Modi government likely to bring bill to prevent religious conversion in next Parliament session

[Muloghonto 3,047]

@Alam_dar Kahaan bhaag gaye janaab ???

[Alam_dar 199]

7 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

@Alam_dar Kahaan bhaag gaye janaab ???

 

Sorry if you were waiting. Very busy weekend. 

[Lannister 4,303]

On 1/15/2021 at 11:48 AM, Muloghonto said:

This is what is in effect. They are not under government control because they do not appoint the clergy at churches. 

Stop being such a hindu hater, western wannbe ''atheist'"

They can if that's something they want to do. Stop being such a sore loser, you bengali brahman. 

 

Its one thing if a secular party regulates/ oversees religious cult practices, but it's different when a self-proclaimed Hindu party wants to regulate other faiths. And, rightly so, they shouldn't be trusted. 

 

On 1/15/2021 at 11:48 AM, Muloghonto said:

Because the point is not conversion. Seeking convesion is why your western masters and islamist lovers have killed far more in name of religion than hindus buddhists jains shintos, bon etc combined. 

We will not let the coercive bribing service of conversion racket continue due to democratic right. 

Wait, didn't brahmins used to kill and discriminate people from their own religion? How many buddhists, jains and others had lost their lives in opposing their brutal caste system and forceful conversion? 

 

On 1/15/2021 at 11:48 AM, Muloghonto said:

No. the language that has the best claim is the dominant language of the natives. That is the fundamental right of me, as an Indian citizen, to recognize the majority of my own people. 

We are indian first, kannada or bengali second. Anyone who says otherwise is a traitor to the Dharmic civilization of the Indian subcontinent. 

Hitler had wanted to dominate as well. He and his followers have all been buried deep under the ground. Not sure where do you get this confidence that a mere 3-4 Hindi states can have an authority over 20+ non-Hindi states and face no consequences. Didn't you learn anything from your history? 

 

On 1/15/2021 at 11:48 AM, Muloghonto said:

Too bad basic set theory math is beyond your education level. You do have a core value - you refuse to believe in God. Null set. Every philosopher btw, considers atheism a philosophy. I can even quote Dawkins- ur guru on this. 

Sure quote. And make sure to quote his opinions on christianity as well or the religions in general. 

[Muloghonto 3,047]

Just now, Lannister said:

They can if that's something they want to do. Stop being such a sore loser, you bengali brahman. 
 

except the Roman Catholic clergy isn’t appointed by the Indian govt like the Hindu priests are in temples.

Just now, Lannister said:

 

Its one thing if a secular party regulates/ oversees religious cult practices, but it's different when a self-proclaimed Hindu party wants to regulate other faiths. And, rightly so, they shouldn't be trusted. 
 

it’s government who should regulate the religious bodies of a nation, regardless of which party is in power.

Just now, Lannister said:

 

Wait, didn't brahmins used to kill and discriminate people from their own religion? How many buddhists, jains and others had lost their lives in opposing their brutal caste system and forceful conversion? 
 

Just once in entire Indian history. Regardless of what your western masters have said, there is only one such example in first hand Indian history. 

Just now, Lannister said:

 

Hitler had wanted to dominate as well. He and his followers have all been buried deep under the ground. Not sure where do you get this confidence that a mere 3-4 Hindi states can have an authority over 20+ non-Hindi states and face no consequences. Didn't you learn anything from your history? 
 

if MAJOIRTY of Indians want it, they have the authority to do so. Making a local language the national language is nowhere comparable to hitler, you hindi hating provincial cretin. You already said you would rather have a foreign language than an Indian language. Anti national cretin.

Just now, Lannister said:

 

Sure quote. And make sure to quote his opinions on christianity as well or the religions in general. 

Irrelevant. Who cares what atheist believers think of theist beleivers. They are both idiots.

[Tibarn 3,247]

@Muloghonto @coffee_rules

 

I didn't read the whole thread, just Mulo's posts on the last 1.5 pages, but for your reference:

 

Even Manusmriti says that varna is fluid, ie Shudras can become Brahmins, which is what this verse references 

 

 

[Muloghonto 3,047]

 

10 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Even Manusmriti says that varna is fluid, ie Shudras can become Brahmins, which is what this verse references 

 

 

Well as you can see, my position is fairly simple and consistent : Why should we define a philosophy by its unheard of, fringe elements ??? Manusmriti is a fringe book of the Hindus, elevated by the British. This is said so by westerners themselves, nevermind us, as my citation shows.

Should we define western atheism by any fringe nonsense book we can find on it ? Should we define Greek philosophy by any random unknown greek book ? So why should we do the same for Manusmriti - a book of zero consequence- never followed, hardly ever mentioned by hindus themselves in history, never ever mentioned by those who opposed hindu ideologies ???

 

Our resident western atheist worshipper and ex-muslim @Alam_dar just continues to run away from these simple questions.

[Muloghonto 3,047]

@Tibarn - welcome back. Thanks for singlehandedly raising the IQ of ICF and the potential quality of its posts by at least 10% by returning!

[Tibarn 3,247]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Well as you can see, my position is fairly simple and consistent : Why should we define a philosophy by its unheard of, fringe elements ??? Manusmriti is a fringe book of the Hindus, elevated by the British. This is said so by westerners themselves, nevermind us, as my citation shows.

Should we define western atheism by any fringe nonsense book we can find on it ? Should we define Greek philosophy by any random unknown greek book ? So why should we do the same for Manusmriti - a book of zero consequence- never followed, hardly ever mentioned by hindus themselves in history, never ever mentioned by those who opposed hindu ideologies ???

 

Our resident western atheist worshipper and ex-muslim @Alam_dar just continues to run away from these simple questions.

 

Yes, from what I read, the British, when they first colonized India, in modern day Bengal and Bihar, they looked for any sort of law book to serve as a civil code for the Hindu community in the colony. They struggled to find one as until the Manusmriti, which they then assumed to be some prominent law book for the various Dharmic Panths, literally just because that was the first thing they found.  

It was easier for the British in regards to the Islamic community, as it was pretty clear Sharia was the basis of their legal system, which the British then applied to the Muslim community. 

 

Theoretically, the Manusmriti would only have been relevant during the era it was formulate, I think somewhere between 1000-2000 BCE(You can correct me if I'm wrong there, I don't know the exact date). The assumption that it applied throughout the entirety of our history is to be completely ignorant of actual history. This is especially the case because Manusmriti is only considered the first smriti chronologically. There are 17 others that came after, some were formulated in specific regions of India, so, if they applied, they would apply for those specific regions. 

 

For reference, the 18 are, in no order: Manu, Vishnu, Daksha, Samvarta, Vyasa, Harita, Satatapa, Vashishta, Yama, Apastamba, Gautama, Devala, Sankha-Likhita, , Usana, Atri, Saunaka, Yajnavalkya, and Parasara. 

 

Reducing all laws and philosophy to Manusmriti simply because the British knew it existed is brainless. The willfully blind wouldn't be able to see that.  

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

@Tibarn - welcome back. Thanks for singlehandedly raising the IQ of ICF and the potential quality of its posts by at least 10% by returning!

Thanks.

 

I actually started posting here sporadically again a while ago, but it seemed you and the others with whom I mostly interact with were on hiatus, so the forum was a little boring  

Edited 6 hours ago by Tibarn

[Muloghonto 3,047]

1 hour ago, Tibarn said:

 

Yes, from what I read, the British, when they first colonized India, in modern day Bengal and Bihar, they looked for any sort of law book to serve as a civil code for the Hindu community in the colony. They struggled to find one as until the Manusmriti, which they then assumed to be some prominent law book for the various Dharmic Panths, literally just because that was the first thing they found.  

It was easier for the British in regards to the Islamic community, as it was pretty clear Sharia was the basis of their legal system, which the British then applied to the Muslim community. 

 

Correct. But the prominence given to Manusmriti by westerners is DECISIVELY due to their religious & cultural bias. Most westerners who wrote the initial works and studied them profusely in their universities were Christians. We know what Christians think of us.  Also the Western atheists- Western atheists back then, like today ( but way more back then due to more obvert classism) give Abrahamic religions ' theistic primacy'and see all other religious thought as inferior. 

 

Its instructional to read their own goddamn original writings and analysis, instead of two-bit wiki-warriors and google scholars like Atheist-a-Alaaam walla. 

They IMMEDIATELY & Profusely classified THIS book as the core 'truth' of hinduism, because this is the ONLY book that talks of a great world-wide flood and Manu being last man standing Hindu-Noah. 

 

**THIS** fact alone, is the decisive dominance given to Manusmriti. 

 

Quote

Theoretically, the Manusmriti would only have been relevant during the era it was formulate, I think somewhere between 1000-2000 BCE(You can correct me if I'm wrong there, I don't know the exact date).

I dont even know how relevant it would have been. I honestly cant see it being AT BEST- as relevant as Cicero's legal theories were in Rome- only for a while. This is a random smriti- written by someone 'great and famous or knows his stuff type' scholar dude. Which didnt really catch on. Isnt mentioned, hardly any exist, opponents never mention it, etc. 

Just because manusmriti talks about caste doesnt make caste more or less important - thats like saying i am the only book you liked on social conduct laws so therefore my ideas are the only correct one. The relevance of Manusmriti has to be established on the basis of literature analysis itself. 

Not only dont most hindus dont know it today- all objective evidence is decisively of the nature that it exerted, if anything, even less awareness back then. Which can easily be expected of any random Smriti class of writings. There are 100s. Which come after 100s of Shrutis- back then 2000+ as Patanjali mentions them. 

 

They totally want us to ignore the fact that its a smriti- and one of the more obscure ones. 
It has some direct relevance in practice, mostly as a factor of how caste relations and social orders have fluctuated over time. 

 

In simple 'Abrahamic-esque' terms that these will understand, its the St Adolphus of Woodenberry's writings. Who you ask ? Yeah. exactly. Nobody seems to know or ever shown to know except very vaguely by even ancient standards. A random book. Out of 

 

Quote

The assumption that it applied throughout the entirety of our history is to be completely ignorant of actual history. This is especially the case because Manusmriti is only considered the first smriti chronologically. There are 17 others that came after, some were formulated in specific regions of India, so, if they applied, they would apply for those specific regions. 

 

Well Hindus i dont see know much about it in the first place and those who do, very rarely have ever asserted that it is the oldest smriti. This is continuation of the prima-facie bost faced western indology lie, relying on accepting a previous lie ( that manu smriti is the only relevant one due to the flood story, to THEM): well obviously the first smriti would be the smriti of the only dude who survived flood.

 

Anyways- Manusmriti references and copies are very very scant and fragmented prior to 1100 AD or so. When **THE** prevalent version were written. From what i can tell the picture emerging is that manusmriti has had at least 3-4 iterations and its indicative in the language used apparently. And it shows little or no sign of actual recognition in the period prior to 1100 AD. These are the barebones historical facts. I dont know Sanskrit so i cant comment on this much. 

 

Quote

 

For reference, the 18 are, in no order: Manu, Vishnu, Daksha, Samvarta, Vyasa, Harita, Satatapa, Vashishta, Yama, Apastamba, Gautama, Devala, Sankha-Likhita, , Usana, Atri, Saunaka, Yajnavalkya, and Parasara. 

 

Reducing all laws and philosophy to Manusmriti simply because the British knew it existed is brainless. The willfully blind wouldn't be able to see that.  

 

Thanks.

 

I actually started posting here sporadically again a while ago, but it seemed you and the others with whom I mostly interact with were on hiatus, so the forum was a little boring  

 

Well, good to see you around. 

Edited 5 hours ago by Muloghonto