Why I am not a Christian

[Samkhya 0]

I am not a Christian because the way I conceive God (a transcendent being, over the universe) makes it impossible for him to become a man. A being cannot change his nature without ceasing to exist. God cannot do what is logically impossible, and it is logically impossible for him to become a man (Jesus) and to have human experiences. God is God and man is man. Period.

 

Jesus is at best a prophet blessed by God, but not God embodied.

 

Also, I don't see how to make sense of the expression "son of God".

[Guest guest]

After all, we Hindus believe in avatars, where God is incarnated on Earth.

 

However, I find no problem with this, as only a PART of God manifests himself on Earth. God is still God, while the avatar is also God, although a more limited form of Him.

 

And if you can accept this, then you can possibly accept Jesus as maybe not literally God Himself, but a part of God, and therefore "Son" of God.

 

And if you cannot accept any of this, then you must deny the relationship of God as your Mother, Father, etc. rendering yourself unable to have a relationship with Him, simply because he is beyond your senses, your capacity to understand him, and you deny that any part of you is a part of God. In this case, why worship Him? He is not your Mother, not your Father, He is nothing to you. So why care about Him, and why should He care about you?

[Guest guest]

impossible is not a word for god...

 

it is not impossible.. it is simply useless for god to become a man and die, because he knows already what's a man , and wich are his problems

 

the lord, sri bhagavan, is rishikhesh.. he's in the senses of everyone, so he knows everything

 

so jesus is a son of god (why not? if god is father, everyone else is son!), and, as many acaryas say, he is a manifestation of god, a shaktiavesha avatara

 

the fact is that it is false that he died on the cross.. christ did not died on the cross

[maadhav 0]

assuming you are out of the hole,

what you do now?

 

many species actually come out of the hole,

and they enter again for a shor time before the next birth.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

i believe he existed, but that much like buddah, he was an 'enlightened' man. i think the clash of gnostic thought (confused with witchcraft) and 'pagan' worship meant his vision of God was more realistic than many in roman times. 'son of God' could be interpreted many ways in those days. wasnt ceaser considered God also? or the pharoas? alexander? .... the early church decided christ was the best variant. where christ seperates from the rest is whether or not you believe in his resurrection. once again open to speculation, but that is where blind faith and gnostic thought differ immensley (same goes for the miracles). christ to me sounds like a genius who revolutionised religous thought and took away the power of the priests. he is one man in history with an ideal vision who taught many. depends really, on what your idea of God is. if it's brahman / atman, then christ was simply 'in tune' with it better than anyone else.