Religion Thread 4

Locked
Vishy_mulay
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 09:21
Location: Melbourne

Post by Vishy_mulay »

Acharya thanks for the link. Its a gem and I should have acknowledge it when posted. Lately I am very busy but last few months I am reading about Christianity. I had discussion with one of my friend about my central problem with Faith, its correlation/contradiction with Scientific thinking. My friends take on it was that with all its fault, Christianity has done a big favor to humanity by not radicalizing and allowing free thought and liberation of human thinking during European renaissance. The inclusive, liberal western philosophy wouldn't have emerged without Christianity being the religion of west and all scientific rational wouldn't have developed without presence of free thoughts. This started my interest in understanding what role Christianity played in Europe's Renaissance.
What I am reading or understanding (my thinking is biased as I am looking from critical analytical point and not from faith based point of view) is that Church (the Custodian of Faith) went out of way to prevent liberation of thoughts. Its reflected even today on various issues from Gay marriages, pro life, pre marital sex etc but once the genie of liberation was out, Church immediately started projecting it as success of its tolerance. Corollary, to prove this point, anything Eastern is projected as old, close and non-inclusive. Reality is exactly opposite.
I am not religious person but I am proud of my heritage. This appears dichotomous but for me it perfectly makes sense. The more I started reading about Vedic Dharma (I don't like to call Vedic Religion), I became follower of it because of simple understanding, I am responsible for what I believe and how I conduct myself. The major difference in Dharma and Religion is that Dharma is defined as "Dhru janeti iti Dharma". The meaning of Dhru is the one who holds. The behavior which holds you to your conscious is Dharma and everything else is karmakanda. I don't have to believe in anything or I can believe in everything irrespective as long as I follow my conscious I am following Dharma. I don't think there is any other thought process which is more inclusive than it. Just my 2 cents.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

shyamd wrote:Acharya, if you don't mind, I would like to discuss with you secularism and hinduism outside this board, that we were discussing earlier. I don't mind discussing here.

Just want to get your insights into your views.

Thanks.
I dont remember we were discussing outside this board. I dont know which board but you can ask any questions here and we can discuss about the topics you are interested.
Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Calvin »

I don't have to believe in anything or I can believe in everything irrespective as long as I follow my ...
Is this religious humanism? Secular humanism? Or scientific humanism?
RajeshG
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 29 Mar 2003 12:31

Post by RajeshG »

Johannji
I think its accurate in terms of talking about how Korean churches became popular in part because of their support of Korean public sentiment whether it was nationalism, opposition to military dictatorship, etc.

I dont think its sufficient at all in terms of talking about the nature of religion in Korea before the 20th century, or why Christianity penetrated deeper in Korea than Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Sri Lanka, etc which also saw many upheavals and even longer direct contact with missionaries in colonial times.
Any references/reading-material related to bolded part would be great.

My personal opinion (as stated before) is that spread of religion has nothing to do with fine theological arguments but with power and geopolitics - in that sense I equate the argument for freedom-of-religion as an argument for subverting/growing-influence in foreign lands. Dont know if studies have been done regarding this but I would be interested in knowing what %age of worlds population would be Christian/Muslim without various power-plays in history. Any reading material/pointers regarding would also be great.

Regards.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Vishy_mulay wrote:
I am not religious person but I am proud of my heritage. This appears dichotomous but for me it perfectly makes sense. The major difference in Dharma and Religion is that Dharma is defined as "Dhru janeti iti Dharma". I don't think there is any other thought process which is more inclusive than it. Just my 2 cents.
Read some political sociology and political theories. Then read the Christian history and past. You will get a better picture when you start understanding political movements and social movements.

Read below
RajeshG wrote: My personal opinion (as stated before) is that spread of religion has nothing to do with fine theological arguments but with power and geopolitics - in that sense I equate the argument for freedom-of-religion as an argument for subverting/growing-influence in foreign lands. Dont know if studies have been done regarding this but I would be interested in knowing what %age of worlds population would be Christian/Muslim without various power-plays in history. Any reading material/pointers regarding would also be great.

Regards.
Last edited by svinayak on 26 Mar 2007 03:11, edited 1 time in total.
Vishy_mulay
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 09:21
Location: Melbourne

Post by Vishy_mulay »

At least you consider what is said in Vedic Dharma as Humanism. Thats not my interpretation or thought but one of the thoughts Krishna said in Gita the simple analysis of Vedanta by him.
Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Calvin »

So, how is it that there is so much oppression (caste, gender etc) within the community of those that profess to be humanists?
sivab
BRFite
Posts: 1075
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Post by sivab »

Calvin: can you name one community where there is no prejudice and discrimation? Those are human nature, it will be there as long as humanity exists.
Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Calvin »

This is my point exactly.

The commentary on this forum is particularly lop sided, in this regard wouldn't you say? In fact, it is so lopsided, that the negative commentary received by Christianity has now risen to the point where the commentary that "christianity must be "defeated"" receives no adverse response, even from the particularly sensitive Mr. Sadler.
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7101
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Post by shyamd »

Acharya wrote: I dont remember we were discussing outside this board. I dont know which board but you can ask any questions here and we can discuss about the topics you are interested.
Thanks Acharya, I meant we were talking about secularism in this forum earlier and I wanted to continue the debate outside the forum.

We were talking about the secularism idea and the protection of hindu's.

I felt that protection of hindu's is a simple case of law and order and that secularism is good because it gives freedom for people to do whatever they want.

But I agree to a certain extent that if missionaries are not acting in the best interests of the nation, by passing on information to parties like intelligence agencies, then clearly missionary work should be stopped.

This is my earlier post:
Acharya wrote:
If Hindus cannot be protected then India cannot be protected.
When I say this to others, they keep saying:

what about the other people in India? What about the Parsis, the Jews, the muslims, christians who have become part of India? Shouldn't we talk about India as a whole. which is not just Hindu's but all these other religions aswell? You want a Hindutva ideology which will probably split the country up or evict Christians or Muslims from the country (i.e Instability)? When BJP was in power they caused so many hindu muslim problems in areas? etc etc.....

these are the type of responses made by AIDMK/DMK types.
You replied and said that was because the psec parties being in control of the debate.

I wanted to gain some insight of why you say that psec is not in the best interest of india.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

shyamd wrote:
You replied and said that was because the psec parties being in control of the debate.

I wanted to gain some insight of why you say that psec is not in the best interest of india.
This discussion got derailed last time with EJ thread taking a different turn. We will discuss this in this thread since some discussion is pointing to that same topic again. To discuss in this thread we have to discuss political social movement, history and sociology. It is hard and it will take some time but is important to understand what went wrong in the last 30 year.
Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Johann »

RG,

- Force explains some, but not all changes.

Why did Persia, with its ancient civilisational ties to India convert almost entirely to Islam after 3 centuries, while India remained majority non-Muslim in areas ruled twice as long by Islamic potentates?

It almost certainly had to do with how much Islam like Judaism and Christianity borrowed from Zoroastrianism.

What made Korea different from other Confucian-Buddhist societies was that Christianity in Korea adapted to local beliefs, and didnt force people to give up as much of their traditions. Koreans took charge of evangelical activity at an early point. This could have something to do with the fact that Korean folk religion, unlike China, Japan and Vietnam was fairly monotheistic to start with.

Most Korean Buddhists OTOH never converted to Christianity.
My personal opinion (as stated before) is that spread of religion has nothing to do with fine theological arguments but with power and geopolitics - in that sense I equate the argument for freedom-of-religion as an argument for subverting/growing-influence in foreign lands.
- States and monarchies shaped by Confucian values shared that view- the Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese regarded Buddhism as a foreign and potentially subversive religion and attempted to limit its spread.

Despite that they developed widespread respect in those societies. Although devout Buddhists of the kind you see in SL, Thailand, Tibet etc were and are a minority, there's a widespread respect for them. People even if they arent sure what they are just dont want to give up truly old traditions like praying to ancestors, give up their festivals, etc.
I dont know of any specific cross-comparative works, but most histories of society and culture in Japan, China and Korea, Thailand, Hong Kong, etc are worth reading.
Any references/reading-material related to bolded part would be great.
I will post any specific works that I remember or come across that deal with comparisons across the Buddhist and Confucian world.

In my opinion the best thing to do is travel through these places, or barring that talk to people from these societies that you meet.

http://www.bambushain.de/konfuzius/kf_t ... ucian.html

http://www.hm.tyg.jp/~acmuller/budkor/aar-hcn.htm

www.buddhanet.net
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7101
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Post by shyamd »

Acharya wrote:This discussion got derailed last time with EJ thread taking a different turn. We will discuss this in this thread since some discussion is pointing to that same topic again. To discuss in this thread we have to discuss political social movement, history and sociology. It is hard and it will take some time but is important to understand what went wrong in the last 30 year.
okay. Thanks Acharya
Vishy_mulay
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 09:21
Location: Melbourne

Post by Vishy_mulay »

Calvin, I feel that my post(s) have offended you . My intentions were not to demonize Christianity but to put forward what I have experienced or learned. I dont profess it to be correct and I am open to rectifications. My experience as a non practicing Hindu working in a Catholic teaching institute is something interesting. To put "sublime suggestions" is a understatement. Being in Mormon dominated area doesn't help either. I will be first to accept what is real Vedanta and what is practiced is way off. I have repeated talked about karmakanda and cleaning of internal rot in Hinduism to make it true Vedantic Dharma. Similarly I found few people from Christian side, Rakesh being one, who answered my ignorance about true Faith without trying to save my soul. At the same time he accepted few things which he believe are wrong in Christendom. The common thing being soul harvesting bazaar of EJs.
Calvin your posts from the beginning of this thread have been one sided (at least I felt it that way), may be due to reactionary retaliation. Time and again you have brought that we as SDF talk Vedic philosphy which no common man follows. What about EJs? Aren't they the same manifestation of wrong practice of faith? Aren't they following wrong practices which do not reflect what Christ taught? I haven't seen your take on it. I am a new member of this community. Don't know everyone long enough to understand lot of under currents. May be my ignorance but have I missed something in your posts?
If as a moderator you think I have ever posted derogatory post please let me know I will delete it. For this thread to continue it is important that frank but civil discussion take place. If the quality is deteriorating, including my posts, please do the needful.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Anand K wrote:

The Romans were no religious fundamentalists..... they tolerated those last strains of Egyptian religion, the pagan faiths of the Celts, Scythians and and the Sarmatians and even the Zoroasterians from the acquired territories of Parthia and Asia Minor. The Jewish rebellions were put down mercilessly but there was IMO no religious angle to it.... Vespasian and his son's act of destroying the temple is the same as a Julius Caesar smashing up the Briton's Sacred Groves or a Suetonious massacring the Iceni Druids during Boudica's revolt. Those institutions were a focal point of the revolt/resistance and razing them had tremendous psy-ops values onlee. Nothing personal, all business.

Jews were persecuted by the Romans (and the Persians before them) 'coz they used the religious identity to close the ranks.

The Early Roman Empire spanned perhaps all of today's Italy, Greece, Spain, France, Britain, Asia Minor and North Africa Its backbone was perhaps a collection of 5000 towns with a population of about 50 million. The governance was orderly, stable and pragmatic. Impressive engineering feats were achieved and a vast infrastructure built. Every major town and city had paved streets, efficient water supply, waste disposal systems, administrative centers, temples, commercial areas, and recreational and cultural centers. Roman engineers built a road network of 50,000 miles extending from Britain to Iraq, so durable that in World War II, they were still used for the invasion of France. They had excellent hydraulics with large reservoirs, aqueducts and an extensive underground drainage system. A vibrant commerce sustained by currency, safety, roads and general infrastructure. Trade flourished with the rest of the world, including India, China and Arabia. It boasted an elite intellectual culture, literature and intricate legal systems. It incorporated several aspects of the Greek civilization, with Greece spoken in the eastern half of the empire (the western half speaking Latin). Most of the Roman soldiers worshipped Mitra, the Sun God. The initial decline of this great empire would approximately coincide with the time of the Christ. It was during the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius Caesar. We take a brief interlude to glimpse at some events around this interval.

Now as the head of the Roman empire, Julius Caesar did much to improve the degenerating conditions, and had also to keep in check the many enemies that stemmed from political intrigue in the various regions of the empire. On 15 March 44 BC, as he went to Senate with bodyguard Marcus Antonius, he was stabbed by a group of conspirators, led by Gaius Cassius, at the feet of Pompey's statue. Gaius Cassius had been Pompey's first commander, whom Caesar had pardoned and made a member of senate along with Marcus Brutus, also a Pompeyite.

It would be in order here to mention that Judaism had a good foothold in the Roman Empire. The Romans had a strict policy of not interfering in the religious lives of their subjects. This enabled the Jews to continue following their religion in Judea and in the rest of the Empire. It is estimated that probably about 5-7 million Jews lived in the Roman Empire, with roughly a million in Egypt, another million in Syria, and close to one million in Palestine. At least 10,000 Jews lived in Rome; Jewish colonies also existed in the large trading centers of Asia Minor. About sixty percent of the five-seven million Jews of the Roman empire lived outside of Judea. Judaism had long been viewed favorably by pagan writers who viewed Jews as philosophers, like the Brahmins of India. Throughout the Roman Empire various practices of Judaism were adopted by significant segments of the populace. Many Gentiles (non-Jews) observed the Sabbath, the fasts, the food restrictions and the Jewish holidays and many attended synagogue. Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar had granted them special privileges. Amongst other things, Julius Caesar granted them exemption from military service, and the freedom to follow their own laws. While Judaism had no formal missionary apparatus, individual Jews actively sought converts. This is the context of Jesus Christ's anger against them: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you compass sea and land to make one proselyte..." (Matthew 23:15). Judaism continued to gain converts and remained a viable religious movement within the Roman empire until the end of the fourth century. There were of course tensions between Jews and Gentiles, but these were relatively minor, when compared with what was to come.

Let us now turn our attention to Judea. After their return from Babylon in 538 BC the Jews had created a theocratic community in Palestine. It was based on the Torah, the law as God revealed to Moses. Religious life centered on the Temple at Jerusalem, which they had rebuilt, following its earlier destruction, with the high priest being the most exalted figure. The legal system, called the "Great Sanhedrin", was centered at this temple as a religious assembly of elders and wise men. This existed along with other smaller Sanhedrins. It was the final authority on Jewish law and any scholar who went against its decisions was put to death. During the period when Judea was under Roman rule, the members of the Sanhedrin played a pragmatic role in keeping relations with both the Roman rulers and the local Jews. The Jews were a tightly knit community and even Jewish groups outside Palestine were linked to the Temple for informal worship and instruction in the scriptures. (The synagogue first arose during the Babylonian exile and would act as the nerve center of Judaism, outliving the main Temple. It would influence the forms of worship in the Christian church as well as the muslim mosque. The Jews were perhaps unique in the Roman world in insisting that their God was the only true one.)

Around 333 BC, Palestine came under the rule of Alexander the Great after his conquest of Persia, and there followed a rule by the Ptolemies and then by the Seleucids. Most Jews outside Palestine spoke Greek and a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures became a necessity. Greek influence contributed to factionalism among the Jews in Judea and eventually this led to an internal struggle between the Maccabaens and the pro-Greek Sadducees who were favored by the King of the Seleucid empire. In 168 BC the Seleucid king intervened and ordered the Temple be dedicated to Zeus. The Jews saw this as blasphemy and defilement of their temple and rebelled. Led by Judas Maccabaeus they re-dedicated their Temple to Yahweh and in 142 BC won their independence from the Seleucids. Judas and his next successor were high priests, but later members of the family had themselves enthroned as kings, who became corrupt. Factionalism then increased and civil conflict erupted and it was in the midst of a civil war that the Romans intervened in Palestine. Actually one Jewish state had appealed to Rome for aid. Pompey then intervened and ended the civil war in 63 BC, by making Judea a Roman protectorate. The Romans had installed an Arab chieftain, Antipater, to rule Jerusalem and in 43 BC, his son Herod succeeded him with the approval of the Roman Marc Antony. Herod made good of his close friendship with the Roman Agrippa (also a Jew), and many Jews began to detest him as a foreigner and as an extravagant ruler. Nevertheless, as is the case with many degenerate and corrupt societies, there were always several groups of Jews who supported Herod and the Romans. We mention two such groups in particular: the Pharisees and Sadduccees. The former were orthodox Jews from various social classes, while the latter were aristocratic elite of the Jewish society. There were other groups such as the Scribes (responsible for transmission of tradition and law) and the Essenes (ascetics who opted out of the political world) and the Zealots, who were revolutionaries.

In this environment of despair, various reactions developed in the Jewish society centered around Judea. While some groups such as the Zealots organized guerilla attacks on the Romans, other groups that took the path of introversion and perhaps despair. Many Jews had become increasingly disenchanted. They began to denounce fellow Jews as apostates and collaborators with the Romans. They saw Jerusalem as being polluted. The Jews were divided into a majority "sons of darkness", and a minorty "sons of light". There was an increase in ascetic practices. One such group that practiced ascetism was the Essenes, who spent much time on the banks of the Dead Sea. Two predominant lines of expectation were "messianic" and "apocalyptic". In the former, God was expected to intervene through a human to set right the injustice and in the latter, the injustice was to result in a vast or complete destruction of the world. Christ combined both these views. The coming of a messiah was prophecied in the sacred books of the Jews, with some description of the exact details. Amongst other things, the Messiah was expected to rebuild Israel and restore the Davidic Kingdom. One of the reasons today's Jews do not accept Christ as this Messiah, is his failure to do this.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Post by Pulikeshi »

Calvin,

I agree with you that there is something dysfunctional about this discussion on religion.
However, for an entirely different set of reasons -

1. Arguments on whose belief is better – never result in anything productive, this I agree with you.

2. To call Hinduism great – seems to bother you, why?

3. This discussion is a ad-mixture of personal beliefs and thoughts, my “religionâ€
Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Calvin »

Vishy - If you have followed my posts through the years, you would have seen that ultimately I believe in individual freedom and the associated corollary that government should play no role in religion - other than to punish those that take away the rights of others. I have throughout my life, lived as a minority - either as a racial, religious, social, or political minority or as combinations of this. This has led me to conclude that all of us are minorities, existing as a minority of one (the individual), and that the most important role of the government is to protect the rights of this individual - and a government that takes away the right of *any* minority, ultimately takes away the rights of all of us.

This discussion on religion is ultimately about power - over individual rights. Specifically, in regard to christian evangelists, the discussion is about a hidden agenda to grab power in India, and then to forcibly convert (or kill) the rest of the non-christians. To legitimize this discussion, it is essential to demonize the adversary.

Some people have posted articles where they show that Christianity views Hinduism as "demoniacal" and just when you thought that was a bad thing, they post articles where Hindus think that Christianity was demoniacal as if that vindicated their position. Another poster says characterizing a religion as demoniacal is hateful speech and is to be proscribed. I am not really sure what people believe, except that I am sure that if it affects them personally, people will have very strong feelings. The amount of space devoted to the "cleaning of internal rot" in Hinduism on this thread speaks to its importance to the participants in this thread. Contrast this, for instance with the space devoted to the "rot" in "Pauline" Christianity (again, note the careful choice of words). The amount of space devoted to the superiority of SD probably reflects the religious understanding of the poster, and the substantial absence of such posts by Muslims, Christians (with the notable exception of Rakesh), Jews, Sikhs, or Buddhists is probably a measure of the demography of the forum more than anything else.

You are correct that I have pointed out the disjoint between the elite and the commons, I have pointed out the disjoint not only in regard to SDF (as you put it) but also in Rakesh's commentary.

Pulikeshi - "To call Hinduism great – seems to bother you, why?"
I believe this perspective is no more even handed than the perspective projected by the evangelists. The reality that exists in India among those that consider themselves believers in SD is different from what is described on this forum. By not addressing that gap between reality and practice, one is left with a feeling of ignorance at best, and of being deceived, at worst. This is particularly accentuated by the efforts at (almost exclusively) highlighting the negative aspects of other religions. Frankly, from a personal perspective, I am affected by the nature of the discourse, rather than the conclusion that "Hinduism is great" - although, I have been accused of being a "secular humanist" on more than one occasion.

The real discussion, if we want to have it, is this:

(a) is conversion from one religion to another acceptable if it is not conducted under force, or fraudulence?
(b) does it matter what the characteristics of the religion one is converting to, or from?
(c) does the initial or final religion, speak to the temporal loyalties of the individual?

Everything else is a side show, and for now, the side show is stealing the circus.
sivab
BRFite
Posts: 1075
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Post by sivab »

Calvin: Nobody can stop a person who wants to convert of his own volition.
vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Post by vsudhir »

x-posted from the geo-political thread:
Johann writes:
Lewis as far as I can tell is speaking against the broader phenomenon of what Bat Ye'Or described as 'Eurarabia', ie those Europeans who seek to make common cause with what seems like popular sentiment in the Muslim, and in particular the Arab world at all times.

Europeans who led opposition the war arent all Eurarabists.
Excellent opportunity here to bring up some questions I've always wanted to ask a dyed(died?)-in-the wool EUropean.

To what extent do common folk in the EU know (and approve) about the (izlamic) immigration influx and the Demographic disaster awaiting EUrope? Is that because (i) they don't know/aren't informed, or (ii) know and don't care enough?

If the former, there may yet be hope. The bare naked truth is the answer, the key from which survival instinct takes over and logical steps to combat the menace and save the civilization will follow.

If the latter, then EUrope is on its way to oblivion. Civilizational suicide, as Arnold Toynbee would put it. This also goes back to a question (and a basic worry) I've repeatedly raised in other threads about whether the Indic way of life is slowly committing suicide or not and if yes, then is it due to the former or the latter reason....

Would appreciate your comments, Johann. My tks in anticipation.
And in a nutshell, that is what IMVHO is a worthy 'solution' to the debate.
That 'Truth' - unvarnished, factual and un-PC be disseminated.

The DDM and phoren media have had a bull run trashing Hinduism for its follies - from casteism to dowry - and where true, this has shamed many yindoos into defensiveness and some into concrete corrective action.

My question then is this: Why protect the muzlim from some plainspeak about his/her faith's core beliefs and their consequences in factual terms seen around the world and in India? About how izlam is/was used and abused by both desi and paki muzlims in J&K to ethnically/religiously cleanse that area?

Why spare the xtian pastor and colleague alike the facts about EJ activities, their denigration of Hinduism and local culture etc. That deception, low tricks and cheating happen in the supposed 'miracles' used to buy or dupe 'converts'?

Is it utterly impossible to shame any muzlim or xtian into denouncing what is wrong? I'm heartened to see the xtian BRF members unambiguously denounce EJ tactics. (Tks to you, folks, in case I didn't say it before).

And also speak truth about our history - about the izlamist invasions and massacres, the British exploitation of our economic resources, the role of the traitorous communists etc etc. The truth - unvarnished and factual. Is there any reason to believe that once the yindoos *know* their own history undistorted by the marxist/macaulayite lens, will not take pride and heart in its greatness? Is it too much to hope that once ordinary yindoos know how Hinduism lost territory to foreign religious invaders, they'll know better than to let history repeat? Why not assume the yindoo will awaken and move to rid the Yindoo way of life of its weaknesses and bolster its defenses? (The defense of Hinduism would be rendered redundant, in one stroke! Yippie!)

Why misguide the people of India of all faiths about the factual basis of the Demographic invasion in our Northeast? And in J&K? {Why won't any newspaper/tv channel discuss it, I wonder? I hope its not because Indians by and large don't care!}

IMO, once truth is told, Indians of all hues will rise to defend India and its essence - the Sanatan Dharma. Should my assumptions be wrong, should the vast majority of Hindus *not care* about Hinduism's future, then India's Hindu ethos would be heading for burial (or cremation, if you prefer). And (I dare say), deservedly so. Like they say, 20 men cannot make a horse drink and all.

Standard disclaimers hold. Lemme know if anything is objectionable or otherwise inaccurate.

Have a nice day, all.
Vishy_mulay
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 09:21
Location: Melbourne

Post by Vishy_mulay »

I am not really sure what people believe, except that I am sure that if it affects them personally, people will have very strong feelings. the amount of space devoted to the "cleaning of internal rot" in Hinduism on this thread speaks to its importance to the participants in this thread. Contrast this, for instance with the space devoted to the "rot" in "Pauline" Christianity (again, note the careful choice of words).
Calvin, is it possible that there is not much talk about rot in Hinduism is because there is no argument about cleaning rot in Hinduism. It has to be done. We all SDF know in our heart that there is lot to be desired and rectified.
The whole talk about "Pauline Christianity" started as a retaliation to continuous denigration of SD by various EJ sources. I believe that Christ was a great humanist but the religion founded in his name has lost the real message. Isn't that Christian karmakanda? I might be completely wrong but again it comes to individual opinion which you cherish.
I was projecting EJs for one reason only, the dichotomy exist in all religion. I am stating again, no religion is perfect. But overall projection beside this thread is something completely different.
Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Calvin »

Vishy: The number of denominations of christianity should testify to whether there is a belief that christianity has been "perfected." Just today, I was reading about the impending schism in the Anglican church over the Episcopalian views on homosexuality. So this perception of a "perfect" Christian church exists only in the mind of people that are paranoid about the reach of christianity. We can see that in the discussion on the two rupee coin. If people had the same view point about Jews, Sadler would have been yelling "ANTI SEMITE!", and yet its somehow okay as long as we are talking about Christianity.

sivab: I don't disagree with your commentary. However, it begs the question on whether the result is desirable or not, from a national security standpoint.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

A suggestion has been made on private email that while the Islamism threads were Islam bashing, this new "religion thread" is Christian bashing, and is thread really necessary for BRF?

I have some thoughts on the matter - and I will mention them yet again because they played a role in my insisting on starting and keeping this thread - and it might not last - depending on what forum members do and say on here.

Let us assume that we spend x days bashing evangelism (should I say "y" days - x being a cross and all :lol: ?). After we get some agreement about what genuinely needs change - I believe it will leave "bharat-rakshak forum" with a massive topic that has not been addressed yet.

That is "clean up the Hindus' act"

I say this in all seriousness.

I admit that my earlier query was "below the belt" - i.e. "What is worth preserving" for Hindus. But that question was not a joke.

Because India is the land where the Hindu dharma developed there are a lot of questionable practices that are widespread (will come to specifics over time). Some other beliefs really need to go if we worship science. But those things are sometimes protected as "old tradition".

Worse - there are a lot of practices that get protection (by default) because they are traditional- but not enough people realise that they are wrong, or at best baseless and scientifically not tenable. This in fact is why many Hindu practices got bulldozed by outside knowledge. It is particularly true in medicine. Practical engineering knowledge in India was probably near zero by the time the Islamic hordes came - so I am not sure that there is anything to preserve or reject.

I can easily quote examples from medicine. Not all that s "Hindu" is right. But it gets propagated without reason.

So while we "protect" we also need to understand what needs protection, what needs validation and what needs rejection. If we are as "open minded" as we like to boast - we need to how that it is true.

That is going to be more difficult that the easy discussion of Christianity and Islam.

JMT
Last edited by shiv on 26 Mar 2007 08:01, edited 1 time in total.
Vishy_mulay
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 09:21
Location: Melbourne

Post by Vishy_mulay »

Calvin I perfectly understand what you are saying. For me having lot of schism is good sign for any religion. It indicates that there are different views and thinking and indicates acceptance. Now one of the big drawback of this thread is that no one is posting anything about Islam. I don't see any schism in Islam except for Shia and Sunni (Hell they dont accept anyone else as Muslims, Ahmadis being one).
Regarding Rs 2 coin discussion, its not even worth 2 rupees and hence will not indulge into it. The only comment I have is that many SDF don't understand the inherent strength of SD which will not be challenge by a mere coin.
Faith is personal matter and should remain so. But when money, fake miracles and free medical treatment is used to convert, doesn't it become problem for everyone?
I want make important point, the last question you posted is irrelevant as everyone on this thread loves India irrespective of what religion, state, race they belong. Questioning someones love for motherland just because they don't belong to majority religion is down right wrong.
Vishy_mulay
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 09:21
Location: Melbourne

Post by Vishy_mulay »

Shiv, I fully agree with your post. My question is simple, are we allowed to get as dirty as we got in this thread? The laundry list is huge in SD to be cleaned.
sivab
BRFite
Posts: 1075
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Post by sivab »

Calvin: Isn't it obvious when fraud/misrepresentation is not involved national security is not an issue.
Shwetank
BRFite
Posts: 117
Joined: 12 Aug 2004 01:28

Post by Shwetank »

Hey Rakesh, did you get my mail? It's been a while and you havn't replied to my questions.

Calvin, do you agree that there should be a limit to individual freedom of religion if the religion is agaisnt this very concept and insists on use of force or is extremely destructive? Or do you believe there should be complete freedom no matter what and that trying to decide what is and is not allowed is just imposing your own prejudices and a dangerous process leading to curbs on individual freedoms by political motives all over again?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

Vishy_mulay wrote:Shiv, I fully agree with your post. My question is simple, are we allowed to get as dirty as we got in this thread? The laundry list is huge in SD to be cleaned.
The real problem is in talking without getting so dirty that people get upset and angry. It is up to moderators to weed out trolls who may deliberately get "upset and angry" without reason in order to disrupt - but that can be judged by how well and how politely other forum members are writing and behaving.

Since the degree of sensitivity of an individual is unpredictable it pays to start discussions with less pain and then increase the pain if the earlier levels were bearable, and decrease if the pain increases.

The art is vaguely similar to that of a masseur, or a bone setter - or - in some cases plain ol' surgery.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

A general post - it is not aimed at any specific person or group of persons, but a comment on people and human behavior

Humans in general are not morons. When they feel pain - they move away, and when they see something that they like - they move towards that.

Both Islam and Christianity have worked along both these lines - providing simple goals that lead to kinship, comfort and protection in one direction and pain in another direction.

Hindus in general are given guidelines about the nature of pain and pleasure and are told to seek truth for themselves. This has an advantage and a disadvantage. The advantage to the people is that they do not feel threatened to explore what is taboo in non-Hindu religious dogma. Tales and records of such exploration are well known - and serve as guides. The disadvantages of this are only to the dharma - not to the individual. The individual who seeks what is right will instantly move from what he has been told to some other set of rules if he feels that other set of rules is an advantage. Hinduism has no rules to make the individual feel pain and "hold him back" - "within the fold". The minute Hindus make such rules - they are negating their own dharma and are creating a new Christislam.

But Hinduism has had a trump card which many people forget and I wonder if that trump card is being forgotten first and foremost by the people who holler loudest that they seek to protect Hindu dharma.

The trump card is the acceptance of what is right over what is wrong. There is an acceptance that people can seek and find something new and great, and that if you find it and like it, and see truth in it - you accept it. If it happens that a Christian or Muslim has hit upon something good - you do not reject it because he is a Christian or Muslim. You accept it, internalize it and claim it as your own - since it is the truth and you can claim all truth is your own.

At the same time - the trump card is the reassessment and rejection of that which is wrong. What is wrong in Christianity and Islam must be rejected - especially the rules "accepted by God" that it is OK for a human to cause another human pain to coerce him down a particular path. But that rejection of what is wrong cannot come at the expense of imposing another wrong.

Hindu dharma has strengths. But one needs to understand and realise its strengths and use them rather than competing with monotheistic faiths using tactics that hey have refined over centuries. But Hindus have fallen by the wayside. They do not see their strengths and do not understand them and they seek to protect what they do not know or understand properly. The end up protecting what is wrong, and propagating the very beliefs and practices they oppose.

That is their prerogative.

You have an opportunity in this lifetime to see the truth. If you are a Hindu - you will get more lives to keep looking. If you are not Hindu - well - your one chance to find the truth is gone after this life- someone will explain it to you once you are gone.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

Calvin wrote:There is something dysfunctional about the discussion on this forum on religion.

It appears that there are a lot of posters who are personally familiar with one religion, and their world view essentially admits a positive reflection of this. By demographic make up, the posters are predominantly apparently hindu, with one self proclaimed christian and jew.

Then we have posters (including some that belong to the previous category) that have made comments about other religions, in general these comments are adverse in nature and in many cases based on commentary posted by others on the web.

For understanding, there must be dialogue, and it is not apparent that there is dialog of any kind, just a monologue - people talking about how great hinduism is (almost no counter discussion), people talking about the flaws in islam (no counter argument), people talking about the flaws in christianity (almost no counter argument), people not talking about buddhism (no pro or con), and people not talking about judaism.

At the end, the only thing that is reinforced is that people like people who are like them.

Given this, what is really being accomplished?
Reminds me of Court/Judicial proceedings. The current phase is typical of Discovery Phase which is the first step, where data/evidence/initial arguments are acquired/exchanged. I find this phase very educative and the limited fireworks enlightening.

After this there will be many facts that will speak for themselves, and those that do not will be dealt in the argument/counter-argument phase.

Perfect.
Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Post by Pulikeshi »

Calvin,
Calvin wrote: I believe this perspective is no more even handed than the perspective projected by the evangelists.
So, I understand clearly now that you equate anyone who holds the idea that “Hindusim is great,â€
Shwetank
BRFite
Posts: 117
Joined: 12 Aug 2004 01:28

Post by Shwetank »

shiv good points as usual, and also as usual the question is how do you make people see the strengths? I think there is little doubt that people who think like you or have views on Hinduism like those on this thread are a very small minority as pointed out by Calvin. There needs to be some consolidition, some cutting away and purging of old elements and moving Hinduism into new age with evolved elements and new wisdom about what can go wrong and not let things like castism get in ever again. Again this is easier to do then in other religions because pretty much every non Chrislamic thing found in India was lumped into Hinduism so it can be easily said to not represent our view Hinduism since there is not absolute definition of it. All very good theory but unfortunately people like us don't have control of media or influential people and not a lot people are willing to listen with open mind about such emotional topics, only hope is to keep using reason and chip away and hope that eventually people start paying heed.

But what it would suck if we just end being like another "reform" movement, another person with another book on another interpretation of religion and another sect but which eventually gets nowhere. In the end it comes to down same issues facing many of the reforms members want to make on this forum to other areas like defence, administration, economy etc. How do you get power and influence and atleast equal attention to your ideas compared to others? There's tremendous potential in getting a new, more consolidated version of Hinduism to go hand in hand with new rise of India all over again but once again the whole power structure and popular opinion is stacked against us... it would seem straight forward in most other countries except in India where national priorities are screwed up. Something fresh clearly different from RSS needs to be started cause no matter how saintly you are being loosly affilated to that org. means doom.
Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Post by Pulikeshi »

shiv wrote: You have an opportunity in this lifetime to see the truth. If you are a Hindu - you will get more lives to keep looking. If you are not Hindu - well - your one chance to find the truth is gone after this life- someone will explain it to you once you are gone.
Hi Shiv,

Great post, but have a small nitpick. Not all of us believe in rebirth, and it is not even essential to believe in it as a Hindu. Some of us have this theory that we are the universe :mrgreen: they call us monists! But we know we have no name or attributable labels or ego, but otherwise we go about our lives as if the universe depended on us. :P

Ducking for cover, before another part of the universe called BR Admin cuts me down to size :mrgreen:
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Post by Rakesh »

Shwetank wrote:Hey Rakesh, did you get my mail? It's been a while and you havn't replied to my questions.
I sent you a reply to your email. Did you not get that?
Pulikeshi wrote:Not all of us believe in rebirth, and it is not even essential to believe in it as a Hindu.
Now this is news to me and something I did not know. Thanks.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

The very premise of conversion is a act of violence .

Post by Prem »

Shiv Ji , what you say works in ideal scenario. Ejs etc has shown their no good intentions. Pope has declared Asia his new hunting ground and India figures on top of their agenda. The sudden, fast increase in Ej crusade activites backed by $$ and political patronage is of sinister design . We have example of the1r good deeds in NE of India.
Hindus can talk about Christ and appreciate his teachings as done by no less than Swami Vivekananda himself. Miracle milking missionaries are different cup of tea, their's is organised assault on SD and SD based on individual spiritual experience will always be at disadvanatege. There is nothing fair in letting an individual face the full fledge assault of well oiled misionary machine. This will be a sure self goal thingy. What BR geniuses have to figure out is how CAN WE maintain individual Dharmic freedom to explore the Divine and simultaneously have collective response to a antagonistic organised EJ etc . The price of failure will be too high.The soul identity, which was protected even in worst last 800 years at the cost of millions of lives, will be gone to oblivion for ever with the success of EJs.
Last edited by Prem on 26 Mar 2007 09:30, edited 1 time in total.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Post by Prem »

Pulikeshi wrote:
shiv wrote: You have an opportunity in this lifetime to see the truth. If you are a Hindu - you will get more lives to keep looking. If you are not Hindu - well - your one chance to find the truth is gone after this life- someone will explain it to you once you are gone.
Hi Shiv,

Great post, but have a small nitpick. Not all of us believe in rebirth, and it is not even essential to believe in it as a Hindu. Some of us have this theory that we are the universe :mrgreen: they call us monists! But we know we have no name or attributable labels or ego, but otherwise we go about our lives as if the universe depended on us. :P

Ducking for cover, before another part of the universe called BR Admin cuts me down to size :mrgreen:
Well folks , there is no birth and no death. There is only One existence and It is Eternal and we are part of this real Existence. 8)
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Post by Rakesh »

rongsheng wrote:Assuming bible is true, Christian god is the biggest mass murderer. He kills off everyone except Noah's family in the flood. Hmm... talk about a real terrorist. I guess he saves Noah's family because they follow him as the real god. I guess it is halal for christian god to kill innocents without even blinking
Have you read the flood story, to determine why everyone except Noah and his family were killed? God could kill everyone one of us right now and He would still be God. He is the creator and we are His creation. He can do whatever he pleases with us. Regardless of which faith you believe in, do you think that God takes your permission before he decides to do something with you? You can't even control your own death! That is if you are not an agnostic and you believe in God.
rongsheng wrote:I digress, may be I am missing something here, doesn't this saving just one family lead to incest. Lets go back all the way to Adam and Eve. They had children. Did Adam take his daughters as wifes? or Eve took her sons as husbands? Or the siblings married each other?
Let us put aside the Bible for a second. When man & woman first walked on the earth and they reproduced, just how did the numbers multiply? Yes there were relationships that today we term as incest, but there was no other way for the population to grow. Or do you believe that when the earth was formed, there were approximately 50,000 folks to jump start the world's population? Perhaps they sprung from the ground! :)
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Post by Rakesh »

G Subramaniam wrote:There is no way to defeat xtianity without taking aim at the OT.
The whole purpose of this discussion is to defeat Evanjehadism and not defeat Christianity. They are not one and the same.
G Subramaniam wrote:It is, however, strange that Jewish
historians who lived and wrote during the same period or a little
later, fail to notice him as well as the religion supposed to have been
founded by him.
Jesus was a very common name in that era. The geographical limits that Jesus travelled within was not great in relation to the Roman empire. He was largely viewed as a disturber of the peace due to His controversial doctrine. It was His followers that spread the Gospel around the world and they covered more ground that Jesus Himself. Thus there is probably very good reason why Jesus Christ is not mentioned by Jewish historians.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

shiv wrote: Humans in general are not morons. When they feel pain - they move away, and when they see something that they like - they move towards that.

Both Islam and Christianity have worked along both these lines - providing simple goals that lead to kinship, comfort and protection in one direction and pain in another direction.
Putting an additional comment on my own post.

I deliberately used the words "Islam and Christianity have worked along both these lines ".

For historic and cultural reasons that apply to many people in India I learned a lot more about Jesus Christ than Mohammad.

I don't think Jesus actually asked for the causing of pain to anyone in order that they should become his followers. That piskological trick of saying "This is the way to God and failing to follow that will give you pain" can be followed by human punishment as Proof" of God's seriousness and the early Christians were not beyond this cheap trick. The trick is to say "This is the way to God, or else God will punish you" Then you and your goonda henchmen proceed to punish your opponent yourself and state that God has punished this man. This is a cheap human trick that is used by pious evangelists.

Like I said I don't know too much about Mohammad. However - in contrast to what I have been taught about Jesus it appears that Mohammad himself was not above using this trick of saying 'God will punish you" and then allowing humans to punish opponents. I wonder if early evangelists actually got a boost from this terrific tactic - seeing that Jesus himself did not come up with what is a cheap trick.

Even in the last two weeks there have been news items and video clips of Islamic tribesmen in Pakistan's northwest using this cheap trick.

They killed some opponents and one of the jokers who was prancing about the dangling corpses was saying "God will punish them for their sins". Hindu dharma went past this cheap goondagiri trick millennia ago.

Evanjihadism is often a cheap goondagiri trick in which a person who is suffering is given assistance as a quid pro quo for following one God. He is offered Hobson's choice of relief in one direction and continued suffering from his disease because he does not accept God.

I betcha Jesus never told anyone to do this and did not do it himself. Evanjihadis are blackmailing goondas masquerading as loving people.
Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Post by Pulikeshi »

Rakesh wrote: Regardless of which faith you believe in, do you think that God takes your permission before he decides to do something with you?
Not if you are a monist or even a dualist in the Hindu religion. The Hindu Gods have to act within the rules of their creation, preservation or determined destruction – only to be recreated again. Intervention is possible, but if God (lets say Vishnu) decides to take out Pulikeshi, he better have a solid foundation of evidence to justify the act. Even Ravana had to be defeated by Rama (an human incarnation of Vishnu). I supposed Vishnu could have just taken out Ravana with one sigh, but that would be against the rules of his creation. Thus, the elaborate round about strategy to play by the rules of creation.

In the meanwhile, the universe get to enjoy the story of Ramayana and relish its characters. :mrgreen:
Rakesh wrote: Or do you believe that when the earth was formed, there were approximately 50,000 folks to jump start the world's population? Perhaps they sprung from the ground!
Since, evolution is a possibility, there were perhaps that may proto-humans, who eventually evolved into what we would identify as the human tribes. Now, scientists are still searching for the so called eve – I am not sure if this is supportable, but it is good to wait for more evidence. Given humans and chimpanzees are so close genetically, I would assume there is good evidence to see that most humans evolved out of their previous states (not chimpanzees, although we may have had a similar ancestor) of human-ness.

If you take any sexually reproducing grouping: chimpanzees, humans, cats, bats, etc. none of them had one “Adamâ€
Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Post by Satya_anveshi »

Rakesh Wrote:
Let us put aside the Bible for a second. When man & woman first walked on the earth and they reproduced, just how did the numbers multiply? Yes there were relationships that today we term as incest, but there was no other way for the population to grow. Or do you believe that when the earth was formed, there were approximately 50,000 folks to jump start the world's population? Perhaps they sprung from the ground! :)
[/quote]

Why is it convinient to assume a man and a woman walked on earth and not 50,000's of them? I mean what's the logic? Did you really put Bible aside in this example? :)

If two can be dropped from someplace why not 50,000?
Locked