Brainfade Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 I consider myself an agnostic ie. I don't care if there is a higher power than us and even if there is it's influence on our existence and life is non existent' date=' but even then I would refuse to swear an oath on a religious text. I celebrate most major festivals, but that does not mean I adhere to the principles of those religions. Festivals, for me, are a part of the rich culture I have lived in and have nothing to do with my swearing allegiance to them or what they stand for with respect to my professional goals.[/quote'] Describes my position to the "t." Only better articulated than I could've managed. Good post.
THX_1138 Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 In fact, my point was INDIA SPECIFIC, rather than how strong or weak Christian belief of US Presidents are. It is not just about Bible, it is overall show of solidarity, and rightly so, towards their Christain traditions, Christain values-- which may not specifically mean Christainity as a hardcore religion. My question is still VALID and true. If say a candidate is known widely as a person who never goes to Church or is an atheist or is a person who is influenced by "heathen" philosophies like Yoga, mediatation, Budhism and Hinduism etc.,considers Bible as non-divine, then I bet even if he is better orator than Obama or Reagan, he will NEVER get elected as president!! This is what in sharp contrast to India, which is my main concern. USA citizens want a candidate as their President who at least overtly shows respect and acceptance for their tradition and core values embedded in Christianity. It doesnot matter if a person places his hands on Bible then definately he is strong believer of Jesus is Son of God...but what it means is that if a President even if covertly an athiest or agnostic is placing his hand on God, attending Church masses out of sheer respect to their traditional identity. this whole business of 'good christian values' is the product of the cold war. during this war, the communist russians, who were characterized by their state enforced atheism (more as a tool of oppression as religious centers could serve the purpose of centers for discussion, organization and subsequently, revolution), whereas the americans were sheltered under the righteous protection of the good lord. prior to the eisenhower administration, the personal faith of the candidate had little to no impact on the election outcome. moreover, thanks to the activities of the right wing, and influential churches, atheists have been relegated to the unfortunate position of the least trusthworthy individuals when considering the candidacy of presidency. in fact, americans, according to scientifically accurate polls, are more likely to elect a catholic, and are generally more trusting of homosexuals or even muslims than they are of atheists. however, across the pond in more enlightened societies, your entire thesis falls apart.
THX_1138 Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 True' date=' but some should be termed bigots, given their sheer intolerance and obsession with forcing their own "I'm right and you're wrong because you disagree with me" opinions upon others.[/quote'] yeah... we call them physicists and biologists.
THX_1138 Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Not necessary. An agnostic is a person who is not sure about the existence of god. Why can't an atheist be tolerant towards theists. Some people respect other people's opinion even if they completely disagree with them. Just because you are tolerant towards homosexuals doesn't make you a gay or bi-curious. Does it? our intolerance stems from an opposition by theists to infringe upon fields such as school curriculum, residential zoning and public policy. and much more significantly, our opposition is vocal, at worst litigious. on the other hands, most theists settle their debates with epic battles or genocidal rages. there has not been a single war where one party or both has fought with the slogan... 'die you silly idol worshipers, those who defy logic and science!'.
THX_1138 Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 I consider myself an agnostic ie. I don't care if there is a higher power than us and even if there is it's influence on our existence and life is non existent' date= but even then I would refuse to swear an oath on a religious text. I celebrate most major festivals, but that does not mean I adhere to the principles of those religions. Festivals, for me, are a part of the rich culture I have lived in and have nothing to do with my swearing allegiance to them or what they stand for with respect to my professional goals. according to stephen colbert, you are nothing but an atheist with no balls. come of it now! there is no god... and all that you need to know is the prime directive: drink beer and root sl*ts
The Outsider Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Famous Chatth Puja in UP-Bihar is nothing but Surya Pooja ....isn't Surya part of "Nature" from science point of view. Also, in any marriage, before starting any new construction etc., first "Bhumi Pooja" or worshipping the mother earth is perfromed. Agni, Vayu, Jal all are Vedic deities, basically any science student will consider it as nature. So how can nature worship be different than idol worship.....I am open for seeking knowledge in this. Idol worship is derived from nature worship. Nature worship is holding forces of nature that are important to one's existence as sacrosanct and worshiping them so they continue to be good towards you because you have no control over them. Idol worship is when these forces of nature are given a physical form and the worship involves pleasing this physical form who supposedly controls the forces of nature. Of course, there are other forms of idol worship too, but the reference above is to idol worship derived from nature.
Holysmoke Posted January 22, 2009 Author Posted January 22, 2009 So how can nature worship be different than idol worship.....I am open for seeking knowledge in this. Idol worship is completely different from Nature worship. When you worship nature, you are worshiping the sun directly, whereas when you perform idol worship, you are worshiping something indirectly. You are not worshiping the idol, but rather are worshiping what the idol stands for. So when someone worships an idol of Ram, he isnt worshiping what the idol is made of, but what the idol represents.
Holysmoke Posted January 22, 2009 Author Posted January 22, 2009 In fact, my point was INDIA SPECIFIC, rather than how strong or weak Christian belief of US Presidents are. It is not just about Bible, it is overall show of solidarity, and rightly so, towards their Christain traditions, Christain values-- which may not specifically mean Christainity as a hardcore religion. BS. This is what you typed in your thread opener. I know USA is a secular country, but still they hold their Christian values and prayer etc. closer to them and every Prez abides by that. Obama is also suppose to take oath on a BIBLE. Contrast to this I remember self-loathing Kaangressi leadres -- P. Chidambaram actually refused to take oath on BhagwadGita instead asked for Indian constitution. Indians strangely feel proud and morally high after ridiculing and abondoning their own culture Now that I have pointed out that there have been PM's that have refused to take oath on a Bible, your "contrast to this" goes down the drain. I will enjoy when he will take oath on BIBLE-- will be a good egg on face time for Indian sikoolars and self-loathers. I hope you did. Can you smell the egg?
triam Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 .... when a vast majority of the community indulge in idol worship its fair to say that its an integral part of Hinduism. As such your own Arya Samaj waale do some form of idol worship i.e go-daan . Interesting so that is not censored:two_thumbs_up:. It is now :woot: - holysmoke
triam Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Atheism is PART of vast Hinduism Ever heard of particular Sankhya and Mimasa philosophies in ancinet India? This is called Astika and Nastika vaad in Hinduism which is atheistic in nature. I really laugh when modern day, so called chest thumping atheist come out as something new and imroved when in fact Hinduism has many years back practiced, debated Sankhya and Mimasa. Heck, we Hindus even have a school called Charvaka. It is PURE materialism. "Rinam Ghritva Givam Pibet" -- is it's mahavakya, go figure!! Dude, I was the one who said hinduism has no real requirements for being a hindu, and there are sects which dont agree with scriptures etc. Please dont assume that others dont know about what they are talking about.
triam Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 And then there is the third category... ME I am back *****es... and i shall break every ruddy rule there is till i get that all elusive IP ban. welcome back THX.
triam Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Exactly Bossbhai!! You said it as it is! I may add, even during great period of Dwapar and Treta yugas in Puarans, there were both "Murti" and non-Murti type of worships perfectly co-existing together, in fact within a family sometimes. We have examles of great Rishis in Mahabharat who will mediate purely upon OM and Advaitic concept of Brahmn. Then at the same time we have examples of Gandhari the wife of Dhritrashtra who was a devote worshipper of Lord Shiva and existence of "Shivlingam" in Gandhari's room. In the same house there were pandavas and kauravas who will perform "Ashwamedha" Yagna -- a type of horse Yagna of Vedas to gain strength and glory! Also Kuntis worship of Suryadev is well documented. This post is very confusing, the argument was that you cant renounce gita and be called a hindu, furthermore BB said you cant renounce idol worship and be called a hindu. I argued that these are not real requirements for being called a Hindu, nowhere did I say that if you do idol worship you are not a hindu, I only said you can denounce idol worship and be called a Hindu. Which is what your post supports sortof, and then you say "Exactly Bossbhai, you said as it is", I am confused are you supporting BB's claim that if you dont do idol worship you are not a Hindu or not?
The Outsider Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 :laugh: "Bhagwa brigade member" is now being classified as abuse.
THX_1138 Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 welcome back THX. white man cant hold me down.
THX_1138 Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 exactly what is not included in hinduism? a religion is defined a social structure that permits, or condones the belief and reverence of a supernatural entity. if such an institution encompasses atheism, an i mean atheism rooted in logic rather than querry, then that particular facet is not part and parcel of that religion but instead is a criticism or examination of that religion. if there have been philosophers who have questioned the edicts of hinduism, then their philosophies are not included within the paradigm of hinduism, but instead are a criticism of the same. just as descartes' mediations are not part and parcel of christianity, any philosophy, which questions and attempts to establish the non existence of gods held in reverence in hindusim, is not included within hinduism.
Recommended Posts