Christian Missionary Role In India - 6

agnivayu · 07-24-2006, 09:50 AM

I like Obiwan Kenobi myself. Atleast we can learn to become one with the force through his teachings, better than putting all your hopes on some guy who never existed to take care of your sins.

Xtian propaganda always starts out as how wonderful they are, then when you point out their flaws, they revert to how we are all equally bad. All this talk is pointless, we know what the fundamentalists are up to, their goal is nothing short of destroying either the infidels or the heathens. For years Hindus have been talking about every religion being equal, the xtian or muslim side never reciprocated.

An old Chinese saying is very appropriate here, "Stand on a hill and watch the 2 tigers fight". Indian Hindus need to get muslims and Xtians in India to fight each other.

QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ Jul 24 2006, 06:48 AM)
Per the Torah, a Roman soldier called Panthera
BTW, Panthera is more real and better documented than Jesus,
Archeologists have uncovered Panthera's grave in Germany
[right][snapback]54427[/snapback][/right]

07-24-2006, 09:55 AM

QUOTEAccording to the Jewish tradition, he was the son of the Roman soldier Pandera and the local girl Miriam (Mary), the hairdresser.Â The existence of a Roman soldier with that name has actually been verified.


This is not a good line to take.
This will still prove that some guy named Jesus existed, even if he was the son of a whore.

Better to stick with the Jesus never existed theory.

07-24-2006, 10:15 AM

QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ Jul 23 2006, 09:18 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(agnivayu @ Jul 23 2006, 10:05 PM)If there is a son (Jesus), there must be a father also, so who your daddyÂ ?
[right][snapback]54410[/snapback][/right]


Per the Torah, a Roman soldier called Panthera
BTW, Panthera is more real and better documented than Jesus,
Archeologists have uncovered Panthera's grave in Germany
[right][snapback]54427[/snapback][/right]
</div>

How can it be in the torah? torah is much older than 5 BC, which was when JC is supposed to be born. From what I read somewhere, this panthera-mary affair was written in some gospel and panthera in greek or some other language means virgin and either intentionally or unintentionally this virgin word stuck. That is how this immaculate conception crap came about.

07-24-2006, 10:21 AM

Something in the BBC website refuting the panthera angle.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/m...vidence/3.shtml

QUOTE
Mark Goodacre

The immaculate conception of Mary has no historical basis at all. This is something that was invented by later Christians to extend the idea of the holiness, the purity, the perpetual virginity, all of those kind of themes end up with Mary too having to be conceived immaculately. One of the difficulties that many people today have with the Virgin birth, is not so much historical; the idea that it couldn't happen, but theological; the idea that it must have happened in order for Jesus not to have had any sin. Ancient people like Augustine, tended to think that Adam's Original Sin was passed on in the act of sex and that therefore in order for Jesus to be holy and sinless it was necessary for him not to have been born from parents who had had sex. Theologically people now have more problems with the Virgin Birth than they would have done in the past. In the past it was almost necessary to have a virgin birth in order to get Jesus out of this rather sticky difficulty of having been born with ordinary human parents who'd had sex.

In the New Testament, many of the women characters are either so holy and pure that it's unrealistic, or they're prostitutes. And Mary falls into the category of being holy and pure and absolutely without sin; and she carries on in that trajectory right through the tradition so that she gets more and more holy and her virginity is stressed more and more and her holiness throughout her whole life is stressed, so that she too becomes sinless. She is assumed into heaven rather than having to die, she herself gets born of a virginal conception; so you get a development in the idea of the perpetual virginity, because she's begun a journey to becoming ever more holy, ever more pure which in the end can only end up with those kind of concepts of perpetual virginity.

Helen Bond

The virgin birth is a very powerful story which explains the theological truth that Jesus is the son of God and not just the son of God from his resurrection or from his baptism as perhaps the gospel of Mark might suggest but the son of God from the moment of his conception right from the very beginning, Jesus was the son of God.

To what extent it's historical is much more difficult to analyse. One of the difficulties is that we hear nothing at all of a virgin birth tradition, until late in the first century. Only the gospels of Matthew and Luke, which were probably written in the 80's or 90's of the first century, is there a mention of the virgin birth.

Another difficulty with the virgin birth idea is that the texts in Matthew and Luke are clearly overlaid with references to the Old Testament. They're evocative of the typical Old Testament annunciation narrative; the angel going down to one or two of the parents; the insurmountable problem, which usually in the Old Testament is the fact that the parents are elderly or barren, and then the angel says the problem is going to be surmounted and the birth ensues. It's very similar to the stories about the birth of Isaac or the birth of Samson or Samuel. Matthew and Luke are indebted to the Old Testament and they're drawing on these Old Testament ideas. The story of the birth of Jesus has to be even better so Mary can't be an elderly barren woman but instead she's a young girl who's also a virgin. They draw not so much on recollection from Mary herself but on Old Testament narratives.

<b>There is a tradition from at least the 2nd century onwards that says that Jesus' father was actually a Roman soldier called Panthera and that he raped Mary or that Mary had an adulterous relationship with him. This seems to have been quite popular in anti-Christian circles but the tradition is unlikely to have any historical basis. It's not historically impossible that Mary could have been raped by a Roman soldier, but the whole story is much likelier to have been anti-Christian slander from the 2nd century.</b>

Chris Maunder

There were lots of stories of miraculous births in Greco/Roman society. Famous figures tended to have a miraculous birth as people speculated on what it would have been like to be present at the birth of such a person. Astrology was also important, so it was felt that if a person was going to be very prominent their fate was already preordained, that in their horoscope one would see how wonderful they were going to be. It's not surprising they start began to think that perhaps their birth was miraculous and wonderful.

In the Greek and Roman system of gods and goddesses, the goddesses themselves could be said to be virgin mothers. Athene and Artemis were regarded as virgins. They gave birth and then dipped themselves into the rivers so their virginity was renewed.

The virgin birth stories in the gospels are not quite the same as the Greek and Roman stories. They differ in that there's a male god and a human mother and the male god comes down to earth and actually impregnates the mother in a very graphic way. In the gospel stories there's no mention of God or the Holy Spirit taking the form of a human being and actually coming down and impregnating Mary.

Rape

There was an ancient legend from the Jewish side that Mary was the victim of a rape and they actually gave us the name of the Roman soldier who was supposed to have carried out this rape, a man called Panthera, which apparently was quite a common name for Roman soldiers.

Recently some scholars looked at this theory and decided it was simply an ancient slur, something made up to try to prevent belief in Jesus. Some say that perhaps it isn't so impossible as previously we thought. There are certain clues in the New Testament to suggest that Mary was in quite a terrible state after the beginning of the pregnancy. The fact that she went in great haste to see Elizabeth. The fact that she talks about herself as a lowly handmaid, why is she lowly? Some people believe the lowliness was because she was actually the victim of a crime.

The strength of the idea is that just as Jesus in his crucifixion identifies with those who suffer, Mary, as victim of rape, is somebody that women who suffer can identify with.

The problem of the theory is that Jesus could have been the son of a Roman soldier which is even more unpalatable for people than the idea that Mary wasn't a virgin. The idea that Jesus was somehow genetically dependent upon a rapist is more difficult to swallow and it would take a tremendous radical leap of faith to accept that kind of theory.

Virginity throughout the Birth

The book of James establishes that Mary was a virgin during the birth of Jesus - in other words she remained intact, physically, despite the birth which is miraculous and it leads to later speculation that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life, both before Jesus, during the birth of Jesus, and after. The book of James begins to speculate on the birth of Jesus in quite graphic detail.

The idea that Mary is intact comes from the idea that she suffers no pain. This is theologically important to the early Christians because in Genesis is the curse of the two human beings who are responsible for the fall. Adam's curse is to work in sweat in the fields and Eve's curse is to bear children in pain. The idea that Mary and Jesus are free of sin, that they are immaculate, leads us to think that Mary wouldn't suffer the pain of Eve, that she would have a painless birth. Some would argue that this makes her rather distant from the ordinary woman. The way that the tradition has dealt with that is to say she had a painless birth but she wasn't without pain because she saw her son die on the cross. The great traditions of Mary as the Mother of Sorrows comes into being and there are often depictions of Mary as a woman in tears, of a woman laid low by grief. John's gospel refers to the crucifixion as a laborious birth, so if Mary does have a painful birth in the Christian tradition she has it at the crucifixion.

Tal Ilan

The word virgin developed in western culture has become a synonym for purity and good behaviour. But virginity in Jewish society at the time that we are talking about was about ensuring that the new husband wasn't getting second hand merchandise. Virginity was only important for the moment of the first marriage.

The first marriage was more important, for example in the Jewish marriage contract for a first marriage they paid twice as much as for a second marriage. Virgins went out on the wedding procession with their hair sort of open and flowing so that everyone could see and it would then be remembered that she had been a virgin when she entered her husband's house at that event. In fact after a while instead of being a prize it became a burden. We know this from several Jewish burial inscriptions were women are buried and on their tomb as part of the mourning of the girl it says how sad she died a virgin.

07-24-2006, 10:33 AM

QUOTE(LSrini @ Jul 24 2006, 12:45 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ Jul 23 2006, 09:18 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(agnivayu @ Jul 23 2006, 10:05 PM)If there is a son (Jesus), there must be a father also, so who your daddyÂ ?
[right][snapback]54410[/snapback][/right]


Per the Torah, a Roman soldier called Panthera
BTW, Panthera is more real and better documented than Jesus,
Archeologists have uncovered Panthera's grave in Germany
[right][snapback]54427[/snapback][/right]
</div>

How can it be in the torah? torah is much older than 5 BC, which was when JC is supposed to be born. From what I read somewhere, this panthera-mary affair was written in some gospel and panthera in greek or some other language means virgin and either intentionally or unintentionally this virgin word stuck. That is how this immaculate conception crap came about.
[right][snapback]54435[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Sitaram goel's book Jesus Christ: Artifice for Aggression has the references.

07-24-2006, 02:31 PM

QUOTE(ben_ami @ Jul 23 2006, 05:44 PM)but wasnt the mahabrarat and ramayan all fictional. ergo krishna and rama??
I am not a party to judge. If you believe that those are fictional it is your personal issue. If you believe that those are true incidents, it is also OK with me. But I know that milllions of Hindus do believe that those are true history. I was talking about that.

QUOTEas your your attempt to defent the goan inquisition - all i can say is that a traitor and blinded by religion to such an extent, that when your religion carries out the most barbarous (by their own admission) of all inquisitions on your countrymen, you still choose to put them off the hook. 
I did not try to defend inquisition and I will never do that. It was a barbaric attempt by Church to punish free thinking Catholics. It was a heinous crime. Only thing I pointed out was that, inquisition was a trtibunal to punish Cathlics who did mistake.

QUOTEand the less said of christian attrocities in the new world and ex-colonised world, the better. 
But much is being said about that. That is why there two threads in this forum. It is better and people will be aware of what the Church did.

QUOTEthe people of the church are the scum of the world. i would much rather have preferred to see all the god-damned spaniardsÂ dead and decaying than the great inca, maya and aztec civilzations (and the scores fo amerindian tribes) wiped out.
[right][snapback]54392[/snapback][/right]


May be. BUt the same church people are responsible for all the developments in all fields in the world.

WE can wish a lot of things. But we can not change history. What has happened has happened. Let us try not to repeat those crimes in future.

07-24-2006, 03:08 PM

QUOTE(LSrini @ Jul 22 2006, 08:50 PM)
In christianity, you commit sins and irrespective of how serious the sins are, your sins are "deleted" as soon as you accept christ as your lord/ or confess to your sins and seek forgiveness. And you are free to commit your next set of sins and you can trust your "lord" to be forgiving. Like that albino monk in Da Vinci code, who kills, prays and is good as new to kill again!Â <!--emo& Big Grin

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />
[right][snapback]54329[/snapback][/right]


That is absolutely wrong. If you sin you will have punishment for that. That is the Christian belief. That is the basis of Christianity. That is why there is a judgement day. On that day God punish all people who do some mistakes and crimes. And heaven is the reward for good deeds and hell is the reward for bad deeds.

Da Vinci is Code is a novel and a character in a novel does not represent Christianity. There are many preist who do crimes. Buit thye will get punishment.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 07-24-2006, 09:25 PM by Husky.)

Sigh. Not another Christo. This is not a Hindu-Christian Dialogue thread.
QUOTEBUt the same church people are responsible for all the developments in all fields in the world.That's right: you tell 'em like it is Paulose! Don't forget to give examples like how
- The Church closed down all the schools and hospitals of pagan Greece and Rome
(Still can't find that Catholic author's name who had written about Rome and what happened to it after Christianity)
- A few centuries back the Church stood firm that the Sun revolved around the Earth. And if anyone took any other opinion on the matter, they'd show 'em the door out of this life and into hell. That's a real development, note well.
- Not 2 centuries ago, the Church banned painkillers during childbirth. If it wasn't for Christianity, it would have been introduced sooner.
- Today many Churches are at the 'forefront' of biological sciences: how evolution (what all the real scientists are working on) is all a big hoax supposedly, and Intelligent Design (what the Christian 'scientists' are working on) is the truth. The Catholic Church and some British and Scottish Churches have carefully sidestepped the issue: can't blame them for not wanting to be made fools of in the scientific field again. They've decided to leave the science to scientists for a change.

Yes, at the forefront of all the fields in the world indeed: compassion (anti-hospitals, anti-anesthesia during birth), education (destroying schools and banning learning), science (anti-facts). What an accomplishment!
But, I should be gracious and admit that Christianity was very much at the forefront of one peculiar field: that of torture. Full marks for all the torture devices both catholics and protestants invented and used (yes, the protestants used them too).

QUOTEAsking residents about crimes and atrocities has the similar meaning anywhere. If you ask dalits , they can also say a lot of <i>stories</i> about upper caste atrocities on them all over India.I love this new means of Christian obfuscation: that of ambivalence and avoiding the issue.
The difference is, the proof of historical Christian atrocities in India and elsewhere comes directly from Christian records (just as it is in the case of Islam). Whereas the same is not true for the other examples. Yes, I've read 2 dalits' books on the historical atrocities committed against their communities. Then I find they have not a single reference (which even other, non-Indian, reviewers commented upon). The only ill-fame they got, as per their own book, was from British colonial authors (who despised all Indians anyway) - but the books nevertheless figured that the 'cunning brahmins' who never even knew about their communities must have somehow been to blame. Perhaps, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the dalit authors for both books had Christian names (one was a Portuguese surname).

So at the end of the day, what we have is Christian official records of their atrocities against heathens of other countries; and we have Christian converts confirming (to the detail, curiously) the missionary lies from 2 centuries ago about 'upper castes' without giving references. For your information, brahmins aren't the ones harassing the 'dalits' - but as a Christo, you've already made up your mind (you'll find that those who refer to themselves as dalits are not Hindus but have converted into some other, particularly anti-Hindu, ideology).

Paulose, why don't you go visiting a Christian site where everyone will agree with your views? But you'd have to fit in with their denominational views of course, else they won't agree with you.
We're not Christians and we don't want to be Christian. And unlike many Hindus who think Christianity is a good religion, we <i>know</i> it is not. There's nothing to do here, as you see. It's too late. 1600+ years of documented violence and idiocy and ignorance against your say-so.

07-24-2006, 03:33 PM

QUOTEIt is said that Krishna waged 17 wars with Jarasandha with 23 akshauhinis of military. I know that you are aware of how much an akshaunhini is made of. All those fighters were killed. And you add the inumerable civilians killed in those wars. The Mahabharatha war was waged with 18 aksahuhinis. All of them except seven were killed. These are a few accounts from just two wars. If you look into all Hindu scriptures, they are full of such accounts.Yes, wars. And in wars, people die. These were declared wars and both sides were kshatriyas.

I hope you are not comparing the Hindu cases in our religious books with the Christian genocide of the native people of N and S America. That wasn't war you know, with one side fleeing for its life and the other shooting them down. Those are called massacres of unarmed civilians. Also, that's a page not out of religious scripture, but documented history.

But then, only a Christian can compare the two and think it levels the playing field.

07-24-2006, 03:34 PM

Sudhir,Jul 24 2006, 04:59 AM Wrote:And why did he 'deserve' second term? BJP didn't fire Narayanan, just that his term was over and they thought Abdul Kalam was and is a better man. Can we leave it at that should we accept that Narayanan was better because Paulose here says so (without providing any info to back it up)

Because all the presidents of India did have a second term, unless they opted out. Abdul Kalam is a good man. But as an administrator Narayanan was time tested and he was non controversdial as well. Do not count my opinion. My opinion is personal.

Quote:Seems like you are talking from both sides of your mouth, didn't you just state that BJP denied Narayanan second term?

I have not come across a human who can talk from one side of his mouth. BJP denied second term for Narayanan, is true. I did not say that it because BJP is non secular. Do not imagine so wildly.

Quote:Why? Every Christina country be it US, UK, France, Germany has yet to appoint or elect a single minority to it's highest office and still around to offer gratutious unsolicited advise on how India should behave around?

Whom to appoint to the highest office is an internal affair of that country. Just because we elect minorities, we can not insist that all countries should do that.

I do not know what advise these countries give to India regarding appointment to highest offices.

Quote:Parsees and Hindus have not colonized anyone have they? Or your position is that colonization is just an European trait?

Whether Hindus colonised was not the point. But if the Europeans wher Hindus , they could have beaved the same way.

Do Hindu and Parsee religions prohibit colonisation?
The south Indian kingdoms of Chola and Pandya had colonies in Sreelaka, Singapore and Malaysia.

Quote:So, there were wars when there were no other religions around right? So Hindus didn't impose religious wars stating my God's is bigger than yours. All started after Christianity and Islam appeared. Here I have to agree with you.

So according to you world wars, umpteen number of wars between USSR and USA including Vietnam war, Koeran war etc are religios wars? Do you think India China war of 1962 was a religious war?. Many Christian countries did many wars among them selves. ON what religious issues they fought? What was the religious issue when Christian Germany and Italy together with Shinto Japan attacked all Christian countries? What was the religious issue when Germany, Italy and Islamic Turkey joined together to attack Christian countries?

[/quote]
True. But whenever convenient, you'll not loose a moment to use religion to deride someone elses religion or use your own to steal land/property for others. For example: crusades in Middle East and Europe, colonization of Latin America, Asia and Africa 16th century onwards. These days it's war by other means - covert missionary activities coupled with "human rights" organizations.
And this is not the story of all religions. Christians or those who use Christanity take the cake here.
[right][snapback]54424[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I never used any religuion to go for war. I am a pacifist and I do not think that wars will solve any problem.

Before Christianity also there were many wars. Ancient Indian history speaks volumes about many wars. Hindu scriptures itself says about many wars killing millions. The what is the basis of your allegations? If Hindus never fought any war in their history, I could have understood your claim and allegations.

07-24-2006, 03:40 PM

QUOTE(Husky @ Jul 24 2006, 03:33 PM)Yes, wars. And in wars, people die. These were declared wars and both sides were kshatriyas.
So only when one side is from another religion, it becomes important?
No futher comments?

QUOTEI hope you are not comparing the Hindu cases in our religious books with the Christian genocide of the native people of N and S America. That wasn't war you know, with one side fleeing for its life and the other shooting them down. Those are called massacres of unarmed civilians. Also, that's a page not out of religious scripture, but documented history.
If Europenas who colonised Americas were Hindus, this could have happened.

QUOTEBut then, only a Christian can compare the two and think it levels the playing field.
[right][snapback]54444[/snapback][/right]

Killing is always killing. For me, killing in wars, fought between people who believe in two religions, do not have any special significance.

07-24-2006, 03:46 PM

QUOTEIf you sin you will have punishment for that. That is the Christian belief. That is the basis of Christianity. That is why there is a judgement day. On that day God punish all people who do some mistakes and crimes. And heaven is the reward for good deeds and hell is the reward for bad deeds.

... There are many preist who do crimes. Buit thye will get punishment.I am relieved to hear that. Here I was thinking that
- Luther, who kept calling for torture of prostitutes, farmers and 'witches' (I suggest you learn German and then dumb it down to understand Luther's lunatic ravings),
- Pope whats-his-name in the 13th century who sanctioned torture,
- and the priests of the Dominican order who made up most of the inquisitors and torturers
were all in Christo-heaven now. Nope, you've clarified it for me. Thanks. They're all in Christo-hell, according to you.
Unless you define 'sin' differently. Maybe the Christo-definitions for 'crimes' and 'sins' doesn't include the actions of the above criminals.

QUOTEThat is why there is a judgement day. On that day God punish all people who do some mistakes and crimes.That's all your belief. Sounds like nonsense to me. Infinite punishment for finite sin. Sounds so manmade and exactly the sort of thing people would invent to scare others into believing. Nothing rational or meaningful about it at all. Jehova sounds like a nassssssty.

07-24-2006, 03:50 PM

QUOTE(mitradena @ Jul 24 2006, 09:55 AM)This is not a good line to take.
This will still prove that some guy named Jesus existed, even if he was the son of a whore.

Better to stick with the Jesus never existed theory.
[right][snapback]54433[/snapback][/right]


So you people are confused among yourselves. So your aim is to prove that Jesus never existed. What will you gain from that? In what way that wil change today's world? Will that make Christians convert to Hinduism?

Do you think if somebody proves that Jesus never existed, will bring the end to Christianity?
I am also really confused.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 07-24-2006, 06:11 PM by Husky.)

QUOTE<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEYes, wars. And in wars, people die. These were declared wars and both sides were kshatriyas.
So only when one side is from another religion, it becomes important?</div>You're changing the issue. You were comparing war (in Hindu literature) with slaughter of innocents in America (in historical records of Europe). Also, kshatriyas are not defenceless, and declared wars puts them on their guard.
If you think Hindu war=slaughter of innocents, you don't know anything about India. Our traditions laid down strict rules for combat.
War will be when one side is an aggressor (attacks you or another, defenceless person). You don't need to own a sword to die by one. Therefore fighting an aggressor is not wrong at all.

QUOTEIf Europenas who colonised Americas were Hindus, this could have happened. No. If Indians were <i>Christians</i> and colonised the Americas, this would have happened.
It is well-recorded by the Europeans themselves how they kept raving about their religion and Jesus when killing the defenceless people of America. How the pagans had to die for their belief in 'satanism' (nevermind they'd never heard about Satan). We don't kill people for believing in other/many Gods.

Our problem is with intolerance. No tolerance for intolerance. Native Americans are highly tolerant and friendly, as recorded by the murderous conquistadors who killed them all anyway.

It was Christian intolerance that killed the native Americans. It was Islamic intolerance that killed many Persians, converted others and chased them to India; and it was Christian intolerance under the Portuguese and Islamic intolerance under Muslim tyrants that killed many Hindus. And all of that is directly from ChristoIslamic records.

07-24-2006, 04:02 PM

QUOTE(Husky @ Jul 24 2006, 03:46 PM)am relieved to hear that. Here I was thinking that
- Luther, who kept calling for torture of prostitutes, farmers and 'witches' (I suggest you learn German and then dumb it down to understand Luther's lunatic ravings),
- Pope whats-his-name in the 13th century who sanctioned torture,
- and the priests of the Dominican order who made up most of the inquisitors and torturers
were all in Christo-heaven now. Nope, you've clarified it for me. Thanks. They're all in Christo-hell, according to you.
Unless you define 'sin' differently. Maybe the Christo-definitions for 'crimes' and 'sins' doesn't include the actions of the above criminals.
Yes you are right. If these are true, they will be in hell. That is what hell is meant for.

Priests and Pope are not Gods . They are human beings. If they commit mistakes, they will be punished. Church did not punish them , does not mean that they will escape punishment.

QUOTEThat's all your belief. Sounds like nonsense to me. Infinite punishment for finite sin. Sounds so manmade and exactly the sort of thing people would invent to scare others into believing. Nothing rational or meaningful about it at all. Jehova sounds like a nassssssty.
[right][snapback]54447[/snapback][/right]

Many of your beliefs also sound nonsense to me. It is difference in perception. Hindu belief that human beings if do bad things will be reborn as pigs, and buffullo is really nonsense to me. I have seen many pictures of Godess Kali. Those are horrible to me. I can not really comprehend that it is a Godess.

The bottom line is, if you dig deep, there will be many nonsenses in all religions. Nonsense for me may be absolute sense for you. And vice versa. But we should think whether digging up nonsenses in other religion will do anything good to us.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 07-24-2006, 06:21 PM by Husky.)

QUOTEJesus never existed.
That's right - here's a site (some other member at IF contributed this link, sorry for not crediting him): http://www.jesusneverexisted.com Interesting that Jesus (alleged birth dated anywhere 4bce to 10ce I think) should be called <i>Of Nazareth</i> when Nazareth itself didn't exist as a town/village until 2nd century ce (it was a corpse-place until then).

QUOTEWhat will you gain from that? In what way that wil change today's world?The fact that he never existed just means that the whole Christian-Hindu dialogue, like this one, becomes a non-issue. So please leave us at IF alone until you've bothered the site owner of http://www.jesusneverexisted.com and corrected him/her.

QUOTEWill that make Christians convert to Hinduism?Why convert anyone to Hinduism? Why can't people deconvert from intolerance and just become humane. Why don't you take up Taoism or native American religion? Those are highly universal religions that don't bother us and we don't bother. I get along well with Taoists and I am certain I'll get along swimmingly with traditional native Americans.

QUOTEMany of your beliefs also sound nonsense to me. It is difference in perception. Hindu belief that human beings if do bad things will be reborn as pigs, and buffullo is really nonsense to me. I have seen many pictures of Godess Kali. Those are horrible to me.But I'm not setting my religion up to convert you. I don't care if it sounds nonsense to you, although I doubt you spent time reading Hindu religious books and commentaries like I spent reading the whole Helios biblios (Greek for 'Sun Book' hence Holy Bible). So you can't say I didn't try to respect your religion. I read your book and much of that of the Muslims and realised all religions are not equal. I've observed that intolerant religions are religions whose books/doctrines are totally irrational and any sane person can figure out that it is utterly manmade.

Whatever country you are from Paulose, all I hope for is that you choose your own religion - as long as it is tolerant and won't bother your neighbours or us distant Indians (if you're an Indian-Christo - same thing).

QUOTEI can not really comprehend that it is a Godess.Not surprising, since you're a ChristoIslamic and they don't have Goddesses. You'd find fault with Hera.

07-24-2006, 04:14 PM

QUOTE(Husky @ Jul 24 2006, 03:59 PM)You're changing the issue. You were comparing war (in Hindu literature) with slaughter of innocents in America (in historical records of Europe). Also, kshatriyas are not defenceless, and declared wars puts them on their guard.
If you think Hindu war=slaughter of innocents, you don't know anything about India. Our traditions laid down strict rules for combat.
War will be when one side is an aggressor (attacks you or another, defenceless person). You don't need to own a sword to die by one. Therefore fighting an aggressor is not wrong at all.
I did not change any issue here. I never claimed that innocents were not killed. Innocents were killed. Christianity has a role in many killings. That does not negate the graveness of other killings and other wars as well.

QUOTENo. If Indians were <i>Christians</i> and colonised the Americas, this would have happened.
It is well-recorded by the Europeans themselves how they kept raving about their religion and Jeebus when killing the defenceless people of America. How the pagans had to die for their belief in 'satanism' (nevermind they'd never heard about Satan). We don't kill people for believing in other/many Gods.
I was talking about Europeans. Europeans colonised and killed. If they believed in any other religion, this could have happened.

QUOTEOur problem is with intolerance. No tolerance for intolerance. Native Americans are highly tolerant and friendly, as recorded by the murderous conquistadors who killed them all anyway.

It was Christian intolerance that killed the native Americans. It was Islamic intolerance that killed many Persians, converted others and chased them to India; and it was Christian intolerance under the Portuguese and Islamic intolerance under Muslim tyrants that killed many Hindus. And all of that is directly from ChristoIslamic records.
[right][snapback]54449[/snapback][/right]


You can believe in whatever way you want to. I do not object to that.
Have you heard about Kalinga war and why Asoka converted to Budhism after the war. If not read and get some idea.

07-24-2006, 04:20 PM

QUOTE(Husky @ Jul 24 2006, 04:05 PM)Why convert anyone to Hinduism? Why can't people deconvert from intolerance and just become humane. Why don't you take up Taoism or native American religion? Those are highly universal religions that don't bother us and we don't bother. I get along well with Taoists and I am certain I'll get along swimmingly with traditional native Americans.
[right][snapback]54451[/snapback][/right]


Is Taoism and Native American beliefs greater than Hinduism? If so why do not you abandon Hinduism and join any of those.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 07-24-2006, 06:16 PM by Husky.)

QUOTEEuropeans colonised and killed. If they believed in any other religion, this could have happened.No, I'd come across a native American site where they specifically state that Europeans were not to blame for their genocide, but Christianity <i>was</i>. The site states that Leif Erikson and the other Vikings did in no way behave like the Christians. Your whole argument falls through.

QUOTEIs Taoism and Native American beliefs greater than Hinduism? If so why do not you abandon Hinduism and join any of those.Neither better nor worse. They understand the oneness of the world and that there are mysteries out there that mankind needs to understand. They, like Hinduism, are not intolerant but inclusive religions.
And Hindus are not forced to abandon anything <i>in favour</i> of anything else. We can pick and choose any teachings that we want. (That is why some Hindus, foolishly in this case, think Jesus was a great teacher but have not converted to Christianity.)
Likewise, the same is true for the other inclusive religions: it is why one of my Taoist friends has picked up things that I introduced him to which originate in Hinduism. And vice-versa.

QUOTEHave you heard about Kalinga war and why Asoka converted to Budhism after the war. If not read and get some idea.This was after Mahabharata war - Asoka was not fighting like a kshatriya (hence not kshatriya), but killing civilians also. He was a monster, thankfully Buddhism cured him.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 07-24-2006, 06:14 PM by Husky.)

QUOTEThat does not negate the graveness of other killings and other wars as well. Also, there is a HUGE WIDE gap between wars where soldiers fight, knowing they could die, and genocides where unwilling people are murdered. Typical Christian won't see the difference, but will argue from his armchair that all is bad.

QUOTEgraveness of other killingsThen become a vegetarian today. Why have one rule for killing people and another for animals? We all feel pain.

QUOTEBut we should think whether digging up nonsenses in other religion will do anything good to us.Tell that to your Churches then. They have oh so many websites insulting Hinduism.
Also, most nonsense wouldn't make much difference to me - but some nonsense can kill. Belief in heaven and fear of hell caused the conquistadors to go and punish the noble native Americans for being 'satanists' and thus enemies of the Christian god. Same thing for Islam. Belief in pardees and fear of jekinah pushes them to kill kafirs.

We have no fear that others will end up in torment for practising whatever religion, we think everyone will evolve to become humane and obtain Moksha eventually. We merely fear for our lives - since ChristoIslamic intolerance has shown us that it kills.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?