<p>India still has the caste system today indirectly. Someone, for example, who was born a poor farmer must remain in that certain caste. They can not marry out of the caste system. This can attribute why India is so poverty stricken. Feudalism has nothing to do with Christianity. I will agree with you that the Roman Catholic church hurt Europe in ways, but Hinduism has steeped the area of India with much superstition, causing political and spiritual darkness in the area. I don't have a problem with Hinduism, I just disagree with it.</p>
<p>I'm going to have to refer you back to trancestorm on the fact that the caste system is not really Hinduism.</p>
<p>They banned me again but I'm back</p>
<p>Justinian, you are mistaken. The caste system as an organization of social class was abandoned during the time following the British invasion of India. India's "classes" are as defined as America's. Nobody is forced to marry within their own caste. </p>
<p>The roman catholic church didn't just hurt Europe. It was the worst thing that happened to Europe. It was the cause of all major conflict till the 17th century. Not only was the church corrupt, but it held the peasants down in economic bondage. Only when the established church was done away with or watered down was progressive change in any European country made. Look at France, the National Assembly of France, in the implimentation of a republic, confiscated all church lands and sold them. THen the Civil Constitution of the Clergy declared independence from the Vatican. Even in England, the Roman Catholic Church was done away with for the Anglican church. </p>
<p>There is not one positive event in European History that came out of the Church. Adversity within the church was the cause of conflict and bloodshed, and the church's tensions with other religions caused even more problems. The church even set up its own witch hunt style courts (the inquisition) to root out all dissenters. </p>
<p>Not to mention that they taxed the peasants so much that the peasants could not get by. </p>
<p>Funny you should mention superstition. Until the church doctrines were abandoned in the 17th century (the period of enlightenment) witch hunts were the commonplace. The church made the people more superstitious than ever. Only the philosophes of the enlightenment era could put the superstition away. They did this by abandoning religious thought in favor of reason and logic. </p>
<p>The reason India is so poverty stricken is because of British interference. The British took over a thriving country and left it in ruin . Now, India lacks structure in government and is full of conflict. The British instigated the Hindu-Muslim conflict which led to teh creation of pakistan and bangladesh. All of these internal problems of india are due to the british; all because of colonialism.</p>
<p>how can the caste system can influence poverty as you say?</p>
<p>Spiritual darkness?? what are you talking about? Give me one example (that is not made up like your farmer example) of how Hinduism has hurt India or put India in "spiritual darkness".</p>
<p>RAther than using historical facts, you seem to be making stuff up now. check the history before you make these illogical accusations.</p>
<p>IF you define hindu culture itself to be "spiritually dark" and "superstitious", quit beating around the bush and just say, "as a christian, i think hindu culture is savage and barbaric." </p>
<p>Then i will show you why you are wrong. </p>
<p>Do not make the mistake of calling the effects of hinduism regressive.</p>
<p>MY god.
The caste system is not equal to Hinduism. That's like saying feudalism is a part of Christianity. In the olden days, when societies were more homogeneous (i.e., India was like almost all Hindu, feudal Europe was largely Christian), culture/daily life and religion were closely tied. Religion was part of everyone's way of life--there was much less separation of church and state. The caste system was a way of organizing a society that happened to be Hindu, so now when we look back we think the two are tied. But today we are knowledgeable enough to separate true Hindu/Christian teachings and philosophy from the structure of ancient societies.</p>
<p>Of course nowadays there are people who say, "Oh God proclaimed you a lower caste" but they aren't mainstream or real Hindus. Gandhi, the hero of all Indians everywhere, was himself a supporter of the "Harijans," God's children, the lower castes. People didn't make fun of him for that--he's exalted as a man of compassion and a national icon. So be careful when you tie things together that aren't related. That's like my saying "Christians are dumb because the Bible says you can't touch women during certain times of the month." I don't think most Christians hold that view any longer; it's simply a relic of a time when religion and culture were closely tied. So no point bringing such things up as subjects of criticism.</p>
<p>"The roman catholic church didn't just hurt Europe. It was the worst thing that happened to Europe. It was the cause of all major conflict till the 17th century. Not only was the church corrupt, but it held the peasants down in economic bondage. Only when the established church was done away with or watered down was progressive change in any European country made...There is not one positive event in European History that came out of the Church. Adversity within the church was the cause of conflict and bloodshed, and the church's tensions with other religions caused even more problems. The church even set up its own witch hunt style courts (the inquisition) to root out all dissenters...Not to mention that they taxed the peasants so much that the peasants could not get by...Funny you should mention superstition. Until the church doctrines were abandoned in the 17th century (the period of enlightenment) witch hunts were the commonplace. The church made the people more superstitious than ever. Only the philosophes of the enlightenment era could put the superstition away. They did this by abandoning religious thought in favor of reason and logic...The reason India is so poverty stricken is because of British interference. "</p>
<p>Trancestorm, those were really insensitive comments. Nothing good came out of the Church? It's all the Brits' fault? Those kinds of attitudes keep India from progressing. Instead of acknowledging that India has some corruption of its own, you blame it all on the Christians. Of course there was corruption in the old Catholic Church--lots of it. But there's no need to call it the worst thing that happened to Europe. I think ignorant hatred is the problem.</p>
<p>It is not hatred at all. I approach this purely from a historical standpoint. Take a class called European History. Perhaps it is the liberal agenda of the International Baccalaureate program, but you will not see anything (all religious belief aside) that has come out of the RC Church. History doesnt lie...i can back this up if you have further doubt. </p>
<p>I can assert with no qualms that the Church was detrimental to the progress of europe. </p>
<p>And the British thing...there is no way around it. The East India Tea company and the British influence were what held, and still continue to hold India down. </p>
<p>This is a widely accepted idea, by historians around the world. </p>
<p>Don't make the assumption that I am Indian either.</p>
<p>The caste system as it was executed was not a hindu ideal. Refer to my post on page 29 or 28.</p>
<p>Getting back to the original topic, I'm an Atheist...and a conservative...</p>
<p>I'm a Christian. I am absolutely certain that God exists. I don't really think that the bible was completely divinely inspired, but it's one of the best resources we have out there on God and who he is (particularly the gospels). I believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, that He was the messiah.</p>
<p>I've studied Christian apologetics (defence of belief). I am tolerant of other faiths because I think that the arguments for and against Christianity pretty much fight to a stalemate, leaving one with a completely free choice whether or not to believe. And I have chosen to believe that Jesus was not a liar or lunatic, but that what he said was really true. While I don't really know exactly what he said, I think that I have a pretty good idea.</p>
<p>Anybody else on here Christian and socialist?</p>
<p>there is a large debate on this. and i go to a catholic school</p>
<p>I'm agnostic.</p>
<p>Atheist and lovin' it! IMO Religion (and God subsequently) was created by people as a way to control others.</p>
<p>i wish i believed in God. i'm in protestant choir and gospel choir and go to chapel every sunday too.</p>
<p>"religion was creeated by people as a way to control others"</p>
<p>Even if we are to assume that God does not exist (which I believe He does), I disagree completely with your statement. The purpose of religion is to fulfill basic human spiritual wants and needs. Religion has been used in the past by ambitious men to achieve control, but so have many other ideals, such as the concepts of justice, patriotism, and nationalism. The vast majority of people do not go to Churches, or Mosques, or Synagogues etc to seek control over other people. They go there to seek control over themselves, and their own fate.</p>
<p>USNA_reject, I have trouble with a belief in God too, at least for a while I did. There is nothing wrong with doubting. But I encourage you to read some apologetics literature. C.S. Lewis would be a good start for that. Also, Josh McDowell has written an excellent book on apologetics called "Evidence That Demands A Verdict". While certainly "Evidence" is a quite biased source, it presents a great case for Christianity.</p>
<p>If you want to believe, there's plenty of stuff to back your belief up.</p>
<p>Regarding how religion developed, I think all the things mentioned had a hand in it (control, group mentality, etc) but in addition it provides a consequence to actions detrimental to human survival or advancement, ex. you kill someone, you go to hell - and when people know of such consequences they think a bit before acting.</p>
<p>Steven Pinker has an awesome essay on the development of religion somewhere, I'll try to find it. (edit: <a href="http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2004_10_29_religion.htm%5B/url%5D">http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2004_10_29_religion.htm</a> )</p>
<p>Rampant atheist, here, but I think I already mentioned that.</p>
<p>ii really suggest we end this thread because this an high school i dont know if theres a connection.. but your choice.</p>
<p>Yeah, it is irrelevent. But irrelevence is good.</p>