Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hinduwoman · 12-25-2002, 05:07 PM

<a href="http://www.sulekha.com/articledesc.asp?cid=195857" target="_blank">http://www.sulekha.com/articledesc.asp?cid=195857</a>

Quote:

I came to bring not peace but a sword – Jesus Christ

For seven-year-old Shreema, 13th Jan 2002 was a special Sunday. All through the year, the girl had awaited the dawn of this day. For, that was the day one goes out and purchases new clothes, new toys and sweets, as the next day would be Makar Sankranthi -- the harvest festival celebrated throughout India. The Singicherra Bazar was bustling with activity. Like Shreema's family there were many people looking forward to a happy Makar Sankranthi. But they didn't realise that they were violating a fatwa issued by the Baptist Church-created Christian Al-Qaeda, the National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT). Nor did they know that they would pay with their lives for celebrating a heathen festival of their motherland.

Shreema would never again celebrate Makar Sankranthi. She died, along with sixteen others, on the spot as 13 terrorists of the NLFT encircled the people shopping for the festival and fired indiscriminately1. The soldiers of Christ have done again in Tripura what they have been doing for centuries to heathens throughout the world.

The Baptist Church of Tripura is not just the ideological mentor of the NLFT; it also supplies the NLFT with arms and ammunition for the soldiers of the holy crusade2. Never mind that the holy war involves killing infants and torching the huts of 'heathen Hindoos'. The NLFT does all these to bring to the infidels the peace and love of Christ. So, when Nagmanlal Halam, secretary of the Noapara Baptist Church in Tripura, was arrested by the Tripura police he had rather curious tools for evangelisation, which included along with the gospel 50 gelatin sticks, 5 kg of potassium and 2 kg of sulphur and other ingredients for making explosives. Mr. Halam confessed that his activities for the saving the heathen souls involved buying and supplying explosives to the NLFT over the past two years. Another church official, Jatna Koloi, who was also arrested, admitted that he received training in guerrilla warfare at an NLFT base last year. Surely, gelatin and AK-47s have more efficiency when it comes to bringing the light of the only revealed truth to the disbelievers suffering in 'spiritual darkness'. Those who are in doubt can check it out with another great light-bearer of the other 'only true book', Osama bin Laden (that is, when and if the prophet of terror is captured).

In other words the Religious Right yearns for the good old days. But the secular West is frustrating them. so they have moved to areas that is not so protected.

Quote:

The case of Jamatya tribals provides a telling example. These tribals have strong spiritual leaders and a network of social service organisations headed by their religious leaders. These indigenous sects are neither exclusive nor expansionist. The Baptist Church has always failed miserably in its conversion efforts with regard to this well-knit community. Hence, it is no wonder that the NLFT has made Jamatya institutions and their religious leaders the targets of their attacks. In the August of 2000, religious leaders of the Jamatya community like Jaulushmoni Jamatya and Shanti Kumar Tripura were killed by the NLFT, and Jamatya families were uprooted from their homelands and made refugees. The death threats issued by the NLFT to the inmates of these institutions have already forced the closure of 11 Jamatya institutions like schools and orphanages, set up by the slain religious leaders in various parts of Tripura4. Interestingly, these tribals are not close-minded fanatics. For one thing, they do not mind teaching the theory of evolution in their schools

Reason enough to close these godless schools.

Quote:

The NLFT has been an active partner of the Baptist Church in winning converts to the Christian creed. They have killed tribal priests to threaten communities and effect mass conversions. But those tactics have obviously backfired. In 2001 alone, the NLFT killed more than 20 Hindus who refused to 'accept the love of Christ'. They also torched to death a Hindu family sleeping in a hut6. In 2001, community chiefs and religious heads of 19 tribes formed the 'Tribal Culture Protection Committee' to counter the threat posed by the NLFT7. Despite the NLFT taking all possible steps to enforce conversions, the conversions are still slow. Frustrated, the NLFT has now begun an all out war against Hindu tribals. They have issued fatwas against infidel activities. These fatwas prohibit people from celebrating festivals like Durga Pooja and Makar Sankranthi, listening to Indian music, watching Indian TV channels and films, and prohibit women from wearing bangles or sporting bindis, etc. Just a year before the NLFT started all these atrocities in India, the Southern Baptist Church of the United States of America had given a clarion call to bring the light of the gospel to “millions of Hindus and Jews lost in the darkness” of their religions8.

Shreema, the seven-year-old girl from Tripura, died with bullets pumped into her tender body. Her crime was that she violated the Christian fatwa which prohibited her from celebrating an Indian festival. She was not just a victim of barbaric terrorism but she is also a martyr for Indian culture, a culture that has preserved thousands of tribal customs from barbaric persecution. Yet, she will not make it to the glossy covers of the weekly magazines of English speaking Indian media. Unsubstantiated, fabricated stories of Hindu fundamentalists (an oxymoron) killing Christian priests have been making their headlines. However, these fabrications have their use. They do help in the covering up of such acts of Christian love like killing in cold blood a seven- year-old girl or burning a family to death.

Actually Hindus can be fundamentalists, and at least two priests were killed by tribals, but I think you can see why violent solutions are gaining more and more appeal in India.

Quote:

1. 16 shot dead by NLFT in Tripura – PTI, January 13, 2002.
2. Church backing Tripura rebels – BBC, April 18, 2000.
3. India's North-East Resurgence: Ethnicity, Insurgency and Governance, Development by B.G. Vargheese, 1996, p.175.
4. Militants raid Hindu Ashram – The Telegraph, December 5, 2000.
5. NLFT curb on Hindu institutions – The Telegraph, September 14, 2000.
6. Three killed by Tripura rebels – BBC, April 14, 2000.
7. Tribals unite against conversions in Tripura, Syed Zarir Hussain, <a href="http://www.rediff.com/" target="_blank">www.rediff.com/</a> news/2001/aug/02trip.htm
8. Southern Baptists target Hindus, Julia Lieblich, The Associated Press, October 21, 1999

But the most worrying thing is refusal of majority of Christians in USA to believe that Christians can do this. They hysterically insist that Hindus are exaggerating and their religion forbids them to do these things. When we point out the gory past of Christianity, the answer is it is in the past, they did not follow the teachings of Christ, only Islam is violent, Hinduism practices caste, and anyway they don't believe it, so there!
There was one sympathetic guy from Canada who explained that these terrorists must have wrong translations of the Bible, because if they read the Bible in an educated fashion they would not have done these things.
Educated fashion, and wrong translations! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

ChristianSkeptic · 01-02-2003, 10:32 AM

Interesting thread Hinduwoman (HW), however the difference is that conversion by force is not consistent with the Bible and the example of the first disciples.

In contrast, a good case can be made that violent means are consistent with the Quran and the example of Muhammad.

Are you willing to make the case that the group you site are good consistent Christians?

Tell me more about this group. Are they members of a lower caste that had to fight for their rights and have now gone beyond the initial struggle?

It is my understanding, based on my studies, that many, if not a majority of the Christians in India are from the lower castes and tribes and furthermore, sixty percent of Christians in India are Catholic. Given the latter point, a minority of Protestants does not reflect the majority of Christians in India. (By the way I�m Protestant).

Another point that has just come to mind is that the conflict you describe could be ethnic based.

I look forward to your response HW.

Mageth · 01-02-2003, 10:36 AM

ChristianSkeptic:

And no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge?

ChristianSkeptic · 01-02-2003, 02:25 PM

Mageth: And no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge?

Hello Mageth

While I do not know much about Scottish culture, I do not think that being a Scotsman has the power to raise one from the dead. My point is that, as you are well aware, being a Christian involves a supernatural transformation. Therefore, my appeal is not simply that Christians do not put sugar on their porridge, but through a transcendent source the person is changed (Sugar on porridge can taste good by the power of God

The burden we have is to sustain that level of trust, based on knowledge, in God and not loose sight into ourselves or public opinion.

Also, I would ask you Megeth, can you demonstrate from the Bible and the example of the first disciples that force conversation is consistent with Christianity?

01-02-2003, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ChristianSkeptic
[B]
Also, I would ask you Megeth, can you demonstrate from the Bible and the example of the first disciples that force conversation is consistent with Christianity?

Hello ChristianSkeptic, I argue that no protestant has ever been born of God but all are born of carnal desire instead of God. In Jn.1:13 this difference is made clear. In case you wonder how I can be so sure is that anyone who is born of God must resign from religion and politics or he will never mature in his new calling as Christian. For him it will be like it was for Jesus in that he must tell noone that he is one of the chosen among those called.

In the Gospels Jesus always asked "why" and the reason always was the welfare of others and never the self. In other words, you just can't get born again because salvation will look good on you--for whatever reason, and if you insist, you'll get a scorpion instead of a fish.

ChristianSkeptic · 01-03-2003, 09:03 AM

Hello Amos, Biblical exegesis is not my strong suit, but that will not stop me from trying anyway

Amos: I argue that no protestant has ever been born of God but all are born of carnal desire instead of God. In Jn.1:13 this difference is made clear.

I agree that we are all born of �carnal desire.�

Amos: � anyone who is born of God must resign from religion and politics or he will never mature in his new calling as Christian.

May be so, but the issue here is does Christianity�s primary source document and its first leaders codify violence as a means of bringing people to the one true faith.

I submit, there is simply no good reason to believe so and thus far no good reason has been given. Therefore, Amos you should be a Christian

01-03-2003, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ChristianSkeptic

I agree that we are all born of �carnal desire.�

Amos: � anyone who is born of God must resign from religion and politics or he will never mature in his new calling as Christian.

May be so, but the issue here is does Christianity�s primary source document and its first leaders codify violence as a means of bringing people to the one true faith.

I submit, there is simply no good reason to believe so and thus far no good reason has been given. Therefore, Amos you should be a Christian

Never should violence be needed outside the flock. Within the flock fornicators must repent/amend or they deserve the millstone.

The point above was that it is posible to be reborn from God but I argue, as we see in this tread, that most people are reborn from carnal desire and therefore will use violence to reform the world around them instead of the world within them. To reform the world within your own mind you must withdraw from politics and religion just as, for example, Zhivago did when he returned home. The last thing we should do is go preach the gospel because that is a dead give-away that we have been given a scorpion instead of a fish . . . which in turn is why Jesus told Peter to tell noone that he was potentially the Christ if and when he did become fully one with Christ with the words "it is finished."

Mageth · 01-03-2003, 09:30 AM

Hello, ChristianSkeptic.

While I do not know much about Scottish culture, I do not think that being a Scotsman has the power to raise one from the dead.

I'm sure Dr. McDougal in the local ER, handy with a defibrillator as well as a Claymore, would disagree with you.

My point is that, as you are well aware, being a Christian involves a supernatural transformation.

No, I'm not aware of anything "supernatural." But if it's true, what went wrong when those people described above became Christians? A short in the transformer?

Therefore, my appeal is not simply that Christians do not put sugar on their porridge, but through a transcendent source the person is changed (Sugar on porridge can taste good by the power of God

Interesting. Why doesn't god use that "transcendent" power to change those Christians hinduwoman described, then? Is he powerless to do so? Doesn't he care that they're giving his pet religion a bad image?

The burden we have is to sustain that level of trust, based on knowledge, in God and not loose sight into ourselves or public opinion.

Also, I would ask you Megeth, can you demonstrate from the Bible and the example of the first disciples that force conversation is consistent with Christianity?

I don't know about forced conversation, but if you're talking about forced conversion, history is full of examples of Christian forced "conversion" as well as forced orthodoxy. So it may not be that way in principle, but in practice (which is what we're discussing here, after all) it often ends that way. Apparently God's supernatural transcendant transforming superpowers need a little work.

And while the bible may not exactly recommend forced conversion, the NT and Christianity most certainly use threats to gain converts:

Matthew 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Rev. 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. 8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

So to me that the Bible makes it clear that God is not too gentle in his method of gaining converts: Repent, or die!

01-03-2003, 09:44 AM

Quote:

[i]Matthew 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

The most wicked here is that since they cannot get a hold on them to send body and soul to hell they kill the body instead. This, however, has nothing to do with God but is the work of the angel of light (Lucifer) who is the prevailing source of their inspiration.

ChristianSkeptic · 01-03-2003, 09:48 AM

Amos: Never should violence be needed outside the flock.

The point of this thread is converting outsiders.

Amos:�that most people are reborn from carnal desire and therefore will use violence to reform the world around them instead of the world within them.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Amos because of your atheist or simply non-Christian presumptions, you miss the point that to be reborn, by the power of God, as a Christian is not compatible with violence and if you think otherwise please make your case.

From a Christian perspective there is no such thing as being reborn of the flesh/carnal desire since carnal desire is the norm given original sin. In short, you cannot be transformed into something that you already are.

Regarding the preaching of the Gospels, I [think it] highly unlikely the twelve disciples went to their deaths for preaching the Gospels if they were instructed by Jesus not to preach.

I suspect at this point in our discussion Amos you might be assuming a chasm between what Jesus taught and what the disciples preached. If so, then this discussion belongs in another forum. Agree?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-02-2003, 10:32 AM	#2
ChristianSkeptic Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Jefferson City, MO USA Posts: 34	Interesting thread Hinduwoman (HW), however the difference is that conversion by force is not consistent with the Bible and the example of the first disciples. In contrast, a good case can be made that violent means are consistent with the Quran and the example of Muhammad. Are you willing to make the case that the group you site are good consistent Christians? Tell me more about this group. Are they members of a lower caste that had to fight for their rights and have now gone beyond the initial struggle? It is my understanding, based on my studies, that many, if not a majority of the Christians in India are from the lower castes and tribes and furthermore, sixty percent of Christians in India are Catholic. Given the latter point, a minority of Protestants does not reflect the majority of Christians in India. (By the way I�m Protestant). Another point that has just come to mind is that the conflict you describe could be ethnic based. I look forward to your response HW.

01-02-2003, 10:36 AM	#3
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	ChristianSkeptic: And no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge?

01-02-2003, 02:25 PM	#4
ChristianSkeptic Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Jefferson City, MO USA Posts: 34	Mageth: And no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge? Hello Mageth While I do not know much about Scottish culture, I do not think that being a Scotsman has the power to raise one from the dead. My point is that, as you are well aware, being a Christian involves a supernatural transformation. Therefore, my appeal is not simply that Christians do not put sugar on their porridge, but through a transcendent source the person is changed (Sugar on porridge can taste good by the power of God The burden we have is to sustain that level of trust, based on knowledge, in God and not loose sight into ourselves or public opinion. Also, I would ask you Megeth, can you demonstrate from the Bible and the example of the first disciples that force conversation is consistent with Christianity?

01-03-2003, 09:03 AM	#6
ChristianSkeptic Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Jefferson City, MO USA Posts: 34	Hello Amos, Biblical exegesis is not my strong suit, but that will not stop me from trying anyway Amos: I argue that no protestant has ever been born of God but all are born of carnal desire instead of God. In Jn.1:13 this difference is made clear. I agree that we are all born of �carnal desire.� Amos: � anyone who is born of God must resign from religion and politics or he will never mature in his new calling as Christian. May be so, but the issue here is does Christianity�s primary source document and its first leaders codify violence as a means of bringing people to the one true faith. I submit, there is simply no good reason to believe so and thus far no good reason has been given. Therefore, Amos you should be a Christian

01-03-2003, 09:30 AM	#8
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Hello, ChristianSkeptic. While I do not know much about Scottish culture, I do not think that being a Scotsman has the power to raise one from the dead. I'm sure Dr. McDougal in the local ER, handy with a defibrillator as well as a Claymore, would disagree with you. My point is that, as you are well aware, being a Christian involves a supernatural transformation. No, I'm not aware of anything "supernatural." But if it's true, what went wrong when those people described above became Christians? A short in the transformer? Therefore, my appeal is not simply that Christians do not put sugar on their porridge, but through a transcendent source the person is changed (Sugar on porridge can taste good by the power of God Interesting. Why doesn't god use that "transcendent" power to change those Christians hinduwoman described, then? Is he powerless to do so? Doesn't he care that they're giving his pet religion a bad image? The burden we have is to sustain that level of trust, based on knowledge, in God and not loose sight into ourselves or public opinion. Also, I would ask you Megeth, can you demonstrate from the Bible and the example of the first disciples that force conversation is consistent with Christianity? I don't know about forced conversation, but if you're talking about forced conversion, history is full of examples of Christian forced "conversion" as well as forced orthodoxy. So it may not be that way in principle, but in practice (which is what we're discussing here, after all) it often ends that way. Apparently God's supernatural transcendant transforming superpowers need a little work. And while the bible may not exactly recommend forced conversion, the NT and Christianity most certainly use threats to gain converts: Matthew 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Rev. 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. 8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. So to me that the Bible makes it clear that God is not too gentle in his method of gaining converts: Repent, or die!

01-03-2003, 09:48 AM	#10
ChristianSkeptic Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Jefferson City, MO USA Posts: 34	Amos: Never should violence be needed outside the flock. The point of this thread is converting outsiders. Amos:�that most people are reborn from carnal desire and therefore will use violence to reform the world around them instead of the world within them. Correct me if I am wrong, but Amos because of your atheist or simply non-Christian presumptions, you miss the point that to be reborn, by the power of God, as a Christian is not compatible with violence and if you think otherwise please make your case. From a Christian perspective there is no such thing as being reborn of the flesh/carnal desire since carnal desire is the norm given original sin. In short, you cannot be transformed into something that you already are. Regarding the preaching of the Gospels, I [think it] highly unlikely the twelve disciples went to their deaths for preaching the Gospels if they were instructed by Jesus not to preach. I suspect at this point in our discussion Amos you might be assuming a chasm between what Jesus taught and what the disciples preached. If so, then this discussion belongs in another forum. Agree?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.