On Hinduism.

[geometer]

Friendship means a personal relationship. Our God is not an impersonal god, gods, or lifeforce. On the contrary, Christianity has a Personal God who sent His Son Jesus Christ to be our Savior and to whom each and every one of us can have a personal relationship with.

Joseph Campbell, a great studier of comparative religions always liked the Eastern religions like Hinduism because they preached belief in an impersonal god(s). No thank you, I am quite glad that Christianity unlike the East has a personal God, and His name is Jesus Christ and He knows the number of hairs on each of our heads such is His love for us.

How could Hinduism preach an impersonal god? They originated god in three persons. Trinity is Hindu religion.

 

[AdrianP]

Why would you go something that promise to become animal or flower through reincarnation and MAYBE human, if I understood completely the chances to reincarnate as human is to let a circle on water and then put something underwater and let it raise and the chances to reincarnate as human equal chances of underwater object to go through circle when you have Orthodox Christianity that gives eternal life?

Why do you like lies?
Look to this near death experience videos and see that people coming from death speak about Jesus, God not about guru:
youtube.com/watch?v=NPabMyVvC9s

On Sundays Orthodox church gives people holy communion for eternal life
monachos.net/content/forum/showthread.php?t=6114

 

[Sagefrakrobatik]

Friendship means a personal relationship. Our God is not an impersonal god, gods, or lifeforce. On the contrary, Christianity has a Personal God who sent His Son Jesus Christ to be our Savior and to whom each and every one of us can have a personal relationship with.

Joseph Campbell, a great studier of comparative religions always liked the Eastern religions like Hinduism because they preached belief in an impersonal god(s). No thank you, I am quite glad that Christianity unlike the East has a personal God, and His name is Jesus Christ and He knows the number of hairs on each of our heads such is His love for us.

Your criticism of Hindus worshiping a more impersonal God is highly mistaken. Yes some hindu scripture such as Vedanata tradition seem to point to a more impersonal God. Unfortunately i think there is a mistake because people say the same thing about Islam that he is an impersonal God. Simply because he does not take shape or form does not mean that God is less peronal.

In the Quran it states that; "

“God is closer to us than our Jugular vain”

Similarly if you were to read some of the Vashavite scriptures you will note how personal Krishna is to his devotees;

he tells them that he exist in the hearts of his devotees. I think its from the Srimad bagavatam

 

[KyivAndrew]

How could Hinduism preach an impersonal god?

It does and it does not. An amorphous answer to your question above.

Probably the world’s most famous scholar of world religions and one who always put each respective religion in the most positive light, Huston Smith writes of Hinduism’s God in his book The World’s Religions:

“God so conceived [eternal contemporary] is called Saguna Brahman, or God-with-attributes as distinct from the philosophers’ more abstract Nirguna Brahman, or God-without-attributes. Nirguna Brahman is the ocean without a ripple; Saguna Brahman the same ocean alive with swells and waves. In the language of theology, the distinction is between personal and transpersonal conceptions of God. Hinduism has included superb champions of each view; but the conclusion that does most justice to Hinduism as a whole …is that both are equally correct. At first glance this may look like a glaring violation of the law of the excluded middle. God may be either personal or not, we are likely to insist, but not both. But is this so? Intrinsically, God may be capable of being two contradictory things – we may say not because logic itself may melt in the full blaze of divine incandescence. But concepts of God contain so much alloy to begin with that two contradictory ones may be true, each from a different angle. On the whole India has been quite content to encourage the devotee to conceive of Brahman as either personal or transpersonal, depending on which carries the most exalted meaning for the mind in question.” (pg. 61-62, emphasis mine)

Now that’s one positive analysis. For me, God is not capable of being two contradictory things but Hinduism is very good at melting multifarious concepts into one amorphous whole IMHO. If you prefer “transpersonal” to “impersonal”, O.K. but others would simply say “impersonal”.

 

[Sagefrakrobatik]

With all due respect have you ever heard of the Hindu caste system? Despite some attempts to curtail it, it remains extremely entrenched in Indian society. There is great fear among many prominent Hindus of losing the lower untouchables, the dalits, to Christian proselytism which holds all men and women, despite their birth, weaknesses, or even their being social outcasts, as being equally loved by Jesus Christ.

SO i wonder what you make of this verse

Mam hi partha vyaparsritya
ye pi syuh papa yonyah
striyo vasyas tathas Sudras
te pi yanti param gatin

**O son of Pritha, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth-women vaisyas (merchants), as wll as sudras (workers)–can approach the supreme destination.**According to the Bagavta Puran even the lowest Candalas (dog eaters) can be elevated to pure devotion.

Swami Prabhupad writes in his purport of the same text;

The process of devotional service and the pure devotee of he Supreme God are so strong that all the lower classes can attain the highest perfection of life

India is relatively younger than America in the sense that America got its indepedence much earlier. So it will take some time.

Remeber many used the Bible to support slavery claiming that blacks are descendants of Ham and because Ham’s descendants are cursed then they should be slaves.

 

[KyivAndrew]

Your criticism of Hindus worshiping a more impersonal God is highly mistaken. Yes some hindu scripture such as Vedanata tradition seem to point to a more impersonal God. Unfortunately i think there is a mistake because people say the same thing about Islam that he is an impersonal God. Simply because he does not take shape or form does not mean that God is less peronal.

Wait a minute I haven’t brought Islam into this. Islam, unlike Hinduism, but like the other two great monotheistic religions, Christianity and Judaism, does believe in a Personal God. Most people would say this. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism profess belief in a Personal God.

Now as to the nature of this God, and whether Islam has a theology of redemption like Christianity, that’s best left for another thread as it would be totally off topic for this thread on Hinduism.

God Bless.

 

[KyivAndrew]

SO i wonder what you make of this verse

Mam hi partha vyaparsritya
ye pi syuh papa yonyah
striyo vasyas tathas Sudras
te pi yanti param gatin

Sorry Sage, not to be discourteous, but I really got to get some sun this long weekend while it’s still here. I’ll check up later tonight. Right now I’m interpreting that verse as get outside.

 

[Bluegoat]

Hinduism is an interesting religion with many worthwhile ideas and messages, but I think you need to do some more research - you seem unaware of some of its problems which are at least as big as those Christianity has faced. Historically it has been repressive of women, repressive of the poor, has tended to despise the body and things it considered to be unclean, as well as those that deal with those things, and has tended to say those who are socially disadvantaged or otherwise unfortunate and suffering deserve it as it is recompense for bad behavior in past lives. Not just a minority either, but the basis of the whole society. Are these things identical with Hindu teachings - perhaps not. But they have a relation to them.

A pp mentioned that Buddhism was perhaps in some ways a reaction to these things; another reformer (who remained a Hindu) was Ghandi, who worked very hard to destroy the caste system in the 20th century. He was only partially successful. The repression of women is also still a serious problem, and getting rid of widows by forcing them to immolate themselves still happens occasionally. Somewhat more common is forcing them to become nuns and thus removing the need to care for them from the husbands family.

THere is no point in going into it with rose coloured glasses on - India has had many of the same problems with religion that the West has.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

Hinduism teaches us that character matters!

If character’s all that matters, why should I become a Hindu? Even if they were right, it wouldn’t matter.

Fear of God: Hindus who come in contact with other religions have come to hear these words, which are absent in Hinduism. How did this fear originate? It started with Primitive man.

I don’t think you understand what it means. It’s not that the metnion of Him brings you fear, it’s understanding that if you are evil and don’t repent you get what we all deserve.

It teaches you to love and respect God, the very thought of God should bring a smile to your face,

So does Christianity.

1. Science: Christinity still struggles with the findings of Darwin, insisting that the earth is 5,000 years old,

Some Christians do. The Bible doesn’t specifically say 5000 years old. In addition, not all time in the bible is literal. For instance, I understand 40 years doesn’t always literally mean 40 years, it was a way to say “a lot of time”. Thus, days might not mean actual days.

Hinduism teaches us that the earth is millions of years old!

And current scientific theories have it at billions of years old! So unlike Christianity, Hinduism outright contradicts science.

Hinduism teaches us that Brahma, a metaphor for the Universe, has been born and died several times.

So when did the current universe collapse?

How small are some religions to teach that God can only be a man and can only be addressed by just one name!

So you’re saying instead that He is formless yet has multiple forms, and has an insane amount of different names instead of just introducing Himself?

1. Learning from Mistakes: Amazingly, Hinduism has come up with a refreshingly different, intelligent and forward-thinking way for humans to become better people - Karma and Rebirth!

The theory that states that whatever bad happens to anyone, they deserve it. Born with Cerebral Palsy? You deserve it. Poor and starving in Africa? You deserve it. Oppressed by a communist regime? Once again, you deserve it. All the holocaust victims? According to karma, they deserved it too.

What a refreshingly unique and better way than using barbaric backward methods!

Methods as “mercy” and “forgiveness” are now backwards and barbaric?

 

[Sagefrakrobatik]

Wait a minute I haven’t brought Islam into this. Islam, unlike Hinduism, but like the other two great monotheistic religions, Christianity and Judaism, does believe in a Personal God. Most people would say this. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism profess belief in a Personal God.

Now as to the nature of this God, and whether Islam has a theology of redemption like Christianity, that’s best left for another thread as it would be totally off topic for this thread on Hinduism.

God Bless.

MY bad. Alot of Chistian apologetic literature has tried to disassociate Chrstianity with other religions by claiming the Christian God is more personal unlike in Islam Hinduism. I suppose the Jewish God is personal also because of its proxyimity.

 

[Contarini]

Now that’s one positive analysis. For me, God is not capable of being two contradictory things but Hinduism is very good at melting multifarious concepts into one amorphous whole IMHO. If you prefer “transpersonal” to “impersonal”, O.K

Exactly. I don’t think “personal” and “impersonal” are actually opposites, unless you mean by “impersonal” “lacking the perfections characteristic of persons.” Obviously one cannot both have and lack those perfections.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

SO i wonder what you make of this verse

Mam hi partha vyaparsritya
ye pi syuh papa yonyah
striyo vasyas tathas Sudras
te pi yanti param gatin

**O son of Pritha, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth-women vaisyas (merchants), as wll as sudras (workers)–can approach the supreme destination.**According to the Bagavta Puran even the lowest Candalas (dog eaters) can be elevated to pure devotion.

There are certainly elements in devotional Hinduism which have worked against the caste system or at least have denied its spiritual significance. However, the OP made a very sweeping statement about Hinduism as a whole, and it’s fair to point out that the caste system counts against that statement.

India is relatively younger than America in the sense that America got its indepedence much earlier.

That hardly seems relevant. We aren’t comparing India and America but Hinduism and Christianity.

Remeber many used the Bible to support slavery claiming that blacks are descendants of Ham and because Ham’s descendants are cursed then they should be slaves.

They did. And that is to Christianity’s discredit. However, the idea that certain people ought to be slaves because of their descent is not, as far as I can tell, an idea in keeping with orthodox, traditional Christianity. Christians have historically insisted that slavery was simply an unfortunate thing that happened to one because of living in a fallen world, and before about the 17-18th centuries slavery tended to wither away in Christian countries.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

If character’s all that matters, why should I become a Hindu? Even if they were right, it wouldn’t matter.

That seems like an odd objection. Aren’t truth and goodness things we should seek for their own sakes? If Hinduism were true, wouldn’t that be a sufficient reason for converting to it? If Hinduism were more likely to form good character, wouldn’t that be a sufficient reason for taking a very good look at it?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

While I won’t deny that some parts of the Hindu culture have certainly oppressed women, these were radical sects (Vedic and Vaishnava, which form a part of Hinduism known as astika) and NOT widely practiced at all.

I have no idea what you mean by this. “Vedic” religion is the common source of all Hinduism–the one thing that ties Hindus together is paying at least lip-service to the authority of the Vedas. And that is what “astika” means–it basically means what we would now call “Hinduism” as opposed to other Indian religious traditions such as Buddhism (“nastika”).

Vaishnava Hinduism is the religion of 70% of Hindus. So much for “not widely practiced.”

The Brahmins (astika Hindus) were like the KKK of Hinduism; claims to be part of the practice but still radically warps the messages taught.

No, they’re more like the Catholic hierarchy–or perhaps even like all Trinitarian Christians. You may choose to think that there was some true original message which was warped by historic Hinduism. But “astika” is another way of saying “mainstream, historic Hinduism.”

What are your sources for the “Hinduism” in which you believe? If these sources aren’t “astika,” then in what sense are they “Hindu”? It seems to me that you’re using the word “Hindu” in a highly misleading way that has nothing to do with what the word has usually meant historically or what most people mean by it.

It’s like saying “real Christians don’t believe Jesus is divine–they just think he’s a human teacher. The doctrine of the Trinity is a fringe, radical view and not widely believed.” That would be nonsense, quite apart from the question of whether Jesus really is divine or not. The fact is that most Christians historically have believed that He was.

Furthermore, this is even sillier when you apply it to Hinduism, because Hinduism doesn’t have a founder whose message might have been distorted–it’s a way of describing a broad cultural/religious tradition. So when you say that “astika” (mainstream, orthodox) Hinduism isn’t really Hinduism, you’re using language in a hopelessly confusing way.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The incredible fact is that few see that the very power that would overturn Christian dogma is itself nothing but an opposing system of dogmas. The two cannot blend or “enrich” each other because they are wholly antithetical.

Not wholly. But Hinduism indeed has its dogmas.

**

** What Christians believe to be evil, Hindus believe to be good, and conversely: What Hindus believe to be evil, Christians believe to be good.**

---

That’s indeed “staggering” because it’s sheer nonsense. And wicked nonsense at that because it denies the obvious virtues and truths taught by Hinduism.

The real struggle lies in this: that the ultimate sin for the Christian, is the ultimate realization of good for the Hindu. Christians have always acknowledged pride as the basic sin — the fountainhead of all sin. And Lucifer is the archetype when he says. “I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God. I will ascend above the clouds; I will be like the Most High.” On a lower level, it is pride that turns even man’s virtues into sins. But for the Hindu in general, and the Advaitin or Vedantan in particular, the only “sin” is not to believe in yourself and in Humanity as God Himself. In the words of Swami Vivekananda (who was the foremost modern advocate of Vedanta): “You do not yet understand India! We Indians are Man-worshippers after all. Our God is Man!” The doctrine of mukti or salvation consists in this: that “Man is to become Divine by realizing the Divine.”

First of all, Vivekenanda’s version of Vedanta is not representative of all Hinduism or even of all Vedanta. But in the second place, to say that God is within one and that one’s true self is identical with the Divine cannot simply be identified with the Christian sin of pride. This realization involves the surrender of the “false self,” the self that asserts ego and lords over others.

You see, in India “God” is also worshipped as Evil, in the form of the goddess Kali.

Again, I don’t think that is a fair characterization. It’s certainly true that Hinduism lacks Christianity’s strong moral dualism, and that is something that bothers me about Hinduism. But as I understand it, Kali is not “Evil.” Yes, Kali may cause death and destruction–but so does the Judaeo-Christian God, at least in some readings of the Bible!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

But being in awe was not what I was referring to. I was referring to being afraid of God, and the physical torture he allows his “children” to go through in hell.

Many of us do not believe that “hell” involves physical torture. If it does, then the torture would be inflicted by the evil on one another. Hell is God allowing human beings to live with the choices they have irretrievably made. It’s indeed a disturbing doctrine. But it is not an arbitrary punishment imposed by God.

Read Sartre’s *No Exit. *For all that Sartre was an atheist, his portrait of hell is in my opinion a thoroughly orthodox one. Or read C. S. Lewis’s *The Great Divorce. *Or Jerry Walls’ Hell: The Logic of Damnation.

Edwin

 

[Bluegoat]

MY bad. Alot of Chistian apologetic literature has tried to disassociate Chrstianity with other religions by claiming the Christian God is more personal unlike in Islam Hinduism. I suppose the Jewish God is personal also because of its proxyimity.

Proximity has nothing to do with it. According to many philosophical systems and religions, god is not a person at all. More like a kind of force, and in many cases totally unaware of the material creation it spawns.

As far as the Christian understanding of God goes, the Jews were the first people the Father introduced himself to. Their understanding of God is very much a personal one, and that is where Christians learned/inherited it from. The Muslims also consider themselves to be the inheritors of the Jews and worship the same personal God.

Neither the Jews nor the Muslims have an understanding of God as International, but that is not the same thing as personal.

 

[rcscwc]

Quote:
Originally Posted by KyivAndrew
Friendship means a personal relationship. Our God is not an impersonal god, gods, or lifeforce. On the contrary, Christianity has a Personal God who sent His Son Jesus Christ to be our Savior and to whom each and every one of us can have a personal relationship with.

Joseph Campbell, a great studier of comparative religions always liked the Eastern religions like Hinduism because they preached belief in an impersonal god(s). No thank you, I am quite glad that Christianity unlike the East has a personal God, and His name is Jesus Christ and He knows the number of hairs on each of our heads such is His love for us.

How could Hinduism preach an impersonal god? They originated god in three persons. Trinity is Hindu religion.

Biblegod rules through fear. He conjures up a satan. Xians are always looking over their shoulders in fear of satan, AND of their god.

Do you even know what is Trandcedent and Absolute, who is impersonal AND Immanent who is personal? Perhaps it is beyond your grasp. Get some of Spinoza philosophy under your belt.

Have you anything paralleling “Only you are mother and father friend and kin and my knowledge and wealth”?

Without that how can you claim to have a personal God?

 

[rcscwc]

How could Hinduism preach an impersonal god? They originated god in three persons. Trinity is Hindu religion.

Hmm. Yes. But, similarly, how could xians preach a personal god, what with god originating in three persons, trinity?