Attacks on Hinduism
Gopal Saraswat
>
> >Liju, I actually read all of your somewhat rambling attempt to
> >obfuscate the issue. So, let me cut to the chase.
>
> >The central thrust of my article is that Christianity as a
> >doctrine is fundamentally flawed, not in some peripheral manner,
> >but in its very foundational principle.
>
> >To be a Christian, you have to believe that salvation is possible
> >only to those who accept Jesus Christ as their savior.
> >Furthermore, this salvation is not earned thru deeds, but is a
> >gift of Christ, who has already paid for the sins of humanity
> >with his own life.
>
> >Clearly, Christianity holds that a person who lives a good life
> >cannot achieve salvation, unless and until he accepts Jesus
> >Christ as his savior. On the other hand, a person who commits the
> >most heinous of crimes and sins, can still achieve salvation by
> >accepting Jesus Christ. There is no crime or sin so horrendous
> >that the love of Jesus cannot absolve you of it. Also, it is
> >wrong to say that these crimes and sins must be committed before
> >becoming a Christian. The love of Jesus knows no bounds, period.
>
> >This notion of divorcing salvation from deeds is, in my opinion,
> >abhorent.
>
> >I have specifically identified the foundational principle of
> >Christianity, and explained in plain language why it is
> >fundamentally flawed. If you agree with my argument, then you
> >will find my conclusions eminently reasonable. If you don't, then
> it is my arguments that need to be debated, not my conclusions.
>
> --
> > Gopal Saraswat http://www.americanfriends.org
> > satyam muktaye 'truth shall set you free'
>
> I prefer the saying "you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you
> free". I hope you know who spoke that and in what context.
>
> Isn't time that changed the title to "Attacks on Christianity"
>
> It is a pleasure to disagree with you. At least we can agree that we
> disagree and our respective understanding of Christianity is not the
> same. I am not trying to convince you, but answering a few questions you
> raised. As I said in my previous posting the prime objective your
> article is not to inform but denigrate Christianity.
>
> The following is an answer I wrote under the thread "Tolerance in
> Christianity". It contains some answers to the questions you raised. I
> write with sufficient clarity and straightforwardness and I don't
> OBFUSCATE. Now read on if you care.
>
> If one can lead a 'perfect' and 'faultless' life one will be able to
> achieve salvation. What is 'perfect' or what is "faultless' can be a
> subject of debate. Let us say the aim of perfection is to be 'God like'.
> Certainly you don't need Christ for salvation if you can lead life that
> is 'God like'. I will go even one step further and say that a person
> will be saved if he/she can live even one day without sinning. The
> dilemma is that man by nature is sinful and the doctrine of indwelling
> sin is central to Christian theology.
>
> You have questioned elementary aspects of Christian beliefs, which have
> been debated and for most people pretty well settled. After much study
> and soul searching I came to accept that "salvation is by grace through
> faith only". If someone argues (some have done just that) that "works"
> are irrelevant, only "grace" that matters, they are wrong. This also has
> been dealt with. "For it is by grace you have been saved,through faith -
> and that this not from yourselves, it is a gift of God - not by works, so
> that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship created in Christ
> Jesus TO DO GOOD WORKS which God prepared in advance for us to do" (from
> Bible). Grace changes the nature of man but nothing changes the nature
> of sin. James (the writer of the epistle by the same name) asks "Can
> faith without work save?". Let us also ask "can work without faith
> save?". To both, the answer is NO. In the first case, a person who
> claims to have faith but whose life is contrary to the claimed faith,
> does not have faith. Faith in God transforms a person. Second, good
> works always will have their rewards, such as peace, tranquility, harmony
> etc. But are these good works sufficient to make them God like, while
> they deny the need for God or entertain disbelief in God. If anyone has
> achieved that (being God like) I would like to know.
>
> I do not think this is the forum to discuss these things. This forum is
> mainly for 'one liners' to evoke applause from those who have condemned
> Christianity without ever attempting to know it. All of a sudden some
> Bible experts have sprouted up with sole purpose of denigrating Christ
> and his followers. No wonder people who could have contributed to
> discussions and dialogues with purpose of enlightening each other have
> left the scene. You can buy many books written solely for the purpose of
> putting down various religions, peoples, their beliefs and their way of
> worship. Some may even appear scholarly but their true aim is not lost
> on sincere, and honest seekers of truth.
>
> Liju
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
Gopal Saraswat
"If one can lead a 'perfect' and 'faultless' life one
will be able to achieve salvation. What is 'perfect'
or what is "faultless' can be a subject of debate.
Let us say the aim of perfection is to be 'God like'.
Certainly you don't need Christ for salvation if you
can lead life that is 'God like'. I will go even one
step further and say that a person will be saved if
he/she can live even one day without sinning. The
dilemma is that man by nature is sinful and the
doctrine of indwelling sin is central to Christian
theology."
If Christianity holds that Man is by nature sinful, then it
follows that he cannot live a 'perfect' and 'faultless' life,
even for one day, no matter how hard he tries. And that being so,
it follows that Man needs Jesus Christ to achieve salvation,
according to Christianity.
Isn't that what I said when I started this thread?
Now, let's turn to the other part of my arguument. How much sin
can a person commit before he becomes unsalvageabble ? According
to Christianity, there is no limit. Christ has already paid with
his own life for the sins of humanity, and it would be
sacrilegious to suggest that this is not enough, that there can
be sins, or combinations of sins, that cannot be absolved even by
the supreme sacrifice made by Jesus.
And that is my point. Christianity teaches bigotry by claiming
that non-Christians cannot achieve salvation, and Christianity
teaches irresponsibility by claiming that accepting Jesus can get
you salvation no matter what sins you've committed. These are the
fundamental flaws of Christianity, and they exist in the very
foundational principle of Christianity.
If you are a Christian, and this offends you, then you have my
sincere apologies, because it is not my intent to offend.
However, I cannot accept your feelings as an argument. I am a
Hindu atheist who believes in salvation thru gyan yog, and I
cannot place anything over my own mind. My beliefs can be swayed
by facts and reason, but not by emotional distress.
Liju has claimed that what I have written is anti-Christian. I am
perplexed by his reasoning, such as it is. Why is it
anti-Christian to summarize the foundational principle of
Christianity ?
As a Hindu, do I believe that all Christians are bad, or that no
Christian can achieve salvation ? Certainly not!
Hinduism accepts many paths to salvation, including karma yog,
gyan yog, and bhakti yog. A Christian who performs good deeds, or
acquires knowledge, can certainly achieve salvation, even if he's
never heard of Hinduism. As a matter of fact, at least to my
mind, he can achieve salvation even thru bhakti (devotion) to
Jesus or the Christian god.
This is not to be confused with the usual garbage about all
religions being equal. They're not. Bigotry and irresponsibilty
will not get you salvation, neither will belligerence and
intolerance, or trying to ram your religious views down the
throats of others.
Finally, Liju, it would not be appropriate to rename this thread
to "Attacks on Christianity". Would you accept something like
"Counter-attacks On Christianity" or "Retaliation Against
Christianity" ?