<p>btw, you cant "convert" to Hinduism, you are born a Hindu :)</p>
<p>Boundless grace and love? why not forgive the original sin and alleviate war, poverty, etc. If god were omnipotent/omnipresent, he certainly is not belevolent (bound with grace and love). Why then should we believe in him?</p>
<p>True enough, hinduism (as with buddhism) is a way of life. But the word convert was used to signify my cutting off ties with christianity, not the forming of ties with hinduism. And if you think you need to be born a hindu in order to be hindu, then you are misinformed.</p>
<p>i went from christianity to hinduism because i discovered that the very paradigms of Christian philosophy were flawed, from the definitive assertions/ impositions of will of god to the concept of sin and social justice/retribution.</p>
<p>Of course i took issue with some paradigms of hinduism as well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And if you think you need to be born a hindu in order to be hindu, then you are misinformed.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The fact that people have to be borned Hindu is the reason why the population of Hindus is decreasing. I have many Hindu friends, so I know what I'm talking about.</p>
<p>That argument makes no sense, taking into account that India (the country with the largest hindu population) has increased population-wise.</p>
<p>In fact, many of the enlightened priests, the most adamant hindu followers, were westerners. </p>
<p>Again, i reiterate, hinduism is not an inclusive philosophy, rather it is a way of living. While i was hindu, i saw many devout christians who adhered to hindu teachings.</p>
<p>Regardless...you don't need to be born hindu to be a hindu...check your sources. You are dead wrong.</p>
<p>At one level Hinduism can refer to the beliefs or practices of followers of any of the dharmic traditions. The word Hinduism retains this sense in some usages in the Indian Constitution of 1950. In the field of religious studies, however, Hinduism is used in a narrower sense to distinguish it from the other religions of Indian origin.</p>
<p>A Hindu is thus identified by a dual exclusion. A Hindu is someone who does not subscribe to a religion of non-Indian origin, and who does not claim to belong exclusively to another religion of Indian originBuddhism, Jainism, or Sikhism. This effort at definition produces a rather artificial distinction between Hinduism and other dharmic traditions, which stems from an attempt to limit a system that sees itself as universal to an identity that is strictly religious</p>
<p>Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.</p>
<p>trancestorm:Boundless grace and love? why not forgive the original sin and alleviate war, poverty, etc. </p>
<p>this is when unwavering faith kicks in...i'm sorry, another unsatisfying answer...but hey, without such mysteries we wouldn't be able to have such a debate right :). whatever God hs planned, we must believe in it. the place without war, diseases, discrimination and whatnot is heaven, where we all hope to end up in. 'till the time comes, all we can do is believe.</p>
<p>Well anyways, if heaven is anywhere like Nirvana, then its not much better than earth.</p>
<p>agnostic here, prove to me he does or doesn't exist and I'll believe that way, until then I'll jsut keep living my own life.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That argument makes no sense, taking into account that India (the country with the largest hindu population) has increased population-wise.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Dude, that doesnt mean that the Hindu population has increased. A LARGE portion of India's population are Muslim.</p>
<p>Hinduism is still the majority in india (by far).</p>
<p>Hinduism practices no exclusion at all...one need not cut off all ties with western religion. Besides, the definition could not hold since hinduism was around thousands of years before christianity was conceived; no interaction with the west existed.</p>
<p>Neoking: that argument may suffice for you, but to attribute anything to faith does not work for me.</p>
<p>Since Christianity has been slammed here, I am going to say something very provocative so I am sorry. Hasn't Hinduism hurt(hey, thats alliteration!) India in some regards. Most animals can not be hurt because they supposedly have human spirits. Cows are regarded as sacred and can not be killed. Or, one must remain in the caste he or she was born. A poor farmer, for example, must remain a poor farmer for the rest of his life. His children must as well. People who go against the caste system are called untouchable and are disregarded in society. Please forgive if I have misinterpreted Hinduism. Please enlighten me, Y'all!</p>
<p>agnostic here also. but i am tolerant of all religions.</p>
<p>I'm atheist. I've got friends who are all sorts of different religions, and I personally think that religion's got a lot to offer. I'm just not interested.</p>
<p>You have misunderstood the caste system. The caste system was developed in order to allocate professions to people in old day India. Those who had certain traits would fall into a certain class. It had nothing to do with birth (as the european social hierarchy did), it all depended on the individual. Thus, anybody could advance or go down the caste ladder depending on motivation and other factors. (the untouchables were part of the caste system; they were those who were lazy and unmotivated to work). It was far superior to the european caste system of the late middle ages because it held nobody down to one class. The problem arose with its implimentation; a father of a nobleman who bore a lazy son would rarely denounce him as an untouchable. That is where the strict class system as westerners thing of it arose. The intent was good, but the implimentation was poor.</p>
<p>Do not make the assumption that it was any worse that the feudal system in europe that existed will through the 19th century. India's caste sytem was done away with in the 18th century. At least in india, the poor farmers were allowed to have land and did not have to pay expensive tithes to the catholic church or any other religious institution. True enough, they were held down in social bondage, but they were not held down in economic bondage as well (As were the europeans). The only time the indian peasants met undue economic strain was when they were invaded by the europeans. Poor farmers, though remaining poor, were able to live a better quality of life than their European counterparts.</p>
<p>Christianity hurt the peasants of europe, hinduism did no such thing (relative to the european situation).</p>
<p>Hinduism does not say that animals have human spirits. It says that all living beings share a fundamental life force; thus we should respect animals for their vital force. THe reason why Hindus respect (not worship as westerners may think) cows is that the cow is vital to the indian peasant's survival. It provides milk, sows the crops, and does other things the indian farmer needed to survive...indians in the old days relied heavily on cows. Thus, they owe their lives/livelihoods to their cows and grew to respect them.</p>
<p>Dont think that the caste system was a hindu idea. It was an abberation of a hindu ideal; not endorsed by hinduism at all.</p>
<p>Isnt the caste system banned in India?</p>
<p>Yes. Officially. In practice, there is still a great degree of it. There is also a great deal of sectarianism. I was born Hindu in religion, and now I have become Hindu in philosophy. And agnostic in religion.</p>
<p>Well, I have to admit, the Hindus specialize in philosophy.</p>