If Christians Have Strong Faith in Their God...

[Chesterton]

Assuming that is the case, I have to wonder what rapes and murders you refer to...

For starters: Anti-Christian violence in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm equally confident that with enough investigation, one could theoretically compile an equal quantity of information about mistreatment of Hindus in America.

Okay, do that.

 

[Benevolous]

...Why do Christians try to keep debates with Non-Christians at a minimum?

Because it's a waste of time and because we're not called to debate non-Christians, but to present the Gospel to them.

Very few non-Christians know or care what Christianity teaches and will often argue about what Christianity teaches just for the sake of arguing.

For example, just look at all of the threads here in which an atheist will say, "How can you believe in God when the Bible says so and so" and then when two dozen Christians, some of us who have actually studied the scriptures long before the the questioner was even born, chime in to correct him and show him that the Bible doesn't say what he claims, and then, just a few minutes later, he'll start another thread making the same claim.

There is one poster here who has started numerous threads to call Christians hypocrites for praying in public, when, according to him, Jesus forbids us from praying in public. And yet, even though he's been shown numerous times that he's misapplying the verse he cites (out of context, naturally), that Jesus was speaking to one specific group in one specific circumstance, and that there are plenty of other passages where public prayer is both exhibited and commanded and commended.

Same with the "Oh, and I suppose you stone people who eat shellfish, too" argument. It just doesn't matter how many times they're corrected, they love their ignorance more than they care about the truth, so what's the point of debating with them?

 

[salida]

I will debate with ease.

Christianity has overwhelming circumstantial evidence that supports it so christians should be debatting for spiritual and intelligental reasons.

Sometimes nonchristians like to debate just to debate instead of really seeking more info-in those cases I can see why it would be minimized. Also, some christians don't know their bible like they should.

 

[sanjaya1984]

For starters: Anti-Christian violence in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Okay, do that.

Do you honestly mean to respond with cut 'n pastes? I don't know why your only response is to link to an article about violence against Christians in India, since I freely admitted that such acts occur, and even pointed to one notable case. I even alluded to the fact that all instances of religious violence will be exaggerated in India due to the inferior justice system. Perhaps you might do the courtesy of reading what I wrote and responding to it instead, for I think that this would lead to more meaningful dialog than a five-word post.

Or shall I simply link to the Wikipedia article on the Dotbusters anti-Hindu street gang, so that we can continue this game?

 

[Dharma Wheel]

This way if you wish to have a religious discussion, you will have the opportunity channel your efforts to those not so readily swayed by the temptation to fall into a foolish display of posturing or pride. Or, are the "Not easily swayed" the one's you are looking to avoid, in your plee to bring back a format that allows you the opportunity to prowl around looking for someone to devour?

I am not sure how you got that from my post? Who do I want to devour? It seems many Christians here want to do that; hence non-Christian can easily get ganged up on in this board.

I did find your post (and a few others) somewhat rude as I was asking a simply question, because it seemed to me that Christians are too afraid of losing their faith if they debate with more than one non-Chrstians, ignore any non-Christian etc.

And I find it rather irksome that many Christians in this thread are trying to turn this thread into an anti-non Christian thread. And as far as I see it many, many non-Christians who criticise Christianity DO know the scriptures and their true context.

Anyway, I have got the answer I needed, and I do not think I will ask honest questions here as I do not like my thread being turned into a war zone and an evangelization tool. and I am officially reigning from this thread, mainly because I like Sanjaya's posts and think he should continue here, rather than me, because he should have the right to keep his posts here and debate his point of view, and defend his religion which was slighted in many ways.



This non-Christian is out of this thread. There is now only one non-Christian (Sanjaya) posting.

 

[Chesterton]

Do you honestly mean to respond with cut 'n pastes? I don't know why your only response is to link to an article about violence against Christians in India, since I freely admitted that such acts occur, and even pointed to one notable case. I even alluded to the fact that all instances of religious violence will be exaggerated in India due to the inferior justice system. Perhaps you might do the courtesy of reading what I wrote and responding to it instead, for I think that this would lead to more meaningful dialog than a five-word post.

Or shall I simply link to the Wikipedia article on the Dotbusters anti-Hindu street gang, so that we can continue this game?

I responded briefly because this is somewhat off-topic, and as a non-Christian you're violating the forum rules being in this thread, and because most of your post was irrelevant because it addressed things I didn't say - you start with "assuming you're claiming ___" when I wasn't claiming ____. You should start your own thread if you want to discuss American religious violence vs. Indian religious violence or justice systems.

 

[GigageiTsula]

This non-Christian is out of this thread. There is now only one non-Christian (Sanjaya) posting.

I'm sorry. I was afraid this would happen.

 

[sanjaya1984]

I responded briefly because this is somewhat off-topic, and as a non-Christian you're violating the forum rules being in this thread, and because most of your post was irrelevant because it addressed things I didn't say - you start with "assuming you're claiming ___" when I wasn't claiming ____. You should start your own thread if you want to discuss American religious violence vs. Indian religious violence or justice systems.

Regarding violation of the forum rules, perhaps you're correct. It certainly isn't my intent. I don't know if Dharma Wheel is permitted to give his place in this thread over to me. If a moderator asks me to leave, I'll be happy to do so. But as to the charge that what I said is irrelevant, I have to disagree. You said, "At least we don't murder and rape Hindus as they murder and rape Christians in India." I admit I incorrectly assumed that you were contrasting Hindus and Christians. From what I can tell, you are in fact contrasting Hindus and Americans.

You allege institutionalized discrimination against Christians, but fail to explain what evidence there is for this. All you have show is that Hindus in India attack Christians, just as I have shown that Indian Christians commit terrorist acts against Hindus. Perhaps you might make a case for Indian police incompetence (and I would agree), but there is no case that India allows for some special discrimination of Christians.

Literally speaking you're right. At least Americans don't attack Christians as Indians do. Then again, I could just as well say that at least Americans don't attack Hindus as Indians (specifically missionary-trained Indian Christians) do. Do you see why I take issue with your statements?

 

[drich0150]

I am not sure how you got that from my post?

your challenge to all of those who shy away from a discussion on your terms gave me that from your post.

Who do I want to devour?

Those in whom you wish to "debate" a religious matter in a self concerning context.

It seems many Christians here want to do that; hence non-Christian can easily get ganged up on in this board.

Do you prefer it the other way around?

I did find your post (and a few others) somewhat rude as I was asking a simply question, because it seemed to me that Christians are too afraid of losing their faith if they debate with more than one non-Christians, ignore any non-Christian etc.

and I responded with a simple answer. That a fruitless self serving debate is a sin.

And I find it rather irksome that many Christians in this thread are trying to turn this thread into an anti-non Christian thread. And as far as I see it many, many non-Christians who criticize Christianity DO know the scriptures and their true context.

I find it equally "irksome" that someone who would take an anti Christian stance would presume to have the same level or understanding of God and or scripture that someone who loves and pursues God with all of their Heart, Mind, Spirit and strength would have.

That is why Perhaps personal pride, should not be apart of this discussion.

Anyway, I have got the answer I needed, and I do not think I will ask honest questions here as I do not like my thread being turned into a war zone and an evangelization tool.

Why would you not think your Post on a Christian board, in the "Exploring Christianity" sub-forum, would not be used as an evangelization tool?

and I am officially reigning from this thread, mainly because I like Sanjaya's posts and think he should continue here, rather than me, because he should have the right to keep his posts here and debate his point of view, and defend his religion which was slighted in many ways.

What about answering your questions, and asking follow ups? Is this allowed? because it really doesn't fit your definition of debate.

This non-Christian is out of this thread. There is now only one non-Christian (Sanjaya) posting.

That is unfortunate that you would quickly turn yourself off to a real opportunity for an in depth exploration of Christianity in favor of a pride filled free for all, where you control the pace and direction of the subject matter. That said, you should take it to heart that when you are ready, someone will be here to answer your questions for you.

 

[solarwave]

I think certain types of Christians will debate, but others arn't cut out for it. Obviously if you have an intelligent, read atheist and a faithful but not academic Christian, then the atheist could probably run rings around the Christian and just confuse them.

So I totally agree with discussion between beliefs, but perhaps it is best for certain types of people. I could be wrong though?

Because many Christians fear losing their faith.

Of course, if one has strong faith than what has one to lose in speaking with those who don't hold the same beliefs?

Some people just can't take on a good challenge!

Losing ones faith is something worth fearing, its a scary thing.

Even someone with strong faith can still fall. I would suggesting learning from each other is perhaps better than debate.

 

[98cwitr]

...Why do Christians try to keep debates with Non-Christians at a minimum?

This is something I have always wondered. The obvious example is this forum itself, which only allows one Christian to debate in a thread in this board and bars non-Christians from expressing opinions in GT etc. but this site is not the geatest example of this. You hear day by day that a Christian group wants to censor the opinions of non-Christians, for example when a Hindu cjaplain attempted to pray before the US senate, and deliberately made his message not focus specifically on Hinduism, he was heckled and derided by people quoting the scripture and so forth.

My question, and I do not mean to offend, is this; if Christians feel that their faith in Jesus is so strong why do they seem to fear non-Christians? I mean, would letting a Hindu priest pray be so had, or letting non-Christian debate with you be a chore?

I would personal love to invite it.

 

[Faulty]

...Why do Christians try to keep debates with Non-Christians at a minimum?

This is something I have always wondered. The obvious example is this forum itself, which only allows one Christian to debate in a thread in this board and bars non-Christians from expressing opinions in GT etc. but this site is not the geatest example of this. You hear day by day that a Christian group wants to censor the opinions of non-Christians, for example when a Hindu cjaplain attempted to pray before the US senate, and deliberately made his message not focus specifically on Hinduism, he was heckled and derided by people quoting the scripture and so forth.

My question, and I do not mean to offend, is this; if Christians feel that their faith in Jesus is so strong why do they seem to fear non-Christians? I mean, would letting a Hindu priest pray be so had, or letting non-Christian debate with you be a chore?

I suppose what is meant by 'debate'. I mean, what is being debated.

This will probably seem a little harsh, but those things of the Bible, of a spiritual nature, cannot be understood by those who are not born again. Not because they aren't smart, not at all, it's just an impossibility because the spiritual aspects can only be understood by those alive in spirit, as a dead man cannot even begin to understand someone explaining geometry to them, but if they were still alive, then that lesson could take place.

Allow me to demonstrate. Paul writes...

"For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned."
1 Cor 2:11-14
​

This isn't intended to be a slight against anyone, but it is a statement of fact. This is why christians and non-christians can stare at each other in amazement and think to themselves, "they just don't get it, completely clueless." There is no common point of reference.

It has a quick remedy too, understand that we have broken the commands of God and have sinned, and trust in Jesus, who became our sin sacrifice in our place, and took on Himself the wrath of God intended for us. For this cause, He died as our substitute, and then raised Himself from the dead, showing Himself as God, and able to save all who come to Him and accept His sacrifice.

 

[Harry3142]

Dharma Wheel-

You will notice that many of those who are intent on harassing people of other faiths also 'target' other Christian denominations, claiming that they are the only denominations that are truly conforming to Christian teaching. We've had at least one person in the 'Christians-Only' section of this website that has been quite blunt in stating this belief.

As you get away from the Roman Catholic Church and the mainstream protestant churches you find yourself in the area of those churches and sects which we call 'radical'. Some are merely more evangelical than the rest of us, but others are blatantly power-mad. According to their teaching no one can get to heaven unless they accept their leadership, and that includes Christians. Only through being totally subservient to their demagoguery are we assured of salvation.

A favorite place for them to operate is in the more conservative and fundamentalist sectors. But they themselves are neither. Instead, they are exploiters. Their desire is not the education or enlightenment of others; it is the overpowering and subduing of others to their will. And that will have as its goal the acquisition of power and wealth for themselves and/or the promotion of an agenda being 'pushed' by a certain special-interest group, even when that is in direct opposition to the teachings of Scripture.

There are 4 passages of Scripture which can help you separate the exploiter from the Christian, whatever his denomination may be. Those passages are listed here:

1. Matthew 25:31-46 (the 'feed the hungry' passage). Here the exploiter tries to get 'wiggle room' by saying that he 'believes in' doing what Jesus has instructed us to do. But the passage does not say that we are to 'believe in' performing the acts listed. It says that we are to do those acts.

2. Romans 3:19 to 5:10 (our righteousness must come from God). Here it is plainly stated that there is no way that obeying laws and commandments will lead to our being declared righteous in God's sight. Instead, we are to depend on God's own work to cleanse us of our sins, and his own righteousness, given to us freely, to replace our attempts at being righteous through our own efforts.

3. Romans 10:5-13 ('saved by faith' defined). Here we read that salvific faith consists in a positive answer to two questions. Do we acept Jesus as Lord? Do we believe that God did indeed raise Jesus from the dead?

4. Galatians 5:16-26 (The Christians Code of Conduct). As Christians we are still incapable of doing what God wants of us if left to our own devices. But God has dealt with that by having his Spirit 'take the lead' while we bring up the rear. It's God's Spirit that fights against our base nature, subjugating it. It's God's Spirit that brings with him 'the 9 fruit' which make up the new self. So long as our words and actions have as the root of their occurring one or more of these nine fruit, then we can be assured that we are saying and/or doing what God expects of us. But if our words and/or actions do not have these nine fruit as their parameters, then we cannot claim to be working on behalf of the kingdom of God.

 

[oi_antz]

...Why do Christians try to keep debates with Non-Christians at a minimum?

This is something I have always wondered. The obvious example is this forum itself, which only allows one Christian to debate in a thread in this board and bars non-Christians from expressing opinions in GT etc. but this site is not the geatest example of this. You hear day by day that a Christian group wants to censor the opinions of non-Christians, for example when a Hindu cjaplain attempted to pray before the US senate, and deliberately made his message not focus specifically on Hinduism, he was heckled and derided by people quoting the scripture and so forth.

My question, and I do not mean to offend, is this; if Christians feel that their faith in Jesus is so strong why do they seem to fear non-Christians? I mean, would letting a Hindu priest pray be so had, or letting non-Christian debate with you be a chore?

I see this thread has taken a bit of a spin into persecution, and I'm not really qualified to comment on those matters, but with relevance to your original question I do have some thoughts which you might not find too unreasonable.

About the board rules, I am not a staff member so I haven't been involved in discussing website policy, however I can see there are a few distinct forums that are segregated to provide a suitable environment for people to practice and learn about the religion that takes their interest. Notably is the Christian only forums at the top of the index page, and the denominational section which most posts are made by members displaying the appropriate icon in their profile. Then there is the outreach forum and social matters forums, which seem pretty open to anyone's contribution. And within the outreach > exploring Christianity forum (this I think may be the one you refer to), only a non-Christian may ask a topic expecting discussion with Christians only. The importance of having such a place is so these people feel secure that they are coming to learn from people who represent the religion of enquiry, and certainly it is in the interests of Christianity that debates and comments of a "devils advocate" nature aren't tolerated in the context of such threads. There are however other threads where the same person may post if they are wanting to discuss ideas and seek input from a variety of beliefs. So that's my take on the board rules, I don't think this is a bad policy at all.

As for that spiel you showed us against the Hindu person wanting to pray in parliament, I understand those Christians who contested him were particularly fearful of their country being corrupted by beliefs that differ from their own personal beliefs. However, this does seem to me that those fears are motivated by a passion to want to enforce a vision they have for the senate, and in that case I can see a characteristic we often find in opinionated people who believe they are right: the desire to have control. So these people obviously became quite agitated about what might have seemed to them as being a loss of control over their vision for the senate, and of course there is a lot that we don't know about what brought them to be in that state of mind. But one thing I can say is that God Himself wouldn't behave like that, in fact God has shown us through time an incomprehensible patience with humanity as they go about making terrible decisions and discarding the words He has said and killing the people who were closest to Him. So I doubt these Christians could have controlled their emotional state since they'd obviously been worked up to be afraid of what was going on in their goverment and of course I must say again, a 1 minute video doesn't tell us anything of a context about why someone might feel threatened by a religious prayer being made in the house of the senate. One thing I do know is quite sure is that the end times will be more wicked than the times of Noah when no-one gave a hoot about God, and I think this episode is just another step along the path to arriving at the inevitable moment when God decides to do what He must do.

Lastly, when I discuss matters with others, I choose to do so because I identify that they have some misunderstanding about Jesus and His Father, and my heart goes out to that person, as though they are falling off the straight and narrow and need help to get up. When this happens sometimes a debate occurs, and I really find that debate being an argument "I'm right, you're wrong, maybe we're both wrong" is counteractive to establishing an understanding of truth, because truth isn't so hard to find, it's been spelled out in black and white, and it's simply a matter of accepting it for what it says, or rejecting it or distorting it to mean something else that makes you feel good. So as soon as I see someone engaging in debate, I graciously thank that person for the discussion so far and indicate that I have little time to spend walking a dead-end road.

I hope you like my attitude Again, I cannot have any sort of opinion on what those outbursts are for, but obviously those people felt afraid of what was happening by allowing the senate to pray to a god other than the one revealed through Jesus the Christ. As I say, the world is prophesied to become exceedingly wicked against the true God and then He will decide to take action and apply the resolution He has described. We have been told as Christians that it will not be very easy to live in the world during those times, so perhaps their fear is based upon the threat of persecution which comes with the impending wicked generation.

 

[sanjaya1984]

I see this thread has taken a bit of a spin into persecution, and I'm not really qualified to comment on those matters, but with relevance to your original question I do have some thoughts which you might not find too unreasonable.

I see we're in a rather awkward position here. Dharma Wheel has left this thread and handed it over to me, though my primary interest was in preventing the misrepresentation of Hinduism. Thus I'm left arguing a case that I didn't originally make. I'll continue the conversation, though if Dharma Wheel wishes to take control of this thread again, I have no objections.

About the board rules, I am not a staff member so I haven't been involved in discussing website policy, however I can see there are a few distinct forums that are segregated to provide a suitable environment for people to practice and learn about the religion that takes their interest. Notably is the Christian only forums at the top of the index page, and the denominational section which most posts are made by members displaying the appropriate icon in their profile. Then there is the outreach forum and social matters forums, which seem pretty open to anyone's contribution. And within the outreach > exploring Christianity forum (this I think may be the one you refer to), only a non-Christian may ask a topic expecting discussion with Christians only. The importance of having such a place is so these people feel secure that they are coming to learn from people who represent the religion of enquiry, and certainly it is in the interests of Christianity that debates and comments of a "devils advocate" nature aren't tolerated in the context of such threads. There are however other threads where the same person may post if they are wanting to discuss ideas and seek input from a variety of beliefs. So that's my take on the board rules, I don't think this is a bad policy at all.

I can't say that I disagree. From what I can tell this forum seems to have an evangelical Christian bent, and evangelicals are of course free to practice their beliefs however they see fit as long as they do not force others to do so. This forum doesn't seem to have a debate focus, so I can understand keeping people out who do not subscribe to Christian beliefs (myself included). After all, if evangelicals were to come to a Hindu temple and begin preaching, I would see to it that they were removed with all delibrate speed. I don't see any reason why you need to allow us non-Christians to debate with you in forums that are meant for Christian discussions. And I have no desire to participate in these discussions (nor should any non-Christian). So yes, I agree that it's not a bad policy at all.

As for that spiel you showed us against the Hindu person wanting to pray in parliament, I understand those Christians who contested him were particularly fearful of their country being corrupted by beliefs that differ from their own personal beliefs. However, this does seem to me that those fears are motivated by a passion to want to enforce a vision they have for the senate, and in that case I can see a characteristic we often find in opinionated people who believe they are right: the desire to have control. So these people obviously became quite agitated about what might have seemed to them as being a loss of control over their vision for the senate, and of course there is a lot that we don't know about what brought them to be in that state of mind.

I assume you're referring to the Senate, which is what we Americans call our higher lawmaking body (this is not just a semantic distinction; the legislative system is very different than a parliamentary one). I think we can all agree that as you say, these peoples' motivation is a fear that their will for the American Senate will not be done. As you also say, they fear corruption of the Christian religion. Let's not mince words or succomb to political correctness: by your own words, evangelical Christians regard Hinduism as sinful and corrupt. I appreciate your courtesy, but I think that religion is not a matter on which Hindus and Christians will simply agree to disagree. In the evangelical mindset, to be a Hindu is not an acceptable state, for you believe it to result in eternal condemnation. Am I correct? You are of course entitled to this belief. But in the case of the evangelicals in the Senate, I believe that legitimate disagreement over theology has given way to outright hostility.

But one thing I can say is that God Himself wouldn't behave like that, in fact God has shown us through time an incomprehensible patience with humanity as they go about making terrible decisions and discarding the words He has said and killing the people who were closest to Him. So I doubt these Christians could have controlled their emotional state since they'd obviously been worked up to be afraid of what was going on in their goverment and of course I must say again, a 1 minute video doesn't tell us anything of a context about why someone might feel threatened by a religious prayer being made in the house of the senate.

I see. Whatever God has shown you through time is a matter of Christian religious literature, and beyond both my knowledge and the scope of this conversation. So let me question you as to matters that pertain to modern times. To clarify, do these "terrible decisions" that you refer to include us Hindus practicing the religion our our parents and ancestors instead of converting to the foreign religion of Christianity? Or is it merely a terrible decision for the U.S. Senate to allow a Hindu prayer?

If the latter, I have one additional question. The U.S. Congress has on occasion allowed Jewish prayers. Unlike Hinduism, Judaism is the one religion which explicitly denies that Jesus is the Christ, which according to your Bible classifies it as anti-Christ. In light of your Bible's negative statements on Judaism, makes a Jewish prayer preferable to a Hindu one? Why are there no protests when the rabbis come to the Congress?

One thing I do know is quite sure is that the end times will be more wicked than the times of Noah when no-one gave a hoot about God, and I think this episode is just another step along the path to arriving at the inevitable moment when God decides to do what He must do.

I think you misunderstand. Hindus are theists, and thus believe in God. You suggest that to practice Hinduism is to not "give a hoot" about God, despite that Hindus consider ourselves to be favorably disposed towards theism. I think what you really mean to say is that Hindus do not believe Christianity accurately portrays God. Thus you say that we are not to be punished for apathy towards God, but for rejecting Christian teachings about God. Is that correct?

Lastly, when I discuss matters with others, I choose to do so because I identify that they have some misunderstanding about Jesus and His Father, and my heart goes out to that person, as though they are falling off the straight and narrow and need help to get up.

But in the case of Hindus and all other non-Christians who were not raised Christian, one cannot be restored to the "straight and narrow," for we were never on the Christian path to begin with. Are you referring here to religious conversion?

I hope you like my attitude Again, I cannot have any sort of opinion on what those outbursts are for, but obviously those people felt afraid of what was happening by allowing the senate to pray to a god other than the one revealed through Jesus the Christ.

Again: if so, then why the lack of opposition to Jewish prayers? Jews most certainly do not assent to the idea that they are praying to the God revealed through Jesus the Christ. At least your average Hindu will agree that Jesus is a manifestation of God. I wonder why you prefer them to us.

As I say, the world is prophesied to become exceedingly wicked against the true God and then He will decide to take action and apply the resolution He has described. We have been told as Christians that it will not be very easy to live in the world during those times, so perhaps their fear is based upon the threat of persecution which comes with the impending wicked generation.

Again if I may clarify: do you regard the practice of Hinduism as an increase in wicked behavior against the true God?

 

[oi_antz]

I see we're in a rather awkward position here. Dharma Wheel has left this thread and handed it over to me, though my primary interest was in preventing the misrepresentation of Hinduism. Thus I'm left arguing a case that I didn't originally make. I'll continue the conversation, though if Dharma Wheel wishes to take control of this thread again, I have no objections.

Hi Sanya, I agree, we do indeed find ourselves in a rather awkward position. Nothing unusual about that, it's part and parcel of discussing matters of truth. I think that people in politics must overcome their emotions in order to behave professionally, however it is obvious that the love a Christian has for God is quite a strong emotional bond. It is not surprising to see anguish when witnessing such an offense against the Lord. So whether we take offense to something is actually quite irrelevant to whether it is right for it to happen. That's what I think anyway, maybe you haven't seen this attitude much with other Christians.

I can't say that I disagree. From what I can tell this forum seems to have an evangelical Christian bent, and evangelicals are of course free to practice their beliefs however they see fit as long as they do not force others to do so. This forum doesn't seem to have a debate focus, so I can understand keeping people out who do not subscribe to Christian beliefs (myself included). After all, if evangelicals were to come to a Hindu temple and begin preaching, I would see to it that they were removed with all delibrate speed. I don't see any reason why you need to allow us non-Christians to debate with you in forums that are meant for Christian discussions. And I have no desire to participate in these discussions (nor should any non-Christian). So yes, I agree that it's not a bad policy at all.

Well it is nice to see some respect about that, I mean I have never gatecrashed a forum where I'm not intended to be, and I think some of those who do that here simply don't realize that a complacent opinion can affect a person who is engaged in forming their beliefs about Jesus. This sort of ignorance is the enemy's greatest weapon against Christ, these people don't actually realize they are working against Jesus because they don't even think the situation is so serious that it is real! These people I mean are the ones who haven't received Jesus in their lives, so He is not a real figure in their lives. To them, Jesus is a guy that lived 2,000 years ago but is dead now. Christianity is simply not real to them, this is why I believe that their opinion is not appropriate in those forums where people are actually seeking to know the truth about Jesus, and seeking with such honesty that they will actually take the comments seriously.

I assume you're referring to the Senate, which is what we Americans call our higher lawmaking body (this is not just a semantic distinction; the legislative system is very different than a parliamentary one). I think we can all agree that as you say, these peoples' motivation is a fear that their will for the American Senate will not be done. As you also say, they fear corruption of the Christian religion. Let's not mince words or succomb to political correctness: by your own words, evangelical Christians regard Hinduism as sinful and corrupt. I appreciate your courtesy, but I think that religion is not a matter on which Hindus and Christians will simply agree to disagree. In the evangelical mindset, to be a Hindu is not an acceptable state, for you believe it to result in eternal condemnation. Am I correct? You are of course entitled to this belief. But in the case of the evangelicals in the Senate, I believe that legitimate disagreement over theology has given way to outright hostility.

Ok, I do have to admit I don't know anything about American politics. For your information I have lived in New Zealand all my life where there is a central government for the entire country, and each city has a local government for local amenities. I have recently moved to Australia where I see a new authority being state government, so I have learned the term "senate" in that context. Please forgive me if that misunderstanding has caused some confusion, I merely wanted to comment about the rationality behind those Christian refutes.

I see. Whatever God has shown you through time is a matter of Christian religious literature, and beyond both my knowledge and the scope of this conversation. So let me question you as to matters that pertain to modern times. To clarify, do these "terrible decisions" that you refer to include us Hindus practicing the religion our our parents and ancestors instead of converting to the foreign religion of Christianity? Or is it merely a terrible decision for the U.S. Senate to allow a Hindu prayer?

I didn't mean for that comment to be taken personally or even with any relevance to this prayer. In fact when I wrote that I had in mind the crucifixion above all things, but also the many stories of what the Bible tells us about the history of God's people dishonoring Him. I actually didn't even consider that it could be interpreted to imply that Hinduism is a terrible thing, I wouldn't have said those words even if I was trying to say that Hinduism is terrible, the fact is that I didn't come here to say that Hinduism is terrible but rather to tell you what I think about the response to the prayer. I see now why you are so aggravated by my comment, you simply can't hear what I mean to say! However, now that you've asked me what I think about Hinduism, I am going to tell you how terrible I think it is. It has nothing to do with morals, ethics or philosophy, but instead with how Hinduism regards the Holy God, redeemer of Israel and Father of Jesus. Here you go:

If the latter, I have one additional question. The U.S. Congress has on occasion allowed Jewish prayers. Unlike Hinduism, Judaism is the one religion which explicitly denies that Jesus is the Christ, which according to your Bible classifies it as anti-Christ. In light of your Bible's negative statements on Judaism, makes a Jewish prayer preferable to a Hindu one? Why are there no protests when the rabbis come to the Congress?

Yes, I mean the latter, it is terrible to pray to a god who is not the God most high. I think that even if you argue about this, we will eventually agree that the Holy God of Israel is not the same person as anything that a Hindu might pray to.

I think you misunderstand. Hindus are theists, and thus believe in God. You suggest that to practice Hinduism is to not "give a hoot" about God, despite that Hindus consider ourselves to be favorably disposed towards theism. I think what you really mean to say is that Hindus do not believe Christianity accurately portrays God. Thus you say that we are not to be punished for apathy towards God, but for rejecting Christian teachings about God. Is that correct?

Yes. If you don't agree that Jesus spoke with the authority of the Holy Spirit of God, then who do you suppose Jesus represents?

But in the case of Hindus and all other non-Christians who were not raised Christian, one cannot be restored to the "straight and narrow," for we were never on the Christian path to begin with. Are you referring here to religious conversion?

Not really, I think sin requires a conscious decision. As Adam and Eve were created without sin and then became sinful, so too I believe a child becomes more and more sinful as they make sinful decisions, which can be influenced by the environment, so to say we all get placed on a level field is not true. With regards to what I meant about straight and narrow, I mean whether someone agree's with Jesus or disagree's. And I have met many people who have been led off that path of straight and narrow by people who have never even studied Jesus, these such people actually believe Jesus is wrong but they have never bothered to read what Jesus said and can't actually demonstrate any understanding about what in particular Jesus says that they disagree with. So those are the ones I am describing when I say they need help to get back on the path of straight and narrow, I do not mean people such as you who have obviously made an informed decision not to walk that path. This path I describe is the path we are naturally placed on at birth, that is the path of innocence that God had designated to us that we may have life. As soon as we stray from the path, we are considered guilty of sin. As I understand, Jesus had never sinned, so in terms of sinfulness, He represents the epitome of how God had intended us to be. Uncorrupted, pure and holy. Anyone arguing with what He says must certainly either know God better than He does, or they are behaving as a law unto themself.

Again: if so, then why the lack of opposition to Jewish prayers? Jews most certainly do not assent to the idea that they are praying to the God revealed through Jesus the Christ. At least your average Hindu will agree that Jesus is a manifestation of God. I wonder why you prefer them to us.

No, Jews do not believe that God is revealed through Jesus the Christ, because they haven't come to know God through Jesus Christ. But according to Christian teaching, the God of Jesus is the same God which brought Israel out of Egypt and is not manifested in anyone except those who are anointed by Him to receive His Holy Spirit. So praying to the true God is something quite irrelevant to accepting what He says, and saying that you can see God in anyone or anything is a perversion of God's image, because you've obviously never seen God as He truly is otherwise you wouldn't dishonor Him by turning to worship the things He has made.

Again if I may clarify: do you regard the practice of Hinduism as an increase in wicked behavior against the true God?

I don't know whether that is even a valid question, it would require measuring various factors to prove an "increase" in said wicked behavior, and also a definition of what about Hinduism is actually considered to be wicked. I'm not the right person to ask for such judgments, if you want those types of rulings you need to consult the Holy Spirit, which you can do any time by reading the Holy Bible in the name of Jesus the Christ. In my opinion, yes worshiping a god other than the God of Israel is a sin according to the ten commandments given by God Himself, and therefore yes, by encouraging such behavior you do in fact insult His Holy Highness. That is certainly something capable of striking fear into the heart of a believer.

 

[sanjaya1984]

Ok, I do have to admit I don't know anything about American politics. For your information I have lived in New Zealand all my life where there is a central government for the entire country, and each city has a local government for local amenities. I have recently moved to Australia where I see a new authority being state government, so I have learned the term "senate" in that context. Please forgive me if that misunderstanding has caused some confusion, I merely wanted to comment about the rationality behind those Christian refutes.

Of course. There's no expectation on your part to know terribly much about American politics; I can't say I am terribly informed about the goings on of Australian government myself.

I didn't mean for that comment to be taken personally or even with any relevance to this prayer. In fact when I wrote that I had in mind the crucifixion above all things, but also the many stories of what the Bible tells us about the history of God's people dishonoring Him. I actually didn't even consider that it could be interpreted to imply that Hinduism is a terrible thing, I wouldn't have said those words even if I was trying to say that Hinduism is terrible, the fact is that I didn't come here to say that Hinduism is terrible but rather to tell you what I think about the response to the prayer. I see now why you are so aggravated by my comment, you simply can't hear what I mean to say!

I see, and it would appear I've misinterpreted your earlier point. But to clarify on my part, I am by no means aggrivated by anything you've said. I know full well what evangelical Christianity has to say about people of my religion, and likely nothing you say will surprise me. And as I see it, insofar as it doesn't affect Hindus' ability to practice our religion freely, it doesn't really matter to me what you believe about us or what you teach in your churches. That is purely your own affair. It is only evangelical behavior towards Hindus, specifically your missionary activities among Indian communities, which concerns me.

Yes, I mean the latter, it is terrible to pray to a god who is not the God most high. I think that even if you argue about this, we will eventually agree that the Holy God of Israel is not the same person as anything that a Hindu might pray to.

If you say so. Your belief about the morality of uttering Hindu prayers is entirely your concern. Personally I find the Christian idea of true and false gods to be a bit absurd. One may have an incorrect conception of God (thus I wouldn't go so far as to say I consider Christianity a true religion), but I do not subscribe to the idea that God will ignore anyone's prayer on the basis of his theological views. Feel free to disagree with me, and continue teaching whatever you wish in your churches.

The pertinent question is: how are your beliefs going to influence your actions? I find it rather inconsistent for an evangelical church to condemn a Hindu prayer in the U.S. Senate (or any other expression of Hinduism in America) whilst sending missionaries to India and demanding the protection of India's secular government. It would be more consistent to simply demand that every government adopt Christian laws. Given that Christians have the freedom to publically practice their religion in a Hindu-majority country, I wonder why evangelicals are so surprised that the U.S. government affords the same right to American Hindus. Perhaps you can shed some light on this issue.

Yes. If you don't agree that Jesus spoke with the authority of the Holy Spirit of God, then who do you suppose Jesus represents?

Personally I don't have an opinion on that. But thanks for clarifying.

Not really, I think sin requires a conscious decision. As Adam and Eve were created without sin and then became sinful, so too I believe a child becomes more and more sinful as they make sinful decisions, which can be influenced by the environment, so to say we all get placed on a level field is not true. With regards to what I meant about straight and narrow, I mean whether someone agree's with Jesus or disagree's. And I have met many people who have been led off that path of straight and narrow by people who have never even studied Jesus, these such people actually believe Jesus is wrong but they have never bothered to read what Jesus said and can't actually demonstrate any understanding about what in particular Jesus says that they disagree with.

Perhaps I can alleviate your fears. I've read your entire Bible, but I have no desire to convert evangelical Christians to any other religion, or to alter their beliefs. As I mentioned above, I'm far more concerned with the behavior of evangelical Christians than what they believe. While I don't regard your path as either straight nor narrow, you won't find me persuading anyone to deviate from it.

So those are the ones I am describing when I say they need help to get back on the path of straight and narrow, I do not mean people such as you who have obviously made an informed decision not to walk that path. This path I describe is the path we are naturally placed on at birth, that is the path of innocence that God had designated to us that we may have life. As soon as we stray from the path, we are considered guilty of sin.

Slightly off topic, but can I take this to mean that you don't subscribe to the standard Christian notion of intrinsic human sinfulness?

As I understand, Jesus had never sinned, so in terms of sinfulness, He represents the epitome of how God had intended us to be. Uncorrupted, pure and holy. Anyone arguing with what He says must certainly either know God better than He does, or they are behaving as a law unto themself.

I think you may be neglecting the third option: those of us who are non-Christian theists of any kind simply adhere to a spiritual teaching that doesn't come from the Bible. I don't sit around inventing ideas about the nature of God and take them as truth. Rather I find these truths in my own religion's Scriptures and teachers. Perhaps I find these to be better sources of spiritual knowledge than the Bible, but I am certainly not practicing the sort of spiritual anarchy to which you allude. I fear you may be projecting an atheistic worldview onto non-Christian theists.

No, Jews do not believe that God is revealed through Jesus the Christ, because they haven't come to know God through Jesus Christ. But according to Christian teaching, the God of Jesus is the same God which brought Israel out of Egypt and is not manifested in anyone except those who are anointed by Him to receive His Holy Spirit. So praying to the true God is something quite irrelevant to accepting what He says, and saying that you can see God in anyone or anything is a perversion of God's image, because you've obviously never seen God as He truly is otherwise you wouldn't dishonor Him by turning to worship the things He has made.

Let me see if I understand this. A Jew who prays is speaking to the true God, and that God will nonetheless send him to eternal hell for not believing in Jesus. A Hindu who prays is speaking to a false god, and the true God will send him to hell for not believing the right things about Jesus. Is this correct?

I don't see how there is effectively any difference, but that's none of my business. But perhaps I can see how this would affect your attitude towards public expressions of Judaism and Hinduism respectively. If I'm reading you right (please correct me if I'm not), evangelicals do not care about the personal religious beliefs of the person uttering the public prayer. An atheist or other non-Christian who prayed a Jewish prayer in public American function would be welcomed by evangelicals, but a theist who did not pray a Jewish or Christian prayer is not welcome. Is this right?

If you don't mind a bit of editorial commentary on my part, it seems to me that this position doesn't advance the cause of public displays of Christianity in America. If you go and solicit the average Hindu to convert to Christianity, he'll probably hear you out, and then politely tell you that he has no interest in conversion. Try the same thing with your average Jew, and he'll call you the reincarnation of Adolf Hiter, and proceed to tell you why people like you were responsible for the Holocaust. If you'll allow me to present an illustration: when I was growing up as an American Hindu, I of course grew up around Christians. My parents never worried about shielding me from Christianity; they just figured (correctly) that if they take me to temple and do poojas at home, I'll end up staying on the "straight and narrow" path of Hinduism. When my brother took piano lessons, recitals or other events would sometimes be in churches, complete with Christians rituals. We didn't worry about him being exposed to a foreign religion or anything; we just didn't believe in conversion, and left it at that. Now, one of my best friends was Jewish. His parents kept him away from churches, and wouldn't let him anywhere near a Christian Bible. In fact, when my family celebrated Christmas, he wasn't allowed to come over. All this despite that our recognition of Christmas was purely as a civic holiday! I've noticed that evangelicals have an immense fascination with Jews, almost to the point of obsession. Evangelicals fall all over Jews and regard them as kindred spirits. But ask a Jew about Jesus, and the response will range from absolute apathy to outright hostility. Yet evangelicals love Jews, solely because you happen to share some common Scripture. Again, your beliefs are your business, but I find it peculiar.

I don't know whether that is even a valid question, it would require measuring various factors to prove an "increase" in said wicked behavior, and also a definition of what about Hinduism is actually considered to be wicked. I'm not the right person to ask for such judgments, if you want those types of rulings you need to consult the Holy Spirit, which you can do any time by reading the Holy Bible in the name of Jesus the Christ. In my opinion, yes worshiping a god other than the God of Israel is a sin according to the ten commandments given by God Himself, and therefore yes, by encouraging such behavior you do in fact insult His Holy Highness. That is certainly something capable of striking fear into the heart of a believer.

Well as I've said, I read your Bible. Can't say whether I read it "in the name of Jesus the Christ," since I'm not sure what that means. Some people have told me that in order to understand the Bible I have to "have the Holy Spirit," i.e. become a Christian. That's obviously not something I'm going to do. However, I do find the following phrase from your Bible to be interesting:

They sacrificed to false gods, which are not God—
gods they had not known,
gods that recently appeared,
gods your ancestors did not fear. (Deuteronomy 32:17)
​

In this passage of your Bible, there seems to be an indication that it is bad to abandon the heritage of your people and adopt a new religion. Given the Old Testament's emphasis on familial solidarity and respect for the older generation, this makes a good deal of sense. This is actually one of the most important reasons for which I do not convert to Christianity. To speak in your language, it's a religion that has recently appeared and which my ancestors did not practice. Indian culture is rich with tradition, history, and ritualism. Hinduism is a far more ancient religion than Christianity, and Indians were worshiping God according to the teachings of the Vedas when even the Jews did not have monotheism. To convert to Christianity is to lose this entire culture. You make these claims that Hinduism is at best an incorrect religion and that we all need to convert to Christianity. I of course respect your right to believe that, but do you see why we do not ultimately do as you request?

 

[oi_antz]

Of course. There's no expectation on your part to know terribly much about American politics; I can't say I am terribly informed about the goings on of Australian government myself.

I see, and it would appear I've misinterpreted your earlier point. But to clarify on my part, I am by no means aggrivated by anything you've said. I know full well what evangelical Christianity has to say about people of my religion, and likely nothing you say will surprise me. And as I see it, insofar as it doesn't affect Hindus' ability to practice our religion freely, it doesn't really matter to me what you believe about us or what you teach in your churches. That is purely your own affair. It is only evangelical behavior towards Hindus, specifically your missionary activities among Indian communities, which concerns me.

Well would you rather the whole world knows something about Jesus but was misinformed? I'm not sure that is the point of view the evangelicals hold. I think your gods may have caused you to fear Christianity somehow, perhaps you think it forces you to think in ways you don't like to think?

If you say so. Your belief about the morality of uttering Hindu prayers is entirely your concern. Personally I find the Christian idea of true and false gods to be a bit absurd.

Good, then you have indeed agreed that your own Hindu prayer would not be worship toward the God who redeemed Israel from Egypt.

One may have an incorrect conception of God (thus I wouldn't go so far as to say I consider Christianity a true religion), but I do not subscribe to the idea that God will ignore anyone's prayer on the basis of his theological views. Feel free to disagree with me, and continue teaching whatever you wish in your churches.

That is true actually, but the fact is that this Hindu prayer was not addressing the Holy God. I will continue teaching what God has shown me, that you can be certain of. What I find interesting is that you seem to think that Christianity is merely a theory about who God is, one of the belief structures you can ascribe to. Do you not understand that humans oppose God until they accept Him? What your religion does is make up some fluffy ideas about what God might be, a "transcendental glory", but when He speaks to you you refuse to listen.

The pertinent question is: how are your beliefs going to influence your actions? I find it rather inconsistent for an evangelical church to condemn a Hindu prayer in the U.S. Senate (or any other expression of Hinduism in America) whilst sending missionaries to India and demanding the protection of India's secular government. It would be more consistent to simply demand that every government adopt Christian laws. Given that Christians have the freedom to publically practice their religion in a Hindu-majority country, I wonder why evangelicals are so surprised that the U.S. government affords the same right to American Hindus. Perhaps you can shed some light on this issue.

I can't really, I have never experienced the environment in those two countries. What I can tell you, to shed some light, is that every god is at war with the supreme God (otherwise they wouldn't call themselves a god), and they are capable of manipulating humans to insult the true God. Surely you won't be able to understand this since you've never accepted that there is just one God.

Personally I don't have an opinion on that. But thanks for clarifying.

Perhaps I can alleviate your fears. I've read your entire Bible, but I have no desire to convert evangelical Christians to any other religion, or to alter their beliefs. As I mentioned above, I'm far more concerned with the behavior of evangelical Christians than what they believe. While I don't regard your path as either straight nor narrow, you won't find me persuading anyone to deviate from it.

So if I understand correctly, you've read the Bible and you disagree with Jesus, you don't care that other people agree with Jesus, but you've got a problem if someone tries to explain Jesus to a person who has never heard the truth about Him?

Slightly off topic, but can I take this to mean that you don't subscribe to the standard Christian notion of intrinsic human sinfulness?

I don't know what you refer to here. Some people believe we are born sinners, I don't think the Bible says that. I know the Bible says we are doomed to death because of sin, and we have all sinned so fall short of the glory of God. But that is due to the human spirit having been woken to the knowledge of good and evil when they ate the forbidden fruit, and the fact that humans can't possibly have a clear conscience all their life, therefore they will inevitably fall short of the glory of God. This was never intended you know, only when one of the other god's sought to oppose the true God did this happen. Perhaps you don't really understand what I meant, Jesus taking on the form of a human who was tempted as a human, never committed sin, therefore He is the only human who has ever lived up to God's expectation of innocence.

I think you may be neglecting the third option: those of us who are non-Christian theists of any kind simply adhere to a spiritual teaching that doesn't come from the Bible. I don't sit around inventing ideas about the nature of God and take them as truth. Rather I find these truths in my own religion's Scriptures and teachers. Perhaps I find these to be better sources of spiritual knowledge than the Bible, but I am certainly not practicing the sort of spiritual anarchy to which you allude. I fear you may be projecting an atheistic worldview onto non-Christian theists.

Well, I only hope I can make it clear. What spirits do think your teachers listen to, if they aren't listening to the Holy Spirit of the One True God?

Let me see if I understand this. A Jew who prays is speaking to the true God, and that God will nonetheless send him to eternal hell for not believing in Jesus. A Hindu who prays is speaking to a false god, and the true God will send him to hell for not believing the right things about Jesus. Is this correct?

I have no idea. That's none of my business. My role here is to make sure that when I meet people who have been deceived about Jesus, I will give them information from the point of view of a believer rather than a disbeliever. I find it very unfair that those people who don't believe what Jesus says would have any impact on the beliefs of those who are searching to know about Him. And those were His instructions to us. If we want eternal life, we must put down everything we wanted to do with our lives and get to work telling people the truth about Him. Mark 8:34-35

I don't see how there is effectively any difference, but that's none of my business. But perhaps I can see how this would affect your attitude towards public expressions of Judaism and Hinduism respectively. If I'm reading you right (please correct me if I'm not), evangelicals do not care about the personal religious beliefs of the person uttering the public prayer. An atheist or other non-Christian who prayed a Jewish prayer in public American function would be welcomed by evangelicals, but a theist who did not pray a Jewish or Christian prayer is not welcome. Is this right?

It has mostly got to do with how the person's heart is approaching the Lord of all. What I saw in that Hindu prayer is not the type of reverence you would have if you were addressing the Holy God. Rather, this guy seems to think His man-made god is worth speaking to, but do you actually know how it makes God feel when someone addresses a person who opposes Him? Effectively what you are saying is that God doesn't deserve His crown, but this spaghetti monster does.

If you don't mind a bit of editorial commentary on my part, it seems to me that this position doesn't advance the cause of public displays of Christianity in America. If you go and solicit the average Hindu to convert to Christianity, he'll probably hear you out, and then politely tell you that he has no interest in conversion. Try the same thing with your average Jew, and he'll call you the reincarnation of Adolf Hiter, and proceed to tell you why people like you were responsible for the Holocaust. If you'll allow me to present an illustration: when I was growing up as an American Hindu, I of course grew up around Christians. My parents never worried about shielding me from Christianity; they just figured (correctly) that if they take me to temple and do poojas at home, I'll end up staying on the "straight and narrow" path of Hinduism. When my brother took piano lessons, recitals or other events would sometimes be in churches, complete with Christians rituals. We didn't worry about him being exposed to a foreign religion or anything; we just didn't believe in conversion, and left it at that. Now, one of my best friends was Jewish. His parents kept him away from churches, and wouldn't let him anywhere near a Christian Bible. In fact, when my family celebrated Christmas, he wasn't allowed to come over. All this despite that our recognition of Christmas was purely as a civic holiday! I've noticed that evangelicals have an immense fascination with Jews, almost to the point of obsession. Evangelicals fall all over Jews and regard them as kindred spirits. But ask a Jew about Jesus, and the response will range from absolute apathy to outright hostility. Yet evangelicals love Jews, solely because you happen to share some common Scripture. Again, your beliefs are your business, but I find it peculiar.

Well how a person treats another comes down to their personal biases and as you say, what they think about the other person. I don't think you can paint us all with the same tar brush, I've met Jews too who claim to know there is one God, but also claim to be atheists! I know blanket statements are always going to offend someone. I guess the fact that some Jews do accept Jesus just shows that the teachings of a religion are not always working in the best interests of the person it serves.

Well as I've said, I read your Bible. Can't say whether I read it "in the name of Jesus the Christ," since I'm not sure what that means. Some people have told me that in order to understand the Bible I have to "have the Holy Spirit," i.e. become a Christian. That's obviously not something I'm going to do.

Well it is true, if you want to be Christian you have to accept the Holy Spirit in your life. If however you just want God to speak to you when you read, all you need to do is listen to what the Holy Spirit says when you read. However, if you've made friends with other spirits, you might not be so inclined to trust what The Holy Spirit says. That is what I see to be a problem for you, that clearly you're happy to entertain ideas about pagan gods, but when it comes to the idea of the One True God, it's obviously not something you're going to do.

However, I do find the following phrase from your Bible to be interesting:

They sacrificed to false gods, which are not God—
gods they had not known,
gods that recently appeared,
gods your ancestors did not fear. (Deuteronomy 32:17)
​

In this passage of your Bible, there seems to be an indication that it is bad to abandon the heritage of your people and adopt a new religion. Given the Old Testament's emphasis on familial solidarity and respect for the older generation, this makes a good deal of sense. This is actually one of the most important reasons for which I do not convert to Christianity.

Well I guess you made your decision about the value of Jesus' life, seeming to think that He represents a false god. Perhaps have a think about what you might say to Him when the time comes.

To speak in your language, it's a religion that has recently appeared and which my ancestors did not practice. Indian culture is rich with tradition, history, and ritualism. Hinduism is a far more ancient religion than Christianity, and Indians were worshiping God according to the teachings of the Vedas when even the Jews did not have monotheism. To convert to Christianity is to lose this entire culture. You make these claims that Hinduism is at best an incorrect religion and that we all need to convert to Christianity. I of course respect your right to believe that, but do you see why we do not ultimately do as you request?

I think if you are to be honest, I'm not actually making that request. Perhaps there is some spiritual activity within you that convicts you when you read the words I say. Nonetheless, I do hope that one day you'll consider the matter of who Jesus is with regards to speaking the truth about Him. This man Jesus, as you ought to know, is not just another guy with a beard 2,000 years ago, but He was chosen by God most high and the world rejected Him. It's actually quite a serious matter, you must choose one side or the other. I would challenge you to think about what you might stand to lose by giving some respect to what Jesus says, and if you don't mind sharing with me, I'd like to know what you're afraid of

 

[sanjaya1984]

Well would you rather the whole world knows something about Jesus but was misinformed? I'm not sure that is the point of view the evangelicals hold. I think your gods may have caused you to fear Christianity somehow, perhaps you think it forces you to think in ways you don't like to think?

I wouldn't say that I fear Christianity, per se. I do believe that it can have a harmful effect on my own culture if allowed to spread, but this is quite different from paranoia. As I've already mentioned, I take no issue with the free practice of Christianity in the world, so I think it is premature for you to say that I fear your religion. As I've said, what I disagree with is the spread of Christianity through missionary work. This is not a feeling that is alien to evangelicals. Here in America, evangelicals equally oppose the missionary activities of Christian groups like the Mormons. So perhaps you can relate to me better than you think, for I view evangelicals in muc the same way that evangelicals view Mormons.

Good, then you have indeed agreed that your own Hindu prayer would not be worship toward the God who redeemed Israel from Egypt.

No...I don't think I agreed to that. It seems to me that anyone who prays is praying to God, since there is only one after all. I do agree that a person who prays may have a poor understanding of God, though. Personally I think that Christians do not possess a correct understanding of God, but it doesn't mean I think you are praying to a different God. You of course will disagree, but this is my view.

Your next comments are perhaps best addressed point by point:

That is true actually, but the fact is that this Hindu prayer was not addressing the Holy God. I will continue teaching what God has shown me, that you can be certain of.

Fair enough. I likewise will continue believing what God has taught me, though I only intend to teach it to other Hindus. We both believe that God has taught us something, but upon comparison these teachings differ. Clearly one of us is wrong.

What I find interesting is that you seem to think that Christianity is merely a theory about who God is, one of the belief structures you can ascribe to.

Actually I do not think this. I do not think that Christianity is one theory among many equally valid ones. Just so we're clear: I don't think that all religions are equally valid. Like you, I believe that I am correct and you are incorrect. Really, the only difference between you and me in this matter is that I don't think you'll go to hell for being wrong.

Do you not understand that humans oppose God until they accept Him?

I intellectually comprehend what you're saying, I simply don't agree. I do not view all humans are virulently opposed to God. Some certainly are. But I leave apathy and misunderstanding as options.

What your religion does is make up some fluffy ideas about what God might be, a "transcendental glory", but when He speaks to you you refuse to listen.

I likewise think that Christians are making up ideas about God, and refuse to listen to him. In Hinduism we're often taught that no one can learn God's truth unless he himself allows it, which is why this does not distress me. Obviously you and I are going to be on opposite ends of the fence here. But I'm not sure how you can convince me that your view is correct and mine is not. At this point most Christians would tell me that the Bible is historically accurate and Hinduism consists of mythology (i.e. "my god rose from the grave and yours didn't"). However I have found these arguments to be wanting. If you have a good reason as to why I should believe what you said above, I'm perfectly willing to listen.

I can't really, I have never experienced the environment in those two countries. What I can tell you, to shed some light, is that every god is at war with the supreme God (otherwise they wouldn't call themselves a god), and they are capable of manipulating humans to insult the true God. Surely you won't be able to understand this since you've never accepted that there is just one God.

Just so we're clear, I am a monotheist (like most Hindus). Hindu monotheism is not the result of any Christian or Muslim influence; the Vedas teach that there is one God with many different representations. Those representations are what you may know as the Hindu Gods. Perhaps a loose analogy can be drawn to your Trinity, whereby three beings are viewed as one God. This analogy isn't perfect, but it will probably suffice.

As to your point: since I only believe in one God, the idea of other gods making war on the supreme God doesn't hold much relevance to me. Again, this isn't a problem of understanding on my part. It's simple disagreement.

So if I understand correctly, you've read the Bible and you disagree with Jesus, you don't care that other people agree with Jesus, but you've got a problem if someone tries to explain Jesus to a person who has never heard the truth about Him?

Well, you're partially correct. I've read the Bible, but don't take any opinion on Jesus. To be honest, the Bible is just too small for me to get a good idea of what Jesus is saying. Indeed, most of the three synoptic gospels is just the same thing written by different authors. Jesus' statements could be interpreted in many ways, and without more text I can't make an intelligent determination of what he's saying. Hindu Scriptures tend to be much longer, and there is more information upon which to form a theology. With the Bible, there are too many apostolic letters, and not enough story about Jesus. It's sort of like me asking you to form an opinion on American politics after listening to a five minute news conference with Obama.

Now as to explaining Jesus to people who have never heard what you have to say about him, in theory I wouldn't have any problem with this. The problem is that in reality, what you are talking about is solicitations for conversion. This is where I take issue.

I don't know what you refer to here. Some people believe we are born sinners, I don't think the Bible says that. I know the Bible says we are doomed to death because of sin, and we have all sinned so fall short of the glory of God. But that is due to the human spirit having been woken to the knowledge of good and evil when they ate the forbidden fruit, and the fact that humans can't possibly have a clear conscience all their life, therefore they will inevitably fall short of the glory of God. This was never intended you know, only when one of the other god's sought to oppose the true God did this happen. Perhaps you don't really understand what I meant, Jesus taking on the form of a human who was tempted as a human, never committed sin, therefore He is the only human who has ever lived up to God's expectation of innocence.

Thanks for explaining. I'll try not to take us any further down this side tangent.

Well, I only hope I can make it clear. What spirits do think your teachers listen to, if they aren't listening to the Holy Spirit of the One True God?

I hope to be equally clear. I believe that Hindu sages and the authors of our Scriptures listen to God (specifically the one responsible for creating the universe), and convey his truths. I don't think the authors of the Bible are listening to any spirits, whether good or bad.

I have no idea. That's none of my business. My role here is to make sure that when I meet people who have been deceived about Jesus, I will give them information from the point of view of a believer rather than a disbeliever. I find it very unfair that those people who don't believe what Jesus says would have any impact on the beliefs of those who are searching to know about Him. And those were His instructions to us. If we want eternal life, we must put down everything we wanted to do with our lives and get to work telling people the truth about Him. Mark 8:34-35

Are you saying you find it unfair that people who disagree with Christianity should voice such disagreement? That's sort of like saying that a judge should only listen to one side of a case before rendering a verdict. When judging any issue, one should listen to all legitimate points of view. This is wisdom on the part of the judge, not unfairness on the part of one of the contenders.

It has mostly got to do with how the person's heart is approaching the Lord of all. What I saw in that Hindu prayer is not the type of reverence you would have if you were addressing the Holy God. Rather, this guy seems to think His man-made god is worth speaking to, but do you actually know how it makes God feel when someone addresses a person who opposes Him? Effectively what you are saying is that God doesn't deserve His crown, but this spaghetti monster does.

Now I'm even more confused. The average Rabbi hates Jesus and thinks that he is responsible for all the ill that has befallen Jews throughout the centuries, but he has a good heart in approaching the Lord? I'm sure I'm misunderstanding you somewhere.

Anyway, since I don't agree with your claim that Hindus worship man-made gods, the rest of what you've said is of course not going to have much relevance to me.

Well how a person treats another comes down to their personal biases and as you say, what they think about the other person. I don't think you can paint us all with the same tar brush, I've met Jews too who claim to know there is one God, but also claim to be atheists! I know blanket statements are always going to offend someone. I guess the fact that some Jews do accept Jesus just shows that the teachings of a religion are not always working in the best interests of the person it serves.

The Jews you refer to constitute an extremely small percentage of the Jewish population. Like Hinduism, Judaism is a religion with strong cultural ties, and conversion to Christianity is highly frowed upon. Those Jews who become Christians are eschewed by the rest of their community, and this discourages conversion in general. Alas, it's irrelevant, because any Jew who offers a prayer in the U.S. Congress will be a Jew with mainstream beliefs, i.e. he will reject Jesus as the Christ. If you want to clear this up, we could look up the names of some Jews who have prayed in the U.S. Congress and look them up. So I'm still not clear on why evangelicals have such a fascination with Jews.

Well it is true, if you want to be Christian you have to accept the Holy Spirit in your life. If however you just want God to speak to you when you read, all you need to do is listen to what the Holy Spirit says when you read. However, if you've made friends with other spirits, you might not be so inclined to trust what The Holy Spirit says. That is what I see to be a problem for you, that clearly you're happy to entertain ideas about pagan gods, but when it comes to the idea of the One True God, it's obviously not something you're going to do.

Again, what you're saying isn't going to be too relevant to me, since I obviously don't regard Hinduism as paganism (and perhaps you could provide me with a definition of paganism, just so that we're on the same page), and I don't believe your statement that I commune with demons. On the contrary, I believe that I am worshiping the "One True God." So in fact I do believe in a similar monotheistic theology as you do, and my failure to believe in your Bible is not due to closed-mindedness on my part.

Well I guess you made your decision about the value of Jesus' life, seeming to think that He represents a false god. Perhaps have a think about what you might say to Him when the time comes.

Ah, the threat of hell. Since I don't believe in an eternal hell, you'd have to convince me of its existence before you can threaten me with it. But as to the life of Jesus, I think I've been quite clear in saying that I have no opinion.

I think if you are to be honest, I'm not actually making that request. Perhaps there is some spiritual activity within you that convicts you when you read the words I say. Nonetheless, I do hope that one day you'll consider the matter of who Jesus is with regards to speaking the truth about Him. This man Jesus, as you ought to know, is not just another guy with a beard 2,000 years ago, but He was chosen by God most high and the world rejected Him. It's actually quite a serious matter, you must choose one side or the other. I would challenge you to think about what you might stand to lose by giving some respect to what Jesus says, and if you don't mind sharing with me, I'd like to know what you're afraid of

I'll tell you what I'm afraid of when I stop beating my wife.

As I said earlier, I do not fear your religion. But if we may be honest, you are requesting that I convert to Christianity, are you not? I know you think that Jesus is unique. I think that Hinduism is unique; in all the world you will not find another religion quite like it. Since only one of us can be correct, the uniqueness of Jesus doesn't validate Christianity. Now I have already told you what I would lose by converting to Christianity. And since I don't share many of your theological views, I thus see no reason to entertain your solicitation for conversion.

 

[elman]

1. Matthew 25:31-46 (the 'feed the hungry' passage). Here the exploiter tries to get 'wiggle room' by saying that he 'believes in' doing what Jesus has instructed us to do. But the passage does not say that we are to 'believe in' performing the acts listed. It says that we are to do those acts.

2. Romans 3:19 to 5:10 (our righteousness must come from God). Here it is plainly stated that there is no way that obeying laws and commandments will lead to our being declared righteous in God's sight. Instead, we are to depend on God's own work to cleanse us of our sins, and his own righteousness, given to us freely, to replace our attempts at being righteous through our own efforts.

3. Romans 10:5-13 ('saved by faith' defined). Here we read that salvific faith consists in a positive answer to two questions. Do we acept Jesus as Lord? Do we believe that God did indeed raise Jesus from the dead?

.

I see Jesus teaching that salvific faith includes and cannot be separated from the love of others. This love is action, doing things on behalf of others. Jesus said it is not the one that calls me Lord, but the one that does what I command. I don't think understanding of the divine nature of Jesus nor mental agreement with the story of the resurection really has much to do with salvific faith. These things were not mentioned as dividing the sheep from the goats. Matt 25:31 and following. Paul, the author of Romans said in 1 Cor 13:2 that faith without love is worthless. Jesus of course defined love in the parable of the Good Samaritan.