Hinduism and Christianity
Yogi Baba Prem Yogacharya
By Yogi Baba Prem Yogacharya, Veda Visharada
There has been a growing tendency amongst practitioners of Hinduism and globally amongst people to say that in essence all the religions are the same. But is this the reality? To answer this question, one must examine key teachings within each of the systems and see exactly how the theology of these two systems relates to one another.
An excellent place to begin our investigation would be with the Christian term salvation. Commonly the Sanskrit term moksha is translated literally to mean salvation, but this an incorrect translation and reflects an influence of western academics and religious views of western academics dating back to the 1800s. Moksha literally means liberation, and there are considerable differences in the theology of liberation verses salvation. As an example, salvation requires a savior, which does not exist within Hinduism and is not associated with the Hindu concept of liberation. Likewise, salvation requires the belief that one is born ‘in sin’ and requires someone to serve as a vehicle for release from this sin in order to enter into heaven. Hinduism does not have a concept of a savior, nor does it have sin in the Christian sense; though the Sanskrit term papa is commonly translated as sin, though it is not sin in a Christian sense. Additionally, one is not born ‘in sin’ within the Hindu teachings.
The concept of heaven is quite different between the two systems as well. Within Hinduism, heaven or Dyauh is one of the three Vedic worlds and is associated fundamentally with consciousness. Christianity does have a concept of heaven, but it is quite different from the Hindu view of consciousness; within Hinduism this (heaven) is more a representation of consciousness, whereas in Christianity heaven is more of a physical destination. The highest Hindu view of consciousness is represented by the 4th state or world of being called Turiya or pure consciousness. This view of consciousness is not found within the Christian teachings at all. While the term heaven is commonly found within the Christian teachings, it is a literal destination, as there are only two destinations within protestant Christianity: Heaven and Hell and there is the addition of limbo within Catholicism, though there are some that argue that modern Catholicism has rejected the concept of limbo. Heaven within Christianity is more akin to the term loka within Hinduism, as a loka is an astral world within the greater field of consciousness. But within Hinduism, there is no eternal hell or damnation, nor judgment that is central to Christian theology. Rather than hell within Hinduism, reincarnation is a central teaching and may include difficult incarnations due to past actions, but this is quite different from the Christian concept of hell.
Both Hinduism and Christianity use the word ‘soul’, but within Christianity, the belief is that one is a living soul, meaning the soul exists while physically living, but does not exist when not living in physical form. Likewise, the soul is not seen as consciousness, except that it is conscious while living. This view is in striking contrast with Hinduism, as the soul is seen as consciousness, exists beyond the body and continues to exist once the body is shed. It is within Hinduism one finds the most extensive writings and teachings regarding the nature, form and function of the soul, with a variety of terms to clearly discern different qualities or aspects, manifestations if you will, of the soul including terms such as Purusha, Atman and Jiva to name but a few. Within some forms of Hinduism and yoga, the goal is to realize the Self or soul. It is a journey for the ego (ahamkara) to recognize it true essence-soul or Atman. Christianity has no belief in this teaching.
The concept of Karma further illustrates important differences between the theologies of the two religions, as Christianity does not recognize karma, yet within Hinduism karma is a central teaching found within many of the different systems that comprise the broader spectrum of Hinduism. One might argue that the ‘Golden Rule’ of Christianity is similar to karma, but in reality they are quite different; as karma is a universal principle or force throughout the human consciousness. Karma serves to provide opportunities to resolve conflicts from previous actions, to learn lessons and come into greater realization of our true identity.
While Christianity is primarily dualistic with its theology, Hinduism recognizes three primary relationships with Divinity:
1: Advaita (Nondualism)
2. Dualism (separation from Divinity)
3. Advaitdvaita (Qualified Nondualism)
More notably, the founding of the religions is significantly different. While Christianity was founded by an individual or on the teachings of a man, there is no founder of Hinduism. Rather Hinduism is based on the concept of Dharma giving way to the ancient term Sanatana Dharma as a name for modern Hinduism, meaning that modern Hinduism is based on the ancient teachings of Sanatana Dharma or the eternal tradition; and this Dharma is based on an understanding of the unfolding of consciousness from Divinity. While the Christian view of God is largely dualistic, it is also limited to what would be called Saguna Brahman within Hinduism, meaning Divinity with attributes. While Hinduism does recognize saguna Brahman, it also goes further offering the most abstract reality which is Nirguna Brahman or Divinity without attributes.
While we have only scratched the surface of numerous differences in the theology between Hinduism and Christianity, one can clearly see a significant difference in a brief examination of only 4 terms:
- Moksha and salvation
- Dyauh and Heaven
- Atman and soul
- Brahman and God
This does not indicate some sort of superiority of one religion over another; rather it is intended to introduce the reader and student of spirituality to significant differences in terms, beliefs and theology between different religions. This is an important area of study, as the modern trend is to assign one’s own meaning to words, which often limits the actual understanding of the word. While we have only examined Hinduism and Christianity, a similar approach could be applied between Hinduism and the other Abraham based religions. This analysis can offer significant comparisons and contrasts between the world’s major religions, and more importantly provide important insight into the actual meanings of important spiritual and religious terms.
Also See
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article or blog are the personal opinions of the author. The Chakra News is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information on this blog. All information is provided on an as-is basis. The information, facts or opinions appearing on the blog do not reflect the views of The Chakra News and The Chakra News does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.
It follows that, contrary to Hinduism, God cannot be found within the heart of the sinner, because God is not there. Our souls simply are not part of God, nor are sinners in fellowship with Him. No amount of meditation or other form of soul searching can find in the heart of man that which simply is not present there.
Obviously Hinduism has a different view.
Christanity and Islam contraidict themselves when they make the following claims. 1 God is loving. 2. Souls are sent to Eternal damination in Hell (especially those that do not believe in specific claims of a relaigion).
Common sense tells us that both the claims above cannot simultaneously be true. So obviously claim #2 needs to be discarded…but that crashes the whole house-of-cards whose main purpose is to monopolize the worship of God via the claims of one religion only.
It appears to me that Hinduism is a “Superset” and other religions are “Subsets”. A Superset can contain everything yet it can remain unaltered. A subset can’t contain a superset but can remain within that comfortably. This status of Hinduism is largely due to the ” collective ideology ” of several saints – unlike other religions where they have a prophet and his prophesies only.
On salvation:
Al religions acknowledge the doctrine that evil deeds have an effect, or leave an imprint on the individual In Hinduism it is bad karma, in Judaism/Christianity it is sin. To say that in Hinduism one is not born in sin would be inaccurate, for if not, how does one explain suffering? The Hindu answer to this is that suffering is due to evil deeds committed in past lives. Judaism and Christianity also teach that sin, for lack of a better term, does leave an imprint upon a person, which is to be cleansed from him/her. That is where the concept of a Saviour comes in. Sacrifices in the Torah, and Christ, the fulfillment of sacrifices, have that function, to remove sin.
On heaven:
The Hindu as well as the Judaeo-Christian notions of Heaven can be interpreted as being either a literal physical place or as a state of consciousness. For Vaishnavite Hindus, for example, Vaikuntha is the abode of Vishnu, and is also a real place beyond the mundane universe. The Biblical notion of the dwelling-place of God is a spiritual one.
Atman and Soul:
To state that Christianity does not see the spirit as existing independently of the body is, again, inaccurate. First, a distinction is made between the soul and the spirit. The soul in the Bible is Nephesh, a more physical entity, while the spirit, the aspect of man (and animals) related to God is the Ruach. The spirit, or perhaps even the soul, is considered to exist within the body of the father before conception. By father, I mean male ancestor on the paternal side. As examples, see Genesis 25;23, where God speaks of two nations being in the womb of Rebekah. The Hebrew word used for nation, Goy, signifies a multitude. Similarly in Genesis 46, one reads of Leah, Zilpah and Bilhah bearing not just their immediate children but also the children of these children. the same chapter also speaks of these children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren proceeding from Jacob’s loins. Finally, Hebrews 7:10 speaks of Levi being in the loins of Abraham. For more on the subject of pre-existence, here is a link:
http://www.growthingod.org.uk/preexist.htm
As for Christianity not acknowledging karma, nothing could be farther from the truth than this; see Galatians 6:7-8. Along with Romans 3:23, read in the context of Psalm 51:5, one can infer the idea of sin committed before physical birth, or even at the beginning of the creation, for the reverse case is acknowledged, of men chosen by God at the beginning of creation (Ephesians 1:4). To summarise, while neither the Old nor the New Testaments acknowledge reincarnation (at least for human beings), they do acknowledge the idea of sins committed in a pre-existence, possibly a purely spiritual one.
On the last point, that YHWH, the God of the Bible is akin to Saguna Brahman, I agree. But the Bible also teaches that there can be no defining God. exodus 3:14 comes to mind: “I Am What I Am”.
Finally, in response to a previous comment that Christianity teaches eternal damnation: the Bible does not teach it, but it has remained a church doctrine for long. This subject is very complex, and therefore i cannot discuss it here, but I provide a link: http://www.tentmaker.org
You are clearly projecting Christian theology onto Hinduism. Kindly prove where the Vedas says that ‘one is born in sin’. The Purusha Suktam clearly provides a completely different view of soul/Purusha and later as Atman, as opposed to soul in Christian teaching. Nowhere in Bliblical teaching does it make statements that are similiar to the Purusha Suktam. In fact the bible gives no description of soul, in general. Generally Christian teaching is that the soul ceases to exist at death until dead bodies are reanimated with the return of Jesus and subsequent judgement-this is covered in revelations, i believe. This view is embraced by Catholics and Protestant groups as well. Pertaining to Atman/Soul, your cited quotes not only do not prove your point but they make no sense pertaining to your supposed position; your quotes are not a reference to the soul as you preport, but are rather a distortion, likewise you will find no church theological position that alludes to the Christian soul as being similar to the Hindu view of Atman. Likewise, karma is not equated with sin. There is no teaching in the Vedas that equates the Atman with sin, in fact even basic texts such as the Yoga Sutras of Patanajil state that the soul is untouched by the activities of this world. Negating your allegation of sin and soul within Hinduism. Incarnation is more for the ego than the soul, as the soul is a witness to but untouched by all action in life. Christianity has NO such view. Lastly your final quote offers no proof that Christianity had some type of a nirguna Brahman. Likewise you are incorrect that heaven is viewed as a state of consciousness, as many priests have been excommunicated for suggesting such an idea. Christian church doctrine is NOT based on heaven being a state of consciousness, rather ‘new-age’ Christianity has embraced this dea, and the new-age movement took the concept from Hinduism to deal with the Christian theology that was irrational to them. Finally salvation from a Christian vie is not just removal of sin, but is foregiveness of sin. According to Christian dogma, there can be no forgiveness without Jesus, obviously Hinduism does not have any view such as this. And as a Hindu I can say that ‘one is it borne in sin’. But I appreciate your post, as it does seem to illustrate my point.
Note my final line should read, as a Hindu i can say ‘one is NOT born of sin’. Regrettably typing on a tablet is problematic for me at times. My apology to readers for a few typos.
“Generally Christian teaching is that souls cease to exist at death.”
Erm, no. The soul, Hebrew Nephesh, may be destroyed (not necessarily), but the Spirit, the Ruach or the Neshamah remains after death. See Ecclesiastes 12:7. It is true that the Bible does not give a description of what the soul is. But I think the Talmud does. You mentioned the Book of revelation. here’s a quote directly from it:
“And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:” (Revelation 6:9)
On my quotes being distortions, I believe you’re referring to my quotes from Genesis 25 and 46, and also Hebrews 7:11. Actually, the text of Genesis 46 does speak of souls. See verses 15, 18, 22 and 25. The Hebrew word here is Nephesh.
On karma, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t there both good and bad karma? On nirguna Brahman, I think I made my position clear in my first comment itself: the God of the Bible is akin to saguna Brahman. But the Biblical and Qur’anic positions are that ultimately there’s no defining God. As for Heaven, you yourself have written about Dyauh being a world. It can be Biblically interpreted as being a state of consciousness. Luke 17:21–”Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.”
As for sin, I’m not claiming that Hinduism teaches that a person is born in sin. However, there is the doctrine that a person is born with both beneficial and bad karma. I never said anything on whether the soul itself is tainted with sin according to Hindu doctrines. But I’ve heard of this verse beginning with “Papoham Papakarmaham Papatma Papasambhavah…” I think this verse contradicts your view.
Possibly you need to study Christian teachings more from the churches theological position. There is no major theological teachings in Christianity that share your views, as you have not been able to list them. As your views are not supported by Catholism or any major Protestant religion. Likewise I addressed ‘papa’ within my article. You are incorrect that karma is bad, as good and bad karma is a rather elementary way of viewing karma. Karma is a wonderful gift to humanity allowing each person to learn and grow through realization and understanding. Yes, your quote from Luke is popular amongst new age teachings, but the point of the article was recognized theology of the church. Instead of arguing these points with one that is not Christian, possibly you would be better served to speak with the leaders of the Church. As you have presented no actual doctrine from a recognized church that supports your view. And the church does recognize your views, or at least no major church. You appear to like to argue for the sake of argument. As you appear to want make points such as there is no defining God, yet you admit that the Christian god is more akin to sagina Brahman, which my article states, yet you insist that there is no defining god, yet saguna Brahman in itself is a clear definition, other definitions given in you Bible of God, is ‘a jealous god’, ‘a wrathfull God’, ‘a vengeful god’, ‘a loving god’, certaininly these are all qualities that are used to define the Biblical god. Apparently you do not consider these any type of definition. Which is somewhat illogical in my opinion. Your quote from revelation is absurb as you present it within the same paragraph as some sort of explaination of the soul. Though I realize that was not your intention, you just wanted put a quote in. If you don’t like the article, that is fine. But your presentation of the ‘facts’ is misleading to readers, as the article was not about your personal theology, rather recognized church positions. Ironically you kept referring to the Hebrew position but fail to recognize that the Hebrew position is not necessarily the Christian position. For example, The Hebrew word for hell was a place outside to town where trash was burned, hades brings in the Greek concept of the afterlife and Christianity merged the two into a place of eternal damnation. The list of differences is quite extensive the tween the two groups. Best wishes to you.
Again my apology to the readers for a few spelling errors, as I am away from a computer and have difficulty typing with one finger on a tablet, and very limited time to respond.
Dear readers, the verse quoted in the earlier comment is from the manusmriti and is a reference to the ego, note the first word papoham which is clearly a reference to ahamkara or ego. As AtmA in this usage is about the suffering of the ego, not the suffering or ‘sin’ of the soul. This view and usage of AtmA is also supported in the Bhagavad Gita on ocassion. So depending on the text AtmA may not always be a reference to the soul, there are numerous poor translations that translate it as soul with no explication that it is referring to the ego. It is important to note that Sanskrit words have different meanings in different texts sometimes, and may have different meanings within the same text on ocassion.
Dear readers, the verse quoted in the earlier comment is from the manusmriti and is a reference to the ego, note the first word papoham which is clearly a reference to ahamkara or ego. As AtmA in this usage is about the suffering of the ego, not the suffering or ‘sin’ of the soul. This view and usage of AtmA is also supported in the Bhagavad Gita on occasion. So depending on the text AtmA may not always be a reference to the soul, there are numerous poor translations that translate it as soul with no explication that it is referring to the ego. It is important to note that Sanskrit words have different meanings in different texts sometimes, and may have different meanings within the same text on occasion. Best wishes to all.
I see that your focus is on the theological doctrines of major churches. But then, using the term “Christianity” is misleading. Christianity (Or for that matter, Judaism or Islam) is much bigger than just its major denominations. There are many different interpretations of every religion. If you are dealing with the doctrines of particular denominations, then you must specify it. Not to do so would be misleading. Christianity stems from the Bible, and there are many different interpretations of it, some more holistic, some not so.
“You appear to like to argue for the sake of argument.”
No. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they love to argue. Please do not jump to conclusions.
As for my point that even according to Christianity and Islam, there is no defining God, it is just like how the Bhagavad-gita speaks of the soul as ‘Avyaktah’ and ‘Achintyah’ in 2:25, yet goes on to describe it. Terms like “El Rachum Wa-Chanun” (God the Merciful and Gracious) or “Ar-Rahman, Ar-Rahim” (All-Merciful, Ever-Merciful) although describing YHWH/Allah, cannot comprehend the entirety of the Divine. God cannot be fully comprehended, or fully described by human language. That is my point.
“Your quote from revelation is absurb (sic)”
That was in response to your allegation that Christianity holds that the soul doesn’t exist after death. No, I did not just want to put a quote in. What is absurd is you jumping to conclusions (yet again) on my intentions. The quote from Revelation shows that the soul exists after death, according to the Bible. But that is not what you want, you are only interested in what the major churches hold, and then you assert that this is Christianity. Well, since you wanted to see church doctrines, here goes:
“The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God – it is not “produced” by the parents – and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.”
(Source:http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p6.htm)
The similarities and differences between Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Bible is beyond the scope of this forum. You again mentioned eternal damnation. There is a great deal of difference between Gehenna, Hades and damnation (which is not eternal; see http://www.tentmaker.org)
As to what exactly these terms mean, please see the same link. While you seem to be content with what doctrines the major churches hold, there might be those who want to know what the text actually teaches. The above link is for such unbiased people.
In your last comment, you made a point regarding translation. You see, many doctrines were made not on the basis of the original Hebrew or Greek, but on the strength of translations. You addressed the issue by going to the nuances of the language. I hope you open your mind to the fact that this is exactly what people who differ doctrinally from major churches do. One must go back to the text. That is all I have been doing.
Pertaining to the catechism, lets exams where those immortal souls go…
Paragraph 1. Christ Descended into Hell
632 The frequent New Testament affirmations that Jesus was “raised from the dead” presuppose that the crucified one sojourned in the realm of the dead prior to his resurrection.478 This was the first meaning given in the apostolic preaching to Christ’s descent into hell: that Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there.479
633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” – Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek – because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God.480 Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”:481 “It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.”482 Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.483
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a5p1.htm
There are other Catholic views that they go to limbo, other teachings is that they cease to exist within many Protestant teachings. Which were mentioned in the article. But you can clearly see that official doctrine is that all souls ‘go to hell’ which is the ‘hell of damnation’.
Best Wishes.
Let us examine what the major Christian views on hell, resurrection of the soul etc.
“Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. …
We will be with the Lord forever.”
–1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
Obviously fallen asleep is a reference for death.
.
Catholic Christians also believe in purgatory, a temporary place of punishment for Christians who have died with unconfessed sins.
For more specific Christian views about the afterlife, following are doctrinal statements from several different Christian denominations and organizations on the afterlife. Click on the linked title for the source of the quote.
Assemblies of God:
The resurrection of those who have fallen asleep in Christ and . Whosoever is not found written in the Book of Life, together with the devil and his angels, the beast and the false prophet, will be consigned to the everlasting punishment in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.
Christianity Today Magazine:
At the end of the age, the bodies of the dead shall be raised. The righteous shall enter into full possession of eternal bliss in the presence of God, and the wicked shall be condemned to eternal death.
Evangelical Free Church of America:
We believe in the bodily resurrection of the dead; of the believer to everlasting blessedness and joy with the Lord; of the unbeliever to judgment and everlasting conscious punishment.
Friends United Meeting (Quaker):
We believe, according to the Scriptures, that there shall be a resurrection from the dead, both of the just and of the unjust, (Acts 24:15) and that God hath appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness, by Jesus Christ whom He hath ordained. (Acts 17:31) For, as saith the apostle, “We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.” (2 Cor 5:10).
… We believe that the punishment of the wicked
Lutheran Church (Augsburg Confession, 1530):
Also they [Lutheran churches] teach that at the Consummation of the World Christ will appear for judgment, and will raise up all the dead; He will give to the godly and elect eternal life and everlasting joys, but ungodly men and the devils He will condemn to be tormented without end.
Mennonite Church in the USA:
We believe that, just as God raised Jesus from the dead, we also will be raised from the dead.
Presbyterian Church in the USA:
If there is a Presbyterian narrative about life after death, this is it: When you die, your soul goes to be with God, where it enjoys God’s glory and waits for the final judgment. At the final judgment bodies are reunited with souls, and eternal rewards and punishments are handed out.
Southern Baptist Convention:
God, in His own time and in His own way, will bring the world to its appropriate end. According to His promise, Jesus Christ will return personally and visibly in glory to the earth; the dead will be raised; and Christ will judge all men in righteousness. The unrighteous will be consigned to Hell, the place of everlasting punishment. The righteous in their resurrected and glorified bodies will receive their reward and will dwell forever in Heaven with the Lord.
I have edited to save space but the full text can be read at http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/afterlife.htm
Therefore each reader is free to decide for themselves. Best Wishes to all. I hope to have a new article submitted in a few months. Regrettably time does not allow me to continue with ths thread. Wishing all Hindu’s a joyous solstice.
The idea that the Universal, perfect God of all (as proclaimed by Chrstianity) sits in final and eternal judgment of his own created souls/humans is absurd….. For a perfect God to proclain that some of his own created entities (i.e. Humans) are unfit (i.e. imperfect) to be with him and be removed from his presence for eternity, points to this God’s own imperfection. How can a perfect entity create such imperfect beings that he must remove them from his presence for a eternity ? This is the reason I consider some of the fundamental Christian and Islamic claims to be bogus. In Hinduism, the perfect God takes responsiblty for all that he creates..including all the good, the bad and the ugly that exists in the world…..he even hints at that in the Bhagavat Gita..”I exist in the sin of the sinner”. Hindu God does not shy away from what he has created..he does not banish his own created souls for eternity…sooner or later all created souls will return to his loving embrace..when his divine play ends…only perhaps to start once again ..
In other words, even according to mainline Christian denominations, the soul remains after death, and therefore the author’s claim that according to Christian teaching the soul ceases to exist is plainly wrong.
“Official doctrine is that all souls ‘go to hell’ which is the ‘hell of damnation’.”
No. There is a difference between Shell/Hades and Gehenna. The problem arose from the fact that both terms were translated as ‘hell’. As the author himself noted in a comment, translation when not accurate can cause confusion. To understand the difference between the two, I suggest that readers, as well as the author, visit the link I provided.
Correction: There is a difference between SHEOL/Hades and Gehenna. The typo is regretted.
There is no typo as this is from the Vatican, the same source you referenced. Likewise, I stand by my point that regarding the soul ceasing to exist, as one can clearly see that the majority of Christian views listed ‘that the soul is asleep’ while not covered in this page the general view amongst scholars is that it does not exist during this time, though in the Catholic view using your own source states the soul goes to hell, the place for damnation. Likewise i have personaly had Biblical scholars state this position to me that the soul ceases to exist. Your own quote in one of your posts was that that ‘the soul may be destroyed (not necesarrily)’, and in an earlier post you state that the soul is more akin to the physical body, yet you argue now that the soul is immortal. You use soul when you mean something else and create further contradiction in terms.
One cannot debate the churches own theology, as it is their theology and their position, of course members within the church can debate their position and lobby for changes. likewise, You are welcome to your own theology, but as I stated earlier this paper was not written regarding your theology, but was focused on mainstream theology accepted by the overwhelming majority of Christian sects. Possibly if you feel you have the answers to it all and that the mainstream church is ‘missing the point’ you would be served enlightening them as to their errors. You profess there is no hell or damnation, yet clearly from my link provided it is obvious that NO major Christian group shares your view, and everyone reading this is free to read their position which is not in harmony with your claim. In fact it is the opposite, as the overwhelming majority of Christian churches not only have as their doctrine the soul ceases (asleep) to exist until judgement day but also that hell and damnation are a central theme to their theology. With the exception of official Catholic doctrine which the soul goes to hell, a place of damnation. But there are other Catholic writings that would support my position as well. Thank you, it has taken some time, but we have confirmed my position as far as ‘the churches’ position pertaining to mainstream church teachings, though it may not be your position, but again the paper was not written regarding your position. Best wishes to you.
The typo was by ME, when I misspelled SHEOL as SHELL, in case you haven’t noticed. I never said anything about the Vatican. (Creating straw men, are we?)
On the soul ceasing to exist, I see you haven’t withdrawn your erroneous statement. You first speak of mainline church doctrines, but even in representing them, you err, then when I show you that even according to catholic doctrine the soul is immortal, you do not correct yourself. You now conflate the doctrine of soul sleep with the non-existence of the soul.
However, as your own citations have shown, the majority of Christian sects do not speak of this as the non-existence of the soul. Please check the Presbyterian doctrine which you yourself had posted. Then you speak of scholars who hold that the soul ceases to exist. That is irrelevant, since you’re dealing with the majority of church doctrines. By the same standards I might appeal to the scholars I have cited. (Double standards too, eh?) The dead Lazarus in the parable is in Abraham’s bosom, conscious and alert. The witch of Endor summons the spirit of Samuel. Jesus himself shows to His apostles the dead Moses and Elijah. Hardly non-existence. Ooh, I forgot, you aren’t really interested in what the Bible teaches, you’re only interested in major church doctrines, which you then generalize into “Christianity”, a false idea. And when I show that major churches don’t say what you claim you then speak of scholars who hold your views.)
Anyway, let’s see what the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia has to say on Sheol:
(1) Not a State of Unconsciousness.
Yet it would be a mistake to infer, because of these strong and sometimes poetically heightened contrasts to the world of the living, that Sheol was conceived of as absolutely a place without consciousness, or some dim remembrance of the world above. This is not the case. Necromancy rested on the idea that there was some communication between the world above and the world below (Deuteronomy 18:11); a Samuel could be summoned from the dead (1 Samuel 28:11-15); Sheol from beneath was stirred at the descent of the king of Babylon (Isaiah 14:9). The state is rather that of slumbrous semi-consciousness and enfeebled existence from which in a partial way the spirit might temporarily be aroused. Such conceptions, it need hardly be said, did not rest on revelation, but were rather the natural ideas formed of the future state, in contrast with life in the body, in the absence of revelation.
(2) Not Removed from God’s Jurisdiction.
It would be yet more erroneous to speak with Dr. Charles (Eschatology, 35;) of Sheol as a region “quite independent of Yahwe, and outside the sphere of His rule.” “Sheol is naked before God,” says Job, “and Abaddon hath no covering” (Job 26:6). “If I make my bed in Sheol,” says the Psalmist, “behold thou art there” (Psalm 139:8). The wrath of Yahweh burns unto the lowest Sheol (Deuteronomy 32:22). As a rule there is little sense of moral distinctions in the Old Testament representations of Sheol, yet possibly these are not altogether wanting (on the above and others points in theology of Sheol).
See ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
(3) Relation to Immortality.
To apprehend fully the Old Testament conception of Sheol one must view it in its relation to the idea of death as something unnatural and abnormal for man; a result of sin. The believer’s hope for the future, so far as this had place, was not prolonged existence in Sheol, but deliverance from it and restoration to new life in God’s presence (Job 14:13-15; Job 19:25-27 Psalm 16:10, 11; Psalm 17:15; Psalm 49:15; Psalm 73:24-26; see IMMORTALITY; ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT; RESURRECTION). Dr. Charles probably goes too far in thinking of Sheol in Psalms 49 and 73 as “the future abode of the wicked only; heaven as that of the righteous” (op. cit., 74); but different destinies are clearly indicated.
As for my statements about the soul, I have already written of the difference between the Nephesh and the Ruach. However, in common parlance the word ‘soul’ is used for both. It is a limitation of the language itself. You’re right, I should have used “Spirit’ instead. Anyway, here’s the ISBEon the difference between the Soul and the Spirit:
3. Oehler on Soul and Spirit:
The distinction between psuche and pneuma, or nephesh and ruach, to which reference has been made, may best be described in the words of Oehler (Old Testament Theology, I, 217): “Man is not spirit, but has it: he is soul….. In the soul, which sprang from the spirit, and exists continually through it, lies the individuality-in the case of man, his personality, his self, his ego.” He draws attention to the words of Elihu in Job (33:4): `God’s spirit made me,’ the soul called into being; `and the breath of the Almighty animates me,’ the soul kept in energy and strength, in continued existence, by the Almighty, into whose hands the inbreathed spirit is surrendered, when the soul departs or is taken from us (1 Kings 19:4). Hence, according to Oehler the phrases naphshi (“my soul”), naphshekha (“thy soul”) may be rendered in Latin egomet, tu ipse; but not ruchi (“my spirit”), ruchakha (“thy spirit”)-soul standing for the whole person, as in Genesis 12:5; Genesis 17:14 Ezekiel 18:4, etc.
By conflating Sheol with the hell of damnation, you’re again demonstrating your ignorance. Sheol is the abode of all the dead, while the hell of damnation is Gehenna. Also, I never said that there is no damnation, just that this state is not eternal. You are misquoting me. Also, this is not about my personal theology, I am endeavoring to show that there are other interpretations held on to by other Christians. You are right in saying that the views I have represented here are not accepted by the majority of Christian sects. But again, a majority do not believe that the soul ceases to exist. That you haven’t corrected yourself shows your clear bias. If you’re representing major sects, then you must specify it. You cannot use the term ‘Christianity’ for that.
To summarize, you write errors, then try to justify them by saying that this is what most hold, and when shown that most don’t hold your view, you represent some scholars and also confuse soul sleep with non-existence, something I have just refuted, and on top of all of it, you make assumptions about my intentions, misquote me, apply double standards and make straw man arguments.
Kindly remove the word ‘Christianity’ and replace it with something like ‘mainstream Christian theology’ and correct your words about the non-existence of the soul.
I stand by my position, i feel i have illustrated my position, the reader can decide. As you may note from article, immortality and the reanimation of the body was not even addressed or mentioned. As far as my ignorance is concerned, again the reader can decide. but i do find it arrogant to tell any author what the title of an article should be. But i appreciate your acknowledgement that it is mainstream Christianity that i wrote about in your article title suggestion. Again this proves my point. Best wishes.
“but i do find it arrogant to tell any author what the title of an article should be. ”
Forgive me if I appeared so to you, but it is not arrogant to point out error and misrepresentation. I can only lay out the facts before you, I cannot make you accept them. To everyone his own biases. Even so, best wishes to you too.
In response to the first comment on this article:
“It follows that, contrary to Hinduism, God cannot be found within the heart of the sinner, because God is not there.”
No. The Biblical God is He Who “Fills the Heavens and the Earth” (Jeremiah 23:24). And as Jesus said, “The Kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21)
“…nor are sinners in fellowship with Him.”
According to Christianity, all people are sinners. If by “sinner” the commenter means people who deliberately rebel against God, then obviously no. “Fellowship” by definition is ” friendly association, especially with people who share one’s interests”, according to the Oxford Dictionary. It can only be a mutual thing.
“No amount of meditation or other form of soul searching can find in the heart of man that which simply is not present there.”
No. To quote Isaiah 57:15, “For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.”
The only thing required by God is a contrite spirit, a spirit that sincerely repents.
When all is said and done, Chritianity (and its sibling Islam) are unable to explain how a perfect and loving God can send millions and millions of its own creation to eternal seperation from him. Can a God really be perfect if he creates such “imperfect” beings that they require eternal seperation from him ? God Krishna in contrast takes full responsibility for all he has created, he guarantees all souls will return to his embrace sooner or later..
What is Shunyata of Buddhism? Can it be reconciled with “Satchitananda” of Vedanta? Shunyata is not nihilism but it signifies that everything one encounters in life is empty of soul, permanence, and self-nature. Everything is inter-related, never self-sufficient or independent. The exact definition and extent of Shunyata varies within the different Buddhist schools of philosophy. The Heart Sutra declares that the skandhas, which constitute our mental and physical existence, are empty in their nature or essence, i.e., empty of any such nature or essence.
No, YHWH does not send millions of His creations to to damnation forever. The Hebrew word ‘Olam and the Greek Aion literally mean “age”, and. “Forever” is ??? ??? ????? (Eis Ton Aiona) in Greek. It literally means “for the age”. “Eternal” is ??????? (Aionion) which literally means age-long or age-enduring. The new Testament says that God is the saviour of all men:
For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. (1 Timothy 4:10)
For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things to himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. (Colossians 1:19-20)
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.(1 Timothy 2:3-4)
And as YHWH says to Isaiah,
“I will do all my pleasure/desire.” (Isaiah 46:10).
For more, please refer the “Tentmaker” website Which I have cited twice.
Nahar, To be frank, I really dont care what YHWH may or may not have said in reality. I care what Islam and Christianity as a whole have done and practiced for thousands of years and continue to do so. I would suggest if you think the vast majority of Christian sects have got it wrong in their belief that eternal seperation exists..then perhaps you should be preaching to your fellow Christians to fix their theology.
One thing good about the Dharmic traditions such as Hinduism and Sikhism, is that they have provided a alternate model of divinity that speaks the greater truth that a loving God will express his divine energy in infinite ways across cultures and faiths, and ultimately embrace and bring all his creation (irrespective of their religious beliefs) to himself. A greater truth that a loving God will not condemn his own creation for eternal domination specially for worshiping him in diverse ways. In a global connected world, the God monopolizing faiths such as Islam and Christianity cannot withstand this fundamental challenge by the alternate model of the Dharmic traditions and also by a modern public that can question the irrationality of exclusivism . Sites such as “Tentmaker” and Christian Universalism/new age groups exist now because of this alternate model. Offcourse some sites such as “Tentmaker” are not about to loose their ancient mental-conditioning in a hurry..they will still keep doing this tap dance about hell not existing, and still keep this nonsensical harping about need to convert people to worship there alpha God Jesus only..and other such nonsense. Such Tap dancing sometimes exists to in the Catholic Church..as depending upon who is speaking and calling the shots ..the doctrine changes from day to day regarding hell for non-Christians. All in all such tap dancing is good. Atleast Hinduism is leading to introspection of unsustainable claims by Abhramic world of God monopolization.
So basically you have a problem with Christianity because of what its practitioners have done. That is a flawed approach. It’s like someone having a problem with Hinduism because it’s practitioners oppressed people on the basis of caste and in some cases do so even today. That’s also a flawed approach. As for educating fellow.Christians, that is exactly what the people at Tentmaker and other Universalists are doing. You seem to think Christian Universalism is a result of exposure to Hinduism. Well, if you go through Tentmaker, you will see examples of early Christians who espoused this doctrine. Hardly new age, and definitely not copied from Hinduism or her daughters.
As for exclusivity, it is not irrational. Even a preliminary study of the world’s religions will show that they have different doctrines and that they can’t all be true. In fact, it is more rational to believe that none of them might be true.
As for debates on doctrine, that is not “tap-dancing”. Such a thing happens in all religions. But universalism isn’t inspired by Hinduism. The Abrahamic religions have enough beauty and meaning within them; they don’t need tomorrow from the Dharmic traditions.
Correction: They don’t need to BORROW from the Dharmic traditions.
>>Nahar Varma: So basically you have a problem with Christianity because of what its practitioners have done. That is a flawed approach <> It’s like someone having a problem with Hinduism because it’s practitioners oppressed people on the basis of caste and in some cases do so even today. << Yes all right thinking people should oppose wrong behavior. Caste based discrimination among some Hindus should definitely be opposed and challenged by all right-thinking people…irrespective of it representing true Hinduism or not. Similarly the nonsensical, ignorant ideas of monopolizing the Universal God of all creation, that have propagated down from the two Abhramic faiths should be opposed by all right thinking people irrespective of it representing true Christianity/Islam or not. History has shown that the the Abhramic (more specifically) Christian/Islamic idea of monopolizing God and demonizing the diverse spiritual bases of fellow humans is one of the most harmful ideas invented by humans and it needs to be opposed by all right thinking people.
>>Nahar Varma: So basically you have a problem with Christianity because of what its practitioners have done. That is a flawed approach It’s like someone having a problem with Hinduism because it’s practitioners oppressed people on the basis of caste and in some cases do so even today. << Yes all right thinking people should oppose wrong behavior. Caste based discrimination among some Hindus should definitely be opposed and challenged by all right-thinking people…irrespective of it representing true Hinduism or not. Similarly the nonsensical, ignorant ideas of monopolizing the Universal God of all creation, that have propagated down from the two Abhramic faiths should be opposed by all right thinking people irrespective of it representing true Christianity/Islam or not. History has shown that the the Abhramic (more specifically) Christian/Islamic idea of monopolizing God and demonizing the diverse spiritual bases of fellow humans is one of the most harmful ideas invented by humans and it needs to be opposed by all right thinking people.
>> You seem to think Christian Universalism is a result of exposure to Hinduism. Well, if you go through Tentmaker, you will see examples of early Christians who espoused this doctrine. Hardly new age, and definitely not copied from Hinduism or her daughters. << The fact of the matter is that in every age and every culture there will always be be a few individuals who are smart enough to break through the mental conditioning of their religion and question its claims. So its quite likely some within Christianity and Islam have come to the greater truth that the Universal divine source cannot be discriminate against people based on religious beliefs when God himself is responsible for such diverse experiences to humans that it leads to religious diversity. However just because a few individuals have been Universalist does not mean mainstream Christianity or Islam had significant sects that practiced Universality from ancient times. Most evidence suggests otherwise….they do very poorly in this regard to Dharmic traditions in this aspect. I have personnaly met many Christians and ex-Christians who have told me that Hinduism, Buddhism etc have led them to question the fundamantal claims of there faith. There is now multiple centuries of contact between Asia and the Christian West..if you want to live in the make believe world that Xian denominations have not been influenced at all by Dharmic traditions in this regard ..then so be it. Be happy in whatever you want to believe.
>> As for exclusivity, it is not irrational. Even a preliminary study of the world’s religions will show that they have different doctrines and that they can’t all be true. In fact, it is more rational to believe that none of them might be true. << More important question to ask is, does your docterine has to be true to ultimatly come to a truly loving God ? Consider a group of ants zig-zagging on a log of wood based on where they think God exists in that log. The log spins around and floats down on a river. The river itself flows speedily into the vast Ocean. You see each Ant did arrive to the loving divine source i.e. vast Ocean (irrespective of the little docterine they were holding so dearly in their heads), dint they ? That iniutivly is the Hindu view..we dont typicaly spend hours debating what each other believes….this rabid fixation on belief instead of spiritual practice is another trait that seperates the two relgious famillies (The Dharmic and the Abhramic)
>> >> As for exclusivity, it is not irrational. Even a preliminary study of the world’s religions will show that they have different doctrines and that they can’t all be true. In fact, it is more rational to believe that none of them might be true. << Yes docterines of all faiths cannot not all be true as they are different…but the spritual practices of all faiths can definetly be true. Can they not ? The transformative impact of spiritual practices such as prayer, charitable work, devotion, contemplation is simillar on a human irrespecting of religion. Which means the spiritual nature of the Universal does not discriminate in terms of how it transforms a human based on his spiritual practices irrespective of religion. Most Hindus know this intiutivly….
My point is that there were early Christians who were Universalists based on the New Testament itself. They did not do so based on Dharmic traditions. As far as debates go, the ordinary Jew, Christian or Muslim isn’t so much into debates himself. Debates on theological viewpoints are usually held between scholars. Also, the scholars and philospohers of the Dharmic traditions involved themselves in debate too. Shankaracharya, Madhvacharya and Ramanujacharya spent their lifetimes involved in writing philosophical treatises and debates. Your ant analogy is apt. According to the New Testament, everyone ultimately comes to God irrespective of what they believed in their human life. So ultimately doctrine doesn’t matter, one may say. But that doesn’t mean any doctrine can save you. In Christianity, only Jesus can save. No person’s works can save him from his sins. So all have to suffer the consequences of their sins. Those who have surrendered to Christ will not be hurt of the Lake of Fire, but those who haven’t will have their works burned up in it. But in the end God will have all men reconciled unto Him, and all shall be saved from their sins.
>>Nahar Varma Those who have surrendered to Christ will not be hurt of the Lake of Fire, but those who haven’t will have their works burned up in it << lol. There is no evidence whatsoever about spiritual processes being different for people of different religions in this life time. I have met enough people of many faiths and cultures to know so. There is no evidence at all to show that Jesus believers and non-Jesus believers are subjected to different spiritual and physical phenomina in this life time. So why should the processed be different after this life time ? To cling to this ancient belief that God will suddenly apply discriminatory criteria based on belief/non-belief in the after life when he does not care to do this in the current life is ancient ignorant, nonsense invented by men who believed among things that the world was created in 6-days and it was flat and such other gobly-gock. Now every religion has some ancient gobly-gock beliefs..so I would in general not have used such words. However since Christian groups such as this Tentmaker jokers use such ancient bunkum beliefs as a execuse to aggresivly impose their religious world views ..interfere in different cultures and famillies etc..all right people should challenge these God monoplists like these Tentmaker guys. These Tentmaker guys want to have it both ways..they want to unsurp the moral authority to aggressivly push their bunkum beliefs on others at the same time trying to avoid the heat by claiming they are not exclusivists.
1. >>Nahar Varma Those who have surrendered to Christ will not be hurt of the Lake of Fire, but those who haven’t will have their works burned up in it << lol. There is no evidence whatsoever about spiritual processes being different for people of different religions in this life time. I have met enough people of many faiths and cultures to know so. There is no evidence at all to show that Jesus believers and non-Jesus believers are subjected to different spiritual and physical phenomena and laws in this life time. So why should the spiritual processes and laws be different after this life time ? To cling to this ancient belief that God will suddenly apply discriminatory criteria based on belief/non-belief in Jesus in the after life when he clearly does not care to do this in the current life is ancient ignorant, nonsense invented by men who believed among things that the world was created in 6-days and it was flat and such other gobly-gock. Now every religion has some ancient gobly-gock beliefs..so I would in general not have cared and used such words. However since Christian groups such as these Tentmaker group use such ancient bunkum beliefs as a excuse to aggressively impose their religious world views ..interfere in different cultures and families etc..all right thinking people should challenge these God monopolists like these Tentmaker guys. These Tentmaker guys want to have it both ways..they want to unsurp the moral authority to aggressively push their bunkum beliefs on others at the same time trying to avoid the heat by claiming they are not exclusivists.
Sorry for the double post. The 2nd post is the cleaner and edited post. Ignore the first one.
Let me make myself clear. In Christianity, no spiritual deeds can save you. All men do good. But all men do evil too. Therefore no man can be righteous on his own before God. Only God can save man from his sins. According to Christianity, He did so in the sacrificial death on the cross and the subsequent resurrection. The gift of salvation from sins is extended to all men. But those who don’t surrender their sins in Christ will have to be purified in the Lake of Fire. Now those who have surrendered to Christ will not be hurt by the fire, but those who haven’t will have their works burnt up by it.
To give an analogy, let’s assume a king visits a home for juvenile delinquents. The inmates are constantly fighting, and therefore, they have torn clothes. He tells the inmates that he loves them and that he has prepared a gated community for them all to live happily ever after. He lays down only one condition; that they all be nice to each other from that moment on. No more torn clothes. However, he does not want to take everyone by force into the gated community. He wants all those who are interested to give an application form. That is also necessary. There are some who agree to obey him, and immediately apply (Category 1). Then there are some who apply, but are insincere (Category 2). There are those who do not apply because they think the rich man is no king but a fraud or a madman, but still don’t fight much and have only a few tears on their clothes (Category 3). Finally, there are those who don’t believe the king, and continue to fight (Category 4). This arrangement goes on for a long time, until one fine day the home closes down. That day the king appears. those of Category 1 were taken immediately. Category 2 were not even considered. Similarly Category 4. As for Category 3 they would have to stand in the cold for a second. Category 1 also had to do that, but their form had purchased them a coat. The other two categories also had to do the same thing. Ultimately, however, they were all genuinely sorry for all the fights they had gotten into, and the king led them all into his gated community.
Now all the inmates were treated more or less the same in the institution. But when the king came, the application form made a great deal of a difference. That is how surrendering to Christ matters.
Correction: As for Category 3 they would have to stand in the cold for some time, every second for every fight they had had with their fellow inmates.
Now as for things like the world created in six days or the flat earth, I would love to discuss these things with you, but they take up much space and time. Anyway, here’s the deal on the six-day creation: Yes, the world was created in six Days according to the Bible. But what is the measure of these Days? A Day in Genesis 1 is described as “and there was evening, and there was morning, day X”. Now there have been Jewish scholars even in ancient times who said that these were divine days and not human 24-hour days. One reason is Psalm 90, authored by Moses, just like Genesis. In verse 4, he says that a thousand years are like a day or like a watch in the night to God. (It doesn’t mean that one divine Day= 1 thousand years, just like descriptions of the Israelites being like the sand on the seashore (Genesis 32:12) don’t mean they were of the same number. The idea, rather is that time is seen by God at an entirely different level.) Another reason is that these Days were not days of the sun. They were rather in the measure of a light-source God created in the beginning. The Hebrew words for morning and evening literally mean “breaking forth” and “mingling”. That is, they were manifestations of that same first source of light. Now these Days could have stretched for millions or billions of years. So we don’t have a problem here.
As for claims of the earth being flat, there is no verse of the Bible which says so. But many make such an erroneous interpretation because they misunderstand the original Hebrew and Greek. There are many verses that speak of the ends of the earth, or the corners of the earth, for instance. However, to the Hebrew mind, the word Erets (earth) was to be applied to that portion of the dry land that stood over the sea. See Genesis 1:10; God called the DRY LAND ‘earth’. The ends of the earth, therefore, are merely the seashores. Then you have, in the New Testament, Jesus being shown all the kingdoms of the world. However, as many commentators have pointed out, this was really a vision. Therefore the Bible doesn’t really speak of a flat earth either.
You claim: “Now every religion has some ancient gobly-gock beliefs..” But if so, then every religion should be rejected. If they have such beliefs, then they are not from God. Even so, if you have any more such ideas on the so-called ‘bunkum’ beliefs of the Bible, then let us examine them and have an open discussion, I’m only delighted to discuss such things. One last thing, though: what do you mean by “God monopolizing”? I would want to know that and hopefully address that too.
>>Nahar Varma: You claim: “Now every religion has some ancient gobly-gock beliefs..” But if so, then every religion should be rejected. If they have such beliefs, then they are not from God. << That’s incorrect thinking on your part. Why do you automatically assume false beliefs have no value ? You yourself are a good example of false beliefs (from Bible), but presumably these delusionary Christian beliefs still sustains and meets your spiritual needs at this point in time (perhaps not in the future though). Similarly the many false beliefs of various religions and cultures has sustained the spiritual needs of humanity throughout history. There is lots of evidence that the transcendental divine source of all creation has created the universe in such a way that these beliefs , myths, stories and facts and fiction mixed together have helped the spiritual transformation of people across cultures and time from the dawn of human evolution. Gandhi once said that the existence or not of a historical Sri Ram was not important to him, since the “story” Sri Ram was a spiritual reality to him… There is overwhelming evidence that that’s the way the all powerful divine operates…he cannot be boxed by the claims you religion's book alone. The reason that some of Christian beliefs are being challenged here are not really that they are false, they are being questioned here since they have proven harmful to humanity and hence should be opposed.
In summary, the point of the above post, is that yes even false beliefs are from God..all creation is from God..including, so called false beliefs. How else could it be otherwise ? Can anything not be from God ? These “false beliefs” have the power to transform humans spiritualy. Thats just the way God operates irrespective of claims made by ancient books of God monoplozing faiths (i.e. mostly Abrahamic faiths) that seek to deny the natural God given diversity in human spirituality….evidence is there for all to see….
>>Nahar Varma: One last thing, though: what do you mean by “God monopolizing”? I would want to know that and hopefully address that too. << Good question. Though the two sibling faiths (Christianity and Islam) are quite macho about ignorantly claming "Monotheism" as some kind of huge advancement of mankind Abharmic faiths have made..(which they dint actualy)…the defining characteristics of Islam and Xianity is not "God monotheism", it is actualy "God Monopolism" . There is overwhelming evidence that God wants diversity in all phenomina on earth. You can see diversity in everything if you open your eyes..in our tastes, in our music, in our spiritual practices and leanings, in our plant and animal life , in our world views etc etc When a religion seeks to explicitly deny this God given diversity in religious practices found across the world and seeks to invalidate the spiritual and religious practices of all religions except its own..that religion becomes a God monopolizing religion…Obviously that religion is a false religion in this aspect.
God can only be the God of Truth. He cannot create false beliefs. Falsehood comes about when those other than God pervert the truth. While God may allow delusion to persist in the minds of those who deliberately deny Him, He is not the author of confusion. False beliefs may help humanity in some way, but that doesn’t mean they are from God. If a man were to write a beautiful ballad which contains good.moral instructions, but is inaccurate, then it can’t be from God. God is free from error.
You persist in saying that the Bible has false beliefs. Like I had written before, there is much we can discuss on that topic. However, you say that Christianity has teachings which are harmful to humanity. Like what?
On the topic of God-monopolization, this is what I have to say: While there is great diversity in nature, if you go backwards in time, you will see lesser diversity and more of oneness. The universe began as one point in which all of matter and energy was concentrated. That expanded and grew into this vastly diverse universe. But the origin is one. Similarly God the source of all things is one. Now there have different cosmologies, different theories on what the universe is like. But they can’t all be true. Similarly, while there are many spiritual philosophies, not all can be true. Therefore, it is not necessarily wrong on the part of the Abrahamic religions to claim monopoly. It is however, wrong to force one’s views upon others.
>> God can only be the God of Truth. << …..Then why are you not looking at ALL of human experience, all of God's creations to understand what is God's message (truth) to humanity ? The Bible is just one book..it represents just 0.00000000000……..000000000000000000001 % of God's creation. What about the rest 99.9999999999……9999999999% that God provides in various ways..not necessarly by ancient books ? You and other God monopolists are like Ostriches that have burried there heads in the sand that choose to ignore the 99.9…..%. Hence the deep distortion in your understanding of the divine. I on the other hand look have bo fear in looking at ALL of God's creation…hence I arrive at a a better understanding of the divine than you.
Fxing typo in last sentence..”I on the other hand look have no fear in looking at ALL of God’s creation AS IS…hence I arrive at a a better understanding of the divine than you.”