Joseph Atwill - CHRISTIANITY IS A ROMAN HOAX

1 view
Skip to first unread message

and/or www.mantra.com/jai

unread,
Dec 25, 2007, 9:08:06 PM12/25/07
to
Forwarded message from S. Kumar

Joseph Atwill: Christianity is a Roman Hoax

Joseph Atwill's Video Interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCNJf83bqjs

- - -

http://www.caesarsmessiah.com/summary.html

CAESAR'S MESSIAH; A SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Our understanding of Jewish and Christian history has
changed dramatically with the publication of Caesar's
Messiah by Joseph Atwill (Ulysses Press), which had
previously been privately published under the title The
Roman Origins of Christianity. According to Atwill, the
Gospels are not accounts of the ministry of a historical
Jewish Jesus compiled by his followers sixty years after
his death. They are texts deliberately created to trick
Messianic Jews into worshipping the Roman Emperor 'in
disguise'. The essence of Atwill's discovery is that the
majority of the key events in the life of Jesus are in fact
satirical: each is an elegant literary play on a military
battle in which the Jewish armies had been defeated by the
Romans. This is an extraordinary claim-but supported by all
the necessary evidence.

Why would the Romans go to the trouble of writing and
disseminating such a text? The Jewish War, culminating in
the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE, had
devastated the Mediterranean economy, and the Romans were
anxious to prevent another messianic outbreak, which could
easily lead to another 500,000 deaths-as the Bar Kochba
revolt would demonstrate a generation later. In order to
make any reconstruction of the country lasting, the Romans
needed to offer the Jews alternative stories that would
distract them from the messianic messages inherent in the
Torah, and persuade them to accept Roman values.

According to Atwill, the Romans' solution to these problems
was to create a special kind of post-war propaganda. They
called it in Greek evangelion, a technical term meaning
"good news of military victory." In English, it is
translated as "gospel." The name is in fact ironic humor:
the Romans were amusing themselves with the notion of
making the Jews accept, as the actions of the Messiah
Jesus, what were in fact literary echoes of the very
battles in which the Romans had defeated the Jews' armies.
A further joke was buried in unmistakable parallels between
the life of Jesus and that of Titus: in worshiping Jesus,
the Jews who adopted Christianity, as it came to be called,
were in fact hailing the Emperor of their conquerors as
god.

To replace the Torah, then, the Romans created a literary
equivalent, the gospel of Matthew (and shortly thereafter
the Hellenistic and Roman versions known as Luke and Mark).
The central literary character, called Jesus (or Joshua)
inhabits a plot with various peculiar features: he begins
his efforts by the Lake of Galilee; sends a legion of
devils out of a demon-possessed man and into pigs; offers
his flesh to be eaten; mentions signs of the destruction of
Jerusalem; in Gethsemane a naked man escapes; Jesus is
captured at Gethsemane on the Mount of Olives; Simon denies
knowing him; he is crucified with two other men and only he
survives; he is taken down from the cross by a man called
Joseph of Arimathea; his disciple John survives but his
disciple Simon is sent off to die in Rome; after his death
his disciple Judas dies by eviscerating himself.

Each of these peculiar events has a parallel in the
writings of Josephus, our main record of the military
encounter between the Judeans and their Roman conquerors-
even to the unusual crucifixion in which three men are
crucified, and a man named Joseph takes one, who survives,
down. To give a flavor of the humor buried in this grand
Roman joke, we see that where, in Josephus, the
crucifixions take place at Thecoe, which translates as the
"Village of the Inquiring Mind," the gospel's satiric
version takes place at Golgotha, or the "Hill of the Empty
Skull."

Events at the Lake of Galilee launch the Judean careers of
both Titus and Jesus. There Jesus called his disciples to
be 'fishers of men'. There the Roman battle took place in
which Titus attacked a band of Jewish rebels led by a
leader named Jesus. The rebels fell into the water and
those who were not killed by darts "attempted to swim to
their enemies, the Romans cut off either their heads or
their hands" (Jewish War III, 10). Men were indeed pulled
out of the water like fish.

As for the episode of the Gadarene swine-in which demons
leave a Gadara demoniac at Jesus' bidding and then enter
into a herd of 2,000 swine, which rush wildly into the lake
and drown-Josephus recounts the Roman campaign in which
Vespasian marched against Gadara. In the same way that the
demons were concentrated in one demoniac, Josephus
describes the faults of all the rebels being concentrated
in the one head of the rebel leader John. Then, rushing
about "like the wildest of wild beasts," the 2000 rebels
rushed over the cliff and drowned.

To take a third example, Josephus describes how Titus went
out without his armor (and therefore to a soldier
metaphorically naked) in the garden of Gethsemane, was
nearly caught and had to flee. The parallel in the gospel
of Mark is a naked young man who appears from nowhere in
the Garden of Gethsemane and flees.

So far over dozen of these parallels have been identified -
many of which had already been discovered by other
scholars. But Atwill is the first researcher to have
identified the overall pattern. The pattern in each case is
the same. This fulfills the criterion for 'good' parallels
set out by James R. Davila in his paper 'The Perils of
Parallels', University of St Andrews Divinity School,
(April 2001), which states that "patterns of parallels are
more important than individual parallels" and "the larger
and more complex the pattern of parallels, the more we
should take them seriously."

Since the events occur in Josephus in exactly the same
order as their counterpart events in the Gospels,
probability theory can then be used to assess the
likelihood that this might be due simply to chance, or
instead, that one source copied the other. The calculation
shows that it is over 99.9999% certain that one account was
written based upon the other. This calculation takes a
conservative approach that assumes that, once used, each of
the eleven items could not be used again. The probability
is thus calculated as 11 factorial, or 11x10x9x8x7x6x5x4x3
x2x1 .This would equal 1 chance in 39,916,800. Expressed as
a percentage, this means that it is 99.999997% certain that
one account influenced the other. In other words, the
likelihood that these parallel sequences occurred by chance
is less than 0.000003%--effectiv ely zero. (The alternative
approach would assign truly random possibilities for each
of the events, in which case the odds are calculated as
eleven to the eleventh power, or one chance in 285,311,670,
611, for an even more remote probability of 0.0000000003%
)

Since it is impossible to imagine that the Romans would
have invented accounts of battles taking place in locations
marked 50 years earlier by the ministry of Jesus, we need
an alternative explanation, of which there is really only
one, and it is Atwill's in Caesar's Messiah. The Gospels
were written in the late 70s and 80s CE, about the same
time as Josephus' The Jewish War. Key events in the life of
Jesus were written as literary satires of the Roman
battles, ambushes, crucifixions, cannibalisms, etc., in the
military campaign of Titus Caesar, as recounted in
Josephus. Rather than four different communities separated
in time and space writing the NT Gospels (the traditional
understanding) , they were written together as a single
literary undertaking- possibly at the Imperial Court. The
Jews who ended up following the false Messianic literary
character 'Jesus' would, unbeknownst to them, really be
worshipping the Emperor Titus.

Perhaps the most important new evidence for the
ahistoricity of Jesus is the reading that Caesar's Messiah
provides of a critical passage in Josephus' other major
work, Jewish Antiquities. This is the famous 'Testimonium'
passage in which is supposedly the major independent
textual source for the historical existence of Jesus.
Atwill demonstrates that this text is genuinely by
Josephus. However, when read in context with the
surrounding passages, it amounts to a confession admitting
that the Flavian emperors invented the character of Jesus
to deceive the Jews into worshipping a false messiah. The
reader merely has to read the text as it was originally
composed, using a well-known Hebrew compositional technique
found in the Book of Leviticus, and known as 'pedimental
composition' . This technique gives emphasis to the central
passage of text by framing it with mirrored passages either
side. (Thus, Leviticus 19, which concerns righteous
dealing, is framed by two chapters about prohibitions) .

Applied to Jewish Antiquities, the Testimonium passage
about Jesus is evidently the left hand side of a triptych.
The right hand side passage is about Paul, and the figure
in the central panel , who is a composite of all three
Flavian Emperors, wears the mask of a false god to have sex
with a woman he could not persuade with gifts and money.
The central focus of the triptych is that the Roman
Emperors did not care about 'this business of names' but
were willing to pretend to be a false god in order to be
worshipped by the Jews. Patterns of word parallelisms link
across the three panels of the triptych, to reveal the true
story. (For example, the word hedone used for the Emperor's
sexual enjoyment is also used-quite inappropriately- for
the way that Christ's followers worship him, thereby
linking the two stories).

Professor Robert Eisenman of California State University
describes Atwill's research as rendering contemporary
Christian scholarship so challenged that it is now "looking
into the abyss". It is worth noting, in this regard, that
the general scholarly consensus that there was a
historical, Jewish Jesus is itself largely a recent
historical idea, traceable to Abraham Geiger in the 1860's.
He persuaded scholars that the Gospels were an account of a
historical Jewish Jesus, a typical Pharisee of his day.
Since then this view, and with it the notion of
Christianity as a development of Judaism, has become the
dominant paradigm in Christianity. However, as the new
discoveries in Caesar's Messiah make clear, this is not
just misleading, but a dangerous concession to a false
system of belief. The Romans created this new religion
deliberately to humiliate the Jews and to keep them in
submission. For contemporary Jewish scholars to collude
with this Roman literary invention, and to even pretend
that this fictional character had historic reality, is the
height of irony.

In the past, evidence had been put forward to suggest that
the NT gospels are literary accounts containing
mythological accretions. However, Christians have been able
to dismiss that evidence on the grounds that underneath it
all there 'must' be a Historical Jesus. Atwill's discovery
changes all that. There was no historical Jesus and the
Gospels were Roman imitations of Jewish sacred texts
created by the Flavian Emperors as ironical 'good news' to
deceive the Jews. It is one thing for Christians to use
works of literature as their sacred documents. It is quite
another for them to continue using what have now been
discovered to be deliberate Roman fakes about a non
existent Messiah.

End of forwarded message from S. Kumar

Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/24fq83
http://www.mantra.com/jai
http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti

Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust

Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org

The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

tripur...@yahoo.com

unread,
Dec 25, 2007, 9:43:20 PM12/25/07
to
On Dec 25, 9:08 pm, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.

Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> Forwarded message from S. Kumar
>
> Joseph Atwill: Christianity is a Roman Hoax
>

Add to this the possibility that Jesus was born as a bastard son of
Mary and uttered crazy statements. He was not divine at all. My
problem is why do Hindus talk of Jesus and even Mohammad as being
divine!!

Hindus have to clean up their act

and/or www.mantra.com/jai

unread,
Dec 26, 2007, 12:37:15 AM12/26/07
to
In article <db30b423-81a1-424f...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
tripur...@yahoo.com posted:

> Dr. Jai Maharaj) posted:
> >
> > Joseph Atwill: Christianity is a Roman Hoax

> Add to this the possibility that Jesus was born as a bastard son of
> Mary and uttered crazy statements. He was not divine at all. My
> problem is why do Hindus talk of Jesus and even Mohammad as being
> divine!!
>
> Hindus have to clean up their act

Jesus was the product of rape -- a previous post appears below.

[ Subject: BBC - Jesus was a product of rape by a Roman soldier
[ Message-ID: <ZOIhi7843uQRte@GcoAd>
[ Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005

A previous post:

[ Subject: TV DOCUMENTARY SAYS VIRGIN MARY WAS RAPED
[ From: Dr. Jai Maharaj
[ Date: December 24, 2002

TV doco claims Virgin Mary was raped

ninemsn.com
Monday, December 23, 2002

A Catholic bishop criticised a British television
documentary that suggests the Virgin Mary may have been
raped by a Roman soldier.

The Bishop of Portsmouth said the BBC program, The Virgin
Mary, was crude and offensive by disregarding the
concerns and beliefs of millions of Christians.

The controversy came as a survey revealed that a quarter
of Church of England clergy do not believe in the virgin
birth of Christ.

The Sunday Telegraph survey found that 27 per cent of 500
clerics questioned doubt privately the traditional story
of Jesus's birth.

The program questions the Bible's interpretation of the
Virgin Mary, suggesting she may even have been called
Miriam, and that she may have been raped by a Roman
soldier.

Other theories suggest her husband Joseph could have made
her pregnant or that she had an illicit affair. . . .
[...]
More at:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/World/story_44101.asp

Wanderer

unread,
Dec 26, 2007, 10:30:40 AM12/26/07
to
The trouble had started on Monday morning in the Christian-majority
Brahmanigaon village, 150 km from the district headquarters of Phulbani,
over Christmas celebrations.

While the Christian community wanted to celebrate the day in a grand
way, the local Hindus opposed the plan, Bhol said.

This led to clashes between the Hindu and Christian groups. The attack
on Saraswati led to escalation in the violence.

Besides the VHP, the local Kui tribal community had also given a
shutdown call demanding immediate solution to their problems. The
clashes took place mostly when VHP supporters attacked shops in various
places.

At least a dozen churches and a dozen of vehicles including two police
vehicles were set on fire. Besides, the protestors attacked house of the
elder brother of the state steel and mines minister Padmanav Behera and
torched one of his vehicles on Tuesday, police sources said.

More @
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Fresh_clashes_in_Orissa/articleshow/2651824.cms

Wanderer

unread,
Jan 1, 2008, 8:29:17 AM1/1/08
to
tripur...@yahoo.com wrote:

> On Dec 25, 9:08 pm, j...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>> Forwarded message from S. Kumar
>>
>> Joseph Atwill: Christianity is a Roman Hoax
>>
>
> Add to this the possibility that Jesus was born as a bastard son of
> Mary and uttered crazy statements. He was not divine at all. My
> problem is why do Hindus talk of Jesus and even Mohammad as being
> divine!!
>
> Hindus have to clean up their act

Yes, they do. It's not as if their religious texts are full of peace and
love. As a matter of fact, what is so divine about someone who sets out
to recover his kidnapped wife, and after recovering her refuses to have
anything to do with her because he considers her polluted and doubts her
fidelity in captivity? How does that make him divine?

tripur...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jan 1, 2008, 8:51:59 AM1/1/08
to
> More @http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Fresh_clashes_in_Orissa/articlesho...


You are totally incorrect and spew out the missionary version. Hindu
scriptures are full of love. Shri Rama * never* doubted Her but wanted
to satisfy the citizens that He is impartial as they doubted His
judgment. He had to choose between His role as a husband and as a
King. The latter was more important. This shows how conflicts should
be resolved. If you care to study Valmiki you will get the answers
rather than rely on gossip and study Indian Express for what is in
Hindu scriptures.
Shri Rama Himself explains!

Shri Rama's avatar was to outline what humans should do when faced
with conflicts. Kidnap was one such. That was not the only one.

Hope missionaries perish

tripur...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jan 1, 2008, 8:53:16 AM1/1/08
to
On Jan 1, 8:29 am, Wanderer <n...@there.yet> wrote:
> tripurant...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > On Dec 25, 9:08 pm, j...@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> >> Forwarded message from S. Kumar
>
> >> Joseph Atwill: Christianity is a Roman Hoax
>
> > Add to this the possibility that Jesus was born as a bastard son of
> > Mary and uttered crazy statements. He was not divine at all. My
> > problem is why do Hindus talk of Jesus and even Mohammad as being
> > divine!!
>
> > Hindus have to clean up their act
>
> Yes, they do. It's not as if their religious texts are full of peace and
> love. As a matter of fact, what is so divine about someone who sets out
> to recover his kidnapped wife, and after recovering her refuses to have
> anything to do with her because he considers her polluted and doubts her
> fidelity in captivity? How does that make him divine?

Sorry posted to the wrong post. Trying again

Wanderer

unread,
Jan 1, 2008, 9:18:40 AM1/1/08
to
tripur...@yahoo.com wrote:

Rubbish! The man thought his wife had been sullied in captivity by
Ravana. He could not bear the thought of that, and so banished her. You
claim that he did that to satisfy the citizens. What the heck did the
citizens have to do with it? She was _his_ wife, and he was supposed to
be the king. Furthermore, hadn't he just expended many lives of his
subjects in the effort to recover her? And just how does this whole
episode make him "divine"? You are a fruitcake bent on defending the
indefensible, and in attacking anything that does not precisely parallel
your views.

tripur...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jan 1, 2008, 12:27:24 PM1/1/08
to

You shallow mind is unable to follow what I wrote before. I suggest
you read that again and also study Valmiki where *everything* is
explained. Good luck

Wanderer

unread,
Jan 2, 2008, 2:38:58 PM1/2/08
to
tripur...@yahoo.com <tripur...@yahoo.com> wrote:

You are an idiot. While you criticize other religions' texts with a
rationalist viewpoint, you are utterly incapable of applying rationalism
to your own religious fairy tales. You are the kind of fool who believes
the story of the earth being carried by an elephant standing on the back
of a tortoise, but finds it impossible that a woman could conceive
without sex.

sathya_...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jan 2, 2008, 3:20:28 PM1/2/08
to

Sri Ram had an opportunity to lead by example and show his citizens
and
followers how to treat one's wife. Instead of reposing trust and
assuring commitment
to his wife whom he had won over the second time in his life he chose
to trust innuendo
and rumors. He not only deserted her when she was pregnant, he
literally made her walk
through the fire. He certainly did not display any divine traits
there. His told everybody
loudely through his actions in no uncertain terms to not take a
woman's word for truth.

> Hope missionaries perish- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Moorthy

unread,
Jan 2, 2008, 4:19:00 PM1/2/08
to
On 2 Jan, 19:38, Wanderer <n...@there.yet> wrote:
> without sex.- Hide quoted text -

Both are wrong. Many Christians, including more cerebral clergies
dont accept these patently irrational biblical myths of immaculate
conception, Moses parting o the sea, Noah's Ark, resurrection etc.
Similarly, Hindus dont accept their myths either and one can be
Hindus without accepting any of these stories. Therefore, in view of
the fact that Christianity is a third rate crap concocted from
Babylonian myths devoid of any spiritual content, one can understand
the anger of more informed Hindud at the manner prostelyzation and its
aim of dividing and weakening Hindu society.

tripur...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jan 2, 2008, 8:08:37 PM1/2/08
to
On Jan 2, 2:38 pm, Wanderer <n...@there.yet> wrote:
> tripurant...@yahoo.com <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> You are an idiot. While you criticize other religions' texts with a
> rationalist viewpoint, you are utterly incapable of applying rationalism
> to your own religious fairy tales. You are the kind of fool who believes
> the story of the earth being carried by an elephant standing on the back
> of a tortoise, but finds it impossible that a woman could conceive
> without sex.

You are mistaken again. Not surprising! You have the typical Christian
mentality. Elephants and tortoises are part of our mythology and *
you do not have to accept them * to be a Hindu. You are free to reject
them. They have a certain purpose but if you do not want them fine. We
do not ask any one to believe them. Contrast this with christians
thrusting their false bastard god on others saying he saves the world.
My foot. What we do not is your false bastard god. Do not come trying
to convert. We have to expose you. Woman conceived without sex.
Actually she slept with a Roman soldier called Ben Panthera. Why did
she hide for months in Elizabath's house? She was a loose woman, see
what Jeezuz said:

John 2-4:

2:4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine
hour is not yet come.

"Woman" is a term reserved for prostitutes those days. You cannot call
your mother that.

Was Mary a prostitute?

Is this the central creed of christianity?


tripur...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jan 2, 2008, 8:28:10 PM1/2/08
to


Completely wrong as usual. Not surprising since you never read
Valmiki. Let me explain this in kindergarten language. I will see if
you can understand this.

Shri Rama was a King. He was also a husband. His role as a husband to
protect His wife clashes with his role as a King. As a king he has to
retain the respect of his subjects. Some citizens doubted His capacity
to be impartial and thought He would favour His wife! People were
waiting for Him for a long time to be king, if you know He was in the
forest for 14 years. He could not abandon the kingdom either. He had
to choose between one or the other

Now doubts have been cast on His wife. Shri Rama never doubted His
wife. He says that in Valmiki.

The only reason He *asks Her questions*- mind you He *never asked Her
to jump into fire- never. Read the public debate between Shri Rama
and Mother Sita. She decided to jump into the fire herself! Antisocial
elements say he made Her do that. Never. Only morons will twist facts.
If you are literate, read Valmiki.

Now, my dear fellow, there is a clash between public duties and His
private life. If you go by any so called modern moron leaders, they
will issue a fatwa or an ordinance to prevent any one from criticizing
His wife or Him!

Shri Rama chose to ask Her questions in front of people and let Her
decide how to satisfy people!

In Uttara kanda, as people were still not happy, He asked Lakshmana to
leave Her in Valmiki's ashram.


He preferred to be a King.

Remember, mother Sita created all these problems by chasing Lakshmana
away and abusing Him.

Shri Rama expresses deep sorrow for all this. He had no choice. He
shows how a leader can be impartial and how leaders must put their
private life behind if they want to be leaders. Very important lesson

If you can read, try Valmiki

Hope this simple explanation is enough.

I am trying to be very brief.

Wanderer

unread,
Jan 3, 2008, 12:44:36 PM1/3/08
to
tripur...@yahoo.com <tripur...@yahoo.com> wrote:

You continue to demonstrate that you are an idiot. If he banished his
wife because his role as a husband clashed with his role as a king, on
what basis did he take his country to war to recover his wife? And how
exactly does the role of a husband clash with the role of a king? And
how would he have "favoured" his wife if he hadn't banished her? Wasn't
he man enough, didn't he have the balls to stand by his wife in the face
of vicious gossip and rumor-mongering? I await your typically inane
response.

Wanderer

unread,
Jan 3, 2008, 12:44:40 PM1/3/08
to
tripur...@yahoo.com <tripur...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jan 2, 2:38 pm, Wanderer <n...@there.yet> wrote:
>> tripurant...@yahoo.com <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> You are an idiot. While you criticize other religions' texts with a
>> rationalist viewpoint, you are utterly incapable of applying rationalism
>> to your own religious fairy tales. You are the kind of fool who believes
>> the story of the earth being carried by an elephant standing on the back
>> of a tortoise, but finds it impossible that a woman could conceive
>> without sex.
>
> You are mistaken again. Not surprising! You have the typical Christian
> mentality. Elephants and tortoises are part of our mythology and *
> you do not have to accept them * to be a Hindu. You are free to reject
> them. They have a certain purpose but if you do not want them fine. We
> do not ask any one to believe them.

The point is not whether you need to accept it to be a Hindu, but why
such an obvious fiction is accepted as immutable truth by you, and yet
you have issues with the semantics in religious texts of others. Another
thing an idiot like you fails to understand is that Hinduism is not a
typically defined religion, with core constructs that define it.
Instead, it is the term used collectively for the various religious
traditions(with the exceptions of Buddhism and Jainism) that developed
in the Indian sub-continent. Thus, it is possible to not believe in the
existence of Rama, or Vishnu, and still be a Hindu. That, certainly, is
wormwood in your panaka.

> Contrast this with christians
> thrusting their false bastard god on others saying he saves the world.
> My foot. What we do not is your false bastard god. Do not come trying
> to convert. We have to expose you. Woman conceived without sex.
> Actually she slept with a Roman soldier called Ben Panthera. Why did
> she hide for months in Elizabath's house?

The point, once again(and I don't know why I even try to reason with an
imbecile like you), is that you seem perfectly willing to accept even
the most outrageous fairy tales of your own religious tradition, but go
into semantics with the traditions of other religions.

> She was a loose woman, see
> what Jeezuz said:
>
> John 2-4:
>
> 2:4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine
> hour is not yet come.
>
> "Woman" is a term reserved for prostitutes those days. You cannot call
> your mother that.
>
> Was Mary a prostitute?
>
> Is this the central creed of christianity?

"Woman" was a term for a woman, even in those days. "Harlot" was a term
used for prostitutes, like your friend Gay Maharaj. Why don't you devote
yourself to resolving the conflicts within your own religious
traditions, like why a god commits suicide by drowning himself, or why a
god makes his wife walk through fire to prove her fidelity? No doubt
this is an inspiration for Indian men when they suspect their wives of
infidelity, which could account for the unusual number of fire-related
deaths of Hindu wives.

You are the idiot who claimed that there is no evidence that Gandhi or
Nehru ever lived, and that speaks volumes for your mental abilities.

Wanderer

unread,
Jan 3, 2008, 12:44:45 PM1/3/08
to
Moorthy <mort...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

As opposed to the fact that Hinduism is first-rate crap, i.e.
unadulterated crap, concocted from the wet dreams of lonely mendicants?

As for Christian proselytization, you seem to have an issue with that
when the proselytes are Hindus, but not when they are Muslims(from your
posts such as " Islamic Extremist Threatens Christian Convert in
India"). Hypocrisy.

Moorthy

unread,
Jan 3, 2008, 3:50:16 PM1/3/08
to
On 3 Jan, 17:44, Wanderer <n...@there.yet> wrote:

You are obviously connaisseur of crap.

>
> As for Christian proselytization, you seem to have an issue with that
> when the proselytes are Hindus, but not when they are Muslims(from your
> posts such as " Islamic Extremist Threatens Christian Convert in

> India"). Hypocrisy.- Hide quoted text -

Only an moron with IQ lower than dung-beetle, who spends time talking
crap would fail to notice that both Muzzies and Christians have been
butchering people across the world for better part of millenia in
their effort to force down their respective crap. So Muzzies and
Xtians should live with this. Tell which nations have been forced
converted by Hindus?

tripur...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jan 3, 2008, 7:48:39 PM1/3/08
to
On Jan 3, 12:44 pm, Wanderer <n...@there.yet> wrote:
> tripurant...@yahoo.com <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> You continue to demonstrate that you are an idiot. If he banished his
> wife because his role as a husband clashed with his role as a king, on
> what basis did he take his country to war to recover his wife?

He did not involve the whole country. His army remained in Ayodhya. It
was just the vanara army that helped Him

And how
> exactly does the role of a husband clash with the role of a king?


And
> how would he have "favoured" his wife if he hadn't banished her? Wasn't
> he man enough, didn't he have the balls to stand by his wife in the face
> of vicious gossip and rumor-mongering? I await your typically inane
> response.

I suspected you would find this difficult! Let me try again. Let us
say a son of a modern political leader does something wrong. Is the
leader going to take action or not? He can either resign and support
his son or if he believes the son is wrong, take action against him.
Here Mother Sita made a blunder. She abused Lakshmana who was bound to
obey Shri Rama's command. She chased Him away even though He suggested
to Her Shri Rama must be safe. Lakshmana had to obey Her as He
considered Her as His mother. Lakshmana was torn between obeying His
brother or Her. But finally He chose to leave Her to look for Shri
Rama. She threatened to jump into fire if Lakshmana did not leave to
find Shri Rama. He left. That is when Ravana kidnaps Her, the whole
struggle and all the trouble started because of Her blunder. That is
why She felt very guilty and when Shri Rama asked Her to explain *She
asked Lakshmana to start the fire*. The same Lakshmana had to start
the fire as commanded by Her to assuage Her guilt. Shri Rama never
asked Her to jump or start the fire. He merely asked Her to explain
to the public! The public suspected Her as She stayed in another man's
country for a year. They started to wonder what She did there for a
year. How could Shri Rama who is supposed to protect ethics and dharma
put up with this.

Now a King has to not just preach but show by his behavior what he
wants. As a husband He trusts His wife. He says that. As a King He had
to convince His subjects He is impartial. He just wanted an
explanation in front of the public. She chose to jump into the fire.
He set an example that as a public leader, His private life is
secondary. If He chose His private life as more important, the only
course of action open to Him was to resign. You cannot shut up the
subjects

Hope my inane response makes no sense to you!

tripur...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jan 3, 2008, 8:08:52 PM1/3/08
to
On Jan 3, 12:44 pm, Wanderer <n...@there.yet> wrote:
> tripurant...@yahoo.com <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The point is not whether you need to accept it to be a Hindu, but why
> such an obvious fiction is accepted as immutable truth by you, and yet
> you have issues with the semantics in religious texts of others.

Truth has different connotations. Truth can be spiritual or historical
or both. Many Hindus may take the tortoise myth to be historical
( like me- I also think it has symbolic meanings) or just spiritual
(symbolically). many Hindus may not care for both and choose some
other mythology or no mythology. They can do what they want.

Christians *have to think Jeezuz was born to a virgin* ( which he
himself never claimed!) butt they also dump this on Hindus advertising
this bastard theory saying we have to convert!

We are not asking you to convert. You can do what you want. We dont
care a bit. What we want is: please do not tell us to accept a bastard
as a God

Another
> thing an idiot like you fails to understand is that Hinduism is not a
> typically defined religion, with core constructs that define it.

That is typically beyond your Christian mindset! Hinduism is defined!
It is dharma based karma elevated by jnana! Called sanathana dharma.
Heard of it? It is not *belief* but conduct and realization.

Typical of Christian goondas, they judge Hindus by their yardstick.
You want Hindus to be like Christians. Nope. We think action and
knowledge are more important not belief. Belief is primary for you.
Not for us. It is secondary for us. I think you wont understand this.


> Instead, it is the term used collectively for the various religious
> traditions(with the exceptions of Buddhism and Jainism) that developed
> in the Indian sub-continent.

Nonsense. You must be reading some "English" book written by some
"westerner"!


> The point, once again(and I don't know why I even try to reason with an
> imbecile like you), is that you seem perfectly willing to accept even
> the most outrageous fairy tales of your own religious tradition, but go
> into semantics with the traditions of other religions.

You think virgin birth is semantics, not real?!!

> "Woman" was a term for a woman, even in those days. "Harlot" was a term
> used for prostitutes, like your friend Gay Maharaj.

Both terms are used. Mother is mother! Not woman!


Why don't you devote
> yourself to resolving the conflicts within your own religious
> traditions,

We do that. We dont go around converting. We are not asking you to
follow Hinduism. You can keep your bastard god but dont try to give
him to us


like why a god commits suicide by drowning himself,

He disappeared. He did not commit suicide

or why a
> god makes his wife walk through fire to prove her fidelity?

See above

No doubt
> this is an inspiration for Indian men when they suspect their wives of
> infidelity, which could account for the unusual number of fire-related
> deaths of Hindu wives.

Nonsense


>
> You are the idiot who claimed that there is no evidence that Gandhi or
> Nehru ever lived, and that speaks volumes for your mental abilities.

I never said they did not live. I said you have no proof other than
relying on accounts given by others. It is called testimony! People
say there was no Rama. I said in that case there could have been no
Gandhi either. You cant follow that?

tripur...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jan 3, 2008, 8:11:25 PM1/3/08
to
On Jan 3, 12:44 pm, Wanderer <n...@there.yet> wrote:
> Moorthy <morta...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>
> As opposed to the fact that Hinduism is first-rate crap, i.e.
> unadulterated crap, concocted from the wet dreams of lonely mendicants?

Let me say this again. We will keep our religion to ourselves and you
keep your bastard god to yourself okay? Do not convert, do not
advertise this bastard god and his cheap mother

>
> As for Christian proselytization, you seem to have an issue with that
> when the proselytes are Hindus, but not when they are Muslims(from your
> posts such as " Islamic Extremist Threatens Christian Convert in
> India"). Hypocrisy.

Hindus never converted. We do not go tapping on doors


Wanderer

unread,
Jan 4, 2008, 6:53:07 AM1/4/08
to
Moorthy <mort...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> On 3 Jan, 17:44, Wanderer <n...@there.yet> wrote:
>> Moorthy <morta...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Both are wrong. Many Christians, including more cerebral clergies
>>> dont accept these patently irrational biblical myths of immaculate
>>> conception, Moses parting o the sea, Noah's Ark, resurrection etc.
>>> Similarly, Hindus dont accept their myths either and one can be
>>> Hindus without accepting any of these stories. Therefore, in view of
>>> the fact that Christianity is a third rate crap concocted from
>>> Babylonian myths devoid of any spiritual content, one can understand
>>> the anger of more informed Hindud at the manner prostelyzation and its
>>> aim of dividing and weakening Hindu society.
>> As opposed to the fact that Hinduism is first-rate crap, i.e.
>> unadulterated crap, concocted from the wet dreams of lonely mendicants?
>
> You are obviously connaisseur of crap.

Nope, I don't subscribe to Hinduism. And do learn how to spell:
"Hindud", "prostelyzation" and "connaisseur".


>> As for Christian proselytization, you seem to have an issue with that
>> when the proselytes are Hindus, but not when they are Muslims(from your
>> posts such as " Islamic Extremist Threatens Christian Convert in
>> India"). Hypocrisy.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Only an moron with IQ lower than dung-beetle, who spends time talking
> crap would fail to notice that both Muzzies and Christians have been
> butchering people across the world for better part of millenia in
> their effort to force down their respective crap. So Muzzies and
> Xtians should live with this. Tell which nations have been forced
> converted by Hindus?

It seems that you are unable to address your own hypocrisy. As for
butchering people, you need to learn Indian history which is full of
bloody wars in the days before Arabs or Europeans came. And, in India,
there was no forcible conversion of any sort, save for a brief period in
one tiny part of India: in Goa under Portuguese rule. And even in Goa,
as you can see by census statistics, a substantial part of the
population remained with their traditional religion, something that
didn't happen even in Europe when the Romans forced Christianity on
their European possessions.

As to your question on which nations have been "forced converted" by
Hindus, how do you convert someone to an undefined religion? A
Kali-worshipper is a Hindu, as is a Vishnu-worshipper, but they don't
exactly approve of each other. Of course, the VHP and RSS are trying to
create and impose their own rules regarding what Hinduism is and who may
be called a Hindu(and trying to create a kind of Hindu Vatican in the
process), but that is a political process rather than a philosophical one.

Finally, there is a clear case to be made that Vedic or Brahmanic
Hinduism has been imposed on what some call the native population,
effectively de-humanizing and culturally enslaving them.

Wanderer

unread,
Jan 4, 2008, 6:53:09 AM1/4/08
to
tripur...@yahoo.com <tripur...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jan 3, 12:44 pm, Wanderer <n...@there.yet> wrote:
>> tripurant...@yahoo.com <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> You continue to demonstrate that you are an idiot. If he banished his
>> wife because his role as a husband clashed with his role as a king, on
>> what basis did he take his country to war to recover his wife?
>
> He did not involve the whole country. His army remained in Ayodhya. It
> was just the vanara army that helped Him

So why are the Vanaras, who may be the Tamil people of today, not
revered by Hindus? Why is Hanuman, who was apparently a Vanara general,
portrayed as a monkey? Was Dravida ruled by flying monkeys superior to men?

As usual, it does make no sense. You are portraying all the
characteristics of a typical human in Rama. As I mentioned earlier,
these human weaknesses of Rama in no way qualify him for any sort of
divinity. You are suggesting that Rama had a choice to a) either not do
anything against Sita, and thereby give up the throne, or b) punish her
and keep the throne. Why would he punish her when she did no wrong? A
blunder is not the same as willful wrongdoing, and nobody is punished
for blunders as wrongdoings. Rama was no god, he was just a minor king
who perhaps had some adventures. Those adventures were romanticized and
embellished with a childrens-fairy-tale type of creativity, with demons,
shape-changing characters, flying monkeys and ten-headed enemy kings.
Rama sacrificed his wife for political gain.

Wanderer

unread,
Jan 4, 2008, 6:53:11 AM1/4/08
to
tripur...@yahoo.com <tripur...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jan 3, 12:44 pm, Wanderer <n...@there.yet> wrote:
>> tripurant...@yahoo.com <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> The point is not whether you need to accept it to be a Hindu, but why
>> such an obvious fiction is accepted as immutable truth by you, and yet
>> you have issues with the semantics in religious texts of others.
>
> Truth has different connotations. Truth can be spiritual or historical
> or both. Many Hindus may take the tortoise myth to be historical
> ( like me- I also think it has symbolic meanings)

Let's get this straight: you believe that the myth that the earth is
help by an elephant standing on the back of a turtle is historical truth?


> Christians *have to think Jeezuz was born to a virgin* ( which he
> himself never claimed!) butt they also dump this on Hindus advertising
> this bastard theory saying we have to convert!

No, Christians don't have to think Jesus was born to a virgin. All they
have to do is follow his spirituality. Of course, you might have known
that is you weren't such a f**king retard.

> We are not asking you to convert. You can do what you want. We dont
> care a bit. What we want is: please do not tell us to accept a bastard
> as a God

Considering you have gods who are hermaphrodites, arsonists, rapists,
animals of various descriptions, human-animal hybrids and dithering
wife-doubters, why not add a bastard to the 3.3 billion gods you already
have? At least you could have a god who can conjure up instant meals
when you are hungry, something that might go down well with India's
nutritionally-challenged masses.


> Another
>> thing an idiot like you fails to understand is that Hinduism is not a
>> typically defined religion, with core constructs that define it.
>
> That is typically beyond your Christian mindset! Hinduism is defined!
> It is dharma based karma elevated by jnana! Called sanathana dharma.
> Heard of it? It is not *belief* but conduct and realization.

In which case, apocryphal mythology would not be considered essential
beliefs. As for conduct, I suppose the conduct of the VHP, RSS and their
supporters like you are "sanathana dharma"?


> Typical of Christian goondas, they judge Hindus by their yardstick.
> You want Hindus to be like Christians. Nope. We think action and
> knowledge are more important not belief. Belief is primary for you.
> Not for us. It is secondary for us. I think you wont understand this.

No, belief is a supra requirement in Hinduism, according to VHP clods.
Belief in the entire legend/myth of Rama and of Vedic myths is claimed
to be a fundamental requirement, as evidenced by the frantic efforts
made to "discover" evidence of the so called "Ram-sethu bridge" and the
mythical Saraswati river.


>> The point, once again(and I don't know why I even try to reason with an
>> imbecile like you), is that you seem perfectly willing to accept even
>> the most outrageous fairy tales of your own religious tradition, but go
>> into semantics with the traditions of other religions.
>
> You think virgin birth is semantics, not real?!!

Do you think that flying monkey-generals carrying a mountain, demons
changing into golden deer and women becoming pregnant by drinking nectar
are real? Virgin birth is a technical possibility, although it was
unlikely during ancient times. Be that as it may, the essence of
Christianity does not lie with accepting the virgin birth, but in
following the teachings of Christ. Of course, most "Christians" fail at
this, just as most "hindus" fail at sanatana dharma.


>> "Woman" was a term for a woman, even in those days. "Harlot" was a term
>> used for prostitutes, like your friend Gay Maharaj.
>
> Both terms are used. Mother is mother! Not woman!

Mother is a woman, not a man. Wife is wife, too, but sometimes men call
their wives "woman", jokingly, sternly or abusively. Wives are women too.

> Why don't you devote
>> yourself to resolving the conflicts within your own religious
>> traditions,
>
> We do that. We dont go around converting. We are not asking you to
> follow Hinduism. You can keep your bastard god but dont try to give

> him to us.

No, you already have 3.3 billion weirdos.


> like why a god commits suicide by drowning himself,
>
> He disappeared. He did not commit suicide

He killed himself by jumping in the river and drowning. Suicide.


> or why a
>> god makes his wife walk through fire to prove her fidelity?
>
> See above

Makes him not only human, but an evil and cruel human.

>> No doubt
>> this is an inspiration for Indian men when they suspect their wives of
>> infidelity, which could account for the unusual number of fire-related
>> deaths of Hindu wives.
>
> Nonsense

Are you saying there are no fire-related deaths of Hindu wives? It is a
common "joke" in India that the woman's saree pallu or dupatta caught
fire while she was cooking(wink, wink) when one reads of such a death in
a bad marriage.


>> You are the idiot who claimed that there is no evidence that Gandhi or
>> Nehru ever lived, and that speaks volumes for your mental abilities.
>
> I never said they did not live. I said you have no proof other than
> relying on accounts given by others. It is called testimony! People
> say there was no Rama. I said in that case there could have been no
> Gandhi either. You cant follow that?

You said that there was no evidence that they ever lived. Apparently,
you don't consider photographs, video, contemporary reporting and birth
certificates to be "evidence". You are just that kind of idiot. I agree
with you that Rama probably existed, but he was a minor king somewhere
and his adventures were embellished and romanticized, and ultimately
morphed from comic-book hero-worship into religious tradition. I think
it is somewhat the same with Jesus, who was not the first reformer or
humanist. His message was similar to what others have had, but what made
the difference were accidents of history that propelled his message into
worldwide prominence. Supposed incidents in his life, like the fishes
and loaves story or the wine story or walking on water, are in my belief
creative embellishments in the vein of flying monkeys and ten-headed demons.

Wanderer

unread,
Jan 4, 2008, 6:53:12 AM1/4/08
to
tripur...@yahoo.com <tripur...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jan 3, 12:44 pm, Wanderer <n...@there.yet> wrote:
>> Moorthy <morta...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> As opposed to the fact that Hinduism is first-rate crap, i.e.
>> unadulterated crap, concocted from the wet dreams of lonely mendicants?
>
> Let me say this again. We will keep our religion to ourselves and you
> keep your bastard god to yourself okay? Do not convert, do not
> advertise this bastard god and his cheap mother

Sure thing. You can keep your rapists, your animal-human hybrids, your
deer-fornicaters etc. You don't need a simple bastard or his unwed teen
mother. Too ordinary, not at all colorful characters. You could just as
well add Jay Maharaj, who too is a bastard born to an unwed teen mother.
Very Christ-like in that aspect, Johnny Maharaj.


>> As for Christian proselytization, you seem to have an issue with that
>> when the proselytes are Hindus, but not when they are Muslims(from your
>> posts such as " Islamic Extremist Threatens Christian Convert in
>> India"). Hypocrisy.
>
> Hindus never converted. We do not go tapping on doors

Hindus never converted? There were never any Hindu missionaries? You
need to study Indian history beyond what you learn at RSS shakhas.

tripur...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jan 4, 2008, 6:03:00 PM1/4/08
to
On Jan 4, 6:53 am, Wanderer <n...@there.yet> wrote:
> tripurant...@yahoo.com <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Let's get this straight: you believe that the myth that the earth is
> help by an elephant standing on the back of a turtle is historical truth?

Yes, it is historical truth. All puranas and ithihasas are historical
and spiritual truths

>
> No, Christians don't have to think Jesus was born to a virgin.

Most of christian "theology" ( does not deserve that label as there is
no God there anyway) demands they believe he was born to a virgin-
Catlick, Prots etc

>
> Considering you have gods who are hermaphrodites, arsonists, rapists,
> animals of various descriptions, human-animal hybrids and dithering
> wife-doubters, why not add a bastard to the 3.3 billion gods you already
> have?


We can have a lot but have not had a bastard god, that is the limit!
Reserved for Xtians


At least you could have a god who can conjure up instant meals
> when you are hungry, something that might go down well with India's
> nutritionally-challenged masses.

India and China were the richest countries till 1825 till Missionaries
and muslim thugs robbed us. We rise again

>
> In which case, apocryphal mythology would not be considered essential
> beliefs. As for conduct, I suppose the conduct of the VHP, RSS and their
> supporters like you are "sanathana dharma"?

Yes

>

> No, belief is a supra requirement in Hinduism, according to VHP clods.
> Belief in the entire legend/myth of Rama and of Vedic myths is claimed
> to be a fundamental requirement, as evidenced by the frantic efforts
> made to "discover" evidence of the so called "Ram-sethu bridge" and the
> mythical Saraswati river.

Ram Sethu is a fact and so is Sarraswathi. Ask Archeologists

>
> Do you think that flying monkey-generals carrying a mountain, demons
> changing into golden deer and women becoming pregnant by drinking nectar
> are real?

Yes

Of course, most "Christians" fail at
> this, just as most "hindus" fail at sanatana dharma.

What we are incensed is about their arrogance that Christianity is the
best and attempts to convert


> Mother is a woman, not a man. Wife is wife, too, but sometimes men call
> their wives "woman", jokingly, sternly or abusively. Wives are women too.

You have to know the biblical use of the term woman


>
> He killed himself by jumping in the river and drowning. Suicide.

His earthly sojourn came to and end. Time to return to Vaikunta

>
> > or why a
> >> god makes his wife walk through fire to prove her fidelity?
>
> > See above
>
> Makes him not only human, but an evil and cruel human.

He was the human expression of the Divine- avatar

>
> Are you saying there are no fire-related deaths of Hindu wives? It is a
> common "joke" in India that the woman's saree pallu or dupatta caught
> fire while she was cooking(wink, wink) when one reads of such a death in
> a bad marriage.

These cases are grossly exaggerated. I never came across one instance,
but read only in newspapers. Secondly many are dowry deaths and not
infidelity at all


>
> You said that there was no evidence that they ever lived.

Quote where I said that they did not exist. Liar

Apparently,
> you don't consider photographs, video, contemporary reporting and birth
> certificates to be "evidence".

Same with Shri Rama too based on testimony. See above

Testimony is very strong that He was an avatar

>As usual, it does make no sense. You are portraying all the
characteristics of a typical human in Rama. As I mentioned earlier,
these human weaknesses of Rama in no way qualify him for any sort of
divinity. You are suggesting that Rama had a choice to a) either not
do
anything against Sita, and thereby give up the throne,

Yes

or b) punish her
and keep the throne. Why would he punish her when she did no wrong?

I cannot repeat this again but will tell for the last time that 1) the
first time She went into fire, *She chose Herself to do that*- not
asked to do that by the Lord 2) In Uttara kanda, Shri Rama tells
Lakshmana He is haunted by the talk of infamy by citizens and cannot
stop that. he finds no way except to separate from Her * even though
He fully knows She is oure* but cannot keep the citizens quiet. He
says scandals have visited Him since She did this blunder. The blunder
resulted in a great war, numerous deaths, and now the scandal He
cannot stop. He asks Lakshmana to leave Her in Valmiki ashrama. Sita
Ma also accepts that She has to save His reputation by leaving though
She is greatly saddened. It was not just a blunder but had very
serious consequences.

> flying monkeys and ten-headed enemy kings.
Rama sacrificed his wife for political gain

You probably know nothing of His life. He sacrificed *everything* to
pursue what was right. From going to forest to leaving His wife,
everything was to follow dharma and duty

Cannot say any more.

If you wish to put out missionary lies, I cannot help you.

That is the price we pay for colonization. We have enemies within

Tamils are humans. vanaras are celestial monkeys, not ordinary monkeys
(!), which can fly etc. You are putting out missionary lies

Wanderer

unread,
Jan 5, 2008, 6:18:51 AM1/5/08
to
tripur...@yahoo.com <tripur...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jan 4, 6:53 am, Wanderer <n...@there.yet> wrote:
>> tripurant...@yahoo.com <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Let's get this straight: you believe that the myth that the earth is

>> hel[d] by an elephant standing on the back of a turtle is historical truth?


>
> Yes, it is historical truth. All puranas and ithihasas are historical
> and spiritual truths

Thank you for proving that you are a simpleton and an idiot.


>> You said that there was no evidence that they ever lived.
>
> Quote where I said that they did not exist. Liar

I repeat, you said that there was no evidence that they ever lived.
"There is no scientific evidence that Gandhi or Nehru existed"
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/browse_thread/thread/ea601e6f85e89296/66d6b2cfbada39a6?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#66d6b2cfbada39a6

> Tamils are humans. vanaras are celestial monkeys, not ordinary monkeys
> (!), which can fly etc.

Celestial monkeys, eh? And where do these celestial monkeys live now?

tripur...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jan 5, 2008, 9:16:05 AM1/5/08
to
On Jan 5, 6:18 am, Wanderer <n...@there.yet> wrote:
> tripurant...@yahoo.com <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 6:53 am, Wanderer <n...@there.yet> wrote:
> >> tripurant...@yahoo.com <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Thank you for proving that you are a simpleton and an idiot.

Yes. They are historical and spiritual truths. Correct. Not surprising
that it is beyond your comprehension

>
> I repeat, you said that there was no evidence that they ever lived.

> "There is no scientific evidence that Gandhi or Nehru existed"http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/browse_thread/threa...

Scientific evidence! You said evidence. You do not know how to read,
do you? Read carefully. No archeology, no bones left of Gandhi etc!!
No DNA! Not testimonial evidence. That exists for Gandhi,
Nehru,Ashoka, Shri Rama or Shri Krrishna, Lord Shiva etc etc!! Hope
you can follow that!

>
> > Tamils are humans. vanaras are celestial monkeys, not ordinary monkeys
> > (!), which can fly etc.
>
> Celestial monkeys, eh? And where do these celestial monkeys live now?

In the celestial sphere. Read Valmiki where they came from and where
they went to

Read Valmiki. It is all mentioned there. No use gossiping

Moorthy

unread,
Jan 5, 2008, 4:37:03 PM1/5/08
to

I addressed this concocted issue, but you just cant understand it.


>As for
> butchering people, you need to learn Indian history which is full of
> bloody wars in the days before Arabs or Europeans came.

Name just one nation that did not have "bloody wars"? Indians were the
least violent and
first to recognise and accept of peaceful co-existence and accept
varied opinion about
Godhead. Indians were the first to spread message of peace starting
with Mahavir Jain, Buddha down to
Gandhi, Ramakrisnshna Parmahamsa. Unlike Muzzie and Xtian-type who
have been and continue to use brute force and every dirty trick to
push down peoples' throat their respective cock and bull crap using
brute force.

>And, in India,
> there was no forcible conversion of any sort, save for a brief period in
> one tiny part of India: in Goa under Portuguese rule. And even in Goa,
> as you can see by census statistics, a substantial part of the
> population remained with their traditional religion, something that
> didn't happen even in Europe when the Romans forced Christianity on
> their European possessions.
>
> As to your question on which nations have been "forced converted" by
> Hindus, how do you convert someone to an undefined religion? A
> Kali-worshipper is a Hindu, as is a Vishnu-worshipper, but they don't
> exactly approve of each other. Of course, the VHP and RSS are trying to
> create and impose their own rules regarding what Hinduism is and who may
> be called a Hindu(and trying to create a kind of Hindu Vatican in the
> process), but that is a political process rather than a philosophical one.
>
> Finally, there is a clear case to be made that Vedic or Brahmanic
> Hinduism has been imposed on what some call the native population,

> effectively de-humanizing and culturally enslaving them.- Hide quoted text -


Moron, I insulted dung-beetle by comparing your IQ to them,
On one hand you say Hindus did not carry out forced conversions as
they had
"undefined religion", then in the same breath you say that "Vedic or
Brahmanic Hinduism"
has been imposed on "the native population". If it could be imposed in
one setting then why not other?
If as vile individual as a pedophile can be made out be profart then
everything is possible.

Wanderer

unread,
Jan 6, 2008, 3:45:14 AM1/6/08
to
tripur...@yahoo.com wrote:

> On Jan 5, 6:18 am, Wanderer <n...@there.yet> wrote:
>> tripurant...@yahoo.com <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 4, 6:53 am, Wanderer <n...@there.yet> wrote:
>>>> tripurant...@yahoo.com <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you for proving that you are a simpleton and an idiot.
>
> Yes. They are historical and spiritual truths. Correct. Not surprising
> that it is beyond your comprehension
>
>> I repeat, you said that there was no evidence that they ever lived.
>> "There is no scientific evidence that Gandhi or Nehru existed"http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/browse_thread/threa...
>
> Scientific evidence! You said evidence. You do not know how to read,
> do you? Read carefully. No archeology, no bones left of Gandhi etc!!
> No DNA! Not testimonial evidence. That exists for Gandhi,
> Nehru,Ashoka, Shri Rama or Shri Krrishna, Lord Shiva etc etc!! Hope
> you can follow that!

There is plenty of scientific evidence for the existence of Gandhi. Only
a moron like you would claim that there is none.

>>> Tamils are humans. vanaras are celestial monkeys, not ordinary monkeys
>>> (!), which can fly etc.
>> Celestial monkeys, eh? And where do these celestial monkeys live now?
>
> In the celestial sphere. Read Valmiki where they came from and where
> they went to
>
> Read Valmiki. It is all mentioned there. No use gossiping

Valmiki is a fairy tale. That is all.

tripur...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jan 6, 2008, 9:06:07 AM1/6/08
to
On Jan 6, 3:45 am, Wanderer <n...@there.yet> wrote:
> tripurant...@yahoo.com wrote:

> There is plenty of scientific evidence for the existence of Gandhi. Only
> a moron like you would claim that there is none.

Where?! Have you found Gandhi's bones or DNA some where?!! Do not tell
me photos, eyewitnesses etc. We have same accounts of Shri Rama etc

You should read more carefully what I wrote and in what context:


http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/browse_thread/threa...

There is no "scientific" evidence for Gandhi any more than for Shri
Rama

> Valmiki is a fairy tale. That is all.

It is a text book of history and spirituality

Wanderer

unread,
Jan 6, 2008, 10:46:35 PM1/6/08
to
tripur...@yahoo.com wrote:

> On Jan 6, 3:45 am, Wanderer <n...@there.yet> wrote:
>> tripurant...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> There is plenty of scientific evidence for the existence of Gandhi. Only
>> a moron like you would claim that there is none.
>
> Where?! Have you found Gandhi's bones or DNA some where?!! Do not tell
> me photos, eyewitnesses etc. We have same accounts of Shri Rama etc

Really? You have photographs, sound recordings, videos, books signed by
Rama etc.? I think you are sitting on a gold mine!

> You should read more carefully what I wrote and in what context:
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/browse_thread/threa...
>
> There is no "scientific" evidence for Gandhi any more than for Shri
> Rama

There is, actually. But to someone who believes that the earth rests on
an elephant standing atop a turtle, "scientific" may mean something else
altogether.

>> Valmiki is a fairy tale. That is all.
>
> It is a text book of history and spirituality

Nope. It is a fairy tale woven around a little adventure. There were no
flying celestial monkeys, no shape-changing rakshashis, no chunks of
Himalayan mountains being carried to Lanka. Next thing, you'll be
telling me that the story of Kacha being reborn in the belly of
Shukracharya is absolute fact.

tripur...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jan 7, 2008, 10:01:48 PM1/7/08
to
On Jan 6, 10:46 pm, Wanderer <n...@there.yet> wrote:

> Really? You have photographs, sound recordings, videos, books signed by
> Rama etc.? I think you are sitting on a gold mine!

Yes. Ram Sethu is one of them. Verified in so many texts. So many
temples, so much tradition. You have nmore evidence than for Gandhi,
Nehru and all people put together


> There is, actually. But to someone who believes that the earth rests on
> an elephant standing atop a turtle, "scientific" may mean something else
> altogether.

Scientific means dna, archeology etc etc. Observation,verifiability
etc. Spiritualists *also* depend on testimony. Scientists do not
depend on testimony. Courts, news media and all public depend on
testimony. Testimony, inference etc are important elements in search
for truth

> Nope. It is a fairy tale woven around a little adventure. There were no
> flying celestial monkeys, no shape-changing rakshashis, no chunks of
> Himalayan mountains being carried to Lanka. Next thing, you'll be
> telling me that the story of Kacha being reborn in the belly of
> Shukracharya is absolute fact.

Then there was no Ashoka, Buddha, Alexander etc either

Wanderer

unread,
Jan 8, 2008, 3:08:57 PM1/8/08
to
tripur...@yahoo.com <tripur...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jan 6, 10:46 pm, Wanderer <n...@there.yet> wrote:
>
>> Really? You have photographs, sound recordings, videos, books signed by
>> Rama etc.? I think you are sitting on a gold mine!
>
> Yes. Ram Sethu is one of them. Verified in so many texts. So many
> temples, so much tradition. You have nmore evidence than for Gandhi,
> Nehru and all people put together

"Ram Sethu" was signed by Rama? Ram Sethu is a legend, nothing more.
Moreover, if you read the legend, the claim is that it was made of
special stones that floated on the water. Let us, for the sake of
argument, say that the stones sank to the bottom later. The so-called
Ram Sethu would only consist of the stones that were "placed" on the
surface. The actual geological structure is far more complex and
substantial.


>> There is, actually. But to someone who believes that the earth rests on
>> an elephant standing atop a turtle, "scientific" may mean something else
>> altogether.
>
> Scientific means dna, archeology etc etc. Observation,verifiability
> etc. Spiritualists *also* depend on testimony. Scientists do not
> depend on testimony. Courts, news media and all public depend on
> testimony. Testimony, inference etc are important elements in search
> for truth

What is "archeology" to you? Gandhi's samadhi is there, the various
properties that belonged to Nehru(supported by documentary evidence) are
there, and if need be, biological evidence can still be extracted from
their possessions. None of this exists for any character in either the
Ramayana or the Mahabharata.


>> Nope. It is a fairy tale woven around a little adventure. There were no
>> flying celestial monkeys, no shape-changing rakshashis, no chunks of
>> Himalayan mountains being carried to Lanka. Next thing, you'll be
>> telling me that the story of Kacha being reborn in the belly of
>> Shukracharya is absolute fact.
>
> Then there was no Ashoka, Buddha, Alexander etc either

Do you happen to be in possession of a satellite photo showing this
elephant and turtle in space, heroically holding up the earth from
falling into the depths of hell?

M. Ranjit Mathews

unread,
Jan 8, 2008, 5:49:49 PM1/8/08
to
On Jan 1, 5:29 am, Wanderer <n...@there.yet> wrote:
> tripurant...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Dec 25, 9:08 pm, j...@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> >> Forwarded message from S. Kumar
>
> >> Joseph Atwill: Christianity is a Roman Hoax
>
> > Add to this the possibility that Jesus was born as a bastard son of
> > Mary and uttered crazy statements. He was not divine at all. My
> > problem is why do Hindus talk of Jesus and even Mohammad as being
> > divine!!
>
> > Hindus have to clean up their act
>
> Yes, they do. It's not as if their religious texts are full of peace and
> love. As a matter of fact, what is so divine about someone who sets out
> to recover his kidnapped wife, and after recovering her refuses to have
> anything to do with her because he considers her polluted and doubts her
> fidelity in captivity? How does that make him divine?

"Kancha completely exposes the gods of the brahmins, even the godess
of learning saraswathi is an illiterate."
http://dalitnation.wordpress.com/2007/12/14/kancha-ilaiah-why-i-am-not-a-hindu/

Jai Maharaj & Triputarantaka attempt to do the same to other gods. If
that's a big deal, why don't you also make a stink over Kancha Ilaiah?

tripur...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jan 8, 2008, 8:34:27 PM1/8/08
to
On Jan 8, 3:08 pm, Wanderer <n...@there.yet> wrote:
> tripurant...@yahoo.com <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Ram Sethu" was signed by Rama? Ram Sethu is a legend, nothing more.
> Moreover, if you read the legend, the claim is that it was made of
> special stones that floated on the water. Let us, for the sake of
> argument, say that the stones sank to the bottom later. The so-called
> Ram Sethu would only consist of the stones that were "placed" on the
> surface. The actual geological structure is far more complex and
> substantial.

Legend because it happened thousands of years ago? There is a lot of
archaeological evidence for this. See:

http://kalyan98.wordpress.com/2007/12/20/the-truth-about-setu-samudram-mv-kamath/


> What is "archeology" to you? Gandhi's samadhi is there, the various
> properties that belonged to Nehru(supported by documentary evidence) are
> there, and if need be, biological evidence can still be extracted from
> their possessions. None of this exists for any character in either the
> Ramayana or the Mahabharata.

The whole of Kurukshetra is there and weapons have been excavated from
there. See:

Please watch all three parts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2yHPkO1oIM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1EoztuU26g&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXtacyrxsQI&feature=related

> Do you happen to be in possession of a satellite photo showing this
> elephant and turtle in space, heroically holding up the earth from
> falling into the depths of hell?

Evidence is testimony. You do not seem to understand the importance of
this.

M. Ranjit Mathews

unread,
Jan 9, 2008, 4:54:27 AM1/9/08
to

How do you determine the truth when different people's testimony are
in conflict? Is there testimony from someone claiming to have seen
elephants holding up the earth? Aren't pictures taken from space
testimony from whoever took those pictures?

harmony

unread,
Jan 9, 2008, 4:28:11 PM1/9/08
to

"Moorthy" <mort...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bb2c266b-d706-4929...@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

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

cake was originally a missionary creation. they wanted to have it and eat it
too.


tripur...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jan 9, 2008, 5:58:47 PM1/9/08
to
On Jan 9, 4:54 am, "M. Ranjit Mathews" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Testimony in Hindu scriptures do not conflict with each other.

I do not know about the elephant story, which purana etc. Kurma
avathar is there. That is in a previous manvanthara. I take that as a
testimony. Todays kali yuga techniques do not apply to a different
age.

I am sure you would pooh poohed it if some one had said, 10 years ago,
New Orleans would be wiped out or about tsunami. This is today.

What about a different manvanthara?

Wanderer

unread,
Jan 12, 2008, 3:17:46 AM1/12/08
to
tripur...@yahoo.com <tripur...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jan 8, 3:08 pm, Wanderer <n...@there.yet> wrote:
>> tripurant...@yahoo.com <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Ram Sethu" was signed by Rama? Ram Sethu is a legend, nothing more.
>> Moreover, if you read the legend, the claim is that it was made of
>> special stones that floated on the water. Let us, for the sake of
>> argument, say that the stones sank to the bottom later. The so-called
>> Ram Sethu would only consist of the stones that were "placed" on the
>> surface. The actual geological structure is far more complex and
>> substantial.
>
> Legend because it happened thousands of years ago? There is a lot of
> archaeological evidence for this. See:
>
> http://kalyan98.wordpress.com/2007/12/20/the-truth-about-setu-samudram-mv-kamath/

Propaganda from VHP/RSS is not "archaeological evidence". MV Kamath is a
columnist for "The Organiser", the mouthpiece of the RSS, and wrote
also, I believe, for "The Pioneer", another RSS rag.


>> What is "archeology" to you? Gandhi's samadhi is there, the various
>> properties that belonged to Nehru(supported by documentary evidence) are
>> there, and if need be, biological evidence can still be extracted from
>> their possessions. None of this exists for any character in either the
>> Ramayana or the Mahabharata.
>
> The whole of Kurukshetra is there and weapons have been excavated from
> there. See:
>
> Please watch all three parts
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2yHPkO1oIM&feature=related

David Frawley(an American who also goes by the name of Vamadev Shastry),
who created these videos with Stephen Knapp, is another part of the
RSS/VHP machinery. But even in these videos, which report discredited
"studies" by an RSS-affiliated former ASI official, the claim is that
terracotta seals, and stone anchors for ships, are evidence of this
mythical city. According to many hindutva sources(and I'm sure you
subscribe to this), the Mahabharat war was fought with nuclear weapons.
I'm just a tad surprised that a civilization in possession of nuclear
weapons could not come up with more sophisticated inventions than
terracotta seals, stone anchors and bows & arrows.

tripur...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jan 12, 2008, 9:08:22 AM1/12/08
to
On Jan 12, 3:17 am, Wanderer <n...@there.yet> wrote:
> tripurant...@yahoo.com <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 8, 3:08 pm, Wanderer <n...@there.yet> wrote:
> >> tripurant...@yahoo.com <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote:

So you will reject anything Indians and Hindus say and will accept
anything Muslims and Christians say.
Just look at the vast literature not just in Sanskrit but in most
Indian languages.

Wanderer

unread,
Jan 12, 2008, 2:03:32 PM1/12/08
to
tripur...@yahoo.com <tripur...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Why do you cut out my response?

Anyhow, if you want to be taken seriously, stop using VHP/RSS sources.
That said, it is hard to take someone seriously who believes that
turtles and elephants hold up the planet. Iow, you have zero cred. Now
go away and play with your dolls.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages