Heresy accepted this widespread is a plague on society. Imagine how society could be if we all adhered to God’s truth.I would not call Hinduism a “Plague,” but I DO agree it IS a Heresy.
As to the rest----“What He Said.”
When there is widespread heresy, people don’t get to know God. This is a plague on society. It’s not a condemnation of people, but of false faith that damages people’s knowledge of truth of God, which is exceedingly important. Whatever truth your faith currently has can be used as a stepping stone to come to the fullness of faith in Catholicism. Catholicism is the fullest and most complete truthful path to God, so you’re doing the right thing.
If you believe Proverbs 17:28, why did you post and reveal that you don’t know?
Dear Friend MDK: I would offer if I may that the dignity of women is simply inherent in women. Such is the case with all things in creation. It is not bestowed by this faith or that, but in the fact that they are all reflections of God. Put a candle in a room full of mirrors and see light after light after light. While they all appear different, they are the same thing. They are the light of the candle in the center manifested over and over again in this way and that. Take away one and it changes all the others. Therein lies the dignity of this woman, that man, this boy or that girl, this Catholic, that “heretic”. They are all aspects of the One. Together they are the Body of Christ, as is the universe. All is He and nothing exists outside of Him. To see them as something separate is the enabler to all sin.
That dignity is not bestowed by faith, but by the Creator, was not the issue.
Heretical teachings, though can reduce the perceived dignity of the person, the way the human person created in the likeness and image of God, is treated by others. Examples are in some faith systems, contraception is taught as morally acceptable. However, contraception is an intrinsic evil that can diminish the recognized dignity of the human, reducing them to an object for one’s pleasure.
Hi MDK: I see your points and understand your perspective. I do make comparisons between one religion and another, but not to say one is right or one is wrong but rather to see the continuity in them. The idea of God taking on human or physical form to come among His people was a radical revelation for westerners to see. It is not a radical revelation for everyone. For us it is part of a continuum of such events and it all fits together. I am not a Buddhist, but I have tried their path and because of this I am able to see what I could not have seen otherwise. That view of the unity in things in turn makes my appreciation of your faith, mine and theirs all the deeper.
As a sojourner here on earth, we all need to keep in mind that one and only one faith is fully right. This faith was established by God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity while He was on earth. The God-Man established one and only one Church which He said will be led to all truth, and so is the very pillar and foundation of the truth. No other ecclesial community or faith system has that mission, promise and protection.
Thank you for the reply friend MDK. In your estimation, how do you see other faiths as being incomplete? I fully agree that Jesus founded a church among Palestinian Jews who prior to that knew nothing of the Christ Kutashtha. What does that say of those who knew Him already? How are the things He said in Palestine different from what He said before in Kurukshetra? I have read all the things Jesus said to His followers and I see no difference in that from what He said before. Perhaps you could point those out to me if you would.
Let me assist with your confusion in the matter. There was nothing said by Christ in Kurukshetra. In addition, referring to Jesus the Messiah who is God the Son, as Kutashtha is also to demean the very God who made you. Retaining falsehoods will never help you to get to the fullness of truth.
Thanks MDK: So how did Jesus quote what was said at Kurukshetra 1,000 years before in his teachings? How are they so strikingly the same? If they are the same, then how is one wrong? If one is different, tell me how it is different. That is the question. I am not asking for dogma, I have asked you a direct question. Can you answer it?
I can’t prove something that didn’t happen. Why in the world would you say Jesus quoted what was said at Kurukshetra 1,000 years prior?
Dear Friend MDK: My apologies for throwing things at you that are so remote from your perspective. What I am trying to explain is that the story of God’s relationship with His creations on earth is both long and broad in scope. His relationship with the Jews and the people of that region is what evolved into Christianity and this is predominant in the west. He had other relationships with other people long before all of that, but to these people (of which I am one) we see how His relationship with Christians is contiguous with His relationship with us. From our perspective, it all fits. It is most difficult to explain in a short forum such as this, and also I think it’s probably off topic. The story of Jesus and Christianity fits easily into the context of the larger scope of my faith. Everything about it from the Trinity to the virgin birth to the Eucharist. They make perfect sense to us. It fits. Kurukshetra did indeed happen, and God was there in Human form. This was well established in the religious history of the world before even the five books of the Torah were written.
sounds great, sign me up. i guess this can only lead people to Christ. because we all know that buddhism is fertile ground for planting the seeds of the gospel. if you can’t tell i’m being sarcastic. sounds like mubo jumbo to me. i fail to see how any of this kind of language has benefited the spread of our faith. i’m sure one could write a nice sounding paragraph about atheisim and satanism. it would go something like this:
i know buddhims is much more laudable than these two ‘isms’ but you get the picture.
I understand what you’re saying. Are you talking about the Bhagavad Gita and Krishna’s conversation/revelation to Arjuna during the Kurukshetra War?
Hi MarianD: You are correct. They were both fully God and fully human. Same God of course, since there is only one God. I know that sounds strange to Christians. I did spend three years comparing each line of the 4 Gospels to the Gita, and found them all match - at least from the perspective of a Hindu they match. I am not sure what parts that Christians would think don’t match. You are one of the few Christians I have met who have even heard of the Gita so your thoughts on the differences would be interesting. The things He said as Jesus were a bit more cryptic in nature and not as direct, but I have attributed that to the fact that there had been so many copies of copies of copies and translations before any final form of the Gospels came about, coupled with the fact that Jesus was addressing a group of people who were living in the Kali Yuga and Krishna was addressing people who were living in a more enlightened age. Jesus was addressing a very egocentric tribal audience and He seems to have taken that into account. In spite of that, from an eastern perspective, the things Jesus said still seem totally natural, since Jesus was technically form the Orient. When his teachings got into Occidental hands the understanding of them seems to have taken on a rather interesting turn here and there. I think that is fascinating but a bit curious as well. Anyway, I would be interested in your thoughts on the differences, but I suppose that should probably be on another thread or you could send me a private message. I am very interested in what you had to say. Thanks very much for your thoughts.
i accept what the church has said about buddhism in vii. i only question the prudence of a church council only writing positive things about non-catholic religions. buddhism is very different from catholicism and christianity to the point of being opposed to it. i think you can nearly show positive elements about everything without really saying anything at all, like in this case.
Krishna was not fully God and fully man in reality. I hope you know it’s only a fairy tale. There is but one God in three Divine Persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To say otherwise is heresy. Krishna never was any part of the Godhead.