Incarnation

[Eriol]

posted by Athelas in the Jesus Freak thread

No, an Avatar is not a symbol, an Avatar is god in a human body.

Let's explore this definition, Athelas?

When you say an avatar is God (I assume you mean the capital "G" God) in a human body, some questions arise.

Can the Avatar feel pain?

Can he die?

And if the answer is affirmative, then there is another question.

Why would God do that?

[FoolOfATook]

Avatar is a Hindu term for a god appearing in bodily form, an incarnation of a god. Trying to apply it to Judeochristian ideas of God seems improper, but maybe I'm missing the point...

[Athelas]

Sanskrit in origin, the word was originaly used to describe a Hindu god being born as a human being; "the Buddha is considered to be an Avatar of the God Vishnu." Jesus would be considered an Avatar of the god Jehovah.

Yes, the Avatar can feel pain and die. Why would the Avatar die?

Because all physical bodies die.

Why would god be born as a human being?

To teach humans how to find the path home to him. Maybe god reminds himself, every so often, of just how hard it is to be human.

"Whenever virtue declines and unrighteousness rises, I manifest Myself as an embodied being. To protect the Saints and Sages, to destroy the evil-doers and to establish Dharma (righteousness), I am born from age to age."
-Bhagavad Gita 4.7 and 4.8

[Eriol]

When you say that God "reminds himself", does it mean that He does not know it? And therefore He is not all-knowing?


If God wished, he could incarnate into a pain-free, death-free Avatar, couldn't he?

Then why would he choose pain? If the goal is to teach by example, as your quote says, pain is quite unnecessary.

Finally, I remember you had some harsh words about Jehovah. Why would Jesus, being an avatar of the god Jehovah, be worthy of love?

[Athelas]

>Finally, I remember you had some harsh words about Jehovah. Why would Jesus, being an avatar of the god Jehovah, be worthy of love?<

I judge a deity quite a bit by the actions of it's worshippers, so I don't have anything nice to say about Jehovah. But as an example, most Christians consider Jesus to be an incarnation of Jehovah, i.e. an Avatar of Jehovah; I do not.

[HLGStrider]

I judge a deity quite a bit by the actions of it's worshippers, so I don't have anything nice to say about Jehovah.

Then I don't think you'll find a deity worth worshipping. . .No race of people has lived utterly in piece and I can think of very few religions that have not had fanatics at one point or another. . .

What logic is there to judging a deity that way? If a ruler clearly states that his subjects should do one thing and they do another, is he at fault? If a father teaches a child to behave one way and the child behaves another, is he at fault? Why, then is a deity responsible for the actions of his followers?

Also, you are dealing with worshippers as a group. What if it is ten percent who behave badly and ninety that behave well? Is that not enough to scorch the deities reputation?
Twenty to eighty?
Fifty to fifty?
Eighty to ninety?
Or is it necessary for a 100% bad behavior?

So, you will have to set a number and statistically proove that the followers are more bad than good. . .How else would you do it?

Would you do it by the amount of badness? For instance, one Hitler type fellow following will make it bad, one Mother Theresa will make it good?

Or how about actions? It's OK if there isn't a crusade, but if there is a crusade it is now bad. How about a lynching? Is that bad enough to discredit a deity? How many lynchings is needed?

What if the bad actions directly defy the orders of the deity? Does it still reflect poorly on the deity?

And what sets the standard for this behavior that you are judging the followers by? Obviously not the God. If the god were setting the standard and he wouldn't be accountable to it, anymore than the lawmakers are at fault for the laws they make that get broken. For the laws they make that cause bad results, yes.

So, therefore, we are setting the standard to judge God. . .and where are we getting this standard?
At random?

[Athelas]

>No race of people has lived utterly in piece and I can think of very few religions that have not had fanatics at one point or another. . .<

Every time I open a newspaper, yet another Witch or Pagan Terrorist has flown a plane into the WTC or bombed an abortion clinic. At least they aren't as bad as all those Amish, Quaker and Buddhist Terrorists. ;) :rolleyes:

Piece on Earth

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Athelas
I judge a deity quite a bit by the actions of it's worshippers, so I don't have anything nice to say about Jehovah. But as an example, most Christians consider Jesus to be an incarnation of Jehovah, i.e. an Avatar of Jehovah; I do not.

Let me break this post of yours into its four main concepts.

1) You judge a deity by the actions of its worshippers;
2) Most Christians consider Jesus to be an incarnation of Jehovah
3) An incarnation of Jehovah = An avatar of Jehovah
4) You don't consider Jesus to be such an avatar.

Let's examine each point:

1) After a search on Athelas and "Jehovah", I came up with the post I remembered:

First of all, the author makes the perennial mistake of lumping spiritual mediums, psychics, and spellcasters of ANY faith under the name "Witch." Witches do not worship an evil god, they worship the Goddess as the creator. Christian accusations that they were worshipping the Christian being Satan led to the torture and burnings of nine million men women and children. You can love Jesus and follow him without following the hateful and bloodthirsty Israeli war-and-storm god Jehovah. Detestable indeed. The Bible also commands "Thou shalt not suffer a Witch to live," so since you swallow the bible hook, line and sinker, do you not feel obliged to hunt down and murder Witches? I believe Jehovah ordered quite a lot of genocide, individual murders and a fistful of abominations against non-Jews. So think twice before you assume the moral high ground around Witches; you're doing so from atop the pile of corpses of nine million victims of "Christianity."

From the Jesus Freaks thread.

It seems to me that you are attributing the bad qualities of the worshippers to Jehovah Himself in that quote. Care to explain?

2) It's more than "most Christians", according to any definition of Christian. ALL Christians believe that Jesus is God (Jehovah) incarnated. It is common to use the word "Christian" as a compliment or an insult, but words whould not be used like that, they have meanings. "Christian" means one who believes that Jesus is God incarnated, according to Dictionaries (I admit I did not consult any, but I will go out on a limb here) and common sense.

After agreeing that Jesus is, in fact, God incarnated, people will differ on what were his commands -- but every Christian agrees that Jesus is God.

3) That is the technical point that Master Took addressed in the beginning of this thread. The two concepts, avatarhood and incarnation, are not synonymous. The way to show that goes through your answers to my questions above: If an avatar teaches by example, why should he be exposed to pain? Why should he die at all? Wouldn't it be much more impressive if he did not die, if he was invulnerable to pain? Certainly he would convince people much more readily of his divinity and of the righteousness of those who follow his commands. As the Bhagavad-Gita says, an avatar shows up "when virtue declines and unrighteousness rises", and he comes "to protect the Saints and to destroy the evil-doers".

Does this fit into Christ's description? Did he protect the Saints and destroy the evil-doers?

4) you don't believe that Jesus is an Avatar of the God Jehovah. Well, I don't believe it either, since as I said above an avatar is not the same thing as God Incarnate. But if you don't believe that, why did you say this in the Jesus Freaks:

I've met Jesus face to face, and we have a personal relationship. I love him because I love him, not just because he loves me or because he might exalt or condemn me. He is an Avatar of god who has shown me a loving path to god. I know that he is a son of god like all of us.

:confused:

(Not to mention the fact that "if he is a son of god like all of us", does that mean we are all avatars?)

We are just trying to understand what you believe Athelas, but you have to admit you don't make it easy for us ;)

[Athelas]

buy not everyone is an Avatar.

I believe that Jesus was an Avatar of the Creator; I don't think that he was an incarnation of Jehovah. When I compare the spirit and teachings of Jesus with the OT Jehovah, I find them completely at odds. But, since Jehovah was the diety worshipped by the Jews of his time, that is the name he used for the Creator.

Yes, again, I do judge a deity by the actions of it's worshippers.

If the word "Avatar" bothers you, ignore it; no point in fretting over it if we both know what you mean; but that is the word that many people use to describe the human incarnation of a god.

Why wasn't Jesus born with the powers of Superman? Because people don't learn if you think and solve their problems for them.

As you were

[HLGStrider]

Actually, Jesus had powers beyond superman. I don't think Superman ever raised anyone from the dead.

You still haven't explained why you think it is right to judge a deity by the acts of its followers.

At least they aren't as bad as all those Amish, Quaker and Buddhist Terrorists

Buddism was actually a very warlike religion a few hundred years after its founding. . .So is it all right if the religion hasn't comited atrocities in the last thousand years? Does it have to be a recent attrocity or war?

Amish and Quaker consider themselves Christian as well, I believe, so if you want to defy Jehovah, you'll have to defy at least the Quakers. They're only different from main stream Christians on a few points. Some of them are important points, but I don't think that makes them any less Christian. They use the Bible you've rejected (Or at least did when Penn was in on it.). So that doesn't make any sense. . .if we're going to get into denominations, are you in favor of Baptist but not of Methodist?

So, please answer my above post. . . the long one. . .

[Athelas]

>You still haven't explained why you think it is right to judge a deity by the acts of its followers.<

I never offered to. Since you seem to take issue with it, explain why it's not right.

I prefer the Lamsa Bible.

I think that if Jesus ever fought Superman, Jesus would win 'cause he could pray to turn into solid Kryptonite.

>Buddism was actually a very warlike religion a few hundred years after its founding. . .So is it all right if the religion hasn't comited atrocities in the last thousand years? Does it have to be a recent attrocity or war?<

I'm talking about right now, but I do take the past into consideration.

Piece of Christ

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Athelas
buy not everyone is an Avatar.

I believe that Jesus was an Avatar of the Creator; I don't think that he was an incarnation of Jehovah. When I compare the spirit and teachings of Jesus with the OT Jehovah, I find them completely at odds. But, since Jehovah was the diety worshipped by the Jews of his time, that is the name he used for the Creator.

Yes, again, I do judge a deity by the actions of it's worshippers.

If the word "Avatar" bothers you, ignore it; no point in fretting over it if we both know what you mean; but that is the word that many people use to describe the human incarnation of a god.

Why wasn't Jesus born with the powers of Superman? Because people don't learn if you think and solve their problems for them.

As you were

It's not the word Avatar that bothers me, it is applying the concept of Avatar to Jesus that bothers me. As you have established, an Avatar is the incarnation of "a" god (not THE God), that takes place periodically, when "virtue declines and unrighteousness rises", and who "protects the Saints and destroys the evil-doers". How can this apply to Jesus Christ? Did he protect the saints? Did he destroy the evil-doers?

Compare Jesus with the other known Avatars (I don't know of any, but you probably do). Was his mission similar? His accomplishments? From your description of Avatars I think not. As a result of Jesus Christ the Saints were persecuted; the evil-doers killed him.

Not a successful Avatar by the definition... and to think that an Avatar can fail is strange.

Your allusion to Superman is exactly the point. Your description of an Avatar fits Superman -- it doesn't fit Jesus Christ. So, Jesus Christ is not an Avatar (the concept, not the word). And so you can't put him along with other "gods incarnate". He is different.

And it is exploring that difference that you see what Christianity is all about...

To claim that Jesus is "just another Avatar" is inaccurate, to say the least, both historically and theologically.

[Athelas]

>So, Jesus Christ is not an Avatar (the concept, not the word). And so you can't put him along with other "gods incarnate". He is different.<

If you don't think Jesus was an incarnation of god, don't call refer to him as an Avatar. He won't love you any less.

\Av`a*tar"\, n. [Skr. avat[^a]ra descent; ava from + root t[.r] to cross, pass over.] 1. (Hindoo Myth.) The descent of a deity to earth, and his incarnation as a man

>an Avatar is the incarnation of "a" god (not THE God),<

I'm guessing here that you are presuming that Jehovah is the "THE GOD", and nobody else's god is real. Muslims feel the same way about Allah, I'm sure. I'm sure we can find people from every continent who are absolutely certain that their god is the only god worthy of being referred to as THE GOD, and all others are myths.

Just to review: There is one Creator, with many names; some call her Jehovah, others see her as the Goddess, as Ram, as Allah, as Ra, as Odin... They are like facets of a diamond. Each facet is unique but they are all the same diamond. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the name of the god is Jehovah. If Jesus was Jehovah born as a human being, that fits the definition of "Avatar."

Sic Probo

[Eriol]

"The descent of a deity to earth"

a deity

How many deities are there, Athelas?

One Creator, that I got; but how many deities?

Is an avatar of Ra the same as an avatar of Zeus?

To keep on the same mythology; Is an avatar of Ares the same as an avatar of Apollo?

Don't confuse words with concepts.

There is one creator; but how many deities?

We can call this creator Allah; we can call it Jehovah; but we can't call it Ares, for Ares is quite limited as the God of War. It has no power over, say, the ocean, as Homer shows in the Iliad.

"If Jesus was Jehovah born as a human being, then if fits the definition of an Avatar"

And then, pray tell, why was he not Superman?

After all the purpose of an Avatar was already established -- "to protect the saints and destroy the evil-doers". Being Superman would make this easier. But he was not Superman; he did not fulfill any of these things.

Why? Was he a failed Avatar?

[Athelas]

Sorry you can't figure out the words "creator" and "diety." I take them to mean the same thing.

I don't think Jesus was a failed Avatar.

[Eriol]

That is your God-given right :)

But all mythologies distinguish between the deities and the Creator. Many of them don't even have a Creator. Greek mythology, for instance, assumes that "stuff" came out of the "chaos", with no particular point of Creation, and certainly no personal Creator. But you surely know that better than I do, as well as other mythologies.

If you don't think Jesus was a failed Avatar, and you still think he is an Avatar, then one of two things is true: either you disagree with the criteria established by the Bhagavad-Gita for an Avatar ("protecting the Saints..."); or you think the historical account is wrong, and Jesus really prevailed against the "evil-doers", and the Saints were never persecuted.

The first option still sets him apart from all other avatars, and really raises the question of why we should consider Jesus an avatar if he does not "follow the script" of Avatarhood; the second option is contradicted by all sources, including the Apocrypha such as the Gospel of Thomas.

[Athelas]

That the sole function of an Avatar is to "protect the Saints and destroy the evil-doers"

Here is another translation of the same passage.

"When Righteousness Declines, O Bharata! when Wickedness Is strong, I rise, from age to age, and take Visible shape, and move a man with men, Succoring the good, thrusting the evil back, And setting Virtue on her seat again."

Does this sound more like Jesus? Anyway, each Avatar has their own style, depending on the culture they are born into. Krishna continues:

"Who knows the truth touching my births on earth And my divine work, when he quits the flesh Puts on its load no more, falls no more down to earthly birth: to Me he comes"

In other words, he is not reborn. He is freed of the cycle of birth and death, and goes to god.

[Eriol]

Was any other avatar put to death as a criminal?

[Athelas]

Originally posted by Eriol
Was any other avatar put to death as a criminal?

Not that I know of.

[Eriol]

Very well. Why was Jesus put to death as a criminal? What is the point of this particular avatarhood?

It was not to "succour the good", since the good began to persecuted as a result of it; it was not to "thrust the evil back", since Jesus was killed by it.

Why would a god (even assuming it is "a god" only, and not The Creator -- a difference we have established already) go through that?

Method: Pain. Torture. Death.

Results: Persecution of the saints; martyrs; Christians thrown to the lions; etc.

what's the point?

[Athelas]

>(even assuming it is "a god" only, and not The Creator -- a difference we have established already)<

No we haven't, but you persist in the delusion for your own enjoyment, I guess.

[Eriol]

Well, you can persist in the delusion that I have not established it -- or refute it.

In the meantime, you can answer my question about the point of Jesus' avatarhood -- or ignore it, again.

;)

[Athelas]

The revelation of the absolute truth is the main objective for an avatar. This disclosure is directed towards those who are ready to see it. An avatar also reminds humans that there is an eternal life of bliss in the spiritual world.

[Eriol]

Ok, so Jesus came to reveal absolute truth, right?

Then why the pain and death? Was it essential for revealing absolute truth? After all, Jesus' teachings did not NEED his torture and death to be spread. He was quite known by the Jews before the crucifixion. He could have skipped that part and gone straight to heaven.

Why didn't he?

[Athelas]

Originally posted by Eriol
Ok, so Jesus came to reveal absolute truth, right?

Then why the pain and death? Was it essential for revealing absolute truth? After all, Jesus' teachings did not NEED his torture and death to be spread. He was quite known by the Jews before the crucifixion. He could have skipped that part and gone straight to heaven.

Why didn't he?

Really now. You say that you are a Christian, but you can't figure this one out? Take a stab at it. You know the answer, and I know you know it, and you know that I know that you know it, y'know?

Sometimes it helps to write down what you believe.

"Sometimes a mind needs to discover things for itself."~Professor Charles Xavier

[Eriol]

ah, the Christians have an answer, for sure, but it assumes sin, a concept you have refused. So I guess your answer is different from mine.

I'll wait, there is no rush. Don't get upset.

[HLGStrider]

I never offered to. Since you seem to take issue with it, explain why it's not right.

I did. Didn't you read my post? Read post again please. First one. Long one.

Actually, if you want to analyze religions, not all of them have this deity/creator thing you are talking about. Think about the Greek Gods. None of them created the earth. It drifted out of no where one day. Most of them didn't create anything.

Same with Nirvana, which isn't a God, really, but a mind set.

I don't think the Japanese Shinto gods created the world. Man drew the islands of Japan out of a pre-existing sea using a spear. . .

So, we do have religions that are false and religions that are true even by your definition (I used to read a lot of mythology just for the fun of it, but I got annoyed at how many different ways the same story was always being told. Made it hard for me to keep things straight).

So if some religions can be false if they disagree with your statement (assuming your statement is true) then why can't others be? Again, we have an absolute truth. I personally believe in one god who was a creator, so the deity/creator statement is true in my belief system. We have editted down the list of religions somewhat.

Greek mythological religion is untrue.
Shintoism is untrue.

Now we're getting somewhere.

[Athelas]

>Greek mythological religion is untrue.
Shintoism is untrue.<

Gosh, the followers of those religions will be crushed. Should I tell them or did you want to do it yourself?

>Same with Nirvana, which isn't a God, really, but a mind set.<

Who told you Nirvana was a god?

I'm not quite sure what Eriol is waiting for, but he looks a little cyanotic.

BTW I doubt that Jesus' teachings would have had the same impact if he had been born to a wealthy Roman patrician family.

"The flower that blooms in adversity is the most beautiful of all."

[Eriol]

What does "cyanotic" mean? I would think it means "blue", does that make any sense?

:confused:

It probably means "waiting for an answer", since it is hard enough to get one from you :)

Let's see: I asked what is an Avatar, you gave me a definition ftom the Bhagavad-Gita; we explored it, and you didn't like the way it was going, so you assumed it was a translation problem, and gave me a new translation; we still had the same problem, and so you changed the definition completely.

After all, "to reveal absolute truth" is not the same as "protecting the saints, destroying the evil-doers".

Slippery, slippery...

BTW I doubt that Jesus' teachings would have had the same impact if he had been born to a wealthy Roman patrician family.

By this I take that you think that Jesus's torture and death was a kind of "publicity stunt", to insure that his message would be heard and embraced.

First of all, you are confusing Jesus' origins with his death.

Second of all, you surely would think that God would have more imagination! What about flying from Jerusalem to Rome? That would have got people's attention! What about rearranging the stars to spell "Jesus is God"? This would be even more interesting.

Jokes aside, the point of my questioning is to show that revealing absolute truth is not the point of Jesus' incarnation. And this sets him apart from avatarhood.

If you want to persist in believing that this was the main point, go ahead. But it simply does not fit with his life, if he was really a god incarnate.

There's a reason why other avatars were not imprisoned and killed as criminals -- because gods don't generally enjoy this treatment. And they sure can reveal absolute truth by other means.

Think about that.

[Athelas]

Dear Sad, Angry little man:
Your rambling drivel and mindless conjectures have lost even the remotest resemblance to any kind of coherent argument or dialogue. If you're going to pose a question in a thread, try not to resort to childish babbling,
sophomoric assertions and mindless repetition when you are graveled for lack of matter. Hope you discover fire real soon. (The secret is to rub sticks together.)

Be good. (Maybe you should take that advice yourself)

For someone who professes to be the scourge of Evil, you have a remarkable mean streak. I would suggest you tone down the rhetoric and present vaible arguements rather than simply rendering mindless criticism.

Anyone can shoot down an arguement, it takes wit and skill to defeat one.

Rangerdave

[Eriol]

Thanks for your prayer, Athelas. Let me try to build a coherent argument.

1. Avatarhood is for revealing absolute truth.
2. Jesus is an Avatar

Conclusion: Jesus came to reveal absolute truth.

1. Revealing absolute truth does not imply torture or death
2. Jesus suffered torture and death

Conclusion: Jesus's mission was not to reveal absolute truth only

Hidden premise in this last reasoning: Torture and death are undesirable states.

So, can you take it from here and explain what else was Jesus' mission?

[HLGStrider]

Gosh, the followers of those religions will be crushed. Should I tell them or did you want to do it yourself?

Well, if what you said is true, that is true. . .That's the logical way to decide which religion is true and which isn't. Take the premisis of the religions and analyze them and see where they disagree with each other, then decide who is right and who is wrong.
You gave me the premisis, a Deity is a Creator. I eliminated those that go against this premisis. . .so either the premisis is faulty or the religions are. . .

I said that Nirvana wasn't a God. .. no I know you aren't reading me. . .tsk tsk tsk. . .;)

[Ithrynluin]

Stop the name calling.

Athelas, if you can't discuss politely don't discuss at all. This goes for everyone.

Flame baiting is also against forum policy. Keep that in mind. This is a warning.

[Athelas]

>As you have established, an Avatar is the incarnation of "a" god (not THE God)<

No, I did not establish that. An Avatar is an incarnation of God. God meaning the Creator of All that is, not Jehovah.

Jesus was an Avatar, meaning an incarnation of God.

>Ok, so Jesus came to reveal absolute truth, right?

Then why the pain and death? Was it essential for revealing absolute truth? After all, Jesus' teachings did not NEED his torture and death to be spread. He was quite known by the Jews before the crucifixion. He could have skipped that part and gone straight to heaven.

Why didn't he?<

Classic. You assert a premise, then challenge me to support it. Brilliant.

>you gave me a definition ftom the Bhagavad-Gita; we explored it, and you didn't like the way it was going, so you assumed it was a translation problem, and gave me a new translation;<

This is a flat lie.

>>BTW I doubt that Jesus' teachings would have had the same impact if he had been born to a wealthy Roman patrician family.<<

>By this I take that you think that Jesus's torture and death was a kind of "publicity stunt", to insure that his message would be heard and embraced.<

And how exactly do you come to that far-flung conclusion from my statement?

>First of all, you are confusing Jesus' origins with his death.<

Another unsupported assertion, just floating in the breeze.

>I would suggest you tone down the rhetoric and present vaible arguements rather than simply rendering mindless criticism.<

Hey Rangerdave >(Maybe you should take that advice yourself)<

>1. Avatarhood is for revealing absolute truth.
2. Jesus is an Avatar

Conclusion: Jesus came to reveal absolute truth.

1. Revealing absolute truth does not imply torture or death
2. Jesus suffered torture and death

Conclusion: Jesus's mission was not to reveal absolute truth only<

Again, you begin with a false premise. Revealing absolute truth is only one function of an Avatar. The most important is the Avatar showing humans a path to reach God.

[Aerin]

I am closing this thread for a while. It's getting out of hand.

[Ciryaher]

Thread re-opened.

(For those following KRISNA): You can bet your Atman that continued anger will get you to Narak faster than you can say "Bhagavadgita".

(For those following KRISTOS): You can bet your soul that continued flaming will get you to Hell faster than you can say "Sermon on the Mount".

-------------------

Athelas, I'm a little bit puzzled...do you think that Hindus are pacifist? Considering that you seem to take the Bhagavadgita seriously and on the other hand you are a pacifist (or so I gather), I don't exactly understand how you can draw that conclusion. The opening chapters of the Gita are a conversation that can be summed up:


ARJUNA (king of the Bharatas): All those guys on the other side of the field should be my friends! I can't kill them, wouldn't that be evil?
KRISHNA (God): *slaps Arjuna and puts sword in his hand* You came out here to fight, now don't be a sissy, just do what you've gotta do and kick the shazbot out of those dirty buggers!

[HLGStrider]

Very elloquent of Krishna. . .:rolleyes:

[Ciryaher]

Don't be a pooter, I was paraphrasing in a humorous method. If you want a non-humorous, stoic rendition, I can oblige that as well. Maybe I should do some humorous Jesus-paraphrasings as well...just to stir things up, muahahahahaha! ;)

[HLGStrider]

I only commented because I found it funny. I wouldn't have commented if I hadn't have. . .if I'd found it offensive, I would've posted that I did. I'm more transparent than that.

I think the pooter is the one willing to take offense. . .and I didn't. ;)