Aug
26
Sign at Lotus Temple
Filed Under Baha'i, Religious Pluralism | 2 Comments
As you enter the grounds of the Baha’i Lotus Temple in New Delhi this stone sign is set into a grass incline. Of the temple it states:
“This House is a place for prayer and meditation for the peoples of all religions and races. From within its portals the voice of mankind will ever be raised in praise and glorification of the creator of the universe.”
As you can see, the temple is intended to be a place of worship for people of all religions. You can also see that they tried to get to what they saw as the common denominator of all religions, namely, worship of “the creator of the universe.”
The problem with this is that belief in the creator of the universe, much less the worship of this creator, is not found in all religions. For example, Hindus and Buddhists do not believe in the creator of the universe. They may believe in a deity who formed this age, but the universe has always existed according to Hindus and Buddhists. It is uncreated and eternal.
I point this sign out just as an example of another weakness in the pluralist position.
Aug
23
In my last visit to India I had the opportunity to visit the Baha’i Lotus Temple in Delhi. The temple was built in 1986 and is known as the Taj Mahal of the 20th century.
The Lotus Temple is open to people of all faiths and each day they have a prayer time where representatives from different religions like Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Christianity are invited to come and offer prayers up to God.
This pluralistic outlook is at the heart of the Baha’i faith. Nevertheless, they still claim that they are the closest to the truth since the last prophet that God sent was their own, namely, Bahaullah (1817-1892). He claimed to be “the Supreme Manifestation of God.” Although they take pride in their pluralistic position, they cannot live it out consistently. This is evident by the fact that they end up claiming superiority over all other religions.
Aug
14
Jesus and Krishna
Filed Under General religion, Hinduism | 1 Comment
This is an image of the Hindu god, Krishna. Actually, the god is Vishnu and Krishna is one of his avatars. An avatar is a manifestation of a god; literally it is a “down-coming.”
According to Vaishnavites (worshipers of Vishnu), Vishnu has had nine avatars and one is yet to come. He has appeared as a fish, tortoise, boar, man-lion, dwarf, warrior with an axe, Rama (epic hero from the Ramayana), Krishna (as seen in the Bhagavad-Gita), and the Buddha. Finally, he will come as Kalkin, a man riding on a white horse, who will take away all evil. Krishna is by far the most popular of Vishnu’s avatars. Interestingly, some Hindus believe that Jesus Christ is actually an avatar of Krishna.
Often, people incorrectly equate the Hindu doctrine of avatars with the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation. Although these doctrines appear similar on the surface (the divine is made manifest in human form), differences abound:
1. Vishnu has manifested himself multiple times while the Son of God took on flesh once for all.
2. Vishnu appeared in animal and human-animal forms.
3. In the incarnation, the Son of God took on the frailty of humanity while avatars retain their divine power.
4. Avatars are triumphant over evil, while Christ did suffer and die because of evil.
5. Avatars pass away after their job is done while the Son of God remains as a man.
6. Avatars come to restore the balance of good and evil, while Christ is understood to have defeated evil once for all.
7. The Son of God’s incarnation is rooted in history while Vishnu’s avatars are loosely connected with history.
These are just some of the differences between the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation and the Hindu doctrine of avatars. This is another example of how religions might seem similar on the surface but when looked at closely are much different than previously thought.
Aug
5
Who Speaks for Islam?
Filed Under Islam | Leave a Comment
I recently came across a very interesting book, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think by John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed. This book is based upon a Gallup’s World Poll in which they “surveyed a sample representing more than 90% of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims” (xi). The book provides great information on what the worldwide Muslim community thinks about politics, radical Islam, gender issues, and the west.
In the first chapter of the book, Esposito and Mogahed introduce the reader to the basic beliefs and practices of Islam. Unfortunately, a few of their statements reveal an apologetic bias. For example, they write that “Islam means a strong commitment to God and shares the same Arabic root as the word for peace, or salaam” (7). Actually, Islam means submission (to God). Thus, a Muslim is one who submits to God. A couple of pages later they write, “Jesus’ mother, Mary, is mentioned by name more times in the Quran than in the New Testament” (9). I am not sure exactly what point they were trying to make, but they are clearly trying to make their Christian readers feel more comfortable with Islam. This apologetic bias does call into question how the Gallup’s poll data was presented in the book. Nevertheless, the book is still valuable.
Instead of summarizing the book I just want to list a few of the findings that I found the most interesting:
1. 7% (91 million) of the Muslim world is radicalized (They believe that the 9/11 attacks were “completely” justified) (97).
2. Radicals are not more religious than the general population (98).
3. On average, the radicalized are more educated than moderate Muslims (71), disproving the idea that radicalism comes from the poor and uneducated.
4. The attributes most associated with the U.S. are: ruthless (68%), scientifically and technologically advanced (68%), aggressive (66%), conceited (65%), and morally decadent (64%).
I would recommend this book to those who want to better understand what Muslims believe (just beware of the bias of the authors).