Conversion practices into Hinduism are all relatively very recent and evolved in response to contact with more organized western religions. The core problem when you “convert” is that you don’t have a Hindu lineage and so your jati and varna are in question. These are categories based on the immediately local social norms and so there can’t be any explicit rules that every convert can apply to himself, although there are implicit ones, in being categorized. It’s a negotiation with whichever people you are trying to become part of. But apart from this issue, I believe that for most of Hindu history the way it works is that you don’t need a conversion at all, you just start living the lifestyle and that’s that.
It’s interesting and I look forward to more! Having just started this: see if you can get Richard Rohr on here. He’s a Catholic priest who has done deep dives on other faiths and (for example) keeps a shiva statue on his desk. He can explain the Catholic conception much better. I think Amos is wrong in his conception of the relationship between God and the world; Catholics belief the world is good and was made good but was corrupted by the fall. An argument for why the act of creation may be indistinguishable from God itself might look like: these are the only plausible laws of physics they give rise to sentient beings. And, if i understand correctly, a recent paper by Stephen Hawking seems to confirm this.
Did you mean I should try to interview Richard Rohr? I think I would need to do a lot more preparation and study before I could do that properly. I did read his book called 'Adam's Return' on male initiation and enjoyed it highly. He does indeed seem well versed on Vedic lore and practices.
(1) Why does god have to be 100% good all the time? Like maybe he is 99% good (under our conception of “good”) but sometimes gets bored or purses some other objective or abides by (his own?) rules.
(2) I’m not sure that, if we accept divine sovereignty, it makes sense to pass judgment on god in any respect. Seems weird to apply a rule for people, like, “don’t use people” (do sects agree on this rule?) to a literal deity. Idk, I feel like god would have jurisdiction over us and not the other way around.
To your first point, I'm not sure it is worthwhile to follow in the footsteps of a God that is not always unchangingly Good. However, it is absolutely true that God's version of the Good does not have to correspond with what we think it should be.
And, interestingly, to your second point, if you read Matthew 12:31 (and you believe Jesus speaks the truth and care about that to any degree), the only inexcusable evil is to accuse God Himself of being evil. You can argue against Him, you can hate Him, you can ignore Him, you can refuse to believe in Him, you can spit on His face if he shows up at your front door.
But, if you want to abide by God, you must never mistake His goodness for evil.
Thirdly, both Hinduism and Christianity make claims about God being a personal God, meaning that He seeks to have a personal relationship with each and every one of his creations (and Hindus, in particular, extend the definition of 'creations' to include all of life and emptiness).
If you accept this, then I think God's objective would work to create the conditions for his creatures to get to know Him. If in some situations He is just abiding by random whimsy, then that too is a part of Him and His Will that His creatures ought learn about Him.
Similarly, if God is a personal God, you can even ask Him to stop using people for entertainment and there is strong probability He will listen to you!
Conversion practices into Hinduism are all relatively very recent and evolved in response to contact with more organized western religions. The core problem when you “convert” is that you don’t have a Hindu lineage and so your jati and varna are in question. These are categories based on the immediately local social norms and so there can’t be any explicit rules that every convert can apply to himself, although there are implicit ones, in being categorized. It’s a negotiation with whichever people you are trying to become part of. But apart from this issue, I believe that for most of Hindu history the way it works is that you don’t need a conversion at all, you just start living the lifestyle and that’s that.
It’s interesting and I look forward to more! Having just started this: see if you can get Richard Rohr on here. He’s a Catholic priest who has done deep dives on other faiths and (for example) keeps a shiva statue on his desk. He can explain the Catholic conception much better. I think Amos is wrong in his conception of the relationship between God and the world; Catholics belief the world is good and was made good but was corrupted by the fall. An argument for why the act of creation may be indistinguishable from God itself might look like: these are the only plausible laws of physics they give rise to sentient beings. And, if i understand correctly, a recent paper by Stephen Hawking seems to confirm this.
Did you mean I should try to interview Richard Rohr? I think I would need to do a lot more preparation and study before I could do that properly. I did read his book called 'Adam's Return' on male initiation and enjoyed it highly. He does indeed seem well versed on Vedic lore and practices.
Yes, I suppose that’s what I meant. I’m very glad you’re doing this series and look forward to more.
Idk whether these are unfair questions.
(1) Why does god have to be 100% good all the time? Like maybe he is 99% good (under our conception of “good”) but sometimes gets bored or purses some other objective or abides by (his own?) rules.
(2) I’m not sure that, if we accept divine sovereignty, it makes sense to pass judgment on god in any respect. Seems weird to apply a rule for people, like, “don’t use people” (do sects agree on this rule?) to a literal deity. Idk, I feel like god would have jurisdiction over us and not the other way around.
To your first point, I'm not sure it is worthwhile to follow in the footsteps of a God that is not always unchangingly Good. However, it is absolutely true that God's version of the Good does not have to correspond with what we think it should be.
And, interestingly, to your second point, if you read Matthew 12:31 (and you believe Jesus speaks the truth and care about that to any degree), the only inexcusable evil is to accuse God Himself of being evil. You can argue against Him, you can hate Him, you can ignore Him, you can refuse to believe in Him, you can spit on His face if he shows up at your front door.
But, if you want to abide by God, you must never mistake His goodness for evil.
Thirdly, both Hinduism and Christianity make claims about God being a personal God, meaning that He seeks to have a personal relationship with each and every one of his creations (and Hindus, in particular, extend the definition of 'creations' to include all of life and emptiness).
If you accept this, then I think God's objective would work to create the conditions for his creatures to get to know Him. If in some situations He is just abiding by random whimsy, then that too is a part of Him and His Will that His creatures ought learn about Him.
Similarly, if God is a personal God, you can even ask Him to stop using people for entertainment and there is strong probability He will listen to you!