10-13-2009, 10:10 PM
This is a post by BRF member Anujan in the Nukkad thread.....
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Well thanks for the encouragement. Let me do my bit to keep Rakshaks off the "Phorum Feedback" dhaagaÂ
This is rant no 1, to be followed by rant no 2 (I feel rant no 1 gives background for rant no 2. I have already posted parts of rant no 1 before -- but still I repeat)
(MKG-ji's words)
Quote:
(Missionary, paraphrased) "You cannot understand the beauty of our religion...Sin we must. It is impossible to live in this world sinless...How can we bear the burden of sin? We can but throw it on Jesus. ...Jesus suffered and atoned for all the sins of mankind. Only he who accepts His great redemption can have eternal peace."
(MKG-ji) 'If this be the Christianity acknowledged by all Christians, I cannot accept it. I do not seek redemption from the consequences of my sin. I seek to be redeemed from sin itself, or rather from the very thought of sin. Until I have attained that end, I shall be content to be restless.'
This is a profound point. As a background -- most non-status quo religious (except for maybe, the eastern dharmic religions), seek to sharply define what they are and why they are different and better than current prevailing practices. Same thing with Xtianity and Islam.
If I am a Jew, why should I convert ?
The rational argument could be "You need to change your worldview, and adhere to a new set of ethical and moral codes --- like not stealing, not killing etc --- to get rewarded". But then two effective counters could be (a) My own religion asks me to not steal and not kill, why should I convert to yours ? and (b) Okay, let me not steal and not kill, but also, let me not believe in your god. This is a severe weakness in religions which rely on proselyting to survive. Secondly, as ethical and moral beliefs become well understood, it becomes harder to start a religion (As in, my ethics are rooted in Indian Penal Code, why should I become a Xtian ?).
<b>To counter that, Xtians came up with several doctrines, we shall visit one important doctrine called as "Sola Gratia" -- or the doctrine of "by grace alone". What it says is that, humans are born sinners. They are condemned to hell. No matter what you do (even if you live your life in 400% completely ethical and moral manner) you are going to hell.</b> Now how can that be ? <b>That is because you carry the blood of your forefathers, who trace their lineage to Adam who committed the original sin.</b> The sin flows from father to child, through the semen, making you a sinner condemned to hell the moment you are born (this has profound implications, see footnote later, but continue reading). <b>So no matter how moral or ethical life you live after that, you are still condemned, unless you believe in Jesus.</b>
<b>Thus, you cannot go to heaven, unless you believe. Your actions are inconsequential. Xtianism, in its very root, if it subscribes to this doctrine is a system of faith rather than a system of morals or ethics.</b>
Hinduism on the other hand, takes a radically different approach. Your soul (jeevatma) gets born again and again in cycles, till you become perfect in action and in mind, till you attain salvation. It does not matter, in a sense, if you believe in a God. <b>Adherence to Dharma takes precedence over faith </b>(I am well aware of "Charanaagati" but thats for later). <b>You are not condemned to everlasting suffering if you were born to a sinner. You are not condemned to everlasting suffering if you *are* a sinner (Ravana goes to heaven eventually) provided you reform your ways. In this sense, hinduism, is a system of ethics rather than a system of faith.</b>
This is what the exchange between MKG-ji and the missionary starkly brings out
Missionary: "Sin we must. It is impossible to live in this world sinless... Only he who accepts (Jesus) can have eternal peace"
MKG-ji: "I do not seek redemption from the consequences of my sin. I seek to be redeemed from sin itself"
<b>Footnote:</b>
1. This sin of the father, condemning the children to everlasting suffering has no contemporary in modern law (you cannot be imprisoned if your dad steals) or in Dharmic religions (You are not a sinner if your father is).
<b>2.</b> Since it is required for Jesus to be sinless, he was not created from the Semen of man. He was born of a virgin
3. <b>If Adam didnt exist, there is no original sin, there is no automatic condemnation to hell and the theological basis of the religion collapses. Hence the much takleef with evolution.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good summary of the issues. I used to wonder at the takllef about Darwinism and Evolution in the South.
By same token the Out of India would be major takleef.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_gratia
And recall the furore with Jimmy Carter whether he was guilty of thinking about sin!
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Well thanks for the encouragement. Let me do my bit to keep Rakshaks off the "Phorum Feedback" dhaagaÂ
This is rant no 1, to be followed by rant no 2 (I feel rant no 1 gives background for rant no 2. I have already posted parts of rant no 1 before -- but still I repeat)
(MKG-ji's words)
Quote:
(Missionary, paraphrased) "You cannot understand the beauty of our religion...Sin we must. It is impossible to live in this world sinless...How can we bear the burden of sin? We can but throw it on Jesus. ...Jesus suffered and atoned for all the sins of mankind. Only he who accepts His great redemption can have eternal peace."
(MKG-ji) 'If this be the Christianity acknowledged by all Christians, I cannot accept it. I do not seek redemption from the consequences of my sin. I seek to be redeemed from sin itself, or rather from the very thought of sin. Until I have attained that end, I shall be content to be restless.'
This is a profound point. As a background -- most non-status quo religious (except for maybe, the eastern dharmic religions), seek to sharply define what they are and why they are different and better than current prevailing practices. Same thing with Xtianity and Islam.
If I am a Jew, why should I convert ?
The rational argument could be "You need to change your worldview, and adhere to a new set of ethical and moral codes --- like not stealing, not killing etc --- to get rewarded". But then two effective counters could be (a) My own religion asks me to not steal and not kill, why should I convert to yours ? and (b) Okay, let me not steal and not kill, but also, let me not believe in your god. This is a severe weakness in religions which rely on proselyting to survive. Secondly, as ethical and moral beliefs become well understood, it becomes harder to start a religion (As in, my ethics are rooted in Indian Penal Code, why should I become a Xtian ?).
<b>To counter that, Xtians came up with several doctrines, we shall visit one important doctrine called as "Sola Gratia" -- or the doctrine of "by grace alone". What it says is that, humans are born sinners. They are condemned to hell. No matter what you do (even if you live your life in 400% completely ethical and moral manner) you are going to hell.</b> Now how can that be ? <b>That is because you carry the blood of your forefathers, who trace their lineage to Adam who committed the original sin.</b> The sin flows from father to child, through the semen, making you a sinner condemned to hell the moment you are born (this has profound implications, see footnote later, but continue reading). <b>So no matter how moral or ethical life you live after that, you are still condemned, unless you believe in Jesus.</b>
<b>Thus, you cannot go to heaven, unless you believe. Your actions are inconsequential. Xtianism, in its very root, if it subscribes to this doctrine is a system of faith rather than a system of morals or ethics.</b>
Hinduism on the other hand, takes a radically different approach. Your soul (jeevatma) gets born again and again in cycles, till you become perfect in action and in mind, till you attain salvation. It does not matter, in a sense, if you believe in a God. <b>Adherence to Dharma takes precedence over faith </b>(I am well aware of "Charanaagati" but thats for later). <b>You are not condemned to everlasting suffering if you were born to a sinner. You are not condemned to everlasting suffering if you *are* a sinner (Ravana goes to heaven eventually) provided you reform your ways. In this sense, hinduism, is a system of ethics rather than a system of faith.</b>
This is what the exchange between MKG-ji and the missionary starkly brings out
Missionary: "Sin we must. It is impossible to live in this world sinless... Only he who accepts (Jesus) can have eternal peace"
MKG-ji: "I do not seek redemption from the consequences of my sin. I seek to be redeemed from sin itself"
<b>Footnote:</b>
1. This sin of the father, condemning the children to everlasting suffering has no contemporary in modern law (you cannot be imprisoned if your dad steals) or in Dharmic religions (You are not a sinner if your father is).
<b>2.</b> Since it is required for Jesus to be sinless, he was not created from the Semen of man. He was born of a virgin
3. <b>If Adam didnt exist, there is no original sin, there is no automatic condemnation to hell and the theological basis of the religion collapses. Hence the much takleef with evolution.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good summary of the issues. I used to wonder at the takllef about Darwinism and Evolution in the South.
By same token the Out of India would be major takleef.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_gratia
And recall the furore with Jimmy Carter whether he was guilty of thinking about sin!