Shiny mirror much?
10/22/2008 12:42:22 AM
a mind far far away
There are two things that bother me about this post: 1) he has flaming in his name, makes me wonder if he's a closet homosexual, and 2) he's a Calvinist, who believe that god chose before the creation of the world who would be saved and who wouldn't, thereby agreeing with this Hindu who he's bashing, who's only difference is terminology. One's a christian, one's a hindu, the belief is the same.
10/22/2008 12:47:47 AM
If I could rate this above 5, I would, since both the Arunma and the Hindus deserve at least 4...
10/22/2008 12:52:56 AM
The situation in India is terrible, actually, but that does not help.
I hope the Christians who cry persecution if a college atheist club makes it to its second meeting at least see the news about Indian Christians and grow some perspective.
10/22/2008 12:58:53 AM
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.
It's been my experience that Hindus tend to view all other gods as extensions of Brahma. You Fail.
“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.”
What are these "Kandhas"?
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.
Moar lies about teh Hindus.
10/22/2008 1:13:32 AM
Allegory for Jesus
Way to wish harm on other people. Turning the other cheek not good enough for you?
10/22/2008 1:14:26 AM
Onan the Barbarian
Y'know, "Flaming Calvanist" sounds like a good name for a cocktail.
10/22/2008 1:15:26 AM
Good job bastardizing everything Jesus ever said or stood for.
10/22/2008 1:17:28 AM
I'm confused. I thought that Jesus wast the nice one.
10/22/2008 1:19:06 AM
Hmm, a Bible quote. Well, that does it, s/he must be right. Good thing s/he's quoting one of the most terrible parts of the terrible Bible, otherwise I might continued to be a happy atheist. Praise the Lord!
10/22/2008 1:54:38 AM
I've already shown you people a quote where you took a Hindu's quote out of context and mocked and blamed Christianity for it. I find this to be as equally despicable as the behavior you condemn on this website.
Anyway, if you read the rest of his post, you see a few things: 1.) it does not condone or call for harm to come to any others by the hands of anybody; 2.) he mentions only a specific group of extremist Hindus who are intolerant of the expression of any other religions. ("I do not suggest that the guilt of the Hindus in question is in any way imputed to other Hindus.")
It's a sorry thing to find the group people who claim to hold a "real truth backed up by verifiable evidence" to be so stupid as to constantly take quotes out of their context, make them say things that they want them to say, and then feel superior about trash-talking it.
10/22/2008 2:29:03 AM
"May the Lord Jesus inflict vengeance even to eternal destruction on those who do not obey his Gospel."
Calling for the eternal destruction of folks, regardless of the reason, is not really fluffy bunny territory, now is it?
I will grant that the full text of the article is not posted here, and I will fully and willingly acknowledge that I have not read the article in question, nor do I intend to read it. However, I am also not claiming to worship a deity that proclaimed "love thy neighbor" nor do the tenets of my religion require that I "turn the other cheek."
Most of the posts that I have read about this article at the time of my writing this reply have pointed out the hypocrisy of calling for "eternal destruction" by a religious group that worships a supposedly loving deity, you know that whole 3:16 thing?
10/22/2008 2:45:34 AM
I don't think "flaming" means what Arunma thinks it means.
10/22/2008 2:47:04 AM
I lost track here. Who is persecuting whom, please?
10/22/2008 3:02:14 AM
You are using this word 'flaming'.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
@ Onan: Can you make me a .. Holy Bartender?
10/22/2008 3:06:43 AM
"1.) it does not condone or call for harm to come to any others by the hands of anybody"
Now please read it again, and carefully this time.
10/22/2008 3:20:13 AM
I'd like to say one thing first.
Yours is an extraordinary reply coming from someone at fstdt. It honestly is. I fully expected to be met with more derision and flippant dismissal than you brought, but I am glad that you chose to "take the higher road," as they say. And admitting that you don't have all the facts?? Thank you. For once, a reasonable atheist! :-D
"Calling for the eternal destruction of folks, regardless of the reason, is not really fluffy bunny territory, now is it?"
It is not, in fact. You're right. But I submit that there is an underlying theme to some posts, particularly by people like arunma: this calling of eternal destruction, taken from the Psalms, is more appealing to the principle of God--in this case, God's justice--than the practical of God. I explain further:
"Most of the posts that I have read about this article at the time of my writing this reply have pointed out the hypocrisy of calling for 'eternal destruction' by a religious group that worships a supposedly loving deity, you know that whole 3:16 thing?"
When a Christian does something like supposedly "calling for eternal destruction" of non-believers, this is the traditional position of Christianity, and is not in any way what you call "fundie," which the site defines as an extremist departure from the traditional religion. Let me explain: I said it was the principle of God, because the reference was, first, to a psalm, which is Hebrew poetry and does not explicitly instruct Christian behavior (though sometimes implicitly, as in Psa. 51, which can direct a Christian's repentance), and second, to a distinctly divine act. In other words, just because God would be able to do it does not mean we have the right to attempt it, as well.
That leads into what I said was the "practical" of God. YES, that "turning the other cheek" thing is still in effect! That is why I believe arunma concluded all he said with the following quote: "I hope that others will see the behavior of Christians in India and recognize the all-surpassing worth of Jesus Christ." That is, notwithstanding the persecution that "the Hindus in question" (his quote) perpetrate on well-meaning Christians, his hope is that the conduct of such Christians would be evidently and continually peaceful!
Thus, I see the two-fold theme apparent: God is still allowed to be God, who will execute justice in cases where abuse against His people is happening, in whatever timing He desires (in cases of the quoted psalm, I think it's generally accepted that this is a "Final Judgment" scenario); HOWEVER, that in no way negates Christian duty to live as peacefully as possible and returning evil with good.
I would be hard-pressed to argue that someone like arunma doesn't understand this. His posts are almost consistently quite well thought-out.
10/22/2008 3:34:24 AM
@Riin-thrall:"Now please read it again, and carefully this time."
Please read my reply to Duck; I believe I have explained it sufficiently there.
10/22/2008 3:39:16 AM
Nickel has his Jesuitical sophistry down pat.
10/22/2008 4:23:22 AM
I did my best to honestly and consistently explain the most likely theology in view here. I had no intention of attempting to "excuse" an inappropriate point that he made; I rather allowed his point but explained it further on account of the obvious and purposeful misinterpretation of it, which was for the purpose (what else?) of making a mockery of traditional Christianity. I've made that point clear: I wish this site would just change its title to "Christians say the darnedest things," or "Religious people say the darnedest things," because you're obviously not targeting merely extremist fundies anymore but going after traditional, historical understanding of the Christian religion.
In any case, my initial reply here was meant to expose this as another example of immediately assuming the worst about a person from deliberately pulling one quote completely out of context, i.e., that this arunma is a fundie character who desires to see non-believers harmed, as was insinuated already here. I believe if we are honest about wanting to know truth, then this type of thing is not exempt. Do you not want to know the truth behind the current political candidates' supposed quotes that pop up every now and then? What makes it different from any human? Judge for yourself whether the person consistently makes statements that you see in one place or another. (I'm afraid that at places like RR... well... they might very well be consistent...) But any other post of arunma's certainly does not imply any sort of hope of his that others would be harmed here on earth on account of simply what they believe. He has, in fact, made the opposite clear, but is it too much for you to want to know the truth about it that you would not even find out but instead immediately assume the worst about him based on one sample quote taken out of context? Sadly, I believe I know the answer to that already.
10/22/2008 5:36:47 AM
Fucking Calvanist would be more appropriate.
10/22/2008 5:55:39 AM
@Nickel I, II and III:
It appears that we have a fundie stalking the boards.
Now, listen up, fundie:
1. I agree with you: quoting out of context is bad. would you consider this quote out of context:
"Peter came to Jesus and asked, 'Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?' Jesus answered, 'I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times'" (Matthew 18:21-22)
In case it isn't sufficiently clear: Christianity is supposed to be a RELIGION OF FORGIVENESS. NOT a religion of hate that prays for (what was it again, oh yes):
"Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!"
2. Last time I checked, when NT/OT contradict each other (which they do, many times) NT wins. Not OT.
3. Having read the post in full, and in context (via the link posted), I stand by my fundie-o-Meter rating of 5.
10/22/2008 8:48:38 AM
I'm confused - how does the "If God decides it is OK to dash babies against rocks then it is fine and not wrong at all" bit work again?
You are trying to justify what you clearly see as being a bad thing to do by saying "Well, if God does it it must be OK"
Why is it OK for God who is supposedly perfect, when it is not OK for us "sinful" creatures?
How can it EVER be OK to dash a baby or child against a rock?
10/22/2008 8:59:40 AM
Here's a mirror.
10/22/2008 9:26:04 AM
First things first...
Hindus have generally protected Christians from all comers. Do you know why the Indian Jews remain in India and why the St. Thomas christians like India? Because Hindus stood up for both cultures who could not defend themselves via the Kshatriya caste. The Recent issues come from a constant powderkeg that both sides set up of anti hindu literature from the christians and anti christian shennanigans by people such as the Shiv Sena and BJP. Oh and contrary to belief, Indian Muslims and Indian Christians follow the caste system just as rigourously if not more so than their Hindu counterparts.
Secondly, Hinduism is a faith with general acceptance of the legitamacy of all faiths. AKA everyone goes to heaven. Everyone is a 'Hindu'.
Thirdly, its more a real religion than yours. Atleast Hindus have dealt with the concept of morality in a much more elegant fashion than their rigid rules.
Fourthly, they have more awesome gods. See their gods get drunk and break stuff and have crazy sex with hot ladies. Those are the kind of gods i would totally respect. Oh i have super powers! Am i going to;
1) get into a complicated song and dance about having my son killed in a horrible way so I can forgive mankind for a lot of stuff that is not really a sin anyways.
2) use my super powers to be ludicrously awesome.
10/22/2008 11:02:45 AM