(http://i.imgur.com/yJ0O6JX.jpg)
At first glance this photo may appear to show snow covering a mountain. But the reality of what’s going on here is horrifying. This is actually an incredibly rare and very unnatural phenomenon. It’s a lake in India that’s so toxic that it froths over and even bursts into flames. It’s a scene straight out of a horror movie. Located in the bustling hi-tech hub of Bangalore, the 36 kilometre Bellandur Lake is the largest — and most polluted — one in the city. The foam is a result of the toxic water which contains a high content of ammonia and phosphate and very low dissolved oxygen. This has been put down to decades worth of untreated chemical waste being pumped into it.
shades of some parts of the US back in the 1970s. At least one river caught fire back then.
Cuyahoga River in 1969:(http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/images/5/5a/Cuyahoga_River_Fire_Nov._3%2C_1952.jpg)
oil-soaked debris floating in the river caught fire.
I stand corrected. I've never been in Ohio and could not have imagined something like that in the midwest.
I stand corrected. I've never been in Ohio and could not have imagined something like that in the midwest.
Yep. Lake Erie was dead. Completely. Now it has fish in it, though you'd not want to eat them.
Yep. Lake Erie was dead. Completely. Now it has fish in it, though you'd not want to eat them.
You especially want to avoid the ones which glow in the dark.
For me, being there illustrated the highly flawed argument that 'all religions are the same.' Hinduism is a filthy, nasty religion and creates the kind of garbage happening there.
You think the filth is a product of their religion? It seems more likely to me that it has to do with extreme poverty and overpopulation.
You think the filth is a product of their religion? It seems more likely to me that it has to do with extreme poverty and overpopulation.
And, the poverty and overpopulation is an outgrowth of the culture/religion of the area.
Yes, it is. And no, it isn't.
It's our claim to fame, Sanguine. ^-^
(But it wasn't anything like India here in Ohio, even at the industrial pollution's worst moments).
I've been to India and this doesn't surprise me a bit.
Every river and lake stinks. People use the rivers as latrines, laundries and bath tubs, and occasionally as funeral homes.
For me, being there illustrated the highly flawed argument that 'all religions are the same.' Hinduism is a filthy, nasty religion and creates the kind of garbage happening there.
Can you walk me through how their religion is causing poverty and overpopulation?I said religion/culture. Sometimes the two are impossible to separate and one engenders the other.
M'lady, I beg to differ.
Yes it is and yes it is.
I admit my Ohio ignorance, but I have lived here, many years ago: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,182552.0/topicseen.html
Pollution and filth of another kind.
I get your point, but the poverty and overpopulation is a direct result of the religion, ergo my "no it isn't" response.
musiclady wrote above:
[[ The steel industry unfettered was a filthy business, and I'm glad they cracked down on it. ]]
Your point is well-taken, but...
... this is pretty much why there ain't all that much of a "steel industry" -in- the USA any more...
How is their religion directly responsible for their poverty and overpopulation?
I'll briefly explain it.
The caste system is deeply ingrained in Hinduism; a system where only a small percentage of Indians (Brahmins) are privileged, and the rest are in lower castes. In the lowest caste, until recently, the religion demanded that the people could not be educated, could not work, should not be fed.... If they were starving in the street, they should be overlooked because it was their "Karma" to be poor.
Reincarnation is involved in the problem because it elevates the honor given to certain animals. For example, rats could be humans in another life, so they cannot be killed. If they are eating the grain (and they do), they cannot be stopped, so that the humans who need the bread from the grain die of starvation.
And it's part of the religion.
The religion also causes the pollution. The Ganges is "sacred." They toss dead bodies in it. They toss sewage in it. And they bathe in it and drink it. It causes disease and death.
Hinduism is directly causal to the poverty in India.
Beautifully said. Short and concise.
The religion also causes the pollution. The Ganges is "sacred." They toss dead bodies in it. They toss sewage in it. And they bathe in it and drink it. It causes disease and death.
Do you think the people that do those things have access to showers and toilets? Do you think they have access to cremation or a proper burial for their dead? Do you think they would still do those things if they did? Religion isn't the reason why they live the way they do. Extreme poverty and overpopulation are why they live like that. I guarantee financially comfortable Indians are not bathing in and drinking from the Ganges. You blame their religion for the poverty, but the truth of it is if India had a realistic way of providing a comfortable life to most or all of its people it would. It doesn't because it can't. Blaming it on their religion is silly.
:banging:
Do you think the people that do those things have access to showers and toilets? Do you think they have access to cremation or a proper burial for their dead? Do you think they would still do those things if they did? Religion isn't the reason why they live the way they do. Extreme poverty and overpopulation are why they live like that. I guarantee financially comfortable Indians are not bathing in and drinking from the Ganges. You blame their religion for the poverty, but the truth of it is if India had a realistic way of providing a comfortable life to most or all of its people it would. It doesn't because it can't. Blaming it on their religion is silly.
I knew that giving you the facts wouldn't make a dent in your opinion, which is why I hesitated responding to you in the first place.
When one's mind is sealed shut as yours is, there is no room for fact......only feeling, which is what you clearly expressed here.
At least the truth has been posted. Perhaps you'll actually think about it and understand at some point in the future.
That's the best we can hope for......
You didn't actually respond to anything I said in my post. That should be easy if facts and reality are truly on your side.
I don't know why you are so opposed to this, to me it is perfectly clear that religion has an effect on the economic success of a country. Just look at the difference between Catholic and Protestant countries. This is not to say that Protestant countries are superior. I have read that Catholic countries, despite their relative poverty have the happiest people on earth. Money isn't everything.
I suppose you approve of the Hindu practice of throwing their baby girls in the Ganges too.
You know, all those religions are all alike........... **nononono*
Do you think the United States would be like India if the majority religion was Hinduism? Do you think India would magically solve their poverty and overpopulation issues if they all converted to Christianity? I don't, because that's ridiculous. Their religion is not the driving force behind poverty and overpopulation.
Yes and yes.
Do you not think that North Korea would become as economically successful as South Korea if it just became more like South Korea?
Wow.
If they overthrew their dictatorship, restored relations with the west and embraced capitalism they would very likely find some of the same success as South Korea. None of that has anything to do with religion.
Really? The rigorously enforced state religion of North Korea is the cult of the Dear Leader. How is that NOT having an impact on the country?
And yes - it's a religion, by nearly all measures.
Based on estimates from the late 1990s[8] and the 2000s,[1][9] North Korea is mostly atheist and agnostic, with the religious life dominated by the traditions of Korean shamanism and Chondoism. There are small communities of Buddhists (previously dominant) and Christians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_North_Korea
I guess you could call their forced worship of the Kim family a religion. I wouldn't, but meh. The ruthlessness of the Kim family is why North Korea is the way it is. It has nothing to do with their religion. Do you think North Korea would change if its people suddenly became Christians?
You don't believe religion has a role in the kind of government you have, the kind of culture you have? I'm sure you do. You just have some sort of obsession with religion I think. Think of it as a culture's philosophy if it bothers you so much that it is a religion.
Absolutely! It wouldn't be the same for long if the country became serious Christian. There's no way.
A role? A subtle influence perhaps? Sure it does. That doesn't make religion a determining factor when it comes to the success of a country. It doesn't mean India would find a way to make food, water and homes appear out of thin air if only they were Christian.
I think it only seems subtle now to you since it is dying out here but you ignore the past. Explain the economic differences between Catholic and Protestant countries. Are the Catholics just somehow unlucky?
Explain how religion is responsible for the economic differences between Catholic and Protestant countries.
You are only denying the obvious. There are many sources for information on that.
Start here: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/oct/31/economics-religion-research
Is that the norm in Hinduism or something done by a handful of nut jobs in a country of 1.3 billion? Are all Christians responsible for it every time some lunatic that claims to follow Christ does something insane?
You don't believe religion has a role in the kind of government you have, the kind of culture you have? I'm sure you do. You just have some sort of obsession with religion I think. Think of it as a culture's philosophy if it bothers you so much that it is a religion.
Complete absurd comparison. It was/is a practice in Hinduism to get rid of baby girls
There's no such parallel in Christianity, and YOU KNOW IT.
Stop being obstreperous and admit there are things you just plain don't know. And will NEVER know because your mind is sealed shut.
Nailed it here.
Only it's not religion in general (you can see he has no problem with Hindu atrocities), rather it's Christianity that he despises.
I assure you Christianity has no special significance to me. I simply disagree that India's majority religion is the driving force behind all of their problems.
Do you think the people that do those things have access to showers and toilets? Do you think they have access to cremation or a proper burial for their dead? Do you think they would still do those things if they did? Religion isn't the reason why they live the way they do. Extreme poverty and overpopulation are why they live like that. I guarantee financially comfortable Indians are not bathing in and drinking from the Ganges. You blame their religion for the poverty, but the truth of it is if India had a realistic way of providing a comfortable life to most or all of its people it would. It doesn't because it can't. Blaming it on their religion is silly.
I assure you Christianity has no special significance to me. I simply disagree that India's majority religion is the driving force behind all of their problems.
In the first place, I never said that Hinduism was the driving force behind "all of India's problems." That's a deliberate mischaracterization (of course).
Hinduism is a filthy, nasty religion and creates the kind of garbage happening there.
In the second place, the reason you disagree with me is that you are ignorant about what Hinduism is. I recommend the writings of Ravi Zacharias (though they are deep and require actual thought rather than mere emotion). He was raised in India and understands Hinduism far better than you or I.
As to your lack of focus on Christianity......... I say poppycock. You go way out of your way to make Christianity a villain and defend religions that have no regard for human life at all....... unless you're in the high class.
I'm actually surprised that you in your liberalism don't have a problem with Hinduism's complete disregard for the poor.
Or maybe I'm not all that surprised..........
I go out of my way to argue against the idea that Christianity is a special religion that transcends all others. I disagree with the idea that a Christian society is necessary for morality and prosperity to flourish.
Yep. Lake Erie was dead. Completely. Now it has fish in it, though you'd not want to eat them.
I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the future or the past you would argue the opposite and you are really just trapped and you know it. I just can't see how you don't believe 1) Religion effects culture and 2) Culture effects economic performance. Religion is not the sole influence but it must be, when you look at history, the major influence on every society as far as I know.
Correlation does not imply causation. Also the article you linked admits that even if religion does play a role it is just one of many things that determine the overall success of a country. Oh, and I was kind of hoping you would make your argument in your own words.
I think correlation can imply causation. If a majority of people in a culture follow a religion - even a religion asserting itself as an idealogy - that allows it's followers to have freedom of thought and action, verses an idealogy that subjugates it's followers - you are going to find a more inventive and properous culture than you will in a culture where the followers are not allowed to express their freedom of thought and action.
I think ideologies like progressivism and environmentalism are like religions in that their followers are usually devout and regimental in implementation - usually demanding that everyone comply.
I do think that religion/ideology plays a large part in the prosperity of a culture.
Do you think pollution, overpopulation and poverty would cease to be huge problems in India if the majority religion was different?
I think correlation can imply causation. If a majority of people in a culture follow a religion - even a religion asserting itself as an ideology - that allows it's followers to have freedom of thought and action, verses an ideology that subjugates it's followers - you are going to find a more inventive and properous culture than you will in a culture where the followers are not allowed to express their freedom of thought and action.. One of the things Zacharias emphasizes about Hinduism is its refusal to allow differing thought. Freedom is one of the things that distinguishes Christian thought. Thus the difference between America and India.
I think ideologies like progressivism and environmentalism are like religions in that their followers are usually devout and regimental in implementation - usually demanding that everyone comply.
I do think that religion/ideology plays a large part in the prosperity of a culture.
Do you think pollution, overpopulation and poverty would cease to be huge problems in India if the majority religion was different?
The environmental laws were desperately needed. But, as usual, things are overstated. Lake Erie was never "dead". It was in really bad shape, but it was never dead. Now, people swim in it, fish in it, and many cities get their drinking water from it. I love me some lake Erie perch, pan steady diet.Good point. We visited Kelly's Island a few years ago and noticed that Lake Erie fish appeared on several restaurants' menus.
I think that poverty definitely could be diminished, depending on what religion it was replaced with. I think religion played a huge part in the prosperity of our country. Freedom of religion, freedom of thought and the emphasis on independence and liberty - I'm not versed enough on other religions to compare - but my religion, which is Christianity, teaches me that God allows me the freedom to choose right from wrong and that I will be responsible for the consequences of the choices I make. It teaches me that we are all equal in God's eyes. These ideas are what shaped the forefather's thinking when they created this nation. This equality and freedom of choice is what made us prosper.
As far as pollution and overpopulation, these are the pangs of a developing society. When a society is not weighed down with poverty and is going through growth - these things will be gradually worked out.
I think that poverty definitely could be diminished, depending on what religion it was replaced with. I think religion played a huge part in the prosperity of our country. Freedom of religion, freedom of thought and the emphasis on independence and liberty - I'm not versed enough on other religions to compare - but my religion, which is Christianity, teaches me that God allows me the freedom to choose right from wrong and that I will be responsible for the consequences of the choices I make. It teaches me that we are all equal in God's eyes. These ideas are what shaped the forefather's thinking when they created this nation. This equality and freedom of choice is what made us prosper.
As far as pollution and overpopulation, these are the pangs of a developing society. When a society is not weighed down with poverty and is going through growth - these things will be gradually worked out.
Liberty and freedom of religion/thought didn't come from Christian teachings. Those ideas are separate from Christianity and would have been adopted regardless.
You really do need to read more, and think more, Dex. You have no clue......... **nononono*
Good post, alice.
I would also add, that in addition to the principle of freedom that our Founders got directly from Judeo-Christian principles, we have in our country a work ethic that is distinctly Christian, and that has added to our prosperity.
In India, with its Hindu basis of culture, there is no incentive to work because there is no way to rise above one's karma, one's caste, one's lot in life. When you add to that the lack of charity that exists in Christianity, and that people without Christian influence, don't take care of each other, you have immense poverty that could be alleviated with a different basis for its culture.
And, as the saying goes...... the proof is in the pudding. Look at India, then look at America, and the results of the religious ideals of Hinduism and Christianity become quite clear.
Of course, the farther away we get from our roots, and the worse our culture gets with its disregard for human life, the more we will lose our distinction as a compassionate, industrious nation.
That, of course, is where the left wants us to go, and that, unfortunately, is where we are headed at lightning speed under the Obama administration.
That is your problem. You immediately decided this was a Christian vs. Hinduism thing.
Liberty and freedom of religion/thought didn't come from Christian teachings. Those ideas are separate from Christianity and would have been adopted regardless.
Could you refer me to the section of the Bible that mentions individual liberties and freedom of religion/thought?
Baloney. The concept of "inalienability" of rights -- including the rights of life, liberty and property -- comes right out of the British protestant tradition. Specifically, John Locke held that these rights are "God-given" and therefore outside the bounds of government to compromise.
http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1746&context=sulr (http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1746&context=sulr)
That epiphany about rights and liberties happened a great while after Christianity hit the scene. I think the idea of inalienable rights was more of an evolution of culture/thought rather than something introduced by Christianity. Christianity is not what lead to us being free.
http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/massachusetts-constitution (http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/massachusetts-constitution)
I recommend, for those whose minds are open, and for those who have not been inculcated with a Progressive revisionist history about the founding of this great nation (i.e. Dex), reading the Massachusetts Constitution.
Massachusetts was the most conservative colony, founded by the dreaded Pilgrim separatists (who, not incidentally, came to America for the very purpose of religious liberty........ gasp), and it makes very clear in its Constitution that there will be no abridgment of the freedom to worship as one pleased......... even if that wasn't the same kind of worship as the State adopted.
Christianity and religious liberty go hand in hand. This country was founded on the principles of liberty, which come ONLY from the Judeo-Christian culture from which our Founders emerged. Even the so-called Enlightenment came about within the framework of Biblical morality, and the strong moral principles contained within our Constitution are a direct result of that Christian framework.
Because of that, American Christians were strong proponents of education, charitable endeavors, and above all, LIBERTY.
That epiphany about rights and liberties happened a great while after Christianity hit the scene. I think the idea of inalienable rights was more of an evolution of culture/thought rather than something introduced by Christianity. Christianity is not what lead to us being free.
It was not biblical per se, but definitely cultural, and heavily influenced by British protestant tradition. Hence, its evolution is inexorably tied to Christianity. I think there is even a little schism between Catholics and protestants in terms of how they view rights. People like Russell Kirk and William F Buckley, who were both Catholics, were far less libertarian, and led modern day conservatism toward a more traditionalist orientation.
I think inalienable rights would have become a thing regardless of Christianity. I'm curious to know if you too think India's problems would magically be solved by adopting a better religion.
Back to the subject........... India is entrenched in poverty as a direct result of their non-caring, caste controlled, restrictive and closed religion.... Hinduism.
How is it, then, that the ONLY country founded on Christian principles in history, is also the ONLY country founded on religious liberty?
Lots of countries exercise religious liberty. They weren't founded on it because their countries existed long before the United States and long before the concept of religious liberty.
As far as I'm concerned, although I am about as religious as your typical American football watching, couch-potato, it is clear from history and a look around the world that there is an obvious link between Christianity and economic and political freedom. Who am I going to believe? Dexter or my lying eyes?
That's probably because you're not working desperately to deny the obvious in order to support your anti-Christian world view.
How can one take India seriously, when cows are allowed to be considered as deities?
Yesterday, Mark Steyn was speaking about the influence of Great Britain on India....
Back in the day, when an Indian belonging to a certain religious sect passed, it was custom that the wife was also burned alive.
The English governor, when challenged about the barbarity of such a deed being "custom", he said, fine, go ahead with it and I will hang every man that's involved in the barbarity.
They dropped the custom.
While discussing religion on the bipartisan debate forums I use I often find myself constructing arguments to defend Christians from obnoxious atheists that have nothing but negative and insulting things to say. You don't understand me at all if you think I have an anti-Christian world view.
India[edit]
Main article: Female infanticide in India
The dowry system in India is one given reason for female infanticide; over a time period spanning centuries it has become embedded within Indian culture. Although the state has taken steps[c] to abolish the dowry system, the practice persists, and for poorer families in rural regions female infanticide and gender selective abortion is attributed to the fear of being unable to raise a suitable dowry and then being socially ostracized.[18]
In 1857, John Cave-Brown documented for the first time the practice of female infanticide among the Jats in the Punjab region. Data from the census during the colonial period and from 2001 propose that the Jat have practiced female infanticide for 150 years. In the Gujarat region, the first cited examples of discrepancies in the sex ratio among Lewa Patidars and Kanbis dates from 1847.[19][20]
In 1789 during British colonial rule in India the British discovered that female infanticide in Uttar Pradesh was openly acknowledged. A letter from a magistrate who was stationed in the North West of India during this period spoke of the fact that for several hundred years no daughter had ever been raised in the strongholds of the Rajahs of Mynpoorie. In 1845 however the ruler at that time did keep a daughter alive after a district collector named Unwin intervened.[21] A review of scholarship has shown that the majority of female infanticides in India during the colonial period occurred for the most part in the North West, and that although not all groups carried out this practice it was widespread. In 1870, after an investigation by the colonial authorities the practice was made illegal.[22]
According to women's rights activist Donna Fernandes, some practices are so deeply embedded within Indian culture it is "almost impossible to do away with them", and she has said that India is undergoing a type of "female genocide".[23] The United Nations has declared that India is the most deadly country for female children, and that in 2012 female children aged between 1 and 5 were 75 percent more likely to die as opposed to boys. The children's rights group CRY has estimated that of 12 million females born yearly in India 1 million will have died within their first year of life.[23] In the Indian state of Tamil Nadu during British rule, the practice of female infanticide in Tamil Nadu among the Kallars and the Todas was reported. More recently in June 1986 it was reported by India Today in a cover story Born to Die that female infanticide was still in use in Usilampatti in southern Tamil Nadu. The practice was mostly prevalent among the dominant caste of the region, Kallars.[24] [25]
How can one take India seriously, when cows are allowed to be considered as deities?
Yesterday, Mark Steyn was speaking about the influence of Great Britain on India....
Back in the day, when an Indian belonging to a certain religious sect passed, it was custom that the wife was also burned alive.
The English governor, when challenged about the barbarity of such a deed being "custom", he said, fine, go ahead with it and I will hang every man that's involved in the barbarity.
They dropped the custom.
He did put it slightly more subtlely. :tongue2:
When told it was the custom that the wife was put on the pyre along with her dead husband he actually replied along the lines of:
"Very well. It is our custom to hang murderers. You keep using your custom and we will keep using ours."
Here's another fact for you to try to squeeze into your closed mind....
Female infanticide.......... WIDESPREAD custom in Hindu tradition. (From a liberal site, Wiki)....
Believe it, Dex. Hinduism supports throwing baby girls into the Ganges.
I think economic stability, education, food and plumbing would change their culture.
It's worth noting that Hinduism was not mentioned once in the text you provided. Like I said, I don't know a lot about Hinduism. Do their religious texts condone infanticide? The text you provided suggests that it has a lot to do with the fact that they're so impoverished. They feel like they can't support girls so they do their own barbaric form of abortion. That makes me think that the economic condition of these people would lead them to do that regardless of Hinduism. Anyway, let's assume for a moment that Hinduism really is just a bad and dirty religion. I still don't believe the introduction of a new religion would change their culture. I think economic stability, education, food and plumbing would change their culture. The problems you point to are in my opinion perpetuated by poverty rather than religion.
I think you have it backwards. Culture creates economic stability. Thomas Sowell points to the example of orthodox Jews who will do million dollar deals on a handshake alone ("The Economics and Politics of Race".)
I think inalienable rights would have become a thing regardless of Christianity. I'm curious to know if you too think India's problems would magically be solved by adopting a better religion.
You think the filth is a product of their religion? It seems more likely to me that it has to do with extreme poverty and overpopulation.
Can you elaborate?
Yes and yes. Religion is just the motivating force of a country. Do you not think that North Korea would become as economically successful as South Korea if it just became more like South Korea?
http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/massachusetts-constitution (http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/massachusetts-constitution)
I recommend, for those whose minds are open, and for those who have not been inculcated with a Progressive revisionist history about the founding of this great nation (i.e. Dex), reading the Massachusetts Constitution.
Massachusetts was the most conservative colony, founded by the dreaded Pilgrim separatists (who, not incidentally, came to America for the very purpose of religious liberty........ gasp), and it makes very clear in its Constitution that there will be no abridgment of the freedom to worship as one pleased......... even if that wasn't the same kind of worship as the state (of Massachusetts) adopted.
Christianity and religious liberty go hand in hand. This country was founded on the principles of liberty, which come ONLY from the Judeo-Christian culture from which our Founders emerged. Even the so-called Enlightenment came about within the framework of Biblical morality, and the strong moral principles contained within our Constitution are a direct result of that Christian framework.
Because of that, American Christians were strong proponents of education, charitable endeavors, and above all, LIBERTY.
As far as I'm concerned, although I am about as religious as your typical American football watching, couch-potato, it is clear from history and a look around the world that there is an obvious link between Christianity and economic and political freedom. Who am I going to believe? Dexter or my lying eyes?
Christianity has not traditionally been a tolerant religion. Furthermore, China has been more open to differing religions that most anywhere else in the world. Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, Islam... are all religions with large numbers of adherents in China. And, I might point out, China has never persecuted Jews, unlike nearly every Christian nation on earth (US/Canada excepted).
They do have an issue with Islam, but it's more like Islam has an issue with China, as the Uighurs aren't happy with such religious freedom being demonstrated by Chinese Buddhists in the Uighur 'homeland'.
We were discussing the Christian basis for the founding of America, which is factual.
I understand that there is a lot of anti-Christian propaganda in the leftist world, but that doesn't change the facts. Hinduism in India is intolerant. Christianity in America has provided the greatest religious freedom in the history of the world.
Facts.
No, America has provided the greatest religious freedom in the history of the world, because of its political system, and that system in turn derives from the British. Yes, the values of Christianity were an instrumental part of things, but they weren't the only thing and without the British innovations in self-rule, which finally found their first true flowering in the original 13 colonies, there wouldn't have been such a flowering of religious freedom.
And the fact is - yes, cold hard facts - Christianity has inspired its own fair share of oppression and bigotry.
America's political system is based on Judeo-Christian law, which was inherent in the British system as well.
The Massachusetts colony was founded precisely for the purpose of religious liberty, as has been previously stated.
As a matter of fact, everything relevant to the conversation has been previously stated, so you can just scroll back and find out whatever information you need to correct the record.
(But I'm sure Dex is happy to have the liberal secularist reinforcements arrive. Doesn't change the facts relevant to the thread. The Hindu religion has directly led to the poverty and squalor of India. Case made. Good night).
So how do you explain the incredible economies of the Han, Tang, and Song dynasties of China? They weren't Christian. Yet they were the largest, most prosperous, and most technologically advanced people on earth for nearly a thousand years.
Funny thing that. It was those same "Christians" who torched young women because in their stygian ignorance they thought them witches. It was those same Christians who decided that you couldn't hold political office if you didn't swear allegiance to a particular Christian sect.
Communism was built on top of some very strong, true, insights about economics and human behaviour, but that fact doesn't make Communism something to praise.
And now let's pull out the mirror: you claim that Christianity is the fount of all religious freedom, and yet here you are, slamming one religion based on your own Christian beliefs. Physician, heal thyself.
Who said Christianity is the only way? I discussed it because I am a Christian and am familiar with the teachings. I am not knowledgeable about all the others - but I do know that a lot of impoverished third world countries are, in part, that way because of the prevailing religion - and there are different ones. As far as explaining the Chinese dynasties - that's above my pay grade. We were talking about India and Hinduism, which I believe has played a part in that country's poverty.
I don't remember anyone claiming Christianity is the fount of ALL religious freedom! And people burning people at the stake and the other things that you and others cite as oppressive, etc - these things were not done with Christ's blessings! Jesus said turn the other cheek, do unto others as you would have done to you, feed and care for the poor, etc. Christianity is the following of Jesus Christ, and these acts you all describe are NOT according to his teachings. Anyone can pervert any religion.
With all due respect, turning the other cheek is one thing that almost all Christians have never done. And historically Christians in Europe did a very, very, very poor job of feeding and caring for the poor - if they'd been a little more attentive, communism and socialism, and many of the other ugly leftist abominations might not have taken hold.
You know what, Oceander? All have sinned and fall short in front of God - we are human, we have flaws and we sin. The only perfect man to walk this earth was Jesus - that's what I believe. We should strive for it, but God knows we will never reach perfection. But it's OK, he still loves us.
Why did he make humans so stupid, evil, weak? That's the question for the ages. I tend to think that he wanted his followers to follow him out of free will. Someday I'll have to face my judgment and I will not feel worthy - but he loves me anyway.
I quite agree. The same courtesy you ask for Christians should extended to people who believe other religions; too many "Christians" here refuse to do so, point blank.
Well, I try not to judge what is in other people's hearts - only God can do that.
Again, I agree with you. But we can judge by another's actions.
Yes, there is lots to condemn these days.
I quite agree. The same courtesy you ask for Christians should extended to people who believe other religions; too many "Christians" here refuse to do so, point blank.
But if we're honest, we'll judge by our own actions as well, and then cut everyone else some slack the same way we'd like to be cut some slack.
I make it a habit to do that, but it is hard to cut beheaders any slack!
Are you saying that believing, say, in the Blessed Trinity is tantamount to believing that a bovine is a deity? Or bathing in raw sewage?
Are you suggesting that turning the other cheek and loving your enemies is the same as cutting off somebody's head or crucifying a child?
Geesh! Put the bottle down and back away slowly.... :whistle:
Funny you should mention the trinity; one of the greatest pieces of post-hoc rationalization there ever was.
Funny you should mention the trinity; one of the greatest pieces of post-hoc rationalization there ever was.
Love your liberal tactics of debate whenever you've been cornered. :silly:
Hindus don’t worship cows. We respect, honour and adore the cow. By honouring this gentle animal, who gives more than she takes, we honour all creatures.
Hindus regard all living creatures as sacred – mammals, fishes, birds and more. We acknowledge this reverence for life in our special affection for the cow. At festivals we decorate and honour her, but we do not worship her in the sense that we worship the Deity.
To the Hindu, the cow symbolizes all other creatures. The cow is a symbol of the Earth, the nourisher, the ever-giving, undemanding provider. The cow represents life and the sustenance of life. The cow is so generous, taking nothing but water, grass and grain. It gives and gives and gives of its milk, as does the liberated soul give of his spiritual knowledge. The cow is so vital to life, the virtual sustainer of life, for many humans. The cow is a symbol of grace and abundance. Veneration of the cow instils in Hindus the virtues of gentleness, receptivity and connectedness with nature.
Elaboration: Who is the greatest giver on planet Earth today? Who do we see on every table in every country of the world –breakfast, lunch and dinner? It is the cow. McDonald’s cow-vending golden arches and their rivals have made fortunes on the humble cow. The generous cow gives milk and cream, yogurt and cheese, butter and ice cream, ghee and buttermilk. It gives entirely of itself through sirloin, ribs, rump, porterhouse and beef stew. Its bones are the base for soup broths and glues. It gives the world leather belts, leather seats, leather coats and shoes, beef jerky, cowboy hats – you name it. The only cow-question for Hindus is, “Why don’t more people respect and protect this remarkable creature?” Mahatma Gandhi once said, “One can measure the greatness of a nation and its moral progress by the way it treats its animals. Cow protection to me is not mere protection of the cow. It means protection of all that lives and is helpless and weak in the world. The cow means the entire subhuman world.”
In the Hindu tradition, the cow is honoured, garlanded and given special feedings at festivals all over India, most importantly the annual Gopashtama festival. Demonstrating how dearly Hindus love their cows, colourful cow jewellery and clothing is sold at fairs all over the Indian countryside. From a young age, Hindu children are taught to decorate the cow with garlands, paint and ornaments. Her nature is epitomized in Kamadhenu, the divine, wish-fulfilling cow. The cow and her sacred gifts –milk and ghee in particular –are essential elements in Hindu worship, penance and rites of passage. In India, more than 3,000 institutions called Gaushalas, maintained by charitable trusts, care for old and infirm cows. And while many Hindus are not vegetarians, most respect the still widely held code of abstaining from eating beef.
By her docile, tolerant nature, the cow exemplifies the cardinal virtue of Hinduism, noninjury, known as ahimsa. The cow also symbolizes dignity, strength, endurance, maternity and selfless service.
In the Vedas, cows represent wealth and joyous Earthly life. From the Rig Veda (4.28.1;6) we read. “The cows have come and have brought us good fortune. In our stalls, contented, may they stay! May they bring forth calves for us, many-coloured, giving milk for Indra each day. You make, O cows, the thin man sleek; to the unlovely you bring beauty. Rejoice our homestead with pleasant lowing. In our assemblies we laud your vigour.”
Funny thing. Always proven true. Present a liberal with a reasonable, logical point of view, and they divert. Look a squirrel!
The Holy Trinity is a beautiful thing.
Meh. Makes my head hurt. :tongue2:
Meh. Makes my head hurt. :tongue2:
Funny thing. Always proven true. Present a liberal with a reasonable, logical point of view, and they divert. Look a squirrel!
But if we're honest, we'll judge by our own actions as well, and then cut everyone else some slack the same way we'd like to be cut some slack.
I have seen precious few reasonable, logical points of view on this thread. Most of what I see is a particularly ugly, parochial, religious bigotry masquerading as such.
All right who are you and what of you done with the Occeaner from the Bergdahl thread? So help me, if you harmed him you'll have me to answer to.
Ah, there you are. Missed you.
You gotta take the good with the bad, whichever one you think is which.
You gotta take the good with the bad, whichever one you think is which.
Jesus did say he would rather us be burning hot or ice cold - he hates lukewarm. We are commanded to fight evil, not to sit back and let it happen. I believe there is real evil in the world today and we are incumbent to fight it. When women and children are being sold as sex slaves and people are beheaded because of what they believe, and when innocent people are destroyed by a plane flying into a building......we gotta destroy that kind of evil.
As far as judging other religions - I go by, "by their fruits you shall know them". What are the fruits?
I always do :beer: (up to a point)
I blow hot or I blow cold, I rarely blow lukewarm (do I get any kudoes for that alice?). I'm the first to admit that sometimes I get a little too overheated, or a little too frosty.
I blow hot or I blow cold, I rarely blow lukewarm (do I get any kudoes for that alice?). I'm the first to admit that sometimes I get a little too overheated, or a little too frosty.
I hear you. Trying to make a living these days adds to my general tension level.
That, and the sonofabitches in the park that keyed my new car. I dared tell them to keep their mutts leashed and off the soccer field because other park users --me-- feel intimidated by dogs in a pack off their leash. And there's a dog run not 30 yards away. Well, they showed me. I can't prove which bastard did it. But I'll tell you this, Staten islanders are the most disgusting, self centered neighbors I've ever had.
That's OK I just call 311 every morning with a pet complaint. There's a small chance that one day park enforcement will actually show up and ticket the lot of them.
Funny thing that. It was those same "Christians" who torched young women because in their stygian ignorance they thought them witches. It was those same Christians who decided that you couldn't hold political office if you didn't swear allegiance to a particular Christian sect.
Communism was built on top of some very strong, true, insights about economics and human behaviour, but that fact doesn't make Communism something to praise.
And now let's pull out the mirror: you claim that Christianity is the fount of all religious freedom, and yet here you are, slamming one religion based on your own Christian beliefs. Physician, heal thyself.
America was founded on Christian principles, and that is why we, over the last 200+ have had the greatest country in the history of the world. That is ending as we pull away from the basic virtues that the Founders understood.
I would say Christianity plus Calvinism. The Puritans believed that hard work and sobriety were indicators that you were one of those chosen to receive everlasting life. I also suspect the Japanese religion has a great deal to do with Japan's success.