C.s. Lewis -- Memesmith

[Bhim]

Hi all.  Llwellyn pointed me to this thread because Hinduism came up.  It's worth noting that the divinity of Christ is by no means a unique doctrine.  Well, I suppose that Christians uniquely believe in the divinity of Jesus specifically, however the notion of a God-man is replete throughout Hinduism.  In Hinduism, various Gods are believed to have been born as men, sometimes by natural birth and sometimes by other means.  For example, Sri Rama and Sri Krishna are both avatars of Vishnu.  Rama was born into a royal family, did battle with the demon king Ravana, and died a natural death.  Krishna likewise was born in the usual way, assisted the Pandavas in a holy war, and died later in life.  Krishna's birth even parallel's the birth of Jesus in many ways (not as many ways as a lot of non-Christian apologists would argue, but some similarities do exist).  And since the stories about Krishna were written earlier than the New Testament, it's clear who may have copied from whom.  There are also avatars of Vishnu who were not born naturally.  One example is Sri Narasimha, who appeared spontaneously before a demon king as a half man, half lion in order to kill him.

 

When I converted to Christianity, I had trouble understanding why my fellow evangelicals emphasized the doctrine of Christ's divinity as a tool for evangelism and apologetics.  Pastors are known for proclaiming, "with the birth of Jesus, God did something that has never happened before, he stepped into human history."  Why, I wondered, is this considered a unique trait of Christianity?  This is an idea I had grown up with, and didn't at all seem foreign to me.  There are things about Christianity that are unique, or at least peculiar to this religion, but the doctrine of Jesus' divinity is not one of them.  If I were motivated to demonstrate Christianity's uniqueness, I might observe its hierarchical structure, i.e. churches organized into laymen, deacons, elders, etc.  I might point out the claim of historicity.  While New Testament "history" is not historically verifiable, the idea that certain things like the resurrection must have historically taken place is peculiar to Christianity and Islam.  Even Judaism does not require that Moses, Joshua, David, or Solomon really existed.

 

Yes, there are things about Christianity that at least distinguish it from Eastern religions.  But a belief in a divine God-man is not one of those things.  Having freed myself from Christianity, I do realize why Christians make this claim.  They have no other basis for comparison.  Even highly educated Christians only know of other religions through the lens of their local churches or their preferred apologetic ministries.  The Bible emphasizes the historicity of Jesus.  If this were true of other religions, then Christianity's own truth claim would be weakened.  Therefore they take it as gospel truth (so to speak) that only Christianity teaches this.

 

I believe C.S. Lewis speculated that at some point in the far future, barring Christ's return the two religions left in the world would be Christianity and Hinduism.  Christianity would be defeating rival philosophies by force of argument, and Hinduism would absorb them.  Given that Hinduism has maintained reasonably consistent traditions since at least the days of Israel's prophets, I'm not sure how he came to this conclusion.  Indeed, Christianity has absorbed more European religions that Hinduism has Asian ones.  Lewis may have been unfamiliar with Adi Shankara, who in the eighth century destroyed Buddhism in India.  He did so not by demeaning Buddhists or with the power of the sword, but by force of argument.  By articulating the differences between Hinduism and Buddhism during his philosophical tours, he caused much of India to abandon Buddhism.  The fact that Hinduism is able to oppose rival philosophies is why India is a Hindu nation today with very little Buddhist influence.

 

With greatest respect to Llwellyn, I do want to point out that it is not generally true that Hindus believe in the divinity of Christ.  In my experience, most Hindus are ignorant of Jesus, and this is unfortunate since it makes them easy targets by missionaries.  There are many Hindus who have a respect for Jesus as a religious figure, and some of these might believe that he is a manifestation of God in some form or another; some might even regard him as an avatar of their favorite deity.  However, some Hindus who are educated with respect to Christianity actively deny that Jesus is any sort of god.  I think the latter group is a minority, while the bulk of Hindus simply fall into the ignorance/apathy camp.  However, given the recent political victories of the BJP, maybe I have more brethren than I know...