American Arrogance Rooted in Christian Beliefs

[chequita guevara]

Christians suck. Christians blow. And when they're in charge, no matter what, you're gonna get screwed.

[Mr. Harley]

Apologies Boris, I'm tired and misquoted. But I do agree with you and Ted anyway.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


No Aneeshm is asserting that by virtue of Christianity's unwaverinug certainty that theirs is the Truth they are intolerant. His antipathy towards Christianity is based upon their surety of the Truth.

My statement is and was simply this EVERY religion is sure that theirs is the way to Truth. His specific hatred of Christianity is unwarranted/or at least inconsistent if he does not likewise hold that same level of disregard for every religion that hold its beliefs as the Truth. His statement had nothing to do with Christain or other religious entities evangelism or forcing anyone to adopt any belief system, it instead was a hatred aimed at a group for merely being sure of their own beliefs. It had nothing at all to do with the clash of belief systems.

So in summary I defined tolerance before as the willingness to allow others the opportunity to be wrong no matter how sure you are you are right. (if you didn't pick up the inference (albeit unstated) at the end of the day no harm no foul no hatred and hard feelings you missed kind of the central point) Aneeshm is not so much intolerant because he feels that Christiainty is wrong but moreover is intolerant b/c he is unwilling to allow that Christians have the right to feel sure of their own belief system without incurring his hatred.

My criticism is based on the fact that Christianity insists that no other way is valid . Truth is universal - but the path to truth is not . My antipathy to Christianity is because I have realised that it is a religion not sure about what it's own truth is ( just look at all the denominations out there ) , but sure about only one thing - that everyone else is wrong .



Christianity is , by its very nature , a religion out to get converts . The drive for converts itself is a sign of intolerance . This is because , if you want to convert someone , it is because you believe him to be wrong in his religion . Therefore , the fountainhead of Christianity is not that Christ is right , but that everyone else is wrong . And that is why I criticise it - a religion based on a negative ( the rejection of every other religion ) can never be a force for the good .


Also - no Christian is going to incur my hatred . I do not hate people , only ideas . And the idea of a religion based on conversion and a firm belief that everyone and everything else is wrong is abhorrent to me . I hate your religion not for its certainty in its own correctness ( which , IMO , is a necessary thing for any religion ) , but for its certainty in everyone else's wrongness .



EDIT : Typo

[Ted Striker]

Anneshm

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Christianity doesn't advocate invading other countries, at least not the Christianity defined by Jesus and many of its adherents. There is a problem with your argument I think, Christianity really took off after the Romans had done all that conquering so Christianity really didn't have to spread militarily until the Spanish found gold in the west. The early Christians in North America were not motivated by gold and they got along pretty well with the Indians (oops, you're an Indian )...native Americans.

It may not , but as long as Christ gave the Church the power to speak on behalf of Christianity , he can be held responsible for the excesses the Church committed .

How many kings in India were told by their advisors to go and conquer other countries so that Hinduism may spread ? How many kings in India went on wars of conquest motivated by religion ? The answer to both the above questions is "none" .

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by aneeshm

It may not , but as long as Christ gave the Church the power to speak on behalf of Christianity , he can be held responsible for the excesses the Church committed .

How many kings in India were told by their advisors to go and conquer other countries so that Hinduism may spread ? How many kings in India went on wars of conquest motivated by religion ? The answer to both the above questions is "none" .

The Church wasn´t created by christ but by human beings,
who thought that they would correctly interpret the things written about him (things also written not by Christ himself, but by his followers and/or their descendants )

And of course, there was AFAIK never "one church"
as beside the roman catholics you and also other christian faiths like the orthodox church (and much later the protestants).

Don´t know if the orthodox church was involved in many wars. AFAIK not.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by aneeshm


Assuming that what you say is correct , was the goal of such expansion religious in nature , and did the religion sanction or encourage the activity ? I would say that the answer to both these questions is "no" .

I think you'd find you were incorrect.

Siva, Parvatti and Rajendra Chola I

This is one of the hundreds of carvings at Gangaikonda. Here, the god Siva and his consort, Parvatti, are shown seated in sacred poses. Siva is blessing the kneeling figure of King Rajendra Chola I, who was responsible for building Gangaikonda.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gooday/India/pages/Gangaikondacholapirum4.htm

Gangaikondacholapuram-

The Chola temple where the waters of the Ganges were brought by conquest.

Under the famous rulers Rajaraja I (reigned 985-1014) and Rajendra I (reigned 1014-42) Chola power reached its zenith. The former conquered Kerala and occupied N Sri Lanka; the latter completed the conquest of Sri Lanka, invaded Bengal, and sent out a great naval expedition that occupied parts of Myanmar, Malaya, and Sumatra. For 300 years the Chola kingdom supported a flourishing social and economic life, marked by a flowering of Hindu culture.

Its greatest architectural monument is an 11th-century temple at Tanjore, which was dedicated to Shiva in celebration of a military victory.

http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/search/search.php?word=CHOLA&enc=10198

Hmm, a temple site dedicated to Shiva, to commemorate a Chola military victory- does that sound at all like temple priests actively opposed Chola conquests, or the economic consequences of Chola conquests ?

Not to me.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by C0ckney


must...resist...

Where did I indicate that I would judge someone on something other than merit ?

Originally posted by C0ckney

are you seriously doubting what UNESCO and human rights watch are saying, if so, perhaps you like to provide some proof…?

I do not doubt what they say , and I have not contradicted them in even one instance . But I do say that : -

a) Blaming casteism on Hinduism is wrong , as it is not an integral ( or peropheral ) part of the religion .

b) The organisations you mentioned have presented only one side of the story - the side which will get them more funding . Completely ignoring the fact that the Government it tilted totally in favour of the SC/ST is unpardonable . The government , to stay in power , has to get votes . As there are more votes in appeasing SC/ST people , governments do that . The attitude among many SC/SC people is - all politicians may be SOB's , but a pro-Dalit politicial will at least be OUR SOB . That is why politicians who promise SC/STs reservations in governmental gobs get votes , and also why , in the whole of India , only a few hundred seats are available for college students in Government colleges ( in the medical stream ) purely on the basis of merit .

Originally posted by C0ckney

really? perhaps you could tell me when caste will no longer matter in india, 50 years, 100, sometime never...?

As soon as education among the population crosses a tipping point , the caste structure will unravel in the villages ( as it did in the cities ) .

Originally posted by C0ckney

really? wow. who cares.

It is relevant to how this debate is framed , and thus I care , and you should . If you do not , then your arguments cease to matter .

Originally posted by C0ckney

i think you are missing the point, the caste system dominates the social structure in rural areas, in other words most of the country and for most of the people. it affects every area of life, both secular and religious, the actual effects on people and the indignities they suffer simply because of an accident of birth are detailed in the reports i have linked to. these are not things which happened in the distant past, they are things which are going on today and despite having been illegal for half a century, and there is no indication of it stopping.

I am not defending India's social structure - it needs to be reformed , but cursing Hinduism as the cause of casteism is wrong .


You speak of persecution . Do you know the persecution the higher castes sustained during Islamic times ? They were always the first targets of Islamic fanaticism , because they were the representatives of Hinduism . Brahmins have borne great persecution , and have been responsible for keeping the flame of Hindusim burning throughout the dark times of Islamic rule .



Do you know what atrocities were committed ? Brahmins were forced to eat beef . They were forced to wear on their necks a mixture of gravel from crushed idols and the remains of a cow . They were tortured until they either died or they converted . Hinduism has survived under Islamic rule only because Brahmin families refused to give up their culture , and all the other castes refused to convert , because they saw that the Brahmins did not convert . I'd recommend you visit the remains of Vijaynagar sometime . Then you will realise how a city the size of Rome was reduced to ruins and all its inhabitants killed , all due to Islamic fanaticism .

All this horrible time , Brahmins were the one who maintained Hinduism and Indian civilisation . All the great reformers of Hinduism have said two things - the first being directed to Brahmins , telling them to give up their discriminatory ways , and to concentrate on internal purity rather than being obsessed with external ritual , and the other to the other castes , telling them that the Brahminical ideal ( that of purity of mind ) is one to aspire to , not curse .

Do you think that the fact that I am a Brahmin changes anything WRT to the points I have made ? I thought that you would judge me on merit - but I was wrong . You are a hypocrite . You are the real casteist in this debate - because your view of me is biased by my caste ( to which I myself do not attach much importance ) .

Originally posted by C0ckney

and once again we return to what started it all, YOU calling everyone else barbarians, what i want to know is that considering everything that we’ve discovered about your society, how you can stand by this statement. or perhaps you’d like to retract it?

You have "discovered" nothing about my society . I would have told you this had you asked ( assuimng , of course , that I knew of it in the first place ( WRT the bride burnings )) . I am not defending the ills that plague Indian society today - but I hold that these ills are not the result of Hinduism .

Also note that you are here misrepresenting what I said . I attacked Christianity , and not "everyone else" , as you claim . I have also backed up my claim , both by evidence and inference .

I stand by the statement I made , because it is true . A religion which cannot exist without , and whose sole aim is , the conversion and vilification of others , is by definition barbaric . That it is barbaric has been amply proven . All attacks on Hinduism here , however , have been attacks on some Indian social practice which is , in fact , not backed up or sanctioned by Hinduism .

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by molly bloom




I think you'd find you were incorrect.

Hindus build temples wherever they go . So even if this King had won a victory over a kingdom inside India , the temple would still have been built .

It is also a royal custom to build temples to commemmorate great occasions , irrespective of the occasion . So building a temple after a great military victory would be a natural thing to do - a way of being thankful .

Originally posted by molly bloom

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gooday/India/pages/Gangaikondacholapirum4.htm

Gangaikondacholapuram-

The Chola temple where the waters of the Ganges were brought by conquest.

http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/search/search.php?word=CHOLA&enc=10198

Hmm, a temple site dedicated to Shiva, to commemorate a Chola military victory- does that sound at all like temple priests actively opposed Chola conquests, or the economic consequences of Chola conquests ?

Not to me.

The temple mentioned is located in India .

WRT your deductions :

Firstly - as I noted before , temples were built to commemmorate something great . That something great could also be a victory . One might very well have been built to commemmorate the birth of a son , another to commemmorate twenty or fifty years of rule , another to . . . . .


Secondly - it is a customary that priests and scholars not interfere in politics , unless the king appoints them as advisors . It is also customary that an invading king never touch a temple in the invaded land . Because of this , the priests could afford to be aloof - they were never affected by palace games .

The question to ask is not whether the priests opposed , but whether the priests supported them ( conquests ) . A lack of opposition is understandable , as it was , as noted before , customary for the priests not to interfere in politics , as they were granted immunity from the ravages of war - but there is no proof that they supported such conquest ( or the economic results of such conquest ) .

In fact , there is no proof to support either side - which leads us to assume ( until proof is found for either position ) that they did not , in fact , support or oppose anything , including conquest .


EDIT : Typo

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Heresson


Well, perhaps it was not able to

Is the mind of the devout Christian such that it cannot even think of power without abusing it , that it cannot even imagine a religion which is peaceful , that it cannot concieve of a religious tradition which can be peaceful and powerful at the same time ?

Have you any idea of Hindu strength when it was at its peak ? The world is lucky that Hinduism is not expansionist , for there have been three times in human history when Hinduism could have , had it wanted to , rampaged its way across Asia ( as two other religions ( namely Islam and Christianity ) dis ) , without meeting credible resistance .

Originally posted by Heresson


If they were never borned, how could they have been destroyed?
Anyway, Christianity borned manicheaism, influenced the birth of Islam, divided into hundreds of denominations including some that may be regarded as different religions.

Let me correct that . They suffered from suspicious cases of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome - the founders died of mysterious causes . Have you forgotten the inquisition ?

Originally posted by Heresson

Generalisation without any proof. Was, until the end of IV century, conversion to Christianity forcible? Even Justinian, officially forcible christianiser of pagans, had pagans in his court. Conversion of Saxons, Polabians was achieved by force, but it was largely done by the way of conquest. The same, though less, applies to Livonia and Prussia.
Sometimes without the use of force missions were impossible - it's not like pagans were always keen on having their religious unity disturbed.
In many other states, like Moravia, Bulgaria, Poland, Ruthenia, Hungary, christianisation was largely an internal choice. It was done by the order of the ruler, but it's not like You had to kill people to achieve that, at least not many and not in Poland.

And what happened if a common perosn defied the wish of his ruler WRT religion - that's right , he was executed .

And you yourself admit that after the 4th century , conversiosn were forcible . The fact that Justinian had pagans in court is irrelevant - what matters is that conversion was foricible .

And the bolded sentence indicates that you are fine with the use of force to convert pagans .

Originally posted by Heresson

Well: drusism, yezidism, and mentioned by You sikhism... a lot of denominations on edge of islam, especially shia.

Sikhism was the fightimg arm of Hinduism ( many of whose founders were killed by Islamic rulers , according to Islamic law ) . It was born as a reaction to Islam , in order that Islam's tyranny may be thrown out of India .

Originally posted by Heresson

It is today

No , my Christian friend , it never was , is not , and never will be .



EDIT : Typo

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by aneeshm


WRT your deductions :

Firstly - as I noted before , temples were built to commemmorate something great . That something great could also be a victory . One might very well have been built to commemmorate the birth of a son , another to commemmorate twenty or fifty years of rule , another to . . . . .

So a great period of Chola temple building just happened to coincide with a great period in Chola imperialist expansionism. One most notable example being dedicated to the Hindu god, Shiva the Destroyer.

Destroyer of what, exactly ? Bad grammar ?

Same with the Gupta dynasty.

How fortunate for Hindu religious institutions to benefit from such a great coincidence.....

[aneeshm]

@ Molly Bloom


In the Hindu view of the universe , there are three main forces in the eternal cycle : creation , existence , and destruction .

Brahma : Creation ( that from which everything came )
Vishnu : Existence ( that which is )
Shiva : Destruction ( that to which everything shall return )

You ask what Shiva is the destroyer of ? He represents the destroyer and destruction of everything .

FYI , Shiva is one of the most worshipped gods in India .



Another thing - the state that can provide the resources necessary for expansion is also the state that can provide the resources for temple-building . Building a temple was considered a great thing .

Maybe you don't understant my point - it did not matter to the priests which king ruled , as they were immune . Till now , you have only insinuated that that they benifited . The truth of the matter is that neither of us have any proof , so it is best to assume that the priests did not encourage such expansion ( or discourage it ) .

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Aneeshm is not so much intolerant because he feels that Christiainty is wrong but moreover is intolerant b/c he is unwilling to allow that Christians have the right to feel sure of their own belief system without incurring his hatred.

Originally posted by aneeshm
I attack Christianity as long as it claims to be the only true way , but I leave Christians alone. I do not judge people on the basis of their religion.

[Sandman]

As soon as education among the population crosses a tipping point , the caste structure will unravel in the villages ( as it did in the cities ) .

That's a nice optimistic view. The only problem is that India's primary education system is woefully inadequate, even for a developing country. Graduates are produced by the busload, whilst 40% of adults are illiterate (and more than half of women).

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by aneeshm

You ask what Shiva is the destroyer of ? He represents the destroyer and destruction of everything .

FYI , Shiva is one of the most worshipped gods in India .

I'm familiar with Trimurti and other aspects of Hinduism- it was meant as a joke.

Maybe you don't understant my point - it did not matter to the priests which king ruled , as they were immune . Till now , you have only insinuated that that they benifited .

How could the temples and priests not benefit from Hindu expansionist states, especially if the Hindu rulers of those states saw it as an act of piety to commemorate military victories with either new temple building, or patronage or donations to pre-existing temples ?

The temples were maintained through donations from royal patrons and private individuals. They were given money, gold, silver, livestock and income from grants of land including whole villages. Such gifts would provide religious merit (punya) which would increase the possibility of ultimate liberation for the donor.

http://www.templenet.com/Articles/hintemp.html

Now it doesn't take a genius to understand that if temples are maintained by royal donations, then it is in their interest to keep those donations flowing, yes ?

And so if Chola or Gupta rulers decide to go abroad to non-Hindu kingdoms, such as Buddhist Sri Lanka, or Sumatra or Burma, or Malaysia and do a little bit of conquering and destroying and plundering, then evidently (judging by the temples founded after the said military campaigns) priests and temples profitted from the imperialist policies of Hindu dynasties.