American Arrogance Rooted in Christian Beliefs

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


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])

Well , I'm sorry about that , then . Who exactly is authorised to speak on behalf of Christians ( or do we have to go only by the Bible ) ?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by aneeshm


That particular theory is disputed .

Sure it is, but an entire culture disappears, its still fertile cities abandoned, just as a new one appears? So the Aryans didn't burn them to the ground. Alexander didn't burn Babylon, the Romans didn't burn Athens, the Turks didn't burn Constantinople.

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 .

There were no wars against the Dravidians? Yeah sure.
The Koran makes it clear that a good muslim should shun all gods except Allah.

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 compete with Hinduism , which did offer a devotee all these forms of solace .

Buddhism was virtually extinct in India by the time that Islam arrived. Furthermore Buddhism does indeed allow idols, you can find them in almost any shrine in SE asia. .

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

I believe that there were also wars against the tribes of what is now Afghanistan.

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 .

Millenia of having a Hindu king would probably pretty much guarentee compliance. Asoka did indeed war against the Dravidians, but he was unable to gain the last part of southern India.[/quote]



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 ) .
[/quote] Actually if you read thoroughly you'll see that it mentions that the actual means through which the religions spread isn't certain. Some feel that merchants wouldn't know enough about the core of Hindu belief to teach it to another culture, yet hindu law forbids Brahmans from crossing the ocean. Hmmmmm- Maybe that's why Hinduism didn't spread.

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

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by aneeshm




Well , I'm sorry about that , then . Who exactly is authorised to speak on behalf of Christians ( or do we have to go only by the Bible ) ?

well, I know a lot of portestants are very anti catholic (this is less then it was)

there are some that don't even beleive catholics to be Christian

Jon Miller

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by aneeshm


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

Nevertheless what the Hare Krishnas in the US did is well established fact. Their methods in obtaining the compliance of their initiates included putting them in detention cells, beatings, deprivation of food and water and a whole gamut of emotional and mental abuse. They've largely vanished from the US because several of their leaders were eventually convicted of assault and battery.

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 .
[/QUOTE It was the one who wanted to leave who were subjected to torture. Furthermore, as you said above Hinduism is never exclusive, so it shouldn't matter whether the exclusion was voluntary or not should it? We still have an example of a variant of Hinduism that disproves your assertion.

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

Nevertheless the theology of the Hare Krishnas was definitely Hindu. There was another Hindu group in the US that also proselytized a type of Hinduism and which also forced their converts to shut themselves off from society. I've forgotten the name of the leader - Baba Rum something or other.

If it is permissable for you to dismiss Hindus whose practices don't fit your conception of Hinduism, may I do the same for Christians who don't fit my conception of Christianity? Sort of makes any discussion of the topic pointless doesn't it?


Read my previous post .

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Sure it is, but an entire culture disappears, its still fertile cities abandoned, just as a new one appears? So the Aryans didn't burn them to the ground. Alexander didn't burn Babylon, the Romans didn't burn Athens, the Turks didn't burn Constantinople. There were no wars against the Dravidians? Yeah sure.

You say they were destroyed by invaders . I say we don't know ( which we don't ) . I'd rather stick with not knowing instead of using it as dubious evidence in a debate which is tangential to the real one anyway .

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

The Koran makes it clear that a good muslim should shun all gods except Allah.

That is why it is irreformable .

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

Buddhism was virtually extinct in India by the time that Islam arrived. Furthermore Buddhism does indeed allow idols, you can find them in almost any shrine in SE asia. .

Firstly - it may have been extinct , but as I said before , Buddhism as preached by the Buddha did not allow the devotee any support during the first steps . The remains of Buddhism ( what , in the Hindu tradition , could have been the seeds of revival ) were concentrated in the Viharas , and those were destroyed by Islam .

Secondly - the existence of idols in Buddhist shrines is a corruption of the Buddha's teachings . He taught his disciples not to worship any symbol on Earth , or in mind ( not even himself ) .

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

I believe that there were also wars against the tribes of what is now Afghanistan. Millenia of having a Hindu king would probably pretty much guarentee compliance. Asoka did indeed war against the Dravidians, but he was unable to gain the last part of southern India.

But your beliefs are irrelevant ( as is this whole debate , because this little "History of Hinduism" had nothing to do with the brabarism of Christianity ) if there is no proof for them .

Also - before the coming of Islam , Afghanistan was Hindu , and had been so since time immemorial ( the descriptions date back to the time of the Mahabharata ) .

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

Actually if you read thoroughly you'll see that it mentions that the actual means through which the religions spread isn't certain. Some feel that merchants wouldn't know enough about the core of Hindu belief to teach it to another culture, yet hindu law forbids Brahmans from crossing the ocean. Hmmmmm- Maybe that's why Hinduism didn't spread.

True - it discouraged imperialist expansion , as I said before ( though the resiriction on Brahmins going outside Aryavarta was not and is not a part of Hinduism ) .

[Dr Strangelove]

What determined Aryavarta? The Aryans arrived in northwestern India around 1500-1200 B.C.E. Over the next 1000 years they spread over the entire subcontinent, which by the way was already inhabited. Was the entire subcontinet Aryvarta the moment the Aryans crossed the mountains? Who set the limits? Did the inhabitants of non-Aryan areas consent to being included into Aryavarta? What happened to the ones who refused. Do you have proof outside of vague religious texts?

One problem we have here is that the expansion of Christian England, France, Spain, Portugal and Netherlands occurred relatively recently. They kept meticulous records of their encounters with the peoples of the Americas, Asia and Africa. The expansion of Hinduism throughout the Indian subcontinent occurred 3000 years ago, and if they kept records most of them are long gone, aided especially by the infamous muslim zealot Aurangzeb who ordered destroyed numerous ancient historical sites.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


well, I know a lot of portestants are very anti catholic (this is less then it was)

there are some that don't even beleive catholics to be Christian

Jon Miller

Yep, many of the Protestents I have met have very strong bad feelings about Catholics.

I have not seen the reverse being true as much, however.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by aneeshm

Well , I'm sorry about that , then . Who exactly is authorised to speak on behalf of Christians ( or do we have to go only by the Bible ) ?

Jesus Christ if he´d be alive now.
But as he isn´t, there´sn nobody who can speak for the whole of christianity.

As John Miller already stated, some protestant groups don´t even see the members of the Roman Catholic church as true christians (and think the catholics will all burn in hell whereas only true protestants like themselves will enter heaven ).

Yes, I think the bible is the only uniting thing all denominations have in common (well, to be honest, that´s also one thing where some protestants would disagree and say that the translation the RCC uses is false (some would even say, the RCC bible translation is a tool send to earth by satan to deceive the humans ) and only certain protestant translations of the bible are correct, but AFAIK the differences between the bible the RCC uses from the bibles most protestants accept aren´t this big [well someone who probably could say more on this matter would be Ben Kenobi, as he was a protestant and converted to Roman Catholicism and therefore probably has good knowledge about both versions of the bible])

Always a good thing to read are the Chick Tracts on Chick.com: http://www.chick.com/catalog/tractlist.asp

Chick is a protestant and in his comic-tracts you can see the more extreme forms of Antipathy some protestants have against other faiths, including the RCC church and of course against all science which conflicts the teachings of the bible, for example the theory of evolution

[Ted Striker]

Only Ted Striker's translation is the ONE TRUE correct translation -- the TRUTH TM.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
RCC church

RCC stands for Roman Catholic Church, so RCC church is redundent.

And Striker, the Chegitz manifesto pwns all.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Jesus was no Christian. He was a Jew. His religion was Judaism.

Where did I say he was? I simply implied that Christians would try to be Christlike as one of the pillars of their doctrine.

[Mr. Harley]

I believe in the Rebbe Jesus.

[beingofone]

So much misunderstanding over Jesus being the 'only way'. Yes he did claim that but it takes a paradigm to understand what he meant by this statement. Here is some clarification.

John 17:
21. That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23. I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
--Jesus

He was talking about one consciousness, one experience, and one life that permeates us all. He claimed to be blazing a trail of a new way (as opposed to tribal religions) of experiencing God through agape(divine love).

As to the question of his historical existence; Try reading some of the Nag Hammadi find as well as the recent translations of fragments from the Dead Sea scrolls that quote the standard text.

[Mr. Harley]

Methinks someone is a Gnostic Heretic.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


Jesus Christ if he´d be alive now.
But as he isn´t, there´sn nobody who can speak for the whole of christianity.

As John Miller already stated, some protestant groups don´t even see the members of the Roman Catholic church as true christians (and think the catholics will all burn in hell whereas only true protestants like themselves will enter heaven ).

Yes, I think the bible is the only uniting thing all denominations have in common (well, to be honest, that´s also one thing where some protestants would disagree and say that the translation the RCC uses is false (some would even say, the RCC bible translation is a tool send to earth by satan to deceive the humans ) and only certain protestant translations of the bible are correct, but AFAIK the differences between the bible the RCC uses from the bibles most protestants accept aren´t this big [well someone who probably could say more on this matter would be Ben Kenobi, as he was a protestant and converted to Roman Catholicism and therefore probably has good knowledge about both versions of the bible])

Always a good thing to read are the Chick Tracts on Chick.com: http://www.chick.com/catalog/tractlist.asp

Chick is a protestant and in his comic-tracts you can see the more extreme forms of Antipathy some protestants have against other faiths, including the RCC church and of course against all science which conflicts the teachings of the bible, for example the theory of evolution

So you are , in effect , saying that even within the religion , one of the defining characteristics of each sect and cult is the rejection of every other sect/cult ( along with , of course , the rejection of everything and everyone not belonging to the same religion ) ?