[QUOTE=Surya Deva;35960]Pepsi is superior to coke! Yeah, you heard me!
Wow, I must be so intolerant to say that ;)[/QUOTE]
If that is your response to intolerance then I can only assume that you equate Hinduism to Pepsi. And in the overall scheme of things Pepsi is rather insignificant… Is that it?
Big difference between a personal preference between coke and Pepsi and religious intolerance… or maybe not… it all may all just be a personal preference after all…
The point is that there is always going to be something which is superior to something else. To call people intolerant for saying something is superior is therefore absurd.
Hinduism is obviously superior because it is the only religion that has no history of violence against other religions. It is the only religion whose actual religious practices work. It is the only religion that is backed up by science and actually has a scientific method for producing knowledge.
I am simply calling a spade a spade. Like I said before, I am immune to the postmodern disease of political correctness and relativism.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;35983]
Hinduism is obviously superior because it is the only religion that has no history of violence against other religions.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately I am not adept in Druid history, but does anyone happen to know of any history of violence in Druidism?
The point is that there is always going to be something which is superior to something else. To call people intolerant for saying something is superior is therefore absurd.
Hinduism is obviously superior because it is the only religion that has no history of violence against other religions. It is the only religion whose actual religious practices work. It is the only religion that is backed up by science and actually has a scientific method for producing knowledge.
I am simply calling a spade a spade. Like I said before, I am immune to the postmodern disease of political correctness and relativism.[/QUOTE]
Would it be absurd to say someone is/was intolerant for stating one race of people was superior to others?
And you still have not answered my previous question either, so let me rephrase
Do you feel that Hinduism should be thought of at the same as Pepsi?
I never said any race of people were more superior than others. There is only one race: the human race.
I already answered your question. The Pepsi example was merely to illustrate that saying x is superior than y is not in itself intolerant.
[QUOTE=CkarmaKat;35984]Unfortunately I am not adept in Druid history, but does anyone happen to know of any history of violence in Druidism?[/QUOTE]
Drudism is an offshoot of ancient Aryan(Hindu) religion. Although Drudism did have many good things about it, there were human sacrifices in Drudism.
The Druids or celts were one of the tribes of ancient India which were expelled from India because of the inhumane practices.
Namaste,
I think some people on this forum need to realise, and I am sure those who are impartial and can see merit in what I am saying already have realised, that I want exactly the same thing that everybody else wants. That is peace, harmony and prosperity for this planet. The difference is I am being real about it, and the others on this forum are not.
They are pretending that there already is peace, harmony and prosperity and nothing needs to be changed other than our belief that we should all just coexist with one another. What they do not realise opposites never can coexist with one another. Fire cannot coexist with water and light cannot coexist with darkness. It is not coexistence we need to bring peace, harmony and prosperity to this planet. It is resolution. Those differences that separate us need to fight it out and resolve themselves and the synthesis that remains will take us further and there will be progress.
This needs to be done by actual worldwide formal debates between religions. The winning religion becomes the religion of the world.
And there would be absolutely no doubt in a worldwide formal debate Hindusim would emerge victorious. This is because Hinduism is falsifiable and testable. You can test whether reincarnation is true or not, but you cannot test judgement day and skeletons rising from their graves. You can test Yoga and meditation, but you cannot test baptism and praying 5 times a day.
It is high time the Abrahamic religions get formally challenged by Hindu masters to a formal worldwide debate. The loser accepts their religion is false and converts to Hinduism on the spot.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;35986]I never said any race of people were more superior than others. There is only one race: the human race.
I already answered your question. The Pepsi example was merely to illustrate that saying x is superior than y is not in itself intolerant.[/QUOTE]
Actually you did not answer my question, but that’s OK.
By definition intolerance is not defined as a personal preference like choosing Coke over Pepsi it is however this
Intolerance
And by what you have been posting it may be Religious intolerance but to be honest I am not certain. It is most certainly elitist but I am not sure it is Intolerance, but it might be and by the following it likely is
Forms of Religious Intolerance:
Either way it is not the same as a personal preference based on a taste of a soda such as Pepsi or Coke
Tolerance does not mean agreement. I am tolerant in that I will let you believe and practice your religion and still be your best friend. That does not mean I agree with you. If you agreed to debate with me. Trust me, I would leave no stone unturned in demolishing your religion particle by particle
This is exactly how it was done in Hindu India. Every school existed in India from hedonism, atheism, satanism, nihilism, relativism, materialism, realism, idealism, dualism, non dualism, mysticism and various grades in between, and nobody ever got persecuted. Everybody had freedom to believe whatever they wanted. However, when it came to formal debates, they were ruthless and lethal. If you could not demonstrate a single one of your points with valid evidence you would lose instantly.
So to summarize. I am tolerant in that I accept your right to believe and practice what you want. But if you make the mistake of debating with me, I will be very ruthless. I assure you of that. You already have had a taste of it. The fact of the matter is your religion does not stand up to reason.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;35990]
This needs to be done by actual worldwide formal debates between religions. The winning religion becomes the religion of the world.[/QUOTE]
Well that’s scary… we shall force everyone to ‘believe’ a certain way? No thank you! lol
In order to have order, chaos must also exist.
[QUOTE=CkarmaKat;35994]Well that’s scary… we shall force everyone to ‘believe’ a certain way? No thank you! lol
In order to have order, chaos must also exist.[/QUOTE]
So, when Hinduism takes over the world can I choose which caste I can belong to? Is this done by committee? I place dibs on one of the funner upper castes with lots of money and privileges. After seeing ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ I don’t think I can make it as an untouchable. I have a low smell tolerance.
No, not believe, but accept. Accept facts.
All of the following are facts
All of the above can be backed up with ample scientific evidence. There is so much scientific evidence in fact, that it is disgraceful that the mainstream scientific community still have not accepted it. I think part of the reason they have not is because of the sheer politics. It means the end of the Abrahamic religions.
All of these tenets need to be accepted so that we can transform this world into a spiritual society.
We do not want chaos. We want order.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;35990]Namaste,
I think some people on this forum need to realise, and I am sure those who are impartial and can see merit in what I am saying already have realised, that I want exactly the same thing that everybody else wants. That is peace, harmony and prosperity for this planet. The difference is I am being real about it, and the others on this forum are not.[/QUOTE]
The entire world coming together to practice Hinduism is not ‘being real about’ anything.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;35990]They are pretending that there already is peace, harmony and prosperity and nothing needs to be changed other than our belief that we should all just coexist with one another. What they do not realise opposites never can coexist with one another. Fire cannot coexist with water and light cannot coexist with darkness. It is not coexistence we need to bring peace, harmony and prosperity to this planet. It is resolution. Those differences that separate us need to fight it out and resolve themselves and the synthesis that remains will take us further and there will be progress.[/QUOTE]
If the world was meant to be that way… it would be. The world is already perfect within it’s own imperfection and I accept that.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;35996]
We do not want chaos. We want order.[/QUOTE]
One does not exist without the other.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;35993]Tolerance does not mean agreement. I am tolerant in that I will let you believe and practice your religion and still be your best friend. That does not mean I agree with you. If you agreed to debate with me. Trust me, I would leave no stone unturned in demolishing your religion particle by particle
This is exactly how it was done in Hindu India. Every school existed in India from hedonism, atheism, satanism, nihilism, relativism, materialism, realism, idealism, dualism, non dualism, mysticism and various grades in between, and nobody ever got persecuted. Everybody had freedom to believe whatever they wanted. However, when it came to formal debates, they were ruthless and lethal. If you could not demonstrate a single one of your points with valid evidence you would lose instantly.
So to summarize. I am tolerant in that I accept your right to believe and practice what you want. But if you make the mistake of debating with me, I will be very ruthless. I assure you of that. You already have had a taste of it. The fact of the matter is your religion does not stand up to reason.[/QUOTE]
What I find interesting, and this is not the first time I have noticed this, in some of your responses you are justifying your stance based on things that are not there. Like in my last post…
And although you are correct in saying tolerance does not mean agreement, nowhere in the definition I posted does it say anything about agreement.
This I find fascinating.
You appear to be responding, at times, in ways that help support your position whether or not what you?re responding to has actually been said.
You appear to be following a set of rules that you put down in order to strengthen your position and not allowing anyone to deviate from that unless it suits you.
You ask for examples between the years 7000BCE to 1000AD and when a cast system is mentioned you say we no longer have one. This then would be using a refutation that is outside of the parameters that you set. And if then someone gives you an example you retreat to the years you previously set up as parameters of the discussion.
At this point I would say you might be tolerant up to a certain point and that point being just as long as nothing is mentioned and someone from another religion keeps silent about it in your presence.
Like I said you are proving a point; just I don’t think it is the one you are intending to prove.
The entire world coming together to practice Hinduism is not ‘being real about’ anything.
I think you need to understand practicing Hinduism is nothing more than spirituality. That is that the entire world practices spirituality by practicing self-development, Yoga, meditation and living in harmony with nature and the animals. Is that such a bad thing?
It is very interesting you oppose this.
If the world was meant to be that way… it would be. The world is already perfect within it’s own imperfection and I accept that.
The world is not meant to be any way, it is will be as we want it to be. If we want to live in a violent, disharmonious and oppresive world then it will be so. If we want to live in a peace, harmonious and prosperous world then it will be so. Again I find it interesting that you oppose the latter.
One does not exist without the other.
Nope, the opposite of order is not disorder. As disorder is simply a negation of order. There has to be order in the first place for there to be dis+order. Likewise, the opposite of perfection is not imperfect. As imperfection is simply the negation of perfection.
I will have to say, again, however, it is interesting you actually enjoy chaos? I think you have it too good. If you were living in war torn Iraq right now you would never ask for chaos over order.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;36003]I think you need to understand practicing Hinduism is nothing more than spirituality. That is that the entire world practices spirituality by practicing self-development, Yoga, meditation and living in harmony with nature and the animals. Is that such a bad thing?
[/QUOTE]
It is not a bad thing at all, I’m just not understanding why you feel have to put a label and doctrine to it and force everyone to believe. People will believe how they feel they believe - there is no way to [B]force [/B]belief upon anyone other than brainwashing.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;36003]
The world is not meant to be any way, it is will be as we want it to be. If we want to live in a violent, disharmonious and oppresive world then it will be so. If we want to live in a peace, harmonious and prosperous world then it will be so. Again I find it interesting that you oppose the latter.
[/QUOTE]
If it is to be as we want it, then it appears that this is what we want collectively.
I do not oppose the latter, I simply accept the world for what it is.
I think you need to understand practicing Hinduism is nothing more than spirituality. That is that the entire world practices spirituality by practicing self-development, Yoga, meditation and living in harmony with nature and the animals. Is that such a bad thing?
It is very interesting you oppose this.
I can see people doing yoga, meditating, living in harmony and practicing spirituality in many forms of religion, not only Hindu.
[QUOTE=lotusgirl;36006]I can see people doing yoga, meditating, living in harmony and practicing spirituality in many forms of religion, not only Hindu.[/QUOTE]
This is very true. In fact, I can see people doing these things even more effectively when no religion or doctrines are involved. You do not need religion in order to be spiritual. I have met many spiritual people who are not indoctrinated in any ‘ism’ at all.
And what is spirituality then? What do you think of when you think of spirituality or what do you see when you go to the mind body section in a bookstore? Yoga, meditation, chakras, higher self, prana, reincarnation, spiritual evolution, crystals, ayurveda, karma, ascended masters, astral planes and bodies, non dualism etc
All of this is Hinduism and has come from Hinduism. This is exactly what our religion teaches and what every Hindu has known for thousands of years. So of course I am going to insist you use the label Hinduism. In fact if you want to be more authenetic please use the word Santana Dharma(Eternal way)
Secondly, it is not a matter of belief but acceptance of facts. I hate that word “belief” Nobody should believe in anything. They should accept what is true and reject what is false.
If it is to be as we want it, then it appears that this is what we want collectively.
I do not oppose the latter, I simply accept the world for what it is.
I accept the world for what it is whilst at the time knowing that it doesn’t have to be like this. I do not want to live in a world ravaged by war, inequality, oppression, crime and materialism. Who does?