PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
Are the Hindu creator God Brahma and God the Father, God of the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, mutually exclusive?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Coexistence of Gods
- Thread starter PoetPhilosopher
- Start date
Well, if you believe in a supreme creator God, it would be the same God in all religions, just seen through different cultural lenses.
Yes. The narrative is quite different.
"In the beginning, Brahma sprang from the cosmic golden egg and he then created good & evil and light & dark from his own person. He also created the four types: gods, demons, ancestors, and men (the first being Manu). Brahma then made all living creatures upon the earth (although in some myths Brahma's son Daksa is responsible for this). In the process of creating, perhaps in a moment of distraction, the demons were born from Brahma's thigh and so he abandoned his own body which then became Night. After Brahma created good gods he abandoned his body once again, which then became Day, hence demons gain the ascendancy at night and gods, the forces of goodness, rule the day. Brahma then created ancestors and men, each time again abandoning his body so that they became Dusk and Dawn respectively. This process of creation repeats itself in every aeon. Brahma then appointed Shiva to rule over humanity although in later myths Brahma becomes a servant of Shiva."
Brahma
Last edited:
Heyo
Veteran Member
If you reduce them both to the "creator" property, then no. But that would also make you a deist.
Being religious doesn't mean to believe in a god, it means to believe a slew of things about that god that no other religion agrees upon.
Depends who you ask. Certainly the understandings vary. One is the understanding of what 'creation' is. In many Hindu schools, it is more emanation than creation. So it's like sparks from a fire, rather than a potter making a pot, something entirely different from themselves. But when Sanskrit got translated, whomever did the translating found 'creation' a likeable word to translate to, as it fit their own paradigm.
In all 3 main sects, Vaishnaivism, Shaktism, and Saivism, the Supreme God (Vishnu, Shakti, or Siva) performs the Brahma function, as He/She does it all. Brahma is most common in the idea of trimurthi, or 3 Gods, 3 functions. Not very common in Hinduism, but very common in western encyclopedia explaining Hinduism.
So God might be God, who knows. The understandings might be different, or the Gods might actually be different.
Individual Hindus, Jews and Christians will each have their understanding of the God their religion believes in and the God or gods of another religion. Those of a more universal inclination will see similarities and believe its the same God seen through a different cultural lens. Those who believe their religion to be the true path and the paths of others deficient will see irreconcilable differences. One of the most useful parables I’ve found to understand the problem is that of the blind men and the elephant.
A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. In the case of the first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said "This being is like a thick snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said the elephant, "is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear.
Blind men and an elephant - Wikipedia
As practitioners of any faith or no faith we should be concerned with ultimate reality or truth. We should be able to beyond the narratives each of us uses to describe that reality, recognising each is limited including our own.
A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. In the case of the first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said "This being is like a thick snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said the elephant, "is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear.
Blind men and an elephant - Wikipedia
As practitioners of any faith or no faith we should be concerned with ultimate reality or truth. We should be able to beyond the narratives each of us uses to describe that reality, recognising each is limited including our own.
The Blind Man and the Elephant was originally a commentary or analogy on perception, not on God. It's just an astute way of saying how we're limited by perception. The King, of course, is not blind, and hence he can 'see' the 'real' picture.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...e-blind-men-and-the-elephant-story-backfires/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...e-blind-men-and-the-elephant-story-backfires/
I think it depends on what they say. If they are in no way contradictory, then they can be the same.
The authors of the link you have provided are Christian fundamentals, clearly threatened by plurality and its challenge to their belief their way is the only way as espoused by John 14:6. For them Jesus is King and He is the only truth. Further if we don’t accept the truth of not only Christianity but their brand of Christianity, we will not be saved and eternal hell will be our final abode.
The Gospel Coalition Is a Coalition
Sure. The source is irrelevant to me, just pointing out that that analogy has been morphed to mean something other than it's original intent. Hmmm... where have I seen this concept before?