Conversion practices into Hinduism are all relatively very recent and evolved in response to contact with more organized western religions. The core problem when you “convert” is that you don’t have a Hindu lineage and so your jati and varna are in question. These are categories based on the immediately local social norms and so there can’t be any explicit rules that every convert can apply to himself, although there are implicit ones, in being categorized. It’s a negotiation with whichever people you are trying to become part of. But apart from this issue, I believe that for most of Hindu history the way it works is that you don’t need a conversion at all, you just start living the lifestyle and that’s that.
It’s interesting and I look forward to more! Having just started this: see if you can get Richard Rohr on here. He’s a Catholic priest who has done deep dives on other faiths and (for example) keeps a shiva statue on his desk. He can explain the Catholic conception much better. I think Amos is wrong in his conception of the relationship between God and the world; Catholics belief the world is good and was made good but was corrupted by the fall. An argument for why the act of creation may be indistinguishable from God itself might look like: these are the only plausible laws of physics they give rise to sentient beings. And, if i understand correctly, a recent paper by Stephen Hawking seems to confirm this.
Did you mean I should try to interview Richard Rohr? I think I would need to do a lot more preparation and study before I could do that properly. I did read his book called 'Adam's Return' on male initiation and enjoyed it highly. He does indeed seem well versed on Vedic lore and practices.
(1) Why does god have to be 100% good all the time? Like maybe he is 99% good (under our conception of “good”) but sometimes gets bored or purses some other objective or abides by (his own?) rules.
(2) I’m not sure that, if we accept divine sovereignty, it makes sense to pass judgment on god in any respect. Seems weird to apply a rule for people, like, “don’t use people” (do sects agree on this rule?) to a literal deity. Idk, I feel like god would have jurisdiction over us and not the other way around.
To your first point, I'm not sure it is worthwhile to follow in the footsteps of a God that is not always unchangingly Good. However, it is absolutely true that God's version of the Good does not have to correspond with what we think it should be.
And, interestingly, to your second point, if you read Matthew 12:31 (and you believe Jesus speaks the truth and care about that to any degree), the only inexcusable evil is to accuse God Himself of being evil. You can argue against Him, you can hate Him, you can ignore Him, you can refuse to believe in Him, you can spit on His face if he shows up at your front door.
But, if you want to abide by God, you must never mistake His goodness for evil.
Thirdly, both Hinduism and Christianity make claims about God being a personal God, meaning that He seeks to have a personal relationship with each and every one of his creations (and Hindus, in particular, extend the definition of 'creations' to include all of life and emptiness).
If you accept this, then I think God's objective would work to create the conditions for his creatures to get to know Him. If in some situations He is just abiding by random whimsy, then that too is a part of Him and His Will that His creatures ought learn about Him.
Similarly, if God is a personal God, you can even ask Him to stop using people for entertainment and there is strong probability He will listen to you!
Greetings Rajeev, I am a 22 year old white woman from the USA and I am also a convert to Hinduism. I also politically identify as right-wing, conservative and capitalist. I made this anonymous throwaway substack account, because I am extremely concerned about my privacy since there are many people who hate individuals who have my type of beliefs. I am aware that on the one side, politically left-wing people of all varieties hate any type of right-wing non-abrahamic religious beliefs, and on the other side, the right-wing is full of Christians who sincerely believe that anyone who has non-abrahamic religious beliefs deserve to be tortured in hell for eternity.
I have struggled with suicidal ideation since the age of 10 years old. I was never an atheist. I feel like Hinduism has been able to keep me from committing suicide whereas Christianity hasn't, because I think that the Christian idea that suicide is a sin which merits eternal torture in hell, doesn't make sense to me. In Hinduism, suicide is also a sin which merits hell, but not eternal hell. I think the idea that suicide is a sin which is morally worse than crimes like rape or murder is incoherent, because it seems to me like every religion in existence claims that the more suffering a person experiences, the more morally superior that person is. It doesn't make much sense to me, for a religion to claim that the more suffering that an individual experiences, the more morally superior that individual is; while simultaneously claiming that suicide is the worst sin. Because, the more suffering that a person experiences, the more likely they are to experience suicidal ideation. I still have an extremely deep admiration and respect for Christianity and for Christians, its just that I feel like personally, Christianity was unable to help me deal with the severity of suffering that I've experienced in my life.
I support Christian nationalism for Christian countries, Islamic nationalism for Islamic Countries, Jewish nationalism for Jewish countries, Buddhist Nationalism for Buddhist countries, Hindu nationalism for Hindu countries, ect, I support religious nationalism for every religion, and I respect every religion. But because the USA is a Christian country I feel like anyone who isn't a Christian doesn't have the right to live in the USA. And, even though I'm a white American who was born and raised in the USA, I feel like I don't have a right to live in the USA anymore since I converted to Hinduism. So, because I'm Hindu, I decided that I am morally obligated to move to a Hindu country like India, in order to not anger and upset the politically conservative white american Christian nationalists, who I still have an immense amount of respect and admiration for. In my observations, the politically far-right Christian nationalists tend to be the most simultaneously intelligent and morally pure type of Christians.
I feel like any moral mistakes which any non-Christian minority individual makes, while living among a majority Christian population, in the mind of the Christians, those mistake could easily be attributed to that non-Christian individual being non-Christian. This fact is the main reason why I feel morally obligated to move to India as a white American woman who converted to Hinduism. Because any non-Christian person will always inevitably have to work 10 times as hard at trying to appear to be morally pure, in comparison to the average Christian person. (In the context of the non-Christians being a minority and the Christians being a majority). Because of the fact that I am not some kind of exceptionally morally pure individual, and that I think I never will be an exceptionally morally pure individual, and I'm just an average, ordinary, normal, boring, and mundane, middle class white woman rather than some exceptionally pure person, this will inherently anger the Christians. And so I feel like in order to not make the Christians angry, I have to leave the USA. but even then, they will still be somewhat angry, since, it makes them angry that there is anyone in existence who is non-Christian.
And, like I said before, I still have deep respect and admiration for Christians. So, I don't even think that Christians are immoral for trying to convert everyone in the world to Christianity and I don't think that they are unreasonable for being angry at the existence of non-Christian individuals. I think that there are very intelligent and morally pure theological justifications behind why the Christians want not only Christian nationalism, but even politically medieval-Guelph ideology with Christianity having political dominion over the entire world.
Because of my admiration for Christians, I am dedicated to trying reduce the Christians anger at me so much that not only I a deciding as a 22 year old white woman to leave my friends and family behind to move from a rich 1st world country to a developing/ 3rd world country, but also that I not only am never going to get married/have children, I think I also want to never become a nun in any religion. I want to never become a nun because an individual becoming a monk or nun requires them to be held to a level of moral responsibility which is above what lay people are held to, and I want to have as minimal moral responsibility on myself as possible. (And I could just try to live a nun's lifestyle as a layperson without ordaining in any official nunnery. Even though technically I think that would be more difficult for any person than becoming a normal ordained nun). And, I can't get married/have children because Christians would consider me to be a traitor for marrying any non-Christian person since I'm an apostate. I want to try to appease the Christians by trying to live a nun type of lifestyle which is as ascetic as possible, just to try to fight against the common Christian sentiment that people only leave Christianity because the non-Christians allegedly "just want to commit sins". I'm trying to say this with humility. Even if I were to live in some part of India in which I would never ever have to interact with a Christian again in my entire life, I would still in the privacy of my own mind, have my own conscience torturing me and always saying to me "but what would the Christians think of you?", any time I make any tiny moral mistake. I think I have a type of scrupulosity OCD about this.
Also, I have a belief about epistemology that there's a large portion of knowledge which can only be obtained through certain types of suffering. Hence, its not possible to convince people of truths in that category solely through logic and reason. Because of this, I tend to be very conflict averse and not a contrarian or argumentative person.
I've tried to come up with a solution to the current religious/political conflict happening in the USA which wouldn't be too offensive and would appease most religious groups. I think that possibly the solution which would make the most number of religious people happy, would be if the USA government was made into a Christian theocracy, Muslims left the USA to go live in Muslim countries, Jews left the USA to go live in Jewish countries, Buddhists left the USA to live in Buddhist countries, Hindus left the USA to live in Hindu countries, ect.
Also I am aware that Hindu nationalists have gotten upset about Christians in India converting Indian people to Christianity. I have seen Hindu nationalists on twitter say that they want to stop the Christians from converting Hindus by making it illegal in India to convert anyone to Christianity, and I disagree with that solution. I think that a better potential solution to this problem of Christians converting Hindus in India, is that, the Christians should be allowed to convert as many Hindus as they want to in India, but with the caveat that any Hindu Indian who convert to Christianity, must be deported from India, and go live in a Christian country. Also, that the Christians need to stop deceiving themselves and others about the white-supremacist nature of Christianity, and so there should be a law in India informing Indian Hindus that when they convert to Christianity, they will be converting to a white-supremacist religion. And that when they go to live in a white Christian country, they will be considered to be inherently inferior to white people.
Although the far-right thinks that Christianity being white-supremacist is a good thing, and the far-left thinks that Christianity being white-supremacist is a bad thing, both sides agree that Christianity is white-supremacist. I personally am not a white-supremacist, although I am sympathetic towards both white nationalism and Christian nationalism. I feel, it would be inherently racist for me to be a Christian, hence that's one of the reasons why I am not a Christian. But I also think that other people of color are in someways also being racist and oppressing other people of color, by believing in Christianity.
I understand that possibly my opinions on the topics of race, religion and politics though however, may be too offensive, so feel free to delete this comment if you feel like it might be too offensive. I sincerely am not trying to cause any conflict with anyone, in fact I created my opinions with the goal of causing the least amount of conflict/controversy possible. I would like to maybe talk with you about these topics in private sometime, if that would be not to offensive to you.
Thanks for reading this comment and have nice day.
Conversion practices into Hinduism are all relatively very recent and evolved in response to contact with more organized western religions. The core problem when you “convert” is that you don’t have a Hindu lineage and so your jati and varna are in question. These are categories based on the immediately local social norms and so there can’t be any explicit rules that every convert can apply to himself, although there are implicit ones, in being categorized. It’s a negotiation with whichever people you are trying to become part of. But apart from this issue, I believe that for most of Hindu history the way it works is that you don’t need a conversion at all, you just start living the lifestyle and that’s that.
It’s interesting and I look forward to more! Having just started this: see if you can get Richard Rohr on here. He’s a Catholic priest who has done deep dives on other faiths and (for example) keeps a shiva statue on his desk. He can explain the Catholic conception much better. I think Amos is wrong in his conception of the relationship between God and the world; Catholics belief the world is good and was made good but was corrupted by the fall. An argument for why the act of creation may be indistinguishable from God itself might look like: these are the only plausible laws of physics they give rise to sentient beings. And, if i understand correctly, a recent paper by Stephen Hawking seems to confirm this.
Did you mean I should try to interview Richard Rohr? I think I would need to do a lot more preparation and study before I could do that properly. I did read his book called 'Adam's Return' on male initiation and enjoyed it highly. He does indeed seem well versed on Vedic lore and practices.
Yes, I suppose that’s what I meant. I’m very glad you’re doing this series and look forward to more.
Idk whether these are unfair questions.
(1) Why does god have to be 100% good all the time? Like maybe he is 99% good (under our conception of “good”) but sometimes gets bored or purses some other objective or abides by (his own?) rules.
(2) I’m not sure that, if we accept divine sovereignty, it makes sense to pass judgment on god in any respect. Seems weird to apply a rule for people, like, “don’t use people” (do sects agree on this rule?) to a literal deity. Idk, I feel like god would have jurisdiction over us and not the other way around.
To your first point, I'm not sure it is worthwhile to follow in the footsteps of a God that is not always unchangingly Good. However, it is absolutely true that God's version of the Good does not have to correspond with what we think it should be.
And, interestingly, to your second point, if you read Matthew 12:31 (and you believe Jesus speaks the truth and care about that to any degree), the only inexcusable evil is to accuse God Himself of being evil. You can argue against Him, you can hate Him, you can ignore Him, you can refuse to believe in Him, you can spit on His face if he shows up at your front door.
But, if you want to abide by God, you must never mistake His goodness for evil.
Thirdly, both Hinduism and Christianity make claims about God being a personal God, meaning that He seeks to have a personal relationship with each and every one of his creations (and Hindus, in particular, extend the definition of 'creations' to include all of life and emptiness).
If you accept this, then I think God's objective would work to create the conditions for his creatures to get to know Him. If in some situations He is just abiding by random whimsy, then that too is a part of Him and His Will that His creatures ought learn about Him.
Similarly, if God is a personal God, you can even ask Him to stop using people for entertainment and there is strong probability He will listen to you!
Greetings Rajeev, I am a 22 year old white woman from the USA and I am also a convert to Hinduism. I also politically identify as right-wing, conservative and capitalist. I made this anonymous throwaway substack account, because I am extremely concerned about my privacy since there are many people who hate individuals who have my type of beliefs. I am aware that on the one side, politically left-wing people of all varieties hate any type of right-wing non-abrahamic religious beliefs, and on the other side, the right-wing is full of Christians who sincerely believe that anyone who has non-abrahamic religious beliefs deserve to be tortured in hell for eternity.
I have struggled with suicidal ideation since the age of 10 years old. I was never an atheist. I feel like Hinduism has been able to keep me from committing suicide whereas Christianity hasn't, because I think that the Christian idea that suicide is a sin which merits eternal torture in hell, doesn't make sense to me. In Hinduism, suicide is also a sin which merits hell, but not eternal hell. I think the idea that suicide is a sin which is morally worse than crimes like rape or murder is incoherent, because it seems to me like every religion in existence claims that the more suffering a person experiences, the more morally superior that person is. It doesn't make much sense to me, for a religion to claim that the more suffering that an individual experiences, the more morally superior that individual is; while simultaneously claiming that suicide is the worst sin. Because, the more suffering that a person experiences, the more likely they are to experience suicidal ideation. I still have an extremely deep admiration and respect for Christianity and for Christians, its just that I feel like personally, Christianity was unable to help me deal with the severity of suffering that I've experienced in my life.
I support Christian nationalism for Christian countries, Islamic nationalism for Islamic Countries, Jewish nationalism for Jewish countries, Buddhist Nationalism for Buddhist countries, Hindu nationalism for Hindu countries, ect, I support religious nationalism for every religion, and I respect every religion. But because the USA is a Christian country I feel like anyone who isn't a Christian doesn't have the right to live in the USA. And, even though I'm a white American who was born and raised in the USA, I feel like I don't have a right to live in the USA anymore since I converted to Hinduism. So, because I'm Hindu, I decided that I am morally obligated to move to a Hindu country like India, in order to not anger and upset the politically conservative white american Christian nationalists, who I still have an immense amount of respect and admiration for. In my observations, the politically far-right Christian nationalists tend to be the most simultaneously intelligent and morally pure type of Christians.
I feel like any moral mistakes which any non-Christian minority individual makes, while living among a majority Christian population, in the mind of the Christians, those mistake could easily be attributed to that non-Christian individual being non-Christian. This fact is the main reason why I feel morally obligated to move to India as a white American woman who converted to Hinduism. Because any non-Christian person will always inevitably have to work 10 times as hard at trying to appear to be morally pure, in comparison to the average Christian person. (In the context of the non-Christians being a minority and the Christians being a majority). Because of the fact that I am not some kind of exceptionally morally pure individual, and that I think I never will be an exceptionally morally pure individual, and I'm just an average, ordinary, normal, boring, and mundane, middle class white woman rather than some exceptionally pure person, this will inherently anger the Christians. And so I feel like in order to not make the Christians angry, I have to leave the USA. but even then, they will still be somewhat angry, since, it makes them angry that there is anyone in existence who is non-Christian.
And, like I said before, I still have deep respect and admiration for Christians. So, I don't even think that Christians are immoral for trying to convert everyone in the world to Christianity and I don't think that they are unreasonable for being angry at the existence of non-Christian individuals. I think that there are very intelligent and morally pure theological justifications behind why the Christians want not only Christian nationalism, but even politically medieval-Guelph ideology with Christianity having political dominion over the entire world.
Because of my admiration for Christians, I am dedicated to trying reduce the Christians anger at me so much that not only I a deciding as a 22 year old white woman to leave my friends and family behind to move from a rich 1st world country to a developing/ 3rd world country, but also that I not only am never going to get married/have children, I think I also want to never become a nun in any religion. I want to never become a nun because an individual becoming a monk or nun requires them to be held to a level of moral responsibility which is above what lay people are held to, and I want to have as minimal moral responsibility on myself as possible. (And I could just try to live a nun's lifestyle as a layperson without ordaining in any official nunnery. Even though technically I think that would be more difficult for any person than becoming a normal ordained nun). And, I can't get married/have children because Christians would consider me to be a traitor for marrying any non-Christian person since I'm an apostate. I want to try to appease the Christians by trying to live a nun type of lifestyle which is as ascetic as possible, just to try to fight against the common Christian sentiment that people only leave Christianity because the non-Christians allegedly "just want to commit sins". I'm trying to say this with humility. Even if I were to live in some part of India in which I would never ever have to interact with a Christian again in my entire life, I would still in the privacy of my own mind, have my own conscience torturing me and always saying to me "but what would the Christians think of you?", any time I make any tiny moral mistake. I think I have a type of scrupulosity OCD about this.
https:// iocdf . org/faith-ocd/what-is-ocd-scrupulosity/
Also, I have a belief about epistemology that there's a large portion of knowledge which can only be obtained through certain types of suffering. Hence, its not possible to convince people of truths in that category solely through logic and reason. Because of this, I tend to be very conflict averse and not a contrarian or argumentative person.
I've tried to come up with a solution to the current religious/political conflict happening in the USA which wouldn't be too offensive and would appease most religious groups. I think that possibly the solution which would make the most number of religious people happy, would be if the USA government was made into a Christian theocracy, Muslims left the USA to go live in Muslim countries, Jews left the USA to go live in Jewish countries, Buddhists left the USA to live in Buddhist countries, Hindus left the USA to live in Hindu countries, ect.
Also I am aware that Hindu nationalists have gotten upset about Christians in India converting Indian people to Christianity. I have seen Hindu nationalists on twitter say that they want to stop the Christians from converting Hindus by making it illegal in India to convert anyone to Christianity, and I disagree with that solution. I think that a better potential solution to this problem of Christians converting Hindus in India, is that, the Christians should be allowed to convert as many Hindus as they want to in India, but with the caveat that any Hindu Indian who convert to Christianity, must be deported from India, and go live in a Christian country. Also, that the Christians need to stop deceiving themselves and others about the white-supremacist nature of Christianity, and so there should be a law in India informing Indian Hindus that when they convert to Christianity, they will be converting to a white-supremacist religion. And that when they go to live in a white Christian country, they will be considered to be inherently inferior to white people.
Although the far-right thinks that Christianity being white-supremacist is a good thing, and the far-left thinks that Christianity being white-supremacist is a bad thing, both sides agree that Christianity is white-supremacist. I personally am not a white-supremacist, although I am sympathetic towards both white nationalism and Christian nationalism. I feel, it would be inherently racist for me to be a Christian, hence that's one of the reasons why I am not a Christian. But I also think that other people of color are in someways also being racist and oppressing other people of color, by believing in Christianity.
I understand that possibly my opinions on the topics of race, religion and politics though however, may be too offensive, so feel free to delete this comment if you feel like it might be too offensive. I sincerely am not trying to cause any conflict with anyone, in fact I created my opinions with the goal of causing the least amount of conflict/controversy possible. I would like to maybe talk with you about these topics in private sometime, if that would be not to offensive to you.
Thanks for reading this comment and have nice day.