Thousands of Religious Sects - Which one is right?

[nds1]

the same understanding is required to comprehend the significance of god being brahman, paramatma and bhagavan, particularly in light of the BG quote which you seem to have missed

So God has Schizophrenia.

You talk about God like he has three conscious separate entities with three different names.

So when you pray LG, which God do you pray to, brahman, paramatma or bhagavan? Or maybe all three at the same time?

The same goes to anyone who believes in a Trinity. Who do all you Christians who believe in a Trinity pray to. God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or all three?

they do talk about the sun being impersonal (sunlight) localized (the anticipation of sun rise and sun set) and personal (the universal body uniformly situated in space) - they also talk of heat and light in connection to the sun

When we are talking about the sun in terms of how it gives off sunlight, do we call it "Moon," or "Venus" or do we call it sun.

When we are talking about the sun in terms of a sun rise or sun set, do we say, "In this case, the Sun is called 'Moon'".

LOL. Your analogy only serves to disprove your point.

In other words it should be clear how one thing can determine many other things by examining relationships of full, partial and/or incomplete contingency.

Nice use of big words, however this statement is not stating anything. In fact, it makes no sense at all.



Here's another question I have in regards to Hinduism beliefs.

So if I live a sinful life, and turn into, say, a cow in my next life, how exactly can I redeem myself? If I don't sin as a cow can I move my way up the caste system back into human status and try again?

 

[iam]

i think the basic reincarnation belief stems partly from the fact everything is recycled on the planet. Any speculation beyond it is just wonder or people making up answers. For some belief is easier to handle than unknowns.

 

[lightgigantic]

nds1

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the same understanding is required to comprehend the significance of god being brahman, paramatma and bhagavan, particularly in light of the BG quote which you seem to have missed
”
So God has Schizophrenia.

no more than John Glover Roberts

You talk about God like he has three conscious separate entities with three different names.

then I must be failing to properly present the view that god is singular and has multifarious potencies, much like John Glover Roberts is singular yet has multifarious designations

So when you pray LG, which God do you pray to, brahman, paramatma or bhagavan? Or maybe all three at the same time?

when you see the sunlight, when you feel warm from the sun, when you see the sun appear over the horizon and when you hear about scientists examining the sun, do you think they are all referring to something different.

The different designations of god are focuses for different disciplines - for instance the voidists (buddhists) focus on brahman, the impersonal aspect, the yogi's (meditators) focus on paramatma, the localized aspect within the heart of all living entities and the devotees focus on bhagavan, the original entity on which all these other potencies are contingent. Therefore bhagavan realization involves comprehension of the localized and impersonal aspect and paramatma realization involves comprehension of the impersonal aspect.

The same goes to anyone who believes in a Trinity. Who do all you Christians who believe in a Trinity pray to. God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or all three?

Probably because they perceive a relationship between how they all relate

“
they do talk about the sun being impersonal (sunlight) localized (the anticipation of sun rise and sun set) and personal (the universal body uniformly situated in space) - they also talk of heat and light in connection to the sun
”
When we are talking about the sun in terms of how it gives off sunlight, do we call it "Moon," or "Venus" or do we call it sun.

When we are talking about the sun in terms of a sun rise or sun set, do we say, "In this case, the Sun is called 'Moon'".

LOL. Your analogy only serves to disprove your point.

I'm not clear what your chain of though is here, because the analogy doesn't require that one have a blurred conception of the distinction between the sun and the moon or venus - in fact the analogy only works if one can understand the unique position of the sun and the unique potencies related to the sun

“
In other words it should be clear how one thing can determine many other things by examining relationships of full, partial and/or incomplete contingency.
”
Nice use of big words, however this statement is not stating anything. In fact, it makes no sense at all.

You must have a mother. (full relationship for you)
She also must have a mother. (partial relationship for you)
If you want to argue that things must only have a singular objective designation, is this woman (your mother's mother) a mother or a grandmother?

Here's another question I have in regards to Hinduism beliefs.

So if I live a sinful life, and turn into, say, a cow in my next life, how exactly can I redeem myself? If I don't sin as a cow can I move my way up the caste system back into human status and try again?

sin is only an issue for humans because they have the special capacity for discrimination - if a human is sinful they can become an animal. Once in the animal form one progresses through the different levels of animal life automatically until one gets the opportunity to take a birth as a human (like for instance if one takes birth as an ant, it could take many millions of years to get a human birth again, since there are 8 000 000 species of life that are not human and an ant rates in the bottom rung)

This is why animals are not religious

 

[lightgigantic]

i think the basic reincarnation belief stems partly from the fact everything is recycled on the planet. Any speculation beyond it is just wonder or people making up answers. For some belief is easier to handle than unknowns.

If everything on the planet is recycled, what is it about the living force that makes it exempt from the rule?

 

[nds1]

then I must be failing to properly present the view that god is singular and has multifarious potencies, much like John Glover Roberts is singular yet has multifarious designations

Why can't we call God one name in every case, since it is him doing everything whether it be personal, impersonal, or local?

when you see the sunlight, when you feel warm from the sun, when you see the sun appear over the horizon and when you hear about scientists examining the sun, do you think they are all referring to something different.

Exactly. That is why we don't have different names for the sun. When describing "things that the sun does or emits," we still say Sun.

Tell me LG, do we call the sun something different for every role it plays (sunlight, sunset, etc.).

The different designations of god are focuses for different disciplines - for instance the voidists (buddhists) focus on brahman, the impersonal aspect, the yogi's (meditators) focus on paramatma, the localized aspect within the heart of all living entities and the devotees focus on bhagavan, the original entity on which all these other potencies are contingent. Therefore bhagavan realization involves comprehension of the localized and impersonal aspect and paramatma realization involves comprehension of the impersonal aspect.

What aspect(s) do you focus on? All three? Or maybe two?

Or maybe however many you personally are comfortable with, right VitalOne?

Or is the optimum way to focus on all three at the same time?

 

[iam]

If everything on the planet is recycled, what is it about the living force that makes it exempt from the rule?

I never said it was exempt but i don't put a religious spin and and a tall tale on top of it and call it a fact either. Call it energy, call it life, call it intelligent design(i don't think so). But religion takes a still unknown and runs wildly away with it using pure imagination and conjecture.

Religion is obviously self-serving bullsh*t. Because if you equate the "living force" with a soul then you would have to include plants and all lifeforms which I already do. If a human has a soul, so does every other living being.

 

[nds1]

I'll be frank, the whole soul thing to me is bullshit of the purest grade.

We, or us, are individual people, or persons. Some religions would state that we are made up a 1) body, 2) soul, 3) and spirit.

Three things? LOL. It's amazing how 3 is just the magical number for everything, isn't it.

In truth, the "soul" must be the "brain" or the "mind" which is the "body." Then, if one is to believe in a spirit, the spirit would dwell in the body (which includes the brain).

So there are a grand total of TWO things, not three in this case.

 

[lightgigantic]

nds1

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
then I must be failing to properly present the view that god is singular and has multifarious potencies, much like John Glover Roberts is singular yet has multifarious designations
”
Why can't we call God one name in every case, since it is him doing everything whether it be personal, impersonal, or local?

you can, if you are familiar with the intimate nature of god - for instance, in the case of John Glover Roberts, one cannot call him that name if one is only familiar with public servants - one can also not call him that if one is familiar with him in his profession (an air of reverence is involved, eg "sir" or "chief justice roberts") - however his wife could probably call him "Johnny" on account of her familiarity with him (I can also call him Johnny, but that realm of intimacy that is reserved for his intimate family members, who also might call him by that name, is inaccessible to me because I lack their qualification)

“
when you see the sunlight, when you feel warm from the sun, when you see the sun appear over the horizon and when you hear about scientists examining the sun, do you think they are all referring to something different.
”
Exactly. That is why we don't have different names for the sun. When describing "things that the sun does or emits," we still say Sun.

that is because we are familiar with the force that all these things (heat, light, sunrise etc) are contingent upon - namely the sun planet (or star or whatever you wish to call it)

Tell me LG, do we call the sun something different for every role it plays (sunlight, sunset, etc.).

we have different terms that recognize the potencies that are contingent upon it - like for instance when we say that the sun has entered the window we do not mean that a vast ball of universal warming heat has entered the window and is incinerating everything in its path - usually we mean the sunlight has entered the room - because the sunlight is simultaneously one and different from the sun, it has the option being described as its contingent form (sunlight) or its superior form (god)
similarly the statement "everything is brahman" has the same vastness about its field of definition

“
The different designations of god are focuses for different disciplines - for instance the voidists (buddhists) focus on brahman, the impersonal aspect, the yogi's (meditators) focus on paramatma, the localized aspect within the heart of all living entities and the devotees focus on bhagavan, the original entity on which all these other potencies are contingent. Therefore bhagavan realization involves comprehension of the localized and impersonal aspect and paramatma realization involves comprehension of the impersonal aspect.
”
What aspect(s) do you focus on? All three? Or maybe two?

according to your discipline
Just like if you had lived in a dark cell with one window that never got direct sunlight you would associate with the sun impersonally. If you were bereft of the greater knowledge regarding the sun's spherical substance, you would regard it as a shiny disc that appears in the east and recedes in the west and if you were familiar with its objective nature (existing out in space) you would understand not only that, but also its localized (moving across the earthly sky) and impersonal (sunshine) aspects

Or maybe however many you personally are comfortable with, right VitalOne?

Or is the optimum way to focus on all three at the same time?

just like if you understand how the sun exists 'objectively' (ie in space) you understand about the other two - similarly if you understand god personally you understand how he is also existing in a localized form (paramatma) and impersonal form (brahman)

I'll be frank, the whole soul thing to me is bullshit of the purest grade.

I certainly hope you have substantial premises for such a bold statement

We, or us, are individual people, or persons. Some religions would state that we are made up a 1) body, 2) soul, 3) and spirit.

that doesn't answer how we exist as persons - like for instance it is obvious that we are different from our body, since the body (including the brain) undergoes tremendous changes from birth to old age, yet we still retain the same sense of individuality. Therefore to say that we are our body, is not an absolutely true statement. In the same way, "we are our minds" is also not absolutely true since our desires and intellectual capacities also get revamped and down graded according to the ebb and flow of time

Three things? LOL. It's amazing how 3 is just the magical number for everything, isn't it.

Also a coconut is made up of three things - a coconut on a tree is called a coconut. A coconut with the husk removed is also a coconut. And the white fleshy pulp scraped out of a cracked open coconut is also called coconut

In truth, the "soul" must be the "brain" or the "mind" which is the "body." Then, if one is to believe in a spirit, the spirit would dwell in the body (which includes the brain).

then why is the brain of a new born completely different from that of an old man?

So there are a grand total of TWO things, not three in this case.

a dead body also has a brain and a body but seems to be lacking an essential third element

 

[nds1]

What aspect(s) do you focus on? All three? Or maybe two?"

according to your discipline"

What is the optimum discipline? How does one go about choosing the optimum discipline? You can't ask God because you don't know which God you are praying to.

This just keeps coming back to the original question. All these options of what God to pray to, what God is personal/impersonal. Where does one turn?

that doesn't answer how we exist as persons - like for instance it is obvious that we are different from our body, since the body (including the brain) undergoes tremendous changes from birth to old age, yet we still retain the same sense of individuality.

Also, what exactly do you mean by "sense of individuality"? What makes one human different from the next?

Our personalities are caused by chemical processes and ratios of certain chemicals in the brain, along with differing levels of hormones and a whole array of other chemical things which we don't now about. This is why when someone has depression, they can simply take a pill and become a whole new "individual." Depression is caused by a suboptimal ratio or number of certain chemicals in the brain. The pills balance them out.

What makes one human different from the next? Answer me that.

Therefore to say that we are our body, is not an absolutely true statement.

I never said that. I stated that we are two things: Body and Spirit. Our bodies don't provide individualism, but our spirits do.

Take this scenario in the bible for example:

Luke 8:53-56
53 And they ridiculed Him, knowing that she was dead. 54 But He put them all outside, took her by the hand and called, saying, "Little girl, arise." 55 Then her spirit returned, and she arose immediately. And He commanded that she be given something to eat. 56 And her parents were astonished, but He charged them to tell no one what had happened.
NKJV

See what happened here. Her individual spirit returned. There is no mention of soul here. It doesn't say, "her spirit and soul returned."

So when we die, our bodies are dead, but our spirits are still very alive. Not our "soul", or body. Just our spirit. A spirit is an individual being which is conscious, can think and make decisions, and which has the ability to enter into a living material entity (human, animal, etc.).

The angels have no souls. Neither does God. In heaven, everything, including persons who used to be humans, are pure spirit.

Jesus never says that God is made up of three persons, or that there is a trinity (the word trinity is not mentioned even once in the entire bible). The idea of the Trinity evolved from one of the many meetings the fathers of Christianity from the 5th and 6th centuries after it was made legal by Constantine in 313. The Trinity is an idea that was created by man. Many Christians, even a few on this very forum, will tell you that.

Also a coconut is made up of three things - a coconut on a tree is called a coconut. A coconut with the husk removed is also a coconut. And the white fleshy pulp scraped out of a cracked open coconut is also called coconut

Great, then a coconut is actually made up of infinite things, LOL. According to your train of thought, we could say that the husk itself is also the coconut. Also the seed is the coconut. Also, the juice in the coconut is the cocnut. It goes on forever. Infinite, not three. Your analogy proves that what you are trying to do is justify all your beliefs by saying that A can surely equal B.

a dead body also has a brain and a body but seems to be lacking an essential third element

Yeah, it's lacking a beating heart, lol. If someone gets shot in the chest by a gun, and they die, then having a brain doesn't matter, does it?



LG, you have a personal belief that animals have spirits. I, and over half the world, believe that you are incorrect. We believe that animals DO NOT have spirits.

Either they do, or they don't. It can't be both A and B. Either you are right, or wrong, LG. Either your belief that animals have spirits is true, or false. One or the other. There is one set of absolute truths in every area of reality. I don't know why you can't see that.

 

[nds1]

But the main difference which seperates all major religions is their beliefs on who Jesus was, and/or is.

Christians believe Jesus, or the individual spirit of Jesus, is a unique entity, and is second to God in power. They believe that he alone saved the entire world of their sins and that only through his individual sacrifice can anyone be saved.

Muslims believe that Jesus was just another messenger, equal in status to every other messenger who has walked the earth. In fact, Mohammud is ranked Number One in the list of messengers, or prophets in the Islam faith. So to Muslims, Jesus is NOT unique, or the physical or spiritual "Son of God." In fact they don't even believe that Mary gave birth to him.

Hindus look at Jesus similiar to Muslims. They believe Jesus is not unique. They don't believe he is the King of all angels and humans, and that he ranks number one in power besides God. They believe (according to LG) that he ranks maybe 4th or 5th in the hierarchy of avatars.

There is truth out there. We will know when we die who and what Jesus really is and where he ranks in the hierarchy of heaven.

In any case, Jesus never mentioned paramatma, bhagavan, or brahman. He never mentioned anything remotely close to many Hindu beliefs. The Hindus will disregard the Bible, yet accept Jesus as an avatar. Interesting.

 

[VitalOne]

Hindus look at Jesus similiar to Muslims. They believe Jesus is not unique. They don't believe he is the King of all angels and humans, and that he ranks number one in power besides God. They believe (according to LG) that he ranks maybe 4th or 5th in the hierarchy of avatars.

Thats not true, if Jesus really was an avatara then he would equal to God as all other avataras.......

In any case, Jesus never mentioned paramatma, bhagavan, or brahman. He never mentioned anything remotely close to many Hindu beliefs. The Hindus will disregard the Bible, yet accept Jesus as an avatar. Interesting.

Reading this it appears as if you still haven't really read any Hindu scripture at all......for instance I can point out many many many paralells in what Krishna says and what Jesus says, sometimes they say the samethings word-for-word....almost as if they were the same person or they were trying to explain the same truth....again when trying to choose a religion its really a good idea to read scriptures of the religions.........

And also you still haven't explained why it can't be that they're trying to explain the same truth in different ways....like the Buddhist story of the six blind men who each touched a different part of an elephant and all described the elephant differently...they then foolishly argued over who was correct...though they were all together correct...individually they were wrong...

 

[nds1]

Thats not true, if Jesus really was an avatara then he would equal to God as all other avataras........

Yeah, that is your personal belief. You personally believe in the avatar system, or that there is such thing as an avatar.

Christianity and Islam DOES NOT believe in the avatar system. Tell Mohammad or any Muslim that Jesus was an avatar, and see what they respond with.

Tell any Christian that Jesus was not unique, and is not unique as the King of All and see what they respond with. A Christian would tell you that your belief in avatars is foolish and that Jesus is God's unqiue son. He is an individual spirit, separate from God, or any other spirit, and he is the King of both Heaven and Earth, and the new earth to come. He alone is the King of Everything.

So in the Christian belief system, Rama, Krishnu, and all the other great avatars are all made up fairly tales similar to the every other ancient myth.

So VitalOne, I don't care what you or any Hindu considers Jesus to be. All I can tell you is that Christians and other religons believe in a reality far different than yours.

It's simple:

1. Christianity believes that Jesus is an individual entity, which is independent of God or anything else, who made a decision to temporariliy give up his throne in heaven to come down to earth as a lowly human. He is also the sole ruler of everything. He, himself. Not Krishna. Not Rama. His spirit alone.

2. Hinduism recognizes Jesus as some kind of partial Avatar. They don't even see him as a full avatar!!! Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, Hinduism believes that Jesus IS NOT an individual person or spirit, just another avatar.

Sorry VitalOne, but one of you is right. One of you is wrong.

Either everything is right and anything goes (Hinduism), or some things stated about reality in scriptures can be false (every other religion).

 

[nds1]

Does hinduism recognize Abraham, Moses, Adam, Mohammad, Enoch, David, Isaiah, or any other figures from the bible or quran as avatars?

 

[nds1]

And also you still haven't explained why it can't be that they're trying to explain the same truth in different ways....like the Buddhist story of the six blind men who each touched a different part of an elephant and all described the elephant differently...they then foolishly argued over who was correct...though they were all together correct...individually they were wrong...

Okay, so let's just combine every religion, right? That makes perfect sense.

Oh, that's right, every religion has different and contradicting beliefs about A) the truth of reality and B) how we should live our lives.

As far as "them" trying to explain the same truth in different ways, I'm not too sure about that. I'm sure Krishna preached about karma, the caste rebirth system, vegetarianism, and many other issues which Jesus did not even come close to talking about.

Yeah sure though, every religion preaches the same basic message: Serve God, or go to hell.

The question though, is what religion is the most truthful in its claims about the truth of reality and how best to live life. (avatars vs. no avatars, Jesus unique vs. not unique, wife beating or no wife beating, circumsion vs. non circumsision, vegetarianism vs. nonvegetarianism, idols vs. no idols, rebirth as animals vs. no rebirth as animals, trinity vs. no trinity, etc. etc. etc.)

 

[VitalOne]

Yeah, that is your personal belief. You personally believe in the avatar system, or that there is such thing as an avatar.

Jesus himself says similar things about people who enter the kingdom of God doing greater works than himself...

Tell any Christian that Jesus was not unique, and is not unique as the King of All and see what they respond with. A Christian would tell you that your belief in avatars is foolish and that Jesus is God's unqiue son. He is an individual spirit, separate from God, or any other spirit, and he is the King of both Heaven and Earth, and the new earth to come. He alone is the King of Everything.

Nobody said he wasn't unique, indeed he was very unique, the King of Kings, Jesus himself says the holy ghost or holy spirit is above himself in someway.....also if you read what Jesus says he says that no one is really separate from God and that God is within you, and that we ARE Gods....

Why are you asking me to tell any Christian? You don't judge a religion based on what the "Christians" tell you but upon the actual scripture, which Christianity is based upon. Again, you should really read scriptures to determine what a religion actually says....

So in the Christian belief system, Rama, Krishnu, and all the other great avatars are all made up fairly tales similar to the every other ancient myth.

Why do you keep basing things upon what the "Christians say" instead of what the Bible or Christian scripture says? There is no historical evidence for Jesus, so anyone can easily say he indeed was a myth, not unlike any other myth. Also why do Krishna and Jesus say the samethings? And no I'm not talking about vague morals, I'm talking about the things they say and the way they describe reality....if Jesus speaks the truth, and Krishna says almost exactly the samethings Jesus says...what does that say about Krishna?

So VitalOne, I don't care what you or any Hindu considers Jesus to be. All I can tell you is that Christians and other religons believe in a reality far different than yours.

It's simple:

Again...why do you keep basing things upon what Christians say...why not upon the actual Christian scripture???

1. Christianity believes that Jesus is an individual entity, which is independent of God or anything else, who made a decision to temporariliy give up his throne in heaven to come down to earth as a lowly human. He is also the sole ruler of everything. He, himself. Not Krishna. Not Rama. His spirit alone.

Jesus constantly taught that God dwelled within us, where do you draw your information from? At least use scriptural evidence...all you do is give your opinion or the opinion of other "Christians"....

2. Hinduism recognizes Jesus as some kind of partial Avatar. They don't even see him as a full avatar!!! Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, Hinduism believes that Jesus IS NOT an individual person or spirit, just another avatar.

Actually Hinduism does see him as an individual, yet equal to God....

Sorry VitalOne, but one of you is right. One of you is wrong.

Either everything is right and anything goes (Hinduism), or some things stated about reality in scriptures can be false (every other religion).

Again...what compels you to have this mentality? "This is this, and this can only be this way"

 

[VitalOne]

Does hinduism recognize Abraham, Moses, Adam, Mohammad, Enoch, David, Isaiah, or any other figures from the bible or quran as avatars?

No, not at all, they were not nearly as pure an incarnation as Jesus, you can just judge it upon the truths Jesus reveals in his teachings....where as the others were simply at best divine messengers....even the Qu'ran says different spiritual teachers sent by Allah arise in nations across the world...

Also, Jesus possessed many siddhi powers (divine powers). They are all documented in Hinduism already, for instance walking on water is attainable by laghima-siddhi or the ability to make your body very very light, raising the dead is "Parkaya Pravesh", calming the storm is "Isitvam", etc.....these powers are byproducts of higher consciousness...(although anyone can possess them, even if they are not with God)...and are very common with divine incarnations....

Okay, so let's just combine every religion, right? That makes perfect sense.

Oh, that's right, every religion has different and contradicting beliefs about A) the truth of reality and B) how we should live our lives.

I didn't say to combine every religion. I said to a blind person (eg...an ignorant person) they each appear very different, however one who can see (one in knowledge) sees the truth in all....

As far as "them" trying to explain the same truth in different ways, I'm not too sure about that. I'm sure Krishna preached about karma, the caste rebirth system, vegetarianism, and many other issues which Jesus did not even come close to talking about.

Yeah sure though, every religion preaches the same basic message: Serve God, or go to hell.

Krishna did talk about some topics that Jesus did not address....this doesn't mean they weren't both revealing the truth....it is like someone saying if you didn't address some topic you must disagree with it....

As for the same basic message, I'm not talking about the same basic message, I'm talking about the way they explain reality...
Jesus says:
"Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death." (Gospel of Thomas, 1)

2 verses later Jesus says:
"Rather, the kingdom is within you and it is outside you" (Gospel of Thomas, 3)

Krishna says:
"I shall now explain the knowable, knowing which you will taste the eternal" (BG 13.13)

3 Verses later Krishna says:
"Brahman (The Supreme Truth) exists outside and inside of all living beings" (BG 13.16)

Do you really think Jesus and Krishna were talking about different things?

The question though, is what religion is the most truthful in its claims about the truth of reality and how best to live life. (avatars vs. no avatars, Jesus unique vs. not unique, wife beating or no wife beating, circumsion vs. non circumsision, vegetarianism vs. nonvegetarianism, idols vs. no idols, rebirth as animals vs. no rebirth as animals, trinity vs. no trinity, etc. etc. etc.)

Well most religions agree on how best to live life, their "disagreements" are really subtle.....

 

[nds1]

Jesus himself says similar things about people who enter the kingdom of God doing greater works than himself...

Give me the the verse from the actual Bible where Jesus says this. How about backing up what you say with some scripture.

Nobody said he wasn't unique, indeed he was very unique, the King of Kings, Jesus himself says the holy ghost or holy spirit is above himself in someway.....also if you read what Jesus says he says that no one is really separate from God and that God is within you, and that we ARE Gods....

Again, let's back this outrageous claim up with some scripture. And it has to be scripture from the actual Bible, not the gnostic scriptures which were rejected by the early Christian fathers.

You don't judge a religion based on what the "Christians" tell you but upon the actual scripture, which Christianity is based upon.

I can tell you one thing. Christianity sure as hell isn't based on the Gospel of Thomas which you so eloquently quoted from.

Why do you keep basing things upon what the "Christians say."

I'm basing it on what a minister, or Christian practioner, has said to me. LG would be proud.

Actually Hinduism does see him as an individual, yet equal to God....

Yeah, and Christianity excludes any of your avatars from being equal to God. ONLY JESUS. No one else. Not Rama, Krishnu, or whoever else. ONLY JESUS. So in Christianity, ONLY JESUS is equal to God. No one else.

So you believe A, while Christians believe B.

Krishna did talk about some topics that Jesus did not address....this doesn't mean they weren't both revealing the truth....it is like someone saying if you didn't address some topic you must disagree with it....

As for the same basic message, I'm not talking about the same basic message, I'm talking about the way they explain reality...
Jesus says:
"Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death." (Gospel of Thomas, 1)

2 verses later Jesus says:
"Rather, the kingdom is within you and it is outside you" (Gospel of Thomas, 3)

Krishna says:
"I shall now explain the knowable, knowing which you will taste the eternal" (BG 13.13)

3 Verses later Krishna says:
"Brahman (The Supreme Truth) exists outside and inside of all living beings" (BG 13.16)

Do you really think Jesus and Krishna were talking about different things?

All of your quotes of Jesus are obsolete since they are not in the actual bible. Gnostic Christians might agree with you as to the validity of the Gospel of Thomas, but mainstream Christians only consider the books in the Bible to be valid.

You tell me to use scripture when you never do. And when you do, you quote from invalid sources which are not the bible. Nice try.

 

[nds1]

Okay VitalOne, here's some more scripture for you:

Eph 4:1-7
1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
KJV

Wow, what a jackpot I found here. This confirms the Christian belief that there is only ONE TRUTH. And that truth is that Jesus is the ONE LORD, exluding Krishnu, Rama, etc. Also, God the father is above ALL, even the Holy Spirit. So VitalOne, you misinterpreted whatever passage you read which you thought through logic meant that the Holy Spirit was actually above God. You are wrong.

So God the father is above ALL, including the Holy Spirit.

Mark 13:31-32
31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

32 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
NKJV


ONLY God knows when the second coming of Jesus will be. Not even Jesus himself! So clearly, Jesus is not equal to God, and neither is the Holy Spirit. No one is equal to God, or the Father.

I love this passage from the Bible because it also proves that God is a separate conscious entity from Jesus and the Holy Spirit which thinks and acts on his own, just as Jesus and the Holy Spirit do.

Hinduism argues that the Bible is false, and that Jesus IS equal to God, along with many other avatars.

One religion is right. One is wrong.

 

[nds1]

Heb 1:1-2:1
1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For to which of the angels did He ever say:
"You are My Son,Today I have begotten You"?
And again:
"I will be to Him a Father,And He shall be to Me a Son"?
6 But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:
"Let all the angels of God worship Him."
7 And of the angels He says:
"Who makes His angels spirits And His ministers a flame of fire."
8 But to the Son He says:
"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions."
10 And:
"You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,And the heavens are the work of Your hands. 11 They will perish, but You remain;And they will all grow old like a garment; 12 Like a cloak You will fold them up,And they will be changed.But You are the same,And Your years will not fail."
13 But to which of the angels has He ever said:
"Sit at My right hand,Till I make Your enemies Your footstool"?
14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?
NKJV


Here is some commentary from my Bible software on this passage:

It MAY have been that it was by him that the perfections of God were made known before the incarnation to the angelic world, but on that point the Scriptures are silent.
(2) On earth he was the brightness of the divine glory, and the express image of his person:
(a) It was by him, eminently, that God was made known to human beings-as it is by the beams of the sun that that is made known.
(b) He bore an exact resemblance to God. He was just such a being as we should suppose God to be were he to become incarnate, and to act as a man. He was the embodied representation of the Deity. He was pure-like God. He was benevolent-like God. He spake to the winds and storms-like God. He healed diseases-like God. He raised the dead-like God. He wielded the power which God only can wield, and he manifested a character in all respects like what we should suppose God would evince if he appeared in human flesh, and dwelt among people and this is saying much. It is in fact saying that the account in the Gospels is real, and that the Christian religion is true. Uninspired men could never have drawn such a character as that of Jesus Christ, unless that character had actually existed. The attempt has often been made to describe God, or to show how be would speak and act if he came down to earth.

Thus, the Hindus speak of the incarnations of Vishnu; and thus Homer, and Virgil, and most of the ancient poets, speak of the appearance of the gods, and describe them as they were supposed to appear. But how different from the character of the Lord Jesus! THEY are full of passion, and lust, and anger, and contention, and strife; they come to mingle in battles, and to take part with contending armies, and they evince the same spirit as men, and are merely "men of great power, and more gigantic passions; "but Christ is GOD IN HUMAN NATURE. The form is that of man; the spirit is that of God. He walks, and eats, and sleeps as a man; he thinks, and speaks, and acts like God. He was born as a man-but the angels adored him as God. As a man he ate; yet by a word he created food for thousands, as if he were God. Like
NOTE: This text has been truncated to the maximum allowable by copyright.

(from Barnes' Notes, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft)



Don't worry, I'll be coming back with a lot more scripture than this.

 

[nds1]

Here is what I believe to be a key difference between Christianity and Hinduism (and virtually every other religion):

In Christianity, this is how creation went down:

Before the material universe and earth, there was only God, Jesus, The Holy Spirit, and all of the angels which God created. Everyone was a "spirit" and there was a heavenly government in place in which each angel had a certain rank in society.

You had your archangels, your cherabums, your seraphums, and every other type of angel which God created. God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and every other angel was and is all separate independent spiritual beings which all have a mind of their own and which all can make their own decisions whether that be for or against God.

In the pre-earth heaven society, the independent spirit which we know as the man Jesus was the sole ruler over everything. He was the FIRST SPIRITUAL BEING CREATED BY GOD BEFORE ANY OTHER INDEPENDENT SPIRITUAL BEING (according to the bible). Jesus was given authority over all in heaven and on earth by God.

So Jesus was and is the King over all. Now everything was going okay in the heavenly society, but at one point, the archangel Lucifer decided that he wanted to be his own God, and take a third of the angels with him in his rebellion against the true God. Lucifer lost the battle against Michael, and was cast down to the earth.

So now you have the earth and universe in the equation. Satan (Lucifer) and his fallen angels were on the earth wreaking havoc until God decided to create humans, or mankind, to restore earth (or possibly heaven) to its orignal holiness which was severed by Satan. The idea was for man to be like God, in his own image, until man sinned and here we are.

So man messed the plan up royally. Something had to be done. So Jesus, the individual spirit of Jesus, sacrificed everything he had in heaven and his glory in heaven in order to come down to earth as a lowly human and die for ALL of man's sins, even every man who lived before Jesus.

Then, after being crucified, Jesus ascended back up to heaven as King of all again with authority over all. That was it. That was the only time Jesus ever came down to the earth.

You saw in the commentary I provided earlier how most, if not all true Christians, disregard Hindu incarnations or avatars as genuine.