Fw: [indictraditions] ten questions to a missionary by k elst comments

[Guest guest]

> Having some Catholic missionaries in my family as well as among close friends

of my family (including the martyred Father Herman Rasschaert, killed in 1964

in Chhotanagpur by Christian tribals when he tried to defend Muslims on whom

they wanted to take revenge for the mass killing of Christianized tribals in

East Pakistan), please allow me to give you an idea of what a mssionary would

reply to a few of your questions.> 1) Jesus is indicated as a baby and then an

adult over thirty years later. What was Jesus doing for the intervening thirty

years and why is the Bible quiet on the issue? If a Son of God was miraculously

born, why is there no history for thirty years? What happened to> his father and

mother, they disappear after his birth? What happened to his brothers and

sisters?>When asking such rhetorical questions about the Gospel, you'd better

acquaint yourself first with its contents. Jesus' "brothers" (which in an

extended family system may well mean cousins) are mentioned passim, esp. James,

who became the head of the Christian community of Jerusalem until his probable

death during the Jewish revolt on 66-71. Jesus' mother was present at the

cross. As for his youth, one episode is mentioned, viz. his discussion with

elders at the temple at age 12. There is no indication whatsoever for the

theory floated by Theosophists and Ahmadiyas that Jesus went to India for his

education.> 2) Jesus is always shown as white. That is one colour he definitely

would not have been in Israel, people who had moved from Egypt. He would

probably have been brown, possibly black, but definitely not white. Why is his

true colour never indicated? How many people would follow Jesus in the West if

he was shown as brown?<The typical ancient Egyptian and contemporary Syrian or

Israeli is very definitely white, i.e. as white as the average Greek or

Italian. At any rate, by identifying the Christian mission with white racism,

you exemplify the typical anachronism in Hindutva polemic. Firstly, white

racism is now a marginal phenomenon in most Western countries, illegal in many,

while anti-racism is now a kind of state religion, vide e.g. French president

Chirac's recent speech before politicians of the former Soviet Bloc where he

went on about the evils of racism all while having the effrontery to leave the

evil of Communism unmentioned. Secondly, white racists are typically

secularists who oppose the universalism of Catholicism, and Christians among

them are mostly Protestants (a poll by the openly racist monthly American

Renaissance in 1996 showed that most of its readers were Protestants, followed

by agnostics and Catholics), but hard-core racists invoke the authority of

secular sciences like sociobiology, not of any religion. Thirdly, the Church

has long cut its historic links with white racism and is now fast growing away

from the white race itself: while losing its flock in Europe, the majority of

its members are now African, Latino, Filipino etc. Jesuit novices are now

typically Indian or Vietnamese. The Church is fast leaving the legacy of

colonialism and Eurocentrism behind, a new situation to which Hindutvawadis

adapt only with difficulty.> > 3) Why when Jesus was a practising Jew who never

intended to start a religion, the Christians> throughout history have persecuted

the Jews? >The Christian answer to this would be as follows. Firstly, the first

ones to persecute were the Jews themselves, e.g. Saint Paul was a Jewish

persecutor of Christians before converting to Christianity. Secondly, since

well before the birth of Christianity, there were clashes between Jews and

gentiles on the basis of the religious aversion of Jews for Gentiles, whether

Christian or other, and especially on the basis of purely secular conflicts.

Thus, the pogroms in Poland and Ukraine were not motivated by Christian

doctrine but by the exploited peasants' social resentment against the

privileged Jewish tax collectors. Thirdly, regardless of the mitigating

elements just mentioned, there remains a history of Christian injustice against

Jews, and the Church has recently admitted this openly;-- but within the

framework of Christian doctrine, this poses no particular problem: men are

sinners, and even baptized Christians commit sin. This long-standing sin must

now be terminated and corrected, but that is no reason to hold Christianity as

such guilty, much less to abandon it. > 4) Why when Jesus said `Love thy

neighbour', the Christians have never been able to practise it? Historically

more people have been killed in the name of Jesus than for any other one reason

(shortly followed by the name of Mohamed, of course). The followers of Jesus

destroyed great civilisations in Latin America. Tens of thousands of `witches'

were killed in the west. They even killed each other (Catholics versus

Protestants). Where was neighbourly tolerance then? Most of the killings

happened when the Church controlled or guided the government.<It is undeniable

that blood has been shed in the name of Christ. But let us not exaggerate.

You already do well to mention "tens of thousands of 'witches'", which is

accurate, unlike the commonly-heard figure of "nine million witches burnt at

the stake", cited recently by KS Sudarshan. Likewise, much of the death toll

in Latin America was accidental, esp. by epidemic diseases imported by the

Europeans. But the deliberate death toll remains high and cannot be justified.

Here again, Christians will cite man's sinfulness. They may also point out the

existence of a natural potential for aggression, which makes for the follwoing

phenomenon: where there are no religious wars in which men can live up their

aggression, we find that wars erupt for other, secular reasons, so that the net

death toll isn't all too different. Thus, China or pre-Islamic India had no

doctrine of religious war, yet they were not lacking in actual warfare:

dynastic quarrels, peasant revolts, barbarians' invasions etc.> > 5) The Bible

states that the world started some 6000 years ago. History has often been

manipulated to fit this date. Now science can date civilisations and events

thousands of years beyond that date, would they accept that the Bible is wrong

on this issue? People> have been killed for proclaiming that the earth is

neither round nor centre of the universe by the followers of Jesus. Why this

entrenchment against scientific facts, what do they have to hide? >

Christianity was no factor yet when Ptolemy's geocentric model won out against

budding heliocentric theories in the Pagan Greco-Roman world. Likewise,

Aryabhatta opined that the sun was in the centre, but was not followed by his

pupils, who upheld geocentrism in India for some more centuries. Inert

ignorance is a mighty impediment to the progress of science, and it cannot be

identified with Christianity. But it is true that Christianity's focus on the

salvation of the soul made it skeptical of the whole pursuit of scientific

knowledge, a situation apparently paralleled in India where the apogee of

Buddhism coincided with a slacking in the progress of science. The argument

about the literal chronology of the Bible is relevant only against

fundamentalist Protestants; Catholics have no problem with the role of

metaphor, hyperbole and other literary forms in the Bible text. The Big Bang

theory was first thought up by a Catholic priest, Prof. Lemaître who taught

physics at my own Alma Mater (Louvain/Leuven) in the 1920s, and who didn't see

a problem in the apparent contradiction with the Biblical fable of a creation

in six days.> 6) How can one imagine a God to love if he is willing to send

people to hell forever? A loving father would be forgiving and not threatening.

Why do the followers of Jesus always threaten damnation rather than win by

discussion and conviction? >Unlike Muslims, and like Hindus vis-à-vis rivalling

Hindu sects, but again unlike Hindus in their premodern dealings with outsiders,

Catholics have had a tradition of rational defence of the faith (apologetics)

since the beginning. But yes, they believe in eternal damnation, a doctrine

justified by the primary doctrine of human freedom: man's choice for belief or

unbelief, for sin or salvation, has consequences.> 7) Why when the early

`Christians' believed in reincarnation, the Church decided 600 years later to

ban the belief? Was this change to do with control of people by threatening

hell for just one chance in having a life? Why when there is no belief in

reincarnation, do they have `born-again' Christians?<It is but a New Age

fairy-tale that the early Church believed in reincaranation. to be sure, like

any cult, early Christianity attracted plenty of seekers who often brought some

beliefs from earlier flirtations with other cults, and the belief in

reincarnation was indeed in the air in the late Roman Empire. But it was

*never* part of Church doctrine.> > 8) Why is the Bible so wishy washy that it

always needs experts to interpret the meaning? Why is it not clear to read and

understand? Again, is it for control of people as interpretation so open?> This

question goes to the heart of the conflict between Catholics and Protestants.

The latter believe that anyone is qualified to read the Bible on his own. The

Roman Church, by contrast, teaches that Church tradition precedes the Bible, as

it was the Church that decided which books and which version of the Gospels were

to be included in the Bible. So, the Bible should not be read naively but in an

informed manner, guided by Church tradition,-- which I as an ex-Catholic still

consider an eminently sensible doctrine as compared with the Bible

fundamentalism at the heart of Protestantism. This is not a matter of the

Bible being "wishy-washy": any text of somewhat advanced contents, from a

course in chemistry to Hegel's Phenomenology of the Spirit is normally not read

in its naked form, but taught by a living teacher who explains just how to read

it. The same thing, after all, is true for the Hindu scriptures. In a

traditional apprenticeship with a Vedic rishi, you learn not only to recite the

Vedas, but also to properly interpret them.> 9) Why when people in the west are

leaving the church such that less than 10% of `Christians' go to church in the

UK that the missionaries concentrate on uneducated or poor parts of the world

rather than those that have abandoned the Church in the west? Why have the

`ex-Christians' been abandoned, is it too late to change their mind or too

difficult or coercion> cannot be easily applied? > There is also mission work

going on in the West, though admittedly at a slow pace (as for England, there is

now a vastly popular adults' course of Anglican Christianity taught through

local study groupos and the internet, often to people who don't want to

reconvert but merely to rediscover their cultural roots). But yes, the Church

ranks in the West are undeniably being depleted. The Christian explanation of

this trend would not focus on modern man's disenchantment with Christian myth,

but rather on the overfed modern consumer's hybris. As for the future,

Christians are confident that the Church has been through many crises and will

recover from this one, too.> 10) Why do the followers of Jesus carry out

charity with a view to conversion? Why not have pure charities without strings

attached? The Christians do anything for conversion, but almost nothing if

conversion is not possible.<There is plenty of charity with no perspective of

conversion in sight, starting with the charity among Christian populations who

don't need conversion anymore, but also the hospitals etc. in Muslim countries

where the Church abstains from active proselytization for fear of the Muslims.

And where there is a perspective of conversion, there is nothing wrong with it.

Firstly, it was ordered by Jesus ("Go and teach all nations"). And secondly, it

is the supreme act of love to save people from eternal damnation and lead them

to eternal salvation, is it not?>One point that missionaries make is that Jesus

died on the cross, as if this is unique. But tens of thousands of people died on

the cross, as this was a common means of execution. Dozens of men died on their

own cross at the same time as Jesus was executed. Did they all die on the cross

to save us? > No, they weren't God Incarnate, they didn't have the power to save

us.This reply could have been made much longer and more complete, but I think I

have shown to a sufficient extent that Christians need not be thrown off

balance by this list of questions which some Hindus consider devastating to the

missionaries' position. For the umpteenth time, i see Hindus preaching to the

choir and apparently congratulating themselves on their victorious

argumentation. Please go out and discuss it with the missionaries before

feeling victorious.Cheers,KETo from this group, send an email

to:indictraditions-Your use of is subject

to the

[Guest guest]

Are you sure that these answers are from Koenraad Elst?

 

The arguments are strangely shallow. I know from his writings that he

is quite a sharp intellect...

 

For ex. the answer to point nr. 2: Of course there is racism in the

christian church, for ex. antisemitism is wide-spread. It is not

anymore openly practiced and preached but it is very much there. It

might not be the official doctrine, but the "inofficial" one. You can

see this clearly in the actions of the church in Israel and

Palestine, where the church is clandestinely working/financing

against the state of Israel.

 

By the way, have you ever seen a picture of Jesus having a "jewish

nose"? No, they are ashamed that he was a veritable jew, even today.

 

French president may speak what he wants, the fact remains that 20%

of the voters vote regularly for the near-racist konservative

christian "Le-Penn-party". Tendency increasing. In every country it

is the so-called christian parties who lead the population to hate

foreigners and other races - but of course NOT OPENLY or directly!!!

 

> there remains a history of

> Christian injustice against Jews, and the Church has recently

> admitted this openly

 

Injustice? Jews and others have been butchered by hundreds, often by

thousands. And, by the way, Pope had to issue over 100 different

apologies to as many countries, social segments, religions, etc. etc.

It is not like "they sin like anyone else does". They have sinned and

do sin in a organized and purposeful way. Even nowadays you can see

how the church often protects priests or church employees who

perversely sexually exploit their subordinates instead of bringing

them to justice...

 

Pt. 4:

> It is undeniable that blood has been shed in the name of Christ.

But

> let us not exaggerate. <

 

What is the difference between 9 millions and a hundred thousand of

innocent murdered persons? Not a few researchers in Europe think more

than one million women have been killed in EUrope on witch charges.

 

AND the church never discontinued to praise and honour those (popes,

cardinals, etc.) who were guilty of these terrible crimes!!!!

 

 

But the lesson we should learn from that K.E. is to speak what we

know best - about our own religion, experience, and truth.

 

All the best to us all,

 

Sasha

 

 

 

vediculture, "sanjeev nayyar"

<exploreindia@v...> wrote:

> >

> Having some Catholic missionaries in my family as well as among

close

> friends of my family (including the martyred Father Herman

> Rasschaert, killed in 1964 in Chhotanagpur by Christian tribals

when

> he tried to defend Muslims on whom they wanted to take revenge for

> the mass killing of Christianized tribals in East Pakistan), please

> allow me to give you an idea of what a mssionary would reply to a

few

> of your questions.

>

> > 1) Jesus is indicated as a baby and then an adult over thirty

years

> later. What was Jesus doing for the intervening thirty years and

why

> is the Bible quiet on the issue? If a Son of God was miraculously

> born, why is there no history for thirty years? What happened to

> > his father and mother, they disappear after his birth? What

> happened to his brothers and sisters?>

>

> When asking such rhetorical questions about the Gospel, you'd

better

> acquaint yourself first with its contents. Jesus' "brothers"

(which

> in an extended family system may well mean cousins) are mentioned

> passim, esp. James, who became the head of the Christian community

of

> Jerusalem until his probable death during the Jewish revolt on 66-

> 71. Jesus' mother was present at the cross. As for his youth, one

> episode is mentioned, viz. his discussion with elders at the temple

> at age 12. There is no indication whatsoever for the theory

floated

> by Theosophists and Ahmadiyas that Jesus went to India for his

> education.

>

> > 2) Jesus is always shown as white. That is one colour he

definitely

> would not have been in Israel, people who had moved from Egypt. He

> would probably have been brown, possibly black, but definitely not

> white. Why is his true colour never indicated? How many people

would

> follow Jesus in the West if he was shown as brown?<

>

> The typical ancient Egyptian and contemporary Syrian or Israeli is

> very definitely white, i.e. as white as the average Greek or

> Italian. At any rate, by identifying the Christian mission with

> white racism, you exemplify the typical anachronism in Hindutva

> polemic. Firstly, white racism is now a marginal phenomenon in

most

> Western countries, illegal in many, while anti-racism is now a kind

> of state religion, vide e.g. French president Chirac's recent

speech

> before politicians of the former Soviet Bloc where he went on about

> the evils of racism all while having the effrontery to leave the

evil

> of Communism unmentioned. Secondly, white racists are typically

> secularists who oppose the universalism of Catholicism, and

> Christians among them are mostly Protestants (a poll by the openly

> racist monthly American Renaissance in 1996 showed that most of its

> readers were Protestants, followed by agnostics and Catholics), but

> hard-core racists invoke the authority of secular sciences like

> sociobiology, not of any religion. Thirdly, the Church has long

cut

> its historic links with white racism and is now fast growing away

> from the white race itself: while losing its flock in Europe, the

> majority of its members are now African, Latino, Filipino etc.

> Jesuit novices are now typically Indian or Vietnamese. The Church

is

> fast leaving the legacy of colonialism and Eurocentrism behind, a

new

> situation to which Hindutvawadis adapt only with difficulty.

>

> >

> > 3) Why when Jesus was a practising Jew who never intended to

start

> a religion, the Christians

> > throughout history have persecuted the Jews?

> >

>

> The Christian answer to this would be as follows. Firstly, the

first

> ones to persecute were the Jews themselves, e.g. Saint Paul was a

> Jewish persecutor of Christians before converting to Christianity.

> Secondly, since well before the birth of Christianity, there were

> clashes between Jews and gentiles on the basis of the religious

> aversion of Jews for Gentiles, whether Christian or other, and

> especially on the basis of purely secular conflicts. Thus, the

> pogroms in Poland and Ukraine were not motivated by Christian

> doctrine but by the exploited peasants' social resentment against

the

> privileged Jewish tax collectors. Thirdly, regardless of the

> mitigating elements just mentioned, there remains a history of

> Christian injustice against Jews, and the Church has recently

> admitted this openly;-- but within the framework of Christian

> doctrine, this poses no particular problem: men are sinners, and

even

> baptized Christians commit sin. This long-standing sin must now be

> terminated and corrected, but that is no reason to hold

Christianity

> as such guilty, much less to abandon it.

>

.....

.....

.....