Historicity of Jesus - 2

Husky · (This post was last modified: 06-10-2008, 06:58 PM by Husky.)

QUOTE(Sauravjha @ Jun 10 2008, 04:49 PM)Okay just to be fair ,
we must make it clear as to which form of christanity we are referring to and precisely whichÂ particular aspectÂ of that formÂ are we analysing.Â Â As far as I am concerned ourÂ beef is primarily with the evangelist aspect of mainstream Christianity.
[right][snapback]82623[/snapback][/right]Not that argument again.

No.
The problem has always been the terrorist ideology (mindvirus) which manifests as christianism, islamism, communism, nazism, and some further offspring.

If you imagine it is evangelism that is the problem, then you don't (yet) know about the theology of christianism or the history that resulted because of it. (Knowing that the causation of that history is the bible=christianism is very important, and in fact, it's hard to read about all that history without encountering the loudly-expressed christoislami motivations behind all the events.)

I wouldn't generally advise this to anyone, but pseculars deserve it: Read the bible. I did. Oh, and have a bucket handy if gawd-ordained genocide, rape, "dashing children's heads against rocks" and that sort of thing makes you feel disgusted inside. Leastways, it does every normal human being.

Look, this guy is not preaching evangelism here, he's just your average prominent christian. So going by what you stated, you won't have a problem with this:
QUOTE"Unbelievers deserve not only to be separated from the Church, but also... to be exterminated from the World by death."
-- Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 1271By the way, he's "Doctor of the church" (in christianism, that's a theological title, not the medical or phd kind) and he's much revered and respected to this day.
Oh, and more about him:
QUOTEIt is mainly his doctrine of evil demons - incubi and succubi, allegedly cohabiting with witches - that served as theoretical basis for thousands of inquisition verdicts.
Link http://web.archive.org/web/20030211060034/....geo/shame.htmlBut do you mind that? He wasn't preaching evangelising women, he was only faithfully following the bible in how to deal with "witches" and also jeebus' threats of hellfire (see the New Testament).
That's from the page http://freetruth.50webs.org/C1.htm which has more information on him and other similarly benevolent christian saints.

Actually, before wanting to "dialogue" on christianism, you may want to read:
http://freetruth.50webs.org/ - on the history of christianism
http://freetruth.50webs.org/Overview2.htm - origins of christianism
http://freetruth.50webs.org/Overview4.htm - present christianism
(http://freetruth.50webs.org/Overview3.htm - christian denominations
Not terribly exciting. And the popes page reads like a nightmarish horror novel)

If you don't want to read it, fine. But if you start arguing that we can't become intolerant by reading the facts on that or other site, or quoting christian saints or regular historians (that site is full of quotations from historians and stuff, such as church historian Deschner and ex-Franciscan monk Joseph "encyclopaedic mind" McCabe), then you might as well start supporting tolerance toward nazism using the same arguments. Oh wait. Nazism had fewer casualties and was less bigoted - and was in fact the 20th century version of the usual christian massacre of European Jewry.
QUOTEaccording to historian Dagobert Runes, Hitler's methods were actually modelled on the Christian one:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEEverything Hitler did to the Jews, all the horrible, unspeakable misdeeds, had already been done to the smitten people before by the Christian churches ... The isolation of the Jews into ghetto camps, the wearing of the yellow spot, the burning of Jewish books and finally, the burning of the people - Hitler learned it all from the church. However, the church burned Jewish women and children alive, while Hitler granted them a quicker death, choking them first with gas.
[Link] http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/semite.html</div>See how the jeebus followers the nazis (historical photos of nazi gathering of priesties and nuns) were more benign in the 20th century! And note how they were not evangelising the Jews, so I guess that makes it all better? They were only being good, faithful christians taking "revenge" on the Jews for the fictitious assassination of the fictitious jeebus (see http://www.jesusneverexisted.com ). Just like they did since Rome converted to christoterrorism:
QUOTEChristian Roman Emperor Justinian was the one
who legalized the burning and pillaging of Jewish synagogues by Christian bishops and monks (often canonized later). [Link] http://www.nobeliefs.com/ChurchesWWII.htm#anchor2

And of course the work of Martin Luther - protestant reformer extraordaire (or rather, just the ordinary/typical christian) - inspired the nazis with his precious little book "About the Jews and their lies". It's the usual christian dawaganda that the nazis=German churches merely repeated. See http://freetruth.50webs.org/C4a.htm#LutherOnJews
Oh look, the benign Luther wasn't willing to evangelise Jews either:
QUOTE"If I had to baptise a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang a stone around his neck and push him over with the words 'I baptise thee in the name of Abraham'."
-- Martin Luther, "Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor" by Peter F. WeinerNotice also the title of that book.

http://freetruth.50webs.org/A4a.htm
QUOTEIn the first few decades since 1492, it was thought that Indians did not have souls because they were "animals" in human form. Therefore, it was believed they could be hunted down like animals, which they were. It was only in 1530 CE that the Pope declared that the Indians were human. Having established their humanity, it was decided that they must be inducted into Christianity. As the Indians were unwilling, this was accomplished by force. Though the change in their status from animal to human might appear to be an improvement, in reality, little changed in their plight.At first they weren't evangelising the native Americans, but evangelism or no, it made no difference to the victims did it?
QUOTE"The [Catholic] Spaniards in Mexico and Peru used to baptize Indian infants and then immediately dash their brains out; by this means they secured that these infants went to heaven."
-- Bertrand Russell

All in the past you say? (<- At least, all the psecular apologists always bring that up)
Here you go, christians in Korea who gave up on trying to convert/evangelise the stubborn Korean Buddhists, and decided that they will destroy Buddhist temples and Vigrahas since they couldn't win:
TIMELINE Buddhism under Siege in Korea 1982-1996 - http://www.buddhapia.com/eng/tedesco/2.html
TIMELINE Chronology of Events January 1997-December 1998 - http://www.buddhapia.com/eng/tedesco/3.html
QUOTE"If I acted on what I believed I, too, could have vandalized temples. When I consider those who commit such acts I think to myself that they have a much stronger faith than me."
-- Deacon Lee Bahn-Sung "a former Buddhist turned Christian", BBC-World (TV), Asia Today, May 21, 1999. [Link]See, the christian faithful is not talking about evangelising those who refuse. He's only referring to his duty as per his gawd's biblical commandment and as per the lessons on "idolators" in the bible: not to let any pagan idolatrous heathen unsaved kaffiri infidels do their thing wherever they may be.

The greatest hoax in history is also the deadliest one - it continues to kill (see fourth link "present christianism" http://freetruth.50webs.org/Overview4.htm ).

Husky · (This post was last modified: 06-10-2008, 07:05 PM by Husky.)

Continued from previous post.

It's not enough for the christo(islami)terrorists to make others suffer in life, because apparently (if they and their non-existent gawd jeebusjehovallah had their way), we'd be suffering a similar eternal torment, which they look forward to enjoying:
http://freetruth.50webs.org/B4.htm#ImmoralHell
QUOTE<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEGod preordained, for his own glory and the display of His attributes of mercy and justice, a part of the human race, without any merit of their own, to eternal salvation, and another part, in just punishment of their sin, to eternal damnation.
-- John Calvin (Reformer, Protestant) in his "Institutes of the Christian Faith"
That according to Calvin eternal punishment was inflicted randomly by the all-benevolent God is at least consistent with Biblical logic.
Calvin is merely echoing Christian teachings that had existed since well before his time. It's obvious that Christians from early times had also grappled with the irrationality of God punishing people who could not possibly have known of Jesus. The way they answered this clearly says much about how compassionate they were:
QUOTEYou are fond of spectacles, expect the greatest of all spectacles, the last and eternal judgement of the universe. How shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs, and fancied god, groaning in the lower abyss of darkness; so many magistrates, who persecuted the name of the Lord, liquefying in fiercer fires than they ever kindled against the Christians; so many sage philosophers blushing in red-hot flames with the deluded scholars; so many celebrated poets trembling before the tribunal ... of Christ; so many tragedians, more tuneful in the expression of their own sufferings; so many dangers...
-- Church father Tertullian in Apologeticum (2nd century)
Aquinas, whom the Catholic Church gave the title "Angelic Doctor", imagined that one of the rewards of heavenly bliss is to be able to witness the suffering of the damned in hell:
QUOTEThat the saints may enjoy their beatitude more fully, a perfect sight is granted them of the punishment of the damned.
-- St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, 13th century</div>
Since that's not evangelism either, you're fine with them tormenting you in life for being an unbeliever and wanting you tormented for eternity because you wouldn't accept their scary even-if-non-existent jeebus.

So, I'm sorry if we don't seem to agree with you that evangelism is the problem. The real problem is its root: the bible=christianism and what their gawd and jeebus say in there about what should happen to the rest of us. Just because you refuse to recognise the facts doesn't mean that it will stop christianism from trying to crush you. <-Naivete that.
Before trying to lecture others about something you don't really know well - I know it's a nice feeling to think the world is fluffy and soft and all's good - learn about what it is you're defending. Am merely trying to spare you the kind of mistakes that I used to make.

To beat the mindvirus of the terrorist ideology of christoislamicommunazism, people have to learn what its teachings and history are. And then you'll see why that history is repeating forever. Zero tolerance for intolerance.

People who think nazism is evil but think christoislamicommunism isn't, are either ignorant, hypocritical or have bought into the mass-scale PR/propaganda.

If, after reading the material by historians and researchers on those pages and the links there, you still think christianism is all warm and cuddly at its core, well, then there's nothing left to say really.

QUOTE(Sauravjha @ Jun 10 2008, 04:49 PM)Okay just to be fair[right][snapback]82623[/snapback][/right]You're not being fair to history/the truth or the sufferings of people who died at the hands of christianism. (The modern excuse/diversion that it was merely "evil people who thought they were following jeebusjehovallah/the bible" is false, since time and time again they reveal how it is the bible/koran that made them do it.)

dhu · (This post was last modified: 06-10-2008, 06:35 PM by dhu.)

QUOTE(Sauravjha @ Jun 10 2008, 04:49 PM)Okay just to be fair ,
we must make it clear as to which form of christanity we are referring to and precisely whichÂ particular aspectÂ of that formÂ are we analysing.Â As far as I am concerned ourÂ beef is primarily with the evangelist aspect of mainstream Christianity.
[right][snapback]82623[/snapback][/right]


We need to isolate the normative framework of Christianity to its proper western source. in order to shield the Indic narratives of Zoroastrianism and Buddhism from western appropriation, demonization, and colonial reinterpretation. This is the reason why it has been necessary to go so deep into Christian origins.

Shambhu · 06-10-2008, 06:39 PM

Saurav:

Short answer on why we are against christianity as such:

All of christianity says that the "heathen" needs to be converted. There may be sects which go light on the missionary aspect, but that does not mean that they have any less of a "you are a heathen" opinion in them.

Belonging to no religion is better than belonging to the predatory faiths of xtianity and islam..

Bodhi · 06-10-2008, 07:37 PM

christianism is the name (like buddhism, judaism, hinduism, sikhism). Long back I stopped discriminating by calling that ideology an '-ity'.

Shambhu · 06-10-2008, 09:51 PM

Bodhiji:

I know..Personally I call it the christocult. But when talking to newbies, I ease into these things slowly, or else they think, based on their prejudices, that I am the one prejudiced (for calling a spade a spade!).

Husky · (This post was last modified: 06-11-2008, 04:57 PM by Husky.)

As Bodhi showed in the first thread on this topic, and as is explained also in detail at http://www.christianism.com, christoterrorism's own chosen name was christianism. So if christos call you "communalist" or whatever for referring to their religion by its own name (they are famous for being ignorant of their own religion), then just link to the appropriate page off http://www.christianism.com. Or alternatively, link to the page Bodhi referenced (in thread 1 I think) which explained how christianism was the cult's name.

(Now, if you called it christoterrorism I can imagine them whining. Although this is of course a factual representation of what the religion entails, its followers aren't known for appreciating facts.)

Shambhu · 06-11-2008, 05:07 PM

OK..if it is their chosen name, then christianism it is!

06-11-2008, 05:26 PM

uff. it seems that all nationalists are destined to misunderstand me.

gentleman, I am totally aware of the need to counter the evangelist propaganda emanating from Paulinists aka Roman catholics and newer protestant forms.

I too am all for renewed Indian scholarship into Christianity's origins. I have studied even hagiographies for that matter.

Let me elaborate with an example. you guys are no doubt aware that certain gnostic doctrines remain preserved in the coptic tradition. However if we say x-religion is b*** , we may end up unnecessarily antagonising everybody.

Moreover all our saints , whether it be Chaitanya or Ramakrishna have sought to bridge the gap between ourselves and the Abrahamic faiths by revealing that the Abrahamic faiths at the kernel have a pPagan verse.

On the other hand going on the over drive to say x-religion doctrine is bull etc etc , doesn't work. we need to narrow our focus on what is objectionable and highlight what is universal. Remember Dharma is forever, Original sin is not.

Shambhu · 06-11-2008, 05:40 PM

I think people here (including me) are not so much against the average christian who does not dabble with conversion, our priorities are the evangelists etc. However, we do tell everybody about the real nature of christianism and are against it. Now, all christians, and all muslims, call us heathens/pagans and pray to mass murderers. All this they expect us to take in stride. They will say. "look, brother, we are not against you, this is just our religion". So why cant we say, "look, brother, we are not against you, but this is just the truth, which happens to be our religion."

06-11-2008, 05:45 PM

I must add, that seeing some of the posts , you guys think that I need to be enlightened on the "virtues " of Christianity . I must most humbly submit that I would not like to see this thread descent into an arena where post after post seeks to give me a "re-education". I have been down this road before on another forum (that time with Islam) and would not like to repeat the same pleasant experience. There is a tendency amongst nationalists to misunderstand what I am saying as they see it through a prism of what has been rather than what can be. which is why I will humbly bow out of this thread if the responses continue to show that I have been misunderstood.

Shambhu · 06-11-2008, 06:30 PM

Saurav,

You know more about christianity/ism than I do. If I understand you, you are for talking to the non-evangelist xtians about what can be. How can this be done without bringing up the un-exclusivity of jesus? And then the fakeness of jesus? Please (no sarcasm here) tell us if you have a method of talking to non-evangelizing xtians without bringing up the exclusive messiahness of jesus (and therefore the validity of "his father" god).

Husky · (This post was last modified: 06-11-2008, 07:34 PM by Husky.)

QUOTEMoreover all our saints , whether it be Chaitanya or Ramakrishna have sought to bridge the gap between ourselves and the Abrahamic faiths by revealing that the Abrahamic faiths at the kernel have a pPagan verse.Oh please. They knew about Hindu Gods/Dharma, but they were ignorant of christoislamism: like typical Hindus, they merely saw our own Gods everywhere. That's from where all such ideas expressed by these two and others stem from.
Meanwhile, you would know what Vivekananda said about christoislamism. He had taken some more pains to get to know christoislamicommunism.

QUOTE"look, brother, we are not against you, but this is just the truth, which happens to be our religion.""You Hindoo and your heathen claptrap. Only the ummah are my brothers. You're a kaffiri whose life is not worth the jizya you're paying." And if you're unlucky this is followed by a "Take that (whacks you with his scimitar)". Just as happened not too long ago to some Hindu fishermen in Kerala. Though you may not notice it, your continued prevarication on christoislamism is in fact condoning what happened to them and many others who shared a similar fate. That's because your continued silence on what the real killer is (not the followers of islam or christianism - but their criminal ideology christoislamicommunism) is merely another pebble in the way being paved for it to mow everyone else over. Natural traditionalists don't need more of their own to become apologists for christoislamism.

Thinking like a Dharmic/follower of a Natural Tradition when trying to understand christoislamism is people's first mistake. Forget all you know about Hinduism to understand their religion, start with an empty slate, and with that mindset, read the bible (koran too, if you can stomach it).

QUOTEHowever if we say x-religion is b*** , we may end up unnecessarily antagonising everybody.Not another advocate for lying to keep others happy. Why did I never like that routine? Same reason I don't like the people who want to write a rosy history of christoislamicommunism in India.
The truth about history and ideologies even if it offends everybody should be what humans should press for. Oh, I forgot. That goes against the glorious psecular tradition of alleged-Freedom of Speech=Laws banning heathens stating facts (facts are tagged as "blasphemy") about christoislamism in western (including Indian) media.

QUOTEnationalistsOthers will speak for themselves. I'm not a nationalist. I'm a Hindu.

I support Dharmics/National Traditionalists of other countries too. And as soon as my people (Hindus/Dharmics of Ancient India) have risen again, I will want Indians to concentrate on helping or otherwise encouraging the same for the other Natural Traditionalists - if any haven't wrestled their freedoms back yet at that stage. Hopefully all of this with no effort on my part.

For one thing, nationalism does not mean what you think it means - at least, it did not mean what I thought it meant. It's a western concept that does not at all approximate what many Hindus feel. It does not mean love for Bharatam. Nationalism is not loving your country and respecting others'. In Europe it meant being obsessed about your country at the expense of other people. The christonazis were nationalists and killed or invaded everybody else. The patriotic English went and fought WWI for no other reason than pride. They lied about what they did to India out of christonationalistic principles. Americans are so nationalist and patriotic they will declare that the wars they regularly instigate in other countries (Buddhist Korea, Vietnam to now Afghanistan, Iraq) are all in "defense of the US". That's a ridiculous use of language diversions there even from them.

Indian pseculars describe themselves as nationalists too, that's why they want to rewrite history their way. Many christians consider themselves nationalists too and have dedicated India to their jeebus and promised their non-existent gawd to give it to him on a platter even though no one else wants to be part of "India-for-jeebus". Islamics have grandiose plays to turn Bharatam into one or more Dar-ul-islams and are very patriotic towards the country they have in mind and sometimes even kill themselves for when they take down large numbers of kaffirs who will have no place as equal members in a Dar-ul-islamic society.

QUOTEgentleman (????), I am totally aware of the need to counter the evangelist propaganda emanating from Paulinists aka Roman catholics and newer protestant forms.No.
It's the duty of every Natural Traditionalist who loves their God(s), their traditions, their ancestors and humanity to protect the world from terrorism. The greatest terrorism is the mindvirus of christoislamicommunazism that has marred all of human history since its ill-fated appearance. I think enough people (entire populations) have been butchered by now for people to finally start admitting to the facts. Or so one would think.

QUOTEevangelist propaganda emanating from Paulinists aka Roman catholics and newer protestant forms.It's called christianism or "christianity". Why does it stick in your throat to call this terrorism by its real name?
Evangelism is but one of its many painful (for others) symptoms. You will cure nothing if you aim to relieve the symptoms, if you pretend the symptoms are the virus. Even if you manage to remove any symptom, the mindvirus of christianism will merely give rise to something equally venomous to replace it. You may not mind being done in by it, but others don't want our civilisations to be destroyed like so many in the Europe, the Americas and Africa. We like to continuing living, and in our way.

QUOTEI have studied even hagiographies for that matter.The study of the "history"/tales of christian saints or something, right? (Even I wouldn't have advised anyone to waste their time in that way...)
Then you already know they were all either (1) non-existent (2) frauds (3) narratives stolen from pagan sources, as admitted by even christian historians. Joseph McCabe summarises this matter: http://freetruth.50webs.org/Appendix5.htm "Early Saints and Martyrs. Scholarship exposed the vast fraud"

QUOTEI must most humbly submit that I would not like to see this thread descent into an arena where post after post seeks to give me a "re-education". I have been down this road before on another forum (that time with Islam) and would not like to repeat the same pleasant experience. You found those facts of christoislamic history and present on "another forum" too painful for you? (Any other normal person would too.) But then why defend it? If you don't want to know, Fine. (Who would want to know really, it's the most depressing thing to learn.) But don't talk about it then as if it is semi-innocent. It's not innocent at all.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 06-11-2008, 07:35 PM by Husky.)

QUOTEI think people here (including me) are not so much against the average christian who does not dabble with conversion,My problem is with christianism/islamism/communism, etcetera.

The Average Christian of the middle ages and in post-middle ages in Europe (who also did not dabble with conversion as all his/her known neighbours were christian already) didn't refrain from joining in the spectacles of the Auto Da Fes (live burnings) of people, giving people up as witches to the church, or joining in the rabid christian mobs that regularly got together to kill Jews because christians with their anti-hygeniesm would die in huge numbers of the plague while the hygenic Jews didn't (e.g. read Dutch history books). That's because washing oneself was banned in christianism: "the devils will get you when you cleaned off the slime, while the dirt would protect you against them." Christian science.

Then there were the benign German christians - regular church attenders - who were so kind as to turn in Jews or anyone with the mildest Jewish ancestry (including when these were christians at their own church - no evangelism necessary on them either) to the nazi government. See http://www.nobeliefs.com/ChurchesWWII.htm and http://freetruth.50webs.org/A7a.htm#DistortingFacts

Then there's the mass-murder of the christian Gypsies who were already converted. For the usual christian reasons.

It's all quite touching stuff what the non-evangelicals do. I am now convinced by what I've read here: I have Seen The Light of non-evangelising christianity. Feel so much safer now and know that any one can convert to christianism without the slightest fear of the faithful turning on one any day. It must be nothing more than a grand, regularly- and frequently-occuring anomaly what they did (still do) to Gypsies, Orthodox Serbs, converted Jews and everybody else who is different even when christian.

The Average inactive Christian today - whether US or Korea or India - gives money (at least via their church, but usually more consciously) for converting/terrorising people. US money for this also comes in from everyone's taxes (see http://web.archive.org/web/20040122120208/...o/mission.html ), including that of Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and other tax-paying non-christians living in the US. And much of it still goes towards converting the S American traditional communities - like for the "New Tribes Mission" or something - and the rest to places like the NE and other parts of India, Buddhist parts of Asia like Thailand, Cambodia, and Africa basically.
Korean and Indian christian money for christoterrorism goes into India, Nepal and Sri Lanka, and countries NE of India.

QUOTESaurav,
You know more about christianity/ism than I do.But how were you able to gauge the scope of his knowledge on christianism to be able to make that comparison against your own?

06-11-2008, 09:10 PM

QUOTE(Sauravjha @ Jun 11 2008, 05:45 PM)which is why I will humbly bow out of this thread if the responses continue to show that I have been misunderstood.
[right][snapback]82684[/snapback][/right]


Please don't. The tone and theme will sort itself out.

ramana · 06-11-2008, 09:29 PM

QUOTE(Shambhu @ Jun 11 2008, 01:00 PM)Saurav,

You know more about christianity/ism than I do. If I understand you, you are for talking to the non-evangelist xtians about what can be. How can this be done without bringing up the un-exclusivity of jesus? And then the fakeness of jesus? Please (no sarcasm here) tell us if you have a method of talking to non-evangelizing xtians without bringing up the exclusive messiahness of jesus (and therefore the validity of "his father" god).
[right][snapback]82687[/snapback][/right]


There are Evangelical folks and there are others. By going after all of them one creates higher and deeper abrriers. The immediate threat is the American Baptist evangelicals who are on a Wahabaization drive to bring about rapture. Their geo-political mission is to evangalize South American Hispanics too.

BTW has anyone read the book "How Jesus became a Christian"? I saw a blurb for it in a book catalog.

Thanks, ramana

Shambhu · (This post was last modified: 06-12-2008, 02:56 AM by Shambhu.)

Husky,

I have always been more interested in attacking problems and getting tangible results..That is why I am so easy on Saurav. I know his hagiographies etc pale in comparison to the knowledge we have here as IF members! It is a fact that "The Average Christian" did go along with lots of anti-"heathen" things, but I am trying not to alienate seekers, however confused they may be. I have experience in this, trust me. Let things go slowly.

I have made strongly nationalist people to whom hindutva was anathema take a good look at real islam. At first the y laugh at you, but if you go slow, they will see the light and start reading about real islam. It all has to go slow otherwise we will be sitting here talking amongst ourselves while the rest of the world walks by..

--My Q to Saurav stands:

How can you engage the average christian without getting into the non-exclusivity, and then the utter non-existence of jesus? How are you going to talk to a person whose bottomline is: I have exclusive rights to divinity? Do you let them go on and on about how great their "jesus" was and let them keep belittling your faith and hurting hindus in more ways than one? Is that acceptable? There is only one way out: to introduce them to documented and ongoing christian aggression and to evidence showing that their messiah was a creation of Roman Ceasars. They may say "Your Gods are fake too". OK. At least they acknowledge that jesus is a fake. Let them then wander in the swamps of rationality and agnosticism. That is fine. You move on to the next missionary or christian who is enamoured of his faith.

dhu · (This post was last modified: 06-12-2008, 03:07 AM by dhu.)

The question is how to make the 'ideological' framework no longer intelligible to the "adherents", whether religious or liberated? This is how they typically operate>

1. they see a family A and family B in a "region" or "area"
2. they question the family A and Family B, why do you fellows live separately
3. family A and Family B cook up some answer so that 'they' will leave the families alone
4. They say that that doesn't really make sense and that the families are actually enacting a 'systematic ideology' of separation
5. The answer that Family A and Family B gave gets labeled as a false belief system
6. But one of the answers that family A gave is more true than the answer that Family B gave; the Family A answer gets labeled as the 'religion' of this "region"
6. more hungama between all the parties ensues.
7. Meanwhile, some elemenst of 'they' esconce themselves among the familes, kill off many members of the families and perform a whole array of other mischiefs; 'religion' of family A gets blamed
8. some ideology of AIT is cooked up out of Noah descendant chronicles.
9. Three generations down the line.... Family A and Family B are now viewing themselves as part of an 'ideological system' which has been in place since beginning of time. 'Reet' which was flexible category before gets re-interpreted as an 'ideological system'.
10. Still there is a feeling that some grave injustice has been done to them and there is cognitive dissonance all around.
11. Vivekanada is born
12. Some yahoos gets emboldened by Vivekananda, and start asking all sort of questions; they make quite a nuisance of themselves.
13. This is where we are at now.

ramana · (This post was last modified: 06-12-2008, 01:50 AM by ramana.)

Two links:

How Jesus Beame a Christian

and

Jesus Mystery

Both are available as books on Amazon and other booksites.

06-12-2008, 10:07 AM

First of all for Husky,
I think you need to study the lives of Chaitanya and Ramkrishna more closely before you can pass a judgement on them.

Chaitanya in addition to being an unparalleled expert on the Vedas, (he once gave 18 interpretations of a single verse) , could have put any hafiz to shame if a discussion on the Koran had to be made. It was purely because of his presence that all of Bengal did not turn Islamic in the medieval period. And believe me , the threat was very much there. In fact in places like Kakdwip he brought many people on the fringes to the the Krishna cult.

For an authoritative work on Ramkrishna , read the 'Gospel of Sri Ramkrishna ' by M . Once a muslim came to ask Ramkrishna as to why "Hindus worship stone". pat came the reply from Ramkrishna- "what's your problem?"

Ramkrishna showed that in the essence these forms were not very different from the Dharmic credo at all and were acceptable as a means of attaining Siddhi. "jato mat tato poth"

Understand the sophistication. However beyond everything understand the fact that these masters sought to bring about unity through gyaan and bhakti. which is the essence of Dharma.

Shambhu,
I have said it before and i am saying it again. Forums such as this have done the right thing in countering evangelist/Islamist propaganda . But they must also provide a coherent alternative and play to our historic strength - Inclusivity. Religion, regardless of all the missionaries and jehadis out there does not play an overarching role in the lives of most people. However due to birth or "conversion" most people do have some kind of religious affiliation . if from the very outset we say that whatever they have "followed" thus far is bull all that this will serve to do is make them go deeper into a shell. rather if you have an outreach program and show that you can give common people space as well as respect a movement can be built based on these two lowest common denominators.

Schools run by various Dharmic organistaions are doing precisely this. there is no attempt at conversion but a proper education that empowers is being given.

A person who converts under duress or due to greed is hardly an asset . when the situation changes this very person is likely to betray his faith. on the other hand there are families and people who have not given up Hinduism under the most trying circumstances. they have a legacy and that legacy will be done justice only through a much broader strategy.

K.Ram,
thanks for the leg up. this is a forum for ideas and I hope to help the discussion with my contributions.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?