Disturbing Christian material . . . . . . . .

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Could you please find me a verse regarding such things in the Vedas ? I've often heard people saying that such things are there in all scriptures , but I've never found anything like that in the Vedas .

Well, the belief that one's cast is synonymous with one's spiritual duty. The propensity for animal sacrifice. Condemnation for eating beef. Etc.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Well, the belief that one's cast is synonymous with one's spiritual duty. The propensity for animal sacrifice. Condemnation for eating beef. Etc.

Could you please quote the relevant parts for me ?


And by the way - I see nothing wrong with saying that eating beef is wrong . The cow is given the status of a mother - for that is what it was in the Indian agricultural society - and that is why it is given protected status .

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Could you please quote the relevant parts for me ?

From Purusha Sukta hymn (RV 10:90:12):

The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms was the Rajanya made. His thighs became the Vaishya, from his feet the Sudra was produced.

RV 1:32 boasts of the cruelty of the Aryan invaders against the dark-skinned natives.

RV 1 is full of praise for the fair-skinned Indra who "smote the impious black-skinned Dasyus."


RV 8:33:17:

Lord Indra himself has said, 'The mind of woman cannot be disciplined; she has very little intelligence.

YV 33:59:

A wife, obedient to her husband, renowned, light-footed, eloquent in speech, sympathetic to the patients, attains to happiness when she lives peacefully with her husband, and nicely cooks the food highly efficacious, and grown through rain, conducive to our physical growth, brought daily in use, and relished by our ancestors

[Elok]

Rajanya? Is that an alternative term for the Kshatriyas? 'Course, either way, those are the Aryan social classes and not castes as such, but you've got a point.

[LordShiva]

One need not mention the laws of Manu here.

[Robert]

Originally posted by LordShiva
I mean, like all those things that liberals like to point out to religious conservatives, about like stoning adulterers, or only being allowed to take slaves from neighbouring countries, or homosexuality being an abomination, etc. Clearly, there are lots of things in there that, like in any other holy book of any other religion, are quite contrary to what most people believe these days.

I won't say those things are easy to explain all the time. For sure the new testamentical things (view on homosexuals, slaves) but I'll give you my view on it.

The laws in the old testament were given to the Israelites. These laws aren't given to the rest of the world. They're given to nomads in an entirely different situation with other cultural values. I don't think anyone should read them as universal laws that apply to all humans in all situations. period.

I've read a book about the scientific background behind a lot of those old testamentic laws. Most of them are presented as divine laws so the people would follow them and not question them. Now we know that these laws have medical benefits that nobody could know in those days. Ie. the circumseizing of the boys made uterus cancer go down to nearly 0% while with the surrounding people this was a huge problem. The circumseizing had to happen at the 8th day, now we know that the 8th is the perfect day for circumseizing because of the blood. Same counts for what they could eat and what they couldn't eat. For menstruation laws, etc. It can even be applied to the laws for homosexuality, sex between men causes much deseases, surely in those days.

Anyway, without simply denouncing all those laws as not applicable to us anymore is it very important to understand that the old testamentic laws were given to the Jewish Nomadic People. Not the 21st century folks.

Note that the New Testament is full of texts that tell us that we should be lead by the Spirit and not by the letter (the laws).

Having said that, the laws of Moses (Old Testamentic laws) have 2nd purpose as well, showing man that he is sinfull. Ie. if you think you're perfect, mirror yourself at the laws and you'll see that you're not perfect.

Then of course there are the new testamentic rules given by Paul regarding slavery, women rights and homosexuality. You should know that in those days slavery was very normal, so was the backwards position of the women. The gospel is for everyone in an equal way, teaches Paul. Free man and slave, man and woman, rich and poor, Jew and gentile. If Paul would teach the liberation of the slave or the emancipation of the woman the gospel would've gotten such a focus. The christians would be concidered to be a women emancipation movement or a slaves-for-freedom group. It would not attrackt slavekeepers or men. Pete says in his first letter that the slaves should treat their bosses in a normal way, even if their boss mistreats them, woman should obey their (not christian) men and *important* men should respect their women and be carefull with them. We concider that last part to be something normal but one should understand that it was not normal in those days. In fact Peter says: "Act normal, don't be rebellious (even if the situation is not good, ie. slavery) but youself shouldn't handle others in that way.

Regarding homosexuality, one of the most difficult topics for me in the Bible. The Bible is quiet clear on this subject, it's not allowed. That's difficult to me because I can't see why. Neither can I, as a happily maried man tell someone else that he shouldn't be as happy as I am. It's difficult to me. On the other hand do I not want to denounce a part of the Bible that easily. On the first hand I get the feeling that the New Testament is against the Roman culture of homosexuality. Not normal homosexuality, genetical homosexuality, but cultural homosexuality with orgies, sex parties, and of course homosexuality as a form of domination. I'd say: against the gay parade in Amsterdam (like it could be against the love parade in Berlin, the way sex is exposed). I can take that over. How much I have difficulties with condeming genetic homosexuals who live together, I do not have these difficulties with condeming the absurd homosexual culture (like I have problems with our current heterosexual culture as well!! The porn industry, modern woman slavery, prostituation, etc.).

But I'm not sure if I can explain the New Testamentical rules about homosexuality that way. It's my own interpertation, not to mention that I'm not gay myself thus these rules do not apply to me anyway. And I don't believe that I should tell others what to do and what not to do (though I can advise others if they ask me).

So, not a clear answer to you (clear answers are impossible most of the time) but some thoughts I have about those difficult questions you asked me. May I ask you what you think about these answers? I discuss these with my christian friends but I'm curious what an honest response from a non-christian who's not been brainwashed yet 8)

So, is it right only about Jesus, and not about the other stuff? But then, you have no trustworthy material...

No, it is about the other stuff, but mainly about Jesus. In general the Bible teaches:

- God created man (/woman)
- man has taken autonomy
- man makes a mess of his life and the world
- God starts with his own people (Israel)
- He gives him guidelines to live a perfect live (as human thought they could find themselves how to live a perfect life, ie. chose/decide over good and evil themselves)
- The Jews fail to live up to these guidelines (laws) and show that man can not even live perfect if it knows how to live perfect
- God becomes man (Jesus) and lives the perfect life
- Jesus is punished for the problems of man and ressurects in the new life
- all who believe in Jesus / have trust in Jesus / depend on Jesus (and thus admit that they can't live the perfect life themselves, earn to be dismissed by God and can never enter the paradise) are, through Jesus forgiven, and will be remade and be perfect.
- God will renew heaven and earth. Those who want to be their own God (original sin) can be their own god in their own place (hell), those who want God to be God will be with him on the new earth (paradise).

Do you know the famous internet quote: "Satan is the voice that wispers in your ear: 'freedom'".
That's true, that's what satan whispered in our ears in Genesis 1, and he still whispers it in our ears. You can get freedom, freedom of God and be your own god. If you think that you can be a good god and that you'll be able to live the perfect life, go ahead and be free. If you doubt that you're perfect (and thus someone who would make the paradise imperfect if you enter it, and spoil it for all) then say to God: I can't be god, please be my God and let me be like Jesus and forgive me in the name of Jesus.

Thus: yes, it's all about Jesus in the end. The rest of the Bible is a way to explain to us why we need Jesus. And if you don't have a Bible, your own life will be good enough for that as well since I don't believe that anyone on earth thinks that's he's perfect and doesn't harm anybody, nor intended neither nor on purpose.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by aneeshm
And by the way - I see nothing wrong with saying that eating beef is wrong . The cow is given the status of a mother - for that is what it was in the Indian agricultural society - and that is why it is given protected status .

Leviticus has plenty of laws that deal with hygiene, and that made sense back in ancient times.

More generally, the whole deal about kosher or hallal food, and circumcision, is about a law that makes sense from a pragmatic perspective, but which were enshrined in religion/tradition.

Edit: what CyberShy said on the matter.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by LordShiva


From Purusha Sukta hymn (RV 10:90:12):

The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms was the Rajanya made. His thighs became the Vaishya, from his feet the Sudra was produced.

So ? This can be interpreted to mean anything at all . It can mean that that is what the classes do ( without any reference to the classes being hereditary ) . It can mean ten other things . For example , in the Mahabharata , when the yaksha asks Yudhishthir what makes one a Brahmin , he says that it is one's conduct .

The purusha sukta is an allegorical creation hymn - about how one part of the primordial consciousness sacrificed another to form the universe . If you start taking that literally , you're on very shaky ground - so shaky , in fact , that even fundamentalist Hindus didn't take it literally .

Originally posted by LordShiva

RV 1:32 boasts of the cruelty of the Aryan invaders against the dark-skinned natives.

RV 1 is full of praise for the fair-skinned Indra who "smote the impious black-skinned Dasyus."

The debate is still on over who were the Dasyus and who were the Aryans , so I'll refrain from commenting . Let is be known , however , that all Hindu scriptures say that an Aryan is made by conduct , and say that the word Arya is itself used to denote nobility , not race ( as race did not exist as a construct at the time of the supposed Aryan invasion ) .

Originally posted by LordShiva

RV 8:33:17:

Lord Indra himself has said, 'The mind of woman cannot be disciplined; she has very little intelligence.

That's Indra's personal opinion - the opinion of the person who happened to be occupying the post of Indra at that time , and Indra has been very frequently been known to be wrong . I wouldn't put much store in the words of Indra if I were you - he's just a mortal who happened to occupy that post at the time .

It's not a diktat for everyone to follow .

Originally posted by LordShiva

YV 33:59:

A wife, obedient to her husband, renowned, light-footed, eloquent in speech, sympathetic to the patients, attains to happiness when she lives peacefully with her husband, and nicely cooks the food highly efficacious, and grown through rain, conducive to our physical growth, brought daily in use, and relished by our ancestors

It says that a wife having these qualities is happy . It does not , however , mandate happiness or these qualities as duties .

[LordShiva]

I'm assuming you're doing it unknowingly, but you exhibit a similar tendency to whackos like the VHP and Bajrang Dal to paint the Vedas as the fountainhead of all human knowledge. Effectively, they hold that the errors of Hinduism are only later accretions, and believe that no sanction can be drawn from the Vedas for the prohibition of widow marriages, child marriages, caste discrimination, etc.

For example: animal sacrifice. It is widespread in the Vedas, and two of the hymns in the Rigveda are for the sacrifice of a horse (a[s']wamedha). According to Hindu right intellectuals, however,
a[s']wamedha is to be translated not "sacrifice of a horse," but
destruction of ignorance. Offerings for deceased parents, prescribed in detail in the Vedas, are similarly rationalised into kind treatment of parents in old age.

So basically, everywhere it's inconvenient, we're supposed to say "Oh, don't read that literally. It actually means this." In this way, other things that similar readings of the Vedas "prove": Modern science, democracy, the Copernican system of astronomy, a cure for cancer, etc.

[LordShiva]

More racism in the vedas:

"Indra, the slayer of Vrittra, the destroyer of cities, has scattered the Dasyu (hosts) sprang from a black womb." RgV. II 20.6

The Rig Veda praises the god who "destroyed the Dasyans and protected the Aryan colour." - Rg.V. III 34.9

Thank the God who "bestowed on his white friends the fields, bestowed the sun, bestowed the waters." - Rg.V. I 100.18

"stormy gods who rush on like furious bulls and scatter the black skin", “the black skin, the hated of Indra" will be swept out of heaven - RgV. IX 73.5

"Indra protected in battle the Aryan worshipper, he subdued the lawless for Manu, he conquered the black skin."

Thank god for "scattering the slave bands of black descent", and for stamping out "the vile Dasyan colour." - Rg.V. II.20.7, II 12.4

"Black skin is impious" (‘Dasam varnam adharam’) -Sans., Rg.V. II.12.4

Indra - 4.16.13 - "Thou to the son of Vidathin, Rjisvan, gavest up mighty Mrgaya and Pipru. Thou smotest down the swarthy fifty thousand, and rentest forts as age consumes a garment."

Indra - 5.29.10 - "One car-wheel of the Sun thou rolledst forward, and one thou settest free to move for Kutsa. Thou slewest noseless Dasyus with thy weapon, and in their home o'erthrewest hostile speakers."

Soma Pavamana - 9.41.1 - "ACTIVE and bright have they come forth, impetuous in speed like bulls, driving the black skin far away."

Soma Pavamana - 9.73.5 - "O'er Sire and Mother they have roared in unison bright with the verse of praise, burning up riteless men, Blowing away with supernatural might from earth and from the heavens the swarthy skin which Indra hates."

[Robert]

LordShiva, any reaction to my post?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by CyberShy
LordShiva, any reaction to my post?

Yes: wow. That was long, and well written

I'm of the opinion that religious texts contain lots of universally applicable truths in them, and also some questionable aspects. The faithful, such as you and aneeshm, can recognize that, taken literally, these are indeed questionable, and offer interpretations that are more palatable. That's cool, I like those interpretations.

But I'm a staunch atheist, and therefore do not believe that holy texts are divinely inspired. As such, as creations of human beings, they mirror the philosophies of their writers and their times, and so are likely to contain stuff that later generations wouldn't necessarily agree with. The responsibility of the faithful of those later generations is to reinterpret the bad and stay true to the good. Problems arise when that doesn't happen.