|
|
I got three questions on Hinduism-related issues for you Barney. So please do the needful and answer them.
1. From where cometh the origins of the humiliating caste system?
2. From whence originates the Vedic and Brahmanic customs ?
3. From whence comes the origins of wife burning, bride burning and widow burning?
Thank you Barney. I know you will breeze through the above with much ease.
ARI FUZZMAN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by Debmey at 15-10-2006 11:31 PM
185 AD huh? Hardly contemporaries of Jesus.
These people, if they do exists, face the very same problem as Muslims. How do they explain their cointradiction with Roman, Jewish and Christian records of the 1st century?
How to take accurate stories from the romans & jews even in the bible itself (john 19/luke 23/mark 15/matthew 27) tells contradiction about the event?
1) different stories about who's carrying the cross. Jesus himself or Simon from Cyrene
2) The robbers who were crucified alongside Jesus are also described differently, as are Jesus' last words.
3) Other gospels maintain that there was a "ceremony of bread and wine" at the Last Supper of Jesus and his disciples. Yet John never mentions this. Instead, he makes an entirely different claim that the disciples washed his feet as an expression of love and respect.
4) In regard to Jesus' arrest. According to other gospels, Judas gave Jesus up by indicating him to the Romans, but according to John, Jesus gave himself up.
5) According to Matthew, the disciples all fled, with only Peter watching Jesus from afar. Mark describes the odd detail of how only "a young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment" watched Jesus, and how he was caught but freed himself from the garment and escaped. Like Matthew, Luke writes that only Peter watched Jesus. John, on the other hand, writes that Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus.
6) Who judged Jesus are also different. The other gospels describe how he was tried by the Jewish Supreme Court . According to John, Jesus was tried by the high priest that time.
7) Jesus description of answer to the question of the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, also described very differently. According to the other gospels, Jesus made no reply to the accusations made against him by Pilate, merely saying "Yes, it is as you say," when asked if he was the king of the Jews. John, on the other hand, says that Jesus made a long reply to Pilate, in a detailed statement saying, "My kingdom is not of this world |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All stories from different sources said teh same thing abt the cricifixion.
The same question still applies, on what basis sdoes islam qualify? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by Debmey at 16-10-2006 02:32 AM
All stories from different sources said teh same thing abt the cricifixion.
The same question still applies, on what basis sdoes islam qualify?
nope.
some verses say he was crucified on a cross,some other verse says on a tree.. :gila: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A cross is made from a tree and all of them including Roman and Jewsih sources said Jesus was cricified.
Where is teh basis of the Muslim version of teh story? What do muslims have to back up their claims? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fussman,
[code1. From where cometh the origins of the humiliating caste system?[/code]
The Caste System or varna-ashrama has been one of the most misrepresented, misinformed, misunderstood, misused and the most maligned aspects of Hinduism. If one wants to understand the truth, the original purpose behind the caste system, one must go to antiquity to study the evolution of the caste system. Caste System, which is said to be the mainstay of the Hindu social order, has no sanction in the Vedas. The ancient culture of India was based upon a system of social diversification according to SPIRITUAL development, not by birth, but by his karma. This system became hereditary and over the course of many centuries degenerated as a result of exploitation by some priests, and other socio-economic elements of society. Caste system has been exploited against the Hindus, for the last two centuries by the British, Christian Missionaries, Secular historians, Communists, Muslims, Pre and Post-Independence Indian politicians and Journalists for their own ends. One way to discredit any system is to highlight its excesses, and this only adds to the sense of inferiority that many Indians feel about their own culture. Caste system is often portrayed as the ultimate horror, in the media, yet social inequities continue to persist in theoretically Egalitarian Western Societies. The Caste system is judged offensive by the Western norms, yet racial groups have been isolated, crowded into reserves like the American Indians or Australian Aborigines, where they can only atrophy and disappear.
Manu Smrti is a sociological treatise and not a religious or theological work. It has never been held on par with the Vedas and has never been claimed to be a Holy Book whose authority is unquestionable. Manu Smrti does not deal with the Absolute, a field specialized in by the Upanishads. Manu Smrti is as this-worldly as the Arthasastra is. Manu was also only a Codifier (Documenter of the then-existing codes) of the Caste System and was not to be interpreted as the creator of the Caste System. Only the British administrators and jurists who dominated the scene since 1757 found it expedient for their purposes to present it as a religious code binding all the Hindus. The original text of Manu Smrti has been tampered with is acknowledged by Sir William Jones who introduced it as the law book of the Hindus, as he agrees that ' it is accommodated to the improvements of a commercial age'. The extant text of Manu Smrti is a doctored version, doctored to benefit the commercial class of Britain which had sponsored the East India Company, the company for which he was serving as a judge at Calcutta."
Manu made it clear that superiority is not by birth but by Conduct. This Principle was further emphasized later by Maharishi Veda Vyasa in Mahabharata. Manu himself says that if there is anything in his Smriti which is not acceptable to the conscience of any person, that person should reject it and act according to his/her own conscience.
"Just as a wooden toy elephant cannot be real elephant, and a stuffed deer cannot be a real deer, so, without studying scriptures and the Vedas and the development of intellect, a Brahmin by birth cannot be considered a Brahmin. "
- Manu Smriti 11 - 157).
[code]2. From whence originates the Vedic and Brahmanic customs ?
The Vedas were not authored by human beings but transmited to sages by GOD. Centuries later came Sage Vyasa who compiled the Vedas and the Mahabaratha. The Bramanic custom as you call it is a way of life a Bramin should souduct his life. It is no diffeent from what the syariah dictates Muslim follower how to be a Muslim. But than in Hinduism everything goes through changes of time but the basic tenants stay unified.
[code]3. From whence comes the origins of wife burning, bride burning and widow burning?
Wife burning which is known as SUTEE is not prescribed in the Vedas or any or our religious scriptures. To say sutee is part of Hinduism, is like saying Salem witsh hunt and Spanish killing of Mayans has to do with teachings of Jesus Christ.
Rajputs lived in Northwestern parts of India. Rajputs was a very fanatical Hindu tribes who practiced very strict MONOGAMY and at the same time in constant wars with Moslems. Rajputs lost many young men in wars and they had a big population of very young widows. Moslems were also in the same plight and to took care of the problem of young widows running around the country, prophet Mohamad encouraged POLYGAMY, which alowed Muslim men to marry more than one wife. That code of allowing men to marry four wives at the same time, is part of Koran. Unluckily, Hindu codes did not address that issue. So, Rajputs took an easy route of disposing very attractive very young widows in the form of Sutee. The actual word for sutee is Jauhar. Jauhar (sometimes spelt jowhar) was originally the voluntary death on a funeral pyre of the royal womenfolk and children of defeated Rajput castles in order to avoid capture, dishonour and conversion to Islam. The term is extended to describe the occasional practice of mass suicide carried out in medieval times by Rajput women, or by entire Rajput communities, when the fall of a besieged city was certain.
Jauhar was limited to the Kshatriya caste named Rajputs, who formed the upper and ruling classes and castes of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. The Rajputs were the fighting warrior caste of this area. The remainder of the people, who were generally Brahmins and the lower castes, did not participate in the practice. In some cases, such as with Chittaurgarh in 1568 the victorious Mughal invaders put the entire remaining population of thirty thousand souls to death.
So pease do not just read the Muslimonline anti-Hindu propagand website to counter Islamic atrocities against Hinduism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by Debmey at 16-10-2006 11:31 AM
A cross is made from a tree
why dont we call our tables "trees",then? since they are made from wood.
or how about paper?can we call them trees,as well? :lol
your reason cant be used,find something else
Originally posted by Debmey at 16-10-2006 11:31 AM
all of them including Roman and Jewsih sources said Jesus was cricified.
wrong.
According to the documentary film, "Banned from the Bible", on the History Channel, some of Saint Peter's apocalypse were banned from the current Bible, and these Epistles contain what Islam claims - that Jesus didn't get crucified on the cross and it only appeared that he was. This banned part also says that Jesus was standing next to the cross laughing. These are the parts of the Bible that only few people in the world know about.
and:
Hebrews 5
7 During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.
Originally posted by Debmey at 16-10-2006 11:31 AM
Where is teh basis of the Muslim version of teh story? What do muslims have to back up their claims?
you mean Jesus not being crucified,but saved by God Almighty?
The Quran,and common sense.
a god dying to save humanity makes no sense at all...use your brains,dude..
faith can only get you so far
a question for you,debmey:
Why, for thousands of years, did none of God's prophets teach his people about the Trinity? At the least, would Jesus not use his ability as the Great Teacher to make the Trinity clear to his followers? Would God inspire hundreds of pages of Scripture and yet not use any of this instruction to teach the Trinity if it were the "central doctrine" of faith? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by Mgsrulz at 16-10-2006 11:50 AM
why dont we call our tables "trees",then? since they are made from wood.
or how about paper?can we call them trees,as well?
wr ...
Why not?
Its simple. The language of the times calls it that way though the meaning is the same.
a question for you,debmey:
Why, for thousands of years, did none of God's prophets teach his people about the Trinity? At the least, would Jesus not use his ability as the Great Teacher to make the Trinity clear to his followers? Would God inspire hundreds of pages of Scripture and yet not use any of this instruction to teach the Trinity if it were the "central doctrine" of faith?
They did. The word for God was plural in the Old Testament.
Allah wasn't taught in any of the scriptures though.
The question still stands. all contemporary records corroborate on teh crucuifixion of Jesus. What is the basis of the muslim claim on the story? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[quote]Originally posted by hERICtic_algon at 16-10-2006 01:50 PM
Why was Jesus |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by Debmey at 16-10-2006 01:16 PM
Why not?
Its simple. The language of the times calls it that way though the meaning is the same.
:lol
you'd say anything to defend your error filled holy book...
calling a table "tree"... wow,debmey... just wow... :lol
Originally posted by Debmey at 16-10-2006 01:16 PM
They did. The word for God was plural in the Old Testament.
read this:
[quote]"As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, 慓ood Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by Debmey at 16-10-2006 02:05 PM
Did you repent and did you get baptised? Do you understand the significance of baptism? If ist so easy, why don't you do it?
is it really needed?:hmm:
Let us look at the following verses about baptism:
"I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. (From the NIV Bible, Mark 1:8)"
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (From the NIV Bible, Mark 16:16)"
The practice of baptism today is done by literally dipping a person into a small pool of water. The point from it is not to physically clean him from body sweat and odor, but rather to symbolically show that he had been spiritually purified or sanctified, and to sort of mark a date and time of him being "born again".
Let us see how Paul nullified and contradicted the point of baptism:
1 Corinthians 7:10-16:
10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.
11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.
13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.
14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.
16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
Paul considered disbelieving husbands who are married to believing wives as purified/sanctified and holy. Their children too are considered as such even if they turn out to be disbelievers.
Anyone here must ask the simple question: If the disbelieving husband becomes a believer and embraces the polytheist trinity paganism, then given the fact that he had already been purified through his physical marriage, would he still have to be purified through the physical baptism? As we saw above, the whole point from baptism is to give sanctification. Now, if the disbelieving husband had already been sanctified through his marriage, then what is the point from sanctifying him again? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mgsrulz wrote: Anyone here must ask the simple question: If the disbelieving husband becomes a believer and embraces the polytheist trinity paganism, then given the fact that he had already been purified through his physical marriage, would he still have to be purified through the physical baptism? As we saw above, the whole point from baptism is to give sanctification. Now, if the disbelieving husband had already been sanctified through his marriage, then what is the point from sanctifying him again?
- Easy. The context of the verse clearly tell us the meaning of marriage in the bible, that God blessed the union of a man and a woman as one flesh. Not about redemption or salvation. If the unbelieving husband or wife, and in union with a believer, the husband or wife gets God's blessings. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because if you were to pay for your own sins, there is no way you will make heaven.
What you call a "sin" is simply behavior that humans have come to accept as counterproductive to the smooth, efficient operation of a society. If large groups of people are to live together in harmony, there must be rules--written or oral--to ensure everyone's safety. At some point in our distant history, the more opportunistic persons probably came upon the idea that if people did not obey these rules, the sun (or sun-god) would withhold its warmth and would not return in the spring, or some such nonsense. It wasn't much of a leap for these persons to set themselves up as representing the sun-god on Earth, as being his spokesmen; they called the anti-social behavior "sins" and said that to commit one would anger the sun-god, and if that happened, they would need to come to the god-representative to regain the sun-god's favor. This ensured that the god-representatives--later called priests, rabbis, pastors, popes, etc.--gained power over the lesser members of society. Since people are social animals, like horses, monkeys, and cattle, it was easy for them to follow the god-representatives, blindly trusting their opinions.
Thus, religion was born, and now we have one of the most prolific religions telling us that if we "sin," we need to be "redeemed" or else the god will not take us up into the pretty, blue sky (where the beautiful sun is) to live with him forever. But of course, we are not as miraculous and amazing as the (sun)god, so we must follow a bunch of rules in order to gain his favor. Breaking the rules is called "sin," and instead of being a reference merely to anti-social behavior--such as murder, rape, genocide, etc.--it refers to any random activity that the god-representatives decide the god doesn't like, such as eating pork, wearing too much make-up, not honoring a specific weekday as holy, going to the wrong church, belonging to the wrong religion, thinking lustful thoughts, and so on. Basically, a "sin" is anything that someone labelled as such a long time ago and then wrote it in a book for everyone else to read.
You know, writing it all out like that just makes the whole idea of sin, redemption, and dying-resurrecting-coming-again saviors quite ridiculous. I don't feel any need to worship the sun, the moon, the stars, or the Zodiac. I mean, they're very pretty, but I don't think they'll stop coming 'round just because I commit some act that some long-dead priest said was wrong. You know?
Did you repent and did you get baptised? Do you understand the significance of baptism? If ist so easy, why don't you do it?
Because it is a stupid, primitive ritual observed by primitive people believing in a primitive religion. Btw, if baptism is for the remission of "sins," then why was Jesus baptised? He was sinless, according to Christian myth, yet he was baptised to have his sins remitted?
How does that verse prove that Jesus was a false prophet?
He wasn't buried for 3 days AND 3 nights.
He went thru the suffering for you.
No, he went through suffering because he was a traitor under Roman law. Now a sacrifice entails a loss. A man who sacificed a goat lost his goat, he was the poorer for his sacrifice -- thus the meaning of the word. What did Jesus lose? How was Jesus the poorer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by hERICtic_algon at 17-10-2006 09:09 AM
What you call a "sin" is simply behavior that humans have come to accept as counterproductive to the smooth, efficient operation of a society. If large groups of people are to live together in harmony, there must be rules--written or oral--to ensure everyone's safety. At some point in our distant history, the more opportunistic persons probably came upon the idea that if people did not obey these rules, the sun (or sun-god) would withhold its warmth and would not return in the spring, or some such nonsense. It wasn't much of a leap for these persons to set themselves up as representing the sun-god on Earth, as being his spokesmen; they called the anti-social behavior "sins" and said that to commit one would anger the sun-god, and if that happened, they would need to come to the god-representative to regain the sun-god's favor. This ensured that the god-representatives--later called priests, rabbis, pastors, popes, etc.--gained power over the lesser members of society. Since people are social animals, like horses, monkeys, and cattle, it was easy for them to follow the god-representatives, blindly trusting their opinions.
You sin right? What makes you think you don't need to pay for your sins?
Thus, religion was born, and now we have one of the most prolific religions telling us that if we "sin," we need to be "redeemed" or else the god will not take us up into the pretty, blue sky (where the beautiful sun is) to live with him forever. But of course, we are not as miraculous and amazing as the (sun)god, so we must follow a bunch of rules in order to gain his favor. Breaking the rules is called "sin," and instead of being a reference merely to anti-social behavior--such as murder, rape, genocide, etc.--it refers to any random activity that the god-representatives decide the god doesn't like, such as eating pork, wearing too much make-up, not honoring a specific weekday as holy, going to the wrong church, belonging to the wrong religion, thinking lustful thoughts, and so on. Basically, a "sin" is anything that someone labelled as such a long time ago and then wrote it in a book for everyone else to read.
You don't believe God exist? So why do you pray?
You know, writing it all out like that just makes the whole idea of sin, redemption, and dying-resurrecting-coming-again saviors quite ridiculous. I don't feel any need to worship the sun, the moon, the stars, or the Zodiac. I mean, they're very pretty, but I don't think they'll stop coming 'round just because I commit some act that some long-dead priest said was wrong. You know?
You don't need to bow down to an object or planet, you just need to worship God and know Him.
Because it is a stupid, primitive ritual observed by primitive people believing in a primitive religion.
So what is a modern religion to you? What do you worship?
Btw, if baptism is for the remission of "sins," then why was Jesus baptised? He was sinless, according to Christian myth, yet he was baptised to have his sins remitted?
Who said baptism is for the remission of sins? Please show us.
Didn't you read the Bible as to why Jesus was baptised when it is all written there? sorry tommy boy but allah just doesn't cut it.
He wasn't buried for 3 days AND 3 nights.
How does that verse prove that Jesus was not a false prophet? Please expalin clearly so we can understand you.
No, he went through suffering because he was a traitor under Roman law. Now a sacrifice entails a loss. A man who sacificed a goat lost his goat, he was the poorer for his sacrifice -- thus the meaning of the word. What did Jesus lose? How was Jesus the poorer?
The Romans didn't find him guilty of anything, you think you are smarter than the Romans in enforcing their laws?
Jesus went thru the suffering.
Do you mind going thru painful suffering since you don't lose anything? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You sin right? What makes you think you don't need to pay for your sins?
Of course I do not sin, Debmey. I may occasionally commit some questionable act, such a cussing like a drunken sailor on shore leave (and I'm not even drunk!), but I do not sin. If you would have bothered to read what I wrote, you would see that sin is a religious concept dreamed up by people who wanted more control over the masses.
You don't believe God exist? So why do you pray?
I don't pray. Praying is wishing, and as Mr. Rogers once said, "No kinds of wishes can make things come true."
You don't need to bow down to an object or planet, you just need to worship God and know Him.
Your god is a sun-god, like most others. People used to worship the sun, moon, and stars, and later personified them in order to try and comprehend them better. This is how myths and religion got started.
So what is a modern religion to you? What do you worship?
I worship nothing and nobody. There is no god that man has ever invented that is worthy of that much attention.
Who said baptism is for the remission of sins? Please show us.
Didn't you read the Bible as to why Jesus was baptised when it is all written there? sorry tommy boy but allah just doesn't cut it.
Who is tommy? and who care if allah just doesn't cut.
Mark 1:4
John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Luke 3:3
And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;
Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
How does that verse prove that Jesus was not a false prophet? Please expalin clearly so we can understand you.
Jesus made a comparison between himself and Jonah, saying that just as Jonah was in the whale's belly for 3 days and 3 nights, so he would be buried for 3 days and 3 nights, and then rise from the dead. (Matt. 12:39-40) Friday sundown to Sunday sunrise is not 3 days and 3 nights, no matter how you count it. Jesus did not fulfill his own prophecy.
The Romans didn't find him guilty of anything, you think you are smarter than the Romans in enforcing their laws?
Jesus went thru the suffering.
Do you mind going thru painful suffering since you don't lose anything?
What's the big deal about his suffering? A few hours of agony, then he came back from the grave, chatted with his homeboys, and floated away to heaven to live the rest of eternity in bliss. The Jews, Poles, Gypsies, and many others in Hitler's era suffered far worse horrors than Jesus did, and none of them got to float up to heaven afterwards. What did Jesus lose? What did he sacrifice? Such a silly story, anyway. God could have forgiven everyone in the world, and caused all suffering, starvation, disease, etc. to disappear at the snap of his fingers, but he went through all this idiocy with a human sacrifice to save people through bloodshed and violence. Aren't children taught that violence doesn't solve problems, it only makes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh I see, so you believe there is no God.
How do you know there is no God? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by Debmey at 18-10-2006 08:56 AM
Oh I see, so you believe there is no God.
How do you know there is no God?
I might change my mind, if children like this are suddenly and miraculously saved from death. If there is a god, it appears he was more concerned about giving the vulture a meal than saving an innocent person's life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hERICtic_algon,
You can only find the answer to this in Hinduism. Karma is at play my friend. No one I mean no one, not even an atheist can escape KARMA. For every action there is a reaction. The result of it is what you see today. GOD does not punish a sinner. HE does not put you in hellfire of send you to paradise for your good deeds. HE is only and observer like a mother watching a child a play. If the child falls she would wait for the child to get up on his own. Only if the child is unable to do so would she come to lift it. THat's how GOD works his miracles. You commit sins and you'd pay for it. Life itself is a mystery but some thing they no all about it. I do not mean you but some fanatics who think they no more than anybody else. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by hERICtic_algon at 18-10-2006 09:56 AM
I might change my mind, if children like this are suddenly and miraculously saved from death. If there is a god, it appears ...
How does that prove God does not exist? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Post time 16-10-2006 01:40 AM
Author
