Calm rational discussion regarding Hinduism and Abrahamic religions

Spirituality Religion
#1

I figured a new thread was appropriate for this one. I believe the quote text serves as a link to YogiAdam’s thread, where this discussion started.

Ok, that’s a fine starting point. But notice how much less tolerant that is than entertaining the logical possibility that other religions are in fact true, just under a non-universal scope.

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;35416]
I mean come on your religion teaches that there will be a judgement day and everybody will rise out of their grave and stand judgement before a god who will judge them for what they did in this life.[/quote]

which religion is mine? Not all Abrahamic traditions believe this.

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;35416]
Do you not find many problems in this belief? I will point them out

  1. The body decomposes at death and all that remains are skeletons(which are destroyed on the cremation of a body) It is impossible for this process to be reversed. Nobody has ever seen a skeleton come back to life and turn back into a person. [/quote]
    The law of conservation of mass and energy indicates that everything that was once the body still exists. Putting a body back together from that should be easy for the dude who worked creation from nothing. That I don’t know how he will accomplish it is no more evidence against it than my ignorance is evidence against a siddhi.

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;35416]
2. If there is a judgement day then it only limited to earth-time. However, we know for a fact that the earth is just one planet in one solar system amongst trillions and trillions of other star systems and the entire history of earth is but a twinkling in the eye. The earth will be long gone and the rest of the universe will continue to exist. [/quote]
Please clarify this assertion. Is this your conclusion – that judgment is restricted to this planet – or is this an assertion that one of the many faiths you object to has stated? I don’t recognize it as part of my tradition.

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;35416]
3. How unfair is to make a judgement of a person just based on what they did in one life time and then either condemn to eternal hell or reward them eternal life. How is it fair when everybody is born in different circumstances. This makes the Abrahamic god seem like an irrational tyrant. [/quote]

I see three objections here – one, that one lifetime is sufficient to judge a soul; two, that circumstances make it easier or harder to be good; and three, the proportionality of eternal consequences for temporal deeds.

I appreciate that someone who has reincarnation as a prime in their frame of reference would bring up the first one, but for one who does not, one lifetime is the sum total of what there is to know of a human. So you must choose as you translate from a one-lifetime language to a multi-lifetime language whether this judgment takes place after one lifetime or after the sum total of what there is to know of any particular one of us. Or entertain with me the possibility that those of us who are subject to this judgment have only the one lifetime.
The second – some people, because of their circumstance of birth, just can’t afford to be good.
The third – now here we come to the true measure of diversity among the Abrahamic religions. How bad do you have to be to go to hell? There is very little consensus among them regarding this. In fact, there is very little consensus among Christians regarding this. (which is really saying something, 'cause I’m pretty sure eternal consequences weren’t even part of Abraham’s original covenant. Anyone genuinely familiar with Judaism could help me out with this one.) Some faiths are very generous with who they leave out of heaven. One American founded sect of Christianity says only 144,000 souls will make the cut. (I admit, I didn’t bother to find out what they say the rest of us will be doing.) The oldest of the Christian groups has come to the conclusion that actions that consign one to hell are characterized with an eternal nature – the person has to do something really bad, in full knowledge and context that they are spitting in God’s face to do so – and the person has to never recant for the rest of their natural lives. Because that recantation could be quite a private thing (only the person and God needs to know it happened), according to this model it is difficult for a person to be consigned to hell, and even more difficult for the rest of us to be sure that this is the person’s fate.

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;35416]
Now, let us contrast this with Hinduism which says that the soul will transmigrate after the death of the body take take on a new one whether on this planet or another.

  1. It is logical that the body and the soul are not the same, because the soul remains even after the body changes. It is also impossible that the soul is inside the body because otherwise we could open up the body and see the soul. Therefore the soul merely associates with the body, and as it is an association, it can associate with another body.

  2. There is actual scientific evidence for reincarnation in the form of people who remember their past lives. These accounts are reported in all religions. There is also scientic evidence for the existence of a spiritual body(astral body) which exists separately from the physical body.

Therefore this belief is supported by strong evidence.

Any rational person would accept what Hinduism is saying to be true over what the Abrahamic religions are saying. They are obviously not both true. Either skeletons will rise from the grave someday and transform into people or the soul departs and takes on a new body at the moment of the death of the physical body.[/QUOTE]

You’ve taken a position of scientific support for Hinduism. I’m sorry to say that you’ve chosen a stormy port.

Memory has not counted as scientific evidence for anything since the establishment of the scientific method. If it ever did, the lack of memory in the preponderance of the population (who do not remember previous lives) would also have to weigh in as evidence. The balance of those scales would favor that this is the first time around for most of us.

Scientists are growing more and more content that the entire story of a human is told within the body and therefore within a single lifetime. A memory, to a scientist, is a chemical/electrical sequence, completely physical in nature and completely at the mercy of the physical world – and therefore completely destroyed in the decomposition of the body. Without positing, demonstrating, and letting others verify a method by which a soul manipulates the matter of the new body to hold genuinely old memories, scientists must remain in their default skeptic stance regarding memory transference between lifetimes.

And this task of positing, demonstrating, and verifying must start with scientific verification of a soul, which has been a claim against Abrahamic religions so it may as well be a claim against Hinduism too.

I find that the genuine contrast between my tradition and what you have illustrated thus far of Hinduism is that my tradition is currently more comfortable with mystery. I find that a more honest reflection of the human condition and the magnificence of creation than your insistence that everything be explainable and defensible within the expression of our common language.

(dear reader-- this is fun. I haven’t had a good workout like this in a while. Please join me if you think this sort of thing is good for you – on either side, or yet another one.)

#2

Interesting discussion, and I do take a little exception to the fact that a person claiming to be “tolerant” is also sounding quite arrogant about his beliefs. or perhaps I’m naive in believing that “tolerant” implies that one does not judge others for their beliefs as Surya Deva is doing.

Surya Deva seems also to be focused on one specific religion, the Jehovah Witnesses, who believe this that our dead bodies will be restored with the “second coming”.
Most Christian philosophies point to the soul leaving the body to be “in heaven” with the Father God, and that when the earth is cleansed, all will be returned to live in paradise. I never got any implication that we would have our original bodies when this happened.

As for the soul being something you could see when you cut open the body, that’s a bit of a silly premise imo. Just as you cannot see the breath, nor many energy fields, which the soul is, you cannot see it.

I take one more exception to a comment you made Techne:

The second – some people, because of their circumstance of birth, just can’t afford to be good.

A person can be good regardless of their circumstances. Those who are good in extreme situations are more revered and admired, as they overcame their natural tendency to allow base desires to rule their thoughts and actions.
Conversely, we should not judge one who chooses a bad path when his circumstances have been extreme - it is not our place, and he will suffer the consequences ultimately.

#3

[QUOTE=Joanna63;35484]
A person can be good regardless of their circumstances. Those who are good in extreme situations are more revered and admired, as they overcame their natural tendency to allow base desires to rule their thoughts and actions.
Conversely, we should not judge one who chooses a bad path when his circumstances have been extreme - it is not our place, and he will suffer the consequences ultimately.[/QUOTE]

This, although an interesting topic, could lead this post astray down the nature vs. nurture path

As to Hinduism and Abrahamic religions I look forward to following this thread

#4

With regard to the various religions, Tolstoy once claimed that the underlying common factor shared by all religions (except I suppose the satanic religions) is LOVE.

My wife loves apples. I prefer pears. Nothing I can say will change her mind. She can taste the juicy pear I have and say “yes, it is delicious, but I still prefer apples”. The same for me. I can cite all kinds of scientific evidence (if I had the time) showing how the human tastebuds respond better to the taste of pears than apples, but she will still prefer apples.

And so it goes…

#5

Namaste,
The belief in judgement day, and the resurrection of the body from the grave is a major belief of the Abrahamic religions.

Catholicism
Belief in the last judgment (sometime said universal judgment) is held firmly inside Roman Catholicism. Immediately upon death each soul undergoes the particular judgment, and depending upon the state of the person's soul, goes to heaven, purgatory, or hell. The last judgement will occur after the resurrection of the dead and the reuniting of a person's soul with own physical body[3].
The Catholic Church teaches that at the time of the last judgment Christ will come in his glory, and all the angels with him, and in his presence the truth of each man's relationship with God will be laid bare, and each person who has ever lived will be judged with perfect justice. Those already in heaven will remain in heaven; those already in hell will remain in hell; and those in purgatory will be released into heaven.[/quote]

The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that there are two judgments: the first, or "Particular" Judgment, is that experienced by each individual at the time of his or her death, at which time God will decide where[4] the soul is to spend the time until the Second Coming of Christ (see Hades in Christianity). This judgment is generally believed to occur on the fortieth day after death. The second, "General" or "Final" Judgment will occur after the Second Coming.

Protestantism

Lutheranism

Lutherans do not believe in any sort of earthly millennial kingdom of Christ either before or after his second coming on the last day.[5] On the last day,[6] all the dead will be resurrected.[7] Their souls will then be reunited with the same bodies they had before dying.[8] The bodies will then be changed, those of the wicked to a state of everlasting shame and torment,[9] those of the righteous to an everlasting state of celestial glory.[10] After the resurrection of all the dead,[11] and the change of those still living,[12] all nations shall be gathered before Christ,[13] and he will separate the righteous from the wicked.[14] Christ will publicly judge[15] all people by the testimony of their faith,[16] the good works[17] of the righteous in evidence of their faith,[18] and the evil works of the wicked in evidence of their unbelief.[19] He will judge in righteousness[20] in the presence of all and men and angels,[21] and his final judgement will be just damnation to everlasting punishment for the wicked and a gracious gift of life everlasting to the righteous.[22]

Islam
In Islam, Yawm al-Qiyāmah "the Day of Resurrection" (Arabic: يوم القيامة‎) or Yawm ad-Din "the Day of Judgment" (Arabic: يوم الدين‎) is God's final assessment of humanity. al-Qiyāmah is also the name of the 75th sura of the Qur'an.
The sequence of events according to the most common understanding is the annihilation of all creatures, resurrection of the body, and the judgment of all sentient creatures. The time of the hour is not known, however there are Major[1] and Minor Signs[2] which, according to Islam, are to occur near the time of Qiyamah (Doomsday). Final judgment forms one of the main themes of the Qur'an. Many Qur'anic verses, especially the earliest ones, are dominated by the idea of the nearing Day of Resurrection.[3][4]

#6

Hindu perspective on this:

The first thing a Hindu will ask you is how do you know this is going to happen? You will respond it is stated in the bible/quran. The Hindu will respond, how do you know the bible/quran is correct? To this you can only offer your faith which is not going to convince a Hindu.
The Hindu wants evidence based on perception and inference. He will ask you, “Have you ever seen a skeleton come back to life and turn into a person” You will respond, “No” He will then point out that the body is long gone and absorbed into the earth and changed into another material form. How then could it ever come back. To this you will have no response and simply appeal to faith. This is not going to convince the Hindu.
The Hindu will then reject your belief as irrational for it has no grounds in evidence and goes against what we know about the laws of nature.

The law of conservation of mass and energy indicates that everything that was once the body still exists. Putting a body back together from that should be easy for the dude who worked creation from nothing. That I don’t know how he will accomplish it is no more evidence against it than my ignorance is evidence against a siddhi.

The law of conservation of mass and energy says nothing about everybodies body all of a sudden resurrecting on one day. As already pointed out, the atoms of the body will have long been reabsorbed and transformed into other materials. This makes resurrection physically impossible.
However, you are suggesting that the creator can do the physically impossible and create out of nothing. A Hindu will now object. How can you create something out of nothing? If there is nothing then nothing can only produce nothing. You will once again respond that it is your faith. The Hindu is not convinced.
So far you have only convinced the Hindu that you are hold onto irrational beliefs.

Please clarify this assertion. Is this your conclusion – that judgment is restricted to this planet – or is this an assertion that one of the many faiths you object to has stated? I don’t recognize it as part of my tradition.

The judgement day in Abrahamic religions is an actual event that takes place on Earth. At that time they believed that the Earth was the centre of the universe and there were no other planets, solar systems. We know this is wrong now. So this means judgement day must be wrong as well. What else is wrong in the Abrahamic religions?

I see three objections here – one, that one lifetime is sufficient to judge a soul; two, that circumstances make it easier or harder to be good; and three, the proportionality of eternal consequences for temporal deeds.

Yes, these are the three main objections which are fatal to the Abrahamic beliefs that we only have one lifetime. This makes the Abrahamic god unfair and irrational.
All people are born in different circumstances
All people are born with different capacities
All people have varying life spans

How then can there be a fair and rational judgement where an unlimited reward or punishment is given for limited actions in a limited life?
The Hindu can see that there is no evidence for this belief in reality. However, they can see evidence for the law of cause and effect. They can see that every effect is the resultant of a previous cause. So for example a child’s body is such because it has inherited it from his parents. They can see that what causes us to act are our desires for things in the world e.g., “I want sex” They can see that nature does not discriminate between “good” and “bad” and such labels are purely human abstractions. They therefore can clearly see there is an impersonal law of cause and effect which governs every action.

As all actions are going to be limited there will always be limited results.

It is easy to see how much more sensible and scientific this understanding is compared to the outright mythology in Abrahamic religions to explain basic human action.

You’ve taken a position of scientific support for Hinduism. I’m sorry to say that you’ve chosen a stormy port.

Memory has not counted as scientific evidence for anything since the establishment of the scientific method. If it ever did, the lack of memory in the preponderance of the population (who do not remember previous lives) would also have to weigh in as evidence. The balance of those scales would favor that this is the first time around for most of us.

No, but memory gives us evidence of something to test. If I start speaking fluent French during sleep and I have never ever been to France in my life or taken any lessons in French, then I must have obtained this knowledge from somewhere. If I then go onto describe a past life in France, place, time and give actual information which can later be verified objectively then it is clear the simplest explanation is I had a past life in France.

The lack of memory of most of the population is not evidence against past lives, but evidence of lack of memory. Some people have photographic memories, but most of the population does not, does this mean that people with photographic memories do not exist? No.

One can explain by the law of cause and effect why one would inherit a particular body because of the genes from parents. But how does one explain how would one inherit knowledge. Such as children being born with natural talent for music, science, literature. This can only be explained as a mental cause and not a physical cause.

Scientists are growing more and more content that the entire story of a human is told within the body and therefore within a single lifetime. A memory, to a scientist, is a chemical/electrical sequence, completely physical in nature and completely at the mercy of the physical world – and therefore completely destroyed in the decomposition of the body. Without positing, demonstrating, and letting others verify a method by which a soul manipulates the matter of the new body to hold genuinely old memories, scientists must remain in their default skeptic stance regarding memory transference between lifetimes.

This is not true in fact of current science, as there is a growing number of scientists who are now outright saying that that mind and the body cannot be reduced to one another and the mind is separate from the body. To date no materialist philosopher or scientist has been able to prove the mind and body are the same thing. This is known as the hard problem of consciousness in neurology. Therefore to say the brain and the mind are the same thing demands a burden of proof, and until that is not fulfilled, we must accept the brain and mind are separate things.
The Hindu who always bases their conclusions on evidence can clearly see the brain and mind are different things. For instance a popular evidence presented by Hindus is that if the body/brain and mind were the same thing, why is the body external to us. If I am in the body I should only have consciousness of everything within the body but nothing outside of it. Just as a brain in a jar could only know the world within the jar but not outside the jar. This is false, therefore I cannot be the body. Moreover, the body changes incessantly and in a lifetime several times has my previous body been destroyed and replaced with another. I still exist.

The evidence Hindu’s give is the same evidence that prominent consciousness researchers also give. It is therefore clear, that Hinduism is backed up by science.
There is significant research now on OBE and NDE to back what Hindusim says. In NDE’s patients who are clinically dead are able to describe their environments, the events going on around them in the immediate vicinity which is impossible from their vantage point. In OBE’s people are able to navgiate around the world and describe objects in remote locations and even manipulate them.

I find that the genuine contrast between my tradition and what you have illustrated thus far of Hinduism is that my tradition is currently more comfortable with mystery. I find that a more honest reflection of the human condition and the magnificence of creation than your insistence that everything be explainable and defensible within the expression of our common language.

I think what we have found in summary is that the Abrahamic religions are purely mythological and give irrational, unscientific explanations for things in the world, many of which we know are wrong today. On the other hand, Hinduism gives rational and scientific explanations and is backed up by science today. It can explain all those things that modern science itself struggles to explain.

Imagine the following scenorio:
Imagine that science has developed to such a high degree in the future that the soul, reincarnation, law of karma is now proven and accepted as a scientific fact. What kind of religion do you think people would develop? The answer is clear Hinduism. Hinduism is the religion of an advanced scientific society. Hence why so many modern physicists back Hinduism.

Abrahamic religions are the religions of a primitive pre-scientific society. Seriously, do you not think it is high time we abandon these religions?

#7

The central problem here is the assertion that all religions are equally valid. This is obviously incorrect. On one side we have the Abrahamic religions which are full of mythology, give unscientific explanations for the world which are oudated by more than a millenia and describe ways of living life that cannot be practiced anymore. Not to mention have been responsible for so much bloodshed, death, destruction and oppresison. On the other side we have Hinduism which gives scientific explanations for the world, which are up to date with modern science and describe a way of life that is very contempoary(personal development and ecological way of life) and had a history of tolerance and great prosperity, making massive contributions in science, technology, philosophy and culture. It was the first to build universities, hospitals, planned cities and have regulated industries.

There is no contest between Hinduism and Abrahamic religions. The latter seems like the religion of infants, who are refusing to grow up.

#8

The views of many modern intellectuals on Hinduism:

Louis Jacolliot (1837-1890), who worked in French India as a government official and was at one time President of the Court in Chandranagar, translated numerous Vedic hymns, the Manusmriti, and the Tamil work, Kural His masterpiece, La Bible dans l’Inde, stirred a storm of controversy. He praised the Vedas in his Sons of God, and said,:

"The Hindu revelation, which proclaims the slow and gradual formation of worlds, is of all revelations the only one whose ideas are in complete harmony with modern science. "

Jacolliot feels India has given to the West much more than she is credited with when he says:

" Besides the discoverers of geometry and algebra, the constructors of human speech, the parents of philosophy, the primal expounders of religion, the adepts in psychological and physical science, how even the greatest of our biological and theologians seem dwarfed! Name of us any modern discovery, and we venture to say that Indian history need not long be searched before the prototype will be found on record. Here we are with the transit of science half accomplished, and all our Vedic ideas in process of readjustment to the theories of force correlation, natural selection, atomic polarity and evolution. And here, to mock our conceit, our apprehension, and our despair, we may read what Manu said, perhaps 10,000 years before the birth of Christ:

Sir John Woodroffe (1865-1936) the well known scholar, Advocate-General of Bengal and sometime Legal Member of the Government of India. He served with competence for eighteen years and in 1915 officiated as Chief Justice. He has said:

Ages before Lamarck and Darwin it was held in India that man has passed through 84 lakhs (8,400,000) of birth as plants, animals, as an “inferior species of man” and then as the ancestor of the developed type existing to-day. The theory was not, like modern doctrine of evolution, based wholly on observation and a scientific enquiry into fact but was a rather (as some other matters) an act of brilliant intuition in which observation may also have had some part."

Count Maurice Maeterlinck (1862-1949) was a Belgian writer of poetry, a wide variety of essays. He won the 1911 Nobel Prize for literature. In his book Mountain Paths, says:

Mr. Thorton, in his book History of British India, states: " Hindus are indisputably entitled to rank among the most ancient of existing nations, as well as among those most early and most rapidly civilized…ere yet the Pyramids looked down upon the Valley of the Nile… when Greece and Italy, these cradles of modern civilization, housed only the tenants of the wilderness, India was the seat of wealth and grandeur…"

Dick Teresi author and coauthor of several books about science and technology, including The God Particle. He is cofounder of Omni magazine and has written for Discover, The New York Times Magazine, and The Atlantic Monthly.

"The big bang is the biggest-budget universe ever, with mind-boggling numbers to dazzle us – a technique pioneered by fifth-century A.D. Indian cosmologists, the first to estimate the age of the earth at more than 4 billion years.

The late scientist, Carl Sagan, in his book, Cosmos asserts that the Dance of Nataraja (Tandava) signifies the cycle of evolution and destruction of the cosmic universe (Big Bang Theory).

“The Hindu religion is the only one of the world’s great faiths dedicated to the idea that the Cosmos itself undergoes an immense, indeed an infinite, number of deaths and rebirths. It is the only religion in which the time scales correspond, to those of modern scientific cosmology. Its cycles run from our ordinary day and night to a day and night of Brahma, 8.64 billion years long. Longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half the time since the Big Bang. And there are much longer time scales still.”

http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Advanced_Concepts.htm

#9

One test of a true religion is whether it matches with science and Hinduism passes that test with flying colours.

While Abrahamic religions tell us the world is flat, Hinduism has known since Vedic times itself it was a sphere orbiting the sun:

Aitareya Brahmana (3.44) declares:

“The Sun does never set nor rise. When people think the Sun is setting (it is not so). For after having arrived at the end of the day it makes itself produce two opposite effects, making night to what is below and day to what is on the other side…Having reached the end of the night, it makes itself produce two opposite effects, making day to what is below and night to what is on the other side. In fact, the Sun never sets….”

The ancient Hindu astronomy was so advanced that none of their calculations differ from the calculations by modern astronomers:

Marquis Pierre Simon de Laplace ( 1749-1827) French mathematician, philosopher, and astronomer, a contemporary of Napoleon. Laplace is best known for his nebular hypothesis of the origin of the solar system. wrote:

“Nevertheless the ancient reputation of the Indians does not permit us to doubt that they have always cultivated astronomy, and the remarkable exactness of the mean motions which they assign to the Sun and the Moon necessarily required very ancient observation.”

India has left a universal legacy determining for instance the dates of solstices, as noted by 18th century French astronomer Jean-Sylvain Baily, (1736–93) 18th century French astronomer and politician. His works on astronomy and on the history of science (notably the Essai sur la th?orie des satellites de Jupiter) were distinguished both for scientific interest and literary elegance and earned him membership in the French Academy, the Academy of Sciences, and the Academy of Inscriptions. Bailly said:

“The movement of stars which was calculated by Hindus 4,500 years ago, does not differ even by a minute from the tables which we are using today.” And he concludes: “The Hindu systems of astronomy are much more ancient than those of the Egyptians - even the Jews derived from the Hindus their knowledge.”

While Abrahamic religions tell us that god created the world in 7 days. He created the earth, then men, then animals, then the sun and the moon. Hindusim tells us we have evolved from chemical processes through 8,400,000 different organsims from plants, to animals, to humans.

The first germ of life was developed by water and heat.’ (Manusmriti - Book I, sloka 8,9)

’ Water ascends towards the sky in vapors; from the sun it descends in rain, from the rains are born the plants, and from the plants, animals.’ (Manusmriti - Book III, sloka 76)

In addition Hindusim tells us not only have we evolved and are still evolving, but the entire cosmos itself is evolving. Like modern science, Hinduism agrees the universe began in a big bang, with a sudden expansion and is still expanding, but will eventually contract back to the point of singularity. It describes the universe to be vast, consisting of innumerable solar systems(bramandas) and planets. (Compare this to to the pathetic flat and young earth theories that Christians still argue for today)

Why are all these great intellectuals and scientists praising Hinduism? The answer is clear Hindusim is a religion for scientists and intellectuals.

It is absolutely clear then to see that Hinduism makes Abrahamic religions look primitive and stupid.

#10

please check out this link as well

Great Minds on INDIA from SALIL GEWALI

#11

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;35506]One test of a true religion is whether it matches with science and Hinduism passes that test with flying colours.
[/QUOTE]

Please explain to me how the Bhagavad Gita lines up with acience

#12

Much of Judeo/Christian teaching is not to be taken literally. One must reflect on them in order to find the truth within. I find it ironic that, in an age where many people from Christian backgrounds have come to accept many of the teachings coming from India as compatible with their own beliefs, that the main proponent of the “most tolerant religion” is still engaging in the same old “my religion is better than yours” crap. True spiritual leaders all recognize the value of unity and finding common ground.

#13

There is no common ground between Hinduism and Abrahmic religions. Hinduism is vastly superior.

#14

It is absolutely clear then to see that Hinduism makes Abrahamic religions look primitive and stupid.

As long as you continue to engage in this type of ignorant, arrogant, and offensive remark, no one is going to listen to anything you have to say. I could, in fact, demonstrate common ground with quotations from the Bible, but I’m not going to waste my time with a pig-headed ass like you.

#15

dear sd,
im also hindu which teaches tolerance to all religions
god is one sages call him variously- is the taching of vedas
how could u call any religion stupid implying its follower are also stupid
seeing your posts i thought u are spritual and quite advanced at that.
i once saw it written somewhere- one must have knowledge like underwear but musn’t flaunt it.
not done sd.

rk

#16

www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html Nice article in “Nature” about science and belief in God.

I agree with Asuri whole heartedly that if one continues to engage in arrogant offensive remarks, no one will listen. The forums are about sharing listening and learning from each other. That’s why I joined! No one likes to be called stupid. No one likes their religious beliefs called stupid or new age fluff. Prasad so simply and eloquently stated what we have been trying to show Surya. Hinduism teaches tolerance. Tolerance has not been shown to people on this forum when they have a differing opinion than SD. They have been constantly put down and shot down as they "couldn’t win the debate. This is not yoga. And it’s certainly not Hinduism. SD, you are very intelligent and we can learn much from you. We don’t have to be Hindu to learn and appreciate.

To Techne…thanks for trying to get an honest discussion going. Appreciated!

#17

[QUOTE=Asuri;35600]As long as you continue to engage in this type of ignorant, arrogant, and offensive remark, no one is going to listen to anything you have to say. I could, in fact, demonstrate common ground with quotations from the Bible, but I’m not going to waste my time with a pig-headed ass like you.[/QUOTE]

I believe the ultimate motive of the poster is to provoke this reaction from even the most tolerant individuals like yourself. I have noticed a pattern where a well-meaning member wishing to be a part of intellectual debate is lured from the path of discussion into the weedy brush of argument and trapped there. Then, another unsuspecting and well-meaning member is ensnared and led down the same path.

My roommate at art school had a sign on his door “Warning: Pragmatist inside. Enter at your own risk”. At least he was honest.

#18

[QUOTE=prasad;35601]dear sd,
im also hindu which teaches tolerance to all religions
god is one sages call him variously- is the taching of vedas
how could u call any religion stupid implying its follower are also stupid
seeing your posts i thought u are spritual and quite advanced at that.
i once saw it written somewhere- one must have knowledge like underwear but musn’t flaunt it.
not done sd.

rk[/QUOTE]

I am grateful for your post, and look forward to hearing more about Hinduism from your perspective. Namaste

#19

Namaste, Surya Deva.

This forum lacks the space to seriously do a comparative analysis.
Hinduism is just more suitable for today’s mind greatly influenced by the rational approach of science.

Indeed as it has been pointed out, for todays scientific thought nothing is less alien than that of the resurrection of the body. And to make things more complicated, according to Paul: if Christ did no rise, in vane it is our faith. We must underline this, without belief in the ressurction of Christ, there is no christian religion and faith. This is the basis of christianiy, and if one does not believe in this, one can’t rightfully be called a christian, simple as that.

Great is this chasm, but there is a bridge to it. I can’t say more but everyone has the chance to build it for oneself. Just be honest with yourselves (don’t neglect others), and be what you are.

Hindusim needs the light and penetrating power of scientific thought, and it will shine like never before, if it can avoid the traps of materialism. And when it will be able to relate to, comprehend and teach the Living Christ, than it will become the universal religion of all human kind.

Christainity as an organised religion, on the other hand will risk becoming too ritualistic, and exoteric unless it can embrace the truth about reincarnation and, unless it will be able to shed it’s materialst conceptions and fixation on the man Jesus.

Than again none will cry for old garments when they will know grace, power and life in their own hearts.

#20

[QUOTE=prasad;35601]dear sd,
im also hindu which teaches tolerance to all religions
god is one sages call him variously- is the taching of vedas
how could u call any religion stupid implying its follower are also stupid
seeing your posts i thought u are spritual and quite advanced at that.
i once saw it written somewhere- one must have knowledge like underwear but musn’t flaunt it.
not done sd.

rk[/QUOTE]

Namaste Prasad, Hindusim as a tolerant religion needs to explained, because this notion is very misinterpreted, by Hindus themselves. I hear so many Hindus telling Christians, Muslims and Jews that they do not have be Hindus, they just have to be good Christians, Muslims and Jews. Yet, most of the time these Hindus do not realise what a good Muslim and Christian is. If they did they would never give such advise. A good Muslim is one who believes that all non-Muslim people are condemned, that they are inferior beings and deserve to be slain, tortured and enslaved(Read the Quran and the Hadiths to verify what I just said) A good Christian is somebody who believes that they are the chosen ones to lead the rest of the world who are all condemned and must be saved by making them accept Jesus and get a baptism.

You are lucky that many Christians, especially Muslims are not faithful to their religion, otherwise they would be a terror on you. History will not forget what the Christians and Muslims have done to the religions of other people, even if people themselves forget.

Tolerance does not mean masking the truth so that others do not get offended. Do you know the number of Hindus that have been killed by Muslims is estimated to be about 50 million. Do you know how many tens of millions of Hindus were killed by the British? Do you know of the massacre of the Australian aborignes, Native Americans? These people have been virtually exterminated by these religions you are protecting from my words.

Hinduism is not tolerant towards adharma. Read the Hindu texts they explicitly mention the demon religions of people outside India, that the Hindus called asura or mlecchas. Krishna explicitly says that he himself incarnates to destroy adharma.

Please tell me why should we Hindus be tolerant of religions that call us condemned and have historically persecuted us, butchered us in cold blood?