does hinduism accept christ as a prophet/god

[Sb1995]

Sure it does. It's an overall indicator of one's skills. I studied linguistics, history and philosophy. I flunked out of Dogma and Rigidity 101. Rutgers University.

No it's not. One may not be great studying while that doesn't mean it's an indicator of their skills. It's strange you've studied so much and haven't learned from experience that a percentage doesn't determine ones true intelligence.

 

[Jainarayan]

Are you saying I'm unintelligent?

 

[Sb1995]

No I'm saying I'm surprised that someone who claims to be intelligent has failed to realize that marks (%) don't determine how smart someone could be. Just because someone has 95% in physics, doesn't mean they would get 95% in history. Each individual has different abilities and skills. Just because someone got 93% in school (and whatever other fantastic marks you got) doesn't mean they're automatically a great religious debater.

 

[Poeticus]

Namaste,

You both are beneath me! Muahaha.

M.V.

 

[Jainarayan]

What it shows is that I can think outside the box and put rigid dogma aside.

 

[Sb1995]

Namaste,

You both are beneath me! Muahaha.

M.V.

Wrong! You're beneath me!!!!:run:

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

=मैत्रावरुणिः;3429438]
Thank you for your appreciation.

It is always good to appreciate the view of learned people such as your self. your welcome.

No, you are still Hindu. This was concerning a conversation between Vināyaka and me; my goal was to show him that a Hindu worshipping Jesus would be in violation as per Shruti law.

Yes i know, sorry if i seemed a bit confrontational, it wasent my intent.

It is unfortunate that many have not encountered the Vedas yet alone even read them. But, when you do ārti/pūjā, do you light a diyā bāti, offering that small lit fire to the Hindu Gods that you worship? Doing so would mean that you are offering the sacred fire. So, without having read certain injunctions in the Veda, you are still abiding by certain Shrutic laws. Such is far from being nāstika...

Yes it is unfortunate that many don't know the Veda.

Unfortunately lately i don't do Arti nor light Diya or even incense :sorry1:

I'm trying to abide by Yajna (yaj-Deva Puja, Sangati Karna, Daan), i only have a Havan once a year at home performed with the Purohita.

I disagree. As per Shri Shruti Rig Veda, there is a concept of "non-believer" and it comes in the phrases of avrata and anyavrata and ayajavāna. The second part of my post (#33) dealt with these distinctions. The only difference is that they aren't in the Abrahamic (Semitic) sense. They are strictly Indic (retaining Indo-Iranian features).

Ahh good we have a disagreement (good in the sense that we may have some good debates later on on RF), i cant take these avrata and anyavrata and ayajavāna in the Abrahamic sense as well, You are entitled to your opinion, i will have to do a bit more research on these words prior to explaining myself.

Yes, I agree. It is unfortunate that such adoration for the ones mentioned above have been incorporated into their fold of worship by a few Hindus.

Yes, as ive said that Hinduism as a whole will not gain anything from incorporating Abrahamic Gods into our fold, i think we will actually loose our most basic ideal as Hindus- Freedom.


OHM TATH SATH

 

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

namste all

A "somebody" is perfectly allowed to bring in Christ (and his vedi) into Hinduism. In fact I will prefer this route if one happens to be a Christian. Also, this exception can only be made in regard to Christ.

to the Christian:
Of course you will have to reject Church, which is hardly anything more than essentially a martial organisation. However, in the war of Dharma, if need be, you must join flanks with the Crusade. Clear enough?

to the Hindu:
If you want to keep Dharma alive, let alone from getting "diluted", instead of ranting about such issues, prioritize your things rightly, e.g.,
cast vote judiciously, stop being hypocrites, and so on.

dhanyavad

p.s.: to those sensitive to East-West issue, Christ was an Easterner.

 

[Maya3]

Yes, as ive said that Hinduism as a whole will not gain anything from incorporating Abrahamic Gods into our fold, i think we will actually loose our most basic ideal as Hindus- Freedom.

I'm not saying, and I don't think anyone else here either is saying that we should incorporate that into our Hindu beliefs.
What I and others here are saying is that if an individual feels a connection to another religion that is fine. Why would it bother us if someone else likes something different from you?

Maya

 

[Jainarayan]

I'm not saying, and I don't anyone else here either is saying that we should incorporate that into our Hindu beliefs.

Not even me, the henotheistic syncretist I am. According to some, however, I should be strung up by my toes and beaten like a piñata for melding Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and quoting Jesus. I haven't gotten to Wicca yet, except for watching 'Charmed'.

Why would it bother us if someone else likes something different from you?

Maya

For two reasons (not aimed at you ):

1. Insecurity in beliefs.
2. "My way is the only way". Especially when someone has little or no experience of anything outside their own paradigm, i.e. "box".

 

[Poeticus]

Namaste,

I am not posting to argue. "Mystics don't argue", and I agree with Vinayaka on that concept. The following are my beliefs. We can share beliefs and experiences, can't we?

According to some, however, I should be strung up by my toes and beaten like a piñata for melding Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and quoting Jesus.

Nah, I ain't Abrahamic, so I wouldn't do that.

For two reasons (not aimed at you ):
1. Insecurity in beliefs.

I am not replying to drag this controversial conversation any further. But, many Hindus don't believe in integrating Jesus into their fold not out of insecurity, but to keep the Abrahamic dilution out of the noble Hindu faith. It's a matter of perspective, no doubt.

2. "My way is the only way". Especially when someone has little or no experience of anything outside their own paradigm, i.e. "box".

I wouldn't say it like that. There are many ways. But, when Hinduism already has its vast plurality that is already henotheistic, pantheistic, polytheistic, panentheistic, monotheistic, etc. that you can pick from, why bring in "He Who Shall Not Be Named"? Why the incorporation of "He Who Shall Not Be Named", which many Hindus (Western and Eastern) would agree to be an imperfect "copy"? "He Who Shall Not Be Named" is so irrelevant, wouldn't you agree? Some, like me, would even go far as arguing that such an incorporation is against our main authority-like scriptures. But, that road has already been traversed upon. Let me know what you think, though, with this post.

M.V.

 

[Jainarayan]

I don't think deities or deified persons from other traditions or religions need to be brought into a religion, though it's not unknown in history. So to that end, I don't believe that Jesus, Yemaya (African mother goddess), Chenrezig (bodhisattva of great compassion), Guan Yu or Menshen (Chinese protector deities) need to be brought into Hinduism. But for a person's own reasons there's nothing against revering or venerating them, even to the extent of offering flowers or doing something to commemorate the deity's special day: "Jaki rahi bhavna jaisi, Prabhu murat dekhi tin taisi".

 

[Poeticus]

Namaste,

I don't think deities or deified persons from other traditions or religions need to be brought into a religion, though it's not unknown in history. So to that end, I don't believe that Jesus, Yemaya (African mother goddess), Chenrezig (bodhisattva of great compassion), Guan Yu or Menshen (Chinese protector deities) need to be brought into Hinduism.

Oh, by all means, please do involve Shri Yemaya, Chenrezig, Shri Guan Yu (the Ancient Chinese God of War) and even Shri Menshen into Hinduism. The concepts these deities represent go hand in hand with many Hindu deities. But, "you know who" is out of the question.
See, the former ones can be seen as Brahmanic, but "you know who" is A-brahma...(I am not arguing, please don't be offended)...

But for a person's own reasons there's nothing against revering or venerating them, even to the extent of offering flowers or doing something to commemorate the deity's special day: "Jaki rahi bhavna jaisi, Prabhu murat dekhi tin taisi".

Who taught you the quote, brother?

M.V.

 

[Jainarayan]

Namaste,



Oh, by all means, please do involve Shri Yemaya, Chenrezig, Shri Guan Yu (the Ancient Chinese God of War) and even Shri Menshen into Hinduism. The concepts these deities represent go hand in hand with many Hindu deities.

They do, and they have counterparts in the various religions of East Asia. I believe they are an effect of cross-pollination and cultural exchange.

One fascinating thing, considering that Yemaya is from so far away, is the similarity of some beliefs of West African religion to those of the east. Did this arise independently, or was there cultural exchange via trade across Africa through the Middle East to South and East Asia? Or is it true that God reveals him/herself in various ways to various peoples?

But, "you know who" is out of the question.
See, the former ones can be seen as Brahmanic, but "you know who" is A-brahma...(I am not arguing, please don't be offended)...

I'm not offended because I see him only as a teacher, a yogi, an enlightened being, not as God or a deity. I'm curious why you consider him, in his person (not the religion) to be abrahmic. As a former Christian seeing him through the lens of non-Christianity I may see something you or other born-Hindus don't.

Who taught you the quote, brother?

M.V.

I am a man of many talents and knowledge. I've gathered much in my 56 years.

 

[Sumit]

According to Hindusim Jesus can neither be God nor prophet. Because according to vedas God never takes birth, vedas are against concept of Avatar also prophet is the abhrahmic concept because acc to Hinduism each soul is equally potentially divine. However Hindus normally accept people as avatars and prophets but it has no scriptural basis.

 

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

Namaste,
Oh, by all means, please do involve Shri Yemaya, Chenrezig, Shri Guan Yu (the Ancient Chinese God of War) and even Shri Menshen into Hinduism. The concepts these deities represent go hand in hand with many Hindu deities. But, "you know who" is out of the question.
See, the former ones can be seen as Brahmanic, but "you know who" is A-brahma...(I am not arguing, please don't be offended)...

M.V.

Sri Ram

I will state something here with which anyone would hardly disagree. A-brahma started off as a distortion of Brahman of Hinduism, though the guys who did it (for example, Zaruthrashtra of Avesta) thought they were doing "the right thing" by "inventing" ideas of morality by moving away from the "immoral" (spelling mistake by them, for "immortal") Veda.
So the A-Brahmanic god became the One moral god. Post Vedic Hinduism also erred along the same lines by proclaiming Brahman as the One god.

p.s.: Christ is not A-Brahmic god (ya know who), he is only a messenger of the Father (say, Brhaspati). I maintain that only Christ (and no other non-Hindu deity) is pure enough manifestation of Vedic god(s).

 

[Jainarayan]

However Hindus normally accept people as avatars and prophets but it has no scriptural basis.

And therein lies the problem and the dichotomy which rocks the very foundations of much of Hinduism as practiced today.

 

[Poeticus]

p.s.: Christ is not A-Brahmic god (ya know who), he is only a messenger of the Father (say, Brhaspati). I maintain that only Christ (and no other non-Hindu deity) is pure enough manifestation of Vedic god(s).

Namaste,

But, millions of Hindus would disagree. Especially those from Rajasthan, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, and Haryana.

The only ones that would agree would be ones from Kerala and Himachal Pradesh and a few from Europe and America that still have Christianity as an influencing factor in their lives.

I don't know, brah. I just don't believe in dilution by the involvement of outside concepts. Remember how the Rig Veda has a full section that disses Zarathustra? I don't want to upset the Seers of the Shruti texts by diluting their gift any further. Just my take on it. These thoughts aren't definitive. So, please bare that in mind.

M.V.

 

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

According to Hindusim Jesus can neither be God nor prophet. Because according to vedas God never takes birth, vedas are against concept of Avatar also prophet is the abhrahmic concept because acc to Hinduism each soul is equally potentially divine. However Hindus normally accept people as avatars and prophets but it has no scriptural basis.

Nope bud,

If we go strictly about Vedic philosophy, it is Vishnu, and Vishnu alone, who takes birth in earthly mould, and is seen as avatar or miracle. RgVeda says of Vishnu, "he brings down the 'name' of Father", and also, "he takes steps of Freedom (read, Evolution)".

sia ram

 

[Jainarayan]

...also prophet is the abhrahmic concept

Monotheism is also an Abrahamic and Native American concept.

Btw, a prophet is not someone who predicts the future, as popularly and erroneously believed. A prophet is one who reveals God's message. So to that end, Jesus is not technically a prophet. He taught, but he technically didn't speak for God as did Moses, Mohammed or the prophets of the Old Testament. It's a fine line, though.

You see, these are things that need to be studied and considered before making pronouncements on who is what, what is right, what is wrong, what is this or what is that...