 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
Your "more proper" analogy itself is flawed - more below. However, All
of the above groups can be called Christians because
a) they derive from (and believe in) Jesus Christ
b) they share the New Testament - a central holy book in Christianity
|> Or you could say that calling Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism etc. as
|> Indianism is like calling Christianity, Judaism and Islam as Jordanism.
|>
|> Otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges.
Now, please tell me how Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and Shaktaism are
related, otherwise it is _you_ who are comparing apples to oranges.
You cannot say that Hinduism is defined as the union of all three and
then say they are related because they are all part of Hinduism. If
you cannot come up with some relationship other than geographic
proximity, then it looks like your attempt at defusing Krishna's
analogy has backfired.
Your claim to having a "more proper" analogy rests on showing that
"Hinduism" has the same easily-understood logical coherence that
Christianity does. I've shown that the various Christian groups you
mentioned all share a founder and a holy book. Can you remotely claim
anything similar for the groups you'd like to lump together as
"Hinduism"?
-Vivek
P.S. Note to Krishna Susarla - your analogy about "Jordanism" could be
slightly improved. You did pick the name of a nearby river, and for
that you are to be commended. However, you failed to mispronounce it
while naming the "religion", just as various invaders mispronounced
the Indus. So, Jordanism should perhaps be properly mislabeled as
"Hordanism".
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|