Christians: Don't you think if you were born in India you would probably believe in Hinduism?

Question

Hmmm...Why is that?

Answer 1

Do you mean a Hindu like Ravi Zacharies?

Answer 2

If that is the way I was taught, then that's what I would believe but I would not turn away a christian missionary who visited. Unless the the gospel is sent how would I know of christianity and the gospel? That's why Jesus said,"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation" Mark 16:15†

And since we are each one responsible for what we know, it would be far different if I had known and rejected the gospel, than if I had never known at all, wouldn't it?

Jesus forgave those who drove nails though His hands & feet, He forgave those who spit on Him and those who gave Him vinegar to drink when He was thirsty,as He hung there, He also forgave, and He even forgave those who beat Him and rejected His teachings, and all who were sinners & unbelievers after all they'd done saying, "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do" .

If Jesus forgave them then who had been right there and seen Him in the flesh with their own eyes, how much more do you suppose He will understand those who have never heard of Him at all? How much greater is the faith of them who have not seen, and yet believe!

God won't hold something against a person for not knowing, but He doesn't take kindly to those who do know and reject it still. He judges the heart of a person, what your motives & intentions are. He looks deeper to the inward parts at what is inside a man's heart, beyond the surface.

Whether it's Hinduism, or Judaism or christianity or whatever your own personal beliefs, God's concern is "you" and your faith. That's why He said, "Anything that is apart from faith is sin". "For a man to know what is right and good to do, and do it not, to him it is, sin"

So those who are in other countries who have not heard the gospel are not bound to the law, because without the law, how could anyone know what sin was? How much worse are those who have heard the law and who do know, yet break it anyways?

If it weren't against the law to steal or sleep with your neighbor's wife in a different country, how could you hold a person accountable for stealing and committing adultery unless they were first given the laws and told not to?

It's the same with God concerning man's ways & matter of beliefs in different cultures. Each one is responsible for what they know and is judged according to the same measures and the same judgement he/she uses. God is far more merciful & understanding concerning such matters as these than people are. He loves each one the same†

Answer 3

Not necessarily. If I was basically the same person I am now, I would still be a Christian, no matter where I was born.

People born in other countries become Christians, too. And not just people who are born into Christian families, either. As a matter of fact, the place that we're born has little to do with what religion we become. That's why people in the U.S. who are born into nonreligious families sometimes become Christians, Buddhists, pagans, or Muslims. People who are born into Christian families sometimes become atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, or pagans. It just all depends on the person.

I know a guy who was raised in a VERY atheist family (I've met them, so I know for a fact), yet he became a Christian four years ago, at the age of twenty-eight.

Where we are born, and to WHOM we're born, have very little to do with it.

Answer 4

Most likely. You'd need to look up the statistics to tell what the probability would be.

Would you stay a Hindu? I reckon that would depend on your experiences including education, people you meet, books you read and your exposure to other religions.

Answer 5

So you are saying that there are no Christians in India?

(We've seen this type of thinking before.)

Answer 6

Only two contradictions of the New Testament have been mentioned, but others will be referenced when the Trinity, Divinity of Jesus Christ, Divine Sonship of Jesus, Original Sin and Atonement are reviewed.
How could the "inspired words" of God get the genealogy of Jesus incorrect (See Matthew 1:6-16 where it states 26 forefathers up to Prophet David, and Luke 3:23-31 says 41 in number). Or for that matter, give a genealogy to Jesus who had NO father? See II Kings 19:1-37, now read Isaiah 37:1-38. Why is it that the words of these verse are identical? Yet they have been attributed to two different authors, one unknown and the other is Isaiah, who are centuries apart; and yet, the Christians have claimed these books to be inspired by God.
I looked up the word Easter in the Nelson Bible dictionary and learned that the word "Easter" (as mentioned in Acts 12:4) is a mistranslation of "pascha," the ordinary Greek word for "Passover." As, you know Passover is a Jewish celebration not a Christian holiday. I think human hands, all to human, had played havoc with the Bible.
From the brief points mentioned above, and the fact that Biblical scholars themselves have recognized the human nature and human composition of the Bible (Curt Kuhl, The Old Testament: Its Origin and Composition, PP 47, 51, 52), there should exist in the Christian’s mind some acceptance to the fact that maybe every word of the Bible is not God’s word.
As a side note to this subject, let me mention that some Christians believe that the Bible was dictated to Prophet Muhammad (SAW) by a Christian monk, and that is why some of the biblical accounts are in the Quran. After some research, I found that this could not have happened because there were no Arabic Bible in existence in the 6th century of the Christian era when Muhammad (SAW) lived and preached. Therefore, no Arab, not even Prophet Muhammad (SAW) who was absolutely unlettered and unlearned, would have had the opportunity to examine the written text of the Bible in his own language.

What is According to:
Christians, as I once did, boast about the Gospels according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke and according to John. However, if we think about it, there is not a single Gospel according to Jesus himself. According to the preface of the KJV (King James Version) new open Bible study edition, the word "Gospel" was added (see below) to the original titles, "According to John, according to Matthew, according to Luke and according to Mark."

If you read Luke 1:2-3, you will learn, as I did, that Luke (who was not one of the 12 disciples and never met Jesus) said that he himself was not an eyewitness, and the knowledge he gathered was from eyewitnesses, and not as words inspired by God. Incidentally, why does every "Gospel" begin with the introduction According to. Why "according to?" the reason for this is because not a single one of the gospels carries its original author’s autograph! Even the internal evidence of Matthew 9:9 proves that Matthew was not the author of the first Gospel which bears his name:
"And as Jesus passed forth thence, He (Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and He (Jesus) saith unto Him (Matthew), follow me (Jesus). And he (Matthew) arose, and followed Him (Jesus)."

Without any stretch of the imagination, one can see that the He’s and the Him’s of the above narration do not refer to Jesus or Matthew as its author, but a third person writing what he saw or heard - a hearsay account and not words inspired by God.

Answer 7

Yes, to start with

Answer 8

Yes, they would be because that is the culture they would have grown up with.

Answer 9

of course, but, remember, those who seek will find, Hinduism is the belief in elephants.

Answer 10

because u'd be raised to be a hinduist.