A Hindu view of Christianity

[KrazyHorse]

Gnostics were often non-trinitarians, (and opposite of Arians) so you found the right word

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Listen. I'm not claiming that Indian ideas had no effect on religion in the region. That would be ridiculous. But the Western world is a direct inheritor of the Mediterranean culture, of which the Levant formed a part. Arabic culture may also be considered as such.

Indian culture, on the other hand, is at least one step (and possibly two) further removed from this culture. To claim that the West has less understanding of a religion which formed part of its cultural foundation than does a place to whom this religion was merely a minor contributor is stupid.

Incidentally, this is a statement about how weak (culturally) Europe was at the time and how strong India was. This is not a statement about the superiority or importance of Western culture. Quite the opposite...

OK. But from an individual perspective (instead of taking the whole 'India' concept), the guy's criticism resembles a lot what Nietzsche and Spinoza had to say about Christ. Since I believe he probably hasn't read them, I find it strikingly interesting that he would think of the same arguments, only from an Hindu perspective. This hints towards a paternity between the two religions that you seem to be downplaying a lot.

[Fake Boris]

For instance, there's a well argumented theory saying that Eucharisty is a rite inherited from the religious consumption of magical mushrooms in India (which were said to be the "flesh of the Divine").

Plato is believed to have studied under Persian sages who taught him meditation, and you can sometimes see in his works some hints of this. Given how important was Platonician thought to the establishment of the Christian theology, I'd say this is something very relevant.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


OK. But from an individual perspective (instead of taking the whole 'India' concept), the guy's criticism resembles a lot what Nietzsche and Spinoza had to say about Christ. Since I believe he probably hasn't read them, I find it strikingly interesting that he would think of the same arguments, only from an Hindu perspective. This hints towards a paternity between the two religions that you seem to be downplaying a lot.

Or it could hint at parallels or connections between Nietzsche and Spinoza with Hinduism, that might lead them to view Christ similarly. Now N IIUC was familiar with Indic religion, and of course Zorostrianism (also sprach and all that) Spinoza im having a harder time with - no awareness of eastern religions that I know of, but some philisophical parallels between his pantheism and Buddism.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Elok

I'm too lazy to dig it up at the moment, but Jack Chick made a pamphlet explaining why Hinduism is incorrect from his (cough) "Christian" perspective. I believe that particular tract was called "The Traitor," and I remember it fondly as the first Chick tract I was ever exposed to.... Anyway, it raises points almost as valid as this Swami's, which is sad.

I've seen that one. It made me go .

But as I mentioned in the Inquisition thread, just like every other person trying to attack Hinduism, Chick has (predictably) made the villain of the piece a Brahmin.

[DaShi]

Exactly, the real flaw in Hinduism seems to be in the incompatible concepts of reincarnation and Nirvana.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
A significant part of religious wisdom in the Levant, at the time of Jesus, was inherited from Persia and India. India is a very old culture, and just because you're a Westernocentric bigot doesn't mean its culture didn't spread and enjoy a great influence, the same way the Greek did at the time of Alexander.

The biggest influence of Hellenism on mainstream Judaism was spurring a retrenchment into Judaic roots. For example, the Sadducee rejection of bodily resurrection as tainted by Zoroastrian transmigration and the Pharisee assertion of an ancient tradition of bodily resurrection apart from foreign philosophy.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
For instance, there's a well argumented theory saying that Eucharisty is a rite inherited from the religious consumption of magical mushrooms in India (which were said to be the "flesh of the Divine").

You don't have to go to India for the source. The Persians had an equally ancient practice of baking idols of bread and eating them. Of course, so did the Aztecs.

[BlackCat]

Don't know why, but in my opinion, then this thead is mostly about "my dick is is larger than yours".

No doubt that religion has had a great impact on development of societies, but the real big rush began when people started to ignore such kind of supersticioucness.

No offence, but todays reality couldn't have existed if religion had been the prime ruler.

[DaShi]

But religion was the prime ruler.

[Elok]

Originally posted by DaShi
Exactly, the real flaw in Hinduism seems to be in the incompatible concepts of reincarnation and Nirvana.

Pssst...Nirvana is a Buddhist idea, not Hindu. And in Buddhism, Nirvana is the end of the cycle of reincarnation (for those who believe in reincarnation at all--Samsara can be thought of many different ways). In Hinduism, IIR/UC, the goal is to realize that Brahman and Atman are one. Aneeshm can explain better than me, though.

And thank you, BlackCat, for reminding us that you are an atheist. That was a very meaningful contribution to our discussion. However, Aneeshm started this thread as a superiority-of-Hindu-culture troll. It's not very considerate of you to try and butt in with a wholly unrelated hooray-for-secular-humanism troll.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Elok


Pssst...Nirvana is a Buddhist idea, not Hindu. And in Buddhism, Nirvana is the end of the cycle of reincarnation (for those who believe in reincarnation at all--Samsara can be thought of many different ways). In Hinduism, IIR/UC, the goal is to realize that Brahman and Atman are one. Aneeshm can explain better than me, though.

Oh, I thought Nirvana was a shared concept between them, just a different interpretation of it. What I find problematic is the method of attaining that realization in Hinduism, if reincarnation is taken into account.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by DaShi
Exactly, the real flaw in Hinduism seems to be in the incompatible concepts of reincarnation and Nirvana.

What's incompatible about them? The Karma system ties them together quite nicely, IMO.

And Nirvana is simply the Buddhist version of the Hindu concept of enlightenment, or Moksha.

[DaShi]

Because only humans can achieve Moksha.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by DaShi
Because only humans can achieve Moksha.

So? What's wrong with that?