TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
lolThis is the best argument I read in a long time
Tnx
. No smart Muslim will be able to argue that.
Wonna bet?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
lolThis is the best argument I read in a long time
. No smart Muslim will be able to argue that.
Hmm. So lets see. Do you think because in India Sathi was practiced the Hindu scripture are bad and violent or even monstrous? I mean I dont think there are more demonic things than that anywhere in the world.
So applying your own standard I would say that Hinduism and all the Hindu scriptures are the most monstrous mainstream theological monstrosity in the world. I dont think this, I am only applying your standard to this.
What do you think?
Could you explain why you think that I did not read your post at all? Because I can assure you that I read it quite well.
And besides that, I replied to @TagliatelliMonster his reply (I did put your quote to make clear what we reply to)
Good you bring this up. I assume you mean "sati" in which the wife is killed/burned when her husband diesHmm. So lets see. Do you think because in India Sathi was practiced the Hindu scripture are bad and violent or even monstrous? I mean I dont think there are more demonic things than that anywhere in the world.
So applying your own standard I would say that Hinduism and all the Hindu scriptures are the most monstrous mainstream theological monstrosity in the world. I dont think this, I am only applying your standard to this.
What do you think?
Just for my interest....Because, you did not address that post with the context of there post itself. Thats the reason. It showed that there is no way you had taken the context of the post.
Thats why. But if you did read, I apologise. Maybe you had just dismissed it though you read it. Read up a bit on sociology of religion, Robert a pape, Rohan Gunaratne, etc etc.
Peace.
Good you bring this up. I assume you mean "sati" in which the wife is killed/burned when her husband dies
Can you give me the Hindu Scripture verses that tell clearly to burn wives
I am like 100% sure that God would never expect humans to do such a thing
And IF humans do such cruel things THEN
a) Human written Scripture has a mistake in it
b) Human interpretation of Scripture is wrong
c) ....
I am very easy to declare that there is an error in a Scripture, also in Hindu Scriptures AND also in Koran
IF a Scripture is a book of God it MUST be perfect
1 error means it's not a Book of God but a book written by humans who made errors
Yes ...lol
Tnx
Wonna bet?
Yes ...
I did say "smart" Muslim (without the word "smart" I would indeed not bet on it)
I haven't seen it. Would be nice to see it, so I can discard that Scripture or verseWhy should I give Hindu scripture for this mate?
This is an interesting idea (Can a Scripture be judged by the actions of people?)Because I am addressing it from your own standard! Scripture is judged by the actions of people.
See, this is your own standard. Where no explanation, no analysis is entertained.
I don't have seen it. Would be nice to see it, so I can discard that Scripture
This is an interesting idea I think (Can a Scripture be judged by the actions of people?)
But to avoid misunderstandings, please tell me what you think is "my standard" and tell me how you got that idea.
(This is a genuine question, because I like to understand each other well before going into such a conversation)
(Maybe I gave you a wrong impression of myself or maybe I made a mistake in my reply or you misunderstood)
Jesus stated you shall not kill, or steal, or commit adultery. You shall forgive your brother.
You shall love your neighbor as yourself. You must pray for your enemies.
When the disciples asked Jesus if he would 'send fire' upon some Samaritans like Elijah
did, Jesus said 'You don't know what manner of spirit you are of.'
This is Christianity.
Okay, thank you. But I did really like your reply challenging the Hindu Scripture. I have already found errors in Hindu Scriptures and even more 'crazy' interpretations. But it's good to drop it here, as it is beyond the scope of this thread. I better start a new thread just about this.Oh. Maybe I misunderstood you mate. Just leave it. I do apologise.
Thank you for giving such a detailed description where you got it from. Indeed a good, useful and interesting story for a new threadNevertheless if you wish to know the source of this Sathi practice, it comes from the Purana's. Sathi or since you said "Sati" which is actually not the pronunciation, was the wife of Shiva. So Sati's father Dhaksha neglects and excludes Shiva from this "sacrifice" out of disrespect to him and she enters the fire herself to show her loyalty to her husband.
ThanksNevertheless if you wish to know the source of this Sathi practice, it comes from the Purana's. Sathi or since you said "Sati" which is actually not the pronunciation, was the wife of Shiva. So Sati's father Dhaksha neglects and excludes Shiva from this "sacrifice" out of disrespect to him and she enters the fire herself to show her loyalty to her husband.
This is a good example that these people (practising Sati) take examples given in their Scriptures literally, whereas to me it's obviously meant figuratively (woman should follow husband). To kill wives this way shows to me that they lack compassion, empathy, love and instead have arrogance and demonic qualities. Of course IF a wife decides out of her own free will (also not being brainwashed) to kill her body (as she believes a soul to be eternal) and follow her husband in death, that is her free choice, and I don't judge such. But others should IMO never make that choice, nor playing guilt games on widows that she should do sati.From this the "Sons of royalty" or the Rajputh Kshatriyas took the practice where the wife burns with the husbands body as a sacrifice for the exoneration of the husbands sins and to live with him in the afterlife. This practice later spread to Brahmins as well as the lower castes. The new case of Sati was with Roop Kanwar in the 80's. Just a few decades ago.
This is a good example that these people take examples given in their Scriptures literally, whereas to me it's obviously meant figuratively
I know you did not say that Sati was correct, you were pretty clear using the words "monstrous" and "monstrosity"Well. I never said that the practice of Sati was correct. I say its stupid, and monstrous. Dumb. Sorry, but I cannot think of better words to describe it
I know you did not say that Sati was correct, you were pretty clear using the words "monstrous" and "monstrosity"
Of course I understood, even before you explained. I read enough from you to know that you don't think such cruel things to be correctHaha. I meant brother, correct practice of Hinduism. I meant to say that I did not claim Sati is the correct practice of Hinduism.
This is a good example that these people take examples given in their Scriptures literally, whereas to me it's obviously meant figuratively
I never assumed you did, so I was surprised you wrote this to me, hence my reply that I never thought like thatWell. I never said that the practice of Sati was correct.
Of course I understand. You could have known that I understood this very well, because I explicitly replied that I liked that reply of yours, and that I have in mind to start a new thread about this even (Can we judge a scripture based on what people do or not?)I was just demonstrating that what people practice in the name of a religion may not be the correct practice according to their scripture. Thus, you cannot judge the scripture based on what people do.
Hope you understand.
Of course I understood, even before you explained. I read enough from you to know that you don't think such cruel things to be correct