Sorry to divert this thread from your question, Ashyam. Just wanted to write the following and this seems like the best place to put it.
Like islam, christianism is not going to stop trying to claim Indians in its harvest for souls. This is because the church claims India and its people - and the recent Thomas-in-India tale allows them to base their false claim on this foundation: 'Apostle X preached in unconverted country Y? Then Y belongs to christianity'.
We either accept it and go the way of the other unfortunate Dodos or we do something about it. We have 2 options:
(a) Do nothing, let things just go on as they are. Christianism (terrorism) wins, we lose
(b) Do something. Two possible outcomes, we either lose (quite possible considering the mammoth we are facing) or we win.
Hoping (a) is ruled out.
The question is how to oppose christianism. It's a ~1700 year old monster. It's swallowed everything in its wake, and won - with the exception of its battle against islam, which, because it's the same as christianism, became a two-way terrorist battle. Islam happened to win Turkey and many middle-eastern countries that had been forcefully made christian earlier. Christianity won back Spain and other southern parts of Europe. But a history of violent conversion which cannot be suppressed forever, leads to people wondering and finding out the truth. It seems that muslim Algerians are converting to christianism in huge numbers every year (exchanging one prison for another).
The islamic way of 'fighting' christianism is not an option. It is not only despicable, but their victories are also only temporary. Just like christian victories are (christians converting to islam here, there and everywhere).
The most wasteful thing we can do in this matter is to ignore history and reinvent the wheel. That's why we need to study history, particularly the history of the rise and rise of christianism. Throughout history, people - entire populations down to small communities - have opposed christianism in various ways, some more successful (never fully successful) than others.
We must study where they failed, when and how they made chinks, what opportunities they missed to pierce the armour of christianism and which prevented them from dealing the death blow to this dangerous terrorist ideology. If we do not spend time in preparation, we will doubtlessly fail. If we prepare and fail any way, maybe some other nation can learn from our mistakes and drive the final stake through its heart.
From what I've read, the best bet is to study Rome, because when Rome came under christian domination, it had imperial backing with which it destroyed Greece and then later western and eastern Europe and eventually the people of the American continent and Africa, and then it also also terrorised Asia. The opposition to christianism in Greece and the remainder of Europe (and even within Rome) could not contend with the imperial power that christianity had obtained in Rome. That is why both small and large-but-unorganised revolts against christianism were all crushed in time. After christianism was established as the only power, we see the crusades and inquisitions take place to crush all further dissent.
But it is in Rome that the death knell of Europe was sounded and nowhere else. Through Constantine christianism was made a world religion - without the imperial power it got then, it might very well have become extinct. But that doesn't mean that when christianism gained this absolute power in the 4th century, it's fate became immediately certain.
Because, and here I think is the key to the problem, there was another important, significant opposition - one which ultimately failed, to the utter detriment of all the world. If Constantine is the most important man of christianism (even the non-existent jesus was a nobody when it came to making it a world religion), the most important man in opposing it was Emperor Julianus.
Until the recent centuries (and perhaps even today), the man whose memory sent shudders down every branch of the holy Roman and even reformed churches, is the man whose actions they would like all others to forget. European history is written by christianism, because christianism won. And that is why we hear and know so little of the other key player in christian history: the man the church scornfully calls Julian the Apostate.
Flavius Claudius Julianus, one of the nephews of Constantine, survived the purges of Constantine and those of Constantine's son (who murdered many of the nephews). Julian, raised christian by his converted terrorist family, hated christianism, more so than even the Stoic emperors who had preceded Constantine. For Julian came after Rome's civilisation had been dreadfully damaged by this destructive religion. He knew it was both false and would be the very death of the empire unless it was ended. He also knew that imperial power was everything to emerging christianism. He reasoned correctly that imperial power could likewise be everything to the Old Religion, and to restore the empire and free it from christianism.
In short, what Julian did and did not do, from what I've been able to read:
(a) He never persecuted a single christian. He did wholly the opposite: he insisted they should not be harmed. This was both to show the humane and pluralistic ways of the truly superior Old Roman Religion (as opposed to the christian cruelty of the christian emperors who had come before) and to avoid satisfying the christian clamour for martyrs. Because, of all things, christianity loves martyrs best. It needs them to prove their religion is the True Religion. If they are not persecuted, it means people don't care about their petty little religion. And not caring means disinterestedness. No martyrs means no sobstories and no propaganda. The church always boasts - falsely, as has been shown by christian historians - that 'the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church'.
When christian soldiers were caught conspiring against Julian's life, he spared their lives. It bothered the church no end: everyone in the empire found out that the evil christians had planned to kill the well-loved Julian and that the great-hearted Julian - of the Old Religion, champion of all of the Old Religion - had let go these instruments of the petty, murderous religion.
(b) He wrote and encouraged writing the truth about christianity, exposing all its lies. Remember this was the fourth century. Everyone was still aware of the fraud of christianism's origins. The vast amount of forgeries that would create and 'prove' its beginnings were yet to take place in the coming centuries. In the 4th and 5th centuries, all the non-Christian Romans made fun of the religion that was so inconsistent as to have innumerable versions of christ's life ('documented' in the innumerable gospels that the church would thereafter suppress because of the ridicule) floating about. The Romans also knew of the unprecedented immorality encouraged and even instilled by christianity; they knew of its intolerance as it couldn't stand other christian sects but murdered them out; they remembered its treatment of the Old Religions and of civilisation.
Even in the second century, Celsus and others had already written against the lie of christianity. Knowing the damaging effects that such writings had upon christianism, Julian wrote and inspired other great authors to research and write about christianity. The effects were staggering.
( c) He not only got verifiable literature exposing christianity circulating. He also set about physically disproving the religion. Christianism hinged on the temple of Jerusalem never being rebuilt. So he ordered it to be reconstructed - something that sent terror into the heart of the church. Unfortunately, the temple was not rebuilt as there was trouble. The church would embellish this as the christian god's supernatural way of preventing the construction, but fraud was ever their line.
For a short time, there was some promise of revival. Julian had plans to try again to get the temple in Jerusalem built, he had plans to further publicise the literature against christianity, educating all of the empire on the vast fraud (christianity) doing the rounds; plans to unify the empire and diverge from the path to demise that christianism had set it on.
He was murdered. The church claimed it was the Persians. But all suspected it was a christian plot, and the church practically admitted it.
Julianus became emperor at 29 and was murdered within 3 years. He had already done so much damage that the church spoke his name in fearful whispers amongst themselves and loudly in hatred in public. Had he lived, there would be no christianity today. There would also not have been any islam (an unfortunate child born of an accidental mutation of the christian meme - mohammed obviously modelled his carrot-and-stick religion on the successful formula of the christian precedent; no christianity would have meant no inspiration for mohammed).
After Julian's assassination, the Romans patiently waited for another man of the Old Religion to come to free their nation from christian terrorism. Such a man never materialised, since of course the church had learnt its lesson. It was a 'miracle' they had escaped Julian - he could have destroyed it all; christianity had just survived. Never again.
The rest is history. One christian emperor after another, the fall of Rome, the conversion of all of Europe, the rise and rise of christian and church power. A monopoly over all the world known to them.
What we can learn from Julian is:
(1) Not to fail - we need more than one man or woman in power. We need non christians (non-christoislamics) in power. We need to keep fighting and not give up and wait around for someone reliable to replace Sonia. No one may come if we do nothing. Voting right is the first step.
(2) And the methods he used to fight christianity were the only ones that ever worked. That is, (a) and (b) above (( c) is not really an option). Throughout history, writings showing the false underpinnings of christianity have been the only means to dent christianism's hold over the world. The church has always suppressed such writings - it destroyed ('lost') all such works by Roman writers, it burnt heretical works when the church came into absolute power, then it had a forbidden index to prevent people from reading such works, and today it sternly discourages its flock from finding out the truth.
In the present, the media is another outlet where christian lies continue and facts are prevented from making an appearance. Hence the thomas myth and even the tale of jesus' visit to Kashmir continue to get coverage in India, whilst discoveries in archaeology and research in biblical scholarship that show how christian origins are entirely manufactured are not even discussed.
To destroy the christian meme, we need to disseminate factual information to the masses, starting with relatives and close friends. When they know the facts, christianity will not be an option for them.
(3) Not to trust christian organisations when their whole goal is to destroy hinduism and replace it with their terrorist religion. Its followers are also the people who keep donating to such organisations.
Like islam, christianism is not going to stop trying to claim Indians in its harvest for souls. This is because the church claims India and its people - and the recent Thomas-in-India tale allows them to base their false claim on this foundation: 'Apostle X preached in unconverted country Y? Then Y belongs to christianity'.
We either accept it and go the way of the other unfortunate Dodos or we do something about it. We have 2 options:
(a) Do nothing, let things just go on as they are. Christianism (terrorism) wins, we lose
(b) Do something. Two possible outcomes, we either lose (quite possible considering the mammoth we are facing) or we win.
Hoping (a) is ruled out.
The question is how to oppose christianism. It's a ~1700 year old monster. It's swallowed everything in its wake, and won - with the exception of its battle against islam, which, because it's the same as christianism, became a two-way terrorist battle. Islam happened to win Turkey and many middle-eastern countries that had been forcefully made christian earlier. Christianity won back Spain and other southern parts of Europe. But a history of violent conversion which cannot be suppressed forever, leads to people wondering and finding out the truth. It seems that muslim Algerians are converting to christianism in huge numbers every year (exchanging one prison for another).
The islamic way of 'fighting' christianism is not an option. It is not only despicable, but their victories are also only temporary. Just like christian victories are (christians converting to islam here, there and everywhere).
The most wasteful thing we can do in this matter is to ignore history and reinvent the wheel. That's why we need to study history, particularly the history of the rise and rise of christianism. Throughout history, people - entire populations down to small communities - have opposed christianism in various ways, some more successful (never fully successful) than others.
We must study where they failed, when and how they made chinks, what opportunities they missed to pierce the armour of christianism and which prevented them from dealing the death blow to this dangerous terrorist ideology. If we do not spend time in preparation, we will doubtlessly fail. If we prepare and fail any way, maybe some other nation can learn from our mistakes and drive the final stake through its heart.
From what I've read, the best bet is to study Rome, because when Rome came under christian domination, it had imperial backing with which it destroyed Greece and then later western and eastern Europe and eventually the people of the American continent and Africa, and then it also also terrorised Asia. The opposition to christianism in Greece and the remainder of Europe (and even within Rome) could not contend with the imperial power that christianity had obtained in Rome. That is why both small and large-but-unorganised revolts against christianism were all crushed in time. After christianism was established as the only power, we see the crusades and inquisitions take place to crush all further dissent.
But it is in Rome that the death knell of Europe was sounded and nowhere else. Through Constantine christianism was made a world religion - without the imperial power it got then, it might very well have become extinct. But that doesn't mean that when christianism gained this absolute power in the 4th century, it's fate became immediately certain.
Because, and here I think is the key to the problem, there was another important, significant opposition - one which ultimately failed, to the utter detriment of all the world. If Constantine is the most important man of christianism (even the non-existent jesus was a nobody when it came to making it a world religion), the most important man in opposing it was Emperor Julianus.
Until the recent centuries (and perhaps even today), the man whose memory sent shudders down every branch of the holy Roman and even reformed churches, is the man whose actions they would like all others to forget. European history is written by christianism, because christianism won. And that is why we hear and know so little of the other key player in christian history: the man the church scornfully calls Julian the Apostate.
Flavius Claudius Julianus, one of the nephews of Constantine, survived the purges of Constantine and those of Constantine's son (who murdered many of the nephews). Julian, raised christian by his converted terrorist family, hated christianism, more so than even the Stoic emperors who had preceded Constantine. For Julian came after Rome's civilisation had been dreadfully damaged by this destructive religion. He knew it was both false and would be the very death of the empire unless it was ended. He also knew that imperial power was everything to emerging christianism. He reasoned correctly that imperial power could likewise be everything to the Old Religion, and to restore the empire and free it from christianism.
In short, what Julian did and did not do, from what I've been able to read:
(a) He never persecuted a single christian. He did wholly the opposite: he insisted they should not be harmed. This was both to show the humane and pluralistic ways of the truly superior Old Roman Religion (as opposed to the christian cruelty of the christian emperors who had come before) and to avoid satisfying the christian clamour for martyrs. Because, of all things, christianity loves martyrs best. It needs them to prove their religion is the True Religion. If they are not persecuted, it means people don't care about their petty little religion. And not caring means disinterestedness. No martyrs means no sobstories and no propaganda. The church always boasts - falsely, as has been shown by christian historians - that 'the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church'.
When christian soldiers were caught conspiring against Julian's life, he spared their lives. It bothered the church no end: everyone in the empire found out that the evil christians had planned to kill the well-loved Julian and that the great-hearted Julian - of the Old Religion, champion of all of the Old Religion - had let go these instruments of the petty, murderous religion.
(b) He wrote and encouraged writing the truth about christianity, exposing all its lies. Remember this was the fourth century. Everyone was still aware of the fraud of christianism's origins. The vast amount of forgeries that would create and 'prove' its beginnings were yet to take place in the coming centuries. In the 4th and 5th centuries, all the non-Christian Romans made fun of the religion that was so inconsistent as to have innumerable versions of christ's life ('documented' in the innumerable gospels that the church would thereafter suppress because of the ridicule) floating about. The Romans also knew of the unprecedented immorality encouraged and even instilled by christianity; they knew of its intolerance as it couldn't stand other christian sects but murdered them out; they remembered its treatment of the Old Religions and of civilisation.
Even in the second century, Celsus and others had already written against the lie of christianity. Knowing the damaging effects that such writings had upon christianism, Julian wrote and inspired other great authors to research and write about christianity. The effects were staggering.
( c) He not only got verifiable literature exposing christianity circulating. He also set about physically disproving the religion. Christianism hinged on the temple of Jerusalem never being rebuilt. So he ordered it to be reconstructed - something that sent terror into the heart of the church. Unfortunately, the temple was not rebuilt as there was trouble. The church would embellish this as the christian god's supernatural way of preventing the construction, but fraud was ever their line.
For a short time, there was some promise of revival. Julian had plans to try again to get the temple in Jerusalem built, he had plans to further publicise the literature against christianity, educating all of the empire on the vast fraud (christianity) doing the rounds; plans to unify the empire and diverge from the path to demise that christianism had set it on.
He was murdered. The church claimed it was the Persians. But all suspected it was a christian plot, and the church practically admitted it.
Julianus became emperor at 29 and was murdered within 3 years. He had already done so much damage that the church spoke his name in fearful whispers amongst themselves and loudly in hatred in public. Had he lived, there would be no christianity today. There would also not have been any islam (an unfortunate child born of an accidental mutation of the christian meme - mohammed obviously modelled his carrot-and-stick religion on the successful formula of the christian precedent; no christianity would have meant no inspiration for mohammed).
After Julian's assassination, the Romans patiently waited for another man of the Old Religion to come to free their nation from christian terrorism. Such a man never materialised, since of course the church had learnt its lesson. It was a 'miracle' they had escaped Julian - he could have destroyed it all; christianity had just survived. Never again.
The rest is history. One christian emperor after another, the fall of Rome, the conversion of all of Europe, the rise and rise of christian and church power. A monopoly over all the world known to them.
What we can learn from Julian is:
(1) Not to fail - we need more than one man or woman in power. We need non christians (non-christoislamics) in power. We need to keep fighting and not give up and wait around for someone reliable to replace Sonia. No one may come if we do nothing. Voting right is the first step.
(2) And the methods he used to fight christianity were the only ones that ever worked. That is, (a) and (b) above (( c) is not really an option). Throughout history, writings showing the false underpinnings of christianity have been the only means to dent christianism's hold over the world. The church has always suppressed such writings - it destroyed ('lost') all such works by Roman writers, it burnt heretical works when the church came into absolute power, then it had a forbidden index to prevent people from reading such works, and today it sternly discourages its flock from finding out the truth.
In the present, the media is another outlet where christian lies continue and facts are prevented from making an appearance. Hence the thomas myth and even the tale of jesus' visit to Kashmir continue to get coverage in India, whilst discoveries in archaeology and research in biblical scholarship that show how christian origins are entirely manufactured are not even discussed.
To destroy the christian meme, we need to disseminate factual information to the masses, starting with relatives and close friends. When they know the facts, christianity will not be an option for them.
(3) Not to trust christian organisations when their whole goal is to destroy hinduism and replace it with their terrorist religion. Its followers are also the people who keep donating to such organisations.