Posted on 07/26/2005 4:28:07 AM PDT by voletti
Out of curiosity, how do your Sikh/Catholic friends reconcile their faiths?
Catholics do not believe in re-incarnation, Sikhs do.
Catholics believe in the divinity of Jesus, Sikhs don't.
Sikhs believe the word of God is in the Guru Granth Sahib, not the Bible.
Catholics believe the word of God is in the Bible, not the GGS.
Sikhs believe in salvation through Karma, not accepting Jesus as the saviour. Catholics would differ.
:) Well I can't help the deja vu. But Yogi Berra is the best.
I guess this is why we disagree is that I don't feel obliged to go by moral relativism, although I find it cheery that it seems that you aren't all that enthused about it either. We have to deal with those who have declared war on us. But it shouldn't get others off the hook as being trustworthy when they have proven that they do not deserve that trust.
I am pretty sure that I don't have a twin :)
Plus they all like Indian food in Indian restaurants (even tho' in reality, it's very similar to Paki food) are exposed to the Beauties of the Bollywood Behemoth a lot more, interact more with Indians (regardless of religion) and can differentiate.
I think I have already indicated that my Sikh friends are liberty minded. But why do the faiths of husband and wife have to match?
Example - Catholic wife tells Sikh husband that if he doesn't want any more children (they had 7), he would have to take care of it as her religion prohibited. Both could laugh about it.
Again, why do faiths have to match if the married couple appreciates differences?
That's too bad that the British had an adverse effect on Christianity.
Perspective is different I guess. It was admirable to threaten to hang men who would burn widows when their husbands died. It was not admirable to colonize India for profit.
Well- a Sikh I once knew told me one thing to NEVER say to a Sikh was their equivalent of 'MF'. Figures the only two two things I remember of Hindi are THAT word and the greeting.
And you really, really don't want to call a Hindu or Sikh a Muslim. Maybe we need a lot of Sikh police and border guards.
And we know everything on the internet is true!
I have been a long time student of Vedic scripture and the "600 years" is pure nonsense.
The Purans - literally "ancient histories" condemn meat eating - ESPECIALLY cow flesh since time immemorial. The only sanction for flesh eating was in reference to offered sacrifices. If you read the source texts themselves, especially with commentary by actual Vedic scholars especially those in disciplic lines, rather than British Indologists who are on the outside looking in, so to speak, you find the truth of the Vedas.
Think of it this way - an atheist scholar translating or commenting on the Bible will not take the words of the Bible as true; he'll look at them with a critical eye of non-belief.
Same thing with the Vedas and the Vedic associated literature. By Vedas I mean as well as the 4, also the Puranas (especially the sattvic Puranas), the Upanishads, and other associated texts. The Manu Samhita, which is immeasurably ancient, condemns not only eating cows, but has severe punishments for cruelty to animals.
I am not going to find fault in their marriage or defend it by poring into their detailed interpersonal relationship, much of which isn't my business. It's enough for me that they love each other and respect each other and are great friends of liberty. I am glad to know them.
But I must be reading your question incorrectly and I apologize, because the inference of x action will send you to hell infers a fundamentalism that you may not have meant. Sorry if I am reading it wrong.
There is a lot of theological freedom in educated Catholicism. As both husband and wife are highly educated, I will take it that he has as much education on his religion as she on hers. But what I think you are missing is that he is the one who showed what he saw as an unappreciated value in Christianity.
PS They have been married for over 30 years.
Every time the media shows a picture of the Islamic train bombers or khafiyyeh-wearing bin-Laden worshippers staging protests in front of the Finsbury mosque, the Sikh and Indians probably wince and slap their own foreheads in disgust.
Damned bad luck for them to hail from the same part of Asia.
If it were me in their place, I'd probably wear a 'Not Muslim' T-shirt.
:) I love the British, but no more than I would want Nancy Pelosi to take my personal property do I believe that the British should have exercised the power to confiscate private property.
The US also had its service as cash cow for the British. Ironic that we who liberated ourselves from colonialism are so often accused of it.
But we got over it. Would that India did too.
It is to the credit of the British that where they colonized, they brought the rights of Englishmen to the citizens and the principle of a democratic republic. They brought their parliamentary system with them.
The French, on the other hand, failed to provide a solid legal framework where they colonized, but they forced the colonials to be frenchified.
Huh? 10 percent might be an issue if you LIVED in India.
Hindu extremists aren't in the West plotting your death, heck, they're not even in India plotting your death here in the West.
Yep-it's esp a relief when you know that over 750 million Hindus don't agree with those 100 million,weakening the loonies considerably.
"If you read the source texts themselves, especially with commentary by actual Vedic scholars especially those in disciplic lines, rather than British Indologists who are on the outside looking in, so to speak, you find the truth of the Vedas.
Think of it this way - an atheist scholar translating or commenting on the Bible will not take the words of the Bible as true; he'll look at them with a critical eye of non-belief. "
Very well said, Sir. It is a honor to have a Vedic scholar on this board.
cheers
I think India got over it.
Do you drink tea or coffee? The reason most Americans drink coffee, instead of tea, is because of the Boston Tea Party. Remember that the Loyalists were kicked out and went to Canada or the Home Country, and that we fought a second war with England.
It has been less than 50 years, that India has been a country after all. It took us almost a century, to become real friends with GB, until then they were considered by many to be the hereditary 'enemy'.
If the Indian political system promoted inhumanity,it would have long ago become an oligarchy & the country would have imploded into scores of pieces.It is because of the sucess of a secular parliamentary democracy that countless million poor & downtrodden have got empowered & been lifted out of poverty & divergent political views assimilated into the mainstream.Pakistan started out as an ISLAMIC parliamentary democracy for a little around 7 years-the rest of it's history has been under army rule,with a few periods of Prime-ministership,(under the benevolent oversight of the army) thrown in.
About Sikhs,well the Major Sikh state in India is the richest & most productive in India & Sikhs hold positions of considerable influence in politics,business,sport/entertainment & the bureaucracy.The days of Sikh separatism are close to extinct,sustained by a few rich khalistanis in the West & by Pakistan.
Well, I wouldn't call myself a scholar - I can't read Sanskrit. I read translations, but I study the word by word translations as well, so I am very familiar with a lot of Sanskrit terminology as long as it's written in English letters instead of Devanagari.
One reason faithless scholars think that Vedic scriptures are of more recent origin than the literature itself states is because the Vedic scriptures have always been written on leaf pages, which necessitate copying every generation or so. Sometimes the copiers will add some commentary of their own, thus adding comments that are of more recent origin.
Another point is that the original British Indologists had a conscious motive to make the Vedas appear of more recent origin, so as to make their own culture appear superior, and influence Indians to feel ashamed of their own culture. I've even read some quotes to that effect - they in essence lied about the antiquity of Hindu history, especially to Indians educated in England.
And now so many accept as gospel the so-callef Aryan invasion and other historical non-truths. The real history of India is veiled by much misunderstanding, and conscious trickery.
I drink coffee more than tea, but it has nothing to do with the Boston Tea Party. As much as I agree and support it.
My forebears came much more recently :D
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.