Talk:Hinduism and other religions/Archive 2

Questionable material.
"While the entire Christianity is based on one saint..."

Not true. It's also rooted heavily in the people of the Jewish traditions; Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Elijah, Ruth, Esther, etc. and on the Acts of the Apostles afterward, Peter, James, John, Paul, Mark, Matthew, Thomas, etc.

"[Hinduism] is based on research scriptures on spirituality. Vedas, from which Upanishad, puranas, Gita etc came."

Pretty sure these need citations, and the qualification that "Some people say this." Just saying.

"One of Hinduism's greatest contribution to the world is its philosophy of Yoga, which results in improvement in physical and spiritual life of human beings."

Again, this needs either citation or removal.

"...the concept of moksha is akin to that of Buddhism's nirvana, as well as Christianity's doctrine of salvation."

This is probably the best-sourced assertion yet in the article; I advocate its remaining in the article. However, the sentence does still need the qualification "Some scholars say that moksha is akin to Christianity's doctrine of salvation." I've grown up in Christianity, and the common Christian conception of salvation is not akin to moksha; the idea that they are similar comes from either Hindus, a minority of Western scholars of questionable theological reliability, or from the uniquely Indian Christian Ashram movement. The idea does not come from the actual beliefs postulated by most actual churches. From Wikipedia's explanation of moksha: "In eschatological sense, it connotes freedom from saṃsāra, the cycle of death and rebirth. In epistemological and psychological sense, moksha connotes freedom, self-realization and self-knowledge." That is almost the polar opposite of Christian salvation; for although we believe that eschatologically salvation is freedom from the grave, we believe that this can only happen by submitting to death like Christ, and more importantly by being reborn in baptism. It's an affirmation of birth and rebirth, not a release from it. And in the epistemological and psychological sense, where moksha connotes freedom in the self, through self-knowledge, salvation is freedom from the self, through knowledge of God, who is not the self; through relationship with that which is not of the world. It's a rejection of worldliness, not an affirmation of self.

"On the other hand, aggressive proselytism on the part of some Christian groups have led to incidents of anti-Christian rhetoric, often fueled by Hindu nationalist political parties."

Why are Christians considered to be aggressive proselytes? Is all missionary work inherently aggressive? Is all testifying to one's faith to be considered "aggressive proselytism?" If you want this view to be considered neutral, give examples of what exactly makes this sort of action aggressive. Otherwise, just call it proselytism, without the moniker of "aggressive."

I looked through the rest, but I couldn't find anything else questionable in describing the relationship of Hinduism to other faiths. I haven't studied Ayyavazhi or Islam, but nothing in particular caught my eye as obviously incorrect. I may attempt to correct tonight some of the errors detailed here; if I don't get to them, at least they are documented. This page, particularly the Hinduism-Christianity section, need serious POV-eliminating work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.173.119 (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)