"Christian" Fundamentalism in West

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 24 Jul 2011 22:10

devesh wrote:at he most basic level, Christianity and Islam are DESERT religions. when these ideologies are enforced on lush, and agriculturally fertile lands, social/cultural/ideological deracination will follow. man made environmental disasters also become widely prevalent. you take a man out of the desert, and put him near the lush tributaries of the Rhine river or in the Ganges delta, he will go on a wild destructive orgy b/c he has no idea how to nurture, nourish, and benefit from such a rich land.

PRC, with an imposed Western ideology of Communism (authoritarian top-down dictatorship), with strong overtones of control ideology similar to Desert religions, is following the same path. the aggressive rape of the rich fertile lands of Eastern China will lead to environmental catastrophe. and it will take several generations, if not centuries, to recover from that disaster.

Rudradev ji's post on Western history is a very interesting one. I am saving it for future reference. the "third school" is a very important concept. as we develop Bharat's version of world history, this phenomenon in Europe must be paid careful attention to.

but continuing on Rudradev ji's ideas, I would say that Germanic fascination with Dharmic ideologies was a sort of "return" to the roots. before Christianity conquered Germany, the indigenous tribes had a remarkably well develop cultural paradigm which was similar to the Jewish emphasis on "homeland." the Germanic tribes were highly environmentally conscious and had a cult like emphasis on the "land." it is very similar to what Brihaspati ji was explaining about Japan going into a "cult" mode. Christianity did a very good job of removing that "memory" from German civilizational consciousness, and starting in the lat 19th century, as Europe discovered India's rich heritage, it was like a "blast from the past" for them. this was especially true in Germanic Europe. the Germans saw in Indic civilization very similar aspects to what they originally had, before Christian imperialism took over.

Devesh ji , IMO you are making a mistake equating Islam with christianity.Jihad Doctrine has its roots in islamic scriptures(quran included) and the story of Muhammad's life.And remember Quran is supposed to have been directly disclosed to Muhammad by Allah himself.You cannot say the same about any other religion including christianity.This is the primary difference.While there have been many christians who have wronged non christians(even today) , this cannot indict christianity as a whole.Islam by the way is in a league of itself.And no mercy should be shown while countering it.

Dhu · Post by **Dhu** » 24 Jul 2011 22:15

devesh wrote:at he most basic level, Christianity and Islam are DESERT religions.

No need to blame the ME heathens for the crimes of the Western Empire. Christianity is the war propaganda of the Western Empire which targeted the natives in the ME. A singularity (ie a normative reference point) is always needed for propaganda, thus the 'One True God' canard. This is quite clear from the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCNJf83bqjs

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 24 Jul 2011 22:18

sanjeevpunj wrote:We have had Ashwathama who let loose terror during the Mahabharata, and was eventually cursed to crawl the earth till the very end if time, and they say he still can be seen crawling in Kumbh melas, where he attends to atone for his sins.Such deep is the retribution.This guy has basically earned a place in such a list of souls who will receive curses.

May be you are right.But what about other people such as those who form the politically correct Norweigian govt.Or for that matter someone like Digvijay Singh.Now he might not have killed anybody but in my opinion he has done far worse.Betraying his own country by pandering to islamists and setting up innocent indians for the coming slaughter.If someone like Brevik is a cursed one then so should be people like Digvijay Singh,Manmohan Singh,Sonia Gandhi,Burka Dutt and others of their ilk.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 24 Jul 2011 22:20

>>at he most basic level, Christianity and Islam are DESERT religions.

Nope. Islam emerged in what is now Saudi Arabia, and is therefore a desert religion.

Christianity emerged in the Levant, on the Mediterranean rim, and these are anything but desert areas. These are not lush like many parts of India, but certainly fertile, olive and fruit growing areas even today. In the distant past, two millennia ago, certainly more so.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 24 Jul 2011 22:25

brihaspati wrote:Theo ji, do you see the problem in claiming a certain text as the only true "revelation" that fixes all "truth" forever into the future, and then claim that you can pick and choose and reject those you do not like?

I see the problem but it is a human nature that excludes none. You are not going to change it. Text has nothing to do with it. It is the human mind that wants to be fixed, wants certainty and no change into the future. Verily the evil bargain for the Elves w/ Sauron for an unchanging Rivendell.

Much of the New testament was codified and settled in what is modern day Turkey. Not sure if they would call themselves desert.

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 24 Jul 2011 22:27

darshhan wrote:If someone like Brevik is a cursed one then so should be people like Digvijay Singh,Manmohan Singh,Sonia Gandhi,Burka Dutt and others of their ilk.

Each according to their own karma will get what they deserve.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 24 Jul 2011 22:37

^^^
the Levant was a later phase. it was born in the Desert area of what is now Israel, Palestine, and Jordan. the "levant" is a romanticized euphemism. i might be ruffling some feathers by saying that but the Levant might as well be a desert compared to Europe or India.

Anurag Sanghi has done a very good job of identifying some characteristic features of the "Desert Bloc." the basic attitude of Desert religions can best be summarized as "competition for resources." in a desert setting, this makes perfect sense. resource scarcity makes it impossible to live peacefully *and* expand. if you want to expand, you have to compete and wipe out those competing ideologies. this is the frame of mind of the Desert religions. it is the opposite of what indigenous cultures in Europe had. especially so in the thick forests of North-Central Europe. the cult like reverence of the "land" was ridiculed by Christianity when they first came into contact. for Christianity the concept of "worshiping" land was preposterous, b/c there were no such concepts in the Bible. where they came from, the land was barren, and those ideas were transported in the name of religion. when real life situation in one particular geography are transported to other dissimilar geographies via superstition, then unnecessary conflict and genocide become inevitable.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 24 Jul 2011 22:39

sanjeevpunj wrote:Each according to their own karma will get what they deserve.

There is nothing on this planet that makes this so. Life unfair.

for Christianity the concept of "worshiping" land was preposterous, b/c there were no such concepts in the Bible.

This is completely incorrect. The 'promised' land was always considered a paradise and land of 'milk & honey'. There are sacred sites of saints and 'miracles' dotted all through the world and worshiped intensely. Holy waters abound as well.

Also there are many deserts in the world. The Sahara for instance has been populated for far far longer yet no religion from there swept around the world.

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 24 Jul 2011 22:44

^^^^^ Time, it sorts out all the warps. For a moment things look just the opposite,and then suddenly things turn around too.Time indeed is what we need to understand as deeply as we can, and it will lead us to the truth.

Dhu · Post by **Dhu** » 24 Jul 2011 22:45

Theo_Fidel wrote:Much of the New testament was codified and settled in what is modern day Turkey. Not sure if they would call themselves desert.

And Nehruvianism was codified and settled in India, Maoism in China, and Stalinism in Russia. Do these platitudes tell us anything of the phenomenon that monotheism is, miyan?

Was Jesus & Christianity Invented by Rome?
http://www.sikhspectrum.com/112006/joe.htm

Further, the Flavians should be considered as the creators of the Gospels simply because the victors write history. Many of Jesus’ “prophecies” are regarding the military victories of the Flavian family. These include the destruction of the Galilean fishing villages, Jerusalem being encircled with a wall, and the leveling of the Temple, which were all “brought to pass” by Titus Flavius during his military campaign through Judea, which concluded with his destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple in 70 CE. Titus was also parallel to the Jesus of the Gospels in that he was a “son of God” -– his father had been declared a “diuus” by the Roman Senate following his death -- and he founded religions.

The Flavians are also linked to the origins of Christianity in that a number of royal family members were among the first Christians. In fact, the first Christians for whom there is any archeological evidence were members of the Flavian family. But this begs a question. Why was a cult that advocated poverty and meekness so attractive to a family that practiced neither?

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 24 Jul 2011 22:49

From historical roman texts there were at least 20 rebels named Jesus Christ. Many were hanged.

Sanjeev,

Sorry, there is no truth, except that we are on this planet and life is what we make of it. Sorry, no excuses.

I've always felt that by blaming Islam we have given muslims a free pass for their actions.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 24 Jul 2011 22:51

devesh wrote:^^^
the basic attitude of Desert religions can best be summarized as "competition for resources." in a desert setting, this makes perfect sense. resource scarcity makes it impossible to live peacefully *and* expand. if you want to expand, you have to compete and wipe out those competing ideologies. this is the frame of mind of the Desert religions. it is the opposite of what indigenous cultures in Europe had. especially so in the thick forests of North-Central Europe. the cult like reverence of the "land" was ridiculed by Christianity when they first came into contact. for Christianity the concept of "worshiping" land was preposterous, b/c there were no such concepts in the Bible. where they came from, the land was barren, and those ideas were transported in the name of religion. when real life situation in one particular geography are transported to other dissimilar geographies via superstition, then unnecessary conflict and genocide become inevitable.

Devesh ji.This " competition for resources" attitude has less to do with religion.In fact this is the attitude that defines human beings and even animals.Anyway even we also have a desert in India called Thar which is located in Rajasthan.Another is Ladakh.So going by your logic people who inhabit these areas are more brutal and vicious than other indians.

And by the way Pre Christian Europe was no paradise.From Huns to vikings , goths to saxons Europe was one large warzone where life of an individual hardly had any meaning or sanctity.

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 24 Jul 2011 22:55

Theo, I believe in a common truth that stitches together all humans in one single necklace of sparkling souls, and I do not believe in blaming any religion.Blaming Islam or Christianity or Hinduism or any other system of belief, is not right in any sense, it just ramifies into further complexities.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 24 Jul 2011 22:56

Theo_Fidel wrote: I've always felt that by blaming Islam we have given muslims a free pass for their actions.

Theo ji,

There are two things here. Individual actions and religious sanction. Islamci fanaticism has both aspects and they thus must receive twice the punishment.

I wrote long time ago that Islam (or any such ideology) provides sanctuary to Asuric tendencies thus must be defeated both at individual and ideological levels.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 24 Jul 2011 23:00

Savitri Devi, born Maximine Portaz (1905-1982)

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 24 Jul 2011 23:01

Its always a fight about "My way is the right way so everyone buckle up and follow me", whereas in truth, there are infinite ways and each individual must be free to walk on their chosen way.Conflict arises when one begins to destroy what they do not understand.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 24 Jul 2011 23:03

RamaY,

I know...

Its just that by linking their actions to religious sanction we give them the concept of Takleef. Which they exploit brilliantly.

IMHO they choose to be this way. No compulsion.

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

By looking for this 'truth' are we setting people up for conflict.

There is no truth. We are gold fish in a bowl. We don't even understand why the universe is here. Any 'truth' is a construct of the human mind. Purely Mortal.

If humans died away there would be no god.

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 24 Jul 2011 23:13

^^^^Humans keep dying all the time, it doesnt change the truth! That's what the Parabrahman is -immutable. The truth which you mention as a construct of the mind is half truth.You should try to read some of the aphorisms found in the Upanishads, marvellous ways of describing the self-effulgent eternal light within. We are so lost in external pursits, one hardly finds time to sit and reflect on the sunset, forget about reflecting on the eternal.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 24 Jul 2011 23:17

Theo_Fidel wrote:
By looking for this 'truth' are we setting people up for conflict.

There is no truth. We are gold fish in a bowl. We don't even understand why the universe is here. Any 'truth' is a construct of the human mind. Purely Mortal.

If humans died away there would be no god.

Yet we try to bat for the ideologies which claims to be true and only the truth

Some contradiction there.

If everything is the fault of human mind, why do we need [sic] secularism sirji?

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 24 Jul 2011 23:25

darshhan wrote: Devesh ji.This " competition for resources" attitude has less to do with religion.In fact this is the attitude that defines human beings and even animals.Anyway even we also have a desert in India called Thar which is located in Rajasthan.Another is Ladakh.So going by your logic people who inhabit these areas are more brutal and vicious than other indians.

And by the way Pre Christian Europe was no paradise.From Huns to vikings , goths to saxons Europe was one large warzone where life of an individual hardly had any meaning or sanctity.

you are assuming reverse causality in my argument. i didn't say that *ALL* deserts produce a "religion" or genocidal ideology. I said that Islam and Christianity came from a Desert which explains the "survival of the fittest" mentality of these two religions. sir, don't put words in my mouth. another poster came up with the Sahara desert analogy. once again, the argument is not that all deserts produce such ideologies, but only that Islam and Christianity came from one.

by the time of Vikings, Goths, and Huns, Christianity was already established in Roman Europe. and Vikings came from the frigid conditions of Scandinavia. the Huns and Goths all came from Eastern Europe, Russian Steppe lands, and Central Asia. one part of the Huns made it to India too. I am specifically referring here to "Germanic" Europe (North-Central Continental Europe). in these parts, a "settler" mentality was already prevalent and these people fought the Catholic Church in opposition of its imperialism, for as long as they could.

the "holy water" phenomenon is another crude importation of ideas to make it more "acceptable" to varying beliefs. it's like the concept of "Holy Trinity" which was created to make the religion more acceptable to polytheists. one has to read the Old Testament to understand the chauvinistic roots of how the Desert GOD views the world. the "land" is not something to be venerated. in fact, it is something to be exploited and "taken" from.

the Rajasthan analogy has no basis. what's to say that Rajasthan was always like that? Afghanistan had many areas which were lush and fertile. the Islamic marauders, like Timurlane, systematically destroyed irrigation and laid waste to agriculture in their Ghazi mentality. the Islamic destruction of this infrastructure is partly to blame for Rajasthan too, which is geographically an extension of Af-Pak. if Rajasthan had become Islamic, we can expect the same Arab Ghazi style life style in that part too. thankfully, that never happened.

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 24 Jul 2011 23:30

devesh wrote:if Rajasthan had become Islamic, we can expect the same Arab Ghazi style life style in that part too. thankfully, that never happened.

Thanks to the Rajputs,the Sikhs and the Marathas,Dogras and many others.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 24 Jul 2011 23:31

Test your ideas to reality. See what happens. Only truth that matters.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Jul 2011 23:38

If Anders Behring Breivik did not attack because of Christian Fundamentalism, what has happened lately that has become a reason for discussing religion, etc. in the Strategic Forum?

Just asking!

Dhu · Post by **Dhu** » 24 Jul 2011 23:46

Theo_Fidel wrote:From historical roman texts there were at least 20 rebels named Jesus Christ. Many were hanged.

From Mughal texts, there were at least 20 rebels named Jai Chand fighting Mughals. Sorry miyan, you are not becoming the arbiter in this issue.

It is quite clear from the evidence that jesus was the "prophet" who "predicted" Titus Flavius' destruction of the Temple. That is, the jesus in the bible is the imperialist justification. Fortunately, we have the official portion of the diptych in josephus and the matches are perfect.

JESUS' MINISTRY (The Forerunner) - from the new testament
TITUS' CAMPAIGN (The Messiah)- from Josephus

Start of ministry in Galilee: Jesus begins ministry at Gennesareth and says "Follow me" and be "fishers of men"
Start of campaign in Galilee: Titus has his "onset" at Gennesareth where his soldiers follow him and "fish" for men

At Gadara, encounters legion of demons inside one man
At Gadara encounters "Legion" possessed with wicked spirit coming from one man

"Swine" run wildly and 2,000 drown
At Gadara, 2,000 of the "demons" do not drown

At Jerusalem, the "Son of Mary" offers his flesh to be eaten
At Jerusalem, the son's flesh is eaten by Mary

Jesus envisions "signs" occurring before the temple's destruction
Josephus records "signs" that occurred before the temple's destruction

An escape by a naked individual at Jerusalem's northeast corner
An escape by a "naked" individual at Jerusalem's northeast corner

Messiah captured on the Mount of Olives
Messiah captured on the Mount of Olives

Simon's denials
Simon's denials

Three are crucified; one survives
Three are crucified, one survives

Joseph "Arimathea" takes survivor down from the cross
Joseph bar Matthias takes survivor down from cross

Simon is the rock upon which the new Church is to be built
Simon is the "rock" upon which the new "Church" will be built

Jesus sends Simon to a martyr's death at Rome but spares John at conclusion of ministry
Titus sends Simon to martyr's death at Rome but spares John at conclusion of campaign

Judas falsely accuses Jesus, and spills his guts (in the Book of Acts)
Catullus falsely accuses against Josephus, Bernice and Alexander, and spills his guts

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 24 Jul 2011 23:54

Some Whys that I am trying to get hold of...apparently the topic is more deeper than what I fathom and grasp but unfortunately there is not even a good overview from third party or editorials. BTW: Do we know who the victims and their religious affiliations are ( I think there is a mention of political affiliations)

[*]Why Norway?
[*]Why this timing? It has been hardly a few years since the last "successful" crusade in Iraq and loot is still reaching.
[*]Why this mode of execution?
[*]Why is this absurity of the message in public domain?

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 25 Jul 2011 00:03

devesh wrote:at he most basic level, Christianity and Islam are DESERT religions.

Note quite. One could argue Christianity was the new train that Roman power centers hitched a ride on after Constantine the Great gave his sanction.

I am beginning to believe that it even an Indic religion, if left in the hands of Roman power centers of the 4th century, could have turned out like the Catholic system as its exists right now. Buddhism could have been that "religion of peace", Hinduism is too polythistic to be a good tool.

Note also that Romans have previously believed in "many gods". In contrast to the "many gods", a faith that can prop one teacher and one god/spirit must have been exhilirating to the new converts used to power!

IOW, Christianity as we know is likely a product of early teachings of Apostles becoming a tool of Roman philosophy. Its like when vested interests take control of a popular movement as a means to influence its course and get better control over the commonfolk!

Islam on the other hand is pure in the sense of the word. It was complete as it was first conceived. There is no influencing its course, and there is no room for debate or opposing views. What you say likely applies there.

But, what is common in both in their philosophies (unlike Judaism for the most part) is a fundamental belief in numbers and an "existential" need to keep increasing them even when they are the majority. Even in the West, one would on occasion come across churchgoers knocking on the door trying to preach. This in countries where more than 80% of the population adheres to the faith.

The rabid fear of a defensive posture and the insecurity there in manifests in several ways, one being "always on the offensive"

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 25 Jul 2011 00:21

^^^
The "changing" ways of Christianity, as opposed to the "unchanging" ways of Islam, can be attributed to "sthana balam" (power of the place). Europe, no matter what religion tries to enforce its rule, is still a fertile place, where life can be comfortable, if resources and governance are managed properly. ME is the direct opposite. the Jews are the only people who have been able to build a modern and productive economy in the ME desert. Islam has failed at this, and therefore remains stuck in the "survival of the fittest" mentality. if they can find a way to harness the resources of the land productively, then Islam will develop its own "changing" ways. until then, Islam will remain "unchanging."

on a related note, recently read an article on the English version of a German news website where some psychologists were talking about the developments in MENA. it will be OT for this thread, but they were claiming that marriage among cousins is at all time low and will continue to sink in the coming years. this will be a radical development in the Islamic world.

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 25 Jul 2011 01:11

Guess the difference between our views is that.

(1) You suggest Christianity has its roots in Desert land (started in 1st century AD).

(2) I am saying Christianity (as we know it) has its roots in Rome (started in 4th Century AD).

Literally speaking, (1) is true considering the origins of son of god. But faith and the church as a force (the form we know) is more Roman than based on Christ IMO, hence (2).

That is why I maintain that any belief that could have fit the one messenger or one-god philosophy could very well have traced the same path as Christianity did, even if its not from the desert lands.

Many gods mean diverse control points. Absolute control requires that there be only one-control point.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 25 Jul 2011 01:30

>>it was born in the Desert area of what is now Israel, Palestine, and Jordan.

Huh? Not the birth part, but the desert part... By levant I included them all north of Gaza up to Syria and including Jordan. I don't know if you have been to these areas, but they are by no means desert (although they have arid zones, wadis and what not). Certainly Christ did not spend his time significantly in the "desert" areas - at least the known periods. Bethlehem, Jerusalem, etc are not desert by any means. Comparable in India would be parts of Tamil Nadu (Coimbatore and surroundings for example).

Christianity is not a "desert" religion, if you mean that it is somehow similar to Islam in that respect. There are plenty of other similarities though, given that a lot of Islam is drawn from the Old Testament.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 25 Jul 2011 01:42

^^^
compare that region to Europe. especially the region around Rome and Italy. or Germany, France, etc. there is a huge difference. let me put it this way: the region that Islam and Christianity were born in cannot be considered "fertile," when you compare the area that Christianity later established itself in.

a_kumar ji, i am in agreement with you. the Desert ideology was exported to fertile lands, and hence the deracination.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 25 Jul 2011 01:50

Bible Christians believe muslims to be descendents of Esau. Sent in perpetual conflict.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 25 Jul 2011 02:26

>>let me put it this way: the region that Islam and Christianity were born in cannot be considered "fertile," when you compare the area that Christianity later established itself in.

Now you are getting closer to accuracy. As such, when you compare the Mediterranean region between Gaza and Syria to Europe, you can say the former is less fertile (although even that I'm not sure - depending on which parts of Europe you are comparing with - southern Spain for instance is comparable and maybe less fertile). But this does not mean that Christianity is a desert religion, or borne of a "desert mentality" if that is what you are driving at. In that sense, it cannot be equated with Islam. That is my point. I am not disputing that the geography of the originating place has an impact on the faith system's manifestations.

That Christianity's predominance was established via European intermediaries is a different matter. And the 1st crusade was a laughable expedition, from the perspective of the Islamic kingdoms and fiefdoms existing in the area at the time, comprising of a bunch of poorly armed stragglers and armed with little, travelling with families - not a formal "army" ... But they were ambitious. They wanted to take Jerusalem, and they were single-minded about it. Within the first decade of their arrival (maybe 2 decades, I don't remember), they were facing an Islamic army on the opposite side, but on theirs, they already had a Muslim king allied. And so it began...

The Arab perspective on this is very interesting.

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 25 Jul 2011 02:32

Christianity is a mixed bag. In the sense, in today's world, most of the Christians from around the world are extremely charitable. No other religion comes close to Christianity in the modern world when it comes to charity. Yes, some of those charity comes with the motive to help covert. But the vast majority of Christians are charitable no matter if you convert or not. Hindus and Muslims do charitable works too...but again, it does not come close to Chrisitian charity around the world.

Historically, Christianity has more skeletons/horrors in its bags than even Islam. But in today's world most Christians sects are moderate, reasonable and charitable, There are only two sub groups (an intense minority and extremely powerful) that are vile. Vile to the core. These two organizations are Southern Baptist Evangelicals and Pentecostals. These two sub groups are the only ones among various Christians sects that do not believe in doing "good works" as a way to God. Thats' why these two are more dangerous to India than any AQ/Talibani Islamist.

As per this guy in Denmark. He could be a Lutheran since most of the folks from Scandinavians are Lutherans. But Lutherans are one of the most moderate and easy going Christians sects. They are not fundamentalists at all. IF he is, he would be an exception.

"Deputy Police Chief Roger Andresen would not speculate on the motives for what was believed to be the deadliest attack by a lone gunman anywhere in modern times.

“He describes himself as a Christian, leaning toward right-wing Christianity, on his Facebook page,” Andresen said."--Canoe News

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2011/ ... 55171.html

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Jul 2011 04:40

imo, all fundamentalism belief roots monotheistic in the core and nature. pure hindusim is an anti-thesis for fundamentalism. So, that should be an axiom for this thread. Those exceptions and crimes happen in all society, and that is where we have to separate based on case by case analysis.

vina · Post by **vina** » 25 Jul 2011 05:39

symontk wrote:...Also one need to understand deeply how Christian structures are built and whether it promotes fundamentalistism. Serious soul searching has to be done to find this out

When one becomes a Christian, one has to become gentle too. If not I dont understand what Christianity is that. Regarding the crusades and Bush, there is one difference.

Sorry. Historical facts simply dont support it. In fact, the entire crusades. The more politicized the religious system , the more abusive it becomes. The nations of the west reformed/changed/ became civilized only when they overthrew the yoke of the fundamentalist church and relegated it to the the fringes and separated the secular and the religious.

There is nothing "gentle" or "good" about a politicized christianity, just as much as a politicized islam and (a politicized hinduism god forbid) . Think of the crusades and simply indefensible ones like the inquisition and the slaughter and destruction in South America. The Catholic church has more blood on it's hands than everyone else combined. That is it's historical record.

The current structure where it is relegated to some sanctimonious moralizing and without any real power in the secular world is the right way to be.

shyam · Post by **shyam** » 25 Jul 2011 05:44

Not just crusades, the inquisitions done by church show that anyone who didn't buy their ideology can be killed in the most brutal ways. No way this shows that they are gentle.

vina · Post by **vina** » 25 Jul 2011 05:45

Dhu wrote: (most recently attending a showing of christist Leela Samson's open appropriation of heathen dance forms in Chennai).

Dear "Dhu" or should it be "Duh" , I think that said woman is a JEW.

shyam · Post by **shyam** » 25 Jul 2011 05:47

Theo_Fidel wrote:Bible Christians believe muslims to be descendents of Esau. Sent in perpetual conflict.

Since muslims and christians are converted people, how can they be descendents of some one? They can only be followers. Somebody is playing psychological games with "Bible Christians".

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 25 Jul 2011 06:08

OT but...

No such thing as pure Hinduism.

Still up to Hindu people to choose how they treat each other and others. No magic bullets.

Time to duck.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 Jul 2011 06:23

Politics is about people. People act and decide on the basis of values they have imbibed, modified, and reconstructed or imagined. These values are almost always sourced from pre-existing ideologies. Religion was the ideology of societies of the past. However no ideology dies off so completely that it does not leave its shadows in layers of the present. That is again because it is people who carry in themselves their own understanding of ideologies and hence there is always a social continuity of past ideologies unless a complete genocide erases that trace.

So it is the height of delusion to try and separate "politics" from "religion". The so-called "secularism" of the Western European trend is actually based on a reconstruction of an imagined "golden" period in the "classical pre-Christian" and "early Christianity" Europe. In fact a lot of it found justification, strength and logic from an imagined "reformist", "rebellious", social-uprising-inducing supposed revolutionary aspect of Christianity as mediated by the classical Roman and Greek republicanism.

In the modern so-called "secularism" and its supposed revolutionary reliance on "science" - many see anti-Christianity. In fact it was more an anti-Church - which is denounced time and again as having corrupted and become corrupt - from the root and core of Christianity. We see this criticism in many forms in the "Renaissance" and quite clearly in Luther.

A new social section was becoming empowered through the early colonial enterprise, the slave trade, internal European reorganization - post Plague clearance and readjustment of capital and labour. This neo-elite wanted a share of state power which they found blocked by the church and Church supporting establishment. In this the Church saw science as a threat to its own dogmatic power maintenance methods - which therefore attracted the neo-elite towards science as the weapon to beat the Church with.

But the values of this "secular revolution" was based on a re-imagination of Christian "values". This becomes stark in Engels for example - who waxes emotional in comparing the rise of the "communists" as the "rise of early Christians" who broke ranks of the "Roman" army and empire to make "Christianity" triumphant.

The modern Leftist-West-European-Protestant-mix value based evaluatory criteria that passes for "secularism" is directly traceable to the early modern reinvention of a revolutionary modern version of Christianity. Look at the value systems, the "republicanism" of the Roman roots, the imagined peculiar elite-egalitarianism, the jealous formation and guarding of closed ideological peer groups - which maintain their paradigms, and ultimately through it all the timeless search for a monopoly over power.

Let us not delude ourselves in repeating the delusion of this brand of "secularism" - it is Christianity repackaged and re-imagined. Christianity started off as a protestant politically charged "revolutionary" movement - and that was how it attracted the alienated and marginalized of Roman society - gained popularity, and was found useful by a section of the elite entangled in intra-elite competition for power. As is typical this elite saw the potential of Christianity in mobilizing the "masses" behind their search for personal power against competing elite - and in time gave it an imperial reformulation. This imperial version emphasized "Pax" and submission to "authority" - as needed by imperialism.

But the revolutionary and radical aspect was so intimately connected to Christianity, that it could never really be edited out completely - and just as the Constantinian Roman elite, all future European elite would also find it convenient to revive the radical aspect when they needed it in their intra-elite fights.

Don't be fooled by the imperial propaganda. The undercurrent of explosive popular "grievance" is always there. Because the elite needed it - they never completely removed it from the dictionary.