I find it odd that you would state that everyone is born "equal" in Islam and Christianity when in reality that isn't the case at all. In many Christian denominations, everyone (including infants) are born inherintly with sin and must accept Jesus as their saviour (and often be baptised) in order to be "saved" from hell. In addition to this, in many Christian branches (particularily Catholicism), the clergy rank much higher than the average laymen and are viewed as being superior in the eyes of Yahweh (the Judaic-Christian God and purported father of Jesus). In Islam, unless people accept Allah as god (the only god) and accept Muhammad as his messenger, they are sentenced to hell. Apostasy is viewed as a capital sin and while Islam has no clergy, not all Muslims are born equal. There is a very distinct heirarichal system which permeates society and religion.

As far as Hinduism is concerned, there is no salvation. Therefore it is a misnomer to believe that social status somehow determines the afterlife when in reality it is one's own actions within the current life that affect their standing within the afterlife. The final goal in Hinduism is moksha, and the only way that can be achieved is through enlightenment, a commodity that is not specific to any economic class.

in christianity, everyone is born with the original sin. but that does not make inequality, rather it promotes equality, since everyone is born with the same exact sin (that which committed by adam and eve). traditionally in both religions, practictioners considers unbelievers unequal, not because unbelievers are unequal inherently, but because they don't believe in the one god. as soon as they convert, they are readily accepted as members of either faith, which probably attributes to the fast rise of both christianity and islam. in direct contract to hinduism, where members of the hindus faiths are strictly ordered into castes, which dictated by supposedly on what level they are to salvation.

perhaps i should define salvation at this point; it is the highest state of being in a religion that a practitioner can achieve. in christianity and islam, that is ascending to heaven, in hinduism, it is becoming one with nirvana, receiving the ultimate enlightenment. thus in hinduism, hindus are differentiated by the distance they are from receiving that enlightenment, which by hindu doctrine, also defines to the castes. in both christianity and islam, there is no such dicrimination.

the hierachial structure of some organized christian denominations, particularly catholicism, does not denote higher or lower level social status. it is simply hierarchial structure one would normally find in any organization. the pope being the supreme leader, below him are the cardinals, archbishops, bishops, etc all the way down to the priest of the local parish.




china did not know too much about the romans, except it is where the demand for silk comes from and where the silk roads eventually ends. suffice to say that the emperor had some vague notion that rome was perhaps about as powerful and great as china, but the civilization was too far away to be of practical importance.

I do not believe that being "born" with sin promotes equality. If anything, it attempts to dictate humans as being some type of grovelling maggots who must work their way up, with the upper clergy (the pope and the cardinals) recieving a free ride to heaven. Besides, each Christian denomination considers itself to be higher than all the others. Catholism, in particular, views Eastern Orthdox Christians and Protestants as being heretics and condemns them to hell. The Catholic church even went as far as excommunicating the Orthodox Pope (who did likewise to the Catholic pop later onwards) and declaring orthodox practitioners as being pawns of the devil. For thousands of years in Europe, non Catholics were persecuted and treated as social pariahs by the Catholic clergy and their associates within government. This is not a form of equality as far as I am concerned.

In addition to this, let's look at the story of Adam & Eve (a Hebrew story that found its way into Christianity via the Old Testament...aka the Jewish Bible). Within it, the Christian god claims that Eve (and all women) were created from the Rib of Adam. I personally find this idea to be degrading and insulting to women and not a beacon of equality at all.

you are getting at another issue at hand, the disagreements between the various Christian sects. this stems from different interpretations of the bible, and there is no "right" or "wrong" denomination. it all has to do with doctorine and what you believe. most christians believe that jesus died for their sins, at that is enough. but if you get down to the specifics, such as nicene creed, the sacraments, etc, that is where al the christian denominations seperate. that is why i oppose organized religion because it forces people to follow one specific path and the original teachings of jesus, buddha, zoroaster, etc becomes muddled and lost while people argue over trite and meaningless things such whether or not jesus really did offer his blood and flesh at the last supper...etc

however this matter is irrelevant to the topic all together. im sure there are also various differences among Hindu believers as well.

i don't believe the status between men and women is the central tenet of christianity. i don't think jesus would have cared whether or not women were really subservient to men. and i think hinduism does not make this distinction as well (although i could be wrong). but we see that in reality, the practice of religion is very different from the theory.

it is the social practice in christian, islamic, and also hindu societies where women are forced in the subservient positions because all three societies are patriarchal and thus has nothing to do with religions. although in modern societies (most of which were christian) today, the status women has dramatically turned for the better.





whether or not the AIT is true, it is known that the origins of the caste system, sanskrit, and other practices are not indigenous to india. most likely from an indo-european tribe originating out of central asia.

NWStudent I'll copy and paste my post from the Chinese view on Indians thread.

"the caste system in the original conception of Hinduism does not acknowledge inequality amongst people, but acknowledges people performing different and vital roles in a well functioning society.

However, many have interpreted the caste system as you suggest (an unequal hierarchy of different groups) throughout history, personally I feel this was probably most likely for personal gain to these people."

The social caste system you describe that is a part of Indian culture is practiced there by Hindus and non hindus alike. That is not the same as what the caste system is identified as in Hinduism. That is if you even acknowledge the caste system as a part of Hinduism (many Hindus don't acknowlede it as a part of Hinduism).

The caste system also isn't necessarily indigenous to India, as Hinduism isn't created from a single point of reference, but compiled work over a period of time. Much of what it says is also applied universally, not just in hindu or Indian culture.

Sanskrit is widely accepted to have origins in the Indian subcontinent. However, it is possible that it wasn't only a language spoken in the subcontinent, but I don't have time, nor the effort to really go into the history of sanskrit.

sara and abraham = saraswati and brahma?

I see alot of similarities between semitic religions and ancient indian religion