The Ten Commandments and Religious Conversion - Part 4
“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” This is the third of the Ten Commandments.
The sixth among the Ten Commandments says, “Thou shalt not kill”. This is the King James Version translation. Some other versions such as New Revised Standard Version and Jewish Publication Society give it as, “You shall not murder”. May be there is some validity to this since killing animals for food should not become a problem because of this commandment.
These two commandments should be of some special import to the Christian community since Papacy has been often involved with murder and mayhem, in the name of “the Lord thy God”, throughout history. In fact the last Pope, the one just before (the late) Pope John Paul II, died under mysterious circumstances hardly one month after he took office, and it is widely believed that it was a politically motivated murder caused by palace intrigue. It doesn’t create a very inviting environment for other religionists to convert to your religion, does it, Mr. Pope?
The Crusades, a series of wars over a period of two centuries, between Christians and Muslims, for control over Jerusalem in the name of “the Lord thy God”, resulted in the loss of millions of lives. In more recent times we have the spectacle of the Roman Catholics of Ireland and the Protestants of Britain fighting for northern Ireland, again with a considerable loss of lives, in the name of “the Lord thy God”. In between, there have been countless other wars, between the Christians and the Muslims, for the Christian God versus the Muslim God, as well as between different factions of Christians, like the Protestants against Roman Catholics involving the Protestant God and Roman Catholic God. Where is the one and only “the Lord thy God” of the First Commandment? And Mr. Pope and other Christians want to impose this War-prone God, or is it these War-prone Gods, on the Hindus and other Asians through conversion.
Isn't it the Catholics from Portugal who showed their "Christ-ian" love by going on a rampage to convert Hindus to Christianity on a mass scale, and murdering thousands of Hindus who resisted this conversion madness? What a tribute to the 3rd and 6th Commandments?
It was the Roman Catholic Irish Republican Army, and not Islamic terrorists, who assassinated Lord Louis Mountbatten. And, of course, Hitler and his loyal Nazi officers and foot-soldiers, as well as Mussolini and his Fascist forces, were all Christians -- Catholics to boot whom the Pope heads -- and they did their best to lighten the load on Mother Earth by eliminating about six million, or is it eight or ten million, Jews from the face of the earth. The Pope of those days, Pius XII, is said to have given a tacit nod of approval, or at best kept his gaze trained in an opposite direction, as some people would like us to believe, when this holocaust was going on in full swing.
Isn’t it the Christian countries of Europe and America, belonging to a thousand different Christian denominations, which inflicted World War I and World War II, in the late-lamented 20th century, on the world, leading to enormous loss of life and property? The then-President Harry Truman of the USA showed his “Christian love” by dropping two atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan towards the fag end of WW-II. It is being debated even today whether it was necessary at all to drop those two bombs. The casualities were only a little less than half a million people, which is of course insignificant compared to the millions of Jews that Hitler disposed of.
Of course the Super-Christian, highly ethical and moral, Presidents of the USA (including JFK and Bill Clinton of sexual-escapades fame, and Richard Nixon of Watergate fame. and currently George W. Bush of Iraq-gate fame) have mastered the art of telling the world that “the Lord thy God” appears in their dreams regularly and tells them that only they are authorised by Him to have nuclear weapons and no one else in the world should possess one, unless specifically permitted by the Americans.
Then we have seen the Americans throw tonnes and tonnes and tonnes of chemical weapons all over Vietnam which destroyed all their forests and vegetation as well as caused severe burn injuries to the people, just because the Vietnamese were going the Communist way and the “Christian” Americans did not agree with the God-less ideology of the Russians. After all the severe destruction caused to the Vietnamese people and property, the "Christ-ian" Americans were bothered only about a piddling few American soldiers who were Missing In Action (MIA) as a result of their own criminal action in Vietnam, and never about the wholesale damage done to the Vietnamese people, their country, and their economy by the American military action. “The Lord thy God” must have been extremely pleased with this supreme display of love and compassion towards their fellow human beings. Obviously the Popes plan to sell this idea of neighbourly love to the Hindus and other Asians and induce them to convert to Christianity. What a Unique Selling Point!
Well, how can one forget the Born-Again Christian George W. Bush and his Iraq-gate. When a few terrorists from the Middle East Islamic nations managed to hoodwink his own security forces and hijacked some airplanes from his own American airports, and pulverised the twin towers of the World Trade Centre, and killed about 3000 people in that process, up rose GWB and declared, "What the terrorists can do, I can do better", and has now killed not only about 5000 of his own US Army personnel but nearly a million more Iraqis, most of them innocent civilians. One has to wonder whether Jesus Christ is proud of this Born-Again Christian and his brand of conservatives, the Southern Baptists, who are also active in India with their conversion business.
Again going back to Kenneth C. Davis (“Don’t Know Much About the Bible”, Avon Books Inc, New York), this commandment, as Rabbi Joseph Telushkin comments, is also aimed at those who commit sins in “the name of God”. Telushkin writes: “If they ‘carry’ God’s name in promotion of a cause that is evil (e.g., the medieval crusaders who murdered innocent people in the name of God, or members of racist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan that claim what they do is God’s will), then they violate the Third Commandment”.(Biblical Literacy)
My, My! Isn’t this again a severe indictment of the Catholic Church and its head, the Pope! This Pope and his loyal fellow idolaters, who don’t seem to know anything about God’s commandments, and violate them left, right and centre, are busy planning to spread their form of ungodly religion to India and the rest of Asia, which is only bound to result in conflict and bloodshed. What an appetising prospect!
* * * * *
Monday, November 26, 2007
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Something To Think About - 08
The Ten Commandments and Religious Conversion - Part 3
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
“Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.
“And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.”
This is the second of the Ten Commandments of God. Isn’t there something odd, something creepy about this Commandment? Scholars don’t tire of commenting that this God is a loving God, a compassionate God, a merciful God, a forgiving God. As one scholar put it, “Forgiveness is ultimately the great theme that permeates the Bible. Men sin. God forgives”. (Kenneth C. Davis in his book “Don’t Know Much About the Bible”; Avon Books, Inc., New York). But can one see any semblance of love or forgiveness in this Commandment? If one commits a sin or mistake or whatever, the “children unto the third and fourth generation” will be punished, even though they may be righteous persons in their own rights! Isn’t it what it says? What sort of God is this?
Or, is it possible that God is saying, as an extension of the First Commandment, that if one entertains and indulges in bowing to the images like wine, women, wealth etc, they will end up damaging their family lives to such an extent it will have a deleterious effect for generations to come?
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,” says this commandment. Kenneth C. Davis says in his very illuminating book: “Some Christians, particularly those Protestant denominations that emerged during the Reformation, rejected elaborate church buildings and certain religious practices in favour of a “purer” religion devoid of symbols and statuary – that’s how the “Puritans” got their name. To them, the religious statues and the magnificent cathedrals built to display these artistic works contradicted the commandment and the spirit of Jesus’ teachings.” Jesus Christ added for good measure, according to Matthew 6:5-6, “And when you pray, do not imitate the hypocrites: they love to say their prayers standing up in the synagogues and at the street corners for people to see them. In truth I tell you, they have had their reward. But when you pray, go to your private room, shut yourself in, and so pray to your Father who is in that secret place, and your Father who sees all that is done in secret will reward you.” Obviously what God says is to avoid all ostentation, pomp and show. As Kenneth C. Davis puts it, “One of the clearest themes in the ministry of Jesus is his contempt for outward expressions of empty piety in favour of the importance of inner, spiritual wealth”.
Just look at the specially designed huge altar that was put up in the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium in New Delhi for the Pope’s mass on the 7th November 1999. It had some other props too like an elevator to raise the Pope from ground level to the pulpit, a special loo for him on one side of the dais and so on. Surely it must have cost a pretty penny. Don’t these things count as “graven images” or idols? Isn’t the entire Vatican a great showpiece, a super idol? Isn’t the Pope himself, with his regalia and paraphernalia, a great showpiece, a great idol? What about the huge expensive Basilicas, Cathedrals, Churches, Chapels and so on strewn all over the world? What are they if not idols which “the Lord thy God” frowns on? So, people who do not want to understand and follow their own God’s Commandments plot to entice some other persons to give up their own God and embrace this 'Christian' God. What an ethical thing to do indeed!
The Christians, as well as the Muslims, have the habit of commenting that the Hindus are idol worshippers, and that this is not in conformity with what Christianity and Islam preach. I believe it is Swami Vivekananda who gave an interesting demonstration of what idol worship means. When the Swami was in the USA, a host, brought up in the Christian faith, raised this issue. The Swami just looked around the room they were in, picked up a framed photograph of an elderly gentleman and asked the host as to whose picture it was. The host replied it was his father’s photo. The Swami, without any hesitation, dashed it to the ground, and it lay in a mangled ruin, with glass pieces strewn all around. The host was aghast, and shouted at the Swami why he was behaving like a mad man. The Swami was very cool and replied something like this: “This is the answer to your query. You have seen your father in person, have moved with him closely for a number of years, and you ought to be having his features etched sharply in your memory for ever, so much so you should be able to visualise his features and feel his presence any time you want. But you are unable to do so and you need a prop like a photograph to remember him and feel close to him again as before. This is precisely what idol worship is all about. Nobody has seen God in the physical form and no one knows what He looks like. But when one prays, the human mind naturally looks for something to hang on to. It is impossible for the mind to focus on a blank space or vacuum and pray. It needs a prop which is what the idol provides. When you pray looking at the figure of a God, you are not just looking at the stone or metal it is made of and admiring the skill of the craftsman who made it, but you are imbuing it with the spirit of the God and you make obeisance to that God you see in it.”
It is obviously something like this which “the Lord thy God” means when he speaks out against idol worship. Don’t reduce your Cathedral to a showpiece, making it an item of curiosity in the itinerary of conducted tours where the tourists run all over the place gawking at the figures and stained glass windows, clicking away to glory with their cameras, and go away after making a contribution toward its upkeep. This reduces it to just a dead idol with no semblance of the Divinity or Spirit or Life associated with it. The Rev. Norman Vincent Peale, the celebrated pastor of the Marble Collegiate Church in New York, who has written scores of books on positive thinking, has reported about a practice he used to follow in his Sunday prayers. After the sermon was over, he would invite the congregation to bow their heads and spend a couple of minutes in total silence, when they were asked to feel the presence of God among themselves, and unload their minds of all the burden they were carrying, and leave them in the hands of God to help them with an answer. If this is the way the idol, the Church or Cathedral, is used, then it turns into an abode where God lives and answers your prayers. On the other hand, if it is just a social meeting place to spend a couple of hours on Sundays, it is only a dead idol.
Do the Muslims fare any better on this count? Their mosques are all idols. The Crescent one finds on top of every dome of the mosque is an idol. The great Black Stone in the middle of their Great Mosque in Mecca is nothing but an idol. And they talk deprecatingly of the Hindu practice of idol worship! Isn’t it rather sly on their part to do that?
Far from thinking of the idols as being only in the physical form, here is a different concept presented by Kenneth C. Davis. He says, “In his insightful book, Biblical Literacy, Rabbi Joseph Telushkin offers a useful insight on this commandment:
From Judaism’s perspective, idolatry occurs when one holds any value (for instance, nationalism) higher than God. Thus, a person who, on the basis of “my country, right or wrong,” performs acts that God designates as wrong, is an idolater; his behavior makes it clear that he regards his country’s demand to do evil as more binding than God’s demand to do good. Such a person’s claim to worship God – an assertion that was actually made by S.S. officers who worked in concentration camps – is plainly false; the person is an idolater, not a follower of God.”
My goodness! What a mind-blowing definition! Hasn’t he demolished the Pope, the Vatican, the Holy See, the entire Catholic Establishment, and blown them all to smithereens with these few simple words! In the name of the Crusades, how many millions have they killed and how much of property have they destroyed? On the basis of their stand that their interpretation of Jesus Christ’s teachings is the only correct one, and they will not tolerate anybody expressing a dissenting viewpoint, how many persons have they burnt at the stake as heretics? What are the Inquisitions, if not idols, which have caused millions of deaths? For Pope Pius XII, Nazism was an Idol to hold out against Communism; and he blessed, or at the least kept his gaze turned away from, the holocaust which exterminated millions of Jews. The Protestants had already experienced a similar fate way back in the 16th century, even though the casualty figure was much lower. Far from fighting for a reformation in the church, the Protestants found they were struggling for survival against a Catholic church whose cruelty and violence seemed to know no bounds. No wonder that Rabbi Telushkin has blasted the Catholics out of this world by saying that they are idolaters and not followers of God. And the Pope, who heads these idolaters, thinks of Hindus as ‘pagans’ and ‘heathens’ and ‘idol worshippers’ and wants to convert them to his sort of ungodly religion. What Irony!
* * * * *
Monday, November 12, 2007
Something To Think About - 07
The Ten Commandments and Religious Conversion - Part 2
“I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” So says the first of the Ten Commandments in the Bible.
The normal and most superficial way the Christian church interprets this is that their God, whom they call the Father, is the only God there is on this earth, and the God of the Muslim community, Allah, and the Gods of the Hindus or of any other religious or cultural groupings have no validity whatsoever, and the followers of such religions are “pagans”, “heathens”, “infidels” etc in the eyes of the Christians. Isn’t it interesting that the Muslims also say the same thing, that their Allah is the only God and there is no other god other than Allah? They too refer to non-Muslims as “infidels” or “Kafirs”.
It is funny that such claims are made by the followers of the two youngest religions in this world, Christianity which is just about 2000 years old and Islam which is hardly 1400 years old. Is it any coincidence that both of them had their origins in the same geographical location? Add to it the fact that both of them have a common parent in Judaism, the Jewish religion, which predates Christ by a couple of millennia and is also a monotheistic religion, just like Christianity and Islam.
If the Jewish God, Yahweh, is the only true God as claimed by the Jews, and Christianity’s “Father” is also the only true God as claimed by the Christians, and the Islamic Allah is again the only true God as claimed by the Muslims, which one is well and truly the really Real God? Is it that the Jewish Yahweh became rather senile by the time the “Father” of Christ came around, and hence retired gracefully to give way to the “Father”; and that Allah dethroned the “Father” 600 years later? If that is so, where is the God now who is the “Father” of the Christians, and in whose name the Pope and the other Christians want to convert the Hindus and other Asians?
On the other hand, Hinduism, which has been around for a few millennia before Christ, proclaims loud and clear without any ambiguity that God, or the Absolute Truth (referred to as SAT), is only one, and the learned men call IT by various names, be it Yahweh or Father or Allah or Vishnu or Shiva or whatever (Ekam Sat, Vipraah Bahudhaa Vadanthi). There is no need to speculate whether the “Father” displaced Yahweh, and was in turn thrown out by Allah, since all of them refer to the same single entity which is the Ultimate Truth.
This same Absolute Universal Truth or God, as Brahman, has given ITS Word through a long list of Rishis to the Hindus; and, as Father, given ITS Word through a long list of prophets ending with Christ to the Christians; and, as Allah, given ITS Word through a line of prophets ending with Prophet Mohammed to the Muslims. This saying, Ekam Sat Vipraah Bahudhaa Vadanthi, has another connotation also. It is just as valid for any human being to talk about and describe God and ITS attributes as it is valid for the five blind men to describe the elephant after touching and feeling the different parts of its anotamy. If there are a billion people on earth, God reveals ITself in a billion different ways to them, depending on their own individual experiences. So to claim that “my” God is superior to “your” God, or “my” religion is superior to “your” religion is, on the face of it, fallacious. If that is so, what should one say about the ignorance as well as arrogance involved in converting somebody from one religion to another on the plea that one is superior to the other?
The very first verse of the Isaavaasya Upanishad says, “Isaa-vaasyam idham sarvam yatkincha jagatyaam jagat,” which means that in this dynamic universe, where everything within it is in a constant state of flux, undergoing change every second or microsecond, the only permanent entity is Isa or God who permeates as well as envelopes every single thing in the universe, organic or inorganic, solid, liquid or gaseous, the suns, the moons, the planets, the galaxies, deep space, the men and women, the animals and birds, the mountains and trees and oceans of this world, and just everything. The Vedic religion which is the base for Hinduism, never thought of God as existing and valid only for the small region of this earth constituting India, but as an all-encompassing Supreme Being who created and sustained the entire universe. And their prayers usually end with the invocation, “Sarve Janaah Sukhino Bhavanthu; Lokaas Samasthah Sukhino Bhavanthu,” meaning let all the people in the world – irrespective of who they are and to which part of the world they belong – enjoy a healthy, wealthy, bounteous life. And they complete the invocation with the chant for Peace everywhere – Om Shanthih Shanthih Shanthih.
On the other hand, what does one see of the ONE AND ONLY GOD of the monotheistic Judaic tradition? This GOD seems to exist only for the Israelites, and does not care for the other tribes of the region like the Canaanites, Moabites, Hittites and so on, or for the Egyptians or the Philistines or the Phoenicians or the ever so many other peoples of this world, leave alone the universe. This GOD seems to be more a Super-king or Super-emperor or Super-president of the Israelites than anything worthy of the term GOD. And it is this sort of God which the Pope and his followers want to impose on the Hindus and other Asians by converting them to Christianity! It does sound a bit ludicrous.
Kenneth C. Davis, in his delightful book “Don’t Know Much about the Bible” (Avon Books Inc., New York), puts this in proper perspective. He says: “Interesting. God didn’t say, “I am the only God,” but rather that he is Number One…” in comparison with the creator god El and the storm god Baal, and so on. “We have come to take for granted the idea that Judaism invented the notion of “One God” right from the start. But the original conception of Israel’s Yahweh was the greatest among many; and only over time did Yahweh evolve into the “One God,” meaning the only God…… it does give pause to wonder if the God of an Orthodox Jew is the God of Pat Robertson or Jesse Jackson or the God (Allah) of an Iranian ayatollah.…….. The notion of a single God as the “True God” opens up the gates of intolerance. If people are really expected to hold the Ten Commandments, with its Judeo-Christian God, as an ideal for behavior, what does society do about all the other gods worshipped in a modern, pluralistic world? And then what happens to all those who choose to deny God’s existence? Granting this commandment the authority of “law of the land” clearly places such people in jeopardy of being second-class citizens, or even worse, dispensable……….”
Well, if one accepts the fact that “I am the Lord your God” refers to the one God who is common to the entire population of the world, irrespective of their religious beliefs and faiths, what exactly does this First Commandment mean? “You shall have no other gods,” cannot mean denying acceptance or recognition to Allah or Krishna or Rama whom the other religionists revere. Taken together with the words, “brought thee.......... out of the house of bondage,” does it not mean it is a warning against one falling prey to, and getting under bondage to, the umpteen temptations that abound in this world? Wine, women, wealth, power, pelf and so on have been major objects of worship at any era, and the Lord’s caution is against anybody getting addicted to, and becoming slaves to, any of these temptations which lead one away from the righteous path. Isn’t this precisely what Hinduism has prescribed since ages ago, to guard against kaama, kroda, lobha, moha, mada, matsarya, which translate as desire or lust for sensual enjoyment; anger or wrath; covetousness or greed; delusion or infatuation; intoxication or drunken madness as well as pride and arrogance; and finally envy or spite or malice? For added measure, Jesus Christ proclaims, “No one can be the slave of two masters: he will either hate the first and love the second, or be attached to the first and despise the second. You cannot be the slave both of God and of money.”(Matthew 6:24). What God conveys through this Commandment is obviously that, while enjoying material prosperity and comforts including sex, which God has created for us, we should not become addicted to and be slaves of these objects to the extent of forgetting God, but utilise all these blessings as means towards proceeding in the righteous path.
If Mr. Pope and his Christian flock are not aware of this simple explanation of the First Commandment, they have to be pitied for their ignorance. And if, while wallowing in this ignorance, they claim that their God is the only valid God, and carry on with their conversion programme, it would be nothing short of hypocrisy.
* * * * *
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Something To Think About - 06
The Ten Commandments and Religious Conversion - Part 1
When Pope John Paul II visited India in November 1999, he kicked up a big storm by giving a call to his missionary army to embark on an aggressive evangelisation programme in India and other Asian countries. He aggravated this further by again commenting about “Hindu fundamentalists” creating obstacles to this programme with the support of State Governments, claiming it as the inalienable God-given right of the Christians to railroad other religionists into conversion, as if the others do not have any rights of their own. It is interesting to see what their own scriptures say about this. As one scholar says, “If anything is still widely considered sacred today, presumably it is the Ten Commandments”. So that seems to be a good place to look for guidance.
“Thou shalt not commit adultery”.
“Thou shalt not steal”.
‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour”.
“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s”.
These are the Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth of the Ten Commandments of Moses, said to have been given to him by God as a Covenant which his people are supposed to follow as a grateful thanksgiving to God for bringing them out of their bondage in Egypt in search of their Promised Land. Even though these Commandments were given to the Jews through Moses much before Jesus Christ was born, they are still said to set the standards for the Christians’ own moral and ethical behaviour.
It is worth recalling an after-dinner story which is pertinent in this context. A person knocks on the door of a house, which has a name plate carrying the names of two brothers, Dr. Doe M.D. and Dr. Doe D.D. The medical doctor opens the door and asks the caller, “Which one do you want? My brother is the one who preaches and I am the one who practises”. Doesn’t it show up the problem for what it is? What is the worth of a Church which only preaches what it says Jesus Christ and their Books taught, but does not value them enough to follow those teachings in its own conduct?
“Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
A simple enough injunction. The dictionary meaning of the word ‘Adultery’ reads as, “voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and a woman not his wife, or between a married woman and a man not her husband”. One can with reasonable assurance say that a person’s relationship with one’s religion is just as close, as personal, as valuable, as sacrosanct as that between the person and his/her spouse. If a person voluntarily gives up one’s religion and gets converted to another, he/she may be accused of committing adultery. But if the Pope and his men and the missionaries of any other Christian denomination convert somebody through whatever means, won’t they be open to the charge of acting as procurers or pimps? Of course this commandment only says, “Thou shalt not commit adultery”, and does not say, “Thou shalt not induce or force somebody to commit adultery”. That sure makes a fine distinction.
In any case this commandment itself seems to be a great joke. The western world was, in the recent past, rocking with the scandal of Bill Clinton’s infidelity. Ex-President Jimmy Carter is said to have pointed out that some people think the seventh commandment is, “Thou shalt not admit adultery”. After all, when the Bible itself is a treasure-house of adultery, incest and rape, and Popes themselves have shown the way in this direction, what else can one expect!
“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.”
In his book “Don’t Know Much About the Bible” (Avon Books, Inc, New York) Kenneth C. Davis points out: “Even if taken in the widest sense of ‘lying’, the false-witness commandment still has some gray areas. Certainly the people who concealed Anne Frank and her family in their attic to protect them from the Nazis ‘lied’ to the Gestapo. But most would agree that in breaking the commandment, they had done nothing wrong. On the contrary, to have told the truth would have been the real crime against God.” More than just uttering a falsehood, the moral and ethical aspects of the issue come into question.
Spreading falsehoods about Hinduism and other religions, just to recruit people into Christianity through conversion, also falls into this same category of crime against God, does it not? The Pope’s complaint against the Governments of the various Indian States for “withdrawing state support for those in the Scheduled Castes who have chosen Christianity” puts it in perspective. Did the Christian missionaries not lie to the Scheduled Castes, in the first place, that after conversion, they will all be just like any other Christian, like, say, George W. Bush and Tony Blair and Bill Gates, and that they will not face any type of discrimination - social or economical or any other? When Christianity has promised them Heaven on Earth in this lifetime, why should they ask for any preferential treatment? Why don’t the Churches live up to their promise?
Apart from breaking the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour”, they break many other injunctions too. “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgement you make will you be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you behold the mote that is in your brother’s eye, and not consider the beam in your own? You hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of your own eye; and then you will see clearly to cast out the mote from your brother’s eye”.(Matthew 7:1-5) “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets.” (Matt. 7:12)
“Thou shalt not steal”.
Very simple indeed! And one that places the late Pope, John Paul II, in a very comical position too! The Pope, who is so full of concern for human dignity and religious freedom where conversion of Hindus and other religionists to Christianity is concerned, is reported to have used rather undignified, intolerant, unparliamentary words against the Protestants, his own fellow-Christians, in the Latin American countries, describing them as “wolves” poaching on his flock of Roman Catholics. What a simple soul this Pope was; innocent and childlike! He does not like the Protestants, who are also Christians, “stealing” members from his club of Catholics to the Protestant club, but wants the absolute and unfettered right and freedom to steal, without any interference, any person from Hinduism or any other eastern religion.
“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s”.
What a comprehensive set of commands! God left out items like TV, fridge, air conditioner, dish washer, music systems, computers, laptops, VCD, DVD, motor cars and so on, as He was sure Moses would not understand what they meant at that time a few millennia ago.
It is not just that “Thou shalt not steal”. You shall not ever even think of, or aspire to, grabbing or possessing something, anything, that belongs to someone else. Kenneth C. Davis, in his book “Don’t Know Much About the Bible” (Avon Books, Inc), puts across a fine interpretation.
"The American Heritage Dictionary says that to covet is 'to feel blameworthy desire for that which is another’s' or 'to wish for longingly'. This commandment is somewhat unique in that it sees sin in thought as opposed to a specific action.
"The problem with the tenth commandment is that most modern consumer economies and the entire advertising industry are built on ‘coveting’. The whole purpose of TV and magazine commercials or billboards is to get us to “wish for longingly” - to covet that Mercedes or that cigarette. So does that make us all sinners? Rabbi Telushkin offers this wisdom: “It is not wrong to want more than you have. What is wrong is to want it at your neighbour’s expense. There is no evil in desiring a Jaguar, only in wanting the one belonging to the person next door”.
Does it not apply with equal force against inducing your neighbour to give up one of his/her valued possessions, his/her religion, and get converted to Christianity or Islam or whatever? In fact this commandment opposes the very thought of your wanting to convert your neighbour. If the Pope, the Vatican establishment, the various Christian denominations, are really “Christian”, how can they ever think of invading the privacy of the Hindus or any other religionists and try to convert them?
Of course this applies with equal vigour in the Intellectual Properties domain too, where Western “Christian” commercial interests vandalise the Eastern Traditional Knowledge Systems by patenting them for their own pecuniary benefits. Does the Born Again Christian George W. Bush know anything about this sort of piracy and terrorism?
This set of four commandments is dealt with beautifully in a short passage in the very first verse of the Isaavaasya Upanishad. It says, “Maa Grdhaha Kasyasvit Dhanam”. Do not grab, with vulture-like greed, anybody else’s wealth. Short, sweet, crisp, pithy.
Dhanam or wealth does not refer only to material possessions but includes concepts and intangibles like honour, dignity, self-worth, self-respect and anything else of value to a person. While stealing may primarily deal with material possessions, adultery (and rape and any sexual assault), bearing false witness and coveting one’s neighbour’s possessions are assaults in the conceptual and intangible areas, and are equally, or even more, traumatic to any person. The sense of values one has acquired, through the religious concepts he/she has imbibed since birth, also fall into this category of wealth, and these commandments oppose any assault on this too and specifically prohibit any conversion activity being carried out by the Christians.
Are the Pope and the Bishops and their foot-soldiers aware that these Vedas and Upanishads, carrying all these glorious concepts, have been around for a few millennia before Jesus Christ was even conceived? And that whatever Moses and Jesus Christ have given out by way of their teachings are only a restatement of whatever was already floating around elsewhere? It is a pity that these people who are ignorant of these simple truths are trying to evangelise, which is a euphemism for conversion of the Hindus and other Asians.
* * * * *
When Pope John Paul II visited India in November 1999, he kicked up a big storm by giving a call to his missionary army to embark on an aggressive evangelisation programme in India and other Asian countries. He aggravated this further by again commenting about “Hindu fundamentalists” creating obstacles to this programme with the support of State Governments, claiming it as the inalienable God-given right of the Christians to railroad other religionists into conversion, as if the others do not have any rights of their own. It is interesting to see what their own scriptures say about this. As one scholar says, “If anything is still widely considered sacred today, presumably it is the Ten Commandments”. So that seems to be a good place to look for guidance.
“Thou shalt not commit adultery”.
“Thou shalt not steal”.
‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour”.
“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s”.
These are the Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth of the Ten Commandments of Moses, said to have been given to him by God as a Covenant which his people are supposed to follow as a grateful thanksgiving to God for bringing them out of their bondage in Egypt in search of their Promised Land. Even though these Commandments were given to the Jews through Moses much before Jesus Christ was born, they are still said to set the standards for the Christians’ own moral and ethical behaviour.
It is worth recalling an after-dinner story which is pertinent in this context. A person knocks on the door of a house, which has a name plate carrying the names of two brothers, Dr. Doe M.D. and Dr. Doe D.D. The medical doctor opens the door and asks the caller, “Which one do you want? My brother is the one who preaches and I am the one who practises”. Doesn’t it show up the problem for what it is? What is the worth of a Church which only preaches what it says Jesus Christ and their Books taught, but does not value them enough to follow those teachings in its own conduct?
“Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
A simple enough injunction. The dictionary meaning of the word ‘Adultery’ reads as, “voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and a woman not his wife, or between a married woman and a man not her husband”. One can with reasonable assurance say that a person’s relationship with one’s religion is just as close, as personal, as valuable, as sacrosanct as that between the person and his/her spouse. If a person voluntarily gives up one’s religion and gets converted to another, he/she may be accused of committing adultery. But if the Pope and his men and the missionaries of any other Christian denomination convert somebody through whatever means, won’t they be open to the charge of acting as procurers or pimps? Of course this commandment only says, “Thou shalt not commit adultery”, and does not say, “Thou shalt not induce or force somebody to commit adultery”. That sure makes a fine distinction.
In any case this commandment itself seems to be a great joke. The western world was, in the recent past, rocking with the scandal of Bill Clinton’s infidelity. Ex-President Jimmy Carter is said to have pointed out that some people think the seventh commandment is, “Thou shalt not admit adultery”. After all, when the Bible itself is a treasure-house of adultery, incest and rape, and Popes themselves have shown the way in this direction, what else can one expect!
“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.”
In his book “Don’t Know Much About the Bible” (Avon Books, Inc, New York) Kenneth C. Davis points out: “Even if taken in the widest sense of ‘lying’, the false-witness commandment still has some gray areas. Certainly the people who concealed Anne Frank and her family in their attic to protect them from the Nazis ‘lied’ to the Gestapo. But most would agree that in breaking the commandment, they had done nothing wrong. On the contrary, to have told the truth would have been the real crime against God.” More than just uttering a falsehood, the moral and ethical aspects of the issue come into question.
Spreading falsehoods about Hinduism and other religions, just to recruit people into Christianity through conversion, also falls into this same category of crime against God, does it not? The Pope’s complaint against the Governments of the various Indian States for “withdrawing state support for those in the Scheduled Castes who have chosen Christianity” puts it in perspective. Did the Christian missionaries not lie to the Scheduled Castes, in the first place, that after conversion, they will all be just like any other Christian, like, say, George W. Bush and Tony Blair and Bill Gates, and that they will not face any type of discrimination - social or economical or any other? When Christianity has promised them Heaven on Earth in this lifetime, why should they ask for any preferential treatment? Why don’t the Churches live up to their promise?
Apart from breaking the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour”, they break many other injunctions too. “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgement you make will you be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you behold the mote that is in your brother’s eye, and not consider the beam in your own? You hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of your own eye; and then you will see clearly to cast out the mote from your brother’s eye”.(Matthew 7:1-5) “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets.” (Matt. 7:12)
“Thou shalt not steal”.
Very simple indeed! And one that places the late Pope, John Paul II, in a very comical position too! The Pope, who is so full of concern for human dignity and religious freedom where conversion of Hindus and other religionists to Christianity is concerned, is reported to have used rather undignified, intolerant, unparliamentary words against the Protestants, his own fellow-Christians, in the Latin American countries, describing them as “wolves” poaching on his flock of Roman Catholics. What a simple soul this Pope was; innocent and childlike! He does not like the Protestants, who are also Christians, “stealing” members from his club of Catholics to the Protestant club, but wants the absolute and unfettered right and freedom to steal, without any interference, any person from Hinduism or any other eastern religion.
“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s”.
What a comprehensive set of commands! God left out items like TV, fridge, air conditioner, dish washer, music systems, computers, laptops, VCD, DVD, motor cars and so on, as He was sure Moses would not understand what they meant at that time a few millennia ago.
It is not just that “Thou shalt not steal”. You shall not ever even think of, or aspire to, grabbing or possessing something, anything, that belongs to someone else. Kenneth C. Davis, in his book “Don’t Know Much About the Bible” (Avon Books, Inc), puts across a fine interpretation.
"The American Heritage Dictionary says that to covet is 'to feel blameworthy desire for that which is another’s' or 'to wish for longingly'. This commandment is somewhat unique in that it sees sin in thought as opposed to a specific action.
"The problem with the tenth commandment is that most modern consumer economies and the entire advertising industry are built on ‘coveting’. The whole purpose of TV and magazine commercials or billboards is to get us to “wish for longingly” - to covet that Mercedes or that cigarette. So does that make us all sinners? Rabbi Telushkin offers this wisdom: “It is not wrong to want more than you have. What is wrong is to want it at your neighbour’s expense. There is no evil in desiring a Jaguar, only in wanting the one belonging to the person next door”.
Does it not apply with equal force against inducing your neighbour to give up one of his/her valued possessions, his/her religion, and get converted to Christianity or Islam or whatever? In fact this commandment opposes the very thought of your wanting to convert your neighbour. If the Pope, the Vatican establishment, the various Christian denominations, are really “Christian”, how can they ever think of invading the privacy of the Hindus or any other religionists and try to convert them?
Of course this applies with equal vigour in the Intellectual Properties domain too, where Western “Christian” commercial interests vandalise the Eastern Traditional Knowledge Systems by patenting them for their own pecuniary benefits. Does the Born Again Christian George W. Bush know anything about this sort of piracy and terrorism?
This set of four commandments is dealt with beautifully in a short passage in the very first verse of the Isaavaasya Upanishad. It says, “Maa Grdhaha Kasyasvit Dhanam”. Do not grab, with vulture-like greed, anybody else’s wealth. Short, sweet, crisp, pithy.
Dhanam or wealth does not refer only to material possessions but includes concepts and intangibles like honour, dignity, self-worth, self-respect and anything else of value to a person. While stealing may primarily deal with material possessions, adultery (and rape and any sexual assault), bearing false witness and coveting one’s neighbour’s possessions are assaults in the conceptual and intangible areas, and are equally, or even more, traumatic to any person. The sense of values one has acquired, through the religious concepts he/she has imbibed since birth, also fall into this category of wealth, and these commandments oppose any assault on this too and specifically prohibit any conversion activity being carried out by the Christians.
Are the Pope and the Bishops and their foot-soldiers aware that these Vedas and Upanishads, carrying all these glorious concepts, have been around for a few millennia before Jesus Christ was even conceived? And that whatever Moses and Jesus Christ have given out by way of their teachings are only a restatement of whatever was already floating around elsewhere? It is a pity that these people who are ignorant of these simple truths are trying to evangelise, which is a euphemism for conversion of the Hindus and other Asians.
* * * * *
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Something To Think About - 05
Athithi Devo Bhava
It looks like the topic of religious conversion, particularly conversion of Hindus to Christianity, will not come to an end any day soon. I might as well add my bit to this delightful debate.
When the Pope John Paul II’s visit to India (November 1999) was announced, it was known that his visit was primarily to sign and issue the document based on the Asian Bishop’s Synod held in Rome in 1998. Essentially it meant giving a call for more vigorous evangelisation effort in Asia aimed at recruiting Asian people in large numbers into the Christian fold. Not unnaturally it evoked considerable protest from Hindu organisations against such conversion programmes and demands for Papal apology for the atrocities commited against Hindus in Goa, a few centuries ago, when the Christian missionaries resorted to aggressive conversion. Of course the entire Christian establishment was up in arms against any such demands, and they were ably supported by the “liberal”, “intellectual”, “secular” anti-Hindu personalities who claim to still belong to the Hindu fold. Starting with the late Alan De Lastic, the then Archbishop of Delhi and President of the Catholic Bishops Conference of India, all and sundry church dignitaries began reminding the Hindus that the Pope is coming as a guest to India, and it is India’s tradition to receive guests with honour and courtesy, and they should not resort to any such protests “which will tarnish the image of the country”. Some of them even went to the extent of learning and quoting some jargon like “Athithi Devo Bhava” which means “treat guests like God”. On the one hand, one may feel gratified that they are trying to understand something of India’s traditions, but on the other hand, it is rather like the Devil quoting the scriptures.
There are just a couple of things wrong with their usage of this “Athithi Devo Bhava” in relation to the Pope’s visit. In this connection, Acharya Giriraj Kishore, vice-president of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, referred to the Pope as a dacoit.(Asian Age, 30 Oct 1999). One should certainly protest against such a term being used to describe the Pope, since it insults the Indian dacoits who do have a certain code of conduct, and tarnishes their image. An incident, which used to make the rounds extensively quite a while ago, will go to illustrate this aspect. A gang of dacoits planned to raid the house of a wealthy person, but the house-owner came to know of this plan. Instead of panicking, he made his counter move with an intelligent strategy. When the gang arrived late in the night, expecting the household to be deep in slumber, they found the house shrouded in darkness, and made their entry after breaking open the main door. As soon as they were all in, they were taken by surprise when all the lights were switched on, and they found the large hall laid out neatly with dinner places set for the entire gang to have dinner. The house owner approached the leader of the gang and invited them all to have dinner, which they could not refuse. After enjoying the sumptuous dinner, the gang leader announced that it was against their ethics to rob a house after partaking of their food, and offered their protection to the family against attacks from other gangs too. Dacoity as such is bad and unlawful, but such is the ethical standards which even the Indian dacoits were said to have set for themselves. THEY are fit to be called Athithis. But what do the Pope, the Archbishop Alan De Lastic and the thousands of their conversion specialists going by the name of missionaries do? They enjoy all the hospitality of our nation which is not only tolerant toward all religions but accepts the validity of the “Truth” as expounded in all religions, and then exploit this hospitality and tolerance by resorting to converting our people from their native religion to Christianity. Can they ever come under the term Athithi? Can a Trojan horse ever be an Athithi?
There is another aspect which makes this injunction “Athithi Devo Bhava” inappropriate for use in connection with the Pope’s visit. This phrase forms the last part of a set which says, “Mathru Devo Bhava; Pithru Devo Bhava; Acharya Devo Bhava; Athithi Devo Bhava,” which means “Think of your mother as God; Think of your father as God; Think of your teacher as God; Think of the guest as God.” When you think of your mother, father and the teacher as God, it automatically means that you hold in high esteem, almost with a divine reverence, the values you have imbibed from them, which are certainly steeped in the religion into which they themselves have grown all their lives. Now when the Pope and the Archbishop and their cronies come to you and tell you that whatever your mother, father and teachers have taught you is all rubbish, and ask you to dump your mother, father and teachers along with their values into the trash can and go over to their side and accept Jesus Christ as the only saviour, the “Athithi Devo Bhava” also automatically stands trashed. Why should anybody hold this part alone as valid and treat these conversion devils as honourable guests? Isn’t it hypocrisy on the part of the Pope and his army of converters to make a big deal about “Athithi Devo Bhava” while trashing the other parts, namely “Mathru Devo Bhava; Pithru Devo Bhava; Acharya Devo Bhava”?
The Fifth Commandment of Moses says, “Honour thy father and thy mother …………” Doesn’t this sound somewhat like “Mathru Devo Bhava; Pithru Devo Bhava”? It is said Jesus Christ spent quite a few years in India and absorbed a lot of ideas from Hindu Dharma which he later included as part of his teachings. May be Moses too had a similar initiation and translated the Hindu thoughts in his Ten Commandments, which reflect Hindu concepts by and large, except for the first couple of Commandments.
While appreciating the effort of the Pope, the Archbishop and their army of conversion professionals to pickup some catch-words like “Athithi Devo Bhava”, one is certainly entitled to ask whether they have made any effort to learn and understand what their own Bible teaches. It is worth taking a look at some of these Biblical statements.
“Thou shalt not steal,” says the 8th Commandment of Moses. It seems to be a pretty simple instruction which can be easily understood by even the unlettered. But the Pope and his conversion army of highly educated persons do not seem to know that enticing people away from other religions into their Christian fold falls in the category of stealing. Isn’t it hypocritical on the part of the Pope and the Archbishop and others to talk about “Athithi Devo Bhava” when they are not able to understand a much simpler statement “Thou shalt not steal”? One cannot believe that the Pope did not know this, because only just a while earlier he had complained bitterly about the Protestant “wolves” who were poaching on his Catholic flock. Doesn’t it make his hypocrisy a much more heinous sin? Add to this another famous Biblical quotation “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you,” and where does it take these dignitaries? Have the Pope and the Archbishop and their coterie heard of this statement? One wonders whether to classify them as ignorant louts who do not know what their own religion is talking about, or to place them in the highest category of hypocrites?
The 9th Commandment of Moses says, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.” Do the Pope and the Archbishop and their conversion brigade think of this when they talk ill of Hinduism and other religions, referring to them as paganism and heathenism, in their effort to “steal” their folks to Christianity? Or do they just conveniently ignore such commandments as minor irritants which should not come in the way of their conversion business? But they don’t fight shy of using slogans like “Athithi Devo Bhava” out of context to demand that Hindus should welcome the Pope to India, knowing full well that he came with the specific purpose of initiating anti-Hindu subversion activity. What hypocrites!
Take a look at the 10th Commandment, which says “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbour’s.” Can anything be more comprehensive than this! In the days of Moses, these were the only possessions he could think of as normally held by anybody; house, wife, manservant, maidservant, ox and ass. If he were a Nostradamus, he would probably have added the TV, fridge, car, computer, microwave and other current day possessions. But Moses has not left anything to chance. He has provided a blanket, global coverage by saying “nor anything that is thy neighbour’s”. That means thou shalt not covet to wean away thy neighbours from their loyalty and reverence to their own religion. Do the Pope, the Archbishop and their army know anything about what their own religion teaches?
In subsequent posts we will go further into what the Ten Commandments imply about the business of religious conversion.
It looks like the topic of religious conversion, particularly conversion of Hindus to Christianity, will not come to an end any day soon. I might as well add my bit to this delightful debate.
When the Pope John Paul II’s visit to India (November 1999) was announced, it was known that his visit was primarily to sign and issue the document based on the Asian Bishop’s Synod held in Rome in 1998. Essentially it meant giving a call for more vigorous evangelisation effort in Asia aimed at recruiting Asian people in large numbers into the Christian fold. Not unnaturally it evoked considerable protest from Hindu organisations against such conversion programmes and demands for Papal apology for the atrocities commited against Hindus in Goa, a few centuries ago, when the Christian missionaries resorted to aggressive conversion. Of course the entire Christian establishment was up in arms against any such demands, and they were ably supported by the “liberal”, “intellectual”, “secular” anti-Hindu personalities who claim to still belong to the Hindu fold. Starting with the late Alan De Lastic, the then Archbishop of Delhi and President of the Catholic Bishops Conference of India, all and sundry church dignitaries began reminding the Hindus that the Pope is coming as a guest to India, and it is India’s tradition to receive guests with honour and courtesy, and they should not resort to any such protests “which will tarnish the image of the country”. Some of them even went to the extent of learning and quoting some jargon like “Athithi Devo Bhava” which means “treat guests like God”. On the one hand, one may feel gratified that they are trying to understand something of India’s traditions, but on the other hand, it is rather like the Devil quoting the scriptures.
There are just a couple of things wrong with their usage of this “Athithi Devo Bhava” in relation to the Pope’s visit. In this connection, Acharya Giriraj Kishore, vice-president of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, referred to the Pope as a dacoit.(Asian Age, 30 Oct 1999). One should certainly protest against such a term being used to describe the Pope, since it insults the Indian dacoits who do have a certain code of conduct, and tarnishes their image. An incident, which used to make the rounds extensively quite a while ago, will go to illustrate this aspect. A gang of dacoits planned to raid the house of a wealthy person, but the house-owner came to know of this plan. Instead of panicking, he made his counter move with an intelligent strategy. When the gang arrived late in the night, expecting the household to be deep in slumber, they found the house shrouded in darkness, and made their entry after breaking open the main door. As soon as they were all in, they were taken by surprise when all the lights were switched on, and they found the large hall laid out neatly with dinner places set for the entire gang to have dinner. The house owner approached the leader of the gang and invited them all to have dinner, which they could not refuse. After enjoying the sumptuous dinner, the gang leader announced that it was against their ethics to rob a house after partaking of their food, and offered their protection to the family against attacks from other gangs too. Dacoity as such is bad and unlawful, but such is the ethical standards which even the Indian dacoits were said to have set for themselves. THEY are fit to be called Athithis. But what do the Pope, the Archbishop Alan De Lastic and the thousands of their conversion specialists going by the name of missionaries do? They enjoy all the hospitality of our nation which is not only tolerant toward all religions but accepts the validity of the “Truth” as expounded in all religions, and then exploit this hospitality and tolerance by resorting to converting our people from their native religion to Christianity. Can they ever come under the term Athithi? Can a Trojan horse ever be an Athithi?
There is another aspect which makes this injunction “Athithi Devo Bhava” inappropriate for use in connection with the Pope’s visit. This phrase forms the last part of a set which says, “Mathru Devo Bhava; Pithru Devo Bhava; Acharya Devo Bhava; Athithi Devo Bhava,” which means “Think of your mother as God; Think of your father as God; Think of your teacher as God; Think of the guest as God.” When you think of your mother, father and the teacher as God, it automatically means that you hold in high esteem, almost with a divine reverence, the values you have imbibed from them, which are certainly steeped in the religion into which they themselves have grown all their lives. Now when the Pope and the Archbishop and their cronies come to you and tell you that whatever your mother, father and teachers have taught you is all rubbish, and ask you to dump your mother, father and teachers along with their values into the trash can and go over to their side and accept Jesus Christ as the only saviour, the “Athithi Devo Bhava” also automatically stands trashed. Why should anybody hold this part alone as valid and treat these conversion devils as honourable guests? Isn’t it hypocrisy on the part of the Pope and his army of converters to make a big deal about “Athithi Devo Bhava” while trashing the other parts, namely “Mathru Devo Bhava; Pithru Devo Bhava; Acharya Devo Bhava”?
The Fifth Commandment of Moses says, “Honour thy father and thy mother …………” Doesn’t this sound somewhat like “Mathru Devo Bhava; Pithru Devo Bhava”? It is said Jesus Christ spent quite a few years in India and absorbed a lot of ideas from Hindu Dharma which he later included as part of his teachings. May be Moses too had a similar initiation and translated the Hindu thoughts in his Ten Commandments, which reflect Hindu concepts by and large, except for the first couple of Commandments.
While appreciating the effort of the Pope, the Archbishop and their army of conversion professionals to pickup some catch-words like “Athithi Devo Bhava”, one is certainly entitled to ask whether they have made any effort to learn and understand what their own Bible teaches. It is worth taking a look at some of these Biblical statements.
“Thou shalt not steal,” says the 8th Commandment of Moses. It seems to be a pretty simple instruction which can be easily understood by even the unlettered. But the Pope and his conversion army of highly educated persons do not seem to know that enticing people away from other religions into their Christian fold falls in the category of stealing. Isn’t it hypocritical on the part of the Pope and the Archbishop and others to talk about “Athithi Devo Bhava” when they are not able to understand a much simpler statement “Thou shalt not steal”? One cannot believe that the Pope did not know this, because only just a while earlier he had complained bitterly about the Protestant “wolves” who were poaching on his Catholic flock. Doesn’t it make his hypocrisy a much more heinous sin? Add to this another famous Biblical quotation “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you,” and where does it take these dignitaries? Have the Pope and the Archbishop and their coterie heard of this statement? One wonders whether to classify them as ignorant louts who do not know what their own religion is talking about, or to place them in the highest category of hypocrites?
The 9th Commandment of Moses says, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.” Do the Pope and the Archbishop and their conversion brigade think of this when they talk ill of Hinduism and other religions, referring to them as paganism and heathenism, in their effort to “steal” their folks to Christianity? Or do they just conveniently ignore such commandments as minor irritants which should not come in the way of their conversion business? But they don’t fight shy of using slogans like “Athithi Devo Bhava” out of context to demand that Hindus should welcome the Pope to India, knowing full well that he came with the specific purpose of initiating anti-Hindu subversion activity. What hypocrites!
Take a look at the 10th Commandment, which says “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbour’s.” Can anything be more comprehensive than this! In the days of Moses, these were the only possessions he could think of as normally held by anybody; house, wife, manservant, maidservant, ox and ass. If he were a Nostradamus, he would probably have added the TV, fridge, car, computer, microwave and other current day possessions. But Moses has not left anything to chance. He has provided a blanket, global coverage by saying “nor anything that is thy neighbour’s”. That means thou shalt not covet to wean away thy neighbours from their loyalty and reverence to their own religion. Do the Pope, the Archbishop and their army know anything about what their own religion teaches?
In subsequent posts we will go further into what the Ten Commandments imply about the business of religious conversion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
