Religion Thread - 10
-
G Subramaniam
- BRFite
- Posts: 405
- Joined: 26 Apr 2006 17:58
Xtian Dogma vs good deeds
St.Paul very clearly stated that Dogma is superior to Goodworks
Re: Evanjehadis in action during Tsunami
This is the business model.Karan Dixit wrote:One thing that has always baffled me about christians is that they hope to go to heaven after engaging in incidents like the one mentioned in the article above.
What I am trying to say is that dogma become nobler than noble deeds. This is where major problem of christianity (and islam as well) lies.
It has high dividend in poor countries. With the difference in the level of money from different sources this model wins in the market place of business models.
-
Karan Dixit
- BRFite
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
- Location: Calcutta
Your question is not very clear to me.Calvin wrote:What is this analysis based on?Christians are allowed to analyze as long as the analysis does not contradict the bible. Their philosophy on life is shackled by biblical mandates. There are very strict mandates that a christian has to abide by. As a result, their views on life are not driven by intellect but by faith in crude mandates. This is hardly an environment that creates a mind that can analyze life objectively.
Greg,
you have a propensity for posting whatever you feel like but linking it as if it is in response to my comments ...
a casual reading will inform the reader that your commentary is in the nature of "stand alone posts" and not connected, even remotely, to the text you quote ...
let's see ...
who is this "we"? ... and what complex phenomena are you talking about? ... there are indeed complex phenomena with no explanations, but why blame physics for it if noone has an exaplanation? ...
or, do you mean, "I am Greg, I have knowledge of random buzz words, and I will post them as I please"?
I see that you are capable of good sense ...
you'll make packees proud ...
boss, a good whore makes more money than a chemist ...
you have a propensity for posting whatever you feel like but linking it as if it is in response to my comments ...
a casual reading will inform the reader that your commentary is in the nature of "stand alone posts" and not connected, even remotely, to the text you quote ...
let's see ...
so far so good ...Greg wrote:At a fundamental level, everything is Physics.
But we have a vested interest in understanding various systems at different levels of understanding and framework. Physicists have been largely unsuccesful at understanding complex phenomena.
who is this "we"? ... and what complex phenomena are you talking about? ... there are indeed complex phenomena with no explanations, but why blame physics for it if noone has an exaplanation? ...
are you living in the 19th century? ... what do you mean by failed to understand? ... do you mean that there is no equation of motion for turbulent flow? ... or, do you mean that there is no a priori theory of turbulent behaviour? ...Considering the fact that physicists have failed to understand things like turbulence, it would take patience in the order of cosmological time
or, do you mean, "I am Greg, I have knowledge of random buzz words, and I will post them as I please"?
please point to one item of "understanding" in chemistry and biology that does not have basis in physics ... let's be clear that "understanding" is different from "classification" a la botany ...Chemistry and Biology are nothing but Physics that has leap-frogged to understand such systems at a higher (as opposed to reduced) but useful level of scientific framework. A resonably good understanding of life has thereby emerged using a fraemwork that bypasses the need to understand most of the variables in the system in mathematically accurate or even grossly quantifiable terms.
So the complete theory for origin of life will come from the same people and the same discipline that delivered the partial theory of origin of life. We are free to call it Physics if we so prefer and we will be as accurate as we would be now, if we called the most recent discovery in medical science as nothing but Physics.
I see that you are capable of good sense ...
aah ... the final peurile remark ... can't win so point out that MDs make more money ...I dont think biologists or the chemists or MDs really mind physics getting the limelight as the fundamental science that underlies all other scientific disciplines. From an economical standpoint, they are having the cake and eating it too.
you'll make packees proud ...
boss, a good whore makes more money than a chemist ...
The purpose of the statement was to define the Hindu as a thoughful and analytical, giving, sensitive and tolerant person that he is. All qualities that cause jealousy and heartburn among others who seek to bring down what they cannot be.Calvin wrote:So, what was the purpose of the statement?Calvin, the answer to that question would depend on whether I wanted to make a "you farted" statement to hit all non Hindus in the face or not.
There is no Sindhu river in Bharat, except for that embarrasment of a small stretch. And you want to call yourself something that people actually owning it can stick their thumbs to?
There is no Gandhari either, and there is no Kamboja. There is no Kailas, there is no manasarovar; should I go on?
The point is, can we have a narrative be about what we actually are and aspire to be, not what we were (unless of course, what we aspire is Akhand Bharath, and an extra 300million of our Muslim-upon-Sindhu and Muslim-e-Bangla to help shape the demographics of India, heck lets throw in Afghanistan too).
There is no Gandhari either, and there is no Kamboja. There is no Kailas, there is no manasarovar; should I go on?
The point is, can we have a narrative be about what we actually are and aspire to be, not what we were (unless of course, what we aspire is Akhand Bharath, and an extra 300million of our Muslim-upon-Sindhu and Muslim-e-Bangla to help shape the demographics of India, heck lets throw in Afghanistan too).
shiv wrote:FWIW I have a suggestion to make.
I suggest that all Indians, no matter what their religious persuasion be called Hindus.
This after all was how the name "Hindu" came about. Hindus were the people East of the Sindhu river.
Christians shall be called Christian Hindus, and Muslim of India Muslim Hindus.
Hindus of India shall be callled Sanatana Dharmi Hindus or Aboriginal Hindus.
-
Karan Dixit
- BRFite
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
- Location: Calcutta
Hindu Dharma makes a plausible effort in tackling complexities of the universe.
Hindu Dharma gives Hindus simple guidelines when dealing with living beings. It asks Hindus to respect all living beings. It asks Hindus to do good deeds. A Hindu’s virutes are measured by his goodness not by believing in some story from a book. The plus side to Hindu Dharma is that it makes Hindus better human beings. Minus side is that Hindus are often too naïve about christianity/islam.
Hindu Dharma gives Hindus simple guidelines when dealing with living beings. It asks Hindus to respect all living beings. It asks Hindus to do good deeds. A Hindu’s virutes are measured by his goodness not by believing in some story from a book. The plus side to Hindu Dharma is that it makes Hindus better human beings. Minus side is that Hindus are often too naïve about christianity/islam.
That was Vivekananda. Tks for posting.Above all, there is another thing to remember, which I am sorry we forget from time to time, that religion, in India, means realisation and nothing short of that. "Believe in the doctrine, and you are safe", can never be taught to us, for we do not believe in that. You are what you make yourselves. You are, by the grace of God and your own exertions, what you are. Mere believing in certain theories and doctrines will not help you much. The mighty word that came out from the sky of spirituality in India was Anubhuti, realisation, and ours are the only books which declare again and again: "The Lord is to be seen ". Bold, brave words indeed, but true to their very core; every sound, every vibration is true. Religion is to be realised, not only heard; it is not in learning some doctrine like a parrot. Neither is it mere intellectual assent--that is nothing; but it must come into us. Ay, and therefore the greatest proof that we have of the existence of a God is not because our reason says so, but because God has been seen by the ancients as well as by the moderns.
Awesome.
brilliant!shiv wrote:FWIW I have a suggestion to make.
I suggest that all Indians, no matter what their religious persuasion be called Hindus.
This after all was how the name "Hindu" came about. Hindus were the people East of the Sindhu river.
Christians shall be called Christian Hindus, and Muslim of India Muslim Hindus.
Hindus of India shall be callled Sanatana Dharmi Hindus or Aboriginal Hindus.
Do you know when Vivekananda died.vsudhir wrote:That was Vivekananda. Tks for posting.Above all, there is another thing to remember, which I am sorry we forget from time to time, that religion, in India, means realisation and nothing short of that. "Believe in the doctrine, and you are safe", can never be taught to us, for we do not believe in that. You are what you make yourselves. You are, by the grace of God and your own exertions, what you are. Mere believing in certain theories and doctrines will not help you much. The mighty word that came out from the sky of spirituality in India was Anubhuti, realisation, and ours are the only books which declare again and again: "The Lord is to be seen ". Bold, brave words indeed, but true to their very core; every sound, every vibration is true. Religion is to be realised, not only heard; it is not in learning some doctrine like a parrot. Neither is it mere intellectual assent--that is nothing; but it must come into us. Ay, and therefore the greatest proof that we have of the existence of a God is not because our reason says so, but because God has been seen by the ancients as well as by the moderns.
Awesome.
Swami Vivekananda (Bengali: সà§
please point to one item of "understanding" in chemistry and biology that does not have basis in physics ... let's be clear that "understanding" is different from "classification" a la botany
Well, let's take parallelism in biology shall we?
In the Wonderful Life: Burgess Shale in the Nature of History, Stephen Gould wrote that the present day life forms are entirely a random event. Except for an accident of nature we coud all easily be an invertebrate life form instead of vertebrate for instance. Due to some accident of nature life form variety has been reduced since the time of the Burgess Shale 600 million years ago. Mankind maybe unique in all of the universe, although we may not be the only intelligent species.
Morris, in the Crucible of Creation however disagrees. He argues that Gould was mistaken. In his view all various life forms have particiated in the present day species. In other words vertebrate development was a result of a logical procession.
In other words, function determines form in Morris's view and I believe he is correct. That is where parallelism comes in.
In Australia, most of the life forms developed from marsupials not mammals. So they got some strange animals right? Yes, but they also got the marsupial wolf. Looks very similar to a regular wolf (unfortunately, it was killed off about 100 years ago. I grieve for it). There were also marsupial cat like animals. The function called for a predator and it developed just similar to the mammals.
So, we are *not* random, We are the result of functions called for in nature. The naturally occuring mutations filled that niche.
On another note well over half the bio mass of earth occurs in the earth's oceans. One third of that life is gelatinous. Bilogists call it the "Jelly Web". And they may very well be key in controlling co2 levels on earth.
of course, let us ...TSJones wrote:Well, let's take parallelism in biology shall we?
LOL ... "accident of nature" is the level of your claim? ... TSJ, I am sure you are capable of understanding induced mutation ...In the Wonderful Life: Burgess Shale in the Nature of History, Stephen Gould wrote that the present day life forms are entirely a random event. Except for an accident of nature we coud all easily be an invertebrate life form instead of vertebrate for instance. Due to some accident of nature life form variety has been reduced since the time of the Burgess Shale 600 million years ago.
I'll respond to the rest of your post once you disabuse yourself of silly notions like "accidents of nature" ...
added later:
oh well, I see that you finally see the light here:
that is physics through and through ... thanks for your support, TSJ ...So, we are *not* random, We are the result of functions called for in nature. The naturally occuring mutations filled that niche.
Last edited by Alok_N on 07 Apr 2007 09:25, edited 1 time in total.
This is a deep question in keeping with the analytical self examining Hindu mind (samuel wrote:
The point is, can we have a narrative be about what we actually are and aspire to be, not what we were (unless of course, what we aspire is Akhand Bharath, and an extra 300million of our Muslim-upon-Sindhu and Muslim-e-Bangla to help shape the demographics of India, heck lets throw in Afghanistan too).
)After our last exchange of messages I briefly toyed with thoughts about what the narrative of the Indian muslim might be, and if there is indeed any narrative that connects his remote past with India.
Imagine an Indian who converted from being a Hindu to Islam a century ago. What exactly is the narrative that connects his descendants with the past?
Islamic dogma actively stops him from publicly connecting with the respect for natural forces, nature and deities that form part of Hindu belief. I wonder if the Pakistani "narrative" then has to be superimposed to give a conjured up identity. "I am Islamic. My forbears ruled this land after removing kafir rulers. I am now disempowered". Such an narrative enables this person to stand in Arabia and say 'This is my holy land" where my people came from
In this manner why should a Hindu not be able to stand in Afghanistan and say "This is where my ancestors ruled". He would, at least, be more historically accurate than the Paki standing in Saudi Arabia.
The term "akhand bharat" has been made into a curse word and has been termed as a "Hindu plan of action" rather than a descriptive term of Hindu history
LOL ... "accident of nature" is the level of your claim? ... TSJ, I am sure you are capable of understanding induced mutation ...
What would you call a gigantic asteriod strike 65 million years ago?
Mankind shares 50% of its DNA with a banana. So I apologized when I had a banana for breakfast today. "Brother, it's either you or me...I'm sorry".
-
Raju
-
vina
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 6046
- Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
- Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists
Ah Shivji.. Another reason why I think this thread is out of focus /de focused..shiv wrote:FWIW I have a suggestion to make.
I suggest that all Indians, no matter what their religious persuasion be called Hindus.
This after all was how the name "Hindu" came about. Hindus were the people East of the Sindhu river.
Christians shall be called Christian Hindus, and Muslim of India Muslim Hindus.
Hindus of India shall be callled Sanatana Dharmi Hindus or Aboriginal Hindus.
While you propose that "all people from India should be called Hindus" , IT really is superfluous . Why ?, because you know what the reality is ? .. AS OF TODAY THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE CALLED EXACTLY ..
Yeah.. sure.. even in the US of A .. go out of the big cities in the coasts and maybe Chicago and tell them you are Indian .. and you will get images of Wigwams and Tee Pee huts.. Why earlier, in the deep south in the US.. I have heard term used which goes with the southern accent of "that Hindoo boy..".. Every East European / Russian / Southern European . FOB I have met in the US again .. same adjective of Hindu --> "Indian".. Why, consider the term "Hindustan "... it was basically the name by which they referred to as the land of the "Hindus" meaning.. all people living in India were "Hindus" ..
That is exactly how the people of India were known all over the ancient world ..
What you are doing is stating the obvious, known fact.. Me thinks what you are fighting against is the "maya" / social engineering / new nation project that is being run by the commies/socialists and leftists in the Kangress..
Notice that various religions communities have been living in India since time immemorial.. Everyone knew it, including I am sure those from ancient Europe to the middle east to far east.. There never was any "Konfoosion" .. That comes from the commie /JNU / "emininent" historians driven court project of "social engg" and doctoring history into a certain idealogical slant.. and equating "Hindu" as the religious identify of a follower certain religious systems.
Thus we see undies getting tied into knows of "Hindustani" .. being substituted for "Hindus" in India,..well the Indian Muslims use that term to refer to themselves.. (oh my god. that knocks the bottom out of the commie arugments doesn't it.. they don't call themselves "Muslimstanis" ) and so the commies can do diddly squat about it and so it must be "secular" and good .. But outside India.. the "stan" stuff is directly equated with "Muslim " socieities and doesn't fly against perception, language and pre existing knowledge barriers and the commie project falls flat..
As for the people of India being India--> Indians and Not "Hindus" .. well what can I say.. It is like Japan telling the world that the people of Japan are really "Nipponese" and not "Japanese" .. Good luck to that effort, especially if the entire universe has been calling you Hindu & Japanese respectively for millenia.
Guess no one wants to let go of this rave party.. But surely, the sun is up and it is time to get over the grogginess and hangover and shake yourself awake!!
-
vina
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 6046
- Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
- Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists
Gosh.. I would be tickled pink if the Pakis call themselves "Hindus" .. that will the day when I know that ghor.. Kaliyug end /Kingdom come/ Qayamat whatever is upon us .. Why I would welcome them to the club. The bad apples over there continue to remain "Packees" however..samuel wrote:There is no Sindhu river in Bharat, except for that embarrasment of a small stretch. And you want to call yourself something that people actually owning it can stick their thumbs to?
He ought to be able to and it would be great if he truly can. By this I mean, such an anouncement would be empty. The likely result would be to remind the Hindu what he has lost (in contrast to the Pakistani to whom Saudi Arabia will mean something gained).shiv wrote:...In this manner why should a Hindu not be able to stand in Afghanistan and say "This is where my ancestors ruled". He would, at least, be more historically accurate than the Paki standing in Saudi Arabia.samuel wrote:
The point is, can we have a narrative be about what we actually are and aspire to be, not what we were (unless of course, what we aspire is Akhand Bharath, and an extra 300million of our Muslim-upon-Sindhu and Muslim-e-Bangla to help shape the demographics of India, heck lets throw in Afghanistan too).
The only reaction I could personally have is to convince myself to let go or rejoin the battle to retake the past. Neither is realistic, so why bother? We can always save such historical facts in a library, for some student to discover "the amazing akhandity of Bharath" for her high-school project.
What's real is that we are at a new juncture in an almost 500 year history. The Brits are gone and our nation is on the march. The Anglo-Saxon narrative will not do anymore, if for nothing else than that neither the anglos nor the saxons count.
India counts in the world in 60 short years. Amazing for a country that was not self-governing for almost 500 years, for a hindu way of life that remained suppressed for all that time. We are just learning to govern ourselves. We need a Hindu narrative that helps us learn what worked and did not in governing ourselves, simply because clinging to imported narratives is embarrasing to our image.
Hitching a Hindu narrative to our economic rise would be easy, binding our people to it not difficult, and such an approach will also present a view to the world that is likely to be accepted. Heck, even "others" might susbscribe to the Hindu way of life, but foremost, we may diminsh some of that guilt that hangs around for not protecting ourselves when it mattered most.
What should this narrative be?
Last edited by samuel on 07 Apr 2007 11:07, edited 1 time in total.
And I was hoping that there is a hindu renaisance....give up the battle, even before it starts....sighsamuel wrote:He ought to be able to and it would be great if he truly can. By this I mean, such an anouncement would be empty. The likely result would be to remind the Hindu what he has lost (in contrast to the Pakistani to whom Saudi Arabia will mean something new to keep).shiv wrote: ...In this manner why should a Hindu not be able to stand in Afghanistan and say "This is where my ancestors ruled". He would, at least, be more historically accurate than the Paki standing in Saudi Arabia.
The only reaction I could personally have is to convince myself to let go or, otherwise, rejoin the battle of the past to retake an important part of my narrative back. Neither would be realistically feasible, so why should I bother making the said statement for the sake of historical accuracy. Who cares? As a path to victory, it is useless. We can always bury such historical facts deep somewhere in a library for some student to discover "the amazing akhandity of Bharath" for some high-school project.
This true of any Hindu regardless of what psuedo seculars or mlechhas claim. Now back to Ejs. they are intruding and insisit upon the right to bring Hindu heathens the good news of us being sinners while all of us followers of various paths of Dharma believe in the purity , perfection and immortality of our essential nature i.e soul.Vijnan wrote:Well said.shiv wrote: The purpose of the statement was to define the Hindu as a thoughful and analytical, giving, sensitive and tolerant person that he is. All qualities that cause jealousy and heartburn among others who seek to bring down what they cannot be.
In most of the law abiding , civilized countries like USA , the intruders can be shot lawfully. Is there any reason Ejihadis should not be warned and dealt in this lawfull manner. The Islamic societies are perfect example of this rule and results are obvious.
Samuel, It is way too late and it will be difficult to cover 101's of the concept of Akhand Bharat, which you deride as a battle of the past. So, some other time.samuel wrote:Hi ShauryaT,ShauryaT wrote: And I was hoping that there is a hindu renaisance....give up the battle, even before it starts....sigh
The Hindu renaisance is begining, built on the back of a prosperous nation. Do you feel it?
@ Alok_N
Everything has a *basis* in physics but its fair to say that the bulk of our understanding of genetics, molecular biology, cell biology, developmental biology, immunology, neurobiology is simply not understood at the level that is typical of Physics. The problems were not approached using laws of Physics as starting points and the understanding cannot be unified with a framework of Physics. That is to say, we wouldn’t even come close to describing it in mathematical terms or model it based on a formal framework. Darwins “origin of speciesâ€please point to one item of "understanding" in chemistry and biology that does not have basis in physics ... let's be clear that "understanding" is different from "classification" a la botany ...
Last edited by Greg on 07 Apr 2007 12:36, edited 1 time in total.
That is a really nice map, as for once Kashmir is shown as an integral part of India by a non-Indian organisation. I wholly support that map, if not for anything else.shiv wrote:Here is a cross post from Acharya from the Packee thread.
What do you make of it?
World map of religion
Till the Government of India changes its official name from the Soverign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic to something akin to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, then the question of classifying India as a nation of just one religion does not arise. That same link however does state that Hinduism is the majority religion in India.
Shiv jishiv wrote:Handed to me at a traffic intersection
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a11/cy ... a-real.jpg
That woman has absolutely no respect for Indian Flag.Please see the following images.
More info
-
Raju
Gee..what is she doing in Bangalore ?? She should be here in Delhi (in Tihar) enjoying our hospitality.
Sorta reminds me of car driver of a Punjab MLA (Chawla?) who used the Indian flag on the car to dust the car quickly, though he had another rag inside. Apparently he didn't use it instead due to sheer laziness.
Sorta reminds me of car driver of a Punjab MLA (Chawla?) who used the Indian flag on the car to dust the car quickly, though he had another rag inside. Apparently he didn't use it instead due to sheer laziness.
Flawed logic to suit your flawed agenda....Rakesh wrote:That is a really nice map, as for once Kashmir is shown as an integral part of India by a non-Indian organisation. I wholly support that map, if not for anything else.shiv wrote:Here is a cross post from Acharya from the Packee thread.
What do you make of it?
World map of religion
Till the Government of India changes its official name from the Soverign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic to something akin to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, then the question of classifying India as a nation of just one religion does not arise. That same link however does state that Hinduism is the majority religion in India.
Except that the US is not constitutionally a Christian country....yet is depicted as such. The map is flawed and India is predominantly a Hindu country and if they want to be consistent in the data they are protraying India should have been represented as such....
Why so? Is someone going to slip on the flag and break their bones? Is someone's freedom going to be violated by the flag lying at her feet?she needs to be in the dock and charged.
Note the dichotomy here: Hindus who won't hesitate to call a respected Hindu "this woman" at the drop of a hat want her banged up in Tihar for something that can objectively be described as little more than a lack of decorum.
Thus the mindset of Hindus is quite similar to the Abrahamic folks when it comes to nationalistic sentiment which is totally areligious!
This is a statement, not a value judgement. I am not being facetious. And I really don't know anything about the lady. She may be a creep for all I know. Or she may not.