The Dallas-Plano Atheists Meetup Group Message Board › Something I came across

Something I came across

Mick
Mick_
Plano, TX
Post #: 176
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
Mohandas Gandhi
A former member
Post #: 16
the quote continues with "The materialism of affluent Christian countries appears to contradict the claims of Jesus Christ that says it's not possible to worship both Mammon and God at the same time. "
AeMal
Neuroscientist85
Bryan, TX
Post #: 104
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
Mohandas Gandhi


I'm not much of a Gandhi fan at all despite being an expat-Indian, but this is probably the one quote by him that I really like. It's just like the right-wing bandwagon denouncing "socialism", when based on the Bible, Jesus would have been a hardcore Socialist ;)
A former member
Post #: 163
I'm not much of a Gandhi fan at all despite being an expat-Indian...

That's interesting, Aekta. Why do you say that?
Mick
Mick_
Plano, TX
Post #: 177
http://www.poetv.com/...­

It's the the Mahatma part I have a problem with. He dd a lot of good on the earth but he was no saint. However, I do believe his life did more good than bad. As the quote says under the video, "Great guy who did a lot of good things, but a typically flawed human, not a saint."
Mick
Mick_
Plano, TX
Post #: 178
Then today this:


"I love science."

-- Texas State Board of Education member Don McLeroy, R-Bryan,

in an almost comical statement given his efforts to undermine it.

Let me read between the lines for you:

"I love using science-like ideas and words to make it sound like I can prove what I already know, that God exists and made this Earth about 6,000 years ago."


Mick
Mick_
Plano, TX
Post #: 179
This is getting fun:

I have always said getting rid of the belief of Gawd is the hardest for many because of how the people around you will react. Kids can give up Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy, all of those childhood beliefs but Gawd is different. Classic example of why.
http://www.poetv.com/...­

Holy shit - yeah put her in an ambulance and get her head examined:
http://www.poetv.com/...­
I personally would have never sat and listened to that. I would have been loudly vocal in asking all my fellow students to get up and leave now.

Bhu-wha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha - Stop it it some more it hurts so good. My sides are hurting
http://www.poetv.com/...­
Oh yeah he's going to get "plugged" into the church.

Gulp, growing up is so hard to do
http://www.poetv.com/...­
"Pamela, what kind of guy do you want? A guy that has never kissed a women before or one that has been with other women and has? Now think about that. What if you're horrible in bed? If you can get a guy that's never kissed a women before he may not even know how bad you really are. Now think about that."

I see white people.
http://www.poetv.com/...­

As much as I was laughing now I'm crying. This is just sad:
http://www.poetv.com/...­
Poor children. "Listen to me little children, your minds yet all malleable, evidence of natural history means nothing. The Bible knows everything, is everything, and is 100% correct. So all you children sing with me now and you two little boys, yeah you two with the cute little cherub faces, come with me to he rectory. Gawd says to."
Mick
Mick_
Plano, TX
Post #: 180
The name of the anti-christ. I give up.

http://www.poetv.com/...­

I need that building to jump off of again.
AeMal
Neuroscientist85
Bryan, TX
Post #: 105
I'm not much of a Gandhi fan at all despite being an expat-Indian...

That's interesting, Aekta. Why do you say that?

Somehow Gandhi always seems to escape with the image of a grandfatherly, emaciated, peace loving father of the nation of India. No one ever talks about his sexual indiscretions and fraternizing that brought considerable shame to India and its people. We've selectively erased that from the historical texts and thereby from people's memories. Considering him the nominal head of the state was also a very regrettable decision. Someone that played a part in the freedom movement of a nation doesn't by default become the political head. If we were electing a new democratic govt., then the elected leaders should have signed off on the separation treaty that created Pakistan. In fact, most people at the time were not in support of the separation of India which sowed the seeds for so much hatred and mistrust; let's just say it's something we're regretting to this day and it was not Gandhi's decision to make.

I am also opposed to his ideals of non-violence. To this day you see children in India being taught Gandhi's non-violence ideal - If someone slaps you on one cheek, show them your other cheek to let them slap you again. Eventually, they will have to give up. The idea sounds great in books and in theory, but it's not very practical when you're seeking freedom of a nation. Many historians believe that India would have had freedom much before if the leader of the freedom movement had resorted to force. In the end, all Gandhi got was praise, father-of-the-nation label, and an eventual snub to all potential Nobel Peace Prize candidates in the year he died (which was possibly the only way the Nobel Peace Prize committee could have "awarded" the prize to someone posthumously). Although, all of Gandhi's laurels and awards may as well have been colored in the blood of innocent Indians that the British very willingly killed on command while they sat around offering up their other cheek. In fact, the British did not get a real sense of fervor of freedom among Indians until freedom fighters like Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Sukhdev, Chadrsekhar Azad and others (categorized as "terrorists" by the British for their use of "militant" means to kill the British military and ruling heads in India) came into picture. It's too bad people still subscribe to Gandhi's non-violence ideals - they just do not make sense from a survival or evolutionary standpoint. I would really rather the world recognize and associate some of the other freedom fighters (that I mentioned above) with India, than Gandhi.
Jeremy
aghorn
Plano, TX
Post #: 47
I'm far from being an Indian historian or knowing a lot of facts about India, but it surprises me to hear a general negative view of Gandhi. Admittedly, my knowledge of Gandhi is limited to historical readings here and there and to a movie.

Regarding his sexual indiscretions and apparent racism towards African blacks, it's the first I've of heard it. I agree, though, not good.

Regarding the separation of India, I thought Gandhi was against it. Perhaps he became resigned to it due to the political forces going on at the time.

Regarding non-violence, I think Gandhi's use of it was the appropriate method to achieve Indian rights in South Africa and later Indian independence. I don't think if someone slaps you on the cheek, then offer the other cheek is the right analogy. Gandhi wasn't passive. He was intent on disrupting British control but in a way that caused less bloodshed and gained Indians the moral high ground. I wasn't aware of these other freedom fighters, and they may well have been a factor in Britain accepting Indian independence. However, I question how much it would have been because of them. I think Gandhi had already brought the independence movement quite far.

I think non-violent methods can work. They worked for the African-American civil rights movement.
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy