How do we respond to a Christian who argues “Our God died for our sake–such was his love for us. How did your God show his love for you?”

If some Christians compare Jesus with Krishna and say that our God died for us, has your God died? So how do we reply? Answer, generally the interaction between two faith traditions can fall in three modalities. The technical words used are apologetic, irenic, and polemic. So apologetic is where we try to establish how we are right.

It has nothing to do with apology. Apologetics is a way of rationally establishing one’s own ideas. Apologetic is how we explaining how we are right. Irenic is showing how both of us are having similar interests, similar values, at least we are pursuing something similar, looking at commonalities. And polemic is we’re proving how the other person is wrong.

Now, for example, when interfaith gatherings happen, the primary mood is ironic. When debates happen, the mood will be polemic. When we are giving our talks, explaining our tradition, we are being apologetic. We’re not being apologetic. We are practicing apologetics, the idea.

Yeah. So there’s the apologetic mode of interaction or engagement. Now depending on where a person is coming from, we will need to respond accordingly. Generally, if a person is coming from polemic mode, where they are trying to prove that their God is better than our God, then it depends on our particular nature, how we will engage. Some people, when they’re confronted, they will want to also get into the confrontation.

Some people may feel that I just don’t want to get into it. But from a logical perspective, this idea of God dying, there are many theological problems with it itself. For example, It it does show if you can say principle that god cares so much That God sent his son or God gave himself and God die God, agreed to die. Mhmm. But the problem is that if that is the love of God, then what about all the people who lived before Him?

Did God not love any of them? Did God’s love start at a particular time itself? If that is such a great sign of love, then why doesn’t that happen repeatedly? There are so many people, doing so many wrong things. God could come and sacrifice himself repeatedly.

There are so many people who if we consider that same point that if God is ready to sacrifice his own life or the life of his own son, whoever that has conceived the relationship between the son and the father, then can God not give people more chances? Why have eternal damnation at all? What kind of parent would condemn a child forever for not listening to them during one lifetime. So, basically, there are three ways here what I’m talking about is that question the concept itself, question the context of the concept, question the consequence of the concept. So in general, if the question is, is there a comparison?

This is our god does not need to die to show His love. Our God shows if you really want to have an understanding, our God and your God is ultimately one same God, understood in different ways, conceived in different ways, approached in different ways, But it’s one ultimate reality. And God our understanding is that God stays in our heart always to guide us. God descends repeatedly. God doesn’t just come one time and insist that all of history should turn backward to that particular one time alone to be to gain salvation or deliverance or freedom.

God descends repeatedly And across history and geography. God keeps giving repeated chances where each lifetime the soul gets an opportunity to turn towards God over multiple lifetimes. In our tradition, God does not send people to hell. God goes with people to hell. God is present as a super soul even in the hearts of those who are in hell.

And the universe is like a university. Hell is like a tough classroom, but it’s temporary. Nothing our our God’s love is so great that God’s love is the only enduring reality. Everything else, including hell, including the souls turning away from God, Everything else is temporary. So this could be the polemic way of approaching.

And sometimes that’s what is the best. Sometimes you may have to if the person is actually simply inquiring and is not really polemic, then you could have the ironic way of approaching where yes. God’s dying is a principle of sacrificing for the sake of others. And in our tradition, also, god shows the example of sacrifice that Ram comes as a prince, but he lives in a forest, right, to show how we should face adversity in life, how to respond to adversity with grace, with dignity. Lord Chetanetics, the renounce order, although he had a comfortable and happy family life because he wants to share spiritual wisdom and divine love.

So that particular expressions of sacrifice may vary according to tradition, but the principle of sacrifice is universal. That’s the ironic way of dealing with it. The The principle of sacrifice is so much that in our tradition also that God accompanies his soul in the world, wherever that soul goes. So I would say that’s why there are different ways in which we can respond. This is the apologetic way would not really work in this particular situation because they are not really interested in what our tradition teaches.

They are interested in how whatever it is that our tradition teaches compares with their tradition. So if you’re going to focus more on the the question was what is your conception of God? What is your conception of God’s love for us? Then the apologetics might be more helpful at that particular point.