ten questions to a missionary

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

although I'm not exactly a Christian, I recognize its teachings to be

largely analogous to Vaishnavism. Let me take a position of advocatus

diaboli here:

 

> 1) Jesus is indicated as a baby and then an adult over thirty years

later. What was Jesus doing for the intervening thirty years and why

is the Bible quiet on the issue? If a Son of God was miraculously

born, why is there no history for thirty years?

 

This is a controversial topic with speculation outweighing evidence.

>From the Gospels like Luke 4:22 and John 6:42 it seems He was

well-known as a carpenter in Nazareth.

 

> What happened to his father and mother, they disappear after his

birth?

 

While Joseph allegedly died during His life, mother Mary survived His

crucifixion. Not much more can be said, imho.

 

> What happened to his brothers and sisters?

 

For the lack of evidence let's skip the debate if they were real

brothers and sisters or cousins, which divides various denominations.

They are just briefly mentioned in the Gospels (Matt. 13:55-6, Mark

6:3).

 

> 2) Jesus is always shown as white. That is one colour he definitely

would not have been in Israel, people who had moved from Egypt. He

would probably have been brown, possibly black, but definitely not

white. Why is his true colour never indicated? How many people would

follow Jesus in the West if he was shown as brown?

 

Not always but often. Artistic licence combined with egocentrism.

 

> 3) Why when Jesus was a practising Jew who never intended to start a

religion, the Christians throughout history have persecuted the Jews?

 

Out of ignorance. No true spiritual teaching urges persecution of

followers of other traditions. This ignorance is, however, found in

other traditions, too.

 

> 4) Why when Jesus said "Love thy neighbour", the Christians have

never been able to practise it? Historically more people have been

killed in the name of Jesus than for any other one reason (shortly

followed by the name of Mohamed, of course). The followers of Jesus

destroyed great civilisations in Latin America. Tens of thousands of

"witches" were killed in the west. They even killed each other

(Catholics versus Protestants). Where was neighbourly tolerance then?

Most of the killings happened when the Church controlled or guided

the

government.

 

See 3.

 

> 5) The Bible states that the world started some 6000 years ago.

History has often been manipulated to fit this date. Now science can

date civilisations and events thousands of years beyond that date,

would they accept that the Bible is wrong on this issue? People have

been killed for proclaiming that the earth is neither round nor

centre

of the universe by the followers of Jesus. Why this entrenchment

against scientific facts, what do they have to hide?

 

This number is not found in the Bible but was calculated by one

English bishop based on the recorded lifespans of biblical

patriarchs.

So it is only anumana and thus prone to error.

 

> 6) How can one imagine a God to love if he is willing to send people

to hell forever? A loving father would be forgiving and not

threatening.

 

Literal understanding of "hell forever" doesn't fit to the Vedic

version.

Hell must end latest at the end of Brahma's life (end of the

universe).

 

Hell is only the last solution for the incorrigible.

 

> Why do the followers of Jesus always threaten damnation rather than

win by discussion and conviction?

 

Ask them. Maybe they lack good enough arguments but it can't work in

the long run.

 

> 7) Why when the early "Christians" believed in reincarnation, the

Church decided 600 years later to ban the belief? Was this change to

do with control of people by threatening hell for just one chance in

having a life?

 

There were corrupt impersonal ideas of reincarnation to support

race/birth casteism, oppression of slaves and women, killing

defective

individuals, etc. (in words of Bhakti Ananda Maharaja).

 

These are not Vedic ideas. Just a few examples:

 

Rig Veda 10.125.5, Atharva Veda 4.30.03: "I verily of myself declare

this which is approved by both gods and men; whosoever I will, I

render him formidable, I make him a Brahma, a rishi or a sage."

 

Some assert that Aryans are fair skinned and sudras are dark skinned.

They also claim that four varnas were based on colours of skin. This

is not true as Lord Rama and Lord Krishna are always depicted as dark

complexioned. Rishi Kanva who richly contributed to Rig Veda was

himself a dark skinned person (Rig Veda 10.31.11).

 

Casteism and untouchability are in direct contradiction to Rig Veda

8.93.13, 10.191, Atharva Veda 3.30, 7.54 and Yajur Veda 26.02, 36.18.

 

> Why when there is no belief in reincarnation, do they have

"born-again" Christians?

 

This second birth refers to baptism, i.e. birth of Holy Spirit. Cf.

dvija.

 

> 8) Why is the Bible so wishy washy that it always needs experts to

interpret the meaning? Why is it not clear to read and understand?

Again, is it for control of people as interpretation so open?

 

Any scripture needs interpretation in sync with disciplic lineage.

 

> 9) Why when people in the west are leaving the church such that less

than 10% of "Christians" go to church in the UK that the missionaries

concentrate on uneducated or poor parts of the world rather than

those

that have abandoned the Church in the west?

 

Christianity gave way to modernism and became more and more weak.

Most

think the "one-life paradigm" and want to save as many people as

possible before the end of the world.

 

> Why have the "ex-Christians" been abandoned, is it too late to

change their mind or too difficult or coercion cannot be easily

applied?

 

Both. But again, it's a short-sighted policy which strikes back.

 

> 10) Why do the followers of Jesus carry out charity with a view to

conversion? Why not have pure charities without strings attached? The

Christians do anything for conversion, but almost nothing if

conversion is not possible. One point that missionaries make is that

Jesus died on the cross, as if this is unique. But tens of thousands

of people died on the cross, as this was a common means of execution.

Dozens of men died on their own cross at the same time as Jesus was

executed.

 

Also the Vedic teaching is that the best charity is to help

spiritually, not just materially. This shouldn't rule out 'normal'

charity though which is dharmic.

 

> Did they all die on the cross to save us?

 

Without getting into debate on His spiritual position here, Jesus was

- quite obviously - special.

 

 

I'm convinced that better mutual understading among various theistic

traditions would greatly reduce problems of today's world. Our

website

tries to help in this regard.

 

 

Hope this clarifies this issue a bit.

 

Your servant, Jan (www.veda.harekrsna.cz)

 

____________________

Reklama:

Darujte k Valentýnu Modré z nebe od Orionu. Po¹lete zdarma valentýnská pøání,

loga a melodie na mobil !

http://ad2.seznam.cz/redir.cgi?instance=42383%26url=http://www.orionmodreznebe.c\

z