Is Hinduism a religion?

The resurrection we believe happens in eternity. That is, it is not a temporal resurrection. If it was, we would not believe that the saints who passed on from this world are with us.

In our eschatology, there is simply no room for reincarnation, because reincarnation is a temporal phenomenoand the resurrection occurs in eternity as The Light of God's Truth reveals all as it truly is in God. Falsehood  and death are melted away and vanquised by The Life that is The Truth.

We do not worship a corpse as God. We worship God, The Ultimate Reality in Trinity, that is, in Spirit and in Truth.

We will all certainly be brought up on the last day, when death itself will be conquered by The Truth and all is revealed as truly is in God as it us written "a for his we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face; now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

Pope Francis, who is not an Orthodox Patriarch, did not say that Jesus was a failure, he said the opposite.

"We can get caught up measuring the value of our apostolic works by the standards of efficiency, good management, and outward success which govern the business world.

Not that these things are unimportant!

We have been entrusted with a great responsibility, and God’s people rightly expect accountability from us.

But the true worth of our apostolate is measured by the value it has in God’s eyes.

To see and evaluate things from God’s perspective calls for constant conversion in the first days and years of our vocation and, need I say, it calls for great humility.

The cross shows us a different way of measuring success.

Ours is to plant the seeds: God sees to the fruits of our labors.

And if at times our efforts and works seem to fail and produce no fruit, we need to remember that we are followers of Jesus . . . and his life, humanly speaking, ended in failure, in the failure of the cross."

What he is actually saying is that while it looked as if Jesus failed, we are still talking about him today and many have been enlightened since his "failure". What looked like a failure was in fact not a failure, but a victory.

As it is written,

"But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:

But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body."

Christ at the crucifixion was the seed, thst body on the cross. The fruit of that is The Church, which is the body of Christ.

And Pope Francis is encouraging those who do much work for the faith and see very little for it not to be discouraged,  because from the very beginning things looked bleak. Yet the church is still here.

I believe Pope Francis has a good preaching there, but I would like to remind you thst I belong to The Orthodox Catholic Church, not the Roman Catholic Church which broke away from the rest of the church due to their corrupting the true faith as guarded by The True Orthodox Catholic Church.

Harikrish, even in a topic about what is supposed to be your faith, you still can't avoid bashing Christianity. Does anyone actually believe you are a biblical scholar? I don't think anybody here respects your self declarations.

Harikrish, if I don't believe you understand my faith, how do you expect to persuade me? Do you really think anyone else is going to find you convincing? I tell you, you only speak to those who will likely agree with anything anti-Christian.

But this topic is about Hinduism, not Christianity. I say that Hinduism is not actually a single religion but many different religions with a common heritage. Is that really so controversial? If I am in err, surely you being a Hindu could better explain and point out my misconception.

(In response to post #6)

There's two main categories of things to look for in a religion:

1. Theology

2. Cosmology

Broadly defined, theology is the "core message" of a religion that distinguishes it from other belief systems. "Worship Vishnu" as opposed to "Worship Zeus" does not count as such. Rather, that would count as a cosmological (again, broadly defined) detail. Cosmology entails the name and physical description of deity, the history of what that deity did, and so on. It entails a description of a Universe rife with supernatural elements.

Christianity has a truly excellent theology, universal in scope, answering the most important questions in life.

For example: "I've done some really crummy things in life, or at least had really bad and inexcusable thoughts. People in general think I'm a good guy but I don't feel like that's really the case. Assuming a moral Universe, is there some kind of cosmic consequence for my underlying bad nature?"

Indian religions (and to be clear, there is no unity in these either) assume rather that "Life is inherently full of suffering" and (in Hinduism) bad karma is the reason. This begs the question, of course: If we were originally of a pure divine essence, did that pure divine essence commit sin?

In addition, "Life has more suffering than not" is a generalization which obviously isn't always true. And yet the universal instinct of Indian religion is to find "liberation" from existence regardless of its conditions.

In Christianity, though the effects of individual sin may not be observable in life, it still exists in the larger sense, though perhaps invisible in the material world. This lends some credence as to why somebody needs God even if they're living a fabulously awesome life on earth.

Another thing: Hinduism, however good its theology, has an insanely impractical cosmology. Like for example "The eight armed blue guy slew the demon, carved out his entrails to form the Himalayan mountain range". Not an actual Hindu idea but it's often something as zany as this, something thoroughly incompatible with our modern scientific understanding of the world.

How do you answer to this?

Christianity as a religion has blood on its hands. 

As a theology it portrays the God of the bible as a genocidal lunatic.

it fails scientific scrutiny. Science, archeology demolishes the events of the bible such as the Exodus, Noah's flood and Jerico as totally fictional.

Jesus was rejected by the Jews

the very people he was sent to save.

The Romans crucified Jesus and to add insult to injury established The Roman Catholic Church to displace Judaism the religion that Jesus followed.

There  are 30,000 denominations of Christians because their religious leaders disagreed  with the interpretation of the Bible.

Human sacrifice was banned by the God of the Bible.

Jesus was not sacrificed he was crucified.

Hinduism is a transcendental religion. It teaches spirituality and finds all life sacred. It has a God for every occasion exhibiting the omnipresence of God in everything created. You don't have  to search for God in Hinduism. He is everywhere and in everything created.

and not dependent on killing or sacrificing Jews like Christian believe Jesus a Jew had to die for their sins.

My God, my God why have you forsaken me!

Hinduism is the original religion of the people

Christianity had abandoned the commandments that were the foundation of its distinction from other religions after it broke away from its Judaism roots.

In the broader sense, sure. Christianity is a religion and there have always been people willing to kill on account of religions. You really think there's never been a Muslim murdered by an angry Hindu? Or a Christian convert murdered by a local angry Hindu?

You do realize there's like 100-200 hundred million people in India who live their entire lives regarded as trash because their religion said they were born trash. It took Western (*cough* Christian *cough*) influences to formally abolish this perverse system but even today many Hindus take it seriously.

And I suppose the Hindu gods never killed anyone?

And I suppose everything in Hindu scripture is scientifically accurate?

The Bible's pretty clear that people choose whether to accept or reject truth. The Jews rejected Jesus and that was their own failing.

Yes and no. The Gospel was proclaimed "first to the Jews" but "then to the Gentiles". As a universally applicable narrative it would make no sense to offer salvation only to those members of a single small ethnic group.

The church was institutionalized, yes. But Christianity was about 280 years old by this point.

This reflects the choices and shortcomings of people, not of God. At the same time, though, these "30,000 denominations" agree on 80-90% of stuff. The core doctrines of the Christian faith are accepted by all of these save maybe the Mormons and similar fringe groups.

Says who? You? You can't, sure. You're a fallible human being with your own sins to pay off. But God, without blemish, the Creator of the Universe? I don't see why not.

It's important to note also: there are varying interpretations of what Jesus accomplished on the cross. The common view is simple atonement, but in keeping with the larger Biblical narrative Jesus is also described as a conquering King who was mighty enough to redeem men from the hold of sin. The cross, while atoning, also served to demonstrate God's infinite power and love.

Jesus is God, not a mere man.

Also, what do you think God meant? "Do not murder people/needlessly throw away their lives in vile pagan rituals" or "I will arbitrarily limit myself from accomplishing what I seek to accomplish, the redemption of humanity, because that interpretation of my words is the one that will make some smug guy on the internet thousands of years later sound right"?

Anyone can do what you're doing: take the words of a religious text and twist them to mean things the original author never had in mind. The fact that it is grammatically possible to so twist words does not in itself discredit anything whatsoever. It merely reflects limitations of human communication. Otherwise, anyone could do the same to Hindu texts and thereby discredit Hinduism.

So they tried to seize Him, but no one laid a hand of Him, because His hour had not yet come.

(John 7:30)

"Put back your sword," Jesus said to him. "For all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Are you not aware that I can call on My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen this way?

(Matthew 26:52-54)

So Pilate said to him, "Do You refuse to speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You and authority to crucify You?" Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me if it were not given to you from above.

(John 19:10-11)

Yup, sounds rather voluntary to me.

Buddha achieved enlightenment in his life time.

Harikrish wrote: Buddha achieved enlightenment in his life time.

Funny that you should mention Buddha, whose teachings were eventually rejected in most of the Indian subcontinent. His ideas fell outside of mainstream Hindu thought, making him a schismatic. If you embrace Buddha then your relation to Hinduism is that of a Christian to Judaism.

To better answer the OP's question, we need an opinion from first an Indian, and then a Hindu. Second, he should be educated and intelligent enough to make people not familiar with Hindu custom and culture understand it.

That person is...

Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar (14 April 1891 – 6 December 1956), popularly known as Babasaheb, was an Indian jurist, economist, politician and social reformer who inspired the Dalit Buddhist movement and campaigned against social discrimination towards Untouchables (Dalits), while also supporting the rights of women and labour.

He was Independent India's first law minister, the principal architect of the Constitution of India and a founding father of the Republic of India.

Ambedkar was a prolific student, earning doctorates in economics from both Columbia University and the London School of Economics, and gained a reputation as a scholar for his research in law, economics and political science.

In his early career he was an economist, professor, and lawyer. His later life was marked by his political activities; he became involved in campaigning and negotiations for India's independence, publishing journals, advocating political rights and social freedom for Dalits, and contributing significantly to the establishment of the state of India. In 1956 he converted to Buddhism, initiating mass conversions of Dalits.

On 9 May, 1927, he presented the thesis paper Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development before a seminar conducted by the anthropologist Alexander Goldenweiser.

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/txt_ambedkar_castes.html

The caste problem is a vast one, both theoretically and practically. Practically, it is an institution that portends tremendous consequences. It is a local problem, but one capable of much wider mischief,...

....if Hindus migrate to other regions on earth, Indian caste would become a world problem."

Indeed the ideal Hindu must be like a rat living in his own hole, refusing to have any contact with others. There is an utter lack among the Hindus of what the sociologists call "consciousness of kind." There is no Hindu consciousness of kind. In every Hindu the consciousness that exists is the consciousness of his caste. That is the reason why the Hindus cannot be said to form a society or a nation.

The effect of caste on the ethics of the Hindus is simply deplorable. Caste has killed public spirit. Caste has destroyed the sense of public charity. Caste has made public opinion impossible. A Hindu's public is his caste. His responsibility is only to his caste. His loyalty is restricted only to his caste. Virtue has become caste-ridden, and morality has become caste-bound. There is no sympathy for the deserving. There is no appreciation of the meritorious. There is no charity to the needy. Suffering as such calls for no response. There is charity, but it begins with the caste and ends with the caste. There is sympathy, but not for men of other castes.

A Hindu is born in a caste and he dies as a member of that caste. There is no Hindu without caste, cannot escape caste and being bounded by caste from birth to death he becomes subject to social regulations and traditions of the caste over which he has no control.

Not having conscience, the Hindu has no such thing in him as righteous indignation against the inequities and injustices from which the Untouchable has been suffering. He sees no wrong in these inequities

and injustices and refuses to budge. By his absence of conscience the Hindu is a great obstacle in the path of the removal of untouchability.

Untouchability may be a misfortune to the Untouchables. But there is no doubt that it is a good fortune to the Hindus. It gives them a class which they can look down upon.

The Hindus do not want a system in which nobody will be anybody. They also do not want a system in which everybody may be somebody. They want a system in which they will be somebodies and others will be nobodies. The Untouchables are nobodies.

This makes the Hindus some bodies. The system of untouchability sustains the natural pride of the Hindus and makes them feel as well as look big.

I have, therefore, no hesitation in saying that such a religion must be destroyed, and I say there is nothing irreligious in working for the destruction of such a religion. Indeed I hold that it is your bounden duty to tear off the mask, to remove the misrepresentation that is caused by misnaming this Law as Religion. This is an essential step for you. Once you clear the minds of the people of this misconception, and enable them to realize that what they are told is Religion is not Religion, but that it is really Law, you will be in a position to urge its amendment or abolition.

This great Indian and Hindu would answer the question of the OP with a resounding, "No".

Nothing in your post or link points to religion or Hinduism specifically as the cause for the caste system in India.

But there are advantages in the caste system when seen as a division of labour. 

No one wants to have someone who cleans toilets to be his dentist or cook his food. The thought is repulsive enough. 

But African slavery is a direct product of Christianity.

Yet the authors conclusion was to call for the destruction of Hinduism as the originator and sustainer of the vile, slave making caste system.

There are advantages in the Nazi system too when seen as a purification module.

Correctly your law minister said about you - "Virtue has become caste-ridden, and morality has become caste-bound. There is no sympathy for the deserving. There is no appreciation of the meritorious. There is no charity to the needy. Suffering as such calls for no response."

Luckily India saw no advantages and outlawed the caste system. But by [your] absence of conscience the Hindu is a great obstacle in the path of the removal of untouchability.

Lol. First you restrict them to poverty, and then blame and punish them for being poor! Just as your law minister said, "The Hindus do not want a system in which nobody will be anybody. They also do not want a system in which everybody may be somebody. They want a system in which they will be somebodies and others will be nobodies.

Your law minister spoke about the Hindus need to have a class "lower" than he, "It gives them a class which they can look down upon. I guess that must be why you are now trying to compare. The caste system has made you need to compare everything as if the world was a caste system.

I'd rather stay on topic. Christianity has nothing to do with Hinduism or African slavery. The OP asked if Hinduism was a religion. Ambedkar an Indian, a Hindu, and an intellectual did not think so.

He called Hinduism evil and advocated its destruction.

You are lying. Please show me where in your link did he call Hinduism evil and advocated its destruction

The caste system is not  a purification or ethnic cleansing system like the Nazi system was. 

Christianity had everything to do with African slavery.

You said you live in Africa where slavery is still practiced. One can still buy African slaves in Libya for $400 each. All this on a continent where 80% of Africans are Christians.

Did  you not also confess you are just a poor African slave, remember?

You are lying. Please show me where in your link did he call Hinduism evil and advocated its destruction

Christianity had everything to do with African slavery.