Religion Thread 4

Raju

Post by Raju »

Ardhanarishwara like Adam was an androgyne and did not become male until Eve was created. Same in case of former when Shakti was created.

Ardhanarishwara was the father God and Shakti the mother God similar to Adam and Eve, the first humans.
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

Raju wrote:Same in case of former when Shakti was created.
May I please inquire as to the source of this ?
Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by Kumar »

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?
Exactly.

Its like someone telling me how a mango should taste like. But I DO know how a mango tastes like. I don't particularly care to be informed whether that taste has demoniacal/mass-muderer flavinoids or not.

Out of context quotes are used ALWAYS as weapons, sometimes as weapons of defense and sometimes as weapons of offense.

One way to counter them is to clarify the context.

Regarding the situation of Noah, I am not that well versed to start speaking on behalf of christianity. So, it would help if others who do, try to explain it. I am sure over thousands of years people have come up with contextual explanations for them.

If I were to try an "explanation", I would say that mass-deaths happen by natural causes all the time. And since in christianity, everything is God's will, those mass-deaths are explained away as his will too. But for a true believer, God is omnipotent and his actions have to be explained to no one, and his rules of ethics bind his subjects, but they cannot bind the 'omnipotent' one. So from that angle God can do anything and still be beyond repproach, because 'reproach' presumes that certain laws exist. And for a supposedly omnipotent entity no laws can apply.
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

Kumar wrote:So from that angle God can do anything and still be beyond repproach, because 'reproach' presumes that certain laws exist. And for a supposedly omnipotent entity no laws can apply.
Right there is the dichotomy between the Christian and Islamic concept of the same extra-cosmic "God".

In Christianity, "God" can do no evil. Evil is necessarily Satan.

In Islam, "God" can do anything,- lie, cheat, steal or kill. It is illogical to question the omnipotent WHY it did what it did.
Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by Kumar »

S.Valkan wrote:
Kumar wrote:So from that angle God can do anything and still be beyond repproach, because 'reproach' presumes that certain laws exist. And for a supposedly omnipotent entity no laws can apply.
Right there is the dichotomy between the Christian and Islamic concept of the same extra-cosmic "God".

In Christianity, "God" can do no evil. Evil is necessarily Satan.

In Islam, "God" can do anything,- lie, cheat, steal or kill. It is illogical to question the omnipotent WHY it did what it did.
Is that really the case in christian theology?

Can an omnipotent God bind himself so that he can't do evil?

Isn't Satan/Lucifer/Devil a creation of God?
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

Kumar wrote: Is that really the case in christian theology?

Can an omnipotent God bind himself so that he can't do evil?
That's precisely the theological belief in Christianity.

"God" is pure goodness personified.
Isn't Satan/Lucifer/Devil a creation of God?
So is the world of "sinners" a "creation" of "God".

So is Hell.

But since "God" is distinct from both of them, and from Lucifer, it is not the fault of "God" that they abused their "free" will.

This is where the fundamental schism between Judeo-Christian belief and Islam takes place on the nature of "God".

The omnipotent "God" in Islam is beyond reason, and hence beyond judgment on questions of "good" and "evil".
Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by Kumar »

Valkan,

"Omnipotency" is a very slippery philosophical concept.

Can an omnipotent "bind" himself? What happens to his omnipotency then? And if he can't bind himself, is he still an omnipotent?

The moment you put another adjective "all-good", you are limiting the omnipotent.

This "slippery" issue arises by the use of the word "omni" or "all". "All" is always problematic. Reminds me of some of the famous paradoxes in Set Theory:
Define A as the set of "ALL" sets. Does set A contain itself as a member or not?
Last edited by Kumar on 26 Mar 2007 22:36, edited 1 time in total.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

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
we have to see these stories with a social context.. these theories are based on evolution, but augmented and extrapolated for human understanding.

Ardha species are abundant in planet Earth. of course the "mass" would not like to or can't understand the evolution from scientific angle, but it was theorized just for the masses.

females and males of ape-monkeys and their ancestors needs to be analyzed, and perhaps lead to a species that is pure Ardha, say zillion years ago!., perhaps those days (assuming about 1000s of years after dinosaur extinction, and planet Earth G/H shift when continents diffused to become what is now).

who can visualize that far, and base things for moral aspects of human living. hence these ardha concepts.

stands good until proven wrong!
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Post by Rakesh »

S.Valkan wrote: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.
Valkan, your post has been very helpful. I am not an expert in Hinduism. Thus your definition helps why the sovereignty of God in Hinduism is vastly different from the sovereignty of God in Christianity. The above defintion also helps me to understand why the belief in Christianity - to an outsider - is so hard to grasp (not intellectually, but spiritually) and from this point, everything else about Christianity appears to be a fluke.
Last edited by Rakesh on 26 Mar 2007 23:03, edited 2 times in total.
rongsheng
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 18
Joined: 24 Mar 2007 03:50

Post by rongsheng »

S.Valkan wrote:
Kumar wrote:So from that angle God can do anything and still be beyond repproach, because 'reproach' presumes that certain laws exist. And for a supposedly omnipotent entity no laws can apply.
Right there is the dichotomy between the Christian and Islamic concept of the same extra-cosmic "God".

In Christianity, "God" can do no evil. Evil is necessarily Satan.

In Islam, "God" can do anything,- lie, cheat, steal or kill. It is illogical to question the omnipotent WHY it did what it did.
Read the story of Job. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job
rongsheng
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 18
Joined: 24 Mar 2007 03:50

Post by rongsheng »

Joype wrote: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?
.
As explained by others totally different contexts and not even the same scale.
rongsheng
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 18
Joined: 24 Mar 2007 03:50

Post by rongsheng »

Rakesh wrote:
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,
I understand the context in Noah's myth. The men at the time were evil, did bad things etc. I am not saying anything about killing bad people, I am talking about children. Are they evil, too?

Why does Chirstian god tolerate and promote slavery? Why does Chirstian god allow rape of virgin women by his followers?

If you didn't know this before, the story of flood is a rehash of older middle eastern stories of flood. Try Atrahasis, or Gilgamesh or Ziusudra to see the real story.


I have to run, will post in detail later.
Last edited by rongsheng on 26 Mar 2007 23:02, edited 1 time in total.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Post by Rakesh »

Satya_anveshi wrote: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.
While I accept Adam & Eve walked upon this earth and also populated it, I am not forcing that on anyone. You are more than welcome to believe otherwise. But as you said, let us stick to the larger context of this thread :)
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

S.Valkan wrote:
"God" is Hinduism is necessarily immanent.

Immanence in religion

In worship, a believer in immanence might say that one can find God wherever one seeks Him. This understanding is often used in Hinduism to describe the relationship of Brahman, or the Cosmic Being, to the material world. (i.e., monistic theism). Hinduism posits Brahman as both transcendent and immanent - varying emphasis on either quality is made by the different philosophies/denominations within the religion. Immanence is one of the five key concepts in Druze, and is represented by the color white. Scholars such as Henry David Thoreau, who popularised the concept of immanence, were influenced by Hindu views.

[edit] Immanence and Jesus in some theology of Christianity

In Christianity, the transcendent, almighty, and holy God, who cannot be approached or seen, becomes immanent primarily in the God-man Jesus the Christ, who is the incarnate Second Person of the Trinity.

This is most famously expressed in St Paul's letter to the Philippians, where he writes:

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. [1]
Raju

Post by Raju »

who can visualize that far, and base things for moral aspects of human living. hence these ardha concepts.
the idea is man was 'made' by someone/somewhere. So didn't really have to evolve.

thus similarity in origin stories.

SV< ?
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Post by Rakesh »

Kumar wrote:Regarding the situation of Noah, I am not that well versed to start speaking on behalf of christianity. So, it would help if others who do, try to explain it. I am sure over thousands of years people have come up with contextual explanations for them.
What exactly about the Noah story do you have questions about? Perhaps I can try and clarify some of them.
Kumar wrote:If I were to try an "explanation", I would say that mass-deaths happen by natural causes all the time. And since in christianity, everything is God's will, those mass-deaths are explained away as his will too. But for a true believer, God is omnipotent and his actions have to be explained to no one, and his rules of ethics bind his subjects, but they cannot bind the 'omnipotent' one. So from that angle God can do anything and still be beyond repproach, because 'reproach' presumes that certain laws exist. And for a supposedly omnipotent entity no laws can apply.
Well Paul in the Bible clearly states the following;

Romans 9:20-21 "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?"

But again this all comes to the realm of belief and faith, which in the forum is classified as madness and beyond logic.
Last edited by Rakesh on 26 Mar 2007 23:20, edited 2 times in total.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Post by Rakesh »

shiv wrote: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.
Boss...thanks for clarifying this. When the explanation is given, it is brushed off aside as stating that is an incorrect interpretation. But now that is just semantics.
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

Rakesh wrote: The above defintion also helps me to understand why the belief in Christianity - to an outsider - is so hard to grasp (not intellectually, but spiritually) and from this point, everything else about Christianity appears to be a fluke.
Not really.

The concept of Trinity in Christianity is very simple to grasp for followers of Hinduism.

The concept of Holy Spirit approaches the logical immanence of Brahman as Shakti.

The concept of "Son of God" approaches the sublime notion of the Avatars.

The schism is only in the anthropomorphic ideal of a transcendent "personal God", the "Father".

Unlike this extra-cosmic entity in Christianity, the concept of personified "Father" that "creates ex nihilo" is a logical absurdity that Hinduism only accepts at a lower rung of the spiritual hierarchy.

Since the logic of local causality is logically examined and rejected outright in Hindu philosophy, and the concept of "ex nihilo nihil fit" holds true in reason, the personalised anthropomorphic "Father" has no relevance to those that understand Non-Dualism.

The spiritual need for a personified deity, "Maya Upahita Chaitanyam" in the form of Hiranyagarbha - the conceptual equivalent of the "Creator" ( "Father" in Christianity ), is not a problem in Hinduism.

It is when purveyors of Christianity insist that each arm of the Trinity is EQUALLY true on all planes is where the collapse of the deck of "fluke" cards starts.
Last edited by S.Valkan on 26 Mar 2007 23:45, edited 2 times in total.
Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by Kumar »

Rakesh wrote:
S.Valkan wrote: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.
Valkan, your post has been very helpful. I am not an expert in Hinduism. Thus your definition helps why the sovereignty of God in Hinduism is vastly different from the sovereignty of God in Christianity. The above defintion also helps me to understand why the belief in Christianity is so hard to grasp (not intellectually, but spiritually) and from this point, everything else about Christianity appears to be a fluke.
To be precise, both "immanency" and "transcendency" of God/Brahman are there in hinduism.

In hinduism Brahman is the one basis of everything, including ourselves. At the deepest level their is one single "I" in this universe. Our deepest selves merge into universal self which is identical with Brahman.

But what we consider our "world" is not a fixed thing in hinduism. "World" depends upon one's level of consciousness, and world changes as the consciousness changes. In hinduism, statements like what is the nature of God/Brahman, self or world cannot be asked without clarifying the context of consciousness in which the question is asked. Change in the context of consciousness, not only changes the idea of self but also the idea of world.

The famous "rope-snake" anlogy in advaita says that same entity can be seen as a snake or a rope depending upon the darkness in the room. If you change the intensity of the light, a metaphor for level of consciousness, a perceived snake can be seen to have actually been a rope. This is just an illustration, but in vedanta, this process can be carried indefinitely, turning on more and more lights (by raising consciousness more and more), and discovering a truer and truer basis of previously presumed reality.

So the context of level of consciousness is very important. In a limited consciousness, a being would find his I (or self) bound in the world, in its rules and laws etc. In a more illuminated consciousness, the nature of perceived reality changes, and perceived freedom increases. At the peak of knowledge, a person can be in the highest consciousness of the Brahman, and in that state a total freedom is perceived.

So, nature of how "bound" the self or the world at large is depends upon the level of consciousness of a being. As the consciousness rises, not only the being becomes freer, but the world of that being itself "changes", it becomes a freer world. At the highest level, there is single entity left, no more any "other", no world, complete freedom, as there is no other to create restrictions.

All these multiple levels of consciousness and corresponding multiple "worlds" are not completely cut-off from one another. A person can "navigate" them. Sages/Yogis can navigate them to a larger degree. Not only "navigation" is possible but also spanning of multiple levels. Deities and Gods in hinduism are such spans between multiple levels. They straddle multiple levels simultaneously. They can use the power and freedom available on the higher levels to act on the lower levels. The concept of "Narayana", the God who resides within all the beings, corresponds to a certain being where all the levels of consciousness are simultaneously held within a single consciousness. This consciousness which can span the highest level simultaneously with the lowest, comes closest to the idea of "God". Since at the highest level it is identical with the Brahman, and at the lowest present within whole multiplicity of the world. For this God, the powers and freedoms of higher levels are available to use in the lower levels as he wishes.
Last edited by Kumar on 27 Mar 2007 01:18, edited 1 time in total.
Vishy_mulay
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 09:21
Location: Melbourne

Post by Vishy_mulay »

Dated material. Ignorance, I don't know you be the judge. Is there truth in it? If so what is the cure?
http://www.newstatesman.com/199812040021
India has no modern roads, chronic power shortages and a middle class that throws rubbish into the street. Who's to blame, asks John Elliott

What is it that prevents India being successful and stops it pulling its vast population of almost one billion out of the rut of widespread poverty, illiteracy and general non-achievement? Is it, as is usually assumed, the size of the country and the enormity of its problems, plus natural characteristics such as the grinding heat and the dust and the devastating rains and floods? Is the scale of these challenges and the depth of the disadvantages so great that India is doomed to grow slowly and, more often than not, to fail to achieve?

Or are these the symptoms of something more, something rooted in the country's all-embracing Hindu religion - a religion and a mindset that provides followers with the relatively soft, unambitious option of taking things as they come, hoping for something better in the next reincarnated life, plus a caste system that defies ambition with a rigid hierarchical, and often feudal, class structure?

Certainly India is unsuccessful by almost any yardstick. Ever since independence 51 years ago, India has failed to tackle its basic problems on a macro level. More than 30 per cent of the population are still below the poverty line, 50 per cent are illiterate, while woefully inadequate education and healthcare systems perpetuate the misery. The infrastructure is one of the worst in the world, with virtually no modern highways or efficient ports. Power shortages rise to 25-30 per cent of demand, and the huge public sector is mired in self-perpetuating over-manned inefficiency that defies reform. Basically, little in India seems to work effectively and, to cap it all, no one expects it to be any different.

Decades, if not centuries, of shortages and economic stagnation have led to an acceptance of failure. "It is not available" is a phrase that rings in all shoppers' ears - and it is rarely questioned. "Our annual Republic Day parade and the Beating of the Retreat ceremony are the only things that work in India to the minute - and, even there, pigeons disrupt the parade's fly-past," jokes one of the country's top civil servants. Such resignation to fate is not surprising; but it is so widespread that it is logical to suspect that there must be something more fundamental than simply that people and governments are overwhelmed by the scale and apparent unsolvability of the problems they face.

Hindu fundamentalists have argued since a revival movement was started at the end of the last century (to fend off Christian and other western influences) that it is not the religion that is the problem. They say that India's national pride and confidence were crippled by a thousand years of being pushed around by Islamic Mogul and British rulers.

As a result, people are incapacitated when it comes to taking decisions and implementing them efficiently. Now the fundamentalists want the Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which leads India's current government, to develop Hindutva - "Indian-ness" built around Hindu religion and culture - as a positive force that will cure the country's ills by rebuilding that lost pride and confidence.

"Right through the Mogul invasions to the British time in the 19th century, Hindu civilisation was stunned and traumatised. Hence the lack of activity and ambition," says Prafull Goradia, a BJP member of the Rajya Sabha (the upper house of India's parliament). "To this day we haven't come out of the slavery complex - that I do not expect to be a master, but I have an ego which I satisfy by being the super slave and by keeping the other slave down. This is the major reason why we don't make the progress we have the ability to make - and we need a heavy dose of nationalism to develop national and communal self-confidence so that we get over this."

That may be the BJP's dream for the future, but the reality up to now is that the dominant Hindu religion underlies, and is at least partly to blame for, India's problems. It covers more than 80 per cent of the population, and the teachings of the gods culturally influences the mindset of many of the Muslims, Christians and others who make up the rest. It is important not only because of the way it dampens ambition but because it also encourages acceptance of poor performance over a wide range of activities.

If Hindu immigrants have had great successes working abroad - excelling in areas such as electronics, software, banking and academia - it is because they are propelled into different behaviour patterns by local cultures and the need to survive in a competitive environment. At home in India, there are few such positive pressures.

Though there are many interpretations of Hindu teachings, in essence Hinduism promotes a fatalistic acceptance of a person's lot in life, performance of duty (rather than ambition to improve), and reincarnation (which holds out the prospect of a better life next time around if you do nothing much wrong this time). One of the original revivalist leaders, Swami Vivekananda, justified Hinduism's limitations on ambition and success by saying that India's "bedrock" was its "spiritual genius" and added: "Let others talk of . . . the glory of acquisition or of the power and spread of commercialism . . . religion is the one consideration in India."

Central to Hinduism are the concepts of dharma (duty) and karma (actions or deeds). Every individual evolves his or her own dharma, or moral code, which leads to conflicting and confusing social and ethical values. This confusion is compounded by the law of karma which requires a Hindu to accept that his caste and economic position are the result of deeds performed in a previous life, which can be improved if nothing bad is done in this one. The progression and retrogression of a Hindu's soul goes on through repeated reincarnations until it attains nirvana (salvation) and frees itself from the cycle of birth and rebirth. Significantly, nirvana is mainly achieved by introspective achievements of religious devotion and self-realisation rather than by western concepts of public and community achievements.

"Religion has always been used as an escape mechanism," says Suhel Seth, a go-getting banker turned advertising entrepreneur. "The lack of success is because Hinduism teaches us to be accountable only to God, not to anyone else, so no one in India regards themselves as accountable as politicians, economists or businessmen to anyone but themselves."

Hindu teachings impact on the basic needs of daily Indian life as well as on business and development in many visible ways. The ideal of tolerance is highly regarded, and allows for largely indolent, corrupt politicians (who use Hinduism for their own ends), a decrepit spread of laws that date back more than 50 years, Indian navy ships that are marooned in port and air force jets that are grounded (or crash) because of poor maintenance and a lack of spares, pot-holed roads that feed even major business districts, power cuts that plague everyone, and polluted water that can never be drunk from the tap.

Linked with that is a requirement to do one's duty without seeking excellence, or monetary or other reward or advancement. That does not stop beggars begging or politicians and public servants extorting bribes for what they do; but it does lead to an acceptance of one's place in society, negating enthusiasm and the wish to earn merit by performing services well. Thus an electrician will fix your wiring faults but care little if they break again the next day; a public servant will demand bribes and then fail to perform services properly; and companies will produce goods they know are below standard (until they face competition).

Another central factor is Hindus' primary concern for their own relationship with their god, which focuses attention on individuals themselves and little else. This encourages great personal cleanliness (sometimes extending to a clean home) but a total lack of concern for what happens outside - which leads to a lack of community responsibility and civic pride. So, for example, rubbish is thrown out into the street by even the smartest middle-class families; people spit betel nut juice on office staircase walls; there is no collective effort to improve the state of the roads; and a top industrialist like Rahul Bajaj, who controls one of the world's largest and most successful scooter manufacturers, sees no contradiction in being a pillar of the business establishment while at the same time polluting cities with fume-emitting scooters and three-wheelers.

Without doubt, though, the debilitating and cruel caste system is the most negative aspect of Hinduism. It combines the rigours of apartheid with the worst snobbishness of the British class system. For generations it has segregated people in a status-conscious society which has blocked advancement for hundreds of millions of people, deterring ambition and stifling initiative.

Today, though, the balance of social and economic influences in India is changing, reducing the impact of the Hindu mindset. The changes started in a small way 20 years ago, when agricultural revolutions began in the state of Punjab, generating new economic energy and consumer demand. In the 1990s economic liberalisation has opened up new horizons and ambitions, increasing competition and consumerism, and releasing a great surge of entrepreneurship. The impact has been enormously boosted by satellite TV beaming western images and consumer advertising into homes in rural as well as urban India.

This is causing significant changes in social attitudes. "The Brahmanical [top caste] grip on India is receding, which is both for the better and the worse. Some of the fatalism induced by a rigid caste hierarchy will certainly yield to the energy and optimism of the masses," says Namita Gokhale, a Brahmin novelist.

India's problems, though man-made, have developed in an environment set primarily by Hindu gods. Those gods will continue to provide safe reference points and benchmarks in the future, but increasingly other, more materialistic forces are helping to shape the country's destiny. With their advent, India will be successful.

Formerly with the "Financial Times", John Elliott now writes from New Delhi for "Fortune" magazine
About the New Statesman
http://www.newstatesman.com/nsabout.htm

I dont know who John Elliott is or his background. I posted this article to make a point that this is how Hinduism is perceived. John Elliott is just a representative. I can brush this article as rubbish and without intellectual acumen but the bigger question is how to counter it in a civil way.
Last edited by Vishy_mulay on 27 Mar 2007 00:03, edited 1 time in total.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

Raju wrote:
who can visualize that far, and base things for moral aspects of human living. hence these ardha concepts.
the idea is man was 'made' by someone/somewhere. So didn't really have to evolve..
kinda slow.. which similarities are you talking about? may be i missed something.

btw, "made by".. only happens in big bang~.. rest all is formations and evolutions.

PS:
---
Lord Ayyapan (kerala myth) is born between Shiva & Vishnu (Female avatar Mohini). These myths are to impart God power!~ in my understanding (IMU). And so is Ardhanarishwar.
Last edited by SaiK on 27 Mar 2007 00:02, edited 2 times in total.
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

Kumar wrote: Can an omnipotent "bind" himself? What happens to his omnipotency then? And if he can't bind himself, is he still an omnipotent?

The moment you put another adjective "all-good", you are limiting the omnipotent.
This is what the problem with Judeo-Christian monotheism is all about.

Islam seizes upon this logical absurdity, and says "God" is NOT BOUND by reason/laws, and NOT EVEN by "his own words."

But it too suffers from the same logical flaw applied to the concept of idolatry.

To be omnipotent and omniscient, "God" has LOGICALLY got to be omnipresent.

Can an omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent "God" bind itself to be ABSENT from "idols" ? :lol:

And if it IS present in those idols, what is the objection to "idol worship" ? :lol:
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Vishy_mulay wrote:Dated material. Ignorance, I don't know you be the judge. Is there truth in it? If so what is the cure?
http://www.newstatesman.com/199812040021


Today, though, the balance of social and economic influences in India is changing, reducing the impact of the Hindu mindset.

This is causing significant changes in social attitudes. "The Brahmanical [top caste] grip on India is receding, which is both for the better and the worse. Some of the fatalism induced by a rigid caste hierarchy will certainly yield to the energy and optimism of the masses," says Namita Gokhale, a Brahmin novelist.

India's problems, though man-made, have developed in an environment set primarily by Hindu gods. Those gods will continue to provide safe reference points and benchmarks in the future, but increasingly other, more materialistic forces are helping to shape the country's destiny. With their advent, India will be successful.

About the New Statesman
http://www.newstatesman.com/nsabout.htm
The wrong assumption here is that there is no materialism in Hindu mindset. The main thing he misses is that India was brainwashed with socialism even before it could understand the globalized world.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Post by Prem »

God is beyond reason, laws etc but this material created world is bound by laws. Any action of God in this world is to be in this context otherwise creation will collapse. And if this happen, any question about God is moot.
Raju

Post by Raju »

>>btw, "made by".. only happens in big bang~.. rest all is formations and evolutions.

No need for confusion. from what I can infer there has been no evolution wrt to Man but only devolution, man was originally in a far superlative state of 'fit and finish' than the current specimen. Evolution is a story sold by science to debunk the story of devolution.

"made by" happened through direct interference, there was no slow process of evolution from amoeba etc if one goes by religion. The interference is 'micro-level' and direct much like a scientist in a lab.
Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Johann »

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.
Zoroastrianism is the original monotheistic fath, from which first Judaism and then the rest borrowed gained their core beliefs.

Specifically;
- the concept of monotheism, a single all-powerful creator
- the 'one true gods' permanent battle against a force of evil
- resurrection of the soul in an afterlife
- the eventual coming of god's rule on earth

The influence of Zoroastrianism, Judaism and Mithraism within the Roman Empire was profound, and played a huge role in the adoption of Christianity as the state religion.

Despite that Persia, like the West after the renaissance, or the period in Islamic history when Persian culture dominated had a certain balance - religion was important but religious dogmatism was not allowed rule most aspects of life.

One of the reasons I think Zoroastrianism escaped serious fundamentalism is that Zoroastrianism in Persia was itself a revolt against the priestly caste's power. Textual fundamentalism and literalism was also difficult since so much of its texts were destroyed in invasions like Alexander's.

By about 900-1000 AD the majority of the old Persian empire was Muslim. The first to convert had been the city populations and the provincial gentry. The last had been rural peasants.

But Islam's inheritance from Zoroastrianism made conversion far easier than in India.

But Persian civilisation and values asserted itself in tandem with Islam, even when they were speaking Arabic for 3 centuries.
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.
I think Hinduism and Buddhism's fundamental conception of the nature of the universe and of God are so different from the monotheistic conception, and so richly developed that it is a kind of innoculation against Smeitic beliefs.

Dharmic faiths enourage a kind of resignation to do what they think is right and accept suffering that is at least as deep as the semitic religions ideas of martyrdom.

I also think that divisions of language and caste with their narrow horizons actually acted as a barrier to wholesale conversion. A whole village of Tamil speaking fishermen might be converted to Christianity, but that was unlikely to impress the Telugu fishing village further up the coast, or the Tamil speaking rope weaving village inland.
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 ?.
Could you be more specific about what you mean by power plays?

Almost all major religions and sects have greatly benefited from state patronage at some point.

Right from the shaman and the tribal chief onwards.
Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by Kumar »

Rakesh wrote: What exactly about the Noah story do you have questions about? Perhaps I can try and clarify some of them.
...
Well Paul in the Bible clearly states the following;

Romans 9:20-21 "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?"
Rakesh,

I think your quote from Paul would also "explain" the death of all the people except Noah and his family.
But again this all comes to the realm of belief and faith, which in the forum is classified as madness and beyond logic.
IMHO its good to have a clear understanding of "faith" too. Since so much of the humanity has faith in "faith". It is useless to classify it as madness, since then a large part of humanity may have to be institutionalized.

Faith doesn't have to follow logic, but generally theologians try to create a logically consistent system anyway. Most "discussions" tend to be about these theological issues, and in that context people can try to use rules of logic as they please. Especially since such theological concepts are used to induce faith during proselytization efforts. And in that sense theological concepts don't remain within the realm of "personal faith" and arguing logically about them could be useful for enhancing general understanding, as long as people keep the discussion intellectual and don't degenerate into passing sweeping value-judgements on people's personal-faiths. JMHO.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

Raju, you are going I.D. (Intelligent Design) way!.

the slow process is abstract and its not easy to define it. this is one of the reasons, that Hindu yugas were in.. where the rate of evolution has gone exponential now compared to the slow begining.

you have heard of people living long years, and now hardly any. our brains are continuing to evolve learning EMF interferences now. Sope, there is a chance that I.D. tags can hinder religion (especially Hinduism, IMU).

i am worried for those kids in the future that is to evolve in the moon and mars!. they would have no history left with to talk about. [hypothetically a solid ground for I.D. folks to put their theories to rest].
Raju

Post by Raju »

>>there is a chance that I.D. tags can hinder religion (especially Hinduism, IMU).

Au contraire hinduism details devolution much better than any other in existance. It is the most detailed and descriptive narrative out there. The rest take snatches of events from it.

So it is no hindrance, instead very reassuring to the believer.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

well, "hinder" i was thinking from "evolution" perspective. within mutants, one can always find less hinder, and more positive interference.

we should not delink minds that evolve too.. brain cells can progress in a pattern and evolve into a concept unlike a devolved sect of community that lives without having to have seen the delinked types for ages.

hence, people were separated for various reasons, transportations, migration, climate, continents, information exchange, was slow.. we have seen many religions in the past, is solely because of these factors. of course, barbarism and other evil mutants were in existence, and was a factor to hinder, alsooo.

it all fits in evolution and hindutvic enough.. devolution , revolution .. all ends up in evolution. :wink:
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Post by Rakesh »

rongsheng wrote:I understand the context in Noah's myth. The men at the time were evil, did bad things etc. I am not saying anything about killing bad people, I am talking about children. Are they evil, too?
Your question needs to answered with Biblical verses and thus the following. Please note, I quote only from the KJV (King James Version).

Isaiah 1:2 "Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me."

Isaiah 1:4 "Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward."

I once heard a sermon from a pastor who said that all babies (including the ones that are aborted) go to heaven. If that is the case, then we ought to open up abortion clinics and start aborting all the pregnant women. We can send all the unborn children to heaven directly. In fact, we will be doing them a favour! :) The other question that arises, is that what is the cut off age for living children? Is it 5 years? 6 years? 3 years? At what point does God determine when a child is come of age to reason for himself/herself about their sin and their relation to God? Man cannot answer that question, as he does not have the foreknowledge of who is going to be saved and who is not saved. So we really cannot claim that all babies go heaven (or for that matter, that all babies go to hell).

Thus, were there babies & children that were killed in the flood, during the time of Noah? Absolutely. For that I quote Romans 5, verses 12 and 19.

Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."

Romans 5:19 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

In the Christian faith, all mankind has the sin of Adam (i.e. the sin of disobedience) upon them and thus it is not the acts of sin that make you a sinner, it is the very fact that you are born a sinner is what makes you sin. Children and babies are also sinners in that context.

Now the next question to be asked is were'nt Noah and his family also sinners? And yes they were. But why did God single them out? Isn't God going against His own word? To answer that question, we go back to the Bible.

Genesis 6:5-9 "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God."

The question that arises is how can Noah be just and perfect? I thought Christians believed that only God was just and perfect? For that we go to John Gill - a great theologian of his time. I quote from him and I cannot add anything more to what he says about Noah and Genesis 6:8
"This man and his family were the only exception to the general apostasy; God always reserves some, in the worst of times, for himself; there is a remnant, according to the election of grace; it was but a small one, and that now appeared; and this was owing to the grace of God, and his choice upon that, and not to the merits of the creature. This grace, which Noah found and shared in, was the favour and good will of God; Noah was grateful and acceptable to him; he was well pleased with him in Christ; his person, services, and sacrifices, were acceptable to him through the Beloved; though he might not be acceptable in the eyes of men, who derided him for his piety and devotion, and especially for his prediction of the flood, and making an ark to save him and his family from it; yet he was very acceptable in the eyes of the Lord, and grateful in his sight, and was favoured with grace from him, who is the God of all grace, and with all the supplies of it: the Jerusalem Targum is, he

"found grace and mercy;''

the grace he found was not on account of his own merit, but on account of the mercy of God: and this shows that he was not without sin, or he would have stood in no need of the mercy and grace of God to save him; and as he found grace and favour in things spiritual, so in things temporal; he found favour with God, and therefore he and his family were spared, when the whole world of the ungodly were destroyed; he found favour with God, and therefore was directed by him to build an ark, for the saving of himself and his; he found favour with him, and therefore he had the honour of being the preserver of mankind, and the father of a new world.
But Jesus Christ also said the following in the Bible.

Mark 10:13-16 "And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them."

Luke 18:15-17 "And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein."

So in the OT, God states that children are curropters and in the NT, Jesus Christ (who is also God but manifested in the flesh) states that you cannot receive the kingdom of God, if you are not a little child. So the question that arises is if children are curropters and have provoked God to anger, how can Jesus Christ ask you to recieve the kingdom of God as a child? Does'nt that make the God of the Bible a liar?

To answer that question, we go back to John Gill.

John Gill says the following about Mark 10:15
Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God; the Gospel, and the mysteries of it: as a little child; laying aside all pride and prejudice, attending thereunto with humility and meekness
John Gill says the following about Luke 18:17
whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God; the King Messiah, the doctrines of the Gospel, and the ordinances of it, even the whole Gospel dispensation; as a little child; without prejudice, pride, ambition, and vanity, with meekness, and humility
Thus when Jesus is asking you to be like a child, when receiving the kingdom of God, He is asking you to receive it as a gift of grace from Him and not as if it is your right. That by no means qualifies that you are not a sinner. You still are and will continue to be one, just as Noah and his family were. Even believers in Christ sin. But believers in Christ know that He intercedes to the Father, on our behalf. I might have to explain TULIP now with what I just said in this entire post. Evanjehadis would crucify me and say I am possessed of the Devil, if I explained TULIP.

Rongsheng...that was a long answer and I touched base (albeit very lightly) on a number of topics, but does that answer your question? Please advise.
rongsheng wrote:Why does Christian god tolerate and promote slavery? Why does Christian god allow rape of virgin women by his followers?
On slavery, you are talking about a society which a man (being the head of a family) owned slaves. That was the custom back then. We can argue back and forth on this topic and we would be just wasting our breath.

But the issue of God allowing the rape of virgin women, requires a bit more clarification. I think you are referring to the book of Numbers, chapter 31. Please advise.
rongsheng wrote:If you didn't know this before, the story of flood is a rehash of older middle eastern stories of flood. Try Atrahasis, or Gilgamesh or Ziusudra to see the real story.
For every verse in the Bible, there are scores of books & people out there to discount it. Such is the depravity of man. But that is a-okay with me, for I too discounted the Bible at one point and wanted nothing to do with God.
Last edited by Rakesh on 27 Mar 2007 02:04, edited 5 times in total.
Vishy_mulay
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 09:21
Location: Melbourne

Post by Vishy_mulay »

The wrong assumption here is that there is no materialism in Hindu mindset. The main thing he misses is that India was brainwashed with socialism even before it could understand the globalized world.
And who was responsible for that? Why is that the socialistic growth rate of India is called as "Hindu" growth rate? Is there any other religion which has deity for wealth?
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Vishy_mulay wrote:
The wrong assumption here is that there is no materialism in Hindu mindset. The main thing he misses is that India was brainwashed with socialism even before it could understand the globalized world.
And who was responsible for that? Why is that the socialistic growth rate of India is called as "Hindu" growth rate? Is there any other religion which has deity for wealth?
History of Indian personalities during the period 1900-1930 would give you some answer.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Post by Rakesh »

S.Valkan wrote:Since "God" in Hinduism is immanent, "God" is bound by these rules as well. It's simply a matter of reason/logic.
I can't undertand that logic. But very interesting :) I have learned more about Hinduism today from you and few others here, than in all my lifetime. Thanks.
S.Valkan wrote:It is when purveyors of Christianity insist that each arm of the Trinity is EQUALLY true on all planes is where the collapse of the deck of "fluke" cards starts.
I think I posted this link before?

Is the Trinity Biblical?

If you still have questions, please feel free to ask. I'll try and answer them as best I can.
S.Valkan wrote:Can an omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent "God" bind itself to be ABSENT from "idols" ? :lol: And if it IS present in those idols, what is the objection to "idol worship" ? :lol:
If what you said were true, then God should also be present in excreta and urine. The definition of omnipresent is being present everywhere. Yes that is true, but it requires more clarification. For that we refer back to the Bible.

Psalm 139:7-8 "Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there."

Now see what John Gill says about the second half of Pslams 139:7
which is everywhere, for God's presence is omnipresence; his powerful presence and providence are with all his creatures, to support and uphold them in being; he is not far from, but near to them; in him they live, move, and have their being: and so there is no fleeing from him or that; and as to his gracious presence, which is with all his people, in all places at the same time; they do not desire to flee from it, but always to have it; and are concerned for it, if at any time it is removed from them, as to their apprehension of it. Or, "from thy face" {e}; that is, from Christ, who is the face of Jehovah; the image of the invisible God, the express image of his person, in whom all the perfections of God are displayed; and such a likeness, that he that has seen the one has seen the other; he is the Angel of his face or presence, and who always appears before him, and in whom he is seen. Now there is no fleeing from him, for he is everywhere; where God is, his face is: and a sensible sinner desires to flee to him, and not from him; for there is no other refuge to flee unto for life and salvation but to him; and gracious souls desire to be always with him now, and hope to be for ever with him hereafter; they seek him, the face of God, now, and expect to see it more clearly in the world to come.
God says in the Bible that idol worship is just plain wrong. You can see that here;

Deuteronomy 4:16-18 "Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth."

Habakkuk 2: 18-20 "What profiteth the graven image that the maker thereof hath graven it; the molten image, and a teacher of lies, that the maker of his work trusteth therein, to make dumb idols? Woe unto him that saith to the wood, Awake; to the dumb stone, Arise, it shall teach! Behold, it is laid over with gold and silver, and there is no breath at all in the midst of it. But the LORD is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him."
Joype
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 18
Joined: 12 Jul 2005 18:13

Post by Joype »

Kumar, Vishy, Shiv & all other wise men;
You haven’t got my point (rather got it wrongly).
My intention was not at all to establish the torn shirt / fly open theory.

I understand Krishna was insisting Arjun to do his duty, i.e. obliterate the cruel & corrupt people. Arjun was just a tool. It was Lord Krishna’s objective to eliminate the evil from earth. Not because Kaurav’s army was large in number and well equipped. It was God’s (in Mahabharata it is Krishna’s) decision and he executed it. So shall we call Him a terrorist?

It is foolishness to say, hey, our god hasn’t killed women & children, but only men. Or we killed in war only. Is men’s life beneath contempt? :D Life is precious to every one. So please don’t offer mere excuses.
In these cases He has a reason also (as Lord Krishna had) for His deed.

Please read Genesis chapter 6- 5;8, 11;13
5- And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6- And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7- And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
8- But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

11- The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
12- And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
13- And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
No one in SDF has proclaimed that our God is God of love alone.
Vishy, Is that validates me to call that God a mass murderer or a terrorist? Is that you suggest me?

P.S. I wonder how you guys (BRadmins) were so blind to not to see that provoking (Christian God = biggest mass murderer, real terrorist) post until I brought it up to your notice.
Last edited by Joype on 27 Mar 2007 02:32, edited 1 time in total.
Vishy_mulay
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 09:21
Location: Melbourne

Post by Vishy_mulay »

Acharya, many on this thread have hell bend out of shape with sensitivity to religious sentiments. I am trying to bring out two things, first, SDF accept whatever misinformation is thrown on their face without contesting it unlike other faith followers. Do we lack retaliatory mentality? If so, is it good or bad?
Second, why is it that everything wrong about India is associated with Hinduism? Is it real? If not why there is no movement in Hinduism to counter it? It is because the nature of SD or there are other social issues? If 21st century is going to be century of information, why correct information about SD is not propagated. Why false stereotypes created in british slavery have not been successfully countered? Do we really follow secularism in India or minority appeasement is new secular way? What are the long term dangers associated with minority appeasement?
I accept your point that many Indian personalities in early 20th century shaped lot of misconceptions about Hinduism. But as SDF, are we this gullible to let it continue even today? Can we discuss the proper civil ways to counter the misconceptions about SD?
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Joype wrote:
Vishy, Is that validates me to call that God a mass murderer or a terrorist? Is that you suggest me?

P.S. I wonder how you guys (BRadmins) were so blind to not to see that provoking (Christian God = biggest mass murderer, real terrorist) post until I brought it up to your notice.
History of India and Indian religion has been shown to the world in the eyes of European Christian for the last 500 years. This is the reason why Indian religions are yet to be explained properly in the words of the Hindu believer.
Hence the paradigm of religious discussion is still in the western framework.

Indians have to understand this.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Vishy_mulay wrote: . Do we lack retaliatory mentality? If so, is it good or bad?
Ignorance is the main problem. Problem of the education and media under their control.

Second, why is it that everything wrong about India is associated with Hinduism? Is it real? If not why there is no movement in Hinduism to counter it? It is because the nature of SD or there are other social issues?
Highly sophisticated propaganda. High percentage of Indian people are yet to wake up. Hence poor response.
If 21st century is going to be century of information, why correct information about SD is not propagated. Why false stereotypes created in british slavery have not been successfully countered?
It all comes to who controls the media and education.
Do we really follow secularism in India or minority appeasement is new secular way? What are the long term dangers associated with minority appeasement?
Answer needs an entire
FORUM
to discuss this question.

I accept your point that many Indian personalities in early 20th century shaped lot of misconceptions about Hinduism. But as SDF, are we this gullible to let it continue even today? Can we discuss the proper civil ways to counter the misconceptions about SD?
Awareness, education and discussion is the right way.
The era of Modernism is only a recent event from 1900 and it is already breaking down. We have to start from the era before modernism to create the right narrative for Indian History.
Last edited by svinayak on 27 Mar 2007 03:04, edited 1 time in total.
Vishy_mulay
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 09:21
Location: Melbourne

Post by Vishy_mulay »

Joype, my comments were in context to EJs proclamation of Biblical God being God of Love without vengeance. Valkan has few posts about it and they make very important point about fallacies EJs propagate about their own faith. I have posted some moons back that the commandment "thy shall not kill" is misrepresentation of "thy shall not murder". (meaning Biblical God allowed killing with justification but not senseless murder. No Biblical scholar on this forum discussed this point)
Do I support the comments made by other members about Biblical God. No I dont, but I was waiting for someone who understands Christianity more than me to counter it (and Rakesh did it with civility). Your post was perceived by me as reactionary and was related to a Dharma which I think I know little. Hence the clarification.
Does not having SDF God as "God of Love" makes him/her mass murderer/terrorist? Well ask any EJs they will answer your question. From my perspective, God (even Biblical) has brought destruction to mankind. Labeling that destruction as terrorist act is applying human interpretation to it through the prism of personal bias (ie relative).
Last edited by Vishy_mulay on 27 Mar 2007 02:56, edited 1 time in total.
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

Rakesh wrote:I can't undertand that logic. But very interesting :)
Not very hard, if you are willing to apply logic, rather than cling fast to faith blindly.
If you still have questions, please feel free to ask. I'll try and answer them as best I can.
I clearly pointed out the question.

How can there be an extra-cosmic entity in the face of "ex nihilo nihil fit" ?

So, one part of the Christian Trinity is a product of fertile imagination, in terms of logic.

I can't question about irrational belief.
If what you said were true, then God should also be present in excreta and urine.
Of course.

Now, you may think this is "disgusting".

But what are excreta and urine ?

They are simply modified molecules of what went in as "food" and "drink".

Organic bodies are in a constant state of flux,- adding molecules from, and releasing molecule to the environment.

There is only a negative change in entropy when the plants condense environmental molecules using solar energy into "food", and positive change in entropy when "food" molecules are broken down into excreta and urine.

Period.

Now, "God" being immanent as Shakti ( the closest word to "power" or "energy" ) must be present in urine and excreta too.

Just in case you are unaware, what is "sh1t" to you is "food" to a whole host of plant and microbacterial organisms as "compost" or "nightsoil".

In fact, the "disgust" you have because of the stench is because micro-organisms and bacilli in your guts decompose some of the undigested molecules, and emit methane compounds.

Similarly, the kidneys filter and excrete ammonia compounds with urine.

It is only a food chain cycle at work.

So, your attempt at humor, or disgust, doesn't serve any logical purpose.

"God" as immanent Shakti is present EVERYWHERE.

And that includes urine, excreta, semen, saliva and even those vile "drugs".

Now you may ask, why don't we "worship" these, and only worship idols instead ?

Now comes the question,- what is the purpose of worship ?

There is a definite purpose behind the Vigrahas ( idols ) in the Tantric mode of worship.

To create a "personal" relationship which draws you closer to the "Truth" or Satyam.

The form of the Vigraha is rooted in the various modes ( Rasas ) of Bhakti ( devotion ).

Moreover, the various elements used in traditional worship like pleasant looking flowers , pleasant smelling incense etc, pleasant sounding bells and conches are used to DRAW IN your senses from the "external" to the internal/divine world.

Smelly "sh1t" doesn't work,- it simply disgusts you, and throws your body/mind off the track.

Same with the rest,- they have detrimental effects on the body and mind.

God says in the Bible that idol worship is just plain wrong.
That's your belief.

What some imaginary character says in a book we know NOTHING about in terms of its origin is immaterial in a logical discourse.

I have laid out the logical reasoning.

No Argumentum Ad Verecundiam is accepted as a reposte.

Only a rational refutation of that would be acceptable.
Last edited by S.Valkan on 27 Mar 2007 03:12, edited 2 times in total.
Locked