Religion Thread 4

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 23 Mar 2007 10:30

Alok_N · Post by **Alok_N** » 23 Mar 2007 10:42

re=posting in respose to Vick ....

awww ... offline is no fun ...

I assume your response to mean that you are agreeing to a public debate ...

very well, the first topic of discussion is one that you raised ... it has to do with a linear model for human after-death condition versus a cyclic one ... christianity believes in a linear model in which some mythical entity labelled as "soul" is fed into a binary output of "heaven" and "hell" ...

right so far?

I assume the affirmative ... lets now address the issue of when this system got installed ... one would assume that it was at the time when "eve" ate an "apple", or some such mythical "time-zero" ...

what follows is that prior to this eve event, heaven and hell were empty ... they were commissioned by "god" about 5-8K years ago ...

now, "god" must have planned for an expansion model for H&H ... being omnipotent and all, surely he can do that ... however, it is clear that as human population continues to grow, the capacity of H&H must grow as well ...

if left to its own devices, this growth problem diverges and is non-unitary in nature ... hence, an event to cap the growth rate is desired ...

fortunatley, we have "second coming" and "rapture" as concepts that reduce this problem to the finite regime ...

I assume that you agree with such principles ...

however, the problem starts with the post-rapture situation ... what happens to physical reality? ... does it just evaporate as so much "puff"? ... or, some remanants of physical reality remain? ...

your considered response to this didactic problem would be apreciated ...

Sadler · Post by **Sadler** » 23 Mar 2007 11:01

Sadler wrote:
Its a short hop to a very slippery slope from YOU believing that a hindu will automatically go to hell to believing therefore that the hindu is untermenschen (look up the meaning).

Vick wrote:Totally bogus!

That's like saying that it's a slippery slope to believe that someone will be reincarnated again. Why not kill someone? They'll be reborn again, no harm, no foul. Heck, let's go out and kill some dalits, it's actually good for them because they may be reborn as an upper caste in the next life.

If Hindus get insulted because a Christian believes that only through Christ can one reach heaven, then should I be equally offended if a Hindu expresses his belief that I have no way to reach heaven unless I live multiple lifetimes?

What makes the Christian's belief insulting to a Hindu but not vice versa?

Nice attempt at obfuscation, but no can do.

No one on this forum has defended the belief that a hindu born putatively in a higher caste is any superior than a hindu born putatively in a lower caste. While there are doubtless hindus who actually believe it, neither the Gvt of India (to my knowledge) nor do hindus in India openly declare that it is ok to believe in castes or discriminate on the basis of caste.

To my knowledge, christians like you have not repudiated your own intolerant beliefs but hindus have. And hindus have no problem believing that they are still hindus while rejecting notions of any inherent superiority of caste. However, as you have aptly demonstrated, you are unable to be a christian without condemning a hindu to hell.

So, like i said, nice try but no dice.

Let me take the example a little further. Let me assume that say it was your mother who was a hindu and your father a christian (i am not saying this to attack you. Let me be clear on that. You volunteered this information, and i am merely using it to make the following point).

Knowing the above about the faiths practised by your parents, and also knowing that you have suddenly been blessed by the glory of jesus, i say the following:

I am assuming that i am perhaps close in age to your mother. When the good lord does call us, it will be an honor for me to join your mother in hell as i will also be going to hell, being the despicable jew that i am.

When in hell, i will endeavor my best to keep your mother away from accesssing Bharat Rakshak. (i am assuming that even hell will offer rudimentary internet access to its denizens).

Why will i prevent your mother from accessing BRF?

I think it would break her heart to see her own son, her own flesh and blood, now condemn her soul to hell simply because she chose to remain a hindu.

If the little hypothetical scenario i painted above does not convince you of the inherent intolerance of condemning an otherwise decent human being to hell, simply because that person does not follow the god of the christians, nothing will.

And once condemned as the untermenchen, it is indeed a slippery slope to the extermination of the hindu (or the jew). History has proven that. Your denials make no difference. If you dont see that, i really dont care. My intended audience is the target of the EJ.

I'd like to emphasize again, that i used the personal information you willingly provided to prove a point. Please do not consider this to be a personal attack. It is not.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 23 Mar 2007 11:03

Abhijit wrote:I was talking about homophobia which you seem to have mistaken for homosexuality - the exact opposite.

Yikes! I saw the term homophobia and I overlooked it! My bad.

Abhijit wrote:Bible is homophobic - that means it expressly condemns homosexuality and even goes so far as to mandate killing of homosexuals. This is in contrast with the prevailing view in most of the societies which say that what people do in their bedrooms is their private matter. You may disagree with them.

So would you condone molesting children, if someone does that in the privacy of their bedroom? Where do we draw the line? I am not stating that we ought to invade the privacy of people. But if your question is does the Holy Bible condemn homosexuality, then yes it does. It is not about being homophobic, as ultimately we all belong to God. He is not afraid of homosexuals. Why would he be?

Romans 1:27 "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

and now...

Romans 1:32 "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

Abhijit wrote:This is exactly my message - that you cannot claim 'biblical inerrancy' and then find obscure contexts to justify the writings in Bible to suit current times/opinions or what is acceptable to you.

But none of the verses you provided actually proved otherwise.

Abhijit wrote:There are verses where Jesus asks his followers to procure swords by selling their shirts and then there are famous verses where Jesus admonishes them that those who live by the sword will perish by it. In Luke and Mark, Jesus claims that 'those who are not against us are with us' while in Matthew he claims the opposite 'he that is not with me is against me'. There are verses where salvation is available only to those who accept the word of god while there are several other verses where god will reward men by their words and works or by works only.

Please provide these verses, so I can understand what you are saying. Thanks.

Abhijit wrote:You talked about Ephesians 5:26 (I was hoping you would ). In 5:24 a wife is commanded to 'respect' and 'submit' to husband while in 26 a husband is asked to 'love' the wife. Does it not sound grossly unequal to you ? It does to me and we can agree to disagree on the interpretation.

But like I mentioned earlier, you are taking the term submit in the wrong context. It is not the submission like an animal has to his master. That is not the submit that God is talking about or requiring. See what Ephesians 5:21 says "Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God." So in here God is asking both the husband and the wife to submit to one another. So going by your logic of submit, now there is unequality on both sides.

Abhijit wrote:You yourself claimed that there are thousands of examples where people misquote or misread or misinterpret bible to their own nefarious ends. This is the crux of the matter. If you judge people by a book that you have no control over, the same book is liable to be misused in justifying really horrible deeds.

The laws of God are not the laws of man. So when God says in Deuteronomy 14:2 "For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth." is not even remotely close to an Evanjehadist claiming that God loves you based on reading John 3:16 which says, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." He can quote that to you, because he knows more than likely you will not read John 3:18 which says, "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Thus in the Deuteronomy 14:2, God had already decided that the Jews were going to be His chosen people on planet earth. You had people all over the world - including India - practising a host of other religons when the book of Deuteronomy was being written by Moses. But God chose the Jews to be His chosen people. It is plainly stated so in that verse. Now you can consider that to make no sense whatsoever to you and that is perfectly fine for you. I cannot force you to believe nothing.

The Bible has been misused in justifying really horrible deeds, but how is that God's fault? My judgements are based on what my faith has led me to understand. But at no point am I forcing that understanding on to anyone else.

Abhijit wrote:BTW thanks for a very civil discussion, I am enjoying it and hope I have not offended you or your beliefs.

Same to you as well. I am not offended and neither are my beliefs.

Sadler · Post by **Sadler** » 23 Mar 2007 11:05

Hi Jagan,

It is not my claim that all catholic priests bought into anti-semitism the way the vatican did.

There were a very very few select individuals who did defy the Nazis. However, these were very very very few and far between.

I donot mean to be ungrateful to these few heroic individuals. But, to extend that to the bulk of catholicsm is not accurate. In fact, the most anti-semitic of all christians have been catholics: Poland and Romania being excellent examples where the rank and file citizen gladly proceeded to systematically murder jews, with very little to no encouragement provided by the einsatzgruppen.

Sadler · Post by **Sadler** » 23 Mar 2007 11:33

Rakesh wrote: But at no point am I forcing that understanding on to anyone else.

You are quite right. You are not forcing your beliefs on others. Clearly, despite your strongly held religious convictions, you are able to separate these faith-based issues from discriminating in the real world towards your fellow hindus and other indians.

However, within christendom, folks like you are the exception rather than the rule. Not every human being is blessed with such an ability to compartmentalize tehse seemingly conflicting feelings/beliefs. And therein lies the fundamental problem with holding such religious views (about non-christians going to hell).

The vast majority of christians, in my opinion and substantiated by history, have precisely used such beliefs to murder jews for two millenia now. And clearly, the few Rakesh's of the world were unable to stop this. And will be unable to stop this in the future as well. No matter how well-meaning you are.

You may continue to hold onto your religious beliefs. But know this well, as long as the christian view of the non-christian is that of the untermenschen, the potential for future holocaust by christians remains as strong as ever. There is a reason that the following statement is considered an axiom: History repeats itself.

And the reason history repeats itself is that humans fail to learn from their mistakes. The hindus of india have already undergone two holocausts: one at the hand of islam and the other at the hand of christians (before people start whining about how the british were not really driven by christianism, let me briefly state this: Colonialism was based on the fundamental belief of christian countries like England, Spain et al that the world was theirs to enslave on account of the superiority of their christian faith over other faiths).

I cannot really change the fact that christians will continue to harbor such intolerant beliefs. I also have no doubt that a few well-meaning christians like you will be unable to stop the agenda of the EJ/J.

What i may be able to bring about in a very small, but i hope significant way, is awareness in the hindu that his faith and the very existence of hindu civilization is under attack by the followers of EJ christianism. The hindu is already aware of the danger of islam, but teh fact that the followers of EJ-Christianism do not sport beards and AK-47s and suicide belts does not mean that they are any less dangerous as events unleashed by the success of the christianization of your northeast has already shown.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 23 Mar 2007 11:41

Sadler,

One correction, Romania is/was Orthodox, not Catholic. You may be thinking of Croatia.

The locals in occupied Poland and Vichy France (both Catholic) were complicit in the German round-up of their Jewish population.

But it is also true that Catholic Italy resisted the deportation of Jews in to Nazi hands, as did Catholic Spain and Portugal.

So we have the irony that fascist Catholic countries allied or sympathetic to Germany protecting their Jews, while Catholic countries occupied by a hostile Germany helped the Nazis.

In the end neither religion nor their attitude towards Germany was correlated with whether a country's population cooperated in the Nazi Holocaust or tried to protect its Jews.

Again, the horrible irony is that Poland (which included Lithuania, Byelorussia and Ukraine) and Germany were the places in Europe in the medieval period where Jews were free to flourish as Jews.

Raj · Post by **Raj** » 23 Mar 2007 11:47

Kumar · Post by **Kumar** » 23 Mar 2007 11:50

Bade wrote:Almost all non-hindu religious beliefs are inclusive as in the faithful believe in the same entity as well as have a sense of brotherhood and considers it as ones duty to save others. Hinduism is not inclusive contrary to what many have said here, since it is based on individual spiritual experience.

Its mere semantics.

You have chosen to define "inclusive" to mean a communal feeling and a communal belief, although restricted to members of that particular religion only. I would use the term "communal" rather than "inclusive" to describe this phenomenon since it explicitly excludes people of other religions, while emphasizing intra-religious feeling of community. "Communal" is the correct term also since such a tight intra-religious bonding comes at a cost of enhanced inter-religious separation, where members of other religions are looked down upon, or assumed to be destined for hell etc.

One can also say that by "inclusive" one means a system which believes that everyone of virtue goes to heaven. No one is excluded merely because they believe in different god/prophet/religion. This is what people mean when they call hinduism "inclusive".

The collective versus the individual spirituality is what really separates the core of Hinduism with all others.

What you are calling "collective" is better called a "faith" based system. Where a claim is to be accepted compulsorily on faith, if not, one may face excommunication or even death. What you are calling "individual" based system is better called "knowledge" or "gnosis" based system. It doesn't mean that in the latter faith is not there. A majority of hindus still live their lives on simple faith, but they acknowledge and accept that personal-experience is the higher and better way to practice spirituality.

For example most villagers in UP-Bihar may live their hinduism on a simple faith in divinity of Rama through a text like Rama-charitamanasa of Tulsidasa. But when a advaiti sanyasi or a yogi visits them, they are happy and eager to listen to him and acknowledge and accept that there are higher modes of spiritual experience available. There is no conflict or separation there between a collective belief and possibility of a higher individual experience.

This mode is common to all dharmic religions: hinduism, budhism, sikhism, jainism.

The stress on the individual experience is what leads to extreme ills like casteism in society.

How does emphasis on individual spirituality lead to casteism??

If one thinks that he may need to do more yoga-sadhana instead of just reciting hanuman-chalisa, then how does that make someone casteist?

I think you are saying that hinduism is not as communally tight-knit as Islam or Christianity, therefore fissures in society like casteism are more likely.

But how does a loose spiritual-individuality crystallize into rigid caste divisions? Why doesn't it remain loose as you originally postulated? If it must crystallize then why into 4, why not 1?

IMHO you have mixed up the caste-phenomenon with the spiritual aspects of sanatana-dharma.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 23 Mar 2007 12:06

Sadler bhai, encore encore.

You have given the correct rebuttal to christian self righteousness, without using any uncivil attack.

I have wanted to write something like this, but one of the reasons why I don't post on threads like this is I cannot contain myslef for long without lashing out.

My words exactly.

--------

Rakesh, hope you don't find any offense to any of my words, cos none was intended.

--------

Adding to Sadler's words:

There is a fond hope among many people, especially the liberal and secular types, that people of differnt religions can hold on to their core beliefs, and still coexist peacefully. Sadler's post is a fitting rebuttal to the fond belief.

I think what christians do not understand is that in the Hindu view, evangelism is an irreligious act. What Hindus (the educated ones, at least) pride ourselves on is the freedom of conscience that Hinduism provides. We allow every belief its own space. It is this attitude that allows so many beliefs to exist in India. But it is important to keep in mind, that all beliefs are expected to have this live and let live attitude.

Going out to convert people is a subverssion of this freedom. When you go out and convert people, you are automatically disrespecting their existing belief system. So, there is a fundamental difference betrween Hinduism and christianism in this regard. And why Hindus do not accept christian reasons for evangelism, even when there is no force or inducement involved.

Sadler · Post by **Sadler** » 23 Mar 2007 12:14

Johann wrote:Sadler,

But it is also true that Catholic Italy resisted the deportation of Jews in to Nazi hands, as did Catholic Spain and Portugal.

Hello, Johann. Thanks for bringing up Italy. However, i believe that the reason why the Italians did not succumb to anti-semitism lay in their fundamental opposition and aversion of the vatican. Thus, the vaticans beliefs never fully penetrated the italian sub-conscious.

What is your opinion on why Italy could resist anti-semitism where other catholic/orthodox (FSU being a good eg) actively practised it? There may be a lesson there, i hope, that may be a lesson there.

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 23 Mar 2007 12:59

A case of hindu insensitivity towards minorities ??

Not Funny, Ji

Sikh plea for ban on Sardar joke websites reflects depth of their anguish

After being the national butt of jokes for years, a section of the Sikh community has struck back with the demand that the Mumbai Police should block websites dedicated Sardar humour. The protest, fresh on the heels of the arrest of the publisher of the popular Santa and Banta Joke Book, is a clear sign that Sikhs are seriously riled at the merciless stereotyping of themselves as intellectually challenged. THe community view, especially among the young, is that the jokes are not only tasteless but so demeaning that Sikh youths have begun to feel ashamed when they interact with members of other communities. The intensity of the outrage may come as a surprise to the jokesters who most likely feel that the good-natured Sardar takes the ribbing in genial stride. They argue that the Santa banter is without malice to one and all, that the Sikhs have also benefited from the positive stereotyping as a courageous and industrious people. The Sikhs are evidently unconvinced. They counter that while other groups may have escaped the ignominy of caricature - be it as scrooges, eccentrics or layabouts - nothing can be more galling than to be labelled a Big Moose, however lovable. A dunce cap sits ill on a turban.

Every country has its pet objects of derision who've become the subjects of its humorous folklore, and India, with its happy disregard for political correctness, will not shy away from pleading guilty. Take Bollywood, that powerful shaper of prejudice and perception, which has virtually laid down the template of typecasting. Its unthinking denigration of Christians, for instance, so offended the catholic church some years ago that the normally circumspect archbishop of the Bombay diocese wrote an angry letter of protest to the producers guild. Nor surprisingly, it had little or no impact on the portrayal of the community. (most Bollywood villains used to have the name D'Souza) The Sikhs more belligerant demand to rescue their image is likely to meet a similar fate. Humour is beyond policing - indeed it should be so - and we would be singularly mirthless nation state if the IPC were to introduce a sub-section on Joke Laws. Poking fun at the 'Other' is a harmless, even healthy pursuit and can add hugely to the national well being - provided the butt of the jokes themselves are tickled. Bans will not gag the jokesters. But a little more sensitivity towards the agitated Sardars would go a long way in restoring their amour propre.

ToI

p.s. I have heard from sikhs that this so-called humor is the hindus way of getting back at them. The more the perceived the complex the more vicious the humor.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 23 Mar 2007 13:03

Sadler,

France in the 1930s and 40s was far more avowedly secular than Italy or Spain, and yet there was a larger resevoir of anti-Semitism. The Vichyites were almost to a man anti-Dreyfussards.

In my opinion it boiled down to the degree of jealousy and resentment by the majority, and their wilingness to scapegoat minorities for their misfortunes.

Why did some Catholic countries go one way, and other Catholic countries go another? (eg Argentina happy to accept large nos of both Jews and Nazi war criminals)

I dont know, and I am not sure if anyone really knows. That is the uncertainty that is so unsettling if you are Jewish.

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 23 Mar 2007 14:06

abhischekcc wrote:
I think what christians do not understand is that in the Hindu view, evangelism is an irreligious act. What Hindus (the educated ones, at least) pride ourselves on is the freedom of conscience that Hinduism provides. We allow every belief its own space. It is this attitude that allows so many beliefs to exist in India. But it is important to keep in mind, that all beliefs are expected to have this live and let live attitude.

Going out to convert people is a subverssion of this freedom. When you go out and convert people, you are automatically disrespecting their existing belief system. So, there is a fundamental difference betrween Hinduism and christianism in this regard. And why Hindus do not accept christian reasons for evangelism, even when there is no force or inducement involved.

So true. Hindus find it abominable the very act of inducing some one to convert. That is why you do not see Hindus proselytize. Instead all efforts by them are at countering proselytization and not them too resorting to conversions. Its not because Hindus lack the money or the will or the people to do this. Is it too much to ask Christians to respect the ethos of the land?

Personally, I do not think much of any religion/people that is compelled to convert people of other faiths.

Hinduism has invented itself over the millenia. So some fine day they might decide to start their own brand of EJ, atleast temporarily till the threat has been weathered down. Then the established EJ's will not know what hit them.

--Ranadheer

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 23 Mar 2007 14:25

EJ's are funded from outside India, esp from a particular country, who doesn't give a toss about breaking civic harmony in India.

Infact the mentor of EJ would love it if social harmony in India were broken, since that would bring them into the picture is some way and allow them to indirectly establish their own order.

I suspect some Indian Christians might at best be footsoldiers in this entire campaign without realizing the wider gameplan and mostly might be in this for the money. So it is important to define which 'christian' are we talking about here....or if we are working with a broad, sweeping brush ? Christianity in the NE for instance is a direct subversion plan of the CIA, whereas Pentecostal, Baptist and SDAdventist movements in heartland India are soft power subversion tactics of CIA.

Christinaity/ism is just a front for these entities to indulge in subversive activities in some other country. And the foot-soldiers for these movements will be enticed by dangling bait of some jobs/money while the higher-up ring leaders will be dangled visa bait's and families settled in US with free education for children.

For me religion is not a threat, but a certain country who use religion as a tool for subversion is.

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 23 Mar 2007 14:50

Raju wrote:EJ's are funded from outside India, esp from a particular country, who doesn't give a toss about breaking civic harmony in India.

Infact the mentor of EJ would love it if social harmony in India were broken, since that would bring them into the picture is some way and allow them to indirectly establish their own order.

I suspect some Indian Christians might at best be footsoldiers in this entire campaign without realizing the wider gameplan and mostly might be in this for the money. So it is important to define which 'christian' are we talking about here....or if we are working with a broad, sweeping brush ? Christianity in the NE for instance is a direct subversion plan of the CIA, whereas Pentecostal, Baptist and SDAdventist movements in heartland India are soft power subversion tactics of CIA.

Christinaity/ism is just a front for these entities to indulge in subversive activities in some other country. And the foot-soldiers for these movements will be enticed by dangling bait of some jobs/money while the higher-up ring leaders will be dangled visa bait's and families settled in US with free education for children.

For me religion is not a threat, but a certain country who use religion as a tool for subversion is.

I am not even talking about the subversion angle. I am only saying why proselytization hurt the sensitivities of the Hindus and imploring
Christians in general to not carry on with it. Proselytization may be legal and a constitutional right but it is not necessarily moral, IMHO. If other faiths continue with it, then don't count on Hindus not devising a suitable response to counter it.

--Ranadheer

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 23 Mar 2007 15:46

I am not even talking about the subversion angle. I am only saying why proselytization hurt the sensitivities of the Hindus and imploring
Christians in general to not carry on with it. Proselytization may be legal and a constitutional right but it is not necessarily moral, IMHO. If other faiths continue with it, then don't count on Hindus not devising a suitable response to counter it.

If indeed there is a savvy, smart response to EJism that beats them at their own game then most of us? would be pleasantly surprised. But I am not betting on it; considering most people, even the educated ones aren't able to hold their temper against clever psy-ops and fluctuate between extreme docility/wailing to extreme aggression/anger, the more likely scenario I see is that the majority are going to be led right into the trap of civic disorder and long periods of repentence with a peppering of international condemnation depending upon the mood towards India at that moment. In short same old, if at all it comes to that.

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 23 Mar 2007 17:37

If indeed there is a savvy, smart response to EJism that beats them at their own game then most of us? would be pleasantly surprised.

Bravo. There would be little to disagree with here. I do hope you're involved in finding such a suitable acceptable response since you (along with some others here) so clearly understand the larger context of the issues in play. I would dearly like to know what that non-dumb solution is. Or perhaps, you're so far above the fray that finding such solutions doesn't interest you?

But I am not betting on it.

And why is that? Have you tried putting your 'solution' out in the open for dissemination and debate? Why assume well-meaning folk out there (including the educated ones) will not find merit in your proposals if indeed there is merit to be found?

considering most people, even the educated ones aren't able to hold their temper against clever psy-ops and fluctuate between extreme docility/wailing to extreme aggression/anger, the more likely scenario I see is that the majority are going to be led right into the trap of civic disorder

IOW, 'em clueless yindoos will be done in again by yindoo folk who know no better. And since you're presumably above this fray, you couldn't/wouldn't intervene. If you're saying doing nothing in the face of a calculated assault on the yindoo spirituality at the ground level - district by district, town by town, village by village (oh, btw, let me know if you dispute this) - is better than alarmism or aggression, I concede you may have a point there. In time, say on another 20-30 yrs, we'll have grown large and strong militarily and socio-economically and we could then confidently expect to do the right thing in defending India from the foreign religious assault (like China seems to be doing, off and on, presently). Until then however, in the absence of received wisdom from folk who can clearly see what is wrong, whaddya expect 'em masses (even the educated ones) to do? Do nothing? That's easy. That's exactly what the 'em masses doing right now and will continue to do for the forseeable future. {Shiv explains his position on why this makes sense at this time and for a time and I do see sense in what he says. My interpretation of Shiv's words, admittedly}

and long periods of repentence with a peppering of international condemnation depending upon the mood towards India at that moment.

So there're lessons in history you see that some others here don't. Why not expand (and expound) a little? I for one, look history and infer that Hinduism has been unable to develop an effective resistance against this foreign spiritual monotheocon superbugs. Different times, different lands, different communities, different circumstances have all interacted with the superbugs and many have been forever lost to Yindooism. Maybe I'm wrong. In fact, I want to be wrong on this one. We could debate this and I would love to know where I'm wrong here. I mean this in all sincerity.

Finally, in all seriousness, and with all due respect to your wisdom, do pls share your thoughts on what the appropriate response ought to be to the 'clever psy-ops' that you see. Now that you've bemoaned 'em dumb yindoos who are so easily swayed between alarm and aggression, pls take the logical next step of explaining at the least the outline of the non-dumb response that seems so obvious to you. My tks in anticipation.

Standard disclaimers hold. Lemme know if something offends anybody, shall be happy to edit the same. Am off for the rest of the day. Match-watching will happen today.

/
Have a nice day, all.

Alok_N · Post by **Alok_N** » 23 Mar 2007 18:04

Raju wrote:If indeed there is a savvy, smart response to EJism that beats them at their own game then most of us? would be pleasantly surprised.

science, science and science ...

but as vsudhir said, today it is cricket, cricket and cricket ...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Mar 2007 18:13

sounded like silence, silence, silence...

===================
Some thoughts to ponderâ€¦

Genetics

shown here says certain evolution taking place cause of external triggers that are un-natural (relative to human, not sure keeping bees and flower pollination as example, this may not be strictly considered as a trigger â€“ debatable) that modern cultivation is un-natural & as such species have crept in.

========
for those gays taking science & religious shed:-
Bonobo monkeys indulging(the link clearly says not applicable to human context. Also read the myth â€œweâ€

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 23 Mar 2007 18:46

Alok_N wrote: science, science and science ...

AlokN Ji: Some moons back, you had said something similar.

Monotheism is a violent concept, faith is the product of a deranged mind. Now, you have your religion threads to discuss these issues. Where your position is, if I may, science trumps all.

While, No one reasonably informed will oppose your faith in science, it would be equally fallacious to expect people in general to live and die by science as their god.

Here is another way to think about the issue. Faith need not start, where science ends. Faith needs to be under pinned by and consistent with reason and facts.

Not all are or will ever likely to be capable or diligent enough to explore the many explained and unexplained happenings in the world. Most want to live with simple explanations for events around them or how they are supposed to behave with a moral compass, usually provided by others.

My submission thus is, science can never replace God. The only true God would be the one, who is most consistent with science. The Hindu systems of advaita are most consistent with that rational goal. Apart from the Vedas and upanishads, even the large majority of the puranas, when viewed with the right contexts and symbologies inherent are far better than, a god less world, where there is no faith and agnosticism rules.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 23 Mar 2007 18:55

Sadler: First, you have come out with a statement like "Pope did not save a single Jew" and telling us Vatican credibility is worse TASS etc..what's more you said something to the effect that in "all your readings" there is not a single credible source says otherwise ..

Never mind, as Johann pointed out, Einstein, Rabbi of Rome, Rabbi of Israel, and many others contradict you.. and credit that Pope for saving thousands of lives

Wonder what kind of reading you do, and how you make such claims?

Now you come out with gems like:

Sadler wrote:Hi Jagan,

It is not my claim that all catholic priests bought into anti-semitism the way the vatican did.

There were a very very few select individuals who did defy the Nazis. However, these were very very very few and far between.

I donot mean to be ungrateful to these few heroic individuals. But, to extend that to the bulk of catholicsm is not accurate. In fact, the most anti-semitic of all christians have been catholics: Poland and Romania being excellent examples where the rank and file citizen gladly proceeded to systematically murder jews, with very little to no encouragement provided by the einsatzgruppen.

Sorry boss, to me it sound as bad as madarasa type argument and gets as bigoted as worse of them. You say you "do not mean to be ungrateful" to a few heroic individuals" yet come out with statements like catholics (many of those hero's were catholics) are most anti-semitic. Care to explain the data from where you arrive at that "fact".

Yeah! forget Paki army, Iraq/Iran's mullahs and others who threaten Israle.. It's "rank" and "file" catholics who we have to watch out for

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 23 Mar 2007 19:02

Where is GJman when you need him ? He was really liked by certain members.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Mar 2007 19:03

Why do people think that Christian Yoga movement has started in the southern states oF US which are the bastions of EJs? I think its because traditional Yoga was making inroads and EJs felt the need to counter it with their version of Yoga.

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 23 Mar 2007 19:13

vs, my suggestion is to make true progress towards secularism and dump organized religion from India. Keep the scriptures, vedas, vastu, astrology etc and individualize them & teach them to everyone: make them part of school curriculum but do away with organized religion. And welcome tribalism and introduce concept of 'tribe India' in short 'vasudaiva kutumbakam' in practice.

Lots of people disagree with something this radical at this at this point of time, so I prefer not to discuss my solutions, so this is just to let you know my thoughts in this regard. But will raise them at appropriate times.

I believe sometime in the future we will see a variant of this practiced in most societies anyways, so my focus is more on implementation than on discussion.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 23 Mar 2007 19:32

Well, if scientific truths are to be the basis of human life, who will decide how to behave?

One of the biggest problems that Europe has faced since the advent of the 'Scientific' age is how to derive ethics from scientific axioms. If you accept that there are in fact no morals derivable from a test tube, then he very basis for human society breaks down.

How does one differentiate between 'pulling the trigger' and 'killing a human being' in science? Because technically, they are the same.

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 23 Mar 2007 19:38

thus the scriptures, vedas and all that is given by the ancients/Gods are still there. Science can't replace them.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 23 Mar 2007 19:40

Sadler wrote:The hindu is already aware of the danger of islam, but teh fact that the followers of EJ-Christianism do not sport beards and AK-47s and suicide belts does not mean that they are any less dangerous as events unleashed by the success of the christianization of your northeast has already shown.

I am glad you stated this. Because when I said the same some time back, I was accused of living in a dream world and that I did not know my priorities.

abhischekcc wrote:Rakesh, hope you don't find any offense to any of my words, cos none was intended.

No offence taken.

abhischekcc wrote:I think what christians do not understand is that in the Hindu view, evangelism is an irreligious act. What Hindus (the educated ones, at least) pride ourselves on is the freedom of conscience that Hinduism provides. We allow every belief its own space. It is this attitude that allows so many beliefs to exist in India. But it is important to keep in mind, that all beliefs are expected to have this live and let live attitude. Going out to convert people is a subverssion of this freedom. When you go out and convert people, you are automatically disrespecting their existing belief system. So, there is a fundamental difference betrween Hinduism and christianism in this regard. And why Hindus do not accept christian reasons for evangelism, even when there is no force or inducement involved.

It took four threads for someone to finally state the facts of the matter. Well said Abhishek. People please read Abhishek's post, which has been quoted above. We are sitting and breaking our heads here and arguing mine is better than yours, but Abhishek put it most eloquently.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 23 Mar 2007 19:43

Raju wrote:vs, my suggestion is to make true progress towards secularism and dump organized religion from India. Keep the scriptures, vedas, vastu, astrology etc and individualize them & teach them to everyone: make them part of school curriculum but do away with organized religion. And welcome tribalism and introduce concept of 'tribe India' in short 'vasudaiva kutumbakam' in practice.

Are you confused at this point????

How do you propose to keep everything, and then also do away with organised religion?

And then you say lets welcome 'Tribe India' into 'Vasudaiva Kutumbakam'.
Tribalism is an exclusivist idea, while 'Vasudaiva Kutumbakam' is a universalist idea. How do you propose to reconcile them?

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 23 Mar 2007 19:49

>>Tribalism is an exclusivist idea, while 'Vasudaiva Kutumbakam' is a universalist idea. How do you propose to reconcile them?

tribalism is important to give an identity and to replace the void of an older identity. VK is the soft power, inclusivist philosophy, reconciliation will happen slowly. This is just a raw skeletal idea, will put flesh/body on it later.

S.Valkan · Post by **S.Valkan** » 23 Mar 2007 19:50

Rakesh wrote: So would you condone molesting children, if someone does that in the privacy of their bedroom? Where do we draw the line?

Lest you missed the obvious, logical people draw the line at consenting adults.

Of course, the legal definition of adulthood and age of consent is not universal, but there is a prevalent consesus among most people that pre-pubescent children and adolescents are NOT adults, and cannot consent.

Is the line amply clear now ?

S.Valkan · Post by **S.Valkan** » 23 Mar 2007 20:24

abhischekcc wrote: I think what christians do not understand is that in the Hindu view, evangelism is an irreligious act.

Not necessarily.

Buddhism began as an evangelical religion.

But its modus operandi was scholarly debating on the logical and ethical dimensions, not denigration of existing religions.

Christian and Muslim evangelists deliberately denigrate other religions as a rule of thumb.

And, the Christian evanjihadis then take recourse to their usual bag of deceptive tricks ( aka "miracles" ) to lure the poor and the gullible into their pyramid scheme.

Mind you, the "opening of the heart" is not a matter of change of conscience, but one of deception and lure.

Sharing your personal belief in a positive manner in the open market of ideas is never a problem.

Deceiving people, and denigrating their ( and their ancestors') intelligence and beliefs is.

That is what is deeply problematic.

And that is what TSJ , Vick etc don't get.

Kumar · Post by **Kumar** » 23 Mar 2007 20:32

During last several avatars of the thread, one set of posts have stood out like none else. Those are Rakesh's posts. They are baffling, intriguing and a class apart. A calm and assured faith that wouldn't be touched by anything but wouldn't disturb anything else either.

Just as a curiosity, Rakesh are your views your personal views or are they shared by the orthodox church that you belong to?

In this discussion I had been hoping to find arguments for bridging the existing gaps between hinduism and christianity. I didn't find them in Rakesh's posts. But those posts show another mode of peaceful coexistence. Where boundaries remain clear cut and sharp but not cutting and offending. On the other hand proselytization is not about coexistence, but a dynamic jostling and fighting for dominance. And boundaries are not only sharp but cutting. The bleeding edge if you will...

Proselytization challenges the status quo and is a deliberate move with definite violence towards a certain culture & religion. The violence is not physical, but the changes induced are indeed violent enough to alarm and disturb. On top of that if proselytization is of evanjihadi variety, then the violence becomes even more disturbing for the targeted group. All the emotional outbursts we saw in these threads is a response to such violence.

Is any change to be resisted just because it has certain violence? Not necessarily, as any change, good of bad, has a certain violence in it. Indian constitution permits proselytization and if done in a genuine manner, without using financial muscle power or fradulent propaganda, hindus would not object to it. In fact hinduism can effectively indulge in a reverse proselytization so as to have a cynical equilibrium of violence.

Evanjihadism is this violence taken to an extreme. Where foreign money is used for political influence and social subversion. So far all the members here, hindu and christian, have deplored evanjihadism. Which is a very good sign. I think a lot of current bad feeling in hindus about such activities will fizzle away if abuse by evanjihadis of religious freedoms is properly taken care of.

S.Valkan · Post by **S.Valkan** » 23 Mar 2007 20:44

Kumar wrote: So far all the members here, hindu and christian, have deplored evanjihadism. Which is a very good sign.

Permit me to make one digression from this feel-good bonhomie, and suggest something controversial.

Some astute representatives of "moderate" Muslim organisations in the US and Europe often appear on TV and other media, and either condemn jihadi excesses, or term it a "misinterpretation"/"misuse"/"hijacking" of their "peaceful" faith, but none do anything active to COUNTER these terrorist interpretations of their "hijacked" religion.

Shouldn't well-meaning Christians in India and abroad actively work to prevent evanjihadism, which sullies the reputation of Christianity as a whole ?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Mar 2007 20:47

Kumar, Please get familiar with the Orthodox Churchdoxy. Its far different from the Roman Catholicdoxy and its spin-off Evanjihadism. You can see its effects in Russia, and Eastern Europe. It has a different worldview. Roman catholicdoxy and thus Evanjihadism is about political control of this world. Orthodox Churchydoxy is about spirtual guidance of this world.

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 23 Mar 2007 20:59

S.Valkan wrote:Shouldn't well-meaning Christians in India and abroad actively work to prevent evanjihadism, which sullies the reputation of Christianity as a whole ?

Good question ! Does anybody have the answer ? But I also think this applies to all groups of society. How do we tackle the subversives within our sub-section ?

Example would be why do I pretend to co-exist with my neighbourhood thug ? Why don't I smash in his jaws and cleanse my neighborhood ?

Probably the answer would be he knows where my home is and can make life miserable for me ?? Similarly if one picks up a discord with a member of one's community he holds the potential to make life miserable for me, or probably to discommunicate me from the community, or to spread illwill in one's core group ?

Since most Indians view their community as a safety net or a support system in absence of social security, they do not desire any rift within this core group ?

As India gets progressively prosperous, this trend might change though and one might see more rebellious holdouts in each community since social safety net is not relevant anymore. But this also depends on how much feeling of security larger society provides/inspires.

S.Valkan · Post by **S.Valkan** » 23 Mar 2007 21:06

ramana wrote:Orthodox Churchydoxy is about spirtual guidance of this world.

But even the great spiritual patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church can't quite get to higher spiritual planes.

He termed Lord Krishna as "an evil demon, the personified power of hell opposing God", and "a livid lascivious youth".

The Archbishop further requested the Mayor to ban construction of the proposed Krishna temple in Moscow saying it would otherwise become "an idolatrous disgrace erected for the glory of wicked and malicious 'god' Krishna".

"Construction of the temple (a satanic obscenity destined to be built right in the heart of the Orthodox Christian country of Russia) to Krishna offends our religious feelings and insults the thousand-year religious culture of Russia where the overwhelming majority of people, Christians and Muslims including, consider Krishna an evil demon, the personified power of hell opposing God", said the Archbishops letter.

Text of the Letter in PDF
How does that sit with "spiritual" people ?

Kumar · Post by **Kumar** » 23 Mar 2007 21:26

Valkan,

I knew about that letter by Russian orthodox church and also their actions against the ISKCON.

Syrian christians in India have/had an orthodox church too, although a large number of erstwhile syrian christians are now catholic.

http://www.orthodoxsyrianchurch.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Orthodox_Church

I am not sure about the similarities/differences amongst different orthodox churches.

How is proselytization viewed by orthodox churches?

HariC · Post by **HariC** » 23 Mar 2007 22:41

Raju wrote:Where is GJman when you need him ? He was really liked by certain members.

if by gjman you mean old member George J, I am all for it.. lets start a petition to get him back..

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Mar 2007 22:56

HariC wrote:
Raju wrote:Where is GJman when you need him ? He was really liked by certain members.
if by gjman you mean old member George J, I am all for it.. lets start a petition to get him back..

I have deleted GJmans name and email from the database and he is welcome to re register. Unlike the usual ban that prevents easy re registration minus subterfuge.