--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Yogi" raviyogi@ wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > Well, the Hindu belief system does. And I guess as a pseudo-outcaste > > Hindu you might share the belief that all is well and wisely put, that > > no child dying in pain didn't earn it in a past life. And as much as I > > find that view repugnant, it doesn't rise to the level of deceptive > > communication as asserting that any of this nonsense is scientifically > > based. > > > > > Curtis, you can do better than that. The Hindu belief system isn't meant > > to be judgmental, the Hindu belief system doesn't say anything about not > > helping the child. Science and philosophy has no answers as to why that > > child is dying in pain nor does religion. Both science and religion > > would try to compassionately help the child in pain. The theory of Karma > > isn't to explain any answers, it is to learn surrender, that there are > > complex mysterious forces at play - as to why certain people suffer > > while others thrive. It empowers us to avoid the suffering that comes > > from pain, by holding you responsible for your suffering and providing > > you tools to overcome this suffering. > > > Your perspective is well stated and reasonable. It probably represents what many educated and thoughtful Hindus believe. And like Christians who have proposed more reasonable perspectives on their religion, it ignores what the scriptures of that religion actually say. Many Hindu scriptures actually give the specific next life punishment for actions. And the reprehensible treatment of lower caste members is a direct result in their birth as a reflection of their past life's advancement. > > So you are better than Hinduism's teachings. That is a good thing. >
Curtis - for someone as intelligent and creative as you, you can again do better. You agree that religion is different than Science but you use the same yardstick to judge both which is what I have a problem with. Unlike science reason, logic cannot be used to understand religion. I do agree with your statement that religion should not use scientific terms, I think both believers like Buck and skeptics like you make a mistake by trying to integrate or invalidate the other, that they somehow have to be mutually exclusive or make sense using a similar criteria. I don't really see a need to. Even though I berate intellect I don't discard it myself. I'm a software engineer, a darn good one at work but I realize the limitations and proper use of it. I discard as soon as I am away from my computer. However when approaching religion I don't try to interpret it literally or using reason and logic. We do not use the same approach when dealing with different people, children, adults, mean, women. Hinduism is not just about caste system and retribution for actions, its not even a religion. I don't consider myself as a Hindu, I use the terms from Hinduism because I was born there I would have done different if I was a Christian. There are lot of Hindu scriptures like Tripura Rahasya and Vasishtha Yogathat don''t even address this, these are the scriptures that I have read, never came across the ones you mention. I would believe you, like the modern Hindus that you talk about, would be attracted to these rather than being fascinated with and pillorying the caste system and the like which had a specific purpose for a different mindset of people. What is it that attracts or pains you about these concepts that you quite clearly say is not in line with the modern educated Hindu thought? Why do you bother to give so much attention and try to paint it as what Hinduism is? I wonder what you are intentions are? Surely you are not living or battling in some feudal village in Northern India under the oppressive grip of upper castes?
