Political Crossfire Forums

John Wilkes Booth · Joined: 01 Apr 2006 Posts: 394

garyd wrote:
The problem with works theologies is that they propose that which is obviously false namely that doing something good makes you less guilty opf the wrong you have done.

That's only a problem if we believe the word of grace theology proponents.

cassandrabandra · Joined: 03 Dec 2005 Posts: 853

garyd wrote: Hindu isn't a philosopghy it is a religion there is a bit of a difference. There is also a bit of difference between Philosophy and science -the metaphysical as opposed to the physical.

Hinduism is just another theology of works. Not terribly diiferernt from Islam, Roman Catholicism, or Shintoism except that tends to be more inner directed than outer directed and philosophys of works however many or however few works they actually reqire of you are by their very nature illogical.

Hinduism is very broad, and there are many interpretations.

BTW - Roman catholicism is one variation of christianity. There is no more diversity between this and other sects of christianity than there is within Islam, or Buddhism for example.

Inner vs outer directed? not completely. Many more traditional religious and ideological structures rely on external reinforcement through ritual, and often this is reinforced by spiritual pilgrimages undertaken in groups.

The less ritaulised religions such us puritanical christianity, and its modern offshoots, could be defined as more 'inner directed' in that it is about a personal relationship with God less reinforced by ritual.

Quote: Their are three basic brances of theology. They are Grace, Grace +, and works and the difference between the last two is for all practiccal purposes nil.

where is your source for this statement?

Quote:
The problem with works theologies is that they propose that which is obviously false namely that doing something good makes you less guilty opf the wrong you have done.

not really. there may be the concept of 'atonement' - which is not actually about assuaging of guilt. Its more about acknowledgement and understanding - perhaps a reconciliation with the inner self. In some senses, when you do something wrong you can become quite fragmented emotionally and psychologically.

for some people they may benefit from finding peace with God - others will benefit through letting go of their guilt. 'good works' can be a step on the path, but don't have to be.

Alula · Joined: 17 May 2005 Posts: 517

:!oops: unless your baptised

in which case?...

In any case it probably wouldn't matter anyway. You could always go again.
I'm not btw. In cases where baptising is regulatory.

garyd · Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 691 Location: tulsa, ok

JWB please explain to me how rescuing a baby from a burning building during your get away makes you less guilty of the Bank robbery you did that necessitated your getawy in the first place.

Please note that the former action may indeed reduce the level of punishment I hand down for the latter act it in no way makes you less guilty of having performed the latter.

Cassandra:
Hinduism is very broad, and there are many interpretations.

Of Course it is. Both the Jainist and The Thuggee are devout Hindus. Guess which one I'd prefer for a neighbor... Both however are theolgies of Works. What I meant about outer and inner directed was relavant to Majority history The Thuggees were always a minority. Further that Hinduism is more inclined to be devoted to sel perfection rather than world perfection. Islam And Roman Catholicism have both gone through periods of conversion by the sword. To my knowlege Hinduism never has.

Roman Catholicism is a Grace Plus theology and The Puritans you mentions are a grace and Grace alone theology

Robin Hood · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 3295

Quote: Islam And Roman Catholicism have both gone through periods of conversion by the sword. To my knowlege Hinduism never has.

I don't think you can convert to be a Hindu.

garyd · Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 691 Location: tulsa, ok

Been to a US airport back in the eighties? When you couldn't hardly board a plane without Hari Krishnas, almost all of whom were born in the USA to WASP parents, harassing you?

Of course you can convert to Hinduism. Why anyone should want to is beyond me.

Robin Hood · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 3295

Quote: Been to a US airport back in the eighties? When you couldn't hardly board a plane without Hari Krishnas, almost all of whom were born in the USA to WASP parents, harassing you?

I don't think they fit in the Hindu system proper. The problem of conversion is that you can't have a caste.

garyd · Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 691 Location: tulsa, ok

You forget that technically any Hindu of any caste can become a guru or Holy man if you prefer, it was a very necessary social release for a religion that was in its infancy very much color oriented. And lets not forget that technically Ghandis Harrijans are Castless.

cassandrabandra · Joined: 03 Dec 2005 Posts: 853

garyd wrote:
Cassandra:
Hinduism is very broad, and there are many interpretations.

Of Course it is. Both the Jainist and The Thuggee are devout Hindus.

the Jain are not Hindu

Quote: What I meant about outer and inner directed was relavant to Majority history The Thuggees were always a minority. Further that Hinduism is more inclined to be devoted to sel perfection rather than world perfection.
hmmm - so you are saying that christianity is devoted to world perfection? I'm just not sure what you are getting at here....

Quote: Islam And Roman Catholicism have both gone through periods of conversion by the sword. To my knowlege Hinduism never has.

I haven't seen it either.

Quote:
Roman Catholicism is a Grace Plus theology and The Puritans you mentions are a grace and Grace alone theology

can you outline EXACTLY what you mean by this - I take it that grace is, in the view of a religious person, God given, so that what you are saying is that puritans need only rely on God's grace (reward for faith?), while catholics rely on God's grace (reward for faith) plus something else - possibly acts.

I would argue in that case that puritans are not at all interested in world perfection (other than at the end of time), nor are they interested in being better people - the grace given by God in exchange for faith is sufficient to guarantee a place in heaven, so they can in fact became spiritually lazy, and disregard others. Probably catholics can do the same, with an occasional display of goodness (and sins can be washed away by attendance at confession) ...

I know this is not the case ... many of the people I have worked with have been very strong in their various christian faiths, and see helping others as intrinsic to being christian....but there is an 'out' there for people to be callousrather than 'christian,' towards others.

Robin Hood · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 3295

Quote: the Jain are not Hindu

Sort of half Hindu, and half Buddhist.

cassandrabandra · Joined: 03 Dec 2005 Posts: 853

Reason wrote: Quote: the Jain are not Hindu

Sort of half Hindu, and half Buddhist.

no - The Jain have some things in common with Buddhism, including starting around the same time, and having a noble founder who turned his back on wealth ... but they are definitely not Buddhists. They are also definitely not Hindu, which really comes from the Upanishads. Both Buddhism and Jainism were competitors to the Upanishads.

It is a separate religion.

John Wilkes Booth · Joined: 01 Apr 2006 Posts: 394

garyd wrote: Been to a US airport back in the eighties? When you couldn't hardly board a plane without Hari Krishnas, almost all of whom were born in the USA to WASP parents, harassing you?

Of course you can convert to Hinduism. Why anyone should want to is beyond me.
Oh, dude. Hari Krishnas are one of the best rackets in all of religion.

Dig this: you can't convert properly to Hinduism. You have to be born a Hindu. So what's a hopeful Hindu to do? You become a Hari Krishna, and if you're good, you come back in your next life as a Hindu! Think of it as a Hind-ternship.

John Wilkes Booth · Joined: 01 Apr 2006 Posts: 394

cassandrabandra wrote: Reason wrote: Quote: the Jain are not Hindu

Sort of half Hindu, and half Buddhist.

no - The Jain have some things in common with Buddhism, including starting around the same time, and having a noble founder who turned his back on wealth ... but they are definitely not Buddhists. They are also definitely not Hindu, which really comes from the Upanishads. Both Buddhism and Jainism were competitors to the Upanishads.

It is a separate religion.

Not only that, Jainism might be older than both and is definitely at least 500 years older than Buddhism.

cassandrabandra · Joined: 03 Dec 2005 Posts: 853

John Wilkes Booth wrote: cassandrabandra wrote: Reason wrote: Quote: the Jain are not Hindu

Sort of half Hindu, and half Buddhist.

no - The Jain have some things in common with Buddhism, including starting around the same time, and having a noble founder who turned his back on wealth ... but they are definitely not Buddhists. They are also definitely not Hindu, which really comes from the Upanishads. Both Buddhism and Jainism were competitors to the Upanishads.

It is a separate religion.

Not only that, Jainism might be older than both and is definitely at least 500 years older than Buddhism.

are you sure? my understanding is that Mahavira was about the same time as Siddhartha Gautama - approx 600 BC give or take a few years, and it is he who is credited with founding the Jains.

garyd · Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 691 Location: tulsa, ok

Source I just Looked up puts Jainism at 600bc And appears to believe that Buddha and the founder of Jainism may well have been contemporaries. They man be sepearate but they are seperate in much the same way Christianity is separate from Judaism.

And as I pointed out The fifth caste is essentially composed of the castless aka the harijahns> You don't have to be borne into a caste and a good third or so of current Hindus in India are outside the caste system. By the way some things I've read tends to make me thing the Harrijans are worse treated now than in former times. Why? Plastic.

Robin Hood · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 3295

garyd wrote: Source I just Looked up puts Jainism at 600bc And appears to believe that Buddha and the founder of Jainism may well have been contemporaries. They man be sepearate but they are seperate in much the same way Christianity is separate from Judaism.

And as I pointed out The fifth caste is essentially composed of the castless aka the harijahns> You don't have to be borne into a caste and a good third or so of current Hindus in India are outside the caste system. By the way some things I've read tends to make me thing the Harrijans are worse treated now than in former times. Why? Plastic.

Plastic?

garyd · Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 691 Location: tulsa, ok

In the bad old days the Harrijans were the only people who could work leather and leather was nearly as universal prior to about 1930 as plastic is today. However anyone con work plastic hence the the fact that leather is now no longer a necessity means that the Harrijans aren't either.

Cassandra I am most emphatically not saying the Christian are about perfecting the world Nor for that matter are the Islamists both are about salvation which is viewed as an escape from this world with your individuality in tact. While I can not say with certainty that Islam does not believe this world to be perfectible by any act of man I will guarantee you the no mainline Christian sect believes this world is either perfect or perfectible in no small part because humanity with the tools we have to work with is neither perfect nor perfectible.

John Wilkes Booth · Joined: 01 Apr 2006 Posts: 394

cassandrabandra wrote:

are you sure? my understanding is that Mahavira was about the same time as Siddhartha Gautama - approx 600 BC give or take a few years, and it is he who is credited with founding the Jains.

You're right but there's more. He's given historic credit for founding the religion, but by the Jains he's actually considered the 24th and last Tirthankara. The first Tirthankara, Rishabha, is actually mentioned by name in the Bhagavad Purana, a Hindu text written between 3000 (historically) and 5000 (according to Hindus) years ago.

John Wilkes Booth · Joined: 01 Apr 2006 Posts: 394

garyd wrote: Source I just Looked up puts Jainism at 600bc And appears to believe that Buddha and the founder of Jainism may well have been contemporaries. They man be sepearate but they are seperate in much the same way Christianity is separate from Judaism.

More like Christianity and Islam, actually.

cassandrabandra · Joined: 03 Dec 2005 Posts: 853

John Wilkes Booth wrote: cassandrabandra wrote:

are you sure? my understanding is that Mahavira was about the same time as Siddhartha Gautama - approx 600 BC give or take a few years, and it is he who is credited with founding the Jains.

You're right but there's more. He's given historic credit for founding the religion, but by the Jains he's actually considered the 24th and last Tirthankara. The first Tirthankara, Rishabha, is actually mentioned by name in the Bhagavad Purana, a Hindu text written between 3000 (historically) and 5000 (according to Hindus) years ago.

yes, and Maskarin Gosala, or Makkhali Gosala who died about 487 BCE was the twenty fourth (and last) Tirthankara of the Ajivikas. Both the Jains and the Ajivikas must have been following an older tradition.

In the Indian subcontinent the tradition of holy men predates any of the modern Indian religions ... and the culture is far older than European culture, To europeans it may have appeared quite stagnant in some ways, as at the time of European expansion it had been dominated by the moghuls, however most of what I have seen indicates it was dynamic even then ... just quite alien to a european world view.