>>There are sages that say hari and sivan are one>>Buddhists are ofcourse here to stay, i think they are well accomodated by hindus, jains and buddhists themselves.>>>
In order to stay focussed on the theme, I take back my statement on Shivites&Vaisnavites. But then I'm still wondering how can Buddha be equated to another God of a religion, which doesnt suit philosophically. Two contradicting philosophies cannnot be views as Single philosophy.. Hindus accomodating Buddhists is a political/social set up,but not a philosophical accomodation.
Because, in the end the wise understand that like we have different spoken languages and we have different terms in each one to call, let us say, 'rice', all of them point to the same kernel. God reveals Himself to the tastes of the followers. This is why, this is not a linear logical riddle as you seem to think it is.
Earlier, in another thread where we were debating about God&Philosophy, Shri.TBS asked you a question..By another hundred years, one may make Gandhi also as God! Do you still agree with that.
Buddha never claimed he was God. People who follow him made him a God. In that respect what is to prevent some people sanctifying Gandhi Ji as 'God?'. But in Hinduism, I doubt it will happen, because he is not considered as an Avatar, only a Maha Atma today.
>>Religion is is not about god or non-god, it is a set of beleifs. Yes, ofcourse a religion can be based on non-god.>>
You are partly right here.. Religion is all about few set of beliefs supernatural powers /Divine power. In this context, I cannot agree with the thought of mixing/identifying God with a particular Culture/Nationality.. Yes.Shri.KRS said, as religions grew up in particular localities,it naturally got an identity of it.. True, but, God of that religion will not confine himself to a culture. Rather, he is for the whole universe..
Oh, why then, God of Abraham spoke in Hebrew, why JC spoke in Aramaic, why God spoke in Arabic to Mohammed through Gabriel and why Vedas are composed in Sanskrit? Why did He not thrust Himself on various people through one Univarsal language that everyone can understand all the world over?
>>>Please explain why you think forgiveness of sins violates absolute justice of sow and reap. >>
The first appeal I get over Karma Vs Forgivenes of sin, and my vote goes to Karma. It is defnitely a right/simple view and stands for Absolute Justice nature of God and goes well with nature and without any divine intevention also. Why we put the robber in Jail, because,we want to deliver justice to the robber and society..One who sows should reap..It also appeals to me from the Jealous God of JC, who condemns every one straight to hell-fire, instead of the choice given in karma to refine myself, through next birth suffering..
But it misses the point of Absolute love of God (I feel so, and I may be wrong)..Again, if we keep aside God/Divinity out of Karma, and call it a natural law, then, if we take a world view out of it (atleast Indian view out of it), it makes any one ponder, is that because 'Natural law of Karma' that 600Mn people were forced to be viewed as 'Second class'? Could that be a right idology. Again I may be wrong here.. But....
Love of God in any religion is not spontaneous on His part. As I told you before, one has to work for it (usually through prayers, Bhakthi). The 600 mn people in India came about because of the wrong application of divine law by man, not because God wanted them to be. The same happened, as we discussed many, many times here in religions where there was supposed to be Universal love. Untouchability is a social problem based on mooda nambikkai, same as Spanis inquisition was a social problem based on different sets of mooda nambikkai. Please do not think that the Varna system alone contributed to untouchability. Same as Christian theology of love did not contribute solely to the inquisitions and the compulsory conversions of heathens. I am not even going to talk about Islam here.
With this, I have intentionally skipped the rest of your questions, just to drive my point 'Thread-Theme". We will take up this point, once there is a relevancy comes.Im sure you would be having very much a valid points to rebut my view on Karma, and possibly you could be 100% true also.But we both would be running another 50posts rebutting each other. In the process, we wont be touching any single point on the current running topic "All paths lead to God''.Subsequently, other fellow posters also will shift the discussion..And each one will throw few salvos.. End results.. Again the discussion will come to a grind halt...
Yes, in a thread, some of the statements of a person could be wrong..Lets skip those,than trying to prove somebody wrong there.Lets discuss the core points in a such a way, that, we are exchanging ideas.
One may end up in loosing an argument in terms of God and Religion.. That doesnt mean, God will also feel lost and embarassed, and gets locked up in his Kitchen..
Only if one sees that there is only one way for humans to follow to reach Him, your statement is correct. But as we have argued elsewhere, you seem to be confusing the existence of one God with the existence of one single way to reach Him.
Btw, I may also break the rules un-knowingly.. But please dont hesitate to point it out.. thanks in advance