• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Historicity of Jesus - 2
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Fall of the Dragon
By Ashish Puntambekar

In such a scenario, for them to take on Iran is suicidal as they will never be able to hold the country. People seem to forget that though the world has changed a lot  since the time of  Alexander, the rules for holding/controlling foreign lands as laid out by him remain the same.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this question, (please let me know and I will move it).

I was watching this documentary called Zeitgeist. The film starts off taking apart the very foundations of christian theology. The documentary uses primary sources to assert that Jesus himself was the creation of christian themselves - styled on various 'pagan' figures.

While that may be the case, the documentary also went on to say that the concept of virgin birth is present in Sanatan Dharma. It cites the example of Krishna and his mother Devaki.

I don't remember Krishna's birth portrayed in this manner...is this another example of poor understanding of our heritage?

Appreciate any gyan on this!

Maybe someone of the Vaishnava stream will come and explain it better.
Until then, here's a placeholder. I will write what I remember. I suspect you already know this (though you are being unnecessarily unsure of yourself).

<!--QuoteBegin-thayilv+May 22 2008, 07:43 AM-->QUOTE(thayilv @ May 22 2008, 07:43 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->While that may be the case, the documentary also went on to say that the concept of virgin birth is present in Sanatan Dharma. It cites the example of Krishna and his mother Devaki.
[right][snapback]81879[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Krishna is born after his sister Maya (Devi) and Balarama and 5 others. Krishna is the 8th child of Devaki.

They will argue that just because Kunti conceived and delivered Karna and thereafter literally <i>became</i> a virgin again, that Devaki's case must be the same. (After all, wouldn't it make a more persuasive argument if Devaki could be <i>made</i> to have the same story as Kunti, because then they can declare that all God narratives are a clone and jeebus is but another. Then they will hit you with the club saying that since jeebus is a fraud the earlier originals of the ME and Greco-Roman empire must be too, and try to confound Krishna and Buddha in their confused mess of an argument.)

<!--QuoteBegin-thayilv+May 22 2008, 07:43 AM-->QUOTE(thayilv @ May 22 2008, 07:43 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Is this another example of poor understanding of our heritage?[right][snapback]81879[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I don't know about these particular people.

But <i>if</i> they're anything like the self-proclaimed American mythologist who calls herself "acharya s" (her pseudonym, don't ask), there'd be no point trying to correct them, as most of western 'rationalism' is christoconditioned: their alleged 'rationalists' act just like christians, with as difference that where christianism says that all other religions are false without exception, rationalism says all religions are false without exception. Both make these universal truth claims (as if self-evident) without bothering to investigate outside their biblical framework. That is, christian says: bible is true and it says other religions are false, therefore other religions are false, Q.E.D. Christo-conditioned rationalist bases his argument against other religions on the bible and takes bible's word and christianism's view (like christoBritish dawaganda) against them as true, then the christo-conditioned rationalist merely needs to disprove the bible itself. Yes, you noticed right, there's an internal loop in that reasoning as it is premised on the bible being true and then being false.

Christos observe other people and describe and prescribe others' religions for them from their christo-dictated POV. And likewise, the christo-conditioned rationalists do exactly the same. There's no humility on their part: they will not profess to not knowing, or to perhaps having faulty or incomplete or misinterpreted info about other religions. They will simply say that they know, you don't and that they are right and you are wrong. Rather the same slogan as "Ours is the true religion and you are worshipping false Gods." (Where your take on your Gods don't count.) It's the same arrogance and tendencies to monotheistic superiority and intolerance.

Most of modern western thought is based on the same flawed, non-independent thinking of christianism. Even where they rebel against christianism, they still play by its rules as they can't free themselves from the thought boundaries it has set for them. If you disagree with the christo-conditioned mythologists/western rationalists, they will get furious (a la WitSSel, how dare you question their authority) and say "you are only a stoopid Hindoo, what do you know about Hindooism? I will condescend to tell you about your religion." And all you are allowed to do is nod in agreement (or else). Very democratic of them, I'm sure.

The question comes down to: do you think your Hindu ancestors including grandparents and parents - and yourself - know your Hindu Dharma better than people who know no more of it than having heard of it and who think 'research' means getting dubious information 7th hand (where the first 'source' in the chain were dubious things jotted down by travellers from 2 or 3 centuries back and then referenced so many times until the first source ceases to be a mere travelogue recording hearsay and becomes elevated to the status of an empirical observation/fact instead).

If you find you do know better, then the way to counter them is not by pointing out their mistakes (after all, they believe absolutely that they are the absolute authority, and that you are just the Hindoo subject being observed who merely has the Right To Remain Silent and no right to protest). Rather, ignore them. Be indifferent to their fancies. It will bother them no end.
What they seek is recognition of their shallow research and acknowledgement of its validity by people (the equivalent of adulation and prostration to stroke their ego). Failing that, they will resort to the persecution complex they inherited from their christianism: if Hindus were to protest about mistakes, they will say they are being attacked by Hindootva, that their 'facts' are being stifled. Therefore, merely refute their silliness to other Hindus and teach Hindus why it is best to ignore them as well. (This last bit is important, since one can't just remain inert in the face of lies and misinformation.)
Because, just like christians, of all things they can't <i>abide</i> being ignored.
<!--QuoteBegin-thayilv+May 22 2008, 07:43 AM-->QUOTE(thayilv @ May 22 2008, 07:43 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't remember Krishna's birth portrayed in this manner...is this another example of poor understanding of our heritage?
Appreciate any gyan on this!

Hi thaylil, in addition to what Husky said:

Remember not give these people too much credit. <!--emo&Smile--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> They will either try to show that Hindu Dharma is a sad caricature of their most magnificent Christianity OR they realize that christianity is a hoax, and take it upon themselves to try to prove that all other religions are hoaxes (old habits die hard, "If I dont get any, no one will get any either" types).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->“Religion is founded in itself, and, if looked at as human product, appears circular. <b>Religion has many empirical constraints (having founder, having bible, a set of beliefs about the nature of the world), </b>when it exists among human communities: in this sense, Christianity is an empirical religion.” - vnr1995<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

"Christianity is an empirical religion." That is exactly why changing one simple and inconsequential element like authorship of Bible results in destruction of Christianity.
The curse of Ham in the Hebrew Bible

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Genesis 9:20-27: <i>And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 <b>God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.</b></i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Unraveling the Japheth Mystery (Genesis 9:25-27)
Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->However, maverick scholars like Graves and Patai had no hesitation in asserting that Japheth was Iapetos:

"Japheth represents the Greek Iapetus, father by Asia of Prometheus and thus ancestor of the pre-diluvian race."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+May 12 2008, 05:27 AM-->QUOTE(ramana @ May 12 2008, 05:27 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->in the last thread there were refs to Bible and its description as the ultimate book by Hitler and his remarks. I have been thinking about Nazism, Hitler, and Pope and the theory of super races. I have come up with a sound byte to describe Hitler and his new thinking- 'Evangelical Darwinism'. Unfortunately it was called National Socialism but it really was evangelized Darwinism based on evolutionary concepts applied to social sciences mixed with religious views.

RM describes the Indic influence on Darwin. In such a case, social darwinism would be another case of the garbling of Indic categories by the religious/secular western paradigm.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Geopolitics and Sanskrit Phobia

Around the 1860s, Sir Charles Lyall worked in geology in morphological studies of fossils, which is a special case of what became later known as structuralism. <b>This was a major discontinuity in European thought, and is believed to be the influence of Sanskrit structure of knowledge. Charles Darwin's work in the 1880s was also morphological in method. </b>In the 1890s, Germany developed morphological schools, and Russian formalist schools also came up. Morphological schools came up in Europe in geology, botany, literary theory and linguistics.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

another point regarding the 'frightfully alive eyes' of byzantine christ figures:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Buddhist Mummies of Japan </b>

<i>Careful! Don't confuse Buddhist Shingon priests with Christian flagellants... the flagellents hurt their bodies out of a sense of guilt; they needed to punish themselves to atone for sins. The Buddhists hurt their bodies to train their minds to ignore the physical world. </i>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible's Grand Narrative
Wright, Christopher J. H.

Description: Most Christians would agree that the Bible provides a basis for mission. But Christopher Wright boldly maintains that mission is bigger than that--there is in fact a missional basis for the Bible! The entire Bible is generated by and is all about God's mission. In order to understand the Bible, we need a missional hermeneutic of the Bible, an interpretive perspective that is in tune with this great missional theme. We need to see the "big picture" of God's mission and how the familiar bits and pieces fit into the grand narrative of Scripture. Beginning with the Old Testament and the groundwork it lays for understanding who God is, what he has called his people to be and do, and how the nations fit into God's mission, Wright gives us a new hermeneutical perspective on Scripture. This new perspective provides a solid and expansive basis for holistic mission. Wright emphasizes throughout a holistic mission as the proper shape of Christian mission. God's mission is to reclaim the world--and that includes the created order--and God's people have a designated role to play in that mission.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Jews and Christians in the Roman Empire: a clash of civilizations?
Religion and Politics
Dr Henk W. Singor,  Leiden University

(Delivered on 13 Sept. 2007, in Glazer Institute of Jewish Studies, Nanjing University)

Both Jews and Christians in the Roman Empire found themselves in opposition to the Roman state (at least at the ideological level) and to large parts of Graeco-Roman civilization. Sometimes that opposition led to extremely violent outbursts: wars, persecutions. At the end, the Jews were utterly crushed by the military power of Rome in three wars from 66 to 135 and Judaism became marginalized. Christianity, on the other hand, steadily grew and eventually, in the fourth century was able to take over the empire and Christianise society (thus greatly contributing to the end of Graeco-Roman civilization). What was the nature of these oppositions and conflicts? Were they based on deep-seated religious beliefs and cultural traditions and therefore more or less inevitable – or were they more political in nature and thus to a large extent accidental and avoidable?

Three important recent books throw new light on these questions. And this lecture is, consequently, not much more than a short overview of the subject – mainly the Jews – based on these recent monographs and foremost on Martin Goodman’s book Rome and Jerusalem. The Clash of Ancient Civilizations, London 2007. The subtitle, it should be said, is misleading. For Goodman’s thesis is that there was not an ancient clash of civilizations. He describes at length the interactions and parallels between Jewish and Hellenistic culture, the many borrowings and similarities. Also, during the Roman period, it is a myth (propagated by New Testament scholars, according to Goodman), that the Jews in Judaea and Galilee were feeling oppressed, miserable, yearning for delivery from a Messiah. On the contrary, between 4 BCE and 66 CE, the Jews were generally satisfied with the conditions they were living in. They were enjoying certain privileges in the Roman world; intellectual opinion on Judaism was mixed (both favourable and unfavourable), but the prestige of Judaism was very high (the temple in Jerusalem as the biggest temple in the ancient world!). There was only one area where indeed Jewish and Graeco-Roman attitudes and opinions were diametrically opposed: not religion per se (not even monotheism versus polytheism) but the sphere of family life and sexuality. Only here Jews with their strict opposition to abortion and infanticide, to public nudity, to all sorts of extra-marital sex (especially to homosexuality) could be seen as the antagonists of Greek and Roman norms. However, this opposition did not by itself lead to the violent clash between Jerusalem and Rome. That clash was the result of unfortunate political circumstances and had in origin nothing to do with religious or moral values. It resulted from a series of accidents: incompetent Roman governors in Judaea; a blundering Cestius Gallus who lost a complete legion to the rebels in 66, which made a large scale Roman operation of revenge inevitable; the accidental burning down of the temple itself in the last days of the siege. Above all: the political developments in the empire in 69-70 played a major role: Vespasian, finding himself new emperor, needed military prestige; so did his son Titus. The war with the Jews was now represented over and over again as a war against a major enemy of Rome and the burning of the temple was in hindsight seen as the defeat of a religious and ideological opponent of Rome. Therefore, rebuilding of the temple became unacceptable, not only under the Flavii but also under Trajan and the adoptive emperors. Thus the Jews were brought into a situation totally different from any other subject nation: not being allowed to worship their ancestral god in the ancestral way. This in its turn led to new Jewish revolts (115-117 and 132-135), which again were crushed. During these revolts Messianism had certainly played some role, but the revolts themselves were hardly caused by Messianic ideas. After 135 there was in fact little room left for any of such messianic hopes and Judaism became a distinctly minority religion, tolerated but not more than that (the situation for the Jews worsened under the Christian empire when any rebuilding of the temple was out of the question and Christian anti-Semitism raised its head).

The picture Goodman sketches is in essence one in which politics trumps religion as a driving force. In a totally different context that could also be said of the thesis of the next monograph:<b> R.E. Gmirkin, Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic histories and the date of the Pentateuch</b>, New York 2005. The thesis of this book (which for lack of time could only be outlined very briefly) is that the books of the Pentateuch do not go back to the 8th to 6th centuries BCE, but were composed in the period 273-269 BCE in Alexandria. In fact, there were hardly any Jewish books before that date (except for some king lists and other rudimentary archival material – and, I would like to add (Singor), some written pieces of the prophets Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah and a few others). The historical books of the Hebrew Bible at any rate cannot be older than 273/89 BCE! Gmirkin proves his case extensively. To mention a few instances: the Creation story in Genesis is not based on Babylonian literature as found in cuneiform texts but was clearly inspired by Berossus, whose <b>Babyloniaka</b> had just appeared and was available in Alexandria. Likewise, the stories of Moses and the Exodus go back to Manetho, whose <b>Aigyptiaka</b> was available in the Library too. <b>The Table of Nations in Genesis exactly fits the political map of the Eastern Mediterranean world in 272/1 BCE,</b> etc. etc. The background to the Pentateuch and in fact to most of the Hebrew Bible is thus political:<b> first Alexander’s conquest of the Near East, then Ptolemy II’s wish to enrich his Library with a description of his Jewish subjects’ history and religion, an Idoudaika. </b>The writers were Jewish Greek-speaking council-members from Jerusalem invited to Alexandria. There they produced both a Hebrew and a Greek version (with minor differences) of their sacred history, a work that had immediate and great success, triggering a whole outburst of Jewish writings in the 3rd century BCE to the 1st CE.

The third and last book to be reviewed in this context is K.L. Gaca, The Making of Fornication. Eros, Ethics and Political Reform in Greek Philosophy and Early Christianity, Berkeley 2003. For lack of time this book could only be dealt with very cursorily. Its main thesis is that the extreme renunciation of sexuality in Early Christianity has roots in Judaism as well as in Greek philosophy. On the Greek side it was mainly (Neo-)Pythagoreanism with its ideas of reincarnation and hence of an elaborate preparation (including long periods of abstinence) for the soul to be reborn at conception, that led to the extreme limitation of sexuality for only (!) the purpose of begetting children. The Judaic roots were slightly less extreme (sexuality permitted and even to be enjoyed but within the bonds of marriage) but they conveyed the notion that any transgression was a deadly sin. Indeed, the metaphors in the Hebrew Bible about the people of Israel as adulterers, fornicators or whores, when disloyal to the commands of Yahweh, did much to stamp the idea of sexual sin as the worst of all sins deep into Jewish and Early Christian minds.

Coming back to the questions at the beginning of this lecture: Ms. Gaca’s book illuminates what also Martin Goodman points out: that it is in the sphere of sexuality and the family that the stark differences between Jews and their contemporaries in the Roman World can be found. Nevertheless, the differences here were not as extreme as the differences between the Early Christians and Graeco-Roman civilization. The clash between Rome and the Jews was, as we saw, mainly political. If there was any ‘clash of civilizations’ it was between Romans and Christians. But even there it was confined to a few, albeit highly important, areas: sexuality in the first place, but also polytheistic worship in general, blood sports, public baths and theatres and the like. Perhaps these oppositions do explain that it was Christianity that, after its victory in the fourth century, would profoundly change the face of the empire.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There was something about double narratives given back to back in NT/OT, eg double creation narratives, double genealogies. This signifies something. I cannot find the article now but I think it had something to do with Wesselius or Gmirkin. Maybe these are purposeful eddies created in the otherwise revisionist linear history.

added later:

found it.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->And just as Herodotus will offer 2 contradictory versions of events side by side without expressing preference for either, so the Primary History also is known to present contradictory versions side by side (albeit without any narrative voice comment at all).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am just wondering if there is any native Indian/Asian horror genre. As far as my experiences go, there is no such thing. At most tankrik material gets recast in a western satanic framework.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Judas wasn't a betrayer
NS Rajaram (Pioneer)

Reading Judas: The Gospel of Judas and the Shaping of Christianity
Author: Elaine Pagels and Karen L King

For nearly 2,000 years, Judas Iscariot has been reviled as the archetypical betrayer for which the Jews have been made to pay a terrible price. A recently discovered ancient text known as the Gospel of Judas gives a radically different picture: Judas, far from being a traitor, was Jesus's closest disciple to whom, and to whom alone, Jesus entrusted the most important task to fulfill his mission on earth - to die for the sins of mankind. In handing Jesus over to the Romans, Judas was doing exactly what his master ordered him to do. Without it there would be no Christianity.

This is the dramatic, not to say shocking, message of the Gospel of Judas, one of the 40-odd gospels that were in circulation during the first four centuries of Christianity. This is the subject of Reading Judas by Elaine Pagels and Karen King, two of the world's greatest Biblical scholars. It is accessible to the general reader, though one is helped by some familiarity with recent Biblical discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Manuscripts.

The standardisation of the New Testament with its four canonical gospels that we know today - of Mark, Luke, Matthew and John - took place in the fourth century. This, as the authors point out, had the effect of lowering the message from a spiritual to a material plane with the story of Jesus's body escaping from the grave with a resurrected body. To a non-believer or a scientifically informed person, this supposed miracle seems absurd. But it remains the foundation of Christian belief.

The Gospel of Judas, along with its companion Gospel of Thomas, belongs to the category of early Christian texts knows as Gnostic. (Thomas was Jesus's twin brother, so who was the 'Only Son of God'?) Gnostic is derived from the Greek gnosis - cognate to the Sanskrit 'gnana' (or jnana) - meaning spiritual knowledge. According to Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman, there were "Christians who... believed in one God. But there were others who insisted there were two. Some said there were 30. Others said there were 365."

To give an idea of how diverse early Christianity was, some said that Jesus never died, while some others claimed he was never born, meaning Jesus was a fictional character. This is also the view of several modern scholars who have studied the Dead Sea Scrolls. John Allegro, a very famous Biblical scholar, wrote: "I would suggest that many incidents (in the Gospels) are merely projections into Jesus's own history of what was expected of the Messiah."

Allegro was persecuted and hounded out by church authorities for expressing such views. It was no different nearly 2,000 years ago. The key figure in suppressing texts which "encourage believers to seek God within themselves with no mention of churches, let alone clergy" was Irenaeus, a Syrian theologian who was the bishop of Lyon. He is particularly harsh on Judas with his claim of having received secret knowledge (gnosis) as the favoured disciple of Jesus. (It was the claim also of Mary Magdalene in her Gospel.)

Irenaeus's programme was to suppress diversity and impose total uniformity of belief and practices. According to Pagels, "The teachings Irenaeus labelled as 'orthodox' tend to be those that helped him and other bishops consolidate scattered groups of Jesus's followers into what he and other bishops envisioned as a single, united organisation they called the 'catholic (universal) church'. The diverse range... they denounced as 'heresy'... could be antithetical to the consolidation of the church under the bishops' authority."

One can see that the overriding concern of the early church fathers was exercising political control over the followers. Irenaeus's agenda was taken a major step forward in the fourth century by Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria. He fixed the New Testament substantially in the form we have it today by selecting four gospels out of more than 40 then known, and assigning them to Mark, Luke, Matthew and John.

Athanasius's theological consolidation of Christianity was soon followed by political consolidation. At the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, persuaded Emperor Constantine to extend protection to this version of Christianity or Nicene Christianity. Armed with this power, it was relatively easy for Eusebius, Athanasius and others to suppress the Gnostics and other competing versions of Christianity. Church dominance became complete when Theodosius in 391 AD declared Nicene Christianity the only legitimate religion in the Roman Empire.

Why are these momentous findings little discussed in India when the media is willing to give space to discredited 'Jesus lived in India' stories and proven fakes like the Shroud of Turin? Is it because the English language media is dominated by a convent educated elite that doesn't want to report controversial findings? Or, do Indian churches and their leaders still see themselves as serving colonial masters and have no tradition of critical Biblical scholarship? If so they have yielded the space to politico-religious entrepreneurs like John Dayal and outright charlatans like Valson Thampu.

Fortunately, the authors of Reading Judas, despite being Christians, have not allowed their beliefs to come in the way of truth.

<i>--The reviewer is the author of The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Crisis of Christianity</i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yahoo translation of Deschner interview.
<b>The crime film-alga-laminated of the Christianity: Interview with Karl Heinz Deschner</b>

<i>World week
Expenditure 14/07 | Interview
Karl Heinz Deschner

“It must become differently”
With an enormously extensive work the church critic Karl Heinz Deschner fights against the Christianity, in which he sees “the glad message with the war painting”. A discussion about God, Zwingli and sky-crying injustice.
see also: http://www.deschner.info/
David Signer</i>

With an enormously extensive work the church critic Karl Heinz Deschner fights against the Christianity, in which he sees “the glad message with the war painting”. A discussion about God, Zwingli and sky-crying injustice.

<i>Mr. Deschner, which is the core of the Christianity?</i>

The glad message with the war painting. In addition many beautiful legends belong, for example the fairy tale of resurrection. Hearing many beautiful requirements, for example the requirement of the next, of the enemy love, not to kill the requirement, not to steal and the intelligence to hold none of these requirements. <b>Christianity, that is the Liaison of a singing association with a conflagration.</b>

<i>But which is today at the Christianity still so badly? “Crime film-alga-laminate the Christianity” is called your in the meantime achtbändiges Hauptwerk. Did the church - at least in Western Europe - lose not substantial at influence?</i>

First: I describe not the existing thing, the present Christianity, but its past, thus often, but often also not, somewhat more or less different one. Today anyhow still criminally in Christianity are effects its ideology, which many consequences of its dogma tables insanity, which never expenditure-matures itself been content with the bare faith, which missionieren rather, wants to conquer. Today still criminally in the Christianity its desaströse Sexual and social moral, its practice, are in mother-shot to protect, which one surrenders then in the war - as if one collected in woman bellies cannon fodder. From the large victims for arms for realms makes it small victims that realms for arms. Which the churches seem to lose however in Western Europe or lose, they recover elsewhere, in “God's own country” about.

<i>Today doesn't a much larger danger proceed from the radical Islam?</i>

What the Islam concerns - its own aggressive Potenziale, strengthens by the socio-economic misery of the third world, once aside -, which concerns the Islam, which one, how once nearly the only large bad one sees Jews or communists, soon only in the role of the bad one, could have been still stirred up this role certain western circles not quite desired, could not by them the Islamic danger not secretly?
But it is nevertheless obvious that many terrorists legitimize today their murders Islamic.</i>

Yes, according to the here dominant public opinion. But at the end of November a published world-wide investigation of the Bertelsmann foundation comes to another result. As main motive of political force - it trebled itself in the last five years - the study does not call religious fanaticism, but poverty, mismanagement and suppression. The religious extremism, under it the Islamic, increases, cover however altogether only one quarter of the groups of terror. , As always, nationalistic movements place their largest portion, to 36 per cent.
How do you see the relationship Christianity Islam Judentum? Are the force and excluding the other-thinking everywhere in the Monotheismus put on, or do give it to gradations?</i>

All three monotheistischen religions have somewhat Chauvinisti. Something violent and raping. Credit strength of its Auserwähltheitsdünkels a Absolutheitsanspruch, which excludes genuine tolerance from the beginning.
What propels you over all the decades to this unbelievable work? Indignation?</i>

Yes, which drives me? Plain and simply: injustice. Sky-crying injustice, thousands of years packs into pseudopious sayings, into impudent lies; to reread in dozens of my Christianity-critical books.
They call themselves as Agnostiker - which you mean exactly with it?</i>

As Agnostiker I leave the question about God, about immortality fair-prove openly. I do not answer it in the negative, although for me a no is high probable. Because I assume many things between skies and earth, about which our school wisdom does not dream anything, also with Shakespeare consider I nevertheless this question with Goethe impenetrable, our brain for too limited. “Just as well”, Darwin says, “a dog could speculate upon the understanding of Newton” - with which I would not like to have said anything against the dog.

<i>Were you in former times gläubig? If, when and why it came to the break?</i>

Gläubig was I as a child. With ten I wanted to become priests. With eleven already no more. With fifteen I read Nietz, as a student Schopenhauer and edge are sufficient for the parting from the Christianity. A last, but emotional remainder which can be underestimated did not delete always the minute of “again crowed the cock”, mostly a earlyChristian dogma, a partienweise comparative religion history; 25,000 working hours in five years.

<i>Did the reformation mean a progress, a humanization of the Christianity?</i>
No, not at all. It means a continuation of its crimes. </b>Luther exposed the holy legends as fairy tale. <b>To the Bible legends it held; at the devil faith also; at the witch faith; to the Ketzervertilgung; at the anti-Semitism, at the war service, at the body characteristic, the prince. One calls it: Reformation.</b>

<i>And in Switzerland? Was Zwingli better?</i>

Zwingli, the temporary papal Feldpfaffe, wanted to be confounded with Luther, did not ask themselves that him “the Bäpstler luterisch nennind”, was however so independently not, particularly in practice. How Luther was itself behind the prince conditions, so it itself behind the inhabitant of zurich advice, the autonomous city republic. Like Luther it fought farmer unrests, like Luther proceeded it against the Täufer, like Luther (and all genuine Christians) entered it for the war. Like Luther it split the country and fell, unequally however the Wittenberger, in helmet and Harnisch against inside Swiss catholics. <b>Finally it was long the opinion, “the church can only by blood be renewed, not different”. Blood tastes to them always best, above all that the others.</b>
And Calvin?</i>

<b>Oh, this extremely unsinnliche, always ailing, bleichwangige, black-dressed Asket, neither the feeling for nature nor for the art still favour at women, which seemed to feel at all no life desire, nothing as unersättliche greed for power, inexorable interspersing of its “teachings”, its theokratischen dictatorship - nothing as icy fanaticism, systematic spying on, punishment, interference in the most personal, most private one. </b>However tremendous despicableness, with which it Michael Servet, which former Mitreformer, physician, whom nature philosophers maltreat, because of a so-called training difference only in the dungeon, let which roast then on the heap of failure inexpressibly terribly a half hour long literally alive, until terribly the crying hung only like a black charred mass on the stake - later Edward Gibbon, which has large stories writers and reconnaissance aircraft, this a sacrificing it “more deeply shaken than the thousands on the heap of failure of the Inquisition”, admits still two hundred years, whose basic idea Calvin by the way took over.
Is a atheistische society automatic a better society?</i>

No. Not at all. But a society without “God”, without myths, without militant lie religions as basis, seems to me more worthwhile. I do not know whether it becomes better, if it becomes differently. But with Lichtenberg I know: It must become differently, if it is to become good.
Are the cases of Pädophilie a newer phenomenon, or belong to the church?</i>

<b>Naturally Pädophilie is nothing new there. That gives it in the church, since there is the church, already in former times, already in urchristlicher time. If one reads the letters of the Paulus, the genuine and the six falsified, then one finds, like also otherwise in the New Testament, jederlei kind of sexual “sins” there.</b>

<i>Is the “Perversionen” connected from priests with the Zölibat?</i>

Easily possible. But the largest part of the Zölibatäre did not worry around the Zölibat at all, held themselves instead of it failed woman women often in large amounts, the cleric marriage replaces as it were a Klerikerharem. In the 8th century the holy Bonifatius of clergyman with four, five, still more Konkubinen surprises at night in bed. Later it, in Basel, gives man monasteries of women in Lüttich, bishops with twenty, sixty-in children, teems even. And nuns make the Huren competition. In 13. Even Popes groan to century because of the comingness of the Klerus, call it more customless than the laymen, the Verderbnis of the peoples, see it “putrid like the cattle in the muck”. In 15. Century participate on the council of Konstanz, which burns Hus, except the holy spirit also seven hundred public Nutten, not counted those, which the council fathers themselves bring along.

<i>And the Popes themselves?</i>

<b>Still in the same century Pope Sixtus IV., designer after him designated of the Sixtini chapel and a high-profitable brothel koitiert, with its sister and his children. </b>And 1476 introduce the celebration of the Unbefleckten Empfängnis! Naturally the klerikale Sextreiben continues after the tridentinischen reforms. Still the catholic “action circle Munich” the secret before-similar relationship and the forced “Unwahrhaftigkeit” of the catholic priest deplores 1970.

<i>Are they thus for the abolishment of the Zölibats?</i>

But no! I am, like the Popes, quite for the Zölibat: Who catholic, who catholic cleric wants to be, which is to also out-eat its catholicism.

<i>One can say: The Urchristentum was good, but which made the church from it, is bad?</i>

<b>Yes, many believe. But apart from the fact that nothing, absolutely nothing in the Christianity originally actual from Christmas to the Ascension Day: loud plagiarisms! </b>-, already volume 1 “crime film-alga-laminates” occupied on almost hundred sides the fight of the early Christianity against the Jews.

They are the best proof for the liberality of the Christianity. In the Islam you would have long a Fatwa at the neck.
And in former times in the Christianity a spell curse, a cord or fire under back - for many centuries! Today, nobody is mistaken, prevented only the relative powerlessness of the Klerus to burn its opponents.

<i>Do we live in a secular society, or do regard you the religion still/again increased as important factor?</i>

One needs to nevertheless only watch television, in order to experience, how one churches and church leaders, particularly since Popes, hofiert, who area one grants - and which comments to them! As it goes there only behind the scenes too…

<i>To what extent does the current Pope join your history?</i>

By being possible to continue substantial one the policy of its predecessors in everything, not least its terrible Sexualrepression, whose victim it, I am afraid, nor will give, as long as humans will live and to die. The legacy of its predecessors is descriptive in mine nearly 1400-seitigen “politics of the Popes in 20. Century”.

<i>Benedikt XVI could. this unselige tradition break through, if it wanted?</i>

It is not so important, who stands at the point of the Kurie, as one often believes. Because with all authority, which is papale scope of action limited. Is dependent already on the whole tradierten bureaucratic-bureaucratic apparatus, on political, from theological currents, from direction fights within the Kurie and outside in the bishop church. <b>Actually the apparent Autokrat is bound at all corners and ends, is often already decided decisions, before they become by it ripe for decision. And the Pope is rarely capable of integrating the extremes it becomes often only execution organ of these or that side. Briefly, the Vatikan proves for its highest gentleman as a straitjacket.</b>

<i>Do the victims of the Christianity let themselves be numbered?</i>
If one ranks the indirect to it, about those of the large wars of the last century among its direct victims - heaths, Jew, Muslims, “Ketzer”, witches, Indians -, to which all Christian churches urgently and again and again called, there is with security several hundred million humans; to be silent from the animals to.</b>

Moment times! They push the victims of the two world wars of the church into the shoes? The communist regime of the Soviet Union was atheistisch, and also the Nazis were against the church. Christians were majority on the victim side or placed themselves against the totalitarian regimes.
That tunes nearly everything. Nevertheless, that is nevertheless the dishonor, has the churches, which catholic, the Protestant, the orthodox, has the Klerus with the war-prominent regimes collaborated, engstens and on all sides.

<i>What for example was the role of the Pope in the First World War?</i>

<b>Pius X., rabiat antislawisch, almost drove Austria into the First World War. </b>And also cardinal Secretary of State Merry del Val hoped before outbreak of the inferno, the monarchy becomes direct, literally, “up to the extreme one goes”. But there are clear documents. And thousands and thousands and thousands of nausea exciting “field lectures” rush now soon, roar formally before Kriegsbrunst, before murder intoxication. <b>They celebrate the millionful Krepieren as a “people spring”, “Pfingststurm”, call the ball rushing “measuring singing”, the cannons of “megaphones of the calling grace”, the contactor ditch “Grotte of Gethsemane”, the battleground “Golgatha”, the instant of the slaughtering “la minute divine”. And the Christians participated, but they were victims and authors. Both!</b>

<i>And in the Second World War?</i>

<b>Now, before the papacy had supported only all fascist gangs, in Italy, Germany, Spain, all all this in Croatia, from the outset and to power had also brought. And at the beginning of the Second World War Pius XII threatened. the “millions catholics in the German armies”: “You have sworn, them must be obedient.” It hammered them in that the “leader” was the legal head of the Germans and each sündige, that refuses the obedience to it. This Pope expressed, still in the middle in the war, not only warmest sympathy for Germany, </b>but also, literally, to “admiration of large characteristics of the leader”. Yes, he lets convey this directly by two Nuntien, he wishes, again in the wording, “the leader nothing more ardently than a victory”!

<i>Why? Fear, adjustment? Or did the church pursue own goals?</i>

<b>Pius XII. - Owners of a private possession of eighty million in gold and validities - hoped, what had not reached the papacy in the First World War with having castle and the German emperor, now in the Second World War - 25,000 dead ones daily, daily turnover two billion Marks - to reach with Hitler, the old majority goal of Rome: the Katholisierung of the Balkans and subjecting the Russian-orthodox church.
<i>How did the Russian-orthodox church react?</i>

Now, it stepped immediately to the side of the atheistischen Soviet Union, to the page Stalins. Because it there always goes whether catholic, protestant or Russian-orthodox, in truth only over one, around power, power, power. And in such a way one called the population for active support Stalins, regarded asking services as the victory of the Red Army. A council of 46 bishops wished “unserm still numerous years of life” to much-loved boss Josef Stalin.

<i>Does religion make automatically dumb? Or can it “improve” humans also?</i>

Even sometimes I white, perhaps “does not improve” her; above all such, which would have become “nobler” also from alone.<b> But the good Christians are most dangerous, one confound them with the Christianity. And partially “dumb” always make absurd faith conceptions.</b>

<i>They are a fighter against kitschige literature, the American Way OF Life and cruelty against animals. Do these different offensive ones from a common source feed themselves?</i>

Yes, I mean already: from a feeling seed sensorium, a violent abhorrence both before the false one and the wrong one.

<i>Apropos America: Do you estimate religion as important factor in Bush's politics?</i>

But! With the mentality of many Americans particularly susceptible to pious, Frömmleri understands themselves that nearly automatically. Which concerns the president personally, regard I him as quite limits enough that he believes what he gives at “religious one” from itself also. On the one hand. On the other hand hold I it for characterless enough that he does not believe it. Without wanting to underestimate its limitedness, the latter even many more probably appears to me.

<i>What would you answer a child, who asks in view of a church, what that are?</i>

With Nietz: the Gruft and the tomb of “God”. The petrified memory of something, which in all probability never gave it.
They dedicated your life to an immensely extensive work. Would you make it again in such a way?</i>

Differently I would want to make it, at least there and there, already, better, formally better! And most of all I would somewhat have fought not against - so necessarily the fight of the Christianity actual, but for something: for the freeing of the animals. Because which we did to them since uncounted thousands of years, natures, which feel in such a way like we, thus to be pleased, then suffer themselves like we to let in order them then slaughter come only into the world and to eat be able, are inexpressibly horrible the largest crime of mankind history. I remember each day, often, but I often may not remember too, I would be moved.

<i>Do the Vergänglichkeit and the finalness of death employ you - as someone, which does not believe probably in the eternal life -?</i>

Yes. These questions employ me. I am old. It becomes dark - and light is my favourite color. But rather I would like to die in thousand doubts than at the price of the lie in the euphoria.

<i>Do they have a dream?</i>

Once my mother “stubborn dreamer” called me. Growing up I had then various dreams, under it the dream of progress, of a fairer world. In the meantime however there is nearly only one progress still, about which I dream: that politicians and Pfaffen do not shake no more the world, but the Zwerchfell.
Dialog on Whiteness Studies
Rajiv Malhotra

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Politically, the Roman ideology was the perfect counterpart [of Christianity]...These formulations posited a perpetual opposition between those who did not share the ideologies expressed and those who did. Both statements contained justifications and directives for the "conversion" of and "recruitment" of those outside the cultural group with which they were identified. Perhaps, the single most important ingredient shared by these "brother" ideologies (actually two arms of the same ideological weapon) is their vision of the world as the "turf" of a single culture. Any and everyone presently under the ideological and political control of the Christians and Romans was fair game...The synthesis [between Roman Imperialism and Christianity] made political sense...The two ideologies, put to the service of one cultural group and espousing compatible values and objectives worked hand in hand, to command the same allegiances, to conquer the same world." (Ani, pp. 129-130)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Roman Cooptation: Two Imperialistic Ideologies:

"Christianity was a more refined tool [than paganism] for the selling of European imperialism...As the imperialistic goals of these fledgling Europeans expanded, the various modalities of the cultural structure grew out of sync with one another. If they had not been reshaped, readjusted to form a cohesive unit, Europe would have failed...The European institutionalization of Christianity was something akin to a technological advance. It added the element of proselytizing that much more suited the objective of imperialistic expansionism within which those objectives could be hidden or camouflaged. Xenophobic, aggressive, and violent tendencies were molded into a more subtle statement that packaged them in a universalistic, peaceful, and moralistic rhetoric...Christianity helped to define who the "others" were in a way that fitted the European progress ideology. Making a Roman, a Briton, a Frank, and so forth into a "European" would not be easy, but it was the order of the day in terms of European development...Christianity achieved the unification of the new European self...It helped to redefine European imperialism as universal imperialism...European civilization has been so successful in part because of its ability to outward direct hostility...The destructive tendencies within are so intense and so endemic to the culture that it must continually be redirected. The cooptation of Christianity represented such a redirection of aggressive energy...Pagan religions were aggressive but not expansionist [and hence unsuitable for Roman imperialism]."

[Ani, Marimba, "YURUGU," pp. 169-170]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"The history of Christianity is the political history of Europe. With regard to the influence that Christianity has had upon ancient and medieval Europe [and ultimately the Americas] it is quite fair to say that the Church has left a legacy, a worldview that permeates every aspect of Western European-centered societies. Today, even though most Western societies can boast of a separation between Church and state, their very laws and cultural traits have been shaped in no small way by early ecclesiastical authorities. Actually, what the Church has done was to harmonize these cultural traits that have characterized European societies since primordial times... There is no doubt...that Christianity unified Western Europe in ways that transcended the narrow confines of tribalism. That it sought to include everyone through its message of a universal brotherhood...However, there is another side to this story; one that is by no means as romanticized as it is often made out to be. Exactly how the Christian Church went about unifying and transforming Europe, if one looks at it honestly, is shameful to say the least. Christianity, as defined by Rome, Greece and to some extent Asia Minor, brought religious intolerance to a level never before seen. It provided justification for the taking of other people's lands by cleverly disguising ethnocentrism and an expansionist ideology in a message of universal brotherhood. Ironically it used this universal brotherhood message to maintain a hierarchical structure that saw Europe and European-centered societies at the pinnacle while the conquered lands and peoples occupied the lower rungs..."
["Orthodox" Christianity and the birth of European Nationalism, by Corey Gilkes
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The first statement is not strictly correct: the phrase ba'al-qarnaim first appears in the Hebrew Bible in an apocalyptic prophecy in <b>Daniel 8.</b> In v. 20 the phrase is applied to a ram which represents the Medo-Persian empire (cf. v. 3), which is to be destroyed by the "he-goat from the west," which represents Alexander the Great. In the Qur'an (Surah 18:84-99) the Arabic phrase dhul-qarnayn seems to come from the Danielic passage, albeit with a little confusion, since it is taken by commentators to refer to Alexander the Great.  (PaleoJudaica)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lt. Kornu
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Aristotle's Logic of Duality

It is Aristotelian logic, an intellectual reason, which killed 1 billion people in last 2000 years.


"Aristotle's Logic of Duality vs. 'sarvam Khalu idam brahma' for Interfaith Dialogue".


The notion (or reality) of Brahman or Paramatman of the Astika traditions is fundamentally different from that of God in western traditions of the last 2,300 years. Likewise,definitions, perceptions and practices of religions fundamentally differ in the East from those in the West. It is proposed that this East vs. West dichotomy resulted from Aristotle's logic of duality that separated body and spirit
indelibly in the West.

Aristotle kept our common God outside the universe, ushering in several centuries of man-to-man conflicts, exploitations, slaveries, wholesale murders, and tyranny. Gifted minds thus had to craft uniformity through religions or statecraft to bring in peace in the societies. Thus the Abrahamic religions and all schemes of statecraft of West based on Aristotle's logic of duality are fundamentally at variance with cherishing and preserving outer diversities, yet are steady "improvements" over the Aristotelian thought.

For the Veda-s, this duality is a sure absurdity even in the tiniest of an atom in the niverse: "aNOraNIyAn mahatO mahIyAnAtmA guhAyAm nihitO-sya jantOH" - It (spirit or Divinity) secretly exists in everything manifest, in more tinier than the tiniest atom as well as in more expansive than the most expansive. "yatO vAchO nivartantE, aprApya manasA saha" - words do not reach There; It is beyond the reach of the mind as well. And that "It" exists fully right here, verily in us and in everything: "sarvan Khalu idam brahma". For some religions, such as Christianity and Islam, all this is blasphemy, and herein lies problem of interfaith dialogue.

In many respects, this dichotomy is similar to the intellectual schism that surfaced in post-Buddha India between Bauddha-s and Vaidika-s. The Great Buddha saw everything including Atman as impermanence and advised detachment as a solution to human misery; the Vaidika-s, notably Kumarila Bhatta and Shankara, saw an ever existing, omnipresent/omniscient, and immutable Atman in everything as the very and only real Happiness.

Veda-s declare that the Indivisible, One, immutable, and primal cause exists wholely in every material entity. This thought, its practices, and variations in one form or other have spread their influence throughout East during later day Buddhism and Hinduism. Thus seeking personal and societal happiness by "seeing" That One Divinity everywhere has become the signature of most religious practices in the East. This logic of Unity embedded in the eastern psyche is the basis for social harmony and cherishing and preserving all physical diversities. Whenever ignorance and divisions set in, saintly thinkers and prophets reset the social discourse towards acceptance of all paths on the singular basis that the One Indivisible Divinity exists in each and all.

"Not detachment, but acceptance of all as the manifestations of That omnipresent One God is the way to Happiness" was India's solution to Bauddha-Vaidika schism. "Not tolerance, but acceptance of all faiths as valid paths each inspired by the very inner singular Divinity" has to be the basis for a harmonious solution to our current religious and political conflicts. There may not be any other real basis.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Solomon {Wiki}

Solomon and the king’s daughter wandered the desert until they reached a coastal city, where they bought a fish to eat, which just happened to be the one which had swallowed the magic ring. Solomon was then able to regain his throne and expel Asmodeus. (The element of a ring thrown into the sea and found back in a fish's belly earlier appeared in Herodotus' account of Polycrates of Samos).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Jan 21 2008, 07:13 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Jan 21 2008, 07:13 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Jan 21 2008, 06:22 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(acharya @ Jan 21 2008, 06:22 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->

... and that some mighty evil people purposely set out to perpetrate a cruel fraud on humanity for unknown reasons, since the promulgation of the views would get them persecuted by the most powerful empire in history, one that was particularly cruel.

Conspiracy is the only way we can explain the origins of the cultural terrorism known as Christianity. Something so extraordinary requires an extraordinary genesis.

Okay just to be fair ,
we must make it clear as to which form of christanity we are referring to and precisely which particular aspect of that form are we analysing. As far as I am concerned our beef is primarily with the evangelist aspect of mainstream Christianity.

<!--QuoteBegin-Sauravjha+Jun 10 2008, 04:49 PM-->QUOTE(Sauravjha @ Jun 10 2008, 04:49 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Okay just to be fair ,
we must make it clear as to which form of christanity we are referring to and precisely which  particular aspect  of that form  are we analysing.  As far as I am concerned our  beef is primarily with the evangelist aspect of mainstream Christianity.

How did mainstream xhtianity become one w/o evangelistic aspect?

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)