| Username |
Post |
| NK |
Posted
on 31-Oct-01 01:16 PM
Just got back from yet another “Safety Talk.” Since I work in a scientific research facility there are all kinds of bacteria (yes, Antracia too) and toxins and radioactive material abound. So this was yet another day. If anything it made me feel ever more scared. ….. (By the way what is going on with our beloved site? It seems the majority of contents are overtly sexist, misogynist and totally juvenile. Has the insanity taken over? )
Anyways, I am trying to keep myself sane in the midst of this insanity. Over the weekend I read a short interview in the Times (NY) of V.S. Naipul. He has been greatly criticized for his views of muslim religion. Listen to this: He says, when asked about the “nonfundamentalist Islam”, that the whole idea of non fundametalism and Islam is a contradiction. The central idea in Islam is paradise. Can anyone be moderate wishing to go to paradise? Just think about it. That argument is powerful and to some people might think racist. Lately I have been thinking about this too. What makes people fanatic? Why is the concentration of fanatics in this particular group of people? Is there something in the religion that encourage people to take life and sacrifice themselves so easily? Just pick up the newspaper and see the story how this palestinian woman wants her other children to be a suicide bomber (her one son has already done so). Do you ever see/hear such a thing with other religion? Please enlighten me if people have some thoughts on it. There are millions of people who are poorer that poor in Africa and some part of Asia. Why don’t they take up arms and revolt? Blow themselves up with others.
And to Biswo: I liked your posting about the name given and the opposite lives of some of our kings and princes.
|
| BP |
Posted
on 31-Oct-01 01:43 PM
This is a really interesting topic. I am curious whether Hindus have had any terrorist groups. Even though I am proud to be a peaceful Hindu, I cannot but help sometimes thinking that maybe we are way too tolerant. I don't want this religion (which is really more of a philosophy, a way of life) to be taken advantage of, and sometimes I find myself wishing that there are more militant Hindus (not terrorists though of course) who can show the world that we will not be pushed around. We are a very tolerant and conforming group, and we don't push our way of life on anyone. as far as I know, we have only reacted to violence, not usually provoking it. What do you guys think?
|
| anepalikt |
Posted
on 31-Oct-01 02:18 PM
What is the Shiv Sena... a militant terrorist organization. They burn down mosques and incite communal violence. I for one do NOT wish for any hindus to be militant. Hinduism's strenght has been its tolerance and ability to change and adapt. And that is not a bad thing. As soon as you stop changing ,you stop growing, that means death really. Also, unlike the Islamic/judeo Christian traditions, Hundism allow for a lot of grey. I am personally glad for it and woudl hate to see that change. This is especially true in Nepal (vs. India) because of our own animistic/shamanistic/buddist and pre-aryan histories. I hope we will continue that.
The Islamic/jewish and christian religions and culture shave the idea of absolute good vs. evil, paradise vs hell, god vs satan. Also each of these groups think of themself as THE chosen people and also THe persecuted. There have been times in history that Christian, Jews and Moslems have been persecuted and chased out of homelands - from egypt in ancient times, to the crusades, the genecise and the jewish peopel during the holocast, to the situation of the palestinians today. but it seems to me, it will be an ongoing struggle for these people, not only because they might be experiencing real persecution at the hands of neighbors, but also because their world view is based on these absulutes and their take on things so dualistic.
When you are the "saved" or the "chosen"... others are unsaved, persecutors, and heathens. when your God is the only real god, other are idolators and devil worshippers. When you kill these devil worshippers you go to heaven.... that is supposedly the reasoning of lot of the muslim terrorists. But at the same time, what abotu the Christians who come to save the unsaved?
Forgive me, but I hardly think I am unsaved... even if I am, it really is my business, and mine alone.
But that does not mean Hindus have done any better. I disagree that hindus have "only reacted to violence, not usually provoking it." In India last year a missionary christian family was trapped in a car and burned alive by so called peaceful hindus. That is pretty scary. Babri masjid is another example. And what happened during partition in India and Pakistan, what the Hindus did and what the muslims did... that was pretty bad. Who knows where it got started. maybe the hindus started... maybe the muslims did. the point is every group has its problems. I don't want hindus to feel good about themselves and become complacent. we have lots of problems ourselves. maybe we don't go crashing planes and doing suicide missions, but we have built the violence into our systems -unless there is some sort of cultural reformation we are also lost. who knows what that means... secularization without moral bankrupcy I guess.
anyhow...........
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 31-Oct-01 02:35 PM
Dear NK:
Thanks for your note on my previous posting.
I also disagree with BP regarding his wish for militant Hindu outfit. Why should we
need that? Militant outfits, paramilitary forces will not only be there to curb the
intrusion of alien religions, but most probably they serve as stepping stone for
some people in their dream of establishing hagiarchy(like BJP dudes in India).
Europe was in chaos when Vatican was guiding the political scenario of Europe.
I think myself as an example of Hindu resilience. I ate virtually everything esp
when I was in China(that includes beef).I toyed with idea of atheism. I hobnobbed
with Shiite Moslems from Pakistan's Northern Areas, and I was once regular church
goer in Auburn, AL.But was I proselytized? No. I find that I have been more and
more devout day by day, eventhough I still consider myself semi-atheist. Key
questions I often ask myself are:
1. Did Hindus ever opposed any reforms? [Sati Prathaa, polygamy, caste systems
etc were banned without any priestly opposition in Nepal. In contrast to that,
Islamists still validate the Talaak system.]
2. Did my ancestors ever attacked any group? [No. We lived in synergy with other
religions .]
3. Can any church convert our fellow Nepalese without spending a penny, or
without offering them any other kinds of inducement? I doubt.
-----------
In an unrelated note, I think we should impose tax to those charity that are working towards proselytizing. If one is working with some hope for return, how
can they be called charity? I respect their social service, but that is not charity.
That is business. Business of its own kind and should be subjected to taxation.
|
| NK |
Posted
on 31-Oct-01 03:30 PM
there are many spelling mistakes and 'that' instead of than and so forth. but one big typo was I wanted to write Anthracis instead i typed antracia! so read it as Bacillus anthracis as in anthrax.
thankyou.
|
| anepalikt |
Posted
on 31-Oct-01 03:46 PM
I agree again that Hindus have been tolerant and adaptable and open to change, but we can sit and sing our own praises because we did not go and " attacked group". But then again, who says we did not.... Hindus are an assimilated people. Th eoriginal hindus were outsiders to this continent and especially to the inner hills and valleys of Nepal. The kirats, the tibeto-burman hill tribes in nepal were not hindus originally... so how far back can we go and say we did not attack... also mayube it is to the merit of the hindu tradition that the assimilated people don't seem to have that memory of violence though since 1990 and the whole democratic movement, more and more minority gorups, cultures and ethnic groups have been standing up and pointing to the fact that they are made to learn sanskrit, that nepal is a "hindu" kingdom, and these groups are considered "hindu" without really being asked if they indeed are. Lot happens in ignornace.
And this business about churchs convert fellow Nepalis without spending a penny. I have seen many many new christians who changed their religion because of no other reason than faith and hope. I think we hindus love to think that we are somehow the ideal religion/culture. And when we see other religions have sever problems wiht faniticism that is a pretty easy jump to make. But personally, I have to keep reminding myslef that there are many many groups in our own culture for whom hinduism is not that great.
how tolerant are we to the chyame podes?
though hinduism is supposed to allow for social caste mobility, that is not the reality. if you are a brahmin you can get demoted to chettri if your father married a chettri woman. But if you are a achut, i don't think you can aspire to one day become a brahmin (here by brahmin, I mean the social and political access that belonging to that caste brings). That is just not a rpossibiliyt.
Most converts to christianity are usually poor and of some "dubious" caste... they see christianity, with its promise of equality under the eyes of god, as an escape from a very repressive social and cultural system that alienate and marginalized many people and makes social mobility and political access impossible. so if christianity gives hope to poeple well and good.
let us not be so greedy that now we propose to "sell" (thorugh taxation) the souls of those people who we betray daily through our culture/religion's institutionalized oppression... how better are we then from those "rice christian" missionaries.. who i think you imply offer inducements/incentives to potential christians to become christians.
well, anyhow turns out unfortunaltely for many born agains, even christians can be castists... so that is the sad story for those unfortunate souls who go join a church and sometimes are told to go sit in another pew or corner. caste and other form of oppression, like sexism, is not merely a religious issue, but a socio/cultural and ultimately an issue of power.
I find it interesting that we as hindus find proselytizations threatening... why is that anyhow. I find myself in a quandary at times mulling this same questions. i think for myself it is more the idea that Christians think they are "saving" heathens when they proselytize. That is so truly offensive to me. The self-rightesness of such an assertion is ridiculous for most hindus... again we are a culture/religion that feels there are many ways to the devine Vs. just one absolute way.
anyhow.... can you tell I am a tad bored at work today.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 31-Oct-01 04:58 PM
Dear anepaliktji:
I think taxing the missionaries is not tantamount to selling soul.My point is to treat
them as an organization subjected to taxation, or at least, to end the present
laissez faire situation.
In a government level, a lot of things have been done to ameliorate the situation
of the socalled low caste people. Laws are there to guarantee equality among
Nepali citizens. Even Hindu Gurus are saying they are not in the favor of continuing
it. Now it is moment the so called low caste people rise, work hard, and earn
respect without any special concession from state.It is the only way to gain
respect.In Bihar, there are quotas for low caste people, but that haven't improved
their situation.To earn true respects of one's neighbor, one has to prove one's
excellence by participating in free competitions.
Most of the missionaries have used dollars to entice people to their church. If they
were not operated by foreign money, how come there are so many church in
Nepal? I was surprised to see two churches in my neighboring villages in Tandi. I
doubt they were made by a few (poor) people visiting those churches.There has
been massive, and systematic proselytization in Nepal, and it is in deed a problem
warranting attention.In Auburn Baptist Church, I myself donated money for
the fathers going to convert the heathens in Venezuala. Believe me, they came
back with spreadsheet account of how the conversions are progressing, and why
they should be funded more. It is time we respect the inherent philanthropy of
these churches, but in the same time, we make it difficult for those churches which
have sole aim of converting people to operate.Money is lifeline of these people,
and organizations and the nation needs to monitor/condition the flow of such
money.
|
| anepalikt |
Posted
on 31-Oct-01 07:18 PM
Dear Biswo ji:
"Selling souls" is a figure of speech. Taxing organizations, all organizations, I agree with. But taxing them because they are proselytizing them is somethign else.
Unless we can provide a real viable alternative, we can't cry foul and say they are "luring innocent people" to join their churches. And that means both socio, cultural and economic opportunities. If proselytizaton is forced, that is surely a problem. by force, I mean physical or some pressure other than the lure of economic or spiritual well being. Otherwise, what can one do? This is a free world. poeple can become Christian's muslims jews and yes even hindu if they want and they can become whatever they want for whatever reason.
Some of this is reminding me of the arguements that were used against granting women some very basic rights of citizenship, inheritance and personal self-determination. i have to admit i am not sure where the discussion is at in Nepal. i was totally disheartened by the very slow speed of getting the act passed. but I remember folks saying, "hey our innocent nepali women will get conned by greedy and opportunistic men who mgiht marry them for their money, so therefore we can't let that happen, so women should not be given the right to inherit", and other sayign "foreign men will conn innocent nepali women and lure them into marriage for citizenship, so we shoudl keep citizenship patrilineal". etc.
anyhow...how ridiculous would it be to say the same for men that greedy women might marry them for their moeny and therefore we should not let them inherit anything or that citizenship through marriage to nepali men should nto be allowed because innocent nepali men will get conned by foreign women. anyhow, sorry I am going off on a tangent here.
but the basic idea is that people will choose what suits them. we can not legislate against people's free will if we are to claim to want democracy and equality for all. that goes for issues of religion and marriage and most other social contracts that people make freely... and live with the consequences.
But regardless, I have to say the missionary organizations that operate in Nepal, here I am talking abotu legitimate organizations with social service and communtiy, are few of the organizations that do pay taxes. They know they are under scrutiny and cannot afford to evade taxes or fudge numbers like many INGOs do. i don't know about nepali churches.
Aggressivee evangelical arms of US based Christian churches have always had eyes on the "lost people of the Himalayas" (I have actually seen pamphlets with those very words written on them). But it is only in the last decade that these churches have been operating openly. Even so I was very surprised to find, when I spent a few years workign in Nepal recently, that most of conversion and outreach today is done by Nepali Churches. Yes, i agree they probably do receive funding from outside sources. but so what? I would think they pay taxes on it like NGOs that receive money from foreign INGOS and donors do. or are you talking about levying additional special taxes? that again seems highly suspect to me for reason explained above and in my previous post.
It is interesting that you should say a lot has been done by the gvernment to ameliorate the situation of the "so called low caste people". What? You say laws are there to guarantee equality among Nepali citizens. Ha! Laws are there, maybe. But when are these laws reality? I think somewhere in the book it says citizens are equal... but even now I can not say as a Nepali women I am an equal Nepali citizen as say, my brother, or even you, Biswo ji, as a male member of our nation's citizenry.Also, while the constitution says one thing the muki ain or some other document mgiht say somethign else. and that is without the complications of our social and cultural attitudes towards women and minoritiy gorups.
The point is having stuff made available through laws does not mean these things becoem accessible to people!! Laws are in the books. besides laws there is the socio cultural climate. While I agree with your general arguement that quotas and all are not the end all be all of addressing historical problems of discrimination and oppression, there is a lot to be said for government mandated programs and steps. Look at affirmative action here in the states! It has worked despite many problems and actually did you know that the largest beneficiary of AA are white women!
And why is it that now the oppressed have now to prove themselves worthy...you said " rise, work hard, and earn respect without any special concession from state. It is the only way to gain respect.In Bihar, there are quotas for low caste people, but that haven't improved their situation.To earn true respects of one's neighbor, one has to prove one's excellence by participating in free competitions."
There is no such thing as **free competion** in an oppresive society, Biswo ji. How can it be free when the decks are stacked? This is the same arguement I have with white folks here who argue that the blacks should pull themselves up by their boot straps and prove themselves. boy, if they had boots it woudl be one thing! Sometimes they don't have the legs.
So anyhow........
You also did not address why is it alarming if folks are converting to Christianity. So what? I obviously have my own opion, but I woudl be interested in hearing others.
thanks... and sorry for the length of these posts.
|
| VillageVoice |
Posted
on 31-Oct-01 08:17 PM
Very interesting.
Biswoji:
While many Nepali converts have been lured into Christianity, I definitely know some who have taken up the religion for the love of it. A few are my own relatives. I wouldn't like to belittle their faith.
NK, what kinda lab do you work for? Things are getting scarier - no one really has a clue - who's doing it, and what next?
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 31-Oct-01 08:21 PM
Dear anepaliktji:
Enjoyed reading your thoughts very much.
Let me make one thing clear: I DON'T know if churches are taxed in Nepal or not.
I thought religious agencies in Nepal are tax free, and this information I got from
a friend, not by my own study. I will be happy if somebody can authoritatively
correct me.And sorry about my ignorant comments stemming from that info,if
there were any, also.
But, my argument remains same: churches should be taxed, and their activities
should be monitored. When I say churches, I also include all those religious
organizations, like Shiv Sena's local outfits, and Moslem organizations. Politically,
they posses danger to our stability. If government doesn't know what they
preach(just heard Nepali Moslems are taught to be disciple of great leader [Al abduallah] Bin Laden. Such fabrication of facts, and radicalization of our fellow
citizens in foreign money should be stopped.), it better start regulating to some
extent.
Sadly, Christian organizations use emphatic languages in denigrating Hinduism
and proselytizing people. They sow venomous discontent among people, try to
disseminate misleading facts such as other fellow Nepalis are the sole reason of all
distress of Nepali citizens, and preach bigotry. The preachers in pulpits point out
repeatedly to the prevalent caste system, and exhort the audiences to rise
against the higher castes/Hindus.I have listened to such arguments from Nepali
church goers themselves.Also arguments like 'Hindus came here 2000 yrs ago, and
converted you ' is also nonsense. If we want to go back to thousands of years,
then, well, everybody is converted to Islam, Christianity, Judaism etc from
their pre-civilization stage, when people had their own esoteric rituals, and things
like local stones,gigantic animals etc were considered supernatural force.
(paganism, heathenism era)
What's wrong with letting people preach freely in Nepal? You have asked.
The wrong is not in preaching, it is in preaching bigotry. I didn't say that Rise in
churches is in itself alarming, I said the activities of the churches should be
monitored to some extent.They shouldn't be given status of like of Redcross to
convert and disseminate bigotry in our society.ditto for other religious
organizations. Shiva Sena can be dangerous for us, as are Moslem
fundamentalists.
Re Caste System.
I was born in a Bahun Family. But I don't remember when I was treated any
specially in my previous long life.I think there are only two castes in Nepal,
privileged and underprivileged. There are a lot of poor bahuns without any
connection, and they are as unfortunate as other low caste people.
It's not that I don't recognize the problem. Yes, lower castes are having problem,
and nation's resources are not shared equally. But I never heard any solution,
besides the vague anger, and communally charged statements.[As an aside, as a
reader of VS Naipaul, you probably remember an instance from India:A million
mutinies now, where he talked about a lower caste leader of Bombay.] I think the
situation is ripe in the nation now,everybody is against discrimination, and people
from 'lower caste' should form their own civic society to enforce rules, or demand
new regulations. Why would a person from privileged class be proactive?By
imposing quotas etc, we will only be making some privileged persons poor, and
making some lower caste people richer.For a nation, it will be a zero sum game
again.Investment in primary education, and directing funds to developing districts
inhabitated by such demographic group is probably a good option to start
with,I think.
The woes of lower caste people is not all due to higher caste. If we address a
problem in the right place, then we can solve the problem. If we address a problem
wrongly, we can't solve it. See, when Panchayat was in Nepal, we said we were
underdeveloped because of Panchayat.But did country become better after
Bahudal? It is because Panchayat wasn't the only cause. Our underdevelopment
was the result of a lot of other causes. We didn't address them properly, and allotted opalescent dreams of development only, when we fought against
Panchayat.Result : people were disillusioned soon.Same will happen in this caste
issue also, if we keep on attibuting every backwardness of nation to bahun
factors.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 31-Oct-01 08:36 PM
Hi VillageVoiceji:
I know I kinda sounded like a reactionary. It was not my purpose, and point. I was
just expressing my wrath over the tax free proselytization[if there are any].I
also don't want to belittle the faith of those people who converted to another
religion voluntarily, and by 'allure' factor shouldn't be for them.
But let's face it, even with our liberal attitude, we should be rational enough to
see what's going on.There are a lot of people who are not happy about the
intensity of proselytizing, and they can readily be follower of Shiv Sena gangs.
The irrational increase in non-Hindu religion population, the anti-Hindu message
among Mongol origin people etc etc will not be conducive to our stability. We lived
here for long together. Personally, I don't see any problem if Mongols want to
be called non-Hindus. But I don't want the situation to deteriorate as another
uncontrollable social problem.I already mentioned that I had a friend, Indrajit
Lama, who once complained with me that people from his community had been
forceful,vocal and irrationally radical in forcing him to boycott the Dashain.I want
our fellow radicals in such community to respect the faith of those people who
happen to share heritage and contour of face with them, but dissent with their
view.Btw, there was a news in Kantipur yesterday that Khumbuwaan killed two
fellow Rai/Limbus for not obeying their command. Don't these killed people have
right to say they are Hindu, and follow Hinduism?And let's face it that non-Hindu
(and even non-Buddhist) pulpits are used to incite these people against Hindus.
|
| BP |
Posted
on 01-Nov-01 01:54 AM
I tend to believe that religion is divisive. Amongst many things that create barriers between people, religion is unfortunately one. Not to say that if we were all the same religion, there would not be any divisions. For even amongst each of the religions, people always seem to define themselves in more specific terms, such as sects, castes etc. But I am a utilitarian. I believe that religion has its place in a world where education and law are not well-established. There religion works great to guide people into coexisting freely and kindly with one another. In other words, it replaces education and law etc amongst the underprivileged. However, in an advanced world of education, law, communication, religion is not needed to serve this purpose. Then it merely becomes devisive, with people segregating themselves with other people of similar religion.
I believe this to be a general truth. Of course religion still has its positives. It gives peace of mind to those who can derive such from it. It is a socializing ground for some people and families. But its benefits are more cultural. If you are educated, law-abiding, and you admit that you do not know everything and believe in the infinite, then I don't think you need to worship God through religion, because he is in your heart. I don't think God put us on this earth and gave us this ephemeral life to spend time worshipping him. Acknowledging him is enough. Especially in light of all the deaths in this world in his name. To die supposedly in the name of God is to waste the most precious thing he has given us.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 01-Nov-01 10:32 AM
>I believe that religion has its place in a world where education and law are not
> well-established..
Well said BPji. Moreover, I think religion was a primitive form of education when it
was originated.
I once read one of Rajnish's articles. It was very persuasive. He says, our society
wasn't that better[ halcyon, deception-less] in the past. Buddha became popular
when he said "Don't lie, don't steal,love others". That means the society at that
time must be very pervert, profused with liars and thieves and profligates. If
everybody had been good and model, people like Buddha who preached people
to be 'veracious, amiable and full with integrity' wouldn't have been so popular.
In another note, the woe and poverty of Nepal can't be totally attributed to the
caste system. We are poor now, because for 103 years, people were kept in
captivity, and nobody was allowed to study. It was the time when fundamental
principles of Chemistry and Physics were originated, when the world saw the
invention of motor vehicles,telephone, and airplane, not to mention principles of
seminal theories in sciences and economics. Imagine, we give power to a man of
our choice now, but close down our schools for 103 years from now. Where will
we be then? Rana rule was the most responsible people for our misery.We were
victorious colonial power, we were rich business hub until their ascent. Whenever
Nepal won any new territory, there used to be victory parade in KTM, and the
popularity of Damodar Pande and Bhimsen Thapa would surge.(See Baburam
Acharya's Pheri Yesto Kahile Nahos) No victorious power in the world became so
poor in so short span of time than us.
|
| sandala |
Posted
on 01-Nov-01 04:38 PM
Dear Biswoji, I found your opinion about the nature of society interesting and it could very well be true. However, I think that people like Buddha became 'popular' not simply because they preached people simple things like 'don't lie, don't steal, love others' but due to their ability to realize the 'truth' (about suffering, life, death, etc.) and their selfless, relentless effort to show and share with other people the way to that truth.
Regarding BP's comment that 'religion has its place in a world where education and law are not well-established', it depends on your own definition of religion. If you define religion as a way of life, it is just as much relevant in a world where education and law are well-established as in a world where they are not.
|
| agnostic |
Posted
on 01-Nov-01 05:28 PM
When will people come to an obvious truth: we don't know how the Universe was created. It's all guesswork. Scientists say the "Big Bang" was the start. But we all know that something can't come out of nothing. So the "Big Bang" couldn't have occurred if nothing was behind it. The "Big Bang", if true, is only part of the bigger picture. It is truly pure stupidity that we humans kill each other arguing about what God's name is. We don't know God's name and we will never know. God may exist, but since we do not know for sure, it is a good idea to keep some humility on the subject. In the end, believing in God is the better choice as long as we do not limit our concept of what God may be. Boxing yourself into one particular religion is a sure way to create a power struggle between the different religions, all trying to prove that they are right. It is really a childish struggle. It just shows that adults never really grow up. We humans must let go of organized religion and must be instilled with the value of sharing power and wealth if we are ever going to have world peace.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 01-Nov-01 11:53 PM
Dear Sandalaji:
The comment regarding society of the time was of Rajnish.[I'm not his big time fan.
But I found some of his logics very enchanting. This is one of those.]
My comment wasn't meant to demean the contribution of Buddha, but was an
effort to guess how the society was before several religions were obtained.In
deed, Buddha, a former prince, and his dedication, humility, and love to his
fellow human are a lot more appreciable now in this era of reckless and
inconsiderate princes.
|
| NK |
Posted
on 02-Nov-01 09:22 AM
Hi everybody,
It was a change from reading about "how to get a girl" or "how to please men." I am going to print out this and read it over the weekend.
I have just scanned it and the discussion is something I expected from the learned people. I was more interested in Islam religion whichd I know virtually nothing. And I caught a word "semi-atheist" . Isn't it true whether you atheist or not, something along the line of either you are pregnant or you are not. There is no in-between. Either you believe in God or you don't. If you ask me I can say confidently I am an atheist. Yet, I refuse to eat a cow! It is just the brought up, I think more than any philosophy.
And a small note to Village Voice: I have learned my lesson not to say anything of personal nature here than necessary. So I am sorry I cannot tell you more than what I have said about the nature of work i am involved in.
|
| NK |
Posted
on 02-Nov-01 09:22 AM
Hi everybody,
It was a change from reading about
|
| nobody |
Posted
on 02-Nov-01 04:50 PM
atheist or "anti-idol-worshipper"? I definitely don't believe in idol worshipping. But does that make me an atheist? Maybe agnostic is more like it. I have a few friends who claim to be atheist, doesn't go to temples etc. But when something goes wrong, I do hear them praying to God.
Also it's interesting that some people give religion as the reason for not eating beef (New York Strip medium rare is as good as it gets for me), I think the actual reason is upbringing , as NK pointed out, rather than religion. (Like those ladies in burka you see in US who choose to wear then, I think it's their upbringing and what they have learned to accept as norm; they are more comfortable in burka than without, that's the way they were brought up. Same goes for the hatred of kids of KKK or Palestinians on 9/11/01)
And my personal view is all religions were just philosophies (that was started as some kind of guideline for the masses) and then it was corrupted by the priests.
As for the "poor" in Nepal it's not "preaching bigotry" that has converted them. Far from it, why should any religion be called "bigotry"? The reason is hunger. Or immediate need, as a generalisation . It converted a few to Christians and a lot to Capitalists!
|
| nobody |
Posted
on 02-Nov-01 04:53 PM
But neither Capitalism or Christianity is bad. Hunger? Poverty?
|
| hi anepaliketi, will you |
Posted
on 02-Nov-01 05:47 PM
will you marry me, anepalikt?
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 02-Nov-01 08:01 PM
Dear NK:
Semi-atheism in the sense that generally I don't believe in god , but when I go
to temple, I feel like 'boy, this is a place I have been missing since so long'. The
aura of temples, be it Swayambhu or Budhanilakantha, sounds irresistible, and
the history associated with it unforfeitable.And again, when I am in deep trouble,
or whenever I am travelling in plane and the plane starts hitting turbulence,believe
me, got is the thing I can't avoid remembering. May be I am too weak:-)
I just wanted to be honest with myself.But normally, I don't go to temple, and I
read anti-Hinduism articles without any anger. I normally don't even believe in
god. So, I think this should be something like being 'semi-atheist'.
|
| BP |
Posted
on 03-Nov-01 01:22 AM
I think not believing in God is impossible. God is the concept of "infinity." As long as you don't understand how large this universe is, or how large "infinity" is, you by default believe in a God or higher power. The acceptance of the unexplainable means that God must exist. Or else you think you know everything. But you don't have to believe God somehow resembles us and oversees how we lead our lives. After all, we have but 5 senses. There may be an infinite number of sensations we just aren't capable of experiencing with our limited physical traits.
|
