Posted on 04/06/2014 1:44:23 PM PDT by little jeremiah
I think the author really had to strain to find any semblance of the Golden Rule in Islam.
And what little he found is far overweighted by the other 99.99999% of Islam.
One of these days it will be the will of “allah” that Islam is gone from the face of the earth.
I am curious about Hinduism and the Golden Rule. Namely, does Hinduism have anything approaching or similar to a Golden Rule? Or is it more like, ‘Do unto others however you may please—whether bad, good or indifferent, just go for it’?’
Which accusation, phrased as a question, I found extremely offensive, and more applicable to islam than any other belief-system on the planet.
To tell the truth, I was thinking of posting this a long time ago. The little exchange you mention just brought it to the fore.
Jiva daya - “Jiva” meaning “living soul”, and “daya” meaning “kindness” - is the ground of religion, according to Hindu dharma. But it is interesting to note this verse from one of the Puranas, this is memory, not word for word:
“Even saints are happy when poisonous creatures like vipers and scorpions are killed.”
This was in reference to a powerful and evil tyrant king being killed. So even peaceful kind humans are wise, and know that violence sometimes must be meted out to those who are not peaceful, kind or wise.
First on my list of those still living, would be the cabal which speculated that at least 25 million Americans would need to be 'eliminated' if they refused to accept the 'revolution'.
Actually in Hindu dharma it’s considered kindness to kill evildoers, because it saves innocents from being harmed any more, and it stops the evildoer from racking up more vikarma - sins - which the evildoer will have to suffer for after death. So putting a stop to evildoing is true kindness to everyone, including the evildoer.
And planning to do evil, is also evil.
I disagree. The phrase "if everyone followed their own teachings" allows for a diversity of interpretation and is broad. Exodus 20:3 makes it clear: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me.". There are not many paths but only one way. Matthew 7:14 teaches, "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Later, also in Matthew (10:34), Christ states: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
There are moral absolutes and there are warmed over platitudes about the world's religions embracing the Golden Rule. The article leading off this thread just strikes me as another "We Are the World" form of the weak sauce of Kumbaya-ism. If one's faith lacks the cleansing power of Christ's Salvation ("Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."), it's little more than a Rodney King feel-good cliche of "Can we all just get along?".
LJ -- we've had many, many, many fruitful and agreeable discussions here, especially about the evils of sodomy. This is maybe the first time we've taken a different stance on any issue. It's nothing personal, of course, but when it comes to matters involving God, I take the Bible and only the Bible literally. If you will, it's the "howto manual" of my life and, frankly, any other such book or collection (Koran, Bhagavad Gita, Dianetics, Book of Mormon and so on) is just falsehood. All that said, I wish you well and again, to be abundantly clear, nothing personal at all.
I’m fine with your comments; I see absolute truth in a slightly different light, but we’ve all been given free will by God. On another thread I might be willing to discuss various theological differences and similarities, but not on this thread, and not today... and of course, always with respect.
As I know you would do anyway, and I try to.
Thanks so much, I’d hate for our difference to ever come between us. Have a very good rest of the day and evening!
You too, dear friend.
Or, “Conquer the infidels and do whatever you want with them.”
***Mohandas Gandhi: Peace.***
Every time I hear that name and “Peace” together I remember all those slaughtered innocents in the partition of India.
If Moslems weren’t being typical Moslems, there wouldn’t have been partition or slaughter.
Nonsense. That couldn't be further from the truth.
If you read the whole article, you’d see that the author says it is not being practiced, though.
Not my point. Islam does NOT teach the golden rule. The entire caste system of India is/was justified on reincarnation and karma from past lives. Atheist societies hold only the morals they wish at the moment they wish.
As I said up the thread at least twice, the author obviously had a hard time finding any thing in the Koran that remotely resembled the Golden Rule. That’s one thing.
The other point you make about India - did you read the quotes from Hindu scriptures at all? And if you’d like to discuss the caste system, I could do that at some point. But like much of Christendom, many Hindus do not understand their own scriptures very well, and therefore, the point of the article:
That IF people whose religions have some version of the Golden Rule - and most do - actually followed that teaching, the world would be a much better place to live.
And then we could peacefully discussion theological points.
And, just for the record, the “caste” system is called in Sanskrit varnashram. And what “caste” or varna a person belonged to was supposed to be determined by personal characteristics and qualities, NOT by birth. It was that way, a long time ago.
In this case “others” is generally read as “others like you/us”. That was the entire point of the ‘good Samaritan’ parable, because it breached the “others like you” rule.
Islam clearly teaches that fair treatment only applies to fellow Muslims (maybe) and it instructs the direct persecution of others.
So there was a period in time when caste was determined individually on merit and never by birth? Is that a provable fact or a historical myth?
Historical fact. In the Bhagavad Gita, and with much evidence from the Puranas and the Mahabharat, caste or more accurately varna, is determined solely by quality of the individual. Someone who was born a brahman, for instance, but did not manifest the qualities of a brahman, was called “Brahma-bandhu”; a sort of snide term meaning “friend or relative of a brahman”. Same thing with kshatriyas or warriors. A warrior obviously cannot be born a warrior, he has to prove himself and develop the skills and mentality to be a warrior. And so on. I could quote verses if you want but not at the moment.
To the great shame of India, most people have forgotten this as it has not been taught. Fortunately there has been a renewed interest in the real teachings of Hinduism in the last few decades.
There is a difference between pointing out caste mobility between castes at comparable social levels and a truly open system.
The brahmans were traditionally often poor, and the ideal was that if they did accumulate wealth, to use it in service of God. If I had time which unfortunately I don’t have tonight, I could cite texts or examples. I could dig some up tomorrow.
I have no idea what you mean by a “truly open system”. Like the US?
An example from recent history, merely 500 years ago. There was a governor of I believe what is now part of the state of Madras. He was born in the sudra varna, which is the lowest of the four; laborers, those who hire themselves to others, and other duties. He became the governor. And then he gave it up to become a sadhu - basically like a monk; which is actually considered “higher” than a brahman. All because of his personal qualities and behavior.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.