"Christian" Fundamentalism in West

[devesh]

A good read so far...but many are mixing up faith with fundamentalism. If you want to read up on Christian Faith, then go here --> http://www.pbministries.org/. Scroll down to the Archives sub-menu on left and click on any of those gentlemen's sermons.

The God of the Bible is Love, but yet Just. And believers in Christ will be reunited with Christ in the new world to come and non-believers will burn in the lake of fire & brimestone for eternity. I believe in all of the above, but yet I am not a fundamentalist.

What happened in Norway is fundamentalism. Christ never preached that. He never said pick up a Ak-47 and shoot people into submission or make a bomb and blow up a building to show who the boss is. What happened in Norway is someone who is insane.

is this a sarcastic post??? I really hope so. especially coming from a "webmaster" of BR. if it isn't, then has BRF degraded to such a level that somebody can openly say that non-believers of Christianity will burn in hell???

[Klaus]

Knights Templar Oceania member believes that Breivik tried to join their group before the Oslo incident

Knights Templar member and Adjutant Commanderie of Oceania Paul Grice told the Sunday Telegraph "we have had a request for affiliation and mutual understanding, an alliance if you will, from a chap alleged to be a Knights Templar in Norway."

Mr Grice said he rejected Breivik's email offer to form a partnership because he did not think he was a legitimate member of the Knights Templar, a group inspired by a medieval order of "pure" Christian knights founded in the Holy Land.

He forwarded the email to his organisation's UK parent but claims they reached the same conclusion and deleted it.

Following line takes it to new heights:

He said Breivik may not even be a real person but rather a fabrication of a pro-Israel group.

[Theo_Fidel]

BRF degraded to such a level that somebody can openly say that non-believers of Christianity will burn in hell???

This is increasingly OT. My last comments.

Every faith has consequences for those who fail it. To be condemned to return to the Earth too can be a form of hell. You can believe in Christianity and still burn in hell.

In some cases it took a lot of violence to keep women unclothed. Touchy subject in my native. Touchy subject personally as well.

Some Christians have been in India a lot longer than 400 years.

Vijayanagara Empire was definitely not secular in its actions in Madurai region. It treatment of certain communities to the benefit of Nayak overlords is quite distasteful.

Bji,

You appear violently opposed to conversion, all which you appear to believe is violently coerced. It is clouding all your thought processes. Humbly request you read up the various histories of how Buddhist Kerala turned into Hindu Kerala. I can recommend books if you want. Of course you can label them all as propaganda. It is your choice.

If discrediting Christianity is the way to tackle fundamentalism, you are barking up the wrong tree.

All states must deal with religion. It is too large a part of people lives. The question is how minority thought is approached by the state.

[Pranav]

And believers in Christ will be reunited with Christ in the new world to come and non-believers will burn in the lake of fire & brimestone for eternity.

This is exactly the sort of thing that makes Christianity such a useful political tool. Together with all the stuff about End Times and Rapture.

Whether that was the original intent of Jesus is a separate question.

[paramu]

Vijayanagara Empire was definitely not secular in its actions in Madurai region. It treatment of certain communities to the benefit of Nayak overlords is quite distasteful.

This type of partial knowledge forms part of dangerous propaganda. He only wants to see what Vijaya Nagara empire did to Madurai Sultanate, and not what the latter did to its people.

Madurai_Sultanate

Ibn Batuta wrote:

the Hindu prisoners were divided into four sections and taken to each of the four gates of the great catcar. There, on the stakes they had carried, the prisoners were impaled. Afterwards their wives were killed and tied by their hair to these pales. Little children were massacred on the bosoms of their mothers and their corpses left there. Then, the camp was raised, and they started cutting down the trees of another forest. In the same manner did they treat their later Hindu prisoners. This is shameful conduct such as I have not known any other sovereign guilty of. It is for this that God hastened the death of Ghiyath-eddin.

One day whilst the Kadhi (Kazi) and I were having our food with (Ghiyazu-d-din), the Kazi to his right and I to his left, an infidel was brought before him accompanied by his wife and son aged seven years. The Sultan made a sign with his hand to the executioners to cut off the head of this man ; then he said to them in Arabic : ' and the son and the wife. ' They cut off their heads and I turned my eyes away. When I looked again, I saw their heads lying on the ground.

I was another time with the Sultan Ghiyath-eddin when a Hindu was brought into his presence. He uttered words I did not understand, and immediately several of his followers drew their daggers. I rose hurriedly, and he said to me ; ' Where are you going ' ? I replied : ' I am going to say my afternoon (4 o'clock) prayers. ' He understood my reason, smiled, and ordered the hands and feet of the idolater to be cut off. On my return I found the unfortunate swimming in his blood

Now, any action against them becomes anti-secularism, and it doesn't matter what other things the empire did.

Sorry for the OT.

[brihaspati]

Theo ji,
Yes - problem about supposed "violent replacement of Buddhist/Jain" in the deep south - is that none of the source material is "contemporary", not from the "victims" side, and not "independently" verifiable - all logic of academic historiography used to deny revealed tradition vandalism in India [the two major works often cited in support for what you are referring to can be ripped apart using retro-Thaparite logic]. Think of Jewish architectural features in "Christian" churches, and Christian features in mosques - in the same region you are perhaps hinting of. There is a merry debate about this. Built-over "Ruins" are not sufficient example - since it is "known" in India that when people cease to follow a particular religion they neglect to upkeep the relevant structures, and things fall naturally into ruins. Then others build an edifice of another faith over it. No violence onlee. If every Hindu structure apparently built over by others - were all natural ruins long before others "built" on "ruins", why is it so difficult to imagine that any supposed "vandalism" was actually the result of natural "ruination"? Moreover "But-prasts" and "samanis" [Buddhists/Jains] were heathens to both the Muslims and the Christians, and both are known to have engaged in vandalism on these. Can we really rule out the peaceful and loving lot having committed what is passed on to the "Hindus"!

I think you are missing my point - I have never said I am against "fundamentalism" : I have only tried to explore the route through which I feel "fundamentalism" of a certain religious school, arrives. Similarly, I have tried to show that the very method that "organized" religion established as "justified" in their expansion bid - also establishes justification and legitimization procedures that can act against themselves - and then they cry foul. I have neither supported nor condemned "conversion" - simply tried to propose that the "conversion" agenda is an integral part of the "mission" and is a part of the imperialist project and which is not aimed at care/grace within a lifetime as a primary goal, but the primary goal is the "salvation" of the "soul" - not the body and the living being, and the entire obsession is about post-mortem [plenty of proof in the history of the church and even traces in its current dogma - across factiosn and sects]. Moreover my main point was that this "method" combined with the "doctrine" is what gives rise to "fundamentalism".

Once the goal is set as "primary" - any number of methods will become acceptable - since "methods" become secondary. Any method that apparently helps the "objective" will have some support somewhere in "interpretations" of words and phrases from the text. Matthew and Luke are notorious - you know perhaps very well - in being able to provide ready quotes for interpretations of the violent "method". Similarly the "purification by bodily pain" of the "soul" can also be "interpreted" from textual phrases again - and as you perhaps know, was applied liberally by the very-concerned-for-welfare-of-the-living extra pure and extra pious bodies dripping with an excess of love.

Yes, I am against organized religions that seek to impose what is claimed to have worked for a certain people, at a particular point in time, at a particular place for all people, at all places, and for all times. But I don't think I am clouded in my judgment about them. I do not merely swallow people's words - but I do check it against long-term consistent actions and choices made under severely limited options. When you have to choose sides - which ones do you choose? This is where the real, underlying, core affiliations come in. This is where - every instance - organized religions show up as being totally manipulated and led by very narrowly biased, literal, and mostly a cover for imperialist-military violent psychopathies.

I have consistently come up against this core of imperialist, psychopathic power-mongering under pretensions of "missions" - be they "communist" or Islamist or EJ - in my own life. I started my life out as the antithesis of what I appear to be on the forum and as I have told before - where it matters, I am still known as "sikular" and a "friend" of the EJ/Islamist/reds. It took many serious conflicts for me to start portraying them as I do and drop all my "educated" romanticism about them.

I would rather root for a rashtra that refuses to be "aware" of these special organized "super-lovers" or super-peacefuls or super-pro-poor and yes any fly-by-night-guru-operators who usurp the right to mediate with the rashtra on behalf of whom they claim to represent. If necessary I would rather that the rashtra crushes them altogether and talks directly to the citizen. Let the spiritual search be individual - but no imams/fathers and dawa/charity networks please.

[Rakesh]

He could not have talked of AK47 even if he wanted to - it had not been invented yet. He also apparently did not speak of building Churches or making the cross an icon. Is not "fundamentalism" all about trying to return to an imagined "core/fundamental"? The debate here is more about whether or not the original textual claim as handed down - and the methodology of expansion of the following, as well as the belief system that you mention - itself does not continuously and periodically generate a sense of deviation from the golden imagined "fundamental" and hence an attempt to go back to that, resulting in "fundamentalism".

I was not present on earth, when Christ walked the earth...so I was not an eye witness to any of the events in the Four Gospels. However, my faith tells me that the textual claim in the four gospels - along the rest of the Bible - is absolutely correct. Now I cannot scientifically prove my faith, just like I cannot scientifically prove my love for my parents...it just exists. We had this discussion a couple of years back on BRF (archives are present in BR Forums) and I was asked questions about Christianity for which I did not have an answer back then, nor do I have at the present time. But my faith tells me that what I believe is true, regardless of the contradictions.

Christ is aware of the future, so he could have technically used the AK-47 example, but it would have been pointless...because the people whom he was explaining it to, would have no idea what he meant.

From what you say, someone already believing in the "fundamentals" as you describe them - is ideologically a "fundamentalist". You have so far not chosen to act on it. So, yes, maybe we should distinguish between "passive" and "active" fundamentalists. "fundamentalism" here is being used in the sense of "original/core/inalienable/inseparable" - imagined or real.

Going by the above logic, I am a non-violent fundamentalist. I believe in peace

is this a sarcastic post??? I really hope so. especially coming from a "webmaster" of BR. if it isn't, then has BRF degraded to such a level that somebody can openly say that non-believers of Christianity will burn in hell???

Far from it. I meant every word. I have been with BR since its inception and all the web masters know me along with a few BRF members whom I have met at BR Meets. Ask any of them, if I have tried to convert them or even brought up the topic of Christianity in all these years. My faith in Christianity and my patriotism for India co-exist very peacefully within me. There is no grey area whatsoever. The purpose of my original post was just to clarify the difference between faith and fundamentalism, as ignorance is a very dangerous thing. You are more than welcome to reject what I believe and you have every right to do so. However faith - regardless of religion - is something that is very personal to each individual. Many Christians themselves don't believe what I said.

[Arjun]

The key complication with JW, Seventh days, Mormons extremists, promise keepers, etc, is they try to take away personal choice and carry their beliefs into the public space. It is their desire to turn the public space into a religious space. This causes conflict.

Not sure I understand this. Are you implying that these sects don't believe in separation of church and state? Not able to find any evidence to back that up on the web.

What I do find is a move to define these sects as cults where 'cults' have certain distinct characteristics. Maybe we should look at characteristics of 'cults' for a deeper understanding?

[RamaY]

^ Rakesh ji,

No one is talking about patriotism at this point. So no need to bring it up. Just because one's patriotism is unquestionable, their religious faith doesn't become unquestionable and vice versa.

There is also no need to do unnecessary == between religions because the religions are different (otherwise there is no need for religions). If Christ knew the future, being the son of god, he would have ensured that the Christianity that he came to preach would not commit the atrocities it has committed all along.

The matters of faith are just that, matters of faith. Then how can the matters of faith be == especially when the faiths differ from another?

Similarly logical fallacies are logical fallacies. One can still commit to their faith, even when that doesn't make any sense (given their ancestral roots), because faith and logic doesn't co-exist. One either trusts one's mother, on father's identity, or not; there is no second argument.

[svenkat]

del

[Pranav]

One can still commit to their faith, even when that doesn't make any sense (given their ancestral roots), because faith and logic doesn't co-exist.

I don't think Dharmic philosophies require you to leave your logic outside at the door.

[RamaY]

The thread is not about Hinduism

[Philip]

For "God's" sake,please do not derail the thread oherwise I will ask the webmsters to lock it!
This not a thread about Indian history,where numerous examples of invaders and their atrocities and religious bigotry can be listed ad nauseum,but about TODAY,where Europe and the US are being heavily influencd by fundas inspired by a false interpretation of Christianity.This has also much to do with the actions of their states who are behaving like the fundas,bombing and bludgeoning poorer nation across the globe into the stone age,and beggaring themselves in the process (US and EU),forcing even poor India to send the EU a few billions and getting the major portion of their debt bought by China.
Part of the problem has been the scandalous immigration policies of so-called Socialist parties who used the immigrant vote to capture power.As said before the indentification of these individuals/groups who are determinin the funda agenda-like some in the Tea Party ned tobe exposed and countered.

Please guys,get back on track or stop these posts.

[sanjaykumar]

The bible itself records explicitly its followers commandments,heathens-deutoronomy describes in detail what the good news is for you. As for free thinkers like moi, Paul warned specifically against free enquiry. The witch burnings were hardly an anomaly as hopefully offered by apologists.

[Pranav]

... but about TODAY,where Europe and the US are being heavily influencd by fundas inspired by a false interpretation of Christianity.

The bible itself records explicitly its followers commandments,heathens-deutoronomy describes in detail what the good news is for you. As for free thinkers like moi, Paul warned specifically against free enquiry. The witch burnings were hardly an anomaly as hopefully offered by apologists.

I tend to agree with Philip.

If we restrict ourselves to the words of Jesus as reported in a reliable translation of the New Testament (such as the KJ Version), and interpret them with discernment, we find that the thoughts are quite similar to those of the enlightened Yogis of Bharat.

The doctrines of Eternal Hellfire, Jesus being the exclusive path, End Times, Rapture can be regarded as distortions introduced deliberately, for political control, or as grave misunderstandings.

I had posted some pointers that discuss how doctrinal Christianity has succumbed to political perversion.

[Pranav]

As for free thinkers like moi, Paul warned specifically against free enquiry. The witch burnings were hardly an anomaly as hopefully offered by apologists.

From HG Wells, "A Short History of the World":

Ch 38 - The Development of Doctrinal Christianity

IN the four gospels we find the personality and teachings of Jesus but very little of the dogmas of the Christian church. It is in the epistles, a series of writings by the immediate followers of Jesus, that the broad lines of Christian belief are laid down.

Chief among the makers of Christian doctrine was St. Paul. He had never seen Jesus nor heard him preach. Paul’s name was originally Saul, and he was conspicuous at first as an active persecutor of the little band of disciples after the crucifixion. Then he was suddenly converted to Christianity, and he changed his name to Paul. He was a man of great intellectual vigour and deeply and passionately interested in the religious movements of the time. He was well versed in Judaism and in the Mithraism and Alexandrian religion of the day. He carried over many of their ideas and terms of expression into Christianity. He did very little to enlarge or develop the original teaching of Jesus, the teaching of the Kingdom of Heaven. But he taught that Jesus was not only the promised Christ, the promised leader of the Jews, but also that his death was a sacrifice, like the deaths of the ancient sacrificial victims of the primordial civilizations, for the redemption of mankind.

Besides the distortions introduced by Paul / Saul at the inception of Christianity, there was further mangling that took place in the 4th century (Council of Nicaea), in the 15th and 16th centuries (the creation of Protestantism), and in the 20th Century (the Catholic Vatican II reforms).

[Theo_Fidel]

Bji,

If you don't oppose fundamentalism, then why post here.

Conversion is not part of many Christian traditions. For instance you never hear of Syrian Christians trying to convert anyone. Or for that matter few Greek Orthodox.

While individual searches for religious truth continue, organized religion is the way most people experience their faith. This is not going to change. Fundamentalism breeds in this environment when reasonable people withdraw or politic ideology gets mixed in.

[Arjun]

For instance you never hear of Syrian Christians trying to convert anyone. Or for that matter few Greek Orthodox.

These are examples of well-integrated communities that any society would welcome, irrespective of whether the doctrine they believe in is exclusivist or non-exclusivist.

But when a community believes in aggressive prosetlylization, one then has to start looking more closely at the doctrine that is sought to be spread, and whether it promotes a culture of non-tolerance as regards natives.

It is the intersection of religious exclusivism with aggressive proselytization that is largely unhealthy for society.

[Manish_Sharma]

is this a sarcastic post??? I really hope so. especially coming from a "webmaster" of BR. if it isn't, then has BRF degraded to such a level that somebody can openly say that non-believers of Christianity will burn in hell???

Devesh in his book "Why I am not a Christian", one of the reasons he gives for rejecting christianity is this very eternal hell. He says if I am prosecuted for all the sins I committed and even all those that I wanted to but didn't have the courage to, still the most strict judge in britain can give me 4 years of imprisonment at the most. But christ will burn me eternally in hell.

Again it is the inferiority complex of christians as they know how hollow their religion is compared to eastern religions of Taoism, Zen, Hinduism, Buddhism & Jainism. In a way the word "fundamental" becomes important here.

In fact the word faith has been connected with religion by christians world over. In east faith doesn't have much of place in religion. In fact experiencing the truth through a path forms the fundamentals of eastern religions. You follow a certain god, guru or system but to experience "oneness" with the whole or the experience of non-duality. If these religions are not destroyed by the power of money, military & politics then who in their right mind would just go with a "belief" that just by believing in the book and god with his son will save them from "eternal hell".

As it becomes clear in Rajiv Malhotra & Arvind Neelagandan's book how christians have been shamelessly stealing Bharatnatyam & Tiruvalluvar as coming from christian st. thomas.

Hence clinton, bush & obama clearing path for all the AID to be given through evangelists organisations only. All this aggressive proselytizing, crusades, burning witches and joan de arcs is just a compensation for the hollowness of christianity.

As for presently the indic cultures being destroyed in North East, South and elswhere you can't discuss as the "innocent" "non'proselytizing" christians won't allow you to. But trust them to apologise after 700 years like they now apologise to torturing Galeleo, burning joad de arc or witches.

[Rakesh]

No one is talking about patriotism at this point. So no need to bring it up. Just because one's patriotism is unquestionable, their religious faith doesn't become unquestionable and vice versa.

There is also no need to do unnecessary == between religions because the religions are different (otherwise there is no need for religions). If Christ knew the future, being the son of god, he would have ensured that the Christianity that he came to preach would not commit the atrocities it has committed all along.

The matters of faith are just that, matters of faith. Then how can the matters of faith be == especially when the faiths differ from another?

Similarly logical fallacies are logical fallacies. One can still commit to their faith, even when that doesn't make any sense (given their ancestral roots), because faith and logic doesn't co-exist. One either trusts one's mother, on father's identity, or not; there is no second argument.

God - regardless of what religion one believes in - cannot be blamed for any of the nonsense that man has done on earth. That is like saying you deserve the electric chair for the murder your son/daughter did. The two don't even gel. Secondly, my religious faith is unquestionable to me because it makes perfect sense to me. It may not to another, but that is not my issue because I am not forcing it on anyone. As you said, "The matters of faith are just that, matters of faith." And I don't expect that faith to be equal to any other faith.

What I vehemently disagree with is the "method" of prosetlylization that is being conducted in India and elsewhere around the world. But many on the forum are mistaking that method with Christian faith and are lumping it with fundamentalism. They are not even close. Many in the West lump Sati with Hinduism, but I know that is not true. In the same manner, in tackling the issue of Christian fundamentalism, we are holding the bull by its tail...instead of its horns.

[Vipin_Upadhyay]

I agree with Rakesh ji.
True Faith is very personal in nature, it's kind of personal experience of a meditating Yogi.
As a Hindu, I am at peace with Jesus, Krishna & my personal deity Hanuman.
At the same time I will oppose with whatever I can if a group or individual in my society tells me that so and so religion is only way to reach "heaven" and my ancestors burning in eternal hellfire.

There is a Church in Bandra, Mumbai -- Mount Mary. My mother calls this as Matmawali Devi Temple and visits every year for Pooja.
Lakhs of Hindus visits this place during a fair and I am yet to see anyone being converted ityadi.

[Pranav]

There is a Church in Bandra, Mumbai -- Mount Mary. My mother calls this as Matmawali Devi Temple and visits every year for Pooja.

Vipin, nothing wrong with that provided your mother realizes that Christian doctrine as promoted by most Church organizations is primarily an instrument for western elites to wage socio-political war, and can incisively analyze and critique these doctrines.

[Vipin_Upadhyay]

^^Pranav ji can't say about others in family, but I am well aware of EJ activity ( will talk about that later).

My point here is we should be wise enough to distinguish between a mango Indic Christian & EJ fundamentalists.
There are millions of sdre D'Souzas, D'Cunhas, Pintos, Marias in India who are staunch in their faith but at the same time they are not EJs.
For me as an Indian, their should be no difference between them & a mango non-Hindu Indian such as a Sikh, Jain, Swaminarayan etc. They are all within eternal Dharma.

[Pranav]

My point here is we should be wise enough to distinguish between a mango Indic Christian & EJ fundamentalists.
There are millions of sdre D'Souzas, D'Cunhas, Pintos, Marias in India who are staunch in their faith but at the same time they are not EJs.
For me as an Indian, their should be no difference between them & a mango non-Hindu Indian such as a Sikh, Jain, Swaminarayan etc. They are all within eternal Dharma.

This is a complex issue. People buy into a particular ideology, perhaps at a very impressionable age, and thereafter remain locked in. They would rather reject any logical analysis rather than question the doctrine.

But then, what if the doctrine was created to serve a foreign political elite, with generous funding coming from abroad, and administrative control remaining in the grip of foreign masters? For those who have unquestioningly bought into the doctrine, is there any chance of a conflict of interest?

I think the solution is education, for both the convert and the non-convert. We need to freely discuss and expose the political implications of religion. Malhotra's "Breaking India" book is a commendable step in this direction.

[brihaspati]

Theo ji,
I stated that I have not made any statement here supporting or criticizing/opposing it - on this thread. All my attempt was to try to explore the doctrinal and methodological elements as they developed in the process of formation of "organized" religion [in the case of Christianity - within the first 3 centuries of the Apostles] -which in my opinions [and others as indicated] providing the factors for inevitable development of "fundamentalism". I had no need to formally condemn or support. I am not used to passing value-judgments while trying to analyze such issues.

While individual searches for religious truth continue, organized religion is the way most people experience their faith. This is not going to change. Fundamentalism breeds in this environment when reasonable people withdraw or politic ideology gets mixed in.

It is this aspect of organized religion that draws in the politics - more so because there is a doctrinal pressure for all to conform and join in mobilized action to achieve the objectives of that particular organized religion's leaders.

I know people here are uncomfortable in what they see as "faith" being bracketed together with "fundamentalism" and "deviations". Unlike the non-text faiths, the revealed traditions particularly cannot escape this bracketing because of their insistence on a single textual doctrine as the inalienable basis of faith. All actions must be derived from this text - and no contrary opinion or alternatives are accommodated within the text [compare with the "Hindu" - which I did not bring in here in this discussion - where for every argument given in one source one can have contradictions given in another source, and neither really denouncing the other as Satanic].

I also see perhaps insufficient acquaintance with the archaeological-historical investigations into Bible studies and early or "middle" Christianity that have accumulated a wealth of info - which again differs widely from the "faith" claims of the Churches. Even in disputing Thaparite historiography for India, we challenge and find faults with the logical selectivity which is academically dishonest - but we still base it on archaeological and other "evidence" which are not dependent on "opinions" of historians but independently verifiable from exact sciences.

Congregational, activist led, doctrinal conformation based on a us-vs-them, and citation of a super-human authority who reserves unimaginable horror for those who formally do not submit to the authority of his minions on earth - fits perfectly into the needs of ambitious sadistic gentlemen out to gain political and military power over societies. Modern historical research poses early Christianity as confrontational, politically motivated with initially aiming for liberation of the Jews from Roman rule - which was taken up by widening factions outside Judaism, of those opposed to Roman authority - and used as a tool of political opposition to the state. In a period of internal crisis, factions of Roman elite involved in a contest for control found Christianity useful - and hence made it into an imperial tool. In the process, a lot of elements were introduced that were not found earlier - and which are consistent with the need for an ideology that helps in ensuring submission of the populace to leaders with "divine authority".

People should think that whatever they now think as the "original" need not be the original words - but a conscious political, and state sponsored compilation and edited version. Moreover the very fact of this ideological bulldozing appears to have been openly and secretly opposed from within - obviously by people who thought that their "faith" was being corrupted and deviated from what they considered "fundamental".

The constant attempt at ideological control in rashtryia style - within, over and in collaboration with the Church - and use of all state machinery to ensure conformity and submission to a single doctrine inevitably leads to a rigid refusal to allow "deviations". This in turn suppresses questioning of dogma, and even when the authorities realize their error - they are scared to admit it to their congregations, thinking that any flexibility or doubt would undermine their authority. When errors accumulate beyond capacity of the rashtryia machinery to coerce - some individuals or small factions would seek to resolve the contradiction by challenging the authorities on the point of dogma itself, and pose their opposition within the stance that authorities have deviated from the "fundamentals".

This tactical line helps preventing the authorities invoking the clause of "heresy" or being anti-faith and the rebels can boil in righteous indignation at how they are only trying to be "more" faithful. The dogmatic congregational dominance-submission and expansionary method leaves no other outlet for dissent. The same reason communist countries and one-party nations always have intense ideological schismatic struggles.

The faith itself cannot be separated from the rise of fundamentalism - not for these particular faiths.

[svinayak]

Vijayanagara Empire was definitely not secular in its actions in Madurai region. It treatment of certain communities to the benefit of Nayak overlords is quite distasteful.

This type of partial knowledge forms part of dangerous propaganda. He only wants to see what Vijaya Nagara empire did to Madurai Sultanate, and not what the latter did to its people.

Now, any action against them becomes anti-secularism, and it doesn't matter what other things the empire did.

Any aggression against Hindus will be opposed as in the history earlier . India is not a nation created yesterday where foreign ideology can come and do experiments and look at Indians as some animals.
Foriegn ideology in the name of religion will be seen as hostile and too many of these have come in the last 500 years.

[Arjun]

All my attempt was to try to explore the doctrinal and methodological elements as they developed in the process of formation of "organized" religion [in the case of Christianity - within the first 3 centuries of the Apostles] -which in my opinions [and others as indicated] providing the factors for inevitable development of "fundamentalism".

True in the case of Islam and Christianity. But would like your thoughts on the paradox of Sikhism - which never developed as virulent a political component, despite its claims of being an 'organized' and 'revealed' religion.

Both Buddhism and Judaism also exhibit some degree of organization - however do not focus on 'revealed' dogma to the same extent as either Islam or Christianity.

[ManishH]

I am sorry - where exactly did you get this "forgiveness" from? Which events show that it is a core part of the "culture" - and not out of rare and exceptional "individual" goodness events?

I was referring to Jesus forgiving his disciples who betrayed or renounced him as well as him forgiving his own executioners. Of course, the forgiveness remained a lofty ideal and never shows up in the action of fundamentalist western nations towards "heathen" nations.

Christian fundamentalism always avoids those fundamentals that stem from an inclusive thought (like forgiveness), and instead twists them into levers of social control - like in this instance, "forgiveness" was twisted later into the control-rite called "confession".

It'll be interesting to investigate what how inclusivist influences came about in Jesus's preachings, perhaps the "eastern" Magi's role was more than just harbingers of His birth ?

Whatever be its origin, inclusivist thought became vestigial and turned into a ritual role only, once ruling elite were won over and socio-economic control transferred to them. At which point, greater stress on exclusivist fundamentals begins.

If this roadmap for misuse of Christian belief for political dominance of the West is studied, perhaps in India, we are in the preliminary stages where "forgiveness", "service" of the weak etc. are made tools.

Individual instances of "forgiveness" are vastly blown up and shown in almost supernatural light. Eg. Staines' wife incident and then the Nalini one. These incidents aren't stray, but the involved parties have been manipulated by fundamentalists to lay the guilt of the "sin" first upon the entire existing socio-economic order, and then to pronounce moral superiority by showing "forgiveness". After all, did Ms Staines willingly want her own forgiveness to be given wide publicity ?

The above are my view of how fundamentalists have manipulated admirable and noble Christian principles. If a society were to be run using fundamental inclusivist principles propounded by Jesus, it'd resemble more the Amish than the Spanish conquistadores.

I don't envy a Christian in West, the choice between the two fundamental ideologies of the christian ideal is so contradictory:

- To be a meek, forgiving Christian
- Or to be a "faithless be damned" one.

The ideals are in such stark contrast, the former guarantees self-annihilation in the real world. The latter puts him in conflict with any other philosophy.

Would Jesus himself have recommended a third choice - that is not to aim for the documented fundamentals of the faith, but discover it oneself ? At the risk of anticipating the divinity, I'd say yes. Didn't Jesus himself derive revelation from fasting in the desert.

Perhaps it's time for the Christian society to rediscover their own fundamentals in the metaphorical desert. And let what comes out, make the rest of the humanity not be fearful anymore of Christian fundamentalism.

[RamaY]

Bji,

Conversion is not part of many Christian traditions. For instance you never hear of Syrian Christians trying to convert anyone. Or for that matter few Greek Orthodox.

While individual searches for religious truth continue, organized religion is the way most people experience their faith. This is not going to change. Fundamentalism breeds in this environment when reasonable people withdraw or politic ideology gets mixed in.

Theo ji,

Even the Syrian Christians were converted (in india especially) once. So there it goes.

Multiple aspects of faith are getting mixed up here muddying the discussion -

1. Faith as individual prerogative and journey - no one is debating it here.
2. Organized faith as an expansionary or exploitery strategy - one key point of discussion
3. Origins of faith and underlying exploitery, bigotry and violent fundamentalism - key point of discussion here
4. Inter workings and internal structures of faith - just to understand the faith better.

I do not understand what is the need for combining points 4 and especially 1 with others to make the debate personal and emotions (full of IEDs). You did not consider my feelings before you calling caste as an evil structure that needs to be destroyed. People like me never bring the internal structures of Christianity (differrent branches of Christian society) or Islam (Sunni, Shia, ahmediya etc) and their violent fights and call for destruction of cathelics or Syrian Christians or Sunnis etc.

A religion is dangerous to society if it provides theological sanctions to be bigoted. Unfortunately a-brahamic religions just do that.

[Manny]

RamaY, You talk like a fundamentalist.

And who decides who is mature & who is immature.

Honestly people learn some history. Esp. first hand. Go talk to your Great/Grand fathers what India was like religiously. Not pretty.

And knowing a little bit of Indian history, Indian Hindus lived under Islamic tyranny for 700 years followed by 300 years of English Christian tyranny... and the last 65 years under the Socialist leftist communists. Hindus had to practice their faith under a 1000 year darkness. And no I am not a Hindu fanatic. I have not visited a Hindu temple in over 20 years. I do not have a single deity or photo of Hindu Gods in my house and I eat Beef and I have not prayed to God since I was 11 years old. But I would defend the religious Hindus from the abuse of Anti Hindus, for I do not find religious Hindus to be evil like the leftists of India try to portray them as being. It's about being fair.

I have spoken to my Grand father and have tried to see if Hindus ever did anything close to this. The answer was clearly NO.

- Inquisition in Spain and Goa
- Crusades
- Ethnic cleansing of American Indians
- SIavery
- Lynchings
- The Anti Chinese league of the Americas
- Jim Crowe
- The HoIocaust. Read the antisemitic rantings of Martin Luther the founder of the Protestant movement that was the impetus for the Holocaust.
- Separate churches for blacks and whites in the bible belt. The Christian caste system. We all saw how the white christian caste treated their untouchables during the Katrina Disaster. Even after 300 years of living together the White caste Christians hardly marry Black Christian castes.
- BIood Iibel. Read in Wikipedia about this.. OMG! What eviI!


As far as being tolerant of other religions in a pluralistic society. That is true but it does not include tolerating the exclusivity and predatory nature of religious doctrine. That would be like a child who kills both his parents and demands leniency on the account he is an orphan. Moreover, Christianity and Islam are not minority religions. These two are Goliath and predatory/supremacist religions in the world. Judaism is a minority religion. Sikhism is a minority religion. Jainism is a minority religion. Islam and Christianity are not. IMO, for these two to claim minority status is vulgar and offensive

I quote Rajeev Malhotra here

"...Sociological mandates of a religion are also of two kinds: internal ones, such as the varna system, marriage customs, gender relations, and so forth, that only impact the internal society within a particular religion; and external ones, such as the requirement to proselytize or to kill or ill-treat outsiders, that impact those who are outsiders to a given faith.

In my view the theological and internal, sociological, aspects of a religion are not the primary causes of global conflict. Rather, the external, sociological, aspects of religion are the direct causes of global conflict.

It logically follows that it is the business of the world at large to interpret, question, and challenge those aspects of a religion that take a position concerning outsiders. If I am the subject of some other religion's doctrine, and such a doctrine states how I am to be treated, what is to be done to me, what I may or may not do freely, then, even though I am not a member of that religion, it does become my business to probe these doctrines and even to demand a change. On the other hand, if a religion minds its own business, and has little to say pertaining to me as an outsider, then I should respect its right to be left alone.

In other words, a given religion's right to be left alone by outsiders should be reciprocal and contingent upon its responsibility to leave outsiders alone. "

[Arjun]

It logically follows that it is the business of the world at large to interpret, question, and challenge those aspects of a religion that take a position concerning outsiders. If I am the subject of some other religion's doctrine, and such a doctrine states how I am to be treated, what is to be done to me, what I may or may not do freely, then, even though I am not a member of that religion, it does become my business to probe these doctrines and even to demand a change. On the other hand, if a religion minds its own business, and has little to say pertaining to me as an outsider, then I should respect its right to be left alone.

In other words, a given religion's right to be left alone by outsiders should be reciprocal and contingent upon its responsibility to leave outsiders alone. "

Well articulated, Manny !

[RamaY]

In some cases it took a lot of violence to keep women unclothed. Touchy subject in my native. Touchy subject personally as well.

I know it stings a bit but wanted to say it to drive a point.

Theo ji, how long you want to live in history? Many things have happened last 100/50/20/10/5 years. Get over this victimhood and move on with life. All sides suffered a lot in last 1000 years, thanks to Islam and Christianity.

I don't hear of any such exploitation in Vedas or Puranas or Historical books that were written before Islamic invasions. So I attribute all these evils to advent of Islam and christianity. Arrival of these faiths strengthened the violent and sadistic fringe elements in the society and gave == support, morally if not legally.

[brihaspati]

RamaY ji,
there is a theory that original "Syriac Christians" were settlers/migrants/refugees from an internal struggle within Church and empire going on at that period - and were from Syria - so they need not be "converted" Indians. They sought and were given asylum in those days of un-sikular India yet to learn tolerance from the west. But you have a point - anyone who was a "Christian" at that time must have converted - sinc ethere could not have been "Christianity" before Christ, does not matter whether it happened in India or Syria.

The entire reach of the Roman empire in the ME at this stage was ridden with religious factional infighting and uprisings/revolts etc. Moreover, very early on there was a factional infight between four components of what later became "Christianity" - roughly the Egyptian/Coptic, the Palestinian [the coastal part onlee - under Roman rule], the Syrian, and the Mesopotamian. Each faction denounced the other and sometimes collaborated with local and central authorities to eliminate the other. During one such "heretical" conflicts a portion of the Syrian church could have sought refuge in desh.

There are at least two reasons hypothesized as to why in the early days there was a distinct tendency of the "religious repressed" looking towards the east [a trend so powerful that even the heavy editing under Constantinian supervision stillw as forced to leave the ref to packing off Thomas to India]. Even if Thomas's actual arrival or presence and even location could be disputed - the fact that by the 3rd or 4th century it was believable within the Church - is significant.

The two are (1) ancient trade linkages by which the eastern Med populations actually circled at least the west coast of India, and the Jews having been a displaced community of primarily traders and artisan/craftsmanship skills did this circuit (2) there was already a tradition of "religious hospitality" by Indians well known by the Eastern Med populations, as well as possible early contacts with Indian "missionaries" of Buddhist and correlated orders which made them look at Indian existing "belief"s systems as favourable/friendly. I will not go into the "roots" debate here. But just mentioned this as a pointer that early Christianity could have thought way differently from the later Church.

[RamaY]

Rakesh ji,

Talking about "passive fundamentalism" and it's effects on society, I will give an example of my friends and friend (incidentally I came to know about this last night).

This guy is living in the US, his sister and mom live in india. The sister's family converted to Christianity. Since the mother is alone they started taking her to church along with them and in few months she too got converted to Christianity. Please note that the daughter's family did not go to temple to give company to the mother leading to a reverse conversion.

Now the son is in dilemma. Since he cannot (personal/family - read wife/kids) return to india or bring his mom to US, he doesn't have any option but to accept his mother's conversion to Christianity.

So I asked him what happens when the mother dies (after all every one dies), would she be cremated or buried? The friend thought mom's human rights are paramount (what happened to them when she was taken to church instead of temple, exploiting her loneliness?) she should be buried.

My question was what about the HR of this guy in US? We all know the mother will go to heaven, since she accepted Jesus as her savior; or would she? On the other hand this guy will live in living hell for rest of his pathetic life.

Is it passive fundamentalism or active fundamentalism?

[RamaY]

there is a theory that original "Syriac Christians" were settlers/migrants/refugees from an internal struggle within Church and empire going on at that period - and were from Syria - so they need not be "converted" Indians. They sought and were given asylum in those days of un-sikular India yet to learn tolerance from the west. But you have a point - anyone who was a "Christian" at that time must have converted - sinc ethere could not have been "Christianity" before Christ, does not matter whether it happened in India or Syria.

Bji,

One of my colleagues is a Syrian Christian from Bangalore, Kerala. She proudly claims that she was a Brahmin who converted to Christianity with that guy Thomas. She claims that their church and mantras are different from modern Christians and she claims that they are low-castes (evil Yindoo caste system ) and wouldn't marry her kids to them.

So I sent her the e-book someone posted on the myth of St Thomas, so she can start accepting history as part of her reality, unlike people here who think that pre-1947 history is non-existent.

[Advait]

Why so much respect for Jesus from us heathens?

How many Christians will defend Hinduism this way?

As for church-going and daragh-going Hindus; they are just ..(thinking of a strong word here, but will likely get me banned)

Is there any shortage of temples and gods,goddesses in our own system that we must go there? This is nothing but the effects of the colonial mentality of the last 1000 years. Of course you can claim we are tolerant onlee and we respect all even ones who spit in our face, but for me this is just masochism by Hindus.

[Manny]

Syrian Christians generally do not proselytize. In fact, they have been persecuted by the Catholics. I recall my friends father who was a priest in the Syrian Christian church tell me how the Syrian orthodox Christians were invited to Goa with their texts (ancient books) and how they were then locked up and their books burned and caught caught in the Catholic inquisition of Goa.

[RamaY]

Well you are not a "tolerant" Hindu unless you clearly state that you never go to temple, do not believe in caste, and your family members go to church and you have many friends in Muslims and Christians.

That is the state of Yindoo-fundamentalism

Manny-sahab: sorry to hold my gun on your shoulders. Bliss to fur-give me, for that I am a fun-the-mentalist.

[RamaY]

Syrian Christians generally do not proselytize. In fact, they have been persecuted by the Catholics. I recall my friends father who was a priest in the Syrian Christian church tell me how the Syrian orthodox Christians were invited to Goa with their texts (ancient books) and how they were then locked up and their books burned and caught caught in the Catholic inquisition of Goa.

Evil cathelocism. This needs to be destroyed (taking cue from Theo-saars caste analogy)

[brihaspati]

All my attempt was to try to explore the doctrinal and methodological elements as they developed in the process of formation of "organized" religion [in the case of Christianity - within the first 3 centuries of the Apostles] -which in my opinions [and others as indicated] providing the factors for inevitable development of "fundamentalism".

True in the case of Islam and Christianity. But would like your thoughts on the paradox of Sikhism - which never developed as virulent a political component, despite its claims of being an 'organized' and 'revealed' religion.

Both Buddhism and Judaism also exhibit some degree of organization - however do not focus on 'revealed' dogma to the same extent as either Islam or Christianity.

All three you mention failed to hold on to "empires". It was a politico-military failure. Disjunct rashtrayia coercive power from organized religions they no longer have the "virulent" component on the surface. Having said that, both Judaism and Buddhism developed quite extremes of intolerant fundamentalisms in the past. OT.