She is Taliban and this Guy is very Smart Indian taliban

[Ram]

More typical Hindu culture on display!

Yohan's stupidity is on display. What a moron. Yohan is perhaps the most obnoxious character in this forum. His every word drips with poisonous hatred. He insults everybody but he is not a man enough to take it. He will turn every thread into anti-Hindu thread even if it has nothing to do with Hinduism. He is trying to teach us something he knows nothing about. The problem with him is that he cannot tolerate an opinion which does not agree with his stupidity.

[Yohan]

More typical Hindu culture on display!

Yohan's stupidity is on display. What a moron. Yohan is perhaps the most obnoxious character in this forum. His every word drips with poisonous hatred. He insults everybody but he is not a man enough to take it. He will turn every thread into anti-Hindu thread even if it has nothing to do with Hinduism. He is trying to teach us something he knows nothing about. The problem with him is that he cannot tolerate an opinion which does not agree with his stupidity.

What Ram wrote reminds one of the writings in the sacred Hindu law book Manusmrithi. It is its contents Hindus know by heart, and use to denigrate lower castes and put them in their place. Thanks again for this wonderful display of Hindu culture.

[Ram]

More typical Hindu culture on display!

Yohan's stupidity is on display. What a moron. Yohan is perhaps the most obnoxious character in this forum. His every word drips with poisonous hatred. He insults everybody but he is not a man enough to take it. He will turn every thread into anti-Hindu thread even if it has nothing to do with Hinduism. He is trying to teach us something he knows nothing about. The problem with him is that he cannot tolerate an opinion which does not agree with his stupidity.

What Ram wrote reminds one of the writings in the sacred Hindu law book Manusmrithi. It is its contents Hindus know by heart, and use to denigrate lower castes and put them in their place. Thanks again for this wonderful display of Hindu culture.

Thank you for your stupidity, Mr. Yohan. I am not talking about your opinions about Hinduism. You have right to your views but you have no right insult people who do not agree with you. I am talking about your obnoxious treatment of people who hold different views and you hurling abuse at them. This is not being smart.

The fact that you resort to such abuse proves that you are a stupid man. If you had a little bit of confidence in you, you would not act in such moronic manner.

[subanallah]

yohan be a man and take it

[Nosuperstition]

The U.S. spent a fortune on World War II. Part of the reason the U.S. has to import oil today is because of the massive exploitation in World War II of its own reserves. Hell the U.S. even had to furnish the Soviet Union oil to fuel their planes, trucks and tanks. Yet the reward for this rape of North American resources (both Canada and the U.S.) by European powers was a thank you and please get the hell out of our lives. After feeding them, arming them and giving them fuel for 4 years most never even paid for their aid. Additionally after the war the U.S. rebuilt Western Europe and the gratitude returned is to treat the U.S. as the enemy instead of the Communist or Islamist.

By the early 1960's France was anti-American in her actions in NATO and the U.N. Her national pride would not accept second place to a vulgar young country like the U.S. It did not matter that France's continued existence depended entirely on the U.S. It did not matter that billions of dollars were poured into France under the Marshall plan to help rebuild.

France, Germany and the UK could not tolerate American plane manufacture so they established a subsidized "Airbus" consortium to compete with Boeing and McDonald Douglas. Now we see the subsidized planes continue to take market share away from "private" American companies by a government owned and subsidized industry. But that is okay because it is against the enemy's private industry.

This is a very pointed view by a very biased American. There are many possible explanations for Europe’s reaction to the U.S.; however, I do not see any justification for it. The French left Vietnam to the U.S. because it grew tired of fighting the Cold War early on. France withdrew from Vietnam to give them enough strength to keep its African Colonies but at the same time they withdrew from the greater Cold War and at that very time France started to be anti-American in their actions at the U.N. During the Vietnam War all the European states knew that it was part of the Cold War and that their existence depended on the actions of the U.S. yet none came to the aid of the U.S. The only allies the U.S. had in Vietnam were Australia and South Korea, yet it was a proxy war by the Soviet Union in its aims to subjugate the world to Communism.

I continually ask why Europe was not involved in the Cold War except that portion that directly affected their countries. I cannot find an answer. Yet when the Communist fell to economic pressure placed on them by the U.S. all the Europeans can say is that the Catholic Church did in the Soviet Union.

Now the war the U.S. is involved with in the Middle East is not about oil for the U.S., but it is about oil for Europe (it is a simple fact that little Middle Eastern oil is consumed in the U.S.). But still the Europeans demean the U.S. for being involved in the Middle East. They call the U.S. Imperialists; they take sides with the enemy of the U.S. possibly out of habit. We know quite well that the biggest threat to the world is Iran yet in last months resolution against Iran France and Germany were involved in watering the resolution down to the point of it being worthless. Why?

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... c&start=45

[secularmindedhindu]

So all vegetarians are Hindus?

What do Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Billie Jean King, Bob Marley, Bob Dylan, Paul and Linda McCartney, Plato, Mahatma Gandhi, Alanis Morissette and Bill Pearl have in common?

They were all vegetarians.

[Yohan]

So all vegetarians are Hindus?

What do Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Billie Jean King, Bob Marley, Bob Dylan, Paul and Linda McCartney, Plato, Mahatma Gandhi, Alanis Morissette and Bill Pearl have in common?

They were all vegetarians.

So was the killer of Mahatma Gandhi! What are you trying to prove?

[Nosuperstition]

What do Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Billie Jean King, Bob Marley, Bob Dylan, Paul and Linda McCartney, Plato, Mahatma Gandhi, Alanis Morissette and Bill Pearl have in common?

They were all vegetarians.

Einstein the man who was responsible for the Atom Bomb was full of praise for Budhdhism whose core value is ahimsa(non-violence).Can you describe the religious leanings of the other scientists?

[Nosuperstition]

Later smritikar called those Gandharva marriages " Rakshas marriages". Those "love marriges" invariably took place between upper caste male and lower caste female.Some Aryan kings had liasons with fisherfolk women, not otherway around. Pratilom marriages were frowned upon, culprits were severely punished.

I have seen in films about how lovers get married in temple premises by exchanging garlands and mind you that is not rare.It is quiet a common occurence in love oriented films.The temple priest never objects to it.

Well cc, can you substantiate your claim?

[Idesigner]

Later smritikar called those Gandharva marriages " Rakshas marriages". Those "love marriges" invariably took place between upper caste male and lower caste female.Some Aryan kings had liasons with fisherfolk women, not otherway around. Pratilom marriages were frowned upon, culprits were severely punished.

I have seen in films about how lovers get married in temple premises by exchanging garlands and mind you that is not rare.It is quiet a common occurence in love oriented films.The temple priest never objects to it.

Well cc, can you substantiate your claim?

What claim you are talking about.

Smritis talk about many kind of marriages . "Rakshas marriage" was not approved. Culprits lost their castes, considered beyond the pale of Hinduism.

I wont go by film marriages . Its all modern version.In ancient days certain castes were not even allowed in temples. Its not upto temple priest to ascertain castes but those couple who went against caste norms and got married often got killed after coming out of temple. I know a case in Gujarat.

[charleslemartel]

So all vegetarians are Hindus?

What do Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Billie Jean King, Bob Marley, Bob Dylan, Paul and Linda McCartney, Plato, Mahatma Gandhi, Alanis Morissette and Bill Pearl have in common?

They were all vegetarians.

Exactly. Tell that to Yohan.

[Yohan]

Smritis talk about many kind of marriages . "Rakshas marriage" was not approved. Culprits lost their castes, considered beyond the pale of Hinduism.

I wont go by film marriages . Its all modern version.In ancient days certain castes were not even allowed in temples. Its not upto temple priest to ascertain castes but those couple who went against caste norms and got married often got killed after coming out of temple. I know a case in Gujarat.

Hindu marriages, though varied a lot, had a lot of commonality. There were no limits on the wives a Hindu could have in general. In some communities women could have multiple husbands. Then liasons, concubines and so on were ok too. The commonality is that Brahmins never presided over marriages in non-twice born castes. These marriages never took place in a temple, as they were family/communal functions. Marriages among the twice borns also hardly took place in a temple. Marriage in Hinduism was never a religiously sacred event, as in Christianity. It was more like in Islam. marriage and divorce were easily done.

Things have changed with the coming of modern times with Brahmins now willing to preside over marriages regardless of caste. Couples go to temple after wedding to get blessed. One spouse only, and so on.

[Chiclets]

Smritis talk about many kind of marriages . "Rakshas marriage" was not approved. Culprits lost their castes, considered beyond the pale of Hinduism.

I wont go by film marriages . Its all modern version.In ancient days certain castes were not even allowed in temples. Its not upto temple priest to ascertain castes but those couple who went against caste norms and got married often got killed after coming out of temple. I know a case in Gujarat.

Hindu marriages, though varied a lot, had a lot of commonality. There were no limits on the wives a Hindu could have in general. In some communities women could have multiple husbands. Then liasons, concubines and so on were ok too. The commonality is that Brahmins never presided over marriages in non-twice born castes. These marriages never took place in a temple, as they were family/communal functions. Marriages among the twice borns also hardly took place in a temple. Marriage in Hinduism was never a religiously sacred event, as in Christianity. It was more like in Islam. marriage and divorce were easily done.

Things have changed with the coming of modern times with Brahmins now willing to preside over marriages regardless of caste. Couples go to temple after wedding to get blessed. One spouse only, and so on.

Watch this video yo-yo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

[Nosuperstition]

Later smritikar called those Gandharva marriages " Rakshas marriages". Those "love marriges" invariably took place between upper caste male and lower caste female.Some Aryan kings had liasons with fisherfolk women, not otherway around. Pratilom marriages were frowned upon, culprits were severely punished.

I have seen in films about how lovers get married in temple premises by exchanging garlands and mind you that is not rare.It is quiet a common occurence in love oriented films.The temple priest never objects to it.

Later smritikar called those Gandharva marriages " Rakshas marriages".

Well cc, can you substantiate your claim?

What claim you are talking about.

Smritis talk about many kind of marriages . "Rakshas marriage" was not approved. Culprits lost their castes, considered beyond the pale of Hinduism.

I wont go by film marriages . Its all modern version.In ancient days certain castes were not even allowed in temples. Its not upto temple priest to ascertain castes but those couple who went against caste norms and got married often got killed after coming out of temple. I know a case in Gujarat.

I was asking you to prove the part written in the bold i.e Smritikars or law makers speaking of Gandharva marriages or marriages of mutual consent being considered the same as Rakshas marriages or demonic/forced marriages by Smritikars.Why dodge the question Id?

[Idesigner]

There are eight kind of marriages mentioned in manusmriti.

Gandharva marriage of a couple in love can be called Rakshasa marriage( abducting by force, and marrying) especially by parents of bride if it does not met caste criteria. By the time of smriti, pratilom marriages ( even between kshtriya bridegroom and Brahmin bride ) became forbidden. To marry brahmin girls ( according to smritikars) was either way to hell for both, or strict punishment by kings. Progeny of such union was later made mixcastes, out castes etc depending on degree of infraction. In ancient time there were no garland exchanges in temples when a low caste shudra fell in love with brahmin girl, He was forced to abduct and run away, his progeny can become chandal or can open hair cutting saloon as barber. Read manusmriti. In detail he tried to classify caste of those mix marriage progenies.

[Nosuperstition]

There are eight kind of marriages mentioned in manusmriti.

Gandharva marriage of a couple in love can be called Rakshasa marriage( abducting by force, and marrying) especially by parents of bride if it does not met caste criteria. By the time of smriti, pratilom marriages ( even between kshtriya bridegroom and Brahmin bride ) became forbidden. To marry brahmin girls ( according to smritikars) was either way to hell for both, or strict punishment by kings. Progeny of such union was later made mixcastes, out castes etc depending on degree of infraction. In ancient time there were no garland exchanges in temples when a low caste shudra fell in love with brahmin girl, He was forced to abduct and run away, his progeny can become chandal or can open hair cutting saloon as barber. Read manusmriti. In detail he tried to classify caste of those mix marriage progenies.

To the best of what I can recollect,there are 3 arranged Pratilom marriages and 2 mixed caste to my caste marriages.No one killed them.

[Yohan]

There are eight kind of marriages mentioned in manusmriti.

Gandharva marriage of a couple in love can be called Rakshasa marriage( abducting by force, and marrying) especially by parents of bride if it does not met caste criteria. By the time of smriti, pratilom marriages ( even between kshtriya bridegroom and Brahmin bride ) became forbidden. To marry brahmin girls ( according to smritikars) was either way to hell for both, or strict punishment by kings. Progeny of such union was later made mixcastes, out castes etc depending on degree of infraction. In ancient time there were no garland exchanges in temples when a low caste shudra fell in love with brahmin girl, He was forced to abduct and run away, his progeny can become chandal or can open hair cutting saloon as barber. Read manusmriti. In detail he tried to classify caste of those mix marriage progenies.

To the best of what I can recollect,there are 3 arranged Pratilom marriages and 2 mixed caste to my caste marriages.No one killed them.

Neither Pratiloma (high caste women-low caste men) nor Anuloma (high caste men-low caste women) marriages were permitted in Hinduism, though Anuloma liasons were tolerated. The children in such cases always belonged the caste of lower caste women.

Very few marriages among Hindus are outside the caste (may be 2 to 3%) even today, and it brings a high degree of shame and disgrace to a high caste family (and its community) if their daughter marries a lower caste.

(I have never come across a Brahmin woman marrying a lower caste man for love during my stay in India. A Brahmin family would rather have such a woman marrying outside Hinduism to someone like a Syrian Christian or a Parsi.)

[Nosuperstition]

Neither Pratiloma (high caste women-low caste men) nor Anuloma (high caste men-low caste women) marriages were permitted in Hinduism, though Anuloma liasons were tolerated. The children in such cases always belonged the caste of lower caste women.

Very few marriages among Hindus are outside the caste (may be 2 to 3%) even today, and it brings a high degree of shame and disgrace to a high caste family (and its community) if their daughter marries a lower caste.

(I have never come across a Brahmin woman marrying a lower caste man for love during my stay in India. A Brahmin family would rather have such a woman marrying outside Hinduism to someone like a Syrian Christian.)

If that be the case why did the terms Anuloma and Pratiloma come into existence?I know of a case where a Brahmin girl and a relative of mine got married.MassiveZebra said that even inter-racial marriages have more or less come to a naught in the West.When I asked godel's_paradox after having
posted a site that says that about 4% of marriages in the U.S are inter-racial and how long it will take to get rid of race,Recovering Leftist said that diversity of mankind needs to be preserved.

[Yohan]

Neither Pratiloma (high caste women-low caste men) nor Anuloma (high caste men-low caste women) marriages were permitted in Hinduism, though Anuloma liasons were tolerated. The children in such cases always belonged the caste of lower caste women.

Very few marriages among Hindus are outside the caste (may be 2 to 3%) even today, and it brings a high degree of shame and disgrace to a high caste family (and its community) if their daughter marries a lower caste.

(I have never come across a Brahmin woman marrying a lower caste man for love during my stay in India. A Brahmin family would rather have such a woman marrying outside Hinduism to someone like a Syrian Christian.)

If that be the case why did the terms Anuloma and Pratiloma come into existence?I know of a case where a Brahmin girl and a relative of mine got married.MassiveZebra said that even inter-racial marriages have more or less come to a naught in the West.When I asked godel's_paradox after having posted a site that says that about 4% of marriages in the U.S are inter-racial and how long it will take to get rid of race,Recovering Leftist said that diversity of mankind needs to be preserved.

Let's stick to the Hindu religious culture. Marriage hangups are an entirely different matter in other cultures.

What Manusmrithi did was mostly to codify the prevailing practices of the Hindu society that existed some 2000 years ago, that in itself had another 1200 year past starting with the coming of the Aryans. The geographical heartland of these laws are Haryana and Doab regions where Aryans settled amidst the Indian natives. Hinduism evolved there, out of the interactions between these two peoples, and Manusmrithi codifies such interactions. Hindu priests who wrote these down made it a part of Hinduism, then carried it with them as they traveled across India and beyond to spread Hinduism. Inter-caste marriage taboos are more or less the same in the Hindu Island of Bali. The great Hindu Kingdom of Kmers in Cambodia also had the same caste laws, but it all disappeared when they became Buddhists.

[yeezevee]

You guys are back in action.. You religion in this thread is ROWDYISM .. Good videos to watch

The Evilness of Power .. Great Videos to watch..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtU9-ToEBKo Part-1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30tCv3q53_k Part-2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcsEMeVSKks Part-3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_732G6Gijs Part-4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z1WewHL9xA Part-5

well watch them.. there are plent more..

yeezevee