The Capture of Christianity

Forget about Jesus's resurrection. His birth was the biggest fraud offerd to the believers.He was the son of Joseph not God Almighty.

one of things i have always wondered about is what exactly did jesus look like......it is hard to believe that someone from that region, during those days, could be blond-haired and blue-eyed........if a clear picture of jesus was available, the world would have been a different place......perhaps, he looked more like a slave than a slave owner.....

following is an interesting description:

"The result is shown in the left portrait above: a person with abroad peasant's face, dark olive skin, short curly hair and a prominent nose. His height would have been on the order of 5' 1"; he would have weighed about 110 pounds. Alison Galloway, professor of anthropology at the University of California in Santa Cruz , said that: "This [portrait] is probably a lot closer to the truth than the work of many great masters." (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcfa.htm)

'Just as it wouldn't be if I made if my life's mission to show the ridiculousness of Islam.'

KC ji
Neki ka kaam hai. Der ayad durust ayad.
And it is possible that Murad Sahib ji actually believes in what he claims but is just too scared to touch Islamic myths as he does not want fatwa of the kind which says, 'Off with his Head'.
You remember the way Mr. M F Hussain gets all his creative juices flowing only seeing Sita, Saraswati etc and not an accomplished historical woman known as Madam Aisha.
Regards

Perhaps I can put it this way - for a Muslim, being dedicated to goring unIslamic cows is not search for rationality, nor a mark of any bravery.

Just as it wouldn't be if I made if my life's mission to show the ridiculousness of Islam. Above everything else, it would be religio-political work, and recongizably, self-confessedly, so.

If that is indeed your objective, then that's how you should state your entire work.

Murad ji, writing a book will not absolve you of the basic charge that that you are a dedicated Islamic political activist (which is not a bad thing, but totally contrary to your claims)

Your primary mode of Islamist politicking is to

(1) make insincere universal claims ("I love all religious founders/teachers") while pushing the agenda of Islam,

(2) make tendentious and illogical Islamist allegations against non-Muslims that you do not back up ("Hindus began to respect/worship the cow because they wanted to hurt Muslims who have a duty or absolute need to eat the cow)

(3) offer standard Islamist fare about Islam, which is no different from that of any other Muslim does (about how Islam is misunderstood and all the rest).

(4) not address any issue when non-Muslims call you on it, but merely to repeat your claims of universal sincerity and how you love everybody and all religious figures, when you obviously don't.

Murad ji, the problem is of total lack of credibility based on what you write.

Perhaps you should write a book on "Islam Unwarnished" so the reader knows he or she is not reading merely a hack working away on behalf of his own Islam. Yes, many Muslims consider you a non-Muslim (as they should) but that is true of any Muslim - covering the full range from Osama Bin Laden to Mr Jinnah, all political activists.

Many interactors are questioning my motives in writing as I do. I would like to say that I have many very diverse interests I am a sincere and deeply interested student of history and comparitive religion and have been constantly amazed at how mythology has clouded and confused both history and religious ideas among all faiths.

I am planning to do a book on this subject at some time and find that many of the numerous interacts are very useful in showing some of the weaknesses in the conjectures while many interacts have added valuable ideas and information. So there is no need to question my motives and I am delighted with the knowledge and wisdom that many of you have offered.

Concerning this article I had done some serious study but seem to have mainly atttracted responses with a Hindu or Islamic focus. While these are interesting I am more interested to have Christian reactions. After 2000 years the facts are hazy and the witnesses unreliable so please agree or disagree with me on the substance of the facts and conjectures.

#45 Posted by rashid_s

[[
“The priests and scriptures of all religions foster myths of great miracles to impress their less educated followers�.

The above truly sums it all.
]]

It does, but the sum till now is zero, this is not sufficient to prove to "faithfuls" that their religions are doing anything bad, you will know actual sum when you check for what they are impressing people, what they want them to do (and how good or bad it is)?


But overall that is the starting point (zero or 1), so the first thing is always to communicate that no scriptures are word of God or no book is word of God. Then people will start summing things using their mind.

#44 Posted by laddu on
laddu, why you went after Guru Nanak??

I replied to Jang, he can tell me who needs respect now and how much. Then we can distribute it after having some discussion here.

“The priests and scriptures of all religions foster myths of great miracles to impress their less educated followers�.
The above truly sums it all.
The Churches (Der-o-Haram) exist— a generic term for the institutions of the profession of priests, mullahs, pundits, rabbis and all-- because the gullible need a tangible place of worship and a hand-hold for their spiritual salvation.
How ever it is not fair to say the “less educated� only need this prop. I remember seeing a doco on the Kumb melaa where a Physics professor after admitting that the river ‘was the sewer of India’ , yet took a dip in it for his “Faith�!
Such examples abound in “all Religions� of the world without exception. Myths are essentials for the ‘existence of the body-church’. Imagine the unemployment statistics round the world without this industry of intellectual bhang!

"..should not expect any reverence or admiration for these ridiculous figures. "

Sure, no one should also expect reverence for equally 'ridiculous' figures like Nanak or Gobind Singh from others.

#42 Posted by pinku on
I created a chowkidar (ilog) as well from that comment to attract some crowd at one place as trolling is more painful..

#40 Posted by jang on
Jang I don't insist on such "Sai babas". Though they are following many thousand year old Hindu tradition/freedom of using your own skills to create your sect. You can consider initial two Gurus of Budhdha to be similar type of Baba and Budhdha himself to be a guru/baba. Even Nanak and other Sikh gurus followed the same tradition of Hinduism. How truthful and intellectual a baba/guru is depends on that Baba/Guru, but overall they represented the same Upanishadic traditions.

If I will insist for someone he should be good enough to make people run out of their quota of intelligence based on "truth" alone (so less effort on my part)if they wish to go against that insistence, be it max muller or whoever(other's in the list like Gere are hardly countable:-))..

So I won't Praise Budhdha as much as the people of Upanishads. You can read Schopenhauer to know what he saya about them (He talks in terms of Vedas mostly, because Upanishads are part of Vedas for Hindus).


Budhdhism is simple, there is not much that philosophers could have got from it and if these Upanishadic thoughts before Budhdha didn't exist. Budddha and his Brahmin desciples wouldn't have been able to say even the simple things they said. Because all their simplicity is against the granduer of idea that already existed in Hinduism. The tough meditation neededto realize God was what Budhdha tried to simplify and in that attempt he found that whole religion is "tough" so carried just some principles. The credit of creating grand ideas or philosophical ideas goes to Brahmins sages of Upanishads.




Brahmins were the people who while playing with the idea of religion in the form of nature (world), righteousness, god, prayer, turned those ideas into one with philosophical values after a while (because there were so many competing Brahmins working on those ideas for so long). They are the first such people who thought wisely about world and God. So Hinduism is what started the basic philosophy


Schopenhauer/Voltaire and many German philosophers had the same idea. But you don't need anybody's idea to understand this truth.
Parallel to Hinduism is Judaism, but compared to Hinduism they were never able to create philosophy out of religion. The Greeks borrowed ideas from Hinduism.


========
For Hindus Upanishads hardly exists separately, they are part of Vedas as such, as a Brahmin whose surname is Shukla, is supposed to know Shukla part of Yajurveda very well and that will include all Upanishads counted in Shukla part of YajurVeda, you have vedi-bedi, dwi-vedi, tri-vedi and chatur-vedi and other similar sects of Brahmins who were supposed to carry some part through their generations.



So while Hindus donot have a single prophet, they have had tons of prophets, since ever to till todate. All Upanishadic sages were prophet, Yagyavalkaya, Vashishtha and others were prophets. Pioneers of different schools of thoughts of Hinduism are like prophets. --Except that they were not faking prophecies and blaming it to some Gabriel, they needed to base it on their own intellect or so called realization.

Budhdha was prophet, he realized something. His Gurus were prophets, they told him that they are teaching him what they have already realized. Even Rajnish and Sai baba were prophets. Prophets are of all types, Hindus were initially fortunate that they got some intelligent ones!

and swami v. nanda? gimme a break.. is only famous in indian text books for going to chicago..noone else knows about him at all. he is a hindutva poster-boy ... all his poster are in the same pose too and hang right next to tacky "gurv se kaho .." stickers.

he is (offcourse, arthaat) ridiculous.

in general, its easier to "admire" indian religious figures which are admired by at least max-muller sahib or maybe richard gere. mr G. Buddha fits the bill, maybe Nagarjuna..anyone who is actually admired by living indians is most likely to be a fraud. i dont think d. saraswati, RK etc really fit the bill..next pinkusab might insist that madrasi S.S. Baba should be revered...we know that most if not all indian religious babas are fraudulent. you know how even the beatles got cheated. currently some guy doing yoga on TV is a hit..claims to eat only fruit and veggies and peddles his drugs.

anyways, overall, hindoos should not expect any reverence or admiration for these ridiculous figures. cynicism if not wariness for fraud is best they should expect.

Re: # 38

"Hopefully murad bhai will share his love for Hindu 'founders' and Great Religious Teachers with us so we can better appreciate where he is coming from."

I agree completely.

laddu, you and I might be too dismissive of murad bhai in reconizing him as a dishonest Islamist fanatic dedicated to goring unIslamic cows.

He really deserves a chance to clarify, to tell us which of the Great Religious Teachers of Hinduism he so dearly loves as he obviously loves Prophet Muhammad and Jesus Christ -

If not adi shankara, ramanuja, vallabhacharya etc etc, it must be Swani Dayananda Saraswati - the Great founder of Arya Samaj and a rationalist to boot. Or may be, he is a lifelong admirer of the other great modern religious teacher of Hinduism - Swami Vivekananda.

Hopefully murad bhai will share his love for Hindu 'founders' and Great Religious Teachers with us so we can better appreciate where he is coming from.