Religion Thread 4

Locked
Anand K
BRFite
Posts: 1115
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 11:31
Location: Out.

Post by Anand K »

Now that we are on the topic of a God who does as he pleases, anybody read the Graphic Novel "Preacher" by Garth Ennis? :)
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Post by negi »

Satya_anveshi wrote:Rakesh Wrote:

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?
Well well a valid point,not that I want to contradict the bible,but hey who knows by 'Adam' bible refers to the menfolk and 'eve' for women (instead of just one man and a woman).
RajeshG
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 29 Mar 2003 12:31

Post by RajeshG »

Johannji

Thanks for the links. Unfortunately all Koreans I have met in the US are very strong Christians with some who go out on evangelical activities to China. Usually I am reluctant to broach this topic and hence asked for reading tips.

1 Re. Islamization of Persia, I dont know much, but again the impression I have is that it was not so much that Zoroastrianism (sp?) was monotheistic but Zoroastrianism was state-religion and the defeat of the state meant the defeat of Zoroastrianism.

2. I do find it interesting that Persian civilization eventually created the big rift in Islam.

3. Coming back to Korea again, that link talks about amazing and well-timed interventions of Christians with geopolitics and power-plays in the Korean society. Patronization of the kings, persecution from the kings, political instability, patronization from US, Japan, China at various times, sometimes favoring nationalization, sometimes against it etc all seem really amazing. Others should really read this link - its written by a pro-Christian bias no doubt - but the power-plays are very interesting.

4. Your comparision with India is definitely interesting and I was hoping people like you would explain how lots of territory was lost and even after that the core of Dharma survived. While vedas-are-science-onlee are all nice things to have I somehow doubt that was the case. I also doubt if monotheism is some genetic trait so one monotheism can replace another better then other types of theisms.

Infact more then Islam I find the British colonial period even more interesting due to the absolute superiority that the state enjoyed during the British colonial times. Sometimes I wonder if history would have been the same if the British had been a little less mercantilistic and had shown more missionary zeal. Did the association of Christianity with British actually prevent the Christianization of India ? If US missionaries (or Italian, say) had established missions and played a major role in the freedom movement would that have helped Christianization of India ? If Mahatma Gandhi type leader had converted to Christianity would that have helped Christianization of India ? If Ambedkar had converted to Christianity instead of Buddhism would that have helped Christianization of Harijans ? Mostly what-ifs but definitely interesting scenarios.

5. I do realize that religion (like most things in life) is a complex thing and might have multiple dimensions but this particular part is completely unexplored when people go into comparative religion. Hence I asked the question -> what %age of Christians/Muslims in todays world can be attributed to various power-plays in history ?

Anyways whatever reading material you can post would be great.

Thanks for all the informative posts.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

how many do believe that religion and its politics within human sphere is created by God (the unknown)? for that matter, did God create Religion for men or men created Religion (by holy ordains).

If it was created by some unknown, what was the reason for creating so many of them? does it not strike to modern minds, that evolution has a fundamental basis in the religion itself?

when science has emphatically proved beyond doubts thru dna and mitochondrial dna links upto the wellknown-early(first)-eve lived in africa, and how the melatonin drive the skin color over period of 20,000 years time.. clearly shows, that our brains or fewer brains can only think about on the whole. world human population is blown out of proportion.. and the problem is basically due to the advancing of brains, and getting away from respecting nature and evolution.

has anybody gotten their dna linkage by paying $100.00 to nat geo+ ibm sponsored (dr. spencer wells') to know your roots? it would be interesting from Xtian angle to those existed before Christ to haven take a religion that is not modern? did they went to hell?

why is that people from all religions do believe in something that is proven wrong?
Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Post by Pulikeshi »

SaiK wrote: why is that people from all religions do believe in something that is proven wrong?
Got Memes? :P
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Post by negi »

SaiK wrote: why is that people from all religions do believe in something that is proven wrong?
Its a simple case of shift in priorities,with time our needs and means to fulfill them have changed and eventually reached a point where we question the existence of God and importance of religion.
Last edited by negi on 26 Mar 2007 12:45, edited 1 time in total.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

:)
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Post by Murugan »

Calvin wrote:So, how is it that there is so much oppression (caste, gender etc) within the community of those that profess to be humanists?
I invite you to come and see yourself near Mumbai.

there are chrstians who have been converted from brahmins and other UC during protuguese rules . they are in majority in two villages few kms from my home.

there are christians who have been converted from dalits or so called LC during protuguese rules.

NOW, these UC christians don't interact with this LC christians. there is a sort of untouchability.

there is one friend of mine one ms cerejo (converted from UC) who is so proud of her hindu roots. The church where she goes the Padre wears saffron cloth around his shoulder and other hindu rituals are followed at their homes and churches in particular ceremonies.

There is a very beutiful church in a sylvan surroundings where Bhagwan Jesus' statue is in - sitting in a yogic mudra (jeev mudra), sitting cross legged- posture which all UC chrsitians are proud of while LCs just don't want 'brahminical' influence in the vicinity.

***

Point is one cannot stop this type of segregation in communities, religious, political or social whosoever profess to be humanists.

At one time vaishnavites were not comfortable with shaivates, RSS is untouchable for congress, RSS wale congress walo ko ladki nahe dete, Sunnis are at loggerheads with shia.

Classes are everywhere, black & white apartheid, protestants/catholics, shia/sunnis, rss/congress, MARRIED / HAPPY PEOPLE etc.
Raju

Post by Raju »

Classes are everywhere, black & white apartheid, protestants/catholics, shia/sunnis, rss/congress, MARRIED / HAPPY PEOPLE etc.
point noted
Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Calvin »

Questioning someones love for motherland just because they don't belong to majority religion is down right wrong.
Vishy, your point of view is commendable, and I agree with you. However, because people do this (question...love for motherland..don't belong....majority religion) all the time.
I understand clearly now that you equate anyone who holds the idea that “Hindusim is great,â€
Last edited by Calvin on 26 Mar 2007 17:23, edited 1 time in total.
SRoy
BRFite
Posts: 1938
Joined: 15 Jul 2005 06:45
Location: Kolkata
Contact:

Post by SRoy »

I've an amusing conclusion after reading Calvin's numerous posts.

Calvin rightly points to many Santana Dharma adherents in this forum that their faith is not without blemishes. OK, so far as people are defending their positions, they may not be fair to each other (Calvin included). Fine.

But...there is a subconscious thought process, if one reads between Calvin's posts, that is of worry/concern/indignation on seeing a section of Santana Dharma developing a mirror image of Islam and Christianity. This thing comes out in various ways as he commends the liberal strains and compares the reactionary Santana Dharma politics to Islamism and EJ's.

The mirror image is not a desirable route. But why the worry?

Is it because of some genuine concern for Santana Dharma? Or is it because if the reactionary trend continues then the EJ's and their well wishers (we know who they are) will be at the receiving end in the near future?
Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Calvin »

SRoy: This discussion, for me, is not about Dharma, Evangelization or Islam, it is about what kind of political and economic environment we wish to create for ourselves and our children.

I think people should have the freedom to believe in whatever they want to believe in. However, when religion guides state policy, it is highly likely that individual freedoms will be limited and oppression will become de facto, if not de jure, state policy. If sanatana dharma is not a religion as much as a "culture", then perhaps we should replace "religion" with "culture" in the sentence above. If people want to eat beef, let them eat beef (so long as the cow is not stolen from someone else).

The only reason SD is in this discussion is because SDF bring it in. If this were a discussion with the Southern Baptists, you would see the other side of the same coin (i.e., defence of individual rights) - the defense of "culture" in that regard is of course about gays, womens's rights, immigration, and affirmative action.

So, to answer your question, my commentary about SDF is not about a "genuine concern for 'Santana' Dharma" as much as it is about a genuine concern for the wellbeing of indians. I realize that this comment will be taken out of context, but if you are interested in understanding my perspective you will not take it out of contex.
vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Post by vsudhir »

Sroy,
But...there is a subconscious thought process, if one reads between Calvin's posts, that is of worry/concern/indignation on seeing a section of Santana Dharma developing a mirror image of Islam and Christianity. This thing comes out in various ways as he commends the liberal strains and compares the reactionary Santana Dharma politics to Islamism and EJ's.

The mirror image is not a desirable route. But why the worry?

Is it because of some genuine concern for Santana Dharma? Or is it because if the reactionary trend continues then the EJ's and their well wishers (we know who they are) will be at the receiving end in the near future?
1. Interesting observation.
SD is structurally unsuited to/incpable of a J/EJ type gangup mentality around a "faith is in peril" warcry. (IMHO, of course. Would love to know any reasoning and historical examples to the contrary). So Js/EJs being at a violent receiving end on an industrial/organized scale is *not* some inevitable, impending crisis in any case.

2. Some have lamented that this thread has become a "Hindu=great, monotheocons=bad" thread. So, to balance that, perhaps some dirt on Hinduism is called for now? The marxists/macaulayites have provided ample ammo all around daily in the englees media and in the history textbooks, in forms both subtle and crude. Regurgtating that here might serve to allieviate concerns that say SD defenders are blind to Hinduism's faults, maybe? How many times have we heard dinned in again and again that Yindoos *should* be ashamed of the organized pogroms, state-sponsored ruthless mass-murder blah blah that are the Gujrat riots? Mind you, less than 1000 killed (as per the UPA's inquiry commission report!) and a third of them were Yindoo. And yet the canard flies. Contrast that with the treatment the religious cleansing of Kashmir gets in the press :evil:

This thread started as a reaction to the relentless assault - both crude and subtle - on SD and its adherents on the ground that it was un-PC to mention in polite compnay. The situation was one where, both crudely and subtly, an SD defender could be safely labeled a Modi-ite, BJP crony, dumbo/moron et al and a silent supporter of Yindooism's various faults etc. Even though none of the SD-defenders here defend the practice of casteism or dowry, the collective burden and guilt is a cross borne by us anyway. Without engaging in 'torn shirt-open fly' arguments, lemme state for the record that well-meaning SD defenders (RSS cadres, for instance) are less guilty of practising either casteism or dowry than the psecs running the INC, RJD, SP BSP and the like. (Sure, it subjective opinion and one is welcome to dispute that.)

The challenge, the way I saw it, was one of legitimizing the viewpoint that SD is not immune to danger and could do with some conscious corrective action, that defending SD is not == with communalism or discriminating against other faiths, that exposing the bigotry of Js and EJs is not bigotry etc.

3. Lastly, the fond belief invoked by some here that SD will find an evolutionary way to 'assimilate' /co-opt the threat represented by Js/EJs flies in the face of a mountain of historical and emprical evidence. That somehow we'll develop the requisite immunity without there first being a 'truth and reconciliation' of sorts on a mass scale, is IMVHO, another pipedream. A triumph of hope over experience. But hey, like someone famously quipped 'I may be a dreamer, but I'm not the only one'. Only what is at stake here is our civilizational identity.

Anyway, my 2p. Standard disclaimers hold.
Metta to all.

UPDATE:
Just saw your response, Calvin. I find little to disagree with there. Tks for the same.
prahaar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2831
Joined: 15 Oct 2005 04:14

Post by prahaar »

Calvin: Let me make it clear in the beginning, your writeup is very difficult to understand for me - so please rectify any misunderstanding that I might have from your post. Pls. take it as someone trying to understand your POV.
Calvin wrote:SRoy: This discussion, for me, is not about Dharma, Evangelization or Islam, it is about what kind of political and economic environment we wish to create for ourselves and our children.
The discussion about Dharma/Evangelization/Islam are NOT extraneous to the political/economic/social environment we create. There is an intimate link between religion and the environment we have.
I think people should have the freedom to believe in whatever they want to believe in. However, when religion guides state policy, it is highly likely that individual freedoms will be limited and oppression will become de facto, if not de jure, state policy. If sanatana dharma is not a religion as much as a "culture", then perhaps we should replace "religion" with "culture" in the sentence above. If people want to eat beef, let them eat beef (so long as the cow is not stolen from someone else).


Do you think it would be a violation of uindividual rights if "killing cows" is made illegal by a duly elected govt?

IMO, there will be much more serious instances than "killing cows", where absolute individual freedom without the tempering of individual duties can lead to tumultous society. A case in point being "allowing marriage between siblings", "allowing marriage between parent and child" - these are not just moral issues, but create can create an unstable dynamic in the society as whole. The marriage between siblings case is not what i pulled out from my wild imagination but is an on-going drama in a German town! The "brother" has already spent one prison term.

The only reason SD is in this discussion is because SDF bring it in. If this were a discussion with the Southern Baptists, you would see the other side of the same coin (i.e., defence of individual rights) - the defense of "culture" in that regard is of course about gays, womens's rights, immigration, and affirmative action.
Are you saying that since most of the posters on the forum are SDFs, you are posing this question or is it because of the bigger portion of Indian populace?
So, to answer your question, my commentary about SDF is not about a "genuine concern for 'Santana' Dharma" as much as it is about a genuine concern for the wellbeing of indians. I realize that this comment will be taken out of context, but if you are interested in understanding my perspective you will not take it out of contex.
I think i get the gist of your comment but the two ( concern of SD vs concern for Indians) are not exclusive to each other in INDIA.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

There is a widespread feeling that the Hindu perspective, the Hindu narrative in Indian history and in the history of the world has been bypassed completely save for commentaries by select observers.

If Hindu tradition, like that of the Mayans or Incas had been totally wiped out, then this bypassing of the Hindu perspective would not have mattered one bit.

But, as it turns out, the tradition, the memes and the folk-stories are a long way from dying out. They form a part of day to day life in India and among Hindus wherever they may be.

This aspect of life has been private and recessed from at least as far back as the first Islamic invasions. I suspect that this was a reaction to the threat of physical elimination that the new religion Islam brought with it if you failed to join or submit.

This state of affairs - with Hindu thought being in "recessive mode" was inherited by the British, who defeated a known devil - Islam - a foe that was known to Britons from the Crusades. The only "visible" Hindu traits to the Brits were those that were not stamped out by Islamic rulers - but were often absorbed into Islamic society. Caste and untouchability was absorbed by Islamic society - but blamed on Hindus. Sati was at least in part a reaction to Islamic pogroms. Thugs were criminals who did not come under any legal system.

In the the atmosphere of Hindu thought being in recessive mode - "Hindus" became associated with Caste, Sati, Thugs and other undesirable traits. Nothing else was known and with Hindu thought being complex and maintaining a non-proselytizing, non-combative attitude to other faiths the fact that there was a Hindu perspective at all took a back seat.

I went to a great school that I believe moulded me well, but I think all of us have been witness to little incidents that showed Hindus their place. One incident, in my brother's class is related (in a hilarious manner). It took place in 1962.

Mrs Waller, a teacher was calling the kids to come and pick up their test books. She first hisses "Ganapathy" in a vicious tone between her teeth - holds him by his ear and tells him that the needs to do much better - he gets 6 out of ten and a whack on his bottom with the ruler. Next comes Adrian, called in a sweet singsong voice. he is praised for his effort (5 out of ten) and held up as an example of a "good boy".

It has always been OK to run down the image of a Hindu and be derisive of him, and it has always been a Hindu tradition to accept that with a smile. Post independence, Hindu acceptance of what is wrong has led to great reforms and constant self criticism.

That is now beginning to show up. But the minute a Hindu voice has been raised - it has been associated with extremism and butchery. There is always an equal equal between acts of butchery and a Hindu acknowledgement of that butchery is never ever met with an equal acknowledgement of butchery by Muslims or others. It only means that a crook has confessed and deserves to be treated with contempt. For a Hindus there appears to be a noticeable bias.

For Indians in India, this must not go unsaid.
Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Calvin »

There is an intimate link between religion and the environment we have
Are you suggesting that religion should have a role in government?
Do you think it would be a violation of individual rights if "killing cows" is made illegal by a duly elected govt?
Yes. India is a constitutional democracy. This is a good thing, because it implies that this is a protection against majoritarian tyranny. The majority should not get their way, if they are taking away an inalienable right of the people. If I own a cow, I should be able to do with it as I please.
The marriage between siblings case
I am not familar with this, but my response to those that wish to have a constitutional ban against gay marriage is the question as to why *government* should regulate a contract between consenting adults. From that perspective, this (or the case of the marriage between siblings or parents and children) is not a religious discussion anymore. The concept may be offensive to some, just like the idea of legalizing prostitution or drugs, but from first principles, it shouldn't be.
but the two ( concern of SD vs concern for Indians) are not exclusive to each other in INDIA
I think they are independent of each other.
Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by Kumar »

Calvin wrote: 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.
All religions worship their deities. Some religions are generous enough to worship other religions demons too. Hinduism has been very generous here. :) If you go by EJ talk and even that letter by a Russian orthodox church patriarch, hindus genrously keep on worshipping other religions' demons. In this vein, it was an utter surprise, by its uniqueness, to find a quote by the Mother which mentioned that Christianity is also generous and worships a hindu Asura/demon.

I think there are only two possible equilibria:

1. Each religion keeps worshipping its deities, and leaves this talk of demons aside.

2. Each religion worships its deities AND other religions' demons.


I personally prefer 1, since I think it is probably very unhealthy to focus too much on demons & devils.

But unless, some religions undergo some reforms, we may be heading towards the option 2 as the eventual worldwide equilibrium.
abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Post by abhischekcc »

Well said Shiv.

I have, for some time now (several years in fact) been coming round to the view that India's interests and the Hindu world view are the same thing.

Indeed, as and when our leaders have shifted policy away from the anti national perspective (euphemistically called secularism), India's common people have benefitted. And as and when they have shifted into secular mode, it is the power brokers who have benefitted.

Case in point, our opening up with Israel. From the very beginning of our recent histories, we have had no resaon to ignore Israel. Except that condemning Israel was a cheap way for politicians to curry favour with the muslim masses.


---------
More later, I have to finish target for today, then I will post from home. :)
Joype
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 18
Joined: 12 Jul 2005 18:13

Post by Joype »

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.
What was Krishna’s advice to Arjun who was reluctant to fight to his own people in Kurukshetra?
Why did Lord Krishna drive him to kill his first cousins and even the step brother?
So should we consider Krishna one of the mass murderers?
.
Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by Kumar »

Joype,

Evidently you don't know the difference between battle and murder or you don't know your Mahabharata.

Kaurava army, against which Arjuna was fighting was much larger than the pandava army.

Mass-murders are by a much superior-power against defenseless people including women & children.

Kaurava army was a superior force in numbers and in provisions. And they were all battle-trained fighting men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurukshetra_war
Pandava army 1,530,900 soldiers
Kaurava army 2,405,700 soldiers
Last edited by Kumar on 26 Mar 2007 20:38, edited 2 times in total.
Vishy_mulay
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 09:21
Location: Melbourne

Post by Vishy_mulay »

Joype, How it feels to be in Arjuna's shoes? Same questions were asked by him. For answers please try to read Gita. No one in SDF has proclaimed that our God is God of love alone. We do accept that God did/will punish those who do not follow Dharma.
"Yada Yada Hi Dharmasya

Glanirva Bhavathi Bharatha,

Abhyuthanam Adharmaysya

Tadatmanam Srijami Aham'.

Bhagavad Gita (Chapter IV-7)
Last edited by Vishy_mulay on 26 Mar 2007 20:41, edited 1 time in total.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

RajeshG wrote: 1 Re. Islamization of Persia, I dont know much, but again the impression I have is that it was not so much that Zoroastrianism (sp?) was monotheistic but Zoroastrianism was state-religion and the defeat of the state meant the defeat of Zoroastrianism.

2. I do find it interesting that Persian civilization eventually created the big rift in Islam.
Persia affected political Islam thrice- the first time was in late seventh century where there was a revolt of the Arabo-Persians that led to the establishment of the Abbasid dynasty. This brought a lot of culture and civilization to the Islamic world. It was the high mark of the Isamlic civilization.

The second time was in the middle of the sixteenth century when the Safavid dynasty took up Shia religion as a state religion and eventually the rest of the Persians in the countryside took it up. This brought about an alternate political center in the Islamic world. Earlier there were Shia kingdoms and even a Caliphate-Fatimid but these did not project a world view.

One can make the case that in modern timee the Khomeini revolution also was a landmark event for it contributed to the resurgence of modern day Sunni Islamism as a reaction.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

Joype wrote: What was Krishna’s advice to Arjun who was reluctant to fight to his own people in Kurukshetra?
Why did Lord Krishna drive him to kill his first cousins and even the step brother?
So should we consider Krishna one of the mass murderers?
.
The great war in the Mahabharata is a story of a war in which armed men fight. It is the story of mass murder insofar as war is mass murder.

There is a moral in that story - just as I believe there must be a moral in the story of God killing everyone in the Noah story.

I see your linking of the Mahabharat and the reference to Noah's story as a way of saying "Hey the Christian God did it, and Krishna mooted it so == equal equal"

That is classic torn shirt/open fly diversion.

If there is a context or moral in the Noah story please state it in defence of the story. If the only defence of the story is that Krishna advocated violence therefore ==, it should be easy to explain to any ignoramuses who will listen that the Mahabharat story has a context and an explanation which does not glorify mass murder. If someone is ignorant of the Mahabharata's context - he will be given an education, but one is equally willing to be educated about the Noah story.

But it is the "attack back" -" I'll whack you and your kind if you dare question me" attitude that Hindus are increasingly getting impatient with. Typically Hindus have always kept politely silent but some are speaking up now, and those that speak up are termed "Hindu revivalists"

That is a term that is also used derogatorily in association with an event that shows Hindus in a bad light. It is also a "Freudian slip" indicator of the mindset of the person who makes it. A revival is a reference to a "reawakening after a state of languor or depression" and speaking of a revival derogatorily is an indicator that the previous state of languor were happier times. Why? And for whom?

Hindus have no reason to suppress or remove other religions. It is other faiths that see a threat from Hindus. If Hindus show a state of "revival" I believe that the powers that be of other faiths fear that Hindus will behave as badly as Evanjihadis and Mullahs ask their flock to behave. Hindus are not even alllowed to say that they accept other faiths and Gods - because even that is a threat. A state of Hindu languor and suppression, withour revival is the most comfortable state of affairs.

Is that going to continue forever?

A Hindu "acceptance of other faiths" is an inbuilt and naturally evolved form of dhimmitude that is a kind of defence against coercive monotheism. But even dhimmitude cannot be a victory for proselytizing faith. The existence of an "accepting unbeliever" is a failure of the faith. And the most ardent faithful do not like that.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

lets say Canada and USA become foes and starts a skirmish.. and we have family split between detroit and toronto, having two brothers fighting front line one for Canada and the other for USA. they face off. will they kill each other for their countries or will scoot?
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Post by Rakesh »

Pulikeshi wrote: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.
Thanks for the above explanation. Thus there is a world of a difference with soverignty of God between the Christian and Hindu faiths. No argument here. This makes a lot of sense.
Pulikeshi wrote: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€
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

The accusation made was :
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.
To this provocative statement the "defence" was a counter accusation
What was Krishna’s advice to Arjun who was reluctant to fight to his own people in Kurukshetra?
Why did Lord Krishna drive him to kill his first cousins and even the step brother?
So should we consider Krishna one of the mass murderers?
.
Note the difference in tone in replying to this provocative counter accusation to an original egregious bait.

4 replies:
Evidently you don't know the difference between battle and murder or you don't know your Mahabharata.
Kaurava army, against which Arjuna was fighting was much larger than the pandava army.
Joype, How it feels to be in Arjuna's shoes? Same questions were asked by him. For answers please try to read Gita. No one in SDF has proclaimed that our God is God of love alone. We do accept that God did/will punish those who do not follow Dharma.
The great war in the Mahabharata is a story of a war in which armed men fight. It is the story of mass murder insofar as war is mass murder.
Lets say Canada and USA become foes and starts a skirmish.. and we have family split between detroit and toronto, having two brothers fighting front line one for Canada and the other for USA. they face off. will they kill each other for their countries or will scoot?
The difference in attitude is remarkable. Is it any surprise that some Hindus get increasingly angry and impatient
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Post by Rakesh »

Kumar, Vishy, Shiv: It is great to see that you are clearing the misconceptions about the questions that Joype posed, as from your answers it is clear that the story of Arjun, Krisha et al have been taken out of context and they are not actually mass murderers as Joype may have suggested. In the same way, how can any in here claim that the God of the Bible is a mass murderer when Bible verses are pulled out of context?
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

vsudhir wrote:
2. Some have lamented that this thread has become a "Hindu=great, monotheocons=bad" thread. So, to balance that, perhaps some dirt on Hinduism is called for now? The marxists/macaulayites have provided ample ammo all around daily in the englees media and in the history textbooks, in forms both subtle and crude. Regurgtating that here might serve to allieviate concerns that say SD defenders are blind to Hinduism's faults, maybe? How many times have we heard dinned in again and again that Yindoos *should* be ashamed of the organized pogroms, state-sponsored ruthless mass-murder blah blah that are the Gujrat riots? Mind you, less than 1000 killed (as per the UPA's inquiry commission report!) and a third of them were Yindoo. And yet the canard flies. Contrast that with the treatment the religious cleansing of Kashmir gets in the press :evil:

This thread started as a reaction to the relentless assault - both crude and subtle - on SD and its adherents on the ground that it was un-PC to mention in polite compnay.
The situation was one where, both crudely and subtly, an SD defender could be safely labeled a Modi-ite, BJP crony, dumbo/moron et al and a silent supporter of Yindooism's various faults etc.
Indian political/economic environment is being manipulated with the influence of EJ and global Islamists.
Targetting of SD by media is mainstream and people here talk as if other religions are minority. Nobody talks of SD people being killed by the Islamists in the mainstream media.
Abhibhushan
BRFite
Posts: 210
Joined: 28 Sep 2005 20:56
Location: Chennai

Post by Abhibhushan »

Calvin said:
my commentary about SDF is not about a "genuine concern for 'Santana' Dharma" as much as it is about a genuine concern for the wellbeing of indians. I realize that this comment will be taken out of context, but if you are interested in understanding my perspective you will not take it out of contex.
I shall try my best to not to deviate from the context. However, certain questions arise from the flow of this thread that need consideration.

One of the most outstanding features of this thread has been the contribution by Rakesh that stand out for its honest exposition of his point of view without any negative emotions. His espousal of the validity of faith in a discussion on religion is wonderful. He has allowed Alok’s gauntlet gather dust without a single word in disdain.

Shraddha Bhakti and Prem (SB&P) are not cohabitant with logic rationality and physical proof. That however takes away nothing from the reality of the emotional and (yes) physical effects of SB&P. In classical SD, Bhakti has a high status as a means, a way, a Marg for the attainment of cognitive union with the One. The validity of this path varies from person to person and an SDF is free to choose any of the Margs – Gyan / Karma / Bhakti or whatever to achieve cognitive union with the One. Under some circumstances and for some people one of the Margs would be more suitable compared to the other. Notice that after lecturing about all the possible Margs, in the last chapter of the Geeta, Sri Krishna asks Arjun to submit to him in blind faith. -- Manmana bhava mat bhakta etc.

What strikes me powerfully is that the total personal presentation by Rakesh falls so definitely within the parameters and confines of Dharma! His deep and obvious devotion to Jesus does not conflict with his Dharma as he sees and explains it at all. And, it harmonises so well and so happily with what I perceive as my Dharma. This set me thinking. I have always been taught that in Bhakti Marg your immediate focus only routes you to your final goal. It seems to me now that on the Bhakti Marg a Krshna Bhakta and a ChristoBhakta can march forward in unison with the greatest of ease.

The natural emotional companions on the Bhakti Marg are Shraddha and Prem. In Rakesh’s exposition of his route I find the same. Obviously some sects of Christianity are compatible with the philosophy of Bhakti. The Js and EJs of Sufi and Baptist persuation also claim love of Allah / Jesus as their main plank of belief system. Unfortunately, in their route of Love, they seem to have companions other than Shraddha and Prem. We find the presence of Darpa, Ghhrina and Bhaya – I am the Best You are the Worst / I hate You / You are Demonical and I should fear you. According to what I have been taught, these are incompatible with bhakti marg. Therefore I am uncomfortable with such js and EJs.

I now have two questions in my mind. Firstly, I have a dear friend Hamid. We have known each other for over forty years and have shared the same fauji units. His theocratic worldview is similar to that of Rakesh. Would he find it comfortable to dabate it in public as Rakesh has done? I do not know. Secondly would (could?) Rakesh or Hamid be considered apostate by coreligionists with dire social results for their views and for having expressed them publicly? Once again, I do not know. This is a part of my genuine concern for the wellbeing of indians
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Post by Rakesh »

Satya_anveshi wrote: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?
Absolutely I put the Bible aside, because no where in the creation story does it ever state that the earth's population was 50,000 to start off with. As for where the 50,000 came from...please refer to my reply to Pulikeshi. Thanks.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

Rakesh wrote:Kumar, Vishy, Shiv: It is great to see that you are clearing the misconceptions about the questions that Joype posed, as from your answers it is clear that the story of Arjun, Krisha et al have been taken out of context and they are not actually mass murderers as Joype may have suggested. In the same way, how can any in here claim that the God of the Bible is a mass murderer when Bible verses are pulled out of context?
Absolutely

That is all that i was asking for. There is no need to make a counter accusation when a simple explanation says exactly this.

The original accusation was obviously an egregious one - but the error was compounded by not defending it, or "defending it" with an unrelated counter accusation.
HariC
BRFite
Posts: 358
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by HariC »

shiv wrote:
Joype wrote: What was Krishna’s advice to Arjun who was reluctant to fight to his own people in Kurukshetra?
Why did Lord Krishna drive him to kill his first cousins and even the step brother?
So should we consider Krishna one of the mass murderers?
.
The great war in the Mahabharata is a story of a war in which armed men fight. It is the story of mass murder insofar as war is mass murder.

There is a moral in that story - just as I believe there must be a moral in the story of God killing everyone in the Noah story.

I see your linking of the Mahabharat and the reference to Noah's story as a way of saying "Hey the Christian God did it, and Krishna mooted it so == equal equal"

That is classic torn shirt/open fly diversion. .
Joypes point is missed. Its not a classic tornshirt open fly discussion. Its more like -

Hey look at the dumbass question I have posed without a thorough knowledge of Mahabharata. Now looking at it , do you think you are showing the same dumbass understanding of the bible by the blanket statement Christian God is mass murderer

The answer is implicit, there are a lot of factors one cannot understand. i dont expect a christian to understnad the nuances of the gita, and vice versa. Perhaps rather than shoot joype for 'not explaining' the context of the bible and the noah story, its better to look more closely at the OP who said 'christian god is a mass murderer' because he didnt make any effort to understand it and/or was only trying to flame bait.
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Post by TSJones »

If I may be so bold and in deference to the supremacy of physics and physicists everywhere:

The theory of evolution does not state that man evolved from apes. The theory of evolution says that organisms evolved by natural selection. Thomas Aldous Huxley in commenting on the "Origin of Species" published his thoughts that man evolved from apes.

However, I am willing to accept the fact that Darwin thought all organisms shared a common lineage here on Earth.

That is all. As you were and continue to march.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Abhibhushan wrote:
What strikes me powerfully is that the total personal presentation by Rakesh falls so definitely within the parameters and confines of Dharma! His deep and obvious devotion to Jesus does not conflict with his Dharma as he sees and explains it at all. And, it harmonises so well and so happily with what I perceive as my Dharma.
I wanted to say the same thing. This is the Dharmic interpretation of the Semetic religion in India and most of the early Indian Christians followed it in India. All Indians with Dharmic principles will absorb all outside influences in this manner. It makes sure that they fit in right inside the Indian soceity and culture.

What EJ are doing is the social destruction and this due to the social engineering after they have deeply studied the social order. It is very clandestine and insidious without the larger population knowing what is hitting them.
HariC
BRFite
Posts: 358
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by HariC »

To illustrate my post. there are two ways of posting a question. Let me take a question of partiition.

"I understand there have been many killings on either side during the partition of india, what were the root causes of it? Why did it happen?"

Vs

"Hey, I just read about the partition of india. How different are you hindus, skihs and muslims from mass murderers?"

First statement shows a genuine wish to learn. second is just a flame bait. I cant find fault with joype for responding
Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Post by Satya_anveshi »

Rakesh wrote:
Satya_anveshi wrote: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?
Absolutely I put the Bible aside, because no where in the creation story does it ever state that the earth's population was 50,000 to start off with. As for where the 50,000 came from...please refer to my reply to Pulikeshi. Thanks.
I understand the context.

In case you missed the obvious. I was questioning your acceptance that Adam and Eve walked on earth and are responsible for the whole population. But you seem to laugh at the possibility that 50,000 follks walking on earth (or just any figure) seemed illogical. Point was that if you put the Bible aside, where from you assumed Adam and Eve ever walking on earth. Where in the creation story outside of the Bible say that there were Adam and Eve in the beginning? What is the creation story that is accepted universally?

Anyway...this is OT in the larger context of this thread..so if there is any more confusion or twisting of arguments...I will let it pass.
Raju

Post by Raju »

Why can't the Ardhanarishwara, a god who is half–man and half-woman be same as Adam, from whose 'bone' woman was created ?

Ardhanarishwara shortened => Adam
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Post by TSJones »

:shock:
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

Rakesh wrote:Thus there is a world of a difference with soverignty of God between the Christian and Hindu faiths.
Once again, Rakesh, there is a mix-up.

What exactly do you mean by "sovereignty of God" in the context of Hinduism ?

Unlike the Judeo-Christian belief, there is no extra-cosmic entity called "God" in Hinduism.

"God" is Hinduism is necessarily immanent.

The "transcendent" aspect is used only for the philosophical distinction between the practical sense world of duality ( Vyavaharika Satya) and the seemingly incomprehensible essential unity within it ( Paramarthika Satya).

The question of "sovereignty" does not arise in Hinduism.

The universe is simply a "sport" ( Leela ).

In a sport, there are fixed rules, and only the outcome is uncertain.

Similarly, the rules of this universe is fixed in the form of essential physical laws. These laws are called Dharma because they hold the universe together ( Dharyati iti Dharma ).

Since "God" in Hinduism is immanent, "God" is bound by these rules as well.

It's simply a matter of reason/logic.
Even if evolution did indeed occur and we all came from monkeys, the first humans did indeed practice inbreeding.
Not necessarily.

Actually, gene mutations occur in every individual at every moment.

Some are benign, and hence don't quite catch the eye.

Some are malignant, and become "cancer".

In the same vein, various mutations occurred among the pre-human apes.

Some of those genetical mutations were breeding-compatible, some were not.

So, it is possible that several mutations of hominid types were attempting to breed with each other.

It is possible that some of these breeding "experiments" ( or attempts ) were failures, and some others succeeded.


[ As an example, lions and tigers CAN mate, and produce offspring, but male offspring of such unions become infertile, while female offsprings can breed further ]

Over generations, the dominant-recessive gene tussles selected the best "human" genes for survival ( and this could have had taken MULTIPLE pathways like the coin toss experiments leading to 3 heads and 2 tails in a 5-toss experiment ).

So, claiming that "two" humans bred the whole planet is a simplistic product of childish arithmetic.

One shouldn't deny others the pleasure of believing that Cain diddled his sisters, or that Adam donated a rib so that "God" could create a receptacle for his sperm donations, aka Eve.

However, chances are that several different batches of humans evolved through a process of natural selection from several hominid mutation sequences.
Last edited by S.Valkan on 26 Mar 2007 21:57, edited 1 time in total.
Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Post by Satya_anveshi »

Raju wrote:Why can't the Ardhanarishwara, a god who is half–man and half-woman be same as Adam, from whose 'bone' woman was created ?

Ardhanarishwara shortened => Adam
Hey Raju,

You will find a bunch of folks who believe Adam originated from <b>Adi Manu</b> and classic Amen, Ameen originated from Om.
Locked