Revision as of 15:43, 25 February 2002 editConversion script (talk | contribs)10 editsm Automated conversion← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:40, 23 May 2002 edit undoTobias Hoevekamp (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,321 editsm moved stuff over from talk:sivaNext edit → |
(No difference) |
Revision as of 09:40, 23 May 2002
"Siva is no more a name for G-d than the Holy Spirit" ---
Except of course, that a lot of christians do think that 'Holy Spirit' is a name for G-d.
Indeed. See the entry for the Athanasian Creed for the historical understanding of the Trinity held by Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and many Protestant Christians.. It's not at all clear to me what the author means by saying the Holy Spirit is a 'facet' of God, or by saying that Christ 'developed' Christianity from Judaism.
my goodness. This is an exceptionally inaccurate treatment of Christianity, which makes me wonder how accurate a treatment of Shaivism it can possibly be! 'Facet'-language for the Holy Spirit is modalist, I think the author to mean. In which case it is not a correct presentation of orthodox Christian theology, but some sort of reinterpretation. And by the way history of religion folks are DEEPLY divided on the origins of religion in animism - lots of them (based on study of religion in remaining hunter/gatherer groups) like to talk about a kind of primitive monotheism. Not that I think much of anthropologists in general when they talk about religion before the invention of writing, but it's worth noting that this article asserts something that is not simply accepted by everryone. --MichaelTinkler
These last few sentences are either inaccurate (modalism applied to the Trinity - not accurate Christian theology) or gratuitous (the Buddha bit - what's it doing in a Siva article?):
- Siva is no more a name for God than the Holy Spirit--Siva is a facet of atman just as the Spirit is a facet of the HolyTrinity. Buddha developed Buddhism from Hinduism in an analogous fashion to Christ developing Christianity from Judaism.