Pak Priest Sacrifices 3 Daughters

Times of India ^ | March 23, 2010 | Omer Farooq Khan

[Mrs. Don-o]

Steelfish, you abhor and morally reject an act or policy of indiscriminate slaughter in war (or in any other context), and likewise abhor a deity who commands such a thing. If this is a fair summary of your position, without any equivocation you are slam dunk right.

This is something that has driven me to much reflection as long as I've been thinking about it with an adult brain (let's say 40+ years) --- and the problem is that to leave the Amalekite problem at that (as summarized above) is to ignore the actual moral theology which Christ teaches us through the Church. (That is, Catholicism: other churches, especially fundamentalist ones, may not agree: but I speak for Catholicism, not fundamentalism.)

I'll avoid pages of god-talkative cutting and pasting. Let me just point out that "gradual revelation" and the "development of doctrine" are both basic, foundational principles which you have, I think, failed to take into account.

It can be found, strikingly, in the six great “contradictions” set out by Jesus himself in Matthew 5: “You have heard it said… but I say unto you…”

Jesus rejects a specimen-preserved-in-amber view of Scripture and gives us instead, living Truth: not just that he “gives us” the interpretation of Scripture, but that He “is” the interpretation of Scripture.

What can one say about the eradication of the Amalekites vs the 20+ Old Testament verses in which God says He “hates” and “forbids” the shedding of innocent blood? What can one say about that pathetic scene in Judges when Jephthah sacrifices his daughter to fulfill a vow to the Lord, vs the many verses in which the Lord says that He detests child sacrifice and considers it an abomination? You say in the spirit of truth: if anyone thinks baby-killing and child-sacrifice are the positive will of God, they are wrong.

Alas, history is what it is, and it says in that same book of Judges, “Every man did what was right in his own eyes,”—this underlines the many-centuries-long tension between Biblical narrative and Divine law.

Bottom line, any honest inquirer must strive to understand the gradual nature of Biblical revelation and development of doctrine: this is indispensible in considering the relationship of the Old Testament and the New.

[Mrs. Don-o]

lj: interested in your view of mine at #81.

[Steelfish]

You are in acute need of a serious education sans bits and pieces of internet-lifted quotes masquerading as platforms of knowledge and here’s why.

Who, except fundamentalists, interpret sciptural text literally? You naively inquire who gets to intepret? Isn’t this why we have scholarship, colleges and universities to provide us accurate translations based on historicity, the verbal and received traditions of that day, how language and terms were conveyed, understood, and received at the time? Isn’t this why Biblical scholarship is not for novices?

Having been trumped by the fact that your much vaunted reference to Samuel was made four centuries after the purported event occured, you now seek the last shelter and refuge of an ignoramus by throwing all up in the air with the vacuous query on who gets to interpret?

This is pathetic level on which to engage serious discussion.

[James C. Bennett]

Typical recycled blather, is what you’ve been spouting here, all through, to the extent that the comment on the “explanation” for the ritual, divinely-mandated child-slaughter and human-sacricfice you cut-copy-pasted off the internet backfired against your nonsensical interpretation of the same. Perhaps you are still ignorant of that. Go take a look at your own comment again, and realise.

After that, explain why one must provide leeway for the fantastic re-interpretation of the Samuel verses you’ve made, while admonishing the Gita in the same breath. Have you heard of the term, logical dissonance?

Next, you’ll be telling us Jews were really not divinely-mandated to mutilate the penises of their male offspring. Another re-interpretation will soon ensue from your end, I guess.

Your entire personal faith seems to rest on re-interpreted verses modified by yourself, to conform to your own ethical standards. When it comes crashing down, it won’t be pretty.

[little jeremiah]

Thank you, Mrs. Don-o. I can honestly say that my opinion matters little as I am far, far from an OT scholar. But your version of gradual revelation sounds very reasonable, and it is obvious that many of the teachings or stories with teachings in the OT are not the same as the teachings of Jesus Christ, and it is the teachings that are important, as far as I am concerned.

There are many different branches of Vedic shastra or scripture (oddly enough, the word “shastra” means “scripture” and also “weapon”, since the truth destroys ignorance), and have different levels of dharma, for different kinds of people. The Puranas - literally means “ancient histories” - have three branches - sattvic (mode of goodness or clarity and peace), rajasic (mode of passion or ambition and desire), and tamasic (mode of ignorance or darkened understanding), for people of different levels of spiritual understanding.

Speaking from the POV of the Vedas, I would say that Jesus Christ taught bhakti, love for God and for all creatures, or fellow children of God. And his teachings are congruent with the teachings in the sattvic Puranas and the conclusion of the Bhagavad Gita:

“Giving up all dharmas, just surrender unto Me alone. I will deliver you from all sins. Do not worry.” BG 18.66

[caww]

Thank you for clarifying that....Yes I still think we are a Christian by certain standards but fallen clean off the map in others....Touchy for me to say we are no longer a Christian culture...but I have shared with friends that to bring up the things of God in the public arena today is more and more met with disdain...in fact I’ve seen people get in anothers face for daring to say abortion is killing a baby..that happened to me and was a wake up call how fast that occured...it was more a reflex than any thought the party gave to what she was doing. My response...Look you’re arguement is with God not me...and she calmed immediately. Odd happening but as you can tell even writing this now I am facing just what you are suggestioning...just can’t quite get my heart around it.

[swarthyguy]

You may be interested in reading the story of the Lord Krishna, if only from an academic point of view, a parable, a legend, a myth, of a Divinity.

LJ, whose knowledge far, far exceeds my own, and I daresay, of most Indian Hindus may be able to guide you to a decent version available online.

The childhood years of a mischevious boy predestined for greater and bigger things still bring a smile to my face.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Well, lj? What do you recommend for me online?

[swarthyguy]

Well, in the spirit of mischeviousness....

http://hinduism.about.com/od/lordkrishna/a/christ_krishna.htm

[Mrs. Don-o]

I have a Hindu friend who very faithfuly and tirelessly keeps sending me info on vegetarianism: I briskly dispose of the arguments but keep the recipes...

Hummus. Mmm.

The etymology and coincidentarianism in the link you sent strike me as pretty loose and dubious. But I'll go for amusing Child Krishna stories: sure, send some. Or maybe a good easy recipe for chapatis?:o)

[swarthyguy]

>>a good easy recipe for chapatis

No way around the hard way, however, some of the premade ones now available in Indian or Chinese grocery stores aren’t bad at all.

The child stories have been a little harder to locate via google......

[James C. Bennett]

Send your Hindu friend, this:

 

Serving beef at Ayodhya


24 Aug 2003, 0000 hrs IST,SWAMINOMICS

SWAMINATHAN S ANKLESARIA AIYAR


 

Although the BJP and Congress Party both seem keen on banning cow slaughter throughout India, it looks as though dissent from other parties has blocked the move for the time being. Some critics protest that cow worship is a strictly Hindu idea that must not be imposed on others in a secular state. I agree.

But I go further. I hold that cow slaughter and beef eating are proven Hindu traditions of old. This has been recorded by any number of scholars of the Vedas and epics. Let me give as an example Nirad Chaudhuri's passages from The Continent of Circe.

Vedic literature shows great love for and pride in cattle, as is to be expected of a pastoral people. Love of cows in the Vedas goes with "every possible economic use of cattle, including, of course, their slaughter for food". The Vedic spirit continues into the age when epics like the Ramayana and Mahabharata were written.

Chaudhuri notes that a debate had already begun between those who opposed and those who defended cow slaughter. The two ideas co-existed, very much like the debate today about vegetarianism. The Mahabharata mentions, "without thinking it necessary to add any excuse, that a very hospitable king used to have 20,100 cattle slaughtered every day for his guests." On the other hand, another story tells of a king who has slaughtered a cow to entertain a sage, an act that is criticised as sinful by another sage.

Such differences of view are a key characteristic of Hinduism. It has never been a rigid, Semitic-style religion with a chief pre-late laying down one single interpretation of holy texts. From ancient times some Hindus opposed cow slaughter, but many others regarded it as not merely permissible but obligatory to show honour to guests.

By the time the Dharma Shastras were penned, beef consumption had "ceased or virtually ceased". Nevertheless, the play Uttara-Rama-Charitra, one of the most celebrated versions of the Ramayana written by Bhavabhuti in the 8th century AD, has the following dialogue between two hermit boys at Ayodhya, Saudahataki and Dandayana.

S: What is the name of the guest who has arrived today with a big train of women?

D: Stop joking. It is no less a person than the revered Vasishta himself.

S: Is it Vasishta, eh?

D: Who else?

S: I thought it was a tiger or a wolf. For, as soon as he came, he crunched up our poor tawny heifer.

D: It is written that meat should be given along with curds and honey. So every host offers a heifer, a big bull, or a goat to a learned Brahmin who comes as a guest. This is laid down in sacred law.

Today, with the Hindutva bri-gade in full cry, such a dialogue in a modern play would probably cause a riot and be banned.

Yet, this was uncontroversial in its time. Clearly, the notion that the cow is sacred is merely a sectional Hindu view. It is by no means traditional Hinduism or essential Hinduism. If anything, it is a recent reformist Hinduism. I have no objection to reformers, but I object vociferously when they pretend to speak for all Hindus, or for essential Hinduism.

Some Vishwa Hindu Parishad types say that the cow gives milk which is essential for rearing all of us, so the cow is our mother, and hence deserves to be protected from slaughter. Chaudhuri remarks caustically that the "relationship is expressed not in terms of economics or animal husbandry... but as a matter of ethics, as if one was speaking of a man's relationship with his wet nurse."

On this supposition, the buffalo is an even greater mother of Hindus than the cow, as buffaloes in north India provide more milk than cows. But nobody worships the poor buffalo. Indeed, the buffalo is ceremonially sacrificed as part of Hindu worship in parts of eastern India.

In Vedic times, neither untouchables nor tribals were regarded as Hindus. Even when the first census was enumerated in the 19th century, dalits and tribals were not counted as Hindus.

But such is the power of modern upper caste Hindu imperialism that it now claims as its own these two groups whom it cruelly reviled and oppressed through the ages. Dalits and tribals have always eaten beef.

Yet, the VHP brigade (and its camp-followers in the Congress) claim unhesitatingly that Hindus do not eat beef. A ban on cow slaughter would be an imposition on hundreds of millions of dalits and tribals, no less than on non-Hindus.

I have long opposed a ban on cow slaughter as a secular liberal. But in the light of Bhavabhuti's narrative, I also oppose the ban as a beef-eating Hindu. I am following in the footsteps of Vasishta, no less. 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/144132.cms
 

[Mrs. Don-o]

For some reason, this brings to mind that Orc guy (that one with serious dental issues) in Lord of the Rings: “Looks like meat’s back on the menu, boys!”

[James C. Bennett]

LOL!

[proud American in Canada]

That poor mother. There's no way she wasn't driven insane from the sight of it all. Prayers for her.

Agreed. What a horrible thing to see. Beyond words.

[little jeremiah]

I’ll get back to this thread tomorrow. Been busy...

I can dig up a link or two.

[little jeremiah]

I’ve written up user-friendly chapatti recipes, I make them very often.

[little jeremiah]

Traditionally Hindus never ate cow flesh, cow is considered one of the seven mothers, never to be killed. Kshatriyas would sometimes eat wild game, after it was offered in a sacrfice. In fact, keeping animals and raising them for slaughter was considered such a crime there is a special hell as punishment.

[Publius]

In fact, keeping animals and raising them for slaughter was considered such a crime there is a special hell as punishment.

It's called Detroit.

[little jeremiah]

Now that is funny.