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.