Why do i dislike Hinduism

There are things i may have said on other pages on this link:

https://telegra.ph/Why-do-I-believe-Christianity-to-be-the-only-and-true-religion-09-25

That i wouldn't repeat here.

Read some stuff from here:

https://telegra.ph/Why-do-i-dislike-Buddhism-09-25

As some Buddhist concepts are also Hinduism beliefs.

PAGES:

2;

FALSE CLAIMS OF PARALLEL TO CHRISTIANITY:

Hinduism (and also Buddhism, which absorbed aspects of Hindu religious philosophy) has occasionally claimed similarity to Christianity by suggesting that its adherents also "die to the world". However, such claims are inconsistent with observable priorities. In practice, these religions assign disproportionate importance to worldly objects, creatures, and places, treating them as divine. This stands in stark contrast to Christianity, in which renunciation of the world denies the veneration of material things and also practice the refusal of sin, pride, and idolatry (1 John 2:15–17).

Their systems promise the dissolution of individuality into a greater "One" or "Absolute". Christianity, however, does not erase personal identity but redeems and perfects it. Resurrection life preserves the distinct personhood of the believer (Revelation 21:3–4).

Works-based salvation, these frameworks assert that moral effort or ritual obedience earns salvation. Christianity explicitly denies this (Ephesians 2:8–9).

Philosophies of illusion (Maya, Śūnyatā and etc). These claim that the world is not ultimately real and must be transcended. Christianity affirms the goodness and objectivity of creation (Genesis 1:31), and teaches not escape from the world but its renewal in Christ (Romans 8:19–21).

DEBUNKING THE IDEA OF A PARALLEL BETWEEN VISHNU AND BIBLICAL GOD:

The "Shatapatha Brahmana" is the only place where Vishnu is seem as creator of everything and within everything. But it still fail, since it still have an image and its personality flaws, it also does not condemn the other lower gods.

The Puranas have lot of versions of him, and most are flawed, while God have only one version of him, "I'm that I'm" is the only description of God, he is what he is.

In Christianity, there is no Evil in God, Vishnu is not separated from the demons that exists on earth, he is very likely the source of it or he was incapable of avoiding them to appear. In Christianity, demons are either fallen angels or winds that are fruits of our sins, it was not created by God as demons (but as angels; but God also gave them Free-Will).

Short, direct conclusion:

The Vedic-Brāhmaṇa and Puranic portraits of Vishnu present a powerful, personal deity who pervades the cosmos, incarnates, and acts within a rich, relational mythic field of gods, demons, and ritual powers.

That picture differs fundamentally from the classical Christian conception of God as the unique, transcendent, morally perfect Creator who is ontologically distinct from the created order. So treating Vishnu (as pictured in those Hindu texts) and the Christian God as the same divine person collapses several core metaphysical and theological distinctions.

Long, detailed comparison:

How Vishnu appears in the Vedic and Brāhmaṇa layer:

• The Vedic motif: “Vishnu the wide-strider (Trivikrama / Three Strides)”:

One of the oldest, most persistent images associated with Vishnu in the Vedic corpus is the idea of his three great strides (the trivikrama motif). In early hymns Vishnu is praised for “striding” the cosmos in three giant steps and planting his feet in the world — a poetic image of pervasion and cosmic activity rather than a philosophical statement of a single-person monotheism. The “three strides” imagery is attested in Vedic hymns and is carried into later ritual texts.

• The Brāhmaṇa context (Śatapatha etc.): ritual, sacrificial and cosmological framing:

In Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa and related Brāhmaṇa literature, deities (including Vishnu) are discussed in sacrificial, ritual and cosmological terms. The texts often identify a deity with ritual processes, cosmic functions, or metaphors used in ritual explanation: gods are participants in ritual stories, authors use mythic episodes to explain sacrifices and the world order, and deities are not presented as the single, sole, transcendent Creator in the same way later monotheisms do. Passages in Brāhmaṇa literature treat Vishnu as a cosmic presence associated with pervasion and certain ritual/cosmological roles (e.g., the same “stride” imagery occurs in ritual exegesis).

Takeaway: in the oldest strata Vishnu is a powerful cosmic figure, sometimes described as pervading or “striding” the cosmos, but the Vedic / Brāhmaṇa portrayal is embedded in a ritual-mythological, polytheistic framework rather than in later single-person, absolute monotheism.

The later, Puranic picture: Vishnu as supreme deity + avatars:

• Avatars and personal narratives:

By the time of the Purāṇas (and epic retellings like the Mahābhārata and Bhāgavata Purāṇa) Vishnu is often portrayed as the supreme deity who incarnates repeatedly (avatars such as Vāmana, Rāma, Kṛṣṇa) to restore cosmic order. The Vāmana/Trivikrama story (Vishnu as the dwarf who takes three steps to measure the cosmos and subdue King Bali) is a canonical Puranic narrative showing Vishnu’s initiative, trickery-like tactics in one episode, and direct intervention in worldly affairs. These texts are highly anthropomorphic in narrative style: they present gods with intentions, plans, and morally complex episodes.

• Moral ambivalence in mythic episodes:

In many Puranic episodes Vishnu acts decisively to achieve a good end, but the narratives frequently present stratagem, deception, bargains with other beings, and interactions with other gods and anti-gods (asuras). That is, Vishnu is the defender and restorer of dharma, but he acts inside a cosmos populated by many personal divine beings, spirits, demons, and morally ambivalent episodes, not as a solitary, metaphysically simple, impassible First Cause.

The classical Christian picture of God (summary of the standard theological attributes):

Classical Christian (Biblical + classical theistic) theology typically attributes to God the following cluster of qualities:

• Absolute unity and uniqueness (there is one God), creator ex nihilo (creator of heaven and earth), not one god among many;
• Omni-attributes: omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection / omnibenevolence;
• Transcendence (God is metaphysically prior to and not part of the created order) and immutability / impassibility (in many classical formulations God is not subject to the same passions and limitations as creatures, though theologians differ on how this is applied);
• God is the sole ultimate ground of moral authority; other spiritual beings (angels, demons) are derivative and created.

Those features are affirmed explicitly or implicitly in core Christian confessional and theological sources (ex.: Nicene tradition and later classical theism summaries). That theological profile is not simply "more powerful"; it is a different metaphysical category: God is the uncreated ground of being rather than a member of a divine assembly or a cosmic agent within a ritual picture.

Where the two pictures diverge in ways that matter theologically:

Below are the main points of theological divergence that make the Vedic / Puranic Vishnu and the Christian God incompatible if one is trying to line them up as "the same God".

Monotheism versus (functional) polytheism:

• Hindu sources (Vedic → Purāṇic) show multiple divine persons with independent loci of agency (Indra, Agni, Varuṇa, Vishnu, Śiva, etc) and stories where divine power is shared, negotiated, delegated, or contested. Even when a text calls Vishnu "supreme", that supremacy is typically a theological / constructional stance within a larger mythic field, not the same as absolute monotheistic exclusivity where other gods are ontologically nonexistent.
• Classical Christianity claims ontological monotheism: there is one ultimate God who alone is Creator and final ground.

Why it matters: Christian theism’s moral and metaphysical claims (ex.: about creation, providence, judgment) are grounded in the idea of one ultimate source; the Vedic / Puranic world is structured around many centers of divine action and theological polyphony.

Transcendence and metaphysical simplicity:

• Vedic / Puranic Vishnu is repeatedly depicted in narratives (avatars, bargains, strategic acts) that place him in the world's drama. The deity is intimately involved in the cosmic play and interacts with other powerful persons.
• Christian God is understood as metaphysically prior and wholly other, not a being among beings. Christian theology emphasizes God's aseity (self-existence) and the Creator / creature distinction.

Why it matters: If God is the metaphysical ground of being, he cannot be described in the same terms as a fluctuating member of a pantheon with narrative shortcomings or dependence on ritual explanation.

Moral perfection vs. mythic agency:

• Puranic episodes may portray Vishnu executing deception (ex.: the dwarf tricking Bali; tactical subterfuge in other legends) or working within a shared mythic law (dharma). These stories illustrate a deity acting in the world with humanly comprehensible motives.
• Christian doctrine insists on God's moral perfection and justice that is not subject to negotiation. The debates here are complex, classical theists themselves discuss divine hiddenness, providence, apparent deception in Scripture etc, but the overall model is different.

Why it matters: The presence of morally ambiguous stratagems in a deity's narratives is not the same as the biblical account of a transcendent, morally perfect God whose commands are the standard for justice.

Creation accounts: multiplicity of modes vs. creatio ex nihilo:

• Vedic / Brāhmaṇa cosmology often frames creation as sacrifice, emanation, or ordering (Purusha myths, creative sacrifice), sometimes involving several gods and ritual actions. There is no single, uniform metaphysical doctrine of creation from nothing across all Vedic texts.
• Christian tradition (in the classical framework) affirms God as sole Creator ex nihilo.

Why it matters: If creation is a ritual ordering among divine beings (in contrast to ex nihilo by one absolute Creator), then the metaphysical order and the place of human beings are understood differently. Also, it is completely out of contrast with the Christian God.

Short examples:

• Vedic "three strides" (Trivikrama): shows Vishnu's cosmic pervasion and is an old Vedic image carried into later ritual texts and Purāṇas. See: Rigvedic hymns and Brāhmaṇa exegesis; Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa contains ritual references and cosmological readings.
• Purāṇic Vāmana / Trivikrama: Vāmana (the dwarf) requests three paces and then measures the world: a narrative of incarnation, stratagem, and cosmic measurement attested in Purāṇic literature (Bhāgavata Purāṇa and Vishnu Purāṇa retellings).
• Classical theism summary: entries on classical theism and theological summaries (Nicene traditions and modern expositions) for attributes like unity, aseity, creatio ex nihilo, omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence.

Quick bibliography:

• Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, for Brāhmaṇa ritual texts and references to Vedic mythology.
• Rigvedic hymn discussions and introductions to the Trivikrama motif.
• Bhagavata Purāṇa / Viṣṇu Purāṇa (Vāmana stories) for Puranic avatar narratives.

KALI, VISHNU AND KRISHNA FLAWS:

KALI AND VISHNU:

I believe Kali and Vishnu is Satan of the Hindus, Kali in special since she is the "god" of Death, time and space. However, in such case i see more like Kali as a "feminine aspect" and Vishnu as a "masculine aspect".

In Hindu traditions, Kali occupies a prominent role as the goddess associated with:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durga

"Devotional songs and poems that extol the motherly nature of Kali are popular in Bengal, where she is most widely worshipped as the Divine Mother. Shakta and Tantric traditions additionally worship Kali as the ultimate reality or Brahman. In modern times, Kali has emerged as a symbol of significance for women".

This illustrates a paradoxical theological posture: destructive elements are framed as a means toward enlightenment and union with Brahman. By contrast, in Christianity, destruction and death are not vehicles of union with God but consequences of sin (Romans 6:23).

The Devi Mahatmyam provides another example of this paradox:

"The deity of the first chapter of Devi Mahatmyam is Mahakali, who appears from the body of sleeping Vishnu as goddess Yoga Nidra to wake him up in order to protect Brahma and the world from two asuras (demons), Madhu-Kaitabha. When Vishnu woke up he started a war against the two asuras. After a long battle with Vishnu, the two demons were undefeated and Mahakali took the form of Mahamaya to enchant the two asuras. When Madhu and Kaitabha were enchanted by Mahakali, Vishnu killed them".

The theological weakness here is evident: the gods themselves are depicted as vulnerable, requiring awakening and assistance, and subject to distraction and deception. Unlike the God of the Bible, who is neither weary nor slumbers (Psalm 121:4), Hindu deities appear bound to cycles of fatigue, need, and limitation.

Furthermore, Kali is often identified as the consort of Shiva, a god associated with destruction. This association reinforces her role as a destructive and chaotic force elevated to divine status. From a Christian perspective, this aligns more closely with the biblical adversary: “the one who comes to steal, kill, and destroy” (John 10:10), than with the God who is holy, unchanging, and purely good (James 1:17).

"In Hindu mythology, the separation of heaven and earth is often attributed to the god Vishnu, particularly in the context of creation stories. One of the well-known accounts involves Vishnu taking the form of a boar (Varaha) to rescue the Earth (personified as the goddess Bhudevi) from the demon Hiranyaksha, who had submerged it in the cosmic ocean.

Additionally, in some creation myths, the cosmic being Purusha is described as being sacrificed to create the universe, with different parts of his body representing various elements of creation, including heaven and earth".

Hindu cosmology attributes the separation of heaven and earth to Vishnu.

The parallels with Indo-European and Germanic paganism are evident, where cosmic beings are dismembered to form the world (ex.: Ymir in Norse myth). These myths reveal a worldview in which creation arises from violence and death. This sharply contrasts with Genesis 1, where God speaks creation into being through order, not slaughter. It also points to my view that Satan was the one that separated heaven from earth, which in this case i associate such beings of any pagan religion with Satan.

Although Vishnu is regarded in Vaishnavism as “the supreme being within Vaishnavism, one of the major traditions within contemporary Hinduism”, his role is still bound to anthropomorphic limitations, mythic cycles, and multiplicity of forms (avatars).

This raises theological inconsistencies: if Vishnu is supreme, why is he subject to fatigue, incarnation, or even deception? By contrast, the God of the Bible is consistent and transcendent: “I AM WHO I AM” (Exodus 3:14). He does not change form, nor is He defeated or distracted.

KRISHNA:

Vishnu’s avatar, Krishna embodies many contradictions. In the Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita, Krishna is portrayed as divine, yet engages in morally ambiguous actions such as deception in battle (ex.: advising Arjuna's violation of dharma codes to defeat adversaries).

This reflects a fundamental difference from Christian theology: God's actions are never sinful nor deceptive, for He is light and in Him is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5). If avatars of Vishnu resort to deception, it implies moral imperfection in the divine itself, something alien to Christian theism.

In Vaishnavism, Krishna is presented as one of the most significant avatars of Vishnu, sometimes even elevated as the supreme being himself. Yet, in contrast to the God of the Bible, who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and wholly without flaw; Krishna is depicted in mythological narratives as a limited figure with human weaknesses.

Krishna is famously described as having thousands of wives:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junior_wives_of_Krishna

The multiplicity of Krishna's marriages directly contradicts the Christian understanding of God. The biblical God has no consort because He is transcendental and the source of all creation and cannot be paired with an equal. Marriage, especially in the mythological sense, reduces a "god" to a status of incompleteness, requiring companionship to be whole.

Furthermore, this polygamous behavior directly conflicts with Krishna's own attributed teachings:

"Additionally, the inscription includes a Krishna-related verse from chapter 11.7 of the Mahabharata stating that the path to immortality and heaven is to correctly live a life of three virtues: self-temperance (damah), generosity (cagah or tyaga), and vigilance (apramadah)".

The hypocrisy is striking: an entity with thousands of wives hardly exemplifies self-temperance (damah). This suggests that Krishna's moral example is not one of divine holiness but rather of indulgence.

By contrast, salvation in Christianity is not earned by virtues such as generosity or vigilance but is entirely dependent on the grace of God through faith in Christ.

Ephesians 2:8–9:

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast".

This highlights the theological contradiction: Krishna's path to salvation relies on self-effort and moral works, which inherently leads to pride ("I am worthy because of my virtue"), whereas Christian salvation abolishes boasting by rooting it in grace.

The Bhagavad Gita portrays Krishna as a divine guide who reveals the impermanence of matter, the permanence of the soul, and the path to bliss through yoga:

"Krishna then advises him about the nature of life, ethics, and morality when one is faced with a war between good and evil, the impermanence of matter, the permanence of the soul and the good, duties and responsibilities, the nature of true peace and bliss and the different types of yoga to reach this state of bliss and inner liberation. This conversation between Krishna and Arjuna is presented as a discourse called the Bhagavad Gita".

Several theological inconsistencies are apparent here:

• The Bible presents matter as created good and enduring until God Himself makes a new heavens and earth (Genesis 1:31; Revelation 21:1). Matter is not inherently illusory or impermanent in the Hindu sense.
• The soul is not inherently indestructible in Christian teaching. Jesus explicitly says God can "destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28).
• Yoga as a path to salvation is contradicted by the biblical message: union with God comes by faith and grace, not by technique or discipline. It is also contradicted by all other religions that had mystical experience with other types of techniques that aren't Yoga.

Thus, Krishna's discourse, while grand in scope, fails as divine revelation because it promotes a system fundamentally opposed to God's truth.

"Mistaking the sleeping Krishna for a deer, a hunter named Jara shoots an arrow towards Krishna's foot that fatally injures him".

This narrative exposes several theological weaknesses:

• Krishna dies not as a willing savior but as a victim of chance.
• He does not die for humanity's sins but perishes in a meaningless accident.
• His inability to foresee or avoid this event contradicts the claim of omniscience.

In contrast, Jesus Christ not only foresaw His death but embraced it willingly: “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord” (John 10:18). His death is purposeful, salvific, and foretold.

The Christian God demonstrates sovereignty even over death, whereas Krishna demonstrates limitation and vulnerability.

Also, there is lot of inconsistent stories of Krishna, and Jesus have only one consistent one that we all agree to be real, that have real physical evidences and extra-biblical evidences.

If Krishna is Avatar of Vishnu:

"The Vishnu Sukta 1.154 of Rigveda says that the first and second of Vishnu's strides (those encompassing the earth and air) are visible to the mortals and the third is the realm of the immortals".

"The Shatapatha Brahmana elaborates this theme of Vishnu, as his herculean effort and sacrifice to create and gain powers that help others".

These passages demonstrate Vishnu's incompleteness, he must "gain powers" through effort. In Christian theology, God is already almighty, lacking nothing. He does not gain but is eternally sufficient.

The limitation of divine access ("only the third stride is for the immortals") also contradicts the biblical witness: God opens heaven to both mortal and immortal at His will (2 Corinthians 12:1–4).

RELIGIOUS VIEWS:

"This, states Rukmini (1993), is proclamation of "return of the individual Self to the Absolute and its merging into the Absolute"".

Christianity, however, rejects this notion. The Biblical hope is not dissolution into an impersonal reality, but resurrection of the body and eternal life as unique persons in a renewed creation (Revelation 21:1–4). Even those who never studied "the self" will be resurrected, for salvation depends not on esoteric knowledge but on faith in God (John 11:25–26).

Pagan systems tend to glorify death or dissolution as a goal, but Scripture affirms that death is the enemy (1 Corinthians 15:26), and God's plan is to abolish it. Consequently, in my belief, those religions are all a trickery from Satan.

"By breathing and causing the end of the world, which has happened before. Afterwards, he will "exhale again and re-create the world"".

This leads to death, sadness, sorrow and etc. By contrast, the Christian doctrine affirms a linear history with a definite end: God will abolish death permanently and establish an eternal new creation (Isaiah 25:8; Revelation 21:4). A cyclical universe implies futility, erasing individuality and history. Christianity emphasizes that God treasures personal identity, continuity, and memory. He is a Father who loves you as you are, not an impersonal force erasing and recycling existence.

Christianity teaches that each believer's individuality will be preserved eternally. Though reincarnation is sometimes imagined as continuity, it actually dissolves personal identity (a new body, culture, memory). True preservation requires resurrection of the same person. God loves sinners as His children (Romans 8:15–17), not as interchangeable units of cosmic energy.

In Hinduism, there exists a belief that some individuals are considered "closer to gods" than others, leading to a social hierarchy governed by specific rules regarding interactions, traditions historically associate spiritual standing with caste or noble birth. This system, rooted in ancient texts like the Rigveda and Mahabharata, reflects a social structure that has evolved over time. The term "Aryan", derived from "Arya", historically referred to noble or honorable people.

In contrast, Christianity presents a different perspective on human worth and divine love. In Christian belief, God does not prioritize whether individuals are "honorable" or "noble". Instead, He loves all people unconditionally, his love is impartial (Acts 10:34–35), recognizing that everyone is a sinner and, therefore, none can achieve true nobility on their own. No one can claim superiority, since the essence of Christian faith lies in the belief that salvation is granted not based on human merit but through God's love and grace. It is through faith in Jesus Christ that believers are saved (Ephesians 2:8–9).

"And this righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no distinction" - Romans 3:22–23.

God's love transcends human shortcomings and societal hierarchies.

This comparison illustrates the differing views on human value and divine acceptance in Hinduism and Christianity, emphasizing the inclusive nature of God's love in Christianity, which stands in contrast to the more hierarchical perspectives found in traditional Hindu beliefs and paganism in general.

Practices such as the Lotus Position, Yantra, Mantra, and Tantra often suggest a reliance on ritualistic elements in spiritual practice. However, it is essential to recognize that God is conscious and does not require repetitive recitation of mantras and neither such instruments to hear one's prayers. As stated in Matthew 6:7-8: "And when you pray, do not babble on like pagans, for they think that by their many words they will be heard. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him". This passage emphasizes that faith in God should be paramount, and reliance on external rituals may imply a lack of trust in His sufficiency.

Jesus exemplified the futility of relying on rites and idols, performing miracles without the need for rituals, mantras, or other practices. When questioned about His actions, He consistently pointed to the importance of having faith in God as the sole requirement for divine intervention.

This perspective challenges the hierarchical structures often perpetuated by religious systems, where status and societal roles dictate one's spiritual standing. In Christianity, all individuals, regardless of their past actions or social status, can be accepted by God through repentance and being born-again (John 3:3; Romans 10:9–13). This inclusivity undermines the authority of those who claim enlightenment or the need to participate through traditional practices, as it suggests that such claims may be misguided. Authority does not lie in self-proclaimed enlightened teachers but in God's Word.

Many self-proclaimed gurus, who assert their enlightenment or understanding of concepts like Nirvana, may lack genuine insight and create a system where only the elite are considered close to the divine. Their philosophies often rely on ambiguous language and concepts such as Śūnyatā (emptiness), which can obscure the objective nature of reality, lot of their ideas present the world as fundamentally unreal or deceptive, these abstractions often confuse rather than clarify, leading to evasive philosophies. When confronted with profound questions about the nature of creation, these individuals may struggle to provide satisfactory answers, as true knowledge and wisdom are grounded in empirical understanding rather than subjective philosophies.

The assertion that the world is merely an illusion, governed by Maya, detracts from the tangible and objective reality we experience. Engaging with extremes instead of an idea of balance can lead to a clearer understanding of truth. Mistakes and suffering are inherent aspects of the human experience, contributing to personal growth and resilience.

Through diligent study and exploration, one can uncover the logical and objective principles underlying God's creation. This understanding is not achieved through subjective philosophies or notions of balance but through a commitment to factual evidence and rational inquiry.

In this regard, a Christian's pursuit of truth is not fundamentally different from that of an atheist: both seek empirical evidence to understand the workings of the world. The assertion that "the phenomenal world is an illusion" lacks substantiation and fails to engage with the objective reality that can be observed and studied.

I learned about a Hindu caste system which have enforced vegetarianism in their custom and faith. That is crazy, i saw it online and i don't know if it is true. I'm going to research later.

In the comment section there is two people, these are their comments:

"I am Hindu and eat meat, and yes, I have been judged by friends and family, who are 'holier' than me".

"I’ve lived among high-caste Brahmin Hindus before, and yes the rules are that strict. Some of them are even prohibited from eating with someone from a different caste, let alone a person eating a meal including eggs or meat. I still remember a large party we threw. I had to carefully caution folks that the party would be mixed-caste. The food was split out into veg and non-veg tables. A number of Brahmins not only showed up to the party but quietly snuck into our kitchen to eat some of the meat dishes".

CULTURAL FRUITS OF HINDUISM:

Culture is not an isolated construct; it is rooted fundamentally in religion. Customs and traditions transmitted from parents to children are not arbitrary, but grounded in a society’s prevailing religious worldview. Consequently, the cultural forms that emerge in a given society are inseparable from the doctrines and practices of its religion. Where the religious foundation is unsound, the culture inevitably reflects and perpetuates those distortions. In the case of Hinduism, many of the practices regarded as “cultural” are in fact direct products of its religious framework, and these practices contribute significantly to the social and sanitary problems observed in the regions where Hinduism is dominant.

Examples of Religious-Derived Customs:

• Animal veneration: Certain animals, particularly cows, are elevated to sacred status. This leads not only to ritualistic involvement with cow excrement (including dung and urine) but also to its use in religious ceremonies or even consumption. The same for rats, rats are venerated, and in temples people sometimes drink milk in the same bowl of the rats.
• Sacralization of polluted waters: The Ganges River, despite being one of the most contaminated rivers in the world, is revered as holy. Ritual bathing, drinking, and other forms of contact with its waters are practiced under the belief that sacredness overrides physical impurity. In some interpretations, adherents are told that to think the water clean is to render it clean, regardless of its actual biological or chemical contamination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganges#Religious_and_cultural_significance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganga_(goddess)

These practices are not harmless symbolic acts; they have direct material consequences in terms of public health, hygiene, and environmental degradation. They are not neutral "cultural features", but theological errors manifested as cultural norms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VOIWt71310

// Indian Fatigue

Incommensurability of Religious Systems:

It is therefore misleading, and ultimately destructive, to place Christianity and Hinduism (or any other pagan system) on equal footing as if they were parallel paths to the same divine reality. The notion that "all religions are the same" or "all paths lead to God" ignores the radical differences in truth claims, doctrines, and consequences. To use an analogy: one cannot beautify filth by painting it with pleasing colors; likewise, one cannot take practices grounded in error and idol worship and present them as aesthetically acceptable alternatives to truth. A false system cannot be made true by appealing to cultural relativism or claims of superficial similarity.

CONTINUE:

https://telegra.ph/Why-do-i-dislike-Hinduism-2-09-24