We need to study the origins and growth of US Evangelical movements like Baptists, Epscopalians, Mormons etc. These also are the core supporters of the US conservative movements. The US interaction with other countries has their POV.
|
U. S. Evangelism
|
05-27-2009, 10:31 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+May 27 2009, 09:54 AM-->QUOTE(ramana @ May 27 2009, 09:54 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->We need to study the origins and growth of US Evangelical movements like Baptists, Epscopalians, Mormons etc. These also are the core supporters of the US conservative movements. The US interaction with other countries has their POV.
[right][snapback]97787[/snapback][/right] <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Mormons are considered heretics due to their additional holy book and Mitt Romney lost the EJ vote because he was Mormon Episcopalians are Anglicans and most are nominal xtians The real threat is from baptists and pentacostals Billy Graham is a baptist and supports the Naga separatists Pentacostals do miracles and are very successful in India thanks to illiterate and superstitious population
05-27-2009, 07:59 PM
Some numbers from FCRA report: http://www.mha.nic.in/fcra/annual/ar2006-07.pdf
<b>Top Donor Country: USA</b> 2006-2007: 2971.29 crores 2005-2006: 2425.88 crores 2004-2005: 1926.95 <b>Top 2 Donor Agencies:</b> Misereor, Postfach, German: 1243.52 crores (2006-07) World Vision International USA: 469.20 crores (2006-2007) Gospel Fellowship Trust India, USA 229.16 crores (2005-06) Gospel for Asia, USA 137.18 crores (2005-06) <b>Top Recipient States/UT</b> Tamil nadu 2244.25 cr (2006-07) Delhi 2186.65 cr AP 1211.04 cr Tamil nadu 1609.64 cr (2005-06) Delhi 1556.46 cr AP 11011.57 cr <b>Top Recipient Assocations</b> Ranchi Jesuits, Jharkhand 621.34 cr (2006-07) Santhome Trust of Kalyan, Maharastra 332.86 cr Sovereign Order of Malta, Delhi 300.79 cr World Vision of India, TN 256.06 World Vision of India, TN 256.41 (2005-06) Caritas India Delhi 193.35 cr Rural Development Trust, AP 126.64 Church's auxiliary for Social Action, Delhi 95.88 <b>State/UT territory-wise details</b> TN 3009 associations received 2244.25 cr Delhi 1175 associations received 2186.65 cr AP 2314 associations received 1211.04 Maharastra 1585 associations received 1195.45 This time there is so Vijayanagar Empire to save Tamil Nadu. No doubt SanjayChoudry (in BRF) is worried about AP and TN in the south. One reason why I want BJP to win 10 seats in 2014 in TN.
05-27-2009, 08:44 PM
And here are<b> some of the top USA agencies:</b>
World Vision International, USA Gospel Fellowship Trust India, USA Gospel for Asia, USA M/s. Om Foundation Inc USA Christian Children Fund Compassion International
05-27-2009, 08:52 PM
GoTOJesus (They had hired Indian origin neo converts and sending them to India for mass conversion)
05-27-2009, 10:19 PM
Guys all that you posted could have been posted in the subversion thread. What I want is description of the Church apparatus and the dogma that drives these sects. Thanks, ramana
05-27-2009, 11:08 PM
Wiki article on Baptists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists_in...ted_States <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Baptists have been present in the part of North America that is now the United States since the early seventeenth century. <b>The origins of the Baptist faith go back to the Reformation in England in the sixteenth century. Various dissenters, known as "Puritans", called for the Church of England to be stripped of its remaining Catholic influences and return to the simple faith of the New Testament Christians. These dissenters also called for strict accountability in their covenant with God.</b> One of the prominent dissenters who arose in the seventeenth century was John Smyth. <b>Smyth was a strong proponent of adult baptism and in 1609 went so far as to rebaptize himself and others. Smyth's action was a sign of the first English Baptist church. Smyth also introduced the Arminian view that God's grace is for everyone and not just predestined individuals.</b> Both Roger Williams and Dr. John Clarke, his compatriot in working for religious freedom, are credited with founding the Baptist faith in North America.[1] <b>In 1639, Williams established a Baptist church in Providence, Rhode Island and Clarke began a Baptist church in Newport, Rhode Island.</b> According to a Baptist historian who has researched the matter extensively, "There is much debate over the centuries as to whether the Providence or Newport church deserved the place of 'first' Baptist congregation in America. Exact records for both congregations are lacking."[2] Baptist churches exist in each of the United States today. <b>It is estimated that more than 70% of all Baptists worldwide reside in the United States.</b> <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Map showing US demographics: http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/...aptist.gif
05-27-2009, 11:15 PM
Wiki on Pentacostalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentacostal <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Pentecostalism is a renewalist religious movement within Christianity, that places special emphasis on a direct personal experience of God through the baptism of the Holy Spirit.[1] The term Pentecostal is derived from Pentecost, a Greek term describing the Jewish Feast of Weeks. For Christians, this event commemorates the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the followers of Jesus Christ, as described in the Book of Acts, Chapter 2,[2] and Pentecostals tend to see their movement as reflecting the same kind of spiritual power, worship styles and teachings that were found in the early church. For this reason, some Pentecostals also use the term Apostolic and/or Full Gospel to describe their movement. Pentecostalism is an umbrella term that includes a wide range of different theological and organizational perspectives. As a result, there is no single central organization or church that directs the movement. Most Pentecostals consider themselves to be part of broader Christian groups; for example, most Pentecostals identify as Protestants. Many embrace the term Evangelical, while others prefer Restorationist. Pentecostalism is theologically and historically close to the Charismatic Movement, as it significantly influenced that movement; some Pentecostals use the two terms interchangeably. Furthermore, Pentecostals are diverse theologically with some groups being Trinitarian and others Nontrinitarian. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> and <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Overview Theologically, most Pentecostal denominations are aligned with Evangelicalism, in that they emphasize the reliability of the Bible and the need for the transformation of an individual's life through faith in Jesus. Pentecostals generally adhere to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, believing that the Bible has definitive authority in matters of faith, and adopt a literalist approach to its interpretation. This belief is expressed in the doctrinal statements of various Pentecostal organizations, such as the Assemblies of God Statement of Fundamental Truths, the Affirmation of Faith of the Church of God in Christ, and the Declaration of Faith of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> So these two sects are like the Taliban or Wahabists/Deobandis in empahsising a return to roots of their religion.
05-28-2009, 07:41 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+May 27 2009, 10:19 PM-->QUOTE(ramana @ May 27 2009, 10:19 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Guys all that you posted could have been posted in the subversion thread. What I want is description of the Church apparatus and the dogma that drives these sects. Thanks, ramana
[right][snapback]97813[/snapback][/right] <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Anglican church was formed by Henry 8 to help him divorce his wife Henry also wanted to loot the catholic monasteries 10 years Prior to this Henry got a honorary title from the Pope as Defender of the Faith, when he attacked the Lutherans So essentially Anglicanism is Catholicism minus Pope, Nuns and Monasteries and celibacy Several married Anglican Dissenters have been awarded bishoprics by the Roman Catholic In Anglicism, the King of England replaces the pope In the USA, the Anglican church had to do without the king and are called Episcopalians The Eastern Orthodox church only split from the Catholics circa 1000 AD Had to do with power struggle between pope and byzantine emperor Presbyterian Church was the National Church of Scotland circa 1540 It replaced catholicism and was a scottish version of the Anglican church Scotland and England had different monarchs until 1603 As such the Anglican and Episcopal and Presbyterian churches are Sarkari churches, more tied to govt policy than to evangelical fervour
05-28-2009, 10:26 AM
<img src='http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/baptist.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
05-28-2009, 06:14 PM
Next level up on the EJ scale is Methodists
They were a break away faction of the Anglicans who wanted more EJ than the sarkari Anglicans These days they are slowly becoming sarkari In Fiji, the methodists are rabid EJs and harass the hindus The quakers do not evangelise these days The Unitarians use a non-literalist interpretation of the bible Many are sceptics of the Xtian doctrine Raja Ram Mohun Roy and Vivekananda influenced the Unitarians In Meghalaya, some of the tribes were converted to unitarianism and are a lot less hostile to hindus Unitarianism must be encouraged in India
05-28-2009, 06:25 PM
Lutheranism at its core is very rabid, the saving grace is that the Lutheran churches seem to have become slowly sarkari
Calvinism is a very bare bones, ruthless and cruel version of xtianity Calvin burnt several non-calvinists They have the doctrine of pre-destination in that God has already decided whom he will save and the markers for the select saved is wealth Calvinism is slowly dying
<!--QuoteBegin-G.Subramaniam+May 28 2009, 06:14 PM-->QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ May 28 2009, 06:14 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Unitarianism must be encouraged in India[right][snapback]97836[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->And while at it, Sufism is also a 'better' version of islam (note use of relative term), so that should also be encouraged?
The <i>entire</i> meme must go. Any part of it that is allowed to continue on - in <i>any</i> temporarily diluted form - carries within itself the ability to resuscitate the full-blown version. Have you never heard of Unitarian Universalists that converted to catholicism and mainstream protestantism? I have. (Christians converting into increasingly fundamental christian sects is a common pattern among the ranks of those who begin to get deluded into the christian story.) Also, the offspring of 'light' christians are easy pickings for the various Only True Christianisms out there. <i>Dharmic</i> traditions should be encouraged in Bharatam. There's no sanity or safety in encouraging any form of christoislamicommunisms.
05-29-2009, 06:08 AM
Unitarianism in the US, they even have wicca practitioners
Unitarianism has a strong history of anti-xtianity doctrine Unitarianism is not suitable for hindus , but rather the first step in de-evangalising Indian xtians
05-29-2009, 10:34 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+May 28 2009, 08:33 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ May 28 2009, 08:33 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-G.Subramaniam+May 28 2009, 06:14 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ May 28 2009, 06:14 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Unitarianism must be encouraged in India[right][snapback]97836[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->And while at it, Sufism is also a 'better' version of islam (note use of relative term), so that should also be encouraged?
<i>Dharmic</i> traditions should be encouraged in Bharatam. There's no sanity or safety in encouraging any form of christoislamicommunisms. [right][snapback]97838[/snapback][/right] <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thats an important point here. As long as are people that see the bible as authoritative there is danger that those people will return to the old habbits. Choosing betwin nazi and liberal nazi. Similar was the discussion betwin western secret services last year to fund and suport the soft brach of islam(sufi,other liberal sects) in order to compete to saudi-wahabi(their friend and allied-oiled) funded terorist islam. They didnt face islam directly but choose the soft,indirect,diplomatic way. Much better is to spread doubt about christianity in the minds of christians.
05-29-2009, 11:12 AM
<img src='http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a11/cybersurg/brf/joshua.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
08-28-2009, 02:03 AM
http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplay...cle.aspx?id=768
Hinduism Misinterpreted: Encyclopædia Britannica insults Hinduism Amit Raj Dhawan 23 Aug 2009 This article will highlight some of the misinterpretations of Hinduism in Encyclopædia Britannica, many of which are very offending to any Hindu reader and those who know and respect Hinduism. The author has based this article on the contents of [1]. Text quoted from Encyclopædia Britannica 2009 Student and Home Edition is in slanted red typeface. In the following lines an argument is presented, which shows and questions the biased intentions of a popular reference source like Encyclopædia Britannica. Information conveyed by an encyclopedia should be unbiased, impartial, based on facts, true to the greatest extent, and not anybodyâs personal opinion. In this light, the article on Hinduism in Encyclopædia Britannica has been examined. The absurd choice of contributors of an article on Hinduism by the authorities of Encyclopædia Britannica will also be analysed. It is felt that Britannicaâs article on Hinduism is written in a sense that ill-disposes a reader towards Hinduism, whereas this is not the case with Britannicaâs articles on other religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. After thought and analysis, I have been left with an impression which can be best summarized in the following question: Why is Encyclopædia Britannica hostile towards Hinduism? A Masterâs level physics text written in English can be read, at least most part of it, by a person who has a Bachelorâs in English. But reading a text does not mean that it has been understood! To understand such a text on physics, at least one is required to have adequate knowledge of physics. Generally, a linguist is not a physicist. In this sense, what this person (who does not know physics) would infer from a physics text cannot be relied upon, and of course, before his or her findings are published, they have to be scrutinized. Religion is based on belief, and reliable information on any particular religion can be conveyed by a person who believes in it, has good knowledge about it, and therefore realises it. Authorities of Encyclopædia Britannica forgot this fact when they published about Hinduism, but remembered it when publishing on Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. On the one hand they have chosen people like Rev. Henry Chadwick to write on Christianity, Fazlur Rahman, an alim, to write on Islam, and Rabbi Lou Hackett Silberman to write on Judaism, and on the other hand they have chosen Wendy Doniger, who is criticised for her negative portrayals of Hinduism ([2],[3]), as a writer and editor of Hinduism. From the stated writers or editors of Hinduism in Encyclopædia Britannica ([1]), none of them is a Hindu, or of Indian origin, or a holder of Hindu scholarship, e.g. an acharya. To write on Christianity, Encyclopædia Britannica chose a Reverend (a priest of the Christian church); for Islam, an alim (a Muslim learned in religious matters); to describe Judaism, a Rabbi (a religious leader and teacher in the Jewish religion). But for information on Hinduism they chose people who have been criticised by Hindus and academia. Why has Encyclopædia Britannica been partial in its choice on religious matters? The lengthy article on Hinduism (approx. 51 000 words) in Encyclopædia Britannica ([1]), does not depict Hinduism in a positive manner, in general. It looks more of a critique of Hinduism, where several conceptsâfairly clear to an average Hinduâhave been predicted as tensions and confusions. Britannica has misrepresented the concept and message of Hinduism, and Hindu values have been disparaged. The articles on Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have been written in a very good sense, and the evils of these religions have been subjugated by way of presentation of those themes. In almost every section of [1], unnecessary contradictions and tensions have been mentioned with exaggeration. Why? It seems that the ambition of Encyclopædia Britannica is to show Hinduism inferior to Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, but even then the question is: Why? Britannica disrespects more than 800 million Hindus by publishing mendacious statements about their religion. Some of these statements are extremely false, concocted, rude, painful to a Hindu heart. About Lord Krishna, respected and revered by all Hindus, the article says ([1]): Krishna was worshipped with his adulterous consort, Radha. According to reputed dictionaries [4] and [5], the word adulterous is related to adultery, and adultery refers to sex between a married man or woman and someone who is not a wife or husband. Consort means an associate ([5]). Neither through Hindu history nor through any reliable Hindu belief can it be stated that Lord Krishna had an illicit sexual relationship with Radha. They are symbols of pure divine love. How could the writers of this text, Arthur Llewellyn Basham, J. A. B. van Buitenen, and Wendy Doniger publish such nonsense? How could authorities of Britannica allow this menace to Hindu belief? Instead of mentioning the exemplary virtues of Lord Ram and Lord Krishna, their righteousness has been critically examined. Moreover, insane and illusionary fiction has been presented as a fact. In [1], it is stated: The story of Rama, like that of Krishna, also has a shadowy side. and The benevolence and beneficial activity of these figures (Rama, Krishna, et al.) is, however, occasionally in doubt. Vishnu often acts deceitfully, selfishly, or helplessly;⦠|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)