Why do Trinitarians have a hard time explaining their god?
Two reasons it's hard to explain: First, because most of the people arguing with us over it don't pay attention to what we say in the first place. For instance, a lot of them talk about us having three gods--but the church statements of belief coming from the time when the doctrine of the Trinity was settled START OUT by saying we believe in ONE God. It's kind of hard to have such a statement be the center of ceremonial declarations--part of our worship rituals, and tied directly to what we avow when we become members of the church--and yet have any significant number of participants NOT believe it. The second difficulty is simply a matter of common human experience. We talk about one divine Being, but three divine Persons. And our notion of a "person" mostly comes from interaction among human beings, so we're used to a one-person-per-being rule. The explanation of that is simply that God is, after all, the creator and source of all personality (as of everything else), and there is no logical basis at all for applying a purely human limit to God. As you mention, we use a lot of analogies, and that is because analogies--to situations in which the concept of multiple entities (when considered one way) all being involved in a single entity (when considered another way) are often helpful to get this idea across. One of the most successful analogies, in which God (known primarily, at the point in the story when humanity is described as "made in his image," as a Creator) is compared, as the three divine Persons, to aspects of human creativity: If you were to ask a writer which is “the real book”—his Idea of it, his Activity in writing it, or its return to himself in Power, he would be at a loss to tell you, because these things are essentially inseparable. Each of them is the complete book separately; yet in the complete book all of them exist together. He can, by an act of the intellect, “distinguish the persons” but he cannot by any means “divide the substance.” How could he? He cannot know the Idea, except by the Power interpreting his own Activity to him; he knows the Activity only as it reveals the Idea in Power; he knows the Power only as the revelation of the Idea in the Activity. -- Dorothy Sayers, "The Mind of the Maker"
Would Britain really being speaking German if the Americans hadn't have intervened in WWII?
In WWII, Britain still had a pretty large empire fighting at its side and God forbid, Britain was invaded there were still allied dominions, the Commonwealth's 14th Army which at the time was the largest army in the world, the British Indian Army and the British Army that was posted in other nations aside from Britain and despite what some Americans say, with the force Britain still had during WWII it seems unlikely Germany could have succeeded. Also there is the fact that Britain has a water border, yes Germany can bomb the UK, they may get the odd spy into the UK but actually invading would have posed a challenge, to get across the water they have two options, air and sea, if they go via sea they need to get past the Navy, if they go by air, realistically they will be bombed out the sky or having to parachute onto British soil. In reality, I do not see how Germany could have invaded Britain and even if it did succeed, how it would hold onto it with the combined armies of the Great British Commonwealth and Empire. So in reality, would the British be speaking German if the Americans hadn't got involved because I reckon Europe may have but definitely not the UK. At that time we were ruling an army far larger than that of the US, the only advantage the US having over us being nuclear warheads which seen as Germany didn't have any, wouldn't have been an issue. So would Britain really be speaking German if the Americans hadn't got involved? Personally, I just reckon the results of the war would have been the same, but just taken slightly longer to reach. The Americans definitely helped the war effort and saved a countless number of lives but I do not think they saved Britain from invasion.
Why didn't the Mongols conquer India?
The Mongol army under Gengis khan or Teimujen did attack India during 1221 and was partially successful in annexing Punjab and Kashmir during his rein. Iltutmish from Delhi Sultanate ruled during that time and he wanted to avoid direct conflict with Genghis Khan and did everything for it..Later during the time when Delhi Sultanate came under Jalaluddin khilji. Genghis Khan’s son Ogedei the mongols captured Lahore, but were repelled by Delhi Sultanate.Once Alauddin khilji also luckily escaped the attack of mongols on Delhi when he was busy conquesting Chittor and Warangal. this happened in 1303. This led to Alauddin concentrating on strengthening the army to defend the mongol invasion.But mongols diverted attention towards Sindh province, Multan and captured entire Kashmir including Srinagar, Gilgit Province.After Ogedei, i.e. Ghenghis Khan son’s death, the mongol empire was divided into 4 khanates, and the part of India belonged to Chagatai Khanate ruled by Duwa Khan, but the capital on entire Mongol empire was still Karakorum in today’s Mongolia.Duwa khan was not successful against khiljis and tughluqs. And after his death the Changtai Khanate developed lots of internal disputes and religious tensions grew which lasted for a century .Later Amir Timur of Samarkhand a direct descendant of Genghis Khan become one of the chieftain of Mongol Empire from Chagtai Khanate and he started to follow islamic laws and islamic faith over Genghis khan’s Shamanist Laws, his one of son from many inter marriages was Babur who invaded Kabul and captured it.He renamed the mongol to mughal and used this name. He was invited by Rana Sangha of rajput dynasty to defeat Ibhrahim Lodi of Lodi dynasty in 1526 C.E , the last dynasty of Delhi Sultanate. After winning over it , the era of Mughals the descendants of Mongols started in India, they had changed to islamic faith from their original faith of Shamanism and Totemism practiced by Genghis Khan and later by the Yuan Dynasty(which changed to Buddhism and Taoism later).And they ruled in India until 1707, i.e. the death of Aurangzeb and until Marathas grew powerful and took over the major portion of Indian sub continent which gave the Mughals a death blow , however some of the parts like Delhi still remained under their control until 1857.So, to summarize, Mongols did attack India and ruled India and the Mughals are the descendants of Genghis Khan’s Mongol Empire.
What you think about my loving country india?
I visited once, for 4 weeks. India throws so many impressions at you, beautiful and ugly, that what remains is more a reflection of your inner spirit than some inherent quality of India. So you must be a loving person.
Why is India such a physically, geographically, large country?
India's natural boundaries meant that it was hard to sustain multiple empires within the subcontinent. Sooner or later they got integrated as a single empire. Mauryas, Guptas, Palas, Mughals, Marathas and British Raj have all integrated a sizable portion of the subcontinent under a single rule. Later the Indian Union absorbed all the little kingdoms left from British India.See the major natural features of the subcontinent. On the west we see Hindukush and in the north we see Himalayas. These both mountains were extremely hard and rugged to penetrate. In the east, we see Patkai & Arakans and in the south is the massive Indian Ocean. There is no territory south of Kanyakumari all the way to Antartica. However, within the subcontinent we don't see major features. The only feature is the shorter hills of Vindhya - providing some differentiation between the north and south. However, it was not impenetrable and thus the culture flowed quite easily.The whole of north is pretty much one long plains [world's largest alluvial plain] - flat and then you climb a step up south of Vindhyas to get to the Deccan and there it is again one big flat terrain - except at the edges. A strong emperor could always run his troops all over this flat terrain. In case of India, the size and extent provides the diversity. The distance between India's western and eastern corners is more than the distance between London and Moscow - the breadth of Europe. The distance between northern and southern corners of India is more than the distance between London and Casablanca in Morocco. This provides the major diversity we see in India. However, in the absence of a major feature in the center, there was always massive people movement bringing a significant melting pot of cultures. For instance, the eastern border in Manipur dances for Krishna in their devotion. Same happens in the western corner in Gujarat. The northern corner in Amarnath worships the Lingam - a particular form of Shiva in the exact same shape as the southern corner in Rameswaram.In summary, India's geography is the biggest reason for the melting pot. As a bonus, in case someone is wondering why Afghanistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Burma, Bhutan are all not a part of India - just look at the map. They are all on the other side of the natural barriers forming India and thus they have evolved different cultures even if strongly influenced by India.
Hindus, what do you think of the Aryan Invasion Theory, and the Aryan Migration Theory?
As, i guess, a descendant of the Aryan race, i agree. But also there is evidence of this. Through all recorded historic elements the ideas of the Aryans seemed be that they wanted to learn, teach and trade. they did this mostly by settling in areas. an example is Rishi Agastya (i think) he didn't invade (he didn't have an army, his title suggests this). he just went around uncivilised areas teaching them better morals giving them the knowledge of the advantages of building larger societies and becoming civilised rather than live in separate tribes etc. I guess the ability for Aryans to integrate easily helped them to spread wide and far (it is thought they derived from civilised societies such as the Mesopotamians). Of couse as with any large civilised society there will be a leader or King. And with power comes the greed, wanting more. So even as recorded there will have been leaders that did invade certain areas but only of rivals. it was not used as a means of spreading the aryan race. on the whole the integration idea made Indians well renowned for their knowledge in all aspects. Some of the oldest known universities are known to be in India and people from as far as the far east and as far as europe and africa are known to have come to India to learn what the Aryans had to teach. The Aryans themselves welcomed settellers from other origins as means of learning from them and to trade with them. Unfortunatly this is where their weakness was. I think that after the defeat of Alexander the great's army (with thanks to great minds like Chanakya Vishnugupta) India became weak. Allowing the Moghuls to settle saw them invade and build their own empire in India although it wasn't all bad times as India has seen great Moghul emperors. And lets not forget that we let the brittish settle and it's consequences. with the power of the west over the world I don't think there will ever be such a great race ever again, but our Aryan ancestors will not be forgotton and im sure we will not allow their name to be disgraced in times to come. On a final point people should disregard Hitlers ideas of an Aryan race as they are solely based on western ideas of aryan invasion which has very weak supporting evidence. Hitler was right on the ideas of expanding but abused this by changing the reasons for why and how the aryan race expanded.
How did the British colonize India?
The term is used for Britishers is master mind , when was most of the countries limits to their own country land , they came across and expend their land globally , after conquering small , small nations and lands all over the world , they found Indian sub continent is much more richer than any other countries in 1700 century , As Indian sub continent having huge land expend from Kabul to Burma in east to west and from north to cost line in south with in itself a huge land ruled by different different rulers with their territory , they are maharajas, nawabs and bad-shahs, Britishers found that they cant conquer India very easily , so they came to India for trade to understand the surroundings to understand the culture and strength of Indian rulers , their soldiers strengths etc , they found that huge poverty in lower cast people , so they focus to acquire them as slave and use for shake of their benefits , so in that way they introduced MNC type of thing in firstly in India paying good money to work with them . When they get huge revenue , cheap labors they start to outsource them to their other colonial lands like south Africa etc . In span of 20 -30 years as a trader they found them selves in good state to expend and to convert them selves in powerful Administration , As they had Army full of Indian soldiers and good British Army officers with technically high quality Armors compare with traditional armors, First they start Interrupting in homely issues of Indian Maharajas like rivalry with neighbor state etc and they help some of them from where they get benefits ,in that way they were getting powerful , after that British Administration got full involvement over all the issues with India they battles with Indian kings , they defeat some of maharajas in battle , like wise they acquire huge lands all over , some of maharajas surrendered , some gave support , some sign some treaty of to become under rule governed by Britishers . India soon became part of British colonial ,Britishers faced some conflicts like 1st war of independence , and little bit rebel activities across all over India , then soon they convert India into their flavor , their education system , judicial system , administration system ,they opened some colleges , schools , post offices , introduced railways , findings of some archeological sites , some new hill stations , new lands floura fauna ,constructing some buildings , so on .........
Were the Indian kingdoms or empires aware of the outside world and events happening in Europe, Africa or Americas in the 1300-1900 CE?
Being aware is not the same as presuming the knowledge gained out of this awareness to be of any value. Indian rulers through 1300-1900 were cognizant of the outside world, especially southern Europe and Africa. These were two parts of the world with which India had had connections since time immemorial. Africans formed the elite troops of many a kingdom. The kingdom of Ahmednagar even had an African Prime Minister for sometime. The western coast of India had pockets where African sea-farers controlled access to the ports. During the period 1300-1900, visitors from western and eastern Europe, traders hoping to open up the markets of India to their countrymen too had begun to visit India. Americans too would bring their ships to trade with India by the 1780s. Many of these visitors left detailed accounts of the life and manners of people in India, the nature of politics and gave suggestions on how best their countrymen could use the opportunities presented by India. How did the Indian people, rulers, traders and merchants respond to these visitors? Mostly by remaining indifferent to them even when conducting business with them. The Mughal court, it has been mentioned frequently, was difficult to deal with. An audience with the emperor required payment of bribes to numerous courtiers. The emperor would promise something by way of a trade treaty and then do nothing on the matter. The sundry gifts of a mechanical nature that they brought were deposited in the treasuries and no effort was made to unravel the mechanisms of those items. When some of the people from western Europe were hired in the military by Indian rulers everyone noticed that the white generals tended to train their troops differently but little effort was made to figure out whether this new 'disciplined' way of organising the army could be replicated for the rest of the troops-- Indian generals continued to send in their troops into battle following old principles of moving forward mostly in a herd.Sultan Tipu of Mysuru is supposed to be one exception in that he is said to be more aware of modern ideas and technologies of the west. The rocket barrages that his army used were copied by Napoleon's armies. But Tipu remains an exception that proves the rule namely, Indians were quite indifferent to the outside world.
How important was India as a colony in the British Empire?
During 1612–1757, the East India Company set up "factories" in several locations, mostly in coastal India, with the consent of the Moghul emperors or local rulers. Its rivals were the merchant trading companies of Holland and France. By the mid-18th century, three "Presidency towns": Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta had grown in size.The English were enjoying success in India, at Surat, after the establishment of a factory in 1613.In 1757 Mir Jafar, the commander in chief of the army of the Nawab of Bengal, along with Jagat Seth, Maharaja Krishna Nath, Umi Chand and some others, secretly connived with the British, asking support to overthrow the Nawab in return for trade grants. The British forces, whose sole duty until then was guarding Company property, were numerically inferior to the Bengali armed forces. At the Battle of Plassey on 23 June 1757, fought between the British under the command of Robert Clive and the Nawab, Mir Jafar's forces betrayed the Nawab and helped defeat him. Jafar was installed on the throne as a British subservient ruler. The battle transformed British perspective as they realized their strength and potential to conquer smaller Indian kingdoms and marked the beginning of the imperial or colonial era in the subcontinent.Mainly 3 things were most important for the Britishers:Resources, Labour & Armed Forces.1) India had lost most of it's resources to most of the Mughal Rulers who ruled & looted India For almost 3 centuries. But still it had enough to increase its economic growth & stabilize itself.All these resources were readily available to the Britishers.2) Labour was easily available as people in India were eager to earn money to support their livelihood. Large population made it much more easier to attract people towards working opportunities.3) Indian army soldiers were constantly supporting & fighting with the British forces for many battles including the World war II. As Lord Curzon said: "As long as we rule India, we are the greatest power in the world. If we lose it, we shall drop straight away to a third-rate Power!"