>>711114
>My main issue with hinduism is that they are kinda dodgy about the problem of evil.
Is my understanding correct in that they don't really categorise it as a problem, because they don't have the same view of morality, including the distinction between objective good and evil, as the monotheistic religions do? We have God, and creation, defined as being good, and ultimately the baseline or natural state of reality (albeit the latter is fallen and not currently in this natural state) with evil an ontological deficiency of this goodness. Both may approach the problem of evil similarly in claiming that suffering is a test of sorts, permitted by God, but ultimately, their view of reality of the true nature of God (being Brahman - not Brahmin or Brahma wholly ineffable, and that reality itself is simply a dream or a dance or a drama being played out by God who is playing all the different parts of creation for keks.
Karma comes in as the observed cause-effect mechanism of reality, and on the basis that the actual goal of hinduism is to escape the karmic cycle of reincarnation (moksha), and get back to your true self, which is is understood as being part of and no different to Brahman. So morality is not framed within a view of what is good and evil and rightous and sinful for it's own sake like Christian's do because God is the absolute arbiter of that standard, but rather because 'good' actions are those which advance one's path to attaining moksha. Further to this, supposedly morality, or what is a good action or bad action is not absolute in Hinduism and it is acknowledged that the goodness or otherwise of an act will depend on the circumstances, so it preaches a kind of relativism of sorts.
>>711251
>Since God is infinitely [..] good
I am not sure but I'd inclined to say they don't actually have the same concept of holiness or of the goodness of God. This is because God is a) completely immanent there is the problem of God being tainted with sin (and the Gita talks about sin, apparently, I think there's a mistaken perception that Hinduism doesn't have the concept of sin, maybe the people who say this mean they don't have the same concept of sin) and b) so wholly ineffable that means 'it' (yes it's a non-personal force, the source of 'being' and only true 'being' outside of the maya (illusion) of the material world) that I don't think they see God as the source of 'all goodness' like we do, but simply rather 'the source' and which, by virtue of it being the 'true' and 'ulitmate' source, is a reality, for the spiritually/truth-seeking inclined, worthy of pursual through spiritual devotion (works). It is not worth worrying about objective good and evil in and off itself, which is ultimately an illusion of the created world.
So morality for them is simply a tool by which they reach the source/absolute etc. Interestingly I'm pretty sure I remember reading/hearing that the goal of the Hindu practitioner/devotee is to literally get to a state where their action 'karma' has literally zero effect or impact on the world. This is when you know you've made it. I know I heard Theraveda Buddhists' think that they when they achieve enlightenment they literally disappear. Of course, Hindu's and every other religion would argue that their concept of morality includes and their adherents strive for compassion, justice, mercy, love etc. etc. It's in these areas that I'm trying to determine how, in the other world religions, their definitions of these concepts fit in and how they differ to Christianity which is what I'm most familiar with. I think there's a lot of very meme tier answers that get thrown around (potentially like >>711206 saying there is no absolute truth - I used to hear this a lot but haven't actually come across it once in any proper reading?) but I don't think these do them or the Christian critique of them any justice.