Calm rational discussion regarding Hinduism and Abrahamic religions

[QUOTE=oak333;37964]So far you have negated:

  1. Jesus Christ[/quote]

It is because he supposedly said(gospel of John) he was the ONLY son of god. He claimed to be the Messiah, went around showing people miracles so they would believe he is the Messiah. Had people leave everything and follow him and told them to spread his name everywhere. Claimed that he was the right-hand man of god and that he will be judging people. He also had the power to appoint his discples as special judges. Claimed he would come back on a cloud in the sky sitting besides god on the last day. Claimed he was the only way, the life and the truth.

Sounds more like a cult leader from the above.

  1. Christianity and Christian Saints.

Many of those Christian “saints” are mass murderers who got sainted. Some of thse so-called saints have said things like women are baby making machines and have no other use to man. The popes have actually directly ordained things like witch burning, inquisitions and crusades.

  1. Babaj
  2. Teachings of Yogananda

Haven’t said a single bad words about these great masters. I hold them in very high reverence.

  1. Mahatma Gandhi

In general I have respect for Mahatma Gandhi and his work, but he is a human being at the end of the day and I do not agree with everything he said and did. This is hardly a negation.

  1. Coran

It’s actually Quran. It contains more than 200 verses condemning non believers, prescribing death to not believers, and mysognist views that say men are in charge of women and men should beat women to discipline them. There are also directions on enslaving women caught in war and using them for sexual exploitation and directions on sharing the booty in war and allocating a percentage of the spoil to the prophet.

and now you negate the great Indian guru Swami Sivananda.

When? He is yet another great master I highly respect.

Biblical Rape?

Question

Obviously rape is wrong, but I’ve heard many complaints from non-Christians
that the bible teaches that rape is ok in some circumstances. What do you
think about this complaint?

Genesis 19:6-8
Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, “No, my
friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”

Numbers 31:17-18
Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver.
Answer

There are many mentions of types of rape in the Bible, but part of the problem in distinguishing them is that the Bible generally uses the normal word for “have sex with” to describe “rape.” Typically, it is the circumstances surrounding the sex that distinguish it as rape. In short, rape is never okay. I’ll address each of the passages you mentioned individually, as well as one you didn’t that pertains to the subject.

Genesis 19:6-8
This is clearly an instance in which Lot offered his daughters to be raped by the mob, but this does not justify the rape. Rather, it is an example of the weakness and sin for Lot. Although the New Testament describes him as “righteous Lot” (2 Pet. 2:7), it does not do so on the basis of this action but on the basis of his torment at living in their society. In other words, his conscience more than his actions bore witness to his righteousness. His offering of his daughters itself was an act of desperation, and a wrong act at that - and I would challenge any father to deny that fact. Can you imagine offering your own daughter to be raped? Doesn’t every fiber of your being rise up and fight that idea? Well, that was supposed to be how the original audience reacted to this information too. They weren’t supposed to think, “Oh, then I guess it’s okay.” They were supposed to react the way every father in the world should react, whether regenerate or not. They were supposed to be horrified and to think, “What!? You mean even the ‘righteous’ people in the city behaved that way? No wonder God wiped them out!”

Notice also that Lot was not so righteous that God would have spared the city for his sake. In Genesis 18:17ff. God tells Abraham that he will spare the city for the sake of the righteous in it, but the angels warn Lot that if he does not flee he will be destroyed along with the city (Gen. 19:15-16). This is an indication that Lot himself was not all that righteous; he did not “earn” his salvation from destruction, but God was compassionate to him anyway. That he and his family were less than noble is also indicated by the fact that his wife disobeys the angels and is turned into a pillar of salt (Gen. 19:26), and by the fact that his daughters get him drunk and sleep with him (Gen. 19:30-38). Lot was “righteous”, but not because he was pure.

Further, the Bible itself offers a bit of commentary on this episode in the literary parallel between Genesis 19 and Judges 19 (the rape of the Levites concubine). In that story, the events are quite similar and the literary parallels are many and explicit. The clear intent of the author was to recall the story of Genesis 19. But the events of Judges 19 are all the more terrible because they take place in Israel (v. 30) rather than in Gentile territory. There the rape is clearly perceived as grossly wicked - so wicked that the refusal of the town to submit to discipline provokes a war (chs. 20-21). The point for our discussion is simply that the obvious literary parallel portraying the rape of the Levite’s concubine as sinful depends upon Lot’s act in Genesis 19 being sinful.

Numbers 31:17-18
These virgins were not to be raped; they were to be married. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 gives a fuller description of this law.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
First, it is important to recognize that these very verses prescribe a punishment of sorts for the crime of rape, namely the payment of a fine and indissoluble marriage to the raped woman (marriages were normally dissoluble under the proper circumstances). Second, the verses immediately preceding these indicate the death penalty for rapists and adulterers. Vv. 23-24 describe consensual sex with an engaged woman, in which case there is no rape and both parties are put to death. Vv. 25-27 describe the rape of an engaged woman, in which case the lack of the woman’s consent is indicated by the fact that the man “forces” her, and the assumption that she cried out for help. Here the rapist is put to death.

It is in this context of having already established that rape is a capital offense that vv. 28-29 then speak of a man who has probably non-consensual sex with an unengaged virgin. The crime here is a slightly lesser crime because there is no offended husband. Moreover, the lesser penalty also reflects an attempt to mitigate the damages of the crime. That is, in this case the offender and the woman are both eligible for marriage, and it is unlikely that anyone will want to marry the woman because she is no longer a virgin. She will thus have no one to provide for her later in life, and will have not chance of posterity. This would increase her victimization. Practically speaking, the offending man is more use to her alive than dead. He is allowed to live in order that he might make lifelong restitution to the woman.

Isaiah 13:16
This text indicates that the armies of the Lord rape the wives of those God judges. But even this does not validate rape. Rather, the point is that those who act wickedly toward the Lord’s people will themselves be treated wickedly by foreign invaders. Just as in the case of the men God ordained to kill Jesus, however, the rapists in this case will not go unpunished. God will judge them as well, despite the fact that he uses their wickedness for his own ends.

Surya what you have to understand about the Bible, especially the OT, is that much of it is stories. Stories of violence, etc that are told to teach us a lesson. The Bible is not teaching these things. The Bible is showing, through storytelling, how be good, loving people. When you read the Bible as an outsider without the correct knowledge and understanding, of course you will look at it like it’s teaching violence. But it is a lesson on how to properly conduct yourself. Those of us who were or are currently christian know this. This is what we have been trying to show you.

Christianity is based much more on faith than Hinduism. Faith mixed with parables and horrendous stories that were written to teach us the right way.

Some other examples of posts that either contradict your argument or have tried to help you understand the Abrahamic religions a bit better:

Post # 15,31-32,43,68-69,71,73,78,82,135,147,149,167,181,184,190,192-194,198,209,102,109,132,135,213-214,221-228,202,230,239,242,254,258,271,279,286

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;37967]

When? He is yet another great master I highly respect.[/QUOTE]

You have obviously negated Swami Sivananda. Look at my post of
09-13-2010 05:03 pm.

In that post there was a quote from Swami Sivannada. That quote
of Swami Sivananda was like talking about you.

You have negated Swami Sivananda right after that post, in your post
of 09-13-2010 05:11 pm.

Babaji and Yogananda were preaching the unity of all religions. You are
"preaching" the contrary.

“Nobody is more blind than the one who does not want to see.”

                     Old Proverb

Christianity is based much more on faith than Hinduism. Faith mixed with parables and horrendous stories that were written to teach us the right way.

Christianity resembles the Puranic phase of Hinduism. Which is also full of mythology, and horrendous stories, to convey messages. The difference is, we know they are mythology and they are not authorative texts in Hinduism. The Vedas are. I personally am not a fan of the Puranas, they were necessary to teach the masses Vedic philosophy in a decadent age(Kali yuga) but we are once again in a scientific age, so we can do away with all the mythology and go back to how Vedic philosophy was taught in Vedic times. Though pure philosophy and Yoga.

This is why Christianity, Islam and Puranic Hinduism needs to go off this planet. To make way for Gnosticism, Kabbalah, Sufism, Vedanta, Buddhism and Quantum mysticism. In other words spirituality.

But this requires people in their religions to do the responsible thing and discard the obsolete and regressive parts of their religion.

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;38017

This is why Christianity, Islam and Puranic Hinduism needs to go off this planet. To make way for Gnosticism, Kabbalah, Sufism, Vedanta, Buddhism and Quantum mysticism. In other words spirituality.

[/QUOTE]

I think in psychiatry this is called "delusion of grandeur"

I think this discussion has reached saturation point. It is important to wind this up.

The Abrahamic religions are obviously lesser enlightened than the dharmic religions. This is a safe statement to make because enlightenment is the goal of all dharmic religions and as such they are spiritual religions and are all about spiritual development and ones own direct experience. This obviously makes them scientific in their approach. Hinduism more so out of the dharmic family as it treats every area of life in a scientific way(experience, reason, feeling, desire, society, law, engineering, grammar, music, drama, god) and seems to love classifying everything and giving hairsplitting analysis. It also has a formal debate tradition and its own scientific method for ascertaining truth. This clearly makes it the most compatible religion for a 21st century humanity and a natural darling for scientists and intellectuals.

In contrast, Abrahamic religions are exclusively based on faith and mythology. To become a member of these religions one adopts its beliefs and myths. There is lesser emphasis on practice, but more on simply accepting beliefs e.g., “Jesus is the truth” Although true Christians such as St Francis of Assisi not only believe but try to practice the teachings of Jesus. There is no doubt about it, despite the apologies given to justify the violence in the OT, that the OT religion was a barbaric religion with a barbaric god. It contained some semblance of morality, but this morality was highly underdeveloped with metering out divinely ordained punishments stoning and burning women to death and putting to death anybody who questioned the ruling priest class. At that time god comming genocide, rape etc was not looked down upon, because ideas like civil rights and human rights were unknown.

However, the NT religion is clearly a whole new religion and Jesus clearly did not support the OT religion for he went against many of its laws and at one time even makes a criticism of the OT god. Christianity seems to be more of the result of an Eastern influence and has parallels particularly to Buddhism. When read literaly Jesus sounds like a cult leader, however closer inspection of his teachings, especially when including the Gnostic gospels, suggests Jesus is a spiritual teacher. However, I will have to add, in my opinion a flawed spiritual teacher. I would not place Jesus in the same category as Buddha and Krishna and the many Risis, and would opine one has to more to learn by reading the Gita and other Vedic texts than they could learn by reading Jesus’s cyptic parables.

Christianity today obviously is in need of serious reform. It is still at the mainstream orthodox level an evangalizing and intolerant religion, and currently major Christian churches are sponsoring fundamentalist Christian activity in the East which responsible Christians need to expose and oppose. Fortunately, there are some minority sects of Christianity which more tolerant and accepting, as well as spiritual sects of Christianity which we would hope gain a more influencial position in shaping modern Christianity.

@ Surya

You asked me to prove that you have been taking some things out of context and I did so in post 302.

I do see by your above summarization that you have somewhat lightened up on your stance. Appreciated.

Regarding caste system from the post in the Yoga and Hinduism thread.

The notion that people are born unequal and people are unequal in society is perhaps the biggests facts of life. People are born with varying levels of intelligence, aptituide and capacities which are more or less fixed at birth as science has proven. Likewise, in society people have varying merits. There is always a dominant class.

All the caste system does is translate this into a scientific way of organizing society. With the ones with low aptitude and capacity at the bottom and the ones with higher aptitude and capacity at the top. The dominant class by the intellectuals and sages. This system of stratification ensures that class divisions do not mix and each one has their own social habitus. The exception to the rule was, of course, that although birth was a big factor in deciding ones position in the system for life, merit was recognised and social mobility was always possible.

The alternatives that we see in Western civilisation are bad ways of organizing society. The first of those were slave-owning systems which went on for a very long time in the West right up to the Romans. In this system society is simply divided amongst haves and have nots. In the Sumerian times these were the priest-kings and later in Roman times these were royalty. The vast majority of society was peasent and lived in poor conditions. Later we have feudal systems emerge in the West, which are quite similar, the difference being though the artistocrats now descended from royal blood are in charge and everybody else slaves for them. This system was so oppressive that there were bloody revolutions against it. Finally, in modern times we have the system of capitalism where the feudal overlords have been replaced by the capitalists. The key difference now is that the peasents are now the working class and paid in exchange for their labour, but an amount that disproportionate to the profit that the capitalist makes of the labourer and which invariably gets spent on goods produced by capitalists. This system of exploitation is then reproduced in every area of society religion, arts, education, government and science. In other words the criteria of what is most profitable drives every area of life. The dominant class is the merchant.

In contrast in the caste system there is a very complex division of labour and not just effectively two major classes: have and have nots. So if you were born in India in the past you obviously had more opportunity. There are complex rules governing this division of labour which serves the function of diffusing power in society to prevent exploitation by one group. This is the main sociological reason why there was no revolution against the caste system. It was accepted by the vast majority as a just system. The dominant class in this society is the intellectuals so every area of life such as religion, arts, education, government and science is based on intellectual criteria of what is the most logical and true - rather than what is the most profitable.

In a sense modern middle class society which is dominated by the new bourgeoise rich in education and cultural capital resembles to large extent the brahmin caste of the caste system. Today, the part intellectuals/academics play in shaping society is very influencial and can even shape societies. It is also obvious that intellectuals being in charge of society makes more sense than society being run by capitalists. Unfortunately, the so-called middle class is much closer to the working class than it is to the capitalist class, and is just as exploited. The fact that even today 1% of the worlds population owns almost all of the words resources is proof that little has changed in Western civilisation, in fact the gap has widened even more.

In fact having a caste type system would be an effective and better alternative to capitalism ensuring better distribution of resources, better distribution of power and a more sustainable culture with a strong emphasis on scientific progress. And this is exactly what the caste system produced in India from the period of 7000BCE to 1000AD, a prosperity that has so far been unmatched by any other civilisation. A civilisation of great enlightened masters and sages, yoga, meditation, Vedas and philosophy.

Thank you for explaining. I actually posted what I did because of a discussion between you and whatsinaname regarding the caste system in India and how the untouchables were and are being treated. I recalled an earlier conversation in a thread where you stated the caste system is not really used today. So I put the post with the article from Nat-Geo up for some type of explanation.

I’m not a fan of capitalism, but I don’t think the caste system is any better. I really don’t know, economically if there is anything that is sustainable, equitable and applicable.

Every society has a class structure, but for the most part , but not always, people have an opportunity to rise above. It does not seem that way in India today. At least after reading that article and numerous others I’ve seen.

Lotusgirl, if we are going to talk about the caste system, I prefer we use the proper Vedic term varnashrama dharma. As ‘caste system’ is a modern avatar which takes place during the time when Indian society was under Islamic or British rule. Largely casteism as an endemic problem can only be seen in colonial and post colonial India. However, there were remenants of casteism prior to that and untouchability, but not an endemic problem.

Throughout Indian history the caste problem has existed in various avatars. It has been both a merit based system and a birth based system and there has been considerable debate in Indian history on what is the best way to administer it. However, social mobility has always been possible. The caste system has never existed, until perhaps modern times as a very rigid system. This myth of rigidity is British colonial propoganda to simply undermine the native culture.

In modern India casteism is actually illegal according to the Indian constitution. It only exists as a vestige in Indian society today, and as a social system it exists only in the most backwards of rural communities.

Is the caste system better than capitalism? If you mean by caste system the modern avatar then of course not, as the modern avatar is an oppressive, unfair and patriarchal system. However, the varnashrama system that Hindu society was organized from 7000BCE to 1000AD has more than proven itself. Like I said there is no other civilisation that could rival the Hindu civilisation in the prosperity it had reached under this system. Hindu India dominated the world for approx 10,000 years. It was the pioneer in civilisation having the first democracies, the first martime empire, the first schools of philosophy, the first universities, the first industries, the first hospitals, first health care systems, the first sciences. This is the civilisation that gave to the world Vedas, Yoga, Ayurveda, Vedanta, Sanskrit. There is no doubt it that the varnashrama dharma produces a sustainable, fair, progressive and prosperous society.

Part of the reason why the propoganda against the caste system has been on overdrive from the British colonialists was because the British knew that the the varnashrama dharma system was actually superior to capitalism and were afraid that Western intellectuals would call for similar changes made in Western society. As there were plenty of Western intellectuals in that time who was highly impressed by it and wrote much on its greatness. To end this appreciation they spread huge amounts of propoganda against it.

Hindu economics has already been successfully applied to a village in India and the results have been award winning and the world has stopped and took notice. This previously deprived village is now the most prosperous village in India and uses clean and renewable sources of energy.

There is no doubt about it that capitalism is not a justified system. It is a system of exploitation in which the very few control the many and the highest good is that which is profitable to the very few. It is a surprise that such a system was ever allowed to exist and even a greater surpise that such a system is still allowed to exist.

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;38107] There is always a dominant class.[/QUOTE]

Often the ‘dominant class’ start to believe that they are are more worthy and subject unwilling, less ‘dominant’ guys to a life of servitude and debasement. And I think it is important for the wisest of us to make sure they are held in check and not get carried away with that.

I am no expert on India and the caste system, but a brief search of the net shows that:

  1. The Indian constitution forbids the caste system
  1. The caste system has completely disorganized and demoralized the Hindus
    (just the first paragraph)

http://wcar.alrc.net/mainfile2.php/Documents/77/

Yes, and checks and balances did exist in varnashrama dharma system to ensure that power is distributed throughout society and not centralized. In the Hindu socieity each village was like a self-contained module which produced its own goods and has its own village government(panchayat) and was a democracy set up by the village people. This was faciliated by the king. The brahmin despite being the highest class in society was also the poorest class and lived in poverty, because their duties in society were education and they did not require material wealth for this.The Shudra was actually more wealthy than the Brahmin because they were entitled to wealth under the system. They were not entitled to higher education because they did not require it for the jobs they were doing. The Ksatriyas on the hand were civil servants so their entitlment to wealth was also capped. The merchants were manufacturers and produced goods to be distributed in society and employed the Shudras. However, there was no free trade and the merchants had to submit a large percentage of the goods to the treasurey of the king, which was managed by serveral ministers and those goods were redistrubted in society as per the needs of society. In this society social mobility was understood as becoming a sage, but was recognised not everybody wanted to become a sage. So four main legitimate of aims of life were recognised: wealth and education, pleasure, duty and spirituality. Each individual’s life was divied into 4 ashrams(divisions as quarters) in order to accomplish these aims. The first quarter was spent on education and status, the second quarter was spent on married and work life, the third quarter and fourth quarter was retirement and spirituality. However, anybody could entire enter spirituality stage when they felt ready, even from young as a child. Even if they were Shudra born. Provided of course a Guru initiated you.

Simply put it: before the abolition of the caste system, India was doing economically very poorly.

After the abolition of the caste system, India started to grow economically, and now is becoming an economic superpower.

Instead of sterile arguments, facts tell all the story : GDP (Gross Domestic Product) by the year.

That really should read: Before India gained independence India was doing economically very poorly, actually it did not grow at all in 200-300 years of British rule. After driving out the British India started to grow economically, and is now becoming an economic superpower.

In any case if you read what I am actually writing I don’t actually agree with the modern form of the caste system like anybody else. What I agree with is the varnashrama dharma system in Hindu India from the period of 7000BCE to 1000AD, which no objective person would cricise or condemn, looking at the amazing prosperity it produced.

That is a shame since I came to this thread hoping for some Islamic insights. Islamophobia is something I detest and acknowledge as the west’s reaction to a culture war that is unfortunately real. I have written editorial letters promoting the acceptance of the Islamic center near 9/11. I have read things since that give me pause ( Sura 9:5 ) and I know most people are the same and don’t want to take over the world but just to live their lives best but there are in Abrahamic religions some fundamental intolerances that hard to abide, esp. Islam, it seems to me today- I hope tomorrow will bring a larger understanding, I want to believe as Kahlil Gibran said, " Different religions are like the different fingers of the same hand reaching for God ". It is possibly true that the index finger may be the best pointer of the group but they all deserve respect for the effort. I am at my lowest point in years with that simple faith I hope that some Islamic apologist can help me. Namaste

I cannot find anything surya deva has said to disagree with!!! Bravo

It may be hard to accept but it is the truth. I found out by personal unexpected experiences.

Kind Regards Kareng

see last post in the thread… is yoga hinduism… for my support in what surya deva is stating

[QUOTE=TonyTamer;38577]That is a shame since I came to this thread hoping for some Islamic insights. Islamophobia is something I detest and acknowledge as the west’s reaction to a culture war that is unfortunately real. Namaste[/QUOTE]

Tamer, please do not confound Surya Deva with all the posters on this forum.
Surya Deva stated that Christianity, Islam, and other religions should go off the planet. This is an abberation, as I posted right after his post.

I actually quoted Imam Rauf, who stated that Muslim recognize only one true religion, the religion of God. I recognize that Islam as a great religion.