Question for Alex (and anybody else): If everything is God (or MAL, or whatever you want to call it) are we not, each and everyone of us, an "incarnation of God"? If so, what's the hang up with a guy called Jesus who once lived and was also an incarnation of God. Why is one concept easy to buy into, but the other so hard?
As I understand it, a big part of the traditional bowing in Hindu (and other Eastern) households is the recognition of the Divine in all of us. As a guest over there, you're literally a visiting
deity in some eyes! Now, guys like Sri Rama Krishna earned the title "incarnation of God", because he manifested God to a much greater extent than the average joe. Likewise, with Jesus. He manifested the nature of God to such an extent, that we could follow his example, or his pattern, to align our own (transient) natures better with our true, eternal natures, i.e. of the Divine, or "God". Or, he showed us how to become aware of the "Christ Consciousness" in all of us.
I think the real problem with the historical incarnation of Jesus is what Allen Watts called "pedestal-izing Jesus", i.e. we've (Western Religion, in general) put Jesus up on a pedestal and worship (or even dis-believe in him) as something totally different from our own natures. But, the point is that we are all "sons of god" as is stated in Psalms and quoted by Jesus later in the NT. Jesus just showed us how to recognize that fact (as did Sri Rama Krishna, and other religious/spiritual figures).
I argue this is also a result of the materialism
I spoke about earlier and how it's been forming over millennia. Concomitant behaviors are literal interpretations of scripture/myth, concretizing (our view of) God, pedastal-izing God, mutual exclusivity amongst religions under this materialistic influence, as well as alienating ourselves from "God", or no longer recognizing our own ultimate divine nature. So, suddenly this one historical incarnation is something too special, even bizarre, alien, and ultimately too incredulous sounding, or too-miraculous-to-ever-believe. (Because, due to our disconnect from the divine, we don't believe in miracles any more, either). But, go out and "carry your own cross" and you're manifesting Jesus (i.e. "glorifying Jesus on Earth") and therefore, the transcendent aspects of our own true natures, or God the Father.
From my blog:
(
http://exploreabitmore.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-middle-way-part-ii-interdependent.html)
Indeed the phrase "Son of Something” is always used in a symbolic sense, as in having the nature of that “something”. In this regards, Son of God means of, or like, the nature of God, i.e. Divine in nature. In Genesis we hear stories of the Sons of God vs. The Sons of Belial, or the ones of an evil nature. In Islam, one might insult someone by calling them a Son of A Dog, i.e. having the nature of a dog. The English language has its colloquial SOB phrase. We hardly ever mean these phrases literally. The "Father" symbol universally refers to the transcendent, UN-incarnated, unseen aspect of God, with the Son being the visible, incarnated aspect of God.
As Joseph Campbell says in his book, The Hero with a Thousand Faces: "The two - the hero [Christ, and potentially any one of us who "takes up his own cross"] and his ultimate god [the Father], the seeker and the found - are thus understood as the outside and the inside of a single, self-mirrored mystery, which is identical with the mystery of the manifest world. The great deed of the supreme hero is to come to the knowledge of this unity in multiplicity and then to make it known."
So, again, what's the hang up with the historical incarnation of God in a man named Jesus?