Miscellaneous Topics discussion - 2

[acharya]

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/india/T...I1ELT3J/p2

Racial topics of Indians with black and white

Indian population is increasing in many countries and there are less men in many western countries

[acharya]

Hinduism is an old religion started by the Global Elites from a long time ago. To know who they are now, go to: cuttingthroughthematrix.com . Because you can handle the truth!!

[acharya]

Cairo Conference reaches consensus on plan to stabilize world growth by 2015 - International Conference on Population and Development - includes related article on United Nations' studies on urbanization
UN Chronicle , Dec, 1994
Against a backdrop streaked with controversy and under the intense spotlight of unprecedented world media attention, the international Conference on Population and Development reached consensus--despite some widely divergent viewpoints--on a worldwide strategy to curb global population growth over the next 20 years and achieve sustained economic growth and sustainable development.
At the heart of the work of the Conference--the fifth UN global meeting on population issues--was, in the words of UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the "search for an equilibrium between humanity and its environment and, ultimately, the means to sustain life on earth". in that light, he felt the widespread public attention to controversial issues debated at the Conference was "essentially encouraging", since it helped raise consciousness of important issues and mobilize public opinion significant action. Such critical matters could not be considered "without causing ripples and even some storms", he said.

Convened in Cairo, Egypt from 5 to 13 September, the Conference adopted without a vote a 16-chapter Programme of Action, calling for action to stabilize world population growth at below estimates of 7.5 billion by the year 2015 in the context of sustainable development.

In its preamble, the Programme states that the Conference represented "the last opportunity" in the twentieth century to collectively address the critical challenges and interrelationships between population and development. The Programme of Action, according to Dr. Nafis Sadik, Executive Director of the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) and Conference Secretary-General, had the potential "to change the world".

Delegations from more than 180 countries, which included a number of Heads of State or Government, were joined at the Conference by thousands of participants from non-governmental and other grass-roots organizations, intergovernmental bodies and the media--an indication of the importance attached by the people of the world to a meeting convened for the people of the world.

Four previous UN population conferences have been convened at the global level: Rome (1954); Belgrade (1965); Bucharest (1974) and Mexico City (1984). The first World Population Plan of Action was adopted in 1974 and was reviewed and supplemented at the 1984 Conference by a set of recommendations for its further implementation.

Mindful of the need to continue to consider population issues at a high level, the UN Economic and Social Council in July 1989 called for the convening of an international conference on population. The General Assembly, in 1992 and 1993, stressed "the need for comprehensive national population policies based on national priorities and compatible with sustained economic growth and sustainable development". (See special Conference background section, UN Chronicle, September 1994, Volume XXXI, No. 3).

'The destiny of the human being'

In an opening address on 5 September, Mr. Boutros-Ghali underscored his belief that "the efficacy of the economic order of the planet on which we live" depended in great measure on the results of the Conference. Delegates to UN conferences in the economic and social spheres were currently considering the "destiny of the human being". Three principles of human conduct--"rigour, tolerance and conscience"--should, in his view, set the tone and guide Conference deliberations. He reiterated the need to support population policies, since "it would be inadmissible to rely on some kind of law of nature"--to allow wars, disasters, famine or disease to regulate the world's demographic growth. He also stressed the important role that women must play in development.

In view of the social and ethical questions under discussion, he said, all delegates should be tolerant and respectful of the sensitivities of others. in the end, the Secretary-General said, men and women throughout the world must have not only the right but also the means to choose their families' futures. Egyptian President Mohamed Hosni Mubarak, a winner of the 1994 UN Population Award, was acclamation as Conference President. He told delegates that solutions to population problems must transcend mere "demographics" and be elaborated in close relation to the problems of social, economic and cultural development.

Among the dignitaries who spoke was Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland of Norway, who told the Conference that for too many women in too many countries, real development had only been an illusion. Morality had become "hypocrisy" when it meant accepting mothers suffering or dying in connection with unwanted pregnancies and illegal abortions, and unwanted children living in misery, she said.

Vice-President Albert Gore of the United States, mindful that no single solution was sufficient, spoke of a "holistic" and comprehensive approach to the world's population problems, as well as to the persistent high level of poverty. in his words, democracy, economic reform, low rates of inflation, low levels of corruption, sound environmental stewardship, free and open markets at home and access to markets in the developed countries were essential.

[acharya]

Secret meeting of world's richest people held in New York
Buffett, Gates, Rockefeller, Turner, Winfrey, Bloomberg, Soros in media-blackout conference
By
NIALL O'DOWD
,
IrishCentral.Com Publisher

Published Monday, May 18, 2009, 2:14 PM
Updated Saturday, May 23, 2009, 9:11 PM
Buzz up!

Secret meeting of world's richest people held in New York | Irish News | IrishCentral


Bill Gates and Warren Buffett
Bill Gates and Warren Buffett

(Copyright 2009 IrishCentral LLC)

5/23 UPDATE: What they talked about... Click here

Photo gallery: Click here

Comment: How they could spend the money in Ireland

A top-secret meeting of the world’s richest people to discuss the global financial crisis was held in New York on May 5, IrishCentral.com has learned exclusively.

The mysterious, media-blackout meeting was called by Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire-Hathaway; Bill Gates, co founder of Microsoft; and David Rockefeller Jr., chairman of Rockefeller Financial Services.

In addition to Gates, Buffett and Rockefeller, the attendees included Oprah Winfrey, George Soros, Ted Turner, and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, among others.

It was held in the President's Room at Rockefeller University In New York at 3 p.m. on that Tuesday afternoon.

How so many giant figures in American life managed to interrupt and coordinate their schedules on such short notice, and meet in total secrecy in the world’s media capital remains a mystery -- as does the ultimate outcome of the billionaires' conference.

In their letter of invitation, Gates, Buffett and Rockefeller cited the worldwide recession and the urgent need to plan for the future. They said they wanted to hear the views of a broad range of key leaders in the financial and philanthropic fields.

Each attendee was given 15 minutes to deliver a presentation on how they saw the future global economic climate, the future priorities for philanthropy, and what they felt the elite group should do.

According to one of the attendees, Gates was the most-impressive speaker of the day, with Turner the most-outspoken and Warren Buffet the most-insistent on his agenda for change.

Winfrey was said to be in a “listening mode."

Gates was worth an estimated $57B in 2008; more recently, Buffett clocked in at an estimated $37B -- making them the richest Americans.

Winfrey was once the world’s only black billionaire, and has extensive holdings in the entertainment and publishing industries, as well as being a leading philanthropist.

Turner, founder of CNN, once donated $1B to the United Nations. Soros has a personal fortune estimated at $11B, while Bloomberg is listed as the eighth-richest American with a net worth of $20B .

Other invitees included Eli and Edythe Broad, whose current fortune is estimated at $5.2B by Forbes Magazine; John Morgridge, former CEO of Cisco and his wife Tashia; Peter Peterson, senior chairman of the Blackstone Group; Julian Robertson, founder of Tiger Management Corp.; and Patty Stonesifer, former CEO of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

"They were all there, the great and the good," a participant told IrishCentral.com.

[ramana]

X-posted . Please look at the link:

Thanks, ramana

<!--QuoteBegin-"ramana"+-->QUOTE("ramana")<!--QuoteEBegin-->In the Future strategic scenario thread some members were exploring the idea that Indians were corrupt. I had to interrupt the conversation as it was off-topic there.

My understanding is that corruption as a state institution was an outcome of the East India Company rule in India. The EIC officials were paid a pittance with the understanding that they could trade on their own account to make up the difference. Robert Clive had the temerity to say in his defence at his trial for corruption "I was astounded at my own modesty", in reference to his power to steal as much as he wanted after the fall of Oudh, but he curbed it and took only a little 8). Concept of "baksheesh" was popularised in company rule with the underlings serving as conduit to recieve the funds from the supplicants. All euphemisms like "upar ke amadani" etc are from that era.

I would like members to point out stories of corruption in the Vijaynagar or earlier Hoyasala rule or even Chola rule.  Or even vernacular sayings other than in Hindusthani or Urdu. Maybe a new Rumila Thapad will be born to chronicle this.

After the Crown took over the officials were still paid little sums but had enormous privileges and perks and could retire to their native lands (Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and even Canada). After Independence the policy of low pay was continued by GOI due to various hardships (the British stole the treasury in WWII etc(Sterling reserves), resource mobilization for developing economy and industrialization ) and this gave an ample opportunity for self-enrichment, aka corruption. In most Western countries there are legitimate venues for self enrichment, which are prohibited by law in India (state financing of elections, allow individuals and corporations to donate funds to political parties etc) plus the old quota - permit- license raj under INC helped to institutionalize this self-enrichment process.

In the Islamic rules there was the practice of nazarana where the people who wished to see the Sultan had to bring gifts of bullion(gold coins) to get their audience. The Nizam of Hyderabad was notorious for insisting who should have audience with him 8).

The Mughal princesses and begums used to trade on their private account to supplement the meager allowance the Padshahs used to allot to them. See the refs to the pirates capturing the ship of Akbar's queen, Mariam Uz Zaman aka Jodha Bai apdf of which I had some members post a long time ago.

Along the way during the British rule, a number of sterotypes of Indians have developed and here is a wiki article on that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotypes...uth_Asians<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[acharya]

<b>Multiracial people become fastest-growing US group</b>
AP

Golfer Woods looks on during Game 3 of Eastern Conference Finals NBA basketball playoff series between Magic and Cavaliers in Orlando Reuters – Golfer Tiger Woods looks on in the first quarter of Game 3 of the Eastern Conference Finals NBA basketball …
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer Hope Yen, Associated Press Writer – 55 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Multiracial Americans have become the fastest growing demographic group, wielding an impact on minority growth that challenges traditional notions of race.

The number of multiracial people rose 3.4 percent last year to about 5.2 million, according to the latest census estimates. First given the option in 2000, Americans who check more than one box for race on census surveys have jumped by 33 percent and now make up 5 percent of the minority population — with millions more believed to be uncounted.

Demographers attributed the recent population growth to more social acceptance and slowing immigration. They cited in particular the high public profiles of Tiger Woods and President Barack Obama, a self-described "mutt," who are having an effect on those who might self-identify as multiracial.

Population figures as of July 2008 show that California, Texas, New York and Florida had the most multiracial people, due partly to higher numbers of second- and later-generation immigrants who are more likely to "marry out." Measured by percentages, Hawaii ranked first with nearly 1 in 5 residents who were multiracial, followed by Alaska and Oklahoma, both at roughly 4 percent.

Utah had the highest growth rate of multiracial people in 2008 compared to the previous year, a reflection of increasing social openness in a mostly white state.

"Multiracial unions have been happening for a very long time, but we are only now really coming to terms with saying it's OK," said Carolyn Liebler, a sociology professor at the University of Minnesota who specializes in family, race and ethnicity.

"I don't think we've nearly tapped the potential. Millions are yet to come out," she said.

In Middletown, N.J., Kayci Baldwin, 17, said she remembers how her black father and white mother often worried whether she would fit in with the other kids. While she at first struggled with her identity, Baldwin now actively embraces it, sponsoring support groups and a nationwide multiracial teen club of 1,000 that includes both Democrats and Republicans.

"I went to my high school prom last week with my date who is Ecuadoran-Nigerian, a friend who is Chinese-white and another friend who is part Dominican," she said. "While we are a group that was previously ignored in many ways, we now have an opportunity to fully identify and express ourselves."

The latest demographic change comes amid a debate on the role of race in America, complicating conventional notions of minority rights.

Under new federal rules, many K-12 schools next year will allow students for the first time to indicate if they are "two or more races." The move is expected to cause shifts in how test scores are categorized, potentially altering race disparities and funding for education programs.

Five justices of the Supreme Court have signaled they would like to end racial preferences in voting rights and employment cases — a majority that may not change even if Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed as the first Hispanic justice. Blacks and Hispanics, meanwhile, are touting a growing minority population and past discrimination in pushing for continued legal protections.

Left out of the discussion are multiracial people, who are counted as minorities but can be hard to define politically and socioeconomically. Demographers say that while some multiracial Americans may feel burdened or isolated by their identity, others quickly learn to navigate it and can flourish from their access to more racial networks.

"The significance of race as we know it in today's legal and government categories will be obsolete in less than 20 years," said William H. Frey, a demographer at Brookings Institution.

"The rise of mixed-race voters will dilute the racial identity politics that have become prevalent in past elections," he said.

Liebler noted a potential dilemma where a white student who is one-eighth Cherokee applies to college and seeks an admissions preference based on race and disadvantaged status. Should the college give the multiracial student the boost, if one-eighth of his family suffered a past racial harm but seven-eighths of his family were the perpetrators?

"It's a huge question for our legal system and our policies," she said. "Tomorrow we could have a legal case that challenges whether a multiracial person is a minority."

Census data also show:

_More than half of the multiracial population was younger than 20 years old, a reflection of declining social stigma as interracial marriages became less taboo.

_Interracial marriages increased threefold to 4.3 million since 2000, when Alabama became the last state to lift its unenforceable ban on interracial marriages. (The Supreme Court barred race-based restrictions on marriage in 1967.) About 1 in 13 marriages are mixed race, with the most prevalent being white-Hispanic, white-American Indian and white-Asian.

_Due to declining immigration because of legal restrictions and the lackluster economy, the growth rates of the Hispanic and Asian populations slowed last year to 3.2 percent and 2.5 percent, respectively, compared to multiracial people's 3.4 percent. The black population rose at a rate of about 1 percent; the white population only marginally increased.

Currently, census forms allow U.S. residents to check more than one box for their race. But there is no multiracial category, and survey responses can vary widely depending on whether a person considers Hispanic a race or ethnicity.

"It's all about awareness," said Susan Graham, founder and executive director of California-based Project Race, which advocates for a multiracial classification on government forms. "We want a part of the pie chart."

The 2008 census estimates used local records of births and deaths and tax records of people moving within the U.S. The figures for "white" refer to those whites who are not of Hispanic ethnicity. For purposes of defining interracial marriages, Hispanic is counted as a race.

___

On the Net:

Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov

[Guest]

Watching Balu's video - RRI Platform, and having read his columns earlier at IF, I seek little more clarity. Ignoring the concept of "creationism" how different are Hindus and Christians when it comes to believing in super natural force(s) that interfere and shape our everyday life. When Balu says Hindus don't have religion, then what is that we were doing when praying to our deva and devis? Different cultures might use different words - religion, tradition etc. At one level of abstraction both Hindus and Christians sought blessings and interference from non-human forces.

I am confused, some gyan deeply appreciated.

[ramana]

<!--QuoteBegin-Swamy G+May 29 2009, 04:18 PM-->QUOTE(Swamy G @ May 29 2009, 04:18 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Watching Balu's video - RRI Platform, and having read his columns earlier at IF, I seek little more clarity. Ignoring the concept of "creationism" how different are Hindus and Christians when it comes to believing in super natural force(s) that interfere and shape our everyday life. When Balu says Hindus don't have religion, then what is that we were doing when praying to our deva and devis? Different cultures might use different words - religion, tradition etc. At one level of abstraction both Hindus and Christians sought blessings and interference from non-human forces.

I am confused, some gyan deeply appreciated.
[right][snapback]97886[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


What he is saying is that Hindus dont have religion in the Christian sense. For them its politico-socio-religious mileu. For Hindus its strictly the last. You can invoke god in any object and pray. If you believe, even a rock has god in it. Eg. Bhakta Prahalad. For them "there is no god but God."
So our conception of god is more encompassing then theirs and is not thus confined to one Belief. I hope this is not more confusing. 8)

[Husky]

While I don't understand Balagangadhara's denial of us having a 'Religion' either (in any case we <i>do</i> have what Shintos, Taoists, Greco-Roman traditionalists, N American Native Americans have - and just like all theirs, it is something that most certainly IS well-defined; however we absolutely <i>don't</i> have anything like christianism/islamism),
I also don't understand your reference to 'faith' in a recent post. ('Faith' does not mean what you think it means).

That christianism is profoundly different from Hindu Dharma is the same argument that the Greeks and Romans gave to the christianists with respect to the GrecoRoman tradition. This, in spite of christianism <i>outwardly</i> copycatting GrecoRoman Tradition. (E.g. the way the catholic church in India is now promoting 'idolatry' on purpose, pushing Mary as a 'goddess' figure, copying Hindu ritual forms, describing christianism as a 'way of life', and see this latest inculturation).



<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->how different are Hindus and Christians when it comes to believing in super natural force(s)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Incredibly different. But to get that, you have to stop seeing christianism as a Hindu and start looking at it as a christian: i.e. understand christianism the way they understand it. Then you understand what compels them to do what they do.

That is why you are also wrong in supposing - in another thread that I don't want to interrupt - that any 'christian' who does not accept the historicity of jeebus can possibly be a christian.
No. They cannot be.

Resurrection is the PIVOTAL christian belief. That jeebus saved people for their sins by dying ('he shed his blood for you!' 'Don't you know that? He shed his blood for you!') - for which he had to have lived. And that if you don't <i>accept</i> this, and his sacrifice, you're going straight down the well. I mean, down to hel.


Two things. (2nd point is in the next post)
1. Some of the earliest christians did have jeebus as a non-corporeal entity:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Paul and Hellenism</b>, by the British scholar Hyam Maccoby, discusses how Paul's ideas have much in common with those central to the ancient Hellenic mysteries. The book looks at how Paul's Eucharistic meal is unlike Jewish concepts (where it would be blasphemous) but is instead very like Greek sacramentalism.
The violent death of Paul's Christ (in the spiritual realm) is unrelated to any previous Jewish ideas of God's salvation. However, it matches those of many Greek savior gods who, Maccoby tells us, "are the centers of rites in which their deaths are rehearsed for some salvific purpose".

http://freetruth.50webs.org/B1d.htm
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->    Christ’s features and myths are in many ways similar to those of the Greco-Roman salvation "mystery religions", each having its own savior god or goddess. Most of these (e.g., Dionysos, Mithras, Attis, Isis, Osiris) were part of myths in which the deity had overcome death in some way, or performed some act which conferred benefits and salvation on their devotees. Such activities were viewed as taking place in the upper spirit realm, not on earth or in history. Most of these cults had sacred meals (like Paul’s Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23f) and envisioned mystical relationships between the believer and the god similar to what Paul speaks of with Christ. Early Christianity was a Jewish sectarian version of this widespread type of belief system, though with its own strong Jewish features and background.
    -- Earl Doherty, author of The Jesus Puzzle<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

http://freetruth.50webs.org/B2a.htm pointing to
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/jhcjp.htm and http://home.ca.inter.net/oblio/puzzle1.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"In the first half century of Christian correspondence, including letters attributed to Paul and other epistles under names like Peter, James and John, the Gospel story cannot be found. When these writers speak of their divine Christ, echoes of Jesus of Nazareth are virtually inaudible, including details of a life and ministry, the circumstances of his death, the attribution of any teachings to him. God himself is often identified as the source of Christian ethics. No one speaks of miracles performed by Jesus, his apocalyptic predictions, his views on any of the great issues of the time. The very fact that he preached in person is never mentioned, his appointment of apostles or his directive to carry the message to the nations of the world is never appealed to. No one looks back to Jesus’ life and ministry as the genesis of the Christian movement, or as the pivot point of salvation history."
-- The Jesus Puzzle, by Earl Doherty (Journal of Higher Criticism, Fall 1997)

    <b>A Conspiracy of Silence</b>
    The Gospel story, with its figure of Jesus of Nazareth, cannot be found before the Gospels. In Christian writings earlier than Mark, including almost all of the New Testament epistles, as well as in many writings from the second century, the object of Christian faith is never spoken of as a human man who had recently lived, taught, performed miracles, suffered and died at the hands of human authorities, or rose from a tomb outside Jerusalem.

    Paul and other early writers speak of the divine Son of their faith entirely in terms of a spiritual, heavenly figure; they never identify this entity called "Christ Jesus" ... as a man who had lived and died in recent history.

    <b>A Sacrifice in the Spiritual Realm</b>
    Paul does not locate the death and resurrection of Christ on earth or in history. According to him, the crucifixion took place in the spiritual world, in a supernatural dimension above the earth, at the hands of the demon spirits (which many scholars agree is the meaning of "rulers of this age" in 1 Corinthians 2:8).

  <b> Jesus becomes History</b>
    Only with Ignatius of Antioch, just after the start of the second century, do we see the first expression in Christian (non-Gospel) writings of a belief that Jesus had lived and died under Pilate, and only toward the middle of that century do we find any familiarity in the wider Christian world with written Gospels and their acceptance as historical accounts. Many Christian apologists, however, even in the latter part of the century, ignore the existence of a human founder in their picture and defense of the faith. By the year 200, a canon of authoritative documents had been formed, reinterpreted to apply to the Jesus of the Gospels, now regarded as a real historical man. Christianity entered a new future founded on a monumental misunderstanding of its own past.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Continued in next post

[Husky]

Continued from previous. Nothing new.


2. But these earliest christians who believed in a non-corporeal christ were long gone even by the time that mainstream Roman christianism started doing its full-on replacement (of all the earlier christian cults who couldn't agree with each other).

The following ones had belief in a fleshy (historical) jeebus, but no resurrection (gasp!) - note that what's interesting is that *Paul* didn't seem to have a corporeal jeebus (i.e. Paul's creation was a vacuole: something that could take any form and hence today it - jeebus - can be a 'dalit' in 'liberation theology India' and can be 'black' in Africa just as easily as it was an oryan in nazi Germany):

http://freetruth.50webs.org/B2b.htm#Earl...ianBeliefs
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Many early Christianities:</b> http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/triumph_...cholarship.html

    Jesus' earliest followers ...did not know stories about His death and resurrection.

    Jesus' Jewish followers in Jerusalem, the Jewish Christians who became the Ebionites, did not believe in His virgin birth, or in His divinity.

    The Gnostic Christians, who developed in the first century, who were the first Christians in Egypt and elsewhere, did think Jesus brought salvation — but not by dying on the cross. [Christian] Gnosticism's Jesus saved by bringing sacred wisdom.

    Only the sect of Christianity founded by Paul developed the Christ myth of the dying resurrected savior. Paul was a diaspora Jew, raised in Pagan Tarsus, who never met Jesus.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The Ebionites</b>

These very early followers of Jesus believed that conversion to Judaism was necessary for one to be a Christian. They also had other beliefs that would now be considered un-Christian. According to the writings left by Churchfather Eusebius, who described their beliefs and disbeliefs:

    They [the Ebionites] considered him [Jesus] a plain and common man and justified only by his advances in virtue and that he was born of the Virgin Mary by natural generation. With them the observance of the law was altogether necessary, as if they could not be saved only by faith in Christ and a corresponding life.
    -- Eusebius, 4th century

(Though the Ebionites didn't believe in the Virgin Birth, Eusebius did, which is why he still referred to Mary as the Virgin in his statement.)

    The early Nazarenes, who adhered to the Jewish law, were called Ebionites, or [the meaning of Ebionite:] contemptible people. The Ebionites denounced the Paulinists, and declared that Paul was an impostor...
    -- Crimes of Christianity, by G W Foote and J M Wheeler

In short:

    <b>Ebionites denied the divinity of Jesus and his virgin birth [Link]</b> http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/triumph_...cholarship.html

    <b>Ebionites ...did not believe in Jesus' saving resurrection [Link].</b> http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/scholars...ense_first.html

Ebionites refer to Christianity as Dat Kazav, meaning the "Lying Religion" (derived from Paul, whom they called the "Lying Man").<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->(Compare that last - the 'christian' ebionites who called *Paul* the liar and mainstream christianism the 'lying religion' - with the <b>non-christian</b> Baptism-centred religious sect of Mandaeism:
http://freetruth.50webs.org/B2b.htm#Earl...ianBeliefs
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>pre</b>-Christian religion of Mandaeism

Mandean literature refers to Jesus, the son of Mary, as the <b>false Messiah.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The Gnostic Christians</b>

The gnostic Gospel of Thomas never mentions Jesus' saving death.

    The gnostics believed Jesus saved not by his dying and resurrection. The gnostics believed Jesus saved by the sacred wisdom he taught.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Note, the above were gradually murdered out early on (Ebionites are mentioned as still existing??? Or maybe they're just a modern group naming themselves after the original ebionites in order to have legitimacy-through-ancientry).

The internal disagreements with Arrianism and Nestorianism and others are entirely fissures in Pauline christianism (which was the only remaining christianism after it was established). This was as a consequence of Roman christianism having wiped out the other earlier christianisms where jeebus was not divine/god or did not resurrect or had no body.

What became mainstream christianism kept wiping out the other christianisms:
http://freetruth.50webs.org/B2b.htm#Earl...ianBeliefs
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->These and other early Christian sects do matter, even though today's Christians follow a form of Paul's version of Christianity:

    [About Dr. Bauer's book <b>Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity</b>:]
    For hundreds of years everyone assumed that the earliest Christians were orthodox New Testament Roman Christians, and "heretical" Christianities — like Gnosticism and Marcionism — developed later, branches off the original orthodox trunk.

    Then in the 1930s ...Walter Bauer decided to actually look at the evidence. ...What he discovered was that pretty much everywhere he looked — Syria, Palestine, Egypt, etc. — the "heresies" weren't branches off any trunk, they were the original local Christianities. And they weren't small marginal sects, they were the main local Christianities.
    The evidence shows that all around the Mediterranean, outside Rome, the orthodox New Testament Roman Christianity was a secondary sect, a sect that became dominant only after the conversion of Constantine gave it the advantage of Roman swords.

Link http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/triumph_...cholarship.html<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


The sects that fell apart from the mainstream Roman christianisms (arrianism, nestorianism, etc) and what remained of the non-mainstream ones:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Apollinarianism - Marcionism (Caesarea, in Asia Minor) - Arianism (Alexandria) - Monarchianism - Docetism - Monophysitism - Donatism (Carthage) - Monothelitism - Ebionism (Judea) - Montanism (Asia Minor) - Encratite - Nestorianism - Eutychianism - Priscillianism (Spain) - Gnosticism (Syria) - Sabellianism (North Africa) - Manichaeism (Babylonia)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

http://freetruth.50webs.org/A2a.htm
History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science by John William Draper:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Among a countless host of disputants may be mentioned Arians, Basilidians, Carpocratians, Collyridians, Eutychians, Gnostics, Jacobites, Marcionites, Marionites, Nestorians, Sabellians, Valentinians.
<b>Of these, the Marionites regarded the Trinity as consisting of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Virgin Mary; the Collyridians worshiped the Virgin as a divinity, offering her sacrifices of cakes; the Nestorians, as we have seen, denied that God had "a mother."</b>
(This is post Trinity and/or around the time of "Mary is/not mother of God" concepts were introduced)
...But, though they were irreconcilable in matters of faith, there was one point in which all these sects agreed - ferocious hatred and persecution of each other.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Finally, the fissures in the mainstream Roman christianisms gave rise to more and more argument about the inane concept of jeebus/trinity. Just read this page, it <i>defines</i> hysterical. (Note that these were fundamental pre-occupations of the christians at the time - and determined who they believed would go to hell.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/nestorian.html
<b>From Nestorianism to Monothelitism.</b> About various Church teachings and heresies determined during the Church councils: Apollinarianism and Nestorianism, Euthychianism (Monophysitism) and Monothelitism.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The above type of incomprehensible christian preoccupations (about jeebus' nature) were just continuations of the sort of insane things they had been arguing about before:
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/arian.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Arian Controversy<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Practically ALL of christianism in the world today (minus perhaps those who claim to still be ebionites??) are Orthodox Roman christians (pre-schism). That is the node of the tree from where all of today's branches come from. Orthodoxy, catholicism, protestantism, later protestantism (like the fundy sects which split off from the various protestantisms), the syrian christians of India - all are Orthodox Roman christianisms. They have some position or other on Mary and/or Trinity and/or 'idolatry' and/or the biblical texts and/or Jeebus' nature.

Not one of them holds that jeebus had no corporeal form (unhistoric, invisible). That kind is gone. ("It's a miracle!" No it's not. It's 'Constantine's Sword' and the Inquisition - it's christianism rooting itself out.)

Hindus do not know christianism very well. Christians today have 0 clue - they don't/won't *want* to know. Only western atheists and ambivalent theologians know.

Christianism is the most unfunny prank history has ever played on humanity. Its history has been carefully hidden (forbidden books, auto-da-fes), same as how its PR is very carefully maintained.

Read the first 3 big blocks that appear here:
http://freetruth.50webs.org/B2b.htm#Earl...ianBeliefs
(Starts with "A colossal fraud lies at the very basis of Christianity." from Crimes of Christianity, by G W Foote and J M Wheeler,
at least until "The Bible, as we have it today, is hardly more than three centuries old." by A Short History of the Bible, by Bronson C. Keeler, 1881)

Then read:
http://freetruth.50webs.org/B2d.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The inexperienced person has little idea of the difficulty which the critical party finds in getting its facts before the public; nor of the systematic suppression used by the Christian press and clergy to prevent unpleasant truths concerning the Christian religion from coming out. There is not an orthodox religious newspaper in the world that will publish the facts concerning the origin of the Bible, which are given in these pages; there is scarcely a magazine in America that will publish them; and it is but recently that any newspaper would do so. Men who know the Christian theology to be untrue, have to get their audience as best they can.
-- A Short History of the Bible, Bronson C. Keeler, 1881<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[ramana]

Husky, hats off for the two very clear posts that go thru the logic of the founding myth of Christianity. Also you highlighthte high barrier to overcome for the believers. Hence have to rely on reason and logic which are left behind in this mileu.

I am going ot request dhu to add to his blog after making it amenable for widespread reading.

Thanks a lot.
ramana

PS: If you follow the discourse the West is worried about the impact of science on its principal dogma and in future we will see an attempt to Christianise science.

[Guest]

Husky:
Thanks for the elaboration. I have seen folks on the internet who are attracted towards some of the "biblical teachings" and who are ready to discard some of the mythical/magical stories. They are within the Christian realm - secuarlism, liberalism, church & state framework. They are very similar to some of the Hindu folks described in Balagangadhara's talk - example the Vinayagar story; i.e. folks who pick whatever they can and discard things that no longer are relevant to contemporary society. Such Christians are increasing in number in the USA.

Ramana: Thanks you said something inline with my thoughts. Our gods are little different from their God. Our relationship is rather different - a lot complex though. I say complex because there are stories where individuals scold our devas and devis, and there are individual (usually lady sadvis) who sing love-songs (Meera & Andal ).

[ramana]

Can someone who knows the various denominations identify those which are closest to Islam?

I have this hunch that Islam is based on non-Nicean denominations who were left out and all those conquered areas were welcoming these folks as their own guys. Thats the only explanation to the sudden collapse of all those kingdoms and empires to Islam.

[HareKrishna]

<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+May 30 2009, 08:02 AM-->QUOTE(ramana @ May 30 2009, 08:02 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Can someone who knows the various denominations identify those which are closest to Islam?

I have this hunch that Islam is based on non-Nicean denominations who were left out and all those conquered areas were welcoming these folks as their own guys. Thats the only explanation to the sudden collapse of all those kingdoms and empires to Islam.
[right][snapback]97942[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
More likely ebionites(Jesus only a prophet) and arians(Jesus only a human).Surely there was christian groups outside of roman-imperial reach.Arabia was only superficialy christianised during Mohamed.
Groups that lost easely in front of islam was buddhist-like gnostics and paulicians and also zoroastrians(zoroastrianism was very dependent on the state and king;when king fallout so does zoroastrians;it was the second time when failed and for the same reason).
Christianity was too "greek" for orientals taste in both art and doctrine.At the first century there was a great anti-greek resistence among west-asians which we can see it in the refutation of greek art and architecture for exemple.Christianity is a hellenistic(greek-oriental) hibrid but islam is way more oriental in art and doctrine.

[Husky]

Randomness.

<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+May 30 2009, 08:02 AM-->QUOTE(ramana @ May 30 2009, 08:02 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have this hunch that Islam is based on non-Nicean denominations who were left out and all those conquered areas were <b>welcoming these folks as their own guys.</b> Thats the only explanation to the sudden collapse of all those kingdoms and empires to Islam.
[right][snapback]97942[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->That's not right.

Arabia was <i>hyper</i>-pagan. Confirmed by multiple sources - for example, there is contemporary info on this - Roman materials. But for easier access, try Elst's pages for instance. I think he had a couple of articles on islam.

Also, mohammed:
1. knew of nearby christianism and
2. knew of the communities of 'hemerobaptists' - Sabians, Mandaens or whatever who used to do the baptism ritual for a long time before christianism came into existence.


<!--QuoteBegin-Swamy G+May 30 2009, 01:54 AM-->QUOTE(Swamy G @ May 30 2009, 01:54 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Husky:
Thanks for the elaboration. I have seen folks on the internet who are attracted towards some of the "biblical teachings" and who are ready to discard some of the mythical/magical stories. They are within the Christian realm - secuarlism, liberalism, church & state framework. They are very similar to some of the Hindu folks described in Balagangadhara's talk - example the Vinayagar story; i.e. folks who pick whatever they can and discard things that no longer are relevant to contemporary society. Such Christians are increasing in number in the USA.

Ramana: Thanks you said something inline with my thoughts. <b>Our gods are little different from their God.</b> Our relationship is rather different - a lot complex though. I say complex because there are stories where individuals scold our devas and devis, and there are individual (usually lady sadvis) who sing love-songs (Meera & Andal ).
[right][snapback]97915[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. "Our gods are little different from their God." <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
You could not be more wrong. They're nothing alike. (Nice use of capital G for their non-existent monster gawd, by the way. Did you even read the bible that describes the nature of their gawd? Ever? To come to that conclusion that 'our Gods are little different' from <i>it</i>?)

You don't get the difference between christianism/islamism and Natural Traditions. It is far more than merely the sort of superficial 'relationship' differences you speak of (which, by the way, there are perverted echoes of in christianism as they have frequently been stolen into mary and jeebus' characterisations from the Greco-Roman traditions, but perhaps you're not aware of that.)

As to <b>why there is nothing in common between Hindu Dharma and christianism (<i>let alone</i> our Gods and their scary fiction)</b>, I find it best explained by Natural Traditionalists who
a. Know their Natural Tradition very well (i.e. non-modernists)
AND
b. who know christianism really well.

Hindus know Hindu Dharma, so a. above is covered. But since they (we) don't know christianism well at all, they start projecting the Hindu POV onto christianism and hence conclude that it is all the same 'after all' in crucial points X, Y, Z.

NO.

As I said, the difference is best explained by those who know their own Traditional POV perfectly and without compromise, <i>and</i> who know the enemy meme's POV intimately.
Because I'm simply not clever enough, I just don't seem to understand most of what Balagangadhara says. Maybe I have to rewatch several times. It could also be due to English being a confusing language, especially when there are terms involving religion (e.g. God, Religion).
I <i>do</i> however recognise what the following people are speaking of and the more I read portions from their FAQ, the more I find that that's what I've been wanting to articulate all along and that they clearly explain the *general* Natural Traditional POV <i>as well as</i> where this differs from christianism/islamism. They have a. the <i>vocabulary</i> - and I don't just mean the spectacular English they employ - <i>to do the differentiating</i>, and they have b. the <i>knowledge to do it correctly</i> which is even more paramount.
They speak for me (and do so accurately enough on Hindu Dharma on many points here):

<b>FAQ of the Ethnikoi Hellenes @ Ysee.gr:</b>
http://ysee.gr/index-eng.php?type=english&f=faq#11
(Please do read from the section on "Theological and Cosmological matters", at the given anchor, down to the end.)

<b>IMO, this is the page that every Hindu</b> who doesn't really know christianism (but has their own idea of it in their head) <b>ought to read and study over and over again to learn about christianism and WHY IT IS NOT THE SAME as Hindu Dharma/Natural Traditions.</b> Would be made compulsory reading for Hindus, if I could have my way.

Also good to read Julian's trusted friend and colleague Sallustius writing on such matters as Vigrahas, with translator's explanations. Sallustius long ago explained EXACTLY what Hindu Vigrahas are and aren't, though he was speaking of the Greco-Roman kind (which are mostly the same as ours, same as Shinto, same as Taoist Vigrahas). Though I'm not sure that modern Hindus even recognise what he says, since christoconditioning alienates them from understanding the Natural Traditional way of thinking.

It is the accuracy and depth of understanding shown in the Ysee FAQ that makes me certain the Hellenes will survive our kind. While modern Hindus are confusing and forgetting themselves - particularly those in the west or Angelsk-enabled, and they're the only ones speaking - the Hellenes are making sure they will always know what they are and stick to it. The fact that they can verbalise all this is amazing. I try and I try and, for the life of me, I have never been able to put to words all these things that they explain in their comparatively short paragraphs (and I haven't found a single Hindu in all this time <i>to speak for me</i> who can properly, completely, accurately explain this, the way these Hellenes explain Natural Traditions - with particular emphasis on Hellenismos: what it is and what it is NOT). While I don't think all of it applies to Hindu Dharma - somethings <i>are</i> different since our way is not the <i>same</i> as Greco-Roman tradition - a lot of it surely does apply, and I find myself nodding in violent agreement to many parts, the way I never do when reading modern Angelsk-enabled 'intellectual' Hindus. The Hellenes @ Ysee.gr have largely said what I want said. And am so grateful for them having done so and for having expressed it so well. In making a path for themselves - their right to existence - they have graciously made one for all Natural Traditionalists. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->

What I find most useful and potent is that they tackle exactly the sort of interrogative leading questions that christianists always generate and inquisition Natural Traditionalists with (the <i>christoconditioning</i> questions, as I think of them as: the sorts of utterly alien questions that when the heathen even starts pondering them, the christoconditioning poison starts to work. Note how well the Greeks counter the poison). IMO, this FAQ should be a handbook that Hindus take out and rattle off in reply to christianists, in religion classes in California, and to everyone in Bharatam of course.

After reading some Ysee FAQ items the first time, I had decided I neither want nor trust Angelsk-speaking Hindus to speak for me (while they know English very well, they so easily compromise on the matters most essential to me - it is generally the sort of Hindus who'd know English at all. Of course I make an exception for Aurobindo et al, but then, he is exceptional. He speaks Hindu though it reads like Angelsk). If I want Angelsk-language representation, I'll choose self-aware Natural Traditionalist Greeks to do it for me - Angelsk is a European language after all. And on those points where our traditions differ, I'll have to resort to making my own case.
Besides, of the Europeans, who but the Greeks and Romans know christianism best? (That is also why one finds that the traditional Greeks dislike christianism the most. See the FAQ again for an indication.)


2. Modern Hindus have been changed enough to be able to do an 'equal-equal' - as you call it below (see next quoteblock) - between Hindu Dharma and christianism (and, separately, are also open to swallowing all recent theories about our Gods as 'equal possibilities' to what one's ancestors have known about them - this happens especially when modernising Hindus don't know their own religion due to incomplete transmission of tradition/knowledge and deterioration of personal involvement over generations). This is why I worry about Angelsk-speaking Hindus - especially those who ever lived in the US, since US is more consciously christo-conditioning with its forced assimilation and social engineering - speaking for the masses of Hindus back home. It's not just the 'Hindus are monotheists' and 'Hinduism is actually a philosophy onlee' type nonsense that comes forth, but also regurgitation of many other, more subtle *western perceptions* of Hindu Dharma that these Hindus have internalised. And they then think themselves to be an accurate representation of their (even recent) ancestors' Hindu Dharma or that of most Hindus back home. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> Their POV is theirs to hold, but they can't say it is representative. It's not.

One more thing. The equal-equalism mentioned below would also explain why modern Hindus start finding it contemplatable to marry christians - <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo--> - which IMO is just as <i>absolutely impossible</i> as a Hindu marrying a muslim.
<!--QuoteBegin-Swamy G+May 27 2009, 07:29 AM-->QUOTE(Swamy G @ May 27 2009, 07:29 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Islam had similar cicumstances our war and problems in the middle-east, so why would Christians feel bad for the "problematic" origins? Sorry for doing a equal-equal, my family's kula-daivam is Murugan, and to me (and us) it does not really matter about the different stories of his origin. There are theories about Kartikeya from the North and Murukku a warrior god from the south being two entities who finally merged and became one - son of Shiva. Point is, all these fascinate me but it is not going to really diminish my faith on Hinduism - culturally or religion wise.

So why are the Christians having so much kujli?
[right][snapback]97781[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->As stated above, your questions on how Natural Traditions differ from christianism is elaborately covered and answered at the Ysee.gr FAQ. How much Hindus understand of the answers (or how alien they find it) depends entirely on the level of conditioning to christian thought/their introduction into christo-patterned thinking.



3. "I have seen folks on the internet who are attracted towards some of the "biblical teachings" and who are ready to discard some of the mythical/magical stories. They are within the Christian realm - secuarlism, liberalism, church & state framework."

Last 4 generations of Dutch 'christians' are like this - not all, but many. (Though they're not attracted to christianism, but are merely still in it out of inertia.) Particularly Dutch theologians. The general populace is more apathetic to the religion than anything else.
America was always behind. And the US is not congenial to promoting this type of 'liberal' christianism. Also, all such heresy ends when christianism is in power. It does not take much to roll-back all this independent thought. One more mere 'accident' of history will suffice. That is because christianism is prone to such accidents (e.g. the 'regrettable inquisitions' as they're described in hindsight) and prone to ensuring roll-backs.

There are no useful teachings in the bible/koran that are not already to be found outside as well. Christianism/islamism is invariably a threat. It does not matter how incapacitated the virus is, we cannot allow any more of it to be injected into the world. It has done enough damage.
After > 1.5 millennia, not even a handful of christians (comparative numbers) come to a non-literal reading, and can at any point be eradicated/suppressed for heresy by their own kind (the various True Christians).
To gamble on this as an acceptable future is very dangerous, <i>because</i> it is precarious, <i>because</i> it is unlikely (as frequently as christianism generates heresy, that is how frequently it crushes it). Draw the line. Stop seeing the exceptional exceptions as a reason to live with the unbearable intolerant rule. The core, the nucleus, the 'living' (energetic) portion of the christian meme has not changed. The confused edges burn off by themselves.


<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Ramana: Husky, hats off for the two very clear posts<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Apparently my 'skill' at copying and pasting have impressed you. Your compliment has been accepted and in return I'm willing to share my secret with you - please take notes:
I pressed Ctl-C and Ctl-V repeatedly.
With a little bit of practice, you may all one day (in theory) be able to rise to <i>some</i> level approaching my own. Not to be matched, not to be exceeded, of course, but <i>approached</i>. I say this to encourage you all.
(Waves arms in the air in sinister 'benediction' like that famous pope from the vatican balcony when he excommunicated everyone in a drunken stupour. <!--emo&:lol:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='laugh.gif' /><!--endemo--> You know, <i>this</i> pope:
http://freetruth.50webs.org/C2b.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->URBAN VI 1378-1389 Warmonger who resorted to bribery, and who, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, was poisoned. Described as "one of the most unstable popes in history" in Richard McBrien's Lives Of the Popes. He ordered England to fight against France because France had taken the side of his rival, Clement VII. He promised indulgences and other "spiritual rewards" to anyone who would take up arms.
Before 1380 he was known for his drunken rages, even having climbed the Vatican battlements at one time to excommunicate the gatherings below.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->One of the more *benign* popes, as we can see.)


Am I glad this is the misc thread and I didn't inflict any important thread with all the above. Although, my papal imitation was quite memorable....

[HareKrishna]

Randomness.

<b>FAQ of the Ethnikoi Hellenes @ Ysee.gr:</b>
http://ysee.gr/index-eng.php?type=english&f=faq#11
(Please do read from the section on "Theological and Cosmological matters", at the given anchor, down to the end.)

Also good to read Julian's trusted friend and colleague Sallustius writing on such matters as Vigrahas, with translator's explanations. Sallustius long ago explained EXACTLY what Hindu Vigrahas are and aren't, olutely impossible[/i] as a Hindu marrying a muslim.
[quote=Swamy G,May 27
So why are the Christia fhean:
http://freetruth.50webs.org/C2b.htm
Am I glad this is the misc thread and I didn't inflict any important thread with all the above. Although, my papal imitation was quite memorable....
[right][snapback]97962[/snapback][/right]

Nothing for the best for hellenikos;their site is very clear for me.Only if all the sites would be like that.
This current which can be called ecumenism(all religions are the same) probably started in the 16 century and is shared by bahai,some sufi,many hindus(of all branches),all kinds of liberals and new age movement.
Jesus,Buddha,Allah,Tao,Sai Baba are all different names for the same divine reality.Nothing for the best for this generous feelings this blind you from danger.
PS-Please dont ignore my obsesion regarding the romas from the human rights topic;share your copy-paste knowledge cos many people need a vision here.I will spread further the mesage.After all,they are people from your race.
Peace.

[Guest]

So where did I say they were alike? Dude, yes it is only you who get everything under the Sun.

No point in having a conversation with you.

[Husky]

<!--QuoteBegin-Swamy G+Jun 1 2009, 05:50 AM-->QUOTE(Swamy G @ Jun 1 2009, 05:50 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->So where did I say they were alike?[right][snapback]98139[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Is this directed at me? Then, here:
<!--QuoteBegin-Swamy G+May 30 2009, 01:54 AM-->QUOTE(Swamy G @ May 30 2009, 01:54 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Our gods are little different from their God.[right][snapback]97915[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

And now it's your turn. Where did I (still assuming your post was directed at me) say anything to do with this:
<!--QuoteBegin-Swamy G+Jun 1 2009, 05:50 AM-->QUOTE(Swamy G @ Jun 1 2009, 05:50 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Dude, yes it is only you who get everything under the Sun.[right][snapback]98139[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I said the *Hellenes* (at Ysee.gr) could answer the loaded christian questions by putting forth the general/shared Natural Traditionalist POV in contrast, using the needed vocabulary (by explaining things correctly).
I never said I could and specifically said I've never been able to.
So <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Hindus just don't know christianism that well. And Angelsk-speaking Hindus tend to invariably fall into the trap set by the leading christian questions, get cornered and start re-using and responding with christian vocabulary without knowing what the christian side means by those terms (e.g. monopolytheism, idolatry, faith, ...).
This is why I like the Greek Traditionalists' FAQ, because they first correctly define what *they* mean when they use these terms (though IMO other Natural Traditionalists are best not to use these terms; Hellenes can use them properly since words like idol, icon, theism are Greek terms - or so I <i>suppose</i>) and are able to finally silence the Christian Inquisition that's always trying to dupe heathens into signing their own death warrant: "So you admit you are polytheistic idolators and hence have sinned against gawd. Burn the infidevils!" When actually we and our Natural Traditions simply have nothing to do with their gawd fiction.

[HareKrishna]

<!--QuoteBegin-Swamy G+Jun 1 2009, 05:50 AM-->QUOTE(Swamy G @ Jun 1 2009, 05:50 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->So where did I say they were alike? Dude, yes it is only you who get everything under the Sun.

No point in having a conversation with you.
[right][snapback]98139[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i just mention the problem whit the ecumenism.
who want to belive that all religions are the same thats fine whit me
the problem is that they include also intolerant religions in their scheme.
so nothing against you bro.

[HareKrishna]

<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Jun 1 2009, 08:42 AM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Jun 1 2009, 08:42 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->

This is why I like the Greek Traditionalists' FAQ, because they first correctly define what *they* mean when they use these terms (though IMO other Natural Traditionalists are best not to use these terms; Hellenes can use them properly since words like idol, icon, theism are Greek terms - or so I <i>suppose</i>) and are able to finally silence the Christian Inquisition that's always trying to dupe heathens into signing their own death warrant: "So you admit you are polytheistic idolators and hence have sinned against gawd. Burn the infidevils!" When actually we and our Natural Traditions simply have nothing to do with their gawd fiction.
[right][snapback]98140[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can use the proper words when you talk in your native language.But how will translate them in english whitout using the greek words?People dont understand words like saguna,dvaita,atman,brahman,bhagavan so i must use similar terms from greek.
saint Jhon Damascus say the 7 century that christians are both monotheists(on god) and polytheists(trinity).
As you can see the same word can have diferent meanings for diferent people.
Dualism can mean battle betwin good and evil for a parsi,body-soul dihotomy for a greek and relation betwin atman and brahman for a hindu.
Most religions simply cant be put in the monotheism vs polytheism scheme and in this simplification a great deal of important information is lost.
For me word polytheist is good because it shows me that divinity is not about an isolated dude but is a personal comunion betwin many.
Probably Jehova was bored to be the single god so he created us to play whit and send us in eternal hell when we disobey. <!--emo&:furious--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/furious.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='furious.gif' /><!--endemo--> Probably an eternity of being alone leave some marks in his gelous behaviour.