Religion Thread 3

Locked
Dharmavir
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 21
Joined: 21 Mar 2007 00:35
Location: Toronto

re

Post by Dharmavir »

You want ME to provide proof against the Great Sita Ram Goel? I find it difficult to stop laughing at the story that people could not even think of a properly Hindu sounding name and called something "Tejo Mahalaya" that Muslims conveniently renamed Taj Mahal. Please show me some more Hindu buildings or names with either "tejo" or "Mahalaya" in them and I will then be able to stop laughing for a short while and start reading the "proof" provided by Goel.
Seems like you don't understand plain English, I have already told you that Sita Ram Goel never proposed nor supported that Taj Mahal was Tejo Mahalaya like you claimed, now since you know how to wind up Hindus so easily all you have to do is show us where he supported this theory or all your talking is just a lot of hot air, so I will be waiting.

In case if you fail to show that Goel indeed supported this theory I expect a retractment of your earlier statement regarding him and his alleged Tejo Mahalaya theory.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: re

Post by shiv »

Dharmavir wrote: Seems like you don't understand plain English, I have already told you that Sita Ram Goel never proposed nor supported that Taj Mahal was Tejo Mahalaya like you claimed, now since you know how to wind up Hindus so easily all you have to do is show us where he supported this theory or all your talking is just a lot of hot air, so I will be waiting.
Maybe I don't understand English. So Tejo Mahalaya is not Sita Ram Goel then?

My apologies to the gentleman. I am no longer laughing at him.

You ask me to show ""us" something. My limited knowledge of the language suggests that there is more than one of you - or perhaps that seems to be your opinion of yourself. You don't actually have to wait for hot air from me. It is available most of the time for free. The choice of inhaling my hot air is yours.
Dharmavir
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 21
Joined: 21 Mar 2007 00:35
Location: Toronto

re

Post by Dharmavir »

You ask me to show ""us" something. My limited knowledge of the language suggests that there is more than one of you - or perhaps that seems to be your opinion of yourself. You don't actually have to wait for hot air from me. It is available most of the time for free. The choice of inhaling my hot air is yours.
When I said "us", I meant the rest of the forum as well, I am sure they would all like to see you winding up Hindus so easily, next time read a person's books before making comments about their work, of course you had to show up with the evidence if you made the statement, the burden of proof rested upon you not me, all you had to do was get a hold of one of his books or articles where he was supporting the Tejo Mahalaya theory and cite it on this site.
Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by Kumar »

Vick wrote: What is wrong with Christians talking about what they believe in with non-Christians?
Vick,

In principle, a certain approach in discussing Jesus with non christians can be fine. But a typical approach by a man/woman with a mission sounds like this kind of pimping:
I have seen your wife. She is ugly. Why do you stick with her. I can find a much more beautiful wife for you.
Or as Mata Amritanandamai said at the UN recently:
It is like saying to someone "My mother is virtuous and yours is a prostitute"
I don't know how your approach is when you discuss Jesus with non christians. So this is not a commentary on you.

It is also dishonest to peddle A as a substitute for B you are not fully knowledgeable about B.

The explicit or implicit spreading of the "bad news" about a person's current religious beliefs which form a large part of evangelization effort means it is a form of "hate-mongering"."

If you stick with spreading the "good news" about Jesus only, then that is acceptable as a civil behavior.
enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Post by enqyoobOLD »

Assalam-u-aleikum etc.

I saw mention of the "Christist Two-Rupee Coin" here from shiv, but not any more on it, in wading back through several pages of this fine thread. Got that in the email, and told whoever it was that they had been gypped - that was not even a proper ISI-minted coin (I don't mean Indian Standards Institute). It wouldn't even pass as Monopoly money, let alone a genuine coin.

Could someone pls direct me to where this fine subject was discussed? Aparently the source of this hype is an article in "Organizer" by Retired IAS Officer V. Sundaram, who got this coin as change at a bookstore.

Is this REALLY a new Indian coin? The designer should be "suspended" as from a lamppost, not for an religious un-PCness, but for sheer ugliness of the design. This coin will cause many murders, as most Indians will reject it as counterfeit.

As for "Tejo Mahalaya" I am SHOCKED. :eek: :shock:
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

Kumar wrote:Valkan,

Re: Vatican:

Why does India need to maintain "diplomatic relations" with the vatican?
Firstly, on what basis can India refuse to recognise - or even derecognise - a nation which has been given recognition by a vast majority of nations in the UNGA ?

Secondly, there were practical geopolitical reasons for establishing and maintaining the relationship.

Many of India's aid donors, economic partners in the first few decades were either Catholic nations of Europe, or Christian-majority nations. Some of them still are.

Enraging them wasn't in India's best interests then.

Now that India needs their firm support for the NSG and UNSC, it makes no sense to discard that relationship currently either.
IMHO, it gives an undue weightage to catholic christianity in a secular nation.
Not really.

Giving recognition to the House of Saud ( Defender of the Faith, Commander of the Faithful, Guardians of Mecca and Medina ) does not give any undue weight to Islam in a secular nation.

You have to separate geo-political/geo-economic rationale from domestic considerations on secularism.

Derecognising the Vatican or the House of Saud will not elevate India's secular credentials, domestically or internationally.

So, what's the problem with their recognition ?
Why not have similar official level ambassodorial relationship with the Shankaracharyas?
Simple. Because they don't hold a UN recognised 'independent nation' status.

And, if I understand correctly, secessionism in India is considered a criminal offence.
Rampy
BRFite
Posts: 317
Joined: 25 Mar 2003 12:31

Post by Rampy »

enqyoob wrote:Assalam-u-aleikum etc.

I saw mention of the "Christist Two-Rupee Coin" here from shiv, but not any more on it,

Could someone pls direct me to where this fine subject was discussed? Aparently the source of this hype is an article in "Organizer" by Retired IAS Officer V. Sundaram, who got this coin as change at a bookstore.

Is this REALLY a new Indian coin? The designer should be "suspended" as from a lamppost, not for an religious un-PCness, but for sheer ugliness of the design. This coin will cause many murders, as most Indians will reject it as counterfeit.

As for "Tejo Mahalaya" I am SHOCKED. :eek: :shock:
I have the Coin with me now. But as said by v Sundaram it has 'Satyame jayate' written.
Does that mean there are two set of coins, one having Satyame jayate and other not having. This cannot be a mistake as minting is done after model is preset. So this was done intentionally.
Now point is why 2 rupee coin and why no body is saying anything

as far as Two rupee coin is concerned I can understand- Most of the lower middle class and poor section of indian soceity feed on road side dhaba's and no points to guess how much a Tea or Bread costs in these shops. basically properly thought move to hit high rotation denominator

But why is that no politcal party is saying anything

As far as BR people are concerned, I would say look out for these coins and take them out of circulation
Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by Kumar »

Many people here think that BJP won in Punjab & uttarakhand. I don't think so. I think Congress lost. Congress went overboard with minority appeasement issues and hindus in the middle swayed away in disgust. I have still to find any evidence that BJP pulled them towards itself, its rather like Congress pushed them away.

BJP doesn't have the pulse of hindus in general. Congress was cynically trying to steal back its muslim and caste vote banks from Johnnies come latelies of RJD, BSP and SP, but in the process, at least in the short run, Congress has alienated a large number of hindus that were on the fence. BJP on the other hand seems to be in a vegetative state, recuperating slightly from self inflicted injuries, just praying to gods to drop political power in its lap by default.

---------------------------------------------
Enqyoob,

please check the religion thread-2 in the trash can for few posts on the coin issue.
Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by Kumar »

Valkan,

Re: India having diplomatic relationships with Vatican

A country is not "required" to recognize any other country just because that country is a member of UN. And recognition doesn't imply that diplomatic relationships must be maintained.

Secondly if catholicism doesn't get any advantages within India from that recognition, then why should it bother the christian countries or Indian christians at all if Indian government breaks off diplomatic relations with the Vatican?

Vatican can still run its religious business just as other religious orgs do.

P.S. Re: Saudi Arabia... that is a real country. Vatican is a "pretend" country.
Last edited by Kumar on 22 Mar 2007 20:11, edited 1 time in total.
Raju

Post by Raju »

Secondly if catholicism doesn't get any advantages within India from that recognition, then why should it bother the christian countries or Indian christians at all if Indian government breaks off diplomatic relations with the Vatican?
Well, we can devalue relations but we just can't break relations unless it is done in some valid larger context.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

How does religious symbols reconcile with the 1975-77 Constitution amendments that emphasise the secular nature of the modern Indian state? I believe that these amendments have not been withdrawn and are still in force.

As I said elsewhere the Ashoka Lions are not Buddhist symbols but Mauryan Imperial symbols. And Mauryan state was the earliest and largest historical state.

Can the experts try to answer my question?
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

Kumar wrote: A country is not "required" to recognize any other country just because that country is a member of UN. And recognition doesn't imply that diplomatic relationships must be maintained.
I did not say it is 'required'.

All I asked was on WHAT grounds it can be derecognised, when perhaps every UN members recognise it.

Maintaining diplomatic relations is part of the geopolitical process, and don't forget the practical utility ( good economic and political relations with erstwhile donors and current markets etc ).
Secondly if catholicism doesn't get any advantages within India from that recognition, then why should it bother the christian countries or Indian christians at all if Indian government breaks off diplomatic relations with the Vatican?
Because it will be translated as a hostile, anti-Christian act.
Vatican can still run its religious business just as other religious orgs do.
Sure.

So can the House of Saud, with its patronage of Salafism.

Doesn't quite change the contours of the diplomatic relations.
P.S. Re: Saudi Arabia... that is a real country. Vatican is a "pretend" country.


The diplomatic 'relations' with it are also pretend. Don't forget that! :wink:
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/wink.htm
.......
For example; virtually all modern readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting:

* incest
* rape
* adultery
* intercourse with animals

But we disagree with the Bible on most other sexual mores. The Bible condemned the following behaviors which we generally allow:

* intercourse during menstruation
* celibacy
* exogamy (marriage with non-Jews)
* naming sexual organs
* nudity (under certain conditions)
* masturbation (some Christians still condemn this)
* birth control (some Christians still forbid this)
* And the bible regarded semen and menstrual blood as unclean, which most of us do not

Likewise, the bible permitted behaviors that we today condemn:

* prostitution
* polygamy
* levirate marriage
* sex with slaves
* concubinage
* treatment of women as property
* very early marriage (for the girl, age 11-13)

....

If we insist on placing ourselves under the old law, as Paul reminds us, we are obligated to keep every commandment of the law (Gal. 5:3). But if Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4), if we have been discharged from the law to serve, not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6), then all of these Old Testament sexual mores come under the authority of the Spirit. We cannot then take even what Paul says as a new law. Christians reserve the right to pick and choose which laws they will observe, though they seldom admit to doing just that. And this is as true of evangelicals and fundamentalists as it is of liberals and mainliners.

...Bible has no sexual ethic.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

another question i have is, from the evolution angle. we have messaiahs, gods, and avatars... mostly the god became man to enlighten us and remove the evil... everyone knows the stories.. "not all stories are made up to reflect reality exactly as it happens", but are stories augmented in the sense to tell/explain "the truth", interpretations and explanations and examples themselves became stories and sub stories.

almost all gods have been fathered by primal persons. i wonder if we had during those years, DNAs that had both male and female signatures for procreating within one-female-self (gene hibiscus)... then slowly, mutations happened that this would not be the case anymore.

so no more gods happening. still, the theory may not hold good for future., and going by the growing homosexuality, its scary how men may get mutated in the million years to come, or certain genes would get extinct all by itself.

:D
Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by Kumar »

Valkan,

I have nothing against Vatican per se. I like it. Their museums are beautiful and the Cistine Chapel paintings are something worthwhile for one to see.

But I don't want the "secular" state of India playing a childish pretend-game to appease the sentiments of christian-majority countries. A lot of problems that Hinduism faces wrt practitioners of christianity in western countries, is rooted in a "superiority complex" within christianity that goes unchallenged. People of whole countries and whole generations can get their facts twisted which in the long term is detrimental not only for hinduism but for a genuine inter-religious understanding.

Why is hinduism viewed and portrayed so negatively in the west? In many european countries hinduism is not even recognised as a religion. I think because such unjustified complexes are allowed to stand unchallenged.

So instead of justifying why it may be geopolitically convenient to join in the pretend-game that Vatican is a real country, may be we should also think of geopolitical implications of not challenging such complexes and their ill-effects on perpetuating western people's prejudices against hinduism.

Re: Saudis... they need a much stronger medicine based on reciprocal privileges. Hinduism and Christianity can possibly reach a decent understanding in some reachable future. I don't think that is possible with the Saudi brand of Islam.
prahaar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2831
Joined: 15 Oct 2005 04:14

Post by prahaar »

Kumar,
IMO, although a lot of what you are saying makes, it is only chankian for India to "act" unawares of its gradual rise. It is still to early in the game to talk "payback". Inspite of my distaste of the lizard (bcoz of its ill-intentions towards India), I can but admire its inconspicuous conduct. Now as the time has arrived, the EU-chatteratti is helpless to sing songs for the communist party in beijing - All the HR abuses - All the actions against no less than Vatican followers in China - notwithstanding. On this part i agree with Valkan, behaving like Iran wont get India anywhere.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

SaiK, What is this gene you are alluding to? Please clarify.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Vishy_mulay wrote:SaiK, Thanks for so many valuable information links. Now I understand grand failure of Indian education for not teaching me anything about my heritage.
It is not a failure but a deliberate plan on Indian education by the foreign powers.
Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by Kumar »

Prahaar,

First the questions have to be raised, then they can seep into the general peoples' consciousness. Only then a political decision in a democracy will be possible. FWIW I don't foresee a political decision even within the next decade.

And I am not talking "payback". I am not interested in payback. I think hinduism and christianity can find a respectable mode of co-existence. Just want to hasten that by asking people to break some of the complexes. It would be a shame if that mutual understanding doesn't happen.
Raju

Post by Raju »

prahaar wrote:Kumar,
IMO, although a lot of what you are saying makes, it is only chankian for India to "act" unawares of its gradual rise.
This is the strategically relevant point in the entire discussion.

But we might succeed in riling up entire sections of people even before we can fully take-off because of the shortsightedness and lack of ideas among certain sections.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Vishy_mulay wrote:
Seriously, why is that when a conservative Christian republican talks about role of his faith in public life its accepted, but when a SRDE Hindu says exactly same he/she is labeled as fanatic?
Welcome to the power of propaganda , image and powerful media control.
Raju

Post by Raju »

Acharya wrote:
Vishy_mulay wrote:
Seriously, why is that when a conservative Christian republican talks about role of his faith in public life its accepted, but when a SRDE Hindu says exactly same he/she is labeled as fanatic?
Welcome to the power of propaganda , image and powerful media control.
Probably the problem is more of self-created image rather than media-created image.

To talk of religion in public life a benign or atleast non-threatening image has to be cultivated, while Modi/Thakre/Katiyar/pre-Jinnah Advani types talk about role of faith in public life will mean open session for anybody and everybody.

The person must also be careful not to walk into traps which allows media to co-brand the person as the softer version of the above entities.
Last edited by Raju on 22 Mar 2007 22:08, edited 1 time in total.
Sadler
BRFite
Posts: 256
Joined: 30 Oct 2005 10:26
Location: USA-ISRAEL

Post by Sadler »

Vick wrote: Why should Hindus be offended that Christians believe that Hindus will go to hell?
I have been meaning to answer this for a while but could not find the time.

Here's the short answer.

Its a short hop to a very slippery slope from YOU believing that a hindu will automatically go to hell to believing therefore that the hindu is untermenschen (look up the meaning).

Anti-semitism and anti-semitic canards were ideas also.

How different is the "jews drink the blood of christian children" from "hindus will go to hell."

Its not like Hitler exterminated 6 millions jews using words.

But, the earlier followers of christianism and to this day, have used the notion of the jew as a damned soul, an untermenschen to foster anti-semitism. Once the vatican had fanned this to a critical mass, it gained a life of its own.

HITLER WAS NOT THE CAUSE OF ANTI-SEMITISM. HE WAS THE PRODUCT OF 2,000 YRS OF VIRULENT BIGOTRY OF THE VATICANS AND INDEED CHRISTIANS OF ALL DENOMINATIONS.

THIS FINALLY CULMINATED IN THE HOLOCAUST.


Which richly explains why your fellow christians are slaughtering hindu men, women and children in the indian northeast while you are sitting at your desk typing "Why should Hindus be offended that Christians believe that Hindus will go to hell?"
Sadler
BRFite
Posts: 256
Joined: 30 Oct 2005 10:26
Location: USA-ISRAEL

Post by Sadler »

Vick wrote:
A small primer on my background:
I was born to Hindu and Catholic parents and in my early 20s became a "born again" Christian. I am ready to be pelted... with questions :D and will try to answer as best as I can.
Did you ever think that had you remained a hindu, you would not have posted as bigotted and hateful and indeed moronic a question as you have above.

And that this question now easily rolls off your tongue and the tip of your fingers now that you are a catholic.

There's the slippery slope. From there, it may not very difficult for you to say: Well, there are freakin a billiions of these hindus who are going to hell because they dont believe in my god. so, what's the difference if we butcher little children now. they were gonna go to hell anyways, right?

See the difference!!
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Untermensch (German for under man, sub-man, sub-human; plural: Untermenschen) is a term from Nazi racial ideology used to describe supposedly inferior people, especially "the masses from the East," that is Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, Soviet Bolshevists, and anyone else who was not a Nordic or Germanic Gentile.

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=u ... en+&gwp=13
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Post by TSJones »

Don't forget the Iranians! :) (Boy am I gonna have to do a lot praying for that one. :( )
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Image
Der Untermensch
Deutsche antisemitische-antisowjetische Hetzzeitschrift
Herausgeber: Reichsführer SS
Druck und Verlag: Nordland-Verlag GmbH
Berlin, 1942
DHM, Berlin
Do 56/685

* Der Untermensch propaganda poster published by the SS. The collection of the Simon Wiesenthal Center says that the caption runs "A Soviet enemy of Asiatic, inferior descent" and that it was used as the cover page for the Heinrich Himmler's Der Untermensch brochure.
Raju

Post by Raju »

If all Asiatics were untermensch what were Hitler and Goebbels doing with Tibetan Buddhists and Bose ?

Hitler even praised the vedas as great work.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Raju wrote:If all Asiatics were untermensch what were Hitler and Goebbels doing with Tibetan Buddhists and Bose ?

Hitler even praised the vedas as great work.
To appropriate Aryan mythology and heritage for Europe who were unaware of the psy ops being done on them in the name of aryan race etc.
Appropriating ideas from the east was standard during the period 1850-1940.

I got my copy of the Max Mullers book on Vedas from a White supermacist Aryan Bookstore. It is true.
Last edited by svinayak on 22 Mar 2007 22:26, edited 1 time in total.
Raju

Post by Raju »

Or probably he believed in some occult ideas that were later spun as racial classification...
Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by Kumar »

Raju,

Didin't you know that Rgveda was written by blonde-haired blue eyed Aryans from Europe, not by SDRE Indians?? :)
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Post by TSJones »

Uh, if I may add a few factoids here:

Hitler may have been raised as a Christian but as an adult he certainly never practiced it. He and his cronies were into some kind of occult bull s**t and Aryan mythology. I certainly wouldn't call them Christian. Of course you guys will, but that only adds to the charm of your sub-genius analogies. :D
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

You dont need to practice; it is inbuilt with the worldview
Last edited by svinayak on 22 Mar 2007 22:36, edited 2 times in total.
Abhijit
BRFite
Posts: 530
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: Bay Area - US

Post by Abhijit »

Sadler's reply to the question 'why does it matter that Christians believe all hindus will go to hell' is most apt. In fact we have a bigger example than the holocaust to prove his conclusion - Islam. Islam took the theology of Bible - you will go to hell if you don't accept my god and his son - and refined it further. It says 'if you don't accept my god (allah) and his messenger then not only will you go to hell, but I and my fellow religionists have a divine sanction, nay a command, to send you there right here and now. This is called jihad.
Raju

Post by Raju »

I don't have time to develop upon this theory but going by some notes that I read and by Hitler's actions it seems he subscribed to the theory that the human race had two distinct competing influences. One from a particular group of divinities and the rest from another.

One competing influence was the Hindu/Tibetan divinities or the pantheon, Vishnu etc and the other ones based from the Orion/Naga/Luciferian types. These two groups created/manipulated humans to their own image on earth. And Hitler sided with the former. But he lost the upperhand morally when he indulged in violence and tried to gain back what he lost through occult and Tibetan Buddhists.
Last edited by Raju on 22 Mar 2007 22:37, edited 1 time in total.
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Post by TSJones »

OK, OK, I can't take it anymore. What does SDRE mean exactly? I know what it means through use of it in the sentence structure; I just would like to know what the initials stand for. Thanks in advance.
Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by Kumar »

TSJ,

Leaving aside Hitler and his beliefs, Sadler's excellent point still remains, i.e. if a religions permits one to believe that others are destined for hell, then that religion can easily be abused by nuts like hitler who would say that by their actions they are just hastening the inevitable. How do you plead? :)

P.S. SDRE = short-dark-rice-eating
Last edited by Kumar on 22 Mar 2007 22:42, edited 1 time in total.
Abhijit
BRFite
Posts: 530
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: Bay Area - US

Post by Abhijit »

TSJones wrote:Uh, if I may add a few factoids here:

Hitler may have been raised as a Christian but as an adult he certainly never practiced it. He and his cronies were into some kind of occult bull s**t and Aryan mythology. I certainly wouldn't call them Christian. Of course you guys will, but that only adds to the charm of your sub-genius analogies. :D
this is no different than Muslim apologists claiming that Osama is not a Muslim and that he believes in some bull called Islamism.
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Post by TSJones »

Osama is a practicing muslim. Are you going to deny that? Where is it written that Hitler and cronies believed in Christianity? They did not beleive in Christianity. They beleived in the occult and aryan mythology. Hitler never publically proclaimed Christ. Osama has proclaimed Islam and for all intents and words, he *practices* it. Daily.
Raju

Post by Raju »

TSJones wrote:They beleived in the occult and aryan mythology. Hitler never publically proclaimed Christ.
I agree.
Locked