American Arrogance Rooted in Christian Beliefs

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


He then says he dislikes an aspect of Christian doctrine. But he doesn't make the connection to disliking that to hating Christians. You are the one making that connection.

Ummm its not a doctrine, first off its is the core belief of all of the schisms of Christianity and for all intents and purposes defines Christianity (and for the most part all religions).

The so called doctrine as you put is/was for the record:

I also dislike the fact that it allows only one method of reaching what it claims to be God , and also that it asks you to believe on faith , not experience .

If that isn't a defining statement of all Christians I don't know what is short of including the words by believing in Christ the Messiah.

The bolded section is the crux. No one is talking about hating Christians for being Christian.

The above defines Christians. If you hate that you by definition hate Christians.

Being Christian doesn't require one to be a douchebag a la Pat Robertson. So the situation is not analagous.

It most absolutely is. If talking about Gays it would be analogous to me saying I dislike Gay men because they are sexually attracted to other men.

Being attracted to other men according to you would be just simply be a doctrine not a definition.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

Ummm its not a doctrine, first off its is the core belief of all of the schisms of Christianity and for all intents and purposes defines Christianity (and for the most part all religions).

This is symantic hair-splitting.

doctrine: A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.

That the beliefs are defining of the religion doesn't matter. One could argue that a religion is the sum of all its beliefs, so the differentiation you're making doesn't matter.

And one can still dislike a defining tenet of a belief and be tolerant of it. I dislike the very concept of a god, which puts me at odds with most religions. Why does that then require me to dislike those who believe in a god? There is no necessary link there.

If that isn't a defining statement of all Christians I don't know what is short of including the words by believing in Christ the Messiah.

Again, so what? I can dislike--even hate--the very concept of a "messiah" without hating people who believe in it. You're establishing a false dichotomy of the first order.

The above defines Christians. If you hate that you by definition hate Christians.

No, because it's perfectly feasible to hate even the core beliefs of a system without hating those who believe in it. Beyond being Christians, they are people, and there's nothing that says I can't love them as people while I dislike the things they believe, for whatever reason.

It most absolutely is. If talking about Gays it would be analogous to me saying I dislike Gay men because they are sexually attracted to other men.

*sigh*

No, because he didn't say he disliked Christians because they believe in something. This is the connection you're making that he never said. He said explicitley that he didn't dislike Christians, that he disliked beliefs.

Being attracted to other men according to you would be just simply be a doctrine not a definition.

It's nonsensical to talk about a "doctrine" when it comes to sexual orientation. Sexual orientation and religious beliefs are not easily equated.

Regardless, I don't think you're grasping the point here. Even if one were to dislike the concept of men being attracted to other men, this does not necessitate that one hate men who feel that way. You've failed to offer any compelling reason why that should necessarily be the case, and it certainly contradicts Christian dogma to think so.

[Ted Striker]

What I find interesting about this thread is that the defenders of the Church and their politics seem to align in a very visible way.

Hmmm...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


He is the originator of a brand new religion as soon as he started preaching that he was The Way.

Which we know about not through 'The Autobiography of Jesus' or 'My Religion' by Jesus, but through the works of people who didn't even know him.

Since we don't and can't know for sure what he said (or even that he existed) you cannot know for certain that he repudiated a faith which even the texts Christians use to support their beliefs show he remained in- namely, Judaism.

In fact it was not until after his supposed death that a split appeared between the more obviously Jewish 'Christians' and the non-Judaizing Christians.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by aneeshm

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 .

Let's see credible supporting evidence for this, please.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Not really, nonbeliever. He is the originator of a brand new religion as soon as he started preaching that he was The Way.

No. Paul the Apostle started the religion.

In fact, we don't know if Jesus of Nazareth had ever existed.

[Alexander's Horse]

Oh come now UR, I don't think that is in doubt.

[Urban Ranger]

Horsie,

Well, there's no record of Jesus's existence anywhere other than the bible. I personally don't think that matters much.

[Dr Strangelove]

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" .

Perhaps someone could ask the Harrupas of pre-Aryan India that question, but they vanished shortly after the Hindus arrived. We might also ask the Dravidians of southern India, but I don't think that there are many who still adhere to their original religion. We might alkso ask why Buddhism seems to have pretty much vanished from India, it's country of origin, by the time that the Europeans arrived. The kings of ancient India did indeed go on wars of conquest, Asoka and the Guptas come to mind, they conquered a subcontinent. By the time they had subjugated India there really wasn't anywhere else to go. Persia lay to the west. Historically Persia has proved able to resist most of the onvasions launched against her. The Himalayas lay to the north, and the jungles of Burma to the east. One also has to take into consideration that for most of its history India was divided into warring factions, the energy of its warrior caste was devoted to fighting each other. Also after the 12th century India had to contend with powerful invaders - with central asians and muslims grabbing its land India could not devote any energy to overseas adventure.
Regarding expansion into SE asia I found these referrences - http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/idtoc.html and http://www.indonesiaphoto.com/content/view/29/46/
Christian Europe didn't become expansionist until it had developed stable nation states, the ability to build ships capable of carrying large number of troops across major oceans, military technology greatly superior to the inhabitants of most of the areas into which it expanded (not including southern or eastern asia), and had cleared itself of its major external threats. India never met those conditions. By the time that it gained access to the military technology revolution (firearms) that swept the major civilizations of eurasia in the 14th century it was already under the thumb of invaders.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by C0ckney
it is hard to debate with someone who refuses to accept the blindingly obvious :/

Where have I refused to accept the obvious ?

Originally posted by C0ckney

no, your narrow and incorrect view of things are not the terms for this debate. sorry.

I define my position very precisely . If you find that narrow , and want to rant about the social evils palguing India now rather than discussing the relative merits ( or demerits ) of Christianity and Hindusim , I suggest you open your own thread .

Originally posted by C0ckney

call me cynical but that sounds a lot like 'sometime never' to me...

Fifty years ago , people thought that the caste system would never break down in the cities . They were wrong . So are you wrong .

Originally posted by C0ckney

you keep harping on about reservations and other 'advantages' dalits get over others in india and i don't doubt that they get a little help from the government in certain areas. surely though this is like taking a piss in the atlantic ocean, when you compare it to the grinding poverty, discrimination, abuse and other indignities that hundreds of millions of dalits suffer on a daily basis.

It is not like taking a piss in the Atlantic ocean - the reservations go upto 90 % of all jobs in some institutions ( with the minimum hovering at 30 % ) . But did I ever deny that there is discrimination ? Did I deny that they suffer ? You seem to be stuck , repeating over and over that Dalits are discriminated against . I have never denied it , I have always said that the condition needs to be reformed , but you still don't get my core point - that this sort of thing did is not sanctioned by Hinduism , and thus you cannot blame Hinduism for it .

Originally posted by C0ckney

you (once again...) appear to have missed the point regarding religion. it is crystal clear that the caste system is intertwined with hinduism and forms the basis of the social structure in rural areas (most of the country). being a dalit here affects everything, from even the most basic things like not being allowed to fetch water from the same well as upper- caste people. these, and many similar examples are all detailed in the links i have provided. it also extends to religious matters, you can't say that it isn't about religion when dalits are banned from temples and stopped by police from taking part in religious festivals.

Correction - it is percieved that the caste system is a part of Hinduism . I have a small passage from the book Satyarth Prakash quoted below about this topic :

Originally written by Swami Dayanand

When the Braahmans became destitute of knowledge, there could be no talk of the ignorance of the Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shoodras. Even the ancient practice of the study of the Vedas and other Shaastras with their meanings died away. The Braahmans only learnt the Veddas by note - just enough to enable them to earn their livelihood. Even that much they did teach to the Kshatriyas, and others.

As the ignorant became the teachers of the people, deceitfulness, fraud, hypocrisy, and irreligion began to increase among them. The Braahmans thought that they should make some arrangement for their livelihood. They held a council among themselves and agreed to preach to the Kshatriyas and others:- "We alone are the object of worship to you. You could never enter Heaven or obtain salvation except by serving us. Should you not serve us, you shall fall into an awful Hell."

The Vedas, and the Shaastraas written by the Vedic sages and seers have declared men of learning and as Braahmans and worthy of respect; but here they, who were ignorant, lascivious, deceitful, licentious, lazy and irreligious, declared themselves as Braahmans and worthy of homage. But how could the sterling virtues of the righteous, learned and truth-loving Brahamans be found in them. When the Kshatriyas and others became absolutely destitute of Sanskrit learning, whatever **** and bull stories the Braahmans connocted, the simpletons believed. They ensnared all in their net of hypocrisy, brought them under thorough control and began to teach:- "Whatever a Braahman declares is as infallible as words falling from Divine lips."

When the Kshatriyas and others who had more money and brains became their dupes, these so-called Braahmans got a golden opportunity of enjoying sensual pleasures adlibitum. They also declared that all the best things of the earth were meant for the Braahmans only. In other words, they subverted the whole system of Classes and Orders, and based it on the mere accident of birth, instead of on the qualifications, character and works of the people, as it originally was. They even began to accept charity given in the name of the dead, in fact they did whatever they pleased. They went even so far as to say:- "We are lords of the earth. No one can enter Heaven without serving us." The so-called Braahmans of the present day say the same thing.

Here it is clearly shown that the caste system as practised today has no place in Hinduism .

Originally posted by C0ckney

hinduism is a huge part of the problems that dalits face, and i'll tell you who agrees with me, the dalits themselves, many of whom wish to escape the caste system by abandoning hinduism

It's been tried before . It has never worked .It will never work . They'll be treated in exactly the same manner . The way out is reform and a realisation that casteism is not religious , and in truth a horrible practice .

Originally posted by C0ckney

this clearly concerns many right wing hindus and there have been moves to stop dalits who try to escape caste stigma, by exercising their religious freedom, from some authorities, such as, gujarat

The act was meant to stop the sort of forced conversion taking place all over India , done by Christian missionaries . And it relates only to conversion WRT the state - you can convert privately , and nobody will care . It is only if you want to get your religion changed in the state's books that you have to go to the state - which , IMO , is reasonable .

Originally posted by C0ckney

Many describe Christian and Muslim communities as still in a state of shock after riots last year in which officially 1,000 people (and unofficially more than 2,000 people), the majority of them Muslim, were killed by mostly Hindu mobs.

Subsequent reports into the violence, including an internal report by the British Government, concluded that the violence was pre-planned by right wing Hindu groups and that the chief minister was involved.

"The nightmare Gujarat has experienced means every such move smells of some other intention," said Prakash Shah, convenor of the Movement for Secular Democracy in Gujarat.

"This government is still bent on continuing the blood-soaked action of last year."

First - it was not pre-planned at all . I will tell you how any why .

Godhra is a town in Gujarat . There were a number of Kar Sevaks ( who were Hindu activists returning from Ayodhya ) in the train . The train and its inhabitants was fried alive by a mob of Muslims , who locked the doors , threw bottles of burning fuel inside the carriages , then barred the windows , then proceeded to torch the exterior of the train , frying the people inside the train . These people inside were Hindu activists , who were there only because the train has stopped at that station .

After that , the rioting started . Ideally , the mobs should have gathered around the station and finished off the people who burnt the train , but mobs seldom behave rationally . The violence spiralled out of control , and spread all over the state , and finally the army was deployed after 72 hours to control it . I could not have been premeditated , for which political party would kill so many of its own men ?

The point I'm trying to make is this - the torching of the train was a pious act under Islam , as it killed the kafirs , but the subsequent violence from Hindu mobs is justified nowhere in any religious of scriptural text of Hinduism . The killing of an innocent is forbidden ( and a man is held to be innocent of the crimes of his ancestors or relatives ) .

Originally posted by C0ckney

what was that about barbarians?

Wait a minute ? Who said anything about 'barbarians' ? I called the religion Christianity barbarous ( in comparison with Hinduism ) . I never called any person a barbarian .

Do not confuse my attack on an ideology and a religion as an attack on its followers . They are totally different things , and I would never be foolish enough to claim that all Christians are barbaric of anything like that .

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by aneeshm

Wait a minute ? Who said anything about 'barbarians' ? I called the religion Christianity barbarous ( in comparison with Hinduism ) . I never called any person a barbarian .

But you do so by the false premises of judging the entire religion by the actions of one of its denominations (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church).
As stated several times before the RCC isn´t the only denomination of christian faith.
And just as you don´t seee hinduism as a reason for the caste system or widow burning,
any christ would be correct to not see christianity as a reason for converting heathens by fire and sword or the burning of witches.

All these things aren´t part of the christian faith, but rather were actions taken by people who used the faith to gain more power for themselves, thereby also violating fundamental principles of the faith (Christian faith explicitly stated "Thou shalt not kill", yet this important commandment of christian faith was violated by those who used the faith to either gain power, ofr by ciolently try to make their church stronger than others).

These actions by the RCC (or the actions during the 30 years war by RCC and protestant sovereigns in germany) has nothing toi do with the fundamental principles of the christian faith (and aren´t sanctioned by them, just as the killing of other persons aren´t sanctioned by hinduism [according to what you say])

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

Please note the qualifier 'in the abstract' which would imply he does indeed have hatred for Christianity in practice, the reasons for which follow:

I'm getting sick of torching strawmen .

Yes , I do hate Christianity , but I have no grouse with its followers . Is your mind incapable of distuingiushing between the two ? I would treat a Christian with exactly the same way I would treat someone else - on the basis of individual merit . The fact that their religion is an absurd , exclusivist , and intolerant one does not mean that the person is also exclusivist and intolerant , because people do not always follow all the percepts of their religion .

Of course I do not hate Christianity in the abstract ( assmuing that true Christians do not follow the old testament ) , because in the abstract it is just a description of the path Jesus used to gain enlightenment .

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

The last portion being an active dislike for simply believing and beleiving theirs is the Truth (capital T). A point which for the umpteenth time marks Christiainity no differrent than any other religion.

Wrong on both counts .

Firstly - I do not dislike Christianity because it claims its way it the true one . I dislike and despise it because it calims that all other ways are false . There is more than one method of arriving at the truth . It is like a person takes the scenic route , and denounces the shorter one as "false" , or vice-versa - an absurdity . Both get you to the same destination - only that one way is more suited to one person , while another way is to another ( person ) .

Secondly - yes , is does mark Christianity as different , for Hinduism admits to more than one path of reaching the truth , and is willing to consider as true any path that gets you enlightenment , no matter where it came from . So the Christian way of achieving enlightenment ( which the Church , sadly , tried to deny everyone ) is also acceptable ( and is called the Bhakti Marg , or the way of faith ) .

On the other hand , in the Raja Yogic tradition , you are told never to accept anything unless you have experienced it yourself - no faith or mysticism required . There are many ways of reaching the truth , and the Christian way is accepted , but its rejection of every other way is looked down upon as the sign of barbarism .

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

Had Aneeshm stuck only to his active dislike, despising, and/or hatred for activities Christianity undertook including forced conversion I would grant that, as that does mark a position in opposition to a groups (in this case Evangelical Christians) intolerance, but to merely despise a group for holding a position marks his own position as one of intolerance.

I do not despise the group - but I do despise the group's ideology . I also despise the excesses committed by the adherents of that group ( along with the adherents who commit those excesses ) , but do not judge adherents by their membership of that group .

I do not hold Christianity barbaric for holding a position , but for rejecting all others .

[Dr Strangelove]

I seem to recall that in recent history Hindu missionaries came to the US, proselytized for converts, then took the people who heeded their call and locked them in compounds. They forced their young apostles to completely break contact with their families and friends on the basis that their non-believing loved ones would pollute them with non-Hindu ideas. Yes, I'm including the Hare Krishnas as a Hindu sect. How was this not a barbarous act?

I might also add that as I said above Buddhism seemed to have vanished from its native land due to the concerted efforts of Hindus. It was once a thriving religion in India, with several ancient states having declared it their state religion, and then over a period of centuries it was wiped from the face of the Indian subcontinent. Oh well, I'm sure that the Buddhists instigated their own obliteration.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Perhaps someone could ask the Harrupas of pre-Aryan India that question, but they vanished shortly after the Hindus arrived.

That particular theory is disputed .

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

We might also ask the Dravidians of southern India, but I don't think that there are many who still adhere to their original religion.

It was organically absorbed into Hinduism - that is where local gods and goddesses some into the picture - they are the gods which the Dravidians have continued to worship for thousand of years , and still do . That is what I like about Hinduism - it does not force you to adhere to any one god , or accept any god as supreme . No matter who/what your god is , you can continue to worship him/her even after you adopt a Hindu way of life . That is why a Muslim who wants to adopt Hinduism can continue worshipping Allah as the only god , as long as he does not try to destroy all other Hindu gods .

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

We might alkso ask why Buddhism seems to have pretty much vanished from India, it's country of origin, by the time that the Europeans arrived.

Umm . . . . . because Islam totally killed it ?

This was possible because Buddhism was centralised in its Viharas , or monasteries , and the destruction of monasteries meant the end of Buddhism . Hinduism , being decentralised ( learning was the prime duty of every Brahmin , so each Brahmin household was a mini-monastery of Hinduism ) , could not be eliminated . Not only that , but the Hindu thinkers and reformers of later times pretty much finished Buddhism by conclusively refuting in many debates , after which the people re-adopted Hinduism . Another reason Buddhism never really had a very firm base was because it removed all the comfort that a human expects from a religion - no idols , no re-incarnation , the world as suffering , absolute detachment , etc. - and thus could not compete with Hinduism , which did offer a devotee all these forms of solace .

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

The kings of ancient India did indeed go on wars of conquest, Asoka and the Guptas come to mind, they conquered a subcontinent.

Hinduism forbade them from going beyond the bounds of Aryavarta , as doing so would be to interfere in another culture .

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

By the time they had subjugated India there really wasn't anywhere else to go.

By no means did these kings subjugate India . It was the Indian royal tradition to simply use the existing state structure , only putting yourself at the top after conquest of a piece of territory . This ensured that the civilian populace suffered as little as possible when there were wars - they paid the same tax , to the same tax collector , only that the tax collector would report to a different guy at the top .

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

Regarding expansion into SE asia I found these referrences - http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/idtoc.html and http://www.indonesiaphoto.com/content/view/29/46/

Firstly - both these sources are verbatim copies of one another .

Secondly - both the sources state that Hindu expansion into Indonesia was brought about mostly by traders and merchants , or when the local kings adopted Hinduism ( whom the populace naturally followed ) .

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

Christian Europe didn't become expansionist until it had developed stable nation states, the ability to build ships capable of carrying large number of troops across major oceans, military technology greatly superior to the inhabitants of most of the areas into which it expanded (not including southern or eastern asia), and had cleared itself of its major external threats. India never met those conditions. By the time that it gained access to the military technology revolution (firearms) that swept the major civilizations of eurasia in the 14th century it was already under the thumb of invaders.

As said before - we're moving off on a tangent here . What does this have to do with a comparison of Christianity and Hinduism ?


EDIT : Typing error - missed a word .

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

I seem to recall that in recent history Hindu missionaries came to the US, proselytized for converts, then took the people who heeded their call and locked them in compounds. They forced their young apostles to completely break contact with their families and friends on the basis that their non-believing loved ones would pollute them with non-Hindu ideas. Yes, I'm including the Hare Krishnas as a Hindu sect. How was this not a barbarous act?

Firstly - the idea of being polluted by contact with those of another religion is absurd . I'd be polluted if that were true .

Secondly - was it consensual ? Did the devotees actually want to get locked up ? If they did , then they were stupid ( for not having read about real Hinduism ) . If they didn't , then what the Hare Krishna did was illegal , and they should have their ass handed to them .

I would say that the Hare Krishna people who did this are barbarians , and that their actions are not justifiable under Hindu ideology .

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

I might also add that as I said above Buddhism seemed to have vanished from its native land due to the concerted efforts of Hindus. It was once a thriving religion in India, with several ancient states having declared it their state religion, and then over a period of centuries it was wiped from the face of the Indian subcontinent. Oh well, I'm sure that the Buddhists instigated their own obliteration.

Read my previous post .