[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I would think it is self evident from his posts. He takes the view that Osama’s brand of Islam is the real Islam and that more moderate versions are not supported by the Koran. I don’t know if he is entirely correct but he has many good points. [/quote]
Don’t the practitioners get to decide what the “real” Islam is? Couldn’t one easily say that all non-Catholics are not “real” Christians? That any and all killers are not “real” Christians?
And couldn’t one also say that many murderers are “real” Christians?
It does not matter what one random person can extract from a Holy Book and say it supports this and that, the religion is what it’s practitioners practice. And in that way, Islam is just as disgusting AND just as harmless as a whole as Christianity (all kinds), Hinduism, Shinto, Buddhism, all Paganism, ect ad infinitum.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
ritual slaughter performed by the Incan people in praise of their non-existent sun god?
Have you made this mistake?[/quote]
Wooooow ignorance =D
Someone’s been watching a bit too much Apocalypto.
Sacrifices were almost always POW’s or high level criminals and they weren’t sacrificed to the sun god. Not to say that made it right but calling it “ritual slaughter” is being overly dramatic.
And to call the sun-god nonexistent is to call all gods non-existent. Making sure we’re clear on this.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
When you claim that something is wrong, what impels you to make the claim? I’m curious.
[/quote]
Human conscience filtered through a few layers of human logic.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I would think it is self evident from his posts. He takes the view that Osama’s brand of Islam is the real Islam and that more moderate versions are not supported by the Koran. I don’t know if he is entirely correct but he has many good points.
Don’t the practitioners get to decide what the “real” Islam is? Couldn’t one easily say that all non-Catholics are not “real” Christians? That any and all killers are not “real” Christians?
[/quote]
They often do say that about Catholics.
[quote]
And couldn’t one also say that many murderers are “real” Christians?
It does not matter what one random person can extract from a Holy Book and say it supports this and that, the religion is what it’s practitioners practice. And in that way, Islam is just as disgusting AND just as harmless as a whole as Christianity (all kinds), Hinduism, Shinto, Buddhism, all Paganism, ect ad infinitum.[/quote]
He does a very good job of illustrating exactly where in the Koran it justifies the horrible things done in the name of Islam and far too many Muslims go along with it.
I just read a nice article in my paper about a group of moderate Islamic clerics speaking up against the horrible things done in the name of Islam. Unfortunately they are mercilessly harassed for what they say by other Muslims.
The Islamic world is at war everywhere. Unfortunately it seems to be built in to the religion. Muhammed was a warrior. Jesus was not. Buddha was not.
Absolutely - citing 1 John 3:15
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
And to call the sun-god nonexistent is to call all gods non-existent. Making sure we’re clear on this.[/quote]
Since the beginning of your post contained nothing more than an ad-hominem and no actual argument, we’ll just deal with this… It does not follow that calling one god non-existent = calling all gods non-existent. So yes, I am quite clear, you on the other hand have committed a logical fallacy.
That’s not to say that all gods aren’t non-existent though.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
When you claim that something is wrong, what impels you to make the claim? I’m curious.
Human conscience filtered through a few layers of human logic.[/quote]
What is that supposed to mean?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The Islamic world is at war everywhere. Unfortunately it seems to be built in to the religion. Muhammed was a warrior. Jesus was not. Buddha was not.[/quote]
Wasn’t Buddha ksatriya, a member of the warrior caste?
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The Islamic world is at war everywhere. Unfortunately it seems to be built in to the religion. Muhammed was a warrior. Jesus was not. Buddha was not.
Wasn’t Buddha ksatriya, a member of the warrior caste?[/quote]
That caste included kings and soldiers… Either way it would be inaccurate to describe Buddha as a king or a soldier as he renounced both.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
When you claim that something is wrong, what impels you to make the claim? I’m curious.
Human conscience filtered through a few layers of human logic.
What is that supposed to mean?[/quote]
From where does the judgment that some act is right or wrong come from? I think that’s a good question.
The defendants at Nuremberg claimed that they were innocent because their society told them to do such-and-such. They were condemnned and punished. Why? Is morality decided by majority vote? If their society tells them that something is moral, why were they supposed to ‘know better’?
We are now told that gay marriage is acceptable. What if I disagree? My society has said to allow it, it’s moral. What if in the future my society says that pederasty and bestiality are perfectly acceptable? If we accept that homosexual behavior is fine (because society says so), then we have to accept those things in the future…its a slippery slope.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
From where does the judgment that some act is right or wrong come from? I think that’s a good question.
The defendants at Nuremberg claimed that they were innocent because their society told them to do such-and-such. They were condemnned and punished. Why? Is morality decided by majority vote? If their society tells them that something is moral, why were they supposed to ‘know better’?
We are now told that gay marriage is acceptable. What if I disagree? My society has said to allow it, it’s moral. What if in the future my society says that pederasty and bestiality are perfectly acceptable? If we accept that homosexual behavior is fine (because society says so), then we have to accept those things in the future…its a slippery slope.
[/quote]
If in the future your society decided that duels are ok again, you wouldn’t mind that, would you?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
We are now told that gay marriage is acceptable. What if I disagree? My society has said to allow it, it’s moral. What if in the future my society says that pederasty and bestiality are perfectly acceptable? If we accept that homosexual behavior is fine (because society says so), then we have to accept those things in the future…its a slippery slope.
[/quote]
HH- good stuff. Making us think…
and you can see this with racism and the old folks. My grandparents grew up in a time when “hatin on blacks” was acceptable. …and since this is how they grew up , they still hold the same views/beliefs todays as they did in the 1940s–but they havnt accepted society has changed and that maybe they could be wrong.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
It used to be considered moral by Hindus to burn widows alive on a funeral pyre. The society said it was moral and that the wife’s pain was irrelevant.[/quote]
I’d like to point out, that it was actually the decision of the wife, and coercing her into going through Sati was (and is) a sin. Not many women actually chose to do so.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
warrior caste?[/quote]
In the traditional sense, you were never meant to be BORN into a caste.
Opposition to the caste system:
While the [varna] system was originally evolved for the necessary classification of human duty in order to preserve the organic stability of society, its original meaning and its philosophical foundation was forgotten through the passage of time, and bigotry and fanaticism took its place through the preponderance of egoism, greed and hatred, contrary to the practice of true religion as a social expression of inner spiritual aspiration for a gradual ascent, by stages, to God Almighty. Vidura, famous in the Mahabharata, was born of a Shudra woman. But he had the power to summon the son of Brahma, from Brahmaloka, by mere thought. Which orthodox Brahmin can achieve this astounding feat? It is, therefore, necessary for everyone to have consideration for the facts of world-unity and goodwill, Sarvabhuta-hita, as the great Lord mentions in the Bhagavad Gita. Justice is more than law. No one’s body is by itself a Brahmin, because it is constituted of the five gross elements,- earth, water, fire, air and ether. Else, it would be a sin on the part of a son to consign to flames the lifeless body of a Brahmin father. It is, therefore, not proper to victimise a colleague by an action plan of any religious community wedded to fundamentalist doctrines.
Explanation of the problem:
These were (originally) symbolic designations of the stages of spiritual refinement. They were not intended as social categories. And they were not intended to be hereditary. Things changed as the yugas [cycles of time] descended toward mental darkness. People in the higher [classes] wanted to make sure their children were accepted as members of their own [class]. Thus, ego-identification caused them to freeze the ancient classifications into what is called the �??caste system.�?? Such was not the original intention. In obvious fact, however, the offspring of a brahmin may be a shudra by nature. And a peasant, sometimes, is a real saint
[quote]Makavali wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
warrior caste?
In the traditional sense, you were never meant to be BORN into a caste.
Opposition to the caste system:
While the [varna] system was originally evolved for the necessary classification of human duty in order to preserve the organic stability of society, its original meaning and its philosophical foundation was forgotten through the passage of time, and bigotry and fanaticism took its place through the preponderance of egoism, greed and hatred, contrary to the practice of true religion as a social expression of inner spiritual aspiration for a gradual ascent, by stages, to God Almighty. Vidura, famous in the Mahabharata, was born of a Shudra woman. But he had the power to summon the son of Brahma, from Brahmaloka, by mere thought. Which orthodox Brahmin can achieve this astounding feat? It is, therefore, necessary for everyone to have consideration for the facts of world-unity and goodwill, Sarvabhuta-hita, as the great Lord mentions in the Bhagavad Gita. Justice is more than law. No one’s body is by itself a Brahmin, because it is constituted of the five gross elements,- earth, water, fire, air and ether. Else, it would be a sin on the part of a son to consign to flames the lifeless body of a Brahmin father. It is, therefore, not proper to victimise a colleague by an action plan of any religious community wedded to fundamentalist doctrines.
Explanation of the problem:
These were (originally) symbolic designations of the stages of spiritual refinement. They were not intended as social categories. And they were not intended to be hereditary. Things changed as the yugas [cycles of time] descended toward mental darkness. People in the higher [classes] wanted to make sure their children were accepted as members of their own [class]. Thus, ego-identification caused them to freeze the ancient classifications into what is called the �??caste system.�?? Such was not the original intention. In obvious fact, however, the offspring of a brahmin may be a shudra by nature. And a peasant, sometimes, is a real saint[/quote]
Ok. And when did dalits emerge?
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
And to call the sun-god nonexistent is to call all gods non-existent. Making sure we’re clear on this.
Since the beginning of your post contained nothing more than an ad-hominem and no actual argument, we’ll just deal with this… It does not follow that calling one god non-existent = calling all gods non-existent. So yes, I am quite clear, you on the other hand have committed a logical fallacy.
That’s not to say that all gods aren’t non-existent though.
[/quote]
Wait what? Icans didn’t do any kind of ‘ritual slaughter’ in honor of the sun god. The sun god required no sacrifices. And all sacrifices, which were pretty rare, were convicted criminals or POWs. How is that an ad hominem? You really DO sound like you got your Incan info from Apocalypto, which has A LOT of misleading information.
The Incan Sun-God has an equal amount of proof of existence as any other God. One doesn’t have to prove a negative, and by making the distinction that such things do not exist, you are admitting they all do not exist unless proven otherwise. Unless, of course, you’re taking it on blind faith that one exists while another does not, in which case, logical argument is useless.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Ok. And when did dalits emerge?[/quote]
They were always there. But I assume you refer to the discrimination they face?
The castes did not constitute a rigid description of the occupation or the social status of a group. Since British society was divided by class, the British attempted to equate the Indian caste system to their own social class system. They saw caste as an indicator of occupation, social standing, and intellectual ability. Intentionally or unintentionally, the caste system became more rigid during the British Raj, when the British started to enumerate castes during the ten year census and codified the system under their rule.
Also:
Although many Hindu scriptures contain passages that can be interpreted to sanction the caste system, they also contain indications that the caste system is not an essential part of Hinduism. The Vedas place very little importance on the caste system, mentioning caste only rarely and in a cursory manner. In the Vedic period, there was no prohibition against the Shudras (which later on became the low-castes) listening to the Vedas or participating in any religious rite.
At any rate, the caste system is an anachronistic social practice, and not a religious one. The “lower” classes should never have been termed as such. All the castes have their own function within society. Without one, the others tend to flounder.
Further info:
In Early Evidence for Caste in South India, George L. Hart stated that “the earliest Tamil texts show the existence of what seems definitely to be caste, but which antedates the Brahmins and the Hindu orthodoxy”. He believes that the origins of the caste system can be seen in the “belief system that developed with the agricultural civilization”, and was later profoundly influenced by “the Brahmins and the Brahmanical religion”. These early Tamil texts also outline the concept of equality. Saint Valluvar has stated “pirapokkum ella uyirkkum”, which means “all are equal at birth”. Likewise, Saint Auvaiyaar has stated that there are only two castes in the world: those who contribute positively and those who contribute negatively. From these, it can be inferred that the caste system is more of a socio-economic class system.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
From where does the judgment that some act is right or wrong come from? I think that’s a good question.
The defendants at Nuremberg claimed that they were innocent because their society told them to do such-and-such. They were condemnned and punished. Why? Is morality decided by majority vote? If their society tells them that something is moral, why were they supposed to ‘know better’?
We are now told that gay marriage is acceptable. What if I disagree? My society has said to allow it, it’s moral. What if in the future my society says that pederasty and bestiality are perfectly acceptable? If we accept that homosexual behavior is fine (because society says so), then we have to accept those things in the future…its a slippery slope.
If in the future your society decided that duels are ok again, you wouldn’t mind that, would you?[/quote]
If I believed that the standard of morality was what the majority of people said it was, then I couldn’t dispute what people chose as moral.
Because I believe that morality should be based on human nature, I think that homosexuality, pederasty, bestiality, and all such things are immoral. Sex should be the expression of deep love that a man and a woman have for one another.
I hope it was obvious that I do not believe that, though most of our society does, morality should be founded on a social metaphysic.
Sati was still considered a highly praiseworthy act. The woman redeemed her ancestors out of hell.
“The ritual of sati was banned by the British Government in 1829 (see a timeline of Sati). However, it took a large scale social reforms by Dayanand Saraswati(of Arya Samaj), Mahatma Gandhi and the like to actually stop the practice.”