Hinduism and Christianity / Krishna and Jesus - Connected ?

[Ramadhan]

To a learned Hindu, it doesn't matter whether Krishna is truly God or not. If you think you are praying to the Lord when you are praying to Krishna, that alone is enough.

So why praying to khrisna then if he's not God?
From your explanation it does seem that you can pray to any object?

The lord doesn't need worship. He's perfect and self-sufficient and hence has no needs.

I agree. This concept is awfully similar to Islam.

However, what I see from the practice of hindus is extremely completely different.

I see hindus make offerings to their gods, or rather, they make offerings to the statues and likenesses of their gods.
And I often wondered why those ganeshas and shivas never ate those flowers, cakes, etc that were presented to them.....

 

[bhakti]

So why praying to khrisna then if he's not God?
From your explanation it does seem that you can pray to any object?

Is that not why idol worship is encouraged in Hinduism? You can definitely pray to any object that you think can invoke devotion in you for God.

I agree. This concept is awfully similar to Islam.

Please dont take offence coz I may be very wrong here but I think Allah says in the Quran that he created humans only so they could worship him right? Of course I dont know what the correct interpretation of the verse is and would love to understand.

However, what I see from the practice of hindus is extremely completely different.

I see hindus make offerings to their gods, or rather, they make offerings to the statues and likenesses of their gods.
And I often wondered why those ganeshas and shivas never ate those flowers, cakes, etc that were presented to them.....

That is again an act of love by the devotee coz he forms a personal relationship with the deity. Whether the idol eats it or not is immaterial.
The President of America, for example, is a very rich and powerful man and can get almost anything he wants at the snap of a finger. Even then, his loving little daughter or son finds immense joy in making a little greeting card for him from a mere piece of paper. The president, on his part, knows the gift is worthless compared to all the riches and power he has. Yet his joy when the little one gives him the piece of paper is boundless. Such is the relation between God and devotee.

The offerings to God are not just offerings. Instead, the love and devotion that goes into making those offerings to God is what is important.

 

[Charzhino]

I agree. This concept is awfully similar to Islam.

However, what I see from the practice of hindus is extremely completely different.

I see hindus make offerings to their gods, or rather, they make offerings to the statues and likenesses of their gods.
And I often wondered why those ganeshas and shivas never ate those flowers, cakes, etc that were presented to them.....

In Islam, Allah gets angry if one does not worship Him, therefore your God has emotion which makes him imperfect. And dont bring the cop out answer of ''his anger is not like our anger'', any emotion that is even closely related to anger makes such a being irrational.

 

[bhakti]

I have to agree, I don't think many muslims take his claims regarding hinduism to be true. Islam and hinduism are complete opposites, personally I think he does it for interfaith purposes but also to try and bring hindus to islam.

yeah...he's certainly a vile ol' guy Mr.Zakir Naik! A funny character that lies a lot. I'm glad you guys dont take him too seriously

 

[aadil77]

yeah...he's certainly a vile ol' guy Mr.Zakir Naik! A funny character that lies a lot. I'm glad you guys dont take him too seriously

I wouldn't say he's 'vile' or that he 'lies', his theories do not automatically equal 'lies', majority of his lectures and material are very beneficial

its only his views regarding hinduism that are questionable

 

['Aleena]

Do you realize what Mahamada means in Sanskrit? mada means intoxicated. and "Mahamada" means greatly intoxicated. Zakir Naik and his ilk read that and went ahead and proclaimed mohammed is prophecized in Hindu scriptures! So much for his scholarship! Seriously, every one of these weird claims has been refuted easily by anyone that has even a little knowledge of Hinduism and these refutations are all over the internet.

Strange:hmm: no when ever asked him during his open Q & A sessions. I saw him speaking in front of Hindu preachers and scholars but they never objected... or may be ambiguous personalities on the net are more reliable...
Hopefully you will ask him at this years peace conference

 

[Dave...]

All false religions come from the same place. That's why there are similarities between them and the truth, because they try to capture the power of the truth, while at the same time trying to conform it to themselves. Here's a taste....



"The pagan cults of Greece and Rome were part of what are commonly called the mystery religions. By Paul's time they had dominated the near eastern world for thousands of years and indirectly would dominate much of western culture through the middle ages and, even until today.

The mystery religions had many forms and variations, but a common source. In his vision on the island of Patmos John was shown "the judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters," on whose "forehead a name was written, a mystery, 'Babylon the great, the mother of all harlots and the abominations of the earth'" (Rev. 17:1,5). Here the Lord pictures His judgment of the world religion. At the end of the Tribulation the true church will have been raptured (1 Thess. 4:13-18; Rev. 3:10) and the world will begin to establish a religion of it's own that will be truly universal. It will be the composite of all the worlds false religions, which will "give their power and authority to the beast, "the Antichrist" (Rev. 17:13). The final form of that all-powerful, universal religion will represent the completion of the mystery religions that historically originated in ancient Babylon.

In its organized form false religion began with the tower of Babel, from which Babylon derives it's name. Cain was the first false worshiper, and many individuals after him followed his example. But organized pagan religion began with the descendants of Ham, one of Noah's three sons, who decided to erect a great monument that would "reach into heaven" and make themselves a great name (Gen. 10:9-10; 11:4). Under the leadership of the proud and apostate Nimrod they planned to storm heaven and unify their power and prestige in a great worldwide system of worship. That was man's first counterfeit religion, from which every other false religion in one way or another has sprung.

God's judgment frustrated their primary purpose of making a grand demonstration of humanistic unity. By confusing "their language, that they may not understand one another's speech," and scattering "them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth" (Gen. 11:7-8) the Lord halted the building of the tower and fractured their solidarity. But those people took with them the seeds of that false, idolatrous religion, seeds that they and their descendants have been planting throughout the world ever since. The ideas and forms were altered, adapted, and sometimes made more sophisticated, but the basic system remained, and remains, unchanged. That is why Babel, or Babylon, is called "the mother of all harlots and of the abominations of the earth" (Rev. 17:5). She was the progenerator of all false religions.

From various ancient sources, it seems that Nimrod's wife. Semiramis (the first), apparently was high priestess of the Babel religion and the founder of all mystery religions. After the tower was destroyed and the multiplicity of languages developed, she was worshiped as a goddess under many different names. She became Ishtar of Syria, Astarte of Phoenicia, Isis of Egypt, Aphrodite of Greece, and Venus of Rome--in each case the deity of sexual love and fertility. Her son, Tammuz, also came to be deified under various names and was the consort of Ishtar and god of the underworld.

According to the cult of Ishtar, Tammuz was conceived by a sunbeam, a counterfeit version of Jesus' virgin birth. Tammuz corresponded to Baal in Phoenicia, Orisis in Egypt, Eros in Greece, and Cupid in Rome. In every case, the worship of these gods and goddesses was associated with sexual immorality. The celebration of Lent has no basis in scripture, but rather developed from the pagan celebration of Semiramis's mourning for forty days over the death of Tammuz (cf. Ezek. 8:14) before his alleged resurrection--another of Satan's mythical counterfeits.

The mystery religions originated the idea of baptismal regeneration, being born again merely through the rite of water baptism, and the practice of mutilation and flagellation to atone for sins or gain spiritual favor. They also began the custom of pilgrimages, which many religions follow today, and the paying of penance for forgiveness of sins foroneself and for others. (John Macarthur NT commentary '1 Corinthians' )

 

[aadil77]

"The pagan cults of Greece and Rome were part of what are commonly called the mystery religions.

Which is why paul himself brought paganism into christianity by introducing the worship of multiple gods

 

[Grace Seeker]

Which is why paul himself brought paganism into christianity by introducing the worship of multiple gods

If you want to claim that Christian worship multiple gods because you don't accept our understanding of the Trinity as monotheistic but tritheistic, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. But, you are sadly mistaken if you think that Paul introduced this. Take a look at the record, Peter is the one who introduces this idea in his very first sermon at Pentecost:

"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ" Acts 2:36. The phrase "Lord and Christ" is not just a couple of human titles that are being attributed to Jesus. The term "Christ" is a reference to Jesus being the Messiah. Not just an anointed instrument of God, but in this case being THE anointed and chosen one of God who is to bring about and accomplish the redemption of the nation of Israel and all nations spoken of by the prophets. And the term "Lord" is to use for Jesus is not just being polite like saying "sir"; in this context "Lord" is the word that Jews used as a substitute for YHWH, God's personal name. Peter is declaring that Jesus is none other than the very same being that Moses spoke to at the burning bush.

We see more of how Peter equated Jesus (who he calls "Lord" in vs. 36) with God a second time as he responds to questions posed to him about what all of this meant: 38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call." Having just called Jesus "Lord" he now refers to "the Lord" as "our God".


So, accuse us of polytheism if you want. But get the source right. It isn't Paul and it isn't Greek paganism. It is Peter and Thomas ("My Lord and my God" John 20:28) and even the Didache that you asked about in another thread, for it too refers to Jesus as "the Lord", in praying to the Father refers to Jesus as "your child", and (in the epitome of what you would call polytheism) instructs people to be baptized "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." All of this while Paul is still breathing threats against the followers of Jesus specifically for at the time thinking exactly what you continue to accuse Christians of NOT being true monotheists.

aadil, I know you are capable of thinking for yourself. So, quit allowing yourself to be spoonfed by those who simply want to attack Paul. You can for coming late to the party and in the end teaching things that you disagree with. But what you accuse him of here, bringing paganism into Christianity, he is guiltless.

He didn't bring Trinitarian ideas to Christianity, he found them already existing within it, first fought against them, second was converted to them, and then spread them to the world.

 

[aadil77]

So, accuse us of polytheism if you want. But get the source right. It isn't Paul and it isn't Greek paganism. It is Peter and Thomas ("My Lord and my God" John 20:28) and even the Didache that you asked about in another thread, for it too refers to Jesus as "the Lord", in praying to the Father refers to Jesus as "your child", and (in the epitome of what you would call polytheism) instructs people to be baptized "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." All of this while Paul is still breathing threats against the followers of Jesus specifically for at the time thinking exactly what you continue to accuse Christians of NOT being true monotheists.

aadil, I know you are capable of thinking for yourself. So, quit allowing yourself to be spoonfed by those who simply want to attack Paul. You can for coming late to the party and in the end teaching things that you disagree with. But what you accuse him of here, bringing paganism into Christianity, he is guiltless.

He didn't bring Trinitarian ideas to Christianity, he found them already existing within it, first fought against them, second was converted to them, and then spread them to the world.

hmm, well atleast we can agree that christianity consists of beliefs similar to paganisitic ones :ermm:

 

[Grace Seeker]

hmm, well atleast we can agree that christianity consists of beliefs similar to paganisitic ones :ermm:

I agree that you label it that way. I observe that both a bird and a bee use wings to fly. But even though I believe in the basic ideas behind evolution, I don't think that one evolved into the other. In my opinion, the nexus for Christians thinking of God in three persons comes not from pagan polytheism, but from the personification of God's character found in pre-Christian Jewish wisdom literature.

 

[aadil77]

I agree that you label it that way. I observe that both a bird and a bee use wings to fly. But even though I believe in the basic ideas behind evolution, I don't think that one evolved into the other. In my opinion, the nexus for Christians thinking of God in three persons comes not from pagan polytheism, but from the personification of God's character found in pre-Christian Jewish wisdom literature.

I can understand that some christians may have loved Jesus (peace be upon him) to the extent that they turned him into a god - similar to how some companions who wanted to prostate themselves to prophet Muhammad, but I don't get where the trinity comes in and why it was made part of christianity

 

[Grace Seeker]

I can understand that some christians may have loved Jesus (peace be upon him) to the extent that they turned him into a god - similar to how some companions who wanted to prostate themselves to prophet Muhammad, but I don't get where the trinity comes in and why it was made part of christianity

A very legitimate question. One I've tried to address before, and am willing to address again if you're really seeking to understand where those beliefs come from. Mind you, I'm not saying that I'm trying to convince you to change your beliefs. And if this is about debate, refutation, and counter debate, I'm not interested in wasting my or your time. But, if you just want to an explanation (however illogical it might seem to you) as to how we arrived at this understanding, I am willing to go through it again.

(Or, if you're a reader, I can refer you to a few books that probably cover the subject better than I could.)

 

[Woodrow]

To make life easier for all concerned. Please everybody stick with facts and personal explanations. this is a very delicate topic for all concerned and it is best refutations and arguments be avoided. Especially if they become personal. Since this is an area we will never come to agreement on I am requesting each poster on this thread to post a closing explanation and then we will close the thread to further comments.

 

[aadil77]

A very legitimate question. One I've tried to address before, and am willing to address again if you're really seeking to understand where those beliefs come from. Mind you, I'm not saying that I'm trying to convince you to change your beliefs. And if this is about debate, refutation, and counter debate, I'm not interested in wasting my or your time. But, if you just want to an explanation (however illogical it might seem to you) as to how we arrived at this understanding, I am willing to go through it again.

(Or, if you're a reader, I can refer you to a few books that probably cover the subject better than I could.)

Sure, no debates, I'd like to see your explanation as to where/why/how trinity comes in to christianity

and no I'm not a reader