Christian Missionary Role In India - 6

[Guest]

Paulose,
Your ignorance and twisting of historical and present facts to suit your lies is amazing.

Aryawan,
I did not twist any historical fact nor did I tell any lies. I commented on a topic in this forum.

To begin with, FYI India has a Muslim president, a Sikh Prime Minister and A Catholic chief of the ruling political party. Now it is your turn to show me a single Christian Majority country with a Muslim or a Hindu at such a top level position.

What is great in that. K R Narayanan deserved a second term. But it was denied for him by BJP. Instead elected a Muslim. Sikh PM was a default appointment by proxy. Catholic became cheif of ruling party just because she was married to the Nehru family. Any Muslim, Sikh, or Dalit with a Gandhi tail may become the chief of Congress party. If Sonia was made PM it could have been a great thing, since she was only a naturalised Indian. But BJP prevented that. Whether Christian country does that is immeterial. That is greatness of India and the secular nature of India.

Simple hearted natives welcoming crooked and cunning Europeans only to find themselves being turned in to slaves in their very homes.

Christianity was used as a guise to colonize and enslave so called savage natives who many times were much more cultured and advanced than the invaders themselves.

This is absolutely true. Europeans used Christianity to colonise world. If they were Hindus, Mulims or Parsees, they could have done the same. That is not fault of Christianity. Majority of westerners are not practicing Christians any more. Still they dominate world.

While Jesus may have stood for peace and love, but Christianity as it stands today, has its roots in violence and bloodshed without which it would not have spread so far in numbers as bragged by you. The very fact that Jews have been persecuted for over 2000 years for fraudulent reasons by Christians is enough to debunk your attempts at covering the crimes committed in the name of religion.

Even if what you say is true, Christianity is the largest religion in the world. Bloodshed is associated with Hinduism as well. I had wrote in another post about Hindus killed in 1000s of wars fought by Hindus before the appearance of Christianity.

Speaking of Mexico, till date it is being ruled by an elite group of Reales or Spanish & Other European descendants who control most of its assets and businesses. While poor natives or the mixed ones are only too happy to cross over to USA to work as casual labourers in cities of the United States. The rise of Chiapa Indians in South of Mexico began the downfall of longest ruling Real political party 'PRI' in Mexico. The fact is that till today the natives of Latin Amercia live on the fringes of the society whose status is hundred times worse than so called lower castes of India. Lower castes in India are forcefully represented in the Indian Parliament. Whereas, in country after country in Latin America, natives are rising against the various forms of apartheid being practised by the Ruling European descendants. Latest to fall in line is Bolivia, where for the first time a native Indian has become the President of the country. The discontent in most of the Latin American countries is coming to the surface.

Would you care to enlighten me???

Yes I agree with you. But they cross over to USA which is also Christian country. Why they did not take pain to come over to a Hindu country India or an Islamic country Saudi Arabia?

Why Christianity a religion of peace failed to stop world wars faught mostly among the Christian nations?

This question is absurd. I can ask you even more absurd questions. Ancient India had only Hindusim as a religion. But there were inumerable wars fought between Hindu rulers. Why Hinduism could not prevent such wars? Asking such questions are a stupid as asking why Sun rises in east. History of mankind is that of war as well. Even if Christianity was not there still there could have been wars.

We in India recognise Christianity as a religion and there are churches in the most Indian cities including Hindu's holiest sites like Tirupati. Would you allow Hindus to build a temple in the Vatican city?

I am not the owner of Vatican. So I can not answer that question. India allows that because India is a secular country. If it was something like a theocracy as Saudi Arabia we could not have imagined that.

Why there are so called so many divisions in your peaceful religion sometimes appearing much worse than our caste systems so much so that one group tried to annihilate other groups historically i.e. Catholics vs Orthodox vs Protestants vs .........

All those divisions are purely for leadership issues. They fight in between for superiority. But in a Catholic country, Orthodox are never forbidden to enter a church or not allowed to use public roads. In that instance, caste system is worse than Christian sects. And sects in Christianity is not any division of labour. They are separate religions with separeate rules and regulations.

We Hindus are ready to accept the divinity of Jesus (but not Christianity as a religion). Would you accept our thousands of saints and sages who were as enlightened if not more than Jesus? Would you accept our form of worship and bow before our Gods and Goddesses?

If you accept divinity of Jesus it very good. That does not mean that Christians should accept Hindu saints. This is not a barter system. These are concerned with beliefs. Hinduism does allow wroship of anything. But Christianity does not allow that. That is a very fundamental difference. If all can accept other's Gods, there need not be any religions at all. Christians cannot accept Hindu Gods. That is why they are a separate religion.

Recently, Orthodox Russia didn't allow Iskcon to built the sole Hindu temple in the city of Moscow. Is this the kind of tolerance you guys preach?

What Russian Orthodox church did was wrong. The same church did not allow the late Pope to come to Russia. Bizare people will be there all over the world.

What is the logic behing condemning the whole mankind forever for somebody eating a fruit?

Belief in God, religion and myths about religion have no logic at all. The fruit eating is just a metaphor that creation defied creator. That message was conveyed through a story. It has that much importance only. Defying creator is a sin according to Christian belief. That need not be true in other beliefs.

Such stories are there in all religions.