I am a Hindu, why should I consider becoming a Christian?

Answer

Comparing Hinduism and Christianity is challenging, partly because Hinduism is a complex religion for Westerners to understand. It embodies profound depths, a rich history, and a sophisticated theology. It is arguably one of the most diverse and intricate religions globally. Contrasting Hinduism and Christianity can be overwhelming for beginners in comparative religions. Therefore, the proposed question should be approached thoughtfully and respectfully. The following answer does not claim to be exhaustive or to imply an “in-depth” comprehension of Hinduism at any specific juncture. Instead, it simply highlights a few comparisons between the two religions to demonstrate why Christianity merits special consideration.

Firstly, Christianity stands out for its historical authenticity. Christianity incorporates historically verifiable figures and events that can be identified through disciplines like archaeology and textual criticism. While Hinduism also has a historical background, its theology, mythology, and history are often intertwined, making it challenging to distinguish one from the other. Hinduism openly acknowledges mythology, utilizing elaborate myths to elucidate the characteristics and attributes of the deities. Hinduism’s historical ambiguity allows for a certain degree of flexibility and adaptability. However, a non-historical religion is less verifiable and testable. The literal historical events in the Jewish and subsequently Christian traditions validate the theology of Christianity. If figures like Adam and Eve, the Israelite exodus from Egypt, Jonah’s existence, or Jesus’ earthly presence are disproven, the entire Christian faith could potentially collapse. In Christianity, an inaccurate historical narrative would weaken its theological foundation. This underscores the significance of historical accuracy in maintaining the integrity of the Christian belief system.

Cal rootedness could be a weakness of Christianity except that the historically testable parts of the Christian tradition are often validated, turning the weakness into a strength.

Secondly, while both Christianity and Hinduism have significant historical figures, only Jesus is documented to have risen bodily from the dead. Throughout history, many individuals have been wise teachers or have initiated religious movements. Hinduism has its own wise teachers and earthly leaders. However, Jesus stands out. His spiritual teachings are affirmed with a test that only divine power could pass: death and bodily resurrection, which He prophesied and fulfilled in Himself (Matthew 16:21;Matthew 20:18-19;Mark 8:31;1 Luke 9:22;John 20-21;1 Corinthians 15).

Furthermore, the Christian belief in resurrection differs from the Hindu belief in reincarnation. These concepts are distinct. It is the resurrection that can be logically deduced from historical and evidential analysis. The resurrection of Jesus Christ, in particular, is well supported by both secular and religious scholarship. Its validation does not confirm the Hindu belief in reincarnation. Here are some key differences:

Resurrection involves one death, one life, one mortal body, and one new and glorified immortal body. Resurrection occurs through divine intervention, is monotheistic, signifies liberation from sin, and ultimately takes place only in the end times. In contrast, reincarnation involves multiple deaths, multiple lives, multiple mortal bodies, and no immortal body. Additionally, reincarnation occurs through natural law, is typically pantheistic (God is all), operates based on karma, and is a continuous process. While listing these differences does not prove the truth of either belief, if the resurrection is historically demonstrable, then distinguishing thThese two afterlife options separate the justified account from the unjustified account. The resurrection of Christ and the broader Christian doctrine of resurrection both merit consideration.

Third, the Christian Scriptures are historically remarkable and warrant serious consideration. In various assessments, the Bible surpasses the Hindu Vedas, and all other ancient books, for that matter. One could even argue that the historical narrative of the Bible is so compelling that to question the Bible is to question history itself, as it is the most historically verifiable book from antiquity. The only book more historically verifiable than the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) is the New Testament. Consider the following:

1) More manuscripts exist for the New Testament than for any other from antiquity—5,000 ancient Greek manuscripts, totaling 24,000 including other languages. The abundance of manuscripts provides a substantial research foundation to compare the texts and determine the original content.

2) The New Testament manuscripts are closer in age to the originals than any other ancient document. All the originals were written during the time of contemporaries (eyewitnesses), in the first century A.D., and we currently possess manuscript fragments as old as A.D. 125. Complete copies of books appear by A.D. 200, and the entire New Testament can be traced back to A.D. 250. The fact that all New Testament books were initially written during the time of eyewitnesses means they did not have the opportunity to transform into myths and legends. Furthermore, their truth claims were scrutinized by members of the church who, as firsthand witnesses to the events, could verify the facts.

3) The New Testament documents are more precise than any other from antiquity. John R. Robinson in “Honest to God” asserts that the New Testament documents are 99.9% accurate (the most accurate of any complete ancient book). Bruce Metzger, a Greek New Testament expert, proposes a moremodest 99.5%.

Fourth, Christian monotheism offers advantages over pantheism and polytheism. It would be inaccurate to label Hinduism solely as pantheistic (“God is all”) or solely as polytheistic (with many gods). Depending on the branch of Hinduism one follows, it may lean towards pantheism, polytheism, monism (“all is one”), monotheism, or other beliefs. Nevertheless, two prominent branches of Hinduism are polytheism and pantheism. Christian monotheism holds distinct advantages over both of these. For brevity, this comparison focuses on one aspect, ethics.

Both polytheism and pantheism have questionable foundations for their ethics. In polytheism, if there are multiple gods, which god establishes the ultimate ethical standard for humans to follow? In a system with multiple gods, ethical standards may not align, may conflict, or may not even exist. If ethical standards do not exist, then ethics become arbitrary and unfounded. This inherent weakness is evident. If ethical standards do not conflict, what is the underlying principle that harmonizes them? This aligning principle would hold more authority than the gods themselves. The gods are not supreme as they are subordinate to another authority. Thus, there exists a higher reality to which adherence is necessary. This aspect renders polytheism superficial at best and vacuous at worst. In the third scenario, if the gods have conflicting standards of right and wrong, obeying one god could mean disobeying another and facing consequences. Ethics would become relative. What is considered good by one god may not align with a universal and objective definition of “good.” For instance, while sacrificing a child to Kali might be deemed praiseworthy in one sect of Hinduism, it would be abhorrent to many others. However, the act of child sacrifice itself is universally objectionable. Certain actions are inherently right or wrong, irrespective of circumstances.

Pantheism does not present a significantly better alternative to polytheism as it posits that ultimately there is only one divine reality—t

Hinduism disallows any ultimate distinctions of “good” and “evil.” If these were truly distinct, there would not exist a single, indivisible reality. Pantheism, in essence, does not permit moral differentiations of “good” and “evil.” These concepts merge into the same indivisible reality. Even if distinctions like “good” and “evil” could be recognized, the framework of karma negates the moral aspect of such differentiation. Karma functions as an impersonal principle akin to a natural law such as gravity or inertia. When karma confronts a sinful soul, it is not a divine enforcement that delivers judgment. Instead, it is an impersonal reaction of nature. However, morality necessitates personality, a trait that karma lacks. For instance, we do not hold a stick accountable for being used in a beating. The stick is an inanimate object devoid of moral capacity or responsibility. Rather, the blame falls on the individual who wielded the stick abusively. This person possesses moral capacity and responsibility. Similarly, if karma is purely impersonal nature, it is amoral (“without morality”) and cannot serve as a sufficient foundation for ethics.

Christian monotheism, on the other hand, grounds its ethics in the character of God. God’s nature is inherently good, and thus, actions aligning with Him and His will are deemed good. Conversely, actions deviating from God and His will are considered evil. Therefore, the singular God acts as the ultimate foundation for ethics, providing a personal grounding for morality and validating objective discernment of good and evil.

Lastly, the question arises, “How do you address your sin?” Christianity offers the most robust solution to this dilemma. Hinduism, akin to Buddhism, encompasses at least two interpretations of sin. Sin is sometimes viewed as ignorance, defined as a failure to perceive or comprehend reality as outlined in Hinduism. However, a concept of moral transgression labeled “sin” persists. Engaging in deliberate evil, violating spiritual or earthly laws, or coveting wrongful desires constitute sins. This moral understanding of sin highlights a form of moral transgression necessitating genuine atonement. Where can this atonement be found?

Can redemption be achieved through the rise of atonement? Can adherence to karmic principles lead to atonement? Karma is impersonal and amoral. One may perform good deeds to “restore balance,” but sin cannot be completely eradicated. Karma does not offer a framework where moral wrongdoing is considered moral. For instance, who is wronged if we sin in private? Karma remains indifferent as it lacks personal attributes. For instance, if one person kills another person’s son, offering money, possessions, or even their own son to the aggrieved party may be attempted. However, the act of killing cannot be undone. No amount of compensation can make amends for such a sin. Can redemption be attained through prayer or devotion to Shiva or Vishnu? Even if these deities grant forgiveness, sin may still linger as an unpaid debt. Forgiveness may be granted as if the sin is excusable, trivial, and individuals are allowed to proceed towards eternal happiness.

On the contrary, Christianity views sin as a moral transgression against a singular, ultimate, and personal God. Since the time of Adam, humans have been inherently sinful beings. Sin is tangible, creating an immeasurable gap between humanity and eternal happiness. Sin demands retribution, and it cannot be offset by an equivalent or greater number of good deeds. Even if someone has ten times more good deeds than bad deeds, the burden of evil remains. What happens to these residual bad deeds? Are they simply pardoned as if they were insignificant to begin with? Are they accepted into eternal happiness? Are they mere illusions, thereby posing no issue at all? None of these scenarios are satisfactory. Sin is too real for us to dismiss it as an illusion. When we are truthful with ourselves, we acknowledge our sinful nature. Simply forgiving sin without consequences diminishes its significance. Eternal happiness loses its value if sin continues to infiltrate. The karmic scales seem to leave us with sin in our hearts and a nagging feeling that we have violated a fundamentally personal standard.rd of right and wrong. Either bliss cannot tolerate us, or it must cease being perfect so that we can enter.

In Christianity, however, all sin is punished, although that punishment has already been satisfied in Christ’s personal sacrifice on the cross. God became man, lived a perfect life, and died the death that we deserved. He was crucified on our behalf, as a substitute for us, providing a covering, or atonement, for our sins. His resurrection proved that not even death could conquer Him. Moreover, He promises the same resurrection to eternal life for all who have faith in Him as their only Lord and Savior (Romans 3:1023, 6:23;8:12;10:9-10;Ephesians 2:8-9;Philippians 3:21).

Ultimately, in Christianity, we can be certain of our salvation. We do not need to depend on a fleeting experience, our own good works, or fervent meditation, nor do we need to place our faith in a false god that we are attempting to “believe into existence.” We have a living and true God, a faith rooted in history, a lasting and verifiable revelation of God (Scripture), a solid foundation for ethical living, and a guaranteed home in heaven with God.

So, what does this mean for you? Jesus is the ultimate reality! He was the perfect sacrifice for our sins. God extends forgiveness and salvation to all of us if we simply accept His gift to us «But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: », (John 1:12), believing that Jesus is the Savior who sacrificed His life for us – His friends. By placing your trust in Jesus as your sole Savior, you will have complete assurance of eternal bliss in heaven. God will pardon your sins, purify your soul, renew your spirit, and grant you abundant life in this world.And eternal bliss in the next world. How can we reject such a precious gift? How can we turn our backs on God who loved us enough to sacrifice Himself for us?

If you are unsure about what you believe, we invite you to say the following prayer to God: “God, help me to know what is true. Help me to discern what is error. Help me to know what is the correct path to salvation.” God will always honor such a prayer.

If you want to receive Jesus as your Savior, simply speak to God, verbally or silently, and tell Him that you receive the gift of salvation through Jesus. If you want a prayer to say, here is an example: “God, thank you for your love for me. Thank you for sacrificing yourself for me. Thank you for providing for my forgiveness and salvation. I accept the gift of salvation through Jesus. I receive Jesus as my Savior. Amen!”

Have you made a decision to trust Jesus as your Savior because of what you have read here today? If so, please click on the “I have accepted Christ today” button below.

If you have any questions, please use the question form on our Bible Questions Answered page.