Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

History and origin of Hinduism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Bigfella, I actually get you and some like you.

    You do not have a history to speak of.

    You do have a culture to speak of.

    You do not really have roots to speak of.

    So for you every colored drawing on a cave wall or piece of bone or other such evidences that denote that the land you now inhabit has a history a lot older than your own gets you all excited and chuffed.

    So hallucinogen induced aboroginal walkabouts and "dreamings" become the cultural and spiritual threads your empty and otherwise shallow "civilizational" existence so craves and wistfully yearns for.

    Sorry man. If you say, yeah we Aussies kick ass at sport, and have a great physical culture, I would be the first to back you up. Am a big fan of your sporting prowess and physicality in all walks of life.

    But please learn to appreciate the strong points of other cultures as well.

    It is a BIG world out there, and there are some of us here who were there LONG LONG before you guys ever came along.

    Does that make us beter than you? In some ways definitely yes. In others as I have pointe out, you guys hold the top draw.

    I too ignored your past cavalier attitude and learned to get along on the cat thread.

    But this is twice you have shown disrespect which cannot and will not be ignored sir.

    Maybe youare not a religious person but I most definitely am.

    I take great pride in my ancient faith and my civilizational roots.

    And I am sorry but you cannot and will not show disrespect to that.

    And that is exactly what you aim to do by belittling a great religion by equating it in the same breath as your cavemen.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
      Yeah, you guys are real unlikeable. Stubborn though. You always seem to be the last ones left when the music stops. ;)
      The music ever stops? We never noticed.
      No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

      To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Bigfella
        Remember that I am the one pointing out that conversion MUST have taken place in the face of Indians who point blank refuse to concede the possibility.
        The influence of hinduism were spread at a time when the concept of religion(and even conversions) were absent. Remember, those people in that era didn't identify themselves with names but rather with beliefs and concepts(eg: i believe in incarnation but not karma etc). Basically, the people of that time entered into debates and arguments about the nature of the universe/god and decided what they thought could be right. If you just go through the stories and narratives in the texts of hinduism, you'll see that it was way ahead in its times and it still is(if you compare it with islam, christianity etc). There was no competition to hinduism also.

        This is a sharp contrast to todays world(last 2000 yrs) where religion has become a business which looks for more and more members to "take over the world" rather than to understand our inner secret doubts of the universe being too complex to be the work of some randomness and "something" must be involved.

        --------

        The reason I differentiate between christian/islam conversion and hindu conversion is because the former is more of an "allegiance" while the later is subject to change as time brings in more answers.
        Last edited by anil; 13 Apr 13,, 12:23.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by doppelganger View Post
          I take great pride in my ancient faith and my civilizational roots.

          And I am sorry but you cannot and will not show disrespect to that.

          And that is exactly what you aim to do by belittling a great religion by equating it in the same breath as your cavemen.
          doppelganger, stop and think for a moment - are you not belittling the cavemen then?

          Comment


          • #50
            This whole forth and back between DP and BF reminded me of a joke about Milosevic and Clinton.

            Long story short, Milosevic gets pissed from the demands calls the White house and tells Bill: "WTF do you think you are? Savages without history, blah, blah...", to which Clinton responds "Do you wanna have no geography?"
            No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

            To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

            Comment


            • #51
              Who is Milosevic?

              I can tell you in real life I am a lot like Bill.

              Not Bill as President but otherwise .....

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by chanjyj View Post
                doppelganger, stop and think for a moment - are you not belittling the cavemen then?
                Not at all, why do you say that?

                As people to people, the caveman and I are equals.

                But as faiths and cultures and civilizations and history and conquests and achievements ?

                Or do you believe that God made all men equal?

                I do not.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by doppelganger View Post
                  Not at all, why do you say that?

                  As people to people, the caveman and I are equals.

                  But as faiths and cultures and civilizations and history and conquests and achievements ?

                  Or do you believe that God made all men equal?

                  I do not.
                  Let's ignore faiths for a start. Let's tackle the second part of your sentence first: cultures, civilisations.

                  Who is to determine what is equal and not equal? What is your marker point - are you measuring by wealth, conquests, scientific achievements, military achievements? Is there KPI to start comparing to being with? If there is, I sure would like to know it.

                  And even if you can find some sort of KPI consider its relevancy. A dog is relevant to a dog but not a cat.
                  Last edited by chanjyj; 13 Apr 13,, 12:32.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by anil View Post
                    The reason I differentiate between christian/islam conversion and hindu conversion is because the former is more of an "allegiance" while the later is subject to change as time brings in more answers.
                    EXACTLY!

                    The concept of "acceptance" which I was referring to in a previous post.

                    We do not bind ourselves like that as Hindus.

                    Its a concept largely ushed down the throat of already religious and established societies and civilizations by the new entrants, Christianity first and then Islam.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Just started working my way through this thread but, starting at the beginning:

                      Originally posted by cataphract View Post
                      As for the forced conversions, that was what I alluded to when I said "traumatic experience", which you promptly dismissed as lies. Hence an entire thread to prove otherwise. To clarify my point, since my verbosity is getting in the way:

                      Forced conversions to Christianity and Islam, and the perceived humiliation arising from them, have traumatised the indigenous Indian community in recent history (1000 AD - present).
                      I can sought of get the point the point about forced conversion to Islam following the Muslim invasions of the 13th -16th centuries which culminated in the founding of the Mogul Empire - but as I understand it the degree to which forced conversions occurred is a matter of debate and not by any means fully established fact

                      As for Christianity it was introduced to India in the 1st Century AD long before the period referred to and even now represents less that 2.5 % of the population which suggests that the Raj were either generally resistant to the concept (albeit it may well have occurred on a small scale) or else were incredibly bad at it. "Smithers, be good chappy and turn those heathens over there into Christians will you yes, those ones sitting under that tree over there. Yes Sir I get right on it."

                      So what is the point? People of all cultures everywhere and at every period of history have endured periods of hardship, persecution and trauma be they Indians or Arabs, Europeans or Chinese. It is the human condition. Why is the suffering of Indians centuries ago warrant special attention now? If you want to talk about events during the Partition fine - refer to them specifically but digging up real or imagined slights going back 1000 years... what is the point? Dude get over it.

                      I will now start a threat on how my Scottish ancestors were traumatized by events at Culloden.
                      If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by doppelganger View Post
                        EXACTLY!

                        The concept of "acceptance" which I was referring to in a previous post.

                        We do not bind ourselves like that as Hindus.

                        Its a concept largely ushed down the throat of already religious and established societies and civilizations by the new entrants, Christianity first and then Islam.
                        you are trolling and creating nuisance for everyone on WAB

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Bottomline is that "conversions" in islam/christianity and hinduism is completely different.

                          Hinduism spreads "ideas" which try to explain the nature of the universe and man

                          on the other hand

                          Islam/christianity spread the gospel/dawah to cultivate "pockets of intelligence" across the world to accomplish its own world order. It has little to do with understanding the nature of the universe and man.

                          Again, we can forever argue about the definition of "conversions" but what these two "actually do" is open for everyone to see.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by doppelganger View Post
                            Or do you believe that God made all men equal?

                            I do not.
                            God gave you a brain. End of story. What else happens is your hands, not God's.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Monash View Post
                              Just started working my way through this thread but, starting at the beginning:



                              I can sought of get the point the point about forced conversion to Islam following the Muslim invasions of the 13th -16th centuries which culminated in the founding of the Mogul Empire - but as I understand it the degree to which forced conversions occurred is a matter of debate and not by any means fully established fact

                              As for Christianity it was introduced to India in the 1st Century AD long before the period referred to and even now represents less that 2.5 % of the population which suggests that the Raj were either generally resistant to the concept (albeit it may well have occurred on a small scale) or else were incredibly bad at it. "Smithers, be good chappy and turn those heathens over there into Christians will you yes, those ones sitting under that tree over there. Yes Sir I get right on it."

                              So what is the point? People of all cultures everywhere and at every period of history have endured periods of hardship, persecution and trauma be they Indians or Arabs, Europeans or Chinese. It is the human condition. Why is the suffering of Indians centuries ago warrant special attention now? If you want to talk about events during the Partition fine - refer to them specifically but digging up real or imagined slights going back 1000 years... what is the point? Dude get over it.

                              I will now start a threat on how my Scottish ancestors were traumatized by events at Culloden.
                              You make a strong point.

                              The people who should be traumatized about their ancestors being forced to convert now actually celebrate the invaders who raped and pillaged and put to sword those who fought back and resisted.

                              No sense for those of us who stood firm and pushed back to get excited.

                              Of course that does not mean we forgive and forget.

                              In this part of the world, memories live long and payback is always on the cards.

                              When speaking of a civilization spanning thousands of years, a few hundred here or there does not realy count for a lot.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by doppelganger View Post
                                When speaking of a civilization spanning thousands of years, a few hundred here or there does not realy count for a lot.
                                That is what we call racism.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X