Christian Subversion And Missionary Activities - 6

[Husky]

[quote name='shamu' date='18 July 2011 - 01:45 AM' timestamp='1310933245' post='112210']

Now Kerala temple art, Kathakali, gets appropriated...



[url="http://expressbuzz.com/states/kerala/now-kathakali-gets-a-catholic-expression/294921.html"]Now, Kathakali gets a catholic expression[/url]

[/quote]Even the title is interesting: the use of "expression".

All so-called "Hindu culture" is but an expression of Hindu religion.

Now they claim it is an "expression" of the christoterrorist catholic kind.



And again, we will see how powerless Hindus - especially the angelsk-speaking vocalist kind - will be in doing anything about this. They're always memorably powerless. Hindus give themselves no power in absolutely denying our enemies what is ours.

This is not a "prediction", this is just an extrapolation:

(Again you'll be fighting for everything that's yours by the end. (Why do Hindus allow - or rather, *invite* - this to happen?)







Should post it in full. It's full of entertaining gems.



http://expressbuzz.com/states/kerala/now...94921.html

Now, Kathakali gets a catholic expression

[color="#FF0000"]Babu K Peter[/color]

Express News Service

Last Updated : 17 Jul 2011 11:08:56 AM IST



KOCHI: Kathakali is no longer bound by [color="#0000FF"]Hindu mythologies or epics[/color]. It is set to make a foray into the heart of [color="#0000FF"]Christian religious[/color] beliefs. For the first time, the message and essence of Holy Eucharist (Qurbana) will be recreated through Kathakali. Jesus Christ will be presented in the costumes of a sage.

[color="#800080"]("Hindu mythologies vs Christian religion."

Now do your mathematical computation on what they just said. And what your angelsk-speaking Hindu "defenders" enabled them to say.)[/color]



The 90minute performance titled 'Divya Karunya Charitam' (Story of Holy Eucharist) is based on the poem 'Ithu Ninakkai' (This is for you) written by lyricist Fr Joy Chencheril.



The first performance is scheduled to be held at the Pastoral Orientation Centre on July 21. Major Archbishop of SyroMalabar Church Mar George Alencherry will inaugurate the show.



Apart from the concept, Fr Joy is giving consultation also. The script of the 'Divya Karunya Charitham' for the Kathalali form is written by [color="#0000FF"]Radha Madhavan[/color] and the choreography is by [color="#0000FF"]Kalamandalam Sajan[/color]. Eight dancers led by Sajan will give expression to the mystery of Holy Eucharist while Kottackal Madhu will sing the Kathakali songs.

[color="#800080"](All cryptochristians. With Hindu names of course. And at least some with a Hindu upbringing in Hindu religious "arts" too, no doubt.)[/color]



"Holy Eucharist is the sum and substance of Christian faith. We hope that Kathakali too will find a place on the Catholic Church premises where programmes such as cinematic dance, mimicry and music programmes dominate during festivals,'' said Fr Joy.



"The performance seeks to communicate the selfgiving message of Jesus. Holy Eucharist epitomises the sharing of love. Kathakali, because of its poise and rhythm, can well express this spirit of sharing the selfemptying love,'' he said.



Fr Joy and the team of artists led by Kalamandalam Sajan had begun their efforts for the innovative venture five months ago.



A member of the Missionary Congregation of the Blessed Sacrament (MCBS), Fr Joy has penned a number of popular Christian devotional songs. He has also won many awards for the best and popular Christian devotional song for his contributions to the devotional songs genre. Fr Joy is now working on a collection of songs for Bible dance.



[color="#FF0000"]"Art is important, not the religion,''[/color] said noted Kathakali artiste FACT Padmanabhan.

[color="#800080"](I did say. Notice the split: "Art... not religion" by that crypto. <- Could have seen these christo words/arguments coming.

More fool the dangerous angelsk-speaking Hindus who so easily and thoughtlessly sell off Hindu *religion* by speaking of "Indian" "culture/tradition/civilisation", or even Hindu "culture"/"art"/"architecture" - those are splittable for christians, it splits exactly at the word Hindu. The first is discarded, the latter appropriated for christianism.

It's Hindu *religion* and exclusively about our Gods. <- Should have said that and kept on saying it from the start.

Anyway, it won't work anymore of course. Since that genie is out of the bottle too. And as always, genies don't go back in. It's all Too Late.

If only Hindus bungling around with English had said the right words since the start - oh, but the right words DO matter: it most certainly is a war of words. That's another Gotcha: the fact that you should have known that, but you couldn't and so didn't until it was Too Late. They get you to say the words they want you to say and then ... "You Lose". It's like chess: where the better player gets the opponent to make false moves. Except you didn't even know you were in the middle of a chess game.)[/color]



"It's good if the [color="#0000FF"]story presented through Kathakali is digestive for the viewers[/color]. Shakespearean plays have been presented in Kathakali form and the people have accepted it,'' he said.



[color="#800080"](1. Hindu so-called "art" forms are considered Means To An End to propagate christianism among a Hindu population and among a just-converted ex-Hindu population that is both familiar with these things and needs to be coddled with a sense of "culture" which it actually fully and permanently lost when it abandoned Hindu religion. Actually, christianism isn't the only missionary religion to use inculturation. And Hindus were never good at protecting themselves from it.



2.Whose idea was it to put Shakespearean plays into Kathakali? They should stand up and take a bow. They are the ones to be congratulated for this mess also - even if they never intended *this*, it was only the natural result of their total lack of foresight. Stupidity does have consequences you know. And as always with Hindu bungling, it has consequences for all other Hindus.)[/color]

Christianism's aggressive takeover of Hindus' religion is more proof of overdrive (remember Greece/Rome and their religion stolen/appropriated/in[color="#FF0000"]cultur[/color]ated for christianism?) At this current rate, how long do the christians intend to leave the Hindus alive in the convert-or-kill programme?



But, like with 90% of every misery that's been Hindus' lot over the last X decades, it's Hindus own fault yet again. They (their slow deheathenisation) started it by treating their religion like an "art form" and - what was it - a "national integration" exercise. Well, inculturation - some 'Hindus' argue ecstatically - is a form of "integration" (as is the larger object: conversion). And when it comes to nationalism, does it *really* matter which direction the integration/conversion happens? (No.)



One of the comments:

Good Thing.. Don't try this for islam then there would be another chopping case (Joseph Hand)..

By Hussain

7/17/2011 12:08:00 PM

But christians are trying it for islam (see for example all over the Middle-East from Turkey to Iraq to Egypt to Algeria. Or even TSP for that matter <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> What culture there is to steal, one can only wonder.)







Hindus have been too long sidetracked by the various "nationalisms" to stick to the very part of their identity (the most important part) that is under attack. I was going to post the following drab paras yesterday in response to a Hindu wrongly describing as "national integration" the act of historical Hindus from various parts of Akhanda Bharatam coming to have darshanam of Padmanabha at his Kovil and offering something to Bhagavaan there. In the context of the first para to follow, consider how the christians in the above news piece contrasted "Hindu mythologies or epics" with "christian religion". Note also that by refusing to recognise Hindu religion as a religion - which is not just a crime the christians commit, but also a fatal error that Hindus themselves make when they speak in English -

by refusing to recognise Hindu religion as a religion, even Hindu "mythologies and epics" are now left open for christo appropriation, as was Hindu "art" and Hindu "culture" earlier. I.e. they will split the phrase after "Hindu" again.

"But why/how can they do it?: (Well, christianism is not the only missionising religion to appropriate others' religion - dubbed "mythology (epics)" - for itself. And the Why speaks for itself: it's the Why of inculturation.) Why do you think even the Indian rationalists/secularists that are frequently seen parroting Romila Thapar etc often describe at least Mahabharata (and at times Ramayanam) as an Indian secular "epic", "belonging to all Indians"?* They even try this with (at least parts of) the Vedam. Why do you think that is. Hint: it becomes "Indian" "history", Indian "heritage". At which point it ceases to be Hindu religion. And that's when you - I mean Hindus - lose even the last vestiges of what you have. (But those 'Hindus' who didn't know it is religion - but thought of it as culture/civilisation/Indian or even Hindu "heritage" - lost it back then itself.)



*These claims, like on the Mahabharata - of all things - are made in order so they too get to have something valuable without actually being a part of the religion: so they can have a share in the so-called "history, the culture" when they realise they have nothing else, or when finally it wrests even their worthless admiration for whatever reason. But it was never mere "history or culture": it's always been Hindus' religion. And non-Hindus simply have no right to any of it.





Anyway, yesterday's stuff. I think it relevant to the discussion on Religion, and that at least the core point (blue) is important and ought to have been said. By someone. At some stage. Long ago. Never seen a Hindu argue this in English though. Wish they had. ("If wishes were horses...")

[...]

[color="#0000FF"]It was *never* any mere "nationalist" considerations "regarding his empire" that motivated him [color="#800080"](Julian)[/color]. And needn't guess at what did, either: he regularly said, not to mention showed, what motivated him - to the chagrin of many modern hysterians/history re-writers who would have liked nothing better than to pretend that the Romans felt little to nothing for their Gods/religion - it would then have been easy to make it seem like a dying/meaningless religion - and that only christians had any attachment to their gawd and were thus ideologically motivated. Oh, but the Greeks and Romans were far more deeply connected to and thus motivated in life by their Gods=religion than the silly christians ever were by their evil ideology. And this last is the very contention of many heathens (not exclusively of the GR kind). It is also a very powerful, important and necessary argument - not the least because it is true.



The enemies of the many heathenisms always try to belittle the heathens' attachment to their religions/Gods, pretending that they were practically empty slates waiting around for 'salvation' schemes (on a smaller scale, that's what christianism has done by re-inventing devoted Hindoos as plain, unaffiliated 'dalits' complete with an invented history of unaffiliation). <- Such a tack is necessary for christianism to validate the christian argument: that only the christian gawd is True and all others are "false" (and hence cannot satisfy) and that, until christianism came, there was no true meaning, no true devotion to religion, that the heathens consciously/subconsciously felt a void or felt the inferiority of their religion when faced with the supposedly 'superior' monotheistic kind**; that all heathen experience is shallow, that it is no more than a shadow w.r.t. the supposed "depth" of feeling that christians feel for their non-existent entity. In reality, the situation is the complete inverse: whereas christianism/the jeebusjehovallah fantasy possesses victims' minds like a typical mindvirus, there are no people more attached to their Gods than the heathens, who are as a consequence immensely stubborn and so are the cause of great consternation to christianism (why was genocide of the stubborn and the later-developed social engineering/a careful deheathenisation programme necessary, if not for the very purpose of neutralising the heathenism in the heathens? Why were the inverse stories of "persecutions by the Roman Empire" and fictional martyrs invented - at times characters stolen straight from the historic GR heathen victims - if not to set up christianism as having the most attached adherents in the comparison? Christianism knows well what pull heathenisms/alien Gods have on their heathens - and it knows by very long experience that nothing will make the heathen come unstuck but 1) death or 2) getting the heathen to sever its own ties. That last is the greatest accomplishment of all (when fully succesful it's called conversion). Christianism knows what it's doing, and how to make - if not all heathens of all time, then at least many a Hindu of today - do *exactly* what it wants them to.



Note: The "heathens have no religion - no attachment to their religion=to their Gods" is a long-standing, frequent claim made by christianism since early times. It is still brought out as a trump card by christians, not just to overwrite the ancient Hellenes of history and hence the present, but also being turned on Hindus and Daoists now. (Daoists! Of all people. I mean, Hindu vocalists were *asking* for all this - angelsk-speaking examples galore - but I don't know any Daoists that ever invited this misery upon themselves.)[/color]





** E.g. You can hear echoes of this repeatedly in one film/novel set in Rome after another. "Ben Hur" has an old and weary Roman officer telling his younger and over-confident replacement Messala that, after hearing gossip of snatches of jeebus' supposed doctrines on how IIRC "gawd is near in every man" (stolen straight from GR religion actually, as also "for we are all the children of Zeus" etc) that "some of it is quite profound, actually". At which the obvious villain, Messala, sneers.

And at present I'm rewatching a well-executed decades-old British mini-saga about the Romans. And every now and then (since it's based on a modern obviously fictional novel by someone) it hits you over the head with nonsense about:



(a) how the heathen Romans and Greeks were plain unreligious and those that showed signs of religiosity just pretended. And yet, the same unreligious GRs, whenever they came into contact with christians, they were deeply moved by their blabbing on about jeebus and about a sense of justice which historic christians - including in the empire - never possessed. The one obvious and particularly good and irreligious unchristian GR - the one with a sense of justice - would clearly need to be introduced to christianism by the end of the show, since that was clearly what he was "waiting around for"



(b ) meanwhile, as a clear contrast to the supposed GR apathy in all things and especially religion, the christians supposedly felt deeply about their religion and were upright and righteous (complete with supposed concern for the rights of slaves, and gladiators in the arena, versus a totally callous/unmoved Roman aristocracy - and all this, when actually far more so-called "Pagans" protested about gladiators than christians ever did and GR Hellenes seriously worked to get slavery abolished when christianism was dead set against it and encouraged slavery, but see Joseph McCabe instead who narrates the facts so entertainingly.) Moreover, as a small note, christians in the show were professing views of christianism that wouldn't be invented until 2 centuries afterwards and not made official until 1/2 century after that.



and (c ) that the few truly religious GR Hellenes had their pious religiosity misplaced: worshipping 'false gods' at evil temples, in the charge of corrupt priests who were full of greed and powerlust and who did not themselves "believe" in what they wanted the GR population to "believe". And then at the end, the author has such token pious GR Hellenes of course transferring their piety to the "deserving" non-existence of jeebusjehovahallah by "seeing the light" and converting to christianism. (I.e. the usual modern missionary argument: "heathens were good, it was their heathenism that was at fault" - so the show separates such characters from their heathenism and gifts them to christianism.) Again, note the inverse to history where, in reality, it was the christians and their churches that were lusting for power, it was the christian priests that were false, powerhungry and moreover engaged in dubious activities - including very promiscuous pastimes for those pretending to be celibate - and that it was the entire christian hierarchy from pope to layman that was fickle: many an apostate, rather than martyr. (Again, see Joseph McCabe.)



But (a), (b ) and (c ) were to be expected: in reality, at the time the fictional story was set - some years after Nero - Roman history does not actually know of any christians (not counting the backward projection of christians in later times, such as the alleged christian persecution by Nero, for which later christians conveniently counted documented-Hellenistic - i.e. so-called "pagan" - victims as "christian" martyrs next to inventing characters, to offer as evidence for christians' existence at that time. Once more, see Joseph McCabe.)



You can see the same foreshadowing of "christian" concern yet with apathy for established [heathen of course] religion (i.e. the "they were waiting for christianism" lie) in the drab remake of Spartacus from the 90s/early 2000s.

"Gladiator" was the sole breath of fresh air, where the African friend at the end buries his Spanyard ("Gladiator") comrade's moorties - or whatever - with him, and you get to see glimpses of the gates to Elysium and beyond waiting to reunite the dying man with his wife, son and home. You know it is Elysium that is being referenced here, and not some generic afterlife (waiting to be stolen by christianism, as "heaven" for the "just man"), since the vocal track that plays is *called* Elysium. Not the greatest of films, but it has a few brief moments that are memorable (the little Caesar that admires the Spanyard Maximus, Connie Nielsen with a constantly furrowed brow, the part wear Maximus puts on his helm - very impressive, that it has any non-negative reference to Elysium).



I won't go over silly christian dawaganda epic technicolor films like The Robe etc (plus I watched that when I was under 10, so I can't really recall). But those are overt dawandanda and don't pretend to be otherwise.



Whereas, the just-mentioned Spartacus are christoconditioned ones: negating the "old religions" before christianism even came on the scene. The terrible film about the Iliad ("Troy" or something) was just as bad: the Gods entirely written out of the story - and they're *primary players* in the Iliad as they are in the Odyssey - except in brief references to "temples" such as to Apollo, and of course the "priestess" important to the story.



Intriguing is that IIRC in "Masada", Peter O'Toole's Roman officer has a dialogue with the other protagonist, the Jewish hero Elaizar Ben Yair (sp?) about the Zealot being a sort of cousin (?) to a much-gossiped about messiah character - whose given description in the film is very much that of jeebus of the gospels. (It's been many years, but I'm sure I can't recall that bit in the book - "The Antagonists" - that the tv show was based off of). In any case, this was a blatant case of the historisation of jeebus by insinuating him into the story, and note also that they're insinuating jeebus into an event that is important for Jews. When Masada has nothing to do with christianism or jeebus, but is important to Jews and Israel.

Enz.



About the blue bit:

Ah, it's but the tired old song of all the things Hindus should have been (stubborn heathens), should have done (been adamant, insistent on their heathenism, have unapologetically heatheny views on the Hindus' Gods like Julian etc did about his Gods/the Gods of his people), and all the things Hindus should have said (argued for their heathenism, not argue it away into invisibility or sell it off piecemeal at every opportunity).