Dear Yuyutsu,

Thanks for the explanation of your beliefs. I only know that

“Hindus can choose to be polytheistic, pantheistic, panentheistic, pandeistic, henotheistic, monotheistic, monistic, agnostic, atheistic or humanist. Because of the wide range of traditions and ideas covered by the term Hinduism, arriving at a comprehensive definition is difficult. “ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#Definitions).

Most Christians - notably Catholics and Evangelicals - believe it to be a historical fact that Jesus (the human constituent of Him) died on the cross (no Samadhi speculations), and that after His death He was seen (and experienced through other senses) by a number of individuals until Ascension.

There are negative or qualified views of this belief; you seemed to present a Hindu interpretation that makes sense to you, as there are Christian interpretations of Hindu beliefs that make sense to a Christian. [For instance, what for you is only a “terminology subtlety” is an essential difference for a Catholic.]

One can study what different religions, their beliefs - more precisely, their possible interpretations - have in common. That might be intellectually rewarding but an amalgam of them could only be an artificial ersatz-religion without historical roots.

Dear Spencer,

>>I do not support faith as a 'leap of faith', i.e. belief without convincing evidence. A leap of faith does not have evidence as its foundation.<<

Neither do I but I have to accepts that my beliefs, underlying my faith, are “without convincing evidence” for an atheist. The same as I would expect an atheist to accept that the beliefs (axioms of my world-view) underlying my faith are sufficiently convincing for me (though for reasons he/she might not understand). It is only on the psychological (or spiritual if you like) level - rather than argumentative - that one might succeed in convincing a non-believer, or an other-believer, to convert.

By the way, one ought to be careful with the term “evidence” since e.g.the German or Slavonic languages cannot distinguish between proof and evidence (I have no idea how it is in e.g. Oriental languages).