also iirc hinduism has all of their gods as being different incarnations of one root-god, which then means that some hindus think of their religion as far more monotheistic than variants of christianity
While technically true, in practice no one cares or ever talks about it (or so my Indian colleagues tell me). But yea, that's why they accepted Jesus so easily, "Oh, he's just another manifestation, I'll add him to my collection."
well yeah but then there are different interpretations of what that one "root-god" is: shaivites believe it to be Shiva, shaktists believe it to be Shatki or Kali, Krishnaites -- lord Krishna. and they somehow coexist without killing each other for their faith -- something we ought to have learned back in the days of widespread and dominant christianity.
Actually, in Hinduism, Brahman is the "ultimate reality" and every living being is either Brahman or part of Brahman, so even beyond manifestations of the deities, there is still another layer above that. Of course, for practical, every day worship purposes, this doesn't really come into play much in the same way most Christians do not care about the hierarchy of angels. Like Christianity and the complexity of the Trinity, there are schools of thought on what exactly this idea in Hinduism means.
All Vaishnava schools are panentheistic and perceive the Advaita concept of identification of Atman with the impersonal Brahman as an intermediate step of self-realization, but not Mukti, or final liberation of complete God-realization through Bhakti Yoga.[citation needed] Gaudiya Vaishnavism, a form of Achintya Bheda Abheda philosophy, also concludes that Brahman is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. According to them, Brahman is Lord Vishnu/Krishna; the universe and all other manifestations of the Supreme are extensions of Him.[citation needed] Shaktas conceive the Goddess as the supreme, ultimate, eternal reality of all existence, or same as the Brahman concept of Hinduism. She is considered to be simultaneously the source of all creation, its embodiment and the energy that animates and governs it, and that into which everything will ultimately dissolve.[30][4] According to V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar – a professor of Indian history, in Shaktism theology "Brahman is static Shakti and Shakti is dynamic Brahman."[31] Oh and have a look at this table, it shows the differences between the various sects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaivism#Shaivism_versus_other_Hindu_traditions
Yea, a lot of the "high doctrine" for many religions are super interesting, but most "lay" people don't care or know. It's kind of funny that way
I never set unrealistic expectations. I always suspected you were uninterested in finding out the truth.
Can you point me to some? I've read a decent amount, care to give some examples? Which ones are you thinking of? Again, which ones? Yup, I know about those things. Still not sure how that discredits things, but okay. I meant these days. Yeah, the people/Christians that did that were awful people. More examples of them not following Biblical principles and commandments. The thing about people deviating from the agreed upon teaching? Yeah, talk to them, talk to them, talk to them, if they still won't listen, don't let them come to Church and teach there anymore. It doesn't say "kill all the unbelievers and heretics". That's why I (and others) are likely to say "those people weren't really Christians, because they weren't acting how Christians are supposed to". I was actually one of the people that didn't care about Romney being a Mormon. Interesting, I've always been under the impression (from person experience) that Mormons are considered Christians by most people. Free Masons too, but that's a different story. I think I don't remember what the point I was trying to make was. And yes, because people keep coming up with things that are different from the (at the time) accepted doctrine. That causes splits, yes. I'm not certain if they will converge or not. If my understanding of the Bible is correct, then no, they likely won't. Those people sounds really obnoxious. It also sounds like they aren't actually adhering to what their own sacred text tells them about interacting with non-Christians and attempting to proselytize. Doing that kind of thing is generally looked down upon by most Christians. I'm sad that you got stuck with sucky ones that didn't read. I'd argue that it's people that are about indoctrination. Systems of belief (or non belief? Atheism is till technically a system of belief) aren't required to be indoctrinating, although they can certainly be made that way.
didn't they teach biology in middle school where you live? can you explain what you think is encompassed in the theory of evolution ( which you do not accept) so we can work to fill the things you get wrong? do you understand genetics and mutations ? no mention of 1/3rd of egypts estimated population at the time leaving at one point in history. after several plagues and curses and much protest from a pharao mention of a cult leader and a small group of followers being allowed to leave freely at the claimed time yes. zoroastrianism, ostara, flood myths in early civilizations around river valleys. the bible inspired by a god who commands genocides on the reg? sure buddy. seems legit. oh right that is before he sacrificed himself to himself to change the rules he made for which he being all powerfull and all knowing needed to also make a loophole.
do you mean Norse mythology? why did you not quote the important part of my sentence? and can you give examles? and also have I not made it clear I do not believe in gods?
i believe he refers to odin's hanging of himself for himself. i confess to little knowledge of other similar tales
