Polytheism and monotheism

[Nosuperstition]

Technically speaking, there is currently only one major polytheistic religion. That is Hinduism. The major piece missing in a polytheistic religion is the absence of moral principles. In other words, anything goes. One may find that to be the case with now extinct Roman and Greek polytheist religions too.

Keepers of the Monotheistic religions had over time managed to bring in moral principles into religion. Now there are good and bad morals as you know. Monotheistic relgions which emphasises good moral principles tend to do more good things for its believers, and are more attractive.

Lately Polytheistic religion Hinduism for example is copying monotheistic ones in this regard and trying to integrate moral principles into it. Now Hindus will not accept this 'copying' business since it is too much for their bloated egos.

Fa-Hien, the Chinese traveller wh(
visited India at tho beginning of the 5th century
spent six years in the Empire, during three of whicl
he studied Samskrit in one of the large Buddhis
monasteries at Pataliputra. He speaks with intense
admiration of the wealth, prosperity, virtue, am
happiness of the people, and the great liberty the;
enjoyed, "Those who want to go away may go; thos
who want to stop may stop." Most offences wer
punished by fines, and there was no capital punish
ment, and 'no judicial torture. Repeated rebellioi
however, was punished by cutting off the right hanc
"but such a penalty was exceptional". The roads
were safe, for in all his travels Fa-Hien was not one
attacked by robbers, "They do not keep pigs <
fowls, there aro no dealings in cattle, no butcher
shops, or distilleries." " No one kills any living thinj
or drinks wine, or eats onions or garlic." Charitable i
stitutions were numerous, rest-houses were kept ontl
roads. In the capital was a free hospital, supporte
by the voluntary contributions of the rich. Fa-Hi<
says:



HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION

Hither come all poor or helpless patients suffering from all
kinds of infirmities. They are well taken care of, and a doctor
attends them ; food and medicine being supplied according to their
wants. Thus they are made quite comfortable, and when they are
well 'they may go away.

(The first hospital in Europe was the Maison Dieu
in Paris, in the seventh century.) It is worthy of
notice that the King was a Hindu, and Fa-Hien a
Buddhist, so he was the less likely to praise overmuch.

http://archive.org/stream/howindiawrogu ... p_djvu.txt

Gupta age is called golden age of Hinduism and it predates the birth of Islam , the first monotheist religion to conquer parts of India.Surely Hinduism does not have moral principles

[Nosuperstition]

The Greek Megasthenes
has left glowing record of the valor of the Indian men and the chastity of the women.

That was around 250 B.C long before monotheist Islam came to India and when Hinduism lived side by side with Buddhism.

[Nosuperstition]

Technically speaking, there is currently only one major polytheistic religion. That is Hinduism. The major piece missing in a polytheistic religion is the absence of moral principles. In other words, anything goes. One may find that to be the case with now extinct Roman and Greek polytheist religions too.

Keepers of the Monotheistic religions had over time managed to bring in moral principles into religion. Now there are good and bad morals as you know. Monotheistic relgions which emphasises good moral principles tend to do more good things for its believers, and are more attractive.

Lately Polytheistic religion Hinduism for example is copying monotheistic ones in this regard and trying to integrate moral principles into it. Now Hindus will not accept this 'copying' business since it is too much for their bloated egos.

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.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2251&p=55445&hilit=Anuloma#p55445" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A man of impure origin, who belongs not to any caste, (varna, but whose character is) not known, who, (though) not an Aryan, has the appearance of an Aryan, one may discover by his acts.

58. Behaviour unworthy of an Aryan, harshness, cruelty, and habitual neglect of the prescribed duties betray in this world a man of impure origin.

59. A base-born man either resembles in character his father, or his mother, or both; he can never conceal his real nature.

60. Even if a man, born in a great family, sprang from criminal intercourse, he will certainly possess the faults of his (father), be they small or great.

61. But that kingdom in which such bastards, sullying (the purity of) the castes, are born, perishes quickly together with its inhabitants.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu/manu10.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is similiar to tags attached to cigar packs etc saying smoking is injurious to health and drinking is injurious to heath.A good moral approach followed by monotheist religions mentioned by Yohan is either stoning adulterers to death as per the O.T or whipping them as per Shariah and complete ban on alcohol etc.

[Nosuperstition]

Keepers of the Monotheistic religions had over time managed to bring in moral principles into religion. Now there are good and bad morals as you know. Monotheistic relgions which emphasises good moral principles tend to do more good things for its believers, and are more attractive

Of course we had the Christian clerics as part of the caste system. The options for the sons of aristocrats was to enlist as an officer in the army or to become a servant of God. This was a nice secure carreer choice, with guaranteed income and accomodation.

And if the servant of God got the dairy maid with child, marriage was not an option due to the caste differences.

Though I must admit that when it came to getting the lower castes with child, the Servants of God were quite egalitarian.

Of course you will argue that camels can or can't pass through the eyes of needles, principles which the men of the cloth had ignored.

But nevertheless, whether the Orthodox Russians, or other Christian churches, all were supporting and maintaining the existing class structures.

In other words, a pecking order has been something common to humans, as well as among a wolf pack or the family dogs.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... c&start=60

The concept of “romantic love” (or “courtly love”) during the Middle Ages was in fact so separate from marriage that it was generally reserved for the wives of other men. The very label “courtly love” indicated that it was more or less exclusive to the aristocracy and their imitators.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... &start=240

Therefore, during Carnival the people could take some liberties, also towards the ruling classes (the clergy and the noble), which in other periods of the year would have caused an arrest, or worse. And despite Carnival too had its own laws and rules, it was not unlikely to indulge in excesses of all kinds (food, wine, sex, violence), which caused several people, not only of the low class, to die or to fall ill. And under many popes, but particularly under Sixtus V, Carnival was a time in which the executioner was given extra work.

h[url]ttp://roma.andreapollett.com/S1/roma-c16.htm[/url]

During the 1100s courtly love had developed. Adventurous men, some of whom were married, carried on romantically with women other than their wives. Troubadours sang of love, and aristocrats ignored Church strictures on sexuality, believing that they were, after all, sinners. In these times prostitutes from the lower classes swarmed the castles. Nobles were little ashamed of their bastards. And occasionally a noble abandoned his wife for someone new.

http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/eu08.htm

Of course even supposedly monotheist Christians did not match up to/fell short of the moral expectations of their role model.

viewtopic.php?f=71&t=13620&p=190380#p190380" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Muslims on the other hand could religiously marry upto 4 wives and have any number of concubines until the whole world is Islamised.After that their new desires should be such that it should not exceed the count of four wives with the provision that you can divorce some of the old wives to take new ones.

In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=9141&p=152350&hilit=wives#p152350" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is that true?

[Nosuperstition]

A man of impure origin, who belongs not to any caste, (varna, but whose character is) not known, who, (though) not an Aryan, has the appearance of an Aryan, one may discover by his acts.

58. Behaviour unworthy of an Aryan, harshness, cruelty, and habitual neglect of the prescribed duties betray in this world a man of impure origin.

59. A base-born man either resembles in character his father, or his mother, or both; he can never conceal his real nature.

60. Even if a man, born in a great family, sprang from criminal intercourse, he will certainly possess the faults of his (father), be they small or great.

61. But that kingdom in which such bastards, sullying (the purity of) the castes, are born, perishes quickly together with its inhabitants.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu/manu10.htm

How can bastards be the cause of the fall of a kingdom along with its inhabitants?Perhaps Kissinger explained it in the discussion shown in the link below.

According to the transcripts, Kissinger, who is Jewish, replied to Garment: “Is there a more self-serving group of people than the Jewish community?”

In response, Garment, also Jewish, said: “None in the world.”

Kissinger responded: “What the hell do they think they are accomplishing? You can’t even tell bastards anything in confidence because they’ll leak it.”

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11091&p=167647&hili ... er#p167647" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Nosuperstition]

I know that The Jews now worship Jehovah who eats, drinks wine, repents and has human traits.

I like this god.

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=9141&hilit=uterus+ ... &start=120" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

a god, that can be like human being, who able to reflect same joy, sadness and pain, is kinda god, I could sympathize with. if such a god, indeed existed. but this god, does not really exist. the fictional god in the bible does not has these traits. neither does he exist. same for imaginary allah of yours

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=9141&hilit=uterus+ ... &start=220" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So while Jehovah does not have human trait of adultery,he still has human traits which might make Islam look much more moral from an Islamist's p.o.v while for a non muslim such a God cannot reflect on and understand human emotions.

[Nosuperstition]

. He noted the Hindus' strict enforcement of justice against criminals and abstention from wine, but he was surprised they did not consider any form of sexual indulgence a sin. He found certain merchants most truthful but noted many superstitious beliefs. Yet he found that ascetics, who ate no meat, drank no wine, had no sex outside of marriage, did not steal, and never killed any creature, often lived very long lives.

http://www.san.beck.org/AB2-India.html

However there exist a long list of prohibitions against illicit affairs.

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_extramarital.asp

Perhaps what Marco Polo observed was the condition in the period after devastating Palanadu war ( a war fought for share of kingdom between relatives but nevertheless is subtly because of malice and hatred between hard core Vaishnavite Brahma Naidu and hard core Shaivaite Nagamma).As had happened in the West in the aftermath of World War II and as always happens in the aftermath of wars,promiscuity becomes permissible due to a large number of men getting killed in wars.Similiar to what Arjuna echoes in his view against war in the Gita.

[Nosuperstition]

Technically speaking, there is currently only one major polytheistic religion. That is Hinduism. The major piece missing in a polytheistic religion is the absence of moral principles. In other words, anything goes. One may find that to be the case with now extinct Roman and Greek polytheist religions too.

Keepers of the Monotheistic religions had over time managed to bring in moral principles into religion. Now there are good and bad morals as you know. Monotheistic relgions which emphasises good moral principles tend to do more good things for its believers, and are more attractive.

Lately Polytheistic religion Hinduism for example is copying monotheistic ones in this regard and trying to integrate moral principles into it. Now Hindus will not accept this 'copying' business since it is too much for their bloated egos.

Factually speaking Christianity claims to be monotheist but one doubts such a stance when you have concept of Trinity.'My father is greater than I'says Jesus and once again he says that 'I and my father are both the same'.

Even setting aside Trinity,Catholics the largest of Christian denominations worship Mary,mother of Jesus besides many other saints.Most Protestant denominations won't do that.So you cannot claim to be monotheist and at the same time worship and make offerings to other persons.So technically there simply exists not any pure monotheist religion including Islam.

So Yohan are even Jews.Buddhists, Christians and Muslims devoid of morals?

And have all those Hindus who were forced to live morally in certain periods by means of strict temporal laws suddenly become immoral?

[Nosuperstition]

Keepers of the Monotheistic religions had over time managed to bring in moral principles into religion. Now there are good and bad morals as you know. Monotheistic relgions which emphasises good moral principles tend to do more good things for its believers, and are more attractive.

In the entire medieval period when the Catholic Church had power,usury was banned.So it seems to be a moral principle so good enough that even Islam/Sunni Islam copied the same.But right now lending money on high interest seemed not to bother any Christian,so do keepers of monotheist religions also manage to bring in bad principles?Now is usury moral or immoral?

And more slaves were put on the market as hungry parents sold their children, preferring their children's enslavement to watching them starve to death

http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h14eu1.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Next question is even though usury was banned,in times of natural calamities such as famines,child slavery was the norm in the medieval periods.Is that moral?Would it not have been much more moral to let the children live with their parents while giving them much needed food?

Now which is more moral usury or child slavery?

[Nosuperstition]

If one says that usury is immoral,one must be prepared to relinquish all of the wealth they acquired by it.Since British rule and revenue in India mainly depended on money-lenders playing a key role,British must also be prepared to relinquish their ill-gotten wealth.

[Nosuperstition]

Neither Pratiloma (high caste women-low caste men) nor Anuloma (high caste men-low caste women) marriages were permitted in 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.

http://forum09.faithfreedom.org//viewto ... oma#p55454" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes Hinduism is quite strict/moral about marriage taboos.In this aspect it is quite endearing to white supremacists who ask people of other races to go their own churches.Right now there are no legal restrictions on such marriages but there is a lot of social pressure and superstition.For example in my childhood,I was told that if you marry a Brahmin woman,you will become destitute. So even if there are no legal restrictions,efforts are being made to keep the caste system intact through other subtle means.

[Nosuperstition]

I remember having read a lesson that extolls the virtues of sticking to the occupation of one's caste in either my 8th standard or 9th standard Telugu text book.In it they said that people of medieval periods considered 'swadharme nidhanam sreyaha,paradharmo bhayaavaha' with regards to their occupational righteousness.That means it is better to die following the occupation of your own caste or guild rather than going for another occupation.This verse is picked up directly from the Gita where Krishna tells Arjuna that even death is more acceptable than leaving his Kshatriya duties.

Do not know why then Reddys are allowed to fight for protection of Brahmins and cows in Andhra Pradesh when all Kshatriyas were decimated by Muslim hordes. Reddys and Kammas are supposed to follow their swadharma of farming,they should not wield the sword under any circumstances.

Anyway that lesson has a medieval Telugu poem which says that following the occupation of your own caste is akin to being committed with a lawfully married wife of your own caste whereas going after other occupations is like whoring.The poem goes on to say that even if there are to exist a large number prostitutes,they are never equal to the lawfully wedded wife of your caste.So if one goes by the standards of medieval Hindu periods,though whoring was tolerated,a whore is never considered to be equal to a married wife.

Going by what is said in that lesson,I sometimes wonder whether all those Brahmins who have left priesthood,their traditional occupation and have gone after lucrative white collar jobs since British times are whoring.There was a lot of arguing in the Old forum whether or not caste system as outlined in Hindu scriptures is birth based or not.And yes from what I learnt in that lesson,it seems to be birth-based.Anyway that does not pertain to this topic.Here I confine myself to saying that a whore is never considered equal to wife even according to Hinduism that supposedly lacks high moral values found in Abrahamic religions.

[Nosuperstition]

For example, Christians five centuries ago regarded usury as a sin. This is perfectly reasonable position in that era. At that time, most people were peasant farmers trying to eke out a subsistence living. Whenever someone gets into trouble (say his livestock died of disease), his neighbors are supposed to act in a neighborly fashion and help out in this life and death situation. After all, Christ taught us to love our neighbors. But if some unscrupulous wealthy neighbors tried to take advantage of this urgent situation and charged exorbitant interest rates he would be condemned by all in the village.

I have always believed that religions must have evolutionary capacity.

http://www.forum.faithfreedom.org/viewt ... ght=#32780" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However the situation where usury can be considered sin has not changed much in the third world.But can righteousness be evolutionary?

[Nosuperstition]

When I was in my 7th standard,a close Brahmin friend of mine called Anoop brought me some old Chandamama children's story books which belonged to the generation of his fathers etc.He knew that I was a lot interested in stories and that is the reason why he brought them to me.

In one of the stories,Shiva,Supreme God of Shaivites and one of the Gods of Trinity for the Smarta sect decides to elevate his son Ganesha to the rank of Commander in Chief of his Pramatha forces.Then a prostitute stands up and says that this son of yours raped me when he was a kid and hence I object to your decision to make him chief of staff.Shiva then says that you people have grown so arrogant that you even question my decision and goes ahead with his decision.

Now that seems to be the difference between democracy and dictatorship and between monarchy and republic and seemed to suggest a shift from democracy to dictatorial tendencies.Hinduwoman of the Old Forum also said that ancient India had democracies which were slowly swallowed by kingships.Buddhist Jataka tales also tell about the same about how democracies were in wane and dictatorships were flourishing.Now in the Ganesh stories that came by in the Chandamama series after 1999,this story was omitted.But nevertheless they recently mentioned that religious stories must not be taken at face value and Shiva leaving his holy city Varanasi was literally to be understood as Buddhism gaining strong hold over there and Shiva returning to Varanasi or Benaras only meant that Hinduism once again gained back its strong hold.

So it is not just the Abrahmic religions that had disdain for prostitues.Even Hinduism at some point seemed to abhor them.

[manfred]

I think the difference is slightly more subtle:

An elected leader can effectively behave much like a king, but if hos actions do not please the people he will not get re-elected. So, the only thing stopping our prime minister to give himself a 1000% pay rise is the knowledge that this would end his career.

By contrast, a king can build a palace like Versailles without worry too much even when his people are starving.

This in effect came to an end with the French revolution.

[Nosuperstition]

I think the difference is slightly more subtle:

An elected leader can effectively behave much like a king, but if hos actions do not please the people he will not get re-elected. So, the only thing stopping our prime minister to give himself a 1000% pay rise is the knowledge that this would end his career.

By contrast, a king can build a palace like Versailles without worry too much even when his people are starving.

This in effect came to an end with the French revolution.

It is not just the king whose rights cannot be breached in a monarchy.Even the feudal lords and their kin can behave with impunity as had been exemplified by Ganesh story woven to support such behaviour.That brings into mind a favourite quote by a left leaning Telugu poet.

ey jaati charitra choosina emunnadi garvakaaranam,narajaati charitra samastam parapeedana parayanatvam.(What is so great about the history of any race for the history of human race is nothing but tormenting others).

[Nosuperstition]

He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers.

http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/8-13.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants.

http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/8-14.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use.

http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/8-16.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.

http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/8-17.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the LORD will not answer you in that day."

http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/8-18.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Might be the above verses explain the impunity with which feudal lords and kings of medieval Europe carried about their business.Might be that is the reason why God only punished David mildly when he killed his Hittite general Uriah and took his wife for himself.By divine right of kings,David was entitled to take away Bathesheba overriding the verse on adultery and fornication as all the people of the kingdom were the king's slaves,by implication Bath Sheba is also his slave whom he can enjoy at will.

[Nosuperstition]

In the history channel/discovery channel they commented that the Norse chiefs encouraged Christianity as it strengthened their hold on the society as a whole (possibly thru divine right).

[Nosuperstition]

the king had banished his first wife, Queen Vashti, for refusing to publicly flaunt her body before his drunken friends

http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/esther-and-vashti

Name Vashti seems to indicate a Hindu name but then when I searched I found out that she was the daughter of the king of Babylon,the same Babylon that gave a Hammurabi who coined the last 5 of the 10 commandments considered pillar of morality of the Bible,the same Hammurabi according to whose code of punishment,people will be punished for their crimes according to their economic status something similiar to progressive system of taxation adopted by many socialist societies.So how can one say that pagans do not have morals or that they cannot exhibit empathy and kindness towards the poor?

[Nosuperstition]

In reply to the comments on my last post by others, let me say the following.

Yes, moral virtues in the form of deities were worshipped in Roman/Greek religions. Actually the same is true today in Hinduism too. All such worship was/is done at a personal or family level. So the effect was never felt across the society at large. With or without religion, man is born with some inherent moral virtues which he extends across his community depending on the situation. Spreading such values across a society consistently requires another level of effort. You know morality in most cases just can't be legislated. That is where moral religions come in.

Let's just look at the simple short christian prayer chanted by billions of people on this planet daily. It is actually a prayer of morality. If one takes away praising the God part, it comes down to urging the one who prays to forgive those who harm him. That is the gist of the Christian prayer. In Buddhism, morality takes even a step further, as it is emphasised even without being shepherded by a God.

Ancient Greek/Roman religions never preached morality that way, and society paid a price in the end, and people adopted another religion as a result. Hinduism got off on the wrong foot to begin with, as It didn't even accept the precept that all humans are created equal. What kind of morality could one have in such a world?

(Socrates. Plato and so on were secular philosophers, and not religious preachers of any sense.)

Yes Buddha himself said that Vedas are words of cats and dogs possibly due to animal sacrifices of Vedic culture of that period.But then in many of the Buddhist countries such as China,Vietnam,Thailand,Japan,South Korea etc, land reforms were implemented resulting in creation of a significant middle class which will hardly be bothered by anything other than their monetary benefits and will not fall prey to diversionary non-issue tactics such as reinvocation and reinvigoration of religious identities.Hence they are all peaceful.

Almost all Christian countries were touched upon by socialism and family planning,that is the real reason why so many of them are peaceful as of today not just because they pray for each other's forgiveness.