CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
1. Thirmurthi (Hindus worship the destroyer, the creator and the preserver) & Trinity concept(Father, Son and The Holy Spirit)
2. They both light up a flame (candle-Christians)(Nalla vilaku-Hinduism) at the altar.
3.Teachings of Krishna & Jesus is almost the same, and they both were born in unexpected places and lived as shepherd (Jesus) cowherd (krishna)
4. Heaven & Hell,as well the punishment as explained in the Garuda Puranam is similar with the Heaven & Hell mentioned in the Holy Books of Christianity.
5.Both has Goddess Mother as an important aspects in the religion. (Mari Amman) & (Mary Mother).
Christians believe in trinity (Three) and say "we are monotheistic",Also Hindus believe in thousands of Gods and say "we are monotheistic".
While, actually both worship many gods ( More than one,whether they are three or more) and made idols for them.
Also, Hinduism clearly states that those thousands of gods that they worship are actually spiritually one .
Monotheism in Hinduism is set in the views of the spiritual world are broad and range from monism, pantheism to panentheism, aptly termed as monistic theism and even open monotheism by some scholars, but are not polytheistic as outsiders perceive it to be.
Please read before you debate.
Debate should be useful for both sides to reach the straight path.
Christianity and Hinduism are similar to much extent as follows:
1- Jesus the son of god in Christianity while Krishna son of god in Hinduism.
2-Jesus the son of man in Christianity while Krishna son of man in Hinduism.
3-Yeshua and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.
4-Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
5-Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.
6- both adoptive human fathers were carpenters.
7- A spirit or ghost was their actual father.
8- Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.
9- Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
10-Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura.
11- Both Yeshua and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.
12- Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head."
13- Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."
13- Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."
14- Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth.
15- Both were "without sin."
16- Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.
17- They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
18- Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured "all manner of diseases."
19- Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.
20- Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.
21- Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.
22- Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.
23- Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies.
24- Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven.
25- Christians are using idols representing Jesus and Mary as well as Hindus are using idols representing Krishna and his mother and his whole family.
26- Christians believe in incarnation of the god in form of Jesus and Hindus are beliving in incarnation as in Christianity ,and reincarnation also.
27- both religions say that they are monotheistic , while in fact and with little thinking you find one of them is Trinitarian and the other is Polytheistic.
while Islam is pure monotheism as God of Muslims is one and only ,he begotten not nor he beget and there is nothing is like unto him.
Author Kersey Graves (1813-1883), a Quaker from Indiana, compared Yeshua's and Krishna's life. He found what he believed were 346 elements in common within Christiana and Hindu writings. 1 That appears to be overwhelming evidence that incidents in Jesus' life were copied from Krishna's. However, many of Graves' points of similarity are a real stretch.
1- Actually, Krishna is traditionally believed to have been born during August. The festival Janmashtami is held in honor of this birth.
2- The birth day of Jesus is unknown, but is believed by many to have also been about August during some year between 4 and 7 BCE.
3- December 25th was chosen for Christmas to coincide with a pre-existent Pagan Roman holiday, Saturnalia. December 25th was also recognized in ancient times as the birth day of various other god-men such as Attis and Mithra. All were linked to the winter solstice, which occurs about DEC-21.
Jesus' and Krishna's mothers were holy virgins:
1- Actually, the virginal state of Mary when she conceived Jesus is a matter of debate. Paul and the author(s) of the Gospel of John appear to directly reject the concept. The author of the Gospel of Mark appears to have been unaware of it. The authors of Matthew and Luke accepted the belief. Christians today are divided.
2- The virginal state of Devaki is also a matter of debate. One tradition states that Krishna was her eighth child. Another states that it was a virgin birth: "In the context of myth and religion, the virgin birth is applied to any miraculous conception and birth. In this sense, whether the mother is technically a virgin is of secondary importance to the fact that she conceives and gives birth by some means other than the ordinary....the divine Vishnu himself descended into the womb of Devaki and was born as her son Krishna." 11
Jesus' and Krishna's mothers had similar names: Miriam (Mary) and Maia
1- In reality, Krishna's mother may have been referred to as Maia, but only because this is the Hindi word for "mother." His mother's actual name was Devaki; his foster mother's name was Yashoda.
In addition, there are other points of similarity between Krishna and Yeshua:
1- "The object of Krishna's birth was to bring about a victory of good over evil."
2- Krishna "came onto earth to cleanse the sins of the human beings."
3- "Krishna was born while his foster-father Nanda was in the city to pay his tax to the king." Yeshua was born while his foster-father, Joseph, was in the city to be enumerated in a census so that "all the world could be taxed."
4- Jesus is recorded as saying: "if you had faith as a mustard seed you would say to the mountain uproot yourself and be cast into the ocean" Krishna is reported as having uprooted a small mountain.
5- Krishna's "...foster-father Nanda had to journey to Mathura to pay his taxes" just as Jesus foster-father Joseph is recorded in the Gospel of Luke as having to go to Bethlehem to pay taxes.
6- "The story about the birth of Elizabeth's son John (the Baptist), cousin of Jesus, corresponds with the story in the Krishna myth about the birth of the child of Nanda and his wife Yasoda." 10 Nanda was the foster-father of Krishna.
7- The Greek God Dionysos, Jesus and Krishna were all said to have been placed in a manger basket after birth.
Other points of similarity between Hinduism and Christianity:
1-Symbols: The trident -- traditionally carried by the Hindu God-Goddess Shiva, is somewhat similar to the Christian cross. Adding a vertical horn at both ends of the horizontal bar of a cross will convert it into a trident with three prongs. This actually was done to a Christian cross erected by a Baptist community of 1,200 in Ranalia, India. For decades, the Baptists had annually whitewashed a cross symbol on a large rock in a hill above the town. In early 1999, someone added two horns, turning the cross into a trident. When the smoke cleared (literally) more than 150 mud huts owned by Christians had been gutted by arson. Some named the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party as perpetrators. However, that was denied by the local head of the party. This is a very unusual event, because Hindus in India are known for their unusually high level of religious tolerance. Many Hindus believe that all religions can lead their members to God.
2-The role of water: Most Christians baptize either mature members or infants in the congregation. Sometime this is done by total immersion in water; sometimes by sprinkling water over the individual's head. In the Roman Catholic Church, baptism is a sacrament that washes away the person's original sin. Immersion in water by Hindus is also an important ritual. "Water in Hinduism has a special place because it is believed to have spiritually cleansing powers...In the sacred water distinctions of caste are supposed to count for nothing, as all sins fall away...Every temple has a pond near it and devotees are supposed to take a bath before entering the temple."
Were Krishna and Yeshua both crucified and later raised to heaven?
both Yeshua and Krishna were crucified between two thieves, at the age of about 30 to 36 by "wicked hands." However, this may have been wishful thinking. The "common, orthodox depiction of Krishna's death relates that he was shot in the foot with an arrow while under a tree." But:
1- Referring to the "Bagaveda-Gita and Brahminical traditions," states that the body of Krishna: "was suspended to the branches of a tree by his murderer, that it might become the prey of the vultures...[Later] the mortal frame of the Redeemer had disappeared--no doubt it had regained the celestial abodes..."
2- M. Guigniaut's Religion de l'Antiquité, which states: "The death of Crishna is very differently related. One remarkable and convincing tradition makes him perish on a tree, to which he was nailed by the stroke of an arrow."
3- There are other references to Krishna being crucified, and being shown with holes in his feet, hands and side.
In the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) Yeshua's crucifixion on a cross or stake is often referred to as being "hung on a tree:"
1- Acts 5:30: "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus...hanging him on a tree.
2- Acts 10:39: "...hanging him on a tree."
3- Acts 13:29: "...they took him down from the tree..."
4- Galatians 3:13: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree."
5- 1 Peter 2:24: "...who his own self bare our sins in his body upon the tree..." (All ASV)
Correspondences between Hinduism and some branches of Christianity:
At least some branches of Christianity share the following beliefs with Hinduism:
1- A future reward in heaven or punishment in Hell.
2- Hinduism and Catholicism share the concept of Purgatory.
3- A day of judgment.
4- A general resurrection.
5- The need for repentance for sin.
6- Salvation requires faith in the Savior.
7- A belief in angels and of evil spirits.
8- A belief that disease and sickness is caused by evil spirits.
9- A past war in heaven between good and bad angels.
10- Free will.
11- God is considered the "Word of Logos."
12- Their religious texts talk of "the blind leading the blind," "a new heaven and a new earth, "living water," "all scripture is given by inspiration of God," "all scripture is profitable for doctrine," "to die is great gain," etc.
I have read and studied both a little and I don't see much fundamental difference between the two The differences I see (and that I think most of you are debating) are really only different because the ideas are filtered through the minds, eyes, and writings of men from different cultures and places. In my opinion debating the specific differences of most religions (specifically religious writings) is silly and will not accomplish anything. Why not believe in both or all. Does god really prefer one mans worship over another's?
That's not really an argument that needs to be clarified, though I suppose a joke doesn't translate well to you. Or at least if it does, you certainly aren't showing it.
Alas, I must say that there are fairly obvious differences in both religions, not so much in the text as in the results; You don't see a whole lot of radical Hindus raging or stocking up on guns and ammo and hating various practices.
This debate is by someone new, you need to give him a chance. From what I gather this is how new people act on Create Debate:
1) They assume everyone is proffessional and is serious on all debates.
2) They want to be seen as serious and proffessional to maintain an expert persona about them.
3) They believe if they don't like an argument they have a right to downvote it, and if an argument supports their view they upvote it.
4) They dont understand jokes
5) They believe everyone should invest all their time in making good quality arguments for them to dispute.
I know it may be hard to get used to, I had one tell me that I should "read before I debate" claiming that I hadn't put enough sources into my argument even though it was quite clear.
Also, Hinduism clearly states that those thousands of gods that they worship are actually spiritually one .
Monotheism in Hinduism is set in the views of the spiritual world are broad and range from monism, pantheism to panentheism, aptly termed as monistic theism and even open monotheism by some scholars, but are not polytheistic as outsiders perceive it to be.
Please read before you debate.
Debate should be useful for both sides to reach the straight path.
not a christian, but the trinity's don't exist at the same time. Jesus is God on earth. and when not on earth, he is simply..God. there is a difference between a trinity and a thousand Gods.
God gave jesus the glory which means that they both are two distinct, God is God and Jesus is Jesus .. also he was given it and did not have it by himself in the begining which prove that he is not God whose attributes are eternal .. and whom is worthy to worship the one who gives or the one who is given?
Oh, OK, thanks, Christians say that he is the same so I would have thought that what i said is the only logical reasoning. What are some verses that say Jesus was not the son of God?
Have we not all one Father? Did not one God create us? [Malachi 2:10]
I am (Jesus) returning to my Father and your Father,
to my God and your God. [John 20:17]
and we are all children of Adam! we are not children of God, but merely creations.
this is how Jesus (PBUH) was calling himself and his disciples the sons of God, because they had the same message of God delivered by Jesus the messenger not the God.
*
Here are some verses from bible lead us to the first corruptor of Christianity:
For Christians [Must read]
Jesus said to peter:
"For many will accept our teaching ⇛ in the beginning. And they will turn from them again by the will of the Father of their error, because they have done what he wanted. And he will reveal them in his judgment, i.e., the servants of the Word. But those who became mingled with these shall become their prisoners, since they are without perception. And the guileless, good, pure one they push to the worker of death, and to the kingdom of those who praise Christ in a restoration.
And they praise ⇛ the men of the propagation of falsehood, those who will come ⇛ after you. And they will cleave to the name of ⇛ a dead man, thinking that they will become ⇛ pure. But they will become ⇛ greatly defiled and they will fall into a name of error, and into the hand of an evil, ⇛ cunning man and ⇛ a manifold dogma, and they will be ruled ⇛ without law." [The Apocalypse of Peter]
[ The Apocalypse of Peter www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apopet.html]
[●] Who is this cunning man and his followers with the manifold dogma, who follow a dead (crucified) man to make them pure, who turned from the teachings of Jesus and his disciples and who live without the law ???
_____
The Cunning Man
_____
But be it so, I (Paul) did not burden you: nevertheless being crafty, I CAUGHT YOU WITH GUILE [2 Cor. 12:16]
For if the truth of God, hath more abounded through my (Paul) LIES unto his glory: why yet am I also judged as a sinner? [Romans 3:7]
For though I (Paul) be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more And unto the Jews I (Paul) became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them under the Law, that I might gain them that are under the Law; To them that are without the law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ) that I might gain them that are under the law.
To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. [I Cor. 9:19-22]
_____
The Manifold Dogma
_____
[1 Corinthians 3:10] Because of God's grace to me, I (Paul) have laid the foundation (Christianity) like an expert builder. Now others are building on it.
[Note: the disciples of Jesus under the leadership of James ("brother of Jesus" as called in the bible) were called the Nazarenes (Ebionites) and the Pauline dogma (Christianity) under the leadership of Paul had a doctrinal battles after Jesus about Jesus, his nature and his teachings]
_____
The Dead Man (whom they think will make them pure) [The Crucified Jesus]
_____
[2 Cor. 5:21]
[Paul says] For he has made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
[1 Cor. 15:3]
[Paul says] For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.
[Eph. 1:7]
[Paul says] In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace
[Rom. 4:25]
[Paul says] who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.
_____
Who turned from the teachings of Jesus and his disciples
_____
[Gal. 1:6] I am (Paul) astonished that you (disciples of Jesus) are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel
[Gal. 2:11]
When PETER came to Antioch, I (Paul) opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.
[2 Cor. 11:4-5]
For if someone comes to you and preaches a JESUS other than the JESUS we (Paul and his disciples) preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those "super-apostles." (mocking at the disciples of Jesus)
[The Nazarenes (disciples of Jesus) version of Jesus was totally different from the Pauline version of Jesus .. Paul taught that Jesus is the only son of God and he died for the sins of mankind, the original sin theory and salvation through faith in Jesus .. while the disciples of Jesus were preaching salvation through repentance and adherence to the law and the commandments of Jesus and they believed in one God, the Creator, and preached that Jesus was the Messiah]
_____
Who lives without the Law
_____
[Rom. 10:4] Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
[Gal. 3:13] Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law
[Rom. 3:20] not a single human being will be made righteous in God's sight through observance of the Law
[original] Christianity can be termed as a Divine message that calls for Belief in the God as Singular and without associate, and that He is neither born nor does He have offspring. It confirms that the God indeed sends Messengers and Prophets from among men whom He has chosen from the best of people. This, in order that no one can have any argument before the God after having thus been sent a Messenger.
Someone may now say: “If the trinity was not revealed by God almighty or Jesus (pbuh)
then why does Christianity believe in it?” The answer lies in the council of Nicaea of 325
CE.
In “The New Catholic Encyclopedia” (with all it’s seals of approval), 1967, p.295, we
get a glimpse of how the concept of the trinity was not introduced into Christianity until
God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?
Oh dear, once again Apollo disputes an argument without any evidence or source other than his own opinion
Oh dear, Axmeister once again down-votes an argument simply for disagreeing with it...
But I agree, let's look where the facts are (although i realize that isn't your forte).
While Hinduism may not be fully polytheistic
"Hinduism-Polytheism"
-Axmeister
Your words, not mine.
it is certainly not as monotheistic as Christianity.
I wasn't aware that there were varying degrees of monotheism. SO Christians believe in one god, but Hindus believe in 1.1 gods? Ok, Axmeister....
-
Hindus believe in the existence of one "being," Brahma (also spelled Brahman) that is everything, in a sense "nothing." All these so called "gods" are simply different aspects of Brahman. Because the oneness of Brahman is incomprehensible, Hindus worship "manifestations" of different aspects of Brahman's personality. One god, multiple avenues of worship.
"Oh dear, Axmeister once again down-votes an argument simply for disagreeing with it..."
For one thing I don't downvote and considering how I'm the one who's been downvoted instead of you probably suggests that you're the downvoter.
A quick look at your points history shows that you've downvoted an argument on this debate, I wonder whose argument that could be?
Hypocrite.
"But I agree, let's look where the facts are (although i realize that isn't your forte)."
Let's look at your facts, oh wait there aren't any.
""Hinduism-Polytheism"
-Axmeister
Your words, not mine."
And if you haven't noticed they were right, I'm not going to waste time writing a hundred words when my argument can be summed up in 4.
"I wasn't aware that there were varying degrees of monotheism."
Wikipedia said it, not me. Maybe it just goes to show how ignorant you are.
"SO Christians believe in one god, but Hindus believe in 1.1 gods?"
1.1? I think you mean over a thousand, oh wait, you don't because you haven't done any research and made another assumption.
"Hindus believe in the existence of one "being," Brahma (also spelled Brahman) that is everything, in a sense "nothing." All these so called "gods" are simply different aspects of Brahman. Because the oneness of Brahman is incomprehensible, Hindus worship "manifestations" of different aspects of Brahman's personality. One god, multiple avenues of worship."
Hindus clearly seperate there many thousands of gods by dedicating different days, events and shrines to them. This is clearly an obvious difference between Christianity and Hinduism.
I'm the one who's been downvoted instead of you probably suggests that you're the down voter.
We both were, in fact.
A quick look at your points history shows that you've downvoted an argument on this debate, I wonder whose argument that could be?
Why yes. I did down-vote madrigal's comment.
And if you haven't noticed they were right
Oh, which ones? Because they were self-contradictory.
I'm not going to waste time writing a hundred words when my argument can be summed up in 4.
Right, because metaphysical, existential, incomprehensible concepts can be "summed up in 4 [words]."
I think you mean over a thousand, oh wait, you don't because you haven't done any research and made another assumption.
It seems you are unable read, so I will (likely a futile effort) repost what you ignored last time around.
Hindus believe in the existence of one "being," Brahma (also spelled Brahman) that is everything, in a sense "nothing." All these so called "gods" are simply different aspects of Brahman. Because the oneness of Brahman is incomprehensible, Hindus worship "manifestations" of different aspects of Brahman's personality. One god, multiple avenues of worship.
Hindus clearly seperate there many thousands of gods
Hindus believe in the existence of one "being," Brahma (also spelled Brahman) that is everything, in a sense "nothing." All these so called "gods" are simply different aspects of Brahman. Because the oneness of Brahman is incomprehensible, Hindus worship "manifestations" of different aspects of Brahman's personality. One god, multiple avenues of worship.
by dedicating different days, events and shrines to them.
Hindus believe in the existence of one "being," Brahma (also spelled Brahman) that is everything, in a sense "nothing." All these so called "gods" are simply different aspects of Brahman. Because the oneness of Brahman is incomprehensible, Hindus worship "manifestations" of different aspects of Brahman's personality. One god, multiple avenues of worship.
-Perhaps you missed the "multiple avenues of worship."
This is clearly an obvious difference between Christianity and Hinduism.
What, that Hindus celebrate holidays? ok, axmeister.
It's expected, the people on this debate are the kind who upvote people on their side and downvote people who aren't.
"Why yes. I did down-vote madrigal's comment."
If you say so...
"Oh, which ones? Because they were self-contradictory."
Really? because I didn't actually say anything in my original argument I just wrote down 4 words, anything you got from their is merely your interpretation.
"Right, because metaphysical, existential, incomprehensible concepts can be "summed up in 4 [words]." "
Why would I need to discuss the whole religion when there is an obvious difference to start off with.
"It seems you are unable read, so I will (likely a futile effort) repost what you ignored last time around."
I can read, it's you who cannot. I attached that comment to the "1.1" hindu gods statement of yours, which had taken the point hugely out of perspective.
"
Hindus believe in the existence of one "being," Brahma (also spelled Brahman) that is everything, in a sense "nothing." All these so called "gods" are simply different aspects of Brahman. Because the oneness of Brahman is incomprehensible, Hindus worship "manifestations" of different aspects of Brahman's personality. One god, multiple avenues of worship."
Once again you ignore comments, I don't see why you didn't save space and put all of my points in one block, you didn't dispute any of them at all, merely repeated what you said.
In reply to your repeaed statement, the "multiple avenues of worship" show an obvious difference to that of Christianity.
"What, that Hindus celebrate holidays? ok, axmeister."
I didn't actually say anything in my original argument
I completely agree. It was a load of nonsense.
But let's look at the actual quotes:
"While Hinduism may not be fully polytheistic"
and
"Hinduism-Polytheism"
A religion cannot be fully polytheistic while also being only partially polytheistic. There aren't even levels of polytheism.
Why would I need to discuss the whole religion when there is an obvious difference to start off with.
You mean your pathetic attempt at proving hinduism was polytheistic. The closest semi-logical position to your's is that of garry. Hinduism is a monotheism that is polytheistic in practice. I disagree with the latter part, but at least he can back up his arguments.
I can read, it's you who cannot.
Read, perhaps, but your command of the Queen's English is still something to be desired.
I attached that comment to the "1.1" hindu gods statement of yours, which had taken the point hugely out of perspective.
Your ridiculous claim rested on two unfounded assertions:
1. Hinduism states the existence of multiple god entities.
2. A religion that believes in x (where x is greater than 1) gods is less polytheistic than a religion that upholds the existence of x + 1 gods.
In reply to your repeaed statement, the "multiple avenues of worship" show an obvious difference to that of Christianity.
Perhaps they do. But that is not the point. You are saying hinduism is a polytheism. I could care less whether there are differences. There are obvious differences.
While I would argue that you are still wrong and the differences in the manner in which religions are practiced has no bearing on the similarity of the religions themselves. But that is an argument for another day.
Wow, the only source I've seen you ever to refer to has been me.
"A religion cannot be fully polytheistic while also being only partially polytheistic. There aren't even levels of polytheism."
Who said anything about it being fully polytheistic? I just said it was more polytheistic than Christianity, which it is.
"You mean your pathetic attempt at proving hinduism was polytheistic. The closest semi-logical position to your's is that of garry."
You cannot even live up to Gary's standard as he provides evidence, which you do not.
" Hinduism is a monotheism that is polytheistic in practice. I disagree with the latter part, "
And would you say Christianity is polytheistic in practice?
"but at least he can back up his arguments."
As opposed to you.
"Your ridiculous claim rested on two unfounded assertions:"
Once again, you do not seem to understand what I said my "ridiculous" claim was the fact that the difference between 1 and 1.1 is a massive change in perspective to the real fact of 1 to 1000.
"Hinduism states the existence of multiple god entities."
For goodness sake, are you really trying to say that Hinduism doesn't have more than 1 god?
"A religion that believes in x (where x is greater than 1) gods is less polytheistic than a religion that upholds the existence of x + 1 gods."
But Chrisitianity believes in 1 God and practices it as 1 God, Hinduism may see all their deities as 1 god but they worship them individually as thousands fo different gods.
"Perhaps they do. But that is not the point. You are saying hinduism is a polytheism. I could care less whether there are differences. There are obvious differences."
Clearly you need to read the debate title before partaking in it. This debate asks for ovbvious differences not is hinduism polytheistic.
"While I would argue that you are still wrong and the differences in the manner in which religions are practiced has no bearing on the similarity of the religions themselves."
So what your saying is, it doesn't matter what religious people do with their religion because a religion and it's follwoers are mutually exclusive?
God, you're stupid.
"Not sarcasm."
You said "ok Axmeister" if you had really meant it you wouldn't have disputed me again. So I believe it is sarcasm.
Who said anything about it being fully polytheistic?
You did, by stating it was a polytheism.
I just said it was more polytheistic than Christianity, which it is.
Later on, as you tried to revert from your original statement that hinduism was a polytheism.
And would you say Christianity is polytheistic in practice?
The way some practice it, sure. But that isn't relevant here. You said hinduism was a polytheism. You have yet to justify that assertion.
As opposed to you.
As opposed to you. I completely agree.
1 and 1.1 is a massive change in perspective to the real fact of 1 to 1000.
And this is relevant at all...how? Neither have more than one true god entities.
are you really trying to say that Hinduism doesn't have more than 1 god
That is EXACTLY what I am saying.
But Chrisitianity believes in 1 God
I agree.
and practices it as 1 God
Irrelevant.
Hinduism may see all their deities as 1 god
I agree.
but they worship them individually as thousands fo different gods.
Irrelevant. And I disagree if you are equating these millions of Hindu "gods" with Brahman. I will venture to say, not a single Hindu worships more than one god, if by god we mean a separate entity. If 100 things are justify different parts of one entity, those 100 things are not themselves A) complete entities B) independent in any way.
Clearly you need to read the debate title before partaking in it.
I could care less what the debate is about. You claimed Hinduism was a polytheism. I disputed that.
This debate asks for ovbvious differences not is hinduism polytheistic.
See above. Although nice try at trying to change the subject.
So what your saying is, it doesn't matter what religious people do with their religion because a religion and it's follwoers are mutually exclusive?
No. What I am saying is that the manner in which religions are practiced has no bearing on the similarity of the religions themselves.
God, you're stupid.
Resorting to petty insults in the lack of facts, logic, or reason? I see...
I didn't even write a sentence let alone state anything, I made a very brief point assuming that everyone would understand the implications because the argument was so simple.
"Later on, as you tried to revert from your original statement that Hinduism was a polytheism."
See above, either way Christianity is still more monotheistic than Hinduism.
"The way some practice it, sure. But that isn't relevant here. You said Hinduism was a polytheism. You have yet to justify that assertion."
It is relevant, it is your point that Hinduism isn't fully polytheistic which is irrelevant.
"And this is relevant at all...how? Neither have more than one true god entities."
Because you took the point that Christianity (which has at most 3 gods) is more monotheistic than Hinduism which can have over a thousands gods and reduced it to 1 and 1.1 to say that the difference so close that it can be considered negligible.
"That is EXACTLY what I am saying."
Could you provide any sort of evidence or source that agrees with what you're saying?
"Irrelevant."
The point is relevant, the fact that followers practice their religions comepltly differently is a difference.
"Although nice try at trying to change the subject."
Coming from someone who starts arguing a point completly off topic.
"What I am saying is that the manner in which religions are practiced has no bearing on the similarity of the religions themselves."
Considering how the religion is practiced can change the religion itself, I don't see how you can arrive at such a conclusion.
"Resorting to petty insults in the lack of facts, logic, or reason? I see..."
"The British equivalent of the stereotypical dumb, Christian, bible-thumping, gun-toting, republican, uneducated, drunk redneck. Axmeister"
I made a very brief point assuming that everyone would understand the implications because the argument was so simple.
Except for the small problem that is was completely unfounded and wrong.
Christianity is still more monotheistic than Hinduism.
Ignoring my points again...why am I not surprised?
How can one monotheism be MORE monotheistic than another god. How can one god be MORE one than another god?!
It is relevant, it is your point that Hinduism isn't fully polytheistic which is irrelevant.
This makes no sense.
you took the point that Christianity (which has at most 3 gods)
Where do you come up with this? Christianity has ONE god. It is a monotheism. Also, if as you say it has three gods, how can you call it a monotheism?! Your argument is denigrating into the BS it is founded upon.
is more monotheistic than Hinduism which can have over a thousands gods
Once again, name one of these thousand gods. There is only one true god entity.
and reduced it to 1
You quite obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
Could you provide any sort of evidence or source that agrees with what you're saying?
I've already explained this. There is only one supreme god in Hinduism: Brahman. This is explicitly explained in the Upanishads.
"Except for the small problem that is was completely unfounded and wrong."
You interpreted it wrongly.
"Ignoring my points again...why am I not surprised?"
You're one to talk.
"How can one monotheism be MORE monotheistic than another god. How can one god be MORE one than another god?!"
Because if Christianity did have more than one god it would be tritheistic, not polytheistic.
"Where do you come up with this? Christianity has ONE god. It is a monotheism."
Why are you claiming that Chrisitianty is Monotheistic? (and therefore agreeing that it differs from Hinduism)
Your argument is denigrating into the BS it was founded upon
"Also, if as you say it has three gods, how can you call it a monotheism?! Your argument is denigrating into the BS it is founded upon"
I still claim it has 1 God, I made the point to take into account the fact that others claim Christianity has 3 gods (which I clearly stated in the phrase "at most").
"Once again, name one of these thousand gods. There is only one true god entity."
"You quite obviously have no idea what you are talking about. "
You quoted only part of the sentence, once again taking it completly out of context. Let me repeat the actual point to you.
You took my point that Christianity (which has at most 3 gods) is more monotheistic than Hinduism which can have over a thousands gods and reduced it to 1 and 1.1 to say that the difference so close that it can be considered negligible.
"How so?"
Because it's part of the religion.
"Wrong again. I disputed you claiming hinduism was a polytheism. I have stayed on that topic since."
The topic was: Are there any obvious differences between Hinduism and Christianity, as clearly stated in the debate title.
"Only interpretations can be changed, yet the fundamentals remain and they are quite clear."
Well then, the interpretation of the religion can be changed by how it is practiced.
"As a response to you..."
Actually you didn't, I think you'll find i t was a response to Chuckhades asking who Axmeister was, you then proceeded to blacken my name.
Because if Christianity did have more than one god it would be tritheistic, not polytheistic.
Are we speaking in hypotheticals? Regardless, Hinduism is arguable a thritheistic monotheism in a sense (only one aspect).
Why are you claiming that Chrisitianty is Monotheistic?
Because it is...
and therefore agreeing that it differs from Hinduism
No...I don't know if you are mentally capable of figuring this out, but I have been arguing that Hinduism ISN'T polytheistic. Do try harder.
Your argument is denigrating into the BS it was founded upon
At least TRY to be original. And by BS, do you mean Hindu scripture?
I still claim it has 1 God
As do I.
I made the point to take into account the fact that others claim Christianity has 3 gods
It's irrelevant.
Here's 5 of the many Gods in Hinduism.
None are entities themselves. All are manifestations of Brahman. None are independent entities.
which has at most 3 gods
It can't have both only one god and three gods. You have stated it has one. SO stop with this "3 god" misleading, irrelevant BS.
is more monotheistic than Hinduism which can have over a thousands gods
What do you mean "can have?!" It doesn't period. Whether ONE god has 3 manifestations or 3 hundred thousand manifestations is irrelevant to the it mono/polytheism. Aspects of one god =/= independent god entities.
to say that the difference so close that it can be considered negligible.
A difference of 0 is negligible.
Because it's part of the religion.
Proof?
The topic was: Are there any obvious differences between Hinduism and Christianity
I don't give a shit. I wasn't arguing either side of the debate; I was disputing your erroneous, unfounded claim.
Well then, the interpretation of the religion can be changed by how it is practiced.
What are you talking about now?
I think you'll find i t was a response to Chuckhades asking who Axmeister was, you then proceeded to blacken my name.
Also, Hinduism clearly states that those thousands of gods that they worship are actually one spiritually.
Monotheism in Hinduism is set in the views of the spiritual world are broad and range from monism, pantheism to panentheism, aptly termed as monistic theism and even open monotheism by some scholars, but are not polytheistic as outsiders perceive it to be.
Please read before you debate.
Debate should be useful for both sides to reach the straight path.
"Also, Hinduism clearly states that those thousands of gods that they worship are actually one spiritually."
A thousand different gods is an obvious difference to just 3. You still haven't addressed my point that Hinduism clearly seperates their gods by deidicating days and festivals to them, this is not done in Chritianity.
"Please read before you debate."
Please gain more exprience before giving advice to exprienced people
A good difference you are trying to persuade yourself of. but you are ignoring the fact that mono = one and no more than one, not two, three or more
In fact Hinduism is an exagerated version of Christianity and no more .both religions are sharing the fact that they are calling for worshipping more than one God , whether they are two, three or more.
So, both religions can not be called monotheistic.
Or if you are insisting to call Christianity monotheistic religion then you have to call Hinduism monotheistic religion for the same reason.
Chrisitianity does not worship any part of the holy trinity seperatly, whereas Hinduism does through multiple avenues of worship. Thus I decide to consider Chrisitanity a monotheistic religion and Hinduism a polytheistic one.
And please explain to me how not to worship the holy trinity ( the God the father in heaven, jesus the son of the god and the son of man (how?)on earth,and the holy spirit (I don't know really where he is.) separately.
Can't we all just agree that Christianity is stupid and be done with it? Most Christians confuse me. Er. Let me clarify: Most dedicated Christians confuse me.
As far as I can tell, worshiping Jesus doesn't make him a god, and the holy ghost is a sort of ancient explanation for a conscience. Neither of those two are gods, but they're 'holy.' Considering the one god is the absolute god, the religion is still monotheistic unless you want to bullshit about semantics for hours or listen to drunken southerners who don't even read the bible anyways. They'll babble and regurgitate just about anything. They're kind of like well, sheep. And as far as the holy trinity goes, it wasn't a term written in the bible but coined later because people always like to make crap up.
Honestly, you people. Is this all you do? Besides, it's not exactly an esoteric fact that there's a bunch of religions that have great floods or the sons of gods roamin' around anyways. Not that I really want to start uh, researching things because I'm lazy, but honestly, trying to peg a religion as a cheap-knockoff of another or saying that they're the same isn't really a smart idea, and you're always going to be wrong in someone's eyes. This is kind of a useless and ultimately trivial debate. So if you're debating for the spirit of it, you're certainly representing the spirit of debate in bad-taste, and if you're not, your message is kind of convoluted and contrived.
Don't make me whip out the whole spiel on deism. I will.