The intolerance that is part and parcel of christianity seeks nothing less than to wipe out all other religions in any country. It will do so even at the cost of human life. It does not shudder from employing vandalism either.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I would love to see the day when the RSS holds a bhajan and hymn singing session in a Church on the basis that all Gods are one. That is a far better pro-active "attacking move" than the reversion of converted Hindus.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><b>This suggestion is (1) neither new - Hindus have been trying it forever; (2) nor has it ever been successful.</b>
Here's some basic human sense: <b>Give respect to those who give you respect (back).</b>
Hindus have forever been visiting churches, praying with their christian and muslim friends, praying to jesus, allah and jehovah and all kinds of inclusive, all-encompassing activities. <i>None of this works.</i>
All we've asked in return is that they do not keep to the exclusivist considerations of 'saved vs heathen' or 'infidel vs faithful' and show their usual intolerance by impinging on our personal space, harrassing us with pamphlets at our temples, during Melas and other pilgrimages, and try and put up crosses over our holy sites. And of course:
http://hamsa.org/interview.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This activity is especially evident in Orissa, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. In Arunachal Pradesh where proselytizing and conversion are illegal, Christians claim whole villages and put up signboards that say âNon-Christians Not Allowedâ at their entrances.
In Tamil Nadu Christian slogans appear on Hindu pilgrim routes to Tirupati and on the route around Arunachala Hill at Tiruvannamalai that pilgrims circumambulate on full moon days.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Another example of what they do in return:
http://www.christianaggression.org/item_di...S&id=1084904446
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But religious expansionism is just one part of the zealots' dark work. More disturbingly, despite repeated warnings from the law enforcers, the bigots have been gathering up at Periamalai (a small hillock) regularly and shout out taunting remarks at Hindus and openly deride Hindu Gods.
(Rather like what early christians did to the Ancient Romans.)
Locals say the Christians bring in women, who are purportedly Hindus, and then ask them to throw their mettis and thalis into a fire. This is how the conversions happen. 'This is a very offensive show,' says Ramakrishnan a local.
(Thalis are Mangalasutras.)
These gatherings become more voluble when the locals come to worship at the nearby Murugan temple.
'Their (Christians) activities have a sinister touch. They have been systematic in their approach. They choose to increase their numbers on Hindu religious days. They have gone to the extent of damaging some of the sculptures in the Murugan temple,' says Vedachalam, another resident of the area.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We will always be unsaved infidels for them, because their religion - which requires them to absolutely obey it in everything - will not allow otherwise. The heathen must be converted, on pain of death. The kafir must be converted, on pain of death. It is naive to think it can be otherwise. For over 1800 yrs christianity has done nothing but convert or kill people, and islam's path has been the same for over 1300 years.
<b>My question is why should we continue to tolerate intolerance?</b> Can we not learn from the lessons bequeathed by the Ancient Romans (at heavy price), who tried to be inclusive of christianism and failed miserably. Where are they now?
If we will not learn from the past, we must be prepared to make the same mistakes again. And the price may well be extinction as it has been for others before.
The only solution is to stem the tide of conversions, to keep the number of christians down. This can only be done by raising awareness of why christianity is a destructive ideology. The Romans tried this, but the Emperor who gave the plan state support was murdered by the christians, so we don't know what would have happened if he'd survived (he seemed to be succeeding).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have prayed in a Church - but unfortunately I don't have the solid credentials of the RSS to score a publicity coup.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Many Hindus have prayed in a Church. Many pagan Romans too - Emperors even, to show they were not against christianity. And ill it served them.
One emperor even kept a bust of the non-existent jesus alongside statues of his Roman Gods in his palatial quarters. Writes historian and ex-priest Joseph McCabe:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Alexander Severus, actually put a bust of Christ in the private chapel of his palace.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Another pagan Emperor, Diocletion - also accused of 'persecuting' the christians just like the Severus above:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Diocletian (284-305) was the ablest and finest Roman Emperor since Hadrian, and he allowed remarkable freedom to Christians for nearly twenty years. They were permitted to build a large church near his palace at Nicomedia, and his wife and daughter joined the [Christian] sect.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The christians in return were still intolerant, offended the Roman Gods, spoke against the emperor, were anti-national to boot; and so the emperor's wife and daughter left christianity, and the emperor had the churches closed or destroyed realising the sect was dangerous. ( http://freetruth.50webs.org/B3b.htm )
I've said this during some early posts of mine at IF: <b>Zero tolerance for intolerance.</b> Might have to scream myself hoarse one day. Intolerant ideologies will destroy all that Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, Taoists, native Americans, African Religionists and others stand for. You can either recognise the problem exists and try (successfully/unsuccessfully) to find a solution, or pretend it's not there and have <i>no chance</i> whatsoever. Either way, the problem's not going to disappear by being ignored.
Hinduism will <i>not</i> be able to swallow up christoislamism and render it ineffectual. It has had centuries to try and has failed.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The ability to soak up, accommodate and subversively bend other belief systems is Hinduism's USP (unique selling point) and the lack of a coherent Hindu narrative has kept this away from the population of the world at large. But again - I am digressing from the point of this thread.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->It does not work. There's a backlash against Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and even Vivekananda, so too some other Yogi whose book reviews I read ('Yoga is evil' said the christo reviewers who claim to have previously learnt Yoga). The backlash against the Dalai Lama has also started, but that one is still in the initial phase. Hinduism and Eastern religions are not for everyone. Let people choose their religions. But one needs to oppose intolerant ideologies.
Christian society, mindset cannot take to Hinduism. They throw it off. They become resentful and start attacking. Don't enforce this 'universalism' on them. They don't like it.
People who <i>by themselves</i> make their way to Hinduism (or other Eastern Religions) often have no such problem.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The beginings were from the Reformation (Luther) through various thinkers and led to the Enlightenment after contact with the Hindu worldview via William Jones and German brothers. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Luther only asked for religious tolerance when his movement was still small and so had no say, and while the catholic church still wielded all power. But when Luther became strong enough, he insisted on religious intolerance towards other christian sects including catholicism.
See http://vanallens.com/exchristian/calvin.htm:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->1. Views of Catholic and Protestant Historians
A. Johann von Dollinger
"Historically nothing is more incorrect than the assertion that the Reformation was a movement in favour of intellectual freedom. The exact contary is the truth. For themselves, it is true, Lutherans and Calvinists claimed liberty of conscience . . . but to grant it to others never occurred to them so long as they were the stronger side. The complete extirpation of the Catholic Church, and in fact of everything that stood in their way, was regarded by the reformers as something entirely natural." (51;v.6:268-9/1)
B. Preserved Smith (Secularist)
"If any one still harbors the traditional prejudice that the early Protestants were more liberal, he must be undeceived. Save for a few splendid sayings of Luther, confined to the early years when he was powerless, there is hardly anything to be found among the leading reformers in favor of freedom of conscience. As soon as they had the power to persecute they did." (115:177)
(And more)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Very reminiscent of mohammed's 'there should be no compulsion in religion' when mo had but few backers, to his later hysterical commands to convert/kill the infidels.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I would love to see the day when the RSS holds a bhajan and hymn singing session in a Church on the basis that all Gods are one. That is a far better pro-active "attacking move" than the reversion of converted Hindus.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><b>This suggestion is (1) neither new - Hindus have been trying it forever; (2) nor has it ever been successful.</b>
Here's some basic human sense: <b>Give respect to those who give you respect (back).</b>
Hindus have forever been visiting churches, praying with their christian and muslim friends, praying to jesus, allah and jehovah and all kinds of inclusive, all-encompassing activities. <i>None of this works.</i>
All we've asked in return is that they do not keep to the exclusivist considerations of 'saved vs heathen' or 'infidel vs faithful' and show their usual intolerance by impinging on our personal space, harrassing us with pamphlets at our temples, during Melas and other pilgrimages, and try and put up crosses over our holy sites. And of course:
http://hamsa.org/interview.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This activity is especially evident in Orissa, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. In Arunachal Pradesh where proselytizing and conversion are illegal, Christians claim whole villages and put up signboards that say âNon-Christians Not Allowedâ at their entrances.
In Tamil Nadu Christian slogans appear on Hindu pilgrim routes to Tirupati and on the route around Arunachala Hill at Tiruvannamalai that pilgrims circumambulate on full moon days.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Another example of what they do in return:
http://www.christianaggression.org/item_di...S&id=1084904446
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But religious expansionism is just one part of the zealots' dark work. More disturbingly, despite repeated warnings from the law enforcers, the bigots have been gathering up at Periamalai (a small hillock) regularly and shout out taunting remarks at Hindus and openly deride Hindu Gods.
(Rather like what early christians did to the Ancient Romans.)
Locals say the Christians bring in women, who are purportedly Hindus, and then ask them to throw their mettis and thalis into a fire. This is how the conversions happen. 'This is a very offensive show,' says Ramakrishnan a local.
(Thalis are Mangalasutras.)
These gatherings become more voluble when the locals come to worship at the nearby Murugan temple.
'Their (Christians) activities have a sinister touch. They have been systematic in their approach. They choose to increase their numbers on Hindu religious days. They have gone to the extent of damaging some of the sculptures in the Murugan temple,' says Vedachalam, another resident of the area.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We will always be unsaved infidels for them, because their religion - which requires them to absolutely obey it in everything - will not allow otherwise. The heathen must be converted, on pain of death. The kafir must be converted, on pain of death. It is naive to think it can be otherwise. For over 1800 yrs christianity has done nothing but convert or kill people, and islam's path has been the same for over 1300 years.
<b>My question is why should we continue to tolerate intolerance?</b> Can we not learn from the lessons bequeathed by the Ancient Romans (at heavy price), who tried to be inclusive of christianism and failed miserably. Where are they now?
If we will not learn from the past, we must be prepared to make the same mistakes again. And the price may well be extinction as it has been for others before.
The only solution is to stem the tide of conversions, to keep the number of christians down. This can only be done by raising awareness of why christianity is a destructive ideology. The Romans tried this, but the Emperor who gave the plan state support was murdered by the christians, so we don't know what would have happened if he'd survived (he seemed to be succeeding).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have prayed in a Church - but unfortunately I don't have the solid credentials of the RSS to score a publicity coup.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Many Hindus have prayed in a Church. Many pagan Romans too - Emperors even, to show they were not against christianity. And ill it served them.
One emperor even kept a bust of the non-existent jesus alongside statues of his Roman Gods in his palatial quarters. Writes historian and ex-priest Joseph McCabe:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Alexander Severus, actually put a bust of Christ in the private chapel of his palace.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Another pagan Emperor, Diocletion - also accused of 'persecuting' the christians just like the Severus above:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Diocletian (284-305) was the ablest and finest Roman Emperor since Hadrian, and he allowed remarkable freedom to Christians for nearly twenty years. They were permitted to build a large church near his palace at Nicomedia, and his wife and daughter joined the [Christian] sect.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The christians in return were still intolerant, offended the Roman Gods, spoke against the emperor, were anti-national to boot; and so the emperor's wife and daughter left christianity, and the emperor had the churches closed or destroyed realising the sect was dangerous. ( http://freetruth.50webs.org/B3b.htm )
I've said this during some early posts of mine at IF: <b>Zero tolerance for intolerance.</b> Might have to scream myself hoarse one day. Intolerant ideologies will destroy all that Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, Taoists, native Americans, African Religionists and others stand for. You can either recognise the problem exists and try (successfully/unsuccessfully) to find a solution, or pretend it's not there and have <i>no chance</i> whatsoever. Either way, the problem's not going to disappear by being ignored.
Hinduism will <i>not</i> be able to swallow up christoislamism and render it ineffectual. It has had centuries to try and has failed.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The ability to soak up, accommodate and subversively bend other belief systems is Hinduism's USP (unique selling point) and the lack of a coherent Hindu narrative has kept this away from the population of the world at large. But again - I am digressing from the point of this thread.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->It does not work. There's a backlash against Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and even Vivekananda, so too some other Yogi whose book reviews I read ('Yoga is evil' said the christo reviewers who claim to have previously learnt Yoga). The backlash against the Dalai Lama has also started, but that one is still in the initial phase. Hinduism and Eastern religions are not for everyone. Let people choose their religions. But one needs to oppose intolerant ideologies.
Christian society, mindset cannot take to Hinduism. They throw it off. They become resentful and start attacking. Don't enforce this 'universalism' on them. They don't like it.
People who <i>by themselves</i> make their way to Hinduism (or other Eastern Religions) often have no such problem.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The beginings were from the Reformation (Luther) through various thinkers and led to the Enlightenment after contact with the Hindu worldview via William Jones and German brothers. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Luther only asked for religious tolerance when his movement was still small and so had no say, and while the catholic church still wielded all power. But when Luther became strong enough, he insisted on religious intolerance towards other christian sects including catholicism.
See http://vanallens.com/exchristian/calvin.htm:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->1. Views of Catholic and Protestant Historians
A. Johann von Dollinger
"Historically nothing is more incorrect than the assertion that the Reformation was a movement in favour of intellectual freedom. The exact contary is the truth. For themselves, it is true, Lutherans and Calvinists claimed liberty of conscience . . . but to grant it to others never occurred to them so long as they were the stronger side. The complete extirpation of the Catholic Church, and in fact of everything that stood in their way, was regarded by the reformers as something entirely natural." (51;v.6:268-9/1)
B. Preserved Smith (Secularist)
"If any one still harbors the traditional prejudice that the early Protestants were more liberal, he must be undeceived. Save for a few splendid sayings of Luther, confined to the early years when he was powerless, there is hardly anything to be found among the leading reformers in favor of freedom of conscience. As soon as they had the power to persecute they did." (115:177)
(And more)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Very reminiscent of mohammed's 'there should be no compulsion in religion' when mo had but few backers, to his later hysterical commands to convert/kill the infidels.