PAKI-NIIGGER JOKES!!
M. Ranjit Mathews
> "Seeker" <4not_listed_due_to_spam_bots_121101> wrote ...
> You know seeker, even if what you wrote were true ;-) your post is
> rather civilized.
>
> However, the 4000 or so dead muslims in Gujarat who were subjected to
> the greatest peacetime slaughter in this century would tell you that
> Hindus are not cowards, if you can ask them between their dance
> numbers in hell with alla!
What greatest peacetime slaughter? It was gruesome (not to you, of
course) but not the greatest. It is quite unusual, however, for a few
thousand people to be killed in a few days in peacetime, so one may
indeed describe it as a great slaughter. As for whether armed people
slaughtering the unarmed are not cowards, you have the floor if you
feel inclined to enlighten us befuddled ignoramuses with your reasons
for putting this down to bravery. Do you, perhaps, mean ruthlessness?
I will grant you, however, that in their group psychology, Indian
Muslims are not choirboys. Arguably, Muslims who might commit violence
given the right (or wrong as the case may be) provocation vastly
outnumber Hindu stormtroopers and in that respect, perhaps Hindu senas
are brave (or foolhardy as the case may be) to take on those who
outnumber them and would be able to outdo them under the right (or
wrong as the case may be) circumstances.
Here's a titbit to illustrate that it is not unusual for people to go
berserk when they see bodies of their own piled up. Patel sent troops
to Hyderabad to put down an affair that had turned into a massacre of
thousands Hindus by the Nizam's Razakars. Patel had pulled a fast one
on Nehru who then accepted the Indian Army being in Hyderabad, having
full confidence that the Indian Army would disport itself in a most
professional manner. When they saw the mayhem that the Razakars had
inflicted on Hindus, however, Hindu soldiers went berserk, became
uncontrollable by their officers and killed as many as 50,000
(Pakistan exaggerates this number) Muslim civilians before the Officer
Corps could figure out how to restore some semblance of order.
Nehru was beside himself at hearing what his soldiers had done and
tried to make amends in various ways, some of which have possibly been
interpreted as "coddling Muslims". If you want to know the rationale
for minority institutions, one is that Nehru and others were
perspicacious enough to perceive that Hindus could conceivably
outcompete Muslims in an environment with changed ground rules.
Hyderabad had been run in Dakhini (Urdu) and Telugu. Overnight, it
became Angrezistan. Muslims couldn't handle the transition.
Unfortunately, too much control over education was given to Mullahs,
who ran secular education into the ground and Nehru couldn't undo this
because he had to suck up to mullahs because Muslims listened to them
like automatons no matter how much harm they did. In any event, the
upshot was the following:
http://www.pakistanlink.com/Letters/99/Jan/15/02.html
Take it with a pinch of salt, observing the source of the information.
Sorry for being so long winded, but the point I'm leading up to is
that depriving Gujarati Muslims of economic opportunity in an
organized fashion (as one hears on the grapevine as well as more
authoritative sources) is unlikely to produce results much better than
depriving Hyderabadi Muslims of economic opportunity in a disorganized
fashion has done. One might even go as far as to say that you are
brave to bring on yourself the results it is likely to produce.
So, Dang Veer Dog Dong, Ding Dong for now, Ding Ding for whenever your
dinner is served and Dong Dong for whenever you're tired of bravery,
feel bored and can't find the butt of your heart's desire.
Shishir Yerramilli
The effect on the Indian Army on the Razakars in overrated.The
Telengana Communists(composed mostly of Andhras and then Kannadigas
and Marathas) made short work of the Nizams forces and instilled
terror in the hearts of the Razakars way before the Indian Army
arrived.Some of the police officers who were colluding with the Nizam
still had nightmares of the Communist squads years after the conquest
of Hyderabad.This one officer I think his name was Amanullah used to
wake in cold sweat yelling "KRISHNAMURTHY,GHOST!GHOST!".Of course
Krishnamurthy ,one of the ultra violent communist leaders had ambushed
him in 1947 and haunted him ever since!
>Patel had pulled a fast one
> on Nehru who then accepted the Indian Army being in Hyderabad, having
> full confidence that the Indian Army would disport itself in a most
> professional manner. When they saw the mayhem that the Razakars had
> inflicted on Hindus, however, Hindu soldiers went berserk, became
> uncontrollable by their officers and killed as many as 50,000
> (Pakistan exaggerates this number) Muslim civilians before the Officer
> Corps could figure out how to restore some semblance of order.
>
> Nehru was beside himself
Nehru was a Siamese twin? :-)
> at hearing what his soldiers had done and
> tried to make amends in various ways, some of which have possibly been
> interpreted as "coddling Muslims". If you want to know the rationale
> for minority institutions, one is that Nehru and others were
> perspicacious enough to perceive that Hindus could conceivably
> outcompete Muslims in an environment with changed ground rules.
> Hyderabad had been run in Dakhini (Urdu) and Telugu.
This is not entirely true.Telugu was looked down upon in
Hyderabad.All the official documents and 'cultured' people were
accustomed to Urdu.Urdu speaking people had this view of Telugu
:'telangi bedhangi'(clumsy unrefined Telugu)
MO+HAM+MAD BUTT-BANGED ALLA
> > "Seeker" <4not_listed_due_to_spam_bots_121101> wrote ...
>
> > You know seeker, even if what you wrote were true ;-) your post is
> > rather civilized.
> >
> > However, the 4000 or so dead muslims in Gujarat who were subjected to
> > the greatest peacetime slaughter in this century would tell you that
> > Hindus are not cowards, if you can ask them between their dance
> > numbers in hell with alla!
>
> What greatest peacetime slaughter?
Listen up, bonehead. I said greatest *Peacetime* slaughter. Your
yapping about Patel sending troops to Hyderabad is in/near the year
1947. In the year 1947 during the tumultuous (sic?) years of partition
and with a Indo-Pak war to boot that is NOT peacetime.
Now the unofficial estimates put the number of muslims sent to alla's
asshole at 8000. Show me another slaughter in PEACETIME that exceeds
8000. And shove the ding-dong dog-dog up yours.If you do not realize
that the muslims will NEVER STOP ATTACKING, NEVER STOP JEHAD, you need
the equivalent of a brain enema with the injector of Jehadi facts and
figures going through your ears.
M. Ranjit Mathews
> ranjit_...@yahoo.com (M. Ranjit Mathews) wrote ...
> > > You know seeker, even if what you wrote were true ;-) your post is
> > > rather civilized.
> > >
> > > However, the 4000 or so dead muslims in Gujarat who were subjected to
> > > the greatest peacetime slaughter in this century would tell you that
> > > Hindus are not cowards, if you can ask them between their dance
> > > numbers in hell with alla!
> >
> > What greatest peacetime slaughter?
>
> Listen up, bonehead. I said greatest *Peacetime* slaughter.
Have you heard of Rwanda and Burundi?
Nusrat Rizvi
Mathews) wrote:
You guys were not around 1971 when the Punjabis were busy
breaking Hitlers record in speed and efficiency in disposal
of Bengali remains? 3.5 millions of them according to Sheikh
Mujeeb, the then president of the country.
M. Ranjit Mathews
> ranjit_...@yahoo.com (M. Ranjit Mathews) wrote:
>
> >I_lick_my...@yahoo.com (BUTT-BANGER) wrote ...
> >> ranjit_...@yahoo.com (M. Ranjit Mathews) wrote ...
>
> >> > > You know seeker, even if what you wrote were true ;-) your post is
> >> > > rather civilized.
> >> > >
> >> > > However, the 4000 or so dead muslims in Gujarat who were subjected to
> >> > > the greatest peacetime slaughter in this century would tell you that
> >> > > Hindus are not cowards, if you can ask them between their dance
> >> > > numbers in hell with alla!
> >> >
> >> > What greatest peacetime slaughter?
> >>
> >> Listen up, bonehead. I said greatest *Peacetime* slaughter.
> >
> >Have you heard of Rwanda and Burundi?
>
> You guys were not around 1971 when the Punjabis were busy
> breaking Hitlers record in speed and efficiency in disposal
> of Bengali remains?
Oh, yes.
> 3.5 millions of them according to Sheikh
> Mujeeb, the then president of the country.
It was an army, not a mob, so it might be considered (civil) war, if a
one-sided one.
Nusrat Rizvi
Mathews) wrote:
War implies 2 sides with weapons going at each other with everything.
In Bengal the Punjabi army had everything and the poor Bengali
civilian had no weapon.
It was only after the Bengalis got support from India
and started to fight back that Paindoo realized his vulnerability.
MO+HAM+MAD BUTT-BANGED ALLA
Look , ranjit, a few niggers slaughtering themselves in the stemay
primeaval (sic?) jungles in boondocks in the ooga-booga-zulu-bantu
continent of Africa does NOT count as recognizable history.
In any case, for God's sake change your name. If you are a Chrissy,
make your name Andrews Mathews or some such dumbass names that
converted Christians sport. If you are a Hindu, get rid of that
"mathews".
M. Ranjit Mathews
> ranjit_...@yahoo.com (M. Ranjit Mathews) wrote ...
> > > > What greatest peacetime slaughter?
> > >
> > > Listen up, bonehead. I said greatest *Peacetime* slaughter.
> >
> > Have you heard of Rwanda and Burundi?
>
> Look , ranjit, a few niggers slaughtering themselves in the stemay
> primeaval (sic?) jungles in boondocks in the ooga-booga-zulu-bantu
> continent of Africa does NOT count as recognizable history.
Very well, if you insist on taking pride in Indians being credited
with the greatest peacetime massacre, go on to ask Vajpayee to move a
motion in Parliament to replace the Dharma Chakra on the Indian flag
with a Jolly Roger. In the meanwhile, fly the following flag, will
you?
http://www.galaxystation.com/landlubber/
> In any case, for God's sake change your name. If you are a Chrissy,
> make your name Andrews Mathews or some such dumbass names that
> converted Christians sport. If you are a Hindu, get rid of that
> "mathews".
I thought about reducing it to a middle name and introducing the
family name after it a long time back, but I left it till too late and
now it's too complicated to change it on all sorts of documents. Be
that as it may, it should be none of your concern since a name is just
a name is just a name. I didn't give it to myself if that's what your
problem is.
MO+HAM+MAD BUTT-BANGED ALLA
> I_lick_d...@yahoo.com (I-WANT-MY-BUTT-BANGED) wrote ...
> > ranjit_...@yahoo.com (M. Ranjit Mathews) wrote ...(SNIP)
> >
> > Look , ranjit, a few niggers slaughtering themselves in the stemay
> > primeaval (sic?) jungles in boondocks in the ooga-booga-zulu-bantu
> > continent of Africa does NOT count as recognizable history.
>
> Very well, if you insist on taking pride in Indians being credited
> with the greatest peacetime massacre, go on to ask Vajpayee to move a
> motion in Parliament to replace the Dharma Chakra on the Indian flag
> with a Jolly Roger.
Why you sneaky little bastard! You want to replace the 'dharma chakra'
with a *ROGER* that is an influence of Christian culture! No way jose!
If you can show me a pirate hindu name, I may reconsider.
>
> > In any case, for God's sake change your name. If you are a Chrissy,
> > make your name Andrews Mathews or some such dumbass names that
> > converted Christians sport. If you are a Hindu, get rid of that
> > "mathews".
>
> I thought about reducing it to a middle name and introducing the
> family name after it a long time back, but I left it till too late and
> now it's too complicated to change it on all sorts of documents. Be
> that as it may, it should be none of your concern since a name is just
> a name is just a name. I didn't give it to myself if that's what your
> problem is.
Let me get this straight. A missionary shithole sprinkled some 'holy'
water on you, gave you a name and you accepted it? Then If he had
given you a name like M. "Hole" Mathews, you would pimp your
butthole..or do you do it now! If he gave you a name like Damien
Ulrich M. Batholomew Mattthews, then you would call yourself D.U.M.B.
Mathews.
You are dumb, and your name is a dumb name is a dumb name is a dumb
name. Better late than never, change it now.
M. Ranjit Mathews
> >
> > Very well, if you insist on taking pride in Indians being credited
> > with the greatest peacetime massacre, go on to ask Vajpayee to move a
> > motion in Parliament to replace the Dharma Chakra on the Indian flag
> > with a Jolly Roger.
>
> Why you sneaky little bastard! You want to replace the 'dharma chakra'
> with a *ROGER* that is an influence of Christian culture!
No; YOU (effectively) want to.
> No way jose! If you can show me a pirate hindu name, I may reconsider.
Good observation; make it an emblem from a Thug flag then!.
> > > In any case, for God's sake change your name. If you are a Chrissy,
> > > make your name Andrews Mathews or some such dumbass names that
> > > converted Christians sport. If you are a Hindu, get rid of that
> > > "mathews".
> >
> > I thought about reducing it to a middle name and introducing the
> > family name after it a long time back, but I left it till too late and
> > now it's too complicated to change it on all sorts of documents. Be
> > that as it may, it should be none of your concern since a name is just
> > a name is just a name. I didn't give it to myself if that's what your
> > problem is.
>
> Let me get this straight. A missionary shithole
What missionary? I know of no missionary who sprinkled water on me.
> sprinkled some 'holy' water on you,
Have you studied Chemistry? There's no holy water; there's just water
- H2O.
> gave you a name and you accepted it?
No; I presume that I wailed like any other baby.
> Then If he had
> given you a name like M. "Hole" Mathews, you would pimp your butthole.
No; if he'd done that, I might pimp his:-).
> or do you do it now! If he gave you a name like Damien Ulrich M.
> Batholomew Mattthews, then you would call yourself D.U.M.B. Mathews.
Possibly. On the other hand, if I had been named Dogs Dong Licker like
you, I would have changed my name by now:-) Psst; if you practice
Hatha yoga enough, you might not need a dog:-)
> You are dumb, and your name is a dumb name is a dumb name is a dumb
> name. Better late than never, change it now.
Thank you ever so kindly for the suggestion. Actually, Mat-teu means
"Truth" in Egyptian and is not originally a Christian name any more
than Satya is a Christian name. Would you like Satya to change his
name too?
Seeker
message news:dd82767c.02061...@posting.google.com...
> You are dumb, and your name is a dumb name is a dumb name is a dumb
> name. Better late than never, change it now.
At least he has a name.
MO+HAM+MAD BUTT-BANGED ALLA
> I_lick_my...@yahoo.com (I-WANT-MY-BUTT-BANGED) wrote ...
> > >
> > > Very well, if you insist on taking pride in Indians being credited
> > > with the greatest peacetime massacre, go on to ask Vajpayee to move a
> > > motion in Parliament to replace the Dharma Chakra on the Indian flag
> > > with a Jolly Roger.
> >
> > Why you sneaky little bastard! You want to replace the 'dharma chakra'
> > with a *ROGER* that is an influence of Christian culture!
>
> No; YOU (effectively) want to.
I want to make India a Hindu Rashtra. You Chrissies can live there, no
problems, but no prostelyzing or we will set your ass on fire!
>
> > No way jose! If you can show me a pirate hindu name, I may reconsider.
>
> Good observation; make it an emblem from a Thug flag then!.
Do you mean the (a) Thuggies who were a menace in pre-independence
India or (b) Thug as in rowdies/vandals?
SNIP
> >
> > Let me get this straight. A missionary shithole
>
> What missionary? I know of no missionary who sprinkled water on me.
Then how were you born a Christian? Except the mythical "Friar John's"
kingdom that was supposedly in India in the era of pope Innocent II
that was invented to keep up the spirit of the crusaders promising
riches, noone even heard about Christians in India until the
missionaries.
>
> > sprinkled some 'holy' water on you,
>
> Have you studied Chemistry? There's no holy water; there's just water
> - H2O.
Then you would not mind pissing in the 'holy water' pot in Church next
time you are in a Church!
>
> > gave you a name and you accepted it?
>
> No; I presume that I wailed like any other baby.
You were probably protesting your forcible conversion to
Christianity!!
>
> > Then If he had
> > given you a name like M. "Hole" Mathews, you would pimp your butthole.
>
> No; if he'd done that, I might pimp his:-).
Man, that is sick! Pimping and selling men's buttholes! However, we
are pretty liberal and we will not judge you!
>
> > or do you do it now! If he gave you a name like Damien Ulrich M.
> > Batholomew Mattthews, then you would call yourself D.U.M.B. Mathews.
>
> Possibly. On the other hand, if I had been named Dogs Dong Licker like
> you, I would have changed my name by now:-) Psst; if you practice
> Hatha yoga enough, you might not need a dog:-)
My address is alla_licked_dogs_dong, so why are you leaving out alla
so coyly? He is fucking your ass! Or even, he is in a giant orgy with
you and the holy cross involving your ass and penetration of it by the
cross! You sicko!
>
> > You are dumb, and your name is a dumb name is a dumb name is a dumb
> > name. Better late than never, change it now.
>
> Thank you ever so kindly for the suggestion.
You have taken my suggestion partially already I see. Your name does
not have the "M" in front of it in the phone book!
>Actually, Mat-teu means
> "Truth" in Egyptian and is not originally a Christian name any more
> than Satya is a Christian name. Would you like Satya to change his
> name too?
I am rather impressed with your knowledge of ancient Egypt, once
again! Mat-teu is a Egyptian or Shumerian word?
Why do you lonk the word "Mat-teu" with christianity: I must 'profess'
to being a little in the dark in this issue!
M. Ranjit Mathews
> Ranjit Mathews wrote ...
> I want to make India a Hindu Rashtra.
I doubt that you can get that far. How would you prevent Christians in
a Christian majority area or Muslims in a Muslim majority area from
proselytising? The most you can practicably realize is to reduce the
freedom of non-Hindus to proselytise in Hindu majority areas to about
the same level as the lack of freedom of non-Christians and
non-Muslims to proselytize in Christian and Muslim majority areas
respectively.
> You Chrissies can live there, no problems,
How very kind. Should Christians then count their blessings and be
relieved that they won't have to face expulsion like you might if you
lived in certain Hindu minority areas?
> but no prostelyzing
Ah! You want to emulate Christian majority areas. We'll make you an
honorary Christutvadi then.
> or we will set your ass on fire!
Oh dear; you want to emulate Muslim majority areas too! Do you have to
be such a copycat? Can't you think of something original such as how
to make others secular rather than make yourself like them (or outdo
them)?
> > Good observation; make it an emblem from a Thug flag then!.
> Do you mean the (a) Thuggies who were a menace in pre-independence
> India or (b) Thug as in rowdies/vandals?
(a).
> > > Let me get this straight. A missionary shithole
> >
> > What missionary? I know of no missionary who sprinkled water on me.
>
> Then how were you born a Christian?
I wasn't; I was born human.
> Except the mythical "Friar John's"
> kingdom that was supposedly in India in the era of pope Innocent II
That's Prester John. It was supposedly in various places, not India in
particular.
> that was invented to keep up the spirit of the crusaders promising
> riches, noone even heard about Christians in India until the missionaries.
No one heard about the Christians in India until the missionaries
heard about them? Wrong; Hindus heard about the Christians in India
long before the missionaries did.
> > > gave you a name and you accepted it?
> > No; I presume that I wailed like any other baby.
> You were probably protesting your forcible conversion to
> Christianity!!
What forcible conversion to Christianity?
> >Actually, Mat-teu means
> > "Truth" in Egyptian and is not originally a Christian name any more
> > than Satya is a Christian name. Would you like Satya to change his
> > name too?
> I am rather impressed with your knowledge of ancient Egypt, once
> again! Mat-teu is a Egyptian or Shumerian word?
Egyptian.
> Why do you lonk the word "Mat-teu" with christianity: I must 'profess'
> to being a little in the dark in this issue!
By virtue of Greek influence, Egyptian words were borrowed and some
found their way into names. KRST (spelt without vowels in hieroglyphic
Egyptian) became Christ in Greek.
http://www.renewableway.co.uk/inspire/writings/death.html
Sauron
"Seeker" <4not_listed_due_to_spam_bots_121101> wrote in message
news:aemfa0$33v$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
neon
> dog_dong_in...@yahoo.com (foul-mouth) wrote ...
> > "Seeker" <4not_listed_due_to_spam_bots_121101> wrote ...
>
> > You know seeker, even if what you wrote were true ;-) your post is
> > rather civilized.
> >
> > However, the 4000 or so dead muslims in Gujarat who were subjected to
> > the greatest peacetime slaughter in this century would tell you that
> > Hindus are not cowards, if you can ask them between their dance
> > numbers in hell with alla!
avoid crap, indian military during and after partition is credited
to be one of the highly professional armies in the world. which
is owed to colonial brought up. Had that not been the case it could
have been felt very in the partition riots.
its very silly and childish to raise hyderabad issue for this context,
while much gruesome and violent riots were happenning in punjab.
the violence perpetuated on hindus in pakistan is no match to be
compared for any riots on indian land
how about knowing that khilafat movement, showing solidarity to
dethrowned calif of turkey involved killing, raping, converting
thousands of hindus in kerala.
the very riots during partitioned started with the direct action
day called by muslim league, again killing, raping, burning innocent
hindus. private armies of muslims (mostly pathans) attacked and cleansed
villages from hindus in pakiland.
while a hindu saint called mahatma fasted to stop hindus from revenging.
and did achieved it, while almost all hindus were driven out of pak.
those who could were killed/re-raped/converted ...
hindus, whose religion promotes control one self and ask to shun
violence were not the one who were rioting in india. it was mainly the
warring community: sikhs who took revenge for killing of sikhs/hindus
in pakistan. but later gandhi could successfully stops riots in
india, which there weren't any one left to be raped/killed in pak.
dumb fuck pakis proposition for islamic state depended on the assumption
of hindus about to slauter them. and they had to justify their
partition and sang glories of freedom from hindus based upon
fake stories of hindus killing muslims.
(source:freedom at midnight, by dominique)
the other gruesome history that comes to my mind is killing and forced
conversion of natives in goa and algeria by christian missionaries.
Had your fucking story about hyderabad been even remotely true,
muslims would have left for their islamistan. forget about glories
of secularity maintained by nawabs, they had to do it cause of
the extreme minority of muslims. there were hardly any muslim left
for education or admnistration. And if a muslim considers secularism,
then he is no longer a muslim.
-*
Seeker
"Sauron" <NOT_L...@FORSPAM.COM> wrote in message
news:4UGP8.814$CP7.68...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Sauron
"Seeker" <4not_listed_due_to_spam_bots_121101> wrote in message
news:aeolt6$8c0$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
MO+HAM+MAD BUTT-BANGED ALLA
> dogs...@yahoo.com (BUTT-BANGED) wrote ...
> > Ranjit Mathews wrote ...
>
> > I want to make India a Hindu Rashtra.
>
> I doubt that you can get that far. How would you prevent Christians in
> a Christian majority area or Muslims in a Muslim majority area from
> proselytising?
You, Ranjit, have missed the biggest fallout of the Gujarat riots.
Before, all places in India were secularized and no minority would be
allowed to be harmed as they would enjoy the protection of the police
with arms. However, after Gujarat, it is clear that minorityism will
be sidelined, more and more police and armed men will be gradually
brought into Hindutva and that means that minorities will not be safe
in their own areas. Hence, the answer to your question is, IF THEY
PROSTELIZE, go in with police in Minority areas and then set their
asses on fire. If they do not prostelyze, live and let live.
>The most you can practicably realize is to reduce the
> freedom of non-Hindus to proselytise in Hindu majority areas to about
> the same level as the lack of freedom of non-Christians and
> non-Muslims to proselytize in Christian and Muslim majority areas
> respectively.
Not if you boycott them economically. The Gujarat model will be
applicable here too and the minority (especially muslim garbage) will
be forced to come out of their ghettos to earn a living to eat. When
they do, WHAM!! Thus, many muslims will be given a choice, convert or
go hungry. This model is NOW working in Gujarat villages: riot hit
vermin are being forced to behave as normal human beings and Indians
or else they are being driven out.
>
> > You Chrissies can live there, no problems,
>
> How very kind. Should Christians then count their blessings and be
> relieved that they won't have to face expulsion like you might if you
> lived in certain Hindu minority areas?
Ranjit, Hindus would not live in Hindu-minority areas if they can help
it.
In any case, you are missing the point. India is 81% Hindu. If all
Hindus in India piss at the same time, the minorities will drown in
the piss. In India, appeasement of minorities will not continue at the
cost of Hindus any more. So, Hindus will not forego their right to
dictate to the minorities just to save a few Hindus living in a few
scattered ghettos which happen to be minority dominated areas.
>
SNIP
> > >
> > Then how were you born a Christian?
>
> I wasn't; I was born human.
Then convert from Chrissy to Hinduism.
>
> > Except the mythical "Friar John's"
> > kingdom that was supposedly in India in the era of pope Innocent II
>
> That's Prester John. It was supposedly in various places, not India in
> particular.
Serious question: do you believe the accounts of the 'heaven' that was
described in the presence of Innocent II by the various emissaries of
the 'Prester John.'?
> .
>
> No one heard about the Christians in India until the missionaries
> heard about them? Wrong; Hindus heard about the Christians in India
> long before the missionaries did.
Here you have been caught out. Always, you write with logic and facts.
When you write without either, it means Ranjit is bullshitting.
> > > You were probably protesting your forcible conversion to
> > Christianity!!
>
> What forcible conversion to Christianity?
Your father (or Grandpa) were forcibly converted to Christianity. They
begot you. Therefore you were forcibly converted to Christianity!
>
> > Why do you lonk the word "Mat-teu" with christianity: I must 'profess'
> > to being a little in the dark in this issue!
>
> By virtue of Greek influence, Egyptian words were borrowed and some
> found their way into names. KRST (spelt without vowels in hieroglyphic
> Egyptian) became Christ in Greek.
> http://www.renewableway.co.uk/inspire/writings/death.html
Another question: do you believe in the various "miraculous" aspects
of Alexander the great's expeditions? For example, his sejourn wiht
the "gods" in a cave in Egypt? Or his finding the "stram of life" but
not being able to partake the waters as he had left it behind?
Mirza Ghalib
in Hyderabad?" I am not aware of major riots in Hyderabad
during its annexation.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com (M. Ranjit Mathews) wrote in message news:<1d4c67e3.02061...@posting.google.com>...
M. Ranjit Mathews
> What source is the basis of the "50,000 slaughtered Muslims
> in Hyderabad?" I am not aware of major riots in Hyderabad
> during its annexation.
Look at the source I gave and the caveat (pinch of salt). It says
100,000. The 50,000 and Nehru's histrionics was from another article
that I can remember little else about; the author of that was Muslim
too but I can't remember where he was from. The number might be off by
a considerable amount or conceal some underlying information,
considering the source and difficult of finding corroboration from
independent sources.
I've heard various claims that the Indian Army killed more Muslims
than the number of Hindus who had been killed by Razakars in a year,
did but I've never been able to verify this or find out who these
Muslim "civilians" were. The Razakars had (or were) armed
para-military volunteers. Possibly, they, or mobs allied with them,
were counted as "civilians" for "convenience", would you say?
M. Ranjit Mathews
> in Hyderabad?" I am not aware of major riots in Hyderabad
> during its annexation.
To add to my lat response, look at the following.
http://www.flonnet.com/fl1805/18051140.htm
It suggests that Muslim civilians were killed primarily in retaliatory
rioting by Hindus in former Razakar strongholds, but also by Indian
Army units acting on their own (rather than under orders), after the
Razakars collapsed under the onslaught of the Indian Army. The Indian
commander was not implicated, and the Indian government and Indian
military administration not only cooperated in assessing the damage to
Muslims but facilitated it by having Abdul Gaffer Khan and others
survey the scene. Nevertheless, it still looks like the number of
"civilian" casualties might have included Razakars, as I said before.
When I wrote my piece, I gave the lower of the estimates I had seen
from a Muslim author (50,000) rather than the 100,000 in the linke.
The 50,000 seems close to the number in the Frontline article.
n o s p a m p l e a s e
> mgha...@yahoo.com (Mirza Ghalib) wrote ...
>> What source is the basis of the "50,000 slaughtered Muslims
>> in Hyderabad?" I am not aware of major riots in Hyderabad
>> during its annexation.
>
> Look at the source I gave and the caveat (pinch of salt). It says
Which source?
> 100,000. The 50,000 and Nehru's histrionics was from another article
> that I can remember little else about; the author of that was Muslim
> too but I can't remember where he was from. The number might be off by
> a considerable amount or conceal some underlying information,
> considering the source and difficult of finding corroboration from
> independent sources.
>
> I've heard various claims that the Indian Army killed more Muslims
It is a good thing that Indian Army did.
> than the number of Hindus who had been killed by Razakars in a year,
> did but I've never been able to verify this or find out who these
> Muslim "civilians" were. The Razakars had (or were) armed
> para-military volunteers. Possibly, they, or mobs allied with them,
> were counted as "civilians" for "convenience", would you say?
--
n o s p a m p l e a s e
Please reply to newsgroup.
n o s p a m p l e a s e
> mgha...@yahoo.com (Mirza Ghalib) wrote ...
>> What source is the basis of the "50,000 slaughtered Muslims
>> in Hyderabad?" I am not aware of major riots in Hyderabad
>> during its annexation.
>
> To add to my lat response, look at the following.
> http://www.flonnet.com/fl1805/18051140.htm
This is bull-shit. Just cerating a web site, your writing something
bull-shit does become fact.
> It suggests that Muslim civilians were killed primarily in retaliatory
> rioting by Hindus in former Razakar strongholds, but also by Indian
> Army units acting on their own (rather than under orders), after the
> Razakars collapsed under the onslaught of the Indian Army. The Indian
> commander was not implicated, and the Indian government and Indian
> military administration not only cooperated in assessing the damage to
> Muslims but facilitated it by having Abdul Gaffer Khan and others
> survey the scene. Nevertheless, it still looks like the number of
> "civilian" casualties might have included Razakars, as I said before.
> When I wrote my piece, I gave the lower of the estimates I had seen
> from a Muslim author (50,000) rather than the 100,000 in the linke.
> The 50,000 seems close to the number in the Frontline article.
--
Mirza Ghalib
In the recent Gujarat riots a rumor has been floating that
Hindu rioters have been eviscerating pregnant Muslim women.
The number killed that they like to quote is anywhere from 4000
to 10,000. The first is patently untrue, the second a vast
exaggeration. Independent sources have estimated the dead at
1200, including Hindu victims.
No mention, nor any tears for the 58 victims reduced to ashes
alive, which started this cycle of violence in the first place.
I have a close friend who is a native of Telangana. He grew up
under the Nizam rule. Before the Indians decided to rescue
Hyderabad, adolescent Muslim kids were extorting money from
their Hindu class mates. Complaints did not do any good.
Rapes and Murders by 'Razakars', lead by Quasim Rizvi
were copmmonplace. The Indian police action was very brief;
predators never have a will to fight. Rizvi fled with most
of his henchmen to, where else, Pakistan.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com (M. Ranjit Mathews) wrote in message news:<1d4c67e3.02061...@posting.google.com>...
MO+HAM+MAD, Pigshit Be Upon Him
> missionary...@yahoo.com (Manhole Ranjit Mathews) wrote in message news:<1d4c67e3.02061...@posting.google.com>...
> > dogs...@yahoo.com (BUTT-BANGED) wrote ...
> > > Ranjit Mathews wrote ...
Ranjit, I see you are too immersed in the butt-hole of your missionary
lover ! You assume unnatural positions!
M. Ranjit Mathews
> missionary...@yahoo.com (Manhole Ranjit Mathews) wrote ...
> > dogs...@yahoo.com (BUTT-BANGED) wrote ...
> > > Ranjit Mathews wrote ...
>
> > > I want to make India a Hindu Rashtra.
> >
> > I doubt that you can get that far. How would you prevent Christians in
> > a Christian majority area or Muslims in a Muslim majority area from
> > proselytising?
>
> You, Ranjit, have missed the biggest fallout of the Gujarat riots.
> Before, all places in India were secularized and no minority would be
> allowed to be harmed as they would enjoy the protection of the police
> with arms. However, after Gujarat, it is clear that minorityism will
> be sidelined, more and more police and armed men will be gradually
> brought into Hindutva and that means that minorities will not be safe
> in their own areas. Hence, the answer to your question is, IF THEY
> PROSTELIZE, go in with police in Minority areas and then set their
> asses on fire. If they do not prostelyze, live and let live.
Minorities rule the roost in states where they are in a majority. The
police in those states belong to the minority religion too. Thus, it
is only in Hindu majority states that you can try dirty tactics such
as the above or other equally effective methods of subversion of the
right to preach that are practised by Christian and Muslim majority
states.
> >The most you can practicably realize is to reduce the
> > freedom of non-Hindus to proselytise in Hindu majority areas to about
> > the same level as the lack of freedom of non-Christians and
> > non-Muslims to proselytize in Christian and Muslim majority areas
> > respectively.
>
> Not if you boycott them economically. The Gujarat model will be
> applicable here too and the minority (especially muslim garbage) will
> be forced to come out of their ghettos to earn a living to eat. When
> they do, WHAM!! Thus, many muslims will be given a choice, convert or
> go hungry. This model is NOW working in Gujarat villages: riot hit
> vermin are being forced to behave as normal human beings and Indians
> or else they are being driven out.
Yes; this model worked well when Muslims tried it on Zorastrians and
Christians in the middle east. Discrimination is a powerful motivator.
Nevertheless, it won't be practicable for Hindus to discriminate
against Muslims in a Muslim majority state or against Christians in a
Christian majority state.
> > > You Chrissies can live there, no problems,
> >
> > How very kind. Should Christians then count their blessings and be
> > relieved that they won't have to face expulsion like you might if you
> > lived in certain Hindu minority areas?
>
> Ranjit, Hindus would not live in Hindu-minority areas if they can help it.
That's precisely why Hindus who are normally secular react violently
to the possibility that they might be turned into a minority and lose
their freedoms.
> In any case, you are missing the point. India is 81% Hindu. If all
> Hindus in India piss at the same time, the minorities will drown in the piss.
Quite so, but no one has succeeded so far in getting all Hindus in
India to do anything at the same time.
> In India, appeasement of minorities will not continue at the
> cost of Hindus any more.
It will continue, but minorities who are appeased will pay for it by
facing greater retaliation and discrimination than in the past.
> So, Hindus will not forego their right to
> dictate to the minorities just to save a few Hindus living in a few
> scattered ghettos which happen to be minority dominated areas.
>
> > > Then how were you born a Christian?
> > I wasn't; I was born human.
> Then convert from Chrissy to Hinduism.
Chrissy is a presumption that you're making. Be that as it may, no one
is obligated to convert to anything.
> > > Except the mythical "Friar John's"
> > > kingdom that was supposedly in India in the era of pope Innocent II
> > That's Prester John. It was supposedly in various places, not India in
> > particular.
> Serious question: do you believe the accounts of the 'heaven' that was
> described in the presence of Innocent II by the various emissaries of
> the 'Prester John.'?
I don't know of any emissaries of "The Prester John". He was a
fictional character who wasn't based on any real character I know of.
> > No one heard about the Christians in India until the missionaries
> > heard about them? Wrong; Hindus heard about the Christians in India
> > long before the missionaries did.
>
> Here you have been caught out. Always, you write with logic and facts.
> When you write without either, it means Ranjit is bullshitting.
Where is the absence of logic? Hindus had treaties with Jews and
Christians in Kerala , written on copper plates, over a millenium
back, so it is quite obvious that Hindus heard about Christians in
India before Portugese missionaries noted their presence at the end of
the 15th century. Raja Ayyan of Venad (South Kerala -
Kollum/Trivandrum) gave refuge to Marwan Soper Iso and his group of
Christians in the 9th century. What were the forcible conversions to
Christianity before the Portugese missionaries arrived? There is no
record of Syrian or Persian Christians having forcibly converted
anyone.
> > > > You were probably protesting your forcible conversion to
> > > Christianity!!
> > What forcible conversion to Christianity?
> Your father (or Grandpa) were forcibly converted to Christianity.
Who told you this?
> They begot you.
So? Begetting is not conversion.
> Therefore you were forcibly converted to Christianity!
The legend goes that Syrian Christians were forcibly converted TO
Hinduism in Tamilnadu, not FROM Hinduism, and that as a result, some
of them fled across the Western Ghats to Kerala to join the Syrian
Christians who were already there. Descendants of Christians, Jains,
etc. who might have been forcibly converted to Hinduism at the time of
Sambandhar and/or Mahendra Varman are not forcibly converted to
Hinduism; they learn Hinduism from their families after they are born.
The same goes for descendants of forcible converts to Christianity or
Islam; they are not forcibly converted; they are born and are then
imbibed in Christianity or Islam.
M. Ranjit Mathews
> > dogs...@yahoo.com (BUTT-BANGED) wrote ...
> > > Ranjit Mathews wrote ...
>
> > > I want to make India a Hindu Rashtra.
> >
> > I doubt that you can get that far. How would you prevent Christians in
> > a Christian majority area or Muslims in a Muslim majority area from
> > proselytising?
>
> You, Ranjit, have missed the biggest fallout of the Gujarat riots.
> Before, all places in India were secularized and no minority would be
> allowed to be harmed as they would enjoy the protection of the police
> with arms. However, after Gujarat, it is clear that minorityism will
> be sidelined, more and more police and armed men will be gradually
> brought into Hindutva and that means that minorities will not be safe
> in their own areas. Hence, the answer to your question is, IF THEY
> PROSTELIZE, go in with police in Minority areas and then set their
> asses on fire. If they do not prostelyze, live and let live.
Minorities rule the roost in states where they are in a majority. The
police in those states belong to the minority religion too. Thus, it
is only in Hindu majority states that you can try dirty tactics such
as the above or graduate to other equally effective methods of
subversion of the right to preach that are practised by Christian and
Muslim majority states.
> >The most you can practicably realize is to reduce the
> > freedom of non-Hindus to proselytise in Hindu majority areas to about
> > the same level as the lack of freedom of non-Christians and
> > non-Muslims to proselytize in Christian and Muslim majority areas
> > respectively.
>
> Not if you boycott them economically. The Gujarat model will be
> applicable here too and the minority (especially muslim garbage) will
> be forced to come out of their ghettos to earn a living to eat. When
> they do, WHAM!! Thus, many muslims will be given a choice, convert or
> go hungry. This model is NOW working in Gujarat villages: riot hit
> vermin are being forced to behave as normal human beings and Indians
> or else they are being driven out.
Yes; this model worked well when Muslims tried it on Zorastrians and
Christians in the middle east. Discrimination is a powerful motivator.
Nevertheless, it won't be very practicable for Hindus to discriminate
against Muslims in a Muslim majority state or against Christians in a
Christian majority state, so India wouldn't be a Hindu rashtra; each
state would be a rashtra controlled by its prevalent powers whether
they be Christian, Hindu, Muslim or Psecular (do you expect Bengal to
be a Hindu rashtra in the near future?).
> > > You Chrissies can live there, no problems,
> >
> > How very kind. Should Christians then count their blessings and be
> > relieved that they won't have to face expulsion like you might if you
> > lived in certain Hindu minority areas?
>
> Ranjit, Hindus would not live in Hindu-minority areas if they can help it.
That's precisely why Hindus who are normally secular react violently
to the possibility that they might be turned into a minority and
possibly (or probably, as the case may be) lose their freedoms. It's
rather similar to the way mainstream Americans reacted violently to
the possibility of Communist dominance of this, that or the other
place.
> In any case, you are missing the point. India is 81% Hindu. If all
> Hindus in India piss at the same time, the minorities will drown in the piss.
Quite so, but no one has succeeded so far in getting all Hindus in
India to do anything at the same time.
> In India, appeasement of minorities will not continue at the
> cost of Hindus any more.
It will continue, but minorities who are appeased will pay for it by
facing greater persecution/ retaliation and discrimination than in the
past.
> So, Hindus will not forego their right to
> dictate to the minorities just to save a few Hindus living in a few
> scattered ghettos which happen to be minority dominated areas.
>
> > > Then how were you born a Christian?
> > I wasn't; I was born human.
> Then convert from Chrissy to Hinduism.
Chrissy is a presumption that you're making. Be that as it may, no one
is obliged to convert to anything.
> > > Except the mythical "Friar John's"
> > > kingdom that was supposedly in India in the era of pope Innocent II
> > That's Prester John. It was supposedly in various places, not India in
> > particular.
> Serious question: do you believe the accounts of the 'heaven' that was
> described in the presence of Innocent II by the various emissaries of
> the 'Prester John.'?
I don't know of any emissaries of "The Prester John". He was a
fictional character who wasn't based on any real character. There was
a bishop who claimed to have knowledge of Prester John (whom some
people placed in Abyssinia) but most of what he said was a pack of
lies, so why would one believe any description he gave? Beides, anyone
who gave an account of heaven was a human who had never been there, so
any accounts would be colorful and imaginative at best. It's not clear
who believes these accounts. Do Bible-believers (self-professed
Biblical literalists) believe literally that a city called New
Jerusalem is being prefabricated in heaven and that the whole city
will descend to earth as Revelations claims? (Hmm, given that
Amsterdam's architect was a carpenter, perhaps Jesus was sent to earth
to be trained as a carpenter so that he could return to heaven and
build New Jerusalem:-). Do Protestants believe Billy Grahmam's story
that heaven is 1600 miles by 1600 miles and one gets a yellow Cadillac
to drive in?
http://www.presbyterianwarren.com/heaven.html
> > No one heard about the Christians in India until the missionaries
> > heard about them? Wrong; Hindus heard about the Christians in India
> > long before the missionaries did.
>
> Here you have been caught out. Always, you write with logic and facts.
> When you write without either, it means Ranjit is bullshitting.
Where is the absence of logic? Hindus had treaties with Jews and
Christians in Kerala , written on copper plates, over a millenium
back, so it is quite obvious that Hindus heard about Christians in
India before Portugese missionaries noted their presence at the end of
the 15th century. Raja Ayyan of Venad (South Kerala -
Kollum/Trivandrum) gave refuge to Marwan Soper Iso and his group of
Christians in the 9th century. What were the forcible conversions to
Christianity before the Portugese missionaries arrived? There is no
record of Syrian or Persian Christians having forcibly converted
anyone.
> > > > You were probably protesting your forcible conversion to
> > > Christianity!!
> > What forcible conversion to Christianity?
> Your father (or Grandpa) were forcibly converted to Christianity.
Who told you this? The ghost of my greatgrandpa?
> They begot you.
So? Begetting is not conversion.
> Therefore you were forcibly converted to Christianity!
The legend goes that Syrian Christians were forcibly converted TO
Hinduism (I haven't saved references but it doesn't seem to be
adequately documented) in Tamilnadu, not FROM Hinduism, and that as a
result, some of them fled across the Western Ghats to Kerala to join
the Syrian Christians who were already there. Descendants of
Christians, Jains, etc. who might have been forcibly converted to
Hinduism at the time of Sambandhar* and/or Mahendra Varman** are not
forcibly converted to Hinduism; they learn Hinduism from their
families after they are born. The same goes for descendants of
forcible converts to Christianity or Islam; they are not forcibly
converted; they are born and then imbibe Christianity or Islam.
* http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&scoring=d&q=sambandar+jains+persecuted&btnG=Google+Search
** Pallava king Mahendra-varman I, who ruled for thirty years at the
beginning of the 7th century lost northern territory to the Chalukyas.
As a Jain he had persecuted other religions, but after he tested and
was converted by the Shaivite mystic Appar, he destroyed the Jain
monastery at Pataliputra.
M. Ranjit Mathews
...
> alla_licks_...@yahoo.com (MO+HAM+MAD BUTT-BANGED ALLA) wrote ....
>
> Ranjit, I see you are too immersed in the butt-hole of your missionary
> lover ! You assume unnatural positions!
Now, who might that be? Do you always project your practices onto
others?
> > Another question: do you believe in the various "miraculous" aspects
> > of Alexander the great's expeditions?
Sure; why not? I believe that Strategos Autokrator Alexandros III was
the offspring of Phillipos II and Olympias by a miraculous process
that caused the Temple of Artemis at Epheseus to burn down the night
he was born, and that he reached India on a magic carpet. OM
Sikander!::->
> > For example, his sejourn wiht
> > the "gods" in a cave in Egypt? Or his finding the "stram of life" but
> > not being able to partake the waters as he had left it behind?
or that the Sea of Pamphyla parted for Alexander.
MO+HAM+MAD, Pigshit Be Upon Him
> alla_licks_...@yahoo.com (MO+HAM+MAD BUTT-BANGED ALLA) wrote
> ...
> > missionary...@yahoo.com (Manhole Ranjit Mathews) wrote ...
> > > dogs...@yahoo.com (BUTT-BANGED) wrote ...
> > > > Ranjit Mathews wrote ...
>
> > > > I want to make India a Hindu Rashtra.
> > >
> > > I doubt that you can get that far. How would you prevent Christians in
> > > a Christian majority area or Muslims in a Muslim majority area from
> > > proselytising?
> >
> > You, Ranjit, have missed the biggest fallout of the Gujarat riots.
> > Before, all places in India were secularized and no minority would be
> > allowed to be harmed as they would enjoy the protection of the police
> > with arms. However, after Gujarat, it is clear that minorityism will
> > be sidelined, more and more police and armed men will be gradually
> > brought into Hindutva and that means that minorities will not be safe
> > in their own areas. Hence, the answer to your question is, IF THEY
> > PROSTELIZE, go in with police in Minority areas and then set their
> > asses on fire. If they do not prostelyze, live and let live.
>
> Minorities rule the roost in states where they are in a majority. The
> police in those states belong to the minority religion too. Thus, it
> is only in Hindu majority states that you can try dirty tactics such
> as the above or other equally effective methods of subversion of the
> right to preach that are practised by Christian and Muslim majority
> states.
and which states are minority ruled? Only the NE, J&K and that is it.
So in other states the above method of rules as set out by ,me will
work. Now, there is a little group called in the Indian Armed forces
who are the finest in the world. Bring them in and subjugate the rest,
just like in J&K.
>
> > >The most you can practicably realize is to reduce the
> > > freedom of non-Hindus to proselytise in Hindu majority areas to about
> > > the same level as the lack of freedom of non-Christians and
> > > non-Muslims to proselytize in Christian and Muslim majority areas
> > > respectively.
> >
> > Not if you boycott them economically. The Gujarat model will be
> > applicable here too and the minority (especially muslim garbage) will
> > be forced to come out of their ghettos to earn a living to eat. When
> > they do, WHAM!! Thus, many muslims will be given a choice, convert or
> > go hungry. This model is NOW working in Gujarat villages: riot hit
> > vermin are being forced to behave as normal human beings and Indians
> > or else they are being driven out.
>
> Yes; this model worked well when Muslims tried it on Zorastrians and
> Christians in the middle east. Discrimination is a powerful motivator.
> Nevertheless, it won't be practicable for Hindus to discriminate
> against Muslims in a Muslim majority state or against Christians in a
> Christian majority state.
Look , I keep telling you. You are talking about the NE ONLY (that too
except assam) and J&K. Then we send in the Army to beat them in shape.
If they resist too much, a mushroom cloud will bloom in the sky. If
you say that the pakis will respond, maybe they will. But India will
survive because of its size, Pakistan will not.
>
> > > > You Chrissies can live there, no problems,
> > >
> > > How very kind. Should Christians then count their blessings and be
> > > relieved that they won't have to face expulsion like you might if you
> > > lived in certain Hindu minority areas?
> >
> > Ranjit, Hindus would not live in Hindu-minority areas if they can help it.
>
> That's precisely why Hindus who are normally secular react violently
> to the possibility that they might be turned into a minority and lose
> their freedoms.
that is PRECISELY the perception that is now changed with the
successful Gujarat processing.
>
> > In any case, you are missing the point. India is 81% Hindu. If all
> > Hindus in India piss at the same time, the minorities will drown in the piss.
>
> Quite so, but no one has succeeded so far in getting all Hindus in
> India to do anything at the same time.
So far you are correct, and that is exactly what is changing now.
>
> > In India, appeasement of minorities will not continue at the
> > cost of Hindus any more.
>
> It will continue, but minorities who are appeased will pay for it by
> facing greater retaliation and discrimination than in the past.
It will continue for a small period of time. nce the idea of
non-minorityism has been sown, it will take root and effect.
>
> > So, Hindus will not forego their right to
> > dictate to the minorities just to save a few Hindus living in a few
> > scattered ghettos which happen to be minority dominated areas.
> >
> > > > Then how were you born a Christian?
> > > I wasn't; I was born human.
> > Then convert from Chrissy to Hinduism.
>
> Chrissy is a presumption that you're making. Be that as it may, no one
> is obligated to convert to anything.
>
> > > > Except the mythical "Friar John's"
> > > > kingdom that was supposedly in India in the era of pope Innocent II
> > > That's Prester John. It was supposedly in various places, not India in
> > > particular.
> > Serious question: do you believe the accounts of the 'heaven' that was
> > described in the presence of Innocent II by the various emissaries of
> > the 'Prester John.'?
>
> I don't know of any emissaries of "The Prester John". He was a
> fictional character who wasn't based on any real character I know of.
There were several 'emissaries' now suspected to be forgaries from
Prester John to the pope Innocent II. It promised exact location of
heaven, its riches even the layout of the heaven.
>
> > > No one heard about the Christians in India until the missionaries
> > > heard about them? Wrong; Hindus heard about the Christians in India
> > > long before the missionaries did.
> > >
> > > > > You were probably protesting your forcible conversion to
> > > > Christianity!!
> > > What forcible conversion to Christianity?
> > Your father (or Grandpa) were forcibly converted to Christianity.
>
> Who told you this?
>
> > They begot you.
>
> So? Begetting is not conversion.
It is conversion by birth.
>
> > Therefore you were forcibly converted to Christianity!
>
> The legend goes that Syrian Christians were forcibly converted TO
> Hinduism in Tamilnadu, not FROM Hinduism, and that as a result, some
> of them fled across the Western Ghats to Kerala to join the Syrian
> Christians who were already there. Descendants of Christians, Jains,
> etc. who might have been forcibly converted to Hinduism at the time of
> Sambandhar and/or Mahendra Varman are not forcibly converted to
> Hinduism; they learn Hinduism from their families after they are born.
> The same goes for descendants of forcible converts to Christianity or
> Islam; they are not forcibly converted; they are born and are then
> imbibed in Christianity or Islam.
Did not know that!
M. Ranjit Mathews
> > alla_licks_...@yahoo.com (MO+HAM+MAD BUTT-BANGED ALLA) wrote
> > > Serious question: do you believe the accounts of the 'heaven' that was
> > > described in the presence of Innocent II by the various emissaries of
> > > the 'Prester John.'?
> >
> > I don't know of any emissaries of "The Prester John". He was a
> > fictional character who wasn't based on any real character I know of.
>
> There were several 'emissaries' now suspected to be forgaries from
> Prester John to the pope Innocent II. It promised exact location of
> heaven, its riches even the layout of the heaven.
As far as I can remember, the character who told tales to Innocent II
wasn't an emissary but claimed to have knowledge of Prester John and
his kingdom and told some tall tale about Prester John having visited
heaven after which he became a great king.
Be that as it may, the Portugese tried to convert Ethiopian Christians
to Roman Catholicism too (after they tried it on Syrian Christians in
India) but the king they managed to convert was deposed by a furious
populace and the king's son kicked out the Portugese, which is how the
Oriental Orthodox church of Ethiopia still survives - although they
might be reduced to a minority one of these days by the expanding
Muslim population.
http://www.pbs.org/wonders/Episodes/Epi4/holy_2.htm
This was the "forgery"; it's not addressed to Innocent II.
http://www.graveworm.com/occult/texts/pjohn.html
> > > > No one heard about the Christians in India until the missionaries
> > > > heard about them? Wrong; Hindus heard about the Christians in India
> > > > long before the missionaries did.
> > > > > > You were probably protesting your forcible conversion to
> > > > > Christianity!!
> > > > What forcible conversion to Christianity?
> > > Your father (or Grandpa) were forcibly converted to Christianity.
> > Who told you this?
> > > They begot you.
> > So? Begetting is not conversion.
> It is conversion by birth.
No one is converted by birth; one is not in a position to make any
decisions at birth. Is Namakarana(m) Samskara(m) conversion by birth?
In the case of Christianity, formal acceptance of Christianity happens
only at the time of confirmation. As for whether this is conversion by
birth, is Upanayana(m) conversion by birth?
M. Ranjit Mathews
Ah! Can we look forward to secularism someday? If and when Muslims and
Christians decide they want secular polity rather than pseudosecular
polity, would Hindutvadis too want secular polity or would they still
hanker after Hindu rashtra?
MO+HAM+MAD, Pigshit Be Upon Him
No! Non! Naah! Nyet! Uh-uh! Nope! Negative! Never! Numa (this is, in
case you do not know it, an ancient language that was spoken in the
middle East about 8000 years ago).
>If and when Muslims and
> Christians decide they want secular polity rather than pseudosecular
> polity, would Hindutvadis too want secular polity or would they still
> hanker after Hindu rashtra?
Who the heck do you think are the muslims and Chrissies. They are only
17% of the population. They are to be forcibly converted, kicked outta
India or simply ghettoised so that their opinion and needs DO NOT
MATTER. They have been pampered long enough, now the best country in
the world has to turn to its Hindu heritage and Hindu culture. For the
love of Christ (your Chrissy-dom's head Honcho), understand that
Christians have been given more rights in India than the Hindus.
Chrissies can preach and convert but until recently Hindus were even
reluctant to talk about it: they pretended that this problem did not
exist and that 'fathers and reverends' were actually doing social
work. Now thanks to the Sangh, they are taking some action.
BTW did you hear about the VHP re-converting 600 Christians in Orissa?
happy day! That made my week!!
M. Ranjit Mathews
...
> ranjit_...@yahoo.com (M. Ranjit Mathews) wrote ...
> > my_dog_b...@yahoo.com (MO+HAM+MAD, Pigshit Be Upon Him) wrote
> > ...
> > > and which states are minority ruled? Only the NE, J&K and that is it.
> > > So in other states the above method of rules as set out by ,me will
> > > work. Now, there is a little group called in the Indian Armed forces
> > > who are the finest in the world. Bring them in and subjugate the rest,
> > > just like in J&K.
> >
> > Ah! Can we look forward to secularism someday?
>
> No! Non! Naah! Nyet! Uh-uh! Nope! Negative! Never! Numa (this is, in
> case you do not know it, an ancient language that was spoken in the
> middle East about 8000 years ago).
>
> >If and when Muslims and
> > Christians decide they want secular polity rather than pseudosecular
> > polity, would Hindutvadis too want secular polity or would they still
> > hanker after Hindu rashtra?
>
> Who the heck do you think are the muslims and Chrissies. They are only
> 17% of the population.
Hindutvadis are an even smaller fraction of the population. The
majority of Hindus range from secular to psecular.
> They are to be forcibly converted, kicked outta
> India or simply ghettoised so that their opinion and needs DO NOT MATTER.
Tit for tat with interest, eh? Can't you apply your imagination and
dream up something less Talibanesque? If not, have you thought about
inviting Mullah Omar and his coterie as advisers?
> They have been pampered long enough, now the best country in
> the world has to turn to its Hindu heritage and Hindu culture. For the
> love of Christ (your Chrissy-dom's head Honcho), understand that
> Christians have been given more rights in India than the Hindus.
Hence the need for all people to have the same freedoms at any given
point in time. (Correction: Christians have had some freedoms that
Hindus haven't)
> Chrissies can preach and convert but until recently Hindus were even
> reluctant to talk about it: they pretended that this problem did not
> exist and that 'fathers and reverends' were actually doing social work.
This was a problem and still is. That is, the state of affairs that
all people didn't have the same freedom to do this.
> Now thanks to the Sangh, they are taking some action.
> BTW did you hear about the VHP re-converting 600 Christians in Orissa?
> happy day! That made my week!!
Without violence too! I'm waiting for Christians* to uphold their
reciprocal (not unilateral) right to do this. When is the Sangh going
to be able to convert Mizos and Kashmiris?
* Christians who uphold the right of Christians to nonviolently
convert Hindus, that is.
MO+HAM+MAD, Pigshit Be Upon Him
> my_dog_b...@yahoo.com (MO+HAM+MAD, Pigshit Be Upon Him) wrote
> ...
> > ranjit_...@yahoo.com (M. Ranjit Mathews) wrote ...
> > > my_dog_b...@yahoo.com (MO+HAM+MAD, Pigshit Be Upon Him) wrote
> > > ...
>
> > > > and which states are minority ruled? Only the NE, J&K and that is it.
> > > > So in other states the above method of rules as set out by ,me will
> > > > work. Now, there is a little group called in the Indian Armed forces
> > > > who are the finest in the world. Bring them in and subjugate the rest,
> > > > just like in J&K.
> > >
> > > Ah! Can we look forward to secularism someday?
> >
> > No! Non! Naah! Nyet! Uh-uh! Nope! Negative! Never! Numa (this is, in
> > case you do not know it, an ancient language that was spoken in the
> > middle East about 8000 years ago).
> >
> > >If and when Muslims and
> > > Christians decide they want secular polity rather than pseudosecular
> > > polity, would Hindutvadis too want secular polity or would they still
> > > hanker after Hindu rashtra?
> >
> > Who the heck do you think are the muslims and Chrissies. They are only
> > 17% of the population.
>
> Hindutvadis are an even smaller fraction of the population. The
> majority of Hindus range from secular to psecular.
Bullshit. Hindutvadis are at least 50% of the Hindu population now and
are growing day by day. VHP is not a great organization, but the
greatest contribution they have is raising the Hindu awareness.
>
> > They are to be forcibly converted, kicked outta
> > India or simply ghettoised so that their opinion and needs DO NOT MATTER.
>
> Tit for tat with interest, eh? Can't you apply your imagination and
> dream up something less Talibanesque? If not, have you thought about
> inviting Mullah Omar and his coterie as advisers?
We may call ourselves the Hindu taleban, or Haleban!!
>
> > They have been pampered long enough, now the best country in
> > the world has to turn to its Hindu heritage and Hindu culture. For the
> > love of Christ (your Chrissy-dom's head Honcho), understand that
> > Christians have been given more rights in India than the Hindus.
>
> Hence the need for all people to have the same freedoms at any given
> point in time. (Correction: Christians have had some freedoms that
> Hindus haven't)
What are you talking about?
>
> > Chrissies can preach and convert but until recently Hindus were even
> > reluctant to talk about it: they pretended that this problem did not
> > exist and that 'fathers and reverends' were actually doing social work.
>
> This was a problem and still is. That is, the state of affairs that
> all people didn't have the same freedom to do this.
>
> > Now thanks to the Sangh, they are taking some action.
> > BTW did you hear about the VHP re-converting 600 Christians in Orissa?
> > happy day! That made my week!!
>
> Without violence too!
Yupsie daisy! Man, more to come!!
>I'm waiting for Christians* to uphold their
> reciprocal (not unilateral) right to do this.
Ever hear of the name Graham Staines? He tried that too and now he is
dancing the Hoola-hoop or Polka in hell with Jesus. More Graham
Staines will happen and the Chrissies will be marginalized. The Pope's
neferious conspiracy to 'plant the cross in Asia' will not happen.
>When is the Sangh going
> to be able to convert Mizos and Kashmiris?
> * Christians who uphold the right of Christians to nonviolently
> convert Hindus, that is.
Chrissy-dom has made your brains woozy. There is NO SUCH THING as a
non-violent/non-money-induced conversion. Why the blue fuck would
anyone convert to Chrissy-dom? I went to a missionary school, said the
Lord's prayer everyday (as I was required to) and now I am involved in
the re-conversion projects in India. No one will change their religion
if there is no bribe/violence.
M. Ranjit Mathews
> ranjit_...@yahoo.com (M. Ranjit Mathews) wrote ...
> > my_dog_b...@yahoo.com (MO+HAM+MAD, Pigshit Be Upon Him) wrote
> > ...
> > > Who the heck do you think are the muslims and Chrissies. They are only
> > > 17% of the population.
> > Hindutvadis are an even smaller fraction of the population. The
> > majority of Hindus range from secular to psecular.
>
> Bullshit. Hindutvadis are at least 50% of the Hindu population now and
> are growing day by day.
Nope. That would be people opposed to pseudo-secularism, not people in
favor of Hindu theocracy. If they're in a certain camp right now, it
is because there is no secular camp for them to be in - the choices
are pseudo-secularism and Hindutva and for many people, the former is
more execrable.
> > > They have been pampered long enough, now the best country in
> > > the world has to turn to its Hindu heritage and Hindu culture. For the
> > > love of Christ (your Chrissy-dom's head Honcho), understand that
> > > Christians have been given more rights in India than the Hindus.
> > Hence the need for all people to have the same freedoms at any given
> > point in time. (Correction: Christians have had some freedoms that
> > Hindus haven't)
>
> What are you talking about?
1) Hence the need for Christians, Hindus and everyone else to have the
same rights and freedoms.
2) Christians have been given more rights is not precisely correct; it
is more correct to say tnat Christians have had some freedoms that
Hindus haven't.
> > > Chrissies can preach and convert but until recently Hindus were even
> > > reluctant to talk about it: they pretended that this problem did not
> > > exist and that 'fathers and reverends' were actually doing social work.
> > This was a problem and still is. That is, the state of affairs that
> > all people didn't have the same freedom to do this.
> > > Now thanks to the Sangh, they are taking some action.
> > > BTW did you hear about the VHP re-converting 600 Christians in Orissa?
> > > happy day! That made my week!!
> > Without violence too!
> Yupsie daisy! Man, more to come!!
> >I'm waiting for Christians* to uphold their
> > reciprocal (not unilateral) right to do this.
>
> Ever hear of the name Graham Staines?
Yes. I don't believe he was in the VHP. I meant that I'm waiting for
Christians to uphold the VHP's reciprocal right to do this.
> He tried that too and now he is
> dancing the Hoola-hoop or Polka in hell with Jesus. More Graham
> Staines will happen and the Chrissies will be marginalized. The Pope's
> neferious conspiracy to 'plant the cross in Asia' will not happen.
Why would missionaries have to be sent to hell for it to not happen?
Another way for it to not happen is for the VHP (or others) to
nonviolently unplant it as fast as missionaries plant it.
> >When is the Sangh going
> > to be able to convert Mizos and Kashmiris?
> > * Christians who uphold the right of Christians to nonviolently
> > convert Hindus, that is.
>
> Chrissy-dom has made your brains woozy. There is NO SUCH THING as a
> non-violent/non-money-induced conversion.
There is such a thing. What were the violent ways in which Christians
converted people 1800 years back? Were Christians were rolling in
money 1800 years back that they could use money to convert people?
What were David Livingstone's violent acts and how much money did he
have with him that he could spend it on conversion?
> Why the blue fuck would anyone convert to Chrissy-dom?
Men have been known to go for all sorts of things that your cat, dog
and monkey wouldn't. Why do people become Freemasons?
> I went to a missionary school, said the
> Lord's prayer everyday (as I was required to) and now I am involved in
> the re-conversion projects in India. No one will change their religion
> if there is no bribe/violence.
How do you know this? Was Buddhism spread way back when by bribes and
violence? Was Vedantism spread 1-2 milienia back by bribes and
violence? Was Sikhism spread by bribes and violence? How about the
people 1800+ years back who gave their wealth to the poor when they
converted to Christianity? Were they induced by bribes and if so, what
use would someone who gives away his wealth have for a bribe? If
Christianity was pacifist at the time, they couldn't have been induced
by violence either, could they?
Shishir Yerramilli
Why do you wait for Christians to uphold their right?Do you fear
that Christians may lose this right?
MO+HAM+MAD, Pigshit Be Upon Him
> > are growing day by day.
>
> Nope. That would be people opposed to pseudo-secularism, not people in
> favor of Hindu theocracy. If they're in a certain camp right now, it
> is because there is no secular camp for them to be in - the choices
> are pseudo-secularism and Hindutva and for many people, the former is
> more execrable.
You have lost touch with reality, being in the one-horse town that you
live in. Look, you are sitting in Texas far apart from Indian reality
and your ideas are warped. Wht you said was true sometime ago where a
Hindu by default was a p-sec. But now, thankfully, things are
changing. Constant attacks in Kashmir on innocent Hindu civilians,
B'desh massacre of Hindus and in general the barbaric nature of
muslims are being recognized by 50% of the Hindus in India now. Or
else, have you noted one thing: even after the merciless massacre of
muslims in Gujarat how quiet the congress is about demanding the
dismissal of Modi and they dropped this demand as soon as possible on
the pretext of kalam? They know which way the wind is blowing.
> > >
> > What are you talking about?
>
> 1) Hence the need for Christians, Hindus and everyone else to have the
> same rights and freedoms.
They already do.
> 2) Christians have been given more rights is not precisely correct; it
> is more correct to say tnat Christians have had some freedoms that
> Hindus haven't.
That is what is being redressed, thanks to some people like Dara
Singh. Can you imagine that in Gujarat and Orissa, the people before
taking aid ask if the aid agencies are Christian: that is stupendous.
> >
> > Ever hear of the name Graham Staines?
>
> Yes. I don't believe he was in the VHP. I meant that I'm waiting for
> Christians to uphold the VHP's reciprocal right to do this.
What the fuck are you in that town in TX? A professor of Maths in the
UofT? What the hell are you rattling on about 'reciprocity'?
>
> > He tried that too and now he is
> > dancing the Hoola-hoop or Polka in hell with Jesus. More Graham
> > Staines will happen and the Chrissies will be marginalized. The Pope's
> > neferious conspiracy to 'plant the cross in Asia' will not happen.
>
> Why would missionaries have to be sent to hell for it to not happen?
> Another way for it to not happen is for the VHP (or others) to
> nonviolently unplant it as fast as missionaries plant it.
I 100% agree with you. Much as I hate the Chrissie shit spreading
their lick-the-pope religion, I prefer simply kicking out the
missionary shit from India. Why allow tham to come, then burn them?
> >
> > Chrissy-dom has made your brains woozy. There is NO SUCH THING as a
> > non-violent/non-money-induced conversion.
>
> There is such a thing. What were the violent ways in which Christians
> converted people 1800 years back?
They BURNT people to death. What the fuck man Ranjit: one moment you
make intelligent conversation, the next you sound like a country-fried
idiot.What the ratfuck do you think the Spanish Inquisitions, the
mediaval witch-hints etc. were about. In France there is a castle (I
forget the name) where they BURNT alive the inhabitants for not
converting to Christianity.
>
> > Why the blue fuck would anyone convert to Chrissy-dom?
>
> Men have been known to go for all sorts of things that your cat, dog
> and monkey wouldn't. Why do people become Freemasons?
Maybe they were idiots.
>
> > I went to a missionary school, said the
> > Lord's prayer everyday (as I was required to) and now I am involved in
> > the re-conversion projects in India. No one will change their religion
> > if there is no bribe/violence.
>
> How do you know this? Was Buddhism spread way back when by bribes and
> violence?
Yes, read your history books again. Ashoka the non-violent asshole
made the state mechanism into a Buddhism propagating one. You idiot,
he even sent his son and daughter to Sri Lanka to preach Buddhism.
> Was Vedantism spread 1-2 milienia back by bribes and
> violence?
No, I wish it were. Hindus would not be in this position now.
>Was Sikhism spread by bribes and violence?
No, which is why Sikhs are such a miniscule minority.
>How about the
> people 1800+ years back who gave their wealth to the poor when they
> converted to Christianity?
That is a piece of your imagination.
Question: In the ancient History of the middle east, in Shumer, there
is a superb account of a hero doing brave things and did great
achievements. In order to follow his footsteps in a Hypothetical
mission, I have to make adjustments for changes in geography being the
changes that have occured in 6000 years time. What are your thoughts
on that: are there any good computer programs available to track the
changes through the millenia or one has to approach a geologist and
play it by ears?
Also, some names of places are obviously not the same. References are
not the same. Words that have special meanings in the ancient texts
have their meaning lost. Any thoughts that you have to overcome these
(serious thoughts only please).
M. Ranjit Mathews
> > > are growing day by day.
> >
> > Nope. That would be people opposed to pseudo-secularism, not people in
> > favor of Hindu theocracy. If they're in a certain camp right now, it
> > is because there is no secular camp for them to be in - the choices
> > are pseudo-secularism and Hindutva and for many people, the former is
> > more execrable.
>
> You have lost touch with reality, being in the one-horse town that you
> live in. Look, you are sitting in Texas far apart from Indian reality
> and your ideas are warped. Wht you said was true sometime ago where a
> Hindu by default was a p-sec. But now, thankfully, things are
> changing. Constant attacks in Kashmir on innocent Hindu civilians,
> B'desh massacre of Hindus and in general the barbaric nature of
> muslims are being recognized by 50% of the Hindus in India now.
Over 50% might be of this turn of mind. The point, however, is that
most of them them are not Hindutvadis by choice; they are Hindutvadis
by default since there is nowhere else for them to turn; if there were
a tough and fair secular (not pseudosecular) government, many of them
would switch from Hindutva. If 50% were Hindutvadis, there would not
be over 100,000 Christian missionaries spread out all over India;
they'd be huddling in their backyards, teeth chattering and quivering
in their boots.
> > 1) Hence the need for Christians, Hindus and everyone else to have the
> > same rights and freedoms.
>
> They already do.
They don't. Does the machinery of a Congress governed state give the
Seva Bharati a level of protection that gives them the same freedom to
operate in Meghalaya or Mizoram as the level of protection that
Christian missionaries enjoy from (say) the Government of Bengal? Do
people of all religions have the same freedom of conscience? For
example, does the government of Kerala extend the same protection to
apostates from Islam as they extend to apostates from Hinduism? Can
all religions in Kerala be targeted with equal freedom. For example,
does one have the same freedom to target Muslims in Malappuram as
Christians have to target Hindus in Trivandrum? Do apostates from
Islam in Malappuram have the same freedom to persuade other Muslims to
apostasize as apostates from Hinduism in Trivandrum have to persuade
other Hindus to apostasize? Do non-Hindus enjoy the same freedoms as
Hindus in Gujarat?
> > 2) Christians have been given more rights is not precisely correct; it
> > is more correct to say tnat Christians have had some freedoms that
> > Hindus haven't.
>
> That is what is being redressed, thanks to some people like Dara Singh.
That is not the way to equalise freedoms.
> Can you imagine that in Gujarat and Orissa, the people before
> taking aid ask if the aid agencies are Christian: that is stupendous.
Ah!
> > > Ever hear of the name Graham Staines?
> >
> > Yes. I don't believe he was in the VHP. I meant that I'm waiting for
> > Christians to uphold the VHP's reciprocal right to do this.
> What the fuck are you in that town in TX? A professor of Maths in the
> UofT? What the hell are you rattling on about 'reciprocity'?
Given that Christians have presumed for a long time that the state
must protect those who bash other religions and convert people of
other religions, it is only fair that they be expected to clearly and
unequivocally make statements that uphold secular polity; i.e., that
uphold the notion that the State must give equal protection to those
who bash Christianity and to those who would target Christians with
the same tactics that Christians have held to be legal. Faced with the
requirement that they get a taste of their own medicine, they might
well lose some (but by no means all) of their missionary zeal without
any Staineses having to be burned. When its all rights, rights, rights
and no responsibilities, (i.e., if the State indulges them like spoilt
brats) they think they own the world and a consequence of such
partisan polity in favor of Christians is disgruntlement that leads to
increased support from the masses for the Dara Singhs of this world,
facilitating incidents like the Staines affair as well as an increased
disposition toward discrimination against Christians at large,
including those who have no connection with Christians who demand
partisan polity over secular polity. As for the Seva Bharati or the
VHP as the case may be, having the opportunity to attempt to convert
Christians in a Christian majority area would do them a world of good
since they wouldn't be able to try any rough-stuff; with a Christian
run state government watching them like a hawk, on the lookout for
anything illegal. They would be forced to hone their techniques after
falling flat on their faces the first time they try to preach to
Christians; this would force them to improve their techniques and
perhaps force them to cultivate some suave debaters and orators.
> > > He tried that too and now he is
> > > dancing the Hoola-hoop or Polka in hell with Jesus. More Graham
> > > Staines will happen and the Chrissies will be marginalized. The Pope's
> > > neferious conspiracy to 'plant the cross in Asia' will not happen.
> >
> > Why would missionaries have to be sent to hell for it to not happen?
> > Another way for it to not happen is for the VHP (or others) to
> > nonviolently unplant it as fast as missionaries plant it.
>
> I 100% agree with you. Much as I hate the Chrissie shit spreading
> their lick-the-pope religion, I prefer simply kicking out the
> missionary shit from India. Why allow tham to come, then burn them?
Most missionries are Indian, not foreigners like Staines. There's no
way to not "allow them to come" since they are already in India.
> > > Chrissy-dom has made your brains woozy. There is NO SUCH THING as a
> > > non-violent/non-money-induced conversion.
> > There is such a thing. What were the violent ways in which Christians
> > converted people 1800 years back?
> They BURNT people to death.
Did Christians burn people to death in 200 AD? Where do you get these
theories from?
> What the fuck man Ranjit: one moment you
> make intelligent conversation, the next you sound like a country-fried
> idiot.What the ratfuck do you think the Spanish Inquisitions, the
> mediaval witch-hints etc. were about.
They were about the violent triumph of Christutva (otherwise called
the Holy Catholic Church, founded in the 4th century). In this
instance, it was the subset of Catholic Christianity called the Roman
Catholic church.
> In France there is a castle (I forget the name)
Carcassone?
> where they BURNT alive the inhabitants for not converting to Christianity.
Wrong. For not converting to Roman Catholicism. No one has been burnt
alive for not converting to Ebionite, Donatist or Quaker Christianity.
> > > Why the blue fuck would anyone convert to Chrissy-dom?
> > Men have been known to go for all sorts of things that your cat, dog
> > and monkey wouldn't. Why do people become Freemasons?
> Maybe they were idiots.
Not any more than people who convert to most other religions are
idiots. Packaged well and in the hands of a skilled salesman, any
religion can look like the cat's whiskers; what a newcomer gets to see
of Christianity before he converts might not be substantatively
different (i.e., any better or worse) from what a newcomer to some
other religion sees of that religion before he converts.
> > > I went to a missionary school, said the
> > > Lord's prayer everyday (as I was required to) and now I am involved in
> > > the re-conversion projects in India. No one will change their religion
> > > if there is no bribe/violence.
> >
> > How do you know this? Was Buddhism spread way back when by bribes and
> > violence?
>
> Yes, read your history books again. Ashoka the non-violent asshole
> made the state mechanism into a Buddhism propagating one. You idiot,
> he even sent his son and daughter to Sri Lanka to preach Buddhism.
Sure, but were they able to get converts to Buddhism only by offering
bribes? Did Ashoka have a budget for bribes?
> > Was Vedantism spread 1-2 milienia back by bribes and violence?
> No, I wish it were. Hindus would not be in this position now.
> >Was Sikhism spread by bribes and violence?
> No,
Then, it would seem that it is possible to get converts without bribes
or violence.
> > How about the people 1800+ years back who gave their wealth
> > to the poor when they converted to Christianity?
> That is a piece of your imagination.
Nope.
> Question: In the ancient History of the middle east, in Shumer, there
> is a superb account of a hero doing brave things and did great
> achievements.
Enki?
> In order to follow his footsteps in a Hypothetical
> mission, I have to make adjustments for changes in geography being the
> changes that have occured in 6000 years time. What are your thoughts
> on that: are there any good computer programs available to track the
> changes through the millenia or one has to approach a geologist and
> play it by ears?
Try an Atlas of Archaeology.
> Also, some names of places are obviously not the same.
Well, Uruk is now Warka. Nineveh is now Mosul. Ebla is now Aleppo.
Susa is now Sushan. Ecbatana is now Hamadan. I'm not sure where these
can be looked up though.
> References are
> not the same. Words that have special meanings in the ancient texts
> have their meaning lost. Any thoughts that you have to overcome these
> (serious thoughts only please).
There's not much an amateur can do to decipher unknown words.
MO+HAM+MAD, Pigshit Be Upon Him
> > live in. Look, you are sitting in Texas far apart from Indian reality
> > and your ideas are warped. Wht you said was true sometime ago where a
> > Hindu by default was a p-sec. But now, thankfully, things are
> > changing. Constant attacks in Kashmir on innocent Hindu civilians,
> > B'desh massacre of Hindus and in general the barbaric nature of
> > muslims are being recognized by 50% of the Hindus in India now.
>
> Over 50% might be of this turn of mind. The point, however, is that
> most of them them are not Hindutvadis by choice; they are Hindutvadis
> by default since there is nowhere else for them to turn; if there were
> a tough and fair secular (not pseudosecular) government, many of them
> would switch from Hindutva. If 50% were Hindutvadis, there would not
> be over 100,000 Christian missionaries spread out all over India;
> they'd be huddling in their backyards, teeth chattering and quivering
> in their boots.
I said itis being recognized by 50% Hindus: does not mean all of them
are Hindutvaadis yet. Of course, they will get there. But the number
of Hindutvaadis is increasing and my estimate is 25% of the Hindus
now.
> >
> They don't. Does the machinery of a Congress governed state give the
> Seva Bharati a level of protection that gives them the same freedom to
> operate in Meghalaya or Mizoram as the level of protection that
> Christian missionaries enjoy from (say) the Government of Bengal?
By definition, the Chrissy missionaries have chosen to go to remote
places and work there. That is their nature of work. I remember those
shit trying to spread the Gospel in cities and they got their asses
kicked. They realized no educated person is going to fall for the
mumbo-jumbo anbd thus they migrated to villages. Therefore, how can a
Seva Bharati like organization having equal clout in cities and
villages be expected to enjoy the same level fo protection as some
Chrissy missionaries working in remote villages?
>
> > > 2) Christians have been given more rights is not precisely correct; it
> > > is more correct to say tnat Christians have had some freedoms that
> > > Hindus haven't.
> >
> > That is what is being redressed, thanks to some people like Dara Singh.
>
> That is not the way to equalise freedoms.
But it made things in perspective: preach more and the missionary ass
is on fire.
Therefore you are trying to rationalize the modus-operadi of the
violent fringe elements of the VHP when taken in dackdrop of the
admittedly lethergic record of the State machinery to intervene on
behalf of the Hindus viv-a-vis their obviously partisan and
disharmoniously laissez-faire attitude in respect of the missionary
elements. Agreed that such deplorable trends from the State machinery
does perturb the otherwise tranqul mindset of the average Hindu, but
your explanation of the unfairness of the state machinery as being the
principal, if not the sole contributing factor towards the
unprecedented violent outbursts towards the Chritian missionary reeks
of oversimplification and glossing over partinent facts including that
the primary rise of the BJP and Hindutvaa forces occured in response
to the muslim threat and the specific issue of reclamation of Ayodhya,
not Christian missionaries preading their standing inventory of lies
about a false god.
> >
> Most missionries are Indian, not foreigners like Staines. There's no
> way to not "allow them to come" since they are already in India.
Indian missioaries do not preach that much. It is the foreign ones
that try to break new ground: Indian missionalries follwo.
> >
> Did Christians burn people to death in 200 AD? Where do you get these
> theories from?
History.
> >
> > In France there is a castle (I forget the name)
>
> Carcassone?
Maybe
>
> > where they BURNT alive the inhabitants for not converting to Christianity.
>
> Wrong. For not converting to Roman Catholicism. No one has been burnt
> alive for not converting to Ebionite, Donatist or Quaker Christianity.
Same thing!! Christians were burning alive people for not converting.
Now whether from Ooga-booga Christianity to Pope-mother-mary
Christianity is semantics!
> > >
> > Yes, read your history books again. Ashoka the non-violent asshole
> > made the state mechanism into a Buddhism propagating one. You idiot,
> > he even sent his son and daughter to Sri Lanka to preach Buddhism.
>
> Sure, but were they able to get converts to Buddhism only by offering
> bribes? Did Ashoka have a budget for bribes?
YES!! I am now quoting from Kundra and Kundra (you made me get up and
get the book from the shelf)Part 1 page 126 "Ashoka made Buddhism as
the state religion and all the state machinery for its spread". So
HELL YES, if you have a budget for the state machinery, you have a
budget for conversion (and spreading of Buddhism) and so you have a
budget for direct and indirect bribes to convert.
>
> > Question: In the ancient History of the middle east, in Shumer, there
> > is a superb account of a hero doing brave things and did great
> > achievements.
>
> Enki?
Enki was a Elohim. I am talking about a human being.
>
> > In order to follow his footsteps in a Hypothetical
> > mission, I have to make adjustments for changes in geography being the
> > changes that have occured in 6000 years time. What are your thoughts
> > on that: are there any good computer programs available to track the
> > changes through the millenia or one has to approach a geologist and
> > play it by ears?
>
> Try an Atlas of Archaeology.
I know, but the countours of landmasses have changed and they have not
been recorded efficiently. In fact, whole areas have not been defined
in the right way. Coastlines are different. Mountains are shown in a
different way and are not even termed mountains.
>
> > Also, some names of places are obviously not the same.
>
> Well, Uruk is now Warka. Nineveh is now Mosul. Ebla is now Aleppo.
> Susa is now Sushan. Ecbatana is now Hamadan. I'm not sure where these
> can be looked up though.
Yes. Now here is one thing I would like your thoughts on.
My supposition is this: Instead of searching for a artificial thing
(that was made or manufactured, never mind by who :-) that was in one
geographical place that I can pinpoint, it is better to look for
natural things occuring in one big area, even if I cannot pinpoint
that place. That is because, the artificial thing will have no trace
after 7000 years of history, it will be gone/destroyed/broken but the
natural thing, even if I have to look for it harder (and God knows
whether I will ever find it) has a chance of being there because it
occurs naturally.
Is my supposition accurate? Serious thoughts only please.
M. Ranjit Mathews
Nope. My observation is not that it is a factor contirbuting to
violent outbursts; my observation, rather, is that it is a factor
that contributes to increased popular support of (or rationalization
of) violent outbursts. Such increases in popular support doesn't
necessarily change a certain fringe's proclivities; what it does is to
make it more feasible for the fringe to act on its proclivities.
> reeks
> of oversimplification and glossing over partinent facts including that
> the primary rise of the BJP and Hindutvaa forces occured in response
> to the muslim threat and the specific issue of reclamation of Ayodhya,
> not Christian missionaries preading their standing inventory of lies
> about a false god.
Popular support for the Ayodhya issue was not about Ayodhya; it
stemmed from the side-effects of several decades of psecularism. It
would not have drawn the same degree of popular support if India had
been secular rather than psecular.
> > Most missionries are Indian, not foreigners like Staines. There's no
> > way to not "allow them to come" since they are already in India.
> Indian missioaries do not preach that much. It is the foreign ones
> that try to break new ground: Indian missionalries follwo.
Indian missionaries do nearly all the preaching done by Christians in
India.
> > Did Christians burn people to death in 200 AD? Where do you get these
> > theories from?
> History.
How interesting. Can you cite an incident from about 200 AD when
Christians burned people to death?
> > > In France there is a castle (I forget the name)
> > Carcassone?
>
> Maybe
>
> > > where they BURNT alive the inhabitants for not converting to Christianity.
> > Wrong. For not converting to Roman Catholicism. No one has been burnt
> > alive for not converting to Ebionite, Donatist, Nestorian or Quaker Christianity.
> Same thing!!
No, it is not the same thing.
> Christians were burning alive people for not converting.
More precisely, Catholics were. Were Nestorians (for one) burning
people alive for not converting?
> Now whether from Ooga-booga Christianity to Pope-mother-mary
> Christianity is semantics!
It is not semantics. The Holy Catholic Church was established on the
basis of a union of church and state, and going about preserving and
aggrandizing a standard Christianity in certain ways. That the Holy
Catholic church and many of its descendants (the Roman Catholic church
and Protestant churches) continued to follow such a Christianity
doesn't establish that Ebionites (to take an extreme) did. Ebionites
didn't even accept the New Testament. That doesn't make them
nonChristian since the word Christian came into use at a time when
there was no New Testament and Ebionites fit the general description
of Christian, as the term was used by the nonChristians who first
coined the word Christian.
> My supposition is this: Instead of searching for a artificial thing
> (that was made or manufactured, never mind by who :-) that was in one
> geographical place that I can pinpoint, it is better to look for
> natural things occuring in one big area, even if I cannot pinpoint
> that place. That is because, the artificial thing will have no trace
> after 7000 years of history, it will be gone/destroyed/broken but the
> natural thing, even if I have to look for it harder (and God knows
> whether I will ever find it) has a chance of being there because it
> occurs naturally.
>
> Is my supposition accurate? Serious thoughts only please.
It seems reasonable.
MO+HAM+MAD, Pigshit Be Upon Him
> my_dog_b...@yahoo.com (MO+HAM+MAD, Pigshit Be Upon Him) wrote
> ...
> > ranjit_...@yahoo.com (M. Ranjit Mathews) wrote ...
>
> violent outbursts; my observation, rather, is that it is a factor
> that contributes to increased popular support of (or rationalization
> of) violent outbursts. Such increases in popular support doesn't
> necessarily change a certain fringe's proclivities; what it does is to
> make it more feasible for the fringe to act on its proclivities.
A certain fringe's inclination is essentailly a function of the
socio-political paradigm it represents at any given point in time and
this automatically co-relates the support that a group enjoys at a
time and the actions, albeit with minor operational modifications,
that the group will take at that time. Therefore, support of a
majority of society towards violent retaliation will ipso-facto
transmutate into the broad conceptualization, planning and execution
of that violent aspirations of society: thus what you said means what
I said.
>
> > >
> Indian missionaries do nearly all the preaching done by Christians in
> India.
with guidance from their "gora" masters. Without them they are
untrained niggers.
>
> > > Did Christians burn people to death in 200 AD? Where do you get these
> > > theories from?
> > History.
>
> How interesting. Can you cite an incident from about 200 AD when
> Christians burned people to death?
Look, you know as well as I do that Jesus stole a cult of the Elohim
and the 'cross" that is a holy symbol of Chrissy-dom is nothing but
the X sign of the Elohim turned 45 degrees. The early Chrissies were
horrified at the idea that Jesus claimed to be in touch with god
(Elohim), whereas he was an ordinary carpenter. Thus before 200 AD,
remember Sesonchusis's fall from Throne in Ur and his subsequent
execution: Chrissy-dom's precursors at work.
>
> > Now whether from Ooga-booga Christianity to Pope-mother-mary
> > Christianity is semantics!
>
> It is not semantics. The Holy Catholic Church was established on the
> basis of a union of church and state, and going about preserving and
> aggrandizing a standard Christianity in certain ways.
That certain way is nothing but forcible conversion and murder by
Christians. Or else, Chrissies, Jews and pig-fucker Muslims are all
"people of the book": then tell me why the middle east should witness
the turmoil it is witnessing now if not to convert/dominate the others
who MARGINALLY are different in terms of their belief.
>
> > My supposition is this: Instead of searching for a artificial thing
> > (that was made or manufactured, never mind by who :-) that was in one
> > geographical place that I can pinpoint, it is better to look for
> > natural things occuring in one big area, even if I cannot pinpoint
> > that place. That is because, the artificial thing will have no trace
> > after 7000 years of history, it will be gone/destroyed/broken but the
> > natural thing, even if I have to look for it harder (and God knows
> > whether I will ever find it) has a chance of being there because it
> > occurs naturally.
> >
> > Is my supposition accurate? Serious thoughts only please.
>
> It seems reasonable.
In your estimation, are ancient texts truthful? If two/three sources
say the same?
M. Ranjit Mathews
...
> ranjit_...@yahoo.com (M. Ranjit Mathews) wrote ...
> > my_dog_b...@yahoo.com (MO+HAM+MAD, Pigshit Be Upon Him) wrote
> > ...
> > > ranjit_...@yahoo.com (M. Ranjit Mathews) wrote ...
> >
> > Nope. My observation is not that it is a factor contirbuting to
> > violent outbursts; my observation, rather, is that it is a factor
> > that contributes to increased popular support of (or rationalization
> > of) violent outbursts. Such increases in popular support doesn't
> > necessarily change a certain fringe's proclivities; what it does is to
> > make it more feasible for the fringe to act on its proclivities.
>
> A certain fringe's inclination is essentailly a function of the
> socio-political paradigm it represents at any given point in time and
> this automatically co-relates the support that a group enjoys at a
> time and the actions, albeit with minor operational modifications,
> that the group will take at that time. Therefore, support of a
> majority of society towards violent retaliation will ipso-facto
> transmutate into the broad conceptualization, planning and execution
> of that violent aspirations of society: thus what you said means what
> I said.
No. You are saying that supporters of a party with violent
proclivities support its violent proclivities. I'm saying that they
don't necessarily support its violent proclivities; people can support
a party for any number of reasons, not solely the reason that it has
violent proclivities, one such reason being that they find all other
parties available at a given point in time to be more execrable in
some respects.
> > Indian missionaries do nearly all the preaching done by Christians in India.
> with guidance from their "gora" masters. Without them they are
> untrained niggers.
Are there no missionaries who have had little contact with goras, or
no guidance?
> > > > Did Christians burn people to death in 200 AD? Where do you get these
> > > > theories from?
> > > History.
> > How interesting. Can you cite an incident from about 200 AD when
> > Christians burned people to death?
>
> Look, you know as well as I do that Jesus stole a cult of the Elohim
> and the 'cross" that is a holy symbol of Chrissy-dom is nothing but
> the X sign of the Elohim turned 45 degrees. The early Chrissies were
> horrified at the idea that Jesus claimed to be in touch with god
> (Elohim), whereas he was an ordinary carpenter. Thus before 200 AD,
> remember Sesonchusis's fall from Throne in Ur and his subsequent
> execution: Chrissy-dom's precursors at work.
Irrelevant to the question. I don't know whether Jesus was a
carpenter. Yeshu ha Natzar (Jesus the seer) might have been confused
by someone for Yeshu ha Naggar (Jesus the Carpenter).
> > > Now whether from Ooga-booga Christianity to Pope-mother-mary
> > > Christianity is semantics!
> >
> > It is not semantics. The Holy Catholic Church was established on the
> > basis of a union of church and state, and going about preserving and
> > aggrandizing a standard Christianity in certain ways.
>
> That certain way is nothing but forcible conversion and murder by
> Christians.
More precisely, by Catholic Christians.
> Or else, Chrissies, Jews and pig-fucker Muslims are all
> "people of the book": then tell me why the middle east should witness
> the turmoil it is witnessing now if not to convert/dominate the others
> who MARGINALLY are different in terms of their belief.
For much the same reason that when Roman Catholics and Protestants
converted the Acholi tribe of Uganda, thus dividing them into three
groups - Roman Catholic, Protestant and animist, there was a civil war
between the groups within 10 years.
> > > My supposition is this: Instead of searching for a artificial thing
> > > (that was made or manufactured, never mind by who :-) that was in one
> > > geographical place that I can pinpoint, it is better to look for
> > > natural things occuring in one big area, even if I cannot pinpoint
> > > that place. That is because, the artificial thing will have no trace
> > > after 7000 years of history, it will be gone/destroyed/broken but the
> > > natural thing, even if I have to look for it harder (and God knows
> > > whether I will ever find it) has a chance of being there because it
> > > occurs naturally.
> > >
> > > Is my supposition accurate? Serious thoughts only please.
> >
> > It seems reasonable.
>
> In your estimation, are ancient texts truthful? If two/three sources
> say the same?
Not necessarily. They might draw on a common myth.
MO+HAM+MAD, Pigshit Be Upon Him
> proclivities support its violent proclivities. I'm saying that they
> don't necessarily support its violent proclivities; people can support
> a party for any number of reasons, not solely the reason that it has
> violent proclivities, one such reason being that they find all other
> parties available at a given point in time to be more execrable in
> some respects.
The fringe group with violent proclivities, assuming as the basis that
the fringe group originated from the societal paramerters prevailing
at a certain time with its preferences, caprices and shortcomings,
then the fringe group has to reflect the dispositions of the society
as a whole. The only requirement is that the fringe groups we are
discussing accurately reflects the aspirations and the dispositions of
the society, and the group sprung from the society for carrying out a
specific purpose. Then yes, if the group is violent, society supports
violence.
>
> > > >
> Are there no missionaries who have had little contact with goras, or
> no guidance?
Let me tell you palsy, very few. The 'goras' give mental support to
the 'kala chamras' to make them feel superior in terms of their
religious orientation.
> > >
> > Look, you know as well as I do that Jesus stole a cult of the Elohim
> > and the 'cross" that is a holy symbol of Chrissy-dom is nothing but
> > the X sign of the Elohim turned 45 degrees. The early Chrissies were
> > horrified at the idea that Jesus claimed to be in touch with god
> > (Elohim), whereas he was an ordinary carpenter. Thus before 200 AD,
> > remember Sesonchusis's fall from Throne in Ur and his subsequent
> > execution: Chrissy-dom's precursors at work.
>
> Irrelevant to the question. I don't know whether Jesus was a
> carpenter. Yeshu ha Natzar (Jesus the seer) might have been confused
> by someone for Yeshu ha Naggar (Jesus the Carpenter).
>
You are confusing cause and effect. Chritians were there much before
Christ and thus violence wasw there before christ was born and those
violence was perpetrated by Christians. Jesus came along and co-opted
a culture of Elohim, just tilting their symbols at 45 degrees!
> > > >
> > In your estimation, are ancient texts truthful? If two/three sources
> > say the same?
>
> Not necessarily. They might draw on a common myth.
But what if the "myths" have originated from different countries,
different cultures and speak the same basic thing? I mean the past has
to say something to us and repeating the argument of Sitchin and
Hancock, how else does the past speak to us if not through myths?
Let me ask you another basic question: why do you think the Elohim
disappeared after 500 AD or so?
M. Ranjit Mathews
> > proclivities support its violent proclivities. I'm saying that they
> > don't necessarily support its violent proclivities; people can support
> > a party for any number of reasons, not solely the reason that it has
> > violent proclivities, one such reason being that they find all other
> > parties available at a given point in time to be more execrable in
> > some respects.
>
> The fringe group with violent proclivities, assuming as the basis that
> the fringe group originated from the societal paramerters prevailing
> at a certain time with its preferences, caprices and shortcomings,
> then the fringe group has to reflect the dispositions of the society
> as a whole. The only requirement is that the fringe groups we are
> discussing accurately reflects the aspirations and the dispositions of
> the society, and the group sprung from the society for carrying out a
> specific purpose. Then yes, if the group is violent, society supports
> violence.
That would be passive support. I have said many times in the past that
if segments of society that used to oppose something no longer oppose
it, then they passively support it. Ranchi's response to this was:
> > > "M. Ranjit Mathews" wrote:
> > > The silent approvers who form a majority are the folks who I've
> > referred to in past postings as "passive supporters".
Ranchi wrote:
The silent majority are the silent majority. Whether they approve or
disapprove is unknown(which is, after all, why they are called the
"silent" majority), and any attempt to usurp their silence as
"approval" or "support" is simply pathetic.
> > > Look, you know as well as I do that Jesus stole a cult of the Elohim
> > > and the 'cross" that is a holy symbol of Chrissy-dom is nothing but
> > > the X sign of the Elohim turned 45 degrees.
> You are confusing cause and effect. Christians were there much before
> Christ
Indeed? Name some Christians who were contemporaries of Julius Caesar.
> > > In your estimation, are ancient texts truthful? If two/three sources
> > > say the same?
> > Not necessarily. They might draw on a common myth.
> But what if the "myths" have originated from different countries,
> different cultures and speak the same basic thing? I mean the past has
> to say something to us and repeating the argument of Sitchin and
> Hancock, how else does the past speak to us if not through myths?
> Let me ask you another basic question: why do you think the Elohim
> disappeared after 500 AD or so?
.... because there were no more pyramids to be built by them:-)
Alternatively, they disappeared nearly 1000 years before that. when
their patrons became monotheists.
Here's an idea. Rather than taking pot-shots at Christian
missionaries, send out some Sitchinite missionaries to convert
Christians to the service of the Annunaqi.
MO+HAM+MAD, Pigshit Be Upon Him
> > the fringe group originated from the societal paramerters prevailing
> > at a certain time with its preferences, caprices and shortcomings,
> > then the fringe group has to reflect the dispositions of the society
> > as a whole. The only requirement is that the fringe groups we are
> > discussing accurately reflects the aspirations and the dispositions of
> > the society, and the group sprung from the society for carrying out a
> > specific purpose. Then yes, if the group is violent, society supports
> > violence.
>
> That would be passive support. I have said many times in the past that
> if segments of society that used to oppose something no longer oppose
> it, then they passively support it.
True, but the passive support is interpreted as all out support by the
fringe. After all, the frige goup will not make house calls saying
"Well, do you support this, or that?"
>
> > > > Look, you know as well as I do that Jesus stole a cult of the Elohim
> > > > and the 'cross" that is a holy symbol of Chrissy-dom is nothing but
> > > > the X sign of the Elohim turned 45 degrees.
> > You are confusing cause and effect. Christians were there much before
> > Christ
>
> Indeed? Name some Christians who were contemporaries of Julius Caesar.
The senators that were in the Senate of Caesar: all were Chrissies.
How many times do I have to tell you: they were Chrissies WITHOUT the
added spice of Jesus or the cross? Christianity is nothing but the
elohim culture borrowed that existed far ago from Caesar's time.
>
> > > > In your estimation, are ancient texts truthful? If two/three sources
> > > > say the same?
>
> > > Not necessarily. They might draw on a common myth.
> > But what if the "myths" have originated from different countries,
> > different cultures and speak the same basic thing? I mean the past has
> > to say something to us and repeating the argument of Sitchin and
> > Hancock, how else does the past speak to us if not through myths?
> > Let me ask you another basic question: why do you think the Elohim
> > disappeared after 500 AD or so?
>
> .... because there were no more pyramids to be built by them:-)
In a serious discussion, why introduce frivolousness?
>
> Alternatively, they disappeared nearly 1000 years before that. when
> their patrons became monotheists.
What you mean is that they decided to present a United face and thus
introduced monotheism? Why?
>
> Here's an idea. Rather than taking pot-shots at Christian
> missionaries, send out some Sitchinite missionaries to convert
> Christians to the service of the Annunaqi.
I am not taking pot-shots, I am actively involved in re-conversion.
Ranjit, I am the first Sitchinite missionary and when I take that
journey to find what I am looking for, I am going to change the world
and you can bet your bottom dollar on it. It is not easy, but I am
doing what I can.
M. Ranjit Mathews
> > > > > and the 'cross" that is a holy symbol of Chrissy-dom is nothing but
> > > > > the X sign of the Elohim turned 45 degrees.
> > > You are confusing cause and effect. Christians were there much before
> > > Christ
> > Indeed? Name some Christians who were contemporaries of Julius Caesar.
> The senators that were in the Senate of Caesar: all were Chrissies.
> How many times do I have to tell you: they were Chrissies WITHOUT the
> added spice of Jesus or the cross? Christianity is nothing but the
> elohim culture borrowed that existed far ago from Caesar's time.
Any institutions that Catholic Christianity borrowed from the Roman
state was borrowed by Augustine and friends, not by Jesus, and Rome at
the time of the Roman Republic had no notion of Elohim.
> > > > > In your estimation, are ancient texts truthful? If two/three sources
> > > > > say the same?
>
> > > > Not necessarily. They might draw on a common myth.
> > > But what if the "myths" have originated from different countries,
> > > different cultures and speak the same basic thing? I mean the past has
> > > to say something to us and repeating the argument of Sitchin and
> > > Hancock, how else does the past speak to us if not through myths?
> > > Let me ask you another basic question: why do you think the Elohim
> > > disappeared after 500 AD or so?
> > .... because there were no more pyramids to be built by them:-)
> In a serious discussion, why introduce frivolousness?
Well, if you get into Annunaqi, there's a legend that they built the
pyramids.
> > Alternatively, they disappeared nearly 1000 years before that. when
> > their patrons became monotheists.
> What you mean is that they decided to present a United face and thus
> introduced monotheism? Why?
The Elohim were originally Canaani (Caananite). Hebrews presumably
introduced monotheism and the elimination of images to introduce
unity. There had been many Baals, each with its own image and people
were divided along sectarian lines. It might not have dawned on the
propounders of monotheism that monotheism with no images can be
sectarian too.
> > Here's an idea. Rather than taking pot-shots at Christian
> > missionaries, send out some Sitchinite missionaries to convert
> > Christians to the service of the Annunaqi.
>
> I am not taking pot-shots, I am actively involved in re-conversion.
> Ranjit, I am the first Sitchinite missionary and when I take that
> journey to find what I am looking for, I am going to change the world
> and you can bet your bottom dollar on it. It is not easy, but I am
> doing what I can.
You won't succeed because people go for religions partly based on
their utility value, not necessarily because they make sense.
BISMILLA ALLA FUX RAHMAN SUX RAHIM
> > How many times do I have to tell you: they were Chrissies WITHOUT the
> > added spice of Jesus or the cross? Christianity is nothing but the
> > elohim culture borrowed that existed far ago from Caesar's time.
>
> Any institutions that Catholic Christianity borrowed from the Roman
> state was borrowed by Augustine and friends, not by Jesus, and Rome at
> the time of the Roman Republic had no notion of Elohim.
Maybe not of Jesus, but the ease with which they identified with the
cross, which was an Elohim symbol makes it clear that it was a Elohim
culture, albeit without the junk of Jesus and mother Mary!
>
> > > > > > In your estimation, are ancient texts truthful? If two/three sources
> > > > > > say the same?
>
> > > > > Not necessarily. They might draw on a common myth.
> > > > But what if the "myths" have originated from different countries,
> > > > different cultures and speak the same basic thing? I mean the past has
> > > > to say something to us and repeating the argument of Sitchin and
> > > > Hancock, how else does the past speak to us if not through myths?
> > > > Let me ask you another basic question: why do you think the Elohim
> > > > disappeared after 500 AD or so?
> > > .... because there were no more pyramids to be built by them:-)
> > In a serious discussion, why introduce frivolousness?
>
> Well, if you get into Annunaqi, there's a legend that they built the
> pyramids.
They built the pyramids as they were here, they did not come to build
the pyramids!
>
> > > Alternatively, they disappeared nearly 1000 years before that. when
> > > their patrons became monotheists.
> > What you mean is that they decided to present a United face and thus
> > introduced monotheism? Why?
>
> The Elohim were originally Canaani (Caananite).
I am sorry to say this is a dumb observation. Elohim are from where we
all know. Certainly not caananite. Their first base was in Ur, so if
you must refer to them as being terrestrial, they have to be called
Shumerians.
>Hebrews presumably
> introduced monotheism and the elimination of images to introduce
> unity.
Most likely. After the nuke war of 2024 BC they saw that it had killed
a number of civilians and they decided to introduce monotheism to
avoid this kind of holocaust in the future!
.
> >
> > I am not taking pot-shots, I am actively involved in re-conversion.
> > Ranjit, I am the first Sitchinite missionary and when I take that
> > journey to find what I am looking for, I am going to change the world
> > and you can bet your bottom dollar on it. It is not easy, but I am
> > doing what I can.
>
> You won't succeed because people go for religions partly based on
> their utility value, not necessarily because they make sense.
I am disappointed again. You and I are probably among the most erudite
in this group and you should be offering to help me solve this ridlle
I have in my mind about the Elohim: and you are discouraging me! Is
this professional rivalry, Ranjit or just the unavoidable human nature
rising out to snuff out the possibility that a fellow human may
actually achieve something?
P.G.Gopal
Ranjit: I cannot sometimes unravel in a thread, who said what to whom, but I
suspect you wrote this. If you did could you tell me the difference btw secular
and psecular ? I also invite major Hindutvadis to attempt at definition. Is
Joshi(Gujarat CM), secular or the other thing. Is Advani ? How can you tell one
from the other: do they smell the same? etc etc.
Gopal
krishan
What do you call a white honky english barbarian doing a job?
ASSLICKER
krishan
"MO_ham_mad, Pigcum be upon his_mouth" wrote:
> What do you call a Paki with ham on his head? Hamid!
>
> What do you call a Paki with more ham on his head? Mohammad!
>
> What do you say to a Paki that asks you out? Asif
>
> What do you call a Paki with a Ferrari? A thief
>
> What do you call a Paki prostitute? Lahore.
>
> What do you call a Paki with 1 hair? Iqbal.
>
> How do you stop a Pakistani tank ?
> Shoot the men who are pushing it.
>
> How do you disable Pakistani missiles ?
> Cut the rubber band.
>
> Have you ever seen Pakistani war heroes ?
> Neither has Pakistan.
>
> Did you hear about the other latest Pakistani invention ?
> The new automatic parachutes. They open on impact.
>
> How do you sink a Pakistani battleship?
> Put it in water.
>
> Did you hear about the 747 jet which Crashed into a cemetery in
> Karachi ?
> The Pakistani officials have so far recovered 3000 bodies.
>
> Did you hear about the Pakistani admiral who had asked to be buried at
> sea?
> Five Pakistani sailors died digging his grave.
>
> Did you hear about the shutdown of the Karachi National Library ?
> Somebody stole the book.
>
> You're locked in a room with Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, and a
> Pakistani. You have a gun with ONLY two bullets.What do you do?
> Shoot the Pakistani twice to make sure he's dead.
>
> What's brown and black and looks great on a Pakistani?
> A Doberman.
>
> How can you tell when a Pakistani is lying?
> His lips are moving.
>
> What do you have when a Pakistani is buried up to his neck in sand?
> Not enough sand.
Heretic
qualifies as human ?
A: krishan
"krishan" <kri...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3D009766...@ntlworld.com...
Seeker
wrote in message news:15cd2854.02060...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > What do you call a white honky english barbarian doing a job?
> > ASSLICKER
>
No, you are a "brown piss drinker Hindu coward." Hehehehe.
SmoothLander
father's gand
"Seeker" <4not_listed_due_to_spam_bots_121101> wrote in message
news:adtfik$de3$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
SmoothLander
"Seeker" <4not_listed_due_to_spam_bots_121101> wrote in message
news:adth10$6di$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> Shutup Sauron.
>
> "SmoothLander" <chal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:gkrM8.17396$GJ3.38...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
koolfire_ro
> At least Star Trek has some intelligence you and your village has no
> intelligence. Stop posing at the real SmoothLander -- the certified Hindu
> butt kicker. You fool no one. BTW, Smoothlander must have cocked your mom
> pretty hard or why else would you pretend to be him.
why you getting the hots you madherchood paki pimp...you want him to
cork your mom/wifes/sister preety hard...paki whores like your moms
tounge, must be already hanging below her jaws....randi ka baccha.
> "SmoothLander" <chal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:40sM8.17405$m34.38...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
MO_ham_mad, Pigcum be upon his_mouth
You know seeker, even if what you wrote were true ;-) your post is
rather civilized.
However, the 4000 or so dead muslims in Gujarat who were subjected to
the greatest peacetime slaughter in this century would tell you that
Hindus are not cowards, if you can ask them between their dance
numbers in hell with alla!
hehehehe
Seeker
wrote in message news:15cd2854.02060...@posting.google.com...
> > "koolfire_ro" <r_man...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:d53283dc.02060...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Seeker" <4not_listed_due_to_spam_bots_121101> wrote in message
> > news:<aducpk$r3a$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > > > At least Star Trek has some intelligence you and your village has no
> > > > intelligence. Stop posing at the real SmoothLander -- the certified
> > Hindu
> > > > butt kicker. You fool no one. BTW, Smoothlander must have cocked
your
> > mom
> > > > pretty hard or why else would you pretend to be him.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > why you getting the hots you madherchood paki pimp...you want him to
> > > cork your mom/wifes/sister preety hard...paki whores like your moms
> > > tounge, must be already hanging below her jaws....randi ka baccha.
> >
>
> Ha ha ha. Seeker, so you have a low tolerence level for direct name
> calling. All humans in this newsgroup please note for future
> reference!!
My friend, I was actually joking, but I will agree with you that I too am
capable of getting upset just as most everyone else is.
Peace!
>
> >what got you so excited. I guess Namaskar to you too, namak haram.
Seeker
> "Seeker" <4not_listed_due_to_spam_bots_121101> wrote in message
> > "koolfire_ro" <r_man...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:d53283dc.02060...@posting.google.com...
> > news:<aducpk$r3a$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > > > At least Star Trek has some intelligence you and your village has no
> > > > intelligence. Stop posing at the real SmoothLander -- the certified
> > Hindu
> > > > butt kicker. You fool no one. BTW, Smoothlander must have cocked
your
> > mom
> > > > pretty hard or why else would you pretend to be him.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > why you getting the hots you madherchood paki pimp...you want him to
> > > cork your mom/wifes/sister preety hard...paki whores like your moms
> > > tounge, must be already hanging below her jaws....randi ka baccha.
> >
> > got you so excited. I guess Namaskar to you too, namak haram.
>
>
> place he bought me to karacheeeee thoooo....his great grandaughter
> daughter rubina qader is my neighbour in bangalore,unfortunately i am
> not able to club her in the same bracket and abuse her,......but not
> to worry as long as your mom and sis are whores,i can always fuck a
> paindoo pimp like you...hehehe me toilet cleaner,dont be daft and
> jealous,pagal, ghandu.... adamjees will die of embarassment.
So know we know why Chand Bagh is dirty with toilets stinking everywhere
ever since you left India. Hahahaha. How can a low life ever pollute the the
holy land of UP which is eternally purified by the Gangese and the Yamuna.
Just thinking about the fact that your low life ass was in Dera Doon makes
me wonder if that is why UP was split into two states.
koolfire_ro
come suck my dick :)))))