I don’t have the time to respond to all the criticisms and don’t have the expertise.
I find it sad that you look for what is evil, however, and have no interest in seeing the good.
But it’s hard to respond to a criticism that involves a false assumption, especially when denial of the false assumption will be laughed at, instead of addressed.
You’re not logical and fair in your attacks. You don’t argue in good faith.
I also find it sad that many people, even on these forums, do the same and look for the evil in “Hinduism” (oops, I guess it never existed before this word was coined by Muslim invaders, even though people in the sub-continent had their own name in their own languages for their own belief systems) and have no interest in seeing the good (yoga doesn’t count since you all are going around and saying it isn’t Hindu or Indian) in it.
Well then, how else should I interpret the verses in the Bible where it talks about destroying other cultures, killing idol worshipers, asserting that their way is the only way, and etc? Are they meant to be recollections of the pastimes of Israelites and early “Christians” (hey this word didn’t exist until a many centuries later so I guess I can safely say that Christianity was invented the same time the word was and all else before it didn’t exist, right Indra)? Is the Bible meant to be a book on what NOT to practice and believe? Are they simply teachings for their times? Then why pass the teachings down from generation to generation as absolute truth if they weren’t meant to apply to later times?
How else do I explain the Christian influenced white supremacy notions, the wiping out of Native American cultures, colonization and imperialism (which were justified using Christian beliefs) Christian proselytization efforts, Crusades, the way Christian teachings influenced Hitler and his wiping out of Jews (and the way nothing was said against it by the Church), slavery, the way Europe was in the gutters when Christianity was life, and the other thousands upon thousands of events/actions/people motivated by Christianity, which have all caused so much suffering? Were they isolated events and caused by misinterpretation of Christianity? Then why were they so widespread? Why the Inquisition, why the burning of heretics, why the witch trials, why why why why why why why why why why?
How is this a matter of logic and fairness when these are historical events and facts? How is it a matter of fairness and logic when that is what the verses clearly say? How is it a matter of good faith when the same regard was not shown to the millions that have suffered from the influence of Christianity and Islam and is still not shown today by any Christian and Muslim towards people of other faiths? Should I treat intolerance with tolerance? Should I treat subjugation with acceptance and indifference?
“Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd, and bloody religion that has ever infected the world” - Voltaire
And it is a known fact that Christianity has caused the most destruction in the world.
[QUOTE=Nietzsche;45573]I also find it sad that many people, even on these forums, do the same and look for the evil in “Hinduism” (oops, I guess it never existed before this word was coined by Muslim invaders, even though people in the sub-continent had their own name in their own languages for their own belief systems) and have no interest in seeing the good (yoga doesn’t count since you all are going around and saying it isn’t Hindu or Indian) in it.
Well then, how else should I interpret the verses in the Bible where it talks about destroying other cultures, killing idol worshipers, asserting that their way is the only way, and etc? Are they meant to be recollections of the pastimes of Israelites and early “Christians” (hey this word didn’t exist until a many centuries later so I guess I can safely say that Christianity was invented the same time the word was and all else before it didn’t exist, right Indra)? Is the Bible meant to be a book on what NOT to practice and believe? Are they simply teachings for their times? Then why pass the teachings down from generation to generation as absolute truth if they weren’t meant to apply to later times?
How else do I explain the Christian influenced white supremacy notions, the wiping out of Native American cultures, colonization and imperialism (which were justified using Christian beliefs) Christian proselytization efforts, Crusades, the way Christian teachings influenced Hitler and his wiping out of Jews (and the way nothing was said against it by the Church), slavery, the way Europe was in the gutters when Christianity was life, and the other thousands upon thousands of events/actions/people motivated by Christianity, which have all caused so much suffering? Were they isolated events and caused by misinterpretation of Christianity? Then why were they so widespread? Why the Inquisition, why the burning of heretics, why the witch trials, why why why why why why why why why why?
How is this a matter of logic and fairness when these are historical events and facts? How is it a matter of fairness and logic when that is what the verses clearly say? How is it a matter of good faith when the same regard was not shown to the millions that have suffered from the influence of Christianity and Islam and is still not shown today by any Christian and Muslim towards people of other faiths? Should I treat intolerance with tolerance? Should I treat subjugation with acceptance and indifference?
?Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd, and bloody religion that has ever infected the world? - Voltaire
And it is a known fact that Christianity has caused the most destruction in the world.[/QUOTE]
And it is a known fact that Christianity has caused the most destruction in the world.
Interesting assertion. I’ve never heard of this “known fact” before, so it’s not known by all.
How are you defining “destruction”?
Natural disasters are a form of destruction. Do you blame Christians for Tsunamis?
Abortion destroys millions and millions of babies. Do you blame Christians for this massive wholesale destruction of humnanity, even as they protest it and beg for it to stop?
What is this destruction they do, and in what way is it more than any other?
the way Christian teachings influenced Hitler and his wiping out of Jews (and the way nothing was said against it by the Church)
You do realize that Catholics and priests perished at Hitler’s hands, don’t you?
So you say Christianity wanted Hitler to do what he did to the Jews? Somehow Christians sent vibrations to him because they wanted to influence him and have him kill millions of Jews?
Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust
If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first… Remember the word I spoke to you, ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you.
John 15:18-20
In recent years, the media have accused the Catholic Church of either helping the Nazis or being silent during the Holocaust. As an example, the January 26, 1998 issue of Time magazine on page 20 claims that the Catholic Church apologized for “collaborating with the Nazis during World War II.” Even the new Holocaust Museum in New York unjustly criticized Pope Pius XII for being silent during World War II. The Church has recently spoken on this topic.
The Israeli consul, Pinchas E. Lapide, in his book, Three Popes and the Jews (New York: Hawthorn Books, Inc., 1967) critically examines Pope Pius XII. According to his research, the Catholic Church under Pius XII was instrumental in saving 860,000 Jews from Nazi death camps (p. 214). Could Pius have saved more lives by speaking out more forcefully? According to Lapide, the concentration camp prisoners did not want Pius to speak out openly (p. 247). As one jurist from the Nuremberg Trials said on WNBC in New York (Feb. 28, 1964), “Any words of Pius XII, directed against a madman like Hitler, would have brought on an even worse catastrophe… [and] accelerated the massacre of Jews and priests.” (Ibid.) Yet Pius was not totally silent either. Lapide notes a book by the Jewish historian, Jenoe Levai, entitled, The Church Did Not Keep Silent (p. 256). He admits that everyone, including himself, could have done more. If we condemn Pius, then justice would demand condemning everyone else. He concludes by quoting from the Talmud that “whosoever preserves one life, it is accounted to him by Scripture as if he had preserved a whole world.” With this he claims that Pius XII deserves a memorial forest of 860,000 trees in the Judean hills (pp. 268-9). It should be noted that six million Jews and three million Catholics were killed in the Holocaust.
We must remember that the Holocaust was also anti-Christian. After Hitler revealed his true intentions, the Catholic Church opposed him. Even the famous Albert Einstein testified to that. According to the December 23, 1940 issue of Time magazine on page 38, Einstein said:
Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks…
Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.
In another, similar statement, Einstein referred explicitly to the Catholic Church (Lapide, p. 251). This is an extraordinary testimony by an agnostic German scientist of Jewish heritage. Even though there were traitors in her ranks, the Church still opposed the Nazi movement.
The December 23, 1940 issue of Time magazine contains an interesting article about Christians living in Germany, both Catholic and Protestant, who opposed and suffered under the Nazis. On page 38, it claims that by late 1940 over 200,000 Christians were prisoners in Nazi concentration camps, with some estimates as high as 800,000. On page 40, it reports on the Archbishop of Munich, Michael Cardinal von Faulhaber, who led the Catholic opposition in Germany against the Nazis. In an Advent 1933 sermon, he preached: “Let us not forget that we were saved not by German blood but by the blood of Christ!” in response to Nazi racism. In 1934 the Cardinal “narrowly missed a Nazi bullet”, while in 1938 a Nazi mob broke the windows in his residence. Even though he was over seventy and in poor health, he still led the Catholic German resistance against Hitler.
Not trusting the new regime, the Vatican signed a Concordat with the Reich on July 20, 1933 in an attempt to protect the Church’s rights in Germany. But the Nazis quickly violated its articles. In Lent 1937 Pope Pius XI issued the encyclical “Mit brennender Sorge” (With burning sorrow) with the help of German bishops and Cardinal Pacelli (later Pope Pius XII). It was smuggled into Germany and read in all German Catholic churches at the same hour on Palm Sunday 1937. It did not explicitly mention Hitler or Nazism, but it firmly condemned the Nazi doctrines. On September 20, 1938, Pius XI told German pilgrims that no Christian can take part in anti-Semitism, since spiritually all Christians are Semites.
The recent slander against the Church and Pope Pius XII can be traced back to 1963 with Rolf Hochhuth’s play, “The Deputy.” In this play Hochhuth criticized Pius for being silent and portrayed his silence as cold indifference. Even though fiction, people took it as fact.
Pope Pius XII was a diplomat and not a radical preacher. He knew that he first needed to preserve Vatican neutrality so that Vatican City could be a refuge for war victims. The International Red Cross also remained neutral. Secondly, he knew how powerless he was against Hitler. Mussolini could quickly shut off electrical power to Vatican Radio during his broadcast (Lapide, p. 256). Finally the Nazis did not tolerate any protest and responded severely. As an example, the Catholic Archbishop of Utrecht in July 1942 protested in a pastoral letter against the Jewish persecutions in Holland. Immediately the Nazis rounded up as many Jews and Catholic non-Aryans as possible and deported them to death camps, including Blessed Edith Stein (Lapide, p. 246). Pius knew that every time he spoke out against Hitler, the Nazis could retaliate against the prisoners. His best attack against the Nazis was quiet diplomacy and behind-the-scenes action. According to The 1996 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia (V8.01) under Pius XII, “Wishing to preserve Vatican neutrality, fearing reprisals, and realizing his impotence to stop the Holocaust, Pius nonetheless acted on an individual basis to save many Jews and others with church ransoms, documents, and asylum.”
The charity and work of Pope Pius XII during World War II so impressed the Chief Rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, that in 1944 he was open to the grace of God which led him into the Catholic faith. As his baptismal name, he took the same one Pius had, Eugenio, as his own. Later Israel Eugenio Zolli wrote a book entitled, Why I Became a Catholic.
But Pope Pius XII was not completely silent either, especially in his Christmas messages. His 1941 and 1942 Christmas messages were both translated and published in The New York Times (Dec. 25, 1941, p. 20 & Dec. 25, 1942, p. 10). To prevent retaliation, he did not refer to Nazism by name, but people of that era still understood him, including the Nazis. According to The New York Times editorial on December 25, 1941 (Late Day edition, p. 24):
The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas… he is about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all… the Pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism… he left no doubt that the Nazi aims are also irreconcilable with his own conception of a Christian peace.
Also The New York Times editorial on December 25, 1942 (Late Day edition, p. 16) states:
This Christmas more than ever he is a lonely voice crying out of the silence of a continent… Pope Pius expresses as passionately as any leader on our side the war aims of the struggle for freedom when he says that those who aim at building a new world must fight for free choice of government and religious order. They must refuse that the state should make of individuals a herd of whom the state disposes as if they were lifeless things.
Both editorials recognize and highly praise Pius’ words against Hitler and totalitarianism.
Now there were traitors in the Church who were Nazis or helped Hitler. There were Catholics who committed sins of bigotry. There were also Catholics, who, out of fear or indifference, sinned through silence. The Church is full of sinners for whom Christ died. We killed Jesus with our sins (Is. 53: 5-6). But Pope Pius XII and many Catholics did not remain “silent.” Could 860,000 Jewish lives be saved by “silent” indifference? In our own day, there are people who claim to be Catholic but promote and participate in abortion, assisted-suicide and artificial birth control. In the next century, will the world also falsely accuse the Church and the Pope for being silent during the “culture of death” holocaust?
[QUOTE=Indra Deva;45578]http://www.persecution.in/[/QUOTE]
Nice anti-Indian/Hindu site made my Christians who hate both. Thank you for indirectly proving my previous assertions on Christian biased Westerners who would do anything to degrade India and its cultural heritage (and my belief that you are one). As I said before, change your name into something that reflects your Christian bias and do not use the name of one of our gods if you like this kind of propaganda so much.
Thomas, I was speaking specifically about Hitler being partly influenced by Christian teachings in carrying out the Holocaust. Read Mein Kampf (and some of his other personal writings) if you don’t believe me. Him killing Catholics for political reasons does not negate the fact that his anti-Semitic ideology was partly influenced by Christian teachings.
Well thanks for that passage. It was mostly sentimental information and biased in favor of Catholics and the Pope. I need valid facts, figures, statistics, more quotes from people who lived at that time, and other similar objective information. From what I have read, the Pope indeed help Jews but only when it was politically expedient for him to do so (especially when the livelihood of Catholics were at stake. Catholics > Jews in most of his decisions). I have no idea where the guy pulled the statistic of 860k saved Jews from; I have never seen such a figure in reputable sources and if it was indeed that high, more support and recognition would have been given to the Church over the ages.
[QUOTE=thomas;45580]Interesting assertion. I’ve never heard of this “known fact” before, so it’s not known by all.
How are you defining “destruction”?
Natural disasters are a form of destruction. Do you blame Christians for Tsunamis?[/quote]
C’mon, man. Shinto is obviously to blame for tsunamis.
Abortion destroys millions and millions of babies. Do you blame Christians for this massive wholesale destruction of humnanity, even as they protest it and beg for it to stop?
Wasn’t abortion and infanticide founded in India? I thought it was.
What is this destruction they do, and in what way is it more than any other?
[QUOTE=Indra Deva;45602]Wasn’t abortion and infanticide founded in India? I thought it was.[/QUOTE]
Nice try racist. Abortion and infanticide methods are as old as humanity itself, racist. It is not unique to a specific culture or place, racist. I am beginning to see the wisdom of our forefathers who prevented foreigners from learning our language, practices, culture, and etc.
[QUOTE=Nietzsche;45644]Nice try racist. Abortion and infanticide methods are as old as humanity itself, racist. It is not unique to a specific culture or place, racist. I am beginning to see the wisdom of our forefathers who prevented foreigners from learning our language, practices, culture, and etc.[/QUOTE]
It’s not You versus Them. We are a HUMAN RACE. Get with the 21st century. :rolleyes:
(& your cultural isolationist rhetoric ISN’T racist? the only one here screaming “Racist!” is [B]you[/B]. LMAO)
[QUOTE=Indra Deva;45671]It’s not You versus Them. We are a HUMAN RACE. Get with the 21st century. :rolleyes:
(& your cultural isolationist rhetoric ISN’T racist? the only one here screaming “Racist!” is [B]you[/B]. LMAO)[/QUOTE]
“HUMAN RACE” ? No thanks. The fact is that there will always be divisions among other humans in terms of skin color, beliefs, culture, and so forth; Westerners have seen to that. I will start believing in oneness on humanity when the West atones for what it has done to the world and every country is truly prosperous and is able to do what IT wants in alignment with the rights and sovereignty of others and not the WESTERN WORLD wants.
Westerners who call for globalization really mean, “the rest of the western world under the superior Western world.” Look at the U.N; A conglomeration of Western/Westernized nations who act as if they can dictate what the rest of the world can and cannot do when they themselves do they very things they prohibit or denounce.
“Cultural isolationist.” Yes, isolate our culture from Westerners until most of them have giving up their supremacist/Christian biases. We have shared our culture with you people and what have you done? Tried to destroy our culture with it (fabrication of sacred Hindu texts, creation of the Aryan Invasion theory, etc) and even gone so far as to spread our teachings and THEN say “[I]this[/I] is the REAL thing,” or you are “too tribal to own anything” (in the words of Deepak Chopra), “abortion and infanticide was founded in India” among other anti-Hindu/Indian remarks and propaganda dissemination. Look at the Buddhists; we spread Buddhist teachings to other countries and they have done a fantastic job of diversifying it and making their own unique versions of it. However, most have the common courtesy to recognize its ultimate origins and show [I]mutual respect[/I]. Only the West seems to have a problem with cultural diffusion; they take notions and ideas from every culture and then proceed to degrade those cultures, as if they can’t bear the humiliation of borrowing anything from sub-humans.
[QUOTE=Nietzsche;45706]“HUMAN RACE” ? No thanks. The fact is that there will always be divisions among other humans in terms of skin color, beliefs, culture, and so forth; Westerners have seen to that. I will start believing in oneness on humanity when the West atones for what it has done to the world and every country is truly prosperous and is able to do what IT wants in alignment with the rights and sovereignty of others and not the WESTERN WORLD wants.
Westerners who call for globalization really mean, “the rest of the western world under the superior Western world.” Look at the U.N; A conglomeration of Western/Westernized nations who act as if they can dictate what the rest of the world can and cannot do when they themselves do they very things they prohibit or denounce.
“Cultural isolationist.” Yes, isolate our culture from Westerners until most of them have giving up their supremacist/Christian biases. We have shared our culture with you people and what have you done? Tried to destroy our culture with it (fabrication of sacred Hindu texts, creation of the Aryan Invasion theory, etc) and even gone so far as to spread our teachings and THEN say “[I]this[/I] is the REAL thing,” or you are “too tribal to own anything” (in the words of Deepak Chopra), “abortion and infanticide was founded in India” among other anti-Hindu/Indian remarks and propaganda dissemination. Look at the Buddhists; we spread Buddhist teachings to other countries and they have done a fantastic job of diversifying it and making their own unique versions of it. However, most have the common courtesy to recognize its ultimate origins and show [I]mutual respect[/I]. Only the West seems to have a problem with cultural diffusion; they take notions and ideas from every culture and then proceed to degrade those cultures, as if they can’t bear the humiliation of borrowing anything from sub-humans.[/QUOTE]
Wow sorry for my bad grammar.
"oh, boo hoo, what separation there is in the world, what victims we are…"
now I’m feeling sorry for you.
Not. Guess what? You’re a hypocrite.
[QUOTE=Indra Deva;45719]"oh, boo hoo, what separation there is in the world, what victims we are…"
now I’m feeling sorry for you.
Not. Guess what? You’re a hypocrite.[/QUOTE]
Touche. Nawt.
Spiritual art, and symbols pevades each religion.
Much of it is similar.
Surya your still my brosef.
Fredrick I just can’t buy your sthick.
I am sure we can have this same discussion in a more polite and friendly way.
There is something valid in all points that are being made, and something invalid at the same time
Christianity is a destructive religion: It is valid, and noted by many intellectuals from Volatire to Neitzshe that this religion has been responsible for immense destruction through crusades, inquisitions, witch burnings, colonialism(wiping out Native Americans, Australians aboriginies) It and Islam has the most violent history of all religions in the world by a wide a margin. This history has happened, we know of it and have recorded it in gory detail, so this fact cannot be denied. It also cannot be denied that the OT is one of the most savage and barbaric scriptures in the world ordaining everything from infanticide, to rape, murder and what not.
The invalid point is, is that Christianity is through and through bad. There is a lot to be admired about the life, teachings and works of Jesus in the bible. There is a lot to be admired about good Christians and catholics, many of whom I have met, who believe in tolerance, love and forgiveness. I stayed with a catholic family in India once for a few days, and their kindess and purity was beautiful. There have also been some great saints from this tradition(I mean actual saints, not just people who were called saints, but were mass murderers) and a lot of work has been done in charity and helping the poor and needy.
The West is racist and exploits and plunders others culture: It is valid, and again noted by many intellectuals that the West have a huge debt to pay for what they have done to non-white cultures on this planet for hundreds of years and which still goes on economically and intellectually. The West destroyed the indigenious civilisations of Native Americans and Aboriginies, many of whom today are second class citizens in their own ancestors land, enslaved the African race and completely destroyed their indigenious culture. Indians also suffered immensely, this previously rich civilisation with a highly literate and prosperous people, was turned into a third world country with some of the most poorest and illiterate people in the world. It’s culture was systematically poisoned, history distorted, religious scriptures mistranslated to create a new generation of Indians with an inferiorty complex. To date, the immense contributions this civilisation made in shaping the world is neglected and misrepresented. I often get people say to me, “Why don’t we learn anything about Indian philosophy, history and science in school” The answer is Eurocentricism.
The invalid point is that Western people are racist. In fact on the contrary I have never had to face a problem of racism growing up in the UK. Any racist incidents were always by minorities such as skinheads. I was given the same opportunities white people were given. Most of my friends were white people, and they never discriminated against me because I was Indian. They accepted me as one of them and I never felt different. Even today most of my friends and white people and I easily prefer their company over the majority of Indian people. They are some of the best people I have met. I have been to India and I am horrified by how rude, uncouth and uncultured many Indian people are today.
Humanity is one: It is a valid point that humanity is one. We have all originated from the same source and we are the same species. We are constituted similarly physically and mentally. We experience the same emotions and have the same needs: physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual. All cultures have developed their own languages, their own art, their own religions, their own sciences and philosophies, even Native Americans had their own sciences, primitive as they may have been, but they had them such as astronomy, engineering.
It invalid because although humanity maybe one, different civilisations are at different levels of development. The Africans civiisation did not develop literature, could not read and write(except for Egyptians, but it is debatable that they are african) and hence did not develop philosophy and science. The Western civilisation developed the most in technology and studying the material sciences, and no other civilisation can compare for no other civilisation developed steam engines, computers, electricity. Similarly, the Hindu civilisation developed the most in science of reality, philosophy and spirituality, and no other civilisation can compare for they did not develop Yoga. India still is the land of the sages and enlightened people as the vast majoriy of spiritual institutions are in India, and the West still is the land of hedonists and materialists, as the vast majority of hedonist instiutions like pubs, clubs, bars are in the West.
I am going to give a tap on the back of myself for how honest I am. I do not meet many people who are as honest and critical as I am. I do not even spare my own kind(or myself) from my honesty. How life would be so much easier and debates so much more productive and fruitful, if we just were honest.
HUMAN RACE" ? No thanks. The fact is that there will always be divisions among other humans in terms of skin color, beliefs, culture, and so forth; Westerners have seen to that. I will start believing in oneness on humanity when the West atones for what it has done to the world and every country is truly prosperous and is able to do what IT wants in alignment with the rights and sovereignty of others and not the WESTERN WORLD wants.
My vision is for a Vedic world. I do not believe in nationalism and I think nation states are only temporally required until the entire world unites under one culture. The reason nation states arose was because smaller states and principalities were united into one. Now nations may seem like big places, but they are really just like smaller states and principlaities on the world scale, so even nation states can be united into one. Eventually the entire planet can be united into one.
[QUOTE=Nietzsche;45644]Nice try racist. Abortion and infanticide methods are as old as humanity itself, racist. It is not unique to a specific culture or place, racist. I am beginning to see the wisdom of our forefathers who prevented foreigners from learning our language, practices, culture, and etc.[/QUOTE]
I think you are right, Indra Deva does come across as being racist. To call infanticide and abortion the crime of one people is racist. The repeated links that Indra Deva posts to anti-Hindu and anti-Indian web sites is further proof of the same.
I have posted links to anti-Christian or anti-west or anti-white web sites, so I cannot be accused of being racist.
I am not sure what Indra Deva’s racial background is. He is either a self-hating Indian or a white supremist who believes in the Aryan race myths, hence why he tries to pass of Hinduism as something which is not Vedic or Yogic.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;45808]I am sure we can have this same discussion in a more polite and friendly way.
There is something valid in all points that are being made, and something invalid at the same time
Christianity is a destructive religion: It is valid, and noted by many intellectuals from Volatire to Neitzshe that this religion has been responsible for immense destruction through crusades, inquisitions, witch burnings, colonialism(wiping out Native Americans, Australians aboriginies) It and Islam has the most violent history of all religions in the world by a wide a margin. This history has happened, we know of it and have recorded it in gory detail, so this fact cannot be denied. It also cannot be denied that the OT is one of the most savage and barbaric scriptures in the world ordaining everything from infanticide, to rape, murder and what not.
The invalid point is, is that Christianity is through and through bad. There is a lot to be admired about the life, teachings and works of Jesus in the bible. There is a lot to be admired about good Christians and catholics, many of whom I have met, who believe in tolerance, love and forgiveness. I stayed with a catholic family in India once for a few days, and their kindess and purity was beautiful. There have also been some great saints from this tradition(I mean actual saints, not just people who were called saints, but were mass murderers) and a lot of work has been done in charity and helping the poor and needy.
The West is racist and exploits and plunders others culture: It is valid, and again noted by many intellectuals that the West have a huge debt to pay for what they have done to non-white cultures on this planet for hundreds of years and which still goes on economically and intellectually. The West destroyed the indigenious civilisations of Native Americans and Aboriginies, many of whom today are second class citizens in their own ancestors land, enslaved the African race and completely destroyed their indigenious culture. Indians also suffered immensely, this previously rich civilisation with a highly literate and prosperous people, was turned into a third world country with some of the most poorest and illiterate people in the world. It’s culture was systematically poisoned, history distorted, religious scriptures mistranslated to create a new generation of Indians with an inferiorty complex. To date, the immense contributions this civilisation made in shaping the world is neglected and misrepresented. I often get people say to me, “Why don’t we learn anything about Indian philosophy, history and science in school” The answer is Eurocentricism.
The invalid point is that Western people are racist. In fact on the contrary I have never had to face a problem of racism growing up in the UK. Any racist incidents were always by minorities such as skinheads. I was given the same opportunities white people were given. Most of my friends were white people, and they never discriminated against me because I was Indian. They accepted me as one of them and I never felt different. Even today most of my friends and white people and I easily prefer their company over the majority of Indian people. They are some of the best people I have met. I have been to India and I am horrified by how rude, uncouth and uncultured many Indian people are today.
Humanity is one: It is a valid point that humanity is one. We have all originated from the same source and we are the same species. We are constituted similarly physically and mentally. We experience the same emotions and have the same needs: physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual. All cultures have developed their own languages, their own art, their own religions, their own sciences and philosophies, even Native Americans had their own sciences, primitive as they may have been, but they had them such as astronomy, engineering.
It invalid because although humanity maybe one, different civilisations are at different levels of development. The Africans civiisation did not develop literature, could not read and write(except for Egyptians, but it is debatable that they are african) and hence did not develop philosophy and science. The Western civilisation developed the most in technology and studying the material sciences, and no other civilisation can compare for no other civilisation developed steam engines, computers, electricity. Similarly, the Hindu civilisation developed the most in science of reality, philosophy and spirituality, and no other civilisation can compare for they did not develop Yoga. India still is the land of the sages and enlightened people as the vast majoriy of spiritual institutions are in India, and the West still is the land of hedonists and materialists, as the vast majority of hedonist instiutions like pubs, clubs, bars are in the West.[/QUOTE]
I agree with everything here. As for the human race part, my point in one of my above posts was that no matter how people argue for the oneness of all humans due to us being the same species, there will always be the usual divisions of skin color, culture, beliefs, and so forth. You cannot break past those barriers…except in your proposed Vedic world. 