would be the true, historic Christianity.

There was no Vishnu or any of them.

 

[ralphinal]

What those Hindus are referring to is not a claim that their religion can be accommodated within Catholicism.

Rather it is a claim that Jesus and Christianity can be accommodated within the context of Hinduism.

True. I was not clear.

In any event, they are wrong

 

[excaliber]

Where is a caste system in Catholicism? To find God one must flee from error because God isn’t there. To declare men to not be equal is error and thus God isn’t there. So you won’t find him in Hinduism.

That’s not possibly true. Acording to the Catholic church all other churches are in error. And yet the Orthodox have the true presence despite error. Pentecostals speak in toungs etc…etc…

Truth is not relative, we are in agreement. For that reason you canot listen to what people say…but look at the reality or the truth.

Look to the examples of the Saints and you will see the Church did empower them to follow its teachings. It does so for all the faithful but they must choose to follow.

How can I verify this? Is it in a book? Every religion can provide books can they not?

Benefit? If gold is what you are looking for, then Catholicism is not for you. Catholicism teaches you to suffer for the Kingdom and to be prepared to give up all the pleasures of this world for the sake of Christ. Christ didn’t come to enjoy the pleasures of this world but to suffer and die. Anyone that seeks only pleasures will be damned.

Gold?? LOL
your logic is backward.
First you find the True God, you are obviously SURE of this…because you are THEN willing to suffer and die for God.
Anyone in any faith should be willing to do the same not only Christians.

Try reading the Book of Job, you make the same mistake as those Jesus condemned by equating a good life with the favor of God.

The book of Job is interesting
Even in sacred scripture it was obvious that a servant of The True God would benefit from doing so.
That is why Job was blamed for wrong doing. That is why Job defended his reputation…that is why Job did not understand why evil was happening to him.

Satan who was behind it, staged the whole event BECAUSE he knew
it was not normal for a man to be Godly and have nothing to show for it. That is why what happened to job was not normal. He was not being persecuted for his faith…THEN his suffering would be normal…it was not just a normal phisical ailment…Then his suffering would be normal.
The text is in agreement with my thinking. Keep in mind that after his test God blessed him more then he was before. He did not have to wait untill he was dead to find out if he was following the true God

 

[spoiltvictorian]

Hinduism retains more true knowledge of God than other pre-Christian religions, depending on the strain. I’ve found the best place to start explaining Christianity to Hindus is at the book of Job.

 

[Muslim_Woman]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Salaam/peace

who is prophet Adam?

The first human being

What proof do you have of the power of your God?

It’s applicable to all faiths. We have to wait till the final day to see who is correct . So, have patience

it seems its possible Christians and muslims worship the same GOD.

God is only one , we do worship the same God ; but Like Hindus , sadly Christians take other deities besides God .

Say: We believe in God, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the Prophets from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another.] (Aal `Imran 3:84)

 

[ralphinal]

http://theislampath.com/smf/Smileys/default/salam.gif

Salaam/peace

The first human being

It’s applicable to all faiths. We have to wait till the final day to see who is correct . So, have patience

God is only one , we do worship the same God ; but Like Hindus , sadly Christians take other deities besides God .

Say: We believe in God, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the Prophets from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another.] (Aal `Imran 3:84)

So, according to Muslim posters on this board, Adam, Noah, and Muhammed were all the first Muslim?

 

[Jay53]

God is only one , we do worship the same God ; but Like Hindus , sadly **Christians take other deities besides God **.

For the gazillionith time, CHRISTIANS BELIEVE IN ONLY ONE GOD!!!

(Sorry, everyone - I just had to correct that.)

 

[anon5216]

True. I was not clear.

In any event, they are wrong

Actually, they are not wrong.

Hinduism does accept Jesus within itself.

They don’t claim that Catholicism needs to accept Hinduism.

 

[ralphinal]

Actually, they are not wrong.

Hinduism does accept Jesus within itself.

They don’t claim that Catholicism needs to accept Hinduism.

Yes, they are wrong. Jesus is not any form of any hindu deity, no matter how they explain it.

 

[anon5216]

Yes, they are wrong. Jesus is not any form of any hindu deity, no matter how they explain it.

From the perspective of Hinduism, Jesus fits right in with no contradiction. They can accept him and his teachings as seen in the context of the older Hindu teachings. They do not see the teachings of Jesus as being in any conflict with Hinduism.

It is simply a fact that Hinduism is self-consistent when it embraces Jesus within itself.

This doesn’t mean the Catholic world view has to agree. I’m not telling you that you as a Catholic have to accept anything Hindu whatsoever.

The point is: if you claim Hindus are wrong, you are logically claiming that those Hindus who say they can accept Jesus within Hinduism are wrong, and that Hinduism proper cannot accept Jesus - that those who do so are “heretical” to Hinduism.

That is false. It is not heretical to Hinduism to include Jesus.

I accept that it can be called heretical for a Catholic to include Hinduism. And of course you can claim that Hinduism itself is false (from the Catholic perspective), but that’s a separate issue.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

The point is: if you claim Hindus are wrong, you are logically claiming that those Hindus who say they can accept Jesus within Hinduism are wrong, and that Hinduism proper cannot accept Jesus - that those who do so are “heretical” to Hinduism.

Synchrotistic “acceptance” of Jesus is not actual acceptance of Jesus qua Jesus.

Hinduism is polytheistic. God qua God does not “fit” into any polytheistic system.

To claim that hindus acceptance of a “quasi-Jesus” is acceptable because they call their quasi-Jesus JESUS is precisely like the acceptability of my claiming to see Jesus because Jesus Martinez does my neighbors lawn every Tuesday (I’m WAY too cheap to pay Jesus to do my lawn).

:shamrock2:

 

[ralphinal]

From the perspective of Hinduism, Jesus fits right in with no contradiction. They can accept him and his teachings as seen in the context of the older Hindu teachings. They do not see the teachings of Jesus as being in any conflict with Hinduism.

It is simply a fact that Hinduism is self-consistent when it embraces Jesus within itself.

This doesn’t mean the Catholic world view has to agree. I’m not telling you that you as a Catholic have to accept anything Hindu whatsoever.

The point is: if you claim Hindus are wrong, you are logically claiming that those Hindus who say they can accept Jesus within Hinduism are wrong, and that Hinduism proper cannot accept Jesus - that those who do so are “heretical” to Hinduism.

That is false. It is not heretical to Hinduism to include Jesus.

I accept that it can be called heretical for a Catholic to include Hinduism. And of course you can claim that Hinduism itself is false (from the Catholic perspective), but that’s a separate issue.

Synchrotistic “acceptance” of Jesus is not actual acceptance of Jesus qua Jesus.

Hinduism is polytheistic. God qua God does not “fit” into any polytheistic system.

To claim that hindus acceptance of a “quasi-Jesus” is acceptable because they call their quasi-Jesus JESUS is precisely like the acceptability of my claiming to see Jesus because Jesus Martinez does my neighbors lawn every Tuesday (I’m WAY too cheap to pay Jesus to do my lawn).

:shamrock2:

More or less.

In other words, Jesus himself keeps this from being acceptable. It does not matter what the Hindus can or cannot do internally. To accept Jesus within Hinduism is to deny Jesus.

 

[ibkc]

If one is evaluating the validity of religions based on age and nothing else, then animism is the most “valid” religion because it is the oldest. Ancestor-worship follows closely. This is the exact trap I fell into in my late 20’s when I was a spiritual seeker. I became a pagan for a long time before realizing the truth was right under my nose the whole time.

 

[linuxgeek71]

That’s not possibly true. Acording to the Catholic church all other churches are in error. And yet the Orthodox have the true presence despite error. Pentecostals speak in toungs etc…etc…

Yet the Church also teaches that those Orthodox knowing of the Catholic Church and rejecting her are still bound for hell. So God is not with them, in the full sense of the word. Because of their basis in Catholicism and adherence to many of her teachings grace abounds with them more than most. As for the Pentecostals similar reasoning goes, however there is no reason to presume speaking in tongues is always a gift from God for even the pagans do it.

Since Hinduism is based neither in Judaism or Christianity grace does not abound with them, i.e. God isn’t there. Of course God is never completely absent from those in this life, I didn’t mean it in the strictest sense.

Truth is not relative, we are in agreement. For that reason you canot listen to what people say…but look at the reality or the truth.

That depends on what you mean by reality. The mentally ill perceive “reality” yet no one would call it truth. So what reality are you talking about and how is it you test such?

How can I verify this? Is it in a book? Every religion can provide books can they not?

There are saints from modern times, St. Jose Maria, Blessed Theresa of Calcutta, St. Therese of Lisiuex, we have pictures of them and video footage of some. As for the more ancient ones there are varying degrees of evidence such as written materials and painted images.

Gold?? LOL
your logic is backward.
First you find the True God, you are obviously SURE of this…because you are THEN willing to suffer and die for God.
Anyone in any faith should be willing to do the same not only Christians.

You are the one that claimed you should benefit from God. You brought up how a football star is happier than a Christian. So you have the backwards view. Being willing to die for something does not make it true, e.g. Jones Town and Heavens Gate. It is because it is true that you die for it. So you have predicated it backwards.

The book of Job is interesting
Even in sacred scripture it was obvious that a servant of The True God would benefit from doing so.
That is why Job was blamed for wrong doing. That is why Job defended his reputation…that is why Job did not understand why evil was happening to him.

The entire point of the book was to refute the idea that suffering comes from sinning. At no time does Job admit deserving what has happened to him and God does not claim he deserved it either. In fact God only shows Job his control over the universe and Job is silent. The only message one can take from that is God’s ways are above mans.

Satan who was behind it, staged the whole event BECAUSE he knew
it was not normal for a man to be Godly and have nothing to show for it. That is why what happened to job was not normal. He was not being persecuted for his faith…THEN his suffering would be normal…it was not just a normal phisical ailment…Then his suffering would be normal.

Job was chosen by Satan because God said he had faith and would not sin against him. So Job was persecuted for his faith. The devil said Job only served God because of the rewards that God would give him. Since Job didn’t defect it showed this was not true, he served God because he is God.

The text is in agreement with my thinking. Keep in mind that after his test God blessed him more then he was before. He did not have to wait untill he was dead to find out if he was following the true God

Job never doubted God. Indeed he was blessed in the end but that doesn’t change the fact that he was persecuted. Thus establishing that there is no 1 to 1 correspondence between sin and punishment or good and reward. Thus God can’t be sought for benefit in this world. Also Job clearly showed he would be faithful to God no matter what happened to him and thus was not looking for reward.

This idea is even more evident in the NT. Christ suffers and dies with no rewards in this world. Christ had no sin and lived only to serve God yet had everything, materially speaking, taken away. So your idea holds up in neither the OT or NT.

I will add that all I’ve said was under the presumption that you are in fact Catholic as your profile says and thus would accept Church teachings on these matters. Are you?

 

[anon5216]

Synchrotistic “acceptance” of Jesus is not actual acceptance of Jesus qua Jesus.
Hindus accept what Jesus says - understanding it in the context of what those words mean in Hinduism.

Hinduism is polytheistic. God qua God does not “fit” into any polytheistic system.
God fits in fine - from the perspective of the Hindu system. As a matter of fact, adwaita vedanta is the only truly monotheistic system there is. Everything else is just mono-loyalism masquerading as monotheism.

To claim that hindus acceptance of a “quasi-Jesus” is acceptable because they call their quasi-Jesus JESUS is precisely like the acceptability of my claiming to see Jesus because Jesus Martinez does my neighbors lawn every Tuesday (I’m WAY too cheap to pay Jesus to do my lawn).
No. It is not a quasi-Jesus or some regular guy with the same name. (Indians will name their children after the various names of God, but in no way confuse the two - just as hispanics are perfectly capable of discerning). They can accept Jesus as he claims. They simply interpret his teachings differently than the Catholic Church does. You have every right to believe the Catholic interpretation rather than the Hindu. I don’t dispute that. I merely say that within the theology of Hinduism, interpreting Jesus’ words does not contradict anything coming from that world view. There is nothing quasi about it.

More or less.

In other words, Jesus himself keeps this from being acceptable. It does not matter what the Hindus can or cannot do internally. To accept Jesus within Hinduism is to deny Jesus.
To accept Jesus within Hinduism is to deny the Catholic Church’s interpretation of Jesus - nothing more.

Since you don’t accept Hinduism (and I am in no way asking you to - I’m not a member myself), you are claiming the denying - the Hindu themselves need not deny either Jesus or Hinduism in their world view.

Again, reading the words of Jesus from the context of Hinduism requires nothing being changed, altered or omitted from the perspective of the Hindu. It all fits right in with no contradiction.

The contradiction comes in the Hindu vs. Catholic interpretation of those words. Everyone is welcome to their choice of which they feel is correct - and of course, responsible for the ramifications of that choice - Catholics as well as Hindus.

 

[ralphinal]

Let me try another line of thought.

Christanity and Judaism would exist without Hinduism.

Hinduism would exist without Christianity and Judaism.

Christianity and Judaism cannot accept the possibility of Hinduism, in any form, as being correct.

Hinduism can accept Christianity and Judaism within Hinduism as being acceptable.

Which of these seems like an adaptation? IF Hinduism was the Truth, why compromise?

 

[anon5216]

Let me try another line of thought.

Christanity and Judaism would exist without Hinduism.

Hinduism would exist without Christianity and Judaism.

Christianity and Judaism cannot accept the possibility of Hinduism, in any form, as being correct.

Hinduism can accept Christianity and Judaism within Hinduism as being acceptable.

Which of these seems like an adaptation? IF Hinduism was the Truth, why compromise?

I see your point in comparing organized religious structures with vested interests in membership and mindshare.

The thing is, Hinduism is not really an organized religion such as Catholicism in that there is no equivalent to a “Pope”. Although there is the loose equivalent of independent organized “Churches” with members and followers, there is no central authority. Some of these are rather fond of formalized rituals, (even to the extent of being rigidly, obsessively attached), but some eschew ritual entirely.

It isn’t a compromise for Hinduism to accept Jesus.
It doesn’t necessarily accept Christianity or Judaism.
Christianity is one (actually several) sets of interpretations of Jesus.
Hinduism has its own interpretation.

IMO, Hinduism is the most universal (catholic if I dare say so) spiritual structure around - but certainly not without the specific individuals and groups that show up in every religion giving cause to tarnish its public image.

In any case, please don’t take my position as one of looking for converts (I don’t define myself as a ‘Hindu’). I don’t see Catholicism as ‘bad’ - just limited. I believe if Church leaders weren’t so obsessed (IMO) with controlling a flock, there would be many, many more people of the stature of Padre Pio by now (after 2000 years) than there are. I believe Catholic saints develop despite Church leadership - not because of it.

In any case, our positions seem to be well articulated an in no likelihood of converging.

Peace. (Shanti).

 

[ralphinal]

I see your point in comparing organized religious structures with vested interests in membership and mindshare.

The thing is, Hinduism is not really an organized religion such as Catholicism in that there is no equivalent to a “Pope”. Although there is the loose equivalent of independent organized “Churches” with members and followers, there is no central authority. Some of these are rather fond of formalized rituals, (even to the extent of being rigidly, obsessively attached), but some eschew ritual entirely.

It isn’t a compromise for Hinduism to accept Jesus.
It doesn’t necessarily accept Christianity or Judaism.
Christianity is one (actually several) sets of interpretations of Jesus.
Hinduism has its own interpretation.

IMO, Hinduism is the most universal (catholic if I dare say so) spiritual structure around - but certainly not without the specific individuals and groups that show up in every religion giving cause to tarnish its public image.

In any case, please don’t take my position as one of looking for converts (I don’t define myself as a ‘Hindu’). I don’t see Catholicism as ‘bad’ - just limited. I believe if Church leaders weren’t so obsessed (IMO) with controlling a flock, there would be many, many more people of the stature of Padre Pio by now (after 2000 years) than there are. I believe Catholic saints develop despite Church leadership - not because of it.

In any case, our positions seem to be well articulated an in no likelihood of converging.

Peace. (Shanti).

I know that you are not seeking converts. I just like the discussion.

Dumb question: if Jesus would not define himself within Hinduism, is it even acceptable for Hinduism to have a veiw of him within it?