Posted on 10/11/2001 8:44:26 PM PDT by sola gracia
The Hindus believe in many gods and goddesses. At the same time they also believe in the existence on one Supreme God, whom they call variously as Paramatma (Supreme Self), Parameshwar (Supreme Lord), Parampita (Supreme Father). Iswara, Maheswara, Bhagawan, Purusha, Purushottama, Hiranyagarbha and so on.God is one, but also many. He manifests Himself in innumerable forms and shapes. As Purusha (Universal Male), He enters Prakriti (Nature, Matter or Divine Energy) and brings forth the numerous worlds and beings into existence. He upholds His entire creation with His unlimited powers.
He is both the Known and the Unknown, the Being as well as the Non-Being, Reality as well as Unreality. As the Unknown, He is rarely known and worshipped for difficult and painful is the path for those who choose to worship Him as the Unmanifest (The Bhagavad-Gita XII.6). He exists in all and all beings exist in him. There is nothing other than Him, and there is nothing that is outside of Him. He is Imperishable, unknowable, immortal, infinite, without a beginning and without an end. All the same when worshipped with intense devotion and unshakeable faith, He responds to the calls of His devotees and comes to their aid and rescue.
All the gods and goddess are His manifestations only. In His female aspect He is Shakti, who as the Divine Universal Mother assists the whole creation to proceed through the process of evolution in Her own mysterious ways.
The relationship between man and God is purely personal and each can approach Him in his own way. There are no fixed rules and no central controlling authority on the subject of do's and don'ts. There are of course scriptures and Smritis but whether to follow them or not is purely an individual choice.
The concept of monotheism is not new to Hinduism. It is as old as the Vedas themselves. References to One indivisible and mysterious God are found in the Rigveda itself. The concept is the central theme of all the Upanishads in which He is variously referred as Brahman, Iswara, Hiranyagarbha, Asat etc.
While the students of Upanishads tried to understand Him through the path of knowledge and there by made it the exclusive domain of a few enlightened persons, the bhakti marg or the path of devotion brought Him closer to the masses. The One Imperishable and Ancient Being was no more a God of remote heights, but down to the earth, ready to help His needy devotees and willing to perform miracles if necessary.
The rise of tantric cults added a new dimension to our understanding of Him. To the tantric worshippers the Supreme Self is the Universal Mother. Purusha is subordinate to Her and willing to play a secondary role in Her creation. By Himself He cannot initiate creation unless He joins with His Shakti.
On the abstract level He is satchitananda. Truth, Consciousness and Bliss. He is the inhabitant of the whole world. There is nothing that is outside of Him or without Him. He exists in the individual being as Atman, the Enjoyer who delights in Himself, without undergoing any change, but willing to participate in the cycle of births and deaths and bear witness to all the illusions of life. He can be realized in many ways, which broadly fall into three main categories: the path of knowledge, the path of devotion and the path of renunciation. Of this the middle one is the best, the first one is very difficult and the third one requires immense sacrifice and inner purification. In the Bhagavad-Gita we come across the path of action which combines the rest of the three into one integrated whole in which a devotee has to live his life with a sense of supreme sacrifice, performing his actions with detachment, without any desire for the fruit of actions and offering them to God with pure devotion and total surrender. Hindus have a very broader approach to the concept of God. The names that people give to Him are just mere reference points for the sake of our understanding. How can He have names, who is actually beyond all words and thoughts? He represent the loftiest ideal which mankind can aspire to achieve. He is the goal and reaching Him in our individual ways is the very purpose of our lives. Those who quarrel on his name are blind men who grope in darkness and go to the worlds of ignorance. Truly the Brahman of Hinduism represents the Highest principle which the human mind can ever conceive of. He is not God of just one world or a few worlds, but represents the entire known and unknown Universe as well as the past, the present and the future that is yet to come.</BLOCKQUOTE.</Font size>
Now it may be that the idea of saints impacts on the ability to accept an elephant as an "expression "of a god..My God made Elephants,and cows He is not one..
To be absent from the body is to be present to God...not to be reincarnated..
The danger of the " just get along "is exactly what you have expressed,the willingness to see demon gods as equilivant to The One Holy God of Israel
Gene Edward Veith is "one of our own" here in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. Dr. Veith is a professor at Concordia University-Wisconsin (in Mequon, near Milwaukee).
Perhaps more dangerous in the post-postmodernist era is what may happen to religion. Suddenly the cultural hostility to faith went up in smoke, when Americans faced real pain and real spiritual need. This was a good sign. And yet, in the well-intentioned "interfaith prayer services," a more disturbing note was sounded. Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus were all worshipping together, praying, it was said, "to the same God."
The Bible strictly forbids syncretistic worship, the mingling of biblical and pagan religions, a violation of the First Commandment. When the Israelites brought idols of Baal into the Temple, presumably because they thought they and the Canaanites worshipped "the same god," the real God was not pleased.
Yes, this is very true. And in fact, we are having a major "discussion" in the LCMS right now, regarding participation in these syncretistic "interfaith prayer services." The LCMS Constitution, following the teaching of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, rightly requires, as a condition of membership in the Synod, "Renunciation of unionism and syncretism of every description."
The Rev. Charles Henrickson
My guess would be a "Dark and Stormy night..."
Yes, Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. But that also means that God is Truth. We can't deny truths in other religion, because all truth is God's truth. So when other religions teach that God sustains everything in existence, that God is One, that God is omnipotent, et cetera, we have to affirm these truths.
Yes, no one comes to the Father except through Jesus. But does that mean that someone has to recognize Jesus explicitly? Certainly someone who "loves his neighbor as himself," without understanding and explicitly acknowledging Jesus as Lord and Savior through no fault of his own, implicitly acknowledges Jesus.
Jesus said that to those who choose to deny Him on earth, he will deny them (not know them) at judgement day. 'Knowing' Him 'implicitly' won't cut it. Being 'saved' (from hell) means an intellectual and physical acknowledgment of Christ as savior ('confession' before men) as well as baptism, which is symbolic of the death and resurection of Christ and the death and rebirth of the 'new' man/woman in Christ. I understand that baptism is questioned by some but I find it clear in New testament scripture and see no reason to avoid it.
Jesus Christ did not suffer and die on the cross so that men could 'implicitly' know Him and be saved. Eternal life requires a bit more effort than that, which should be logical to most thinking people who are sincere in finding salvation.
That concept might be valid for a person who never hears about Christ or sees a bible (the mythical native living deep in a jungle in ancient times) but acknowledges God through His works (creation). God is perfect justice and does not punish one who cannot know the saviour because of a situation that he does not control. This would not apply to modern-day man, as Christ and Christianity are fully known and a bible available to anyone, for free.
One other note regarding the tendency of some on FR to equate Christian fundamentalism with that of the Islamic variety: Christianity may seem strange to the unbeliever and Jerry falwell is a convenient whipping boy but modern-day Christianity will not harm you in any way or attempt to force you to accept it's teachings. Despite what some atheists want us to believe, Christians do not want a theocracy in America; we believe in Free Will. Accept Christ or reject him, it's a choice and the only punishment for rejection is up to God, not man.
And there in lays the problem...
The Holy God of Israel is THE God..
. Yes, no one comes to the Father except through Jesus. But does that mean that someone has to recognize Jesus explicitly? Certainly someone who "loves his neighbor as himself," without understanding and explicitly acknowledging Jesus as Lord and Savior through no fault of his own, implicitly acknowledges Jesus.
You have been hanging around liberal Catholic theologians too long.:>)
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Philippians9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
1 Thessalonians 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,
Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
As for loving your neighbor as a marker or means of salvation...well Luther put that aside!
Romans 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;Romans 11:6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Ephesians 2
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
None of this is new to you ...so I hope that you were just generating some discussion
Jesus is Lord and those that refuse to bend their knee to Him are lost..
Philippians 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;..
I have never studied into the various Christian beliefs of the Founding Fathers, so I can't give you any names. Others might be able to.
Falwell is a "dispensationalist" in his view of "eschatology". And, like Pat Robertson, Hal Lindsay, and other "pop-culture" favorites of religious people, is one of the more zealous, less circumspect ones who hold this viewpoint.
The fact that most people don't even know what those words mean, is what results in so much confusion. Even many professing Christians themselves, are arrogantly spouting the "dispensational theology" view point as if it's the "gospel truth". Many of them aren't even aware of the "covenant theology" viewpoint of last things.
Eschatology is the word that describes the study of "Last Things" and how various professing Christians view the Scriptures concerning that subject.
Covenant theology (which I adhere to) centers on one overall major covenant known as the eternal covenant of grace (or redemption, as some call it). This covenant of grace is being worked out on earth in history through subordinate covenants, beginning with the covenant of works and culminating with the new covenant, which fulfills and completes God's work of grace to man on earth. (These covenants *include* the Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new covenants).
Covenant theology does NOT see each covenant as separate and distinct. Instead each covenant builds on the previous covenants and culminates in the new covenant.
Dispensational theology looks on the world and the history of mankind as a household over which God is superintending the outworking of his purpose and will in stages or "dispensations". These various stages or dispensations may include as many as 7: innocence, conscience, human government, promise, law, grace, and kingdom.
Under covenant theology we believe that God has one people, represented by the saints of the Old Testament era, and the saints of the New Testament era.
Dispensationalists, on the other hand, believe that God has two people - Isreal and the Church. They believe that Isreal is an earthly people, and the church his heavenly people.
Undercovenant theology, we believe that God has one people, the church, for whom he has one plan in all the ages since Adam: to call out this people into _one body_ in both the Old and New Testament ages.
Dispensationalists believe that God has two separate peoples, Isreal and the church, and also has two separate plans for these two distinct peoples. That he plans an earthly kingdom for Isreal. And that this kingdom has been postponed until Christ's coming in power, since Isreal rejected it at Christ's first coming. During the church age God is calling out a heavenly people. Dispensationalists disagree over whether the two peoples will remain distinct in the eternal state.
Under covenant theology, we believe that God has one plan of salvation for his people since the time of Adam. The plan is one of grace, being the outworking of the eternal covenant of grace and comes through faith in Jesus Christ.
*Most* (not all) dispensationalists believe that God has only one plan of salvation, and that it is by grace through faith, but the content of that faith may vary until the full revelation of God in Christ.
Here are the subjects that constitute the OTHER *major* differences in belief between those who adhere to covenant theology and those who adhere to dispensational theology:
[1] The place of eternal destiny for God's people. [3] The purpose of Christ's first coming
[4] The fulfillment of the new covenant
[5] The problem of amillennialism and post-millennialism verses pre-millennialism
[6] The second coming of Christ
I'll post those differences in this thread later on when I get time. *Some* may be interested. :)
[1] The place of eternal destiny for God's people.
[2] The birth of the church
[3] The purpose of Christ's first coming
[4] The fulfillment of the new covenant
[5] The problem of amillennialism and post-millennialism verses pre-millennialism
[6] The second coming of Christ
I wanted to share with you some thoughts I've had about the problems we have in this country, the war, but what kind of war is it? There's no place to go, nothing that you can think to do that would be right, even though justice is necessary.
I'd like to talk to you tonight about other terrorists.
Let's take social terrorists - in our country. The kind of terrorists that go into schools and spread drugs. The kind of terrorists that kidnap little children and make them prostitutes and what was always known as white slavery. The kind of terrorists in the entertainment world that put out on television in public, in Europe and all over the world, the worst, worst kind of movies, the most immoral movies. Those are social terrorists. You say, oh no Mother, they, oh yea....look what they have done to this country, look what they have done to our youth. And what is a terrorist, I don't know what a definition is... someone who wants to destroy.
We've had two beautiful buildings destroyed on our land. And many innocent people. People who were blown to bits - just like the first 10, 20 years of abortion. Cut to pieces, thrown in garbage cans and eaten by rats. Same as now. Those are terrorists. I think they're the worst because they destroy innocence and life and populations. Our population is nothing what it should have been. Millions that belonged to us are gone and to me, and, I might be way off beam, I just want to share my heart with you - all those millions and millions that are gone, they can't fight for us because they aren't there. Isn't that a terrorist thing? Isn't it terrorism to have Satan's music for our little ones to absorb and to begin to murder and kill. Isn't it terrorist to spread drugs everywhere, to push prostitution and immorality among our youth, weaken their hearts, their souls, their minds? Isn't that terror?
Then there's spiritual terror, the kind that makes you afraid to say a prayer in public, the kind that makes you hide your crucifixes and anything religious in your office. The kind that says you can't have a crib in public. That's a terrorist because, in your heart you want to love God. You want to praise God. You want to say thank you Jesus for coming to save us as a little child. Thank you Lord. I think that's a terrorism that's acceptable... but I don't think it is.
Mr. President, I'm an old lady with a minor little stroke, or whatever it is and only one eye, but I can see - that this nation, great, mighty, a sleeping giant, that could bring the whole world to holiness, goodness, compassion, strength and hope, but I don't think, unless we tackle the terrorists in OUR country, we can expect God to protect and guide us.
Mr. President, would you consider putting prayer back in the schools and letting us pray at social functions? I understand that you prayed at a football game or baseball game. Could we pray in restaurants and could we have reminders of the Lord God? Can we put a crib back on our lawns and not be afraid of being ridiculed? Mr. President, would you consider having prayer back in the schools? Would you consider taking that horrible law with permission to kill, to terrorize the innocent? I know some of you are mad at me right now. I figure in my condition I have nothing to lose. But would you consider, saying no more abortion is allowed in this country? Would you consider?
Mr. President, I thought your speech was wonderful. I don't play Democrat or Rebublican. I don't play anything in politics. I think, in general, politics stinks, but, you gotta vote for somebody. I was proud of you the other day. You were strong and you did put God in. But you see, you can't have two opposite things. You can't allow such terrorists in our country.
I know, I know what some of you're out there are thinking "Well you have your nerve, you're trying to tell us what to do". No, I don't care what you do. If you don't want to pray, don't pray. I believe in freeedom of religion. I also believe in God and this country is no longer free. See, if you're not free Mr. President, you can't make others free. You can't give what we don't possess.
If we offend God by pornography and allowing pornography, by drugs, by not enough care and supervision, by television that's absolutely rotten, disgraceful, immoral, and allowing innocent children, they feel, those kids feel whatever it is. In the old days they used to have salt saline abortion. They'd burn the little children. As long as that's a law, it cannot be pleasing to God.
We can't keep offending God here, then ask for his blessing here. It's not going to work. Most of you might say, mind your own business and talk spiritual things. I think I am, talking about deeply spiritual things.
And all of you that have been so hidden and hurt because of the way these over 6,000 people died, cruel, without love, without anything. What about those little kids. They had no place to run. They had no place to go. You see, I don't want to be depressing tonight. I love you. I love you Mr. President. You may never hear this talk. I hope the spirit, in one of your prayer groups, whispers in your ear because I think some drastic anti-terrorism has to be done in this country - to make us free - to make us filled with trust in God. Then, then you can do the work that you have been given to do. And then the almighty God from on high will be with you, and with this country, and with the world.
I love our president and our congress, because they've gotten together and they done everything America should do. They rose to the occasion. Just as with Pearl Harbour, the Japanese said they woke a sleeping giant, they did again (now). This time, we have a few hindrances.
I'm only saying that if we're going to clear out or try to bring to justice terrorists we had better first look at home.... We must be brave and we must accept our penance. We must also change. We must pray, not only for those who died in those terrible, terrible attacks, but have we ever prayed for the children who were murdered, every day? Have we ever said Lord, I can't stop it but I pray they have a high degree of glory in your kingdom... Let us become a repenting nation and change.
That isn't true in many cases. I can think of lots of professing Christians who would like nothing better than to obtain the reins of BIG government and IMPOSE **their brand of Christianity** on others, to "do God a favor".
Luckily America's Framers were very familiar with the Holy Scriptures and knew that the only government that God recognizes as legitimate is one that is: a.) "limited", b.) governs according to "the rule of law", and c.) "recognizes" that man's rights and freedoms are inalieable (because they come from God ONLY), and guards and protects them by punishing evil-doers (the lawless) swiftly.
Such a government effectively PREVENTS tyrants, "religious" or otherwise, from gaining absolute power and control over the rest of us.
And what did Luther think about this passage? He regarded James as an "epistle of straw."
I'm sure you can always find a few Christians who may wish to see a theocracy imposed in America but that concept is inherently unscriptual and not part of mainstream Christianity. As you point out, a theocracy is also constitutionally impossible.
Re: #37
Well, I didn't expect universal agreement with my position but despite the obstacles you mention, the bible (God's Word) is quite simple and clear as to God's plan for our salvation and what we must do to be saved.
When we stand before God on Judgement day and Christ should know us not, claiming that other Christians, sects, doctrines or lack of time kept one from accepting Christ as savior will not be accepted.
Each human being is responsible for their own response to Christ. I do not worship a preacher, another Christian or some doctrine; I worship God and Christ. The way to salvation is clearly stated in the bible; it is not difficult to understand when approached with an open heart and mind. To assume that God will accept 'excuses' for knowing but not accepting his Way to salvation through Christ is folly, in my opinion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.