Radcliffe Emerson

Christians DO believe people in any other religion are going to hell, because that's what their bible teaches. ANYONE who does not accept Christ goes to hell, thus anyone who is not Christian.
My parents believe I'm going to hell now because I attend a Unitarian Universalist church.
Granted, liberal Christians may not completely believe in the bible, and thus not think hell is the destination of non-Christians, but the core Christian faith by definition teaches it is the only correct path and everyone else is condemned.
Liberal Christians by the way, are not considered true Christians by orthodox/fundamental faiths that still believe the bible is the word of god.

Primal

Hinduwomen: Hinduism is polytheistic, there are Gods like Shiva, and Krishta in it. How can you be an atheist and believe in God's?

A Hindu atheist makes no more sense a Xian atheist.

I am actually somewhat supsicious of your posts, I believe if a liberal Xian (lets say a Unitarian-Universalist) went to India, he could easily mislead people about what it means to be a Xian. He could say that he is an atheist Xian, and that the so-called idea of the Trinity, God, creationism and hell is held onto by only a small minority of fundmentalists in the US.

A world religions professor who visited India told me in Hunduism, Maya means "illusion".

And also Hinduism can get just as abusive as fundamentalist Xianity, the caste system, racism (some Hindus believe that only people of India can be Hindu's, hence non-Indians are not "real Hindus" and are not allowed in certain Temples), the militant vegetarianism that is almost missionary (Yes I am aware of the "for every hair on that cow's head you will live ten thousand lives" speech), arranged marriages, sexism (women cannot reach Moksha according to some Hindus and must obey their husbands as illustrated in the story of Ramma) and the idea of placing a cow's well-being above a human's: that's ridiculous to say the least. Little known fact: you can be murdered for taking a picture at a Hindu funeral, how's that for abusive?

I'm not so naive as to believe that just because a religion cropt up in a different area that it's members are all nice and cheery. I see some Xians pull the same stunt here, I'm sure Hindus are just as willing to dress their religion up for ignorant Western audiances.

As I often say: A superstition by any other name smells just as sour.

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]</p>

never been there

Don't say "beef" to a Hindu.

Primal

LOL NBT.

brighid

Primal,

From what I know of Hinduwoman, she is cultural Hindu and atheist by choice of reason. She understands Hinduism because of her cultural upbringing, and therefore can argue against the erroneous and arrogant comments Christians make about Hinduism. I think a good analogy is those men and women who are Jewish by culture, and atheist, or agnostic by choice.

I don't think it is wrong for her to defend her countrymen and women, and clarify the nature of Hinduism and the Gods and Goddesses of that religion to those Westerners who are completely ignorant of the philosophy, culture and theology of Hinduism. Nor does her defense of that religion to Christian theists, who have invaded her country and who are harming it's culture, an equivocation to accepting the Hindu pantheon as REAL.

But then again, Hinduwoman is capable of speaking for herself

Brighid

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>

GeoTheo

Gimmie a break. Religious freedom corrupts culture? If a "culture" can be corrupted by people being able to choose their own religion then that culture should be corrupted. I happen to be of the opinion that this is what Christian Reconstructionists are whining about in the US.
They say "Our Christian Nation is being destroyed!" Fundamentalist Hindus in India are saying the same thing. "Our Hindu Nation is being destroyed!"
How are they being "destroyed"?
In both cases, by people who do not hold to the beliefs of the religious establishment.
Christianity did not invade India. The Brits did.
They brought Christianity with them, but now Christianity is there among the Nationals by choice. If no one in India thought it held any appeal to them it would have left with the Brits.It is spread by the nationals. So obviously Christianity has value to some Indians.
If this changes the culture, Oh well.
Indians have as much a right to change their culture as Americans do ours. It is just a religious turf war. Their are similar turf wars between Moslems and Hindus over the supposed birthplace of Ram, believed top have been the incarnation of the God Vishnu.
Any culture that can be destroyed by freedom needs to be destroyed. In a free society people get to choose their own religious beliefs.

Primal

Brig: Brig I wouldn't be so presumptuous, what makes you think I'm ok with people who claim to be atheist but "culturally Jewish", if they mean they are atheists who adhere to Judaism; I'd say that was hogwash.

There is nothing wrong about defending one's-self against false charges, but if one is going to be disgenuine and try to even refute charges that hit the mark there is a problem. That's more or less a "my culture, right or wrong" type aproach. Also I don't see how criticism or debate is equivalent to an "invation".

Such a viewpoint could be used to defend the most reactionary positions against free inquiry. Fundies can likewise make a simliar defense here. Culture like all other matters is open to criticism especially when it causes harm and spreads falsehoods.

never been there

I think the case could be made that Christianity and Islam have corrupted Hinduism. I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable on the subject to make the case, but it is conceivable that hindutva aka Hindu fundamentalism is not native to India but is an aping of foreign fundamentalism.

I do tend to suspect, myself, that the lower
varna (not quite the same as caste) are attracted to the prostelytizing faiths for the perfectly obvious reason, which also leads to a suspicion that the Shiv Sena and their ilk are a bunch of (relatively) rich b**tards motivated by a desire to maintain their favoured position in a stratified society.

brighid

GeoTheo –

I have no problem with freedom of religion and religious competition in the “marketplace” so to speak. I do have a problem with missionaries, be they Christian or otherwise. However, the message of Christianity and the “sanitizing” of other cultures and religions for the purpose of domination and control is what I have a problem with. Missionaries uses lies and deceit in order to win converts. The distort the cultural and theological aspects of every non-Christian society and claim these people are barbaric and should give up their culture and religion. Christianity has almost always destroyed the indigenous cultures and religions of every place it brings the “Good Word” to. As long as Christian Missionaries use lies and deceit as their modus operandi, or any other religious or political missionary – I find it wrong. Especially because of the commandment against baring false witness on part of the Judeo-Christian God and because lies and deceitful behavior are unethical in any sense.

Primal –

You are entitled to have a problem with people who adhere to their cultural roots but who are also atheist. Your opinion on the matter does not however make it correct. Attending religious ceremonies, or retaining the cultural aspects of ones heritage that are intricately woven with religious undertones does not make someone a trader to their lack of belief in a God. Just as it is not improper for an atheist to attend Christmas festivities with family, or to engage in other familial traditions that have roots in a religion. Nor is it improper to defend that culture because it has heavy religious undertones OR to correct theists who erroneously, for the purposes of furthering their own faith, interpret the philosophical, cultural and theological aspects of said society or it’s members.

I agree that these things are open to criticism, but it doesn’t appear that you are criticizing a religious point of view or otherwise but rather you are criticizing Hinduwoman as an individual. That is what I have challenged you on. Free inquiry is absolutely necessary to the enlightenment of mankind.

Christians aren’t there to criticize from the point of view of bettering a society. Just as has been done in every culture they have destroyed (see American Indians and Hawaiians) they are there to dominate and eradicate anything that does not conform to their religious point of view and with devastating affect. If Christianity wasn’t just another myth and it was actually there to further the intellectual and human development of the people it seeks to convert, while allowing the cultural aspects of that society to remain intact in viable ways – perhaps it wouldn’t be an invasion… or perhaps a better description is a parasitical infestation. Christianity isn’t there to liberate the people from suffering, poverty, ignorance or otherwise. It’s ultimate purpose to gain “souls” for their power structure.

I do not agree with much of the Hindu structure of society, but I can't even begin to speak of those subjects because I am barely educated on the specifics of that culture, etc. to criticize it at this point in time. No doubt, as with every society, there is room for improvement. This does not mean that I am in favor of replacing on egregious system with another, simply because it is the "favored" system of my country. I am in favor of replacing the aspects of any society that harm the humanity and shackle any member of society with superstitions that harm that individual and society at large.

SO, if you would like to criticize the social structure and problems you see in the Hindu society please do so.


Brighid

GeoTheo

Care to back up these baseless assertions or am I to believe Christian missionaries win converts through lies and deciet merely because you say they do? Also you seem to make no distinction between missionaries and Imperialists. I am to believe all American settlers were missionaries?
All Brits that took over India were missionaries?
So no one tries to win converts merely because they really believe the gospel and want to spread it to all people. All missionaries just want domination and control. And you can prove this how?
BTW are you of the opinion that primitive South American tribes should be preserved in wildlife preserves as if they were some rare species of wildlife? Should their illiteracy, short lifespans and high infant mortality be preserved or should we "shove our culture down their throats" by providing basic medical care and literacy that would enable them to be able to participate in the 21st century?