Q & A: Christianity

[Gauracandra]

This week’s Srila Siddhaswarupananda television program is a continuation of a series on “Real Christianity.”

 

We’re continuing our question and answer session on Christianity. I don’t know how many we can get to but we’ll try to answer as many as possible.

 

Question: Many Christians say Jesus died for our sins, can this be done?

 

Srila Siddhaswarupananda: What they say is not incorrect. A person who surrenders to Jesus, I mean actual surrender, by following his instructions, such a person’s reactions to their previous activities will be wiped away. But people who imagine that they are bathing in the blood of Jesus and continue in their sinful life are simply dogs. Such people who return to sinful life are in fact crucifying Jesus for their own enjoyment. These people are the most condemned. The bonafide representatives of God can take on the sins of others. When a person accepts a spiritual master there is a transfer of karma. This is a universal law. So Jesus will cleanse one if you follow his instructions. If not, he says “Get away from me, I don’t know you.”

 

Question: I was talking to one person and he said that there are no other books and scriptures. There is no other source but the Bible.

 

Srila Siddhaswarupananda: Many people are afraid to receive information about God from the Bhagavad-Gita or Srimad Bhagavatam. They read the following verse in the Bible:

 

“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

 

And if any man shall take away from the words of this book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” Revelations 22:18-19

 

This statement makes many Christians afraid of receiving knowledge from any other book. What they don’t know is that God can’t be limited by 1 book. They have a misunderstanding of this verse. The author of Revelations is talking about the book of Revelations. You are not allowed to add or subtract from what he has written in the book of Revelations. If you try to alter it then bad things will happen to you. So don’t tamper with it. But the Bible isn’t one book. It is a compilation of many books, and Revelations is just one of them. However, the ordinary person will read Revelations and think this refers to the whole Bible when in fact it refers to the book of Revelations.

 

Try to understand that the Bible is made up of many books each written at different times. The Book of Revelations has been placed at the end. It is a book of prophecy but it is not the last book that was written (chronologically). But it is placed at the end to scare people into staying on the “team”. This act is actually a form of distortion of the meaning of the verse.

 

Ultimately if you want to love God you need to know about Him. The Bhagavad-Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam give a full description and if you read these you will become a better Christian. God is so vast and wonderful that you could write about Him forever and never finish. You can’t limit God. Some try to limit God to one son. You can have 10 sons but God can only have one? All scripture is good, and if it can remove the mystery and allow a fuller description of God then that is to your benefit. This notion that “If you read anything else you are going to Hell” is very unfortunate. Because these people have no knowledge of who God is, they take shelter of matter. They love the world and look to Salvationist philosophy to allow them to continue loving matter and not the Lord.

 

Question: I have a friend who went to a Bible college and she invited me to a Christmas celebration recently. When I went into her home it was full of presents but no pictures of Jesus, or crosses. It was like the whole celebration was about having lots of presents and not about Jesus.

 

Srila Siddhaswarupananda: This surprised you? I’m surprised you are surprised [laughter] There are many professional preachers. For Jesus, for Krsna, for Buddha. Buddha taught ahimsa (non-violence) and yet now you find many Buddhists eat meat. They are hypocrites. There are so many hypocrites. You may have so much knowledge but it is all useless unless you are a knower of God. Jesus was a pure lover of God and you must experience this common ground of love for God. Textbook knowledge won’t help. We won’t claim to be great Bible scholars, but we do know Jesus Christ.

 

Question: People ask me how are we serving God. We aren’t feeding the poor, or building hospitals.

 

Srila Siddhaswarupananda: They don’t understand that the person is not the body. They think serving God means serving His children. This is nice but you must also satisfy their spiritual needs. The greatest need in the world is to know God. The problem is in this materialistic society they don’t get to the root cause of the problem. This is a long subject but the root of the problem is materialistic economics. You can help people’s material needs but this is not enough. If they can develop love for God then they can break out of the cycle of birth, disease, old age, and death. If you can help them spiritually and materially, then do it. We are not perfect, we have limited resources, but this is our small way of trying to help. Give people God and you give them everything.

 

By the way, if anyone at home has questions, send them to me and I’ll try to answer them. Thank you.

[Gauracandra]

This is a continuation of last week’s Srila Siddhasvarupananda television program on Christianity.

 

Srila Siddhasvarupananda: There are many so-called Christians who say that God came down as Jesus and bled in order to cleanse us of our sins. In the old Jewish tradition the blood-letting of an animal was used as a purifying sacrifice. We aren’t going to go into whether this is bonafide or not. But this process was laid down in the old Jewish scriptures. Now within Christianity it is said that we all became dirty due to the actions of our great, great, great, great… grandparents Adam and Eve. As such all of mankind has become impure. The whole mystery about the incarnation of Jesus Christ is that God became man and ended up being the lamb/blood sacrifice to cleanse mankind. So these Christians are promoting the idea that there is no other way for man to become purified except to sacrifice God on an altar. God became man to be sacrificed like an animal.

 

Audience Member: I remember growing up Catholic we used to say “Lamb of God take on the sins of the world.”

 

Srila Siddhaswarupananda: It is true to call him a lamb as he did not fight back. He was humble. But the problem with this philosophy is that it says that God had to come under the laws of material nature. God does not have to follow the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are for those who aren’t God. It is nonsense to think that God has to follow certain laws in order for man to be purified. Why is it necessary for God to come into the material world in order to experience it? They are saying that the most offensive activity, the crucifixion of a loving servant of God was the sacrifice needed. A real sacrifice is out of love.

 

Audience Member: Some would say that it is an act of love on the part of Jesus.

 

Srila Siddhaswarupananda: It is an act of love on Jesus’ part but it is the priest who slits the throat of the animal. Those who crucified Jesus Christ committed a sin cast upon all of man. This act was so offensive to the Supreme Person that it would not be hard to see God rejecting the whole of the world.

 

[intermission]

 

Audience Member: … they call it Good Friday.

 

Srila Siddhaswarupananda: Why is it good that on this day the pure loving servant of God was murdered and tortured? This is not good, it is the ultimate bad. On this day one should cry. This is what the servants of God feel. Whoever sees or hears about this, it must tear their heart out. If it does not then they are not my friend, they are not lovers of Jesus.

 

It is true that if I become his devotee and give my life to him, make his commandments my very life, then indeed you will be purified of your sinful reactions. But to say that God is obligated to be tortured in order for mankind to be purified is nonsense. God does not need to be tortured by animals/demons. This isn’t necessary. This is mayavadi philosophy. Maya means illusion. It means that God comes under the laws of material nature and comes under ignorance. Because of this they deny God’s power to purify.

 

They are trying to understand the big picture but really they are doubters of God’s power. As such they put Him in a powerless position. He had to go through this lila – pastime. Any sacrifice done in lust, anger, or hate is not a real sacrifice.

 

They say that God the father sacrificed His son on the cross. God so much loved the world that He sacrificed His son. So they make God the priest to bring on a higher power. Who the hell is God sacrificing for? SACRIFICES ARE NOT FOR GOD!!! YOU IDIOTS!!! They are saying there is a law above God that God must follow. This is Mormon philosophy. That you can become a God and have your own universe. A God has a God. God does not worship anyone. They think God is like us… like Michelangelo speculating that God is old with a white beard. Thus if God must make a sacrifice it must be something very valuable to Him. The most valuable thing to God is His pure devotee. In the Bhagavad-Gita the Lord says that “No one is more dear to me than my pure devotee.”

 

Audience Member: Why did God allow His son to be crucified?

 

Srila Siddhaswarupananda: To ask why does God allow bad things to happen means we want God to take away our freedom. We have within us the ability to do harm to a devotee of God. In the 15th Century in India Haridas Thakur was beaten in one market place after another. He was immersed in samadhi – love for God. So these pure devotees take on all hardships in service for the Lord. If a burden comes they are willing to take it on and if you take away these hardships in fact you take away their life. God will never take away your freedom to reject Him. You have this freedom but watch out what you do with it.

[ethos]

This is very nice, thought provoking dialogue.

[giveawayboy]

Hi Gauracandra,

 

My name is Bill, and I joined this forum in order to perhaps learn more about Vishnu, but still as a Christian I can also help with these confusing issues. First off let me say that I am not here to be proud or arrogant or force my views on anyone. I am here hopefully to learn more about Hinduism from Hindus. Still, I think the Srila Siddhaswarupananda television program was mistaken about several points regarding Christianity or the way we Christians view God. Still I know we believe in Jesus as the unique incarnation of God, still we do not see God as limited to material forms. We do not believe in a samasaric reality so that is a difference. We believe in material and spirit coexisiting, and that it all exists inside of God. We do not believe that creation is an emanation of God. I don't know what Hindus believe here. I'm not too sure about the Hindu concept of God and the universe. Still, if you have questions I would be glad to talk about these things, but I only come in a spirit of friendliness and willingness to learn. Also, even if we disagree on religious beliefs, we can pray for each other and have spiritual friendship across the 'belief' divide. I see everyone as related and I behold God in each person, no matter their religion. I do not agree with the people who say that there is only one holy book. They must not know about the Vedas or the Dhammapada or several others. I am not equating all scriptures, since there are obvious problems in such a comparison, but there is some truth I can take from them all. As a Christian the Jewish and Christian scriptures hold preeminence for me, but I am reading the Ramayana now and often read Hindu devotional literature, which has helped me grow closer to God and other people.

 

Blessings, Bill

[ethos]

Post deleted by Admin5

[giveawayboy]

ethos: This is a good opportunity for all of us to evaluate our faiths and refuge since many of these boards participants have Christian upbringings.

 

bill: I agree with this.

 

ethos: Dont let yourself down. Defend your faith. And be consistent as a person. Follow through with your commitments.

 

bill: thanks for saying this.

 

ethos: We'd love to hear from a Christian who is not bluffing. We all stand to learn alot from rational discourse.

 

bill: I try my hardest to be consistent with my views. I have grown and changed my mind over the years. Learning from others has helped me greatly.

 

ethos: I'm sure we'd all like to hear you explain this–your statement–from above:

 

"…We do not believe that creation is an emanation of God."

 

Well, then, how can creation not be an emanation of God and yet exists within Him?

 

bill: I'm not sure I can answer this scientifically, or even logically. I do know that Christians believe God created out of nothing, a proposition that sounds odd and even faulty to many. Still, I know that is what our religion teaches us. I don't know how to answer your question.

 

ethos: I'm wondering why the Western literatures hold preeminence for you when you are now reading Ramayana and growing.

 

bill: Well, this is a great question. I really appreciate it. For me, if you are referring to religous literartures, the Bible is part of the traditions that produced it, and it is also several quite different books and letters that have been brought together by the Jews and by the Catholic Church. So, for me, already we are dealing with a collection of books, some of which span two religious traditions, Jewish and Christian. In part they are accepted, though interpreted differently, by Muslims. I find the Bible to be consistent with the traditions that produced it and also I find great wisdom in it's messages. It is also the Jewish and Christian scriptures that I was taught as a child, so of course I would hold them in high regard, they are part of my religious tradition. Also, I do not regard the Bible as a 'western' collection of books, but as one that rises out of the Middle East although it eventually encompasses some contributions from Europe.

 

ethos: If you are liberal enough to recognize and appreciate theistic science where you find it, then why not commit to spiritual intimacy?

 

bill: To the degree that God enables me I do commit to spiritual intimacy. I am not however a pro at this yet. Part of spiritual intimacy for me is found in spiritual literature and in examples of holy lives of men and women from different religons. I do not believe that God functions only within Christianity. Also, I don't know how I feel about the 'liberal' designation. I tend to think of myself as somewhat cautious and orderly about things.

 

ethos: Me thinks you are too attached to the body and it's designations–liberal position without philosophical understanding... kind'a like the hippie generation... which was really all about me and freedom... freedom from Vietnam.

 

bill: wow! i may be too attatched as you say, but that's one thing that God promises liberation from. In our religion God tells us to seek Him and not live for ourselves. It's not easy, and I'm the first to admit selfishness. Admission is not justification however. But, Ethos, I love these questions. Great stuff!

 

ethos: You are the only here who has posted a self-portrait Mr. Bill.

 

bill: I have this image on other boards that employ UBB codes. I just assumed that I would use it here too, since I didn't think of any other images. I had one image of a drawing that I liked, but didn't wish to use it since I couldn't get it to the right size.

[theist]

ethos: You are the only here who has posted a self-portrait Mr. Bill.

 

Not so ethos. shiva has also posted his. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

just kidding shivaji

 

Bill I am glad you have joined us. I also try to worship Lord Jesus Christ and pray to Krsna through his name.

 

I find in this Gaudiya Vaisnavism a fuller understanding of the Father then has been revealed in the Bible. Even more basic questions such as reincarnation, what is the nature of the soul, etc. are answered in a more direct way.

 

I haven't accepted any formal initiation and am really just a part time devotee, if one can be such a thing. Just a basic theist.

 

Stay with us brother.

[giveawayboy]

Theist,

 

Having a teacher is a good thing. Still, rushing down a spiritual path is not good. You are to be respected for being true to where you are at on your spiritual path. Of course you are in my prayers.

 

Ethos,

 

You have sparked good spiritual conversation. I appreciate you for being forthright about this.

 

Both of you have made me feel welcome and have challenged me.

 

Thanks, Bill

[raga]

 

I haven't accepted any formal initiation and am really just a part time devotee, if one can be such a thing.

 

 

From 08:00 to 16:00 every day, weekends free?

[ethos]

Post deleted by Admin5

[leyh]

Dear ethos:

 

Give the man a break. Discussion doesn't have to be heavy all the time. Furthermore, Bill's got the right to post as and when he sees fit (provided, of course it doesn't break any rules) and nobody should press him into replying to Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura's critique if he isn't ready to do so.

[ethos]

Post deleted by Admin5

[leyh]

Dear Ethos:

 

I am not interested in bashing you, nor anyone else for that matter.Please don't feel that way. Unlike Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, I have no beauty to produce. That should not be surprising at all as I am simply fallen.

 

From reading your posts, I can sense your enthusiasm in preaching the philosophy of Krsna Consciousness. But we have to understand this: It is a fact that prasadam is spiritually beneficial, but if we stuff prasadam into anyone's mouth, chances are that person will vomit.

 

It seems to me that Giveawayboy has just began to make a few posts on this Forum. I just don't think it's necessary to press ("Did you look at the critique on Christianity by Bhaktivinode Thakura? You did not reply in response to it. Why?") him to reply to your posts in a manner that might come of as being harsh and heavy. In preaching, there is a danger of coming on too strong. Have you considered the possibility that Giveawayboy needs time to reflect on the writings of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura that you have highlighted? The writings of Vaisnava acaryas may be difficult to understand for those from a Judeo-Christian tradition and/or those unfamiliar with the Vedic philosophy which is the foundation for the huge melting point of ideas known to the world as "Hinduism".

 

I'm all for dialogue. But at a friendly and relaxed pace. IMO, dialogue between spiritual traditions should be like slow chats at a cafe between people who meet and gradually develop a relationship over a course of time rather then like exchanging rhethoric at a political debate. But that's just me. If you are the confrontational type, you may opt for the exchange-of-rhethoric approach, but please remember: if we neglect the personal aspect and just pursue the philosophy, we run the risk of becoming impersonalists and that is the pitfall that those who aspire to be Vaisnavas should avoid.

 

I hope I have not offended you with my choice of words.

 

[ethos]

Post deleted by Admin5

[Gauracandra]

Thank you for that kind response. I think this was the picture of Audarya Fellowship. Audarya means magnanimous and in such a spirit we can all learn from one another. I don't speak for Srila Siddhaswarupananda, I simply try to transcribe his television program keeping my personal views out. I'm not a disciple of his, but I do enjoy his program. Having said that, and having watched his program for quite some time, I would summarize his critique of some presentations of Christianity as follows:

 

1) Salvation vs. Devotion - Srila Siddhaswarupananda consistently goes back to a verse by Jesus (I don't have the exact words, or number) that says that the first and foremost commandment is to love God with all your heart, body, and soul, and the second is to love your neighbor as yourself. From our Bhakti tradition, this is the correct philosophy. Salvationism is motivated 'devotion'. Its like loving someone for their money. So he objects to this emphasis not on loving God, but rather going through a ritual that now claims you are saved.

 

2) External conversion vs. Internal conversion - In a similar vein the question becomes "What makes you saved?" If some preacher baptises you in the name of Jesus are you saved? Who is this preacher, what are his qualities, that he can baptise you and claim you are saved. The external ritual seems to be enough in many cases but there is no change internally. Do we give up our vices, and become virtuous? Or do we simply continue as we have all along. Many preachers are into a numbers game, how many people they have baptised.

 

Have you ever seen the preacher Benny Hinn? I saw a program of his once, I believe in Chicago, where he had a stadium filled to the roof. There must have been 30,000 people there. My honest opinion is that this guy is a scam artist. He seems part Jimmy Swaggart, part Wringley Brothers. Now on what authority does this individual have to claim that when he baptises someone that they are now saved by Jesus. If the person doesn't change in their heart, then these are just dead rituals.

 

3) Materialism vs. Spiritualism - The third critique would be that many preachers today do not teach how to love God. Instead (and I've been to some churches in the past that do this) they teach how to live a materially happy life, with a few quotes from the Bible to make it seem Biblical. You would swear listening to them that Jesus was an ancient self-help guru like Tony Robbins. They'll have the Biblical way to better finances, the Biblical way to relieving stress at work, the Biblical way of getting your children into the right college. I've seen this, and in my opinion it has really become yuppified. So rather than teach, here is God, here is how to have relationship with God, instead they teach how we can become better situated in this world, rather that preparing our lives for the world to come.

 

These are three general critiques of the way Christianity is often portrayed by some (not all). I should mention that these are not unique to Christians, as the same faults will be found (with variations) among Hare Krsnas, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews etc.... Ultimately we must love God with all of our soul. This is what matters and what transcends all other designations.

[leyh]

Dear ethos:

 

You ask: "Why waste time with people?" But isn't Krsna Consciousness about people and being personal? To paraphrase a saying of Jesus: "The philosophy is made for the man and not the man for the philosophy." If we are purely concerned with philosophy, we run the risk of becoming fanatics --- going "in your face" with the philosophy while disregarding the human touch.

 

I'm sorry if I have irritated you and I certainly have no intention of doing so. I was just trying to be a voice of caution to balance the heaviness that I saw in your posts.I apologize if my words have disturbed you.

 

 

 

 

 

[giveawayboy]

Due to time constraints I do not have time to go into huge investigations of my beliefs on a public forum. This does not mean that I would not entertain an email discussion or limited postings with Ethos. Frankly, I came here to learn about Hinduism and not to talk much about my religion. I did not come here to bluff anyone, but perhaps to read and learn from you all, and also to ask questions. Remember, I am taking the listening, learning position. I have already learned some things from Ethos, especially things about my attatchment to myself. Leyh and Guaracandra have also helped me greatly by their supportive posts.

 

Ethos, I may not be able to respond to all your posts and queries, but I will try to check out that post you mentioned. Also, I will try to reread all the posts in this string to answer the questions you have asked. Since your posts are voluminous, I might take awhile to hear you correctly.

 

Here I am. A guest with nothing to prove. Nothing to bluff about. And, not sure about everything.

 

Bill

[Gauracandra]

Bill,

 

If you get time, here is a very nice article by Bhaktivinoda that seeks to find unity among all religions:

 

http://www.indiadivine.com/bhaktivinoda-thakur-stages-faith1.htm

 

I really enjoy this article because it is both to the point and has a nice, natural style.

[giveawayboy]

Leyh, I love the spirit of your post and of interreligious dialogue. I love so many things that you said here. These are the things I say to my Christian friends who become possessed by a certain zeal. The thing that always concerns me is how easily pride can jump into the middle of what could be constructive conversations. I like what you said about building relationships over time. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif I also like what you said about philosophy and about Vaisnavas. I actually came here wanting to learn more about the connection between Visnu and vaisnavas. Also, I am at a loss for the relationship, direct or indirect between vaisnavism and vedantic philospohy, and the nature of vedantic philosophy itself. Can you see why I want to take a listening, learning role here?

 

Thanks for your excellent post and the feelings of friendship and trust it engendered.

 

Bill

[leyh]

Dear Bill:

 

I'm glad to hear from you and I hope you are well. Interfaith dialogues is one of my concerns because I have seen some really ugly sides of religious fanaticism. I used to be a Christian some years ago, but even then I could never accept the conviction amongst many Christians that Christianity was the only way to God. I remember, during my days as a Christian, a conversation with another Christian who told me in no uncertain terms that he didn't care whatever religion a person belonged to, as long as that person didn't believed in Jesus Christ, that person was going to hell. The way he said it was so arrogantly dismissive that I just got up and walked away.

 

Since then, I have come to realize that "Christianity", "Hinduism", "Islam" etc are all man-made designations. By reading the books of His Divine Grace A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the Founder-Acarya (spiritual master) of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, I have learnt that God is neither Christian, Hindu, Muslim or whatever man-made designation that His children have tried to attach to Him throughout the centuries. God is transcendental to all these material descriptions and a devotee of God should similarly rise above all these "I am Christian", "I am Hindu" or 'I am whatever" designations and simply come to the conclusion: "My actual position is that I am an eternal servant of God." Isn't this a beautifully universal and non-sectarian philosophy?

 

The supreme religion is not any "ism" or doctrine. It is simply love for God. It is stated in Srimad Bhagavatam, a scripture of the Vedic canon:

 

sa vai pumsam paro dharmo

yato bhaktir adhoksaje

ahaituky apratihata

yayatma suprasidati

 

"The supreme occupation (dharma) for all humanity is that by which men can attain to loving devotional service unto the transcendent Lord. Such devotional service must be unmotivated and uninterrupted to completely satisfy the self." (Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.2.6)

 

So any process which helps us to attain this goal of unmotivated and uninterrupted love for God is to be embraced and any process which is unfavourable for our advancement towards this goal is to be rejected. So if you feel that by accepting Jesus as your spiritual master, you can know and love God, you should follow Jesus.I revere Jesus as one of my spiritual masters and still look to him for inspiration.

 

Vaisnavism is a school of Vedantic philosophy. There are many scholarly devotees here who can give you sound information on both Vaisnavism and Vednanta. I am neither scholalry nor am I a devotee. (I am trying to be a devotee)The role of an "interested outsider" would described me perfectly.

 

Looking forward to hearing you again.

[ethos]

Post deleted by Admin5

[theist]

raga, lol. not even that regulated.

[leyh]

Dear ethos:

 

I am sorry if I have misunderstood your words. I believe I have been respectful to you in my posts and since it is quite evident that you have been unable to recipocrate, then I think our exchanges should stop here for now. Hare Krsna.

 

 

[ethos]

Thankyou Leyh for that official version and expertise. I shall try harder in the future to give you the respect you deserve.

[Guest guest]

Ethos,

 

in your post response to Leyh, titled self assuming, you had words about me that are biting and cruel. I don't have those feelings toward you. If you read my posts to you you would see that I am open to learning from you and already noted that I had learned at least one thing. You may think I'm bluffing, but I don't know what you mean by that. I think you have some issue you won't let go of and have chosen to make me an example. I'm simply here to learn about Vishnu and vaisnavaism. Since you think I'm bluffing, I will kindly exit this string. It is not productive. Perhaps in the future we will meet again when we can both be more open and honest. Right now I don't feel like pursuing this discussion. It is not benefitting me anymore. In the meantime, as long as I am not perceived as a menace to this community I would like to simply read posts and learn and perhaps talk w folks like Gauracandra and Leyh, who don't seem so rigid. At least I can disagree with them without being labeled a 'bluffer'. Both of them seem kind and also enthusiastic about their beliefs. I wish you no ill.

 

Giveawayboy