We Are All Hindus Now?

[Peek a Boo]

Her link agrees with the usual dating, not her dating, on this issue. That's why I asked.

 

it might have been info in one of the sources listed at the bottom.

 

but wiki offers several explanations. Not all experts will agree. ;)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Date

[Julie in Austin]

it might have been info in one of the sources listed at the bottom.

 

but wiki offers several explanations. Not all experts will agree. ;)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Date

 

There's not a thing on wiki (not that wiki is necessarily a reliable source . . . ) suggesting a date of 60 for P52 or any other fragment of John. The footnote you highlighted is to a Metzger book I've read; he goes with the usual 125ce dating.

[ma23peas]

Have not read the 31 page of posts..but am responding solely to the OP...number one thing in today's media is to KNOW your sources. I would not trust anything in Newsweek and several other journalistic publications that have very sided agendas. I use to read some of these 20 years ago for research and have seen a continued trend towards irresponsible journalism. Just reading 37% of Christians puts alarm flags...there have been large breaks in denominations (Presbyterian/Methodist/Lutheran etc.) in our generation that have 'watered' down what a Christian is today versus fifty years ago. Many are choosing to create their interpretation of the Bible to fit their congregation...it's a treacherous road and we'll see the effects of it in the next decades. But, don't take everything you read from sources like Newseek as to be fact....I could produce opposite results and still verify my sources....

 

Tara

[TXMomof4]

There's not a thing on wiki (not that wiki is necessarily a reliable source . . . ) suggesting a date of 60 for P52 or any other fragment of John. The footnote you highlighted is to a Metzger book I've read; he goes with the usual 125ce dating.

 

 

Whoa! Sorry - I've been traveling since yesterday and just now got back here. You are right Julie - I was trying to find the info on my mom's computer yesterday and ended up mixing up my books. The Pauline espistles and all of the gospels were believed to be "revered and copied by AD125 - within 30 years of the Apostles death" (not Jesus' death as I misstated before.) Tyndale Bible dictionary.

 

Sorry about the confusion, not trying to be misleading just misspoke.

[Julie in Austin]

Whoa! Sorry - I've been traveling since yesterday and just now got back here. You are right Julie - I was trying to find the info on my mom's computer yesterday and ended up mixing up my books. The Pauline espistles and all of the gospels were believed to be "revered and copied by AD125 - within 30 years of the Apostles death" (not Jesus' death as I misstated before.) Tyndale Bible dictionary.

 

Sorry about the confusion, not trying to be misleading just misspoke.

 

No problem! I do that sort of thing all the time! I just wanted to be sure that there wasn't some new interpretation or new text that I hadn't previously heard of . . . I have a grad degree in New Testament and try to keep up on these things . . .

[lionfamily1999]

well written.

 

 

 

yup. basic reading comprehension ;)

 

 

 

Bingo. Being a Christian is not about polling what Christians believe by consensus.

 

 

I wonder this myself.

Peek, it has been such a crap day. Thank you for the warm fuzzies.

[Night Elf]

You say "dominant" but that is EXACTLY what Christian parents are told to do: "Train up a child in the way they should go" --not "let them explore other religions as a possible way to go" It's the same sort of perception issues as submission, actually.

 

I haven't read this thread for a while because such a sensitive nerve was struck in my heart, but I did want to respond to this comment. I don't recall saying that a child should explore other religions, although I do think an older teen might strengthen his/her own faith by seeing how it compares to others. I said they should be able to explore the concept of their own religion, i.e. that rather than taking everything said to them on blind faith, they should be encouraged to read the Bible on their own and to ask questions. I wasn't allowed to ask questions when I was younger. I was told what to believe and any thought outside that belief system was absolute sin and took me farther away from God. She didn't own that faith and that is why I think she has totally rejected it at this point. I encourage her to explore it on her own or with my help, but so far she hasn't been interested.

 

I saw much of the same thing at my last church. Kids were taught from toddlerhood what to believe. Kids were encouraged to be saved and baptised. I was so proud when my youngest dd chose baptism at age 6 but as the years have gone by, I can't help but wonder what any of that truly meant to her. There are many people who are absolutely 100% positive their young child can genuinely feel the call to faith. I'm saying that MY child may not have benefited from such a path. She wasn't encouraged to ask original questions, but just praised when she was able to parrot the instruction taught to her.

[Lovedtodeath]

I haven't read this thread for a while because such a sensitive nerve was struck in my heart, but I did want to respond to this comment. I don't recall saying that a child should explore other religions, although I do think an older teen might strengthen his/her own faith by seeing how it compares to others. I said they should be able to explore the concept of their own religion, i.e. that rather than taking everything said to them on blind faith, they should be encouraged to read the Bible on their own and to ask questions. I wasn't allowed to ask questions when I was younger. I was told what to believe and any thought outside that belief system was absolute sin and took me farther away from God. She didn't own that faith and that is why I think she has totally rejected it at this point. I encourage her to explore it on her own or with my help, but so far she hasn't been interested.

 

I saw much of the same thing at my last church. Kids were taught from toddlerhood what to believe. Kids were encouraged to be saved and baptised. I was so proud when my youngest dd chose baptism at age 6 but as the years have gone by, I can't help but wonder what any of that truly meant to her. There are many people who are absolutely 100% positive their young child can genuinely feel the call to faith. I'm saying that MY child may not have benefited from such a path. She wasn't encouraged to ask original questions, but just praised when she was able to parrot the instruction taught to her.

I took what you said the same way that Peek did. I am glad you clarified. I absolutely agree with your opinion on this.

 

As for being ready for babtism, one never really knows. I certainly thought I was ready at 14 and then when I fell away everyone assumed that I must have not been ready or had my own relationship with God. But there are numerous examples in the Bible of those with a very strong relationship that fall away or make grievous errors. Saul, David, and Solomon for starters.

Edited August 23, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[KingM]

Speaking of which, here is a Youtube video between a Hindu girl and a couple of teenage Christian girls. Maybe this sort of conversation should be left to the professionals. :tongue_smilie:

 

Warning: watch the link only if you have an appreciation for the absurd.

 

 

[dangermom]

I got to 1:19. It's too painful. I can't do it. That poor girl (not the "regular" one, the Indian one :001_huh:)

[KingM]

I got to 1:19. It's too painful. I can't do it. That poor girl (not the "regular" one, the Indian one :001_huh:)

 

As it progresses, the Indian girl struggles to articulate her own beliefs as well or even what Hinduism stands for. She seems to handle the silliness coming from the other two with good humor, however.

[Peek a Boo]

I don't recall saying that a child should explore other religions, although I do think an older teen might strengthen his/her own faith by seeing how it compares to others. I said they should be able to explore the concept of their own religion, i.e. that rather than taking everything said to them on blind faith, they should be encouraged to read the Bible on their own and to ask questions. I wasn't allowed to ask questions when I was younger. .

 

there are a couple different thoughts here:

 

1. when they read and ask questions, they should also be ready to accept the answers given to them -- not on "blind" faith, but on studied faith, the same way we encourage young students to seek out experts for answers on secular issues.

 

2. scriptures tell us to test everything and be ready to give an account of our faith. As Christian teachers, we need to be ready to answer thoroughly the questions that are asked of us.

 

that's horrible that you were never allowed to ask questions. I hope you're asking lots of them now. :)

[sleepymommy]

As it progresses, the Indian girl struggles to articulate her own beliefs as well or even what Hinduism stands for. She seems to handle the silliness coming from the other two with good humor, however.

 

Oh what a horrible video, to be harassed like that from your "friends".

 

I can understand why it would be difficult to explain Hinduism to them. English is clearly not her first language and she was not born and raised here, so she certainly isn't used to the need to defend her faith against prosletyizing (sp?) "friends". Different religions are generally well accepted in India and unless you live in a very poor village, missionaries don't really tap on your shoulder there. Being that she was able to immigrate here, I don't think that was her situation.

 

In any case, how do talk about something as close and personal to you as your faith with someone who doesn't even understand that India is not in Africa and that not all Asians have "slanty eyes".

 

I'm just mortified for all of those girls.

[KingM]

In any case, how do talk about something as close and personal to you as your faith with someone who doesn't even understand that India is not in Africa and that not all Asians have "slanty eyes".

 

 

Hmm, where do you think those girls are learning about the world, public school or home school? ;)

[sleepymommy]

Hmm, where do you think those girls are learning about the world, public school or home school? ;)

 

:lol:

[prady]

I can understand why it would be difficult to explain Hinduism to them. English is clearly not her first language and she was not born and raised here, so she certainly isn't used to the need to defend her faith against prosletyizing (sp?) "friends". Different religions are generally well accepted in India and unless you live in a very poor village, missionaries don't really tap on your shoulder there. Being that she was able to immigrate here, I don't think that was her situation.

 

Ironically missionaries do tap around the most backward regions in India. Thats a big controversy.

 

I saw that video. One thing apparent is she's sort of shocked someone would look down on her religion in the way her friends did. My parents too never taught me ever anything against another religion. When i met Christian missionaries in the malls in the US and Islamists in Jordan asking me to give up Hinduism first time, it sort of shocked me, anyone could disparage faith like that.. I had a similar reaction, of not being able to tell them 'One God many Paths'. I think i like Sara blurted 'Many Gods'. little realizing the doctrinal hate in these relgions against 'uttering' multiple Gods. Though i never meant i worship 'many Gods'. Later only i realized, that our upbringing was much more spiritually free and doctrinally tolerant than many in the developed and Islamic world. The same reaction goes with Sara.

 

Give you a typical Hindu prayer, ..read it, you'll realize anyone can pray that, withot changing religions/ converting etc.:

 

Oh God, lead us from the

unreal to the Real.

Oh God, lead us from darkness to light.

Oh God, lead us from death to immortality.

Shanti, Shanti, Shanti unto all.

Oh Lord God almighty, may there be peace in

celestial regions.

 

May there be peace on Earth.

May the waters be appeasing.

May herbs be wholesome, and may trees

plants bring peace to all. May all beneficent

beings bring peace to us.

May all things be a source of peace to us.

And may thy peace itself, bestow peace on all

and may that peace come to me also.

 

 

Sara must have been shocked, that when she internally wishes peace for all, why do these people talk about 'hell' for her? I personally felt there was 'aggression' in the approach. I doubt most Americans share the thinking of Molly and her 'regular' friend.

 

Shanti= Inner Peace..

Edited August 26, 2009 by prady

[prady]

Another very ancient Hindu/ Vedic prayer probably originating around 2 millenia before Christ..at the least:

 

Sahana vavathu, Sahanau bhunakthu,

Sahaveeryam karavavahai,

Tejaswi Navadhithamasthu ma Vidhvisavahai.

OM shanthi ,shanthi, shantiheee.

 

Meaning:

Together we shall grow , Together we shall experience,

Valorous we will be, radiating an intellectual brilliance,

With Mutual understanding, with no conflict, we will be.

Peace peace peace

Cultivating the mind for coexistence...why cannot we pray these in interfaith meetings? Will it lessen anyone's 'core' religion? Will praying this lead people away/ astray from God?

 

Do people who do this prayer go to hell?

[lionfamily1999]

Prady... I don't want to be mean, I don't want to make anyone feel bad.

 

But.

 

As a Christian, I pray to God through Jesus Christ. Throwing out prayers, either to myself (as that prayer reads, imo) or to unnamed gods would be, imo, dangerous. If only because it opens one up to answers from one that is not God.

 

Personally, I can see the personal danger in such a thing. I don't mind them for public gatherings, the kind where generic prayers are tossed out to generic god(s) or forces, but I could not participate, nor would I allow my children. We CAN stand respectfully by with our heads bowed while someone else does, I mean it is possible to be kind and respectful even if you disagree.

 

I see a lot of Christians struggling with trying to make their religion more pc, more open, more inclusive, but the Bible is clear... leukwarm Christianity does not cut it.

 

I don't like to disagree, it makes me feel bad, like some cruel ogre crushing someone's house... all the same, I feel like I should at least attempt to explain. I hope I haven't come across cruel or thoughtless.

[Lovedtodeath]

Prady... I don't want to be mean, I don't want to make anyone feel bad.

 

But.

 

As a Christian, I pray to God through Jesus Christ. Throwing out prayers, either to myself (as that prayer reads, imo) or to unnamed gods would be, imo, dangerous. If only because it opens one up to answers from one that is not God.

 

Personally, I can see the personal danger in such a thing. I don't mind them for public gatherings, the kind where generic prayers are tossed out to generic god(s) or forces, but I could not participate, nor would I allow my children. We CAN stand respectfully by with our heads bowed while someone else does, I mean it is possible to be kind and respectful even if you disagree.

 

I see a lot of Christians struggling with trying to make their religion more pc, more open, more inclusive, but the Bible is clear... leukwarm Christianity does not cut it.

 

I don't like to disagree, it makes me feel bad, like some cruel ogre crushing someone's house... all the same, I feel like I should at least attempt to explain. I hope I haven't come across cruel or thoughtless.

:iagree:The Bible absolutely does not allow room for interfaith.

[hornblower]

:iagree:The Bible absolutely does not allow room for interfaith.

 

Is Christianity then by its very nature intolerant of other faiths?

[JennC]

Is Christianity then by its very nature intolerant of other faiths?

 

Is it incompatible theologically? Yes. Intolerant, as in strapping bombs to ourselves and blowing up markets? No.

Edited August 27, 2009 by JennC
one little letter

[Peela]

Is Christianity then by its very nature intolerant of other faiths?

 

Probably depends what you mean by intolerant. It doesnt seem to "allow" for other paths and religions as being equally valid or suitable for others...the way Hinduism does. In fact one of its strongest teachings seems to be that it is the "only" way. However, nor does Christianity suggest that one should be "intolerant" in the sense of "not putting up with", in the sense of perhaps condemning or hating or even criticising- it is essentially a religion of deep forgiveness and love and non judgement. So expressing any sort of "intolerance" in the generally accepted understanding of the term, seems to me to be antithical to the teachings of love that Christianity advises, however I do think that it is possible to feel one's religion is the only and best way, without being personally intolerant of other religions. How could one be simultaneously living the teaching of love, and intolerant ? I don't think its possible.

 

 

 

Intolerant:

unwilling to tolerate difference of opinion

Unable or indisposed to tolerate, endure or bear; Not tolerant; close-minded about new or different ideas

Intolerance - an attitude of not accepting or respecting different opinions, practices, or people.

[Kate in Arabia]

Is it incompatible theologically? Yes. Intolerant, as in strapping bombs to ourselves and blowing up markets? No.

What is that supposed to mean?

 

You know, for a thread that isn't even supposed to be about being critical of different faiths, there have been an awful lot of jabs.

[Jugglin'5]

Hinduism has its own issues with intolerance, so let's not get carried away:

 

From ReligiousTolerance.org (This is a summary, but I have read of many of these incidents over the years from other sources. This is just a good compilation). -

 

 

 

 

 

Examples of Hindu violence towards Christians:

 

Hindu nationalist groups promote the concept of Hindutva -- a pure Hindu nation -- where Hindus have a position of dominance over Christians, Muslims, and believers of other religions, and in which the caste system is restored and rigidly preserved. Their natural enemies are various Christian groups who promote the concept of a classless society without a caste system.

The Washington Times reports that charitable groups in the U.S. collect funds from Indians living in that country and funnel the money to Hindutva groups in India. Priya Abraham of the Institute on Religion and Public Policy discusses the findings of California-based anthropologist Angana Chatterji who has been monitoring the transfer of funding for years. Abraham writes:

 

"According to Ms. Chatterji, there are four major Hindutva-affiliated groups in the United States that have funded numerous organizations across India. The U.S. groups register as charities with tax-exempt status and carry stated goals of providing development and welfare work for needy Indians. In reality, Ms. Chatterji says, the charities offer facades for vast political activities that include the education, conversion and indoctrination of Hindutva ideology in traditionally poor and often illiterate tribal and low-caste Indians."

6

 

Some Hindus have accused Christian missionaries of offering money and goods to Tallit (a.k.a. untouchables) and other lower caste Indians as an inducement to convert to Christianity. Although the caste system has been officially outlawed for many years, it is still followed by many Hindus -- particularly in rural areas. There are accusations that some low caste Indians have converted to Buddhism or Christianity in order to escape from the caste system. This is viewed as a destabilizing force by many Hindus.

Christians experienced increased oppression after the nationalistic Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power federally in 1998. Violence continues, even after the BJP was replaced by the Congress Party in 2004. Some examples of inter-faith violence:

1999: Graham Staines, an Australian Christian missionary had worked for 30 years with leprosy patients in Orissa state for three decades. In 1999, he and his two young sons -- Philip, 10, and Timothy, 6, were trapped inside a car by Hindu fundamentalist militants who set fire to his vehicle. All three were burned to death. In 2003, 13 men were convicted of mass murder. Dara Singh was sentenced to hang; his 12 accomplices, were sentenced to life in prison. 1

2000: During the first half of the year, there were 35 violent incidents in which Christians were victimized. These include bombings, church arson, beating deaths, and assaults. Roman Catholic Archbishop de Lastic stated: "There is a definite strategy and plan at the national level -- these forces at work want to intimidate Christians."

 

 

Some Protestant and Catholic leaders blamed the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). This is a Hindu spiritual group, from which the BJP political party grew. The

All India Christian Council

wrote that Christians are "

sick of the statements and are not fooled by the utterances of the central government.

"

2

Herod Malik, spokesperson for the United Forum for Catholics and Protestants said: "

We are scared. We have to go to international organizations because we have no faith in the Indian government.

"

3

 

 

 

 

Federal government leaders denied that the RSS is responsible. They accused Pakistani security forces.

1

 

 

 

2007: During the Christmas holiday period, about 10 people died, 90 churches were burned and 600 homes were destroyed in Orissa state. 4

2008: Clashes continued in Orissa state. According to a commentary in the Washington Times, on AUG-23, a hard-line Hindu swami was murdered. Extremist Hindus went on a rampage agaisnt Orissa's minority Christians, burning homes, destroying churhes, battering people and raping women,including an nun. The Baptist World Alliance claimed in August that the death toll had reached at least 25. They reported that more than 600 churches had been demolished and that 4,000 Christians had been forced to flee from their villages.

 

The Associated Baptist Press reported in 2008-AUG-27:

 

"A nun died and a pastor was hurt when fire swept an orphanage in the Bargarh District. Apparently none of the 21 children housed there died."

 

 

 

"In an Aug. 26 e-mail to the BWA, Swarupananda Patra, General Secretary of the

All Orissa Baptist Churches Federation

, said, 'All Christian villages [are] empty in Kandhamal as Christians, old and young, sick and pregnant mothers [are] hiding in forests exposed to the non-stop monsoon rains without food. Kandhamal is the hardest hit, with at least eight Christians killed and almost all Christian homes demolished,' he reported. 'I appeal to the governing authorities in India to intervene to save the lives of the many who are being victimized in the current crisis,' BWA General Secretary Neville Callam said in a press release. 'Respect for the principle of religious liberty and the sacredness of human life requires nothing less'."

5

 

Eventually, during four months of violence, about 70 people died and 50,000 were displaced into refugee camps. 6

 

 

 

 

[lionfamily1999]

Is Christianity then by its very nature intolerant of other faiths?

I guess it depends on how you define intolerant. We don't believe other religions are right and we won't practice those religions just to make another person comfortable.

 

It's easier for me to answer this a different way... I hope you don't mind, but if I tell you what we are supposed to do, then you can see where the windows for personal behavior and interpretation are. Those, imo, are where the "intolerance" lies, but really it depends on how far someone pushes tolerance, imo.

 

So, da rules:

(Please note, these are in Juliese, not direct quotes, for the most part)

1. Love the Lord God with all your heart, soul and mind.

2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

(two biggies, the rest are written rather randomly)

Do not: have evil thoughts, murder, commit adultery, fornicate, steal, bear false witness, blasphemy, speak against the Holy Ghost (big one), offend the children of God, look to lust, tempt God, be angry without cause, swear/promise, resist evil being done to you, judge, be called rabbi/teacher/master/father.

Do: pay your taxes, be baptized, live off the word of God, agree with your adversaries quickly, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, pray for them that despitefully use/prosecute you, honour your parents.

 

 

Because of the very first and most important rule... there is no room for other Gods.

What is that supposed to mean?

 

You know, for a thread that isn't even supposed to be about being critical of different faiths, there have been an awful lot of jabs.

I think she's trying to say we are intolerant in that we don't allow for other paths to God, but not so intolerant that we would try to destroy other churches or religious people. I'm sorry it went the way it did. Really, as many Christians as have physically attacked people at certain clinics have shown, there are just as many nuts in our religion that are willing to ignore the actual teachings as there are in other religions.

[texascamps]

I constantly hear how as Christians we need to be tolerant of other religions. I believe that we should not go a blow up people of other faiths. I believe we should allow others to worship as they see fit, as long as it does not involve taking the life of another. I believe that we should have friends of other faiths and not insult them. We should respect their religions and participate in celebrations and ceremonies when invited, like when someone wants you to be there at bat mitzvahs, and weddings, baptisms, etc. They obviously like you enough to invite you.

 

So many in the media and in the secular world point out anytime Christians do something that is somehow, "unkind" or "intolerant" when we are supposed to be a religion of love and "surely Jesus would do/not do whatever" the persecuted has done. How would they know..... since the Bible is not taught, and most folks outside of churches don't even read it.

 

Jesus and God are not "tolerant." Even when Jesus interecedes to prevent the death of a woman getting stoned, what does he say? Go and sin no more. He doesn't say, "its all okay!"

 

Jesus and God love us all because we are God's children. However, I don't see how anyone can say they are "tolerant." They may be tolerant in that they don't strike us down every time we do something against their word. However, we have very specific "to do's" and "not to do's." Its funny that as time passes, this "to do and not to do" is getting shorter and shorter, because as I've heard it said before. Jesus started us over so we don't have to follow anything before Jesus, or even stuff Jesus did himself, in fact we don't really have to do anything except get baptized. If that's the case then there really is no purpose for us to be here.

 

I think modern Christianity has bitten itself in the hind end by creating the "I'm okay, you're okay, everything's okay" rhetoric just to get people in the church ($$$) when there really is no basis in it when you look at scriptures as a whole. Then we are left with pieces of scripture to conform to what people want to hear, not what is actually in there. The pastor is simply teaching his take on the scriptures. In fact, in some of the larger church's that have coffee bars and fitness centers in their building, how much scripture study is going on vs. socializing? We're all going to heaven because we exercise together? God's word is second?

I know we are all on a journey and our paces are different, but I think we all have to be wary of our path.

[Tea Time]

Probably depends what you mean by intolerant. It doesnt seem to "allow" for other paths and religions as being equally valid or suitable for others...the way Hinduism does. In fact one of its strongest teachings seems to be that it is the "only" way. However, nor does Christianity suggest that one should be "intolerant" in the sense of "not putting up with", in the sense of perhaps condemning or hating or even criticising- it is essentially a religion of deep forgiveness and love and non judgement. So expressing any sort of "intolerance" in the generally accepted understanding of the term, seems to me to be antithical to the teachings of love that Christianity advises, however I do think that it is possible to feel one's religion is the only and best way, without being personally intolerant of other religions. How could one be simultaneously living the teaching of love, and intolerant ? I don't think its possible.

 

 

 

Intolerant:

unwilling to tolerate difference of opinion

Unable or indisposed to tolerate, endure or bear; Not tolerant; close-minded about new or different ideas

Intolerance - an attitude of not accepting or respecting different opinions, practices, or people.

 

Just answering the question above that is bolded…

 

It is possible, because we are all only human, and we make mistakes. But it also puts the idea of “tolerant†on equal footing with “being loving,†which it is not. We can all think of examples where tolerating things is not the loving thing to do. (Think parenting as an example)

 

Personally, I think the level of diversity that we live with on a day to day basis taxes our ability to be tolerant, and sometimes we get confused about what we should tolerate and what we should be intolerant about. It is not that easy to know! This is part of the human condition, and no spiritual path will free us from this burden completely unless we abdicate our responsibility and never try to stop any degree of perceived injustice or wrong doing.

 

We need to remember that the word TOLERATE is the root of INTOLERANCE and it carries with it an inherent meaning that disagrees... You cannot tolerate something that you agree with? KWIM?

 

My experience has been that a lot of people think you are "intolerant" if you do not agree with them. They are not expecting tolerance, but complete acquiescence to their point of view, and then they might agree to say that you are “tolerant†if you give that. This is illogical.

 

So, how are Christians to show “tolerance†for religions or ideas that they do not agree with? What will that look like? How can it be displayed and accepted by the other party without the Christian's own POV being swallowed up in the process or completely shutting down his/her right to free speech? What if you are doing your level best to be “tolerant,†but the fact that you have not fully embraced the other POV, means you are still perceived as intolerant?

 

This, of course, works on all sides. But it is interesting to note that people who value "tolerance" above all things are often not tolerant. Christianity never promised to be "tolerant," but that is inherent in what it did promise, which is to love. Toleration is not the highest form of virtue. 'Tis but one of the easiest.

[Peek a Boo]

it also puts the idea of “tolerant†on equal footing with “being loving,†which it is not. We can all think of examples where tolerating things is not the loving thing to do. (Think parenting as an example)

 

 

 

My experience has been that a lot of people think you are "intolerant" if you do not agree with them. They are not expecting tolerance, but complete acquiescence to their point of view, and then they might agree to say that you are “tolerant†if you give that. This is illogical.

 

 

This, of course, works on all sides. But it is interesting to note that people who value "tolerance" above all things are often not tolerant. Christianity never promised to be "tolerant," but that is inherent in what it did promise, which is to love. Toleration is not the highest form of virtue. 'Tis but one of the easiest.

 

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

very well stated.

[HRAAB]

So many in the media and in the secular world point out anytime Christians do something that is somehow, "unkind" or "intolerant" when we are supposed to be a religion of love and "surely Jesus would do/not do whatever" the persecuted has done. How would they know..... since the Bible is not taught, and most folks outside of churches don't even read it.

 

Jesus and God are not "tolerant." Even when Jesus interecedes to prevent the death of a woman getting stoned, what does he say? Go and sin no more. He doesn't say, "its all okay!"

 

Jesus and God love us all because we are God's children. However, I don't see how anyone can say they are "tolerant." They may be tolerant in that they don't strike us down every time we do something against their word. However, we have very specific "to do's" and "not to do's." Its funny that as time passes, this "to do and not to do" is getting shorter and shorter, because as I've heard it said before. Jesus started us over so we don't have to follow anything before Jesus, or even stuff Jesus did himself, in fact we don't really have to do anything except get baptized. If that's the case then there really is no purpose for us to be here.

 

I think modern Christianity has bitten itself in the hind end by creating the "I'm okay, you're okay, everything's okay" rhetoric just to get people in the church ($$$) when there really is no basis in it when you look at scriptures as a whole. Then we are left with pieces of scripture to conform to what people want to hear, not what is actually in there. The pastor is simply teaching his take on the scriptures. In fact, in some of the larger church's that have coffee bars and fitness centers in their building, how much scripture study is going on vs. socializing? We're all going to heaven because we exercise together? God's word is second?

I know we are all on a journey and our paces are different, but I think we all have to be wary of our path.

 

I've been giving quite a bit of thinking to these ideas lately: about being tolerant, everything's all okay, look at Jesus, he dined with prostitutes and sinners of all kinds. True, He did. But it occurred to me, he also offended people big time. He wasn't tolerant of what He saw that was wrong. In fact, He offended people so much He got Himself crucified. And He wasn't always meek and mild in His speech. I think we sometimes misrepresent Jesus when we make Him out to be some kind of peace loving hippy. Well, you know what I mean.

 

I'm not sure where I stand in all this, but if someone is going to preach what Jesus preached, people are going to be offended and they will be viewed as intolerant. I guess a lot of it is in the way it's preached.

 

Just ponderin...

 

Janet

[Peek a Boo]

I'm not sure where I stand in all this, but if someone is going to preach what Jesus preached, people are going to be offended and they will be viewed as intolerant. I guess a lot of it is in the way it's preached.

 

 

Jesus was The Perfect Preacher and they still didn't like Him.

 

Christ warns us that we won't be liked either. I got that memo. ;)

 

 

good points.

[prady]

Juglin 5: While i don't deny there may be intolerance in those who claim to be Hndu's it by no means is what many want to convey..just an example from what you quoted..

 

 

2000: During the first half of the year, there were 35 violent incidents in which Christians were victimized. These include bombings, church arson, beating deaths, and assaults. Roman Catholic Archbishop de Lastic stated: "There is a definite strategy and plan at the national level -- these forces at work want to intimidate Christians."

Some Protestant and Catholic leaders blamed the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). This is a Hindu spiritual group, from which the BJP political party grew. The All India Christian Council wrote that Christians are "sick of the statements and are not fooled by the utterances of the central government." 2 Herod Malik, spokesperson for the United Forum for Catholics and Protestants said: "We are scared. We have to go to international organizations because we have no faith in the Indian government." 3

 

 

Federal government leaders denied that the RSS is responsible.

 

Guess who were responsible? I remember that time lots of people and vested interests blamed Hindu's..but:

 

 

Church blasts case: Court convicts 53

Saturday, November 22, 2008

http://www.deccanherald.com/Content/Nov ... updatenews

 

Bangalore, DHNS : A special court, hearing cases related to the serial bomb blasts in churches in Karnataka in 2000, convicted 53 members of Deendar Anjuman. Four others were acquitted in the case.

 

The accused were found guilty of carrying out serial blasts in churches at Hubli, Wadi (Gulbarga) and Bangalore in 2000. Hearing on the sentence will be held on Saturday in the special court of Sessions Judge, S M Shivangoudar.

 

Five others, including the main accused, are currently in Pakistan. Their trial will be held only after their extradition, said a release.

 

Two of the accused (Zakir and Siddiqi) were killed on the spot, while another (SM Ibrahim) was injured when they were transporting bombs to plant them in other churches on July 9, 2000. Police arrested Ibrahim, and he spilled the beans about Deendar Anjuman and its intention to create communal disturbances in the country, the release said.

 

The Corps of Detectives took up the investigation and arrested 85 persons and filed charge-sheets against them.

 

The accused would deliberately abandon a few pamphlets, the contents of which stated that some Hindu organisations had carried out the blasts.

 

The investigation team was headed by DySP VS D’Souza. For the trial of the cases, a special court was constituted at the Central Jail, Bangalore. Special public prosecutor H N Nilogal was appointed public prosecutor to conduct the case on behalf of the State government.

 

 

 

81 held guilty in 2000 church blasts

Friday, November 21, 2008 22:01 IST

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1208448

 

BANGALORE : A Special Court, which was holding trial into the 2000 serial church blasts in Karnataka, held 81 persons guilty of the crime on Friday. Special judge S M Shivanagoudar will pronounce the quantum of punishment to the guilty on Saturday.

 

The special court was constituted by the state government. Though the cases were initially investigated by the local police, it was later handed over to the Corps of Detectives (CoD), which filed chargesheets against the accused too.

 

The serial blasts occurred between May and July 2000 in various churches within Karnataka, Goa and Andhra Pradesh, creating panic among the people and leaving the police completely clueless.

 

However, on July 9, the perpetrators fell into a trap of their own making in Bangalore. The extremists were returning by a Maruti van after bombing churches in Jagajeevanramnagar when several bombs kept in their vehicle went off. According to police, it occurred when their van shook while negotiating a road hump. Two occupants of the van, Zakir and Siddiqi, died on the spot while the third, S M Ibrahim, sustained injuries.

 

Soon afterwards, the police raided Ibrahim's house at Murugeshpalya and seized several documents and a computer hard disk - which led to the arrests of several others in the three states. All of them belonged to an outfit called Deedar Anjuman (Religious Association), an unknown terrorist outfit till that time.

 

Deendar Anjuman

 

Deendar Anjuman was founded by Hazrath Moulana Siddique - alias Deendar Channabasaveshwara - at Bellampet, Gulbarga district, in 1924. Its head office was at Asif Nagar, Hyderabad. Though the organisation operated behind the façade of establishing religious equality, it had a hidden Jehadi agenda, which aimed at achieving the Islamisation of India.

 

Soon after the death of Moulana Siddique, his eldest son Zia-ul-Hasan became its religious head. The present headquarters of Deendar Anjuman is located at Mardan in Pakistan, where Zia is settled with his family. Though it initially claimed to be a Sufi sect, the Deendar Anjuman floated a terrorist outfit called Jamat-e-Hizbul Mujahiddin (JHM) with the patronage of Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI).

 

Every year, on the second week of Muslim month of Rajab (October), a religious function resembling Urs was arranged by the Deendar Anjuman centre at Hyderabad to mark the death anniversary of its founder. Zia and his family members used to visit India and meet members of the outfit across it. They also used to visit various places in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Goa to collect funds and contact followers. The visits of Zia and his family were aimed at exhorting Muslim youths in India to get trained in Pakistan on matters relating to handling of weapons and explosives.

 

During one of the visits in October 1999, the family held a secret meeting of 'faithfuls' at Deendar's Hyderabad Ashram and conspired to wage a war against India. It was at this meeting that they decided to target churches, bridges and rail tracks so as to create communal tension and destabilise the Indian economy. The outcome of this meeting resulted in church blasts in Bangalore, Hubli, Batakurki and other places.

 

Terror track

 

1. On June 8, 2000, two crude bombs were set off at Saint Anne's Church in Wadi, Gulbarga District. The church was damaged and two persons were injured. Chargesheets were filed by the CoD against 19 persons and 15 faced trial in the case.

 

2. On July 9, 2000, bombs were set off at St Peter Paul Church in Jagajeevanaramnagar, Bangalore. Of the 29 accused, 17 accused faced trial.

 

3. On July 8, 2000, the group triggered off bombs blasts at the St John Luthern Church in Hubli. Sixteen persons faced trial in the case. The final blast occurred when a bomb went off accidentally while the terrorists were transporting them in a Maruti van on July 9.

 

In all the four cases, 27 common accused persons were tried together. Members of the Pakistan-based outfit, its present head Zia-ul-Hassan, and his four sons are still absconding. Red corner notices were issued against each of them and efforts are being done to extradite them from Pakistan. One of the accused died during the trial.

 

It's a bit more complicated than simply blaming Hindu's for intolerance. Anwywas here's some American views on the same incident:

 

International Reactions

US lawmaker Gary Ackerman has warned against the machinations of India’s critics to use the anti-Christian violence occurring in parts of the country to whip-up American public opinion against New Delhi. Ackerman, a senior member of the House International relations committee, said, “Dan Burton, some of his friends and others and patrons, have taken up the issue of mistreatment of Christians in India, something that is terrible.†“It is terrible when we have it here in our country, in the United States. But, that doesn’t mean that the United States government as well as all the American people are responsible for this kind of thing,†he said. “It is unclear who the real perpetrators of these acts of bigotry are. Whoever the perpetrators are, whether they are members of some lunatic religious fringe groups or are agent provocaterurs from a neighbouring country, they must be caught and dealt with firmly.†He asserted that “under no circumstances should we allow the secular credentials of India to be defaced. Religious tolerance is one of India’s greatest gifts to humankind. The great Indian civilization is a shining example of a multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-cultural, multi-multi-multi to the whole world. That record must never be blemished.â€

 

 

 

 

http://212.150.54.123/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=121

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/838213.stm

 

http://news.indiamart.com/news-analysis/deendar-anjuman-bann-5879.html

[prady]

Juglin 5: Some of those incidents bomb blasts and stuff were not carried out by Hindu organizations..thats false.

 

Juglin 5: While i don't deny there may be intolerance in those who claim to be Hndu's it by no means is what many want to convey..just an example from what you quoted..

 

2000: During the first half of the year, there were 35 violent incidents in which Christians were victimized. These include bombings, church arson, beating deaths, and assaults. Roman Catholic Archbishop de Lastic stated: "There is a definite strategy and plan at the national level -- these forces at work want to intimidate Christians."

Some Protestant and Catholic leaders blamed the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). This is a Hindu spiritual group, from which the BJP political party grew. The All India Christian Council wrote that Christians are "sick of the statements and are not fooled by the utterances of the central government." 2 Herod Malik, spokesperson for the United Forum for Catholics and Protestants said: "We are scared. We have to go to international organizations because we have no faith in the Indian government." 3

 

 

Federal government leaders denied that the RSS is responsible.

 

Guess who were responsible? I remember that time lots of people and vested interests blamed Hindu's..but:

 

 

Church blasts case: Court convicts 53

Saturday, November 22, 2008

http://www.deccanherald.com/Content/Nov ... updatenews

 

Bangalore, DHNS : A special court, hearing cases related to the serial bomb blasts in churches in Karnataka in 2000, convicted 53 members of Deendar Anjuman. Four others were acquitted in the case.

 

The accused were found guilty of carrying out serial blasts in churches at Hubli, Wadi (Gulbarga) and Bangalore in 2000. Hearing on the sentence will be held on Saturday in the special court of Sessions Judge, S M Shivangoudar.

 

Five others, including the main accused, are currently in Pakistan. Their trial will be held only after their extradition, said a release.

 

Two of the accused (Zakir and Siddiqi) were killed on the spot, while another (SM Ibrahim) was injured when they were transporting bombs to plant them in other churches on July 9, 2000. Police arrested Ibrahim, and he spilled the beans about Deendar Anjuman and its intention to create communal disturbances in the country, the release said.

 

The Corps of Detectives took up the investigation and arrested 85 persons and filed charge-sheets against them.

 

The accused would deliberately abandon a few pamphlets, the contents of which stated that some Hindu organisations had carried out the blasts.

 

The investigation team was headed by DySP VS D’Souza. For the trial of the cases, a special court was constituted at the Central Jail, Bangalore. Special public prosecutor H N Nilogal was appointed public prosecutor to conduct the case on behalf of the State government.

 

 

 

81 held guilty in 2000 church blasts

Friday, November 21, 2008 22:01 IST

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1208448

 

BANGALORE : A Special Court, which was holding trial into the 2000 serial church blasts in Karnataka, held 81 persons guilty of the crime on Friday. Special judge S M Shivanagoudar will pronounce the quantum of punishment to the guilty on Saturday.

 

The special court was constituted by the state government. Though the cases were initially investigated by the local police, it was later handed over to the Corps of Detectives (CoD), which filed chargesheets against the accused too.

 

The serial blasts occurred between May and July 2000 in various churches within Karnataka, Goa and Andhra Pradesh, creating panic among the people and leaving the police completely clueless.

 

However, on July 9, the perpetrators fell into a trap of their own making in Bangalore. The extremists were returning by a Maruti van after bombing churches in Jagajeevanramnagar when several bombs kept in their vehicle went off. According to police, it occurred when their van shook while negotiating a road hump. Two occupants of the van, Zakir and Siddiqi, died on the spot while the third, S M Ibrahim, sustained injuries.

 

Soon afterwards, the police raided Ibrahim's house at Murugeshpalya and seized several documents and a computer hard disk - which led to the arrests of several others in the three states. All of them belonged to an outfit called Deedar Anjuman (Religious Association), an unknown terrorist outfit till that time.

 

Deendar Anjuman

 

Deendar Anjuman was founded by Hazrath Moulana Siddique - alias Deendar Channabasaveshwara - at Bellampet, Gulbarga district, in 1924. Its head office was at Asif Nagar, Hyderabad. Though the organisation operated behind the façade of establishing religious equality, it had a hidden Jehadi agenda, which aimed at achieving the Islamisation of India.

 

Soon after the death of Moulana Siddique, his eldest son Zia-ul-Hasan became its religious head. The present headquarters of Deendar Anjuman is located at Mardan in Pakistan, where Zia is settled with his family. Though it initially claimed to be a Sufi sect, the Deendar Anjuman floated a terrorist outfit called Jamat-e-Hizbul Mujahiddin (JHM) with the patronage of Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI).

 

Every year, on the second week of Muslim month of Rajab (October), a religious function resembling Urs was arranged by the Deendar Anjuman centre at Hyderabad to mark the death anniversary of its founder. Zia and his family members used to visit India and meet members of the outfit across it. They also used to visit various places in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Goa to collect funds and contact followers. The visits of Zia and his family were aimed at exhorting Muslim youths in India to get trained in Pakistan on matters relating to handling of weapons and explosives.

 

During one of the visits in October 1999, the family held a secret meeting of 'faithfuls' at Deendar's Hyderabad Ashram and conspired to wage a war against India. It was at this meeting that they decided to target churches, bridges and rail tracks so as to create communal tension and destabilise the Indian economy. The outcome of this meeting resulted in church blasts in Bangalore, Hubli, Batakurki and other places.

 

Terror track

 

1. On June 8, 2000, two crude bombs were set off at Saint Anne's Church in Wadi, Gulbarga District. The church was damaged and two persons were injured. Chargesheets were filed by the CoD against 19 persons and 15 faced trial in the case.

 

2. On July 9, 2000, bombs were set off at St Peter Paul Church in Jagajeevanaramnagar, Bangalore. Of the 29 accused, 17 accused faced trial.

 

3. On July 8, 2000, the group triggered off bombs blasts at the St John Luthern Church in Hubli. Sixteen persons faced trial in the case. The final blast occurred when a bomb went off accidentally while the terrorists were transporting them in a Maruti van on July 9.

 

In all the four cases, 27 common accused persons were tried together. Members of the Pakistan-based outfit, its present head Zia-ul-Hassan, and his four sons are still absconding. Red corner notices were issued against each of them and efforts are being done to extradite them from Pakistan. One of the accused died during the trial.

 

It's a bit more complicated than simply blaming Hindu's for intolerance. Anwywas here's some American views on the same incident:

 

International Reactions

US lawmaker Gary Ackerman has warned against the machinations of India’s critics to use the anti-Christian violence occurring in parts of the country to whip-up American public opinion against New Delhi. Ackerman, a senior member of the House International relations committee, said, “Dan Burton, some of his friends and others and patrons, have taken up the issue of mistreatment of Christians in India, something that is terrible.” “It is terrible when we have it here in our country, in the United States. But, that doesn’t mean that the United States government as well as all the American people are responsible for this kind of thing,” he said. “It is unclear who the real perpetrators of these acts of bigotry are. Whoever the perpetrators are, whether they are members of some lunatic religious fringe groups or are agent provocaterurs from a neighbouring country, they must be caught and dealt with firmly.” He asserted that “under no circumstances should we allow the secular credentials of India to be defaced. Religious tolerance is one of India’s greatest gifts to humankind. The great Indian civilization is a shining example of a multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-cultural, multi-multi-multi to the whole world. That record must never be blemished.”

 

 

 

 

http://212.150.54.123/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=121

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/838213.stm

 

http://news.indiamart.com/news-analysis/deendar-anjuman-bann-5879.html

[prady]

Prady... I don't want to be mean, I don't want to make anyone feel bad.

 

But.

 

As a Christian, I pray to God through Jesus Christ. Throwing out prayers, either to myself (as that prayer reads, imo) or to unnamed gods would be, imo, dangerous. If only because it opens one up to answers from one that is not God.

 

Personally, I can see the personal danger in such a thing. I don't mind them for public gatherings, the kind where generic prayers are tossed out to generic god(s) or forces, but I could not participate, nor would I allow my children. We CAN stand respectfully by with our heads bowed while someone else does, I mean it is possible to be kind and respectful even if you disagree.

 

I see a lot of Christians struggling with trying to make their religion more pc, more open, more inclusive, but the Bible is clear... leukwarm Christianity does not cut it.

 

I don't like to disagree, it makes me feel bad, like some cruel ogre crushing someone's house... all the same, I feel like I should at least attempt to explain. I hope I haven't come across cruel or thoughtless.

 

Not at all cruel or thoughtless. And i am in no way offended frankly and have enjoyed these threads and the civility involved in general amongst seemingly plenty divergent viewpoints..

 

The bolded part is what is the crux of the Newsweek article. The moment you want to be inclusive, one does take a stepback from excluvism and i won't say becomes 'Hindu', but tends to think basically like one.

 

I'd consider the Supreme Truth/ God to be of infinite attributes and not limited to a set of rituals and procedures. From what i have been taught there cold be an infinite amount of was to realize the absolute Truth and be one with it..someone had posted a very good essence of the Vedas purel from a logical perspecive, if i get it i will post and share that..it's got nothing to do with religion, but with the nature of the Absolute Truth..that ma also provide a deeper reason and understanding/ more spiritual and less literistic undersanding of some of Christs sayings..