the 'religion of love' in action. and where are the indian christists
in america who are constantly lecturing hindus on this blog about
tolerance? why aren't they coming to the defence of hindus? do they
ever chide them? (i must say i know of one dr. alex alexander,
formerly of the us army, who does come to the defense of hindus, but
he's the exception that proves the rule).
or when bigots like john dayal simply lie every day about alleged
atrocities against christists in india? this is the problem that i
have with all these guys like 'christian' and 'jos' and the
schizophrenic guy -- they are very good at telling hindus what to do,
but when their fellow-christists attack and abuse hindus, they simply
keep quiet.
this is al-taqiyah, exactly as 'moderate' mohammedans practice when it
comes to mohammedan terrorists -- they always say, "it's not us, it's
somebody else", and "the terrorists are not true mohammedans".
actually, the terrorists *are* the true mohammedans, they are going by
what their book says.
here, the christist bigots in the us are the true christists, they are
going by what their book says.
the problem lies in christism itself and any amount of rationalization
isn't going to change it. it's basically evil, and it's devil worship
manufactured by a bunch of bigoted imperialist death-cultists like
paul and the council of nicea. and that's the gospel truth, whether
anybody likes it or not. for instance, look at what that madman godman
ratzinger says: *my* variant of christism is superior to *your*
variant. why? does he have a direct hotline to god? if anything, it
must be a direct hotline to *the other guy* given ratzy's consistent
message of hatred. not for nothing is he called 'god's rottweiler'.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Arvind
Americans disrupt Hindu prayer, indulge in hate-speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9To30Hz7A
-a
22 comments:
Rajeev,
Let me make a few points clear to you. I live in India and not in US. I have my own reservations against ‘true’ sons of India like you who love their motherland choosing to live in a country which you love to hate. But, let’s discuss that some other time. The point I am trying to make is different. Do you think such a news would be readily available in the mainstream Indian media which is controlled by ‘secularists’? If it was a Xian priest shouted down by Hindus, it would have been news in India, not the other way round.
Point No.2, 99% of the time, I access the internet only from office. And, I was not in office since last Thursday (IST). This means that my only source for such news, your blog, was not accessible to me.
Now, when you expect me to condemn something which I was not aware of, aren’t you setting your expectations a little too high?
Coming back to the mian issue, what happened in the Congress (or was it the Senate? Doesn’t really make a difference) is downright deplorable, condemnable. I reiterate my stand. There is no such thing as a true Xian God. God can be only one and he has to be the same for Hindu, Xian or Muslim. At the end of the day, you & I worship the same God, through different means. The orthodox, indoctrinated Xian feels only he is right. I don’t think so.
Jos
I dont agree with this 'sons of the soil' funda. Why do you need to live in India always, if you do not have to interact with a lot of people daily? If you live in america and make india's voice heard there, whats wrong with that? so many countries are doing that, trying to influence amercian opinion because it is such an influential country, why should all the indians not reach out?
Jos- it's sad that you need to claim that all religions worship the same God just because you want to prove you are one of the good guys.
http://wayfaring.blogspot.com/2007/07/indian-christian-identity.html
It's 'born-again' people like you who have made life difficult for normal Xians like us in India. I was born only once and I am happy with it. You guys are hell bent on breaking the secular fabric of our society. Try doing what you are doing in some country like Saudi Arabia and you will see the diference. But, you need balls to do that.
Jos-
You are willing to tolerate all faiths but not a born-again one. Your definition of secularism seems to mean simply accepting that all truth claims are valid. If I were atheist, would my claim be equally valid as that of a theist?
It's possible to love Indians and be united without making meaningless statements like 'we are all believing the same thing' when we are not. Indians do not know how to deal with that tension and still be Indians. That's our loss, not that of Christianity- or that of Hinduism for that matter.
People who claim tht a religion is inclusivist basically don't understand any religion or they are compromising on convictions both of which are immature responses. The nature of truth is to bind. I can love a Hindu brother without being insesntitive about his faith even if I believe that faith is not based on truth.
In that sense I think Rajeev and I are closer than you think, or closer than you are to him. He stands by objective truth (and not subjective). At the core of every religion there are honest people who can debate with truth and logic and not with platitudes. They are closer because they can at least identify contentious issues. With you, I can't identify them.
Just to add- I'm an Indian 'Christist' in the US and I felt this disruption of the Hindu prayer was not only a shameful and indecent exhibition but strange given that Islamic and other prayers have been recited there before without incident.
This is for the record- in answer to Rajeev's call as to where the Indian Christists are. I don't make statements like they are terrorists.
Tell me this. Let us assume there is a tribal in Andaman who hasn’t heard of Jesus or Xianity (difficult scenario considering the reach you guys have). He worships the Gods he knows a leads a life free of vices and doing only good. In essence, he leads a Christian life (as u guys call it), but does not worship Jesus. What happens to him? Does he go to heaven for the way he lived or Does he go to hell because he worshipped Gods other than Jesus?
Jos, you are asking a theological question rather than the implications of holding to an exclusive faith. I don't know if this is the right place to discuss that. You are welcome to continue it on my blog if you prefer, but I will give you a brief answer here.
The assurance of salvation comes from faith in Christ. To someone who has never heard of Christ the law of rights and wrongs apply- but what this is and how a person comes to know God is unknown to us, and that is the imperative of sharing the gospel.
Sin is imputed when there is knowledge of law and breaking of the law, of which we are all guilty. Each of us has had a background of morals and God judges hwo we lived according to it. However the Christian framework lets us know that whatever God's judgment on us or those in pre-Christian times, we are guilty of sin- of breaking the law. It will help if you think of the law as not simply words that prescribe what or what not to do, but as a relationship with creator God. When the relationship is sundered, one of the parties has to transcend the breach in order to heal the rift. Since we are incapable of doing it because of sin and sinful nature, God himself does it in the person of Christ.
So the Andamanese person who has never heard of Christ is judged by the Law, whereas when he/she becomes a Christian he/she is judged by Grace, meaning the capability ot living a life for God. Where the Andamanese good person ends up is not for me to judge, but I do know that when he/she professes faih in Christ, he/she receives eternal life.
Jos,
I have the answer for you – he goes to hell.
A famous Christian missionary in US Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., President, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, when asked on Larry King Live whether he thinks Gandhi would go to heaven in spite of him not being a Christian? That missionary guy did not miss a breath and said no. When even the so-called “mahatma” does not have keys to heaven then mere mortals of Andaman stand no chance.
Check out the transcripts - http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0001/12/lkl.00.html
This Mohler guys would seem to be an enlightened moderate if you compare him with Pat Robertsons’, Jerry Falwells’ and the demi god Ratzinger or is it Gods’ rottweiler as he proudly claims? They are true pieces of work. If only our ELM media brings their speeches and opinions about Hindus for discussion all the “religion of peace” scums in India will scurrying for cover.
We have to appreciate these Robertson’s and Fallwel’s though, not for the stance they take but for speaking their mind, their straight forwardness and not being politically correct. We can only wish we had such leaders in India.
@Wayfaring Stranger
I already feel like converting to Christianity :-)
Can some body show me the nearest church? And oh should it be catholic or protestant or Mormon or southern Baptist or CSI or NSI or ....
Siva- Uniformity of worship doesn't make for unity. As I said there are denominations because (mainly) they take doctrine seriously. As I said before at the core of each faith there are people who are closer to each other than you think. Nor does unity make for uniformity. I don't make a disctinction among Christian denominations provided they hold to fundamental tenets of Christianity and not get diverted into cults. Take 1 billion people in a counrty and you have 1 billion unique worldviews.
While I respect Mohler, I think Robertson and Falwell are not only insensitive but theologically suspect. Look, if you are looking for a stick to beat up Christianity with you can find the straw men all over the place. If that's the intent of this blog or its respondents then it's a waste of time.
People who do want to respond to Christianity with logic and intent to understand truth are pretty hard to come by. In any case, I just wanted to make the point that besides me there are an awful lot of evangelical Christians in India. None of them that I know are so politically charged or divisive. They are as Indian as they come. Besides they are the most caring people I've known. Some are very young or uneducated, so they make off the cuff remarks about other faiths. By and large though they are interested only in sharing with others what they hold to be true.
If anyone can let me know what they feel about atheists or agnostics that would be great. My dad is an agnostic, and he loves to talk to theists about his worldview. Wonder how that measures out in terms of dividing India?
Wayfaring Stranger>>>> While I respect Mohler, I think Robertson and Falwell are not only insensitive but theologically suspect. Look, if you are looking for a stick to beat up Christianity with you can find the straw men all over the place. If that's the intent of this blog or its respondents then it's a waste of time.
This is the usual answer we get when ever somebody is caught with their pants down, don’t we? Oh he is the fringe element, misguided minority and so on. Problem here is you cannot hide these fellows – Mohlers’, Robertsons’, Falwells’ and above all the demi god, the one and only the Ratzinger.
Theologically suspect? Are you kidding me? These guys are the faces of Christianity and what they say is what Christianity is all about. I would rather believe these guys than the face less and name less Way…. Sorry your usual wriggling out of a problem will not work here buddy.
Siva- if there are disagreements between Robertson and Mohler, don't you think one of them must be right. It looks like you are choosing which person to believe because of their popularity or because it's easier to prove them wrong.
If you're looking for straw men it's a waste of time. That's a good way to look good on a blog like this but a less than honest way to validate truth claims.
I also cannot simply support a public figure I may not agree with. You have discuss Christianity not people you find repulsive. That's an "ad hominem" attack. Not a logical counterpoint.
Wayfaring Stranger
Honestly I don’t understand a thing you just said.
Discuss the message not the messenger.
From wikipedia:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.
I said I did not understand the entire post.
Wayfaring Stranger said>>>> discuss the message not the messenger.
Man you are a piece of work, aren’t you? It’s the usual Christist tactic of playing victim hood to divert attention.
Where the hell did I attack you? If anybody is attacking the messenger it was you when you tried to paint Robertson and Falwell are not Christian enough.
Stop your whining and stop playing the ridiculous and pathetic victim hood card.
You didn't attack me- you mentioned Robertson and Falwell represent Christianity well. To paint Christianity as a character sketch of these gentlemen is an ad hominem attack.
I use the word attack for want of another word. I'm not offended at all personally. You could call it ad hominem argument.
As I said I cannot defend what they say. I may or may not agree with some of them, I'm willing to discuss those issues and not the whole Robertson/Falwell package. They are not my Scriptural anchor.
@ Wayfaring Stranger
Thank you for making a coherent post but I don’t buy it. Your attempt to paint Christianity as a benevolent religion and trying to distance it from its bigoted ness and bloody history is brilliant but sorry buddy I am not going to fall for it.
Christianity, of all denominations, is a religion with a very structured hierarchy. What the guy at the top says cannot be superceded by those at the bottom and every one of them is a brutal tyrant. Unless you are one of those guys what you say here is meaningless. Your taqquiya attempt, however sweet it may be, does not cut the ice.
Let me add there are of course good Christians and I am friends with many of them. But they are clueless about bible and almost all of them have never read it and never go to a church either. They visit church probably once a year or two or if and when there is a wedding. Basically they are good Christians only because they are not practicing Christianity. Ironical isn’t it?
When I trash Christianity in their presence they don’t say a thing or get offended either, because they cannot identify themselves with Christianity. They are Christians only in name.
But you on the other hand are a piece of work. You want to bring only good name to it while slyly distancing it from its history and its bigoted ness.
Good attempt but not good enough.
Siva, the Christian church- meaning the larger community of believers in every denomination- needs to acknowledge several acts of violence, and needs to account for several of its members who are less than attractive as its ambassadors. Let me not minimize that. When you point that to the doctrine of the New testament and the person and the character of Christ, that becomes dishonest.
But let me correct you in some of your assumptions: the leadership in various churches is based on consensus of the elders, cardinals or presbyters (however an individual denomination defines it). Not based on kingship. In the previous centuries the Catholic church did have the pope acting as a de facto king but almost all Christians agree that this was a dark period when a trust was betrayed and the power was abused.
The Protestant reformation and the subsequent Catholic reformation were radical changes in church government, thinking and approach towards understanding the Bible and how it relates to the Christian life.
If I say a leader is theologically suspect it does not mean that I completely disown him or her. A Robertson or Falwell may be right when it comes to simply preaching salvation by faith in Christ but I disagree (and many Christian leaders disagree with them) when they talk about politics or other religions, and often they take issue with them when they are insensitive towards others. That is a liberty which allows for fellow Christians to sharpen the iron- to be more and more conformed to the image of Christ.
A few years ago I was much like your Christian friends, going to church only once in a while. I look on that period as my great loss. As travelers along life's way I think each of us has a responsibility to look for Truth. How honest we are in searching for that truth will depend on whether we find that truth. When you look at Christianity and say 'Oh they are the guys who fought the crusades' or when a non-Hindu looks at Hinduism says, 'they are the fanatics who fight over trifles', you are being less than honest. That is because the abuse of a worldview cannot be held responsible for its use.
Before my conversion experience, I've looked for truth in Hinduism, attended camps at Vivekananda Kendra (Bangalore). I respect the efforts of Hinduism to explain reality, but respectfully, I believe it falls short of that goal. This doesn't diminish my love for my Hindu friends (who are practising, devout Hindus and not careless ones).
I don't want to bring good name to Christianity by my own efforts. I believe God is responsible for that. If a crusader killed people several years ago or a political leader or evangelist is bigoted, that is not the reaaon why I follow Christ. I follow Christ because I found Truth in him.
I think you will go on to answer this post, but let me stop here. I've been reading Rajeev Srinivasan's articles for about 7 years, some of which I've found beautiful, especially his articles on Kerala, its history and its beauty. Before this I've only posted a comment once but I think I've fulfilled my quota in one day in this blog.
I just wish your arguments could be more rigorous logically. A lot of the arguments seem to be stem from what you really would like to believe. You seem to endorse any and all sticks you can throw at Christianity, for instance, regardless of how valid or supported by evidence they are. I understand your stance if 'our interests come first' but this holds good only for national interest. When it comes to understanding truth, the ends don't justify the means.
I don't mean the essays you write in praise of your faith or customs. I mean the ones attacking other faiths.
I won't be responding any further. I'm sure this is further proof of my wriggling out, to some. Blessings.
The point about living outside India is in poor taste. Hindus wouldn't flee India if they weren't discriminated against in India.
Christists and their allies like the hategroups DMK and CPI(M) are vicious and violent in nature.
You can't have it both ways -- first hounding the Hindus out of India, and then using their being outside India to put them down. Shame on you. Your Nehru-Stalin economic model along with the violent hategroups like DMK were responsible for Hindus fleeing India. Christists were their accomplices in all these crimes.
Post a Comment