The Capture of Christianity

#68
I would not prefer to discuss this with you because of your obvious gripe for unknown reasons but let me simply ask:

Are Catholics in North and South America are not Americans just because they seek religious guidance from the Pope and Vatican stuck in the middle of Italy? Do they have to invent their own pope or Vatican somewhere in central America?

This is just ridiculous argument that I have to accept Hinduism before I can even say Indus civilization. What Indus civilization has to do with Hinduism, a religion?

There have been so many invaders, visitors, conquerors and migrations from all parts of central asia, the ME and from the Mediterranean now in to what is Pakistan, that assuming someone origins is just ridiculous.

I don't think Baloch or Pathans are of Indian origin neither are Punjabi or Sindhi- at least not all. So there is no reason for them to accept Hinduism or Buddhism as the guiding lights.

Historically unprovable theories to some religion being the original religion of every one in India are just ridiculous. Vedic religions are as alien to India as Abrahamic religions.

And remember, you can not claim your ancestors to be Greeks or Romans deceptively, till you don't claim Hindus to be your ancestors. I said it earlier, in that Indus valley civilization as well, you can not skip and claim that Indus Valley civilization is yours while the Hindu/Budhdhist period that flourished on that land was not yours. You can not simply pick your ancestors arbitrarily as per your ISlamic ego, that is already done, you have to realize that.

Till muslims in south asia comes to term with Hinduism and Budhdhism and stop looking for their identity in big-bang or lost land, there is no scope for ultra polite discussions!!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Politeness doesn't mean that I can't say things that offend you and though you can say things that can offend me.

#63 Posted by HP on

HP your idea of politeness may not be a certified idea of politeness. Politeness doesn't mean that I can't say things that do not offend you and though you can things that can offend me. When people are so offended with each other's ideas than they should stick to ideas that are being said and not the offense that was offered. You can not hide in this "politeness" excuse.

[[
(Historically, the entire expanse of land and sea between the Gates of Hercules (Strait of Gibraltar) and the River Indus (excluding the Arabian Peninsula) were at one point in time or another subordinated to the authority of the Greeks and Rome. Wiki)
]]

What do you want to say here. Which Greek or Roman was ruling India in the times before Alexandar or in the time of Budhdha. Why don't you complte what you want to say? Your link is not working.

Say whatever you say against Hinduism but stick to it and defend what you say.

[[
Now go ahead and do some research on these names: Mithra and Krishna, Dionysus, Horus,Attis, Chrishna, Buddha Sakia, Zulis or Zhule, odin, Crite, Zoroaster, Ball and Taut, Indra, Bali of afghanistan, Thammuz, Atys, Mohammed.
]]


Does it suggest that Muhammad and Budhdha are as mythical as Krishna. Or do you want to suggest all are similarly mythical or similarly historical, which one?

There are lots of things common; they are all religious figures, important gods or messengers like Jesus and Mohammad. You will find many fascinating similarities there...It seems that one story was created and used with little difference all over the world. Mostly poor, Father died or dead before they were born. Some reincarnated,others were reincarnations, and expected to be reincarnated!

Let me restate this:
There are lots of things common; they are all religious figures, important gods or messengers like Jesus and Mohammad. You will find many fascinating similarities there...It seems that one story was created and used with some variations all over the world. Mostly poor, Fathers died in early childhood or dead before they were born. Some reincarnated,others were reincarnations, and some are expected to be reincarnated!(Krishna was supposed to be a Prince from a large family and some in the family wanted to kill them all for whatever reasons they had. He too suffered in his early life...(Father is not accounted after the deadly attack from the relatives.)

I don't think there is anything sensitive in it. If you love a cow or cows, that is your love affair, not mine!

And this is just ridiculous:
#57 Posted by KaalChakra
"they are fearful of what other Muslims might do to them. HP has said so. Even hamimdm says that all the time."

I can't speak for Hamidm but I never said it! I have never had any problems in Pakistan about expressing what I thought. People did not like it on some occasion. Now after X numbers of years, I think what I said was in poor taste too. But no one ever threatened me with any consequences. I have never lived in any other Muslim country so I don't know how things are there. But the circles I moved in and the people I grew up with in Pakistan, had no problem whatsoever with speaking out against religion. Are things different now? I don't know! But the people I visit in Pakistan are still the same they are still liberal and don't care about religion and none of them got killed (Some deserve it though, but not because of their opinions about religions.

Now go ahead and do some research on these names: Mithra and Krishna, Dionysus, Horus,Attis, Chrishna, Buddha Sakia, Zulis or Zhule, odin, Crite, Zoroaster, Ball and Taut, Indra, Bali of afghanistan, Thammuz, Atys, Mohammed.

There are lots of things common; they are all religious figures, important gods or messengers like Jesus and Mohammad. You will find many fascinating similarities there...It seems that one story was created and used with little difference all over the world. Mostly poor, Father died or dead before they were born. Some reincarnated,others were reincarnations, and expected to be reincarnated!

Go read the story of Krishna the Blue guy from Mahabharata (It is not impossible, people can be blue. http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/22536241/)

Just think about this similarity in names:
Krishna is a combination of two words Krish-na and now think about the Greco-roman word for Jesus was kristo. Krish= Kristo=Christ. (Historically, the entire expanse of land and sea between the Gates of Hercules (Strait of Gibraltar) and the River Indus (excluding the Arabian Peninsula) were at one point in time or another subordinated to the authority of the Greeks and Rome. Wiki)

I think there is no harm in discussing religion in a polite way. The problem with Indians is that they have not learned to discuss religion in a polite and civil manner. They only were taught abusing other religions.

Murad. A fabulous article!

dm ji

We can't expect Murad bhai, a rationalist and myth-breaker, to believe in such 'nonsense' as virgin birth and messenger of God stuff. His strong commitment to Islam seems merely identity-related, rather than tied to blind faith in any 'theological fancies.'

Still, we can clear that up by directly asking if he fully rejects Christ's virgin birth stories and anyone's claims of his being any messenger of god.

Murad bhai, this is a very simple and straightforward one for you. Thanks in anticipation.

Murad,

This issue is a sensitive issue and attempts to decipher its obscure details, without due care and acknowledgement, may come across as offensive. Admittedly, keeping one’s faith completely disentangled when interpreting history is difficult, so my views too should be taken with a grain of cynicism.

Bulk of your interpretation of events surrounding Jesus (as well as Paul) is almost identical to that of Ahmadi-Muslims. It seems some historians are coming to similar conclusions. BTW, Holger Kersten’s book is out of publication with no reprinting plans. I wonder about the basis of your interpretation as you did not include any references in your article.

Based on Biblical accounts, it seems Jesus was on the cross for only a few hours: From late Friday afternoon to Friday sunset, an interval not enough to bring about death. Two thieves were crucified at the same time and place as Jesus, and their bones were broken to finally kill them. It seems that while on the cross, Jesus slipped into unconsciousness and was, perhaps somewhat conveniently, presumed dead by the Romans who were ambivalent about crucifying him in the first place [on a separate note … this interpretation is seemingly consistent with Qruanic accounts].

There is evidence suggesting that Jesus survived crucifixion, recovered some, met with his disciples in secrecy, and left the area in search of remaining tribes of Israel. He migrated eastwards, preached along the way, and finally died in Kashmir at 120 years of age.

From what I know, only 2 out of a total of 12 Tribes of Israel lived in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus; rest, owing to wars and persecution, had migrated eastwards, some as far as Kashmir. It seems that Kashmiri names, customs etc. even today, resemble those mentioned in the Bible to an unusually high degree, suggesting a historical link with the Israelites.

FaisalK:

"So what bout the part in the Quran where he is proclaimed as the messenger of god??? Hazrat Essa....any thought to that?"

Murad Bhai has neither disputed Hazrat Essa being a messenger of God nor his virgin birth, they are both part of the Muslim faith. He has only disputed Resurrection, which is not consistent with Islamic faith. You can say that Murad saheb's article is a vindication of the Quran.

So what bout the part in the Quran where he is proclaimed as the messenger of god??? Hazrat Essa....any thought to that?

aplogies to the author re the actual topic, but most of the material although interesting and "fascinating", is relatively well known who want to know. for the faithful, its not that important. whats more, this cow has been gored for a while.

Masanamuthu, there are many Muslims who reject Islam, and/or openly recongize that they cannot say what they wish to say in public because they are fearful of what other Muslims might do to them. HP has said so. Even hamimdm says that all the time.

One can even accept that Murad bhai is too scared of Islam to even express that fear publicly. What is not explained are his interests and drives that match perfectly with those of any hard-boiled Islamists -

(1) obsession with goring unIslamic cows and slaying of unIslamic myths
(2) selective views of history that typically (and according to many, falsely) try to create absurd historical equivalences.
(3) his otherwise inexplicable hatred toward Hinduism - probably the only religion whose 'founders' (don't ask me who they are!) and religious teachers he does not 'love.'

IMHO, fear of Islam itself would not create the above.

#53 paradox

You're nowhere near the truth.
If husband, Joseph, was the father, why would she need to invent virgin birth.

I've read Muradji's articles. I can't come to any conclusion on his ulterior motives. You can't openly attack Islam and plan to lead a fearless peaceful life anywhere in India.

Even the Hindutvadis don't directly attack Muhammad, the prophet of the cult.

We as anonymous (though not really, anyone can be tracked) commenters have the privilege of ridiculing Muhammad / Islam and continue our lives as usual.

So expecting Muradji to give out his address and then attack Muhammad like attacking Adi sankara / Jesus is a bit too much.

The whole of Jesus' persona - from his birth to his looks to his life story to his death and finally to his so-called resurrection - seems to be a myth, suitably colored and enhanced to strengthen the Christian faith. But isn't that how religions work?

---------------

Humsab ji,

One did think that Murad bhai is simply scared of Islam. For instance he would sneakily imply here and there that Muslims read from the false Quran (and hence worship the false Allah), or that they should be worshipping 'saints', or that "ALL" religions do this or that, but never really make a stand on any specific Islamic subject.

But having read now quite a few of his articles, I am convinced it is not at all the fear of Islam that keeps him so motivated and focused on unIslamic topics but simply religious fanaticism against non-Muslims.

We have to understand that EVERY Muslim (and it DOES NOT matter what label he or she wears (or can wear) for himself or herself has his or her own interpretation of Islam.

Murad bhai is no different, and has set about goring the cows of actual non-Muslims as his life's mission.