“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” – Exodus 20:3

“Hinduism, the 3rd largest religion in the world, involves the worship of many gods and goddesses which are demons masquerading as such. The philosophy of the New Age movement is largely based on Hindu spirituality. The Hindu gods cannot save one’s soul from hellfire. The only Person who can save one’s soul is the Lord and God Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12). Jesus said He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and no man can come to the Father except through Him (John 14:6).”

Hinduism: Its Influence, Worldview, and Contrast with Christianity

Not everyone realizes how profoundly Hinduism and other Indian religious traditions have influenced the world beyond India. Yoga, meditation, and the concept of karma have become familiar throughout Western society. Millions of Americans practice yoga, although modern postural yoga often differs considerably from older religious forms. Yoga has deep roots in ancient Indian religious and philosophical traditions, including Hinduism, while related contemplative practices also developed in Buddhism and Jainism. The word karma, now casually used to describe the idea that what goes around comes around, originates in Indian religious thought. Its traditional meanings, however, are considerably more complex—and far more spiritually dangerous—than its popular use suggests.

What Is Hinduism?

Hinduism is not a single, uniform religious system. It encompasses diverse philosophical schools, devotional traditions, scriptures, and religious practices. Nevertheless, several recurring concepts are essential to understanding many Hindu traditions: Brahman, ātman, karma, saṃsāra, and moksha.

In some Hindu philosophical schools, particularly Advaita Vedānta, Brahman is understood as the ultimate reality underlying the apparent multiplicity of the universe. In its highest, nirguṇa conception, Brahman is not a personal God in the ordinary sense of a distinct divine individual possessing attributes. Advaita teaches that liberation involves realizing the fundamental identity of the true self (ātman) with Brahman. Other Hindu schools reject this understanding of the relationship between God and the soul. Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta, for example, understands ultimate reality in personal terms, identifying Brahman with Vishnu or Narayana, while Dvaita Vedānta maintains an enduring distinction between God and individual souls.

Yet even these “personal” traditions fall short of the biblical revelation of the one true and living God. Hinduism also includes traditions devoted to personal deities. The familiar Trimūrti associates Brahmā with creation, Vishnu with preservation, and Shiva with destruction or dissolution. However, these deities do not occupy the same position in every Hindu tradition. Vaishnavas commonly regard Vishnu and his avatars, including Krishna and Rama, as supreme, while Shaiva and Shakta traditions give supreme status to Shiva and Devi, respectively. Many Hindus also worship household, village, regional, and other deities—revealing a fragmented and contradictory religious landscape far removed from exclusive allegiance to the Creator revealed in Scripture.

Beliefs and practices concerning astrology, divination, curses, and ritual protection are also found in Hindu religious and cultural contexts. These are not universal beliefs among Hindus, but they are part of the wider religious landscape and stand in direct opposition to the Bible’s clear prohibition of such occult practices.

The World, the Self, and Liberation

One of the most important differences among Hindu schools concerns the reality of the material world. In Advaita Vedānta, māyā helps explain the appearance of multiplicity and the mistaken perception that individual things possess independent, ultimate reality. Brahman alone is ultimately real in the fullest sense. The world is not simply nonexistent: it is experienced in ordinary life, but it does not possess the same ultimate status as Brahman.

Other Hindu schools affirm the genuine reality of the world and distinguish it from God. It would therefore be inaccurate to claim that every Hindu believes the universe is merely an illusion. Nevertheless, Advaita’s account of the world as ultimately dependent on Brahman presents a fundamentally different—and deficient—understanding of reality from the biblical Creator-creature distinction.

In classical Christian teaching, God created the universe and sustains it, yet creation is not identical with God. The world is neither an independent ultimate reality nor simply God appearing as a multiplicity of forms. God and His creation are distinct, even though creation depends entirely upon Him. Christianity therefore rejects the identification of the Creator with creation as understood in pantheistic systems. Hindu views, by blurring or erasing this essential distinction, leave no room for a personal, holy God who stands over against His creation in sovereign authority and righteous judgment.

Hindu cosmologies commonly describe the universe in terms of recurring cycles of creation, preservation, and dissolution. These cycles differ sharply from the broad narrative structure of the Bible, which presents creation, humanity’s fall into sin, God’s redemptive work in history, Christ’s return, and the final renewal of creation. Hindu traditions differ in their cosmological details, but cyclical time and repeated rebirth are important features of many of them—offering no true beginning, no decisive divine intervention in history, and no final resolution outside endless, weary repetition.

Hinduism’s concept of moksha is likewise different from—and inferior to—the Christian understanding of salvation. Moksha generally refers to liberation from saṃsāra, the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. Some schools understand liberation as realizing the identity of the true self with Brahman; others understand it as the soul’s eternal relationship with a personal God. Yoga, meditation, philosophical knowledge, devotion, and disciplined action may serve as paths toward liberation, depending on the tradition.

One of the most popular paths among ordinary people in India is the way of devotion known as bhakti-yoga. This involves a lifetime commitment of surrender to one of the many gods and goddesses of Hinduism, expressed through acts of worship, temple rituals, and pilgrimages. From a Christian standpoint, however, the gods Hindus worship are not the true God at all. Scripture identifies the gods of the nations as demons (Deuteronomy 32:17; 1 Corinthians 10:20). To worship them is to open oneself to spiritual deception and demonic influence rather than to genuine salvation.

In Advaita Vedānta, ordinary identification with the body, mind, and limited ego is an obstacle to realizing the true self. The goal is not merely to improve the individual personality or preserve ordinary self-understanding forever, but to overcome ignorance concerning ultimate reality. Other Hindu schools understand the individual soul differently and do not teach that its individuality is simply an illusion to be dissolved. Yet in every case, the fundamental problem is framed as ignorance, bondage to rebirth, or lack of realization—never as willful rebellion against a holy personal Creator.

From a Christian perspective, this raises a fundamental question: Is humanity’s deepest problem ignorance of the nature of ultimate reality, entanglement in the cycle of rebirth, or alienation from the personal Creator through sin? Christianity answers decisively that sin is central to humanity’s predicament. Human beings do not merely need enlightenment about their identity; they need forgiveness, reconciliation with God, and deliverance from sin and death. Hinduism’s answers leave the real crisis unaddressed.

Karma, Caste, and Social Responsibility

The concepts of karma and rebirth have played a significant role in some traditional explanations of social status in India. Certain Hindu texts and interpretations connect one’s birth and circumstances with actions performed in previous lives. Such ideas have sometimes been used to explain or legitimize inherited social hierarchy. Classical Brahmanical texts, including the Manusmṛti, also prescribe distinctions in status, duties, privileges, and punishments according to social category.

These are legitimate subjects of moral criticism. When a person’s inherited social position is interpreted as the consequence of past-life conduct, an existing hierarchy can be presented as the deserved outcome of a moral order extending beyond the present life. Such an interpretation can encourage people to accept their circumstances rather than challenge the social structures that perpetuate inequality. If suffering is explained as the consequence of one’s own previous deeds, there is a real danger that the sufferer’s circumstances will be rationalized rather than remedied—and that justice will be postponed to some future rebirth rather than pursued in the present.

This does not mean that every Hindu accepts caste discrimination or that karma is the sole cause of India’s caste system. Caste has also been shaped by political power, occupation, kinship, economics, and regional history. Hindu individuals and movements have challenged caste oppression, and Hindu traditions contain teachings about charity, compassion, and service. Nevertheless, the existence of such teachings does not erase the hierarchical prescriptions found in important classical Brahmanical sources or the ways religious ideas have sometimes been invoked to defend inherited inequality. The system remains a standing indictment of any worldview that can so easily accommodate or sacralize social stratification.

Christianity offers a different and far superior moral emphasis. Jesus commands His followers to care for the hungry, welcome the stranger, visit the sick, and serve those in need (Matthew 25:31–40). The Christian duty to love one’s neighbor cannot be reduced to a calculation of the neighbor’s social rank or supposed karmic deservingness. Although Christians have often failed to live up to these teachings, the biblical command remains a clear and uncompromising standard by which their conduct is judged—and by which hierarchical justifications are exposed as false.

The central question is not whether individual Hindus have helped the poor—some have—but whether particular religious teachings provide a sound basis for challenging inherited social inequality. Where religious interpretations encourage people to regard social rank as the consequence of previous lives, they deserve serious scrutiny and rejection.

Reference

A Breakdown Comparison Between Hinduism and Christianity

God

From a Hindu perspective, at the philosophical core, all divine manifestations are expressions of a single, infinite reality known as Brahman. The literal scriptural tradition refers to 33 primary classes of deities (the 12 Adityas, 11 Rudras, 8 Vasus, and 2 Ashvins). Because Hindus view the divine as immanent in all creation and capable of taking endless forms (avatars and regional or personal murtis), the number of recognized manifestations is limitless (often poetically referred to in popular culture as “33 million,” stemming from a mistranslation of the Sanskrit word for “categories”).

While millions of village deities, regional forms, avatars, and celestial beings (devas) are worshipped across India, classical Hindu philosophy views them through a non-dual lens:

• Polytheism on the surface: Individuals often devotionally focus on specific forms—such as Gaṇeśa, Viṣṇu, Śiva, or Kālī—depending on their personal path.

• Monism underneath: Virtually all mainstream traditions view these diverse deities not as independent, competing gods, but as different facets, functions, or personifications of one ultimate, formless reality (Brahman).

From a Biblical perspective, there is one sole God possessing the divine omni-properties, who eternally subsists and co-exists simultaneously as three distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The Spirits

Holy Scriptures

Hinduism does not have a single universally recognized closed canon equivalent to the Christian Bible. Its sacred literature is traditionally divided into two broad categories: śruti (“that which is heard”), regarded as eternal and of the highest authority, and smṛti (“that which is remembered”), which is secondary and derived. The Vedas (including the principal Upanishads) constitute the core of śruti and hold supreme authority in many Brahmanical traditions. Major smṛti texts include the epics (Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa), the Purāṇas (especially the Bhāgavata Purāṇa), the Dharmaśāstras (such as the Manusmṛti), and the Āgamas and Tantras, which are central in many Śaiva, Vaiṣṇava, and Śākta traditions. The Bhagavad Gītā, though part of the Mahābhārata and therefore smṛti, is one of the most widely revered and influential Hindu scriptures. The authority and practical prominence accorded to particular texts vary significantly among Hindu traditions.

Christianity, by contrast, recognizes the Holy Bible as its sacred Scripture and an authoritative foundation for Christian faith and teaching, although Christians differ over how biblical authority relates to Church tradition and teaching.

Sin

In Hinduism, concepts of sin and wrongdoing vary among traditions and are often understood in relation to dharma, karma, religious duties, and liberation. Moral failing is commonly expressed through terms such as pāpa (sin or demerit), adharma (violation of cosmic and social order), and, in theistic traditions, aparādha (offense against God or the deity). Hindu scriptures speak of sins, personal accountability toward the divine, atonement (prāyaścitta), and divine forgiveness, so it would be inaccurate to claim that Hinduism has no concept of wrongdoing against a deity. Nevertheless, Hinduism does not have one universally accepted doctrine of sin identical to the Christian understanding of humanity’s inherited rebellion against the personal Creator.

In Christianity, all fallen humanity has sinned against God, with Jesus Christ as the sinless exception. Scripture declares, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Because sin separates humanity from God and brings the judgment of death, humanity needs a Savior. Christianity proclaims that Jesus Christ came to save sinners through His death and resurrection (Romans 5:8–10; 1 Corinthians 15:3–4).

Jesus Christ

In Hinduism, Jesus is not the Messiah, God’s unique Son. He did not die for the sins of many on the cross. He also did not rise from the dead. He was just a man who realized his divine nature.

In Christianity, Jesus is God’s perfect Son, holy, resurrected, divine (2nd Person of the Trinity, yet fully human.

Salvation

In Hinduism, moksha (liberation) is a central spiritual goal in many traditions. It generally refers to release from saṃsāra, the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth, although Hindu schools differ in their understanding of the liberated state. Some emphasize realizing the identity of the true self (ātman) with ultimate reality (Brahman), while others understand liberation as the soul’s eternal relationship with God. Certain traditions also stress devotion (bhakti) and divine grace as important means to liberation. Thus, Hindu traditions differ over the nature of humanity’s spiritual predicament and the ultimate goal of liberation.

In Christianity, salvation is by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not earned through human works. Scripture declares, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8–9). Humanity’s fundamental problem is sin and its consequences, and salvation comes through Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection (Romans 5:8–10; 1 Corinthians 15:3–4). Good works are the fruit of genuine faith, not the meritorious basis of salvation (Ephesians 2:10).

Afterlife or After death

In Hinduism, the dominant framework across most traditions is saṃsāra—the ongoing cycle of birth, death, and rebirth governed by karma. After death, the soul (jīva or ātman) typically takes on a new body according to the moral quality of its previous actions. Temporary heavenly realms (svarga) or hellish states (naraka) may be experienced as rewards or punishments, but these are not permanent destinations; once the accumulated merit or demerit is exhausted, rebirth continues.

Liberation from this cycle is called mokṣa (or mukti). Hindu schools differ significantly on what mokṣa actually entails:

• In non-dual (Advaita) Vedānta, the individual self realizes its essential identity with the infinite, formless reality known as Brahman. The sense of separate individuality dissolves, often described as absorption or merger into Brahman.
• In dualistic (Dvaita) and many theistic bhakti traditions, the liberated soul retains its distinct identity and enters an eternal, loving relationship with a personal God (for example, dwelling in Vaikuṇṭha with Viṣṇu/Kṛṣṇa, or analogous states with Śiva or the Goddess). There is no absorption into an impersonal absolute.
• In qualified non-dual (Viśiṣṭādvaita) thought, the soul is united with God in inseparable dependence and service while remaining distinct.

Thus, while repeated reincarnation until liberation is a shared premise in classical Hindu thought, the final state is not uniformly “reabsorption into Brahman.” That description fits one major philosophical school but does not represent the full range of Hindu views.

In Christianity, there is no cycle of reincarnation. At death, all people will enter heaven or hell based on whether they have salvation in Jesus Christ. The Bible does not support the idea of reincarnation. It is appointed that a man will die once, and after that is the judgment, reads the Bible (Hebrews 9:27; Luke 1:19-31).

(Some of the information in this post is based on What’s the Big Deal About Other Religions? by John Ankerberg & Dillon Burroughs)

Addendum

The Disturbing Content Found in Hindu Texts

Hinduism has no single authoritative scripture equivalent to the Bible or Quran. Its literature is ranked. The Vedas (Śruti) hold the highest formal status. Dharmaśāstra texts such as the Manusmṛti belong to Smṛti (“remembered” tradition). They are traditionally subordinate to the Vedas and were meant to be read alongside custom, regional practice, and other authorities. The Manusmṛti became one of the most influential Dharmaśāstra works, but it was never a universally applied “Hindu code.” British colonial administrators later gave it, and similar Sanskrit legal texts heightened importance within the system of Anglo-Hindu law they constructed.

The passages below are real. They show what major texts prescribed or legitimized. Historical practice varied by region, period, and community; the texts themselves do not automatically prove uniform enforcement across all of Hindu society.

1. Cow Excrement

3. The Caste System

The caste system is not a later social aberration or colonial invention. It is a scripturally grounded, birth-based hierarchy with explicit discrimination, graded punishments, ritual exclusion, and divine sanction for Brahmin supremacy.

Foundational Charter in Śruti

The system rests on the cosmic ranking of the Purusha Sūkta itself. Ṛigveda 10.90.12 declares:

“The Brāhmaṇa was his mouth, of both his arms was the Rājanya made. His thighs became the Vaiśya, from his feet the Śūdra was produced.”

This was not treated as mere metaphor. Later tradition took it as the charter for ranking human beings by origin and birth.

Birth, Not Merit

Texts repeatedly insist the hierarchy is natal and irreversible in a single lifetime.

• Chāndogya Upaniṣad 5.10.7: Those of good conduct attain birth as Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya or Vaiśya; those of evil conduct attain “an evil birth, the birth of a dog, or a hog, or a Caṇḍāla.”
• Āpastamba 1.1.1.4–5: There are four castes; “amongst these, each preceding (caste) is superior by birth to the one following.”
• Mahābhārata 13.143.6 and 13.27: The status of a Brāhmaṇa is attained only through original creation or birth; it is “incapable of acquisition by a person belonging to any of the three other orders.”
• Manusmṛti 1.98–99 and 10.3: The very birth of a Brāhmaṇa is “an eternal incarnation of the sacred law”; he is “the highest on earth, the lord of all created beings” and “the lord of all castes” by superiority of origin.
• Mixed unions produce degraded castes (Manusmṛti 10.6–23). The most extreme—Śūdra father and Brāhmaṇa mother—yields the Caṇḍāla, “the lowest of men.”

Classical commentators on Bhagavad Gītā 18.41 (Śaṅkara, Ramanuja, Sri Sridhara Swami, and others) routinely link the guṇa-and-karma language back to this birth hierarchy determined by past-life karma.

Brahmin Supremacy and Legal Immunity

Brahmins stand above ordinary law in several decisive respects.

• Manusmṛti 8.379–381: Tonsure is the “death-penalty” for a Brāhmaṇa; for other castes the penalty is actual death. “There is no greater crime on earth than the slaying of a Brāhmaṇa”; the king must not even think of it.
• Baudhāyana Dharmasūtra 2.4.1: “Everybody except a Brahmin is subject to corporal punishment for adultery.”
• Āpastamba Dharmasūtra 2.27.14–17: A Śūdra who hurls abusive words has his tongue cut out; one who pretends equality is flogged; one who kills, steals or appropriates land is executed. A Brāhmaṇa guilty of the same crimes is merely blindfolded.
• Agni Purāṇa 227.51: The king should kill criminals of the Śūdra and other communities but only banish Brāhmaṇa sinners.
• Mahābhārata 13.151 and Parāśara Smṛti 8.25: Even a Brāhmaṇa destitute of knowledge or of bad character remains a high deity and deserves respect; a Śūdra of controlled passions does not.

Servitude, Property and Economic Subordination

• Manusmṛti 8.413–417: A Śūdra, whether bought or unbought, “shall [be made] to do servile work; since it is for doing servile work for the Brāhmaṇa that he has been created.” The Brāhmaṇa “may confidently have recourse to seizing the goods of the Śūdra… for the Śūdra has no property.”
• Manusmṛti 10.129 and Mahābhārata 12.60.28–36: Even if able, a Śūdra shall not amass wealth, lest he harass the higher castes; whatever he possesses lawfully belongs to his master.
• Manusmṛti 10.125 and 5.140: Remnants of food, old clothes and refuse are to be given to him; his food is “the fragments of an Arya’s meal.”

Graded Punishments and Ritual Exclusion

The most severe corporal penalties fall on lower castes for offences of speech, posture or instruction.

• Manusmṛti 8.270–283, 8.272, 8.279: A once-born who insults a twice-born has his tongue cut out; a low-born who strikes a superior has that limb amputated; sitting on the same seat brings branding and banishment or cutting of the buttocks; spitting, urinating or breaking wind against a superior brings cutting of the corresponding organ. If a Śūdra “through arrogance… teaches Brāhmaṇas their duty, the king shall pour heated oil into his mouth and ears.”
• Gautama Dharmasūtra 12.4–6: If a Śūdra intentionally listens to the Veda, his ears shall be filled with molten tin or lac; if he recites, his tongue is cut out; if he remembers, his body is split in twain.
• Parallel rules in Āpastamba, Viṣṇu, Nārada, Matsya and Agni Purāṇas intensify the same pattern: mutilation or death for lower castes, lighter or non-corporal penalties for Brāhmins.

Ritual and social exclusion is equally absolute:

• Śūdras are barred from Vedic study, initiation and major sacrifices by birth (Āpastamba 1.1.1.6; Manusmṛti 1.103, 10.1; Skanda Purāṇa and others). God is said to have composed the Itihāsas and Purāṇas out of compassion precisely because women, Śūdras and degraded twice-borns are barred from the Vedas (Bhāgavata Purāṇa 1.4.25; Devī Bhāgavata 1.3.18–24).
• Food of a Śūdra is repeatedly declared polluting; a Brāhmaṇa who dies with it undigested in his stomach is reborn as a pig, crow or Śūdra (Vasiṣṭha 6.27; Mahābhārata 13.143.18; numerous Smṛtis). Contact with lower castes or outcastes requires purification with pañcagavya (cow urine, dung, milk, curd and ghee).
• Dead Brāhmins must not be carried by Śūdras (Manusmṛti 5.103). Idols installed or touched by Śūdras lead to hell (Skanda Purāṇa 2.4.3.35–37; Varāha Purāṇa 186.49–50).

Social Commentary on the Caste

“The effect of caste on the ethics of the Hindus is simply deplorable. Caste has killed public spirit. Caste has destroyed the sense of public charity. Caste has made public opinion impossible. A Hindu’s public is his caste. His responsibility is only to his caste. His loyalty is restricted only to his caste. Virtue has become caste-ridden, and morality has become caste-bound. There is no sympathy for the deserving. There is no appreciation of the meritorious. There is no charity to the needy. Suffering as such calls for no response. There is charity, but it begins with caste and ends with caste. There is sympathy, but not for men of other castes.” (Annihilation of Caste, 13.1)

Historical and Social Weight

Again, these are not obscure or fringe passages. The Purusha Sūkta is Śruti. The Manusmṛti and allied Dharmaśāstras (Āpastamba, Gautama, Vasiṣṭha, Viṣṇu, Nārada) shaped classical legal and social ideals across much of the Sanskritic tradition. The epics and major Purāṇas repeatedly restate the body-part ranking, the service duty of the Śūdra, the birth determination of status, and the graded penalties. The resulting ideology of graded ritual purity, occupational restriction, endogamy, differential punishment, and untouchability provided the scriptural backbone for the hereditary jāti system and the practices of exclusion and violence that persisted for centuries.

Reformers and modern Hindus may reject or reinterpret these texts. The Constitution of India abolishes untouchability and discrimination. Yet the classical sources themselves—authoritative within traditional frameworks—do not describe a flexible occupational guild system based solely on personal qualities. They describe a birth-determined hierarchy in which the Brāhmaṇa is lord by superior origin, the Śūdra exists to serve, and severe corporal and social penalties enforce the boundary.

4. Discriminatory Punishments

Manusmṛti 8.270–272 prescribes that a Śūdra who insults a twice-born person with harsh speech should have his tongue cut out. If he arrogantly teaches Brahmins their duty, hot oil is to be poured into his mouth and ears.

Manusmṛti 8.379–380 states that tonsure (shaving the head) replaces the death penalty for a Brahmin, and that a Brahmin should not be killed even for grave crimes but banished with his property intact. Other varṇas face capital punishment for the same offenses. Chapter 8 repeatedly scales fines and corporal penalties according to the caste of both offender and victim.

The Manusmṛti was one of the most influential Dharmaśāstra texts. These verses show that an important strand of Brahmanical legal thought explicitly endorsed unequal punishment based on birth. How consistently any given rule was enforced in actual courts varied across time and place.

5. Lying

Lying Is Explicitly Permitted in Hindu Scriptures: The Texts Themselves Say So

Many people assume that Hindu dharma demands absolute, uncompromising truthfulness at all times. The primary sources tell a different story. Across the Mahābhārata, major Purāṇas, and the early Dharma-sūtras, the tradition itself lists clear exceptions where falsehood is declared sinless, venial, or not condemned. Far from being fringe opinions, these allowances appear repeatedly in authoritative texts.

Here is what the sources actually say.

The Core List of Permitted Falsehoods

Several independent texts give nearly identical lists of situations in which lying is allowed:

• On the occasion of marriage
• In matters involving women (including “enjoying a woman,” dalliance, or flattering a woman to bring her under control)
• When life is in danger
• When one’s entire property is about to be taken away
• For the sake of a Brāhmaṇa (and, in several versions, for the protection of cows)
• In jest or for livelihood

These are not modern reinterpretations. They are stated outright in the texts.

Key Passages

Mahābhārata (Ādi Parva 1.82 / Śarmiṣṭhā’s speech)
“It hath been said, O king, that it is not sinful to lie on the occasion of a joke, in respect of women sought to be enjoyed, on occasions of marriage, in peril of immediate death and of the loss of one’s whole fortune. Lying is excusable on these five occasions.”

Mahābhārata (Karṇa Parva / related discussions, often cited as 8.69 in traditional numbering)
“On an occasion of marriage, or of enjoying a woman, or when life is in danger, or when one’s entire property is about to be taken away, or for the sake of a Brahmana, falsehood may be uttered. These five kinds of falsehood have been declared to be sinless.”

Matsya Purāṇa 31.16
Śarmiṣṭhā says: “There is no sin in speaking untruth at the time of indulging in sexual pleasures, on the occasion of marriage, when life is in danger, wealth is at stake, and in joke. Lying on these five occasions is venial.”

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 8.19.43
“In flattering a woman to bring her under control, in joking, in a marriage ceremony, in earning one’s livelihood, when one’s life is in danger, in protecting cows and brahminical culture, or in protecting a person from an enemy’s hand, falsity is never condemned.”

Vasiṣṭha Dharma-sūtra 16.35
“(Men) may speak an untruth at the time of marriage, during dalliance, when their lives are in danger or the loss of their whole property is imminent, and for the sake of a Brāhmaṇa; they declare that an untruth spoken in these five cases does not make (the speaker) an outcast.”

Notice how consistently two categories appear:

• Protecting one’s entire property (or when wealth/property is at stake)
• For the sake of a Brāhmaṇa and, in the Bhāgavata and related texts, protecting cows and brahminical culture

These are not minor footnotes. The tradition repeatedly places the preservation of property and the protection of cows and Brahmins among the situations where falsehood carries no sin. When the texts themselves declare these falsehoods “sinless,” “venial,” or “never condemned,” the claim that Hindu dharma forbids all lying collapses under the weight of its own sources.

Truthfulness remains the general ideal. The same corpus that praises truth also carves out these explicit exceptions. Anyone who insists that Hindu scriptures demand absolute honesty in every circumstance is simply not reading the texts carefully—or is choosing to ignore the parts that do not fit a preferred narrative.

The sources are clear. Lying is permitted.

8. Slavery and Sex Slavery

Manusmṛti 8.415 lists seven kinds of slaves/bondsmen: those captured in war, those who serve for food, those born in the household, those who are bought, those who are given, those who are inherited, and those enslaved by way of punishment.

Dharmaśāstra literature did not abolish slavery. It recognized and regulated multiple forms of servitude. The institution of slavery and related forms of dependent labor existed in ancient and medieval India, though its character differed from later Atlantic plantation slavery.

According to Scott Levi, slavery was an established institution in Ancient India:

“… while historical records make it clear that the Delhi Sultans and Mughal emperors retained slavery in order to suit their political and economic needs, it should be emphasized that Muslim rulers did not introduce slavery to the subcontinent. Sources such as the Arthaśästra, the Manu-smiti and the Mahābhärata demonstrate that institutionalized slavery was well established in India by beginning of the common era. Earlier sources suggest that it was likely to have been equally widespread by the lifetime of the Buddha (sixth century BC), and perhaps even as far back as the Vedic period? Furthermore, just as slavery was common in India long before the eighth-century Islamic conquests in Sind, recent work demonstrates that the institution continued, in various manifestations, well after the decentralization of the Mughal Empire in the early eighteenth century.” (“Hindus beyond the Hindu Kush: Indians in the Central Asian Slave Trade“, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Nov., 2002, Third Series, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Nov., 2002), p. 277)

9. Sexism,  Degrading Women, and Wife Beating

This excerpt outlines the legal, social, and theological status of women across classical and medieval Hindu scriptures (Dharmashastras, Puranas, and legal codes):

Nārada Smṛti (I.252 / quotations in Sacred Books of the East, Vol. 33):

“The balance, fire, water, poison, and, fifthly, consecrated water, are the ordeals ordained for the purgation of high-minded persons.”

“The five ordeals have been proclaimed by the great sage Nārada, for the justification of those impeached on account of their suspicious conduct, by showing where the wrong lies and where not.”

Yājñavalkya Smṛti (2.95–99):

Lists the five main ordeals — balance (tulā), fire (agni), water (jala), poison (viṣa), and consecrated water (kośa) — to be used especially in serious charges when ordinary evidence is insufficient or when the parties consent.

Ordeal of Fire (Agni-divya)

Nārada Smṛti (on the ordeal by fire):

“Now then I will proclaim the excellent rule regarding the (ordeal by) fire… He should place seven leaves of the holy fig-tree in the hands of the defendant, and should fasten the leaves with seven threads… An iron ball fifty palas in weight having been repeatedly made fiery, sparkling and red-hot…(The accused) should take a smooth ball of red-hot iron… in both hands, and step gradually across the seven circles. When a man has carefully stepped through the (seven) circles… without having burnt himself in the least, he is acquitted. When a bloodshot round stain or any other sore caused by fire is seen, the man has to be considered as guilty.”

Yājñavalkya Smṛti (2.103–107, summarized in commentaries):

Hands are marked after rubbing rice grains; seven aśvattha leaves are placed and bound; a red-hot iron ball of fifty palas is placed in the hands; the person walks through seven circles. Absence of burns indicates innocence.

Ordeal of Water (Jala-divya)

Nārada Smṛti:

“He whom the waters keep below the surface… is considered to refute the charge.”

(The accused is submerged; an archer shoots an arrow and a swift runner retrieves it. If the accused remains fully submerged until the runner returns, he is declared innocent.)

Yājñavalkya Smṛti (2.108 ff.):
Describes the procedure in which the accused must remain underwater while a messenger retrieves a shot arrow; remaining submerged establishes innocence.

Ordeal of Poison (Viṣa-divya)

Nārada Smṛti (VI.68–72):

“Now then I will proclaim the excellent rule regarding the (ordeal by) poison…Let him give the poison in the presence of (images of) the deities and Brahmans…
Let seven yavas be given… of poison from the Śṛṅga tree or Vatsanābha… mixed with clarified butter thirty times the quantity. In the morning and in a cool place let the poison be given…”

Yājñavalkya Smṛti:
The accused drinks a measured dose of śārṅga poison (produced in the Himalayas). If the poison is digested without adverse effects, he is declared innocent.

Physical Coercion / Torture to Extract Confessions

While the classical Dharmaśāstras (Nārada, Yājñavalkya) primarily regulate divya (divine ordeals) rather than routine judicial torture, physical coercion appears in the broader legal literature:

• Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra (4.8 – “Trial and Torture to Elicit Confession”) gives the most detailed account of physical torture methods used to extract confessions (eighteen kinds, including beating, suspension, burning of joints, etc.), with restrictions (e.g., pregnant women exempt or given half-measure).
• Dharmaśāstra texts themselves focus more on ordeals as the formal “divine” means of proof when human evidence fails, but they operate within a judicial system that accepted physical pressure in certain contexts (especially for lower-status defendants or serious crimes).

These passages are the primary textual basis for the statements about fire, water, and poison ordeals in the Dharmashastra tradition.

Their actual use in historical courts depended on local judicial practice.

12. Cannibalism

13. Self-mortification

Authoritative Hindu sources affirm tapas (austerity, penance, self-discipline, and in many cases voluntary self-mortification or bodily hardship) as a legitimate and powerful religious practice. It appears from the Vedas onward as a means of generating spiritual “heat,” purifying karma, gaining supernatural power, attaining heaven or liberation, or pleasing deities. Extreme physical forms are described especially in the epics, Puranas, Dharmaśāstras, and later ascetic/Tantric traditions, though the Bhagavad Gītā and some other texts also caution against excessive or ego-driven self-torture not sanctioned by scripture.

1. Vedic and early literature (tapas as generative power and austerity)
The concept of tapas (from the root “to heat”) is foundational. Gods and creators generate the universe or their own power through it. (Source)

• Example from Brahmana literature (e.g., related to Prajāpati): Prajāpati “toiled and practiced tapas” to create living beings.
• Atharvaveda and other early texts associate the brahmacārin (Vedic student) with powerful tapas that affects the worlds.

2. Manusmṛti (authoritative Dharmaśāstra)
Manu strongly affirms tapas:

“All the bliss of gods and men is declared by the sages to whom the Veda was revealed to have tapas for its root, tapas for its centre, tapas for its end.” (Manu 11.235 approx.) (Source)

Forest-dweller and renouncer stages include progressive austerities: living without fire or house, sleeping on the ground, subsisting on roots and fruit, and “drying up” the body through harsher practices (Manu 6). 

3. Mahābhārata
The epic is full of stories of extreme penance and lists self-mortifying acts as means of purification or power (e.g., standing between fires, prolonged fasting, exposure, or even voluntary death by fire/mountain for atonement). One passage on expiation for serious sins includes:

“…by throwing one’s self down, for three times, with head downwards, upon a blazing fire… or by casting off one’s body, one becomes cleansed…” (Śānti Parva sections on penance). (Source)

Sages such as Viśvāmitra attain higher status through intense tapas.

4. Purāṇas (e.g., Śiva Purāṇa)
These repeatedly glorify tapas:

“Penance is the greatest rite. Fruits are achieved by penance… There is no happiness in the world that can be gained without penance… Heaven, fame and love are achieved through penance.” (Source)

Gods themselves (Brahmā, Viṣṇu, Śiva) are said to create, protect, or destroy through tapas. Extreme physical austerities (five fires, standing on one leg, prolonged immersion, etc.) are described in stories of sages.

5. Later ascetic, Yoga, and Tantric traditions
Yoga texts and Purāṇic/Tantric literature describe (and in some lineages practice) severe bodily disciplines: the “five-fires” penance (sitting amid four fires under the sun), prolonged fasting, breath control to the point of near-death, lying on thorns or nails, flesh-piercing, etc. These are presented as generating tapas for power or liberation. Popular and sectarian practices (e.g., certain sādhu ordeals, carak pūjā-style swinging by hooks in the flesh) draw on this heritage.

Authoritative sources from the Vedas through the epics, Dharmaśāstras, Gītā, and Purāṇas affirm tapas—including significant self-mortification—as spiritually efficacious. The Gītā and later reformist voices distinguish wholesome, scripturally guided austerity from egoistic or purely destructive self-torture. Extreme physical forms were historically practiced by ascetics and appear in myth and ritual manuals, though they were never mandatory for ordinary householders.

14. Black Magic

These passages from the Atharva Veda, various Puranas, and Tantras reveal a tradition heavy on magical manipulation, bodily fluids, rivalry, and coercion rather than mutual affection or ethical restraint. The texts treat people (especially women and rivals) as objects to be subdued through plants, dirt, semen, blood, skulls, and mantras.

Love, Jealousy, and Sexual Control

• A jealous wife digs up a plant to “quell the rival wife and gain the husband for one’s self,” driving the competitor “far into distance most remote” and declaring herself “stronger… mightier than the mightier” so the rival ends up “down, lower than the lowest dames.” Direct quote (Atharva Veda 3.18): “As a cow hastens to her calf, so let thy spirit speed to me.”
• Charms against romantic rivals invoke Indra and Varuna to tear the competitor “asunder… like tangles of a creeping plant” and humble male pride (including explicit Latinized references to rendering the rival’s member limp and harmless). (Atharva Veda 7.90.1-3)
• “How to hypnotise a woman” from Dattatreya Tantra mixes black datura, camphor, saffron, semen, blood, nail dirt, ear dirt, owl meat, and other substances applied as tilak, mixed in food, or buried with hair and semen at the doorway so the woman becomes “subjugated by a man with wealth and soul.” (Dattatreva Tantra 8.1-16)
• Spells to make a man “consume with love” of the practitioner repeatedly beg the deities: “Madden him, Maruts, madden him… Let him consume with love of me” (Atharva Veda 6.130–131), even if he is leagues away.
• Techniques to “secure the love of a husband” or wife involve washing or plastering private parts with Triphala, Ashwagandha, fish galls, sugar, honey, ghee, or pigeon dung and rock salt so the partner “will never visit any other” and remains bound “for the last day of her life.” (Agni Purana 302.7-18)
• A man is instructed to smear his own seed on the woman’s left leg during sex or plaster his organ with flower pastes to “bring her under his control.” (Garuda Purana Chp 208)

Destroying Enemies and War Magic

• Take the enemy’s excrement, place it in a human skull with the name written on it, and bury it; “till the excrement dries up, the enemy dies for sure. Do not give this experiment to any human being” (Dattatreya Tantra 2.14-15).
• Repeated Atharva Veda amulets of darbha grass command: “Pierce thou my rivals… Crush thou… Burn thou… Slay thou my rivals… Cleave mine adversaries’ hearts in twain… Batter down their heads.” (Atharva Veda 19.29.1-9)
• One extended curse pierces the hater with “ill-success… extermination… calamity… darkness,” sets him in the “tusks of Vaishvanara,” and ends: “Let him not live; him let breath quit” (Atharva Veda 16.7).
• A lengthy battle formula addresses Chamunda in the cremation ground, riding a corpse, surrounded by skulls, demanding she “Kill… trample… cut… pierce… bind… make the strong body of the enemy fall down” with a cascade of kili kili, hum phat syllables (Agni Purana 135.1)

Fulfilling Desires and Other Charms

• For “every desired thing,” the Narada Purana prescribes a midnight ritual on the dark fortnight involving a young, dishevelled, sexually capable woman representing Chinnamasta: make her naked, worship her, recite the mantra 10,000 times, satisfy her with gifts, then feed Brahmins to obtain sons, wealth, fame, and a “good wife.” (Narada Purana 3.87.32-36)
• Pregnancy spell: touch the woman’s private parts with a Vishnu verse, then cohabit while saying “Give conception.” (Khadira Grihya Sutras 1.4.15-16)
• Protection and anti-demon charms rely on “Hundred-haired” amulets, gold from fire, bdellium odor, and lists of gods and elements to banish fiends, consumption, and rakshasas. (Atharva Veda 19.36.1-6)
• Gambling success is sought by honoring Gandharvas and Apsarases, the dice-loving “haunters of darkness.” (Atharva Veda 2.2.1-5)

These are not metaphors for inner psychology or gentle devotion. They are practical magical recipes for dominance, elimination of rivals, forced attachment, and material gain, often involving bodily waste, sexual fluids, animal parts, and human remains. The same corpus that contains lofty philosophical speculation also preserves this underbelly of coercive occult technique.

15. Human Sacrifice

Several ancient Hindu texts describe human sacrifice (puruṣamedha or naramedha), but their status, meaning, and historical use differ sharply.

The most authoritative Vedic sources treat it as largely symbolic or mythological. The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (1.2.3.6-7) recounts an origin myth:

“At first, namely, the gods offered up a man as the victim. When he was offered up, the sacrificial essence went out of him. It entered into the horse…”

It then moves through ox, sheep, and goat before settling in the earth as rice and barley—explaining the shift to plant offerings rather than prescribing ongoing human sacrifice.

In the puruṣamedha description itself (Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 13.6.2.12-13), men are bound and fire is carried around them, but a voice intervenes:

“Purusha, do not consummate (these human victims): if thou wert to consummate them, man would eat man.”

They are released, and the rite continues only symbolically. The Yajur Veda (Vājasaneyi Saṃhitā 30) lists various human types “bound” to stakes in an allegorical ritual tied to the cosmic Purusha, again ending in release rather than killing.

Later texts are more varied. The Padma Purāṇa contains a narrative in which a king is advised to perform a naramedha to obtain a son and is given criteria for a suitable victim (a handsome, learned man). Puranas also credit ancient kings with performing such rites as marks of greatness. The Tantric Hymn to Kālī (Karpūrādi-stotra, verse 19) is more explicit:

“O dark one… freely make offering to Thee in worship of the greatly satisfying flesh, together with hair and bones, of cats, camels, sheep, buffaloes, goats and men.”

Similar esoteric homa rites involving flesh, blood, bones, or “the body of a man” appear in sections of the Agni Purāṇa (especially Tantric or cremation-ground contexts). These later, Tantric passages—along with related texts such as the Kālikā Purāṇa—were historically invoked in certain Śākta and left-hand Tantric circles to justify limited human offerings, particularly in royal, wartime, or specialized goddess-worship settings. Mainstream tradition, however, largely rejected or strictly limited the practice, and texts such as the Bhāgavata Purāṇa explicitly condemn human sacrifice.

16. Child Marriage

Manusmṛti 9.94 states that a man of thirty should marry a girl of twelve, or a man of twenty-four a girl of eight (with a provision allowing earlier marriage if religious duties would otherwise suffer). This is an explicit recommendation of marriage at very young ages for girls within a major Dharmaśāstra text.

The same norm appears repeatedly across other authoritative works:

• The Padma Purāṇa (Chapter 118) declares that a man should marry his daughter before she attains puberty and that wise men recommend marriage when the girl is eight years old. It further states she should be given to a learned, virtuous Brahmin who has studied the Vedas and observed celibacy.
• Vasiṣṭha Dharmasūtra (17.70) is even more direct: “Out of fear of the appearance of the menses let the father marry his daughter while she still runs about naked. For if she stays in the house after the age of puberty, sin falls on the father.”
• Gautama Dharmasūtra (18.21–22) rules that a girl should be given in marriage before puberty, and that the father who neglects this commits sin.
• Baudhāyana Dharmasūtra (4.1.11) similarly instructs: “Let him give his daughter, while she still goes about naked, to a man who has not broken the vow of chastity… let him not keep the maiden in his house after she has reached the age of puberty.”
• The Mahābhārata (13.44.13 and related passages) recommends that a man of thirty marry a girl of ten, or a man of twenty-one marry a girl of seven. It also discusses the consequences of delaying marriage past puberty.
• Parāśara Smṛti states that the father, mother, and elder brother of a girl who menstruates before marriage “go to hell by seeing her thus in her periods.”
• Yama Saṃhitā (verse 22) uses still stronger language: the father who does not give his daughter in marriage after she has completed her twelfth year “drinks her menstrual blood, month after month.”
• The Viṣṇu Purāṇa advises a man to select a wife whose age is one-third of his own.
• The Devī Bhāgavata Purāṇa (9.41) declares that the goddess Lakṣmī never stays even for a moment in the house of one who marries an unmarried girl of twelve in whom menstruation has already commenced.
• Viṣṇu Smṛti (24.41) reads that a girl who begins menstruating while still in her father’s house (unbetrothed) is considered degraded (vṛṣalī); a man who takes her commits no wrong.
• Vishnu Purana 3.10.16 states that “If he marry, he must select a maiden who is of a third of his age”
• The following is from the Devi Bhagavata Purana 9.41.26-47, which is completely authentic and authoritative within Shakta Hinduism. It reads, “The World-Mother never stays even for a moment in his house who eats at the house of one who marries an unmarried girl twelve years old in whom menstruation has commenced.”
• Samhita reads, “By seeing a maiden in menses, her mother, father and eldest brother — these three go to hell. (67) Therefore one should espouse a maiden before .she has menstruated; the marriage of an eight years old maiden is most preferrable. (68)” (p. 340)
• Medieval digests and commentaries (Virāmitrodaya, Parāśaramādhava, Nirṇayasindhu, Smṛticandrikā, Vaśistha, Gautama, etc.) continue to discuss and refine these age ratios, often treating pre-pubertal or very early marriage as the standard.

Commentators sometimes softened the exact numbers or offered alternative calculations, but the underlying textual pattern is consistent. Multiple respected strands of Brahmanical literature—early Dharma-sūtras (Gautama, Vasiṣṭha, Baudhāyana, Āpastamba), the Manusmṛti, the Mahābhārata, Purāṇas (Padma, Viṣṇu), and later legal digests—repeatedly present the marriage of girls before or at the onset of puberty as the proper, meritorious, or even obligatory norm. Failure to arrange such a marriage is frequently described as sinful for the father and sometimes for the mother and brother, with vivid warnings about spiritual consequences.

These are normative prescriptions from influential Smṛti and Itihāsa/Purāṇa literature, not statistical records of universal practice. Actual prevalence of child marriage varied by region, caste, period, and community. Nevertheless, the existence of this repeated and strongly worded rule across major authoritative texts is clear: the Brahmanical normative tradition accommodated and, in many cases, actively urged the marriage of girls at ages that modern standards classify as childhood.

What about when the marriage could be consummated?

Was pre-pubertal child marriage actually practiced in the Hindu world according to scholarly sources?

In K. M. Kapadia’s Marriage and Family in India, classical Hindu texts are shown to encourage early marriage:

“It is said in Baudhāyana Dharmasūtra: ‘Let him give his daughter, while she goes still naked…; let him not keep (the maiden) in (his house) after she has reached the age of puberty.’ … ‘The father should give away his daughter while she is still nagnikā through fear of her attaining puberty.’” (pp. 138–139)

“It is said in Manusamhitā that a man of thirty may marry a girl of twelve and a man of twenty-four a girl of eight. Similarly in the Mahābhārata the ages… are said to be thirty and ten or twenty-one and seven. … ‘the father or guardian incurs the sin of destroying an embryo at each appearance of menses as long as the girl is unmarried after puberty’.” (p. 139)

“According to Parāśara, a girl of eight is called gaurī… beyond this she is rajasvalā. The parents and the eldest brother… go to hell. … A Brahmin who marries a rajasvalā girl… becomes the husband of a vṛṣalī… One would… expect pre-puberty marriage to be normal after the sixth century.” (pp. 142–143)

He concludes that it became the social norm:

“With the religious and social sanctions accorded to pre-puberty marriage by Parāśara, child-marriage spread much faster… And once it became a pattern with the Brahmins, it soon tended to become the norm for the Hindu community as a whole… the tendency of the lower groups to imitate the pattern of the higher… was natural.” (p. 143)

Kapadia further documents the lasting impact of these classical norms. Even in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the practice remained strong enough that reformers and governments repeatedly struggled against it. He records that Ramakrishna Paramahamsa married a girl of six, M. G. Ranade a girl of eight, and D. K. Karve a girl of nine (p. 146). Statistical samples he cites show that in earlier generations nearly half to three-quarters of girls in some communities were married before age 14. He notes explicitly: “Hindu tradition required a girl to be married at the latest by the time she attained puberty” (p. 159). Only gradual legal reforms (Child Marriage Restraint Act 1929 and later measures) and rising education began to shift the pattern upward.

These passages show Kapadia documenting both the textual prescriptions for pre-puberty marriage and its later institutionalisation as a widespread, deeply embedded social norm.

Closing

The material surveyed above is not fringe, fabricated, or marginal. It is drawn from the most authoritative and historically influential layers of Hindu literature: the Vedas and Brāhmaṇas, the Manusmṛti and allied Dharmaśāstras, the epics, the major Purāṇas, and related legal-ritual texts.

These sources explicitly teach a birth-based caste hierarchy grounded in the Purusha Sūkta. They uphold Brahmin supremacy, prescribe Śūdra servitude, and establish graded, often mutilating punishments that spare Brahmins while ordering tongue-cutting, hot oil, branding, or death for lower castes. They elaborate systems of untouchability and ritual pollution that treat certain births as permanently defiling and require purification with cow urine and dung. They also regulate prostitution, recognize the sexual use of female slaves, and prescribe child marriage of girls as young as eight or before puberty, threatening spiritual ruin for any delay. Limited wife-beating is permitted as a disciplinary right; sati is incentivized with vast heavenly rewards; lying is permissible in several circumstances; judicial ordeals by fire, water (including the arrow-retrieval submersion test), and poison are authorized; and extreme self-mortification is affirmed as spiritually powerful.

In specialized Śākta and Tantric strata, the texts further contain prescriptions for human sacrifice, blood offerings, and a body of coercive black magic aimed at sexual control, rivalry, and the destruction of enemies. Polygyny is both regulated in the legal literature and lavishly exemplified among gods, sages, and kings. Even cannibalism appears: the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa (Lalita Mahātmya) narrates the gods offering human flesh to invoke the Goddess; the Kālika Purāṇa associates the fierce form of Mahābhairava with human flesh, blood, and cremation-ground imagery; and Manusmṛti 10.105 excuses a sage’s readiness to kill and eat his own son under extreme hunger as āpad-dharma. (Only the Manusmṛti verse carries broad classical legal weight, and even then as an exception for dire necessity; the Purāṇic passages remain specialized Śākta/Tantric material not treated as general norms by most Hindu traditions.)

None of this proves that every Hindu in every century obeyed every rule. Hindu traditions are diverse; practice varied sharply by region, period, caste, and sect; and modern reformers as well as the Constitution of India have rejected or reinterpreted much of this material. Those facts matter. They do not, however, erase the contents of the texts themselves. The relevant question is whether major, traditionally authoritative Hindu scriptures and legal-religious literature actually contain and legitimize these teachings. They do. (Read here for the sources for the importance of Hindu scriptures)

By contrast, Christianity does not condone or encourage any of the practices catalogued above. Scripture affirms that every human being possesses inherent dignity as made in the image of God, and it elevates the command to love one’s neighbor as oneself as second only to the love of God. Under that standard, birth-based graded inequality, ritual pollution hierarchies, sex slavery, child marriage, wife-beating, coercive magic, cannibalistic imagery, and the rest stand condemned, because no one would wish to be subjected to them.

If you don’t know Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, you can receive Him into your heart, and He can deliver you from darkness and sin and have your name written in His Book of Life.

If you are sincere, you can say this simple prayer to the Father (it doesn’t have to be word for word):

“God, I recognize that I have not lived my life for You up until now. I have been living for myself and that is wrong. Please forgive me of all of my sins, just as I forgive others. I need You in my life; I want You in my life. I acknowledge the completed work of Your only-begotten Son Jesus Christ in giving His life for me on the cross, I believe in my heart Jesus is Lord and was raised from the dead and I long to receive the forgiveness you have made freely available to me through this sacrifice. Come into my life now, Lord. Take up residence in my heart and be my king, my Lord, and my Savior. From this day forward, I will no longer be controlled by sin, or the desire to please myself, but I will follow You all the days of my life. Those days are in Your hands. I ask this in the Lord and GOD Jesus’ precious and holy name. Amen.”

Click here to learn why you need Jesus.