Conversion -An Insult to God..?

I am in total agreement with you. God calls us to where he wants us to be. If we are listening to Him and follow His instruction we could never offend him. As long as God is our summit (that which we always strive for) we will be in His favor.

There mut a way to "see" God's call and human machination.Then your stand is OK.

Fred you have answered my question.For a believer God is defectless and error-free. God is the Creator and He makes the First Choice for an individual. He gives him Free Will to watch what he is going to do with it- whether he uses his Free Will to sin and move away from God or keep the covenant and reach Him. For him to follow he has laid out a path. If the individual were born as a Christian, he has been handed him the Ten Commandments. He had made covenant with Abraham. He has even deigned in His Infinite Mercy to send His Son to absolve him of all sins. Yet is it possible that he has not done enough, that you go and beg in the next house for food. How does your father feel, when he has provided food, you ignore that and go to the other man's house, and ask for it. Is it not an insult? My example and comparison to a worldly father are imprecise approximations. Pardon me for that. This just for a game insofar as you have concerned. Play if you want to. But I have got the core of your idea. It is just lovely.

WoW! That was a great one Man! All are "food" made in the same God's kitchen, how taking one instead of the other be an insult? Great! But you shouldn't wate the food you have one taken, isn't it? For it is said:[This is for Fizan Ali:] "AnnaM brahma,annAdo brahma" - The Food itself is God, the one who eats(The Guest) is God.

For your first pargraph, I cannot compare God to an earthly father. The Earhtly father is too limited and is a person who commits mistakes just like anybody else. But God is defectless, unlimites, without any boundaries. He gives a person food; let us say 'Christianity'. But the other foods are also of God; other foods like Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism. If the person rejects a particular food that came from God and accepts other food which also came from God, I wonder why God should feel insulted.

I don't think we are so far apart on this. The path that I finally found was Buddhism so I guess my use of the term enlightenment has to be understood in that context. I am a long way from enlightenment but I am at least on a path that may get me there in some future lifetime. It took years and a lot of help from some patient monks and teachers to free my self from the burden of guilt and imaginary sin that my early Christian teachers had saddled me with. In the end I have learned to still my mind and find that the only god that matters is the one that we and all living things are all a part of. I have not insulted that god by growing away from a Christianity that was wrong for me. My spirit could not grow in the confines of dogma imposed from outside my soul.

Chiang, I agree with you on the need to question and learn. I do not quite understand the sense in which you are using the word "Enlightenment". Is it in the sense of attaining sensory and rational knowledge that is free from contradictions? Or you are using in the sense of the Zen Masters or the Buddhists? To make one's path is fine if it has come to be as a consequence of your personal enquiry. My question as I have averred is aimed at people who have chosen to accept the existence of a God who delivers. But I do agree, with you that God as a Creator-Overseer-Discipliner and the like is definitely not required to obtain the Enlightenment in the sense I am referring to. But definite it is not attained by mere rational pursuits either. May be once you are "tired-out" after the process of rational elimination, and your mind has therefore attained a quietude then with or without God you will be an Enlightened Person. If you are however using enlightened in the English Dictionary meaning before the English speaking peoples had come in touch with the Orientals, that enlightenment is certainly the result of the honest pursuit of University Education.Thanks for the response.

Excellent Man! Go On! Find Enlightment in the path of the Tathagata!What else can I say?

First about the anomaly you stated: This is actually not an anomaly it is a situation and you've asked for the reason for such a situation appearing from an Islamic point of view and the basic Islamic point of view is that everything is actually 'Allah Ki Marzi' as said in the Quran. But you for no reason don't want me to give that answer so I'll give another; If a rich person enjoys more comfort then according to Islam he is also subject to more duties which he has to full fill like Paying Zakat, doing Hajj, doing sadka, helping the orphans etc all of these don't apply to a poor person. Actually it is all part of the test to see whether a rich person can spend his money to help others and whether a poor person can still remain thankful to Allah even though he is poor. Our belief is not that we get reward for our good deeds in this world but that we get reward in the here after. I asked you to find an anomaly in the Holy Quran because until you can do that I can use any quote, concept or assertions in it. Secondly if you will accept that there is only one God and Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h) is the last messenger of God, then you have actually accepted Islam. If you can do that then your religion would be Islam and you'll only be a Hindu because you 'live' in Hindustan. When you say that you would edit some things like eating of meat then (first of all doing that wouldn't take you out of Islam) why would you do that? Why would you believe the Vedas and not the Quran in this matter? Do you think that the Vedas are more authentic then the Holy Quran? Lastly I want you to address and explain the contradiction I told you in the previous comment about 'Does God want us to insult him'?

Yes Fizan, I started this discussion because I didn't want to clutter somebody's discussion which was begun with some express purpose in mind and IMO that has been answered. Fizan, of what help to you will my quoting Hindu Scripture? First it will be Sanskrit. Then I will have to traslate it for you. No other proof is required tha the fact that talk of conversion to a Hindu -provided he is a practicing Hindu, and he has at least some very elementary understanding of his religion- you will hear only one refrain: He will oppose conversion. He will be vexed by the very idea of conversion. He will never give up his religion for anything else however great.And there is one difficulty in giving a "quote" about where it is said in any Hindu Scrpture about why one should not convert? I will not be able to find one.That is because conversion as an idea is foreign to Hinduism. Hinduism is one which believes we are born as per our desserts and that includes everything- include everything. Every Hindu who spends his time reading his Scriptures - mind you they are quite tough to understand, if he does understand- the first statement that comes out of his mouth is:[B]God make me a Hindu, in every lifetime[/B](I hope you must be knowing that Hinduism has for its backbone Karma and Rebirth as important concepts, which straight away are unapplicable to Abrahamic Religions. There is lot which extolls the path that one is reading about [Again a Hindu has practically infinite path options available to him, within the framework of Hinduism.] I will put it rather simply; It is possible to choose a path similar to Qur'An within Hinduism itself.Like One God.God as Creator. God as Different from Man. Everything, except of course permission to eat beef, for instance. I will put it in a very lighter vein: Linda Goodman who wrote books on Astrology, in her book on Sun Signs says under the head of Gemini Woman: To have a Gemini woman for a lover or wife is like enjoying polygamy within a monogamous relationship. Now,Hinduism is something like that - a conglomerate of a varieties of faiths. You will never be able to exhaust them all. Why all? Choose one you will never have a chance to get bored. It is intellectually stimulating. Choose whichever path you like. If one is impressed with Islam, you could construct a mini-Islam within H and, may be you may have to just edit out only those "principles" which are antithetic to the Vedas. Similarly, you could morph a Christian View within the Hindu fold. If you want to see how it all works, see read the writing of Srila Prabhupada: He has morphed a variety of H that is akin to Christianity. Give me a faith of your choice: I will give a pre-constructed one from withing H.

Fizan, you have asked me to pick an anomaly. Well, to be honest that goes against my grain. Still as you are insisting on it with a billion apologies to Mohammad (PBUH), I ask you this question: What [B]reason[/B] can you give for one man to be abjectly poor but a very 'nek banda' and the other to be very rich and having all the comforts in life. Give me an answer that does not involve or include: {B]Woh! Allah kI marzI hai[/B]. My question is simply this Abdul and Ayaz are both Muslims.Abdul follows Qur'An and is rich and comfortable. But Ayaz also follows Qur'An and is very obedient of His directives but wallows in abject poverty try as he may?

Hi kragibg i agree with you . For some these religious really matters a lot but somehow we forgetting that there is only one God, one power which controls everything , every nature . He had taken many forms and came to this earth to help different people . There places where he took birth , people began to call him with different names . All religions is man made and not created by God . He is one and , consider all his created creatures as his children . I respect all religion and faith because i know with whatever name i call him , i will find him there .

It shows that your post contains mature content and i am not allowed to see it .If i want then i will need to change the setting in preferences . But i don't see any such option in there .Sorry but i cannot see what you replied but do any one of you know how to change the setting to be able to see mature contents ?

Ok I will tell you.

My dear bird23, God can [B]never[/B]be understood.His ways are inscrutable. God has given me brains to understand the ways of the world(wily and the good) and to understand the Forces and Power of Nature, in the form of Physics Chemistry, Medicine, Engineering etc., But that mind-brain is incapable of undrestanding Him, try till end of Time. Now, Free Will is given as a powerful weapon either to "cut" the ignorance that holds you back from Him or use it to fuel self-aggradisement and reamin separated from Him.You said it when you said "Be who you must"- That is precisely what I mean when I say take His bidding and stay and grow where He has put you. Unconditional Love can be given being in whichever religion you need or even without any religion also.

Firstly - Thank you for your response, I was interested in your reply but naturally have a few issues with what you have said... "Hinduism is perhaps the only religion in the world that believes there are many many paths to God, and no one is particularly superior to the other." I am vaguely familiar with Hinduism and a few other faiths, and you will know of course that Christianity is a faith that states (as Jesus did in the Bible) that there is only one way to God, and of course that is where our paths fundamentally cannot meet. "If I am born(not converted to) a Christian I will faithfully follow the path laid by Jesus Christ and find Him. If I am born(and not converted to) a Muslim, I will faithfully follow Hazrat Muhammad(PBUH) and find Him." - Right there is the misunderstanding at the centre of our disagreement - One CANNOT be born a Christian, hence the expression to be born again - after all the early Christians were Jews! Christianity requires a change in the way we think whatever our starting point even if we are brought up in nominally Christian surroundings (ie a conversion - there is no Christianity without conversion) Your proposition assumes that God is common to all these faiths in which case, your argument would have a basis - This may well work from a Hindu perspective, however from a Christian perspective, it does not work at all. A Christian would reject the God of Islam (though obviously not the God of Judaism). In fact your argument could work between Jews and Christians and a Jew could argue 'why would God make me a Jew if he wanted me to be a Christian' That would actually make an interesting debate...

Dear Livewyre, You are entitled to your opinion, and I am not worried that your ideas are exactly opposite mine either.You are very welcome. But I would like to question the conclusions reached by you, however. Let me start from the most central one of your conclusions. That is, that there would not be any change or new philosophy at all if everybody took the view that, "where God has placed us is right". I am a Hindu by birth, conviction(because of birth), and practice. I do not know if you are aware of the varieties of Philosophies- not one- but as mnay as a hundred different ones are available within the framework of Hinduism? Hinduism is perhaps the only religion in the world that believes there are many many paths to God, and no one is particularly superior to the other. If as you have surmised if the conclusion of what I am trying to say were a do- nothing to the extent that 'one does not get up from bed' were the "tradition" that Hinduism had built in me, then there would or should not have been any philosophical tradition(s) in Hinduism at all. Please read any one Upanishad of your choice(though I for one, am not, comfortable with translations) and try to find whether there existed in the world anywhere within a 1000 years of its period any writing of comparable intellectual exaltation. The four most important ones are Brihadaranyaka Chhandogya Aitareya and Katha These are just the samples. There are 108 of them, and more. Whatever gave you the idea that I have anywhere implied that God should not be sought? That He will reach out for you just lying there and doing nothing? If you read the Upanishads you will know their main subject is How God must be sought and how He must be seen by throwing out the "residue" of sensory impulses and gotten to. What I meant to convey was simply this: If I am born(not converted to) a Christian I will faithfully follow the path laid by Jesus Christ and find Him. If I am born(and not converted to) a Muslim, I will faithfully follow Hazrat Muhammad(PBUH) and find Him. But if God made be born into Hindu family and I was interested in finding Him( and had not become irreligious due to shock, misguidance or unconcern by my parents to at least initiate me) and I convert then I am thinking that I am wiser than God, for He did not know I needed to be a Chriatian or Muslim or whatever. I was only saying I would not subscribe to such an idea. It is for me sacreligious. It is blasphemy for me to think that I am wiser than God! Whatever I said is only in respect of God-seeking, please do not extend it to obtaining mastery of Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Engineering or Technology or for that matter good business sense or say victory in war...and any other sensory input driven knowledge acquistion. They all need "effort", "free-will", "sweating it out" or whatever you would like to call it.

A small nay a BIG error, by my stupid oversight: I am sure my Christian Parents would [B]not[/B] want me to be initiated into Vedic Hinduism...

No my God is not the creator. Our new Prime Minister in Australia does not believe in GOD. And Australia is surging ahead economically over the rest of the world. Instead of praying and relying on GOD to save us. We do the work ourselve.

That's a much more sensible argument you put there, and I mostly agree with it. I do not have a problem with people wanting to put their faith in GOD. I do have a problem when those same people start preaching on how other should live their life. And worse, punish those people who break the rules of GOD, like adultery and abortion. I was watching an interesting documentary tonight, which recounted how Henry VIII banished the Catholic Church from England when the Pope refused him a divorce and went on to create the Church of England with the Monarch as its emblem rather than GOD. I have never seen a religious fanatic amongst the Church of England. And that's the way it should be. If people kept their religion and faith to themselve, there would be no war and no terrorism. Well, that might not be totally correct. But they would need to come up with an other excuse. Like the truth perhaps? lol

Is YOUR G-d not THE CREATOR? Does He not have the Intelligence to place you in circumstances best suited for your growth towards Him? If you cannot find Him you through one religion, you will never find Him in any other way. Cuz as you have rightly pointed out God does not show any preference for any religion.

I got your point wrt to conversion. I am not sure what the answer is regarding the sociological concern some people raise. But regarding your point I have my hesitation to agree. First, I don't know how atheist will be dealt with here. Would you say atheist should also be left alone? Secondly, for Christians conversion is an act of God, followers just share their conviction. And sharing their conviction is a part and parcel of their allegiance to their God as much as not committing murder is part of the whole package. For example, Muslim will say that not committing murder is part of their belief as much as offering prayers in a day is part of the package. So when a Christian is asked not to share his or her conviction about Jesus to others, he or she is being asked not to be a good Christian. Thirdly, even if we use the word 'God' each religious adherents have their own concept of God. The God Muslims worship is different from the one Christians worship, and the one Christians worship is different from the a Nyayikas or a Vedantin believe in. Since our definition of God is different therefore characteristics of God of each religious belief will also differ. For example, Muslim's God does not incarnate; whereas Christians God incarnates whereas Hindus God reincarnates. For Muslims it will never happen; for Christians it happened once, for Hindus it happen more than once. My point is that since 'God' is different for each one conversion then will not be an insult to the God Muslim or Christians believe in whereas it could be to the God Hindus believe in. I understand that there is sociological imbalance when one engages in propagation of one's religious belief, and sometimes it can be sociologically harmful, one one community perceives such activity as a threat to its survival. And I think the fear is genuine. Of course, all religions will say that we should not harm others but belief and action do not always go together; and it's true with all people. But suppose we were to enact a law that bans conversion activities or propagation of one's religion then the Law will deter others to be faithful to God. And since religion is a very deeply rooted and ingrained enterprise, people will still go against the law. And this can further create social unrest.

Your analysis of why conversion is emphasized and made a part of say Christianity and Islam is excellent. Like you rightly said, it enjoins as one of their religious duties to spreead the message with a view to converting. On this I had had a very detailed discussion with my classmate a Christian [It was way back in the late seventies]. The conversion here I am referring to is for someone to do so to a person who is practicing one religion preferably that of his birth. Every follower of every religion would say that his/her religion was revealed by God in some manner- to a predesignated prophet in the case of Judaism, Christianity and Islam and the Vedic RiShis in the case of SD. And our birth somewhere by that I mean in some religious background is also ordained by God, otherwise we would have been able to consciously choose our birth! And every religion that believes in a God holds Him as the most hallowed and as The One of the Highest Intelligence and Wisdom. Hence there could be no mistake in His Choice. The kind of conversion of heart that you have and some well meaning Christians here have explained, is all well accepted. Strictly speaking, that could happen without any religion at all. I might even say, without the need for a God even. Buddhism for instance does not have a God but the responsibility to possess all the qualities that you have talked of all emphasized and practiced by the follwers, are there for all to see.

God did send her sun into this world.

If He is all-knowing then how do you know that he did not plan for an individual to convert to another religion? I still see it as no insult.

For one thing, "conversion" as used in this post is not about the "conversion" to belief in God and the ministry of Jesus; I mean here the true baptism, and not the ritual. The conversion that is meant here is about the conversion from one's "native" religion to another. God is All- knowledge, He knows best what is the "path" for a particular soul. Since it is not possible to say that [B]this and this alone[/B]is the path to Him, He has chosen the best for us. Hence if we swerve from that path well-chosen by Him, it is like saying, "You[The Omnipotent,Omniscient,Omnipresent Lord] do not know to choose, I[an insignificant individual, who needs to know Truth in bits and pieces and that too empirically in the first place]shall choose the path.That would be conceit.In this sense it is "insult". As I have said previously, insult may be too strong a word, but was brought in for "emphasis". Since any and every path leads to Him and Him alone and it is We, through our respective, Holy Books give different names to God: YHWH, Allah, Krishna, Ahura Mazda....but that doesn't compromise His Oneness.And above all anything that is One of its kind need not have a name at all in the first place. Hence, it doesn't matter where you are born, which religion you practise. All that matters is you practise it well. In fact your last statement itself can be taken as an answer too. This is the problem that arises because of applying linguistics to an Enormity that is beyond the compass of Logic and Language.

Dear Vaddiba, In this discussion the assumptions are: [B]You accept the Existence of God.[/B] Thus there is no questioning that. For simplicity, if we consider all of humanity as the Universal Set(a la set theory), then we "define" three disjoint sets. That means taken in pairs any sets have "nothing" in common. They are: [B]Atheists(A)[/B]- Human Beings who do not believe that there is any Super-ordinate Being which controls the Universe.Whatever Natural Forces and Energies there are, only exist. [B]Agnostics- (G)[/B] - People who deny the knowability of the world. IOW those who hold that whether God exists are not is cannot be decided. So they neither say God does not exist nor that He does. [B]Believers(or so-called Theists) - B Those who believe that a Super-Ordinate Being who controls and "runs" the Universe according to a Plan exists. The so-called Natural Forces or Nature in general is subordinate to His Will. None of the above "stances" considered as statements are provable by Logic. Hence the choice to belong to any of the above sets is the individual's. The statement: "God is All-Knowing" makes sense only to the members of B. If you do not belong to this set there is no need to worry. You can simply bypass this discussion. FYI I belong to a Religious Group which holds that no effort must be made to convince or convert a non-believer into one. Instead the efforts must be expended in strengthening the belief of someone who does.

Vaddiba, YTou are welcome to stay on in this discussion join or follow it if you feel like. I have made my point and your question, "How is it known that God is All-Knowing or is it just another one of those "assumptions". As a dialectic question it does make sense to ask. That would then be just to check how many such assumtions need be made to proceed in the direction of the Believer. God is described by the believers of any Religion- this is one thing in which almost all religions [that posit a Super-Ordinate Being] seem to agree- that is such a happy thing: God is Omnipotent(Almighty)-Omnipresent(Is everywhere at the same time for All time past Present and Future) and Omniscient (All Knowing-Past Present and Future). The one plausible argument that could be given for these First Three Attributes is: Otherwise He could not have created Everything- From the Cosmos or Multiverses to the Atom, Quark, or whatever is the vanishing point of Reality!{Omnipotent} He is Omnipresent- Otherwise you need to search for Him in some specific place which if one does not know would miss Him even if one would want to get to Him badly. He is Omniscient- Otherwise He would need to told specifically of anybody's need. Being Omniscient- you need not even openly voice your need! However all this is needed for and in Religions that are built around a Benevolent God. But there are religions like Buddhism and Jainism and for that some of the sub-philosophies of The Vedic Religion too that do not posit a God-like Being. They are perfectly fine religions with exquisitely beautiful presentation of how this Universe operates- I mean as NO GOD, NO PROPITIATION religions! The three Vedic sub-philophies that do not posit a Brahman(well that is how He is referred to in The Vedas)are: The Sankhya, The Nyaya and the VaisheShika systems of Philosophy do not posit a God. But then they accept the authority of The Veda as the Ultimate Testimony of extrasensory reality. So, strictly speaking are not classified as Atheistic Philosophies. Whereas within the ambit of The Vedic Religion(The so-called Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism as popularly known)only Buddhism, Jainism, and the Charvaka Philosophies are classifed as Atheistic. Of these Buddhism is silent on God and His Existence. Jainism denies explicitly and Charvakas even go to the extent of making fun of God. I hope I have given some insight into where I am coming from.

Hello GADHISUNI, I understand the assumptions as it relates to those who believe in the existence of a "god". I'm simply saying that those who claim that such a "god" is all-knowing; those people cannot be interested in truth because those people cannot present any case that supports such a statement. So, let's assume that this "god" exists. How do believers draw the conclusion that this "god" is all-knowing? What is the foundation of such a statement? I don't want to take your discussion in a different direction. I'm just expressing the view that there are some statements that seem to parade as truth, when in fact they are mere expressions of what people WANT to be the truth. So, some people say ... "god is all-knowing". Is that a fact or just human speculation and imagination?

A man who preaches to the liking of his own ear has a fool for a congregation. Respect of all is the nearest way to God

As I can see from several of the people's stances here it is ONLY the HINDU who is "taught" to respect all religions on par with his/her own. The rest "bask" in the assumed "importance" of their religions. They keep citing the "proof" within their own Scriptures. Among the other religions only some who break free of Scriptural injunctions and "think" begin to understand that there is a basic flaw in taking a Scriptural injunction as a "proof".

Sorry for my typo mistakes , my keyboard just missing few letters and i type in a jumbo speed lol .

True.Thanks.A person who converts thinking there is something wrong with his religion whatever it be does not simply understand his religion. If one a Catholic, how does it matter that he has to become something else to be saved. One can be saved as a Catholic. Thanks you have understood the true import of my question and answered it from the point of view ofa believer. I always liked this statement of Mahatma Gandhi: "I want a Muslim to be better Muslim, a Hindu a better Hindu and so on." Nothing will ever be achieved by conversion if a person hasn't bothered to be sincere about his religion. He could choose to be an Atheist and eschew religion altogether. That is a welcome situation. Thus if you find something wrong with your religion strive to set it right, not simply desert it.

Tarachandji, If we only get into the political ramifications of religion which there are, then we really get into an inextricable mess. Do you notice one thing? It is only Hindus who are concerned about conversion! It is again the Hindus[I mean SD-ites] who feel in conversion the dignity of religion is being violated. But then we should conrinue to do the 2c that is necessary to spread goodwill and coexistence concepts whether it is in the name of religion or politics. Thanks for the response.

You are so welcome. Sometimes I think humans free will and G-d's plan can't really fit together

I beleive you read way too much into his statements. He was not saying that God thinks it is an insult. God has many names and faces but there can be only one God, so conversion is nothing to God. It is Man who gets so upset with conversions, and some of those actively seek to convert. I seriously doubt you will ever find This poster ever preaching anything.

Mr Rajibg, I am not preaching. Please know that for sure.Having been with a particular thought process- called the Hindu way of Life, I have developed a regard for one of fundamental pricnciples of Hinduism that I liked. Hindus neither try to convert others, nor encourage conversion by belittling others. I have already clarified this point to Espeth what my stand is, and why I have been slightly harsh in using the word "insult". I am not blind to what is happening in India. Way back when I had a discussion in 1976 with my Engg college classmate(a Christian), this was my only objection even today after 33 years my stand remains the same. Change must be voluntary without any sort of inducement or exploitation of a helpless situation. My and my friend were on a friendly banter on this as we were walking to the Evangelist Dr.Billy Graham's Good News Lecture. Please do not attempt teach tolerance of other faiths to a Hindu. It runs in his blood.

Csannibal, if one is choosing to live by Vedanta esp. Advaita Vedanta or for that matter the three orthodox NO GOD systems within the SD framework viz, Sankhya, Nyaya and VaisheShika which are unfortunately no more current.For these systems aspects like insult do noteven make sense.I am talking from a dualistic point of view where God is some Super-Ordinate Power with all the knoweledge to decide on where a person must end up.Once you accept such a God then he is an unerring God! If He has chosen a path for one by putting in some place then you are considering yourself wiser than He. That is what I am rather calling insult rather harshly! I like Gandhijis stance: He did not want a Hindu to become a Christian nor vice versa. He wanted each of them to be Good H or a Good M or a Good C or whatever. I like this stance. Tghe Abrahamic Faiths would need an "education" of another 1000 years of good normal science to understand the limitation of human mind and see byond the correctness of their Scripture.

True, I got your point, you were talking about God and His worship at a personal individual level. Everything only in the mind of the still believing individual only. Acceptable!

That is a nice way of putting it. Thanks for the response.

If you want to stay out of the ambit of Religion and look at humanity then I don't see how this discussion might interest you.Sure if there were no divisions such as religion then we may be way too happier. But do not worry humanity will continue to invent newer and newer controversies to keep up strife.Thanks for your response.