<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->a more Indian way of expressing themselves in Christian worship and in life.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->There is no Indian way of expressing christianity, simply because christianity is alien to India and there's nothing Indian about it. (That it is also alien to nature itself is the general case, but I'm here contenting myself to the single case of India.) That is why all attempts at an 'Indian' expression of christianity turns out to be stealing Hindu religious rituals, sacred mantas, names, clothes, and other expressions of Hinduness.
These Roman Catholic christos are repeatedly equating India/Indian culture with Hinduism, although they do so subconciously. But I'm not complaining about this particular trend of theirs <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->, because for once (and only this once) they are right - wholly by accident, of course.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If Christ had been born in India, maybe he would have called himself "Gopal" or protector of cows [an epithet of Krishna] rather than the Good Shepherd.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Sad, sad people, christos. Maybe Non-existent would have called himself Gospel rather than Gopal? Why not, since he doesn't exist, I can conjecture about the character just like they can.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->values of the Gospel<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Nearly fell off the chair laughing. 'Values'? <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> Christian values - exhibited by the faithful followers of the Gospels throughout history: theft of others' religious expressions, bribing people to convert and failing that genociding them into conversion.
Ze Holy Roman Church should learn from its own past: inculturation never worked in Rome. Sure they tried it, they tried it forever. It never got them many converts. There was a certain minimum amount of converts they got: the convertibles. But the rest of the Roman masses in the entire Empire remained forever inconvertible through either inculturation or bribe.
The only area where inculturation helped a little was in <i>retaining</i> some converts, but even that didn't stop many from leaving again to return to the Old (and True) Roman Religion.
As it happened, many arguments broke out between the religious-culture thieves (the christos) and the Romans. The christos as always made themselves unpopular because of their unethical, immoral and downright ridiculous means of trying to make their odious religion attractive to the completely contented non-christians.
In some part of the Levant-y region, the God Attis' birthday and resurrection used to be celebrated at the same times as it had been for centuries. (Following copy-paste from http://freetruth.50webs.org/B1c.htm#Attis )
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->[Attis] was a god of ever-reviving vegetation. Born of a virgin, he died and was reborn annually. The festival began as a day of blood on Black Friday and culminated after three days in a day of rejoicing over the resurrection.
<i>-- Religions of the World, by Gerald L. Berry (1956)</i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->His death and resurrection were celebrated during Easter:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Attis was a son of the virgin Nana. His birth was celebrated on December 25. He was sacrificed as an adult in order to bring salvation to mankind. He died about March 25, after being crucified on a tree, and descended for three days into the underworld. On Sunday, he arose, as the solar deity for the new season. His followers tied an image of Attis to a tree on "Black Friday," and carried him in a procession to the temple. His body was symbolically eaten by his followers in the form of bread. Worship of Attis began in Rome circa 200 BCE.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Link
In countries where Attis was revered, Christians took 25 March as the fixed date of Jesus' crucifixion (in contrast to the shifting dates on which they held Easter in other countries). They vied for the same resurrection date as that of Attis, trying to take over his celebration in order to claim the followers of Attis for Christ. In these countries:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"[Christians] used to celebrate the death and resurrection of Jesus on the same date; and pagans and Christians used to quarrel bitterly about which of their gods was the true prototype and which the imitation." <i>-- Religions of the World, by Gerald L. Berry</i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->No historian on religion and mythos today questions whose celebrations were earlier and were the original. The religious-culture thieves then were, as they are now, the christos. Nothing original about them and nothing too low for them to stoop too.
It was not only Attis about whom fights broke out. Regular Romans also hated christos not only for setting fire to their temples and other sabotage and the constant flow of insults to their Gods, but also for stealing from Roman religion. Christos were unpopular rabble precisely for their intolerance-and-yet inculturating mentality.
Jeebus of christianity, of the gospels, may have been non-existent, but the characters of his followers (which has been consistent these 1800+ years) says a lot about the kind of behaviour this central character inspired. No good came of his invention.
http://freetruth.50webs.org/A1.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->According to Roman sources, the Christians ...in Rome ...were considered a small, uneducated group of religious troublemakers from the lowest social classes, operating in the shadowy sides of society.
Link <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> http://freetruth.50webs.org/B3b.htm <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->the cold historical truth is that we cannot admit more than two, or at the most three, "general persecutions." So Professor Gwatkin, the ecclesiastical historian of Cambridge University (England), sums up the matter in the authoritative "Dictionary of Religion and Ethics." We may be content with his verdict, and need not draw upon the more radical, and sometimes strained, criticism which reduces the persecutions still further. Decius and Diocletian, in the third and fourth centuries, set afoot general persecution. Valerian, in the third century, possibly did the same, in milder terms. The rest is mob-movements locally against the unpopular Christians.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Why Rome, one of the most tolerant of powers, persecuted... </b>
Christianity was detested mainly for <b>three reasons</b>.
First, and from the start, because its meetings were secret, and generally by night; so they were put down as orgies if not conspiracies.
Secondly, the Christians spoke with infinite scorn of the beliefs of their pagan neighbors, of the official deities of Rome.
Thirdly, as time went on, because in proportion as the difficulties of the Empire increased, the Christians became increasingly disloyal, refusing service and almost exulting in its enfeeblement.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Throughout history, the christos then feign innocence and wonder why they were unpopular and why local people eventually got enough of their pyromania, general destruction, insults and inculturation. They flatter themselves and imagine it's because they were so good and their babbling book tells them they will be persecuted for following jeebus' 'virtuous' ways. Of course not. When they move beyond the self-conceit instilled by their ideology, they'll see the answer is staring them in the face.
They ought to face it: if they want to convert Hindus and other non-christoislamic Indians, christos have to adopt the only method that ever worked in history. It's the tried-and-true Christoislamic Way: Genocide. Look how it performed non-existent jeebus/gawd's own miracle in Rome and Greece, the rest of Europe and now Nagaland. The other Indian christos ought to embrace their christianity in full too. <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Or, if they long for Indian culture because they feel isolated in their christoterrorism, they should return to the Dharmic religions. Their fraud of inculturating Hinduism (or Buddhism) will never be recognised.
These Roman Catholic christos are repeatedly equating India/Indian culture with Hinduism, although they do so subconciously. But I'm not complaining about this particular trend of theirs <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->, because for once (and only this once) they are right - wholly by accident, of course. <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If Christ had been born in India, maybe he would have called himself "Gopal" or protector of cows [an epithet of Krishna] rather than the Good Shepherd.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Sad, sad people, christos. Maybe Non-existent would have called himself Gospel rather than Gopal? Why not, since he doesn't exist, I can conjecture about the character just like they can.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->values of the Gospel<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Nearly fell off the chair laughing. 'Values'? <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> Christian values - exhibited by the faithful followers of the Gospels throughout history: theft of others' religious expressions, bribing people to convert and failing that genociding them into conversion.
Ze Holy Roman Church should learn from its own past: inculturation never worked in Rome. Sure they tried it, they tried it forever. It never got them many converts. There was a certain minimum amount of converts they got: the convertibles. But the rest of the Roman masses in the entire Empire remained forever inconvertible through either inculturation or bribe.
The only area where inculturation helped a little was in <i>retaining</i> some converts, but even that didn't stop many from leaving again to return to the Old (and True) Roman Religion.
As it happened, many arguments broke out between the religious-culture thieves (the christos) and the Romans. The christos as always made themselves unpopular because of their unethical, immoral and downright ridiculous means of trying to make their odious religion attractive to the completely contented non-christians.
In some part of the Levant-y region, the God Attis' birthday and resurrection used to be celebrated at the same times as it had been for centuries. (Following copy-paste from http://freetruth.50webs.org/B1c.htm#Attis )
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->[Attis] was a god of ever-reviving vegetation. Born of a virgin, he died and was reborn annually. The festival began as a day of blood on Black Friday and culminated after three days in a day of rejoicing over the resurrection.
<i>-- Religions of the World, by Gerald L. Berry (1956)</i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->His death and resurrection were celebrated during Easter:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Attis was a son of the virgin Nana. His birth was celebrated on December 25. He was sacrificed as an adult in order to bring salvation to mankind. He died about March 25, after being crucified on a tree, and descended for three days into the underworld. On Sunday, he arose, as the solar deity for the new season. His followers tied an image of Attis to a tree on "Black Friday," and carried him in a procession to the temple. His body was symbolically eaten by his followers in the form of bread. Worship of Attis began in Rome circa 200 BCE.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Link
In countries where Attis was revered, Christians took 25 March as the fixed date of Jesus' crucifixion (in contrast to the shifting dates on which they held Easter in other countries). They vied for the same resurrection date as that of Attis, trying to take over his celebration in order to claim the followers of Attis for Christ. In these countries:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"[Christians] used to celebrate the death and resurrection of Jesus on the same date; and pagans and Christians used to quarrel bitterly about which of their gods was the true prototype and which the imitation." <i>-- Religions of the World, by Gerald L. Berry</i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->No historian on religion and mythos today questions whose celebrations were earlier and were the original. The religious-culture thieves then were, as they are now, the christos. Nothing original about them and nothing too low for them to stoop too.
It was not only Attis about whom fights broke out. Regular Romans also hated christos not only for setting fire to their temples and other sabotage and the constant flow of insults to their Gods, but also for stealing from Roman religion. Christos were unpopular rabble precisely for their intolerance-and-yet inculturating mentality.
Jeebus of christianity, of the gospels, may have been non-existent, but the characters of his followers (which has been consistent these 1800+ years) says a lot about the kind of behaviour this central character inspired. No good came of his invention.
http://freetruth.50webs.org/A1.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->According to Roman sources, the Christians ...in Rome ...were considered a small, uneducated group of religious troublemakers from the lowest social classes, operating in the shadowy sides of society.
Link <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> http://freetruth.50webs.org/B3b.htm <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->the cold historical truth is that we cannot admit more than two, or at the most three, "general persecutions." So Professor Gwatkin, the ecclesiastical historian of Cambridge University (England), sums up the matter in the authoritative "Dictionary of Religion and Ethics." We may be content with his verdict, and need not draw upon the more radical, and sometimes strained, criticism which reduces the persecutions still further. Decius and Diocletian, in the third and fourth centuries, set afoot general persecution. Valerian, in the third century, possibly did the same, in milder terms. The rest is mob-movements locally against the unpopular Christians.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Why Rome, one of the most tolerant of powers, persecuted... </b>
Christianity was detested mainly for <b>three reasons</b>.
First, and from the start, because its meetings were secret, and generally by night; so they were put down as orgies if not conspiracies.
Secondly, the Christians spoke with infinite scorn of the beliefs of their pagan neighbors, of the official deities of Rome.
Thirdly, as time went on, because in proportion as the difficulties of the Empire increased, the Christians became increasingly disloyal, refusing service and almost exulting in its enfeeblement.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Throughout history, the christos then feign innocence and wonder why they were unpopular and why local people eventually got enough of their pyromania, general destruction, insults and inculturation. They flatter themselves and imagine it's because they were so good and their babbling book tells them they will be persecuted for following jeebus' 'virtuous' ways. Of course not. When they move beyond the self-conceit instilled by their ideology, they'll see the answer is staring them in the face.
They ought to face it: if they want to convert Hindus and other non-christoislamic Indians, christos have to adopt the only method that ever worked in history. It's the tried-and-true Christoislamic Way: Genocide. Look how it performed non-existent jeebus/gawd's own miracle in Rome and Greece, the rest of Europe and now Nagaland. The other Indian christos ought to embrace their christianity in full too. <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Or, if they long for Indian culture because they feel isolated in their christoterrorism, they should return to the Dharmic religions. Their fraud of inculturating Hinduism (or Buddhism) will never be recognised.