PDA

View Full Version : Why all the Missionaries here



Sahasranama
12 June 2010, 11:10 AM
Namaste Christians,

I was wondering why so many Christians register at Hindu forums. Is the company of your fellow Christianmen not enough for your spiritual progress?

Eastern Mind
12 June 2010, 12:13 PM
Vannakkam Sahasranama:

Yes it is frustrating. I share that. But from the Christians perspective, it is his dharma (duty in Xian terms) to try to spread the gospel, or convert. Fortunately for us, many Christians take this duty lightly, and therefore aren't so annoying. Personally, I hope they keep it up, because intelligent people see the ridiculousness of the whole thing, and turn away from Christianity altogether because of it. So, in a longer term the strategy does exactly the opposite of what its intended to do. For every convert outside of predominantly Christian countries, another 5 or so drop out of it. You can witness that on these forums over and over.

"I'm fed up with Christianity. It no longer makes any sense to me at all. I've been looking around and SD seems to make so much more sense." Then we go on to welcome them home in a polite way. There is no comparison at all. One is rude, forceful, and irritating as heck. The other is polite, humble, and welcoming to all. The day that Hinduism starts proseletysing like that is the day I go looking for a new religion.

Aum Namasivaya

Eastern Mind
12 June 2010, 12:17 PM
Vannakkam again:

If people wouldn't engage in dialogue, they'd just go on their merry (sarcasm intended) ways.

Aum Saravanabhava

Sahasranama
12 June 2010, 12:59 PM
I think the presence of christians here at Hindu Dharma Forums is shifting the conversations more towards christianity and islam, rather than Sanatana Dharma.

I would not discourage non Hindus to register at Hindu websites, of course. But I would think that the theme of Hindu website would remain Hinduism and not christianity or jesus. Like you have said many times, christianity is irrelevant to Hindus.

I don't think it's our job to show christians that what they believe it wrong. We don't believe in that stuff, if other people believe that stuff, we should respect that, but do we really want to hear about it constantly on a Hindu forum? There are enough christian forums on the net, good Hindu forums like this one are very rare.

jaggin
28 September 2010, 09:20 AM
I think the presence of christians here at Hindu Dharma Forums is shifting the conversations more towards christianity and islam, rather than Sanatana Dharma.

I would not discourage non Hindus to register at Hindu websites, of course. But I would think that the theme of Hindu website would remain Hinduism and not christianity or jesus. Like you have said many times, christianity is irrelevant to Hindus.

I don't think it's our job to show christians that what they believe it wrong. We don't believe in that stuff, if other people believe that stuff, we should respect that, but do we really want to hear about it constantly on a Hindu forum? There are enough christian forums on the net, good Hindu forums like this one are very rare.

I haven't seen any evidence of a shift. I suppose it is a matter of sensitivity. For a puritan any presence is too much.

The reality is that I as a christian am not able to speak about Hindu topics with any level of understanding. The Christian forum on here gives me an ability to talk to Hindus about something of which I have knowledge.

I doubt this is the case. Hindus might think Christianity isn't relevant but God does not see it that way.

As for the OP, there is no question that Jesus has commanded us to preach the gospel to everyone. However a message that does not produce understanding is less effective. For that reason there is a need to reach some common ground where the message can have the desired result. Most Christians in the past have thought of the desired result as conversion but I don't see that as an absolute necessity.

BryonMorrigan
28 September 2010, 10:45 AM
As for the OP, there is no question that Jesus has commanded us to preach the gospel to everyone.


And that commandment is an exhortation to evil and wickedness, and should be opposed as such. Proselytism is a form of "hate speech," as it presupposes that the other person is "wrong" and that their religion is "false." It's high-time that non-Christians stopped treating these kinds of attempts to destroy our religions with politeness.

Sahasranama
28 September 2010, 03:41 PM
I doubt this is the case. Hindus might think Christianity isn't relevant but God does not see it that way.

I am glad you were able to have a conversation with God.

sanjaya
28 September 2010, 06:08 PM
Sahasranama, are there a lot of Christians on HDF? I never noticed. I've only talked to three or so in my time here.


I doubt this is the case. Hindus might think Christianity isn't relevant but God does not see it that way.


Do keep in mind that any acceptance of this statement on our parts is predicated on our agreeing that your Bible accurately represents God. Just about no one here believes in the Bible. One might as well be coming here and talking about space aliens and tin foil hats. The reason we take you seriously is because your beliefs were impressed upon you by your Christian culture and aren't simply the result of delusion or mental illness. But that doesn't make them any more reasonable from an objective standpoint.


As for the OP, there is no question that Jesus has commanded us to preach the gospel to everyone. However a message that does not produce understanding is less effective. For that reason there is a need to reach some common ground where the message can have the desired result. Most Christians in the past have thought of the desired result as conversion but I don't see that as an absolute necessity.


Heh, sure, whatever you say. Actually Jaggin, I like you much more than the evangelicals in your faith. I don't think you have the superiority complex that they possess. But you do remind me very much of the "emergent Church" movement in America, which tries to hold on to evangelical dogmatism at an intellectual level, while minimizing the offensive aspects of Christianity, and ultimately they preach such an obfuscated message that they end up saying nothing at all. You hold to a religion whose scriptures prescribe condemnation for all non-believers, and I think you recognize that there's something wrong with this belief. Thus you tend to de-emphasize that part of your faith, while still intellectually assenting to it (I think). From what I can tell you do hold to evangelical dogmas, but I doubt that any Hindu will ever become a Christian because of you. For that, you have my sincere thanks.

Eastern Mind
28 September 2010, 06:24 PM
Sahasranama, are there a lot of Christians on HDF? I never noticed. I've only talked to three or so in my time here.


Vannakkam Sanjaya: I agree there are few. However, I was 'accused' (I mean the chap just said he thought I was a Christian) of it the other day in a PM sent to me by another member. Do I come across as a Christian to you? Maybe its because sometimes people do a typo and call me Easter Mind. I sure hope its not because of my skin colour although I have been accused of being a Christian for that reason before. What do you think?

Aum Namasivaya

Ao
02 October 2010, 10:43 AM
Do I come across as a Christian to you? Maybe its because sometimes people do a typo and call me Easter Mind. I sure hope its not because of my skin colour although I have been accused of being a Christian for that reason before. What do you think?

Aum Namasivaya

I hear you on the skin color thing, Eastern Mind. Something I deal with almost daily (but not from other Hindus).

For my part, I would never think you were a Christian. But your calm demeanor and openness to all might come across as a tacit approval of other views to those who are more, shall we say, bold in expressing their opinions. To me, though, it's refreshing.

Eastern Mind
02 October 2010, 11:24 AM
Vannakkam Ao: In retrospect I shouldn't have reiterated that one. What others think is irrelevant to personal sadhana. I only reacted for about 10 minutes, and that was just curiously pondering why anyone would come to that conclusion when I am so openly critical of Christian tactics etc. But you're right in that I try to remain civil.

So what in Japan is the closest to Hinduism for you? Shinto shrines, or Buddhist shrines? Or even perhaps there are other Hindus? Does Tokyo have a single Hindu temple? Just curious.

Aum Namasivaya

Ao
02 October 2010, 10:59 PM
So what in Japan is the closest to Hinduism for you? Shinto shrines, or Buddhist shrines? Or even perhaps there are other Hindus? Does Tokyo have a single Hindu temple? Just curious.

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste EM, I always enjoy hearing from you.

Those are very interesting questions. I usually pray to Lord Ganesha when attending a Shinto shrine; intuitively that seems most appropriate to me. Philosophically though, I find that since Buddhism has its roots, and indeed most of its thought systems, firmly based in Hinduism there is much ground for commonality.

I have no idea about temples in Tokyo, I live far to the south and west of there. I'd love to find out though, and will be sure to let you know when I do. Depending on how my job hunt goes, we may end up moving in the Spring, and I may then find myself in a place with more of a Hindu community. I'm sure they must exist somewhere in Japan!

kallol
02 October 2010, 11:52 PM
Do not know if it would be of any help.

1. http://www.japanindians.com/

2.
Indians in Japan speak a number of different languages and follow various religions; there is little correlation between religion or language and profession, except in the case of the Jains, many of whom work in the jewellery industry.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indians_in_Japan#cite_note-17) The Jains are generally concentrated around Okachi-machi in Taitō, Tokyo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tait%C5%8D,_Tokyo).[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indians_in_Japan#cite_note-18) On the whole, Tokyo has fewer religious facilities for Indians than does Kobe.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indians_in_Japan#cite_note-19)
There are Sikh gurudwara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurudwara) in both Kobe and Tokyo; the latter is of more recent provenance, having been founded in 1999 in the basement of an office building.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indians_in_Japan#cite_note-20) Some Sikhs employed as unskilled labourers in small and medium enterprises cut their hair short (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sehajdhari) and remove their turbans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dastar) in violation of the principle of kesh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kesh_(Sikhism)), because their employers are unfamiliar with their customs and do not give them any latitude in their style of dress. They consider this just a temporary adaptation to Japanese society. However, this practise is not common among Sikhs in skilled professions such as IT

3. http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20070422x3.html

4. http://www.manicat.org/main.html

5.
Diwali まつり 2009 Festival Celebration, Tokyo at Tokyo Ryutsu Center

Diwali is major festival in India celebrated throughout Indian Subcontinents.

While Diwali is 4000 years old, its message is as fresh as ever -

* A fun filled celebration of life,
* An ever deeper bonding among the communities, and
* A commitment to reach out to people who need a helping hand

This event provides an exciting platform for the Indians living in Japan as well as Japanese and other foreigners to be part of a tradition which is as old as the civilization itself - DIWALI.

First event of its kind in Tokyo, with 4000 - 5000 participants

A unique opportunity to engage with, address, and be part of a 20,000 strong Indian community in Japan which currently manages and supports critical functions at most major organizations in Japan.


Love and best wishes

jaggin
23 November 2010, 07:44 AM
And that commandment is an exhortation to evil and wickedness, and should be opposed as such. Proselytism is a form of "hate speech," as it presupposes that the other person is "wrong" and that their religion is "false." It's high-time that non-Christians stopped treating these kinds of attempts to destroy our religions with politeness.

You probably ren't the first person to call God evil and wicked. Usually it is someone who loves evil so anything good is perceived as evil.

You are in error on both counts. Proselytism for Christians is an act of love and there is no love in leaving a person in a debilitated state.

I agree that it isn't a good thing to destroy a religion simply on the basis of it being different. However that does not mean that we believe that all religious beliefs are good ones. As the apostle Paul says "Cling to that which is good and discard the rest."

jaggin
23 November 2010, 07:49 AM
I am glad you were able to have a conversation with God.
[/color][/b][/font][/color]

This happens also but it indicates a misunderstanding on your part. God is in me and speaks through me. This is pure Christianity but it took a while for me to get to this point. For most Chrsitians the Paraclete operates more in the background.

jaggin
23 November 2010, 08:39 AM
Sahasranama, are there a lot of Christians on HDF? I never noticed. I've only talked to three or so in my time here.

Do keep in mind that any acceptance of this statement on our parts is predicated on our agreeing that your Bible accurately represents God. Just about no one here believes in the Bible. One might as well be coming here and talking about space aliens and tin foil hats. The reason we take you seriously is because your beliefs were impressed upon you by your Christian culture and aren't simply the result of delusion or mental illness. But that doesn't make them any more reasonable from an objective standpoint.

Heh, sure, whatever you say. Actually Jaggin, I like you much more than the evangelicals in your faith. I don't think you have the superiority complex that they possess. But you do remind me very much of the "emergent Church" movement in America, which tries to hold on to evangelical dogmatism at an intellectual level, while minimizing the offensive aspects of Christianity, and ultimately they preach such an obfuscated message that they end up saying nothing at all. You hold to a religion whose scriptures prescribe condemnation for all non-believers, and I think you recognize that there's something wrong with this belief. Thus you tend to de-emphasize that part of your faith, while still intellectually assenting to it (I think). From what I can tell you do hold to evangelical dogmas, but I doubt that any Hindu will ever become a Christian because of you. For that, you have my sincere thanks.

I imagine that is a blessing. Otherwise you might have to suffer through a great deal of evangelization.

This sounds like a good topic for discussion. How does one view a text that is not the one that was taught to you? For my part I read the Vedas with an open mind but the Paraclete is always with me to guide my understanding. How does one judge a text? Can a text be verified simply by reading it?

There is no doubt that some beliefs are impressed but it is also true that some are acquired through personal search and others have come by the grace of God. For instance: my church did not believe in drinking or smoking. I wonder how unreasonable that is. Now the government is trying to impress people with a belief that smoking is bad for your health and that excessive drinking is bad for everyone.
So does that mean that Hindus are more reasonable and smoke and drink excessively because their culture is different?

Mohammed Ali (Cassius Clay) had a superiority complex. It must have been a source of consternation for thos who fought agianst him because he was a superior fighter. As a Christian I know that I have a superior religion. Every once in a while some punk religion like the ancient Egyptian religion thinks it can outclass God but it finds out quickly that it can't. However superiority does not necessitate an adversarial relationship. After all, Mohammed Ali may have been the best but the other fighters put on a good contest and were highly skilled.

That is an interesting and much discussed subject. Belief can condemn a person or save a person. There is a christian cult in America that believe in handling poisonous snakes. Such a belief has led to the deaths of many. The question is: When do you find out if your belief will bite you? After you are dead?

My, my you are a bit cheeky! As Mother Theresa said: "God doesn't require me to be successful, but to be faithful. However you mistake my ministry. It isn't in reaping but in sowing. Granted a lot of seed falls on unproductive soil. Sometimes my ministry is to till the soil and remove the rocks.

sanjaya
23 November 2010, 02:33 PM
I imagine that is a blessing. Otherwise you might have to suffer through a great deal of evangelization.

A mixed blessing, perhaps. I can't say I enjoy being evangelized. But I'm left unsure as to why these people come to HDF, since I don't have a large sample to consider.



This sounds like a good topic for discussion. How does one view a text that is not the one that was taught to you? For my part I read the Vedas with an open mind but the Paraclete is always with me to guide my understanding. How does one judge a text? Can a text be verified simply by reading it?

For my part I've read the Bible. We do not believe in the doctrines concerning the Holy Spirit (i.e. Paraclete) as you do. But many of us do believe that we can't understand any text about God without God's help. Alas, what God does is his business and not mine. So I simply read a text, and use my faculty of reason to evaluate it.

As to how a text can be judged, obviously one has to look outside the text, and so a simple reading is not sufficient. Otherwise we'd have to take every text at its word. What ideas do you have?



There is no doubt that some beliefs are impressed but it is also true that some are acquired through personal search and others have come by the grace of God. For instance: my church did not believe in drinking or smoking. I wonder how unreasonable that is. Now the government is trying to impress people with a belief that smoking is bad for your health and that excessive drinking is bad for everyone.
So does that mean that Hindus are more reasonable and smoke and drink excessively because their culture is different?

Not entirely sure what you mean here. Many Hindus also believe that drugs are spiritually harmful. And even those who don't have had this belief impressed upon them elsewhere, most likely at school. I'm not denying that we are all capable of learning and rejecting things based on our ability to reason. So I would not resort to saying that all Christians are Christians solely because they were raised that way (such a claim can be demonstrated to be false) But one's upbringing provides a powerful bias, wouldn't you say?



Mohammed Ali (Cassius Clay) had a superiority complex. It must have been a source of consternation for thos who fought agianst him because he was a superior fighter. As a Christian I know that I have a superior religion. Every once in a while some punk religion like the ancient Egyptian religion thinks it can outclass God but it finds out quickly that it can't. However superiority does not necessitate an adversarial relationship. After all, Mohammed Ali may have been the best but the other fighters put on a good contest and were highly skilled.

Well, I don't know it's as easy as making an Exodus reference. Jews would claim that victory as their own, and add that Christianity is a false religion. What victories can you unequivocally attribute to Christianity?



That is an interesting and much discussed subject. Belief can condemn a person or save a person. There is a christian cult in America that believe in handling poisonous snakes. Such a belief has led to the deaths of many. The question is: When do you find out if your belief will bite you? After you are dead?

You've made a good point. What do you think about a religion which by its own admission can't be confirmed until after the devotee is dead?



My, my you are a bit cheeky! As Mother Theresa said: "God doesn't require me to be successful, but to be faithful. However you mistake my ministry. It isn't in reaping but in sowing. Granted a lot of seed falls on unproductive soil. Sometimes my ministry is to till the soil and remove the rocks.


Taking Ezekiel 3:18 seriously, I see? Fair enough, but my problem is that sometimes a few Hindus will convert out of fear of hell, and do themselves much harm in the process. Many of these people return to Hinduism after suffering enough with the belief that everyone they know is condemned to hell. Surely you've heard of the missionaries in India who pay people to convert to Christianity. These are just a few of the reasons we're opposed to Christian evangelism.

HumbleStudent
27 November 2010, 11:05 AM
You probably ren't the first person to call God evil and wicked. Usually it is someone who loves evil so anything good is perceived as evil.

You are in error on both counts. Proselytism for Christians is an act of love and there is no love in leaving a person in a debilitated state.

I agree that it isn't a good thing to destroy a religion simply on the basis of it being different. However that does not mean that we believe that all religious beliefs are good ones. As the apostle Paul says "Cling to that which is good and discard the rest."

The very last statement and belief is exactly why I left Christianity. Is God so small that there is only one way to find him? Out of the thousands of religions yours is the only one that is correct? It is the superiority complex, the people that condemn everyone else and the people that say I am Christian and certainly do not act anything like Christ. I know that the Christian belief is a valid path to God, but certainly not the only path. Hinduism is what I have always been looking for, it is certainly a much bigger and intelligent world than you have any idea of.

Eastern Mind
27 November 2010, 01:24 PM
Vannakkam HS: Nice Ganesha picture you have there!

Ekadantaye Vidmahe Vakratundaya Dhimahi Tanodante Pracodayat


Aum Namasivaya

sanjaya
27 November 2010, 01:59 PM
As long as we're all back on this thread...


You probably ren't the first person to call God evil and wicked. Usually it is someone who loves evil so anything good is perceived as evil.

From what I can tell, Byron believes in God, and doesn't believe that God is evil or wicked. What Byron is saying is that he doesn't believe the Bible is inspired by God, but rather that men with evil intent put words in God's mouth and called it holy scripture. You may disagree with that, but our discussion will only progress if we don't misrepresent one another's points of view. Calling the Bible evil is not the same thing as calling God evil.

It seems to me that Christians see a false Christian/atheist dichotomy. Not all non-Christians are atheists who reject God. What we reject is the things you believe about God.

Ramakrishna
27 November 2010, 11:44 PM
Ekadantaye Vidmahe Vakratundaya Dhimahi Tanodante Pracodayat


Namaste Eastern Mindji,

Translation please? I tried searching, but nothing came up.

Jai Sri Krishna

Maya3
28 November 2010, 07:23 AM
[QUOTE=jaggin;54240]

[B][COLOR=blue]You are in error on both counts. Proselytism for Christians is an act of love and there is no love in leaving a person in a debilitated state.

Leaving a person in a debilitated state.

Do you not see how terribly rude this is?

Maya

Eastern Mind
28 November 2010, 08:04 AM
Vannakkam Ramakrishna:

Yajvan always explains these things very well. I just use it. Look about half way down the post.
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=12957&postcount=1

Aum Namasivaya

sanjaya
28 November 2010, 11:54 AM
You are in error on both counts. Proselytism for Christians is an act of love and there is no love in leaving a person in a debilitated state.

Leaving a person in a debilitated state.

Do you not see how terribly rude this is?


He believes that Hindus are going to hell, so he's logically consistent if nothing else. I do agree with you that this is terribly rude. But the root of the problem here isn't Jaggin. This belief in the eternal torment of unconverted Hindus (and people of all other non-Christian religions) is a defining doctrine of evangelical Christianity. Evangelicals realize this is outright hateful. Since most of them are otherwise reasonable people who practice a hateful religion, they try to sugarcoat this belief behind flowery language like "you need to find God" or "hell is separation from the love of God." Again, they feign a Christian/atheist dichotomy, where those of us who don't believe in Christianity are somehow rejecting the very idea of the existence of a God. I'm always confused when I, a believer in a supernatural God, am told that I need to believe in God. What Christians are really saying is that I need to believe that Jesus died for my sins and that all religions but Christianity are false. I guess the idea behind establishing this dichotomy is that it makes for a more acceptable punching bag. If you go around condemning Hindus, you may be seen as a racist (and whatever else evangelicals are, they usually aren't racist so long as you convert). But atheists are more acceptable targets in America, so by portraying all non-Christians as atheists, it becomes socially more acceptable to condemn them.

My dad always says "you can't make excrement shine" (well he doesn't say "excrement," but you get the idea). No matter how evangelical Christians dress up their beliefs, they adhere to a blatently hateful belief system which causes them to look down on others with contempt. They say that they proselytize out of love, and indeed I think that many of them believe that their proselytization is an act of love. But refuse to convert for long enough, and their love usually turns into disdain. Though I don't want to press the analogy too far, they're a sort of culturalist version of the racist KKK here in America. And much like the KKK, they are capable of living as high functioning and sometimes even highly educated members of society.

Evangelical Christianity is not the sort of religion that Hindus should take lightly or even as legitimate spirituality. The evangelical brand of the Christian religion is singularly dangerous, i.e., it is in the same category as drugs and gangs; this is the sort of thing you need to keep your kids away from.

Maya3
28 November 2010, 12:16 PM
He believes that Hindus are going to hell, so he's logically consistent if nothing else. I do agree with you that this is terribly rude. But the root of the problem here isn't Jaggin. This belief in the eternal torment of unconverted Hindus (and people of all other non-Christian religions) is a defining doctrine of evangelical Christianity. Evangelicals realize this is outright hateful. Since most of them are otherwise reasonable people who practice a hateful religion, they try to sugarcoat this belief behind flowery language like "you need to find God" or "hell is separation from the love of God." Again, they feign a Christian/atheist dichotomy, where those of us who don't believe in Christianity are somehow rejecting the very idea of the existence of a God. I'm always confused when I, a believer in a supernatural God, am told that I need to believe in God. What Christians are really saying is that I need to believe that Jesus died for my sins and that all religions but Christianity are false. I guess the idea behind establishing this dichotomy is that it makes for a more acceptable punching bag. If you go around condemning Hindus, you may be seen as a racist (and whatever else evangelicals are, they usually aren't racist so long as you convert). But atheists are more acceptable targets in America, so by portraying all non-Christians as atheists, it becomes socially more acceptable to condemn them.

My dad always says "you can't make excrement shine" (well he doesn't say "excrement," but you get the idea). No matter how evangelical Christians dress up their beliefs, they adhere to a blatently hateful belief system which causes them to look down on others with contempt. They say that they proselytize out of love, and indeed I think that many of them believe that their proselytization is an act of love. But refuse to convert for long enough, and their love usually turns into disdain. Though I don't want to press the analogy too far, they're a sort of culturalist version of the racist KKK here in America. And much like the KKK, they are capable of living as high functioning and sometimes even highly educated members of society.

Evangelical Christianity is not the sort of religion that Hindus should take lightly or even as legitimate spirituality. The evangelical brand of the Christian religion is singularly dangerous, i.e., it is in the same category as drugs and gangs; this is the sort of thing you need to keep your kids away from.

Very good point.

It´s fascinating to me that people really believe this.
Believing it themselves is fine if it gets them closer to God, I say go for it and enjoy the ride.
But where my fascination starts is when they go around saying that only theirs is right and all others are false.
It must be a way to convince themselves and to have their own faith confirmed.
I don't see what can be so spiritual about walking around pointing out fault with others, instead of focusing on your own spirituality?

Logically it makes no sense whatsoever that there is only one way to God
( a pretty contradictory and odd way as well far as I´m concerned, especially since it´s so literal, but again, if it works for you thats great), but why spend so much time on convincing others? It´s a little like multi level marketing.

Also what I find interesting is when they say that we believe in false Gods.

I thought Christians believe that there is only one god. But when they say that we believe in the wrong ONES, they are the ones who say that there are several.

Maya

sanjaya
28 November 2010, 01:36 PM
Very good point.

It´s fascinating to me that people really believe this.
Believing it themselves is fine if it gets them closer to God, I say go for it and enjoy the ride.
But where my fascination starts is when they go around saying that only theirs is right and all others are false.
It must be a way to convince themselves and to have their own faith confirmed.
I don't see what can be so spiritual about walking around pointing out fault with others, instead of focusing on your own spirituality?

Logically it makes no sense whatsoever that there is only one way to God
( a pretty contradictory and odd way as well far as I´m concerned, especially since it´s so literal, but again, if it works for you thats great), but why spend so much time on convincing others? It´s a little like multi level marketing.

Also what I find interesting is when they say that we believe in false Gods.

I thought Christians believe that there is only one god. But when they say that we believe in the wrong ONES, they are the ones who say that there are several.

Maya

I think you've identified an important motivation on their part, one that I often miss. I find it highly likely that their proselytization is an expression of their own insecurities with their faith. That's the problem with their emphasis on historicity. They say that Christianity would be worthless unless the events described in the Bible were literal history, and this is a rather easy claim to dispute. They have to contend with evolutionary biology, incorrect or anachronistic depictions of the ancient Near East, and heavily biased Biblical depictions of the early Christian church, among other issues. Maybe they feel that these issues will simply go away if they can convert others and thus legitimize their own faith.

Whatever their motives, they can't be allowed to continue their activities in America and India. As I see on college campuses in America, Hindus are often targetted specifically for conversion. Evangelical Christians, who are aware of Hindu emphasis on family values, misrepresent their beliefs by deemphasizing the hell doctrine and stating that one can be Christian without abandoning one's Hindu Indian culture. They fund missionaries to go to college campuses in India and do the same. In effect they are legitimizing their beliefs in their own minds, and at our expense.

Maya3
28 November 2010, 04:33 PM
Whatever their motives, they can't be allowed to continue their activities in America and India. As I see on college campuses in America, Hindus are often targetted specifically for conversion. Evangelical Christians, who are aware of Hindu emphasis on family values, misrepresent their beliefs by deemphasizing the hell doctrine and stating that one can be Christian without abandoning one's Hindu Indian culture. They fund missionaries to go to college campuses in India and do the same. In effect they are legitimizing their beliefs in their own minds, and at our expense.

I imagine that Hindu's are especially vulnerable to these tactics since we are open to all religions and realize that all religions will lead to God.
From this standpoint it's easy to be drawn into a conversation with them, and then it can be hard to get your point across.

Proselytizing is just rude in general.
But if they insist in getting info out, why can't they just stay on the side of the road with their info and not insist on converting you.
There was a truck on the street the other day that had a sign that said:
"Do you need prayer? We'll pray for you."
Then there was a man sitting there on a chair, I assume to pray with the people who wanted it.
I actually thought it was kind of sweet, they announced that they were there, but were not pushy about it. If you were interested you could stop, if not then no one tried to get your attention.

What really gets to me is when they ring your doorbell, or stand with signs that talks about Hell and how the only way to God is Jesus. It's offensive and rude.

Maya

Eastern Mind
28 November 2010, 04:44 PM
Vannakam: Some Indian states have laws against proseltysing. Certainly you'd be in deep trouble in Islamic countries for it. You wouldn't hardly dare keep a small picture of Ganesha in your wallet.

I'm not sure how effective the Indian state laws are, but I'd vote for it here. Its not like you can't find Christianity if you honestly want to have a look. I think there should be some limits, like being able to prosecute for trespassing if you put up a sign that says "No soliciting" in front of your house. It would be a first step.

Maybe I'll put up a sign that says, Christian Missionaries will be shot on sight" in front of my place. Actually we've had Jehovah's politely get out when the see that 'Evil" elephant headed God in our front foyer.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=41021


And an apt and funny cartoon...

http://hubpages.com/hub/Why-I-hate-Christians

Aum Namasivaya

Ramakrishna
29 November 2010, 12:35 AM
Namaste Sanjaya, Maya, et al.,

You all have raised excellent points. As somebody who has personally been extensively targeted by evangelicals, I have also noticed two different types of motivations behind their actions.

The first is the person who truly believes that I will burn in hell for all eternity if I don't accept Christ as my savior. So I guess you could say that they are doing it out of "love", although I really wouldn't call it that.

The second is, as you said, the person who is very insecure about their faith. They use this evangelicalism to "confirm" their own faith. I think this ties into the superiority complex that most Christians have. The whole idea that I am right and going to paradise with Jesus while you are going to burn in hell forever if you don't believe what I believe.

It's really hard to decide which one is scarier and worse. The nut who truly believes in all that garbage and evangelizes out of "love" or the idiot who needs to evangelize in order to confirm his false faith and uphold his superiority complex?

Jai Sri Krishna

Ramakrishna
29 November 2010, 12:51 AM
Namaste Eastern Mindji,



I'm not sure how effective the Indian state laws are, but I'd vote for it here. Its not like you can't find Christianity if you honestly want to have a look. I think there should be some limits, like being able to prosecute for trespassing if you put up a sign that says "No soliciting" in front of your house. It would be a first step.

I also would want to see laws against proselytizing, although that is highly unlikely to happen in my country, the United States. If anything, the opposite would happen, and more proselytizing would be encouraged.


Maybe I'll put up a sign that says, Christian Missionaries will be shot on sight" in front of my place. Actually we've had Jehovah's politely get out when the see that 'Evil" elephant headed God in our front foyer.


The sign idea sounds good! But I suppose a picture of a deity right in plain sight would do the trick :)

Jai Sri Krishna

Maya3
29 November 2010, 06:44 AM
The first is the person who truly believes that I will burn in hell for all eternity if I don't accept Christ as my savior. So I guess you could say that they are doing it out of "love", although I really wouldn't call it that.

It's really hard to decide which one is scarier and worse. The nut who truly believes in all that garbage and evangelizes out of "love" or the idiot who needs to evangelize in order to confirm his false faith and uphold his superiority complex?

Jai Sri Krishna

Right, thats a good question.
But Imagine really believing that someone is going to burn in Hell, if you think about it real flames all around you for eternity, it is very scary.
I wouldn´s sleep at night if I believed in that.


EM,
You mentioned a Jehova´s witness leaving after seeing Ganesha,
Something similar happened to my sister in law with her husbands home care nurse, only it wasn´t a Hindu image.

Maya

Sahasranama
29 November 2010, 06:57 AM
Maybe I should tell jehova witnesses that I am looking for people to sacrifice to Ma Kali, so they are welcome to visit whenever they like. ;)

Eastern Mind
29 November 2010, 07:17 AM
Something similar happened to my sister in law with her husbands home care nurse, only it wasn´t a Hindu image.

Maya

Vannakkam Maya: There was a time when the missionaries would linger like a bad odor around hospitals especially and wait until people were vulnerable, or on their death beds. In some hospitals, at least here in Canada, common sense has prevailed and pastoral care within the hospital is coordinated by a more sensible liberal Christian or secular person and any missionary or pastor has to register, and then only provide care or counselling to members of their own flock. Prosecutors risk being banned from the hospital. Now that's a step in the right direction.

I know if I was in the hospital with a broken leg, and some evangelical dude came around, I'd let him have a piece of my mind.

I also have no respect for the preacher who takes his hostile fire and brimstone message to funerals, and speaks to the heathens like me in the crowd while he has them sitting in a place and time where it would be rude to walk out.

I say, `Just grow up yet.

Aum Namasivaya

BryonMorrigan
29 November 2010, 10:34 AM
Maybe I should tell jehova witnesses that I am looking for people to sacrifice to Ma Kali, so they are welcome to visit whenever they like. ;)

I do like to ensure that I always talk to any Christians in my house in my library...which is where this picture was taken:

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm86/BryonMorrigan/100_0686-1.jpg

Sometimes they stare uneasily at it... ;)

BryonMorrigan
29 November 2010, 10:38 AM
You probably ren't the first person to call God evil and wicked. Usually it is someone who loves evil so anything good is perceived as evil.

You are in error on both counts. Proselytism for Christians is an act of love and there is no love in leaving a person in a debilitated state.

No. You are the one who is evil and wicked, and any "god" that would commit the atrocities that you claim "he" would/did do, including throwing all non-Christians into "hell," is certainly not a "god," but a "demon." It is YOU who worships evil.


No matter how evangelical Christians dress up their beliefs, they adhere to a blatently hateful belief system which causes them to look down on others with contempt. They say that they proselytize out of love, and indeed I think that many of them believe that their proselytization is an act of love. But refuse to convert for long enough, and their love usually turns into disdain. Though I don't want to press the analogy too far, they're a sort of culturalist version of the racist KKK here in America. And much like the KKK, they are capable of living as high functioning and sometimes even highly educated members of society.

Indeed. It is nothing other than "Spiritual Racism." And for those who aren't aware...the Ku Klux Klan in America was/is a CHRISTIAN SUPREMACIST organization, above all else.

Sahasranama
29 November 2010, 11:03 AM
I do like to ensure that I always talk to any Christians in my house in my library...which is where this picture was taken:

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm86/BryonMorrigan/100_0686-1.jpg

Sometimes they stare uneasily at it... ;)

Nice, when I was in primary school a friend of my sister came over, she was jehova and was afraid of the pictures of durga.

yajvan
29 November 2010, 01:29 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

I talk to Christians all the time. There is a general sense that their orientation to others is, one needs to be 'saved'. They see me as a bit different - not struggling, not confused about the Supreme, comfortable in my views and not 'lost' in my direction. To this I think I capture their attention.

I do not call out any flaws I see in their views, but compare and contrast their views and scripture with what I know. I talk to them often about the upaniṣad's and the wisdom therein.

They ask for 'a good word' for the day and I offer them some knowledge from various upaniṣad's that will resonate with them - e.g. know thy Self. I avoid being too esoteric so not to confuse them and follow kṛṣṇa-ji's instructions as to not confuse others.


I have talked to a few at length ( hours) on various ideas . At times I could see the brain cramp occur and that is fine. That tells me I went too deep in one area and best visit another subject.


What comes up often is , why all these gods that I hear of ? I inform them there is only One ( tad-ekam) , yet we see Him in everything, every act, and we give various names to these actions, personalities, so we can adore that quality of Him ( Or Her). You see, we find the Supreme not only at the church or temple, but in an atom , a mountain, in the solar system, in the universe. There is no place He is not.
You inform me, we are made in His image - to that I say yes, and that 'image' is in me as Self, we call ātman, you may wish to call soul.

You inform me that God the Father is in heaven - I say yes, and He is also in a blade of grass. You inform me He has a son, I say yes, that son is nara - all of human kind. You say He is the Creator - I say yes, that is His śakti, His divine will. You say the child of God has a mother named Mary - I say our mother is Mother Divine and we know Her by many names.

At the end of the day, they do not see me as someone that has fallen and needs saving, and are introduced to various sanātana dharma principles - yet I have nothing to sell.





praṇām

satay
29 November 2010, 01:51 PM
At the end of the day, they do not see me as someone that has fallen and needs saving, and are introduced to various sanātana dharma principles - yet I have nothing to sell.
praṇām

Remarkable!

Eastern Mind
29 November 2010, 02:01 PM
Vannakkam Yajvan:

This only worked for me in long term relationships with colleagues, where we got to know each other well as people, all religion aside. Perhaps also with liberal Christians who weren't so insecure about their own message. Other that that, well... what can I say? You must have remarkable tact and endurance. Not something i feel is that worthwhile, yet I am glad you have the fortitude and patience to do that.

Aum Namasivaya

NayaSurya
29 November 2010, 03:34 PM
On our way up to Grandmother's house in Illinois we saw a sign in front of a large church which was very nearby the Hindu temple which said..."All your idols are made by human hands"

I laughed so hard at this confused comment...as human hands are Beloved's Divine Hands.

The very hands which made such a sign are the same hands which made those images, Beloved Shiva.

Such irony I found during this wretched holiday weekend.

Eastern Mind
29 November 2010, 03:51 PM
Vannakkam Naya:

Right beside the temple? Why, how polite! Welcome to my neighbourhood, I guess. At least it provides fodder for humorous insights.

"Daddy, I like the look of that building over there. Is it a museum?"

"No, son. It's a place where evil prays. I mean preys."

"Daddy, I don't understand."

"Son, trust me. It's just a bad bad place. Don't ever go near."

"But Daddy, doesn't God love everyone?"

"Not those people, son. God only loves good people like you."

"Oh. That's good. I love you, Daddy."



Aum Namasivaya

satay
29 November 2010, 04:11 PM
namaskar,


"All your idols are made by human hands"


Including the building called 'church'. :rolleyes:

yajvan
29 November 2010, 04:42 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté EM (et.al)


Vannakkam Yajvan:

This only worked for me in long term relationships with colleagues, where we got to know each other well as people,

Yes, I found this to be true . I find this with others that may come from a different school of sanātana dharma also . In most cases there is a settling in period of getting aquainted.

When there is small-small thinking (narrowness of vision and comprehension) from any school, belief, etc. I choose not participate in the conversation.
So with Christians, the same applies. There is no way I wish to change their minds ( and they mine); I can only act in a way that demonstates my beliefs by my actions and words. Yet I have found the ones I have spoken with have been open to ideas and listening - and in turn, I must do the same to keep a balanced relationship.



praṇām

Maya3
29 November 2010, 05:19 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

I talk to Christians all the time. There is a general sense that their orientation to others is, one needs to be 'saved'. They see me as a bit different - not struggling, not confused about the Supreme, comfortable in my views and not 'lost' in my direction. To this I think I capture their attention.

I do not call out any flaws I see in their views, but compare and contrast their views and scripture with what I know. I talk to them often about the upaniṣad's and the wisdom therein.

They ask for 'a good word' for the day and I offer them some knowledge from various upaniṣad's that will resonate with them - e.g. know thy Self. I avoid being too esoteric so not to confuse them and follow kṛṣṇa-ji's instructions as to not confuse others.


I have talked to a few at length ( hours) on various ideas . At times I could see the brain cramp occur and that is fine. That tells me I went too deep in one area and best visit another subject.


What comes up often is , why all these gods that I hear of ? I inform them there is only One ( tad-ekam) , yet we see Him in everything, every act, and we give various names to these actions, personalities, so we can adore that quality of Him ( Or Her). You see, we find the Supreme not only at the church or temple, but in an atom , a mountain, in the solar system, in the universe. There is no place He is not.
You inform me, we are made in His image - to that I say yes, and that 'image' is in me as Self, we call ātman, you may wish to call soul.

You inform me that God the Father is in heaven - I say yes, and He is also in a blade of grass. You inform me He has a son, I say yes, that son is nara - all of human kind. You say He is the Creator - I say yes, that is His śakti, His divine will. You say the child of God has a mother named Mary - I say our mother is Mother Divine and we know Her by many names.

At the end of the day, they do not see me as someone that has fallen and needs saving, and are introduced to various sanātana dharma principles - yet I have nothing to sell.





praṇām


That is beautiful!

Maya

Eastern Mind
29 November 2010, 05:28 PM
When there is small-small thinking (narrowness of vision and comprehension) from any school, belief, etc. I choose not participate in the conversion.


praṇām


A Freudian slip perhaps?

Aum namasivaya

yajvan
29 November 2010, 05:47 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté EM



A Freudian slip perhaps? Aum namasivaya



I do not know Freud (Sigismund Schlomo Freud ) but know I need a better spell checker :)

praṇām

Adhvagat
29 November 2010, 09:37 PM
A Freudian slip perhaps?

Aum namasivaya

Actually it would be more Junguian, he worked a lot with word association.

:D

Ramakrishna
29 November 2010, 11:13 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

I talk to Christians all the time. There is a general sense that their orientation to others is, one needs to be 'saved'. They see me as a bit different - not struggling, not confused about the Supreme, comfortable in my views and not 'lost' in my direction. To this I think I capture their attention.

I do not call out any flaws I see in their views, but compare and contrast their views and scripture with what I know. I talk to them often about the upaniṣad's and the wisdom therein.

They ask for 'a good word' for the day and I offer them some knowledge from various upaniṣad's that will resonate with them - e.g. know thy Self. I avoid being too esoteric so not to confuse them and follow kṛṣṇa-ji's instructions as to not confuse others.


I have talked to a few at length ( hours) on various ideas . At times I could see the brain cramp occur and that is fine. That tells me I went too deep in one area and best visit another subject.


What comes up often is , why all these gods that I hear of ? I inform them there is only One ( tad-ekam) , yet we see Him in everything, every act, and we give various names to these actions, personalities, so we can adore that quality of Him ( Or Her). You see, we find the Supreme not only at the church or temple, but in an atom , a mountain, in the solar system, in the universe. There is no place He is not.
You inform me, we are made in His image - to that I say yes, and that 'image' is in me as Self, we call ātman, you may wish to call soul.

You inform me that God the Father is in heaven - I say yes, and He is also in a blade of grass. You inform me He has a son, I say yes, that son is nara - all of human kind. You say He is the Creator - I say yes, that is His śakti, His divine will. You say the child of God has a mother named Mary - I say our mother is Mother Divine and we know Her by many names.

At the end of the day, they do not see me as someone that has fallen and needs saving, and are introduced to various sanātana dharma principles - yet I have nothing to sell.





praṇām

Namaste yajvanji,

How amazing! I can definitely see that happening with more liberal open-minded Christians. Unfortunately, I live in what is known as the Bible Belt of the United States. It is the heartland of evangelicalism and fundamentalist Christianity.

I still remember last year when I was being targeted for conversion by one fundamentalist. He would come up to me with the usual arguments about why I should convert, and he knew close to nothing about Sanatana Dharma. Eventually he wanted to know about my religion, so we went out for coffee and I talked to him for about an hour just explaining the core principles of Hinduism and various concepts and beliefs. He would ask a question here and there but it was pretty much just me talking. Then, when I was finally done, he took his last sip of coffee and said, "Rajesh, you need to accept Christ. It's just that simple."

Such is the mindset of the fundamentalist evangelical Christians. You say that the Christians you talk to don't see you as struggling, confused, or lost. But pretty much every fundamentalist evangelical sees anyone who doesn't believe what they believe as struggling, confused, and lost.

And unfortunately it seems like most or close to most Christians in my part of the country are like this. I generally like living in the South, but this is one thing that I despise. I remember back when I lived in New Jersey how most people there were Jewish or secular. Most of the Christians that were there were the liberal open-minded types, like the ones that you seem to converse with.

Jai Sri Krishna

Maya3
30 November 2010, 06:21 AM
Ramakrishna,
I live in the North East and the only fundamentalists I've met are Jehovah Witnesses and once or twice I've seen others on the street. Like in NJ most here are open minded Christian or Jewish, Secular or have their own personal view of religion.

It's nice not to be bothered by people.

Interesting that they say that it's simple and you only need to accept Christ, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Maya

Eastern Mind
30 November 2010, 06:42 AM
Interesting that they say that it's simple and you only need to accept Christ, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Maya

Vannakkam: I'd go a little further. You can be a mass murderer, a rapist, steal money from your Grandma, beat your kids, and more and still go to heaven.

OTOH, you can be law abiding, gentle, caring, religious, uphold dharma, even self-realised, and still go to hell.

Without Christ there is no morality. This is why I started or continued the yama-niyama thread. Interestingly, there has been no response from any Christians over there.

Personally, I think most of the ones that come here are trolling.

Aum Namasivaya

BryonMorrigan
30 November 2010, 07:02 AM
On our way up to Grandmother's house in Illinois we saw a sign in front of a large church which was very nearby the Hindu temple which said..."All your idols are made by human hands"

I laughed so hard at this confused comment...as human hands are Beloved's Divine Hands.

The very hands which made such a sign are the same hands which made those images, Beloved Shivaya.

Such irony I found during this wretched holiday weekend.

Of course, if a Hindu place of worship had a marquee outside that denigrated Christianity, it would be torched and burned down within days, and the local Christian preachers would call it "just."

NayaSurya
30 November 2010, 07:04 AM
Things are very simple for them. In one simple action, they have made life so easy.

Their children are looked up to as honest and good, even when they aren't. They have resources...when someone is sick, loses a job...or even a car breaks down. There is always someone there to lend a hand, give money, bring over some chicken casserole. Their children celebrate holidays that align with their culture. Mail doesn't run, schools are out and Walmart shuts down for half the day and portion of the night.

All the tough decisions you would ever face are systematically approached in a fashion which takes the control out of their hands and into "gods"

When things go wrong? It's the devil.
When things go right? It's jesus, angels and god.

Accountability is out the window when "salvation" is as easy as dunking yourself under the water in a plastic pool during sunday service. Unless it's a wealthier church such as the mormon's....they have beautiful ornate rooms with a walk in baptism area that looks like something from Elvis' Graceland Estate.

Just by accepting christ, they are in the club.

It's truly as simple as that.

and they feel sorry for us, the "misguided bound for hell" types. Because we refuse this easy life of acceptance they offer and strive on towards the Truth.

On our trip north to see my Beloved Husband's GMother who raised him, she sat us down and said..."There's only one thing I need from you before I die now...and that is for you to be going to a good christian church every Sunday."

I sat quietly beside this 80ish year old woman and tried to smile. To tell her the full truth would crush her...she has little more than perhaps a year left upon this earth, if that...so I told her what I could.

"Grandma, we do go to church...every week we try to make it up there."

She was shocked and began to ask questions about this. (Her family is devout baptists and her brother is a preacher).

I explained to the children why we did not go further into our beliefs...and told them that in a years time that perhaps this wonderful, dear old lady would be fully understanding of what I was trying to tell her without harming her.

Even if she could have comprehended a portion of this Truth, this ultimate truth which dwells within SD...it would have caused her great distress.

And soon enough, this simple life she had led will fall away for a higher one.

As I say many times, we merely are tip toeing around these beings, trying our best not to disturb their journey here.

As a child who has fallen asleep in the car is gently placed inside a warm bed, we maneuver.

BryonMorrigan
30 November 2010, 07:09 AM
Then, when I was finally done, he took his last sip of coffee and said, "Rajesh, you need to accept Christ. It's just that simple."

There is something that has always seemed revolting to me about the phrase "Accept Christ." It always sounds to me like "Christ" is something that someone is holding you down and trying to force down your throat, and you should just "accept" it.

And so much Christian history and mythology is based on this kind of forceful violence. For example, look at the popularity of "Exorcism movies" in the USA right now. What is an "exorcism" in a Christian context, but a couple of violent priests/godmen yelling Christian scripture and smacking around some "possessed" person? In a way, these movies are a way for Christians to vicariously live out their torture fantasies...in my not so humble opinion, of course.

NayaSurya
30 November 2010, 07:10 AM
Of course, if a Hindu place of worship had a marquee outside that denigrated Christianity, it would be torched and burned down within days, and the local Christian preachers would call it "just."

Exactly, the Buddhist temple here was ruined by vandals...they spray painted filthy things all over the statues, walls and signs. L'Ville is very progressive, but even here they face such things.


There is something that has always seemed revolting to me about the phrase "Accept Christ." It always sounds to me like "Christ" is something that someone is holding you down and trying to force down your throat, and you should just "accept" it.

And so much Christian history and mythology is based on this kind of forceful violence. For example, look at the popularity of "Exorcism movies" in the USA right now. What is an "exorcism" in a Christian context, but a couple of violent priests/godmen yelling Christian scripture and smacking around some "possessed" person? In a way, these movies are a way for Christians to vicariously live out their torture fantasies...in my not so humble opinion, of course.


My children call it "Drinking the koolaid".

BryonMorrigan
30 November 2010, 07:22 AM
Things are very simple for them. In one simple action, they have made life so easy.

Their children are looked up to as honest and good, even when they aren't. They have resources...when someone is sick, loses a job...or even a car breaks down. There is always someone there to lend a hand, give money, bring over some chicken casserole. Their children celebrate holidays that align with their culture. Mail doesn't run, schools are out and Walmart shuts down for half the day and portion of the night.

All the tough decisions you would ever face are systematically approached in a fashion which takes the control out of their hands and into "gods"

When things go wrong? It's the devil.
When things go right? It's jesus, angels and god.

Accountability is out the window when "salvation" is as easy as dunking yourself under the water in a plastic pool during sunday service. Unless it's a wealthier church such as the mormon's....they have beautiful ornate rooms with a walk in baptism area that looks like something from Elvis' Graceland Estate.

Just by accepting christ, they are in the club.

It's truly as simple as that.

and they feel sorry for us, the "misguided bound for hell" types. Because we refuse this easy life of acceptance they offer and strive on towards the Truth.

On our trip north to see my Beloved Husband's GMother who raised him, she sat us down and said..."There's only one thing I need from you before I die now...and that is for you to be going to a good christian church every Sunday."

I sat quietly beside this 80ish year old woman and tried to smile. To tell her the full truth would crush her...she has little more than perhaps a year left upon this earth, if that...so I told her what I could.

"Grandma, we do go to church...every week we try to make it up there."

She was shocked and began to ask questions about this. (Her family is devout baptists and her brother is a preacher).

I explained to the children why we did not go further into our beliefs...and told them that in a years time that perhaps this wonderful, dear old lady would be fully understanding of what I was trying to tell her without harming her.

Even if she could have comprehended a portion of this Truth, this ultimate truth which dwells within SD...it would have caused her great distress.

And soon enough, this simple life she had led will fall away for a higher one.

As I say many times, we merely are tip toeing around these beings, trying our best not to disturb their journey here.

As a child who has fallen asleep in the car is gently placed inside a warm bed, we maneuver.

I can't remember if I brought this up on this forum before, but here's a story about Christians:

We first moved to this predominantly Catholic small town, a year ago. There is a NRI family in town, but I think that they have converted to Christianity. (They have a son named "Joseph," which sounds a little fishy to me.) Other than that, we have a famous artist who spent 4 years in a Ramakrishna monastery, and a smattering of Buddhists. But it's in the North, so I thought things would be somewhat more "tolerant."

When we first moved here, my kids played with the kids of a large Catholic family a couple houses down. Both parents are somewhat educated, and have bachelor's degrees. One day, a few months later, my kids were told not to play with their kids any more. No explanation was given, and we are not the sort to march over there and demand one.

A few months ago, a woman (who is a friend of theirs) told my wife that the actual reason that my children were no longer welcome to play with their kids was because we are a bunch of "devil-worshiping Hindus." And that, my friends, is Christian "love" par excellence.

BryonMorrigan
30 November 2010, 07:24 AM
Vannakkam: I'd go a little further. You can be a mass murderer, a rapist, steal money from your Grandma, beat your kids, and more and still go to heaven.

As I may have mentioned here before, I was only in Elementary School when a Christian pastor told me that Hitler (being a Christian) was in Heaven, and Gandhi (being a Hindu) was burning in Hell. I remember that specific point in my life as being the moment that I realized that Christianity was a religion based on a thoroughly evil concept.

Eastern Mind
30 November 2010, 07:33 AM
As I may have mentioned here before, I was only in Elementary School when a Christian pastor told me that Hitler (being a Christian) was in Heaven, and Gandhi (being a Hindu) was burning in Hell. I remember that specific point in my life as being the moment that I realized that Christianity was a religion based on a thoroughly evil concept.

Vannakkam:

Funny that.. How when they try to win so many over, they lose so many more.

I remember the Grade 5 Gideon's Day. I think when the new owners demolished and then burnt my old family farmhouse, five small bibles went up in smoke. I had absolutely no idea what that man was talking about.
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Aum Namasivaya

NayaSurya
30 November 2010, 07:36 AM
Mr. Morrigan,

We have such similar experiences...my heart goes out to you and your family.

My family and especially my children experience this same ostracism.

hugs<3

sanjaya
30 November 2010, 11:17 AM
Then, when I was finally done, he took his last sip of coffee and said, "Rajesh, you need to accept Christ. It's just that simple."


This is precisely the Christian mindset that troubles me so deeply. It all seems so simple to the Christian: accept Christ and be saved, or don't and burn in hell. Their doctrine of salvation by grace through faith allows them to reap eternal rewards regardless of how they live their lives. They see us as some variety of demon worshipers unless we convert. It's often interesting when I point out to these people that in most ways I (like most Hindus) live just as squeaky clean a life as the average evangelical: I don't drink excessively, I don't do any drugs, I've never had premarital sex...and for good measure, I don't listen to rock and roll.

Christians seem to have this dichotomy ingrained in them that all people are either Christians or atheists. They don't understand that someone can be a devotee of God without believing in Christianity, and they think that everyone outside of their religion is living in a sinful lifestyle. One good way to counter these evangelists is to fervently uphold our own dharma, which in many ways is more restrictive than their faith, and to live unimpeachable lives in their presence, so that they will see that we are not "sinners." Then they'll be left without reason to think that we are somehow condemned to an eternal hell. Of course they'll just resort to the argument that even one sin is enough to condemn someone to hell (yes, even stealing a pencil). But I think that even most Christians who tout this argument don't truly believe it.

On a sidenote, I want to note the Christians' lack of understanding that to convert to Christianity is to cease to be culturally Indian, and to become Western. They completely ignore that Christianity carries with it all sorts of unsavory baggage, and are surprised when we don't convert. Not that their theology itself is much more palatable without the attached culture .

Eastern Mind
30 November 2010, 12:26 PM
Vannakkam: It gets strange at times.

deleted.. poor link

Aum

Maya3
30 November 2010, 06:14 PM
Christians seem to have this dichotomy ingrained in them that all people are either Christians or atheists. They don't understand that someone can be a devotee of God without believing in Christianity, and they think that everyone outside of their religion is living in a sinful lifestyle. One good way to counter these evangelists is to fervently uphold our own dharma, which in many ways is more restrictive than their faith, and to live unimpeachable lives in their presence, so that they will see that we are not "sinners." Then they'll be left without reason to think that we are somehow condemned to an eternal hell. Of course they'll just resort to the argument that even one sin is enough to condemn someone to hell (yes, even stealing a pencil). But I think that even most Christians who tout this argument don't truly believe it.

.

My own sister in law asked me weather I was atheist or Christian the other day, even though I've been married to her brother for 16 years. (granted, we are not in touch that much and she lives in another state, AND she is a fundamentalist Catholic)



As I may have mentioned here before, I was only in Elementary School when a Christian pastor told me that Hitler (being a Christian) was in Heaven, and Gandhi (being a Hindu) was burning in Hell. I remember that specific point in my life as being the moment that I realized that Christianity was a religion based on a thoroughly evil concept.


It really, really is insane. Really unbelievable.

Also their belief in the Resurrection, a lot of people don't really know what it means, but what it means is that just as Jesus rose from the grave and walked around in the flesh. They believe that humans will do the same.
When Jesus comes back on Judgment day, the bodies that may have rotted in the dirt for two hundred years, will by miracle come back to life IN THE FLESH, and only those who believe in Jesus, the rest will go to Hell.

As a Hindu, I really feel that I should accept all religions, but I have a real hard time with the two things listed above.



Originally Posted by NayaSurya
Things are very simple for them. In one simple action, they have made life so easy.

Their children are looked up to as honest and good, even when they aren't. They have resources...when someone is sick, loses a job...or even a car breaks down. There is always someone there to lend a hand, give money, bring over some chicken casserole. Their children celebrate holidays that align with their culture. Mail doesn't run, schools are out and Walmart shuts down for half the day and portion of the night.

All the tough decisions you would ever face are systematically approached in a fashion which takes the control out of their hands and into "gods"

When things go wrong? It's the devil.
When things go right? It's jesus, angels and god.

Accountability is out the window when "salvation" is as easy as dunking yourself under the water in a plastic pool during sunday service.
Just by accepting christ, they are in the club.

It's truly as simple as that.



That doesn't make sense, it is not logical at all. Why would God have such strange rules for people. What if you somehow didn't hear about this, they you just go to Hell because you did it wrong even if you didn't know.

It's like yelling at a baby who says, Mamo, instead of Mama cause he/she hasn't learned yet.
And God doesn't yell, he makes peoples newly resurrected bodies burn forever? (How can a flesh body burn forever, first of all? Even that doesn't make sense.)

It fascinates me that so many people believe this without question. Especially since it on top of it all contradicts Evolution and Science.

I'd think if people would have stopped generations ago.

Maya

Maya3
30 November 2010, 06:15 PM
Christians seem to have this dichotomy ingrained in them that all people are either Christians or atheists. They don't understand that someone can be a devotee of God without believing in Christianity, and they think that everyone outside of their religion is living in a sinful lifestyle. One good way to counter these evangelists is to fervently uphold our own dharma, which in many ways is more restrictive than their faith, and to live unimpeachable lives in their presence, so that they will see that we are not "sinners." Then they'll be left without reason to think that we are somehow condemned to an eternal hell. Of course they'll just resort to the argument that even one sin is enough to condemn someone to hell (yes, even stealing a pencil). But I think that even most Christians who tout this argument don't truly believe it.

.

My own sister in law asked me weather I was atheist or Christian the other day, even though I've been married to her brother for 16 years. (granted, we are not in touch that much and she lives in another state, AND she is a fundamentalist Catholic)



As I may have mentioned here before, I was only in Elementary School when a Christian pastor told me that Hitler (being a Christian) was in Heaven, and Gandhi (being a Hindu) was burning in Hell. I remember that specific point in my life as being the moment that I realized that Christianity was a religion based on a thoroughly evil concept.


It really, really is insane. Really unbelievable.

Also their belief in the Resurrection, a lot of people don't really know what it means, but what it means is that just as Jesus rose from the grave and walked around in the flesh. They believe that humans will do the same.
When Jesus comes back on Judgment day, the bodies that may have rotted in the dirt for two hundred years, will by miracle come back to life IN THE FLESH, and only those who believe in Jesus, the rest will go to Hell.

As a Hindu, I really feel that I should accept all religions, but I have a real hard time with the two things listed above.



Originally Posted by NayaSurya
Things are very simple for them. In one simple action, they have made life so easy.

Their children are looked up to as honest and good, even when they aren't. They have resources...when someone is sick, loses a job...or even a car breaks down. There is always someone there to lend a hand, give money, bring over some chicken casserole. Their children celebrate holidays that align with their culture. Mail doesn't run, schools are out and Walmart shuts down for half the day and portion of the night.

All the tough decisions you would ever face are systematically approached in a fashion which takes the control out of their hands and into "gods"

When things go wrong? It's the devil.
When things go right? It's jesus, angels and god.

Accountability is out the window when "salvation" is as easy as dunking yourself under the water in a plastic pool during sunday service.
Just by accepting christ, they are in the club.

It's truly as simple as that.



That doesn't make sense, it is not logical at all. Why would God have such strange rules for people. What if you somehow didn't hear about this, they you just go to Hell because you did it wrong even if you didn't know.

It's like yelling at a baby who says, Mamo, instead of Mama cause he/she hasn't learned yet.
And God doesn't yell, he makes peoples newly resurrected bodies burn forever? (How can a flesh body burn forever, first of all? Even that doesn't make sense.)

It fascinates me that so many people believe this without question. Especially since it on top of it all contradicts Evolution and Science.

I'd think if people would have stopped generations ago.

Maya

NayaSurya
30 November 2010, 07:16 PM
I agree, to anyone aware the whole thing seems ridiculous.

Living around these beings my whole life, I am never more shocked than when I meet christians who have never even read the whole bible. When I am pressed to give them my reasons for my faith and recite these things from the bible which were the foundation for my seeking out SD they almost always say I am making the things up. I have to literally take their own bible and lead them to the passages.

My grandmother was the type of christian who wore their sunday best when they died and bought the absolutely most expensive coffin to be burried in because when god comes back he was going to resurect these bodies and so they wanted to look good for him.

When she was burried the pastor came to the funeral and began preaching hellfire and brimstone to us as we sat there disgusted. After about an hour I walked out. Later my aunt commented how much of my Mother I had in me. :p

Thank Beloved Shiva and Beautiful Beloved Mata Shakti<3

yajvan
30 November 2010, 10:00 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Namaste yajvanji,

"Rajesh, you need to accept Christ. It's just that simple."

Such is the mindset of the fundamentalist evangelical Christians. Jai Sri Krishna

Yes, I can see this occuring... they must get points or something.
http://www.robbinssports.com/images/tabletop-book-style-flip-scoreboard.jpg

Ramakrishna
30 November 2010, 11:44 PM
Namaste all,


There is something that has always seemed revolting to me about the phrase "Accept Christ." It always sounds to me like "Christ" is something that someone is holding you down and trying to force down your throat, and you should just "accept" it.


Good point. I remember him using a little analogical story to explain this whole "accepting Christ" thing. In a nutshell, it's that God has offered humanity a "gift" (salvation through faith in Christ alone), and it is simply up to each one of us to accept this "gift".

:rolleyes:



It's often interesting when I point out to these people that in most ways I (like most Hindus) live just as squeaky clean a life as the average evangelical: I don't drink excessively, I don't do any drugs, I've never had premarital sex...and for good measure, I don't listen to rock and roll.

Christians seem to have this dichotomy ingrained in them that all people are either Christians or atheists. They don't understand that someone can be a devotee of God without believing in Christianity, and they think that everyone outside of their religion is living in a sinful lifestyle. One good way to counter these evangelists is to fervently uphold our own dharma, which in many ways is more restrictive than their faith, and to live unimpeachable lives in their presence, so that they will see that we are not "sinners." Then they'll be left without reason to think that we are somehow condemned to an eternal hell. Of course they'll just resort to the argument that even one sin is enough to condemn someone to hell (yes, even stealing a pencil). But I think that even most Christians who tout this argument don't truly believe it.


You raise a good point, but to most Christians (definitely all fundamentalists and evangelicals), it means nothing that we live just as squeaky clean a life as they do. The yamas and niyamas and all the other morals and ethics found in Sanatana Dharma literally mean nothing to them. It literally all boils down to whether or not we believe in Christ as our savior.

As Eastern Mindji said, you could be law-abiding, gentle, caring, religious, uphold dharma, even self-realized, and still burn in hell forever. You could be some monk in the Himalayas, spending your whole life praying, meditating, chanting the names of God, and never harming a soul. But you would still go to hell since you don't believe in Christ.




It fascinates me that so many people believe this without question. Especially since it on top of it all contradicts Evolution and Science.

I'd think if people would have stopped generations ago.


I have thought about this also, and I realized that it really all comes down to laziness, egocentricism, and naiveness. They are lazy and want everything (even when it comes to the most important issue in life) to be as simple as possible. Instead of believing that it is a long journey that takes many lives and lots of hard work to achieve salvation, they believe it comes down to one belief in this one life, and nothing else matters. They are egocentric and everything must be about them and their ego. After all, God died for them. They fail to see the grander scheme of things and realize that it is not all about the ego.

But I'm not really too surprised. After all, we are in the Kali Yuga.

Jai Sri Krishna

Maya3
01 December 2010, 06:09 AM
Ramakrishna,

I have heard the "God died for us so he saved us from our sins.
Really doesn't make much sense.

Another thing that I find strange is that they say that God loved the world SO much that he gave his only son to us to be tortured to death on a cross.
I remember hearing this from someone when I was a child and thinking, wow that's horrible what a mean Dad!
And thinking that I didn't understand why they thought it was a good thing.

(but if you hear this over and over again, people don't question it I assume. I never grew up with it so I never had anything pumped into me over and over again.)


And this isn't myth, the Romans did this in their time, it is a horrible, horrible way to die. How can that be the symbol of their faith?



I have thought about this also, and I realized that it really all comes down to laziness, egocentricism, and naiveness. They are lazy and want everything (even when it comes to the most important issue in life) to be as simple as possible. Instead of believing that it is a long journey that takes many lives and lots of hard work to achieve salvation, they believe it comes down to one belief in this one life, and nothing else matters. They are egocentric and everything must be about them and their ego. After all, God died for them. They fail to see the grander scheme of things and realize that it is not all about the ego.

That is it in a nutshell, thats a good observation.

Maya

Eastern Mind
01 December 2010, 07:33 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



Yes, I can see this occuring... they must get points or something.
http://www.robbinssports.com/images/tabletop-book-style-flip-scoreboard.jpg

Vannakkam Yajvan: Way off topic, but this thing sure woke parts of my subconscious from days of coaching volleyball. Sometimes teaching the Grade 7 volunteers how to run the above was as hard as teaching some athlete to set the ball properly.

Yes, they keep score. Some Christian websites even say so. Bounties on our heads like bounties on shooting gophers or coyotes in the wild west. Another thing some do is have schedules for knocking on doors. I wonder if a Christin antagonist visits here once every month on a schedule just to rile us up.

Aum Namasivaya

sanjaya
01 December 2010, 06:53 PM
You raise a good point, but to most Christians (definitely all fundamentalists and evangelicals), it means nothing that we live just as squeaky clean a life as they do. The yamas and niyamas and all the other morals and ethics found in Sanatana Dharma literally mean nothing to them. It literally all boils down to whether or not we believe in Christ as our savior.

Yeah, for all their politicking about the country's sexual sins, I'm surprised at how little behavior matters to these guys. We often hear of pastors and other church leaders caught in some highly dubious act (usually sexually related), and then instantly forgiven by both God and their congregation. That's the problem with their salvation doctrine: it removes any element of personal accountability. Yes, there's all this talk about how good behavior (which they call "sanctification") is evidence of one's salvation. But at the end of the day it means nothing. All that matters is that you have the right theology.

I'm all for forgiveness, but these evangelicals take it too far, and in both directions. For us Hindus, the Christians are absolutely merciless, refusing to forgive our belief in our religion and condemning us to eternal hell. For the one who professes faith in Christianity, there's no limit to what can be forgiven. And you can forget paying for your sins, since they say that God has already done this in full.

The root of their problem is that they trivialize wrongdoing. By saying that stealing a paperclip and murdering someone are both equally meritorious of hell, they back you into a corner and pitch Christianity as the easy way out. If you say that you would prefer to pay for your own sins, they say that the punishment for your sin is eternal hell and that you are unable to pay without being condemned. But if you say that you'd rather have Jesus pay for your sin, you can get away with virtually anything. Now, I'm sure the average evangelical, when tempted to commit sexual infidelity, will imagine the cross, and how satisfying his passion is tantamount to stabbing Jesus with another spear. But how many evangelicals will perform the same mental exercise when they think about cutting someone off in traffic, saying unkind words to people they don't like, or treating Hindus with less respect than they treat fellow evangelicals? Their get out of hell free card allows them to get away with virtually anything, and they can sin with the knowledge that demeaning their Hindu neighbors is no different from stealing that pencil in the office breakroom.

To paraphrase the Bible, all of our devotion to God is like filthy rags to the Christians. It all comes down to assenting to Christian doctrine, going to Bible study, and living like a good WASP, I guess.

Maya3
01 December 2010, 07:04 PM
I'm all for forgiveness, but these evangelicals take it too far, and in both directions. For us Hindus, the Christians are absolutely merciless, refusing to forgive our belief in our religion and condemning us to eternal hell. For the one who professes faith in Christianity, there's no limit to what can be forgiven. And you can forget paying for your sins, since they say that God has already done this in full.



Very true, but then despite this, they spend all this time hating gay people, and can absolutely never accept them and their love.

Maya

Eastern Mind
01 December 2010, 07:06 PM
Vannakkam: Here's a nice expose link:

http://www.christianaggression.org/

I haven't read the whole thing yet but it looks interesting.

Aum Namasivaya

Shaan
04 December 2010, 06:09 PM
My viewpoints on this jargon:

1. Christian missionaries are an industry, they suck huge donations from western corporates, and this clergy is their bread and butter.

2. In the 3rd-7th century christian missionaries were converting by sword, but after 7th century they started selling certifications of donation to release sins, and became an organised mafia.

3. The christian fairytale of , jesus died for your sins, then why the christians are suffering , they have cancers, they have divorces, they have suicides, almost half of their followers have socio-psychological troubles, wow, they still say jesus dies for my sins.

4. I read bible several times does it have anything other then the stories of sheeps? , Jesus said that he came to save the shepherds, then why all others are following him :D .

5. The missionaries again, though their basics are very less enlightened about Hinduism, their total conversation revolves around, 1. Only jesus believers will go to heaven 2. Hindus worship pagan gods and that s evil. 3. Jesus died for your sins so you believe him as saviour. 4. Christian nations are richer because they are christian. 5. You will burn in fire of hell if you be a hindu. Thats all they keep saying, wow, any logic?

Deus Omnipotens
05 December 2010, 11:31 AM
Yeah, for all their politicking about the country's sexual sins, I'm surprised at how little behavior matters to these guys. We often hear of pastors and other church leaders caught in some highly dubious act (usually sexually related), and then instantly forgiven by both God and their congregation. That's the problem with their salvation doctrine: it removes any element of personal accountability. Yes, there's all this talk about how good behavior (which they call "sanctification") is evidence of one's salvation. But at the end of the day it means nothing. All that matters is that you have the right theology.That's mostly a Evangelical Protestant understanding of forgiveness. Evangelicals will usually assert that no matter how many times you commit one particular mortal sin you will be forgiven. Catholics and Orthodox however, assert something a little different. If you go to Confession for one sin over and over again in the priest will eventually withhold forgiveness until you reform your behaviour and do penance. Then once you have shown that you can truly overcome your sins the priest will grant forgiveness.


I'm all for forgiveness, but these evangelicals take it too far, and in both directions. For us Hindus, the Christians are absolutely merciless, refusing to forgive our belief in our religion and condemning us to eternal hell.Here I'm actually inclined to agree with the Evangelicals. Christ is the only way to salvation and there is no other, so by definition we must deny that the Hindu religion can save you.


For the one who professes faith in Christianity, there's no limit to what can be forgiven. And you can forget paying for your sins, since they say that God has already done this in full.Once again this is a Evangelical understanding of forgivness you are putting forward. Catholics believe that Christ payed for all our sins, but that does not mean that when he forgives us we are free from the stain that sins put on our soul. In order to remove the stain of our sins from our soul we must do penance and atone for our sins. If at the end of our lives we earnestly followed God, but did not sufficiently atone for our sins we will go to purgatory (which is like a temporary Hell) where by our suffering we atone for our sins.


The root of their problem is that they trivialize wrongdoing. By saying that stealing a paperclip and murdering someone are both equally meritorious of hell, they back you into a corner and pitch Christianity as the easy way out. If you say that you would prefer to pay for your own sins, they say that the punishment for your sin is eternal hell and that you are unable to pay without being condemned.Catholics draw a distinction between sins that Evangelicals do not. Catholics have what are called Mortal and Venial sins. Venial sins are little things that can be forgiven by praying, going to Mass, blessing yourself with Holy Water, and so on. Mortal sins are more major things like murder, adultery, and lust (masturbation and the like). Like i have said before Christ forgives us for our sins, but we must still atone for them.


But if you say that you'd rather have Jesus pay for your sin, you can get away with virtually anything. Now, I'm sure the average evangelical, when tempted to commit sexual infidelity, will imagine the cross, and how satisfying his passion is tantamount to stabbing Jesus with another spear. But how many evangelicals will perform the same mental exercise when they think about cutting someone off in traffic, saying unkind words to people they don't like, or treating Hindus with less respect than they treat fellow evangelicals? Their get out of hell free card allows them to get away with virtually anything, and they can sin with the knowledge that demeaning their Hindu neighbors is no different from stealing that pencil in the office breakroom.Honestly, you have hit upon the main problem with Evangelicalism here. It tries to force the Gospel down peoples throats. What they should be doing is being an example of Christ's love like Mother Teresa did.

Eastern Mind
05 December 2010, 01:36 PM
Vannakkam Deus: Speaking of Mother Theresa, this thread http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1986
gives a decent overview of how many Hindus view her. Perhaps you hadn't heard of the flip side.

Aum Namasivaya

Sahasranama
05 December 2010, 01:50 PM
Here I'm actually inclined to agree with the Evangelicals. Christ is the only way to salvation and there is no other, so by definition we must deny that the Hindu religion can save you.In my opinion you have all the right in the world to believe this. Unlike other Hindus, I don't see a problem with this belief, unless it's shoved down people's throat like in evangelical groups. In fact, I believe something similar, namely that faith in Jesus cannot save anyone from their karmas (good or bad).

Christianity can have good effects on people, if it inspires to do good karma (becomming kind, loving, charitable, good parents). It can also have the opposite effect and make them do bad karma (proselytising, fighting holy wars, discrimination against non believers, becomming pedophiles). One thing it can not do, from a Hindu perspective, is free us from the janma karma bandhana, the bondage of rebirth and karma.

sanjaya
05 December 2010, 02:16 PM
That's mostly a Evangelical Protestant understanding of forgiveness. Evangelicals will usually assert that no matter how many times you commit one particular mortal sin you will be forgiven. Catholics and Orthodox however, assert something a little different. If you go to Confession for one sin over and over again in the priest will eventually withhold forgiveness until you reform your behaviour and do penance. Then once you have shown that you can truly overcome your sins the priest will grant forgiveness.

Once again this is a Evangelical understanding of forgivness you are putting forward. Catholics believe that Christ payed for all our sins, but that does not mean that when he forgives us we are free from the stain that sins put on our soul. In order to remove the stain of our sins from our soul we must do penance and atone for our sins. If at the end of our lives we earnestly followed God, but did not sufficiently atone for our sins we will go to purgatory (which is like a temporary Hell) where by our suffering we atone for our sins.

Catholics draw a distinction between sins that Evangelicals do not. Catholics have what are called Mortal and Venial sins. Venial sins are little things that can be forgiven by praying, going to Mass, blessing yourself with Holy Water, and so on. Mortal sins are more major things like murder, adultery, and lust (masturbation and the like). Like i have said before Christ forgives us for our sins, but we must still atone for them.

Yes, it's true that what I've said applies exclusively to evangelical Protestantism. As I've said previously, virtually all of my criticisms of Christianity are directed at the evangelical brand. Your comments suggest to me that you belong to the Catholic variety of Christianity.


Here I'm actually inclined to agree with the Evangelicals. Christ is the only way to salvation and there is no other, so by definition we must deny that the Hindu religion can save you.

Ah, now here is the root of Christianity's aggression towards other religious groups throughout the centuries. Whether this aggressive behavior is in keeping with Christ's teachings, I assume you will not dispute that Christians themselves have a less than perfect record in their dealings with people of other religions. I believe it is a belief in exclusive salvation through Christianity that causes this behavior.

I asked myself why it is that Hindus are (in general) able to get along so well with Catholics, and so poorly with evangelicals. After all, you share the same Bible, the deuterocanon notwithstanding. And it is in the Bible that this doctrine of exclusivity is found. But Catholics, for some reason, tend not to be bent upon converting Hindus. For better or worse, India is littered with Catholic primary and secondary schools; since these schools are better funded than the government instititution, the more well-to-do Indians send their kids there. When my parents were growingup in India, both were educated in these schools. No one ever asked them to convert to Christianity. Likewise, many Catholic charity organizations operate in India, but for the most part they don't engage in conversions. Evangelicals, on the other hand, come to India solely to convert, and engage in all manners of unscrupulous tacics to do so. Because Hindu emphasis on family values makes us difficult targets for conversion, evangelicals will resort to some rather devious tactics, including paying people to convert.

I've asked myself: what makes Catholics and evangelicals different? And as I studied both Catholic and evangelical religions, I found the answer. While the doctrines of exclusive salvation for Christians are found in the Bible itself, Catholics go to great lengths to downplay those doctrines. For example, I once heard a Catholic priest on television say in his homily "we are required to believe in the existence of hell, but we don't have to believe that anyone is in it." Catholics also claim that while the Catholic faith has the whole of God's truth, other religions have parts of it. And the doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus ("outside the church there is no salvation"), which was once used to uphold the doctrine of exclusivity, is now used for precisely the opposite. Many Catholics have told me that according to this doctrine, non-Christians can be saved, but their salvation is mysteriously tied to the Catholic Church. And then there are your doctrines of invincible ignorance and baptism by desire. I'm aware that according to the Catholic religion, a person can be ignorant of the gospel, and judged according to his own knowledge. Catholics simply tell me that no person in the right mind would understand the gospel and reject it. Therefore a Hindu like myself, who is well-educated in Christianity, simply doesn't understand the gospel properly.

As you know, baptism by desire basically is the doctrine that if a person desires baptism but is unable to receive it properly before dying, that person will be saved by his desire to be baptised (since an unbaptised person can't be saved). I never thought that this doctrine could be used as another Catholic argument for universalism, but of all people I learned this from Bill O'Reilly. On his show he was once talking with Left Behind author Tim LaHaye, and he said that non-Christians can be saved through baptism by desire, because if they are godly then in some sense they desire to be baptised.




The Catholic Church also affords non-Christians salvation in more explicit terms. Consider line 840 of your own catechism, which discusses salvation for Jews:
And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

Paired with a literal reading of the Bible, I would take this to mean that Jews and Christians both await the return of the same Messiah, Jesus. But when Jesus returns, he'll reveal his features to the Jews right before sending them to hell. I doubt that's what the authors of this catechism meant. Now, a few lines down your catechism is less gratuitous towards Hindus. It specifically addresses Jews and Muslims, and then all other non-Christian religions are lumped together:
The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life. (843)I don't see any mention of salvation here, but I wonder why the catechism goes to such great lengths to say nothing of condemnation. If I'm going to eternal hell for not converting to Christianity, isn't this (as evangelicals say) the most important news I should hear?

Unlike Catholics, evangelicals are quite clear in saying that Hindus will be condemned unless we convert to their religion. Catholics were once like this too. In medieval times your church persecuted Jews and even threatened them with death unless they would convert. You may not be aware of this, but the Catholic Church even had an inquisition in Goa (in India) where Hindus were persecuted. However the Catholic Church has evolved over time, and has gone to great lengths to make itself respectable. How has it done this? By downplaying the doctrine of eternal hell for non-Christians. Personally I find that this deemphasis is accomplished with intellectually-poor arguments excusing Biblical texts that obviously prescribe hell for Christians. But hey, the Catholic Church is trying to be respectful, and I can pay them respect as well. This is why Catholics are taken seriously in interreligious dialogs, and evangelicals are not. This is why Hindus are often averse to evangelicals, but not so much to Catholics.

So you happily agree with the evangelicals' assessment that Hindus are fit only to burn in hell. I can respect your intellectual honesty if nothing else. But do you realize that you are undoing years of work that your church did to make the Catholic religion capable of dialog with other faiths? I'm confused by your statement, which seems to disagre with Catholic teaching.


Honestly, you have hit upon the main problem with Evangelicalism here. It tries to force the Gospel down peoples throats. What they should be doing is being an example of Christ's love like Mother Teresa did.

I'm all for Christians behaving like Mother Teresa. But I'd like to point out that Mother Teresa never converted anyone (unless you count the deathbed baptisms she performed on a few people, which I don't consider particularly offensive). She didn't preach conversion at all, as far as I know. It's important for you to understand that Hindus are highly averse to conversion. With very few exceptions, we don't change our religion from birth to death. No matter how you pitch your Christian gospel to us, no matter how many Indian poor or sick you treat, we are not going to convert to Christianity. After hundreds of years of missionary work in India, the Christian population holds steady at about 2.5%.

I have noticed an interesting behavior among American evangelicals. On college campuses they will befriend Hindus and try to portray Christianity in its best light. Perhaps learning from the Catholic example, these evangelicals will spend time with their Hindu friends and say nothing of conversion at first, then slowly broach the topic. But when the Hindus refuse to convert, their friendship will turn into hostility. As Ramakrishna said in an earlier post, at the end of the day it all boils down to "Rajesh, you need to accept Christ. It's just that simple."

So you are quite correct to say that Mother Teresa is an example for Christians to follow. My question to you is: what are you going to do when we ultimately refuse to convert? Do you think most Christians will follow Mother Teresa's example to the end, or will they switch over to the evangelical line of reasoning when it doesn't prove an effective means of conversion?

Eastern Mind
05 December 2010, 04:45 PM
Vannakkam Sanjaya: I'm relatively surprised at your post. Personally I find Catholic conversion methods even more dangerous because they're so subtle about it. The evangelicals at least let you know their intentions right up front, but the Catholics have the same intentions, they are just sneakier.

This is from Steven Knapp's "the War against Hinduism"

As I traveled around, it was not unusual to see elementary schools around India with a name something like “Saint Xavier’s School.” People should know that this Francis Xavier, who is now one of the greatest so-called “saints,” feverishly declared, “When I have finished baptizing the people, I order them to destroy the huts in which they keep their idols; and I have them break the statues of their idols into tiny pieces, since they are now Christians. I could never come to an end describing to you the great consolation which fills my soul when I see idols being destroyed by the hands of those who had been idolaters.” (From “The Letters and Instructions of Francis Xavier,” 1993, pp 117-8) This was his goal, to destroy Indian culture and make India a Christian nation. So it is ironic that now India embraces the schools that honor him in this way. How could they not know his true intention?

What does a school do? What does a hospital do? It slowly erodes. There are many many reliable Hindu institutions the aid money could go to directly to. There should be no need to have a cross attached if the 'charitable' donations were really that.

If I remember correctly the Pope stated his true intentions the last time he was in India.

Even here in my city, in a district where there are lots of Hindus, Muslims, Chinese, and Sikhs, the Catholic schools put up signs stating, "We welcome all cultures!" Well, of course they do. Maybe a few will convert. The peer pressure, if nothing else will have some effect. The goal is as much about making someone not a good Hindu as it is to fully convert.

Fortunately though, with Catholicism, it is losing adherents far faster than its gaining them. If it weren't for the years of stashing hard-working parishioners and 'charity' money away, they'd be in more financial trouble.

http://www.tldm.org/News11/DevastatingDeclineReligiousOrders.htm

Aum Namasivaya

sanjaya
05 December 2010, 05:16 PM
EM: don't get me wrong, I don't think Catholicism is too great either. But among evangelicals I've seen equally devious tactics. I refer specifically to the so-called "friendship evangelism," whereby Christians will befriend Hindus on college campuses with the express intent of converting them. Some Catholics are interested in conversions too. But most are not. Whereas with evangelicals, pretty much every single one of them is out to convert us. As you say, the Catholic Church's numbers are dwindling. On the other hand the evangelicals are growing, and thus I see them as the larger threat.

That said, I do see your concerns. The schools and hospitals in India are not a good thing. The sad fact is that we Indians aren't particularly good at running our own country, and Catholics are quick to fill the vacuum we leave. It's my hope that in the near future India's infrastructure will improve to the point where people would rather send their kids to secular or Hindu schools than the Catholic institutions.

Deus Omnipotens
05 December 2010, 06:05 PM
Yes, it's true that what I've said applies exclusively to evangelical Protestantism. As I've said previously, virtually all of my criticisms of Christianity are directed at the evangelical brand. Your comments suggest to me that you belong to the Catholic variety of Christianity.
Yes you are right i do belong to the Roman Catholic Church.



Ah, now here is the root of Christianity's aggression towards other religious groups throughout the centuries. Whether this aggressive behavior is in keeping with Christ's teachings, I assume you will not dispute that Christians themselves have a less than perfect record in their dealings with people of other religions. I believe it is a belief in exclusive salvation through Christianity that causes this behavior.Now i don't think this is necessarily true. Practically every time that Christians have been aggressive or persecuted another religion it was because the religion in question had been painted as foreign and hostile. The Crusades for example were launched because of the Islamic turks aggression against the Christian Byzantine Empire. The Inquisition in Spain started because people feared that the Jews and Muslims were trying to subvert Christian rule, and up until that point Jews and Muslims lived quite comfortably in Spanish realms. Basically what it all boils down to is fear of something foreign. Hindus, from my brief knowledge in Indian history have acted similarly when faced with a foreign religion, and some Hindus still do today.


I've asked myself: what makes Catholics and evangelicals different? And as I studied both Catholic and evangelical religions, I found the answer. While the doctrines of exclusive salvation for Christians are found in the Bible itself, Catholics go to great lengths to downplay those doctrines. For example, I once heard a Catholic priest on television say in his homily "we are required to believe in the existence of hell, but we don't have to believe that anyone is in it." Catholics also claim that while the Catholic faith has the whole of God's truth, other religions have parts of it.The bold faced portion is particularly true. The Catholic faith has the whole Truth, and all others have only a shadow of the Truth.


And the doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus ("outside the church there is no salvation"), which was once used to uphold the doctrine of exclusivity, is now used for precisely the opposite. Many Catholics have told me that according to this doctrine, non-Christians can be saved, but their salvation is mysteriously tied to the Catholic Church.Thats right, but i would like to clarify one thing. Pretty much the only way a non-Christian can be saved is because of invincible ignorance. Baptism of Desire is a term that should only be applied to Catechumens (people studying to enter the Catholic faith) who have died before receiving Baptism.


Catholics simply tell me that no person in the right mind would understand the gospel and reject it.That's not strictly true you can understand something and still reject it. God gave us free will after all.


As you know, baptism by desire basically is the doctrine that if a person desires baptism but is unable to receive it properly before dying, that person will be saved by his desire to be baptised (since an unbaptised person can't be saved). I never thought that this doctrine could be used as another Catholic argument for universalism, but of all people I learned this from Bill O'Reilly. On his show he was once talking with Left Behind author Tim LaHaye, and he said that non-Christians can be saved through baptism by desire, because if they are godly then in some sense they desire to be baptised.I wouldn't take Bill O'Reilly to seriously. Baptism of Desire is not a rubber stamp that is used to deem certain people from non-Christian faiths saved.


Paired with a literal reading of the Bible, I would take this to mean that Jews and Christians both await the return of the same Messiah, Jesus. But when Jesus returns, he'll reveal his features to the Jews right before sending them to hell. I doubt that's what the authors of this catechism meant.I wouldn't state it quite that way. When the Second Coming occurs and the Heavenly Kingdom is ushered in Jesus will cast the wicked into Hell and the righteous will be raised to eternal life.


I don't see any mention of salvation here, but I wonder why the catechism goes to such great lengths to say nothing of condemnation. If I'm going to eternal hell for not converting to Christianity, isn't this (as evangelicals say) the most important news I should hear?
Generally it's because Catholics prefer to downplay God's condemnation and emphasize God's love. While Evangelicals do the opposite.



So you happily agree with the evangelicals' assessment that Hindus are fit only to burn in hell.Now that is something I definitely did not say. Hindus just like me are loved by God and he desires nothing more than for them to come to Faith in Christ.


I can respect your intellectual honesty if nothing else. But do you realize that you are undoing years of work that your church did to make the Catholic religion capable of dialog with other faiths? I'm confused by your statement, which seems to disagre with Catholic teaching.My statement really isn't at odds with the Catholic Faith. You may not know this, but during the 1960s-90s the Catholic Church underwent a "liberalizing", and now it's starting to "conservativize" again. Most of the extremely way out there claims made about who "Baptism of Desire" apply to, as well as other statements about universal salvation being an accepted belief stem from this era.




I'm all for Christians behaving like Mother Teresa. But I'd like to point out that Mother Teresa never converted anyone (unless you count the deathbed baptisms she performed on a few people, which I don't consider particularly offensive). She didn't preach conversion at all, as far as I know.Your right she wasn't there to convert people she was there to treat the sick and the outcast, as she liked to call them "Christ in a distressing disguise".

It's important for you to understand that Hindus are highly averse to conversion. With very few exceptions, we don't change our religion from birth to death. No matter how you pitch your Christian gospel to us, no matter how many Indian poor or sick you treat, we are not going to convert to Christianity. After hundreds of years of missionary work in India, the Christian population holds steady at about 2.5%.
I understand this, but you can't blame em for tryin.


I have noticed an interesting behavior among American evangelicals. On college campuses they will befriend Hindus and try to portray Christianity in its best light. Perhaps learning from the Catholic example, these evangelicals will spend time with their Hindu friends and say nothing of conversion at first, then slowly broach the topic. But when the Hindus refuse to convert, their friendship will turn into hostility. As Ramakrishna said in an earlier post, at the end of the day it all boils down to "Rajesh, you need to accept Christ. It's just that simple."
I had a few Hindu friends in high school, but i wouldn't dream of doing something like this to them. We would have conversations about religion sometimes, but i would never pressure or ask them to convert. i would however pray for them, and one of them eventually did become a Catholic without any pressure from me for him to do so.


So you are quite correct to say that Mother Teresa is an example for Christians to follow. My question to you is: what are you going to do when we ultimately refuse to convert? Do you think most Christians will follow Mother Teresa's example to the end, or will they switch over to the evangelical line of reasoning when it doesn't prove an effective means of conversion?Really, it just depends on the person. Some switch over to the hostile method because when they do gain a convert they can see it, and it makes them feel proud of themselves. If you stick with the course of kindness until the end, odds are you won't see any of the converts you make.

My Great-Grandmother (God rest her soul) was a prime example of this. She took in troubled foster kids who she never saw again after they moved out. When she died and we published her death in the obituaries quite a few of the kids she had taken in came, and to my surprise a good number had converted to Catholicism just because of the kindness she showed them.

NayaSurya
05 December 2010, 06:44 PM
They are so sneaky, it's prevailent in every corner of this world.

The worst things we face here is the, on campus proselytizing done via the "free meals".

Kids on campus are not allowed to be cooking for themselves due to fire concerns. At UofL they have free food all week and it's not so free when you arrive and they begin to preach for 30-45 minutes before they will hand out the food.

My son told me that he would rather starve than sit through this and so when his friends tell him of "free meals" he tells them...and it really is so true... "There is no such thing as a "free" meal.":p

Lately when his friends bring it up, he requests to see the flyer to show his friends the underlining motivation for such seemingly altruistic giving, but often, even this is not an indication of where the meal will come.

Maya3
05 December 2010, 09:53 PM
The Ingusition lasted off and on for over 600 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

I don't think you can blame that on disharmony within other groups.
It was a tribunal to see who were heretics.

You aren't torturing us now, but with statements like this, it's still pretty rude:

Hindus just like me are loved by God and he desires nothing more than for them to come to Faith in Christ.


This really doesn't make sense, you really think that God who is the WHOLE universe and every atom, every blade of grass EVERYTHING, would make such a petty rule that humans can join him/her/it only if he/she believes in some kind of myth or historical event about a person who was tortured to death?



I wouldn't state it quite that way. When the Second Coming occurs and the Heavenly Kingdom is ushered in Jesus will cast the wicked into Hell and the righteous will be raised to eternal life.

And how will this happen, the bodies who have been down in the dirt since last year? Since 1560?, since four weeks after Jesus's crucification?
All these bodies are going to rise, or go down to hell?

Not only are you scaring people with statements like this, by doing this and having people convert, cultures and languages are dying out. Do you really want us all to be exactly the same?

Maya

sanjaya
05 December 2010, 10:32 PM
Now i don't think this is necessarily true. Practically every time that Christians have been aggressive or persecuted another religion it was because the religion in question had been painted as foreign and hostile. The Crusades for example were launched because of the Islamic turks aggression against the Christian Byzantine Empire. The Inquisition in Spain started because people feared that the Jews and Muslims were trying to subvert Christian rule, and up until that point Jews and Muslims lived quite comfortably in Spanish realms. Basically what it all boils down to is fear of something foreign. Hindus, from my brief knowledge in Indian history have acted similarly when faced with a foreign religion, and some Hindus still do today.

Of the various charges I might make against the Christian religion, the Crusades are not one of them. If not for the Crusades, Western Europe and perhaps even America would be Muslim today. I find Christian evangelism to be preferable to terrorism, and so for that I thank your ancestors. My only regret is that my own ancestors did not have similar militaristic ambitions regarding the Middle East. Who knows? Together we may have stopped the Islamic religion before it spread across the world.

But to return to the topic at hand, I find these justifications for persecution to be wanting. To say that the Inquisition was a Christian response to fear of Jewish subversion is (if you'll forgive my theatrics) similar to saying that the holocaust is a Christian response to fear of Jewish subversion. Indeed, both persecutions were a result of fear that the Jews would in some way subvert European society. And from an intellectual point of view I can't blame you. The Jews perhaps represent the greatest refutation of the Christian religion. The very ethnic group to whom God is said to have sent prophets rejected Jesus as their Messiah. The early church knew that it was unacceptable for Jews to continue in this state of unbelief, and St. Paul wrote that "all Israel will be saved" in Romans 11:26. Now, I know that there is an entire theology constructed around why it is necessary that the Jews reject Jesus. But as evidenced by Christian evangelistic efforts in Jewish communities, it is apparent that the existence of the Jewish faith represents a threat to the credibility of Christianity.

While the absolute number of people killed in the Spanish Inquisition is quite low when compared to modern genocides, I believe that to justify the Catholic Church's fears of non-Christians is to gloss over the great harm that the Church did to these people. Again, keep in mind that I do not hold the modern Catholic Church accountable for these deeds. As I alluded earlier, it seems to me that it is the evangelicals, and not the modern Catholics, who are of the same mind as the inquisitors. But it seems to me that the motivation here is not politics (as in the case of the Crusades), but a belief that conversion to Christianity is necessary for salvation. You'd be hard pressed to claim that Christians persecuted Hindus in Goa, India out of a fear of foreign religions.

Regarding this claim that Hindus treat foreign religions similarly, I am aware of no such widespread persecution of non-Hindu groups. In ancient India, religions like Buddhism were combatted with debate, not the sword. Unlike Christendom, India has always given safe harbor to minority religious groups. The Zoroastrians came to India quite some time ago, and live there to this day. The celebrated Indian physicist Homi Bhaba, who advanced India's atomic programs, was a prominant Indian Zoroastrian. Before the fall of Jerusalem, several tribes of Jews emigrated to India, and are there to this day. The Bnei Menashe tribe is one such example. In fact, to this day India is one of the few countries that has never practiced anti-semitism (with the exception of the Goa Inquisition, which was the work of the Catholic Church). Even Buddhism, which was expelled from India in ancient times, has found refuge in the land of Hinduism. During the 1959 Tibetan Uprising, the Dalai Lama fled to India, where he remains to this day. In India today, taxes levied on Hindu temples often finance Christian and Muslim houses of worship. When Hindus commit acts of violence on Christian missionaries, they are prosecuted. All this in a country with an 80.5% Hindu population. From ancient to modern times, Hindus have demonstrated a consistent tolerance of other religions. I doubt other religions would have had such safe harbor in Christian Europe.

If you study any Indian history, I believe you will recind your claim that Hinduism's treatment of other religions is anything like Christianity's.


The bold faced portion is particularly true. The Catholic faith has the whole Truth, and all others have only a shadow of the Truth.

But here's the important question: how does that do us any good unless we convert to Christianity? Essentially this boils down to a statement that other religions are only useful insofar as they get people to convert.


Thats right, but i would like to clarify one thing. Pretty much the only way a non-Christian can be saved is because of invincible ignorance. Baptism of Desire is a term that should only be applied to Catechumens (people studying to enter the Catholic faith) who have died before receiving Baptism.

If you say so. Again, what I see here is Catholics downplaying the doctrine of condemnation for non-Christians by inventing ways that we can be saved in your Catholic paradigm. And that leads me to believe that even (especially?) the best Catholic theologians know that there's something deeply, morally wrong with assigning someone to eternal hell on the basis of his religion.


That's not strictly true you can understand something and still reject it. God gave us free will after all.

It makes sense that you would point this out, since you do not seem to downplay the doctrine of hell to the same extent as many other Catholics. And if you think that this doctrine is taught so clearly in the Bible, why do you suppose that most Catholics conduct severe mental gymnastics to deemphasize it?


I wouldn't state it quite that way. When the Second Coming occurs and the Heavenly Kingdom is ushered in Jesus will cast the wicked into Hell and the righteous will be raised to eternal life.

No offense intended, but you've avoided my implicit question. So let me explicitly state it: if Jesus isn't going to return to earth, reveal himself to the Jews, and then send them to hell, then what is he going to do with them? The doctrine of hell doesn't sound so bad when it's reserved for the unrighteous. But Christianity equates unrighteousness with non-Christianity. Jews are not Christians; the catechism states that Jews endure the drama of not knowing the details of the Messiah they await. But it casually brushes over what that Messiah, namely Jesus, will do to them after he returns. Will he give them the chance to convert? Will he offer the same chance to other non-Christians? And what does he do about those of us who die befor the second coming? Do we have a chance to convert after death? Or does God favor those who are alive when Christ returns?

These questions may seem like a laundry list, but they're very important. The answers to these questions explain the precise mechanics of how salvation works. And if the alternative to salvation is eternal hell, then there is nothing more important in life than answering these questions.


Generally it's because Catholics prefer to downplay God's condemnation and emphasize God's love. While Evangelicals do the opposite.

But why downplay God's condemnation? If the threat of condemnation is real, shouldn't we be fully aware of what the condemnation entails and how we can avoid it? Again, I think the reason Catholics downplay this doctrine is because at some level, they know that it is morally wrong. It's easy to read the Bible and understand the hell doctrine at an academic level. It's harder to look at your Hindu friend, who lives as upright a life as any Christian, and say that he's condemned to endless burning unless he gives up his very culture and convert to Christianity.


Now that is something I definitely did not say. Hindus just like me are loved by God and he desires nothing more than for them to come to Faith in Christ.

Forgive me if you feel I've put words in your mouth, such is not my intent. You say that God loves Hindus and wants them to come to faith in Christ. Is that the extent of his love? What if we don't come to faith in Christ? This is an important question, because as you can tell from the statistics, most of us will not convert no matter what. Is God's love then replaced with endless fury as he burns us in the fire of hell? Christians liken God to a father. Indeed, Western and Eastern methods of parenting are quite different, so I don't know if this is an artifact of how Westerners raise and discipline their children. But I know of few Hindu fathers who would eternally burn their children regardless of what crimes they committed. Any chastisement is always for our benefit, but obviously eternal hell is a form of retribution and not fatherly discipline. This conception of God's love seems extremely limited to me.


My statement really isn't at odds with the Catholic Faith. You may not know this, but during the 1960s-90s the Catholic Church underwent a "liberalizing", and now it's starting to "conservativize" again. Most of the extremely way out there claims made about who "Baptism of Desire" apply to, as well as other statements about universal salvation being an accepted belief stem from this era.

I am indeed aware of this. The Catholic Church often changes its positions and beliefs. This is of little concern to me, since I don't believe that it speaks for God. But since you hold this belief, you might wonder how the manifestation of God's kingdom on earth can be in constant flux when his will is unchanging. If the Catholic Church truly holds the keys to the kingdom of heaven, then one should hope that they take more definitive stances on theological issues. Miscalculation on their part effectively sends people to an eternity in hell.


Your right she wasn't there to convert people she was there to treat the sick and the outcast, as she liked to call them "Christ in a distressing disguise".

If even Mother Teresa converted no one, why do you feel that any Catholic needs to?


I understand this, but you can't blame em for tryin.

Oh, I most certainly can, and I do. Thanks to missionary work, many poor Hindus have become Christians in exchange for a handful of rice, only to be forced by the churches to ostracize themselves from their families and live like Westerners (after a good deal of suffering, they usually return to Hinduism). Christian missionaries sow dissent and strife everywhere in India. In one part of the country, a Baptist group has even created a terrorist organization (look up the National Liberation Front of Tripura). Christianity harms my parents' homeland and seeks to destroy the faith that my ancestors have practiced for millenia, though thankfully without any success. I certainly impute no guilt for this to Christians like yourself, nor do I judge Christians in general for the content of your theology. But you cannot blame me for opposing Christian missionary work in every way that I can.


I had a few Hindu friends in high school, but i wouldn't dream of doing something like this to them. We would have conversations about religion sometimes, but i would never pressure or ask them to convert. i would however pray for them, and one of them eventually did become a Catholic without any pressure from me for him to do so.

I'm glad to hear you don't pressure your Hindu friends to convert. Yet if you believe that they are destined for hell unless they convert, this behavior is inconsistent with your beliefs. I've read your Bible, and nowhere does it say to bear silent witness regarding your gospel (a case could be made from St. Peter's instructions to wives of non-Christian husbands, but I believe this woud be an incorrect and weak extrapolation). You are told specifically to preach. If I were a Christian, and I believed that my Hindu parents would go to hell unless they converted, I would loudly beg them day and night to accept Jesus, and would never permit them to leave the house lest they die of some accident and go to eternal hell. I would take no job nor travel anywhere, nor do anything until they accepted Jesus and their salvation was assured. Anyone who contemplates briefly what it means to burn for eternity can surely see the necessity of such extreme behavior.

I do not believe you love your friends so little that you would also not do this. Might I suggest though that perhaps you also see this problem with the hell doctrine, and perhaps at some level recognize the problem. Do you truly believe that your Hindu friends are destined for hell save for the one who converted? Can you imagine God burning them for centuries upon centuries in the place of outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, watching the smoke of their torment ascending forever and ever, knowing that after a billion years not even a small fraction of their punishment has been completed, and then still call God just? These may be emotional appeals, but you can blame your apostles for that, for the words are theirs. You might ask yourself: what have your Hindu friends done to merit endless torture? Was it for the sin of offering their prasadam to Lord Vishnu, with the understanding that every meal we eat is a gift from God? Or did they earn their place in hell when they bowed before Lord Ganesha with the understanding that all mortals must rely on God to remove the obstacles in our life? Or, heaven forbid, will God send them to hell for performing the Satyanarayana Puja to ask God that they not suffer for their sins?

Hindus aren't pagans, we don't run around stealing virgins and sacrificing them to Baal. Unlike myself you may not believe Hinduism is true, but it's fairly obvious that it's a good religion which encourages moral behavior. But you already knew that, since you have Hindu friends. We have most of the same moral principles that Christians do, even though we call God by different names and worship him differently than you do. So you must ask yourself: for what sin are your Hindu friends worthy of hell? You could quote a line from the evangelicals and point out that even one sin is contemptible in God's eyes and worthy of hell unless it is paid for by the blood of Christ. But again, I wonder if you could say that God is just if he were to cast your friends into the lake of fire.

Believer
06 December 2010, 01:00 AM
If you go to Confession for one sin over and over again in the priest will eventually withhold forgiveness until you reform your behaviour and do penance. Then once you have shown that you can truly overcome your sins the priest will grant forgiveness.


by definition we must deny that the Hindu religion can save you.
Honestly, you have hit upon the main problem with Evangelicalism here. It tries to force the Gospel down peoples throats. What they should be doing is being an example of Christ's love like Mother Teresa did.
Practically every time that Christians have been aggressive or persecuted another religion it was because the religion in question had been painted as foreign and hostile. Hindus, from my brief knowledge in Indian history have acted similarly when faced with a foreign religion, and some Hindus still do today.


Baptism of Desire is a term that should only be applied to Catechumens (people studying to enter the Catholic faith) who have died before receiving Baptism.

I wouldn't state it quite that way. When the Second Coming occurs and the Heavenly Kingdom is ushered in Jesus will cast the wicked into Hell and the righteous will be raised to eternal life.
Now that is something I definitely did not say. Hindus just like me are loved by God and he desires nothing more than for them to come to Faith in Christ.There is no intelligence in there.

I cannot help but scream,

Serenity Now!
Serenity Now!!
Serenity Now!!!

BryonMorrigan
06 December 2010, 06:40 AM
Practically every time that Christians have been aggressive or persecuted another religion it was because the religion in question had been painted as foreign and hostile.

Nope. As usual, the Christian is ignorant of history. For example, do you know how Christianity became the sole religion of the Roman Empire? In 313 CE, at the time of Constantine I's "Edict of Milan," less than 10% of the Empire was Christian. Constantine decided that he wanted the Empire to be Christian, as he believed that this kind of uniformity would lead to greater power and stability for the Empire. So he set about persecuting non-Christians and heretical Christians. Before long, practicing another religion besides Christianity was punishable by EXECUTION. By the end of the 300s, virtually the entire Empire had been converted through FORCE. That's how that Christian "love" is spread. You are no better in this regard than the Muslims.


I wouldn't state it quite that way. When the Second Coming occurs and the Heavenly Kingdom is ushered in Jesus will cast the wicked into Hell and the righteous will be raised to eternal life.

And of course, the "wicked" will include Mahatma Gandhi (a Hindu), while the "righteous" will include Adolf Hitler (a Christian). Sorry, but your religion has no room to talk about "righteousness," nor does Catholicism have the greatest "record" of doing righteous things...

http://www.redicecreations.com/ul_img/4836hitlereugeniopacelli.jpg

Eastern Mind
06 December 2010, 07:15 AM
Vannakkam:

Sanjaya:

I would never have the patience to go into such a long and detailed debate, but you do it admirably, and with knowledge. I just walk away from such matters. The end result, I hope, is that our friend has a change of heart. he obviously came here with the intent to convert via argument, but maybe it will go the other way if he reads and understands your words. But I would doubt that. The fear of hell is usually pretty ingrained.

But hey, thanks for trying on behalf of all of us.

Aum Namasivaya

Eastern Mind
06 December 2010, 07:20 AM
Vannakkam Deus:

On your profile for reasons for coming to HDF, you put 'just to learn about religions and to teach others as well',

So far we have seen nothing of the first part in the way of questions about Hinduism, and a lot about the second part of 'teaching' if you can call it that. I look forward to a few questions about Sanatana Dharma. Perhaps some of our members can answer them for you.

Aum Namasivaya

PARAM
06 December 2010, 10:09 AM

I have read many posts there, and find that Hindus are living lonesome life in Christian majority areas, why don't you make your own Hindu majority area? There you will come close to each other.

Eastern Mind
06 December 2010, 11:23 AM
Vannakkam Param: I'll try to explain this a bit. In the USA, the Hindu population is less than 1&#37;. Canada is only slightly higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

So there is a very small populace to reach out to. It is difficult to move to the US, and it is also difficult to move around the US. Jobs are hard to come by, and so we tend to be spread out.

Having said that, especially in larger metro areas, various ethnic groups have all gone to one area. Almost like enclaves. So in New York or Toronto, you will find Little _____s, like Chinatown, Little India, Little Greece, etc. But in other areas it is indeed very small. A Hindu could easily find himself as only one of 25 total in a town of 100 000 people. But the effort is being made, especially through temple building. The US now has some 500 Hindu temples. Still that is tiny amount relative to the total population. I would venture you need at least 25 dedicated families to even build a small temple, and then there may be issues to deal with as to what kind of temple. In larger areas, even the temples congregate based on the home state or language back in India. In my city for example we have an umbrella organisation called the Council of Indian Societies which includes the Telegu Association, the Marathi association etc etc. I think they have 17 member groups.

So what you say is a good idea, yet it would be nigh impossible to do. Maybe in the future. A few are pretty strong today, such as the Sri Lankans in Toronto, some 200 000 strong with perhaps 20 temples.

Aum Namasivaya

Adhvagat
06 December 2010, 02:15 PM
(...)

Shanti
06 December 2010, 04:24 PM
Vannakkam:

Sanjaya:

I would never have the patience to go into such a long and detailed debate, but you do it admirably, and with knowledge. I just walk away from such matters. The end result, I hope, is that our friend has a change of heart. he obviously came here with the intent to convert via argument, but maybe it will go the other way if he reads and understands your words. But I would doubt that. The fear of hell is usually pretty ingrained.

But hey, thanks for trying on behalf of all of us.

Aum Namasivaya

:iagree:

I haven't been able to check the boards for some time and have just finished reading through this thread. Sanjaya, I too admire your knowledge and ability to articulate within the debates of christianity with regards to Hinduism and within christianity itself. I've tried to read over some xtian doctrines and parts of the bible, but could never actually retain any of it. :blah: :D

I think it's wonderful that you are so well versed in our own religion as well as being able to debate with xtians about theirs. Have you ever considered mentoring Hindu youths at a mandir? Being young, yet so passionate about our culture and religion would be so refreshing for many youth and teens.

~S

Maya3
06 December 2010, 07:37 PM
I agree with everyone it really is great that you are so well read and able to have so much patience and have knowledge of their religion as well.
Maya

PARAM
07 December 2010, 10:54 AM
---------

You are right there, but I may say it is difficult but not impossible.

In some countries the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100&#37; Muslim. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts and within which they live by Sharia Law. All Muslims who do any Islamic, get shelter there.

Muslims are using it to spread Islamic Adharm, why not Hindus also try this for Dharm.

Eastern Mind
07 December 2010, 11:46 AM
Vannakkam Param: Hindus are far far more diverse than Muslims, or any of the other ethnic groups. There are 20 languages, 4 major sects, 50 some sampradayas, vegetarian, vegan, non-vegetarian. As for temple going, Hindus range from not at all, once or twice a year, one a month, once a week, to daily. Some are liberal, some are conservative. Hindus of Europe and north America arrive as immigrants from 10 or more different countries.

Besides all that, really tight 'ghettos' or enclaves within cultures, IMHO, are unhealthy for the overall society. It makes for exclusivism, where groups cannot or will not interact with each other in healthy ways. Your Islamic example is a good one. It leads to more difficulties, not less. So we have to be partially integrated in open and healthy societies. Otherwise there is resentment on both sides. I feel most Hindus wouldn't want this kind of exclusivity. If a developer purposely tried to start a "For Hindus only' village even by suggestion, many Hindus wouldn't go there.

The idea of allowing Sharia law within the laws of another country to me is preposterous.

We see the negative side here with private Christian schools where kids are so indoctrinated that they don't function in a tolerant way within the rest of society.

Aum Namasivaya

BryonMorrigan
07 December 2010, 01:04 PM
Vannakkam Param: Hindus are far far more diverse than Muslims, or any of the other ethnic groups. There are 20 languages, 4 major sects, 50 some sampradayas, vegetarian, vegan, non-vegetarian. As for temple going, Hindus range from not at all, once or twice a year, one a month, once a week, to daily. Some are liberal, some are conservative. Hindus of Europe and north America arrive as immigrants from 10 or more different countries.

Besides all that, really tight 'ghettos' or enclaves within cultures, IMHO, are unhealthy for the overall society. It makes for exclusivism, where groups cannot or will not interact with each other in healthy ways. Your Islamic example is a good one. It leads to more difficulties, not less. So we have to be partially integrated in open and healthy societies. Otherwise there is resentment on both sides. I feel most Hindus wouldn't want this kind of exclusivity. If a developer purposely tried to start a "For Hindus only' village even by suggestion, many Hindus wouldn't go there.

The idea of allowing Sharia law within the laws of another country to me is preposterous.

We see the negative side here with private Christian schools where kids are so indoctrinated that they don't function in a tolerant way within the rest of society.

Aum Namasivaya

Yeah, and in America...the majority of Hindus are well-educated professionals (doctors, programmers, etc.) who live "where the jobs are." Almost every town in America, (it seems to me) has at least one Hindu doctor. LOL. But if you put all those Hindu doctors into a single place...there would be no place for all of them to work!

sanjaya
07 December 2010, 10:14 PM
Wow, I've received many polite comments. Thank you all, though I'm not sure I'm worthy of the praise. Truthfully, I've only been taking my religion seriously for a couple years now, I certainly have quite aways to go!

Shanti: maybe in a few decades (or lifetimes) when I've become more enlightened, I'd love to teach Hindu youth. For now though, I am the student. Thank you though, I hope to justify your faith in my knowledge.

PARAM
08 December 2010, 09:57 AM



----------


---------

Of course you are right, but many Hindus are labour too, they can live in a community like area.

Language problem can be solved, in US English is official language; Hindus can accept it, just like here in HDF.

American Hindus also make casteless society, Like in Mauritius, Hindus live as casteless, and Malaysian Tamils are also casteless Hindus. There is no reservation quota in US, so such society can be formed, open minded Hindus can accept a casteless, colourless society too.




-------------

I haven't prised you, but you are worth anyway. But Hinduism is Dharma and not any kind of religion. This time too you can teach Hindu girls, and children.

Eastern Mind
08 December 2010, 10:38 AM
Vannakkam Param: Just as I cannot up and move to India as only a 6 month visa is granted (there are some exceptions like student visas) one cannot up and move to the US. Basically you have to obtain a job first, AND the employer has to prove that there is no American who can do that job. There are some ways around this, such as investing and hiring Americans, or going in illegally, but those are the basic rules.

Aum Namasivaya

BryonMorrigan
08 December 2010, 01:40 PM
Vannakkam Param: Just as I cannot up and move to India as only a 6 month visa is granted (there are some exceptions like student visas) one cannot up and move to the US. Basically you have to obtain a job first, AND the employer has to prove that there is no American who can do that job. There are some ways around this, such as investing and hiring Americans, or going in illegally, but those are the basic rules.

Aum Namasivaya


For the record, if things go "as planned" and my film company's purchase of a large, 50,000 square foot facility goes through, we have debated seeing if any Hindus from outside of the USA want to come work for us. Since the town where the building is located only has about 500 people, none of which are Hindu...it would be pretty easy for me to "prove" that no American is available for the job. I will just state that all qualified candidates must be fluent in both English and either Hindu, Tamil, Gujarat, or any other Indian language, as our film company will be marketing towards Indian consumers. :) No one locally will be qualified, nor will anyone want to commute to the small town. Therefore, Indians will have to get green cards! LOL.

Eastern Mind
08 December 2010, 01:52 PM
For the record, if things go "as planned" and my film company's purchase of a large, 50,000 square foot facility goes through, we have debated seeing if any Hindus from outside of the USA want to come work for us. Since the town where the building is located only has about 500 people, none of which are Hindu...it would be pretty easy for me to "prove" that no American is available for the job. I will just state that all qualified candidates must be fluent in both English and either Hindu, Tamil, Gujarat, or any other Indian language, as our film company will be marketing towards Indian consumers. :) No one locally will be qualified, nor will anyone want to commute to the small town. Therefore, Indians will have to get green cards! LOL.

Vannakkam Bryon: Here in Canada that type of thing would be handled via temporary work visas, that often don't lead to pernament citizenship status, and are often misused by employers. Perhaps the law in the US would be different. I know the temple artisans category falls under this temporary religious worker category there as they wanted to change it awhile back and the HAF and others protested.

So your idea certainly holds some promise but I wouldn't count chickens before they hatch. Of course you have better access and more knowledge about American immigration law that I ever would.

Aum namasivaya

Ganeshprasad
08 December 2010, 04:19 PM
Pranam all

I wonder what Deus Omnipotens has to say to all this, he came here to learn about other religion and teach us heathens, according to his profile. he must have got a shock off his life. Perhaps he can tell us if has learned anything?

Jai Shree Krishna

Eastern Mind
08 December 2010, 05:37 PM
Vannakkam GP:

It is my sincere desire that we are a decent sampling of Hindus out there who now refuse to become the next victims, using several strategies, such as those demonstrated here. Unfortunately, I suspect not. Our mean education and economic class are probably higher than that of the masses. But even if a few of them get the idea, to stop the pestering as it ain't gonna work, then we have contributed.

I'd still like to be able to answer some honest, sincere, and curious questions though. I'm sure there are many who would attest to the usefulness of HDF in this regard. I have seen many sincere seekers come and go, or come and stay.

Aum Namasivaya

Believer
08 December 2010, 05:43 PM
Therefore, Indians will have to get green cards! LOL.

Uncle Sam issues H-1B Work visas to foreign workers. There are local agencies who have contacts in India and can arrange for temp (renewable visa) Indian help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa#Duration_of_stay

I don't know the full extent of the expected involvement of the 'help' in your projects, but I must remind you that besides the fluency, enunciation is a big factor in communication. It pains me to no ends when I hear countless people pronouncing words, even in their own mother tongues, in 'clipped' tones, or trailing off towards the end of a sentence, over the phone and expecting me to be on the same page with them.

Not hiring local Indians is your choice, but don't be too sure about them not relocating to a small town. Some of the single retirees seeking to serve the cause of their religion/culture just might take you up on the offer.

BTW, the languages you were trying to list are Hindi, Tamil and Gujrati. :)

Just my $0.02 worth!
-

PARAM
09 December 2010, 09:26 AM
I am not hinting about only Indian Hindus, as you know Hindus from more than 20 countries, so thats not only Indian. Of course highest persentage of Hindus are Indian, but there are White Hindus of Europe, Black Hindus of Africa etc. You do not need to make Hindu only, but try to make Hindu Heart.

Rationalist
12 December 2010, 08:56 PM
The gutless worm of an ignorant, Missionary scum has left! Another victory for Hindu dharma!

sanjaya
13 December 2010, 04:08 PM
Well, I don't want to call anyone names. But it does look like he's gone. I just hope he hasn't left to go convert anyone. I was hoping I could have a discussion with him and explain why converting people is wrong.

Eastern Mind
13 December 2010, 06:25 PM
Vannakkam: Last post Dec. 5, last visit Dec. 6, called a troll, went off to the next internet fishing hole. Reminds me of Father picking berries, off looking for the next bush whilst Mother filler her bucket. Whatever happened to a little persistence! Then again he was fishing in very muddy waters where nothing was to be had, not even a faint hope of a sucker.

Aum Namasivaya

Shanti
19 December 2010, 04:56 PM
Well, I don't want to call anyone names. But it does look like he's gone. I just hope he hasn't left to go convert anyone. I was hoping I could have a discussion with him and explain why converting people is wrong.

Sanjaya, I would have thoroughly enjoyed the 'debate'! Ah well, I'm sure there will be another "god's soldier for christ" (yes I saw this on a pamphlet recently:rolleyes: ) on "Mission HDF" in due time.

~S

Eastern Mind
19 December 2010, 05:57 PM
Vannakkam:

It must be frustrating : akin to peddling educational savings plans once your friends and relatives pool dries up. The number of gullible potential victims is dwindling rapidly. At least I hope so.

Other than with the strong unrelenting evangelicals, for most Christian groups for every one that walks in the front door, three skedaddle out the back door.

Aum Namasivaya

sanjaya
19 December 2010, 06:11 PM
Sanjaya, I would have thoroughly enjoyed the 'debate'! Ah well, I'm sure there will be another "god's soldier for christ" (yes I saw this on a pamphlet recently:rolleyes: ) on "Mission HDF" in due time.

~S

Sadly you're right. These guys are all too happy to go to war.

Eastern Mind
19 December 2010, 06:12 PM
Vannakkam: Some reminders..

http://sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com/2008/08/10/christian-missionaries-take-aim-at-india-deceptive-bible-other-questionable-tactics/
http://www.christianaggression.org/tactics_deception.php
http://www.articlesbase.com/christianity-articles/conversion-tactics-by-christians-3437710.html
http://www.christianaggression.com/


Aum Namasivaya

PARAM
20 December 2010, 10:37 AM

In the article bhaya or fear some are fearing about their children, this is because of lonesome life, that Christians will always try to use on them.

Do you have Hindu marriage bureau there ? Hindu areas can solve the lonesome problem and Marriage bureau can solve marriage problems too.

Eastern Mind
25 January 2011, 05:19 AM
Vannakkam: Seems the Supreme Court has spoken out about conversions. Maybe its a start. Maybe not. What do people think?

http://www.dailypioneer.com/312505/Conversion-has-no-justification-SC.html

Aum Namasivaya

BryonMorrigan
25 January 2011, 07:16 AM
Vannakkam: Seems the Supreme Court has spoken out about conversions. Maybe its a start. Maybe not. What do people think?

http://www.dailypioneer.com/312505/Conversion-has-no-justification-SC.html

Aum Namasivaya

That was pretty great.

saidevo
26 January 2011, 06:50 AM
Here is an update on the SC judgment:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-changes-reason-for-awarding-life-term-to-Dara-for-Staines-murder/articleshow/7362606.cms

Ironically, SC has already given a categorical judgment against conversion here:
http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?type=NEWS&id=1148312963

Seems jurisprudence, even at the SC level, is becoming more and more subjective, under political and Christian influence.

Eastern Mind
26 January 2011, 07:48 AM
Vannakkam: Interesting, Saidevo. Thanks for the update. I know very litle about India, but it seems to me there is a large gap between the law, and the enforcement of said law. That is true here too. Here there is a lot of allowed discretion by the police. For example, on things like slight speeding, or possession of small amounts of marijuana, the police have discretionary powers to let you off with a warning.

Certainly I'd be interested in any stories of enforcement in the few states where conversion or attempts at conversion are outlawed. Having said that, I was only approached once by a Christian this time. It was outside the Meenakshi temple and he tried to hit us up for a charitable donation to an orphanage. I didn't have the will or time to enter a discussion, so approached him like any other hawker on the street ... ignore, ignore, ignore.

I did sense more vulnerability in the South than in the North though, but I could have been very wrong.

According to this: http://hinduism.about.com/library/weekly/extra/bl-population2.htm Christian &#37; of the whole has gone from 2.44 to 2.34 in 40 years, so sometimes I wonder what the fuss is about.

Aum Namasivaya

saidevo
26 January 2011, 08:44 AM
namaste EM.

The Christian population in India is only officially at the given low percentage. Scores of Congress politicians with a large number of followers, who go by their Hindu names among the public are (likely to be) Christians, as the case of YSR Reddy proved to be, when he was dead. As for the converts, most are hidden under Hindu names, with the officials records not updated as to their present religious status. A further complication is the high percentage of Christians in the NE region, and the relentless conversions going on, which are by and large successful, specially with regard to the dalits. Here are some links that might give you an idea:

World Christian Database: India is now 6% Christian
http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?type=NEWS&id=1114450073

http://www.christianaggression.org/search.php

A numbers game
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1625/16250930.htm

sm78
26 January 2011, 08:58 AM
According to this: http://hinduism.about.com/library/weekly/extra/bl-population2.htm Christian &#37; of the whole has gone from 2.44 to 2.34 in 40 years, so sometimes I wonder what the fuss is about.

Aum Namasivaya

Long back when I was still in college we were made aware of the term crypto-christian...i.e christian in disguise, officially they are hindu, have hindu names. But they will have Jesus figure on their doors, cars and would attend a church & bible classes instead of temples. What saidevo says is true and it is likely to me much higher than official figures. The simple fact is that post independent some states in NE has gone from none-christian to almost 100% christian (Nagaland).

Some areas of Tamil Nadu really are showing an alarming trend and is directly related to DMK govt and Karunanidhi's nth wife being christian.

In Korea (South), it is said, barely 2 decades back there were hardly any christains, and now officially christianity is the major religion. It happened so quickly and with indirect govt patronage. Same can happen in India. The official figures will be kept low, till Christians can assert their religious identities and gain upper hand in political bargain, and suddenly we will see large portion of the population as Christian.

Had India been a homogenious country like Korea, it would have been much easy, but the church has to take on conversions on each state separately and same formula doesn't work. Brahmin hate would be very effective in Tamil Nadu (perhaves) but will be ineffective in WB~which despite being much less religous and hindu is a difficult target for conversion. So it will not be easy. But my guess, we will see more states after NE where Christians suddenly come up as main force and expose their fangs. But it would take some time for the country to be effected as a whole. Right now they are happy being crypto. It also makes conversion easy.

Eastern Mind
26 January 2011, 09:03 AM
Vannakkam Saidevo: Yes, I can see how it's hard to actually gauge, for many reasons. Practising versus non-practising, for example, won't show on any census. Of course many census takers would have a bias. I can see why the Catholic Church or evangelicals would want to at least imply a growth, to keep the western money flowing.

Then there is the wealth and power relation. I'd hate to think of the repercussions if the 50+ billionaires mentioned here
http://theviewspaper.net/distribution-of-wealth-in-india/
were all Christians.

Regardless of whether its going up or down, there are plenty of good reasons to battle the process in whatever small ways we can. Mentioning the growth of Hindusm or at least the growth or Hindu inspired concepts in the west is one small example.

Aum Namasivaya

PARAM
26 January 2011, 10:47 AM
Long Ago in Andhra there was a Shaivite King Rajaraja Narendra. He respected Sanskrit and Dharm. He learned from the success of Jains and Buddhists that the only way to popularize the Dharm was to translate Dharm Granths into local languages. So he started this, and conquered for Dharma.

Christians are using same tricks to promote Adharm, we here have HDF in English, we need local language sites also. And promotion of such sites too, I found HDF when I was searching Hindu pictures, otherwise I have missed it.

Eastern Mind
26 January 2011, 01:14 PM
Saidevo and sm78: That's good to know. Another form of deception. I knew the Catholic priest Bede Griffiths took on the Hindu look to deceive, but I didn't realise the propensity of chrypto-christians. I hadn't even heard of the word, yet it makes sense now, as a tactic they would use, as any kind of deception is the norm. I learned something new today, hooray!:)

Even here our prime minister and his cronies hide their fundamentalist Christianity so they get re-elected. Observers are constantly accusing them of holding a hidden agenda, but they go on denying it. Sure hope they never win a majority.

Aum Namasivaya

Ramakrishna
01 February 2011, 10:29 PM
Namaste,

This is good news: http://www.hinduismtoday.com/blogs-news/hindu-press-international/u-s--priest-helps-revive-hindu-faith-in-south-africa/10763.html

I love that quote from the pandit:
"If you have knowledge about your religion, then if someone knocks on your door you know what to tell them because you have strong faith."

Jai Sri Ram

Ramakrishna
05 August 2011, 11:29 PM
Namaste all,

More good news, this one made me really happy: Alert Hindus foil ploy of conversion by Christians on the day of Ashadhi Ekadashi (http://forumforhinduawakening.org/dharma/news/2011/07/25/alert-hindus-foil-ploy-of-conversion-by-christians-on-the-day-of-ashadhi-ekadashi/)

"As the alert Hindus came to know of this ploy, they alerted other Hindus and took the Christians into custody raising their voice. Hindus burnt 1000 – 1500 books carried by them and handed over the Christians to police. Police later released them after giving a warning."

This is the way things should be done. No violence and you get the message across to the Christians to leave the Hindus alone. I just wish they weren't released so quickly after just a "warning". They should be locked up longer or deported. Of course, such laws need to be passed.

Jai Sri Ram

sanjaya
06 August 2011, 11:25 AM
Yeah, I think EM also posted this somewhere. It's good that the Hindus here were assertive without being violent. It's also very important that they confiscated and burned the Christian materials; these are 1500 conversion pamphlets that will never fall into the hands of a Hindu.

Too bad the West is putting its entire financial strength behind missionary work, but that's another problem.

Eastern Mind
06 August 2011, 11:55 AM
Vannakkam: Here is a link to a nice non-religious charity from the US and Canada, but also elsewhere. I enjoyed reading the letters from the people who worked around Madurai, of course. if I was younger, I'd volunteer some time. I think it could easily be done in combination with a pilgrimage to India.

It would be great if more non-missionaries would go ... balance things out a bit.

http://www.projects-abroad.ca/about-us/

Aum Namasivaya

PatrickMB
08 August 2011, 10:13 AM
I am one of those cultural Christians to whom the O.P. refers. In all sincerity, I'm not here to discuss Christianity, which I understand fairly well. I don't post often because I come to read and learn. I pray that I have not given offense. I cannot adequately explain the power of Hinduism to draw me closer to it, but it is undeniable.

Ramakrishna
06 September 2011, 06:04 PM
Namaste,

An old article but very well-written article that I just found:

Missionaries are Colonialists (http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/21-10-2008/106593-missionaries_colonialists-0/)

Jai Sri Ram

PARAM
07 September 2011, 04:53 AM
Those idiot Christian missionaries are using wealth to convert others. Muslims are using force to convert others but Christian missionaries are no better instead, for them everybody is a sinner who will land in entire hell and only Christians are going to heaven with the help of their counterpart father Jesus. Christian god hate all others, I found this website is something exposing http://www.evilbible.com/

Daniellasaur
09 September 2011, 04:20 PM
I don't understand why christian conversion-seekers think we are stupid and know nothing about christianity. I used to be christian, but I felt it was a violent and hate-inspiring religion, and that was when I found my way on the path of Hinduism, which has brought me peace in all ways.
Christians rarely succeed in converting Hindus. The most they can do is convince a hindu to put Jesus on their alter as well as all of the other gods. But even that is a rare thing.

PARAM
10 September 2011, 10:38 AM
Christian missionaries are trying their best to make worst for others and they should convert, World needs to understand Dharma.

shantiseeker
10 September 2011, 11:01 AM
I used to be Christian too, and probably at large, my extended family assumes I still have leanings toward it. Fortunately, I don't come from a proselytizing extended family, and none of them are overtly religious, just a couple that go through the motions sort of thing, much like I used to. As I'm learning about SD, I can't call myself a "Hindu" at this juncture, though I continue to embrace it. But no Christian person will have the power to convince me of anything. They can say I'm going to hell-go for it. At my last job, the colleagues who were more obvious and more conservative of Christians as always in my experience, were the most judgmental people there toward whatever. One while a decent worker, was also a complainer and tattle tale, and just plain selfish. Because I'm professional, naturally I never said a word, but so wish I could have posed a simple question: Is that how your Jesus behaved toward others and only thinking of himself? While I can't globalize, I've known many Christians where I sure as heck don't recognize the Christ in their title. The Jesus in their Bible surely wasn't judgmental, and he associated with all people including the outcasts. Those former colleagues look at other people in contempt, so again, they follow who???

Eastern Mind
10 September 2011, 12:12 PM
I don't understand why christian conversion-seekers think we are stupid and know nothing about christianity. I used to be christian, but I felt it was a violent and hate-inspiring religion, and that was when I found my way on the path of Hinduism, which has brought me peace in all ways.
Christians rarely succeed in converting Hindus. The most they can do is convince a hindu to put Jesus on their alter as well as all of the other gods. But even that is a rare thing.

Vannakkam Danielle: I think that is quite true in America, especially because we now have so many temples, and Hindus here tend to be fed and educated. Elsewhere, as others have said, it can be different. I believe the key elsewhere lies in education, and laws if necessary.

Aum Namasivaya

Jainarayan
10 September 2011, 02:02 PM
I used to be Christian too, and probably at large, my extended family assumes I still have leanings toward it. Fortunately, I don't come from a proselytizing extended family, and none of them are overtly religious, just a couple that go through the motions sort of thing, much like I used to.

My family are Roman Catholic when it's necessary... weddings, funerals, baptisms.


They can say I'm going to hell-go for it.

Tell them what I say: "there is no hell, but I could come back as an artichoke, which might be even worse". They walk away usually shaking their heads. :D


At my last job, the colleagues who were more obvious and more conservative of Christians as always in my experience, were the most judgmental people there toward whatever. One while a decent worker, was also a complainer and tattle tale, and just plain selfish. Because I'm professional, naturally I never said a word, but so wish I could have posed a simple question: Is that how your Jesus behaved toward others and only thinking of himself? While I can't globalize, I've known many Christians where I sure as heck don't recognize the Christ in their title. The Jesus in their Bible surely wasn't judgmental, and he associated with all people including the outcasts. Those former colleagues look at other people in contempt, so again, they follow who???

I don't talk religion with co-workers or family, unless the co-worker(s) happen to be Hindu, and even then it's rare to talk about it. My family has no idea of my beliefs, and to the best I can manage it they never will. I can picture it now:

Them: "Oh, now you're Hindu? What's that all about? You were born in Newark, not India".

Me: "And you follow an orthodox Jew; were you born in Judea?"

I feel that religious beliefs and faith are deeply personal, between you and your deity, no one else. I've seen the term Ardha Hindu, used for "half Hindu", someone who doesn't publicly proclaim their Hinduism by changing their name. There are some who probably won't like this, but I think if you want to do that more power to you, but I don't think it's fair to suggest that if you don't, you're not fully Hindu.

As I told the young fellow in another thread, God transcends all races, colors, cultures, and walks of life. Only God knows what's in your heart, and it should stay that way, as far as I'm concerned. Whether you are Hindu, a Jehova's Nitwit, Jew, born-again Christian, LDS wearing your religion on your sleeve is just not cool (says the guy with a devanagari OM tattooed on his shoulder and icons on his desk :D). But those are for me, not anyone else.

A woman I work with is the Mother of All Busybodies®; she is dying to know what the pictures are on my desk. She came right out and asked, which I ignored. Another time she said "oh the cafeteria is having grilled sirloin, I'm not sure if you eat that, but I though I'd let you know because it's really good". :rolleyes: If that wasn't a fishing expedition I don't know what is. And no, I didn't eat the sirloin, I think I had rice and lentils. ;)

PARAM
11 September 2011, 12:33 AM
Christians do not know anything, they use Hindu ways themselves and still do not want to accept it, for example just as Trinity and Karma, Christians call them as Biblical principles and asks about us if Hindus also worship trinity and believe in Karma? I think we should ask them where trinity and Karma are mentioned in Bible or in any other Old Testament except Hindu scriptures.

Daniellasaur
13 September 2011, 09:27 AM
"Tell them what I say: "there is no hell, but I could come back as an artichoke, which might be even worse". They walk away usually shaking their heads. :D"

hahaha, that made me smile! I'm going to have to use that sometime ;)