If Jesus is only a form of God, then why are Hindus wrong for worshipping many forms of God?

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Originally Posted by White_Tree

Actually, that's a misconception about Hinduism. In the final synthesis, Hinduism is a monotheistic religion, since all of the Deities are seen to be merely emanations or aspects of one Supreme Deity.

Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_on_monotheism

So Judaism and Christianity really have the same theological structure. We have one Supreme Deity. That Supreme Deity has many names (you must be familiar with the tradition in Judaism that talks about the 72 names of God), and various emanations/aspects (consider the doctrine of the Trinity), of which Jesus is one.

Your definition is what we call politheism.In monotheism, there are no emanations.
I understand your viewpoint, that politheism is a way of seeing God but nevertheless it was surpassed by monotheism.

Your interpretation of the holy Trinity and of Jesus Christ is wrong.
Let's not mix things: politheism is politheism and I am no saying it is bad. Monotheism is monotheism and I am not saying that it is necessarily right (look at the jihad and suicide bombers!)

[White_Tree]

Originally Posted by Pfaffenhoffen

In monotheism, there are no emanations.

emanation (noun): Something that issues from a source

God from God. Light from Light. True God from True God.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son,

proceed (intr.v.): To come from a source; originate or issue


I ask you the same question I asked the other poster: What is the substantive difference that you are referring to here? How does a "person" of the Trinity differ from an aspect or emanation?

[Contarini]

Originally Posted by Ben Sinner

Everytime I get in a debate with a Hindu, they will throw the "Jesus was a human form of God. So why is it bad to pray to Shiva, Krishna, etc.??"

I've never really been able to give a good answer to this question

Can anybody come up with a good answer for this?

How does one "answer" a mere assertion?

The Hindu is simply claiming that our doctrine of Incarnation is the same as their understanding of an "avatar." But it isn't. I respect the fact that many Hindus see Jesus as an avatar, and it's great that they have such a high view of Him. But it's not the same thing as the Christian view.

Christians believe that God created the world out of nothing, meaning that God's relationship with the world is different from the one envisaged in any form of Hinduism I know of. Furthermore, we believe that history is linear rather than cyclical.

That means that we believe God entered history in a unique way in Jesus. Jesus isn't just one way in which God has made Himself known. Jesus' incarnation changes history forever.

Edwin

[Contarini]

Originally Posted by Pfaffenhoffen

Your definition is what we call politheism.

Not necessarily. There are many forms of polytheism. The form in which the various deities "emanate" from one reality is certainly closer to monotheism than are some other kinds of polytheism. Another form of "polytheism" would say that there is one supreme God and various lesser deities who aren't the same kind of beings at all. (This isn't necessarily incompatible with the "emanation" view, actually.) That can look pretty similar to the traditional Christian/Jewish/Islamic understanding of one God and many angels (in Zoroastrianism, for instance, the difference between a "god" and an "angel" seems pretty much nonexistent, if I understand it correctly), with the main difference being the kind of worship/veneration it's appropriate to give to these lesser heavenly beings.

And, of course, Muslims and Jews see our doctrine of the Trinity as a kind of polytheism.

So the difference between polytheism and monotheism isn't clear-cut. That doesn't mean that there's no difference, only that there are different ways of defining the difference and a lot of religious traditions can be defined as either depending on whether you draw the line.

I don't think there's any point arguing over whether Hinduism is polytheistic or monotheistic. Much more valuable is figuring out in what way it's polytheistic and in what way it's monotheistic.

And, of course, there are many varieties of "Hinduism". . . .

[Contarini]

Originally Posted by prodigalson2011

The authors of the Vedas, Upanishad, etc., etc., did not share the same beliefs

The authors of various books of the Bible clearly had different beliefs from each other as well.

Attempts to show the contrary are simply special pleading and have no validity from the point of view of serious historical inquiry.

Edwin

[prodigalson2011]

Originally Posted by Contarini

The authors of various books of the Bible clearly had different beliefs from each other as well.

Attempts to show the contrary are simply special pleading and have no validity from the point of view of serious historical inquiry.

Edwin

No author of the Bible was a) an atheist b) a polytheist or c) a monist. The Bible does not contradict itself. Judeo-Christian tradition has never proposed any other God than the God of Abraham. Hinduism has no central doctrine and was produced over millenia by people who were a) atheists b) monists c) polytheists d) pantheists.

Besides the person of Jesus Christ, there is no Biblical disagreement about who God is and the fact that there's only one of Him.

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Originally Posted by White_Tree

emanation (noun): Something that issues from a source





proceed (intr.v.): To come from a source; originate or issue


I ask you the same question I asked the other poster: What is the substantive difference that you are referring to here? How does a "person" of the Trinity differ from an aspect or emanation?

Three is you want, not 100 million.
But even so, they are nor emanations, they are different.

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Originally Posted by Contarini

Not necessarily. There are many forms of polytheism. The form in which the various deities "emanate" from one reality is certainly closer to monotheism than are some other kinds of polytheism. Another form of "polytheism" would say that there is one supreme God and various lesser deities who aren't the same kind of beings at all. (This isn't necessarily incompatible with the "emanation" view, actually.) That can look pretty similar to the traditional Christian/Jewish/Islamic understanding of one God and many angels (in Zoroastrianism, for instance, the difference between a "god" and an "angel" seems pretty much nonexistent, if I understand it correctly), with the main difference being the kind of worship/veneration it's appropriate to give to these lesser heavenly beings.

And, of course, Muslims and Jews see our doctrine of the Trinity as a kind of polytheism.

So the difference between polytheism and monotheism isn't clear-cut. That doesn't mean that there's no difference, only that there are different ways of defining the difference and a lot of religious traditions can be defined as either depending on whether you draw the line.

I don't think there's any point arguing over whether Hinduism is polytheistic or monotheistic. Much more valuable is figuring out in what way it's polytheistic and in what way it's monotheistic.

And, of course, there are many varieties of "Hinduism". . . .

I think you have a problem with politheism. I do not have.
Clearly there are monotheists religions and clearly Hindhuism is politheist.
You may argue till the end of the world that Hindhuism is not politheist for that is something no one believes.
I think tthe beauty of Hindhuism is somewhere else not in being Monotheist, which is not.

[Contarini]

Originally Posted by prodigalson2011

No author of the Bible was a) an atheist b) a polytheist or c) a monist.

No author of the Bible condones worshiping other gods, certainly. In much of the OT, the ontological status of YHWH compared to other gods is a bit unclear, and some have argued that what we have is "henotheism."

Edwin

[Contarini]

Originally Posted by Pfaffenhoffen

I think you have a problem with politheism.

I would not describe myself as a polytheist, if that's what you mean. I certainly see the beauty of a number of forms of polytheism, and I revel in the fact that Christianity is not "simple monotheism" of the kind professed by Islam.

Your attempt to mind-read me ignores my point, which is that polytheism can be defined in various ways.

I do not have.
Clearly there are monotheists religions and clearly Hindhuism is politheist.

It is certainly polytheistic by some definitions, and it is certainly not monotheistic in the same way the "Abrahamic" religions are.

Edwin

[White_Tree]

Originally Posted by Pfaffenhoffen

But even so, they are nor emanations, they are different.

Different in what way? That is the original question I asked you.

By the strict, dictionary definition of what an "emanation" is, the Nicene Creed implies that emanations are exactly what they are.

If you are going to say that there is a difference, at least say what that difference is, apart from the number. The number of Gods is peripheral to this discussion. I'm asking about their origin and their substance.

[MikeCal2012]

I believe the person who started this thread was speaking along lines of John Paul II's theology of the body. Jesus was the perfect man, the form-IMAGE of God. His smiles and looks of love showed God to man (literally). Every human is nontheless an image of God in their good moments. Hindu gods do not exist, but some of their art can show forms of God as well. I think that answers the question

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Originally Posted by Contarini

I would not describe myself as a polytheist, if that's what you mean. I certainly see the beauty of a number of forms of polytheism, and I revel in the fact that Christianity is not "simple monotheism" of the kind professed by Islam.

Your attempt to mind-read me ignores my point, which is that polytheism can be defined in various ways.



It is certainly polytheistic by some definitions, and it is certainly not monotheistic in the same way the "Abrahamic" religions are.

Edwin

Boy, we agree....
Of course poly is ply in many ways.
Polytheism can be defined in millions of ways...

[siamusnomore]

Why is it wrong for Hindus to worship many forms of God?

Jesus is the answer. That is God's word made flesh who dwelt among us, hence the name Immanuel or Emmanuel, which translates to "God with us."

Instead of having many gods, we have one highly creative, loving and powerful God. And Jesus is special because not only will we be able to follow in his footsteps and be with him forever in "paradise", but we are becoming more like him as time goes on, if we continue being obedient to the Father.

[siamusnomore]

In the scriptures, Mary at one point is said to have been with child. Great with child even.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luke 2:5

To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Now,,,this is something that I want someone to comment on. It is Revelation 12:2.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revelation 12:2
And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To me, this seems to be implying that Mary was born stained with original sin just like the rest of us. I've heard things for sometime that Mary was born without sin. That cannot be true. Needed to accept salvation just like the rest of us.

Yes. That is what I believe.

If Mary was the kind of girl and woman that I believe she was, then she accepted salvation as soon as she could. The holy spirit was living inside of Mary in spades. That is a given, but was she forced into becoming born again?

Most likely not.

Mary's faith was unparalleled.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN70R-3ao0U