Hindus Strike Again

[Secundulus]

For all you smart guys who said this was being made up when it was reported in the Christian media, here is is in the New York Times.

Hindu Threat to Christians: Convert or Flee
By SOMINI SENGUPTA
Published: October 12, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/world/asia/13india.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

BOREPANGA, India — The family of Solomon Digal was summoned by neighbors to what serves as a public square in front of the village tea shop.

They were ordered to get on their knees and bow before the portrait of a Hindu preacher. They were told to turn over their Bibles, hymnals and the two brightly colored calendar images of Christ that hung on their wall. Then, Mr. Digal, 45, a Christian since childhood, was forced to watch his Hindu neighbors set the items on fire.

“ ‘Embrace Hinduism, and your house will not be demolished,’ ” Mr. Digal recalled being told on that Wednesday afternoon in September. “ ‘Otherwise, you will be killed, or you will be thrown out of the village.’ ” . . .

The forced conversions come amid widening attacks on Christians here and in at least five other states across the country, as India prepares for national elections next spring.

 

[Rasta]

For all you smart guys who said this was being made up when it was reported in the Christian media, here is is in the New York Times.

Hindu Threat to Christians: Convert or Flee
By SOMINI SENGUPTA
Published: October 12, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/world/asia/13india.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

BOREPANGA, India — The family of Solomon Digal was summoned by neighbors to what serves as a public square in front of the village tea shop.

They were ordered to get on their knees and bow before the portrait of a Hindu preacher. They were told to turn over their Bibles, hymnals and the two brightly colored calendar images of Christ that hung on their wall. Then, Mr. Digal, 45, a Christian since childhood, was forced to watch his Hindu neighbors set the items on fire.

“ ‘Embrace Hinduism, and your house will not be demolished,’ ” Mr. Digal recalled being told on that Wednesday afternoon in September. “ ‘Otherwise, you will be killed, or you will be thrown out of the village.’ ” . . .

The forced conversions come amid widening attacks on Christians here and in at least five other states across the country, as India prepares for national elections next spring.

This is sad. It's too bad that Christians have a negative impression in that part of the world.

 

[indianx]

The Hindus strike again? A ragtag bunch of illiterate, impecunious, fatuous clowns with no knowledge or understanding of the fundamental principles of their religion engage in a meaningless quest for retribution and now all Hindus are to blame. Yes, religion is the divisive factor in this situation, but if you knew anything about the political and historical context of that region, you would know that this is more about the surfacing of the contentious economic and social relationship between the Kandhas and the Panas that has been simmering for decades. Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati had started working with the Kandhas (the still majority Hindu tribal group) in the 1960s, when the Christian missionary organizations began to arrive in the region. His murder, in the hands of Christians, served as the catalyst for the outbreak of violence. The Kandhas have to be faulted and held responsible for their inexcusable decision to look towards retribution in the aftermath of the murder of their religious leader, rather than to protest peacefully, in the spirit of ahimsa. It's unfortunate that in the land of Gandhi, the Hindu most representative of the peaceful nature of the religion, that these Hindus have instead resorted to violence. The first course of action now, from the Hindu perspective, should be for Hindu service organizations to step in immediately and counsel the perpetrators of violence among the Kandhas to repudiate their decision to succumb to violence. Differences among tribal groups have historically been difficult to reconcile, in India and in other parts of the world, but, immediate and meaningful efforts, on the part of the government and the communal groups involved, have to be made to at least draft a peace-brokering agreement. I think that it is the duty of every Hindu in that state and elsewhere to condemn the violence and work towards resolving the terrible situation. It is unfortunate that on this Columbus Day, the spirit of religious violence and the forceful conversions of indigenous groups marked by his arrival in the Americas more than half a millennium ago, still remain a thorn in the sides of moderate and peaceful adherents of all religions around the world.

 

[arunma]

Thank you for posting this Secundulus. I have actually heard about this violence in India for quite a bit longer than when it was first posted on this forum, and I am rather familiar with the persecution of the Lord's church in Orissa. This is my prayer for these Hindus:

O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed, blessed shall he be who repays you with what you have done to us! Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock! (Psalm 137:8-9)
​

May the Lord Jesus inflict vengeance even to eternal destruction on those who do not obey his Gospel. And may our fellow Christians remember the wrath that God has treasured for our enemies, so that they will not seek any personal retribution of their own.

This severe Hindu persecution of Christians has an underlying cause. It is rooted in the fundamental belief that a Hindu is one by birth, and hasn't the right to reject the idolatry of Hinduism. Note what is stated in the article:

“Who am I to give assurance?” he snapped. “Those who have exploited the Kandhas say they want to live together?”
Besides, he said, “they are Hindus by birth.”

The Christians are "Hindus by birth," therefore it offends the Hindus that they reject the evils of idolatry and false Hindu religion to obey the voice of God and the Gospel of his Son. I have found that this sentiment is held even by the less sanguinary Hindus.

I found this account to be simultaneously shocking and unsurprising:

The men had also been summoned to a village meeting in late August, where hundreds of their neighbors stood with machetes in hand and issued a firm order: Get your heads shaved and bow down before our gods, or leave this place.

The Hindu rite of shaving one's head is a fairly common Hindu ritual. It is often done to infants as well as adults. In forcing Christians to shave their heads, these idol-worshipers are intentionally demanding for Christians to be anathema from Jesus and participate in their idolatry. To cause a Christian to do this is a most heinous sin worthy of the most intense hellfire, as it says,

Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. (Mark 9:42)
​

The threat of the Hindus in question is very common, for it has been the battle cry of every pagan idolater who ever sought to destroy the faith of Christians. It is what Kng Nebuchadnezzar said to Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael,

Now if you are ready when you hear the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, to fall down and worship the image that I have made, well and good. But if you do not worship, you shall immediately be cast into a burning fiery furnace. And who is the god who will deliver you out of my hands? (Daniel 3:15)
​

I do also pray that our brothers and sisters in India will remember the promise of Christ,

Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life. (Revelation 2:10)
​

And that they would answer the Hindus as the three Jews said to the king,

O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up. (Daniel 3:16-18)
​

Sadly we still live in the days when pagan idolaters kill believers in the one true God and his Son only for failure to worship false gods. I hope that others will see the behavior of Christians in India and recognize the all-surpassing worth of Jesus Christ.

 

[indianx]

I hope that others will see the behavior of Christians in India and recognize the all-surpassing worth of Jesus Christ.

Interesting. We are to forget the nearly two hundred years of oppression, subjugation, and deprivation of our fundamental freedoms and human rights under the hands of the Christian British. We are to forget the continuous violence and intimidation by Christian terrorist groups in the North East. We are to forget the murder of people like Swami Shanti Kali and Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati.

Yes, the Hindus in Orissa responsible for these terrible and inexcusable acts are to blamed for causing the majority of the violence. Yes, their acts should be condemned and faulted by every reasonable and sensible human being. But, I have to wonder where anyone can find the temerity to exploit this terrible situation and use it as a propaganda tool to somehow shame the other one billion Hindus into conversion, when all you need is a cursory glance at the modern history of India to understand what Christian imperialism, violence, and persecution of indigenous populations mean. I've said this earlier and I think it's significant enough to say it again, the worst consequence of this appalling situation would be for the two sides to descend into slinging blame upon and deriding each other. We've had enough of that to last us for centuries. This is a time to look towards forgiveness and ahimsa, the fundamental principles of Hinduism, and to constructively consider ways to resolve and defuse this situation, so that these innocent people, Hindus and Christians, can get on with their lives.

 

[Secundulus]

Enough of excuses. They do not go far here.

 

[indianx]

You will find that in not one of my posts regarding this situation have I offered excuses.

The Kandhas have to be faulted and held responsible for their inexcusable decision to look towards retribution.

Yes, the Hindus in Orissa responsible for these terrible and inexcusable acts are to blamed for causing the majority of the violence.

What I do find excuse with are attempts to cast the other one billion peaceful and innocent Hindus of India and Orissa into the cauldron with these imbeciles.

 

[arunma]

Interesting. We are to forget the nearly two hundred years of oppression, subjugation, and deprivation of our fundamental freedoms and human rights under the hands of the Christian British. We are to forget the continuous violence and intimidation by Christian terrorist groups in the North East. We are to forget the murder of people like Swami Shanti Kali and Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati.

The "Christian" British curtailed missionary activity during their reign in India, and their country fifty years later is populated mostly by liberal Christians who in reality are not even Christians, because they deny the Gospel of Jesus Christ to their own condemnation. Many of the leaders of the Anglican church deny that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and claim that non-Christians can be saved. The point is that most of the British Anglican church has not been Christian in quite some time, as evidenced by the fact that they did not even preach the Gospel in India when they had the opportunity. All of the British preachers who did the good work of spreading the Gospel in India did so apart from the will of the British government.

As for the alleged murder of Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati by Christians, may I remind you that the New York Times attributes his murder to the Maoist rebels. I find it curious that even the murders who ar now in custody, who are called Christians, are nonetheless identified with the Maoists. I know that you say you do not support violence, but respectfully, it is precisely this false blame laid on the Christians that has led to the persecution of Christians in India. Your call to arms, "Remember Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati," is based on a lie. I do not mean to offend you, but you must understand why your protestations about the supposed evils of Christians seems tantamount to excusing evil. You say that Christians, who comprise 2% of the Indian population, make life terribly difficult for everyon else. Such was the claim of the Europeans about the Jews, whom they oppressed for many centuries.

 

[Rasta]

The "Christian" British curtailed missionary activity during their reign in India, and their country fifty years later is populated mostly by liberal Christians who in reality are not even Christians, because they deny the Gospel of Jesus Christ to their own condemnation. Many of the leaders of the Anglican church deny that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and claim that non-Christians can be saved. The point is that most of the British Anglican church has not been Christian in quite some time, as evidenced by the fact that they did not even preach the Gospel in India when they had the opportunity. All of the British preachers who did the good work of spreading the Gospel in India did so apart from the will of the British government.

Incredibly weak argument that is merely a "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Enough with the exuses. They won't get you very far here, as Seculundus points out.

Did he condone the violence? No he didn't. So pretending that he did so you can push your primitive agenda would be lying. What does Jesus say about lying? Does Jesus say that all good Christians should lie? No, he doesn't.

 

[Morcova]

I love how when a group of christians does something bad, like say enslaving a group of people and destroying their culture.. they are "christians".

 

[Secundulus]

I love how when a group of christians does something bad, like say enslaving a group of people and destroying their culture.. they are "christians".

If they claim to be doing it in the name of God then yes, they are.

 

[arunma]

Incredibly weak argument that is merely a "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Enough with the exuses. They won't get you very far here, as Seculundus points out.

There is an important point of logic to be made here. I feel it is important to note that the so-called "No True Scotsman" fallacy isn't really a logical fallacy. As you may know, it was invented by former atheist Anthony Flew, and for the purpose of religious arguments. It may sometimes be used to refer to arguments that are flawed for other reasons, but for you to disagree with my argument on the basis of the No True Scotsman fallacy in the same way that you might cite, say "argument by ridicule," is simply an error in logic.

This can be shown by the fact that by treating this as a valid fallacy, one could very well argue that all people are Christians. Are most Americans, who have been baptized at birth and who have attended a church a few times in their lives Christians? Is my agnostic friend who calls himself a Christian because he is a "good person" a Christian? In citing the No True Scotsman fallacy you strip Christianity of its defining traits. Christians are defined by adherance to a believe in Jesus Christ, the Bible, and various creeds and confessions that summarize the Bible. If you suggest that someone is a Christian merely because he says so, then all you've managed to do is make the term "Christian" far less useful.

Though there are many reasons why I might discount the vast majority of the Anglican Chuch as genuine Christians on the basis of their actions, the reasons I gave earlier are specifically related to the beliefs of the Anglican Church in general (I say "in general" because there are local Anglican churches in existence which adhere to Biblical Christianity). A large number of Anglican bishops and churches deny the inerrency of the Scriptures and believe that non-Christians can be saved. These are heretical beliefs which ultimately deny Christ and cut people off from the communion of the church. This may mean very little to you, because you do not believe in any supernatural communion of all Christians. To us though, it defines Christians from the rest of the world. Therefore this is probably an issue of language. What do you mean when you talk about "Christians?" Are you and I even talking about the same thing? If you defie a Christian as someone who professes to be a Christian, then I take no issue with the claim that Christians are responsible for all manners of sin. In fact I don't really care, since I don't assume any responsibility for such individuals.

Did he condone the violence? No he didn't. So pretending that he did so you can push your primitive agenda would be lying. What does Jesus say about lying? Does Jesus say that all good Christians should lie? No, he doesn't.

Jesus says that all people who don't believe in him will burn in hell for all eternity (see Mark 16:16 and John 3:18). While I do not believe that I have told any lie in the course of this discussion, I wish to point out that it's grossly hypocritical of you to admonish Christians to obey the teachings of Christ while disobeying the same, because you will be judged with the same standard that you use to judge others. You might as well be leading a blind person while wearing a blindfold.

 

[indianx]

Your call to arms, "Remember Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati," is based on a lie. I do not mean to offend you, but you must understand why your protestations about the supposed evils of Christians seems tantamount to excusing evil.

My call to arms? The only 'call' I've made and continue to make is for the Hindus in that region who have made the decision to turn towards violence to repudiate that decision and work towards resolving the situation in a peaceful manner, in the path set forth for them by Mahatma Gandhi. You, in turn, made the comment about the need for non-Christians to 'recognize the .... worth of Jesus Christ" in the behaviour of Christians in India, in an exploitative effort. I merely pointed out the actions of Christians in India over the past two centuries and why it would make sense for Hindus, using your logic, to, in reality, turn away from your gospel based on what adherents of your religion have done to us in our history. But, that has no relevance to the situation at hand. The Hindus responsible for the violence have to be held accountable for their inexcusable actions. If it is necessary for every Hindu to apologize for the actions of his misguided brethren in order for this troubled state to be resolved, then I would be the first.

 

[arunma]

If it is necessary for every Hindu to apologize for the actions of his misguided brethren in order for this troubled state to be resolved, then I would be the first.

Indianx, I will have to return to the rest of your post at a later time. However I would like to point out that I most certainly do not believe that an apology is required of anyone who has not either committed violence or supported those who do. I do not suggest that the guilt of the Hindus in question is in any way imputed to other Hindus.

Each human being is condemned to hell for his own sins alone, and can only be saved by Jesus Christ.

 

[Secundulus]

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi quote

Given current events, I have to laugh at such a statement from a Hindu.

 

[Tanakh]

India and its culture belongs to the Hindus and thus they have a right to protect India at any cost just as we Jews have a right to protect Israel from Islam and Christianity.

 

[NewToLife]

India and its culture belongs to the Hindus and thus they have a right to protect India at any cost just as we Jews have a right to protect Israel from Islam and Christianity.

I'm not sure Xenophobia is really the way forward for India's hindus. It is precisely this attitude that left Indian Muslims campaigning for and winning partition from India with the creation of Pakistan. That of course led to widespread slaughter once the British withdrew, millions died in the purges on both sides. There is no incident that parallels the violence of that post colonnial time in British rule itself, not even the infamous mutiny comes close. We still have a rumbling dispute over Kashmir to this day and at this point both sides are nuclear powers.

India can be at it's best if it is relatively open and tolerant, India can afford to be tolerant as it's culture is quite robust which history demonstrates pretty well.

As for the hindu poster with his anger at we British I would simply note that India was already under Mughal domination before we arrived, with the fall of the Mughals the British merely stepped into a power vacuum and provided relative stability and security ( in our interest as a trading nation ), there was no independent option for India at that point, if Britain had not stepped in then another less agreeable power would have. If that had happened you probably would have witnessed a real attempt to impose Christianity and destroy Hinduism. Mostly British rule was not against the will of the native people at that time, certainly if it had been so it would not have been possible for Britain to enforce it's rule militarily, India was not Rhodesia where a few hundred riflemen ( mercenaries acting against the British state's desire ) could suppress a primative nation. The reality is that the British ruled India by alliances with local groups whose interests coincided with ours and that it is certainly not the case that every Indian citizen today sees British influence as a negative factor in the countries history.

 

[arunma]

India and its culture belongs to the Hindus and thus they have a right to protect India at any cost just as we Jews have a right to protect Israel from Islam and Christianity.

As an Indian myself who utterly rejects the idolatry of Hinduism, I must fully disagree with you. The assumptions inherent to your above statement are the very root of religious oppression. I believe it was Hitler who "protected" Europe's heritage of paganism and loosely interpreted Roman Catholicism from the Jews. If you believe that any culture has the right to protect its majority religion (or any other religion it deems characteristic of its culture), I don't see how you can escape giving your tacit support to the expulsion and extermination of Jews from Europe.

 

[Tanakh]

As an Indian myself who utterly rejects the idolatry of Hinduism, I must fully disagree with you. The assumptions inherent to your above statement are the very root of religious oppression. I believe it was Hitler who "protected" Europe's heritage of paganism and loosely interpreted Roman Catholicism from the Jews. If you believe that any culture has the right to protect its majority religion (or any other religion it deems characteristic of its culture), I don't see how you can escape giving your tacit support to the expulsion and extermination of Jews from Europe.

I am commanded in the Torah to protect Israel at any cost and if that means war then so be it. Comparing me protecting the laws of G-d is in no way similar to what Hitler was "protecting" which was nothing but his own mind.

 

[Secundulus]

I am commanded in the Torah to protect Israel at any cost and if that means war then so be it. Comparing me protecting the laws of G-d is in no way similar to what Hitler was "protecting" which was nothing but his own mind.

You protect Israel from the United States? Hypocrite.