> Can you make out shapes from ice sculptures? The obvious answer is yes. Can you make out shapes from water? Obviously not. Yet, ice is simply frozen water and no different from one another. One has definite shape and one is not.

The obvious answer is yes, of course, but this illustration is a very different thing than the essential unity of all things.

> That would make you no different from an atheist who only sees the illusion of the material world as reality

I don't have to be an atheist to view the material world as real. Just drive your car into a cement abutment and you'll see how real the abutment is. A denial of the reality of matter is an unreasonable and unrealistic denial.

> Is a mirage real? Not in a sense that there is an actual water there but it is real because you are seeing it.

No a mirage is not real, nor is real because you think you are seeing it. We all know about the realities of the reflections and refractions of light.

> Isn't the claim that Jesus is god himself?

Yes.

> So why would it contradict the idea that Jesus is god's human manifestation?

It depends what you mean. There is a false idea that the Father, Son, and Spirit are not truly distinct, but instead are just different manifestations of the divine essence. This is incorrect. They are separate persons within the Godhead, distinct in their divine action though being of the same essence.

> the church leaders cannot comprehend how does god experience being in heaven and as Jesus at the same time and even talking with one another and therefore it has to be wrong.

Oh, plenty of church leaders can comprehend this. The ones we reject are the ones who postulate different theories than the one taught in the Bible. The Bible is the authority.

> You have two eyes, each eye sees a slightly different perspective than the other but works together to form a coherent image of the one we are looking. That's basically how Jesus and god works.

Actually, this is NOT how Jesus and the Father works. You are misunderstanding the Trinity. The Father and the Son are not just different perspectives working together to form a single coherent image. The two are not interchangeable. The Father and the Son are distinct persons. Love, relationship, and communication are possible between them because of that distinction.

> You make it seem like all is one and one is all, with no differentiation and no subject/object relationships, and that's just not an accurate picture in any sense of reality.

Can you make out shapes from ice sculptures? The obvious answer is yes. Can you make out shapes from water? Obviously not. Yet, ice is simply frozen water and no different from one another. One has definite shape and one is not.

> I don't think it is. You're denying obvious reality, in my perspective.

That would make you no different from an atheist who only sees the illusion of the material world as reality and everything he cannot sense as unreal. Is a mirage real? Not in a sense that there is an actual water there but it is real because you are seeing it. So is this reality real? Not in a sense that this is fixed and unchanging in the divine perspective but it is real for our human existence. What I am denying is an objective reality exists that would last for eternity and nothing can change it. Everything is subjective and exists because of the consciousness we call as god and god can change it at will. Our own death also changes our reality by seeing the reality of spiritual world instead of the material world.

> It has to comport with Christianity.

Isn't the claim that Jesus is god himself? So why would it contradict the idea that Jesus is god's human manifestation? How is it wrong? I guess one big hurdle is we are trying to understand the divine with human perspective and the church leaders cannot comprehend how does god experience being in heaven and as Jesus at the same time and even talking with one another and therefore it has to be wrong. As humans, we only have a single perspective which is our own human body and to comprehend the perspective of yourself on two bodies talking to each other does seem absurd.

That doesn't mean it is wrong. You have two eyes, each eye sees a slightly different perspective than the other but works together to form a coherent image of the one we are looking. That's basically how Jesus and god works. Jesus has a different perspective from god and yet they are one and the same.

> You misunderstood. Or deliberately misinterpreted.

I didn't deliberately misinterpret. I'm trying to understand something that doesn't make any logical sense to me.

What Christians call angels, demons, and saints are three completely different things. None of them belong in the same category with each other. You are grouping them all together and telling me, "That's what Hinduism is like, and that's what Hindus call 'lesser gods'." But that doesn't help me. Angels are spirit beings that are God's messengers. They have a form (though not physical)—a particular shape. People have seen angels. They have a form. Demons are forces more like chaos. We're not aware of any physical form, and they're not necessarily spirit beings. People don't see demons; they have no form. They're spiritual forces. Saints are human, even on this Earth. I'm a saint. So is every Christian. So you can't just lump them together and expect that helps me understand Hinduism.

> For example, you can pray to saints and they can perform miracles for you.

This is not a biblical idea. I think it's made up. Saints can't perform miracles for you (even though that's what Catholics believe). It's not a biblical idea, but rather a made-up one.

You misunderstood. Or deliberately misinterpreted. I’m not sure which right now. Let me simplify:

What Christians call angels, demons, and saints, Hindus call lesser gods (and demons to them are also just demons). They’re functionally the same. You’re quibbling over nonexistent differences. It would be like saying “we don’t have cars, we have automobiles” and not realizing those are the same thing.

For example, you can pray to saints and they can perform miracles for you. In the same vain, you can pray to a lesser Hindu god for the same reason. And in both instances, they’re really just doing what they do thanks to the main god.

theres one hypostasis/person.one substance too,but were not substance monists except advaita smartists .

since theres one hypostasis,there are no multiple gods or devis,only bodies.just like christians dont worship 4 Gods since jesus was both transendant in paradise and on earth i a carnal mortal form.

> Think of the universe we are in as an ice sculpture including your own body and even personality.

See, even your analogy doesn't make sense to me. It's not in any way an accurate picture (even analogously) of the universe. You make it seem like all is one and one is all, with no differentiation and no subject/object relationships, and that's just not an accurate picture in any sense of reality.

> our sense of individuality is an illusion

I don't think it is. You're denying obvious reality, in my perspective. If all is one and one is all, and if I'm an illusion, you are denying the existence of matter and the objective reality of individual identity. When I evaluate a religion, one of the things I look for is its correspondence to reality, and none of what you are saying fills that.

> That's the problem because some church leaders have their own interpretation and the idea of Jesus and God being the same doesn't sit well with them hence it is labeled as heresy.

It's not a problem as far as Christian beliefs. We don't subscribe to every goofy idea just because someone has an idea. It has to comport with Christianity. It's not because it "doesn't sit well with them," but instead because it's just wrong. We dare not confuse the two.

> Yeah, I get this, though it seems illogical to me.

It's illogical for outsiders but it starts to make sense once you understand it more. Think of the universe we are in as an ice sculpture including your own body and even personality. When all of that melts, how do you tell which is which in the puddle of water? What we call as personal god is basically you yourself as the manifestation of that consciousness. We are essentially god ourselves and we are talking to our different reflections when we talk to other people hence the golden rule and polytheism. Our manifestation as humans is of our own will and a product of eternal experience. Love is simply unity with the universal consciousness and hatred is separation hence why love bring people together while hatred drives us apart.

God is that monism (all is god) denies any subject/object relationship, which in reality denies the existence of matter and a rejection of individual identity.

They are speaking in terms of objective reality while Christians sees it in a subjective way which we are experiencing now. We have personalities because we hold on to it and the same with everyone we met. In reality, our sense of individuality is an illusion and isn't fixed. We can melt back to the source which is the universal consciousness if you want to but you can also separate from it and experience individuality. Good and evil is simply about wholeness and fragmentation respectively. God is good because god is whole.

> One early Christian heresy (Modalism; Sabellianism) was the idea that Jesus Christ was just a different manifestation of the one God.

That's the problem because some church leaders have their own interpretation and the idea of Jesus and God being the same doesn't sit well with them hence it is labeled as heresy. Modalism is actually very close to what Hindus believe with one universal consciousness having different manifestations.

Thanks. I find Hinduism very complex and difficult to understand as an outsider.

> There is only one infinite universal consciousness and we are the the different manifestations of that consciousness.

Yeah, I get this, though it seems illogical to me. As I mentioned to the OP, if the universe is not the creation of a personal God, but is rather a sort of unconscious emanation from the divine, then we have no legitimate subject-object relationships, no particularity, but only a blank unity. In such a view there can be no foundation for knowledge, love, morality, or ethics. Without an absolute personality, there is no diversity or distinction basic to reality at all. Ultimate reality is a bare unity about which nothing may be said.

Hinduism, it seems, incorporates atheism, polytheism, theism, and much else all under the same umbrella of consciousness.

> That universal consciousness is what monotheists call as God while Hindus sees the different manifestation of that universal consciousness as god themselves.

But the defeater for the universal consciousness being what monotheists call God is that monism (all is god) denies any subject/object relationship, which in reality denies the existence of matter and a rejection of individual identity. There is ultimately no difference between good and evil, man and nature, or person to person. The logic and philosophy don't hold together for me.

In addition, it doesn't seem true at all that the Trinity is an explanation of this concept. The Trinity is a very different idea in Christianity than different manifestations of the universal consciousness. One early Christian heresy (Modalism; Sabellianism) was the idea that Jesus Christ was just a different manifestation of the one God. So if Hindus perceive it as the same thing, they are misunderstanding Christian theology (no surprise; I find it difficult to understand Hindu theology).

I am not a Hindu but I have some insight about how eastern religion sees god.

There is only one infinite universal consciousness and we are the the different manifestations of that consciousness. That universal consciousness is what monotheists call as God while Hindus sees the different manifestation of that universal consciousness as god themselves. The trinity is an explanation of this concept.

Please be patient with me. You must understand that Hinduism is very difficult for an outsider to understand. (I've heard it's even difficult for Hindus to understand.)

If Shiva is the only God, and vishnu is a god, then isn't that polytheism?

> as a xtian u should know what a hypostasis is.chrsiotians have billions of hypostasis whereas we have 1

What does this even mean? Are you talking about angels and demons? Please clarify.

> im speaking of person and hypostasis not being

Please clarify. Biblical theology posits Christ as of the same substance as the Father (Jn. 1.1; 10.30; Col. 1. 16), even though it doesn't use the term homoousias, as well as a plurality of hypostases (Heb. 1.3). Christianity never asserts polytheism, but always 3-in-1, trinitarian monotheism.

What do you mean Christianity has billions of hypostases?

> there is one godess,multiple gods.

How is this different from polytheism?

> god is not in us,he is us

You're saying we are all part of the divine essence, the divine being. One god, in all and through all. My logical problem with that is that if the universe is not the creation of a personal God, but is rather a sort of unconscious emanation from the divine, then we have no legitimate subject-object relationships, no particularity, but only a blank unity. In such a view there can be no foundation for knowledge, love, morality, or ethics. Without an absolute personality, there is no diversity or distinction basic to reality at all. Ultimate reality is a bare unity about which nothing may be said.

> Just like jeebus has power to multiply himself in various corpereal entities,we believe Godess does that.

Who's Jeebus? Do you mean Jesus? Hmm. He never multiplied Himself in various corporeal entities, so you'll have to clarify. But it sounds as if you're mistaken.