<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Oct 5 2007, 11:17 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Oct 5 2007, 11:17 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->my problem is only in assuming that all the people who appear to be following that religion also truely follow or consciously agree to its ideology.[right][snapback]73933[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I've ne'er assumed this. I know there are many who don't know what they're following, so they end up following their conscience/reason, thinking that that's allowed in christianism.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->no, no. my problem is not this. my problem is those 'good' individuals DESPITE (not because of) the religion. But as they do exist, as they continue within that religion for whatever reason - ignorant about its true nature, or unable to realize it completey, or not having enough courage, or just a momentum of inertia, or many other reasons - the confusion with me really is, how does one avoid targeting these people.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I am assuming you mean 'targeting them with education'. It certainly won't injure them to know the truth. Some may feel stung by the knowledge/revelation initially, but when they realise it is nothing more than the truth, they will be immune from falling into such memetic traps ever again. It is for their own good.
Also, their ignorance of christianity's true colours won't ensure that their descendents remain ignorant of it and therefore tolerant. 'Radicalisation' is the disingenuous name media has given to the process of christoislamis discovering what the true commandments of their religion are and fully accepting them. With the world becoming smaller, many an impressionable person born into/induced into christoislamism is going to go the same way.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->eventually targets to re-convert into true faith, and yet, there is still nothing against them.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->If faith means religion here, then there are many 'true faiths' (of course, am not including the evil ideologies in here).
Of course there is nothing against good individuals. But that their religion is a sleeping timebomb waiting to suck both them and everyone else into the abyss, you must allow.
My momentary indulgence in daydreaming about the US opening the floodgates and allowing Indian christians into America (which will result in every single one of them jumping with eagerness to leave, unless they were busy heeding the missionary call to convert heathenistan) is simply due to the fact that <i>the entire body of Indian christians represent the christian meme in India</i>. It does not matter that any number of them may be good: they are unwitting sleepers and, like I said, their children may be seeds that grow properly according to the christian meme. Christianity's only foothold in any nation is through followers present in that nation or the missionaries who somehow get entry into it. Its only active power is through people carrying out its ideological plan. So if ICs were ever allowed to migrate to those greener christian pastures and availed themselves of that opportunity, the meme in theory would (temporarily) no longer have a foothold in India. But as I said, it's not a realistic fancy. The whole point of christianism (and therefore its faithful followers) is to make the country itself for christ. And <i>every</i> country.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Wanting to fight the ideology without targeting these people. not possible?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Educating people on christianism should first start with educating Hindus: preventing further losses to that intolerant ideology must be the first step.
Only thereafter must the turn come to educate christians of what exactly their religion entails and demands of them. Many of them have no idea what's in that sordid babbling book. Once they acquaint themselves with it, most will choose humanity over (blind) faith in the notion that whatever horrors it contains it must 'nevertheless be the word' of some real gawd.
What belief-system or non-belief system they choose afterwards is none of my concern. It is their own personal choice. I hope they may consider to investigate the traditions of their ancestors - whatever Dharmic path that were - if only for the fact that it would be an act of restoration (of what has been near-irreparably damaged by christianism). But, as long as they don't jump into some other intolerant ideology (christoislamicommunazism or psecularism, or some anti-Dharmic self-proclaimed 'rationalism' as opposed to natural agnosticism), I really don't mind.
But we are doing neither them nor ourselves any favours in letting them continue in their delusion, because, in this case, their delusion is harmful to everyone concerned. A friend told me that the thought of hell drove him to the greatest anxiety (and it still has its effects!) and therefore argued that christianism is the greatest enemy of the follower. But I'm rather of the opinion that it is equally harmful to the unsaved as it is the saved.
A wholly christian nation - especially the recently converted kind that comes under christian leadership and therefore will be rabid and have no state-church separation as W Europe now has - will go in the direction of medieval Europe: where the christians soon became the victims of christianism, because christianity <i>will</i> have blood and there were no longer heathens to be had in Europe.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->showing friendship towards the people who are accidentally there, not knowing where they really are, or if knowing not corageous to do anything about it.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I no longer know any christians: many of those who considered themselves something of the sort (named themselves 'christian') when they were very young, have long turned atheists. Others - who tell me they were consciously christian - have turned anti-christian atheists, because they felt the actual pinch. (These are not Indians, though.)
But as for friendship, one can always and most easily be friends with any persons who are accepting or at least tolerant. It's the intolerant kind that drives sane people away.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->So that was my only problem, a generalization of a group into one -"Indian Christians" - which includes people who are by compulsion in it, or by mistake, and certainly display the opposite traits than the generalizations often aims to show.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I don't understand. The usual generalization - or PR campaign, as I think of it - is to show how christians are unique in 'loving their neighbours', being peaceful, and - oh yes - being 'persecuted for their oh-so-wonderful-beliefs' without ever telling us <i>why</i> anyone would want to persecute peaceful loving people in the first place. And more such blablabla. However, peaceful and neighbourly behaviour is something every average human displays. (While actual christianity instills some other understanding of 'love'.)
I have heard of no other generalization of christians.
The problem is that for the average christians and muslims (even most sleepers), their first allegiance will invariably be to their religion: if push comes to shove and looks like they'll be getting what they want, most of them will turn against the unconverted. In Kashmir, long-time muslim neighbours and friends turned against Hindus. In Nagaland, ancient ties of community meant nothing anymore and value of others' life doesn't either. They are willing to kill for their christ and for their Nagaland-for-christ. The same thing that made it so easy for them to cut all that bound them to their ancestors and dear beliefs, made them it easy for them to cut humans too.
It is the compulsions of intolerant christoislamism that make regular people do so. Nothing else would or could turn generally good people into inhumane monsters.
In Kerala they actively work to have control over educational and political institutions and are preventing Hindus from the same. In TN, they have been strategically overtaking many hospitals, schools (still with Hindu name intact), even major stores (Landmark used to be owned by Hindus) and Thamizh websites/forums. But then, in TN, it's still in the starting phase.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Yet, the ideology, and its impacts on India, despite these people, might very well be generalized.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Facts can stand well enough on their own without generalisation. And the truths about the religion are not generalisations: they are simple, straightforward facts.
Besides, we don't want stereotyping - <i>either</i> kind of stereotyping. We've thus far lived with regular ads on how 'christians are the nicest individuals, because jesus was the greatest and christianity is the best'. However, the facts are that: christianity is horrid and intolerant, the non-existent jesus left behind a legacy of strife for the saved towards the unsaved, and christians have more often than not followed the intolerant - often murderous - path laid down for them by their religion.
We don't need the other type of stereotyping either. What we want is people to finally
- recognise christianity for what it is,
- understand why it is that christians have behaved and continue to behave intolerantly (as opposed to us sweeping such instances under the rug as being somehow unchristian when they are in fact most precisely christian - again, this is because of christianity's PR campaign which makes Hindus and others keep falling for some 'unchristian vs True christian' claptrap), and
- why we should not let the religion gain any further ground (that is, not allow it to swallow up more people).
But it is not wrong to state the truth: Such as how Syrian christians continue to lie about their non-existent Thomas being murdered first by Hindus X, then by Y and now by Z. This is libel, just as what has been forced onto Jews with the insiduous 'Jews killed jeebus' fable. And that has been used to discriminate against, persecute and murder Jews with. So don't take such libel lightly.
I have not heard of a single vocal Syrian <i>christian</i> (as in <i>religious</i> christian, not just non-religious person of that community) coming out publicly and saying: 'but X, Y and Z did not kill Thomas at all'. At best, all the religious Syrian christians write is excuses and say that at the end it is a 'matter of faith' so we 'shouldn't scrutinise it too closely' or even criticise it. Because anything more from their end would amount to admission of Thomas being myth and modern christian mythmaking. Is that what humanity is reduced to: continuously lying about others to vindicate their own faith? And then keeping quiet on their own historical atrocities on Hindus and Hindu temples, all while accusing Hindus of intolerance and atrocity.
I'm ever reminded of Dark Helmet ('Spaceballs') - quoted earlier and I may keep quoting the character in future too, because it's so well-phrased:
"Now you see why evil always wins. Because good is dumb."
(Dumb may be an excessive word. Or maybe I'm just not willing to accept the label.) But we are certainly hopelessly naive - especially in our willingness to continue to make excuses/plead for some ray of goodness in intolerant religions, arguing for not nipping them in the bud so that we thereby spare the feelings of their adherents. And this naivete may well be the end of us, as it has been of every other people suckered into the christoislami trap.
It bears remembering that the intolerant meme is built to thrive on our tolerance, that it in fact induces excessive tolerance (via PR, and its mild infectious bite/inoculation called 'psecularism') and then - when we're giddily psecularly tolerant - we're run over. (Intolerant memes are those based on the principle 'it's my way or the highway' AKA the 'you're either for us or against us'/'dar-ul-islam vs dar-ul-harb'/'if you're not with us communists you are a fascist' principle.)
If we won't learn caution from history and the other examples around us, perhaps we deserve to be extinct. I doubt that if the Ancient Romans were given a chance they would ever allow it to happen to them again - the Greeks certainly wouldn't have stood for it. Even so they went out with a bang: the Romans and Greeks wrote book after book exposing christianity, and, until the very end, a great many Greco-Romans had to die for refusing to give up their real religion. Unless we finally wake up to these memetic diseases - which have nothing less than utter conquest in mind - we'll flicker out with nothing more than a whimper.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->no, no. my problem is not this. my problem is those 'good' individuals DESPITE (not because of) the religion. But as they do exist, as they continue within that religion for whatever reason - ignorant about its true nature, or unable to realize it completey, or not having enough courage, or just a momentum of inertia, or many other reasons - the confusion with me really is, how does one avoid targeting these people.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I am assuming you mean 'targeting them with education'. It certainly won't injure them to know the truth. Some may feel stung by the knowledge/revelation initially, but when they realise it is nothing more than the truth, they will be immune from falling into such memetic traps ever again. It is for their own good.
Also, their ignorance of christianity's true colours won't ensure that their descendents remain ignorant of it and therefore tolerant. 'Radicalisation' is the disingenuous name media has given to the process of christoislamis discovering what the true commandments of their religion are and fully accepting them. With the world becoming smaller, many an impressionable person born into/induced into christoislamism is going to go the same way.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->eventually targets to re-convert into true faith, and yet, there is still nothing against them.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->If faith means religion here, then there are many 'true faiths' (of course, am not including the evil ideologies in here).
Of course there is nothing against good individuals. But that their religion is a sleeping timebomb waiting to suck both them and everyone else into the abyss, you must allow.
My momentary indulgence in daydreaming about the US opening the floodgates and allowing Indian christians into America (which will result in every single one of them jumping with eagerness to leave, unless they were busy heeding the missionary call to convert heathenistan) is simply due to the fact that <i>the entire body of Indian christians represent the christian meme in India</i>. It does not matter that any number of them may be good: they are unwitting sleepers and, like I said, their children may be seeds that grow properly according to the christian meme. Christianity's only foothold in any nation is through followers present in that nation or the missionaries who somehow get entry into it. Its only active power is through people carrying out its ideological plan. So if ICs were ever allowed to migrate to those greener christian pastures and availed themselves of that opportunity, the meme in theory would (temporarily) no longer have a foothold in India. But as I said, it's not a realistic fancy. The whole point of christianism (and therefore its faithful followers) is to make the country itself for christ. And <i>every</i> country.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Wanting to fight the ideology without targeting these people. not possible?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Educating people on christianism should first start with educating Hindus: preventing further losses to that intolerant ideology must be the first step.
Only thereafter must the turn come to educate christians of what exactly their religion entails and demands of them. Many of them have no idea what's in that sordid babbling book. Once they acquaint themselves with it, most will choose humanity over (blind) faith in the notion that whatever horrors it contains it must 'nevertheless be the word' of some real gawd.
What belief-system or non-belief system they choose afterwards is none of my concern. It is their own personal choice. I hope they may consider to investigate the traditions of their ancestors - whatever Dharmic path that were - if only for the fact that it would be an act of restoration (of what has been near-irreparably damaged by christianism). But, as long as they don't jump into some other intolerant ideology (christoislamicommunazism or psecularism, or some anti-Dharmic self-proclaimed 'rationalism' as opposed to natural agnosticism), I really don't mind.
But we are doing neither them nor ourselves any favours in letting them continue in their delusion, because, in this case, their delusion is harmful to everyone concerned. A friend told me that the thought of hell drove him to the greatest anxiety (and it still has its effects!) and therefore argued that christianism is the greatest enemy of the follower. But I'm rather of the opinion that it is equally harmful to the unsaved as it is the saved.
A wholly christian nation - especially the recently converted kind that comes under christian leadership and therefore will be rabid and have no state-church separation as W Europe now has - will go in the direction of medieval Europe: where the christians soon became the victims of christianism, because christianity <i>will</i> have blood and there were no longer heathens to be had in Europe.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->showing friendship towards the people who are accidentally there, not knowing where they really are, or if knowing not corageous to do anything about it.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I no longer know any christians: many of those who considered themselves something of the sort (named themselves 'christian') when they were very young, have long turned atheists. Others - who tell me they were consciously christian - have turned anti-christian atheists, because they felt the actual pinch. (These are not Indians, though.)
But as for friendship, one can always and most easily be friends with any persons who are accepting or at least tolerant. It's the intolerant kind that drives sane people away.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->So that was my only problem, a generalization of a group into one -"Indian Christians" - which includes people who are by compulsion in it, or by mistake, and certainly display the opposite traits than the generalizations often aims to show.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I don't understand. The usual generalization - or PR campaign, as I think of it - is to show how christians are unique in 'loving their neighbours', being peaceful, and - oh yes - being 'persecuted for their oh-so-wonderful-beliefs' without ever telling us <i>why</i> anyone would want to persecute peaceful loving people in the first place. And more such blablabla. However, peaceful and neighbourly behaviour is something every average human displays. (While actual christianity instills some other understanding of 'love'.)
I have heard of no other generalization of christians.
The problem is that for the average christians and muslims (even most sleepers), their first allegiance will invariably be to their religion: if push comes to shove and looks like they'll be getting what they want, most of them will turn against the unconverted. In Kashmir, long-time muslim neighbours and friends turned against Hindus. In Nagaland, ancient ties of community meant nothing anymore and value of others' life doesn't either. They are willing to kill for their christ and for their Nagaland-for-christ. The same thing that made it so easy for them to cut all that bound them to their ancestors and dear beliefs, made them it easy for them to cut humans too.
It is the compulsions of intolerant christoislamism that make regular people do so. Nothing else would or could turn generally good people into inhumane monsters.
In Kerala they actively work to have control over educational and political institutions and are preventing Hindus from the same. In TN, they have been strategically overtaking many hospitals, schools (still with Hindu name intact), even major stores (Landmark used to be owned by Hindus) and Thamizh websites/forums. But then, in TN, it's still in the starting phase.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Yet, the ideology, and its impacts on India, despite these people, might very well be generalized.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Facts can stand well enough on their own without generalisation. And the truths about the religion are not generalisations: they are simple, straightforward facts.
Besides, we don't want stereotyping - <i>either</i> kind of stereotyping. We've thus far lived with regular ads on how 'christians are the nicest individuals, because jesus was the greatest and christianity is the best'. However, the facts are that: christianity is horrid and intolerant, the non-existent jesus left behind a legacy of strife for the saved towards the unsaved, and christians have more often than not followed the intolerant - often murderous - path laid down for them by their religion.
We don't need the other type of stereotyping either. What we want is people to finally
- recognise christianity for what it is,
- understand why it is that christians have behaved and continue to behave intolerantly (as opposed to us sweeping such instances under the rug as being somehow unchristian when they are in fact most precisely christian - again, this is because of christianity's PR campaign which makes Hindus and others keep falling for some 'unchristian vs True christian' claptrap), and
- why we should not let the religion gain any further ground (that is, not allow it to swallow up more people).
But it is not wrong to state the truth: Such as how Syrian christians continue to lie about their non-existent Thomas being murdered first by Hindus X, then by Y and now by Z. This is libel, just as what has been forced onto Jews with the insiduous 'Jews killed jeebus' fable. And that has been used to discriminate against, persecute and murder Jews with. So don't take such libel lightly.
I have not heard of a single vocal Syrian <i>christian</i> (as in <i>religious</i> christian, not just non-religious person of that community) coming out publicly and saying: 'but X, Y and Z did not kill Thomas at all'. At best, all the religious Syrian christians write is excuses and say that at the end it is a 'matter of faith' so we 'shouldn't scrutinise it too closely' or even criticise it. Because anything more from their end would amount to admission of Thomas being myth and modern christian mythmaking. Is that what humanity is reduced to: continuously lying about others to vindicate their own faith? And then keeping quiet on their own historical atrocities on Hindus and Hindu temples, all while accusing Hindus of intolerance and atrocity.
I'm ever reminded of Dark Helmet ('Spaceballs') - quoted earlier and I may keep quoting the character in future too, because it's so well-phrased:
"Now you see why evil always wins. Because good is dumb."
(Dumb may be an excessive word. Or maybe I'm just not willing to accept the label.) But we are certainly hopelessly naive - especially in our willingness to continue to make excuses/plead for some ray of goodness in intolerant religions, arguing for not nipping them in the bud so that we thereby spare the feelings of their adherents. And this naivete may well be the end of us, as it has been of every other people suckered into the christoislami trap.
It bears remembering that the intolerant meme is built to thrive on our tolerance, that it in fact induces excessive tolerance (via PR, and its mild infectious bite/inoculation called 'psecularism') and then - when we're giddily psecularly tolerant - we're run over. (Intolerant memes are those based on the principle 'it's my way or the highway' AKA the 'you're either for us or against us'/'dar-ul-islam vs dar-ul-harb'/'if you're not with us communists you are a fascist' principle.)
If we won't learn caution from history and the other examples around us, perhaps we deserve to be extinct. I doubt that if the Ancient Romans were given a chance they would ever allow it to happen to them again - the Greeks certainly wouldn't have stood for it. Even so they went out with a bang: the Romans and Greeks wrote book after book exposing christianity, and, until the very end, a great many Greco-Romans had to die for refusing to give up their real religion. Unless we finally wake up to these memetic diseases - which have nothing less than utter conquest in mind - we'll flicker out with nothing more than a whimper.