PrachandaChandikA said:
I think that is not the biggest difference~ofcourse it comes as the biggest difference in spiritual understanding of the two faiths. I would say the biggest difference to abrahamism to other religions is the beilef of salvation only through their last prophet. For christians it is thus the belief of salavation only through christ. Also another point of departure with hinduism and buddhism is that belief is enough for being saved. Both hindu or the buddhist will say belief is just a mental idea it changes and hence cannot be cause of salvation. Of course even the monist hindu is theist unlike the buddhist and belief is important, but the mere first step.
the idea of spiritual goal varies so much even within the same faith, that I don't regard them to be point of difference or conflict. Difference are useful for not all humans are same~a thing which hinduism accepted from the start. Truth may be one, but not all can see it with same eyes. Not all are equally true, but none the less helpful stepping stone of progress. So I don't think there is any problem with a no rebirth, or no belief in karma etc, even though my belief is very different and I won't agree personally. But I think there is a problem with "salvation only through christ"~the hallmark of abrahamism in general. If that goes, christianity becomes another faith and a spiritual system of humanaity. It may or may not be 100% true~but will sure help some who are in need of such beliefs for progress.
But I know that this now a days doesn't apply to all christians. Some I have talked over net say the christainity in most general sense is the belief that christ was God.Full Stop. I'm sure many hindu's will say the same, or at least find it very compatible with their won beliefs - for Lord Krishna promised his many appearences through many ages more than 5000 years's back
To take up your last point - I think Jesus can be seen in the same way Hinduism sees the Avatar. God coming here in a form for the purpose of revelation of Himself and so on. Orthodox Christians, of whom, incidentally, I am not one, would not accept this. As you say, it is only the one Incarnation they will accept.
To mention some other points in relation to your post - "as a man sows, so shall he reap" - that saying of Jesus seems to contain an idea similar to karma in the way it is often understood.
In popular Christianity belief is indeed thought to be enough - or belief and faith. Both are neccesary stages, but some more mystical Christians have gone further - into actual knowledge of God, in the same sense as mystics of Hindu, Sufi, and other traditions have done. However, such individuals are a rarity. Nonetheless, they have to be acknowledged I think.
I think actually though, the one huge difference between Christianity and Hindu Vaishnavism for instance, is the insistence on Jesus sacrificial death as the 'only way' to salvation (however that is conceived of). From my own studies, it seems clear enough that Vaishnavsa seek a relationship with a personal God - Krishna. That is not enough for the Christian - they maintain that it is Christ's death and ressurection that are central. In other respects though there are distinct similarities between these two paths.
It is also worth noting that in the early centuries of the Christian era, were many so called 'Gnostic' sects. The word 'Gnosis' is similar to the sanskrit 'Jnana' and refers to spiritual knowledge. Further, some of these gnostics also held a belief in re-incarnation, and the goal was concieved of as liberation from the material world. In essence, not disimilar from some Hindu ideas.
It's very likely that the idea of re-incarnation came to the gnostics from the ancient Greeks, such as Plato and his followers. The idea may have come to them in turn from India, possibly through Persia. So it is speculated.
Thanks anyway for your very interesting posts.
