From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Date: 11 Sep 92 22:22:55 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep10.021400.12873@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth) writes:
>From: prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth)
>Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
>Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 02:14:00 GMT

>In article <fSjgPbV@quack.sac.ca.us>, pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>> I think what happens is that Hindu belief is that God is already 
>> inside and one needs a way to realize that belief. 
>> Christian belief is that one
>> needs a way to bring God inside, i.e., be one with Jesus. But, there
>> really is no difference here is there? 

>I will argue that the God in Bible (meaning the God as described
>in Bible) is different from the God in Vedas and Gita. To set some 
>terminology straight, when I say that object A is different from
>object B, I mean that the collection of attributes of A is not
>equal to that of B. 

>IMO, Christian philosophy treats human soul as something different
>from God (God is in some sense superior). Christians also
>believe that a human soul *CANNOT BECOME* God. So a Christian's
>idea of salvation is not to become God, but to be in some sort
>of union with God (I am unable to explain what it is that a
>Christian means by salvation; I believe that I am right about
>what it is not). The point I am belaboring to make is that from
>a Christian point of view, God and human soul both exist (not
>necessarily independent of each other) and that they are different.
>Moreover, God in the Bible has a personality, is not evil, and
>does not cause evil (correct me if I am wrong). While the God
>in the Bible created the Universe, He *IS NOT* the created.

>On the other hand, Hindu belief is that God alone exists. So if
>X is some object that exists, then X *IS* God. The Vedic God
>has no gender. It is good and evil, creator and created, life
>and death simultaneously. It is simultaneously Sadhguna (to 
>possess all attributes) and Nirguna (to possess no properties).
>(Vedas call it "Achinthya Bheda-Abheda" : Achinthya - that
>which cannot be thought or imagined, Bheda-Abheda means
>simultaneous difference and agreement. "To possess no
>quality" is a quality. So the concept of Nirguna God is
>paradoxical. Sadhguna God also leads to paradoxes such as
>as the rock so heavy that God cannot lift it).

>Since the attributes are different, God in Bible is different
>from God in Vedas and Gita. So the objects that Christians
>and Hindus are trying to realize are different. Apart from
>that, the word "realize" is understood differently. The
>sentence "God is inside something" presupposes that that
>something exists and is possibly different from God. From
>the Hindu view point, it has no meaning since nothing but
>God exists ("God is inside God" is trivial). So as a Hindu
>what I mean by realize is that I am God. From the Christian
>stand point, both God and human soul exist and the soul has
>the will to choose (or not) to imitate Jesus Christ. So as
>a Christian, what one means by realize is that he/she imitate 
>Jesus or be one with Jesus.

>> A good Hindu comes to the
>> realization that one is one with God and a good Christian comes to be
>> one with God. The difference is does one need to 1) find something or 
>> 2) SEE something that was there all along? Is that difference a "real"
>> difference or merely a difference of "perception"?
>>

>As I have stated, IMHO the concepts of salvation are different.

>Perhaps, when I have learned more, when I am closer to being one  
>with Jesus, I wont see any difference at all, real or otherwise. 
>But, at this moment, my ignorant self can only see differences. 

>> 
>> Now Jesus, in comparison, says belief in Me is the only path, but He
>> provides no formulas for the "dogma" of this belief. This is why there
>> are so many different versions of Christianity. Isn't this another 
>> form of *ALL* paths? 

>IMO, each version of Christianity provides a possibly different 
>path to Jesus. "Many paths" seems more appropriate. I agree that
>Christianity is not just one path.

>The Hindu belief that all paths lead to God apply even to that 
>of a serial killer. Those who wrote the Vedas, the Upanishads 
>and the Gita were greatly concerned with logical consistency
>of their arguments. While the Hindu belief may not appeal to
>an average human's moral views, it is the only logical position.

>Jesus, while not stating which path to take, DOES state CLEARLY
>which path not to take. IMHO, His' is a very practical approach
>but not logical (from the Hindu view point).

>> If the teacher says that the student must believe in the teacher, but
>> is not clear in how to practice or affect these beliefs, isn't the
>> teacher really saying that *ALL* paths are valid? 

>No. The teacher is demanding belief in the teacher. Hence those 
>paths that do not demand belief are not considered.

>> How is believing
>> in Christ different than believing in Krishna, other than Christ
>> says one must believe in Christ to be "saved" and Krishna, if I'm 
>> not mistaken, says one can believe whatever on choses to believe? Are
>> these just cultural differences? 

>Believing in Christ is no different from believing in Krishna
>if the believer is unwilling to submit that belief to questioning.
>Where Hinduism differs from Christianity is in the Hindu
>position that *ALL* beliefs are questionable. I am sure that
>Christianity questions many beliefs. But not all. That Jesus is
>is the only son of God is not questioned by any version of 
>Christianity. Hindus are free to question anything. The "Song
>of Creation" in Rig Veda questions God's ability to know. 
>Charaka (an ancient Hindu philosopher) questioned the existence
>of God. In fact, the Vedic outlook is closer to that of a skeptic 
>than to that of a believer.

>> Hinduism starts right off with some thought
>> on the part of the student required, whereas Christianity seems
>> to start with the statement that all that is required is the simple
>> belief in Christ ? Both progress from there, because Krishna's formula of
>> "doing the right thing" is not so easy to practice and Christ is vague
>> about what specifically belief in Christ entails.

>I studied to a Catholic school and was fortunate to read the
>"Imitation of Christ". My belief is that imitating Christ is
>not a simple matter. The same is true with Krishna. 

>> This makes
>> Christianity easier to exploit for the purpose of making money from
>> those who wish not to think, but this manipulation also occurs in
>> Hinduism. 

>True.

>> P.T. Barnum said that a fool is born every minute, and
>> unfortunately this appears to be the case. There are too many who
>> believe that someone else can show them how to live their own right
>> livelyhood. No true teacher can provide a "one true way". A true 
>> teacher can only teach, that is provide ideas for the students. It is
>> the students who must find the "one right path", that is the one right
>> path for the one.

>I agree. The role of a Guru (teacher) is identical to that of
>a mother helping her baby walk. We all start off as babies
>unable to walk the way to God. Guru can only teach me how to
>walk. Whether I decide to be one with Jesus or turn back is
>entirely upto me.

>> Unfortunately, there are many who do not wish to learn, who do not
>> wish to be good students, and that is where the con artists come in,
>> to provide the "one true answer", at a fee of course, but the final
>> fee is quite large, that fee is loss of individual identity, loss of 
>> the original path, loss of the path that could have been.
>>

>Very true.

>> >Namaste
>> 
>> Now the standard Christian greeting is In Cristo or In Christ. Since I
>> suspect you know more about Sanskrit that I, perhaps you would like to
>> translate Namaste into English and compare and contrast?

>Namaste : I bow before you. While saying it, we hold both hands
>in the shape of a folded lotus, about chest high. The gesture 
>means that I offer you my heart as well

>I dont know what In Christ means. Perhaps, you can help me out. I 
>will end this rather long post with a verse from "Taitiriyopanishad"

>             Hari Om ...
>             May He protect us both
>             May He nourish us both
>             May we work together with great energy
>             May our study be vigorous and effective
>             May we not have ill feelings
>             Let there be peace peace peace

>In Christ,
>RKP


This post was too long, interesting, but too long. The real difficulty with 
the christian god-concept is that it presupposes the moral superiority of a 
being who can create eternal inferiors over a being who could create beings 
exactly like himself. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        ANTHEM BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------