Oh yes, the “illiterate and uneducated” (are you speaking of the masses in the Indian subcontinent?) won’t be satisfied until the Son of God appears on “60 Minutes” and makes His Word clear to the likes of you. But wait a minute! Even this won’t do, would it? Since in the inevitable discussions that would follow, from one of your earlier posts, you’d still be asking: “Who’s To Interpret”? Such is the proof of an education lacking in serious and scholarly discussion.
Before we speak about the Catholic Church and some of it’s errant teachers almost from the beginning of the early Church, at least we don’t have the annual phenomenon of millions wading into the toxic and feces-ridden waters of the Ganges surrounded by thousands of semi-naked Hindu swamis seeking purification from the pantheon of Hindu gods.
You're back with your old habit of indulging in wild, irrelevant tangents.
"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' " - 1 Samuel 15: 3 ----------------------------------------------- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch XI, Lines 335-344. "Yet not by Vedas, nor from sacrifice, Nor penance, nor gift-giving, nor with prayer Shall any so behold, as thou hast seen! Only by fullest service, perfect faith, And uttermost surrender am I known And seen, and entered into, Indian Prince! Who doeth all for Me; who findeth Me In all; adoreth always; loveth all Which I have made, and Me, for Love’s sole end, That man, Arjuna! unto Me doth wend."
"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "
- 1 Samuel 15: 3
Bhagavad-Gita, Ch XI, Lines 335-344.
"Yet not by Vedas, nor from sacrifice,
Nor penance, nor gift-giving, nor with prayer
Shall any so behold, as thou hast seen!
Only by fullest service, perfect faith,
And uttermost surrender am I known
And seen, and entered into, Indian Prince!
Who doeth all for Me; who findeth Me
In all; adoreth always; loveth all
Which I have made, and Me, for Love’s sole end,
That man, Arjuna! unto Me doth wend."
Thank you very much for the “diagnosis”, but while you were busy prescribing:
Steelfish: “…deity-mandated violence…”, “…mandatory rituals…”, “…noble rationale…”, “…psychologically proven…”, etc.
Physician, heal thyself!
Now about 1 Samuel 2-3:
The argument that the clear and distinct order to kill and maim infants of another tribe, is justified because of a “new covenant ” in the “new testament” is ridiculously silly because the Jews don’t subscribe to any “new testament”. If the New Testament ties links of bondage to the Old, then it is the former that suffers the liabilities, and not the latter. For the millennia during which the Old was the sole arbiter, there is no excuse for the violent barbarity. As for Witch Burning, you assume that the period between 1400 AD and 1700 AD, which consumed innocent lives with religious sanction, of estimates going up to 100,000 women, seats itself in the Dark Ages? Do you know to count?
British rule in India was largely through the mode of the Princely States, where religious law was not the purview of the Criminal Code (for example, did the British criminalise Muslim polygamy? I didn't think so, either). When the same came into force in the period licking at the early 20th century, it did not bring any cataclysmic change in Indian society, for it to have affected religious practices as significantly as you falsely portray it to have been. And this, you emphasise for an issue that did not even make for more than a statistical aberration, compared to the tolls from the Witch Burnings. When Macaulay drafted the Code, it was in consultation with the religious leaders of the time, and not in their absence.
About the Gita being part of another body of literature, mnemonic devices have been a commonly utilised aid to facilitate oral transmission of teachings, in the period when writing was yet to be invented.
For you to consider it fictitious, is neither surprising, nor shocking, for it merely throws light on your abject failure to understand what constitutes belief. To elaborate, the Jews consider Christianity to be an illegitimate corruption of their faith. Among Christians themselves, the Protestants hold Catholics to be ritualistic idolaters (the habit passed off as "veneration" or "canonisation" while worshipping dead body parts, vials of dried blood, dead people and statues) and Romanists, probably for good reason:
Feast of Cocullo (Saint Domenico)
Protestants are in turn, labelled “heretics” and ridiculed, and the counter-charge appears in the form of comparisons of the fate and status of Catholic-dominated hell-holes in the Western Hemisphere, almost all of them susceptible to violent dictatorships, compared to free Protestant bastions of progress and civilization, such as the United States. It took, by the way, Protestant Reforms to cleanse Christianity of the evils of the corrupt papal office, which in the past, participated in such crimes as commissioning sinful behaviour through the sale of "indulgences", trading foreign lands and carving empires, and the like.
"Cabalistic Christianity, which is Catholic Christianity, and which has prevailed for 1,500 years, has received a mortal wound, of which the monster must finally die. Yet so strong is his constitution, that he may endure for centuries before he expires."
- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, July 16, 1814.
"Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?"
- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, May 19, 1821.
Note the unique susceptibility of Catholicism-dominated countries, to dictatorships: France (De Gaulle), Spain (Franco), Italy (Mussolini), Argentina (Pinochet), etcetera, before attacking the views of the two aforementioned Founding Fathers.
It was also interesting, by the way, that you could not really attack the contents of the Gita, and that forced you to resort to attacking its legitimacy as a religious text.
Additionally, you seem to ignore that Bobby Jindal, before he began to adopt the Catholic faith (at the "early" age of what, 20?), was still more or less an upright citizen, holding to his Hindu beliefs. So too, were his parents. What's your explanation for all of the three not turning into vicious savages, Inquisitors or witch-burners as you accuse Hindus of being?
So, besides your circular logic until now, the whole argument would begin to see some progress on your behalf if you could answer, for starters:
1. Why the hereditary priesthood in Judaism is justified (I'm not asking for a rationale, but an explanation).
2. How you would account for the barbaric violence of the Old Testament, for the period that it was held valid, according to you.