The Capture of Christianity

Just a comment or two on the physical aspects about Jesus' crucifixion. Being educated by Marist priests it was in their 'interests' as propogators of the 'one true faith (!)' to teach that the treatment of Jesus was uniquely horrible. For example it was only later when I found out that nailing to the cross was standard procedure - as a child I took it that this was a particularly cruel fate meted out to Jesus alone. (Even today I can't recall off the top of my head any classical artists who depicted the legendary two thieves crucified on either side as being likewise nailed to their crosses. Usually they are shown as having their hands and feet roped or lashed to the wood. - Please someone correct me if I am wrong.) Likewise I believe that criminals were traditionally crucified completely naked - but it's unsurprising that this is refined into loincloth-wearing victims. Apart from the 'indecency' of a pictorial representation of such there would be the revealing of Jesus as a circumcised Jew - something to which, perhaps, the Church would, although acknowledging, rather not draw undue attention.
When still an infant we were told that when Jesus said on the cross "I thirst" and a vinegar-soaked sponge was raised to his mouth I never knew whether that was an act of cruelty or kindness - and even now I'm still not entirely sure. Then Jesus cries "It is consummated." (A very big word for the little boy I was then who was being told this story) I assumed that it was some reference to the vinegar - perhaps it was its bitterness he was complaining about. No attempt was made to explain this very 'obscure' word - and I was too frightened to ask!
But the article is certainly very interesting and food for thought. (I knew that the title 'Jesus of Nazareth' was a misnomer, something the Church has always seemed reluctant to accept.)
But thanks for the post.

Is there a red flag Santa Claus here, helping Murad, the moment i posted my comment it became red-flagged???? Who is doing this voluntary job??

#16 Posted by dost_mittar on

Ha ha:-) custom made revelations:-) and their time-chart:-)

more like vaccintaion schedule to fool people:-)

..............

Murad does bring good information along with his articles, but there is one thing that Murad doesn't seem to understand. Once he brings in a subject he can not decide the boundaries in which it will be discussed as per his own wish. HE normally decides what he want to say to keep himself and his ideas safe and wish others will not go out of this boundary.


The idea of saying all prophets were good, is just to save Muhammad, because others anyway didn't show as much stupidity.


All these attempts are to ignore the trouble that is right in front of your eyes (and that you obviously know) and look elsewhere, till it hits you.

Murad ji
Even though I always felt that you are a rationalist but the way you are going out of your way to run down other beliefs, I realise that perhaps Kaalchakra ji is right and you have an agenda.
May be next time you write an Article on Myth of Gabriel bringing down exclusive message of Allah to Mr. Muhammad or myth of Mr. Muhammad going on supersonic joy ride on a horse to meet Allah and have a tour of Heaven. Actually there are many similar incidents/myths in The Holy Book containing Allah's last message which can be taken up for this purpose.
Regards

If Murad bhai is not an Islamist, then it is hard to see why he doesn't understand the utter triteness of his 'message.'

So many people aleady KNOW that religious myths are just myths - not facts. Perhaps chaltahai can educate him on that.

This obsession with attacking the core myths of all other religions while proclaiming love for 'founders of all religions' and that Islam is misunderstood is absolutely weird, for a supposed breaker of all myths and rationalist.

Baig saheb, you are truly a destroyer of all myths. What myth are you destroying next - the one about someone producing custom-made revelations from God, what he needed and when he needed them?

Murad bhai, I have thoroughly read those articles, and have understood them. It's also not a matter of shooting the messenger, but examining what your basic message is.

Agreed, many Muslims will definitely argue that you do not follow Islam. But that is true of or for any Muslim.

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

May be you do not realize it but your approach is ideally suited to push the Islamist agenda. It is designed to protect Islam while you actively seek to pull down the bases of other religions.

Here is how it works. Islam has a myriad means of protecting itself fully. Some of them are -

1. Separating itself fully from (any negative actions and consequences in) the real world or from (any negative actions of and consequences for) its practioners. We have never seen you question Islam itself.

2. Propagating a 'love' for its founder, Prophet Muhammad, and hence inevitably, for his 'message' (whatever one may assume it to be, but it is invariably Islam).

That immediately knocks out Christianity, because Christianity not only relies on 'love' for its founder but also on assigning certain divinity to Jesus Christ.

And it immediately takes Hinduism our of reckoning since Hinduism has no 'founder.'

In essence, your views are no different at all from that of any traditional or non-traditional Muslim who believes that Islam has been 'hijacked,' and that 'original' Islam was very different than what it is today or what it has always been (except in the time of the Prophet).

That is perfectly fine, but you have devoted all your life to attacking other religions, while still being known, by many Indians, as a secularist and liberal.

That is kind of sad.

Re: # 12

"I love the founders of all faiths.."

what the hell you mean by that??

And who are you to think that what you know about these founders is correct and what the 'priests' know is false?

How can you disparage the traditional understanding within religious traditions and claim them to be 'false' and claim your own understanding as superior?

You arrogantly think that those who recounted about christ in the new Testament "created religions to enslave the masses" without any basis . You are thousands of years removed from those so called "founders" , yet you arrogantly think you know what they preached correctly.??

Lahol!! You do not even deserve the jahannum.

May I also request all of you to please stick to the subject. We are trying to examine a very old and rather cold trail about Jesus and the evolution of Christianity that has very little to do with Islam or Hinduism. So lets examine whatever we know about Christianity without any prejudices.

Please also do not try that old ploy of trying to shoot the messenge. Do please be objective and comment on the message without religious or other prejudices.

Re: # 2

Pl read my article on the hijacking of Islam on Chowk before making a statement like that. You will see from the several interacts that there were many who would completely disown me as any form of Islamiat.

And, if you read my article on `faith and religion' on Chowk I think you will be in no doubt that I am neither an islamist or believer in any religion.

I love the founders of all faiths but loathe the professional priests who created religions to enslave the masses.

Pl do me a favour and read these before calling me names.

"shedding tears during that horrible recounting of the tale of hate........"

Could you please clarify? What do you mean?

"Early Christianity, in the Jewish tradition, had also been bitterly opposed to pagan gods and their idols or `graven images’ but quickly succumbed to the appeal of idols so Catholics today worship the idols and portraits of over ten thousand saints."

Again a nonsense propaganda that first tries to create a negative image of pagans and then trying to prove that Christians follow "idolatory" in creating icons and images of Lord Jesus.

What is this nonsense propaganda bout the "appeal of idols" by the way, Mr. Murda??

Re: # 6

I know from my Shia friends how this Islamist does a true randi rona act of shedding tears during that horrible recounting of the tale of hate........

How can these Islamists come up with nonsense about Christ who was a true prophet and a saint.

It is time these Islamists stop abusing other faiths.

Re: # 6
Kal...
who misunderstood islam? Mo, the 7th century trader-cum-raider? If you follow his activities, there is no scope of misunderstanding; 24 carat barbarism....murad beg etc. , who live in civilised env. has to bluff to look islam decent. anyhow it does not work. go to the caves of pak-afg border...they have no confusion and no interpretation problem of what mo had preached and what shoul they do when you take food on arabic month of ramadan (before sunset)....

Laddu...
I have also seen this kind of story in BBC programs....
Buddha was atheist and never believed in miracle/magic,god, heaven etc? may be his kshatriya background helped him a lot to avoid dealing with god etc....he was firm believer of re-incarnation. Lot of people think that way, to explain some events. Ramkrishna's gospels were also like that (you take repeated births in different form until you die without keeping anything in mind).
...but then, how come it(christianity) turned into stupidity and fanaticism? much depends upon place and people...ancient brahmins never exposed vedas to the non-brahmins to avoid distortion....buddha should have kept some pre-conditions for preaching buddhism...
if you try to preach spirituality and knowledge to the beduines, it will simply fail. Mo, was perceft to deal with stupid people. but he had used it to commit gang crime....

No, laddu, Murad does not say Mashallah at any of that.

He simply says that Islam has been 'misunderstood' and 'hijacked.'

And that others (non-Muslims) have stupid religions.