The quoteblocks in the above post are the important bit. Not this post.
Related to the above.
It's interesting how people think - and would lead others into thinking - that a dialog with christianism will actually achieve anything. The possibility of a victory? Really? After all the years of "dialogue" documented by SR Goel, when christians repeatedly found themselves grow silent unable to respond to the Hindu side, and went away only to return for more when they were better prepared? And when all dialoguing ceases - when christianism finds that circumstances are such that these are not necessary anymore - perhaps that's when people will realise that they were just deluding themselves into thinking there was anything to be gained from it.
For christianism such dialoguing with a targeted heathen population works as a handy means to distract those among the heathens who think they are intellectuals, as well as a way to gather more information about the workings of the heathen and their views. Note that dialogue is only employed when the heathens still have (some) power: they're still in majority in India and circumstances are still such that the Hindus can't easily be mowed over by christianism.
What heathens need is not dialogue - the GrecoRomans who took the challenge did not dialogue, they wrote "polemical" literature: attacked christianism. Because unlike the "intellectual" Indians, the (actually) intellectual Hellenes didn't pretend to want to co-exist with christianism, they knew it must be exterminated since it was death to Hellenismos and the world at large. But, as RSmith explains, even polemic literature was not considered by the Hellenes to be the main prong of their attack on christianism:
The only invitation for "dialogue" from Hellenismos' end in Julian's "Against the Galilaeans" (what remains of it) was actually a challenge issued: he asked christians for documented proof of their jeebus, knowing full well they had none. But Emperor Julian was an expert on christianism after all. So his challenge was not an invitation for dialogue after all, but merely stating that they can't even respond to him because they lack proof for their fundamental premise.
Julian, it was stated, also wrote a 7-volume attack on christianism (and not merely a 3 volume series as claimed by a more popular memory). But *that* was of actual meaning. What remains of it is still of meaning. Including in how it shows the difference between the would-be Indian "intellectuals" facing off against christianism in a "dialogue" now versus what the Hellenistic heathen did: attack christianism where it hurts (and remain heathen throughout).
Hindus have not the creature who is going to out-think him. He knew christianism expertly - and as a youth, the christians already thought his scriptural knowledge was promising for his christian future (but he didn't become a pontifex of christianism) -
and he was a Hellene from the ground up. As the Heathen's Heathen and as a man who belonged to his Gods (and consequently worked for his fellow Hellenes) first, he is entirely to be trusted. He IS one of their kind and therefore speaks as a true representative. It was his own religion=Gods he was batting for. Which is why his arguments are so inoffensive to heathens - something that can't be said for any "defence" mounted by the would-be defence squads of Hindu-ism.
Hindus need heathen representatives - and even dead Roman ones serve them better than living unrepresentative Indians.
I think I may have a battery charge sufficient to parrot this forever - it is from the pen of the 4th century Roman Emperor Julian:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/Ju...laeans.htm
http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/arti...sus-christ
It is both an offensive against christianism and the whole truth - the truth circumvented by the Indians eager to "dialogue", since they dare not pronounce that Christianism Is An Evil Lie. But in that truth lies the first - and immediately implacable - of all differences between heathenism and christianism/related diseases.
One of the comments of the HK piece stated:
1. RM writing about Hindus' heathenism is weird in itself in that he's not representative of actual Hindu heathenism. (IIRC, he listed the stuff he tried as Buddhist Vipassana + ISKCON + and was it Transcendental Levitation/Meditation/whatever + declared/threatened a clinical interest in "Tantra", as if this was going to be the next hobby. Sounds typically new-age Indian. In any case, not at all a representative of heathen Hindoos (who know what they're doing). I'm not going to apologise for this statement - chalk it up as my "opinion" if you like - was obviously thinking it all along. Merely stated it now.)
Plus he regularly adds digs against actually heathen Hindoos - especially anything established - wishing they were more like him/what he wished they were, often admonishing them to the degree they are not. Yet they're not the ones who wandered off at some tangent; *they're* still heathen (a.o.t. new age).
That makes him one of the (many) last Indians who ought to be writing about what is and isn't Hindu-ism altogether and why therefore it differs from christianism.
2. The "sameness myth" can be dispelled and the "irreconcilable differences" between christianism and Hinduism highlighted to a Hindu fence-sitting audience if the would-be Hindu defence squad was for once just honest enough to say what Julian said unashamedly in the quoteblocks above. But then there's that difference between the Hellenes - heathen as they were - and today's vocalists on the Hindu side. The difference is one of heathenism. The Hellenes fought like heathens and for their heathenism.
You'd be hard-pressed today to get Hindus to say anything more in favour of their kind's way than to speak of "culture" and "civilisation". The word religion (i.e. Gods) sticks in their throat. The very defining characteristic of what christianism calls its number 1 enemy is the one thing you will never hear an English-language vocalist for Hindus speak on unapologetically. It must be alien to them.
I like this oft-parroted statement also, because it clearly underlines motivation:
Hindus don't have that kind of representation in the English language. One of your Own kind to speak for you.
You don't have a heathen Hindu (i.e. Hindoo) representative.
What you have instead is... let's say, nothing to write home about.
No. There was a bright exception:
I actually like the Kanchi Swami's response to the christian invitation to dialogue: demanding an initial set of terms from christianism that need to be satisfied before they can even speak of dialogue again. (Though I wish he'd simply told them to Get Lost For All Time, but I suppose that's not his style: he's probably one of the all too many goody-two-shoes heathens and is unlikely to tell anyone to Rot Op.)
But the Kanchi Shankaracharya's response doesn't count in the Wannabe defence squad, because it's not a wannabe: it's an actual heathen. (Just like actual practising Hindus' responses on matters pertaining to Vedam wouldn't count, and only Talageri/Elst/etc type arguments are ever admissable).
A more effective alternative - it has nothing to do with victory, but at least is guaranteed not to compromise Hindus further by introducing new errors (foot-in-mouth errors are all that has been achieved so far) is for the vocalist would-be defenders to Shut Up altogether.
If there's no 1. competent 2. representation to take the battle to the enemy (a decisive battle*) instead of "living with the enemy" (on any terms), then Hindus' best bet is to shut up. And just parrot Julian and the Hellenismos FAQ at the Ysee.gr site in the meantime. Could do much worse.
* Certainly Nothing in the form of a "dialogue" - no parleying, not even any talking with genocidal manias. Why would anyone contemplate talking to a sociopathic religion that manufactures psychos.
Related to the above.
It's interesting how people think - and would lead others into thinking - that a dialog with christianism will actually achieve anything. The possibility of a victory? Really? After all the years of "dialogue" documented by SR Goel, when christians repeatedly found themselves grow silent unable to respond to the Hindu side, and went away only to return for more when they were better prepared? And when all dialoguing ceases - when christianism finds that circumstances are such that these are not necessary anymore - perhaps that's when people will realise that they were just deluding themselves into thinking there was anything to be gained from it.
For christianism such dialoguing with a targeted heathen population works as a handy means to distract those among the heathens who think they are intellectuals, as well as a way to gather more information about the workings of the heathen and their views. Note that dialogue is only employed when the heathens still have (some) power: they're still in majority in India and circumstances are still such that the Hindus can't easily be mowed over by christianism.
What heathens need is not dialogue - the GrecoRomans who took the challenge did not dialogue, they wrote "polemical" literature: attacked christianism. Because unlike the "intellectual" Indians, the (actually) intellectual Hellenes didn't pretend to want to co-exist with christianism, they knew it must be exterminated since it was death to Hellenismos and the world at large. But, as RSmith explains, even polemic literature was not considered by the Hellenes to be the main prong of their attack on christianism:
Quote:A modern writer has borrowed a lucid metaphor from Julian's own lips to capture the horror he felt: 'He saw, with a clarity bred of hatred, one blatant feature of his age - Christianity rising like a damp-stain on the wall of his beloved Hellenic culture.'109 Julian was not so self-deceiving as to think that the damp-stain could be checked by one more polemic against Christians. But he could do more than that: the gods had made him Emperor.110
The only invitation for "dialogue" from Hellenismos' end in Julian's "Against the Galilaeans" (what remains of it) was actually a challenge issued: he asked christians for documented proof of their jeebus, knowing full well they had none. But Emperor Julian was an expert on christianism after all. So his challenge was not an invitation for dialogue after all, but merely stating that they can't even respond to him because they lack proof for their fundamental premise.
Julian, it was stated, also wrote a 7-volume attack on christianism (and not merely a 3 volume series as claimed by a more popular memory). But *that* was of actual meaning. What remains of it is still of meaning. Including in how it shows the difference between the would-be Indian "intellectuals" facing off against christianism in a "dialogue" now versus what the Hellenistic heathen did: attack christianism where it hurts (and remain heathen throughout).
Hindus have not the creature who is going to out-think him. He knew christianism expertly - and as a youth, the christians already thought his scriptural knowledge was promising for his christian future (but he didn't become a pontifex of christianism) -
and he was a Hellene from the ground up. As the Heathen's Heathen and as a man who belonged to his Gods (and consequently worked for his fellow Hellenes) first, he is entirely to be trusted. He IS one of their kind and therefore speaks as a true representative. It was his own religion=Gods he was batting for. Which is why his arguments are so inoffensive to heathens - something that can't be said for any "defence" mounted by the would-be defence squads of Hindu-ism.
Hindus need heathen representatives - and even dead Roman ones serve them better than living unrepresentative Indians.
I think I may have a battery charge sufficient to parrot this forever - it is from the pen of the 4th century Roman Emperor Julian:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/Ju...laeans.htm
Quote:It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Galilaeans
is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.
http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/arti...sus-christ
Quote:ë... Îý [õú ÃâÎý ñýôÃÂÎý, Ãâ¢Ã·ÃÆÿÃÂÃâ àñÃÂûÿÃâ, ÚÿÃÂýîûùÿÃâ, ãÃÂÃÂóùÿÃâ àñÃÂûÿÃâ, úì.] õïÃâ õìý Ãâ ñýî ÃâÎý Ãâ÷ÃÂýùÃÂúñÃÂÃÂÃâñ óýÃâ°ÃÂùöÿüÃÂýÃâ°Ã½ õÃâ¬Ã¹Ã¼Ã½Ã·ÃÆøõïÃâ -õÃâ¬Ã¯ äùòõÃÂïÿÃ⦠óìàîÃâÿù ÚûñÃâ¦Ã´Ã¯Ã¿Ã⦠ÃâñÃÂÃâñ õóïÃÂýõÃÂÃâÿ-, Ãâ¬ÃµÃÂï Ãâ¬Ã¬Ã½ÃÂÃâÃâ°Ã½ ÃÅÃâù ÃËõÃÂôÿÃÂüñù ýÿüïöõÃâõ.û.What else is there to say on christianism? This is all there needs to be said. To christianism. On christianism.
"But if you can show me that one of these men [Jesus, Paul, Cornelius, Sergius Paulus, etc.] is mentioned by the well known writers of that time, -these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius-, then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters."
(Loeb's Translation)
It is both an offensive against christianism and the whole truth - the truth circumvented by the Indians eager to "dialogue", since they dare not pronounce that Christianism Is An Evil Lie. But in that truth lies the first - and immediately implacable - of all differences between heathenism and christianism/related diseases.
One of the comments of the HK piece stated:
Quote:(RM's book Being Different) is actually aimed at the Hindu fence sitters to bring them out of the sameness myth by highlighting irreconcilable differences which the opponent has to endorse without a choice.
1. RM writing about Hindus' heathenism is weird in itself in that he's not representative of actual Hindu heathenism. (IIRC, he listed the stuff he tried as Buddhist Vipassana + ISKCON + and was it Transcendental Levitation/Meditation/whatever + declared/threatened a clinical interest in "Tantra", as if this was going to be the next hobby. Sounds typically new-age Indian. In any case, not at all a representative of heathen Hindoos (who know what they're doing). I'm not going to apologise for this statement - chalk it up as my "opinion" if you like - was obviously thinking it all along. Merely stated it now.)
Plus he regularly adds digs against actually heathen Hindoos - especially anything established - wishing they were more like him/what he wished they were, often admonishing them to the degree they are not. Yet they're not the ones who wandered off at some tangent; *they're* still heathen (a.o.t. new age).
That makes him one of the (many) last Indians who ought to be writing about what is and isn't Hindu-ism altogether and why therefore it differs from christianism.
2. The "sameness myth" can be dispelled and the "irreconcilable differences" between christianism and Hinduism highlighted to a Hindu fence-sitting audience if the would-be Hindu defence squad was for once just honest enough to say what Julian said unashamedly in the quoteblocks above. But then there's that difference between the Hellenes - heathen as they were - and today's vocalists on the Hindu side. The difference is one of heathenism. The Hellenes fought like heathens and for their heathenism.
You'd be hard-pressed today to get Hindus to say anything more in favour of their kind's way than to speak of "culture" and "civilisation". The word religion (i.e. Gods) sticks in their throat. The very defining characteristic of what christianism calls its number 1 enemy is the one thing you will never hear an English-language vocalist for Hindus speak on unapologetically. It must be alien to them.
I like this oft-parroted statement also, because it clearly underlines motivation:
Quote:Gibbon's verdict, though, was studiedly ambiguous, and when he wished to convey the heart of the man he looked elsewhere: 'A devout and sincere attachment for the gods of Athens and Rome constituted the ruling passion of Julian.'19 In my view, that judgement deserves to stand.That spells out why there was no half-hearted, weak defence. And so Julian's defence (or offensive, rather) cut right into christianism because he was a full embodiment of its exact nemesis - the so-called "paganism" being the identified nemesis of christianism.
Hindus don't have that kind of representation in the English language. One of your Own kind to speak for you.
You don't have a heathen Hindu (i.e. Hindoo) representative.
What you have instead is... let's say, nothing to write home about.
No. There was a bright exception:
I actually like the Kanchi Swami's response to the christian invitation to dialogue: demanding an initial set of terms from christianism that need to be satisfied before they can even speak of dialogue again. (Though I wish he'd simply told them to Get Lost For All Time, but I suppose that's not his style: he's probably one of the all too many goody-two-shoes heathens and is unlikely to tell anyone to Rot Op.)
But the Kanchi Shankaracharya's response doesn't count in the Wannabe defence squad, because it's not a wannabe: it's an actual heathen. (Just like actual practising Hindus' responses on matters pertaining to Vedam wouldn't count, and only Talageri/Elst/etc type arguments are ever admissable).
Quote:showing us a more effective alternative.(There is no "us".)
A more effective alternative - it has nothing to do with victory, but at least is guaranteed not to compromise Hindus further by introducing new errors (foot-in-mouth errors are all that has been achieved so far) is for the vocalist would-be defenders to Shut Up altogether.
If there's no 1. competent 2. representation to take the battle to the enemy (a decisive battle*) instead of "living with the enemy" (on any terms), then Hindus' best bet is to shut up. And just parrot Julian and the Hellenismos FAQ at the Ysee.gr site in the meantime. Could do much worse.
* Certainly Nothing in the form of a "dialogue" - no parleying, not even any talking with genocidal manias. Why would anyone contemplate talking to a sociopathic religion that manufactures psychos.