Why should a Pagan become Catholic.

[Contarini]

Could it be that you are mixing up Hare Krishna (which is a Hindu-cult) with “real” Hinduism? (see the sentence marked bold).

First of all, what do you mean by “real” Hinduism? And what work is the word “cult” doing? However, you’re right that Hare Krishnas are unusual by Hindu standards and that many Hindus don’t consider them “real Hindus.”

That being said, the worship of Krishna is very important in mainstream Hinduism. The Hare Krishnas have imported this to the West, and its the importation and the subsequent detachment from Hindu cultural roots (and the aggressive evangelism) that primarily make Hindus wary of the HKs, I believe.

 

[Esdra]

First of all, what do you mean by “real” Hinduism? And what work is the word “cult” doing? However, you’re right that Hare Krishnas are unusual by Hindu standards and that many Hindus don’t consider them “real Hindus.”

That being said, the worship of Krishna is very important in mainstream Hinduism. The Hare Krishnas have imported this to the West, and its the importation and the subsequent detachment from Hindu cultural roots (and the aggressive evangelism) that primarily make Hindus wary of the HKs, I believe.

Real Hinduism is mainstream Hinduism as you have written.

Well, in my eyes Hare Krishna is a cult. With a guru and people get “psychological addicted”.
Many christian “cult advice centres” (Don’t know if something like that exists in the US 'though!) label Hare Krishna as a cult.

But I agree with you that Krishna together with Ganesha, Vishnu, Brahman und Shiva is one of the most important gods in Hinduism.

 

[IanCorrigan]

Honestly…

There are no real pagans today. All who claim to be, well, they’re wannabes.

My :twocents:

Mere ignorance

 

[Contarini]

Real Hinduism is mainstream Hinduism as you have written.

I think that using the word “real” is highly inappropriate. You’re degrading language by using it this way. Reality is too important to be trivialized by equating it with “mainstream.”

Well, in my eyes Hare Krishna is a cult. With a guru

Gurus are a venerable Hindu institution.

and people get “psychological addicted”.

Maybe. I’m dubious about the meaningfulness of all such language, and I think it’s difficult to compare an institution that exists in the West with its counterparts in a strongly communal society like India.

Many christian “cult advice centres” (Don’t know if something like that exists in the US 'though!) label Hare Krishna as a cult.

I know that they do. I think that the “cult” label is pretty much useless and should be abandoned. Early Christianity met many of the sociological characteristics of a “cult.” Listening to some anti-cult folks, you can understand why the Romans thought Christians should be killed–modern Christian anti-cult folks seem to agree with the Romans in principle.

Edwin

 

[Esdra]

I think that using the word “real” is highly inappropriate. You’re degrading language by using it this way. Reality is too important to be trivialized by equating it with “mainstream.”

Gurus are a venerable Hindu institution.

I know.

Maybe. I’m dubious about the meaningfulness of all such language, and I think it’s difficult to compare an institution that exists in the West with its counterparts in a strongly communal society like India.

I am not sure if you can compare the worshipping of Hare Krishna (in mainstream Hinduism) in India with the worshipping of Hare Krishna in ISCKON (Hare Krishna).

I know that they do. I think that the “cult” label is pretty much useless and should be abandoned. Early Christianity met many of the sociological characteristics of a “cult.” Listening to some anti-cult folks, you can understand why the Romans thought Christians should be killed–modern Christian anti-cult folks seem to agree with the Romans in principle.

Edwin

Prinicipally I think so too. But one needs a term, IMO…

 

[kenofken]

The term “cult” is pejorative and too subjective to convey much meaning because any group you don’t happen to like can be rationalized as a “cult” even if they are no more controlling than one’s own faith. On the other hand, there is an important concept at play in terms of when a religion becomes too much about control over people’s minds and finance. The late Isaac Bonewits came up with something called the Cult Danger Evaluation Frame. It was written by a pagan primarily for a pagan audience, but it is in no way particular to paganism or any particular faith. I think it’s an excellent way to discern the core differences between “big c” Cult (the scary kind" and “little c” cult ( a term that might be applied to virtually any religion, especially newer or minority faiths)

neopagan.net/ABCDEF.html

 

[Tyuiop411]

You DO Make A Good point, Carnelian.

I Personally would Not want to live In Fear Of Displeasing Odin Or Zeus Or Whatever.

Particularly Zeus. Seeing as He Could Also Steal And Rape My Beautiful Daughter And Impregnate Her (IF I Had a Daughter, of Course) Among Other Things. :shrug:

And Then, Of Course, I’d Have To Deal With Hera, Who Would Then Proceed To Take Her Jealous rage Out On Me and My Daughter (Of Course) Instead Of her Hubby Zeus.

Yep, The Gods Are VERY Arbitrary.

It’s funny you should say that. Since in my past sojourn into Norse Paganism (the strict historical reconstruction variety) Odin was my favorite and patron deity and the one I prayed to and worshiped the most by far. So I wouldn’t say Odin has no appeal since I was pretty well versed in the Lore and I still worshiped him. But those days are far behind me, I long ago burnt all my pagan books and Idols and buried the ashes in a hole in the woods and covered them in blessed salt. Now a crucifix stands in the place where my idol of Odin once stood.