Labeling children as a member of a particular religion is immoral

[1robin]

There isn't an "original faith" in Hinduism. The Vedic religion was also quite diverse, but even taken as a whole was only one historical influence on the pan-religion that we call Hinduism. (And from what I've seen of both, the Vedic religion bore little resemblance to modern Hinduism.) Another aspect is the native Dravidian/Tamil religion, which produced my personal favorite Holy Book, if nothing else for structure, the Tirukkural.

I don't see how that could be possible. There had to be an original (first teaching) concerning every single Hindu concept at some point. I however again want to shy away from getting bogged down in a history of the most confusing, irrational, and contradictory faith I have ever studied. I was concerned with morality not Hinduism.

And immediately that source's credibility is destroyed. The AIT has long been discarded as there's no physical evidence that any invasion took place, and "Aryan" doesn't refer to a group of people in any case, but a language family.

Well that is convenient. Anything you do not like lacks any credibility. Fine, what about all these?
Hinduism and Caste System
Caste system in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Caste System and Stages of Life in Hinduism
Hindu Caste System | Faithology
The Hindu Caste System

or the other 912,000 sites that link the caste system with Hinduism?

If I remember correctly, the earliest attestation of Varnashrama Dharma is in the Purusha Suktam, which is actually one of the later compositions of the Rig Veda. The current (very, very rough and highly debatable) academic consensus is that the earliest hymns of the Rig Veda are about 4-5,000 years old, and the latest ones about 3-2,500 years old. Being in the 10th Mandala puts the Purusha Suktam in the latter category.

And that said, we in the North also had a form that reflects Varnashrama Dharma. While it didn't have a name, the three attested levels were Thrall (slave), Carl (freeman), and Jarl (King). And it was entirely possible for a Thrall to rise to position of Jarl.

Ok, like I said I just wanted you to see that anyone who claims that Hinduism is linked with the caste system has massive justification for claiming so. If you disagree that is fine but Hinduism was not the topic.

Okay. Though I would still say that's pretty time-locked to the Modern Era. What have you seen from how people behave throughout the ages?

I thought you asked about my experience. Of course I have only personally been around in modern times. I however am obsessed with debate. Mostly Islam, Secularism, Humanism, Pantheism, Atheism, Bahai', Oriental philosophy (which would include Hinduism and Budhism), etc...... I have spent hundreds of hours watching scholars from these faiths challenge either Christianity, Judaism, or theism. IMO the former rarely make a good showing. One exception to that is the agnostic Sean Carol and the Muslim Shabbir Ali. And these scholars cover the entire history of these faiths and belief systems.

Nevermind the fact that the Islamic world was the one making all the major advances during the times following the Western Roman Empire's collapse (which was the true primary cause of the strife, combined with the Migration Age displacing tribes).

However Islam was not the reason. The problem was the Catholics suppressed Greek and Roman learning and so the entire foundation was missing. Islam had not suppressed it and merely added to it in science and did make some serious advances in medicine. Mainly it was not Islamic brilliance responsible here, it was the rest of the west sitting still or going backwards for a while. Regardless even the Catholic Church could not hold back Christian brilliance and it soon eclipse the accomplishments of every single other demographic in science and other areas. The entire abstract science explosion (modern science) was the result of actual Christian faith, not merely Christians. No other group in the history of man has contributed more to science than Christianity and they did so in spite of the most powerful political system on earth hampering them. My understanding of what caused the collapse of the Roman empire is so complex it is impractical for a post.

Great for you. Has nothing to do with me.

What? I did not say it has anything to do with you but it is simply a fact that no one man can even investigate all the theological world views in history. I started with the big ones and kept at it until I found one that actually led me to God. It was Christianity. Once you find one that literally is validated by God himself further study is only out of curiosity. One thing almost entirely unique to Christianity is the promise that anyone who actually has faith will be rewarded with validation from God himself personally with that person. No other major faith even contains this promise. At best they offer personal experience to a select few (of which I have not found more than a half dozen that even claim it especially in Hinduism compared with Christianity which has billions of claims to personal experience). Most other religion merely involve an intellectual agreement to a proposition without the slightest way to validate the truth of it until you die and it is too late to remedy any mistake.

It looks to me like those investigations were predisposed from the beginning to seem wrong. Hinduism and Buddhism, in particular, aren't about "God's Truth", and so of course you won't find it there. I, too, have investigated the Bible, and found therein some wonderful (and not-so-wonderful) stories, and bits of great wisdom and bits of outdated nonsense. I see all of these things in every religion I look into, including the one I'm practicing right now.

What in the world in what I said leads to this conclusion. I knew very well before I responded that you were very likely to claim I had some bias so I deliberately made all my comments strictly neutral except for the conclusions which should not be neutral. Regardless I actually began hostile to Christianity alone. I literally tried dozens of things of many types before I was wiling to give Christianity a chance.



I never said anything against Christianity; it's a fine religion that has absolutely done great things. I'm providing microcosmic examples of the fact that it did little to actually change much of the general behavior of people. Keep in mind that "did little" still means "did something". It did change behavior, as any new religion in a culture's life is going to do. But it didn't immediately bring an end to strife. It's done great good in the world, and caused much harm.

I would caution against the No True Scotsman fallacy. Virtues and vices must be taken together, with neither one ignored. I did just point to Saint Olaf, did I not?

I am quite well aware of people who mistakenly rely on fallacy crutches. I do not mean you at least here but in general fallacies are almost never correctly identified in these forums. I did not say anything about what makes a true Christian (though I could have without committing a fallacy because Christ spelled it out in detail) specifically because I want to avoid these conversations. I instead said what practicing Christianity meant. The book says do not murder. I can be a Christian and still murder someone but that murder is not an example of Christian behavior. I even pointed that out specifically to avoid the mistake others make about this fallacy. My computer is bogged down so I will separate this post into two;

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Consider me: ever since becoming Asatru, I've been more assertive and made far greater attempts to be brave and overcome my immense fear. My depression has finally started to wane, and have never felt this much in control of things. BUT, the core of who I am, that which was there at birth and cultivated through life, will never change. I may be following a religion that has strong associations with the Vikings, but I am not, and never will be, a Viking myself.

As I have said pointing out a few individuals who are doing good but mundane things is not meaningful in evaluating a faith. It takes large numbers of exceptional acts to validate a faith. Let me ask this. What is it in Asatru that theoretically changes you from the core and gives you actual power to be better and a foundation that grounds what being better actually means? I can find thousands of people that claim exactly hat you have but give all manner of sources. What I can't find is those same groups in large numbers donating their lives to help people they do not know, fighting and dying to free other men, internally abolishing slavery, etc....

Olaf the Lawbreaker was not the general rule of Christianity's spread through Europe, as the most successful conversions were done peacefully. The Felling of Thor's Oak was probably the biggest factor in converting the people of that region.

I need stats not individuals.

Heck, many Germanic tribes were already Christian before the Western Roman Empire fell(including the Vandals). They were just of a form that's not common anymore: Arianism. That was just as bad as being pagan in the eyes of the imperialistic forms of Catholicism.

I know of Arianism but I do not know to what purpose your making these comments. What is the conclusion here?

These "objective duties" are sourced in external forces telling us that they're "objective duties". They would not be there except for those forces, which are cultural. They're deeply ingrained in us, such that it's easy to mistake them for objective truths, even though they're not.

Forces, what forces? How do you know of these forces? What created these forces? No aspect what so ever in any culture that has ever existed can create moral truth. We can invent laws, ethics, or rules but without some transcendent source that is independent of our own opinions these issues are completely unrelated to objective moral truth, in cat without God there exists no objective moral truth for any laws to relate to. What you said (despite using the word forces) is the exact definition of subjective morality not objective morality.

Let me again supply the best definition for objective morality I have ever seen.

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.
For example, most human beings believe that murder, rape, and theft are wrong, regardless of whether a law governs such conduct or where the conduct occurs, and is thus recognizably malum in se. In contrast, malum prohibitum crimes are criminal not because they are inherently bad, but because the act is prohibited by the law of the state.
Malum in se - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Culture is excluded from any possibility of creating this.

This "age of information" is also the "age of false information". For every reliable article on the internet there's a thousand bogus articles written with enough charisma to sound convincing, even going so far to create fake citations that ultimately just feed back into themselves. Keep that in mind.

I have become very used to weeding through information.

Except it's not. Subjective cultural morality does just fine, and has done more or less just fine throughout all time. It's not just opinion. It is not "just my opinion" that killing another human being is wrong. That's an aspect not only of my current cultural values, but those of many other cultures as well. My hyper-empathy (from having Asperger's Syndrome), combined with other parts of my personality, also makes sure that taking a life would be a thousand times more difficult for me than for people without that. Even killing bugs is hard for me, so I typically don't.

Yes it is and a very good indicator of that is the fact that almost all atheist scholars grant this and the few that don't admit they merely assume it is incorrect.

I did not say anything about how well subjective morality works. I did not even say anything that had any connection to it. I said what the nature of morality is given God and what it is minus God and these are inescapable. It most certainly is pure and only pure opinion that murder is objectively wrong if morality is subjective. That is literally what subjective means.

Let me restate what objective morality is this time in the words of philosophers but it means the same thing as it did above. In this context objective morality is moral duties and truths that are completely free from the opinions of their adherents.

Well, like I said, the only way I've found to describe objectivity is "a bunch of interacting values". Everything else is inherently subjective.

I have looked up and provided the definitions of objective morality many times and not once have I ever heard of your definition. Debates take place on the common ground of scholarship and established meanings. They do not take place on what you personally wish was the definition of a thing. There is not one word in your definition that would separate objective morals from subjective morals. Sorry, it is just a horrific definition.

So do I, and I never said otherwise.

I believe you did which is what I said what I did.

My life has a lot of "ifs" to it. I'm an aspiring game designer and programmer for crying out loud. The "IF statement" is one of the most fundamental tools of both trades.
Hence why I said this if.

I believe I said that if Go dexists your accountable to him and you said you do not live by any "ifs".

"No right to be" is a meaningless statement, because we are.

Actually it is the opposite. We have no inherent rights of any kind without God. No one has any rights to give anyone else. Rights are things inherent to us if God exists that governments are not infringe upon. That is why Jefferson said he grounded rights in God.

"Everyone's eternal fate is the same". In other words, Death. Everyone dies.

That is not how theology states it. Physical death is not eternal. However if no God exists then yes we all end the same way. No ultimate justice, no righting any wrongs in any ultimate sense, who cares it al ends the same way.

And I have absolutely no problem with that, because we live, and Life is not only meaningless without Death, it's nonexistent.

I did not say anything about death giving meaning to life.

Not really. Things are generally improving as far as I can tell (even though the media would have you believe differently). I'll certainly take this world over the almost socially (and very nearly politically) Orwellian postwar years.

No, I have looked up hundreds of moral statistics and have posted links to them all and dozens and dozens of examples of the fact that virtually every moral statistic took a nose dive in the late 50's. All the way from teen pregnancy, drugs abuse, gang activity in schools, abortion, sexual violence, gambling debts, suicides, school shooting and on and on.

Ever see Death Note?

No and that is surprising because I watch a lot only movies but and no TV.

No problem, though I wonder if you understood. It would be quite, quite sinful for a follower of Aphrodite to lead a celibate life, just as it was sinful (at least according to Shakespeare) for priestesses of Artemis to not be virgins.

Even if Aphrodite existed it would not be because Aphrodite is not a source of moral truth. Aphrodite is a created God even if it exists. BTW is Aphrodite male or female?

I, personally, see no reason why any God has any right to objective goodness, but then, I'm of the opinion that family has nothing to do with blood-relation. I do remember that the Torah placed a STRONG emphasis on family loyalty, and combined with the fact that the Christian God is often called "the Father", I suspect that this God-conception is a mirror of familial morality. Thing is, I don't agree with that conception; just because they made you doesn't mean they own you. (And I do say that as an artist, BTW; I make my art, but my art is no longer mine once it's in the world).

I see no basis by which claim the most sovereign entity even theoretically possible cannot do anything he choses. I agree with your evaluation of the family.[/quote]

 

[metis]

I don't see how that could be possible. There had to be an original (first teaching) concerning every single Hindu concept at some point. I however again want to shy away from getting bogged down in a history of the most confusing, irrational, and contradictory faith I have ever studied. I was concerned with morality not Hinduism.

What a thoroughly disgusting statement.

 

[1robin]

What a thoroughly disgusting statement.

Well metis I have never seen you venture outside a thread on the trinity that I can remember. I see your social graces and tact have not changed. What "pray tell" is disgusting in equating the word "original" with the word "first"?

You have to try very hard to be disgusted to have been by this.

 

[metis]

Well metis I have never seen you venture outside a thread on the trinity that I can remember. I see your social graces and tact have not changed. What "pray tell" is disgusting in equating the word "original" with the word "first"?

You have to try very hard to be disgusted to have been by this.

It is the last part of what I quoted that you wrote that I find thoroughly disgusting, which was this: "I however again want to shy away from getting bogged down in a history of the most confusing, irrational, and contradictory faith I have ever studied. I was concerned with morality not Hinduism".

How would you react if someone posted this: "I however again want to shy away from getting bogged down in a history of the most confusing, irrational, and contradictory faith I have ever studied. I was concerned with morality not Baptist theology". You know darn well you would squeal and whine as I've seen you do it before.

Again, let me repeat, what you posted was thoroughly disgusting, and let me add highly bigoted.

 

[1robin]

It is the last part of what I quoted that you wrote that I find thoroughly disgusting, which was this: "I however again want to shy away from getting bogged down in a history of the most confusing, irrational, and contradictory faith I have ever studied. I was concerned with morality not Hinduism".

Ok, I do not agree but at least it is conceivable how someone might think that. BTW the most disgusting thing possible would be a false theological doctrine. So the only way it I snot disgusting depends on your knowing it is true which you not only don't but you could not.

How would you react if someone posted this: "I however again want to shy away from getting bogged down in a history of the most confusing, irrational, and contradictory faith I have ever studied. I was concerned with morality not Baptist theology". You know darn well you would squeal and whine as I've seen you do it before.

That would be among the milder forms of evaluation I have seen of Christianity/Baptist. I only object in spirit (not even so much in action) with purely emotional criticisms of Christianity. I do not object to claims it is irrational or confusing. I merely point out why I think the description wrong. Those are logical problems not emotional rhetoric.

Again, let me repeat, what you posted was thoroughly disgusting, and let me add highly bigoted.

Now this is illogical and emotional and I really do not care if you find what I said disgusting. It says a lot about your inherent hostility, willingness to appeal to emotion, and lack of apparently any will to refute the claims and instead act with entirely inappropriate sensitivity. I find it confusing, irrational, and contradictory and so do countless scholars qualified to judge it regardless of what you think. Do you have an argument or is feigned sensitivity it?

 

[metis]

Now this is illogical and emotional and I really do not care if you find what I said disgusting. It says a lot about your inherent hostility, willingness to appeal to emotion, and lack of apparently any will to refute the claims and instead act with entirely inappropriate sensitivity.

As much as you love to dishonestly shift the issue, the fact of the matter is that all too often post in hypocritical ways, which is why I mostly avoid your posts and have put you on my ignore list two or three times. When you condemn an entire religion, and please note that it is not mine so I'm not being self-serving about this, then you have slipped into nothing short of sheer bigotry, especially since you would not put up with it if someone did the same to what you believe.
,
And please remember this the minute that someone condemns either Baptist theology or Christian theology, namely that you were all too willing to condemn someone else's religion. Instead of owing up to those that you may have offended, instead you resort to the childish action of blaming someone else.

How pathetic.

 

[1robin]

As much as you love to dishonestly shift the issue, the fact of the matter is that all too often post in hypocritical ways, which is why I mostly avoid your posts and have put you on my ignore list two or three times. When you condemn an entire religion, and please note that it is not mine so I'm not being self-serving about this, then you have slipped into nothing short of sheer bigotry, especially since you would not put up with it if someone did the same to what you believe.
,
And please remember this the minute that someone condemns either Baptist theology or Christian theology, namely that you were all too willing to condemn someone else's religion. Instead of owing up to those that you may have offended, instead you resort to the childish action of blaming someone else.

How pathetic.

Shift the issue? For pity sake you deleted 2/3rds of my entire post. I really do not have time for this. My debates and responses in this thread have not been great so far in general but have had their moments, but they have all lacked the hostility and over sensitivity you showed up with. I will not continue this with you, at this time. Take a nap or something.

 

[metis]

Shift the issue? For pity sake you deleted 2/3rds of my entire post. I really do not have time for this. My debates and responses in this thread have not been great so far in general but have had their moments, but they have all lacked the hostility and over sensitivity you showed up with. I will not continue this with you, at this time. Take a nap or something.

And maybe grow enough common decency to apologize to the Hindus here. The fact that you are just so willing to condemn Hinduism, while then you then bristle when someone dares criticize what you posting, is nothing short of sheer hypocrisy.

So, maybe when in church this Sunday while you're saying all those amen's, just maybe think about what you are doing by unnecessarily offending others, and maybe actually ask yourself if Jesus would approve of your overt judgmentalism of a largely monotheistic people who believe we need to live morally. And maybe do some serious studying of Hinduism while you're at it, which one needs to do in order to understand the tremendous variability that is found within that faith.

But I do agree: enough.

 

[Riverwolf]

As I have said pointing out a few individuals who are doing good but mundane things is not meaningful in evaluating a faith. It takes large numbers of exceptional acts to validate a faith. Let me ask this. What is it in Asatru that theoretically changes you from the core and gives you actual power to be better and a foundation that grounds what being better actually means? I can find thousands of people that claim exactly hat you have but give all manner of sources. What I can't find is those same groups in large numbers donating their lives to help people they do not know, fighting and dying to free other men, internally abolishing slavery, etc....

Every homeless person is Woden the Wanderer. To deny them is to deny Woden Himself. Consider the backstory to Beauty and the Beast.

By the way, there aren't statistics regarding those things in Asatru comparable to Christianity because Asatru is miniscule in number of adherents.

I know of Arianism but I do not know to what purpose your making these comments. What is the conclusion here?

Like I said, Christianity did little to change the actual behavior of these people.

Let me again supply the best definition for objective morality I have ever seen.

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.
For example, most human beings believe that murder, rape, and theft are wrong, regardless of whether a law governs such conduct or where the conduct occurs, and is thus recognizably malum in se. In contrast, malum prohibitum crimes are criminal not because they are inherently bad, but because the act is prohibited by the law of the state.
Malum in se - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Culture is excluded from any possibility of creating this.

Except that I expect just such a concept to come from Rome's imperialistic culture.

I did not say anything about how well subjective morality works. I did not even say anything that had any connection to it. I said what the nature of morality is given God and what it is minus God and these are inescapable. It most certainly is pure and only pure opinion that murder is objectively wrong if morality is subjective. That is literally what subjective means.

No, it isn't. Subjectivity involves a subject-object relationship. The subject is the viewer, and contains a lot of predispositions and earlier-established biases which inherently color their views of the object. Regardless of how many subjects agree, even if it's 100%, it's still subjective.

I have looked up and provided the definitions of objective morality many times and not once have I ever heard of your definition. Debates take place on the common ground of scholarship and established meanings. They do not take place on what you personally wish was the definition of a thing. There is not one word in your definition that would separate objective morals from subjective morals. Sorry, it is just a horrific definition.

I cannot define what I don't believe exists; the definition I provided is not applicable to morality, which is inherently subjective. That you find it "horrific"doesn't matter to me.

If my expressed conceptions go against the established moral scholarship, then that's probably because my views go against established scholarship.

I believe I said that if Go dexists your accountable to him and you said you do not live by any "ifs".

No, I didn't. I said:

If so, so be it. I'm not living my life based on this "if".

I live by plenty of other ifs.

Actually it is the opposite. We have no inherent rights of any kind without God. No one has any rights to give anyone else. Rights are things inherent to us if God exists that governments are not infringe upon. That is why Jefferson said he grounded rights in God.

And remember that he owned slaves, and when the Declaration said "all men", it really did mean, "all MEN". Specifically white males over 21 who owned property.

That is not how theology states it. Physical death is not eternal. However if no God exists then yes we all end the same way. No ultimate justice, no righting any wrongs in any ultimate sense, who cares it al ends the same way.

I did not say anything about death giving meaning to life.

I did. It all ends the same way, and that's fine, because the ending isn't really important. The journey is what matters.

No, I have looked up hundreds of moral statistics and have posted links to them all and dozens and dozens of examples of the fact that virtually every moral statistic took a nose dive in the late 50's. All the way from teen pregnancy, drugs abuse, gang activity in schools, abortion, sexual violence, gambling debts, suicides, school shooting and on and on.

We also have ninjas fighting off muggers, and RLSHs helping people.

Something that was stressed to me, and is becoming increasingly apparent, is that you can find statistics to prove any point you want. Another thing is that humans have an ingrained tendency to focus in on the negative and ignore the positive; it's a survival trait, but it can make the negative appear to outweigh the positive in our minds, regardless of whether or not that actually reflects the situation accurately.

Notice, after all, that I called the post-war years (that is, the era just before the one you cited: post-1945 unto the late 50s), as almost Orewllian. I.e., despotic and tyrannical. There's a reason 1984 was written in 1948.

No and that is surprising because I watch a lot only movies but and no TV.

It's on Netflix instant watch. Check it out; it explores in depth this very subject.

Even if Aphrodite existed it would not be because Aphrodite is not a source of moral truth.

For Her followers She is. Under Her, celibacy would be immoral.

Aphrodite is a created God even if it exists. BTW is Aphrodite male or female?

The Lore says that Aphrodite was born from the foam that resulted when Uranus's castrated testicles fell into the Sea, not "created" by any "higher" God. All depictions of Her that I know of are female, though I don't see the relevance.

I see no basis by which claim the most sovereign entity even theoretically possible cannot do anything he choses. I agree with your evaluation of the family.

Because sovereignty only exists so long as the subjects don't bring it down. Even the Highest God is subject to Death.

 

[1robin]

And maybe grow enough common decency to apologize to the Hindus here. The fact that you are just so willing to condemn Hinduism, while then you then bristle when someone dares criticize what you posting, is nothing short of sheer hypocrisy.

So, maybe when in church this Sunday while you're saying all those amen's, just maybe think about what you are doing by unnecessarily offending others, and maybe actually ask yourself if Jesus would approve of your overt judgmentalism of a largely monotheistic people who believe we need to live morally. And maybe do some serious studying of Hinduism while you're at it, which one needs to do in order to understand the tremendous variability that is found within that faith.

But I do agree: enough.

I had hoped to drop this where I left it but this was so absurd I must contend with it. Are you nuts? When I go to Church it is to worship Christ. The exact same man who said the leaders of his own faith were a brood of vipers that they had no hope of escaping damnation and in essence claimed that any other faith every conceived in the history of man was evil. God has wiped out people for merely engaging in other faiths and practices. What I said was a thousand times milder than what Christ said and what God did. It was not offensive in any way what so ever to a person of average sensitivity and were purely logical conclusions and not in any way emotional or offensive. Get a grip man. Ok now I am done with you.

 

[metis]

I had hoped to drop this where I left it but this was so absurd I must contend with it. Are you nuts? When I go to Church it is to worship Christ. The exact same man who said the leaders of his own faith were a brood of vipers that they had no hope of escaping damnation and in essence claimed that any other faith every conceived in the history of man was evil. God has wiped out people for merely engaging in other faiths and practices. What I said was a thousand times milder than what Christ said and what God did. It was not offensive in any way what so ever to a person of average sensitivity and were purely logical conclusions and not in any way emotional or offensive. Get a grip man. Ok now I am done with you.

If I'm "nuts", coming from you, I consider that a great honor, so thank you very much. I'd rather discuss things with people who really don't condemn other faiths, even if they were to have strong feelings against some. As an adult, we sometimes need to hold our tongue and not say something that may deeply offend others even if we do have strong feelings.

At least with the vast majority of Hindus, who as part of their theology do not condemn other religions ("many paths to God"), I much prefer to discuss things with them and members of many other faiths, including Christians, over your version of fundamentalist Christianity that is both judgmental and self-righteous. It's the "look at me, I'm saved!" arrogance with your version that so many of us find terribly offensive, especially when people like you then go around and condemn so many others.

I'm so glad you're "done with" me, btw, and your hypocrisy shines forth as you judge others but then take offense when anyone dares to criticize your approach.

 

[1robin]

Every homeless person is Woden the Wanderer. To deny them is to deny Woden Himself. Consider the backstory to Beauty and the Beast.

Riverwolf yours are some of the most unusual posts I have ever seen. I am not complaining, they are at least entertaining. If you look around the world you will find very very few Woden centers for the homeless, but you will find countless Christian shelters for them in virtually every country on earth.

By the way, there aren't statistics regarding those things in Asatru comparable to Christianity because Asatru is miniscule in number of adherents.

If a faith cannot get out of the starting gates but remains confined by culture or time then I suspect the ability of it's truth to convince. Regardless then how about percentages instead of total numbers. If Asatru is so miniscule how is it you think it the proper Hinduism?

Like I said, Christianity did little to change the actual behavior of these people.

Christianity unlike any other faith contains huge numbers of people who both have made radical changes in their lives (from killers to servants, from thugs to those who feed, from drug addicts to moral preachers, from convicts to youth councilors) corresponding exactly with their being born again and themselves have no explanation for the change beyond God. Some well known examples in our time would be Johnny Cash and George Foreman. Christianity has millions more stories just like theirs. I know Christianity has the greatest number of radically changed live in total and I am certain it has the highest percentage of any meaningfully sized faith but the matter would be hard to prove. I just realized you were referring only to Arianism. So please take this reply as general information. However please stop evaluating a faith composed of billions by a handful here and there.

Except that I expect just such a concept to come from Rome's imperialistic culture.

First that concept is not Roman. Rome just happen to articulate it very well. Almost every society in history has had similar moral concepts as the basis for it's society. A few exceptions would be societies based on false theologies, or stuff like Hitler's social Darwinians society. Most societies have mirrored what I quoted from Rome including most of todays. And even if Rome was the most evil culture that ever existed that definition is still true.

No, it isn't. Subjectivity involves a subject-object relationship. The subject is the viewer, and contains a lot of predispositions and earlier-established biases which inherently color their views of the object. Regardless of how many subjects agree, even if it's 100%, it's still subjective.

Yes it is and you proved that. You basically said exactly what I did in another way. What you said is just another semantic version of what I did and what I will quote here:

Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute,[1] as opposed to conduct evil in and of itself, or malum in se.[2]

Being subjective means to be subject to just as you said, and just as you said what in this case subjective morality is subject to is merely our opinion. I do not know about you but if I am going to take a man's life I hope what he did is actually wrong and not merely a violation of my preference.

I cannot define what I don't believe exists; the definition I provided is not applicable to morality, which is inherently subjective. That you find it "horrific"doesn't matter to me.

Things we either do not believe in or we do not actually know of are defined constantly. We define what is true of fairies, myths, scientific issues we cannot properly evaluate, etc.. However it is not necessary for you to define anything since countless scholars have already done so and done so constantly and logically. I gave those definitions and upon those definitions is where debate is supposed to occur.

If my expressed conceptions go against the established moral scholarship, then that's probably because my views go against established scholarship.

That is a tautology. I do not at this point care if you agree that what is defined exists or not, I only care that you understand the concept is defined that way.

No, I didn't. I said:



I live by plenty of other ifs.

My point was everything you live by is an if, denying one category of if because it is an if is contradictory.

And remember that he owned slaves, and when the Declaration said "all men", it really did mean, "all MEN". Specifically white males over 21 who owned property.

Hold the phone here, I did not say he was some perfect human being, I even said he was not a Christian, however most scholars consider him a brilliant legal philosopher. I do not care if he wiped out a family of bunny rabbits his efforts to ground rights and morality were as logically, rationally, and deductively as flawless as any in history. Anyway he did own slaves, however he was originally the man who wrote the first draft of the declaration and it prohibited slavery. He was overruled by others in a effort to get the southern cotton states to sign the document. He was undeniably brilliant but was a study in contrasts. Something further, even after he was over ruled he and others then attempted to stop it another way. He said that while Humanity is equal in the eyes of God (and that is the only way we can be equal) we are not equal in all ways. He, Lincoln, and others basically said that humanity is treated equally as circumstances allowed. Circumstances dictate how we can treat others. I treat a sick person in ways I don't treat a healthy one. Basically this effort paved the way for the slaves freedom as soon as circumstances allowed. When circumstances allowed a few plantation owners said no way and 300,000 Christians died to free men they had never met and did so. When MLK submitted his promissory note for equality he did so on the founding fathers claims we are equal before God.

I have to break this post in two.
Continued below:

 

[1robin]

I did. It all ends the same way, and that's fine, because the ending isn't really important.

It is possibly true but I would have thought only a nihilist would think that was juts dandy. Every instinct and intuitive feature of mankind's nature screams that this is not fine and probably not true.

The journey is what matters.

Since your world view exterminates any ultimate meaning or hope then that is all your left with but it is pathetically little. It is quite depressing and sad to think we only have a cosmic blink in time, everyone we love, every dream we have, every eternal hope, every innate instinct, etc.. ends in ultimate futility.

We also have ninjas fighting off muggers, and RLSHs helping people.

You can name every group similar to this in history and it's benevolent summation will be a mere fraction compared with Christianity. I have said it many times you are up against a massive benevolent giant here, poking it in the toe with a handful of counter points just is not a threat. Might as well throw pebbles in the Atlantic and say take that.

Something that was stressed to me, and is becoming increasingly apparent, is that you can find statistics to prove any point you want. Another thing is that humans have an ingrained tendency to focus in on the negative and ignore the positive; it's a survival trait, but it can make the negative appear to outweigh the positive in our minds, regardless of whether or not that actually reflects the situation accurately.

I have had three college level probability, statistical, and engineering verses of both classes. Statistics can be misused, they can be pliable, but they when used correctly cannot prove a falsity. I think the stats are inconvenient for you and so your attempting to invent a reason to dismiss them. Stats are so useful that every major issue we deal with from morality, health and disease, to the census uses them. You can deny statistics if misused, but you cannot deny statistics because they can be misused. I do not think we have that tendency. I think people see things generally as they want them to be. The fact we have invented a thousand false religions is evidence. And I do not see the survival benefit to seeing things not as they actually are. You survive better with truth. Sitting in the dirt think you can't find water will kill you every time.

Notice, after all, that I called the post-war years (that is, the era just before the one you cited: post-1945 unto the late 50s), as almost Orewllian. I.e., despotic and tyrannical. There's a reason 1984 was written in 1948.

First of all that book was predicting the future. Second a book is not how society was actually operating. Space travel was written about long before it was done. Thirdly your completely wrong, almost every moral stat, every way of defining benevolence, every way of defining success, security, strength contradicts everything you said in the most Christian periods of US history. Merely looking at a TV guide from the late 50's compared with today shows a nation that is becoming more secular and morally insane. The closest to an Orwellian society was Hitler's Germany and the US was who stopped him along with two other Christian nations.

It's on Netflix instant watch. Check it out; it explores in depth this very subject.

I wish I could but I do not have Netflix. I have a thousand DVD's.

For Her followers She is. Under Her, celibacy would be immoral.

Prove that under Aphrodite celibacy is actually an objective fact.

The Lore says that Aphrodite was born from the foam that resulted when Uranus's castrated testicles fell into the Sea, not "created" by any "higher" God. All depictions of Her that I know of are female, though I don't see the relevance.

How absurd, and how incapable she would be if that was true to ground objective morality. Regardless I appreciate the info.

Because sovereignty only exists so long as the subjects don't bring it down. Even the Highest God is subject to Death.

God's sovereignty can not be brought down. That is among the reasons why he is the ultimate moral authority and source of objective moral truth.

 

[1robin]

If I'm "nuts", coming from you, I consider that a great honor, so thank you very much. I'd rather discuss things with people who really don't condemn other faiths, even if they were to have strong feelings against some. As an adult, we sometimes need to hold our tongue and not say something that may deeply offend others even if we do have strong feelings.

At least with the vast majority of Hindus, who as part of their theology do not condemn other religions ("many paths to God"), I much prefer to discuss things with them and members of many other faiths, including Christians, over your version of fundamentalist Christianity that is both judgmental and self-righteous. It's the "look at me, I'm saved!" arrogance with your version that so many of us find terribly offensive, especially when people like you then go around and condemn so many others.

I'm so glad you're "done with" me, btw, and your hypocrisy shines forth as you judge others but then take offense when anyone dares to criticize your approach.

Fine, I guess your one of those last word or death folks. Peace out.

 

[leibowde84]

Well metis I have never seen you venture outside a thread on the trinity that I can remember. I see your social graces and tact have not changed. What "pray tell" is disgusting in equating the word "original" with the word "first"?

You have to try very hard to be disgusted to have been by this.

lol. I think he was referring to this:

"I however again want to shy away from getting bogged down in a history of the most confusing, irrational, and contradictory faith I have ever studied."

 

[1robin]

lol. I think he was referring to this:

"I however again want to shy away from getting bogged down in a history of the most confusing, irrational, and contradictory faith I have ever studied."

We had already clarified all that a week ago. However there is no justification for being disgusted in that case either. I gave logical conclusions not personal rants. It is irrational to me, it is confusing to me, it is contradictory to me and legions of scholars as well. Those are academic conclusions not personal attacks. They are extremely easy to defend, they are not vulgar, or sarcastic. They are well know in theological circles. There exists no reason what so ever a person of reasonable sensitivity should be disgusted by that benign opinion that is in fact true to me. Unless a person is over sensitive, frustrated with reality in general, or feigning one or the other in order to play the victim (which unfortunately is a sign of the times these days) my remarks should have be viewed as benignly as they actually are. Our history contains thousands of irrational and contradictory faiths. It is unavoidable that almost all of them would be irrational, inconsistent, and confusing even if that is not preferable to someone.

 

[leibowde84]

We had already clarified all that a week ago. However there is no justification for being disgusted in that case either. I gave logical conclusions not personal rants. It is irrational to me, it is confusing to me, it is contradictory to me and legions of scholars as well. Those are academic conclusions not personal attacks. They are extremely easy to defend, they are not vulgar, or sarcastic. They are well know in theological circles. There exists no reason what so ever a person of reasonable sensitivity should be disgusted by that benign opinion that is in fact true to me. Unless a person is over sensitive, frustrated with reality in general, or feigning one or the other in order to play the victim (which unfortunately is a sign of the times these days) my remarks should have be viewed as benignly as they actually are. Our history contains thousands of irrational and contradictory faiths. It is unavoidable that almost all of them would be irrational, inconsistent, and confusing even if that is not preferable to someone.

Haha. I was just pointing out the confusion. No judgment here. I don't see anything wrong with what you wrote at all. It is critical that we have the ability to criticize religious views/beliefs.

 

[metis]

But what's hypocritical are claims by some who say that one cannot truly understand their religion unless they're on the inside, and yet they seemingly forget their own words when they negatively judge another religion. It is arrogance and judgementalism on steroids, and when someone does it to them, their hypocrisy comes out in spades.

As one whom has studied Hinduism, it does make sense, and I can say that even if I'm not Hindu. Yes, it is a confusing religion if one looks at it from an Abrahaimc tradition, but the problem isn't the religion but is the fact that it's based on some different premises. Once one understands those premises, and also understands the tremendous variability of belief intrinsic within the faith itself, it's much easier to understand where it's coming from. Frankly, there are elements of it that I find more logical than the approach of the Abrahamics in general.

Hindus overall are not stupid people, and yet that is simply the implication of some here who simply are so myopic that they can't see beyond the end of their own nose. Was Gandhi ignorant? Anyone who has spent any time reading him well knows that he wasn't. Neither was Joseph Campbell, who might have been the world's foremost authority on religions overall and converted to Hinduism out of Christianity.

 

[1robin]

Haha. I was just pointing out the confusion. No judgment here. I don't see anything wrong with what you wrote at all. It is critical that we have the ability to criticize religious views/beliefs.

I commend your senilities. It is the highest possible good that we are allowed to critically analyze claims. It is usually the worst elements among us who attempt to limit or control what is said in the public square. I endure and put up with a constant barrage of emotionally based attacks which do use sarcasm and rhetoric against my faith. I am not hypocritical even though I did not use those tactics, I allow them. All claims to absolute truth are open to criticism and should be. The truth does not fear them, falsity tries to derail them. Maybe that is why most professional theological debates are sponsored by theists. Anyway, glad you agree.