I think it is local customs because Qur'an does not demand eating certain food just forbids pork, blood, animals sacrificed to other than God, animals sacrificed on stone altars and road kill, or animals killed by other animals. There is relief that if one is starving that he can eat the forbidden but only to help hunger pangs and not to overeat. Nothing about having to have to eat beef or anything.
You Must Eat Beef?
- Thread starter Namaste Jesus
- Start date
Yeah, I think it's just a carryover from Fiji's anti-Hinduism days. The sentiment isn't as strong as it once was, but old habits die hard.
Bhaktajan II
Hare Krishna Yogi
- Messages
- 2,277
- Reaction score
- 115
- Points
- 63
There is a woman with breasts so large that all the babies have drunk her teet juices since infancy.
This has been done for millenniums.
And later we ate the woman and ate her breasts and reared young'ns to take her place.
And every war proceeded afterwards until attrition abided a new cycle to begin.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
On seeing a painting of the crucified Christ in Rome, Gandhi remarked
"What would not I have given to be able to bow my head before the living image of Christ crucified.
I saw there at once that nations like individuals could only be made through the agony of the cross and in no other way.
Joy comes not out of infliction of pain on others but out of pain voluntarily borne by oneself."
"The New Testament gave me comfort and boundless joy, as it came after the revulsion that parts of the Old Testament had given me. Today, supposing I was deprived of the Gita and forgot all its contents but had a copy of the Sermon on the Mount, I should derive the same joy from it as I do from the Gita" (Young India 22-12-27)
Gandhi's knowledge of and respect for Christ however came after he went to England and South Africa.
In his youth he had in fact a strong aversion to Christianity.
In his autobiography he writes that whereas from his parents, who had many Jain and Moslem friends,
he had learnt to respect religions other than his own
"Christianity at that time was an exception. I developed a sort of dislike for it and for a reason.
In those days Christian missionaries used to stand in a corner near the high school and hold forth,
pouring abuse on Hindus and their Gods. I could not endure this.
I must have stood there only once but that was enough to dissuade me from repeating the experiment.
About the same time, I heard of a well known Hindu having been converted to Christianity.
It was the talk of the town that when he was baptized he had to eat beef and drink liquor,
change his clothes and thenceforth go about in English costume including a hat.
I also heard that the new convert had begun abusing the religion of his ancestors,
their customs and their country. All these things created in me a dislike for Christianity."
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Where would you find strict vegetarians to brainwash?
This has been done for millenniums.
And later we ate the woman and ate her breasts and reared young'ns to take her place.
And every war proceeded afterwards until attrition abided a new cycle to begin.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
On seeing a painting of the crucified Christ in Rome, Gandhi remarked
"What would not I have given to be able to bow my head before the living image of Christ crucified.
I saw there at once that nations like individuals could only be made through the agony of the cross and in no other way.
Joy comes not out of infliction of pain on others but out of pain voluntarily borne by oneself."
"The New Testament gave me comfort and boundless joy, as it came after the revulsion that parts of the Old Testament had given me. Today, supposing I was deprived of the Gita and forgot all its contents but had a copy of the Sermon on the Mount, I should derive the same joy from it as I do from the Gita" (Young India 22-12-27)
Gandhi's knowledge of and respect for Christ however came after he went to England and South Africa.
In his youth he had in fact a strong aversion to Christianity.
In his autobiography he writes that whereas from his parents, who had many Jain and Moslem friends,
he had learnt to respect religions other than his own
"Christianity at that time was an exception. I developed a sort of dislike for it and for a reason.
In those days Christian missionaries used to stand in a corner near the high school and hold forth,
pouring abuse on Hindus and their Gods. I could not endure this.
I must have stood there only once but that was enough to dissuade me from repeating the experiment.
About the same time, I heard of a well known Hindu having been converted to Christianity.
It was the talk of the town that when he was baptized he had to eat beef and drink liquor,
change his clothes and thenceforth go about in English costume including a hat.
I also heard that the new convert had begun abusing the religion of his ancestors,
their customs and their country. All these things created in me a dislike for Christianity."
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Where would you find strict vegetarians to brainwash?
Some muslims who dont know any better insist hindu converts must eat beef; to prove, or to grt rid of their belief that they shouldn't i suppose
But since it's ok to be a vegetarian if one wants (without believing that eating meat is wrong), it's ok not to eat it
But since it's ok to be a vegetarian if one wants (without believing that eating meat is wrong), it's ok not to eat it
Bhaktajan II
Hare Krishna Yogi
- Messages
- 2,277
- Reaction score
- 115
- Points
- 63
I would welcome the challenge Abdullah if you will allow me to attempt to summerise to you "What is Karma"?
The challenge is for me. If you allow me to attempt, to the best of my ability, to explain, as I have learnt from bonefide sources, the orthodox explanation of KARMA.
What is indirectly interesting about this topic of KARMA is that it is not about a particular faith. Karma is about mechanical movement. Like physics...but that further explanation "by me" must be one where I text very little as I address your questions ---in regards to the definition of Karma--- one question at a time until I complete my explanation of KARMA and you are left to grade me on how well I explained it.
Are you interested? If so begin a question in regards to the definition of Karma.
That I can understand. Cause and effect.
The bit about karma I cannot understand is its application in the moral sphere. 'Morality' is not mechanical, it's not a matter of physics, as moral values are not a given. Furthermore morals change over time and across cultures ...
ya think karma doesn't know it's time and location?
Bhaktajan II
Hare Krishna Yogi
- Messages
- 2,277
- Reaction score
- 115
- Points
- 63
No. Karma does not occur at the right place nor the right time. It is like a roll of the dice inregards to predictability.
Karma is impersonal and mechanical. Odds can be predicted and the field of possibilities can be surmised but not precisely ---otherwise insurance companies would be poor.
If one believes in Karma, wouldn't Karma follow the morals of the period and area?
Coincidence, Correlation, Causation.... There was a cause (somebody we perceived to do wrong (someone else or ourselves), Sometime in the future (one minute, one day, one week, one decade) there was an occurrence which we perceive to be retribution (coincidence), and we put the two together and name it (correlation)
Physics occurs the same way during every experiment.... karma does not. Some die having no repercussions for their evil ways...some die being good all their lives.. What we decide to believe happens after death is unprovable... actual cause and effect of negative actions being karmic science as well...
Coincidence, Correlation, Causation.... There was a cause (somebody we perceived to do wrong (someone else or ourselves), Sometime in the future (one minute, one day, one week, one decade) there was an occurrence which we perceive to be retribution (coincidence), and we put the two together and name it (correlation)
Physics occurs the same way during every experiment.... karma does not. Some die having no repercussions for their evil ways...some die being good all their lives.. What we decide to believe happens after death is unprovable... actual cause and effect of negative actions being karmic science as well...
Wil, are we both saying the same thing here?
Cause and effect is one thing. I get that. But how cause and effect is perceived, and determined as 'right' or 'wrong' is not mere mechanics. Things happen in nature, but you can't hold nature to a set of moral values.
Someone who appears 'blameless' or 'good' or whatever suffers a catastrophe, and his neighbours say, "Ah, karma... " But is it? Is it not that there is no explanation nor reason for why bad things happen to good people?
It seems to me like justifying what happens as having a reason, even when the reason is unknown and unknowable ... maybe there wasn't a reason. Maybe the man was just walking by when the slate fell from the roof and killed him? Maybe it was just bad timing for everybody involved when the kid ran out between parked cars and got knocked down and killed? Maybe good and bad things happen by chance, and not to balance some comic accounting ...
Not if it's mechanical, purely cause and effect. Moral values are determined by a conscious entity (God or man, depending on your outlook), not by physics or mechanics? And they change. Keeping slaves in 1st century Europe, that's OK. In 21st century Europe, that's a wrong.
My point is, as you say, a 'perceived' wrong and 'perceived' retribution. What's perceiving ... ?
Cause and effect is one thing. I get that. But how cause and effect is perceived, and determined as 'right' or 'wrong' is not mere mechanics. Things happen in nature, but you can't hold nature to a set of moral values.
Are you saying karma is just a construct to make us more comfortable in an uncertain world, because that's how I read it?
Someone who appears 'blameless' or 'good' or whatever suffers a catastrophe, and his neighbours say, "Ah, karma... " But is it? Is it not that there is no explanation nor reason for why bad things happen to good people?
It seems to me like justifying what happens as having a reason, even when the reason is unknown and unknowable ... maybe there wasn't a reason. Maybe the man was just walking by when the slate fell from the roof and killed him? Maybe it was just bad timing for everybody involved when the kid ran out between parked cars and got knocked down and killed? Maybe good and bad things happen by chance, and not to balance some comic accounting ...
I don't see Karma as a quantifiable action/reaction, cause and effect thing...
I see it, (hold on to your hat) ancients trying to explain something they didn't understand AND as a method of making an invisible law/retribution to keep the masses in line.
That being said I do see a Karmic occurrence, if I have any moral compass at all. I do something...I know it was wrong, it grates on me, and because I am not focused on good, it comes back to bite me. My entire thought on this is not fully formulated but...I see nowhere where we have any provable science.
Bad things happen to good people...because...err...things happen. We perceive them as bad...but they are only things that happen.
I see it, (hold on to your hat) ancients trying to explain something they didn't understand AND as a method of making an invisible law/retribution to keep the masses in line.
That being said I do see a Karmic occurrence, if I have any moral compass at all. I do something...I know it was wrong, it grates on me, and because I am not focused on good, it comes back to bite me. My entire thought on this is not fully formulated but...I see nowhere where we have any provable science.
Bad things happen to good people...because...err...things happen. We perceive them as bad...but they are only things that happen.
Bhaktajan II
Hare Krishna Yogi
- Messages
- 2,277
- Reaction score
- 115
- Points
- 63
I spoke too quickly. I said "Karma does not occur at the right place nor the right time."
When I said that I was referring to long-term karma-results over the course of a life time.
I failed to reference short term ie: We work and get paid like clock work every payday.
Interestingly, I must stress that my first references above are "after the fact; after the initial action".
So far we are talking about what happens after certain acts are preformed.
Karma means Work [aka action]. For every action there is a [karmic] re-action. We are mostly thinking of 're-action' to past acts when we think of karma.
Karma is an action. We do karma to make a living. We get paid for our karma. Bank Credit/Loans are based on an expectation that we will do future karma to pay back the bank.
Karmic-payback is impersonal and happens like a perfect storm when all the elements are aligned to allow lightning to take a path of least resistance.
A symbolic representation of Past Karma reaping karmic-re-action is what is written as one's destiny ---after death occurs.
Jack grew up a normal life but later was executed. Joe grew up poor but became a great inventor etc etc.
A life time's worth of karmic acts and re-actions don't need to be dramatic nor important to anyone nor to the world nor was it even important to 99% of most folks.
Eat sleep mating and defending is awaiting every creature born and reborn and reborn unendingly.
Oh dear ... Oh dear, dear ... this is not good at all. A Cop Of Tea is not going to like this. We appear to be in agreement.
To be honest, the agreement is with some of it, not all of it.
I agree it came out of trying to make sense of the world.
The 'keeping the masses in line' bit I'm not so sure. I'n not saying 'no' to the idea, I just think sometimes it's taken on a post-modern weight that's way out of proportion to the actuality. It's retro-fitting a contemporary anti-establishmentarianism onto ancient institutions.
So I'd ask for evidence.
As an example, the Christian teaching on sin etc., is said to be the same thing, to keep the masses in line, but the dogmas were formulated when there weren't masses, so that thesis is dubious.
At a later stage, the dogmas were used to keep people in line, that I grant you, but that doesn't undermine the dogmas per se. It's like the idea of indulgences. There is no doubt the concept was misused as a means of extortion, churchmen got into trouble for so doing. Luther famously railed against indulgences when the money was going to Rome, he had no problem when the money was going to his local bishop.
Again, I'd have to see a timeline of the development of the doctrine of karma to say it arose as a means of control.
But not every time. I see bad men who prosper.
This is the crux of it ... what comes back to bite?
Do you see a cosmic consciousness that says 'you'll pay for that' ... ?
A psychologist would say the bad coming back to bite is self-inflicted. The bite releases you from the guilt?
My belief too. That underpins my Christianity in the world. The Tower at Siloam, as I've said often. It's part of my metaphysic that 'shit happens'.
As said above, the law of action-reaction I understand, that's a given.
It's not karma applied to action, it's karma applied to intention ... there's the rub.
Bhaktajan II
Hare Krishna Yogi
- Messages
- 2,277
- Reaction score
- 115
- Points
- 63
It seems like an elementary statement ---but I don't yet understand the "intent" aspect you are highlighting.
Please put it in a sentence. An example?
OK ...
A classic example from the Christian tradition of 'almsdeeds".
Working around Aquinas's argument, in Scripture we have:
1: 'Redeem thou thy sins with alms' Daniel 4:24, and I would see that as almsgiving to 'work off' or balance the negative effects of karma?
2: 'Do not forget to do good and to impart, for by such sacrifices God's favour is obtained' Hebrews 13:16, in this example, I would see the idea of doing good to accrue good? Also, I would add, to be a channel of good into the world.
On a mechanical sense, I can see this.
A offends B. B is in a position to harm A. A does something to repair the broken relationship with B, and by so doing, balance is restored.
A makes gifts to B, because A sees B is in need. Come the day, C makes gifts to B, because C sees the chance to reward B for his gifts to A.
The intent bit comes in this way:
A gives alms to the poor, because he wishes to alleviate the suffering of the poor.
A gives alms to the poor, not for the sake of the poor, but because he wants to be seen to be virtuous by his contemporaries.
Same action, different intention.
Does the action accrue good karma even when the intention is bad? The poor benefit, either way.
A classic example from the Christian tradition of 'almsdeeds".
Working around Aquinas's argument, in Scripture we have:
1: 'Redeem thou thy sins with alms' Daniel 4:24, and I would see that as almsgiving to 'work off' or balance the negative effects of karma?
2: 'Do not forget to do good and to impart, for by such sacrifices God's favour is obtained' Hebrews 13:16, in this example, I would see the idea of doing good to accrue good? Also, I would add, to be a channel of good into the world.
On a mechanical sense, I can see this.
A offends B. B is in a position to harm A. A does something to repair the broken relationship with B, and by so doing, balance is restored.
A makes gifts to B, because A sees B is in need. Come the day, C makes gifts to B, because C sees the chance to reward B for his gifts to A.
The intent bit comes in this way:
A gives alms to the poor, because he wishes to alleviate the suffering of the poor.
A gives alms to the poor, not for the sake of the poor, but because he wants to be seen to be virtuous by his contemporaries.
Same action, different intention.
Does the action accrue good karma even when the intention is bad? The poor benefit, either way.
From the pray in the closet not the street corner viewpoint is say no.
Aetius
Christian
- Messages
- 31
- Reaction score
- 7
- Points
- 8
Apologies if I offend but is there any proof this is actually happening in the Methodist Church? I highly doubt it and emailed two contacts at the Method Church of Fiji, if or when they respond I'll post their comments.
If this is going on it's a grievous sin and contrary to Christianity.
"Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Romans 14
~ Aetius
No, nothing beyond what I've heard from family members involved in the church there, but do read the rest of the thread. In Particular, my comments in post #19. Also, another member has already contacted The Methodist Church in Fiji, (Post #15). Not surprisingly, they deny any knowledge of this practice whatsoever.
As I said in post #22, I believe this is a carryover from Fiji's anti-Hinduism days rather than something based on actual doctrine or official church policy.
Last edited: