American Arrogance Rooted in Christian Beliefs

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Bereta_Eder
i thought only amadeus rocked

Come to church with me -- let me save your soul.

[Ben Kenobi]

Carrot-and-stick "moral" codes are at best worthless, and are at worst completely amoral.

So Christians are only Christians because of what they get for being Christians? The difference is that the responsibilities to Christ come now, while the promise of heaven is not until we leave this transitory life. So that makes Christianity significantly different from the carrot and the stick.

Christians flock to Christ, because they believe he offers the truth, and not a truth. Because he is God, and not just someone who talks about him.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wow, that's pretty erroneous. Remind me again where one can find the highest concentration of Catholics in the U.S....

Your problem then is with the folks who devise the dichotomy between the heartland and the coasts, where no such divide exists.

[Ben Kenobi]

aneeshm:

If your goals and ideals are apart from all religions as a secular, then the critiques you level against Christianity in particular seem rather puzzling. Christians are the ones who have been a vast minority in India, compared to the Hindus and Muslims and even the Sikhs, yet that they manage to provoke such a response from the others tells me that there is something different about Christianity that sets it aside from the other religions.

Yes, you mention Christianity's claim to offer the path to God. What I fail to see is why that claim can be said to be problematic? Shouldn't a religion that believes it has the truth claim this?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by BeBro


At one point I feared it would become another capitalism vs. communism thread....

aneeshm, I do not doubt what you told me about your muslim friend, it is just that I made some experiences that are completely different from those you described. So obviously some muslims are more traditional (or fundamentalistic if you will) towards their own religion than others. I saw the difference quite strongly when meeting a guy from Kuwait and his wife when I visited Jordan, who were very much "modern" like we are, esp. in the way like they treated eachother, or how the woman behaved. That was totally different from the usual cliche that the women wear head scarfs and are all opressed there. Of course, I've seen others which indeed fit into that cliche, no doubt. But it is still interesting that some can accept modernity relatively easy, while others can't, and while another part may be somewhere in between.

My friend is one of the more relatively "modern" ones . But fighting the customs of your community is very hard on a person . It is true that Muslims can be modern , but my point is that Islam cannot .

Here in Germany you can see the same differences everyday - some of the many Turkish immigrants we have are more progressive than others, some may even support aggressive Muslim fundies while others simply don't care about them.

Remember the above point - I attack the religion , not the follower of the religion .

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
aneeshm:

If your goals and ideals are apart from all religions as a secular, then the critiques you level against Christianity in particular seem rather puzzling. Christians are the ones who have been a vast minority in India, compared to the Hindus and Muslims and even the Sikhs, yet that they manage to provoke such a response from the others tells me that there is something different about Christianity that sets it aside from the other religions.

Yes, you mention Christianity's claim to offer the path to God. What I fail to see is why that claim can be said to be problematic? Shouldn't a religion that believes it has the truth claim this?

The problem arises when they not only claim that Christianity is the way to God , but it is also the only way to god , and that all others ( including the local religion , whatever it be ) is evil , when it tries to destroy local customs and traditons by vilifying them , and by not defeating the prevailing intellectual ideology in open debate before appealing the the masses , when it tries the tactics I mentioned in order to convert people .


Remember - 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 .

I have nothing against people , only against ideas .


@ C0ckney

Please provide proof that the spread of Hinduism to Indonesia was violent .

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by C0ckney

and yet despite all the fine things these 'luminaries' said the caste system is firmly in place and is a source of massive human rights abuses, how can this be!?!

This can be because people are averse to change .

bull****. the links i provided tell a very different story. they say that despite all the constitution says that there is massive discrimination and abuse based on the caste system, read them, if you want i can provide a lot of further reading.

And I admitted that - but I also said that it is restricted mostly to the villages . I know very well the abuses of the caste system - but I never defended it as it is . I repeat that it originated as a system of classification . Can't you distinguish between history and the present ?

the point here is that you have called everyone else barbarians, and yet you defend a religion which has at its heart a system which denies hundreds of millions of people the most basic of rights on a daily basis. so if we're barbarians, then what does that make you?

I deny that casteism is the heart of Hinduism . This is where you put words into my mouth , or make wrong assumptions . The caste system was stratified later , as religion became more ritualised . It was not , and should not be , anything more than a system of classification based on occupation . Got that ?









And anyway - you've proved my point for me , in a fashion - you used tactics such as trying to discredit me , trying to insinuate that I had something to gain from this discussion and that therefore should not be listened to , used provocative imagery , and created strawmen and put words in my mouth . You also dragged down the level of debate by overusing sarcasm . That is barbarism when it comes to debate . I may here make clear that I attack your tactics , and not you personally .

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by aneeshm
It is true that Muslims can be modern , but my point is that Islam cannot .

Islam is made by muslims - if they can change themselves despite having religious writings which say otherwise it must have an impact on their whole society at some point and on the way they see their own religion. It is still nothing more than an assertion that Islam can't change or can't be modernized. Feel free to believe in it, but I don't buy it

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
US influence in the world is relatively benign and a force for good.

The Iraq thing was a bit of a blooper but everyone has their blindspots.

Imagine if the Soviet Union or China or Nazi Germany were the world hegemon right now.

If it isn´t sarcasm
I think it is rather neutral-good.
Most of the actions america takes seem to be motivated by what´s good for america (or at least for the ruling president ).

Of course many of the actions the USA takes are also good for other countries (for example the countries oppressed by Nazi-Germany, the inhabitants of Kuwait and Haiti and so on) but the USA also have no scruples to support Regimes which oppress their population (Iraq during Gulfwar 1, Iran during the reign of Shah Reza, Saudi Arabia, the Apartheid-Regime of South Africa and so on) or to support groups which work against governments, which were elected in a democratic way ([AFAIK]Greece, Guatemala, Chile and so on).

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by BeBro


Islam is made by muslims - if they can change themselves despite having religious writings which say otherwise it must have an impact on their whole society at some point and on the way they see their own religion. It is still nothing more than an assertion that Islam can't change or can't be modernized. Feel free to believe in it, but I don't buy it

I define Islam as the interpretation given the Hadith of the Quran , further calrified by the Figh ( judgements of Islamic clerics ) . That is nor reformable . If Muslims decide to reject the fundamental tenets of their faith , and in the process live in a state of constant sin , fine with me . But them Islam will cease to be Islam .

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by aneeshm


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 .

revirginified
Also, I never understand what people find so attractive about virgins, I'd rather have one who knows how to do it good.

[Saras]

Revirginification

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Atahualpa


revirginified
Also, I never understand what people find so attractive about virgins, I'd rather have one who knows how to do it good.

Here I agree . . . .

But argue about this with Mohammed , not me !

[Saras]

Imagine a revirginified ho that KNOWS how to do it

[C0ckney]

...you used tactics such as trying to discredit me...

in all fairness, i didn't have to try that hard.

And I admitted that - but I also said that it is restricted mostly to the villages . I know very well the abuses of the caste system - but I never defended it as it is . I repeat that it originated as a system of classification . Can't you distinguish between history and the present ?

I deny that casteism is the heart of Hinduism . This is where you put words into my mouth , or make wrong assumptions . The caste system was stratified later , as religion became more ritualised . It was not , and should not be , anything more than a system of classification based on occupation . Got that ?

'casteism' has throughout india's history been very important, to deny that is rather like denying the sky is blue. but it's refreshing to hear that you want to talk about the present. so here how the caste system TODAY affects people.

from the UNESCO report 'india's hidden apartheid' which i linked to earlier -

More than 160 million people, a sixth of India’s population, continue to bear the burden of a 2,000-year old caste system sanctioned by Hindu theology, which locks people into a rigid role by virtue of their birth.

Though the term “untouchables” was abolished in 1950 under India’s constitution, the “oppressed people” or Dalits as they are now referred to, continue to be discriminated against. They are denied access to land, forced to work in humiliating and degrading conditions and are routinely abused by the police and upper-caste groups, which enjoy the state’s protection.

sorry, what was that about barbarism...?

and the brahmins do alright out of the caste system too

Brahmins are 3.5% of the population in India, but hold 78% of judicial positions and around 50% of parliamentary seats.