We Are All Hindus Now

  1. OK. We all disagree. So, what’s the problem?

  2. Well, you told us the pope didn’t mention the trinity in discussing truth found in other religions. Since he didn’t mention anything specific, what’s your point?

  3. You said, “Sorry, I have no interest in looking into Hinduism.” Can you elaborate?

  4. I’m glad we agree that Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam all include a huge collection of supernatural entities.

  5. Thank you. I will continue in my belief that the Hindus came up with the idea of the trinity first.

Christianity has one supernatural being, and that is God. Angels, saints/humans, demons, animals etc. are all just as natural as each other.

Now what pertains to their nature is a whole different matter. It is natural for angels to be pure spirit, while it is natural for humans to be body and spirit.

I suppose we can say the same of Hinduism.

Not really. In Christianity, supernatural events (known as miracles) can only be caused by a supernatural being, God. Everything else- angels, demons, humans, animals- can only follow the natural laws that God has created. Any miraculous event attributed to a saint or angel necessarily can only come from God’s power.

See, it essentially stems from the monotheistic character of Christianity. There is only one supernatural being, and everything else that exists must follow the common course of nature that that one being created.

Now that I think about it, it also comes from the Christian concept of God as the original cause and necessary being (St. Thomas).

I only have a casual knowledge of Hinduism, but I’m pretty sure they don’t hold this view.

Again, the same can be said of Hinduism. We have to be careful not to judge Hinduism by the way people apply the word “god” to Hindu entities. If the same standard were applied to Christianity, angels would also all be called gods.

WillieWonka, Hinduism in no way can be compared to Christianity. Not to mention that any notion that their idea of trinity compares to ours is IMO a perversion of the truth. It seems that your only reason for this thread is to insult and annoy not only us catholics but any other christian who happens to see it. To you I say Sunt mala quae libas. Ipse venena bibas!

There is no problem, so long as you cease trying to convince Christians that this Hindu trinity is relatable in any meaningful way to the Holy Trinity who is Father, Son, and Spirit.

  1. Well, you told us the pope didn’t mention the trinity in discussing truth found in other religions. Since he didn’t mention anything specific, what’s your point?

I’m not sure what you mean. You’re the one who brought up the Pope, and as far as I’ve seen you don’t really seem to have had a point in doing so.

  1. You said, “Sorry, I have no interest in looking into Hinduism.” Can you elaborate?

This is in response to your contention that if I were to look a little deeper into Hinduism I might find more than the surface similarities thus far listed. Since I don’t even see those as similarities in any meaningful way, and since I am naturally disinclined to look into any non-Christian religion for anything other than apologetic purposes, I feel I can do fine with the information that you have provided, namely that the Hindu trinity is not to be spoken of as being in any meaningful way relatable to the Christian Trinity. That ends this conversation, as far as I am concerned.

  1. I’m glad we agree that Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam all include a huge collection of supernatural entities.

I can only speak of Christianity, not those other religions. Christianity has One God. Islam or Hinduism may have more than one, I don’t know. Other “supernatural entities”, I don’t know. Best to focus on one God, as plenty of people believe they have heard angels or similar who have revealed to them all sorts of crazy things. I am not one to be devoted to apparitions, by they at Fatima, Medjugorje, or anywhere else. I don’t look to the sky with a census clicker when I pray, so I can’t say this is a very fruitful spiritual topic for me.

  1. Thank you. I will continue in my belief that the Hindus came up with the idea of the trinity first.

And I will maintain my own belief that it doesn’t matter if Hindus believed in some form of a trinity before Christians did, because your trinity is not our Trinity.

  1. Christians can believe whatever they choose. The fact remains the Hindus have Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva and ultimately see a single god entity. If Christians want to think that is relatable to the Christian idea, it’s up to them. I don’t care.

  2. Here’s what you told us. Can you elaborate on your point? "They sure as hell didn’t discern the HOLY TRINITY, which is the only one any Christian (including the Pope) would regard as true, so this is totally immaterial. Again, you are misunderstanding the nature of my objection to your post."

  3. OK. You lack an interest in Hinduism, and are therefore ignorant of it. That’s OK. We can’t be inteested and well informed about everything. We all pick and choose.

  4. I acknowledge you don’t know much about Hinduism or Islam. So, what’s your point?

  5. How do you know the Hindu trinity is not the Christian trinity if you don’t know anything about Hunduism and don’t have any interest in learning about it? Takea look. You might learn something. This stuff is taught in Catholic universities.

Suppose the trinity is true. Suppose two groups believe in a trinity. If there is only one trinity, do they believe in the same one?

What is your point?

I guess it’s a good thing that the British persuaded Hindus to quit Sati when they did…

Yes, especially for the women. The same relief was felt all across Europe when the Christians stopped burning witches.

Alright…

  1. Here’s what you told us. Can you elaborate on your point? "They sure as hell didn’t discern the HOLY TRINITY, which is the only one any Christian (including the Pope) would regard as true, so this is totally immaterial. Again, you are misunderstanding the nature of my objection to your post."

Sure. I’m not saying that Hindus do not have a trinity (I didn’t know they did before it was brought up before this thread, so I did learn something about Hinduism!), I’m saying that their trinity is not our Trinity, so your comparison of the two is invalid to us.

  1. I acknowledge you don’t know much about Hinduism or Islam. So, what’s your point?

Just like the Pope commentary, you’re the one that brought this up and now you’re asking me what MY point is? I don’t understand this. My point is the same thing that I’ve been saying this whole time: I don’t care what other religions do or don’t have, I just don’t like any philosophy that would equate another religion’s “trinity” with the Holy Trinity, or worse claim that the Holy Trinity is a derivative of some other religion’s trinity. This is what you’ve done, and I don’t like it or agree with it. That’s my only point.

  1. How do you know the Hindu trinity is not the Christian trinity if you don’t know anything about Hunduism and don’t have any interest in learning about it?

Because you recognized that it wasn’t in post #21, in reply to my question as to the composition and content of this Hindu trinity. That’s all I need to know.

Suppose the trinity is true. Suppose two groups believe in a trinity. If there is only one trinity, do they believe in the same one?

Hmm. An interesting question. Ultimately, however, it does not matter. It doesn’t matter what you believe of your trinity. If it is not Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we do not recognize it as being THE Trinity.

What is your point?

Why do you keep asking me this? Am I stuttering?

If two groups have imperfect knowledge of a given phenomenon, does the fact that their knowledge is imperfect demand they are referencing different phenomenon?

My point is the trinity is a belief of more than Christians. I ask what your point is because you haven’t told us. You started by telling us:

“Maligning the Holy Trinity, which is held to be THE TRUE GOD by not just Catholics, but also Orthodox and the vast majority of Protestants, is not being respectful to our faith. Either start being respectful or leave. It is not your God-given right to post whatever you feel like here just because you feel like it.”

So, what’s your point?

The article has nothing to do with “freedom of religion.” It is about relativism.

This is a common myth, and it has been debunked many times. There were a handful of prominent deists, but certainly not “many, perhaps even the majority.”

Can I respond by asking you if YOU think that the Hindu trinity is Father (YHWH), Son (Jesus Christ), and Holy Spirit? That’s the Trinity that I am talking about and trying to defend from your bizarre logic that because Hindus also have a trinity that proves…something or other.

My point is the trinity is a belief of more than Christians.

And my point is, for the millionth time, that a Hindu or any other non-Christian trinity is not comparable to the Holy Trinity of Christianity. It is not a matter of whether other religions have their own trinity.

I ask what your point is because you haven’t told us. You started by telling us:

“Maligning the Holy Trinity, which is held to be THE TRUE GOD by not just Catholics, but also Orthodox and the vast majority of Protestants, is not being respectful to our faith. Either start being respectful or leave. It is not your God-given right to post whatever you feel like here just because you feel like it.”

So, what’s your point?

No, I started by telling you that, in response to this post which I found offensive:

I’m pretty much done with this conversation, as I honestly have no idea how to make my ideas more explicit than I already have, and you still persist in asking me what my point is, as if I haven’t literally written the words “my point is…” several times by now. I’m sorry that I apparently have not been able to effectively communicate with you.

  1. Of course the Hindu trinity is the one you call Father, Son, and Hoy Spirit. They just call it Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. The names don’t matter. I suppose one could name it X,Y, and Z. Both groups believe in the ultimate one god. If there is actually only one god, and both groups are imperfectly describing him, then the difference is in their imperfect knowledge, not in the target of their descriptions.

  2. If one cannot compare a Hundu trinity to a Christian trinity, what’s the difference?

  3. OK. What is offensive? , Ohm is a mantra. One of its uses is to focus the mind on the unity and oneness of god. Vishnu is the second person of the Hindu trinity, and he is believed to incarnate as human (Krishna). Hindus did believe in this prior to Christianity. And I think Christians do believe in millions of angels.

  4. I suggest you are having trouble making your ideas explicit is because you lack knowedge of Hinduism. I hope I have helped enlighten you.

I hope this settles the matter for you WillieWonka:

Maurice Winternitz notes that there are very few places in Indian literature where the Trimurti is mentioned.[11] The identification of Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma as one being is strongly emphasized in the Kūrma Purana, where in 1.6 Brahman is worshipped as Trimurti; 1.9 especially inculcates the unity of the three gods, and 1.26 relates to the same theme.[12]

Historian A. L. Basham explains the background of the trimurti as follows, noting Western interest in the idea of trinity:

Early western students of Hinduism were impressed by the parallel between the Hindu trinity and that of Christianity. In fact the parallel is not very close, and the Hindu trinity, unlike the Holy Trinity of Christianity, never really "caught on". All Hindu trinitarianism tended to favor one god of the three; thus, from the context it is clear that Kālidāsa's hymn to the Trimūrti is really addressed to Brahmā, here looked on as the high god. The Trimūrti was in fact an artificial growth, and had little real influence.

From hinduwebsite.com:

…In the Vedas we do not find any reference to the concept of Trinity…

Significance of Hindu Trinity

The gods of Trinity are not different gods, but manifestations of the same Supreme Iswara, who is also known as the Saguna Brahman or the awakened or dynamic Brahman. Since ordinary human minds cannot comprehend the oneness of the universe, it becomes difficult for us to understand this concept clearly. To summarize the idea briefly let us take the analogy of a person performing different tasks. Just as a person becomes different persons while performing different roles or duties in the mental plane though not in the physical plane, God who exists in innumerable planes simultaneously appears as the Trinity in three different roles. The difference if any is in appearances which is part of the grand illusion that He weaves all around us.

Let me sum up the absolute differences between the Christian and Hindu concepts of “trinity”.

In Hinduism the three gods are identified by the three fundamental powers of nature: creation, destruction, and maintenance. In Christianity the three persons are identified by their relation to one another: Father, Son, Holy Spirit (love between the Father and the Son).

In Hinduism the distinctions between the three gods is an illusion, for they are all just manifestations of the same supreme reality. ***Each aspect of the trinity contains and includes the others.


In Christianity the distinctions between the three persons is real. “Father”, “Son”, “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: “He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son.” They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: “It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds.” The divine Unity is Triune.

In Hinduism you can (as an example) worship one of the three gods, but not the others. In Christianity, when you worship the Father, you are worshiping the Son and the Holy Spirit at the same time, for there is only one God which we worship.

Also, in Hinduism the three gods are assisted by their respective goddesses.

So enough of this nonsense that the Hindu trinity and the Christian trinity are the same thing.

Yes, I admit ‘the majority’ comment was a bit overboard, however, the fact remains that many of them were deists, some, like Franklin and Jefferson, quite outspoken ones. Others less so. The beliefs of the Founding Fathers were quite varied, all I’m trying to point out that it wasn’t exactly like David Barton says :rolleyes:

The descriptions of the trinity by Hindus and Christians differ in various aspects, but both are imperfect descriptions. It’s a bit like the three blind men exploring the elephant. One touches the trunk, one touches the tail, and one touches the tusk.

You note that in Hinduism one can worship one without worshipping the others. I note widespread worship of Jesus separateley from the others. I note widespread worship of Mary, and I think there is a serious movement among one Christian sect to promote her to co-redemptress.

So, if there is one trinity, and two groups imperfectly define it, they are still targeting the same phenomenon.

Why is it disquieting to Christians that Hindus have the trinity? Hindus think it’s great Christians have it. They welcome them.

I do not mind that some Hindus believe in a trinity of fundamental forces of existence that are manifested in three gods. Why would I?

Christians believe that God became man and revealed to us the objective truth of the nature of God in his Trinity. We are not “blind men touching different parts of the elephant,” it’s actually like the elephant told us himself what he was.

We believe Jesus was God because he fulfilled prophecies, spoke words of truth and life, performed miracles, and rose from the dead. For us to believe that God and his triune nature is anything other than what Jesus revealed to us would simply make us non-Christians.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.