"Christian" Fundamentalism in West

[Agnimitra]

^^^ RajeshA ji, thanks much.
Just for comparison - what is the visibility as regards European acceptance of non-Islamic foreign traditions such as Buddhisnm or Hinduism? What kind of people gravitate towards these, if any, and is it different from the types attracted to Islam? Is there a difference in social reaction to such conversions, if any? TIA.

[RajeshA]

Carl ji,

There is plenty of acceptance of all sorts of traditions - Hinduism and Buddhism have good images. The 40 above generation still connect Hinduism with castes and cows, but the younger ones have a different image of Hinduism - exotic gods, colors, spiritual experiences, tolerance, etc. Bollywood too has played a significant part in changing this image. People who are traditional and at the same time seem to have so much fun on the screen, cannot be a bad folk.

Men and women get interested in India through different ways. First men! People interested in organic food often look towards other native cultures for inspiration. Then there are some who get inspired from Indian classical music and the musical instruments. Many are simply interested in traveling and find India mystifying and get taken in by the intensity of life in India.

Women on the other hand, can get interested through Bollywood, through Yoga, through Ayurveda, through Food, through some Guru ji.

Basically Europeans are very inquisitive people and they don't mind trying out different things. Often however they are not the kind of people who like to settle down with one thing for too long. The loyalty factor is often the weak link.

[RajeshA]

Christianity can never be compatible with Hinduism as long as it keeps its 'monotheism and revealed truth' and 'proselytism'. As far as Hindu civilization is concerned, (sic) secularism is nothing but Christian Taqiyya to keep the church away from governance.

RamaY ji,

just a comment!

The way Christianity is preached and exercised in USA, in the "Third World" and in Europe, it is quite different.

[brihaspati]

To Theo-Fidel and Philip ji,
all I have been trying to say is that "literalism" has some serious historical problem in Christianity compared to the easier road in Islam. Moreover the main advantage enjoyed by Islam - even agreeing to Shivji's observation that its merely a "patch" up - is that the fusion of the military, political and theological authority is an ideal objective not much contested within Islam. Why and how it happened so will go too deep into the history of the Eastern Roman empire between 300 and 900 CE, so will skip it.

Points to remember :
(1) the New Testament as it exists is an "edit" almost 3 centuries later than claimed inception. Moreover, the edited version leaves the question of "state" hanging in thin air. Even in the "imeprial" edited version - it is obvious that the "birth" was most probably anti-state and it was so firmly established into then Christian tradition that it could not be edited out. Why would Jesus throw away the "money-changers" tables at the "temple"? Anyone aware of the details of the Roman arrangement for tax collections and their arrangements with the temple and local Judaic elite should make the connection immediately. The case of "give Caesar his due" and "God's what is God's" is the imperialist or bishop-compromising-with-imperialism "edit".

(2) Among evangelical Christians there is enormous disagreement about the specific political direction demanded by the Bible. The "vast differences increasingly spawn vicious name-calling and distorted attacks. . . . Conservatives denounce radicals for overemphasizing economic justice and neglecting religious and political freedom. Radicals charge that conservatives neglect justice and exaggerate the importance of freedom. Furthermore, both accuse each other of bad faith" (Sider, 1986).

To a significant degree, the differences among Christians are a product of coexisting, ambivalent, and paradoxical religious values flowing from diverse Hermeneutical and exegetical approaches to the Bible, but disagreements over matters of fact, their implications for policy, and priorities for action are also involved. The struggles get so discouraging that many Christians throw up their hands in a do-nothing posture. No matter what they do, some fellow Christians criticize them of being erroneous, hypocritical, self-seeking opportunists (Moberg, 1985). These alternate identities become forgeries of the christian self-identity.

It is this paralysis of choice and action, where both liberal and conservative get equally criticized, literalists and interpretationists equally lambasted, that indicates that none of the available forgeries, even the antagonistic ones have any differential “value” to break the impasse. This is the point when all attempted and constructed forgeries have reached their equal exchange price and there is nothing within the collection of forgeries and the self, that allows the individual to reject one in favour of the other or prefer one over all the rest. In such situations we find frequent and rather easy reversals of positions, a Marxist becoming a devout Catholic, or a Catholic favouring a “liberal theological” position that sees no wrong in violent revolutions to overturn unjust regimes or even collaborating with Marxists to do the same.

Since ideals usually exceed performance, we can expect discrepancy to be negatively correlated with the strength and length of commitment, yet, paradoxically, higher aspirations and ideals may increase the subjectively perceived discrepancies, so people may feel more "hypocritical" as they mature spiritually. Parsons( 1952) noted a "latent reservoir of legitimation possibilities" because norms and mores are never completely reflected in reality. Babbie (1973) suggests that either personal or systemic discontent with the established order" may serve as a ready-made source of legitimacy for some other form of authority."New religions arising out of the discontent are closely related to Glock's deprivation theory. Yet once established, a new religion itself tends to become "hypocritical" as recruitment brings more people and leadership copes with organizational demands; it in turn becomes a source of sect members elsewhere (Moberg, 1985; O'Dea and Aviad, 1983). Under Soviet Marxism "Communists must be confessing atheists" (van den Bercken, 1985), but a-atheism, a form of secularization, has become fairly common. Like other sectarian doctrines," as soon as [Marxism] is accorded a ruling position, it becomes structurally interwoven with the power apparatus and each strengthens the other".

This brings us to the mechanism by which layers of forgery are stripped off to decide on a smaller subset of ascriptions, or new identity for the self. This typically happens when the individual is almost saturated with rewards, and new forgeries of the self do not bring in positive marginal growth in net gains. The layers of forgeries of self accumulated by the individual builds up into a repertoire which is too expensive in terms of cost of knowledge, and not sufficiently rewarding by trading on the social market. At this stage most revolutions in ideology and religious belief starts.

We find this pattern repeat when civilizations have reached their peak prosperity, or enjoyed it for considerable historical periods, and in a social arena where urban concentration and sophistication meets non-urban and simpler forms of social organization.

Can we think of Breivik in that wider civilizational framework as to what is happening in Christian Europe?

[sanjeevpunj]

Alliances are temporary and single fronts are managable. I see it as good opportunity, Jihadis and Marxists...two birds with one stone.

I see that such alliance as not only a good opportunity, but the only possible arrangement that would successfully work out in eliminating both Jihadis and Marxists on all fronts.
However I have not reached the end of the Manual yet.Only trying to imagine possible scenarios based on Breivik's suggestions.

[chetak]

RajeshA ji and other Europe-based members:

What do you observe is the actual extent of Islamic proselytization in the UK and the continent? I had made a previous post, but could use some feedback. Thanks.

Will this help??

Mullah raj in Londonistan

Muslim fanatics declare ‘sharia’h zones’

As hundreds of bright yellow posters announcing the enforcement of ‘Islamic rules’ were stuck on lamp posts and bus stops across those parts of London that are home to a majority of the city’s immigrant Muslim population, the eastern boroughs of Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest and Newham along with a few others suddenly found themselves to be declared as “sharia’h-controlled zones.” The demarcating ‘authority’ in this case is a banned Islamist group that goes by the tacky moniker of Islam4UK which wishes to sow the seeds of an ‘Islamic Emirate’ in Britain. But that is for the long term; for the moment, the ‘sharia’h-controlled zones’, where smoking, drinking, gambling and use of drugs are banned and music, concerts, free mixing of the sexes are prohibited are meant to counter the ‘evil influences’ of Western civilisation. These, along with 25 other areas that the British Government has earmarked as known for violent religious extremism, are supposed to be the Muslim community’s response to the “drunkenness and loutishness, prostitution and the sort of thug-like attitude you get in British cities,” according to Anjem Choudhary who led the poster campaign. Without making light of his complaints about poor, immigrant neighbourhoods that are often squalid, filthy and crime-infested, the fact remains that vigilantism, that too of the Islamist variety, should have no place in a mature society that is governed by the rule of law. Indeed, the very idea of moral policing, least of all when carried out by Islamist gangs of dubious distinction, should be abhorrent to any person who values democracy. To that extent, it is good to know that the local police have already taken down the offensive posters and are now looking for the culprits to bring them to book.

And while that does take care of the problem to a certain extent for the time being, the fact remains that several Muslim majority neighbourhoods, not just in London but in cities across Europe, are still very much at risk of becoming “sharia’h-controlled zones” in the near future, especially given the rate at which fanatical Muslims from developing countries are migrating to Western countries and seeking shelter on grounds of poverty and discrimination at home. Western Governments, caught between promoting social diversity and allowing democratic freedoms, have been traditionally reluctant to clamp down on errant minority behaviour. As a result, such instances of religious fanaticism have gone unchecked for decades and now 21st century Britain must deal with emboldened Islamists imposing sharia’h in the heart of Western civilization. Hopefully, the British authorities will soon realise that there is no merit in tolerating any form of either minority bullying or religious extremism in the name of liberal values

[sanjeevpunj]

^^^ This seems to be in reaction to Breivik. The UK authorities are already pulling down these posters.The dope on Anjem Chaudhary is that he is a wannabe trying to wash his evil past of debauchery and intoxication.I don't think he can acheive more than pasting posters that are ripped off next day.

[Philip]

Theo,"Christianity" did not use these words Christ did! Just read the Bible.

For 200 years on,the debate about Christianity has been going on,especially what in the Bible were truly Christ's words and what was not or what was omitted.This stems from the events of 325 AD when the Council of Nicea established by Roman emperor Constantine,determined what should be in the Bible and what was not authentic or unproven to be authentic-books of the Apocrypha,etc.However,the four books of the Gospels (Mathew ,Mark,Luke and John) are considered to be authentic and truly describe the life of Christ and his teachings.Most Christians ,at least the many knowledgable theologians I have had intimate access to for several decades,agree that the fundamental message of Christ is the gospel of "Love"-the "Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of Man" and personal salvation through Christ.State and religion are kept strictly apart.The incident of the "moneychangers" took place because of their defilement of the sacred Temlple with their commercial activities.

There are many descriptions of the Council of Nicea,and even one well-held view that Christ visited India (Varanasi) for many years during his youth .Here is an excerpt from a Shirley Maclaine book which comments upon that view.Read the Gnostic Gospels for supposed teachings about the "dancer" and reincarnation too.

Here are just a few intersting views.

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

The Council of Nicaea and the Bible

There seem to be a number of legends about the First Council of Nicaea (325AD) in circulation on the internet, presented as fact. Some people seem to think that the council, which was the first council of all the Bishops of the Christian Church, either invented the New Testament, or edited it to remove references to reincarnation (or whatever) or burned large numbers of heretical works, or whatever. These are in error. This page documents the problem and provides links to all the ancient source material in order to allow everyone to check the truth for themselves.

In tracing the origin of the Bible, one is led to AD 325, when
> Constantine the Great called the First Council of Nicaea, composed of
> 300 religious leaders. Three centuries after Jesus lived, this council
> was given the task of separating divinely inspired writings from those
> of questionable origin.
> The actual compilation of the Bible was an incredibly complicated
> project that involved churchmen of many varying beliefs, in an
> atmosphere of dissension, jealousy, intolerance, persecution and
> bigotry.
> At this time, the question of the divinity of Jesus had split the
> church into two factions. Constantine offered to make the little-known
> Christian sect the official state religion if the Christians would
> settle their differences. Apparently, he didn't particularly care what
> they believed in as long as they agreed upon a belief. By compiling a
> book of sacred writings, Constantine thought that the book would give
> authority to the new church.

The references in the Christian religion of reincarnation, I am told,
> were removed by the Council of Nicea.

Also, we do know that there were many books of supposed prophets
> floating around up until 312 CE when the Council of Nicea decided
> which books were scripture and which ones were burned. Thanks to
> the notorious habit of early Christian leaders of destroying
> books/scrolls, we may never know what doctrine existed before the
> Council of Nicea.

The Maclaine bk. excerpt:

I say folks have God inside them. The Church says it has God inside of it. There's a phrase in the Bible which states that one should never countenance spiritual entities other than God. Most Christians go by that. But then the Bible says nothing about reincarnation either and it's quite well known that the Council of Nicea voted to strike the teaching of reincarnation from the Bible."
"How do you know that?" I asked.
"Well, most serious metaphysical students of the Bible know that. The Council of Nicea altered many of the interpretations of the Bible. The man Jesus studied for eighteen years in India before he returned to Jerusalem. He was studying the teaching of Buddha and became an adept yogi himself. He obviously had complete control over his body and understood that the body was only the house for a soul. Each soul has many mansions. Christ taught that a person's behavior would determine future events--as karma, as the Hindus say. What one sows, so shall he reap."

Anyway,we are diverting attention from the main meat of the thread and one can go on unto the end of time debating Christianity.What we should concern ourselves is how the EU/ "Christian" states should prevent further extermism as displayed by our neo-Crusader Brevik,which takes inspiration from the acts of the very states themselves in their attempts to redraw the global map in interventions/invasions in Iraq,Afghanistan,Libya and in the Middle East,non-Christian nations,aflame with the so-called "Jasmine" revolutions,which to me are nothing but a latter-day return to the old philosophy of the colonialists and imperialists,that of "divide and rule".

[Theo_Fidel]

^^^
Phillip,

It says nothing of the kind. Here's your words.

A Christian's battle should be within himself,fighting against evil and upholding the truth,not outwardly against humanity causing misery and suffering.

Now where in the Bible does it say that. Or for that matter where does Christ say it. Chapter & Verse. And don't give diversions such as go read the Bible. I've spent more time with it (several versions) than I care to mention.

Salvation is only through God. Man does not hold the keys to salvation. So try again. The message of Christ is not 'Love', but Love for Mankind to sacrifice himself to forgive our sins. Sacrifice+Love. Big difference.

And how does that separate State & Religion. Historically the European Churches have granted divine right to rule to the Kings of States. Similar to David was chosen to rule by God. Or Saul was Chosen. Or Solomon was chosen. All were divine rulers. In fact as rulers they even had many priestly duties. The Pope for instance is Gods direct representative on Earth. He can rule as he pleases. He too has priestly duties.

The "Render unto Caesar..." bit is a lost in translation moment. Most interpretations now agree that Jesus was merely mocking those who were trying to trap him. The real message was to stop trafficking in Caesars currency if one wants to belong entirely to God. No Church/State moment here. In fact when Luther, Locke and Jefferson argued for separation of Church/State it was the Church (mostly the various denominations) that they were trying to protect from the state and not the other way around. Luthers letters for instance argue about the corrupting influence the State has on the Church.

[abhishek_sharma]

Breivik's Warped Worldview

Warning: Liberal PoV

[Arjun]

Breivik's Warped Worldview

Breivik's act cannot be condoned - but to imply that legitimate opinions that do not seek to condone violence but seek to question Islamist doctrine - need any kind of toning down, is complete bullshit !! The excerpt below is wholly untenable...

Finally, to what extent can Islamophobes like Pamela Geller or Robert Spencer be held responsible for Breivik's act? As someone who has some personal experience with "guilt by association," I do think we should be careful about assessing blame. None of these hawkish pundits openly advocated violence, and all have (for the most part) distanced themselves from Breivik's act. But it is also clear that their writings consistently portrayed Islam in a crude and monolithic way and tended to depict all Muslims as part of some looming threat to core Western values. And it seems clear from Breivik's manifesto that these writers did have a considerable impact on his worldview, even if they did not advocate the horrific response that he chose. Yet this seems to have sparked little or no self-reflection on their part, as befitting the committed ideologue.

As you'd expect, some of their defenders have pointed out that the late Osama bin Laden also cited some writers favorably, including Noam Chomsky, Michael Scheuer, and yours truly. Bin Laden also mentioned John Perkins (author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man) and Jimmy Carter's Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. The defenders suggest that these two situations are identical and accuse those who see a link between Breivik and his Islamophobic inspirations of a double standard.

This line of defense is pretty silly because it completely ignores conventional notions of causality. Osama bin Laden began his terrorist career over a decade before the authors he cited had even started the books to which he subsequently referred. He didn't need to read Chomsky, Perkins, Scheuer, or me in order to develop his violently fundamentalist outlook; it was firmly in place long before I wrote one word and wholly at odds with the central views of the people to whom he referred. Indeed, I doubt he ever read my work; if he had, I wonder what he made of our defense of Israel's right to exist, our condemnation of terrorism in general and al Qaeda in particular, and our explicit denunciations of anti-Semitism?

By contrast, it is clear from Breivik's own statements that his thinking was shaped by the various Islamophobic writers whose work he cites (and whose websites he patronized and posted on). He wasn't dreaming up terrorist plots 20 years ago and then citing these writers after the fact to justify it; on the contrary, these works apparently helped convince him that radical violence was necessary in part because there was a looming danger to "the West." Geller, Spencer, and their ilk are not responsible for his specific decisions and actions, of course, but they do bear some responsibility for creating and promoting a vision of cultural conflict that makes such extreme responses more likely.

[Arjun]

Yesterday the US Congress passed HR 440, a bill that seeks to appoint a special Envoy for Religious Freedom responsible for looking into cases of discrimination and violence against religious minorities overseas. The scope for the Envoy will be restricted to 31 countries in the near east and south Asia. And surprise, surprise - among this group of countries most of whom are predominantly Muslim - is also India !! China has been excluded from this list - as have all other Christian and Buddhist states globally.

Its precisely in situations like these, where the US and other Western governments adopt a 'holier-than-thou' posture and seek to incorporate religion in their political / international relations game of one-upmanship, that India needs to consistently and repeatedly emphasize -

1) The increasing reach and destructive potential of 'Christian terrorism' as an unprecedented threat to the world - as exemplified by the Norway horror, and of course by the increasing radicalization of the US militias which are largely centered around the 'Christian identity' movement.

2) The inbuilt hate-language against outsiders that is a key component of certain sects within Christianity and other exclusivist religions- that has a direct causal relationship to the bulk of bloodshed occurring in the name of religion globally.

Have posted on this thread since this is a good example of the kind of double standards that needs to be countered - in the context of the hair-splitting on the extent to which Breivik's act is a case of Christian terrorism.

[harbans]

^ Arjun Ji, yes it's completely unaccepatable. That's why i mentioned a few days ago that

Every political party, religion, creed, caste has endorsed views that have fielded Killers swearing to that ideology. So the ideology and the act are separate except in a very few instances and direct doctrinal motivations.

The noblest of movements, ideals and ideas too have motivated a fringe people to act violently. Jihad and Inquisitions were carried out we know with direct motivation from doctrines. I also said then:

Not underlining the 'obvious' and focusing elsewhere is Psec trait..

Luthers letters for instance argue about the corrupting influence the State has on the Church.

Theo Ji, i agree completely with this stance. This specifically applies to India. To keep Hinduism safe, state separation is a must. The closer religion is to the individual, it is purer and less prone to interference and interpretative command. The more the State interferes in such affairs the more interference and interpretative command oh how worship should be carried out. Ironically implying middle men (State) sanctity in the link to the Creator. Islam which with doctrinal vehemence goes against this concept, ironically endorses State interference and interpretative command on how to worship or link to the creator. Sharia is just one example on how this aspect of executive and judicial interference by State is carried out.

[sanjeevpunj]

It might be of interest to some readers about where eventually Jesus,after resurrection,reached, and what he did,till his mortal body was laid to rest.
I lived in kashmir during the first three years of my infant days.Visual memories include a lot of snow,Shankaracharya Temple lights and so on.Then there was a faint memory of a visit to a shrine called Rozabal which was a very peaceful spot.Subsequently we returned to New Delhi,so these memories were compressed and archived in my head. Recently I found a website about the Rozabal shrine.To me,it appears that Rozabal is the final resting spot of Jesus,after going through the site.

This is a picture of the shrine called Rozabal.
Original Source Tomb of Jesus site:http://www.tombofjesus.com/
There is plenty of information in terms of proofs,records,and research work done by visitors including Nicholas Roerich, at the website.Just in case you wish to see the video of the film Jesus in the Himalayas, here's the link.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQtkI93ZDcA

[devesh]

^^^
that is the most invalid theory ever. it was made up during the colonial times to give a grounding for Christianity and British Empire in India. it is supported by no real evidence other than wild speculation. there is absolutely no shred of evidence.

you presenting that as if it really happened shows your naivety wrt Christianity, at best.

and I thought, this was for Indian epics, and texts only. I didn't realize the Bible/Quran had become Indian texts...

[sanjeevpunj]

and I thought, this was for Indian epics, and texts only. I didn't realize the Bible/Quran had become Indian texts...

Dear Devesh, This is not my theory, though I am personally quite convinced about it. I am entitled to my opinion,if that is what you seem to be questioning.Further, this thread is about Christian Fundamentalism, and the theory about Jesus was being discussed in a few earlier posts.The idea of Jesus in India wasfirst introduced by westerners, ratified by many other scholars including the Swami Trigunatitananda, Swami Abhedananda,and Nicholas Roerich.Go have a look at the site. Don't try to tell me that this thread is for Indian Epics! You must be imagining I posted it in the Indian Epics thread.Please read the title of the thread before you reply so quickly.This is the "Christian" Fundamentalism in West thread.

[devesh]

^^^
for a second there, I thought this was the "epics" thread in GDF when I posted. Sorry.

considering this thread's topic, what you posted in completely OT.
since you have the honor of bringing it up, the onus is on you to prove that this theory was "ratified." I have, in the past, read all the supposed "evidence," and realized that the entire theory was made up by religious authorities: priests, church "research" groups, etc. this theory was invented by Christian authorities, and nobody has "ratified" it as you put it. there is speculation, and the religiously fervent "scholars" "like" the theory. this is what they mean by "ratification." Christ was never in India. let alone, coming back from death in India.

this theory was designed to legitimize Christian conquest of India, and I don't know why you are spreading it on BRF, in the thin garb of "this is no my theory." if you are spreading and talking about it in an almost glowing way, stating it as if it is a fact, then I have every right to question your motives.

[sanjeevpunj]

The proofs of Jesus visiting India are all available on the website.Please spend some time on it,then make a judgement.
For now,please check this link-
http://www.tombofjesus.com/index.php?op ... &Itemid=82
This document(Scroll of Issa) is the most talked about document concerning the idea of Jesus traveling to India during his 'missing years'. The document was brought to light in 1887 when Nicholas Notovitch ( a russian jew) came across it during a visit to the Hemis Monastery. He spent much time in Hemis, recovering from a broken leg, and had the whole St Issa document read to him and translated. Upon his return to Europe Notovitch went about publishing this information.Swami Trigunatitananda 1895 Visited and confirmed Notovitch had spent time there - this is cited in 'Swami Trigunatita: His Life and Works" by Marie L Burke.

Further, see this link -http://www.tombofjesus.com/index.php?op ... &Itemid=66
Swami Abhedananda lived in North America for about twenty-five yeras and made the acquaintance of such people as Thomas Edison, William James and Dr. Max Muller. It was interesting to note that the Swami was at first skeptical of Notovitch's findings. In fact, Swami Abhedananda was determined to find a copy of the Hemis manuscript to expose it as a fraud. But he discovered, instead, that the manuscript actually existed. The Swami then became convinced that the Notovitch discovery was genuine.

I am also quoting Phillip, who mentioned earlier in this thread

There are many descriptions of the Council of Nicea,and even one well-held view that Christ visited India (Varanasi) for many years during his youth .Here is an excerpt from a Shirley Maclaine book which comments upon that view.Read the Gnostic Gospels for supposed teachings about the "dancer" and reincarnation too.

[chetak]

The proofs of Jesus visiting India are all available on the website.Please spend some time on it,then make a judgement.
For now,please check this link-
http://www.tombofjesus.com/index.php?op ... &Itemid=82
This document(Scroll of Issa) is the most talked about document concerning the idea of Jesus traveling to India during his 'missing years'. The document was brought to light in 1887 when Nicholas Notovitch ( a russian jew) came across it during a visit to the Hemis Monastery. He spent much time in Hemis, recovering from a broken leg, and had the whole St Issa document read to him and translated. Upon his return to Europe Notovitch went about publishing this information.Swami Trigunatitananda 1895 Visited and confirmed Notovitch had spent time there - this is cited in 'Swami Trigunatita: His Life and Works" by Marie L Burke.

sanjeevpunj ji,

If this were actually true, don't you think that some vatican type would not have taken up permenant residency there long before and again would the western powers have "allowed" the kashmir controversy to fester as long as it has?

They would have grabbed the state even before independance, no?

Anyone, including you and me can start up any website and make it say what we want, as long as we can afford the upkeep of the site.

This jesus in kashmir theory is right up there along with the abducted by aliens and st thomas in madras stuff onlee.

All started by some shady and motivated gentlemen for colonial reasons.

[sanjeevpunj]

Many researchers, including Suzanne Olsson did some research on it till she was stopped by the Govt. of J & K, when she tried to force into the shrine,and extract the DNA Samples from the body buried there. http://www.tombofjesus.com/index.php?op ... &Itemid=67
More about Suzanne Olsson's project DNA of GOD, in OT thread.

[Arjun]

Guys, can you please take this discussion on Jesus in Kashmir, interesting as it is, to another thread ? It is OT here....

[RajeshA]

Arjun ji, we don't need to build our case on the basis of religious freedom. Those who do must first defend the charge, that they do not speak of predatory ideologies propagated through manipulative means.

We should have our own commission, called "Commission for the Protection of Native Cultures"! Why play their game? Religious Freedom is their bakwas.

[sanjeevpunj]

Guys, can you please take this discussion on Jesus in Kashmir, interesting as it is, to another thread ? It is OT here....

Sure, Arjun,thanks that you find it interesting! I am continuing all further replies in the OT thread, now on. Regards.

[Manny]

That Susan Olsan is a nut and a Christian fundementalists... This whoe Jesus was in India is BS to try to legitimize Christianity for converting Indians to Christianity.

[Arjun]

Arjun ji, we don't need to build our case on the basis of religious freedom. Those who do must first defend the charge, that they do not speak of predatory ideologies propagated through manipulative means.

We should have our own commission, called "Commission for the Protection of Native Cultures"! Why play their game? Religious Freedom is their bakwas.

Hmm...

Its like this. When a bunch of uncouth barbarians start believing that they are actually 'genteel' you initially laugh it off and say - 'Good for them...what do I care? Let them think whatever they want to. Its no sweat off my back!' But when one day, the same uncouth barbarians turn out to be totally drunk on their own Koolaid and actually turn up your doorstep and accuse you of being the barbarian - you know that it is time to throw the danda and everything else at them till they see sense !

There is already some speculation from that esteemed joker MKB, that this could be a means to interfere in Indian politics and target the BJP...If there is any such intent to fish in troubled waters - believe me, this will get really dirty from all sides.

Protection of Native Cultures may be one argument, but you need the entire arsenal - including explicitly bringing up the Christian / Western record of terrorism and barbarism, as well as questioning the very basis of their own excusivist creed as not fitting in with both modern liberal thinking as well as India's pluralist ethos.

[Manny]

That Susan Olsan is a nut and a Christian fundementalists... This whoe Jesus was in India is BS to try to legitimize Christianity for converting Indians to Christianity.

This whole Jesus was in India is not unlike this BS

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajiv-mal ... 41606.html

How Evangelists Invented 'Dravidian Christianity'

Most liberal Americans are simply unaware of the international political machinations of evangelicals. Funded and supported by the American Christian right, they promote a literal and extreme version of Christianity abroad and attempt to further a fundamentalist Christian political agenda using unscrupulous methods. In India, picking up where the colonialists left off, they have gone so far as to revive discredited racial theories and fabricate scholarship in a dangerous game of divide and rule.

In south India, a new identity called Dravidian Christianity is being constructed. It is an opportunistic combination of two myths: the "Dravidian race" myth and another that purports that early Christianity shaped the major Hindu classics!

...
...
The preposterous claim is that Tamil classical literature originated in early Christianity. The Tamil classical tradition consists of two great components: an ethical treatise called Thirukural (abbreviated Kural, authored by the great sage Thiruvalluvar), and a sophisticated Vedanta philosophical system called Saiva Siddhanta, which traces its origins to the Vedas and was nurtured by many Tamil savants over the centuries. Dravidian Christianity appropriates both these foundational works, attributing them to Christian influence. To make this credible, the pre-Christian date for Kural has been replaced by more recent dates.

The narrative used is that St. Thomas, the apostle, visited south India and taught Christianity to the great sage, Thiruvalluvar, who was inspired by Christianity, but did not capture St. Thomas' message accurately. This is often portrayed in recently published paintings showing the sage sitting at the feet of St. Thomas, taking notes. Sanskrit is downgraded as a language created by St. Thomas to spread the Christian message to the uncivilized north Indian races.

[sanjeevpunj]

The term fundamentalism was coined by Baptist editor Curtis Lee Laws in 1920 to designate Christians who were ready "to do battle royal for the Fundamentals"; the term quickly was adopted by all sides.
Fundamentalism had multiple roots in British and American theology of the 19th century.
One root was Dispensationalism, a rediscovery of early Christian premillennialism in the 1830s in England as an outgrowth of applying the historical-grammatical method of hermeneutics to all of the Bible. It was a millenarian theory that divided all of time into seven different stages, called "dispensations," which were seen as stages of God's revelation. At the end of each stage, according to this theory, God punished humanity for having been found wanting in God's testing. Secularism, liberalism, and immorality in the 1920s were believed to be signs that humanity had again failed God's testing. This means that the world is on the verge of the last stage, where a final battle will take place at Armageddon, followed by Christ's return and 1,000 year reign.An important sign is the rebirth of Israel, support for which is the centerpiece of Fundamentalist foreign policy.
A second stream came from Princeton Theology in the mid-19th century, which developed the doctrine of inerrancy in response to higher criticism of the Bible.The work of Charles Hodge influenced fundamentalists' insistence that the Bible was inerrant because it had been dictated by God and written by men who took that dictation. This meant that the Bible should be read differently from any other historical document, and also that modernism and liberalism were believed to lead people to hell just as much as non-Christian religions.
A third strand—and the name itself—came from a 12-volume study The Fundamentals, published 1910-1915.Sponsors subsidized the free distribution of over three million individual volumes to clergy, laymen and libraries. This version stressed several core beliefs, including:
The inerrancy of the Bible
The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles, and the Creation account in Genesis.
The Virgin Birth of Christ
The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross
By the late 1920s the first two points had become central to Fundamentalism.
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_ ... _movement)

[RajeshA]

Protection of Native Cultures may be one argument, but you need the entire arsenal - including explicitly bringing up the Christian / Western record of terrorism and barbarism, as well as questioning the very basis of their own excusivist creed as not fitting in with both modern liberal thinking as well as India's pluralist ethos.

This is true.

One needs to attack the EJs at multiple levels from multiple vectors. One however needs to have clarity in what one is doing.

It is fair game to debunk their claims and in fact put them on the defensive through aggressive propaganda, highlighting their manipulative ways and their philosophical weaknesses, as you mentioned.

However all this is a debate at the philosophical level. They say something. You say something. They say something. You say something. So people would believe you. Others will believe them. That is however not necessarily a game changer.

Important is what measure one adopts to nail something to one's rivals. They use the measure of "Religious Freedom"! They can tell you exactly when the feel that the religious rights of somebody were not respected. How one stopped the other in pursuing practice or propagation of religion, how somebody was discriminated due to his religious persuasion!

What is our response going to be? It can't be some mumbo-jumbo philosophical debate. It has to be something you too can show using case studies, observations, press clips, NGO reports, etc.

"Protection of Native Cultures" is a measure one can use to nail something on the EJs very specifically. You can prove that all those people who adopted Christianity, say in the Northeast India, do not follow their earlier animist beliefs, nor do they adhere to ancient customs. That is cultural genocide. That is provable. That can be proved for a large number of people.

You can show that more people had their native cultures destroyed, than people whose religious rights were violated in some way or another. That is something concrete. That is a report thick enough that if one throws it at them, they can get hurt.

Secondly one can have commissions which study the proselytization strategies of EJs and show that they are scheming manipulative buggers. That is again another report one can throw in their faces, and show that this has nothing to do with religious freedom, but is rather an exploitation of other peoples poverty and manipulation of their susceptible situations.

[harbans]

For those who believe Christianity is about Peace there is no clearer doctrinal marker than this:

Matthew 10:34-36

King James Version (KJV)

34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35For 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.

36And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

This sort of marker is pretty much common to excluvist religions. Christianity's image has recieved a boost precisely because most Christian countries have segregated State and religion to a large degree. If not like the previous era, passages such as the above would have been markers for inquisition. Same with Islam. State separation is both essential for survival of the religion and toning down the impact of 'harmful' passages.

[Airavat]

US media battle over Christian terrorist label

Amid the debate over whether "fundamentalist Christian" was an appropriate label for the man behind the attacks in Norway last week, comedian and TV host Bill Maher didn't hesitate on Friday to use that label. "That's what he was. He's a Christian terrorist. He wanted to start a Christian onslaught against the Muslims," said Maher on his HBO show "Real Time."

Maher, who calls himself a rationalist, is no stranger to bashing religion, or more specifically religious extremism. His 2008 film "Religulous" mocks religion as ignorance, dangerous and bigoted. On his show Friday, he pointed to the 13th century Inquisition, the Crusades, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing carried out by Timothy McVeigh, and most recently the bombing and shooting in Norway that left 77 dead.

Margaret Hoover, a Republican strategist who was part of the panel on Maher's show, shot down his argument and the comparison between Breivik and Islamic extremists. "He's a nut who calls himself a Christian but he isn't connected to a global terror network that is trying to perpetuate terrorism on everyone else in the name of an organized and well-funded terrorist network," Hoover said. She added that 50 million people were killed in the 20th century in the name of atheism and communism – or what she called "ideology run amok."

Fox News Host Bill O'Reilly blasted the liberal media for playing up the Christian angle in the Norway tragedy. "No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder. The man might have called himself a Christian on the net, but he is certainly not of that faith," O'Reilly said.

[Arjun]

This sort of marker is pretty much common to excluvist religions. Christianity's image has recieved a boost precisely because most Christian countries have segregated State and religion to a large degree. If not like the previous era, passages such as the above would have been markers for inquisition.

Separation of state and religion has been achieved in most Western countries, as far as internal governance goes....Not so much for external relations. So a number of proselytizing practices which would definitely not be tolerated inside their own countries are now fair game to be pushed to the heathens overseas, and this is backed by the state.

Here's the link to the news that the bill was passed on Friday....and see the comments below: Religious Envoy Bill approved in House vote

Conservatives In Congress Vote To Create A New Department To Push Christianity Onto Other Countries…HOLY WAR !!!!BY Corey Mondello on 07/29/2011 at 16:11

Wow… the separation of Church and State just flew out the window. Looks like our Muslim Potus is taking some serious ground. Watch out America Hitler was a nice too…BY Mark from minnesota on 07/29/2011 at 16:49

[Jarita]

That Susan Olsan is a nut and a Christian fundementalists... This whoe Jesus was in India is BS to try to legitimize Christianity for converting Indians to Christianity.

Purpose is to increase claim on northern areas of India. No different from the worship of Flavius Ceaser

[Pranav]

One has to distinguish between the original views of Jesus, their degeneration into the doctrines of the Catholic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea), the breaking away by the Masonic Protestant movements in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and finally the Catholic Church post its Masonic takeover in the 1960's. The ultimate form of Christianity is the "Christian Zionism" being pushed by people like Hagee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagee).

Breivik was simply a dupe who does not seem to have had any understanding about contemporary power structures.

Meanwhile - Breivik was apparently talking to someone on walkie-talkie during his killing spree - http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europ ... 85493.html

Witness reports of a second shooter have been posted in this thread earlier.

[Philip]

Theo,I never quoted " a Christian's battle...." as being the words of Christ.Pl. read my earlier post more accurately,it was "render unto Caesar..." and Christ's "kingdom".What I've said about a "C's battle" is what you will hear from many a pulpit during Sunday services! This being part of the "Christian Life",where a Christian is meant to emulate his master Christ and live by his teachings.Salvation to a Christian is a gift from God and cannot be bought,you are right here,but what about "Let your light so shine before men so that they may see your good wroks and glorify your father in heaven"? Anyway,as I said,we can debate Christianity till the cows come home and this is not the venue or time for such an all-encompassing debate.

The point I'm trying to make is that Brevik,the so-called "Christian",is no different from the so-called Christian states who at the global stage perpetrate the very same deeds as he has.Any wonder that these states have spawned monsters like Brevik?

[Philip]

Pranav,the Vatican has yet to change its views about Freemasonry according to last reports.This stems from the days when the Knights Templar where destroyed by the then Pope and king of France ,both jealous of their influence and fabulous wealth.The Vatican will not tolerate any order that it sees as posing a challenge to its authority.

Meanwhile,here are details of how the Republican "Tea Party" one of whose billionaire members I posted earlier has views similar to Brevik,are holding th US and world to ransom."Economic terrorism" is the accurate description rad on.

"It's like a form of economic terrorism," the Wall Street financier Steve Rattner said. "These Tea Party guys are like strapped with dynamite standing in the middle of Times Square at rush hour and saying either you do it my way or we are going to blow you up, ourselves up and the whole country with us."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 28661.html

Tea Party holds US – and the world – to ransom

Despite backing a two-stage debt deal last night, a rump of far-right Republicans is blocking progress on the budget deficit
By David Usborne, US Editor

Some Tea Party awkwards.

The Awkward Squad

Jeff Flake, Arizona

Mr Flake tweeted his opposition to the Boehner bill on Wednesday, saying it would increase spending in the current year. "Give me sobriety, but not yet," he added. The independent-minded congressman has split from his party on issues including Cuban policy and immigration. He made his name – and irritated some colleagues – by opposing earmarks, provisions in legislation to direct money into specific projects.

Louie Gohmert, Texas

The Texan congressman accused Barack Obama of using "scare tactics" when the President warned that welfare payments could not be guaranteed if the debt ceiling was not raised. He faced the same charge last year when he warned in Congress of a plot by terrorist organisations to bring pregnant women into the US to obtain passports for the babies in anticipation of a return when their trained offspring was ready to wreak havoc on the country.

Trent Franks, Arizona

The stalwart conservative has staked out hardline views on abortion rights and same-sex marriage. He has also sponsored bills to ban online gambling and expressed scepticism about climate change. He has previously accused President Obama of being an "enemy of humanity", later clarifying his remarks to say that the President was in fact an "enemy of unborn humanity" because of his stance on abortion.

[Pranav]

Pranav,the Vatican has yet to change its views about Freemasonry according to last reports.This stems from the days when the Knights Templar where destroyed by the then Pope and king of France ,both jealous of their influence and fabulous wealth.The Vatican will not tolerate any order that it sees as posing a challenge to its authority.

Freemasonry per se is not that important ... it is just another way to organize useful idiots, as was Communism, for example. The indications are that the Catholic Church succumbed, some time back, to a takeover by the same elite interests that have promoted Communism and Freemasonry. The Vatican may ostensibly continue to oppose Freemasonry, but that is not very meaningful.

[A_Gupta]

Koenrad Elst on Breivik
http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2011/0 ... -read.html

On the contrary, if I could turn the clock back, I would try to save Breivik’s victims by advising Breivik to read the Brussels Journal. There he would have learned that the threat is not quite as dramatic as he imagined, indeed quite manageable by normal democratic means; and that killing Muslims (let alone non-Muslims) is not the way to counter the expansion of Islam.

[ManishH]

This sort of out-of-context quoting and interpretation is precisely why discussion on religion is verboten in BRF. These words are meant to warn new adherents to xtian belief that they will be opposed and ostracised by their family members and society. And inspite of facing these tests, they should stand firm in their faith. This isn't license to be in perpetual warfare for the sake of their faith.

Of course, I agree with harbans's second point that european states used this kind of literalist interpretation for justifying their warfare.

For those who believe Christianity is about Peace there is no clearer doctrinal marker than this:

Matthew 10:34-36

King James Version (KJV)

34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35For 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.

36And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

This sort of marker is pretty much common to excluvist religions. Christianity's image has recieved a boost precisely because most Christian countries have segregated State and religion to a large degree. If not like the previous era, passages such as the above would have been markers for inquisition. Same with Islam. State separation is both essential for survival of the religion and toning down the impact of 'harmful' passages.

[Arjun]

This sort of out-of-context quoting and interpretation is precisely why discussion on religion is verboten in BRF. These words are meant to warn new adherents to xtian belief that they will be opposed and ostracised by their family members and society. And inspite of facing these tests, they should stand firm in their faith. This isn't license to be in perpetual warfare for the sake of their faith.

Even if one goes along with your version of the meaning, that does not make exclusivism any less dangerous to society. Christianity has always been big on 'persecution' as a motivating factor for its proseletyzers...and as per your interpretation - it is explicitly justifying the breakup and creation of disharmony within families and within societies as an acceptable practice. Polytheistic religions on the other hand take the opposite tack of not wanting to create disharmony within existing believers of an alternate God - by accepting their Gods as part of the pantheon.

Harbansji is possibly pointing to the fact that exclusivism combined with aggressive expansionism would necessarily lead to conflict. The conflict might initially start small (within families) - but as more and more families in a region suffer the consequence, is bound to lead to larger scale societal repurcussions that are likely to manifest in warfare / rioting / civil war.

[Theo_Fidel]

Arjun,

Their is another way to look at his too.

Perhaps breaking down the insularity of family units is the desired out come. It is not a given that keeping everything within the family is good for society. In fact it has caused untold problems in the Indian context. Esp. the desire to marry within. The idea is to aspire to belong to something bigger than your family unit. Of course Breivik took his desire to belong to something bigger in a very tragic direction.

This is not a value judgment. Polytheistic religions can be just as exclusive in its applications to different communities. Living in India we should know better than to make this claim. This is not a good direction to approach Christian fundamentalism from.