PDA

View Full Version : No more Jesus junk around here



issacnewton
22 June 2011, 09:58 AM
Hi

I see many westerners who have become hindu or in the process of becoming hindu or still christian, come here and start comparing Jesus with lofty hindu ideas. Being an indian hindu and having seen the destruction caused by jesus
junk in indian society, this is deeply troubling to me.

Why the hell do we tolerate jesus **** on a hindu forum ? This forum is not
run by Sonia and her cronies. Thank gods....

If these westerners feel so much for this jesus and his vomit called christianity, we should ask them to go to some jesus forum. Lot of hindus have started warming up to jesus. Ramkrishna mission keep this joker's picture in their ashrams. So this is damaging to hindus in the long run.

For centuries, hindus were terrorised by abrahamic junk. we shall not tolerate it any longer. I ask moderators to delete any thread praising jesus junk.
No exceptions. Hindu spirituality should be approached on "Hindu Terms"
not on our enemy's terms and conditions.

thanks

Sahasranama
22 June 2011, 10:06 AM
I am glad someone else feels the same about this as me. I don't have any problem if people want to believe in Jesus, but to pretend he has anything to do with Hinduism is simply criminal. The moderators should if not delete the posts, at least edit it with a disclaimer that these are personal fantasies only and are not endorsed by Hinduism. I don't have the time and energy to object everytime people equate Christianity with Hinduism or start praising Jesus. It should be taken care of by the moderators.

Jainarayan
22 June 2011, 10:22 AM
Wow, just wow. That's more than a little over the top. :eek: Christianity today is not what Jesus taught or preached. It is twisted by men for their own reasons and gain.

I agree this is not the place for proselytizing for Christianity, OK let me say that again and make it very clear, because someone will miss it and strawman it on me: I agree this is not the place for proselytizing for Christianity. But learn something about what he taught before crucifying him again. Don't take your hatred for Christians, Jews and Muslims out on someone who taught love and peace.

All Jesus (or whoever wrote for him; he may have existed, he may not) said was to love God with all your heart and soul and strength; to love your enemies; pray for those who persecute and harm you; bless those who curse you; and do not judge so you are not judged the same way you judge.

That doesn't sound like vomit to me. Don't blame Jesus, blame the people who claim to follow him.

Sahasranama
22 June 2011, 10:42 AM
Wow, just wow. That's more than a little over the top... Don't blame Jesus, blame the people who claim to follow him.

These topics have come on HDF many times, I am tired of responding to it, but what you are saying is not true. Christians do have theological justifications for violence against non believers. What we need is a sticky that answers these basic questions about the abrahamic religions backed up with historical and scriptural references, so that we can refer newbies to that information.

issacnewton
22 June 2011, 10:46 AM
Mino,

Ya whatever. Jesus was not all love and peace. I think somewhere he said that
only he is the way... Well see , this is not a christian theology forum and I dont want to waste bandwidth of hindu forum interpreting/reinterpreting/re-reinterpreting what Jesus said. Jesus should be seen in larger abrahamic tradition. At the heart of abrahamic tradition, there is intense hatred of anything heathen. No amount of whitewashing is going to change that. I have always found the use of some words by christians and muslims problematic. Christian "Love" and Islamic "Peace". Some psychoanalyst should analyse that. Christian "love" is nothing like the love as we understand it.
Millions of jews have been killed in europe for last 20 centuries because they refused to embrace this uniquely christian "Love" . "Accept the love of jesus
or else.........." This christian love has undercurrent of violence to it.

Same thing goes to Islamic "Peace". The way muslims use the word "peace" is very different than we understand in common sense. Their peace is actually
a desert which is made free of all kafirs. Only when all the kafirs are subdued ,
the true "peace " will be established. Like christian "love" , islamic "peace"
has undercurrent of threatening language, violence.

I say enough of this abrahamic nonsense. There are many places to preach their christian "love" and islamic "peace". Not here.....:mad:

Jainarayan
22 June 2011, 10:49 AM
Christians do have theological justifications for violence against non believers.

Cite an example. Oh, and not from the Old Testament. Leviticus, despite what fundamentalist Christians say, is not binding on true Christians.

Jainarayan
22 June 2011, 10:53 AM
Jesus should be seen in larger abrahamic tradition.

Because?

I'm saddened at the hatred being espoused lately.

That Jesus said he is the only way is binding only on those who believe in him. Why does that statement matter to you? I'd really like to know where these feelings come from. You have your own faith. I'd worry about practicing that as best as I could before I worry about what others believe.

issacnewton
22 June 2011, 10:56 AM
A funny picture I wanted to share

Jainarayan
22 June 2011, 10:58 AM
Millions of jews have been killed in europe for last 20 centuries because they refused to embrace this uniquely christian "Love" . "Accept the love of jesus
or else.........." This christian love has undercurrent of violence to it.

I should have bolded this to to make it perfectly clear: Christianity ... is twisted by men for their own reasons and gain.

Are you suggesting the elimination of Christians? Are you advocating violence against other humans? What do you suggest as a solution to the "problem" you see?

I personally don't give a rat's hiney what other people believe, but please stop making hateful statements.

Sahasranama
22 June 2011, 11:05 AM
Cite an example.

Just one example? There are so many, either in the old testament or new.

But just to give one example to refute your claim:

10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.


Oh, and not from the Old Testament. Leviticus, despite what fundamentalist Christians say, is not binding on true ChristiansJesus clearly approves of the old testament:

5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

issacnewton
22 June 2011, 11:06 AM
Sigh........:mad:

its the sign of the times that hindus have to listen to christian junk on a hindu forum. Jai Ho !!!!! :D

Jainarayan
22 June 2011, 11:13 AM
Just one example? There are so many, either in the old testament or new.

But just to give one example to refute your claim:

10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
Jesus clearly approves of the old testament:

It refers to the strife that will occur when people abandon the old ways of Judaism to follow his teachings. Consult any rabbinical or Christian theologian.


5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Yes, to fulfill the prophecy of his coming.

I was Christian all my life, so please do not make statements that you don't know the context of. You would be up one side of me and down the other if I started interpreting the Vedas.

"Even the devil can quote Scripture to his purpose." - William Shakespeare. That applies to all of us.

Jainarayan
22 June 2011, 11:14 AM
its the sign of the times that hindus have to listen to christian junk on a hindu forum. Jai Ho !!!!! :D

Who started the thread? It was you who brought up the Christianity thing. I think it was just to stir the pot. Well, for me it's time to put the lid on and turn off the gas. Bye.

Sahasranama
22 June 2011, 11:22 AM
It refers to the strife that will occur when people abandon the old ways of Judaism to follow his teachings. Consult any rabbinical or Christian theologian.
It doesn't matter what it refers to, the purpose is pretty clear.


Yes, to fulfill the prophecy of his coming.Not just the prophecy, he also says law. The prophecy of Jesus is a big hoax in itself. You can ask any knowledgeable Jew, he can refute that Jesus was the prophet simply from the Bible itself. There is a lot of discrepancy between the old and new testament regarding this prophecy.

Mana
22 June 2011, 11:27 AM
.























































;;;;;

Jainarayan
22 June 2011, 11:30 AM
It doesn't matter what it refers to, the purpose is pretty clear.

But it doesn't affect you. Why are you so concerned with it?


The prophecy of Jesus is a big hoax in itself. You can ask any knowledgeable Jew, he can refute that Jesus was the prophet simply from the Bible itself. There is a lot of discrepancy between the old and new testament regarding this prophecy.

Seventy five per cent of the world's population doesn't believe in Jesus or the bible. Again, why does it concern you? Why are you two so fixated on it? Let it go. It's a concern only to Christians and Jews.

If someone starts proselytizing for Christianity or Judaism or Islam here, either put the person on ignore (as I'm about to do) or report the post if it's offensive. It's for the admin and mods to decide, not the members.

Sahasranama
22 June 2011, 11:36 AM
I can't say that it doesn't matter. It has a lot of political significance and the abrahamic religions are one of the reasons why Hindus are under siege in their own country. Also even if many people don't believe in the Bible, a lot of people are actively distorting Hinduism with the teachings from Christianity. In an ideal world it wouldn't matter.

Jainarayan
22 June 2011, 12:08 PM
I can't say that it doesn't matter. It has a lot of political significance and the abrahamic religions are one of the reasons why Hindus are under siege in their own country. Also even if many people don't believe in the Bible, a lot of people are actively distorting Hinduism with the teachings from Christianity. In an ideal world it wouldn't matter.

OK, now we're getting to the nuts and bolts of it! What is happening in India from the Abrahamic religions? What do you mean by "under siege"? If you say it's groups of Christians and Muslims (Jews don't proselytize for conversion) trying to force their beliefs through gov't and on the country, we in the US are under siege too. It's from the right wing fundamentalist Christians who want to make the US a theocracy based on their brand of "Christianity". They are the furthest thing from "Christianity". It sounds like they're trying to do what they did in the Americas starting in the 16th century with the Spanish conquests.

The US Constitution strictly forbids it, but it doesn't stop Christian groups from trying to push through "faith-based" (as GW Bush called it) inititatives and legislation. Pushing Creationism in schools and "Intelligent Design" (immaterial whether one believes in Darwinian evolution or not, it's illegal) is out of control. The US Supreme Court and other federal courts have their hands full slapping these laws down as unconstitutional.

After 9/11 there were many Sikhs murdered in the US because they are mistaken for Muslims. You know, anyone who wears a turban is Muslim. :rolleyes: Muslims and Arabs don't wear turbans! That's how ignorant Americans are.

So if that's what you mean, you are not alone and it angers me too. They are trampling on our rights. It's not limited to India. India's Constitution (I always capitalize national Constitutions) is not unlike America's. In fact, most democratic nations' Constitutions are patterned after and not unlike the US's.

If it's something else that I don't understand, I'd like to.

TheOne
22 June 2011, 12:56 PM
Funny the amount of increasing xenophobia on this forum of anything decidedly "not Hindu".

Yes of course Jesus is by no means a Hindu, and Christianity is a terrible form of control bit that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about Jesus and his philosophy.

I find the books of the Nag Hammadi library rather enlightening, far more than sitting here and reading the xenophobic hate spewed and anything non-Hindu / Western.

Sahasranama
22 June 2011, 01:00 PM
Funny the amount of increasing xenophobia on this forum of anything decidedly "not Hindu".

Yes of course Jesus is by no means a Hindu, and Christianity is a terrible form of control bit that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about Jesus and his philosophy.

I find the books of the Nag Hammadi library rather enlightening, far more than sitting here and reading the xenophobic hate spewed and anything non-Hindu / Western.
I don't think you understand what xenophobic means, learn to use a dictionary, kid.

Ananda
22 June 2011, 01:58 PM
Hello folks,



love God with all your heart and soul and strength; to love your enemies; pray for those who persecute and harm you; bless those who curse you; and do not judge so you are not judged the same way you judge.

I think, all of the misrepresentations of Jesus aside, Jesus, as spiritual teachers go, is very overrated. If this particular quote above can be served as a summary of Jesus' whole teaching, then yes, it is a good moral teaching, but that's all it is, and as a spiritual teacher Jesus was already obsolete in his own time.

These teachings are not unique or original in any way; there have been, both before and after Jesus, much more direct teachers and teachings- teachers and teachings which have not been subject to misrepresentation and distortion by fanatics and theologists over the centuries.

We don't need Jesus- whether we are from the east or the west, whether we are Hindu or not Hindu; the majority of people in the world have the same innate moral sense which Jesus taught (such as love your neighbour), and his spiritual teachings are nothing profound and have been matched and bettered elsewhere, such as in our own teaching tradition.

Jesus, then, as a middle of the road spiritual teacher, has so much baggage and carnage following his wake that the utility of him as a viable spiritual authority is so vastly outweighed by the horrors of christian doctrine that it would, in my own opinion, be altogether more sensible to simply stop placing him on a pedestal and instead appreciate other teachers who have a much stronger message- without the trail of destruction following after them.

As an aside, I do find Jesus' 'heretical' teachings found in the gnostic gospels, such as the Gospel of Thomas, to be very intriguing, and are worth more consideration than any of the established doctrines that current christian authorities espouse.



:)

Adhvagat
22 June 2011, 04:15 PM
I see that people usually say that Christianity was twisted by man for political motives...

However, where do we find this original spiritually pure Christianity?

IMO, it's long gone if it ever existed in the form that christians would like to believe.

But this raw anger is not helpful to Hindus, not at all, Hindus are going to be viewed as xenophobic and haters. Hindus should be very careful, clear, informed, intelligent and above all polite when touching these matters. Rajiv Malhotra is a role model in these matters.

Jainarayan
22 June 2011, 06:22 PM
However, where do we find this original spiritually pure Christianity?

IMO, it's long gone if it ever existed in the form that christians would like to believe.

The Essenes and the Gnostics. They ran afoul of both the Jewish leaders and early church leaders. "Christians" don't want to know about them because of their austere and nearly ascetic lifestyle, which is what Christianity was supposed to be. They were devoted to the contemplation of God. Remember "sell all you have and give the money to the poor; then you will enter the kingdom of God". Who is going to do that today? George W. Bush? Not very likely. So much for Christianity.

The closest you come to that today are in the monasteries of the Greek Orthodox Church on Mount Athos in Greece. Even the Russian Orthodox Church doesn't hold a candle (no pun intended) to the Greeks. The ROC had ~70 years of Soviet rule, and forgot what monasticism is. The Greeks had no such break in 2,000 years.

Ramakrishna
22 June 2011, 07:00 PM
Namaste all,

I completely agree with Issac and Sahasranama. Some of my earlier posts from when I first joined this forum were back when I was young and ignorant (or more than I am now). I espoused universalism and said that there was nothing wrong with bringing Jesus or his teachings into Hinduism. Only recently have I realized how wrong, dangerous, and stupid that is.

For one thing, Jesus never existed in the first place. There is no historical evidence whatsoever of his existence. He is just a fantasy that was created by some Jews based on past figures and myths, and even then he didn't fulfill all of the prophecies that the messiah was supposed to and there are numerous discrepancies in the Gospels. Early Christians even debated and killed each other over the supposed nature of "Jesus".

More importantly, as a Hindu, why would you need to bring Jesus into Hinduism? Does Sanatana Dharma not have enough deities and facets of the Supreme, that you need to bring in Jesus? It's true that the majority of Jesus' supposed teachings are compatible with Hinduism, but why do you need to go to Jesus for those teachings when they are already found in Hinduism and were there for thousands of years before the myth of Jesus was created?

Another thing is that by bringing Jesus into Hinduism, you are bringing the disease of Abrahamicism into Sanatana Dharma and lending credence to it. Abrahamics (largely because of their religion) have done immense harm and damage to Hinduism and India over the centuries. A Hindu needs absolutely nothing from the Abrahamic religions. Everything a Hindu needs to live a dharmic life and eventually attain moksha is found in Hinduism, and Jesus is not in Hinduism.

As Sahasranama said, there is really no problem if one someone believes in and accepts Jesus, but it is when people try to bring that into Hinduism that it is a major problem. If you want to believe in Hindu teachings and Jesus at the same time, then you are a Universalist. And there is really nothing wrong with that if that is what you choose to do, but please don't try to taint and bring down Hinduism by bringing Jesus into it. No Hindu shastra speaks of Jesus, since he does not exist. But they do speak of Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva and Lord Brahma and Lord Rama and Lord Krishna and Lord Ganesha and Lord Murugan and Maa Durga and Maa Saraswati and Maa Lakshmi and Maa Kali and many many many more. Why not be devoted to these deities and these alone instead of bringing in some mythological figure from religions which have caused mayhem and havoc throughout humanity? What is there to gain from that?

Jai Sri Ram

Ramakrishna
22 June 2011, 07:10 PM
Namaste Minotaur,


But it doesn't affect you. Why are you so concerned with it?



Again, why does it concern you? Why are you two so fixated on it? Let it go. It's a concern only to Christians and Jews.



You have your own faith. I'd worry about practicing that as best as I could before I worry about what others believe.

You repeatedly say this as if Hindus are going into Christians' lives and interfering with their faith and religion....The reason this is a concern to Hindus is because the complete opposite of that is happening. People are bringing their Abrahamicism into Hinduism and that is a threat to Sanatana Dharma. Again, like others have said, there is no problem if one chooses to believe Christianity, but it is a problem when they go around proselytizing and also bringing parts of their religion into Hinduism. Hindus just want to be left alone then we can practice our faith without trying to be converted or having tainted with Abrahamic beliefs.

This isn't a matter of Hindus being concerned with Christians and what they believe. It's a matter of Christians and (supposedly) ex-Christians trying to change Hinduism and bring non-Hindu elements into the faith.

Jai Sri Ram

Kismet
22 June 2011, 07:53 PM
I am glad someone else feels the same about this as me. I don't have any problem if people want to believe in Jesus, but to pretend he has anything to do with Hinduism is simply criminal. The moderators should if not delete the posts, at least edit it with a disclaimer that these are personal fantasies only and are not endorsed by Hinduism. I don't have the time and energy to object everytime people equate Christianity with Hinduism or start praising Jesus. It should be taken care of by the moderators.

Jesus certainly does not have anything to do with Hinduism in the "official" sense. He belongs to what some might call a very different tradition: the Abrahamic one. But what if we look at things in more philosophical terms rather than purely religious or cultural?

If Parabrahman, or the Soul, is really everywhere and all-pervading, then Truth is, as it were, not limited to any time and place, and can really be found in any person, regardless of overriding tradition. This is assuming we are, as in Advaita, identical with it. Jesus, just like the Buddha, can from that standpoint be treated as more than another prophet or priest, but rather as a true self-manifestation of the Atman and an authentic source of wisdom crossing religions and spiritualities.

Jainarayan
22 June 2011, 07:56 PM
Namaste Minotaur,








You repeatedly say this as if Hindus are going into Christians' lives and interfering with their faith and religion....The reason this is a concern to Hindus is because the complete opposite of that is happening. People are bringing their Abrahamicism into Hinduism and that is a threat to Sanatana Dharma. Again, like others have said, there is no problem if one chooses to believe Christianity, but it is a problem when they go around proselytizing and also bringing parts of their religion into Hinduism. Hindus just want to be left alone then we can practice our faith without trying to be converted or having tainted with Abrahamic beliefs.

This isn't a matter of Hindus being concerned with Christians and what they believe. It's a matter of Christians and (supposedly) ex-Christians trying to change Hinduism and bring non-Hindu elements into the faith.

Jai Sri Ram

I was addressing one person who was spouting pure, unadulterated hatred without giving any reason. Not that there is any reason for hatred of any kind. Btw, I don't think I ever said that Hindus were interfering with Christians. Show me where I did and I'll either retract it or clarify and qualify it. You're making a strawman argument. I asked why he was so fixated on Christianity influencing Hinduism. I wanted to know and understand the Hindu mindset on it. Christians could take a lesson from Hindus in compassion and politeness. Except for a few instances in posts I've seen here.

I asked what the basis was for the animosity towards Christianity by Hindus. I said I wanted to understand, but I never got that answer until now. And I can respect it. I don't approve of forcing anyone's beliefs on anyone. Are you surprised?

I live in a country where Christian fundamentalists want to change the US Constitution to say who can marry whom. They want to pass laws based on their brand of Christianity. They want to legislate what can be taught in schools as long as it agrees with their beliefs. Talk about forcing someone's beliefs on other people! That is not what the Constitution is for. That violates the Constitution. I said that before. But again, apparently that wasn't read, or it was deliberately passed over.

I haven't been around here that long, but I have yet to see anyone trying to bring Jesus and Christianity into Hinduism in these conversations. Maybe there are posts buried somewhere. If anyone is in danger, it's America. This is a predominately Christian country, most of whom are sheep and don't see what is happening here. So don't tell me how bad Christians are in India.

Christian missionaries have been over-running sovereign peoples and their own faiths for the past two milennia. Do I approve of it? Certainly not. The best way to counter it is to hold fast to your own faith. If anyone's faith is threatened, how strong is their faith? Look to the weak-faithed Hindus if Christianity is threatening Hinduism. If Hinduism can't resist the advances of another religion, then there is something fundamentally wrong in the strength of Hindus' faith. People of all faiths have died staying true to their faiths.

Jesus may or may not have existed. It's true that there are no historical records of him. The Greeks and Romans wrote everything down, even recipes and grammar books on how to pronounce Latin and Greek. They even wrote about Pontius Pilate. But Jesus? Nope, not a word. I know that. If he did exist, he probably wasn't important enough to notice. I know that too. Does it matter? No. Whoever or whatever wrote what is ascribed to Jesus spoke of God's love, and loving all people. There's nothing wrong with that.

And I'm going to say this again... Hindus have no cause to complain about forced conversions compared to Native Americans, Inuit, Australian Aborigines, Africans. How many Hindus have been enslaved or slaughtered by Christians? How many Native Americans still practice their native religions? Their languages were outlawed. How much of Africa or Central and South America still practice its native religions? Very little. How much of India is still Hindu? Over 80%. How many indigenous languages in the Americas have gone extinct only to be replaced by English and Spanish? Most. How much of India still speaks Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi, Tamil, Malayalam, Kannada, Telugu and the hundreds of others? Most of India.

Having animosity towards Christianity's tactics, you should feel sorry for the thousands of Muslims slaughtered by the Crusaders. But I know where that's headed. I'm sorry, but Hindus are not the offended persons. Look to those other groups who have been virtually wiped out. India is still a strong independent country with a booming economy. It's a big world out there with a lot more truths than you know.

yajvan
22 June 2011, 08:17 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté




Why the hell do we tolerate jesus **** on a hindu forum ?

Because many are not threatened by Christianity and may perhaps have an open mind... this does not infer you are not open minded.
Over the years this subject has caused much angst here. I myself am of the mind set that when sanātana dharma is strong, where can it shake one's foundation ? Yet I can appreciate the issue of concern overall.


Yet the value as I see it , one comes to know more about their own values by comparing and contrasting it to other religions.

And for those that have disdain for Christianity, it has been put into a folder . One can look in it or pass it up - its that simple. Just like at the zoo. If one does not like the gorillas, then past up that exhibit and head to the giraffes.


http://www.puzzlehouse.com/images/webpage/giraffes.jpg


praṇām

Sahasranama
22 June 2011, 08:29 PM
Let me make you a deal, you people stop telling lies about Hinduism and I'll stop telling the truth about Christianity. :cool1:

kallol
22 June 2011, 10:49 PM
Hi

I see many westerners who have become hindu or in the process of becoming hindu or still christian, come here and start comparing Jesus with lofty hindu ideas. Being an indian hindu and having seen the destruction caused by jesus
junk in indian society, this is deeply troubling to me.

Why the hell do we tolerate jesus **** on a hindu forum ? This forum is not
run by Sonia and her cronies. Thank gods....

If these westerners feel so much for this jesus and his vomit called christianity, we should ask them to go to some jesus forum. Lot of hindus have started warming up to jesus. Ramkrishna mission keep this joker's picture in their ashrams. So this is damaging to hindus in the long run.

For centuries, hindus were terrorised by abrahamic junk. we shall not tolerate it any longer. I ask moderators to delete any thread praising jesus junk.
No exceptions. Hindu spirituality should be approached on "Hindu Terms"
not on our enemy's terms and conditions.

thanks


Dear Issacnewton (Christian name !!!),

The content gives a picture of an insecured mind. The hatred that comes out belies the true practitioners of Hinduism.

If you consider that Hinduism is the Sanatana Dharma which has been rediscovered again and again in every creation then why do you fear. The TRUTH cannot be kept hidden and will evolve however slowly. The TRUTH is permanent - humans are not. So do not bother. Take care of your MIND and MOKSHA, which is what matters. Trying to change others might lead to Talibanism in some form or other.

The trend shows that the illeterates and most backward societies are lured by Christianity or Islam. The learned ones and the knowledge seekers throng towards Hinduism.

What we are mostly scared of is the cultural changes and the loyalty. However the present day India is much confident and strong to take these small abberatons into its stride.

As such we should praise Jesus and Mohammed for bringing in some semblence of this eternal knowledge in the area of barbarians and nomads. Thanks to the influence of Indian spirituality growth beyond the boundaries of Bharath, they had borrowed a lot from here. However is the content, they serve the lower levels of the pyramid well where Bhakti is the main component.

Even Jesus had to get certificate from "Two Great Men from East" (which has to be India of that time) to prove to the then society and followers that he is a great person. His teens period is still a mystery !!!

Creation, countries, societies, humans and their emotional quotients at various levels go through the fluctuations. The Goodness and the TRUTH stay permanently.

Love and best wishes

wundermonk
22 June 2011, 11:44 PM
As such we should praise Jesus and Mohammed for bringing in some semblence of this eternal knowledge in the area of barbarians and nomads.

This is an especially poor choice of words in the context of Jesus and Mohammed.

If you call what Christendom and Islam have managed to do to native civilizations and cultures around the world since their births knowledgeful and peaceful I wonder what you would call stupid and barbaric.

TatTvamAsi
23 June 2011, 12:00 AM
Hi

I see many westerners who have become hindu or in the process of becoming hindu or still christian, come here and start comparing Jesus with lofty hindu ideas. Being an indian hindu and having seen the destruction caused by jesus
junk in indian society, this is deeply troubling to me.

Why the hell do we tolerate jesus **** on a hindu forum ? This forum is not
run by Sonia and her cronies. Thank gods....

If these westerners feel so much for this jesus and his vomit called christianity, we should ask them to go to some jesus forum. Lot of hindus have started warming up to jesus. Ramkrishna mission keep this joker's picture in their ashrams. So this is damaging to hindus in the long run.

For centuries, hindus were terrorised by abrahamic junk. we shall not tolerate it any longer. I ask moderators to delete any thread praising jesus junk.
No exceptions. Hindu spirituality should be approached on "Hindu Terms"
not on our enemy's terms and conditions.

thanks

+1000

Excellently put!

Bringing Abrahamic junk into Hindu forum is like bringing a discussion about Hyundais on a Ferrari forum!

TatTvamAsi
23 June 2011, 12:04 AM
Don't blame Jesus, blame the people who claim to follow him.

That is exactly what all Muslims say about Islam when terrorists commit atrocities around the world: "That's not Islam! Blame the terrorists, not Islam". :rolleyes:

jesus, if such a person existed, was an absolute fraud.

Answer this: Did this son of a carpenter go around saying people can go to heaven "only through him"? If that's not what he said, then whatever else he may or may not have said is questionable. If he did say such a rotten thing, he was no saint at all.

If this jeebus character preached his exclusivity, he was a fraud. End of story.

Sahasranama
23 June 2011, 05:55 AM
Don't blame Jesus, blame the people who claim to follow him.This is the problem of the moderate Christians. The moderate Christians recognise that there's a problem with Christian fundamentalism. What they don't recognise is that there can only be a problem with religious fundamentalism, if there's something fundamentally wrong with the religion's ethics and morality. Moderate Christians are a front for the fundamentalists, because they make it taboo to criticize the bible. Fundamental means an essential part of or pertaiting to the foundation or basis. In Christianity there's something pertaining to the foundation or basis of the religion that has the potential of turning people into monsters. That's why it's called Christian fundamentalism or Islamic fundamentalism.

There is enough horror in the Bible to bring Jesus to court (if he wasn't a fictive character): http://www.srimatham.com/storage/docs/the-bible-unmasked.pdf

kallol
23 June 2011, 05:59 AM
This is an especially poor choice of words in the context of Jesus and Mohammed.

If you call what Christendom and Islam have managed to do to native civilizations and cultures around the world since their births knowledgeful and peaceful I wonder what you would call stupid and barbaric.


If I understood your reply correctly, I think your have interpreted my lines in a wrong way.

The main intention was to suggest that these changes are temporary and these ups and downs will continue.

That Hinduism and its derivatives have influenced the total eastern world is also an encroachment in the native way of life.

The means of changes are different. Niether I can say that in hinduism there has not been any bloodshed or bad characters. These are common factors varying in degrees in all civilizations.

What we need to highlight is the knowledge part which only depicts the permanency of the religion.

We need to see the context, time and space of the birth of religions to appreciate the values (however limited).

Todays world is more integrated and we cannot compare with those time.

In today's world, you will slowly find (over 1000s of years) that all will veer towards TRUTH - science will force the thought process.

Hinduism is aligned with science whereas Christianity and Islam is not.

Love and best wishes

Jainarayan
23 June 2011, 08:40 AM
That is exactly what all Muslims say about Islam when terrorists commit atrocities around the world: "That's not Islam! Blame the terrorists, not Islam". :rolleyes:

Gandhi was assassinated by a Hindu. Do I have to say it again?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/world/asia/29iht-29india.15727169.html

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,213670,00.html

An eye for an eye? What did Gandhi say about that making the whole world blind? Not to mention ahimsa. And please do not tell me that Sri Krishna said it is OK to kill in self-defense. This was retaliation and retribution, not self-defense. Two wrongs don't make right.

http://www.hindu.com/2011/06/05/stories/2011060563950500.htm

http://www.hinduonnet.com/2001/12/01/stories/2001120102010100.htm

Why does the government have to pass a law protecting women from violence in a predominately Hindu country? Doesn't Hinduism abhor violence? Ahimsa is the word. Seems like ahimsa has gone the way of all peaceful ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_India#Crimes_against_women

So you see, Hindus are not above reproach. Don't judge others unless you want to be judged the same way. I forget who said that.


jesus, if such a person existed, was an absolute fraud.

Answer this: Did this son of a carpenter go around saying people can go to heaven "only through him"? If that's not what he said, then whatever else he may or may not have said is questionable. If he did say such a rotten thing, he was no saint at all.

Yes he did say that. And over a billion people believe it. That's their buisiness. I don't believe it; that's why I've come to Sanatana Dharma. But getting down to it, how does it shake your faith in Hinduism? Is your faith in Hinduism and God that tenuous that you feel threatened by someone you think is a fraud? I'm confused by this.

BryonMorrigan
23 June 2011, 09:16 AM
I am glad someone else feels the same about this as me. I don't have any problem if people want to believe in Jesus, but to pretend he has anything to do with Hinduism is simply criminal. The moderators should if not delete the posts, at least edit it with a disclaimer that these are personal fantasies only and are not endorsed by Hinduism. I don't have the time and energy to object everytime people equate Christianity with Hinduism or start praising Jesus. It should be taken care of by the moderators.

Or you could just "poke" me, and I'll completely eviscerate their arguments...


These topics have come on HDF many times, I am tired of responding to it, but what you are saying is not true. Christians do have theological justifications for violence against non believers. What we need is a sticky that answers these basic questions about the abrahamic religions backed up with historical and scriptural references, so that we can refer newbies to that information.

They should just read all of my posts... I'm pretty sure that I've addressed (and demolished) just about every point they've ever brought up...with many citations and quotes.


And I'm going to say this again... Hindus have no cause to complain about forced conversions compared to Native Americans, Inuit, Australian Aborigines, Africans. How many Hindus have been enslaved or slaughtered by Christians? How many Native Americans still practice their native religions? Their languages were outlawed. How much of Africa or Central and South America still practice its native religions? Very little. How much of India is still Hindu? Over 80%. How many indigenous languages in the Americas have gone extinct only to be replaced by English and Spanish? Most. How much of India still speaks Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi, Tamil, Malayalam, Kannada, Telugu and the hundreds of others? Most of India.

Having animosity towards Christianity's tactics, you should feel sorry for the thousands of Muslims slaughtered by the Crusaders. But I know where that's headed. I'm sorry, but Hindus are not the offended persons. Look to those other groups who have been virtually wiped out. India is still a strong independent country with a booming economy. It's a big world out there with a lot more truths than you know.

Oh hell no. The fact that the Christians and Muslims were less "successful" in forcing the Hindus to convert or die...does not mean that, "Hindus are not the offended persons," or that, "Hindus have no cause to complain..." Sanatana Dharma is the 3rd largest religion on the planet in spite of the best efforts of the Christians and Muslims to wipe it off the planet...and they're still trying their hardest. Between lying and deceitful missionaries, Christian Terrorist organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#India), and government sanction of proselytism, it's a testament to the strength of Sanatana Dharma that Hindus refuse to simply "submit."


If this jeebus character preached his exclusivity, he was a fraud. End of story.

So glad to see TTA still hanging around and ready to jump into these conversations!

But really...I think many people here have learned a lot about history and philosophy, thanks to these discussions. I myself often benefit by looking up citations to "eviscerate" all of these "pro-Jesus" posts.

Finally, as I have mentioned many times before, anyone who defends Christianity, or any other Biblical Monotheism...should really read some scholarship regarding the roots of religious intolerance. I suggest just about anything (http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_tc_2_0?rh=i%3Astripbooks%2Ck%3AJan+Assmann&keywords=Jan+Assmann&ie=UTF8&qid=1308835163&sr=1-2-ent&field-contributor_id=B001HO75I8) by the pre-eminent Egyptologist, Dr. Jan Assmann, the book "God Against the Gods: The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism," (http://www.amazon.com/God-Against-Gods-Monotheism-Polytheism/dp/0670032867) by Jonathan Kirsch, Sir Edward Gibbon's "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," (http://http://www.gutenberg.org/files/25717/25717-h/25717-h.htm) or any of the majority of books or essays written by Sita Ram Goel, David Frawley, Ram Swarup, or Koenraad Elst.

Here are some good quotes to remember about Biblical Monotheism:

"These new religions [Biblical Monotheisms] can therefore perhaps be characterized most adequately by the term 'counterreligion.' For these religions, and for these religions alone, the truth to be proclaimed comes with an enemy to be fought. Only they know of heretics and pagans, false doctrine, sects, superstition, idolatry, magic, ignorance, unbelief, heresy, and whatever other terms have been coined to designate what they denounce, persecute and proscribe as manifestations of untruth." -- Jan Assmann, "The Price of Monotheism," Stanford University Press, p. 4

"[R]eligious intolerance, which was foreign to antiquity before this and for long after, was inevitably born with the belief in one God." -- Sigmund Freud, "Moses and Monotheism," Hogarth Press, p. 35

"[N]o wild beasts are such dangerous enemies to man as Christians are to one another.” -- Roman Emperor Julian II (C.E. c. 331-363), the last "Pagan" emperor, who hid his religion from the Christians until he took power, as he would have been executed if they had known...

"...I had an occasion to read the typescript of a book [Ram Swarup] had finished writing in 1973. It was a profound study of Monotheism, the central dogma of both Islam and Christianity, as well as a powerful presentation of what the monotheists denounce as Hindu Polytheism. I had never read anything like it. It was a revelation to me that Monotheism was not a religious concept but an imperialist idea. I must confess that I myself had been inclined towards Monotheism till this time. I had never thought that a multiplicity of Gods was the natural and spontaneous expression of an evolved consciousness." -- Sita Ram Goel, "How I Became a Hindu," Voice of India, p. 92

"The core value of paganism was religious tolerance -- a man or woman in ancient Rome was at liberty to offer worship to whatever god or goddess seemed most likely to grant a prayerful request, with or without the assistance or priests or priestesses, as long as he or she didn't do it in the streets, as a Victorian-era wit once said of woman preachers, and scare the horses." -- Jonathan Kirsch, "God Against the Gods: The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism," Viking Adult, p.7

"And so we ask for peace for the gods of our fathers, for the gods of our native land. It is reasonable that whatever each of us worships is really to be considered one and the same. We gaze up at the same stars, the sky covers us all, the same universe compasses us. What does it matter what practical systems we adopt in our search for the truth. Not by one avenue only can we arrive at so tremendous a secret." -- Roman Senator Quintus Aurelius Symmachus, (C.E. c. 340-402), Letter, written 384, to the Christian Emperor Valentinian II, pleading for religious tolerance.)

Of course, this is what the Vedas have to say about such things. Let's see if they sound more like the "Pagan" Roman above, or the words of the Bible:

"As all surrender unto Me, I reward them accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Pritha." (Bhagavad Gita, 4.11)

"They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutman. To what is One, sages give many a title, they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan." (Rig Veda, 1.164.46)

Now...compare those words of wisdom and tolerance to this:

"Of this you can be certain and convinced beyond all doubt, not only all pagans, but also all Jews, all heretics and schismatics will go into the everlasting fire which has been prepared for the Devil and his angels.” -- Christian Bishop Fulgentius, (C.E. 468-533)

Or how about these paraphrased passages from Judeo-Christian scripture?

"You must kill those who worship another god." (Exodus 22:20)

"Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own." (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)

"Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you." (Deuteronomy 13:12-16)

"Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own." (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)

"Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest." (Deuteronomy 17:12-13)

"Kill any false prophets." (Deuteronomy 18:20)

"Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah." (Mark 6:11)

"Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him." (Jude 5)

Being "intolerant" of intolerance and hatred is most assuredly NOT "intolerance" or "hatred." That's like saying that the judge who condemns a murderer is as "guilty" as the murderer himself.

Sahasranama
23 June 2011, 09:50 AM
Gandhi was assassinated by a Hindu. Do I have to say it again?



Mahatma Nathuram Godse didn't assinate Gandhi for religious reasons, but purely for humanitarian reasons. So you are comparing apples with oranges. You can read Mahatma Nathuram Godse's last speech and see for yourself that he was motivated by the suffering of countless Indians: http://kolikalla.blogspot.com/2008/02/nathuram-godse-his-last-speech.html

Gandhi himself was a racist, he slept around with young girls. He had no interest in protecting the weak from terrorism, only to uphold his image as Mahatma. The problem with many westerners is that they want to see Hindus as meak Gandhian lambs, instead of people who can resist against suppression and terrorism from Christianity and Islam.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/world/asia/29iht-29india.15727169.html

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,213670,00.html

An eye for an eye? What did Gandhi say about that making the whole world blind? Not to mention ahimsa. And please do not tell me that Sri Krishna said it is OK to kill in self-defense. This was retaliation and retribution, not self-defense. Two wrongs don't make right.

The east Indians who retaliated against the Christians did not do so, because of religious sanctifications. You cannot find anywhere in Hindu scriptures injunctions to kill people based on their faith or lack thereof, like you find in the Abrahamic religions. What happened was a human emotional response to Christian terrorism. You can talk easy in your comfy chair in the USA, but these people in East India in Tripura and Nagaland have to deal with Christian terrorism every day. I do not justify the retaliation, but again you are comparing apples with oranges.


http://www.hindu.com/2011/06/05/stories/2011060563950500.htm

http://www.hinduonnet.com/2001/12/01/stories/2001120102010100.htmWhy does the government have to pass a law protecting women from violence in a predominately Hindu country? Doesn't Hinduism abhor violence? Ahimsa is the word. Seems like ahimsa has gone the way of all peaceful ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_India#Crimes_against_women

So you see, Hindus are not above reproach. Don't judge others unless you want to be judged the same way. I forget who said that.The biggest sex trafficers are Islamists who target Hindu girls. You should not confuse everything that happens in India with Hinduism. India has been ruled by Christians and Muslims for around a thousand years, a lot of abrahamic values have become standard in India as well.

Jainarayan
23 June 2011, 09:53 AM
Oh hell no. The fact that the Christians and Muslims were less "successful" in forcing the Hindus to convert or die...does not mean that, "Hindus are not the offended persons," or that, "Hindus have no cause to complain..."

Relative to whole cultures and civilizations that were wiped out either by mass murder or enslavement. Let a Jew or Native American (of either American continent) hear your argument and see how far you get. Look up a list of Russian Orthodox churches and monasteries that were destroyed, and clerics and believers killed by the Soviets. And then we have Tibet.

Do you know (or don't want to see) how deep the resentment still runs amongst black Americans over slavery, when there's not a slave alive today? I don't even think you can find someone who personally remembers an ancestor who was a slave. But the resentment still runs so deep it still divides the US.

I'm going to ask the questions again:

1. How many Hindus have been enslaved or slaughtered by Christians?


2. How many Native Americans still practice their native religions? Their languages were outlawed.


3. How much of Africa or Central and South America still practice its native religions?


4. How much of India is still Hindu?


5. How many indigenous languages in the Americas have gone extinct only to be replaced by English and Spanish?


6. How much of India still speaks Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi, Tamil, Malayalam, Kannada, Telugu and the hundreds of others?


I've left room for answers.

And here are some more examples of Hindus doing their share of "offending".

Gandhi was assassinated by a Hindu. Do I have to say it again?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/wo....15727169.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/world/asia/29iht-29india.15727169.html)

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...213670,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,213670,00.html)

An eye for an eye? What did Gandhi say about that making the whole world blind? Not to mention ahimsa. And please do not tell me that Sri Krishna said it is OK to kill in self-defense. This was retaliation and retribution, not self-defense. Two wrongs don't make right.

http://www.hindu.com/2011/06/05/stor...0563950500.htm (http://www.hindu.com/2011/06/05/stories/2011060563950500.htm)

http://www.hinduonnet.com/2001/12/01...0102010100.htm (http://www.hinduonnet.com/2001/12/01/stories/2001120102010100.htm)

Why does the government have to pass a law protecting women from violence in a predominately Hindu country? Doesn't Hinduism abhor violence? Ahimsa is the word. Seems like ahimsa has gone the way of all peaceful ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_i..._against_women (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_India#Crimes_against_women)

Did you read any of it? I didn't think so.

Let's call it like it is, this is not about religion, this is about politics, nationalism and culture clash. From all sides.

Sahasranama
23 June 2011, 10:08 AM
Or you could just "poke" me, and I'll completely eviscerate their arguments...



They should just read all of my posts... I'm pretty sure that I've addressed (and demolished) just about every point they've ever brought up...with many citations and quotes.


Yes, that is right. They should read your posts to learn about Christianity and read Harjas Kaur's (http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=6351) posts to learn about Islam.

Jainarayan
23 June 2011, 10:20 AM
Mahatma Nathuram Godse didn't assinate Gandhi for religious reasons, but purely for humanitarian reasons.

So it was OK to commit murder, one Hindu on another? Does ahimsa apply only some times, when it's convenient? When is it OK for an individual to execute another on any grounds? Never.


The east Indians who retaliated against the Christians did not do so, because of religious sanctifications. You cannot find anywhere in Hindu scriptures injunctions to kill people based on their faith or lack thereof, like you find in the Abrahamic religions. What happened was a human emotional response to Christian terrorism. You can talk easy in your comfy chair in the USA, but these people in East India in Tripura and Nagaland have to deal with Christian terrorism every day. I do not justify the retaliation, but again you are comparing apples with oranges.

Bad argument. They still violated their Hindu duty to ahimsa. No apples and oranges: black or white. Did they kill in retaliation or did they not? Yes or no?

Your Honor, please make the witness answer (I watch too much Law & Order).


a lot of abrahamic values have become standard in India as well.

Then Indian Hindus are not steadfast in their beliefs.

A Jehovah's Witness comes to my door and wants to talk to me about being saved and/or reborn. I politely say no thank you (that's if I even open the door) because I am an adherent to Sanatana Dharma.

He pulls a gun and forces his way in, holding me at gunpoint to listen. I resist and he shoots and kills me. Who has the integrity to hold on to his faith and die for it, and who has sinned and committed a crime?

Your arguments are weak, my friend.

BryonMorrigan
23 June 2011, 10:40 AM
Relative to whole cultures and civilizations that were wiped out either by mass murder or enslavement. Let a Jew or Native American (of either American continent) hear your argument and see how far you get.

Apples. Oranges. Ask a Greek, Roman, Celtic, or Norse Polytheist and see how far you get. Oh yeah, I forgot...The Christians wiped them out even more extensively than the Native Americans...

I'd answer your other questions, but most of them are prima-facie absurd, and show (by their asking) that you know next to nothing of Indian history. Besides, this is not a "contest" of "who is the most oppressed." Above, in the quoted example, you showed two completely different kinds of persecuted groups: Jews and Native Americans. Jews suffered, and continue to suffer, at the hands of Christians and Muslims. However, like the Hindus, they have managed to fight back and defend themselves, and create the country of Israel. Apply the same questions to the Jews and tell me if they answer all that differently from the Hindus?

How many Jews still practice Judaism? How many are still allowed to learn/speak Hebrew? How much of Israel is Jewish? (More than has been for centuries!) Et cetera.

Sahasranama
23 June 2011, 10:40 AM
So it was OK to commit murder, one Hindu on another? Does ahimsa apply only some times, when it's convenient? When is it OK for an individual to execute another on any grounds? Never.

Bad argument. They still violated their Hindu duty to ahimsa. No apples and oranges: black or white. Did they kill in retaliation or did they not? Yes or no?

Your Honor, please make the witness answer (I watch too much Law & Order).
You are very skilled in refuting your own arguments. Like I said, Nathuram Godse did not kill Gandhi for religious reasons, but for humanitarian reasons. You are comparing apples with oranges, religious motivated crimes with non religious motivated crimes. Christian terrorists have theological justifications for killing people based on their faith or lack thereof alone. The evidence for this has already been provided by our historian, Bryon Morrigon. You have no ground to stand on to accuse Hinduism of promoting terrorist activities similar to Christianity or Islam.

Your honour, this should close the case.


Then Indian Hindus are not steadfast in their beliefs.

A Jehovah's Witness comes to my door and wants to talk to me about being saved and/or reborn. I politely say no thank you (that's if I even open the door) because I am an adherent to Sanatana Dharma.

He pulls a gun and forces his way in, holding me at gunpoint to listen. I resist and he shoots and kills me. Who has the integrity to hold on to his faith and die for it, and who has sinned and committed a crime?

Your arguments are weak, my friend.Objection your honour, this personal attack against the steadfastness of Hindus in their faith has no relevance to this case.

rajputistan
23 June 2011, 10:54 AM
Fun Fact:

A enlighten person who have a task to complete in this world, who is son of God wouldn't abandon his work, his deed for betterment of humanity for the sake of criminal... For making sure he don't get punishment and got executed at his place.

I doubt he was a common man and can be even a criminal falsely propagated by the Bibalist Christians. Read first chapter of Bible. It starts with the shitty foolish knowledge about creation of earth.

He can no way compared to us.

yajvan
23 June 2011, 11:03 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté Minotaur ( et.al)


. They still violated their Hindu duty to ahimsa.
I do not wish to get involved in the conversation ( albeit good points are being offered), yet I do wish to offer this clarification.

This ahiṁsā अहिंसा we know as non-injury. Some call this non-violence. This infers to all beings ( even ourselves). We know it as one of the 5 yamas . Ahiṁsā, is the first yama/restraint (or vrata) called out by patañjali.

So ahiṁsā has much to do with one's spiritual development vs. the requirement of being a Hindu. That is the distinction I wished to offer.

Yet one may ask, what do the laws of manu¹ say ?
He who does not injure any (creature), attains without an effort what he thinks of, what he undertakes, and what he fixes his mind on.

praṇām

references
1. Laws of manu (manusmṛti some call mānava-dharmaśāstra), chapter 5:
yad dhyāyati yat kurute ratiṁ badhnāti yatra ca |
tad avāpnoty ayatnena yo hinasti na kiṁ cana ||

Jainarayan
23 June 2011, 11:23 AM
Apples. Oranges. Ask a Greek, Roman, Celtic, or Norse Polytheist and see how far you get. Oh yeah, I forgot...The Christians wiped them out even more extensively than the Native Americans...

Thank you for supporting my point, which is, as afflicted or offended as Hindus were and are, nothing compares to what those other peoples endured. Remember, I am blaming the west and Christianity for it. All I'm saying is that Hindus do not have the same claim of oppression as those groups.

Jainarayan
23 June 2011, 11:32 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté Minotaur ( et.al)


I do not wish to get involved in the conversation ( albeit good points are being offered), yet I do wish to offer this clarification.

This ahiṁsā अहिंसा we know as non-injury. Some call this non-violence. This infers to all beings ( even ourselves). We know it as one of the 5 yamas . Ahiṁsā, is the first yama/restraint (or vrata) called out by patañjali.

So ahiṁsā has much to do with one's spiritual development vs. the requirement of being a Hindu. That is the distinction I wished to offer.

Yet one may ask, what do the laws of manu¹ say ?
He who does not injure any (creature), attains without an effort what he thinks of, what he undertakes, and what he fixes his mind on.

praṇām

references
1. Laws of manu (manusmṛti some call mānava-dharmaśāstra), chapter 5:
yad dhyāyati yat kurute ratiṁ badhnāti yatra ca |
tad avāpnoty ayatnena yo hinasti na kiṁ cana ||

Namaste yajvanji, and thank you. You are a big help to me. ;)

More than a clarification, I think it's an expansion: more than just a "requirement", like a Catholic atttending Mass or a Jew not doing work on the sabbath. Those are things that are only secondary or even tertiary to spiritual development, they are commandments. Ahiṁsā is a principle, something to live by. Which is why I think that violence against anyone by anyone for any reason is wrong.

Jainarayan
23 June 2011, 11:38 AM
Like I said, Nathuram Godse did not kill Gandhi for religious reasons, but for humanitarian reasons.

So he was right to kill Gandhi?


You have no ground to stand on to accuse Hinduism of promoting terrorist activities similar to Christianity or Islam.

At no time did I use Hindu(ism) and terrorism in the same sentence. I pointed out that Hindus are not exempt from committing acts of violence. You are making a strawman argument.


Objection your honour, this personal attack against the steadfastness of Hindus in their faith has no relevance to this case.

Another strawman. No attack, a query and observation. How can I attack myself? Remember my JW example? One who renounces his faith in the face of violence or on pain of death has a weak faith, no matter who s/he is, or what faith.

Sahasranama
23 June 2011, 11:45 AM
So he was right to kill Gandhi? Irrelevant


At no time did I use Hindu(ism) and terrorism in the same sentence. I pointed out that Hindus are not exempt from committing acts of violence. You are making a strawman argument.You have responded to facts about theological justifications for heathen slaughter in Christianity with examples of violence commited by Hindus. If you did not mean to say that Hindus also had theological justifications for the same behavior, then your point was simply irrelevant.


Another strawman. No attack, a query and observation. How can I attack myself? Remember my JW example? One who renounces his faith in the face of violence or on pain of death has a weak faith, no matter who s/he is, or what faith.This is a personal attack against people for having weak faith and the accusation is simply irrelevant in the discussion on biblical motivated violence. If you have any dignity you should accept that you were wrong in saying that Christianity/ Jesus doesn't teach violence.

BryonMorrigan
23 June 2011, 11:47 AM
Thank you for supporting my point, which is, as afflicted or offended as Hindus were and are, nothing compares to what those other peoples endured. Remember, I am blaming the west and Christianity for it. All I'm saying is that Hindus do not have the same claim of oppression as those groups.

No...what you are saying is that, because other groups have suffered worse at their hands, that Hindus have no business complaining about the atrocities of Christians. Here is the original statement:


And I'm going to say this again... Hindus have no cause to complain about forced conversions compared to Native Americans, Inuit, Australian Aborigines, Africans....I'm sorry, but Hindus are not the offended persons. Look to those other groups who have been virtually wiped out. India is still a strong independent country with a booming economy. It's a big world out there with a lot more truths than you know.

That's offensive...particularly to the victims of Christian oppression, murder, and terrorism. You're making this a "contest," of who is more oppressed, and that is a very anti-Human idea. It's like telling the son or daughter of a murder victim, "Stop crying! Just be happy they didn't kill you too!"

Jainarayan
23 June 2011, 11:48 AM
However, like the Hindus, they have managed to fight back and defend themselves, and create the country of Israel. Apply the same questions to the Jews and tell me if they answer all that differently from the Hindus?

How many Jews still practice Judaism? How many are still allowed to learn/speak Hebrew? How much of Israel is Jewish? (More than has been for centuries!) Et cetera.

You keep underscoring my points! Thank you. India kicked the butt of the world's largest empire at the time, by peaceful means, and forged a growing and respected country. But how many Jews did suffer before they became what they are today? A few million comes to mind. Moreover, it was one occupation and time of oppression, albeit too long, that the British held India. If India is not a Muslim country and is still Hindu today it's because Indians kicked their butts. The Jews have been persecuted, killed, driven out of countries, had their possessions taken, and enslaved for milennia.

I appreciate you supporting my points. Thank you again. :)

Jainarayan
23 June 2011, 11:53 AM
That's offensive...particularly to the victims of Christian oppression, murder, and terrorism. You're making this a "contest," of who is more oppressed, and that is a very anti-Human idea. It's like telling the son or daughter of a murder victim, "Stop crying! Just be happy they didn't kill you too!"

What's offensive is the discredit you and your associates are doing to the steadfastness of Indians by claiming that they are so oppressed and can't defend themselves. They can and do, and should be respected for that. But you all are turning them into simpering whimps. THAT'S offensive.

Jainarayan
23 June 2011, 12:04 PM
Irrelevant

Why? Is it right for an individual to execute another individual? Yes or no? If you can't answer with a yes or no then you have no answer.


If you have any dignity you should accept that you were wrong in saying that Christianity/ Jesus doesn't teach violence.

I didn't say Christianity is not violent; I said Jesus did not condone or teach violence. Mohammed taught violence; the Old Testament taught violence. Read what's there and not what you want to be there. Better yet, read Matthew.

Sahasranama
23 June 2011, 03:02 PM
Why? Is it right for an individual to execute another individual? Yes or no? If you can't answer with a yes or no then you have no answer.This is another topic.



I didn't say Christianity is not violent; I said Jesus did not condone or teach violence. Mohammed taught violence; the Old Testament taught violence. Read what's there and not what you want to be there. Better yet, read Matthew.It is getting old, but here are the biblical references from Jesus.

Matthew 8:10-12, "When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Matthew 8:28-32, "And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way. And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time? And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding. So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine. And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters."

Matthew 11:21-24, "Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee." Yeshua (or Yahweh) will destroy whole cities, just as happened in Sodom.

Matthew 13:41-42, "The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

Matthew 13:49-50, "So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

Matthew 18:8-9, "Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire."

Matthew 24:36-42, "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come." (Clear reference to Noah, and please note that Yeshua has not one single problem with Yahweh/Himself killing all humans - and even innocent animals - during that violent fiasco.)

Matthew 24:50-51, "The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Told you Yeshua had a real thing for weeping and gnashing of teeth.)

Mark 4:10-12, "And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them." (Yeshua deliberately speaks in parables so that "those without" won't be converted, and their sins forgiven. IE: they will go to Hell. I guess if He speaks clearly, everyone might get converted and He won't get His "weeping and gnashing of teeth".)

Mark 5:12-13 reiterates the pig slaughter.

Mark 6:11 reiterates that any city which rejects Him will be destroyed like Sodom and Gomorrah.

Mark 7:9-13, "And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." Yeshua is castigating the Jews for failing to kill disobedient children as required by Mosaic Law, and calls this Law the "word of God".

Mark 8:35, "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it." (If you reject Yeshua to save your life, He - or Yahweh - will kill you, and you will burn for eternity in Hell.)

Mark 8:38, "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." If you are ashamed of Yeshua, He will be ashamed of you. No salvation. Straight to Hell without collecting $200.

Mark 9:43-49 reiterates plucking out and chopping off what offends you.

Luke 3:9, "And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." (A parable equating the trees to humans.)

Luke 3:17 "Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable." Yeshua will burn the unsaved with an unquenchable fire.

Luke 8:27-37 reiterates the pig slaughter. Given the number of times this incident is recorded, it was considered by Yeshua's followers to be one of the greater deeds of Yeshua.

Luke 10:10-15 reiterates that any city which rejects Him will be destroyed like Sodom and Gomorrah.

Luke 12:5-7, "But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him...But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows." Yeshua says that your relationship with the Father should be based on fear of His ability to kill you and send you to Hell for eternity. He doesn't say a word about love. But take hope in the fact that the Father values you more than many sparrows.

Luke 12:8-9, "Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God: But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God." People who don't believe in Yeshua will be denied before Yahweh, and sent to eternal torture in Hell.

Luke 12:46-47, "The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." The Lord (Yeshua, Yahweh, or both) is like a slave owner who beats his slaves with many stripes.

Luke 12:48, "But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." But if you didn't know what the instructions were, your number of stripes will be reduced.

Luke 13:3, "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." If you don't repent, you will perish.

John 3:36, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." Nonbelievers will feel the Wrath of God.

I put this at the end, because this is for those of you who would say "but Yeshua only says these things about sinners". No. If you believe in Yeshua and accept the Holy Spirit, you will be forgiven and saved no matter what you do (even Hitler). However, if you don't believe in Yeshua and accept the Holy Spirit, you will go to Hell, no matter how good a person you are. Thus, "evil" and "chaff" (and the other descriptions above) merely mean "those who do not worship Yahweh and accept Yeshua and the Holy Spirit". That is the only "evil" for which you will go to Hell.

Luke 12:10, "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven."

John 3:18, "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Sahasranama
23 June 2011, 03:45 PM
No...what you are saying is that, because other groups have suffered worse at their hands, that Hindus have no business complaining about the atrocities of Christians. Here is the original statement:

That's offensive...particularly to the victims of Christian oppression, murder, and terrorism. You're making this a "contest," of who is more oppressed, and that is a very anti-Human idea. It's like telling the son or daughter of a murder victim, "Stop crying! Just be happy they didn't kill you too!"

+1

I was too perplexed to read that someone could even write something like that. A comment like that is just wrong on so many levels.

Sahasranama
23 June 2011, 04:49 PM
You keep underscoring my points! Thank you. India kicked the butt of the world's largest empire at the time, by peaceful means, and forged a growing and respected country. But how many Jews did suffer before they became what they are today? A few million comes to mind. Moreover, it was one occupation and time of oppression, albeit too long, that the British held India. If India is not a Muslim country and is still Hindu today it's because Indians kicked their butts. The Jews have been persecuted, killed, driven out of countries, had their possessions taken, and enslaved for milennia.

I appreciate you supporting my points. Thank you again. :)

Like Bryon said before, this is not a contest. Hindus recognise the atrocies of Christians against other pagan traditions and against the Jews. Hindu speakers have even appeared on pagan conferences to talk about the problems of Christian proselytisation. You can listen to it here: http://www.thorncoyle.com/podcasts/ElementalCastings_40_Pcon_Panel_Hindu_030811.m4a Hindus even have given shelter to Jews that were prosecuted by Christians.

You seem not to know very much about Indian history. There is a website dedicated to the Hindu holocaust. This website is still under construction.
http://www.hinduholocaust.com/HinduHolocaustMuseum.htm

Everything added up Hindus have suffered much more from the abrahamic invaders than the Jews. But Hindus don't go to Jews and tell them to stop whining. That would be one of the most inhumane things one could do.


What's offensive is the discredit you and your associates are doing to the steadfastness of Indians by claiming that they are so oppressed and can't defend themselves. They can and do, and should be respected for that. But you all are turning them into simpering whimps. THAT'S offensive.No, he is not turning Hindus in simpering whimps. He showing compassion towards the victims of genocides, invasions and terrorism. What you are saying is very offensive to the innocent victims and their family members.

proudhindu
23 June 2011, 04:53 PM
Yes, to fulfill the prophecy of his coming.

I was Christian all my life, so please do not make statements that you don't know the context of. You would be up one side of me and down the other if I started interpreting the Vedas.

.

That Bolded part is incorrect.There are enough quotes supposedly from Jesus that affirms the Validity of Old Testament prophets:

Matthew 5:17-18

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

It seems Jesus was very much in the Old Testament Bandwagon when he criticized Jews for not killing disobedient children.

A group of Jewish Pharisees criticized Jesus and his followers for Poor Hygeine and Jesus as a retort criticized them for not following Old Testament Command for not Killing Disobedient children.

Matthew 15:1-4
1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

The Jews have more or less stopped following Old Testament Horrors of Killing Unbelievers by the time Jesus arrived.

As already said by saharsranama jewish scholars debunked the idea that Jesus has anything to do with Jewish messiah Prophecy.

proudhindu
23 June 2011, 04:56 PM
Like Bryon said before, this is not a contest. Hindus recognise the atrocies of Christians against other pagan traditions and against the Jews. Hindu speakers have even appeared on pagan conferences to talk about the problems of Christian proselytisation. You can listen to it here: http://www.thorncoyle.com/podcasts/ElementalCastings_40_Pcon_Panel_Hindu_030811.m4a

You seem not to know very much about Indian history. There is a website dedicated to the Hindu holocaust. This website is still under construction.
http://www.hinduholocaust.com/HinduHolocaustMuseum.htm

Everything added up Hindus have suffered much more from the abrahamic invaders than the Jews. But Hindus don't go to Jews and tell them to stop whining. That would be one of the most inhumane things one could do.

No, he is not turning Hindus in simpering whimps. He showing compassion towards the victims of genocides, invasions and terrorism. What you are saying is very offensive.

I second the Bolded part.

Jainarayan
23 June 2011, 05:59 PM
That Bolded part is incorrect.There are enough quotes supposedly from Jesus that affirms the Validity of Old Testament prophets:

Matthew 5:17-18

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


Thank you for underscoring my point. :) The Law referred to the prophecy, not to stoning children or burning calves on altars. Go to a biblical scholar.


It seems Jesus was very much in the Old Testament Bandwagon when he criticized Jews for not killing disobedient children
.

A group of Jewish Pharisees criticized Jesus and his followers for Poor Hygeine and Jesus as a retort criticized them for not following Old Testament Command for not Killing Disobedient children.

Matthew 15:1-4
1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

The Jews have more or less stopped following Old Testament Horrors of Killing Unbelievers by the time Jesus arrived.

As already said by saharsranama jewish scholars debunked the idea that Jesus has anything to do with Jewish messiah Prophecy.

Good try. He was telling them if they follow one law they have to follow all. He also repeatedly called them hypocrites for following and trying to enforce one law and not another. Of course children weren't being killed by his time, but since that was the old law, why not do that if you're going to worry about washing your hands.

He said, and please do take note of this: What goes into a man's mouth does not defile him, but what comes out of his heart defiles him.

You can't cherry-pick as modern Christians do.

Your epic failure is epic. Please stop, my sides hurt from laughing at the silliness of your grasping at straws. :Roll:

Moreover, if you knew what you were talking about, those laws applied only to the Levite priests. That's why the book is called Leviticus.

I don't care whether Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecy or not. I'm not Christian. I was so I'm sure I have a better grasp on it than you do. :rolleyes: I'm here to point out your epic failures in trying to interpret the bible. Stop, just stop. :Roll:

No, better yet, keep going.

Jainarayan
23 June 2011, 06:19 PM
I second the Bolded part.

Well, you shouldn't have seconded it, because it stands:

"Through it all, India is the only one of the great ancient civilizations that has survived today." - http://www.hinduholocaust.com/HinduHolocaustMuseum.htm


I never denied India has been violated and invaded.

But I wonder why India has survived. Maybe because it is NOT the nation of victims you make it out to be, but survivors? YOU are being offensive to Indians. Evidently I'm giving them more respect and credit than you are, for their survival as a culture, and their continued survival. :rolleyes:

Sahasranama
23 June 2011, 06:27 PM
Well, you shouldn't have seconded it, because it stands:

"Through it all, India is the only one of the great ancient civilizations that has survived today." - http://www.hinduholocaust.com/HinduHolocaustMuseum.htm


I never denied India has been violated and invaded.

But I wonder why India has survived. Maybe because it is NOT the nation of victims you make it out to be, but survivors? YOU are being offensive to Indians. Evidently I'm giving them more respect and credit than you are, for their survival as a culture, and their continued survival. :rolleyes: The contemporary French writer François Gautier has said, "The massacres perpetuated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese."

For someone who has just converted to Hinduism, you show very little compassion or interest towards the wellbeing of Hindus in India. It is not an either or proposition to be a proud Hindu and to regret the victims from the abrahamic invaders. One must learn from history, otherwise it can repeat itself. Even to this day Hindus are under siege in their own country. You were downplaying this and said these words to Ramakrishna.


I haven't been around here that long, but I have yet to see anyone trying to bring Jesus and Christianity into Hinduism in these conversations. Maybe there are posts buried somewhere. If anyone is in danger, it's America. This is a predominately Christian country, most of whom are sheep and don't see what is happening here. So don't tell me how bad Christians are in India.
The National Liberation Front of Tripura (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Front_of_Tripura) (NLFT), a rebel group operating in Tripura (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripura), North-East India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North-East_India), has been described as engaging in terrorist violence motivated by their Christian beliefs. [13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#cite_note-12) It is classified by the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Memorial_Institute_for_the_Prevention_of_Terrorism) as one of the ten most active terrorist groups in the world, and has been accused of forcefully converting people to Christianity.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#cite_note-nlft-13)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#cite_note-South_Asia_Terrorism_Portal-14) The insurgency in Nagaland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagaland) was led by the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Council_of_Nagaland) (NSCN) and continues today with its faction NSCN–Isaac Muivah, which explicitly calls for a "Nagalim for Christ".[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#cite_note-15) The state government reports that the Baptist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist) Church of Tripura supplies arms and gives financial support to the NLFT.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#cite_note-nlft-13)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#cite_note-South_Asia_Terrorism_Portal-14)[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#cite_note-bbc717775-16) In April 2000, the secretary of the Noapara Baptist Church in Tripura, Nagmanlal Halam, was arrested with a large quantity of explosives. He confessed to illegally buying and supplying explosives to the NLFT for two years.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#cite_note-17) This church is reported to have encouraged the NLFT to murder Hindus, particularly infants.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#cite_note-bbc717775-16) The NLFT has threatened to kill Hindus celebrating the annual five-day religious festival of Durga Puja (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durga_Puja) and other religious celebrations.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#cite_note-18)

In Assam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assam), the Manmasi National Christian Army (MNCA), an extremist group from the Hmar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hmar) tribe, are accused of forcing Hindus to convert at gunpoint.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#cite_note-19) Seven or more Hmar youths are accused of visiting Bhuvan Pahar, a Hindu village, armed with guns, and pressuring residents to convert to Christianity.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#cite_note-conversionarmedmen-20) They also desecrated temples by painting crosses on the walls with their blood.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#cite_note-conversionarmedmen-20) The Sonai police, along with the 5th Assam Rifles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assam_Rifles), arrested 13 members of the MNCA, including their commander-in-chief. Guns and ammunition were seized.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#cite_note-conversionarmedmen-20)[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#cite_note-OVERVIEW-21) At least 20 Hindus in Tripura have been killed by the NLFT in two years for resisting forced conversion to Christianity.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#cite_note-Tripura-22) A leader of the Jamatia tribe, Rampada Jamatia, said that armed NLFT militants were forcibly converting tribal villagers to Christianity, which he said was a serious threat to Hinduism.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#cite_note-Tripura-22) It is believed that up to 5,000 tribal villagers were converted to Christianity by the NLFT in two years.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#cite_note-Tripura-22)

There have been assassinations of Hindu religious leaders. In August 2000, a popular tribal Hindu spiritual leader, Shanti Tripura, was shot dead by about ten guerrillas belonging to the NLFT, and the NLFT said it wanted to convert all people in the state to Christianity.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#cite_note-23) In December 2000, Labh Kumar Jamatia, a religious leader of the state's second largest Hindu group, was kidnapped by the NLFT, and found dead in a forest in Dalak village in southern Tripura. According to police, rebels from the NLFT wanted Jamatia to convert to Christianity, but he refused.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#cite_note-24) A local tribal CPM leader, Kishore Debbarma, was clubbed to death in Tripura's Sadar (north) by militants belonging to the Biswamohan faction of the NLFT in May 2005.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#cite_note-25) He was dragged away at gunpoint by a group of NLFT militants. His body was found with multiple head injuries in a roadside ditch in the Katabon area. In 2007 a tribal spiritual Hindu monk, Swami Lakshmanananda Saraswati (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Lakshmanananda), accused Radhakant Nayak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radhakant_Nayak), chief of a local chapter of World Vision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Vision_International), and a former Rajya Sabha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajya_Sabha) member from Orissa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orissa) in the Indian National Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Congress) party, of plotting to assassinate him.[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#cite_note-26) The Swami also said that World Vision was covertly pumping money into India for religious conversion during the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_and_tsunami), and criticized the activities of Christian missionaries as going against tribal beliefs.[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#cite_note-27) In 2008, he was gunned down along with four disciples on the Hindu festive day of Krishna Janmashtami (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna_Janmashtami) by a group of 30–40 armed men.[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#cite_note-28) Later, a Maoist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoist) leader admitted responsibility for the murder, saying that the Maoists had intervened in the religious dispute on behalf of Christians.[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#cite_note-29)[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#cite_note-30) The non-governmental organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-governmental_organization) Justice on Trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_On_Trial_%28NGO%29) disputed that there had been Maoist involvement, and said that the Christian missionaries had earlier attacked the Swami eight times for opposing clandestine conversion activities.[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#cite_note-31)[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#cite_note-32)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#cite_note-12
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#cite_note-32)

BryonMorrigan
23 June 2011, 06:52 PM
But I wonder why India has survived. Maybe because it is NOT the nation of victims you make it out to be, but survivors? YOU are being offensive to Indians. Evidently I'm giving them more respect and credit than you are, for their survival as a culture, and their continued survival. :rolleyes:

What's your purpose, anyways? Are you trying to tick off all of the Hindus on this forum? You claim to want to practice Sanatana Dharma, but when you make some of the statements that you have made in this thread, all you're doing is creating an argument.

One of the first things that I realized when I adopted Sanatana Dharma, was that I should always be humble around those who know more than I do...especially Indian Hindus who have lived their entire lives following Dharma. I see you snidely commenting against born-Hindus, and also refusing to consider that the guy with a Master's Degree in History (me) might actually know a thing or two about...you know...history.

We've had many examples in the past on this forum of Christians coming here...PRETENDING to be Hindus, or wanting to adopt Sanatana Dharma...who are eventually exposed as coming here for the sole purpose of proselytizing Christianity. And frankly, most of those threads start out with something like, "I think Jesus is an avatar," or "Christianity today is not what Jesus taught or preached. It is twisted by men for their own reasons and gain. (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=66792&postcount=3)" I hope that that is not your actual motivation here...but frankly, that's what the OP of this thread was likely complaining about...and you've been basically proving him correct the whole time.

Think about it. Are you ready for Sanatana Dharma or not?

...'cause all I see here is a bunch of Sanatana Drama.

Jainarayan
23 June 2011, 07:27 PM
What's your purpose, anyways? Are you trying to tick off all of the Hindus on this forum? You claim to want to practice Sanatana Dharma, but when you make some of the statements that you have made in this thread, all you're doing is creating an argument.

I've only responded to coments you and the others have made. I didn't start the thread with vitriol. Nor have I spewed vitriol, just counter arguments. Do you speak for "all the Hindus"? I like to think I've earned some respect from the true Hindus. Take a poll, I'll abide by it.


One of the first things that I realized when I adopted Sanatana Dharma, was that I should always be humble around those who know more than I do

I've shown proper deference to everyone who's helped me. You get as good as you give. You, issacnewton, Sahasranama, and TatTvamAsi, have been rude and arrogant to me.


...especially Indian Hindus who have lived their entire lives following Dharma. I see you snidely commenting against born-Hindus, and also refusing to consider that the guy with a Master's Degree in History (me) might actually know a thing or two about...you know...history.

If you consider my repeated comments about having respect for Indians, Hindus and their achievements to be snide, the problem is in your perception.

Please do not presume to you know my background or qualifications. Or who I know and don't know. That's not humble at all.


And frankly, most of those threads start out with something like, "I think Jesus is an avatar," or "Christianity today is not what Jesus taught or preached. It is twisted by men for their own reasons and gain. (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=66792&postcount=3)" I hope that that is not your actual motivation here...but frankly, that's what the OP of this thread was likely complaining about...and you've been basically proving him correct the whole time.

Think about it. Are you ready for Sanatana Dharma or not?

You have a lot of nerve questioning my motives. I don't care what you want or hope or think, unless you are a mod or admin. Go read my other posts and judge for yourself.

And there's something wrong with my belief and comment "Christianity today is not what Jesus taught or preached. It is twisted by men for their own reasons and gain. (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=66792&postcount=3)"? Why do you think I'm not Christian anymore? I've distanced myself from what it is. And let me say, you're not making a very good representation for Sanatana Dharma, rather, for politics. You're doing exactly the same thing you condemn Christians for.

How about answering or posting about Scripture, instead of politics, and questioning someone's motives. I've seen lots of questions about prayer, meditation, mandir, Scripture, but not a single comment from you on any of those. Just politics. I've made lots of posts and asked questions about those things. I don't remember you answering any of them. So don't throw stones.


...'cause all I see here is a bunch of Sanatana Drama.

Yes, on this we agree. But don't look to me as the source. Clearly no one is going to change anyone's mind, so let's agree to disagree. And put each other on Ignore.

ॐ शान्ति:

proudhindu
23 June 2011, 07:42 PM
Thank you for underscoring my point. :) The Law referred to the prophecy, not to stoning children or burning calves on altars. Go to a biblical scholar.


Perhaps you have not actually read the bible.
Here is ONE law of Moses: Bible Link (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+31%3A17-18&version=KJV):

Numbers 31:17-18

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Another Law:
Deuteronomy 20:10-16 bible link (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+20%3A10-16&version=NIV):

10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

Christians indeed followed these commands to attack nations, loot ,rape and enslave.


Good try. He was telling them if they follow one law they have to follow all. He also repeatedly called them hypocrites for following and trying to enforce one law and not another. Of course children weren't being killed by his time, but since that was the old law, why not do that if you're going to worry about washing your hands.

Wow.If somebody has to follow dietary hygiene he has to kill disobedient children. Now, this is a new Low of Logic.The Jews thankfully were following commonsense laws of Hygiene but Jesus found fault with them for not killing Children as per OT Law.




He said, and please do take note of this: What goes into a man's mouth does not defile him, but what comes out of his heart defiles him.

You can't cherry-pick as modern Christians do.

No, i am not cherry picking at all.So, does it mean christians need not follow dietary hygiene?.


Your epic failure is epic. Please stop, my sides hurt from laughing at the silliness of your grasping at straws. :Roll:

Let us have a discussion instead of Hyperventilating with proclamations of victory.

I am once again repeating verbatim about what Jesus supposedly said about Law of OLD prophets:

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Nothing is said about Prophecy in matt 5:18.The wording is very explicit.Not One Jot shall pass.

No wonder the christians continued their quest to Genocide,loot and rape as per LAW of OLD prophets.



Moreover, if you knew what you were talking about, those laws applied only to the Levite priests. That's why the book is called Leviticus.

What about other Laws in Deuteronomy, numbers etc regarding Plundering and enslaving civilians?.



I don't care whether Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecy or not. I'm not Christian. I was so I'm sure I have a better grasp on it than you do. :rolleyes:

I don't care what you believe but when you post in the forum that Jesus said that he is fulfilling the so called prophecy in OLD Testament I felt the need to post relevant information.


I'm here to point out your epic failures in trying to interpret the bible. Stop, just stop. :Roll:

No, better yet, keep going.[/quote]


You may wish to deal with the contents of the post instead of creating ruckus with your personal attacks.

Sahasranama
23 June 2011, 07:55 PM
I've only responded to coments you and the others have made. I didn't start the thread with vitriol. Nor have I spewed vitriol, just counter arguments. Do you speak for "all the Hindus"? I like to think I've earned some respect from the true Hindus. Take a poll, I'll abide by it....

...You have a lot of nerve questioning my motives. I don't care what you want or hope or think, unless you are a mod or admin. Go read my other posts and judge for yourself. Well, I have been here a long time. Most members will agree with what we have posted here. Some don't respond, because they simply don't have the time to react to Jesuit propaganda or don't think it is going to make a difference. I can tell you that even the admin has approved of our posts here. But I see what you have said above as another diversion from the main topic of threat, you are trying to turn the debate into a popularity contest.


I've shown proper deference to everyone who's helped me. You get as good as you give. You, issacnewton, Sahasranama, and TatTvamAsi, have been rude and arrogant to me.I have not been rude to you at all, I have tried my very best to explain to you what is wrong with what you have said. But you have already demonised everyone in your mind who speaks against Christianity, because of your upbringing as a Christian.


If you consider my repeated comments about having respect for Indians, Hindus and their achievements to be snide, the problem is in your perception.

Please do not presume to you know my background or qualifications. Or who I know and don't know. That's not humble at all. You have been avoiding confrontation with the facts about Christianity throughout this thread. You have been rude denying Hindus the right to openly talk about the violence that India has suffered from the abrahamic religions. You have not even showed any willingness to look into the matter after more information was posted.


Yes, on this we agree. But don't look to me as the source. Clearly no one is going to change anyone's mind, so let's agree to disagree. And put each other on Ignore.You can put us on ignore, but you cannot ignore the truth. I am not going to put you on ignore, because that would be equal to giving you a free pass to post Jesuit propaganda on the forum.

BryonMorrigan
23 June 2011, 08:22 PM
Do you speak for "all the Hindus"?

Nope...but they sure are hitting up my Karma score today...


Why do you think I'm not Christian anymore?

So I was correct, then...


How about answering or posting about Scripture, instead of politics, and questioning someone's motives. I've seen lots of questions about prayer, meditation, mandir, Scripture, but not a single comment from you on any of those. Just politics. I've made lots of posts and asked questions about those things. I don't remember you answering any of them. So don't throw stones.

I'm not an "expert" on Scripture, prayer, meditation, etc. Like I said, I defer to those who know more than me on many subjects.

Sahasranama
23 June 2011, 09:58 PM
One who renounces his faith in the face of violence or on pain of death has a weak faith, no matter who s/he is, or what faith.

This is just one example of how your thinking has been influenced by the Bible. Of course, there are people with strong faith and weak faith, but to judge people with weak faith and condemn them to hell is simply barbaric.

Mark 8:35, "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it." (If you reject Yeshua to save your life, He - or Yahweh - will kill you, and you will burn for eternity in Hell.)

You have posted even more dogma from the Bible on the forum, like:

Don't judge, otherwise you will be judged.

Ramakrishna
24 June 2011, 12:50 AM
I live in a country where Christian fundamentalists want to change the US Constitution to say who can marry whom. They want to pass laws based on their brand of Christianity. They want to legislate what can be taught in schools as long as it agrees with their beliefs. Talk about forcing someone's beliefs on other people! That is not what the Constitution is for. That violates the Constitution. I said that before. But again, apparently that wasn't read, or it was deliberately passed over.

I live in the United States as well. I don't see your point in saying this or how this is relevant in any way to this thread.


I haven't been around here that long, but I have yet to see anyone trying to bring Jesus and Christianity into Hinduism in these conversations. Maybe there are posts buried somewhere.

Yes, they are buried under your list of posts:

http://hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=65723&postcount=1

http://hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=65777&postcount=29

http://hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=65821&postcount=7

"Jesus (whom I believe was a great teacher and prophet sent by God) said that when you pray, don't make a big speech, just let God know what you want, though He already knows."

"I don't think Jesus (I do think He's a form of God, in a western incarnation though) intended it to turn out the way it has. I don't like the way the west portrays him."

"I hate to keep bringing Christianity into conversations, so as not to offend anyone, but Jesus once said (he said a lot of wise things) that the greatest gift a man could give is to lay down his life for his friends. I think that's true love, altruism, and may be the person's karma."

There are also numerous other threads specifically about Jesus on here, about if he was an avatar or if he studied in India and a whole bunch of other nonsense. I'm not going to find them all for you. They are here, just look around.

This is of course in addition to the multitude of times that you yourself have brought up Jesus in conversations on HDF that I pointed out above.


If he did exist, he probably wasn't important enough to notice. I know that too. Does it matter? No. Whoever or whatever wrote what is ascribed to Jesus spoke of God's love, and loving all people. There's nothing wrong with that.


Actually, it does matter. Not only because the entire thing was fabricated, but also because it was not all good....most notably John 14:6, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." That doesn't sound like "God's love" or "loving all people"...it actually sounds pretty horrible.

Jai Sri Ram

Lakshmidevi
24 June 2011, 01:02 AM
Namaste,

I agree about leaving Christianity and Jesus out of it. The insistence on making claims about Jesus in conjunction with Sanatana Dharma, from my observations, stems from converts' unwillingness or inability to let go of that part of their cultural conditioning. This is partly normal for people who grew up Christian but have converted, they may still have affinities for Jesus. The problem with this however is that if one cannot let go of the old ties then how will they ever progress spiritually. It's like having your boat stuck in two rivers at the same time, flowing in opposite directions.

If one chooses to maintain beliefs about Jesus that is their decision. However, the need to apply Dharmic ideals to Jesus in a public was not useful at all. And quite honestly, in my opinion it is this type of teaching that is a threat to our religion. Christianity has functioned as a virus on this planet. It has destroyed culture and life everywhere it goes. It teaches love but then look at all of the love done by Baptists in Sub-Saharan Africa, rebels in Nagaland, fanatics in Korea, rice bowl converters throughout the developing world, Serbian Orthodox murders, and the list goes on. This is all now, not even looking through history. This cannot be a case of "thats men and not Jesus" either because didn't Jesus say something along the lines of "you will know them by their fruit".

Whether or not Jesus was a great teacher or man is not the point. He is not Hindu and I'm sorry but he will never be.... unless he's reborn one ;). To try to always incorporate him is bad for Hinduism. It continues the Colonial era practice of degrading Hindus. They started it with the Aryan Invasion Theory and now they will continue it with this. Our religion can't stand on it's own, we have to fit Jesus in....

If you are Hindu, regardless of your ethnicity, Bharata is your mother land. Christianity has committed and continues to commit atrocities to our brothers and sisters. Why should we honor them by integrating Jesus into Sanatana Dharma.

I'm sorry if this is coming off cold or mean but I do not believe in new agey mixing of religions. Keep our integrity, keep our tradition.

Sanatana Dharma Ki Jai!

Ramakrishna
24 June 2011, 01:17 AM
Namaste Lakshmidevi,


The insistence on making claims about Jesus in conjunction with Sanatana Dharma, from my observations, stems from converts' unwillingness or inability to let go of that part of their cultural conditioning. This is partly normal for people who grew up Christian but have converted, they may still have affinities for Jesus. The problem with this however is that if one cannot let go of the old ties then how will they ever progress spiritually. It's like having your boat stuck in two rivers at the same time, flowing in opposite directions.


I completely agree. I suppose for somebody who was born and raised Christian, or even just born in the west, it is difficult to fully throw off Christianity and Jesus. I even have a few friends who no longer believe in Christianity but they still call themselves Christian. I can see how it would be difficult to fully denounce and reject Christianity, but it is especially troubling when people try to bring their old Christian beliefs into Hinduism with them. Not only is it bad for Hinduism as a whole, but oftentimes it causes trouble for the person doing it. Now I fully understand why Sivaya Subramuniyaswami's Saiva Siddhanta Church requires new members to undergo such a long and extensive process of fully renouncing one's prior religion.

Jai Sri Ram

wundermonk
24 June 2011, 01:41 AM
The insistence on making claims about Jesus in conjunction with Sanatana Dharma, from my observations, stems from converts' unwillingness or inability to let go of that part of their cultural conditioning. This is partly normal for people who grew up Christian but have converted, they may still have affinities for Jesus. The problem with this however is that if one cannot let go of the old ties then how will they ever progress spiritually. It's like having your boat stuck in two rivers at the same time, flowing in opposite directions.


I agree with this also. In general, I believe that any "God/Avatar/Son of God/Prophet" who goes around claiming that he/she/it is the latest, the most correct, the one and only exclusive pathway to bliss is wrong.

We are each in different stages of the reincarnation/karma cycle. Hence, our perception of the Divine also is bound to be different.

Whenever I mention this in an Abrahamic forum the immediate response I get is - "See, you are a polytheist. Enjoy eternal hellfire in the afterlife, your idol worshipper".

Islam and Christianity are both my-way-only-or-the-fast-highway-to-hell religions. By definition, this is against diversity. If they had their way, they would both seek to enforce a uniform monolithic kingdom over all 7 billion of us. SD is the only belief system capable of pushback against such intolerance.

I would like to ask of those who are supporting Christianity/Jesus on this thread - What do you think of Jesus saying that only he holds the key to unlock the door to heaven? Is this to be taken literally or is it figurative? Can I adore Krishna and have no knowledge of Jesus and attain heaven? Sorry if this has been addressed before...couldnt read all the posts thus far.

nitinsharma
24 June 2011, 02:54 AM
consider that the guy with a Master's Degree in History (me) might actually know a thing or two about...you know...history.


/*Sorry for going off-topic*/
Wish I could have that degree.Really.All you get here is either Engineering or Medical.Not that would fulfill any dreams of such but would definitely be cooler,better than the stupid commerce course I'm doing.

Eastern Mind
24 June 2011, 07:02 AM
Namaste,

I agree about leaving Christianity and Jesus out of it. The insistence on making claims about Jesus in conjunction with Sanatana Dharma, from my observations, stems from converts' unwillingness or inability to let go of that part of their cultural conditioning. This is partly normal for people who grew up Christian but have converted, they may still have affinities for Jesus. The problem with this however is that if one cannot let go of the old ties then how will they ever progress spiritually. It's like having your boat stuck in two rivers at the same time, flowing in opposite directions.

If one chooses to maintain beliefs about Jesus that is their decision. However, the need to apply Dharmic ideals to Jesus in a public was not useful at all. And quite honestly, in my opinion it is this type of teaching that is a threat to our religion. Christianity has functioned as a virus on this planet. It has destroyed culture and life everywhere it goes. It teaches love but then look at all of the love done by Baptists in Sub-Saharan Africa, rebels in Nagaland, fanatics in Korea, rice bowl converters throughout the developing world, Serbian Orthodox murders, and the list goes on. This is all now, not even looking through history. This cannot be a case of "thats men and not Jesus" either because didn't Jesus say something along the lines of "you will know them by their fruit".

Whether or not Jesus was a great teacher or man is not the point. He is not Hindu and I'm sorry but he will never be.... unless he's reborn one ;). To try to always incorporate him is bad for Hinduism. It continues the Colonial era practice of degrading Hindus. They started it with the Aryan Invasion Theory and now they will continue it with this. Our religion can't stand on it's own, we have to fit Jesus in....

If you are Hindu, regardless of your ethnicity, Bharata is your mother land. Christianity has committed and continues to commit atrocities to our brothers and sisters. Why should we honor them by integrating Jesus into Sanatana Dharma.

I'm sorry if this is coming off cold or mean but I do not believe in new agey mixing of religions. Keep our integrity, keep our tradition.

Sanatana Dharma Ki Jai!

Vannakkam Lakshmidevi: I wholeheartedly agree with this. My problem is the cancer it is. Even here, it seems like one little comment about anything Christian, even if its anti-Christian, like in the OP here, gets everyone riled up. It disturbs us. And that is one of their points and strategies, I believe. Strategy comes in 2 pieces 1) convert them to us 2) if 1 fails at least make them poor Hindus. Strategy 2 works here. I vowed about six months back to never react and post on the Christianity section of these forums. (And here I am breaking that ... yet again) I really think that's what we all should do. Just plain ignore. It usually turns into angst and argument on all sides, even capable of turning genuine polite humble interested newcomers off.

The goal should be to make Christianity so extremely irrelevant that they just go home from India. And that's 'ignore, ignore, ignore'. If push does come to shove, then shove back. Gosh, the only time I think about it at all is on here. That's horrible.

Aum Namasivaya

NayaSurya
24 June 2011, 07:09 AM
I know this will sound selfish...but my whole freaking life has been spent listening to others give me the "good news" about jesus...a person I believe is nothing more than a fairytale.

This Beloved Forum, is an island of SD and I know it is selfish to wish that I never would see that name or any person talking about this here as I do know it is very important to get awareness about these confused Being's activities and absolute effort to derail the Truth from every sundry location across the globe.

But I do...I wish it with all my heart.

I gave Bryon and S points, I will do it again...as I know the xtian are compelled to come. In their confused state they are as cobras who come while you are occupied by sleep.

The best defense for cobra is to remove them safely from your location, or move away from them. But, if they come and try to derail SD, they will have to be dealt with, and I am grateful to the soldiers of SD who do this very hard job.<3

Sahasranama
24 June 2011, 07:49 AM
Vannakkam Lakshmidevi: I wholeheartedly agree with this. My problem is the cancer it is. Even here, it seems like one little comment about anything Christian, even if its anti-Christian, like in the OP here, gets everyone riled up. It disturbs us. And that is one of their points and strategies, I believe. Strategy comes in 2 pieces 1) convert them to us 2) if 1 fails at least make them poor Hindus. Strategy 2 works here. I vowed about six months back to never react and post on the Christianity section of these forums. (And here I am breaking that ... yet again) I really think that's what we all should do. Just plain ignore. It usually turns into angst and argument on all sides, even capable of turning genuine polite humble interested newcomers off.

The goal should be to make Christianity so extremely irrelevant that they just go home from India. And that's 'ignore, ignore, ignore'. If push does come to shove, then shove back. Gosh, the only time I think about it at all is on here. That's horrible.

Aum Namasivaya

I think for your own sanity it can be good to ignore the abrahamics, but for the public good it is better to counter them (universalists, proselytisers) with arguments. Most likely they will not listen to it, but for every single Jesuit posting on the forum, there must be at least ten other people new to Hinduism reading it. It is very important that we take a collective stance against it, so that it won't look like silent agreement. At least it will make people think twice before posting about Jesus. If it puts of certain people, so be it. It's like if you have an infection, you have to take antibiotics, if you ignore it will only spread further. The abrahamic religions are a disease and if every Hindu ignored swamis doing arati to Jesus, then Hinduism will get very sick. Hinduism must strengthen its immune system, when time comes the white blood cells must do their job.

Eastern Mind
24 June 2011, 08:02 AM
I think for your own sanity it can be good to ignore the abrahamics, but for the public good it is better to counter them (universalists, proselytisers) with arguments. Most likely they will not listen to it, but for every single Jesuit posting on the forum, there must be at least ten other people new to Hinduism reading it. It is very important that we take a collective stance against it, so that it won't look like silent agreement. At least it will make people think twice before posting about Jesus. If it puts of certain people, so be it.

Vannakkam: I think the strategy is dependent on the situation and or who you're dealing with. Some people WILL listen. I've seen it here. But the JWs at my door used to come back for more when I held a dialogue, but once I ignored them they never came back. Personally, I can't debate biblical or historical stuff because I'm an absolute idiot (in those matters) Once its clear that all you're going to get is more defensive posturing, then I don't see why it should go on. Two or three posts like that are an indicator for me.

I have a harder problem when it spirals downward emotionally so that all parties become shook up to the point of absurd rudeness. So someone goes away thinking, "hey, I didn't win the argument but at least I pi ...ed them off.' Then that Hindu has a harder time doing sadhana that day, and thoughts linger like the aforementioned cancer.

Aum Namasivaya

Sahasranama
24 June 2011, 08:35 AM
Yes, but when a Jehova witness comes there usually isn't an audience who listens. I think there's a reason they come door to door. If they ever thought about hosting a honest televised debate, they would go down the drain pretty fast.

Lakshmidevi
24 June 2011, 10:57 AM
Namaste,

Everyone has raised really excellent points here. E.M. your approach is very wise and you are absolutely right about all of this being a disruption to us. Conversion and destabilization have been their method for 2000 years and it continues today. That's why in India they tell their converts to destroy images of the devas and to not talk to their Hindu family members. However if we react as they do then we are no longer following our dharma so it is quite a tricky situation.

Sahasranama, this is also very true. We need to engage in debate and not be passive as they try to dismantle our religion. And it is very important on a forum such as this to provide a counter especially for the new comers.

So I guess the middle ground is to respond but try not let ourselves get too emotionally wrapped up? I'm don't know but I think this thread is an important discussion to be had.

satay
24 June 2011, 02:46 PM
Admin Note

namaste,
I suppose we have had enough of this know after 78 posts on the topic? :cool1:

yajvan
24 June 2011, 05:07 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



Admin Note
I suppose we have had enough of this know after 78 posts on the topic? :cool1:


you guys are in trouble now....:)

praṇām

Eastern Mind
24 June 2011, 05:13 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

you guys are in trouble now....:)

praṇām

Vannakkam: There was a time when we could have seen that darn lock on the icon. Yajvan, you were the guy who broke the post fasting suggestion ... last one I'd expect. tsk, tsk. He should ban you.

Aum Namasivaya

TatTvamAsi
24 June 2011, 10:36 PM
Namaste,

I agree about leaving Christianity and Jesus out of it. The insistence on making claims about Jesus in conjunction with Sanatana Dharma, from my observations, stems from converts' unwillingness or inability to let go of that part of their cultural conditioning. This is partly normal for people who grew up Christian but have converted, they may still have affinities for Jesus. The problem with this however is that if one cannot let go of the old ties then how will they ever progress spiritually. It's like having your boat stuck in two rivers at the same time, flowing in opposite directions.

If one chooses to maintain beliefs about Jesus that is their decision. However, the need to apply Dharmic ideals to Jesus in a public was not useful at all. And quite honestly, in my opinion it is this type of teaching that is a threat to our religion. Christianity has functioned as a virus on this planet. It has destroyed culture and life everywhere it goes. It teaches love but then look at all of the love done by Baptists in Sub-Saharan Africa, rebels in Nagaland, fanatics in Korea, rice bowl converters throughout the developing world, Serbian Orthodox murders, and the list goes on. This is all now, not even looking through history. This cannot be a case of "thats men and not Jesus" either because didn't Jesus say something along the lines of "you will know them by their fruit".

Whether or not Jesus was a great teacher or man is not the point. He is not Hindu and I'm sorry but he will never be.... unless he's reborn one ;). To try to always incorporate him is bad for Hinduism. It continues the Colonial era practice of degrading Hindus. They started it with the Aryan Invasion Theory and now they will continue it with this. Our religion can't stand on it's own, we have to fit Jesus in....

If you are Hindu, regardless of your ethnicity, Bharata is your mother land. Christianity has committed and continues to commit atrocities to our brothers and sisters. Why should we honor them by integrating Jesus into Sanatana Dharma.

I'm sorry if this is coming off cold or mean but I do not believe in new agey mixing of religions. Keep our integrity, keep our tradition.

Sanatana Dharma Ki Jai!

Great post! Very calmly stated! :D

jesus/chrstianity/judaism/islam/muhammad/moses (etc.) = garbage. Let the garbage men/women handle the garbage..

sanjaya
25 June 2011, 12:59 PM
/*Sorry for going off-topic*/
Wish I could have that degree.Really.All you get here is either Engineering or Medical.Not that would fulfill any dreams of such but would definitely be cooler,better than the stupid commerce course I'm doing.

Hey, I'm representing astronomy! I like to think that I'm one of those few Indians who's broken the medicine/engineering mold and instead done something that actually enriches society (not that we don't need Indian doctors and engineers as maintenance men to keep said society in good working order).

Oh yeah...this is a thread about the role of Christianity in our discussions.

I've noticed that Westerners who are not fundamentalist Christians usually fall into one of two categories in regards to their view of Jesus. Either they think that Jesus was a good teacher of human morality who is perhaps not God, but still worth listening to. Or they utterly reject Jesus as evil, a fraud, etc. But I tend to have a more realistic view (at least I think it is). If you look at the Bible, there are only four books that actually talk about him, and three of them are largely redundant. I regularly read novels that describe their characters in more detail than the Bible describes Jesus. The fact is, there's not enough information in the Bible to say much about Jesus. When Christians try to convert me, I always cite this as one of the many reasons that I won't convert.

By the way, totally agreed with LakshmiDevi that Christianity is a threat to Indians and our religion.

BryonMorrigan
25 June 2011, 01:42 PM
Hey, I'm representing astronomy! I like to think that I'm one of those few Indians who's broken the medicine/engineering mold and instead done something that actually enriches society (not that we don't need Indian doctors and engineers as maintenance men to keep said society in good working order).

You know...I was just thinking about this comment...and TTA's review of "Breaking India," and I think there is a relation, if not direct correlation here. What I mean is that...there aren't enough Hindus involved in the fields of history, archaeology, etc., and it has essentially allowed the field of Indian and Hindu history to be directed by non-...or even anti-Hindus...


I've noticed that Westerners who are not fundamentalist Christians usually fall into one of two categories in regards to their view of Jesus. Either they think that Jesus was a good teacher of human morality who is perhaps not God, but still worth listening to. Or they utterly reject Jesus as evil, a fraud, etc. But I tend to have a more realistic view (at least I think it is). If you look at the Bible, there are only four books that actually talk about him, and three of them are largely redundant. I regularly read novels that describe their characters in more detail than the Bible describes Jesus. The fact is, there's not enough information in the Bible to say much about Jesus. When Christians try to convert me, I always cite this as one of the many reasons that I won't convert.

My main arguments are that:

1. As you stated above, there's really no evidence that he ever existed...and precious little even about his alleged teachings that anyone has to go on...(which is why I believe so many Christians "fall back" on all that Old Testament "fire and brimstone" hatred...).

and

2. If there really WERE a "god" like the Christians believe...and he will cast anyone into eternal torment and pain until the end of time...simply for not "converting"? Well, such a "god" would certainly be "evil."

Sorry, but the idea that an omnipotent god would be "evil" like that is just too difficult (and depressing!) for me to think it could be a possibility. It's like an H.P. Lovecraft book!

TheOne
25 June 2011, 09:05 PM
I think my idea on Jesus is a bit more than just accepting him as an alright moral teacher or despising him as a fraud / not believing he existed.

Considering there are over 100 books written about him within 200 years after his death I think there is some sort of Jesus who lived in the Palestinian area.

What is most interesting is that the over 100 gospels have contained in them a multitude of views of this man. Ranging from God-man, illuminator of mankind, to a Buddha / Krishna esque figure, or even a simple man who was a moral teacher.

Literally the diversity regarding the Jesus figure is what intrigues me the most. Because the Iranian religion Mandaenism has as a central tenet that Jesus was a false prophet and John the Baptist (Jesus' supposed forerunner and last "prophet") was the true Messiah.

It's FAR more complex then whether he existed or not. I find what is intriguing is WHY there are so many views of him and where did the Pagan influences come in and when did Jesus' philosophy change from whatever it was to what we see now.


Yes, I agree Jesus has little to do with Hinduism but I have a personal hobby of looking into Apocrypha and Gnostic gospels.


This is one of my favourite video series on Jesus, Christianity, the pagan influences, and gnostic texts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlucDUgMusI&feature=related

Adhvagat
26 June 2011, 12:43 AM
Sorry, but the idea that an omnipotent god would be "evil" like that is just too difficult (and depressing!) for me to think it could be a possibility. It's like an H.P. Lovecraft book!

Which one? :)

Sahasranama
26 June 2011, 12:37 PM
@TheOne You seem to be more fascinated with Jesus than any of the Hindu deities. You know, nobody is forcing you to be Hindu, so you don't need to pretend either.

TheOne
27 June 2011, 07:59 PM
I have never pretended to be anything other than I am. If me expressing my curiosity with a non-Hindu figure is wrong in your eyes, then so be it.

Surya Deva
03 February 2012, 12:01 AM
I am a late entrant to this thread. I think much that that needed to be said has been said. I will still add my bit: Jesus is not Hindu and is not a part of Hindu history, mythology and culture. So it is obviously absurd to include Jesus within Hinduism.

However, can Jesus be included in Santana dharma? Santana dharma is wider than 'Hinduism' because it is spaceless and timeless spirituality. Even space aliens can be members of SD, but obviously they are not Hindu. They may have the equivalent of rishis and sages, but none of them come from India. Their icons, history and mythology obviously has nothing to do with India.
In that sense Jesus could be included in SD as yet another of countless spiritual teachers that attained enlightenment and taught SD. But even then we have a problem because Jesus's spiritual teachings do not hold a candle to other spiritual teachers during, before and after his time, for example say the Buddha. So Jesus as a spiritual teacher is very overrated. If it true that he did indeed travel to India and he learned from the masters in India, then he was not exactly their most accomplished student. He left with better spirituality than his own native land, but it was not a patch on even the average teachers in India.

Thus the main reason Jesus is not important in SD(the wider cosmic religion) is because his teachings are at pretty kindergarten level within it, and hardly of much use or importance to somebody a bit more advanced.

PS. I will add I cannot help but be a bit skeptical of Christian Hindus. Why do they need to hold onto Jesus, when they have access to the best spiritual knowledge on the planet: the Vedas? It is evident to anybody who compares and contrasts the Vedas to the bible, just how poor and inferior the bible looks in front of them. It is like comparing a stick drawing to a Monsa Lisa. The purpose of a Santana dharmin is not worship of any scripture itself(even the Vedas) but to extract the information that they need for their spiritual development. Thus, a wise seeker would only pick the best that is out there. That's the Vedas.

Kismet
03 February 2012, 02:19 PM
I don't see anything wrong in mentioning Jesus in passing. That said, what do I know? I can't speak for the tradition; only my individual perspective in it.

One thing is for sure: should one start going off the wall dogmatically about Jesus then definitely we have nothing more than a nuisance and a waste of breath on our hands.

Moonlight
04 February 2012, 08:32 AM
Hi Surya Deva and everyone else ^^


I will add I cannot help but be a bit skeptical of Christian Hindus. Why do they need to hold onto Jesus, when they have access to the best spiritual knowledge on the planet:

What we are dealing here is Universal truths. For all we know all religious Gods don't exists but we make them exists to help us to be one with the Source. It seems you may not see his spiritual teachings cause you are looking at it in a bad view but truly I can see that his teachings are&#160;Universal, just in another angle.

So if a Christain turns to the enternal religion which is&#160;Universal, why can't they bring Jesus with them? There's only one truth but the wise know it by many names. Let's take one of Jesus sayings:

"when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;

Now let's go to what Krishna says to Arjuna:

"Abandon all varieties of dharma and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear" (Bhagavad-gita 18.66

"As soon as one desires to worship some god, I make his faith steady so that he can devote himself to that particular deity." (BT 7:21)

Krishna seeks those who will worship him in spirit and in truth and that's all he wants. He's not into dogma but he does give a guide on how to clean ourselves cause we are full of esoteric behavior, infact we are worst then animals and that's pretty sad. &#160;

People tend to see the bible as history but it's not. It's a book written by so many people with different backgrounds. It's an occult book, even the Gnostics agree with me

""In order to study the Bible, one needs to have studied occultism, because the Bible is a book of occultism and cannot be read at face value as when reading a newspaper. Therefore, the Bible is the book of the Gnostics, and only when one becomes a Gnostic can one understand it." - &#160;Samael Aun Weor.

I did a topic few months ago saying that I completed the Gita and saying how simple it was and yajvan wrote an amazing reply which took me into another level of understanding theses great books. He said:&#160;

"It has been suggested that the bhāgavad gītā is very simple. I see this slightly differently; not opposed to simple, but with the notion of being fully robust.
The bhāgavad gītā can be viewed and is offered on 3 levels"

The bible is exactly&#160;the same.
Matt 13:
&#160;[10] And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
[11] He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
[12] For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
[13] Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
[14] And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive
[16] But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

I'm not a: Hindu,Christain,gnostic,muslim,buddist,
taoist, etc (to many to name lol...)

They are just lables. my god I chose&#160;is Krishna but I'm not a Hindu. I studie his teachings and I studie other&#160;religious teachings and found the truth in all religions.

&#160;&#160;