Hinduism/Vedic religion/Sanatana dharma

Spirituality Religion
#21

[QUOTE=Nietzsche;50441]And yet, we don’t go around posting derogatory pictures, engaging in relentless personal attacks, and what not. At least the other members have the courtesy to argue the points made within specific posts and threads, strongly and passionately within reason. This is not the case with ID.[/QUOTE]

Certainly, and we don’t say things like this, “Your mom’s a troll. Who cares?” because we are not juvenile. ID is an idiot, through and through. I have decided to put him on my ignore list now, because while others I have disagreements with, including Asuri still say things that are interesting to read, ID has never said anything that is interesting to read. It is always either spam or insults. I have better things to do than entertain idiots.

#22

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;50498]Certainly, and we don’t say things like this, “Your mom’s a troll. Who cares?” because we are not juvenile. ID is an idiot, through and through. I have decided to put him on my ignore list now, because while others I have disagreements with, including Asuri still say things that are interesting to read, ID has never said anything that is interesting to read. It is always either spam or insults. I have better things to do than entertain idiots.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. I admit, I may have made comments that seem harsh or insulting but at least I keep try to keep it part of the ongoing debate or specific point. This is not the case with ID. He may have read a lot of religious or philosophical scriptures but in the end, he has nothing to show for it. That much is obvious in the post where he said he screw too many of hot Indian women he knew.

#23

[QUOTE=TeeA;50415]SD
I also want to thank you for posting this. It is nice to read something of worth in the religions forum that is not all about who is right or wrong. Very informative with many objective view points. And the perk…
the occasional troll.[/QUOTE]

Thank you TeeA.

#24

Concept of God in Hinduism

The concept of god(Brahman) in Hinduism is as diverse as everything else in Hinduism, and is also the most sophisticated philosophy of god of all world religions. There are impersonal concepts of god(Nirguna Brahman) and personal concepts of god(Saguna Brahman) Historically, the impersonal concept of god was in vogue during the Vedic period(7000BCE at the earliest) The impersonal concept of god has variously been referred to in the Vedas as the ONE, Ultimate being, Ultimate truth, Ultimate reality, True Self, Eternal laws. The Vedas describe how this ONE manifests as MANY powers throughout nature, and have been reveered in the Vedas as devas(shining ones) The devas are powers that govern natural phenomenas(fire, earth, air, water, sound, mind, time, space) and hence why in Hinduism nature is considered divine and sacred.

As nature is also pervaded by the divine the worship of devas can also lead to the divine, however the divine is then realised it its phenomenal form. So if you worshipped Surya Deva, you would realise the divinity undelying the sun in the phenomenal form. The devas are also sometimes classified as masculine and feminine, so while fire(Agni deva) is described masculine, water(Saraswati devi) is described as feminine.

In order to realise god in its pure form one must realise the inner self through the practice of meditation. Around 500BCE the personal concept of god came into vogue during the Bhakti period. This is when Hinduism split into many sects: Vaishavaism, Shivaism, Shaktism and finally Smartism, each one worshipped a personal god as the one ultimate reality. This lead to each sect creating myths and legends around that personal god, specific rituals and specific scriptures(puranas) and built temples to that god. This did not mean the impersonal god concept was abandoned, but rather people in that time felt it was too abstract to relate to, so they created a more colourful and human concept, with the understanding it was only an imagining of god and not god actually.

Thus, the impersonal concept of god is actually the true concept of god in Hinduism. Here are some quotes on the impersonal concept of god by modern Hindu scholars:

…The Maitri Upanishad mentions two aspects of Brahman, the higher and the lower. The higher Brahman being the unmanifest Supreme Reality which is soundless and totally quiescent and restful, the lower being the Shabda-Brahman which manifests itself into the everchanging restless cosmos through the medium of sound vibrations. The Upanishad says that "Two Brahmans there are to be known: One as sound and the other as Brahman Supreme.” The process of manifestation is from soundless to sound, from noumenality to phenomenality, from perfect quiescence of “being” to the restlessness of “becoming”… ’ (Sudhakar S.D, 1988. P83)

The Universe is Brahman, the One that underlies and make possible all the multiplicity; the universal consciousness that is the soul of all existence.
It is the primordial no-thingness from which all things arise, the one reality whose oneness is all-inclusive; and includes all that is, or shall be. It is Brahman; the source of the entire cosmos and all cosmic activities relating to the emergence, existence and dissolution of the terrestrial phenomena that form the cosmic rhythm. ‘Brahman is the unborn (aja) in whom all existing things abide.’ And this ultimate reality is One- absolute and indeterminable. ‘The One manifests as the many, the formless putting on forms.’ (Sudhakar S.D, 1988. P3 (Rig Veda)

At the base of Gandhi’s system of beliefs is his view of the nature of ultimate reality. This he refers to not as Brahman (as is usual in advaitism) but as Satya (S: Truth), a term derived from sat, or Being, Satya or Truth alone can truly be said to be real:
It is That which alone is, which constitutes the stuff of which all things are made, which subsists by virtue of its own power, which is not supported by anything else but supports everything that exists. Truth alone is eternal, everything else is momentary. (Collinson, Plant and Wilkinson, 2000. p150 (Gandhi)

Reality or Brahman is a unity, oneness or absolute, changeless, eternal, and such that no predicates can apply to it: in the Absolute there is neither time, space nor causation. The idea of time cannot be there, seeing that there is no mind, no thought. The idea of space cannot be there, seeing that there is no eternal change. What you call motion and causation cannot exist where there is only one. (Vivekananda, Collinson, Plant, Wilkinson, 2000

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Hinduism-Hindu.htm

The difference between the Abrahamic concept of god and the Hindu concept of god is the abrahamic god is anthromorphic and the Hindu god is cosmological. The Abrahamic god is a person, male and a father and monarch who lives in a place called heaven, who creates the earth and places humans on it and occasionally intervenes in the affairs of humans by sending prophets to make them return to him, or punishes them by sending plagues and floods or orders his prophets to kill the infidels. One day the Abrahamic god will judge everybody and punish/reward accordingly. This god, like human beings, has a wide range of emotions: anger, love, fear, lust.

The Hindu concept of god is an abstract philosophical notion ultimate and absolute reality or truth that is beyond time and space. Infinite, formless, absolute, perfect, bliss. It is therefore far more grande and lofty and more rooted in philosophical thought(as opposed to myth and faith)

Some differences:

Hindu God vs Abrahamic god

Infinite vs finite
Unchanging and pure consciousness vs constantly changing mind
Untouched by emotions and impartial vs jealous, angry, vengeful, partial
Beyond time, space and causation vs living in a place in heaven with a heirarchy of angels and souls

#25

Whoops, sorry for posting in the middle! We didn’t know you wanted to continue. We will forever look retarded now…

#26

Hindu God vs Abrahamic god

Infinite vs finite
Unchanging and pure consciousness vs constantly changing mind
Untouched by emotions and impartial vs jealous, angry, vengeful, partial
Beyond time, space and causation vs living in a place in heaven with a heirarchy of angels and souls

NOTE: ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY ARE NOT THE SAME RELIGION!!!

God is infinite and eternal.

He does not change. He lacks nothing. He has no need of his Creation, though Creation is entirely dependent upon him. There is nothing new and nothing old for God. There are no surprises. He already knows the punch line to any of our jokes.

The Bible uses anthropomorphisms to understand aspects of God, but God is neither male nor female, does not have a body, and is not subject to any “mood swings.” Someone who misunderstands Christianity and has an extremely shallow understanding, and possibly willful ignorance of it, might deduce these things, but Catholics know better.

God does not live “in” a place. God is immaterial and transcends space and time. All things are “within” God.

Seems like the God of Christianity is not at all like your make-believe strawman God, SD. (Your misrepresentations, and your playing fast and loose with the truth is very annoying, to say the least).

#27

Islam and Christianity are officially recognised as being part of the same family of religions: Abrahamic religions. Just as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism are recognised as being part of the same family of religions: Dharmic religions.

The Abrahamic god is not infinite, because the Abrahamic god actually lives in a place called “heaven” where a hierarchy of angels live. This means that the Abrahamic god is limited to one place and is not everywhere at once. The Hindu god, on the other hand, because it is the same as existence, it is therefore everything in existence. So there is nowhere the Hindu god is not. There is therefore no limitation on the Hindu god.

The Abrahamic god does change if we go by the OT and NT. In the OT he constantly changes his mind, experiences emotions like anger and jealousy. He even forgets things. He obviously does not have knowledge of the future, because otherwise he would know adam and eve were going to go against his wishes and eat the forbidden fruit. There are several such accounts in the bible which shows the Abrahamic god is ignorant of what is going to happen in the future. In the NT we see a complete turn around from an angry and vengeful god to benevolent and forgiving god.

The Abrahamic god obviously lacks many things, because otherwise there would be no need for creating anything. If the Abrahamic god is perfect, there is no need for creating anything, because he is already everything. In the OT the Abrahamic god thrists for blood sacrifices. On the other hand, the Hindu god being perfect has no need to create, but rather we say the universe has projected from god, but this projection is unreal and illusory and we must return to god by realising it unreal nature. Hence the famous Sanskrit couplet: Take me from ignorance to truth; take me from darkness to light; take me from death to life.

The Abrahamic god is indeed male and this is why he is described as “he” throughout the bible and “father”. He is not never described as “she” or “mother”. On the other hand, the Hindu god is described as father, mother, son, lover, as earth, fire, air, water, ether, as intellect, architect, smith etc etc. Hindus realise all descriptions are just man trying to relate to the abstract god.

Seems like the God of Christianity is not at all like your make-believe strawman God, SD

Rather, it is your interpretation of god that is nothing like the Abrahamic or Christian god as described in the bible. Your god is closer to the Hindu god, perhaps you are Hindu after all :wink:

#28

Islam and Christianity are officially recognised as being part of the same family of religions: Abrahamic religions. Just as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism are recognised as being part of the same family of religions: Dharmic religions.

Official?..okay, did you see the documents declaring that they are the same? Or did you hear such a thing from hundreds of people’s mouth? Although I sympathize with your view and the candid points you have made about christianity, the way you lump things into together is rash …

Surya,

Your writing lacks a dependable literature review and balanced summary of those religious notions sufficient to merit such a deep critique and is likely to alienate the very seekers of knowledge you hope to influence.

Even though retaining to be argumentative, you assume too much on certain occasions such as Hinduism is the religion of the world, while you also presume that Hinduism is not a religion at all. You need to elaborate these points without being drifted in a stream of conciousness, which influences the presentation of your ideas, and partially, the kind of flaming you are inclined to demonstrate either toward concepts or the members of these forums.

I think Surya, you are dwelling too much in the past. Instead of wasting your spirit on digging up mounts of “dubious” data of the history of Vedic philosophy, why don’t you embark on discovering your own ideas, for you seemingly and incessantly advocate spiritual development, but at the same time, yourself, unable to get out of linguistic catch-alls and symbolism? >.> For if this is not the path for you, then I suggest that you should embark on an academic historical study with a supervisor who thoroughly knows his/her literature…

A little bit to think about…

#29

Ummmm…

Wiki:

Abrahamic religions are the monotheistic faiths emphasizing and tracing their common origin to Abraham[1] or recognizing a spiritual tradition identified with Abraham.[2][3][4] They are one of the three major divisions in comparative religion, along with Indian religions (Dharmic) and East Asian religions (Taoic).

The three major Abrahamic religions are, in order of appearance, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Judaism regards itself as the religion of the descendants of Jacob, the grandson of Abraham. Christianity began as a sect of Judaism in the 1st century CE (known as Jewish Christianity) and evolved into a separate religion with distinctive beliefs and practices, notably its replacement of the Jewish idea of an exclusive ethnic religious community (a common notion which is not entirely correct, see Bnei Noah and Conversion to Judaism) with an inclusive, universal community, the Christian Church. It replaced the idea of simple monotheism with a Triune God who is simultaneously one and three (different branches of Christianity have different interpretations). Islam was founded by Muhammad in the 7th century CE upon the teachings in the Qur’an. It retained the inclusiveness of Christianity, but reverted to simple monotheism with a central, but not divine, prophet.

#30

I always thought that Islam is the successor of Judaism. They worship the same god, and today, the reason why there is a lot of conflict in Middle-East dates back to this successorship problem between Jews and Muslims. Jews believe that they are the chosen society, the gifted sons of Israel. Muslims believe that the time of Jews is over, that’s why they don’t want Israel in Middle-east. However, both religions are cultural religions - the desert culture, combination of many tribes that is eventually named as Arabs.

[It is of course unbelievable that this successorship stupidity is literally soaked up in people’s brains and changed the entire desert culture.]

However, christianity is a bit different. Perhaps, because it incorporates humanistic elements (okay I will accept dharmic here), which eventually allowed the flourishing of science and humanism, and became less psychologically oppressive. Christianity is not a cultural religion, except only to the extent that it is predominant in the alleged European culture. I do not advocate christianity here; yet all I am saying is, christiandom has become a progressive ideology, and did not become stagnant. And yes perhaps it owes this to the influence of eastern religions. However, judaism and, particularly islam, are literally dormant in a progressive sense, and people actually believe in the historical bullshits they currently indoctrinate… they need to be severely challenged, and for doing it, I also admire your enthusiasm…

Christiandom has beautiful aspects. It is because of this ideology, we are able to enjoy Bach and Mozart, and Nietzsche and Goethe (they invoke a sense of criticism in a way). Even the negative aspects of christianity have proved to be fruitful, due to the simple fact that it has become a progressive religion. It had been so extreme in the past that people challenged it and reformed it… whereas the other two religions are literally unchallenged - they are quite political and thus far more dangerous…

So think about the merits christianity has before condemning it entirely, altogether…

#31

I was simply pointing out that the classification of Judaism, Christianity and Islam as Abrahamic religions is not something I invented, but an official classification used in religious studies in academia. Next time, please try to cross-reference the statements I make, before criticising my statements so harshly :slight_smile:

Anyhow, we have now established that Christianity is indeed officially considered an Abrahamic religion. But you claim that Christianity is not the real successor to Judaism, Islam is, so this classification is faulty. I agree with you partly, because if we look at the original Christianity before it was organized into a monolithic religion by the Roman catholic church, it was clearly antitheical to the Jewish religion. It is clear from reading the NT that the biblical Jesus opposed the Jewish religion and its doctrines and laws, and although he did use Jewish imagery and terminology, this can be easily justified as necessary due to the culture he was preaching in.

It is highly likely, and many biblical scholars have argued this, that the original Christianity had dharmic influences, either directly as some argue that Jesus had travelled to India and was under the tutelage of Indian gurus, or indirectly through neo-platonic and essene groups. This is likely true because a lot of the doctrines that are found in the NT clearly have similarities to dharmic religions and differ decidedly from Jewish religion.

But prior to the canonization and organization of Christianity by the Roman catholic church there was no monolithic religion called Christianity. It was rather recognised as a Jewish sect and was disorganized as it was comprised of several sub-subjects(including gnostics) and consisted of 40+ gospels and sayings of Jesus. The council of Niceia, under the direction of Constantine were the first ones to organize it into a religion and it is from here that Christianity took on form. The Christianity that they had formed was the complete opposite of dharmic. First of all, they included the old Jewish scriptures(OT) in the canon and rejected all the gnostic texts. Secondly, they had instituted as law the anathemas:

http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/theosophy/ww/additional/TheAnathemasAgainstOrigenSeries/Part1of5.html

The Church then began to persecute all other sects of Christianity and drove many of them out. It then later proceeded to persecute pagan cultures in Europe. Then it went to war with Islam which had formed in the Middle East. Then it started to persecute its own people and thinkers with the inquisitions and witch trials. Then it persecuted via colonialism other continents such as Africa, Americas, Asia and Indian subcontinent. It even fragmented and fought amongst itself with the Prostestant and Catholics. The bloodshed and destruction that Christianity has caused globally is immense to be counted in hundreds of millions. Let us not even pretend for a single moment Christianity has been a force of progress. It has been the most destuctive, savage and bloody religion on this planet. This is why free thinkers like Neitzsche and Volataire hated Christianity. It has been the bane of our planet.

I do not blame Jesus, in fact I quite like Jesus. I blame the religion of Christianity which was created by the Church that bought about a dark age on this planet. The so-called progress you talk about, is not due to Christianity at all, but due to modern science and secularism, which had to struggle against Christianity in order to become established. It all started with the Renaissance when Greek, Persian, Arabic and Indian science, arts and philosophy entered into Europe via the Arabs. This triggered off in Europe what later would be called the age of enlightenment/age of reason. Many enlightenment thinkers struggled against the Church, including Galileo. Even up to the 19th century the influence of the Church seriously hampered the development of secularism and science.

The enlightenment triggered massive revolutions in the West such as the civil wars in France, Americas, Britain and the industrial revolution which completely changed the landscape of the West and the influence of the Church began to wane. Today, the influence of the Church in the West is but a pale shadow compared to what influence it had a few centuries ago.

Christianity has never been a force of progress in our world. It has always been a force of regression. It kept us in the dark ages for more than 1000 years. This is why so many today are rejecting this dark religion.

#32

[QUOTE=High Wolf;51649]I always thought that Islam is the successor of Judaism. They worship the same god, and today, the reason why there is a lot of conflict in Middle-East dates back to this successorship problem between Jews and Muslims. Jews believe that they are the chosen society, the gifted sons of Israel. Muslims believe that the time of Jews is over, that’s why they don’t want Israel in Middle-east. However, both religions are cultural religions - the desert culture, combination of many tribes that is eventually named as Arabs.

[It is of course unbelievable that this successorship stupidity is literally soaked up in people’s brains and changed the entire desert culture.]

However, christianity is a bit different. Perhaps, because it incorporates humanistic elements (okay I will accept dharmic here), which eventually allowed the flourishing of science and humanism, and became less psychologically oppressive. Christianity is not a cultural religion, except only to the extent that it is predominant in the alleged European culture. I do not advocate christianity here; yet all I am saying is, christiandom has become a progressive ideology, and did not become stagnant. And yes perhaps it owes this to the influence of eastern religions. However, judaism and, particularly islam, are literally dormant in a progressive sense, and people actually believe in the historical bullshits they currently indoctrinate… they need to be severely challenged, and for doing it, I also admire your enthusiasm…

Christiandom has beautiful aspects. It is because of this ideology, we are able to enjoy Bach and Mozart, and Nietzsche and Goethe (they invoke a sense of criticism in a way). Even the negative aspects of christianity have proved to be fruitful, due to the simple fact that it has become a progressive religion. It had been so extreme in the past that people challenged it and reformed it… whereas the other two religions are literally unchallenged - they are quite political and thus far more dangerous…

So think about the merits christianity has before condemning it entirely, altogether…[/QUOTE]

Its not Christianity that produced this progress. Its the Enlightenment and secular humanistic ideals that struggled against Christianity. You can EASILY see that from history.

#33

[QUOTE=Nietzsche;51665]Its not Christianity that produced this progress. Its the Enlightenment and secular humanistic ideals that struggled against Christianity. You can EASILY see that from history.[/QUOTE]

Nope, it did. But indirectly and in an articulate way. You and Surya have missed my point - Enlightenment, humanism and atheism are children of christianity. Think about it, these three streams are born out of the tremendous oppression that christiandom posed. Nietzsche or Goethe like people wouldn’t be philosophers and critical theorists if it weren’t up to christiandom.

Continental thinkers including Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche and Foucault owe a lot to christiandom ideology, since it provided them with a ground for criticism. Foucault criticized the sovereign’s executive power and lust for demonstrating his power through public blood bath (beheading, burning, dismembering body parts…). Why we regard christian religion so barbaric lies in this historical evidence - they forced their religion upon others.

In the case of Judaism and Islam, its different. They do not force, but [I]insinuate[/I] their belief systems in a cunning way. There is a difference, focus on it - today islam, as being the successor of judaism, tend to get a hold of a person’s mind through shadows, by not openly declaring war. They do not go out and do forced missionary stuffs just as Christians did, but increase their population to claim political power. Reminds me the religious version of China…

Just watched a program in BBC. An English woman gets arrested in Dubai, because a women in burka accussed her and her daughter being publicly naked. The daughter is absolutely traumatized by hearing that her mother is being called ‘slut’ by this weird woman. The woman goes to police, and convinces the police that the English woman got naked. They arrest the English woman, detain her for hours. Only when the CCTV cameras are scrutinized and found that the woman in burka actually lied, they released the English woman. You know what happened to woman in burka? Nothing. Logic dictates that she could have been detained and punished because she lied, and sharia laws forbid lying…now tell me there is no politics involved in it, and tell me this people are not imbeciles…

Today, islam is the most dangerous ideology in the entire world. Unless it is wiped out of this planet, it is dubious that there’ll be a planetary dharmic flourishing. So I often try not to put christianity in abrahamic context. Maybe it was brutal and oppressive, but at least, it did not ‘insult’ human beings like the other two…

#34

I am not sure I follow that reasoning. The enlightenment thinkers were the children of Christianity because they were critical of it and rose against it? So we must indirectly credit Christianity for the rise of the enlightenment? Surely, if there was no Christianity the enlightenment would have been took off even faster, unhindered, and we maybe living in a more dharmic world today. Indeed, that is how it happened in ancient India, there was no oppressive force against new ideas and concepts, and thus why ancient India developed so much in science, philosophy and spirituality.

Focault actually talks about this himself. He says that something which is distinctive of Western philosophy is the fighting for truth, the risk of facing censure, oppression, persecution or execution for speaking the truth. This has been there ever since the times of Socrates, who got executed for contemplating on truth. In Indian philosophy, nobody has ever had to fight for the truth. Everybody was allowed to have a viewpoint and argue for their viewpoint in formal debates.

Regarding Islam and Judaism being more dangerous. First of all Judaism is not a dangerous religion at all, because you can only be born into Judaism. They do not attempt to convert you or force you into the religion. Secondly, Islam is arguably more forceful and violent and less insidious than Christianity is. If you look at the history of Islam and its expansion it was through pure brute force, whereas with Christianity while there was brute force, there was often a sophisticated and political machination behind it. For example, Christianity would through enculturation adopt the beliefs and practices of other religions on a superficial level to assimilate other religions - such as adopting pagan festivals like Christmas and Easter. Islam, would never adopt the beliefs and practices of other religions, but rather destroy them and supplant them with its own.

This above would show that Christianity has been more insidious than Islam. In any case I don’t really want to get into a meaningless debate on which is the worst religion out iof the two, they are both Abrahamic religions and therefore for me they are both false religions. There is nothing of value to be sought from them.

#35

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;51709]I am not sure I follow that reasoning. The enlightenment thinkers were the children of Christianity because they were critical of it and rose against it? So we must indirectly credit Christianity for the rise of the enlightenment? Surely, if there was no Christianity the enlightenment would have been took off even faster, unhindered, and we maybe living in a more dharmic world today. Indeed, that is how it happened in ancient India, there was no oppressive force against new ideas and concepts, and thus why ancient India developed so much in science, philosophy and spirituality.
[/QUOTE]

Surya,

Then explain me why that alleged, grand Vedic society didn’t survive this day. What happened to them? If they were so mighty as gods, what kind of force drove them out? You can’t answer these questions, because you don’t know the exact answers either.

You know the way of this world: Negativity and positivity go hand in hand. Which drives us crazy, and makes us suffer. Thus my reasoning is as simple as a spiritual master’s reasoning: if it weren’t up for christianity, there wouldn’t be search for enlightenment and humanism. How can it be, if the civilization had already been spiritual and comfortable, and reached happiness, nirvana and such?..would you look for sth at which [I]you have already arrived?[/I] :rolleyes:

When you are tired of negativity and evil, you seek for good and serenity. So christianity played its part to actualize the cultural evolution of European people toward humanism and secularism. They fed up doing wars and battles, and accordingly they established the EU. Now, atheism plays its role too, in a similar way…

#36

[QUOTE=High Wolf;51700]Nope, it did. But indirectly and in an articulate way. You and Surya have missed my point - Enlightenment, humanism and atheism are children of christianity. Think about it, these three streams are born out of the tremendous oppression that christiandom posed. Nietzsche or Goethe like people wouldn’t be philosophers and critical theorists if it weren’t up to christiandom.

Continental thinkers including Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche and Foucault owe a lot to christiandom ideology, since it provided them with a ground for criticism. Foucault criticized the sovereign’s executive power and lust for demonstrating his power through public blood bath (beheading, burning, dismembering body parts…). Why we regard christian religion so barbaric lies in this historical evidence - they forced their religion upon others.

In the case of Judaism and Islam, its different. They do not force, but [I]insinuate[/I] their belief systems in a cunning way. There is a difference, focus on it - today islam, as being the successor of judaism, tend to get a hold of a person’s mind through shadows, by not openly declaring war. They do not go out and do forced missionary stuffs just as Christians did, but increase their population to claim political power. Reminds me the religious version of China…

Just watched a program in BBC. An English woman gets arrested in Dubai, because a women in burka accussed her and her daughter being publicly naked. The daughter is absolutely traumatized by hearing that her mother is being called ‘slut’ by this weird woman. The woman goes to police, and convinces the police that the English woman got naked. They arrest the English woman, detain her for hours. Only when the CCTV cameras are scrutinized and found that the woman in burka actually lied, they released the English woman. You know what happened to woman in burka? Nothing. Logic dictates that she could have been detained and punished because she lied, and sharia laws forbid lying…now tell me there is no politics involved in it, and tell me this people are not imbeciles…

Today, islam is the most dangerous ideology in the entire world. Unless it is wiped out of this planet, it is dubious that there’ll be a planetary dharmic flourishing. So I often try not to put christianity in abrahamic context. Maybe it was brutal and oppressive, but at least, it did not ‘insult’ human beings like the other two…[/QUOTE]

The way they arose from the oppression of Christianity doesn’t make it the INHERENT PRODUCT of Christianity. There is a great difference between being a direct and indirect influence.

In fact, I could say that Dalits are being Hindus because they are fighting against their oppression. This is OBVIOUSLY not the case. I could say that Christianity gave birth to secular humanism when it is not the case.

The logical fallacy arises from the fact that there is a lack of distinction between different types of ideological association. Something positively inspired by such association and sharing characteristics of the original can truly be considered “a product.” Something that is negatively inspired by this association and is wholly antithetical to the original is not a “product.”

No, Christianity is the most dangerous ideology in the world. Christianity, unlike Islam, doesn’t overtly seek to undermine the culture and religion of anything which is not Christianity. The way Christians destroy the very IDENTITY of other races in the world is so evil that I can not ponder it for extended periods of time. Christians use their “rights” to oppress those of others. This dangerous and subversive ideology so antithetical to the natural rights of man that it should either cease to exist or undergo heavy reforms.

On the other hand, I can guarantee you that the moment the West stops acting like the Middle East’s parent is the day Muslims stop being so pissed off about “Kaffirs in our lands.” All they want is to be let alone so they can oppress each other in peace.

#37

[QUOTE=High Wolf;51760]Surya,

Then explain me why that alleged, grand Vedic society didn’t survive this day. What happened to them? If they were so mighty as gods, what kind of force drove them out? You can’t answer these questions, because you don’t know the exact answers either.

You know the way of this world: Negativity and positivity go hand in hand. Which drives us crazy, and makes us suffer. Thus my reasoning is as simple as a spiritual master’s reasoning: if it weren’t up for christianity, there wouldn’t be search for enlightenment and humanism. How can it be, if the civilization had already been spiritual and comfortable, and reached happiness, nirvana and such?..would you look for sth at which [I]you have already arrived?[/I] :rolleyes:

When you are tired of negativity and evil, you seek for good and serenity. So christianity played its part to actualize the cultural evolution of European people toward humanism and secularism. They fed up doing wars and battles, and accordingly they established the EU. Now, atheism plays its role too, in a similar way…[/QUOTE]

What grand vedic society? I can definitely tell you that Muslim and Christian invasions were the prime factor in the decline of Indian society.

Point taken. But it is clear that these opposing ideologies are not influenced or, in any way, a product of Christianity.

I could say Buddhism was created by Hinduism since without Hinduism, there wouldn’t be Buddhism. Buddhists would BEG to differ.

Yes, it has played its part in being an evil force instrumental in restoring the balance between harmony and chaos, as have all Abrahamic religions. Now that its influence its declining, people are seeing sense. But these attitudes still aren’t the product of Christianity, but rather the RESULT. Quite a difference.

#38

Surya,

Then explain me why that alleged, grand Vedic society didn’t survive this day. What happened to them? If they were so mighty as gods, what kind of force drove them out? You can’t answer these questions, because you don’t know the exact answers either.

A very simple answer to this question: time. Time destroys everything. As soon as something comes into being, it immediately starts to decay. All things appear in cycles - creation - preservation - destruction. The Vedic civilisation that existed on this planet went through a similar phase. Hence why the Vedic records themselves record that Vedic civilisation rose in the Satya Yuga several millions of years ago. It lasted for 1,728,000 years. Then it started to detoriate a little by Treta Yuga, which lasted for 1,296,000 years. Then by Dvapara Yuga it was heading to a spiritual dark age., this lasted for 864,000 years. The dark ages or Kali Yuga according to the Vedic records began 5000 years ago and will last 432,000 years(427,000 years remaining).