Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
You sure? Did you mean to say not personal, or not impersonal?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Manifestations of God
- Thread starter metis
- Start date
You sure? Did you mean to say not personal, or not impersonal?
I wrote what I meant.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Not to argue with you since that would be futile for both of us, but I can't picture there only being one manifestation of God (or two if one includes the HS). Why would God only offer himself up to only one people in one location at one time? [rhetorical] To me, it just doesn't add up-- but that's me.
As far as Brahman is concerned, most Hindus very much feel that Brahman is not impersonal, and that the basis for morality is actually inside of us, but we need to tap into it in order to pull it out.
Am I sure of all this? Of course not.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I use meditation a lot, but maybe not as you might envision me doing it. I'm not much for using sitting meditation in the lotus position. For me, it's very easy to meditate since my mind just tends to close things off as I contemplate whatever. The world could come to an end, but if I'm concentrating on something, I probably would be the last person on the planet to know.
When at synagogue services, I use the words as one would use a mantra, and at my wife's Catholic services, I'm an observer and use meditation besides listening to the homilies.
InChrist
Free4ever
Um... excuse me, but Hinduism is not "simply a religion which incorporates numerous gods". There's a lot more to it than that.
Always think of Me and become My devotee. Worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without fail. I promise you this because you are My very dear friend. Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear. Bhagavad Gita 18.65-66
Okay, I do apologize, forgive me for using the word 'simply". I realize there is a lot more to Hinduism, but it does incorporate numerous gods.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
"Manifestations" of God.
Depends on the sect. Yes, monotheism exists in some branches, but not in others. Some of us think it's one God in various names, while others of us (like me) think it's more than one God.
Last edited:
Thank you. Hopefully the new Vatican can rein these folks in. Shantivanam is still there, although I don't know actually how 'successful' it's been of late. Both sides are more aware than they used to be.
Well, that's kind of a different topic, I guess. But the belief is that Christ died for all humans - past, present and future. His sacrifice covers all human beings. It is the job of His disciples to carry His message to the ends of the earth.
Last edited:
This is the problem I have, is that god is so restrictive that christianity or any one religion be the the answer when the world is still left with so much to learn and with so much suffering, and nobody can even agree on what god or spirit is. No god better not be done by any means or we are in deep trouble.
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
What I mean is that God and creation aren't the same thing. That would be pantheism and that's not a Biblical viewpoint.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Yes, there are variations (understatement of the century) of Hinduism, but most have it that Brahman is God and all others are manifestations of God. Where one tends to find more of a polytheistic approach is in villages whereas education tends not to be as strong. I'm not trying to insult you by saying this, but this is actually the general pattern.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But are you certain that source is correct? Here's an interesting exercise: find objective evidence that the Bible is correct and the Upanishads are wrong. or the Pali Canon? or the Qur'an?
One characteristic that's generally true about religion is that they're mostly unfalsifiable. Studying religions the world over has a very humbling effect on the one doing the studying.
I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Speaking of being humbled through study, try this one on for size:
Humans, as separate from the ape line, seeming emerged roughly 6 million years ago. Torah was written roughly 3000 years ago, and Jesus lived roughly 2000 years ago.
OK, when we put Torah and the rise of humanity into a fraction, here's what we get: 3000/6,000,000, meaning that we were supposedly "unenlightened" for well over 99.9% of our human life here on Earth, and even more so in terms of receiving Jesus' supposed "saving" message and death.
Again, to me, something's missing, and this has bugged me for almost 50 years. I have no answers, but I do have some ideas. I think Torah was and is very important, as well as Jesus was and is very important, but I don't believe them to likely be the only "voices".
Humans, as separate from the ape line, seeming emerged roughly 6 million years ago. Torah was written roughly 3000 years ago, and Jesus lived roughly 2000 years ago.
OK, when we put Torah and the rise of humanity into a fraction, here's what we get: 3000/6,000,000, meaning that we were supposedly "unenlightened" for well over 99.9% of our human life here on Earth, and even more so in terms of receiving Jesus' supposed "saving" message and death.
Again, to me, something's missing, and this has bugged me for almost 50 years. I have no answers, but I do have some ideas. I think Torah was and is very important, as well as Jesus was and is very important, but I don't believe them to likely be the only "voices".
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I'm playing devil's advocate. I don't care which religion and denomination one may be in, there's a danger in the "I am right"/"You are wrong" approach to theology. Stating beliefs as if they're facts is an approach that can be terribly myopic. Those who know me well know my theology: "I don't knowism". And misery likes company.
If this bothers you, I'll stop.
Modern humans have existed for about 200,000 years.
There's evidence that civilization goes back a lot longer than we usually think, but those civilizations have been lost to the historical record. According to findings, there evidence of civilizations or settled cities going back at least over 12,000 years ago. There's other things we're still not sure about, such as the Sphinx. So who knows what went on tens of thousands of years ago. There's a huge gap in what we know about human history because we didn't write it down or whatever writings didn't survive.
Just where are you getting your information from? Yes, Advaita Vedanta is the most common Hindu system in the west, but it isn't in the east. You've read something in an encyclopedia?
Could the same question be asked of you to provide some basis for your claim that the Hindu belief in one God is not "the most common" in the East? And, as was pointed out, there's a difference between what people in villages might believe compared to a consensus of pandits.