Hindus & Idol Worship

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Thanks, so is there still in the abrahamic religions including the Christian ones a aspect or characteristic of a equal supreme female power, or even consideration of a female having power to create?

In Mainstream Christianity? No.

God is technically formless in the Abrahamic religions (though I might be wrong), but masculine attributes are usually given. The closest you'll find in female power would be the Virgin Mary in Catholicism, but she's no where equal to God in anyway shape or form.

There may be some fringe groups that have a equal/supreme female power but I'm not aware of them off the top of my head.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

=Aamer;3493375]God does not have a gender in Abrahamic faiths. Gender is something created by God. God is not confined by the same limitations as us humans. And there is only one creator so there can be no equal supreme power, male or female.

What i think is that Brahman according to some Hindus is also gender-less, but that does not mean that Brahman is limited to just being neutral, the creative power of Brahman is described as feminine, what this means is that the actual power of Brahman is considered feminine (not being separate completely from the Brahman), as Brahman is nothing without its power (Shakti/Maya) there is a kind of duality and non-duality at the same time, and as Brahmans power is considered to be working in the Physical Universe as he is considered omnipresent, therefore it is but logical to assume a form for the Power. It does not necessarily has to be feminine only, nor is it male, as the Murtis represent the names and powers only of Brahman there could be infinite or more commonly known the 33 million forms which are worshiped.

As for Murti Puja, although there may not be much said (either negative or positive) about in it texts, it is a natural tendency of humans to see things in the physical, even the words we speak, the sound it makes, the thought in our minds, our dreams and imaginations all are in the Physical universe or are a part of this Universe which is observed through our senses.

So those who do Murti Puja are just relating the unseen supreme power of Brahman with a physical aspect that portrays the characteristics described in some texts. This form of worship does not change the supreme, nor does it anger her, She is the Mother of all, all forms of worship are acceptable by her, she is not concerned with the way some portray her.

That is my understanding, so far.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

In Mainstream Christianity? No.

God is technically formless in the Abrahamic religions (though I might be wrong), but masculine attributes are usually given. The closest you'll find in female power would be the Virgin Mary in Catholicism, but she's no where equal to God in anyway shape or form.

There may be some fringe groups that have a equal/supreme female power but I'm not aware of them off the top of my head.

Seems like mainstream Christianity almost lacks the female input in religion, but i guess to each is own.

I wounder why Mary is not at par with God, being the mother of the savior i would assume God chose her for a reason, and that the followers would consider her Gods equal. I only say this because in mainstream Hinduism the Husband is called Pati (Controller, provider (ma)) and the wife is called Patni (Controller, provider (fem)).

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Seems like mainstream Christianity almost lacks the female input in religion, but i guess to each is own.

I wounder why Mary is not at par with God, being the mother of the savior i would assume God chose her for a reason, and that the followers would consider her Gods equal. I only say this because in mainstream Hinduism the Husband is called Pati (Controller, provider (ma)) and the wife is called Patni (Controller, provider (fem)).

Because that would be removing power from God. Essentilly Mary was a vessel that God worked through in Catholicism.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Because that would be removing power from God. Essentilly Mary was a vessel that God worked through in Catholicism.

It is a bit different in Hinduism i think, Brahmans power can not be diminished or removed because we pray to Murti or just one aspect of the many that Brahman has. I think in Hinduism no one can actually deny Brahman/Ishvar/OM (or whatever name is given to it) its eternal properties. That is why i think Murti Puja has no bearing on the supreme itself, or in other words i don't think it makes any difference to the great mother that we portray her as a 10 headed 1000 armed Vishnu, or as a Blue Kali Devi who chops heads off or riding a lion ect ect, plus all the images symbolize something or teach a lesson.

That is why i have no problems with Murti Puja.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

It is a bit different in Hinduism i think, Brahmans power can not be diminished or removed because we pray to Murti or just one aspect of the many that Brahman has. I think in Hinduism no one can actually deny Brahman/Ishvar/OM (or whatever name is given to it) its eternal properties. That is why i think Murti Puja has no bearing on the supreme itself, or in other words i don't think it makes any difference to the great mother that we portray her as a 10 headed 1000 armed Vishnu, or as a Blue Kali Devi who chops heads off or riding a lion ect ect, plus all the images symbolize something or teach a lesson.

That is why i have no problems with Murti Puja.

Yeah much of it has to do with the commandment "no other Gods before me" as such God is seen as a distinct being, and things don't emanant from God, they are created by. So God created the Universe but is not hte Universe, which is the thinking of some parties of the Abrahamic religions.

I think that is what would be a big distinction between the "western" religions and the "eastern" religions. From waht I have seen the western religions have developed in a way where the Gods are creators who were either part of the Universe or outside of it. In Eastern religions The Gods are an integral part or are the Universe itself.

 

[Windwalker]

I think that is what would be a big distinction between the "western" religions and the "eastern" religions. From waht I have seen the western religions have developed in a way where the Gods are creators who were either part of the Universe or outside of it. In Eastern religions The Gods are an integral part or are the Universe itself.

Pantheism does not define Eastern religious thought, anymore than radical Theism defines the West. If you look at the early church it was more panentheist than theistic. The Trinity formulation is/was far more about a dynamism, God immanent within creation, than as some obtuse definition of triune deity removed from the world. The Holy Spirit, certainly is within the world, if they can't see anything else.

Personally, there is far more in common in Christianity with Hinduism that it cares to admit.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Pantheism does not define Eastern religious thought, anymore than radical Theism defines the West. If you look at the early church it was more panentheist than theistic. The Trinity formulation is/was far more about a dynamism, God immanent within creation, than as some obtuse definition of triune deity removed from the world. The Holy Spirit, certainly is within the world, if they can't see anything else.

Personally, there is far more in common in Christianity with Hinduism that it cares to admit.

I don't think it defines it, but it does seem to be a common theme among them. It's why I put western and eastern in quotations, to indicate that these are not exclusive to them.

As for the early church (I would think that they had the same strict monotheistic view of God...since they were for all intents and purposes Jews).

 

[Windwalker]

I don't think it defines it, but it does seem to be a common theme among them. It's why I put western and eastern in quotations, to indicate that these are not exclusive to them.

I wonder how much of what the West thinks the East thinks, is due to a lack of context on their part? I wonder really how 'pantheistic' the East really is, to such an extent we say it's the common theme? It's a thing with the Western mind to try to put things into neat boxes, and hearing God is immanent in the world in any sense automatically gets pigeon-holed into the 'pantheist' box. Whereas in reality, it's probably not.

As for the early church (I would think that they had the same strict monotheistic view of God...since they were for all intents and purposes Jews).

I'm not sure I'd say that. They were very Hellenized Jews, for one thing. And furthermore, why it spread, why it became as popular as it was it because it moved into the gentile, or non-Jewish populations. So needless to say there were a whole lot more views of God being brought into it than some radical monotheistic view of traditional Judaism. You see a very strong Eastern influence going on in many of the early schools of thought as the movement was forming.

It's only later that you see a much more panentheistic view of God (wholly transcendent to the world, and wholly immanent within the world, paradoxically), turn into the traditional theism that removes God from the world, save for occasional 'miracles' where he punches a hole through the space-time fabric and shows himself in supernatural ways. That's all simply a literal mindset devoid of abstract thought, or any sort of mystical insights as well, IMHO. You have to remove a later mythological re-writing of history to reflect the later Institution, as reflective of the ground-level of reality of how the church was formed. The history of the church is a whole lot more messy than it's later myth about its own origins.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I wonder how much of what the West thinks the East thinks, is due to a lack of context on their part? I wonder really how 'pantheistic' the East really is, to such an extent we say it's the common theme? It's a thing with the Western mind to try to put things into neat boxes, and hearing God is immanent in the world in any sense automatically gets pigeon-holed into the 'pantheist' box. Whereas in reality, it's probably not.


I'm not sure I'd say that. They were very Hellenized Jews, for one thing. And furthermore, why it spread, why it became as popular as it was it because it moved into the gentile, or non-Jewish populations. So needless to say there were a whole lot more views of God being brought into it than some radical monotheistic view of traditional Judaism. You see a very strong Eastern influence going on in many of the early schools of thought as the movement was forming.

It's only later that you see a much more panentheistic view of God (wholly transcendent to the world, and wholly immanent within the world, paradoxically), turn into the traditional theism that removes God from the world, save for occasional 'miracles' where he punches a hole through the space-time fabric and shows himself in supernatural ways. That's all simply a literal mindset devoid of abstract thought, IMO.

Well I think that when people think of Pantheistic, they think of an impersonal God. I don't think that the Pantheistic view of God makes it impersonal. I just think that there is a difference between how God exists in relation to the Universe.

 

[Monotheist 101]

I don't worship the kaaba (black cube of Saturn). It's an idol. I'm not a follower. I'm a thinker. I have researched. I know that the kaaba is a Hindu symbol. The Hindu religion was in Arabia long before Islam. After the Prophet died, the Arabs went back to their pagan ways and conveniently mixed it with monotheism. Most of the stuff 99% of Muslims do is pagan in origin and has nothing to do with Quran. I'm guessing the same can be said for hindus and their practices vs scriptures.

Chapter 5
95 O you who believe! do not kill game while you are on pilgrimage, and whoever among you shall kill it intentionally, the compensation (of it) is the like of what he killed, from the cattle, as two just persons among you shall judge, as an offering to be brought to the Kaaba or the expiation (of it) is the feeding of the poor or the equivalent of it in fasting, that he may taste the unwholesome result of his deed; Allah has pardoned what is gone by; and whoever returns (to it), Allah will inflict retribution on him; and Allah is Mighty, Lord of Retribution.


97Allah has made the Kaaba, the sacred house, a maintenance for the people, and the sacred month and the offerings and the sacrificial animals with garlands; this is that you may know that Allah knows whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth, and that Allah is the Knower of all things.

Chapter 52


1I swear by the Mountain,

2And the Book written

3In an outstretched fine parchment,

4And the House (Kaaba) that is visited,

5And the elevated canopy

6And the swollen sea
How exactly did the Kaaba creep into Islam and the Quran again from Pagan customs? I like hearing Quranists interpretations, each one is unique