American Arrogance Rooted in Christian Beliefs

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
None of the afterlife's I find particularly interesting. In the christian heaven you sing all day with god himself and fly around in cosy clouds. You have wings, but lack the balls. Great.

In the islamic afterlife you get lots of virgins and while this seems good at first (at least for the males among us).. just think of it... a virgin is no longer a virgin if you bang her. That means you get lots of virgins but no sex, you're running around horny every day with no possibility for relief. What more horrible scenario can you think of?

In buddhistic you get born again and again... noooo I don't want again.... SURE!! You'll become a sheep this time! Noooo.... What a pointless life when you get back again, but can't remember anything you've done before... if you could at least build on that, but no... senseless.

The church around utah says you'll be happy in heaven, because you know everything and have the experience from your fleshly life on earth... that's great, you're happy but bored. What more is there when you know EVERYTHING!?!?!! All we'd do, would be to try and drown in alcohol, to at least forget some of it... but then alcohol is not allowed... argh!

In the Islamic afterlife , the virginal huris somehow get "revirginified" even after you bang them .

In Buddhism , the goal is to get out of the cycle of death and rebirth . And yes , you do build on what you have done - your form in the next life is defined by your conduct in this one .

Just clearing that up .

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by aneeshm


Ah , but did we force other people to do so , and kill them if they didn't ?

By the way , I gave no justification for my view whatsoever in the beginning - I asked whether you wanted any .

At one time Hindus "spread the faith" throughout southeast Asia and what is now Indonesia. There are stories of Hindu settlers fighting the natives. That was a very long time ago - along came the Muslims who proceeded to get in their licks.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by BeBro


Yes, the fact that a modern view on religions means not to interpret a holy book only in the literal sense, but to view it in its historical context. The fact that unfortunately a certain part of the muslims still take the Quran literally I don't like either, but therefore we criticize most of them rightfully for being fundamentalists

That doesn't mean that their interpretation is the "true" Islam. Like most sane people here don't think some stupid fundy TV preachers stand for "true" Christianity.

How to interpret the Quran was also defined by the Prophet - in the record of traditions we know as the Hadith , and they don't leave much room for doubt .

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


At one time Hindus "spread the faith" throughout southeast Asia and what is now Indonesia. There are stories of Hindu settlers fighting the natives. That was a very long time ago - along came the Muslims who proceeded to get in their licks.

Any proof of that ?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by aneeshm
As for the original point : I do not generalise abour Christianity , only about the Christians who came here to preach ( and those who were representatives of Christianity at the world parlianment ) - those who are expected to be the concretisation of the ideology they preach .

Of course I do not consider Christianity monolithic - a religion that size will have to have some disagreements . But the ultimate goal of every sect is to convert everyone to their sect - which I find abhorrent ( as I find any religion whose sole aim is world domination to be immoral ) .

Do you realize that the Brits won India precisely because they promised to NOT proselytize? The night before the battle of Plessy General Cornwallis had a secret meeting with some of the allies of the French. He promised them that if they would desert the French cause that the British East India Company would keep English missionaries out of India. On the day of the battle the French and allied forces outnumbered the British 4 to 1. The French colonial troops led the charge, expecting their Indian allies to move forward after them, covering the flanks. As they approached the British lines they were dismayed to find that their allies had not budged. In a nearly even match the British easily defeated them. The East India Company was true to its word. English missionaries did not appear in India until after Victoria declared it to be her empire.

[our_man]

Originally posted by aneeshm

As for the original point : I do not generalise abour Christianity , only about the Christians who came here to preach ( and those who were representatives of Christianity at the world parlianment ) - those who are expected to be the concretisation of the ideology they preach .

Of course I do not consider Christianity monolithic - a religion that size will have to have some disagreements . But the ultimate goal of every sect is to convert everyone to their sect - which I find abhorrent ( as I find any religion whose sole aim is world domination to be immoral ) .

The examples you've listed previously are not the true spirit of Christianity, and I wonder how anyone could call themselves truly Christian by talking advantage of a human being in need. I'm not saying that after the disaster has passed that they shouldn't preach the message of Christ, but the fact is that article indicates that that was their ulterior motive all along, which is wrong. With regard to the article on subversive conversion, I've no problem with that though. It's our duty as Christians to spread the word of God, and in some countries this is not tolerated (most extreme example - Saudi Arabia). After all, is it fair that Muslims can freely proselytize in the West, yet Christians that attempt to evangelize in some Muslim countries are routinely harassed, making open missionary work impossible?

What exactly is wrong with spreading the word of God? I'm not talking about the abhorrent practices of some of the groups mentioned above, but just in general. All I ask for is the right to express my beliefs and to inform people about them, and the ability to refer them to someone else if they're interested. If they don't want to hear, they don't have to listen. I'll quickly grow bored without an audience. Because at the end of the day I believe Christianity is about 'choice' rather than 'submission'.

With regard to India, I'm not Indian, so I don't know whether I should accept your interpretation of the caste system or not. Everything I've read in the media suggests that it isn't as you said. But mayber we've all a misunderstanding of it in the West.



I just thought of another thing I don't like about India. The incineration of women that can't pay their dowry is a rather unpleasant custom.

I'm not trying to score points here; I'm just trying to illustrate to you how your opening remark was wrong, and how you are ignorant of the true spirit of Christianity (as I probably am of India). I suggest you read the New Testament so you can appreciate what Jesus really wanted.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by aneeshm


Any proof of that ?

There is certainly proof that Hinduism spread to Indochina and Indonesia, there is the island of Bali, where a corrupted form of Hinduism is practised, and there are plenty of monuments scattered on other islands and in Cambodia and Thailand. The history of the wars between the Hindus and the non-Hindus in this area of course lived on only in oral legend. If you pick up a text on the history of Indonesia prior to the arrival of Islam you should find something.

[Dr Strangelove]

No one mentioned the Thugees.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by aneeshm


How to interpret the Quran was also defined by the Prophet - in the record of traditions we know as the Hadith , and they don't leave much room for doubt .

But that was not much different for Christianity during some time. The Roman church had the ultimate authority to interpret the bible, and everyone who did something different from their interpretation was declared a heretic. You hadn't much room for doubt either in those times, but that obviously has changed. We don't burn people anymore for having differences with the church's POV (with " we" I mean westerners, I'm not even a Christian ).

In fact it is an important question how to modernize Islam in a similar way. I would not rule out the possibility per se just because of writings saying so-and-so. Over centuries what the bible said was the ultimate proof for people, but that has changed as well..

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by our_man


The examples you've listed previously are not the true spirit of Christianity, and I wonder how anyone could call themselves truly Christian by talking advantage of a human being in need. I'm not saying that after the disaster has passed that they shouldn't preach the message of Christ, but the fact is that article indicates that that was their ulterior motive all along, which is wrong. With regard to the article on subversive conversion, I've no problem with that though. It's our duty as Christians to spread the word of God, and in some countries this is not tolerated (most extreme example - Saudi Arabia). After all, is it fair that Muslims can freely proselytize in the West, yet Christians that attempt to evangelize in some Muslim countries are routinely harassed, making open missionary work impossible?

The fact is , they did have an ulterior motive . Did you read the statements ?

Nobody minds you spreading what you consider the word of God - but we do mind the vilification of other Gods . We also think that a religion based on only faith ( with no experience to back it up ) is foolish ( read up about Raja Yoga , which says that you must not believe anything regarding god until you have experienced it yourself - it is better to be a honest atheist than a hypocritical believer ) .

You think subversive conversion is moral - and then are surprised that you are considered barbaric in comaprison to those who always debate first in an open forum , and only then appeal to the masses on the basis of intellectual superiority ?

What exactly is wrong with spreading the word of God? I'm not talking about the abhorrent practices of some of the groups mentioned above, but just in general. All I ask for is the right to express my beliefs and to inform people about them, and the ability to refer them to someone else if they're interested. If they don't want to hear, they don't have to listen. I'll quickly grow bored without an audience. Because at the end of the day I believe Christianity is about 'choice' rather than 'submission'.

I have no problem with giving anyone a choice . But I do dislike ( though refuse to ban ) the vilification of everything not Christian . And I dislike the attitude of "ours is the one true way" . There is an old Hindu saying - "The truth is one , but the wise know it by many names" .

With regard to India, I'm not Indian, so I don't know whether I should accept your interpretation of the caste system or not. Everything I've read in the media suggests that it isn't as you said. But mayber we've all a misunderstanding of it in the West.

I've lived in this place all my life ( short as it is ) . I speak of what I know the situation to be ( at least in the cities ) . If anything , there is ( now ) a growing feeling that affirmative action has gotten out of hand ( when you have 90+ % of seats at governmental institutions reserved for "Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes" , others do feel that this is totally unfair ) . Discrimination against what were thought to be the lower castes in now illegal .

Adi Shankara ( approx. 788 AD to 820 AD ) preached against the stratification of the "jati" ( or caste ) system . If you want a more detailed explanation ( of the caste system ) , I can provide it . For more on Shankara , look here .

I just thought of another thing I don't like about India. The incineration of women that can't pay their dowry is a rather unpleasant custom.

Ummm . . . . WTF ? Where did this idea come from ? Totally false .

I'm not trying to score points here; I'm just trying to illustrate to you how your opening remark was wrong, and how you are ignorant of the true spirit of Christianity (as I probably am of India). I suggest you read the New Testament so you can appreciate what Jesus really wanted.

This is the same thing Communists use as a cop out - "True Communism has never been tried . . . . . . ." .










I look to the original Church for authoritative pronouncements on Christianity , the same way that I ask you to look at the Veds , the Purans , and the Ramayan and Mahabharata ( and Bhagwat Gita ) for authoritative knowledge of Hinduism .

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by BeBro


But that was not much different for Christianity during some time. The Roman church had the ultimate authority to interpret the bible, and everyone who did something different from their interpretation was declared a heretic. You hadn't much room for doubt either in those times, but that obviously has changed. We don't burn people anymore for having differences with the church's POV (with " we" I mean westerners, I'm not even a Christian ).

In fact it is an important question how to modernize Islam in a similar way. I would not rule out the possibility per se just because of writings saying so-and-so. Over centuries what the bible said was the ultimate proof for people, but that has changed as well..

You apparently do not grasp the Islamic mindset . They do no look at the Koran and say , "Let us judge this book and its messenger in the modern context" . They say , "Let us judge modernity in the context of the Book and the Prophet" , because to them , the Quran and Prophet's actions are the standard of morality . It is the word of God , so it it eternal and unchanging . The awe that a Muslim feels when reading the Quran is because they are taught that the Quran is the ultimate book , and the Prophet the last messenger .


And another thing - did Jesus explicitly give the Roman Catholic Church the power to interpret the Bible ?

In Islam , the prophet and the book justify each other .

[C0ckney]

does anyone else get the feeling that aneeshm is a member of a high caste...?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


There is certainly proof that Hinduism spread to Indochina and Indonesia, there is the island of Bali, where a corrupted form of Hinduism is practised, and there are plenty of monuments scattered on other islands and in Cambodia and Thailand. The history of the wars between the Hindus and the non-Hindus in this area of course lived on only in oral legend. If you pick up a text on the history of Indonesia prior to the arrival of Islam you should find something.

So , in brief , you have no proof , and expect me to find it for you .

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by C0ckney
does anyone else get the feeling that aneeshm is a member of a high caste...?

Yes . Aneesh Mulye does . How is that relevant , exactly ?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
No one mentioned the Thugees.

What have they do do with anything ?