PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING... just like it did during the early days of Acts and the Roman Emperors.

http://indianchristians.in/news/content/view/1799/42/

<<The violence allegedly began when Christians in a village 150 kms from Phulbani, the headquarters of Kandhamal district, began to celebrate Christmas Eve. Local Hindu fundamentalists opposed the event and a fight ensued. Also, a Hindutva leader, Swami Saraswati, was attacked by unknown assailants -- allegedly Christians -- near Daringbadi while he was travelling. The next day the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) called for a strike and its members began attacking Christians across the state.>>

To this must be added, that the assailants of Swami Saraswati are not unknown..they are KNOWN.. here.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iG0fIFmfztRvm5bJX9wx9Ao2fqLA

Contrast that..with this!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLcEXtOMBnU&feature=related

This is a HOLOCAUST. Suffering caused by the stories spread about Christians just as during Roman times.. the early Christians...it is happening right now and for the same reasons.

One pastor was forced to watch while his wife was raped.
1000 Churches attacked and 730 Christian homes destroyed. Many 1000s in refugee camps. Government preventing NGO aid.

At the heart of this is the ill feeling towards Christians who are now receiving an education which liberates them from feeling locked into such jobs as removing human faeces from toilets with their bare hands.. jobs only for untouchables.

There is no question that the Faith is disturbing the social order..but what an order it is, which consigns people to lifelong exploitation and ill treatment simply because they are considered to be in the wrong caste.

I urge any reader to make your voice known to the Indian Government to prevent such widespread violence against Christians simply because they are Christian.

Boaz,

Sounds really bad.
I followed the link and and it looks really bad.
I also googled the incident to understand the other side of the story and found these slides on a Hindu site:

http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/glnmurthy-89268-missionary-saitan-orissa-christian-india-conversions-presentation-news-reports-ppt-powerpoint/

Sounds like a deep issue to me from both sides.

Peace,

I scanned a range of sites to try and gain a broader impression of what is happening.

My overall impression is that christains are being persecuted by Hindu extremists. I also noticed that the language on christain sites was often very provocative compared to other coverage. Some of what appeared to be balanced reports are linked below.

This conflict seemed to be the sort of thing many of us fight against when we rebutt David's frequent attempts to promote suspicion and dilike of muslims in Australia. The suspicion and hatred of a group which spills into violence when a particular incident ignites passions after the embers of hatred of have fed by militants for a long period.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1698533,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/12/28/india17668.htm

http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14791626

R0bert

This looks like a return to the dark ages.

It only proves that today we should have
some very serious concerns with the
fundamentalist fringes of any religion.

Be it Hinduism, Christianity, or any other.

When people's minds are poisoned with hatred,
unnecessary bitter and bloody divisions
tragically occur.

We must keep in mind however that the
religiously minded modern person is not a
"card carrying" fundamentalist.

The latter are a tiny minority. Of whatever faith,
any psychologist would declare them of unsound mind.

The incidents in Orissa are very, very sad.

Poly,

A very bad situation indeed. Will we ever be without situations like this? Tragic.

In Rome the Christian sect of Jews had it doubly bad. For some time before the fall of the Temple the Jews were tolerated by the Romans. Later, when the sect broke officially from the "mother religion" that was in a civil sense breach of the pater familias and in a religious sense there was a loss of the protection afforded by the "ancient" religion. Of course, after Constantine the Christians were very bad indeed, acting like today's Taliban.

[We please check back at Sells' sucuide thread. Matters still outstanding. I think waterboy is waiting too. Thanks]

Historically, Christians were NOT fed to the lions in the Colosseum.

That was a Hollywood myth started by Cecil B DeMille - just like the phoney "thumb-up" signal was meant to spare the vanquished gladiator. (It was actually a "thumb inside the fist", meaning to sheath the sword)

Most executions of Christian "criminals" were done outside the city walls - as for all other religious denominations.

Also, more Christians were killed by other Christians in the years following Constantine than were killed by any of the Roman Emperors before him - just like every part of history since.

Hi Folks... thanx for looking at this issue.

In many ways it becomes like the fog of war to decipher the origins and who did what and when in cases like this.

FH.. I tried to look at the link you gave but it didn't work..can you try another please?

I've seen quite a bit of Hindu propoganda out there. Most of it seems to derive from the following sources.

1/ The radical Hindu's (a definite minority) are feeding this monster with outright lies. "The Christian terrorists murdered our dear beloved Swami" (when it was publically documented to be a Maoist)

2/ The Christian missionaries are 'forcing' the tribes people to convert.

The testimonies of some Hindu's who temporarily embraced Christianity are quite instructive. One said "They promised to make me a priest, but when they didn't I converted back to Hinduism"
So.. whatever this mans motivation was.. it surely was not sincere..but about self aggrandizement.

It appears the worst 'sins' of the Christians is simply 'being' what they are. "America is Christian, China is Chinese..India is a Hindustan" said the leader of the radical Hindu's.

This area is close to where there has been a lot of Hindu Muslim strife in the past.

ONE LESSON which can be drawn from this for the Christians.. is.. 'keep a low profile'.. there is no real need to build Church buildings.. a network of house churches is quite adequate.

WOBBLES.. I note you skepticism about the Collosseum experiences.. and that you also have grave suspicions about many other major incidents in world history. 9/11 etc.

Interestingly, at a recent gathering of Christians at a large stadium, 1000 extra Sikh and Hindu troops were needed to keep the peace. Many of them brought their families along on the last day to hear the message.
Halelujah.

It would have been smarter, Boaz, for you to have provided a less one-eyed perspective of this sad event.

But that would have detracted from your objective, which was to draw attention to the persecution of Christians, just like "during the early days of Acts and the Roman Emperors"

You should accept that some people are offended by your proselytising, and understand that the reaction might occasionally be violent.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1698533,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics

"Proselytizing as Christians and Muslims do is, by its nature, un-Hindu, which makes a looming battle for Indians' souls look "very asymmetrical," says Nandy. For Hindu nationalists, the fear of Hindu conversions to Christianity "is a kind of humiliation that is being rubbed in," he says. Ironically, of course, Hinduism's acceptance of other religions is used by extremists as an excuse for hostility towards other religions."

Presenting one side of a story invites ridicule. It would be more constructive to try to understand the underlying causes, by presenting a more balanced view. Sensationlization, and claiming instant victimhood, is not an intelligent way to approach tragedies of this nature. Refusing to accept some responsibility is also a sure way to guarantee it will happen again.

It seems to me that it is religious fundamentalism - from both Hindus and Christians - that is to blame for these very unfortunate events. If ordinary people's fears weren't manipulated by unscrupulous politicians and arrogant missionaries, they'd have to organise their social campaigns around more rational ideologies.

The supposed parallel with the persecution of Christians by the Romans is at best tenuous. Next we'll have Porky combing through the Vedas or the Bhagavad Gita for incriminating snippets of myth that will justify the vilification of all Hindus.

My husband agrees with Pericles on this one.

We should present a more balanced view, and
find out more about the root causes of the
situation in Orissa.

Of course we're all horrified at the mass killings, but
it's perhaps too easy to just blame fundamentalism,
as I've done in my first post on this thread.

Fundamentalism may only be part of the problem.
The issue perhaps goes deeper than that.

I'm not familiar with the background of this area.

If anyone knows, could they give us its history...

We need to learn about the history of the place,
and what caused the lead up to these events.

Poly and wobbles,

Christians did kill other Christians during the Crusades. Likewise, the Pope and the French king committed genecide against the Jews, to clear their debts, a practice also used stealth the wealth of Knights Templar. The German and Italian fascists were also Christians. Hitler was a Christians. The Russian czars whom turned armies on the own people. Joan of Ark. The Spanish and English wars. The Amercian War of Indepedence (Revolutionary War) was between Christians. The British & Amercians Civil Wars. Several scientists. The list goes on and on. Poly, there are haps of examples. Poly, my friend, just reflect for a moment.

When Christians were not killing each other, we have wars aginst the Moors, colonisation & invasion of many lands and the opium wars in China.

And domestically inquisitions and witch hunts.

Also, Poly your haven't adddressed by questions on the suicide thread. Did Juses commit suicide, Does Yaweh stated God wants mercy and love, and sacrifice (Hosea 6:6)

Well said RObert.

It is of course awful when minority religious groups are persecuted by majorities no matter where it occurs. We also saw this with Christians in Iraq. Persecution of those with differing beliefs is not new and is all the more reason that secularism might be embraced.

A timely reminder that violence is not the prerogative of one religious group or sect, but can break out at any time, anywhere, for any reason.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/blog/2008/nov/09/middleeast-religion

As Crikey pointed out, there's a great shot of a monk in red performing a flying dropkick at 0:12, then executing a perfect left hook at 0:18.

Classic.

Boaz,

I think most OLO posters including myself are telling you the same thing: balance your views and restrain your bias.
You started the thread with a chilling statement :"PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING... just like ..the early days of Acts and the Roman Emperor"

Hi pericles,

Don't give Boaz any ideas on left and right hooks, he was into kickboxing last time I saw him :)

Peace,

'A timely reminder that violence is not the prerogative of one religious group or sect, but can break out at any time, anywhere, for any reason.'
The religous people are normally only surpassed in violence by the irreligious (that is secularist) who are quick to murder the unborn and quick to demonstrate violently at peace rallies. Oh well just maybe some will be honest enough to see that violence comes as a result of the sinful nature (its not rocket science)!

This thread is most instructive about how bias in fact does arise, and how groups (our group here on OLO) can quickly become polarized when our existing biases seem to be reinforced by others... (group dynamics)

Now..Robert said "What seem like more balanced reports"

Some points on the very first link.

1/ The date is 2007 ... much more had occurred since then.

2/ Looking at this article, which refers to the opinions about origins from both sides we can glean some important facts.

a) The Christians say "Its because we wanted to celebrate Christmas"
b) The hindus say "The Christians attacked one of our leaders"

Swami Sarasvati was murdered..NOT by Christians..but by Maoists.
(this seems to be lost on most of you)

As to point b) above, it was long before the murder which was in August 2008, but clearly there have been degree of at least protest, but the source is not mentioned other than what are described as "Christian Militants with cache's of weapons"... a highly UNlikely state of affairs. Graham Staines from our own tradition was murdered years before in this area..by Hindu Nationalists.

Last time I checked... we don't encourage people to even own weapons.

ROOT CAUSE (for all those who mentioned this)

= Hindu Nationalism and fear of losing the caste based downtrodden and exploited tribal people to do their dirty work (Literally) such as clean toilets.

<<Orissa is predominantly Hindu, with a small Christian minority. Over the past few years, though, thousands of Hindus have converted to Christianity. Many converts, and the churches they join, say conversion is a way to escape their place in the complex social hierarchy of Hindu caste.>> (from Roberts balanced article)

Yes..there definitely 2 sides to a story. But it is important to know WHICH side is perpetrating the violence..and which is not.

The portrayal of Christians in Hindu Nationalist publications seems as bad as the worst of the German portrayal of the Jews during the Holocaust.

http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2008/09/rise-of-chrisitst-terror-swami.html

...continued

...continued.

THE MURDER OF SWAMI SARASWATI.

2 sides.

1/ COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA claims responsiblity.

(Hindu source) http://www.hindu.com/2008/10/05/stories/2008100560400800.htm

KANDHAMAL: The Orissa State committee of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) on Saturday claimed that it killed Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader Swami Lakshmanananda in Kandhamal district on August 23.

Talking to a team of journalists from Bhubaneswar in a forest in Kandhamal, the spokesperson of the party’s Orissa unit, Sabyasachi Panda, alias Sunil, said it became necessary to eliminate the Swami as he was forcing tribals and Dalit Christians in Kandhamal to convert to Hinduism.

Mr. Panda reiterated his party’s threat to eliminate 14 local leaders of the VHP/RSS and their allied organisations if they did not stop the violence in Kandhamal and end forcible conversion of tribals and Dalits. Tribals were not Hindus, he said.

NOTICE THE FOLLOWING: (please) This was in a direct interview with Journalists.

NOW THE HINDU PROPOGANDA.. (note the method)

Headline "Maoists deny killing Swami"

but see the 'source'! "Some posters recovered" errrr yessss....right!

"Some posters" vs "direct interview" and the admission of a 14 Hindu leader hit list!

Such posters fit the MO of those wishing to promote disinformation for their own purposes. (Anti Christian pogrom)

Note also the REASON the Maoists have that hitlist!

<<Mr. Panda reiterated his party’s threat to eliminate 14 local leaders of the VHP/RSS and their allied organisations if they did not stop the violence in Kandhamal and end forcible conversion of tribals and Dalits. Tribals were not Hindus, he said.>>

So..here we have the MAOIST claiming it is the Hindu extremists forcibly converting the tribal people AND fermenting violence.

I'm kinda hoping that the '2 sides' of this story are starting to emerge more clearly now.

PERICLES..nope..I don't need to goto the Bagavad Gita or wherever to try to find 'key verses'... this is purely about nationalism and Hindu religious intolerance.

My views... are unbalanced? :)

David, the root cause is probably people very much like yourself but with extremist Hindu views rather than extremist Christain views. Those who take every opportunity they can find to cause mistrust, dislike and sometimes hatred of a faith which is in opposition to their own.

There will be some isolated incidents of christian wrongdoing along with christins not being like everybody else (perhaps they are more inclined to drive people movers than others) which keeps the fanatics agitated. Mostly the christains are probably just trying to do most of the same things as the rest of the population but extremists very much like yourself can't accept that and work non stop to promote the situation which is occuring.

You won't see that. You will probably reject the idea but I think that apart from a small number with similar views to your own most other posters see your actions exactly that way.

R0bert

FYI:

http://www.hindu.com/2008/10/17/stories/2008101757661200.htm

Not sure if this the same incident. If so, it seems the Maoists are significant players as mentioned above.

Poly,

Waterboy and I would be interested in your opinion on the suicide thread. Recall I posited that Jesus committed death by Roman cop and that Hosea 6:6 suggest that Yahweh wants mercy and love not sacrifice. Suicide and descration of the body are significant sins to a Jew.

Peace.

Dear Oly... we did the suicide idea to death on a previous thread did we not? Jesus did not 'commit suicide' by cop/roman/jew or anyone.
He gave his life as part of the plan of redemption. The author of this plan was the Almighty.

Robert:

"There will be some isolated incidents of christian wrongdoing along with christians not being like everybody else"

No Robert..I don't disagree with you at all.. in fact I emphatically DO agree. This is most important. Let's look at the incident of the Christmas celebration.

1/ Christians decide to celebrate Christmas.
2/ Hindus attack them.
3/ SOME.. (we don't know how many or what motivated them..or what understanding they had about their faith) from the Christian fold responded by attacking a bus of the Hindu's attacking them.
4/ Subsequently the Hindu's burned 19 churches and escalated the attacks they had already begun.

Now.. if I'm looking for a bad guy here..I'd have to choose the Hindu's. There's no if's but's or maybe's...they instigated violence..those from the Christian group who defended themselves did nothing that we would not do for our own country. Personally, I don't condone such a response in the name of Christ, but I surely DO condone police action against those Hindu's.

Unfortunately Rob...when the police to whom you look for protection stand idly by while you are vulgarized and nuns are stripped and raped...and you are forced (attempted) to have sex with her (as priest) then... one wonders if the time has not come for citizens to mobilize with 'reasonable restraint' against those attacking them?

http://orissaburning.blogspot.com/2008/08/they-ordered-me-to-have-sex-with-nun-fr.html

"Later both of us, half-naked, were taken to the street, and they ordered me to have sex with the nun in public, saying nuns and priests do it. As I refused, they went on beating me and dragged us to the nearby government office. Sadly, a dozen policemen were watching all this," he said.

This situation is being described as a "clash of faiths" but when the facts are examined, that description makes as much sense as calling a gang rape a 'clash of the sexes'.

Errrr.... what, Boaz?

>>PERICLES..nope..I don't need to goto the Bagavad Gita or wherever to try to find 'key verses'... <<

Leaving that misdirected comment aside for the moment, I wonder whether you have a view on the impact of Christian proselytizing on the situation...

"Proselytizing as Christians and Muslims do is, by its nature, un-Hindu, which makes a looming battle for Indians' souls look "very asymmetrical," says Nandy. For Hindu nationalists, the fear of Hindu conversions to Christianity "is a kind of humiliation that is being rubbed in," he says. Ironically, of course, Hinduism's acceptance of other religions is used by extremists as an excuse for hostility towards other religions."

It is one thing to accost strangers on the steps of Flinders Street Station or wherever, and bash their ears about turning to Jesus. It is entirely another to prey on the poor and weak of another nation, inciting them to turn against their kith and kin for a "higher purpose".

Do you not see how this could aggravate people to violence?

You are still being highly selective in your choice of "evidence", by the way.

You omitted to mention that the Maoists' proclaimed motive for murder was that "he was forcing tribals and Dalit Christians in Kandhamal to convert to Hinduism."

Now, it sounds strange to me too, that a Maoist would be concerned with the defence of Christians against Hindu proselytizing, but there you are. When religion is around, it can be used as an excuse for almost anything, it would appear.

It is always sad when people kill each other.

To me, it is doubly sad when they do so over a subject as trivial as which religion is "better".

So one way to stop being a victim of this kind of threat is to keep one's religion a private matter.

Particularly when you are in a distinct minority.

"Christians account for 2.3 percent of India's billion-plus Hindu majority population." [The Hindu]

Given that there are still folk alive today who remember 1947, being non-Hindu is a challenging lifestyle choice in Orissa, I would suggest.

Hello Poly,

I don't think we achieved finality. Suicide is bringing about one's own death with intent and foreknowledge. The Last Supper suggests that Jesus knew what was coming and to some extent orchestrated events. That form of death would not be called for, according to the OT, and descrating the body is a Jewish sin. Acts of mercy and love do not require physical sacrifice.

Maybe Jesus would need to be on "the coach" for a few sessions, for a full diagnosis, but I would suspect either of, or, both elements of dyadic suicide (penance directed towards against/or proxy for "ambivalently loved love one" [humanity]) or anomic suicide (self destruction as a result of being out-of-phase with a key reference group).

[Psych.Cites: Schneidman, Seiden, Durheim)

I am locked out of the other thread for while. Perhaps, you can return there.

The means to redemption applied by Jesus is inconsistent with the OT and Jewish law, methinks, my friend.

Peace.

All,

Sorry to intervene in this thread. Just trying to catch our colleague Poly's sustained attention. Trust you understand.

Oly.. ur a rascal thats what you are :) Here I am trying to re-invent Pericles and company and you are distracting me ^_-

Pericles said:

<<So one way to stop being a victim of this kind of threat is to keep one's religion a private matter.
Particularly when you are in a distinct minority.>>

and by and large I cannot agree more. I'm increasingly in favor of "The Church" being 'house' related.. small groups linked up by networks of fellowship and commonality.

You mention proselytising being a factor.. but keep in mind, the Tribal people are not Hindu, they are animists.
So..it's not that the Christians are stealing sheep from the Hindu's.

But in any case.. proclaiming one's faith is part and parcel of it.
We can learn a lot from Pauls experiences. i.e..there will be times when people give us a hard time, and sometimes they will listen, and believe or decline.

What are the Hindu's really worried about? Why is the issue of tribal people gaining a liberating dignifying faith such a problem for them?

Look up the word 'dalit' for some clues and where they fit in Hindu social class structure.

It's worth noting here Pericles and others..that the Hindu violence is not being perpetrated by a large number of people.... no...but by small groups.. minorities among the Hindus.. you know that 'radical minority' which I often speak about as so potentially dangerous and which drives the agenda of things?

Only a strong legal system and indeed a non partisan government/police force will be able to deal with that kind of thing.

Unfortunately, as we all know..once things become politicized, the 'law' becomes a very rubbery thing indeed as Cronulla taught us.

Where on earth do you get 'inciting them to TURN on kith and kin?
How do they 'turn' on them? They just want to be left alone and grow in their faith and lives.
That little 'turn on them' was quite an inflammatory assesment of the situation. I suggest is was the radical Hindu's who turned on others exercising freedom of choice in religion.

Typo:

Couch, that is. Sorry Dr Freud.

Poly,

Okay, for now, but I will raise the issue again. I feel it need to be addressed.

You need to try an awful lot harder than you are, Boaz.

>>Here I am trying to re-invent Pericles...<

Especially with arguments such as these.

>>But in any case.. proclaiming one's faith is part and parcel of it.<<

On the one hand you are in favour of Christianity becoming "house related", on the other you find it necessary to evangelize. As I see it, the two are mutually exclusive.

>>What are the Hindu's really worried about? Why is the issue of tribal people gaining a liberating dignifying faith such a problem for them?<<

Leaving aside the contentious qualification of "a liberating and dignifying faith", you are conveniently ignoring the fact that you do not confine yourselves to evangelism, but also stoop to bribery...

>>The testimonies of some Hindu's who temporarily embraced Christianity are quite instructive. One said "They promised to make me a priest, but when they didn't I converted back to Hinduism"<<

The thing about bribery, Boaz, is that for it to be effective, you need to follow through.

Although it must be said that the direct approach has always worked better.

http://blogs.expressindia.com/showblogdetails.php?contentid=358766

"However, one of the missionaries bluntly replied, ‘If we had been prompted to do all this by mere humanitarian considerations, why should we have come all the way here? Why should we have spent so much money? We are here for only one reason and that is to increase the number of followers of our Lord Jesus Christ.'"

That's what concerns them, Boaz. Conversion-by-bribery.

>>Where on earth do you get 'inciting them to TURN on kith and kin?<<

But isn't that what you are doing? Turning someone against his upbringing, his family's history, his friends and neighbours? Because as you yourself point out, "proclaiming one's faith is part and parcel".

And please try to get Cronulla out of your system

>>Unfortunately, as we all know..once things become politicized, the 'law' becomes a very rubbery thing indeed as Cronulla taught us.<<

The only thing that Cronulla "taught" anybody was that hooligans will be hooligans. Just as they were in England in the sixties...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/18/newsid_2511000/2511245.stm

Hi_Pericles... I'm watching the unfolding of severe_religious prejudice against Christians in Orissa..and seeing just what lies in store for us at the hands of the gay or Hindu or Muslim lobby should they ever gain serious power.

That first link you provided was very educational and it seems to show just how different is the perspective between the evangelical and secular or non Christian perspective.

But importantly also, is the need to distinguish between the various streams/traditions of proselytization.. and how they each connect to the situation.

You can probably imagine what the radical Hindu's will do with a statement like "We have come here to increase the numbers of followers of Christ" ..now when you connect that with "We have spent all this money" you seem to have quickly lept to the conclusion that the spent money was used to bribe people?

I suggest the reality is more like the following:

1/ Evangelical traditions will spend money on education, medical and other welfare related activities, but not 'conditional' on conversion.
2/ It would be most unusual for an evangelical group to try to bribe a person into the faith, even by the means listed above, but especially to offer money for conversion.

3/ Other traditions, who don't have such a conversion based mentality, but rather a 'Churchification' mindset.. may be less picky about what they do to add to "The Church"...which might indeed include some kind of financial attraction.

Thus.. in the fog of it all.. the 2 types of approach are being seen as one.

I also sense from reading, that there are a number of pentecostal groups working in the area.. Open Brethren definitely are, (The Late Graham Staines) but I assure you the last thing we would do is try to convert by any other means than proclaiming the simple Gospel for the sinful person.

Lets summarize.
1/ The majority of Hindu's are not actively opposing Christians
2/ Those who do are radicals/extremists.
3/ It shows how a small group can have a large impact.

Do you sense what's in my mind now about other issues?

Don't be ridiculous Boaz.

>>Do you sense what's in my mind now about other issues?<<

What is on your mind has always been crystal clear, and your motives totally transparent.

>>I'm watching the unfolding of severe_religious prejudice against Christians in Orissa..and seeing just what lies in store for us at the hands of the gay or Hindu or Muslim lobby should they ever gain serious power.<<

Christians upset the existing religious population of a relatively poor community through their proselytizing. There is a violent reaction to this. And somehow you want to translate this into "what lies in store for us"

No, Boaz. You simply want to find another peg upon which to hang your litany of complaints against Islam.

>>you seem to have quickly lept to the conclusion that the spent money was used to bribe people?<<

No, Boaz. It is a spokesman for the local Hindu population who described it thus.

Simply put, here are the two sides of the argument

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/BOM353572.htm

"Hindus... accuse Christian priests of bribing poor tribespeople and low-caste Hindus to change their faith.

Christian groups say lower-caste Hindus who convert do so willingly to escape the highly stratified and oppressive Hindu caste system."

Well they would say that, wouldn't they? (pace Mandy)

Orissa is a dirt-poor region. It is easy to see how "money on education, medical and other welfare related activities", when combined with the remark "We have come here to increase the numbers of followers of Christ" is seen by the locals as bribery, pure and simple.

Look Boaz, we all know by now what your main agenda is.

While nobody doubts the tragedy that has befallen your Christian comrades, you should understand that constant nagging is in itself a form of provocation.

This is also what I have been trying to explain to you about your persistent denigration of Muslims and their religion. If you do it for long enough, someone, one day, is going to push back.

At which point you will no doubt say "I told you so".

With no understanding, even then, of your part in the process.

Dear Polycarp,

I thought you maintained that the horrible record of Christian violence towards others didn't matter because you didn't see that the Christian scriptures advocated such action. Apparently history didn't matter for Christians committing atrocities. In fact you condemned citing those instances from history as hate-mongering.

Now you are condemning others for violence toward Christians. Have you checked to see if the Hindu scriptures advocate such action? If not then it is inconsistent of you to condemn them for the acts.

Hi DAvid

well.. I'm not aware of any specific hindu scriptures which can be used to justify such cruel actions.

The fundamental difference between say Islam and Hinduism are also the thing which determines how they act toward none them.

Hinduism believes in Karma..and a cyclical life situation. If you do bad things in this life, you will come back as a cockroach or something in the next.
Islam believes it is the complete fulfillment of the sum total of the prophets and that is has a Law which all humanity must follow, by coercion if neccessary. Islam does not require all people to "believe" in it.. just to OBEY it.

Hindu's worship the cow.. tribal people eat them.. (animists) The Holy man murdered by the Maoists was trying to get the tribal people to worship the cow also.

He was proselytising.

Here we have the problem of statistical spread. In any community which highly values certain things.. you will get a group of extremists who view people NOT participating in such activities..as some kind of threat or sub human.

So..the Hindu violence can be explained on that level.

Islamic violence can be directly linked to their scriptures and their prophet... and when both you and Pericles actually understand the 9th surah... and subsequent related Hadiths... we will have progressed far indeed :)

Dear Polycarp,

The sura you love to quote counts for little against the massive Christian violence of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, the wars of the Reformation, the conversions by force and other Christian evils. By their fruits shall ye know them. You can deny, ignore, quote nasty bits of other religions, but the evil Christianity has brought to this world outweighs the evil any other religion has brought to this world.

You call Bishop Spong a heretic. It is a bit ridiculous for a member of an obscure sect to call an Anglican Bishop a heretic.

I have just read his book, "Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love." Bishop Spong realises that much of the evil coming from Christianity is found in Scripture. He feels that love can be also found in Scripture. One can travel the path to love by realising that much of Scripture was written by those who expressed the prejudices of their time. He traces environmental irresponsibility, suppression of women, fear and hate of homosexuals, abuse of children and antisemitism to Biblical passages. He also criticises the certainty derived from the Scriptures which prevents people from asking questions. Having heard your paeans of hate for Muslims, your hate of Catholics, your intolerance of homosexuals and your denial of the evil in Christianity I am thankful that some Christians wish to change their religion into a religion of love. I can only hope he succeeds. He has a difficult job, but I firmly believe that Christians are human and have a better nature that can be appealed to.