If you are talking about Dr. Morales
I did not quote him because I am trying to help promote him as a
spiritual authority, I just happened to agree with the gist of that one article.

Regarding paying dues however, according to his bio
http://www.dharmacentral.com/acharyaji.php
he took formal Brahmana initiation in 1986 and has been practicing
for over 30 years.

May I ask if you have an objective way to determine if somebody
has 'paid the price'? Personally, I try to judge people by a combination
of what they say and how they comport themselves.
How do you determine that somebody has 'paid the price'?

Of course in as far as a religion may promote the worship of, e.g., tree spirits or extra terrestrials, it can be said that there are wrong paths. Even a self-contained and complete system of belief such as Buddhism, is obviously a wrong path to knowing God, because it denies the existence of God altogether, which is not to say that the practice of Buddhism doesn’t have spiritual value. It can be argued, however, that if Hinduism/Vaishnavism is the correct path, then it is not reasonable to reject Christianity as a wrong path. I agree that there are some problems (most notably the pagan myth of eternal hell in Christianity), but solely based on the similar concept of God and the similar method of attaining knowledge or consciousness of God through finding Him within the Self, I think it can be said that Vaishnavism and Christianity are compatible religious philosophies.

Most importantly, Vaishnavism and Christianity have the doctrine of monistic theism or panentheism in common. All Vaishnava schools are panentheistic and view the universe as part of Krishna or Narayana, but see a plurality of souls and substances within Brahman. Panentheism which includes the concept of a personal God as a universal, omnipotent Supreme Being who is both immanent and transcendent, is prevalent within many other schools of Hinduism as well. And contrary to the claims of Dr. Morales, this also is the Christian position.

The Christian position is that God is the self-existent Creator of all things (Gen. 1:1; Isa. 44:24; Acts 14:15; Eph. 3:9). On the basis of biblical witness Christians believe that God is also the self-existent Sustainer and Governor of all things (Acts 14:16-17; 17:24-28). The eternal Son of God, who became incarnate as the Lord Jesus Christ, is described as the One who “upholds all things by the word of His power” (Heb. 1:3) and the One in whom "all things hold together" (Col. 1:17).

Taking this one step further, God the Father in Christianity is the all pervading Brahman in Hinduism, and Christ is Krishna, and God incarnate Jesus Christ is at the same level as Krishna avatar. Furthermore, God the Father and Christ the Son are One in Christianity, which is equivalent to Brahman and Vishnu/Krishna being One panentheistic Godhead in Vaishnavism. Finally, this might leave Paramatma as the equivalent of Holy Spirit in Christianity.

Now, I’m not in the least suggesting that you should change your ishta-devata from Vishnu or Krishna to Christ. I am just saying that personally I am quite convinced and in fact believe that Christianity and Vaishnavism are compatible philosophies of the nature of Absolute Truth, and that (consequently) both are valid paths to knowledge or consciousness of God.

That is certainly no qualification to speak about Christ.

You have done a good job in pointing out similarities but you don't give equal weight to the serious differences. Then you take it one step further:
All conclusions without supporting premises. You keep making leaps
of logic: "Taking this one step further ..." as if simply pointing out similarities
in two concepts of a higher power somehow means that people are talking about the same thing and entitles you to take it "one step further".

What you are doing is like pointing out the similarities in two people and then saying that they are therefore the same. To establish equivalency you have to adequately explain the differences. You have not come close to accomplishing that. You have also ignored one of the consistent themes throughout the Bible - the character of 'God'.

Clearly idol worshipping is unequivocably condemned all throughout the Bible.
Both Jews and Christians have always taught that the law of God reveals his character. So what to make of the 2nd commandment? It is at the heart of the law of Jehovah and clearly reveals something about his character that is not consonant with Brahman or Sri Vishnu.

The jealousy referenced in the 2nd commandment is further elucidated
all throughout the Bible - a consistent theme:
Yes, I agree that you are personally quite convinced and in fact believe what you have asserted. However I don't think we are going to get anywhere by discussing this philosophically. Instead, let's talk about Vedic authorities. I will say that there are some Acharyas (like Swami Prabhupada) who have taught that it is a great offense to equate a Jiva Tattva with Vishnu Tattva and he considers Jesus on the same level of Mohammed - an empowered preacher but still a Jiva Tattva. What do you think of that?

Also, if there are some Vedic authorities which share you opinions about Jesus, please reference them and I will check them out. Thanks.

What then is the basis for rejecting any path as wrong? Most religions do accept the concept of a creator God. Your argument allows only two kinds of religions - atheistic religions like Buddhism and all other theistic religions (which are all correct).

Tattvavada, one of the leading Vedanta (and Vaishnava) doctrines also endorses the concept of eternal hell.

Then this should also include Islam, Judaism, Shaivism, Shaktism and most other religions in the world. But most Christians, Muslims would disagree with this theory of compatibility. Most Vaishnavas would disagree with accepting Shaivism as a valid path. In summary, your position is rejected by the majority.

I take the positon that the mainstream interpretation of any scripture is the correct one. An isolated interpretation only supported by a few and contradicting the mainstream version is usually not a sound interpretation and has other motives behind it - in your case, the reconciliation of two disparate religions for purely sentimental reasons.

Cheers

Clearly, idol worship is forbidden when it implies worshipping different gods than the God of Jesus Christ or the Absolute Truth. The Catholic church, for example, allows it's followers to bow down before statues when in prayer. Anyone can walk into a Catholic church and see devotees kneeling before every statue placed within.

As far as a ‘jealous’ God is concerned, certainly we learn from Scripture that there is such a thing as a ‘godly jealousy’. We find the Apostle Paul declaring to the Corinthian Church, " For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." (2 Corinthians 11:2) He had an earnest, cautious, anxious concern for their holiness, that the Lord Jesus might be honoured in their lives. Jealousy, like anger, is not evil in itself, or it could never be ascribed to God.

Anyway, Christians believe in the new covenant (new testament) that is referenced to in the Old Testament as follows: 31 "Behold, days are coming," declares Yahweh, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares Yahweh. 33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares Yahweh, "I will put my Law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 "They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know Yahweh,' for they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares Yahweh, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." (Jer. 31:31-34)

In the New Testament, Jesus repeated some of the commandments in Matthew 19:16–19 and condensed them into two general commands: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Mat. 22:34-40)

So surely Jesus couldn’t have agreed with the gruesome passages in the Old Testament you quoted and which most certainly are not part of Christianity or representative of God’s character in Christianity. God is nothing but love.

If that first [Old] covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second (Heb. 8:7). He [Jesus] is the mediator of the new testament (Heb. 9:15). Jesus [is] the mediator of the new covenant (Heb. 12:24).

By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep His [Jesus’] commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments: and His commandments are not grievous (1 Jn. 5:2-3).

As I said, a panentheistic concept of God should be the most important criterion. I.e., God must be one with his creation. That is, of course, if it is accepted that Vaishnavism is a correct path.

I am not sure about, for example, Islam. Islam seems to adhere to a strictly deistic doctrine in which the creation and the creator cannot be equal. Such dualism between God and His creation is definitely not a part of the panentheistic doctrine of Vaishnavism and Christianity.

That could lead to a kind of religious anarchy. Original scriptures define a religion, not any pagan interpretation like eternal hell and other misconceptions and/or mistranslations. By the way, my reading of Christian scripture actually is the mainstream interpretation among Christians, just as my interpretation of Vaishnavism represents the mainstream interpretation. And this has nothing to do with sentimentality. It's just facts and information. Only a bigot would misrepresent Christianity for his own sentimental reasons..

Doesn't Exodus 20:4-5 in the original Hebrew clearly and unequivocably forbid the bowing before statues?
What Biblical basis do you have for adding this idea of "when"? (For clarity, I've added the emphasis to your quote.):
Long before Christianity, every prophet in Judaism seemed to think that the original Hebrew forbid using images or statues to worship Jehovah or YHWH. Notwithstanding that, Catholics choose the practice for their own reasons.
If by "Christians" you mean Catholics. Obviously most Protestants do not agree with the Catholic practice of bowing before statues.
Yes, I agree.

Then what is your concept of God..?

First of all let me say that I believe the Supreme dwells equally in everyone as paramatma. Since he is all-pervading he hears the prayers of everyone.

That being said, I think the Bhagavad Gita is the highest and best revelation
of that Supreme Being. Of course that is my shradda which is based upon my karma among other things. If I equate other scriptures with that which I believe was spoken directly by Sri Vishnu himself, then the Bhagavad Gita is no longer special. If I equate other names by which people choose to call their conception of a higher power with the 1,000 names of Vishnu, then the names Hari, Krishna and Rama are no longer special.

In India they have this idea that a persons religion is like their mother. Everyone has the right to think that their mother is the best in the world. If they don't tell me that my mother is the same as theirs then we can live peacefully as brothers. If they don't tell me to disown my mother in order to embrace theirs, then we can live peacefully as brothers. OM SHANTI

That’s fully compatible with the Christian belief that God dwells in everyone as the Holy Spirit. "The kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:21). "Know you not that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?" (1 Corinthians 3:16). In Christianity God is the self-existent Creator of all things (Gen. 1:1; Isa. 44:24; Acts 14:15; Eph. 3:9). And God is the self-existent Sustainer and Governor of all things (Acts 14:16-17; 17:24-28). The eternal Son of God is described as the One who "upholds all things by the word of His power" (Heb. 1:3) and the One in whom "all things hold together" (Col. 1:17).

Bhagavad Gita may indeed be the highest and best revelation of Absolute Truth, although there are no objective methods to determine any Scripture as the highest or best. As you indicated, this is ultimately a very personal matter. But I must agree that Vedic scriptures describe the nature of Absolute Truth or God in much more detail, than the Christian Bible. However, as argued, both scriptures describe God and His relation to the Self in a remarkably similar fashion, using similar terms and concepts. Hence, Christianity appears to be much closer to Vaishnavism than it is to any other religion, even though other religions such as Islam or Judaism are partially based on the same scriptures (OT). I personally find this astonishing. Given that Christianity and Vaishnavism are completely separate traditions, how can they reach the same basic conclusions about the nature of God? Moreover, the New Testament might be the latest rendering of this Absolute Truth, whereas arguably the Vedas are the oldest religious scriptures known to man. Could it be that ultimately both scriptures have the same author, God himself?

Agreed.

how do you know him ???

me too.It's astonishing and assertive too.

It depends on time and place what God chooses to reveal...

I have never met Swami Prakashanand Saraswati, but I once attended a satsang given by one of his swamis at a Hindu Temple in Norwalk, CA.

Due to the kripa of the Supreme, we find little sattvic elements in even the most base nonsense. This is a way of planting seeds for the persons next life since these non Vedic religions inevitably lead to rebirth. Once you stop exaggerating the similarities and ignoring the glaring differences, things will become more clear.

I do not find it astonishing at all. We see what we want to see. if your goal is to see similarities and unify the two, then you will find astonishing similarities. If you want to see diffferences, you will see enough to see that the two have no relation to each other, whatsoever. it is all a matter of perspective.

The same Gita in India is interpreted completely differently by different scholars. Does this mean they all are wrong, except the one who matches the Christian scripture?

As you can see, we create the differences and similarities based on our personal preferences. It is not about what the scripture says, it is about what we want to see in it.

Cheers

^ yes like you OBVIOUSLY ignore

"BRahmano hi pratishtha ham."

"I am The basis of Brahm."
- Bhagavad Geeta.

There is NO interpretation to that.

Sri KRsna Is the basis of BRahm.simple.


So your right,You will see only what YOU want to see.