• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Hindu extremists protest 114 foot tall Jesus statue

Should this statue go up or not?

  • Yes, it should go up

    Votes: 5 20.0%
  • No, it should not go up

    Votes: 20 80.0%

  • Total voters
    25

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Ah yes, because protesting against the imposing of a religion that's not your own makes you an "extremist". What rubbish.
Good line.

Sad thing is, that these "imposers" are suffering from a severe form of "Arrogance" called "Spiritual Arrogance" which is known to be incurable.
So even if we repeat it a thousand times to them, they will only become more extremists (personal experience).
But good to repeat, so that all non-imposers become aware to protest them.
In the end they are bound to lose and have to give up or die,
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
It's causes so much pain, all over. Divorces, pitting brother against brother, son against parents, neighbour against neighbour. The subtle side effects of it are visible all around you in Indian society. The sad thing is that when two cultures clash, the most aggressive one wins, and in this case it's been very one sided, as the Christians allow aggression (in proselytising). Fortunately there are some Hindus who have finally seen through it, and thought "Uh-oh, what have we done?" and are noe taking more defensive steps.

Sadly, the root of the problem has been that Hindus have been too nice.
Thank you. Very true. And I totally can relate to that. I have been too nice my whole life (no other choice having a narc father).
Good thing is, that I learned a lot from it. I hardly claim something as a fact, but in my opinion "Christianity + evangelizing = disease".
I would never say such a rude thing, if they were not evangelizing:D and telling me "you go to Hell because you don't take Jesus as only savior"

Good thing is, that I believe in Karma (Action creates Reaction).
Bad thing (for Christians), they probably end up in their self created Hell.
What can I do? They refuse to accept this very valuable truth from me.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
It's causes so much pain, all over. Divorces, pitting brother against brother, son against parents, neighbour against neighbour. The subtle side effects of it are visible all around you in Indian society
Very true. Imagine what a fantastic world we would live in, if those troubles you mentioned (families "killing" each other emotionally) were gone.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
That's another problem ... purchase of land. Western money comes in and land, especially Hindu temples. is purchased. Lots of it.
Purchased or annexed and given to Christians during the Portuguese and British rule. Yes, we have regulations about foreign money also, Foreign Contributions Regulation Act (FCRA). Nothing new, has been there for ages and ignored for political reasons. :)
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
it is true that they are not always particularly ethical in this regard.
evangelizing is per defintion "unethical" when they use phrases like "you will go to Hell, unless you accept only Jesus as your sole refuge",
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I don't know anything about this case specifically, but laws like this are commonly used to discriminate against religious minorities in developing countries:
In this case it's the "religious minority" doing the "religious discrimination" ... "My way is the Highway"
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I tend to agree with you on this.

People have to deal with the realities as they exist, not as they would like them to be. A massive Jesus isn't likely to be well received, and doesn't seem like the smartest idea given potential consequences.
I tend to disagree with you on this one:

If Christians would make a peace offer "We stop evangelizing from now on ... could we have a statue of Jesus?"
Many Hindus would grant them the biggest statue ... I would. Hindus just love statues. Size is no problem.
And it's obvious it's about love, because most statues in India are very symbolical + esthetical.

I have seen so many temples. The more Deities the merrier it is for them.
If you bring your own Jesus, they love to put Jesus on their altar.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Purchased or annexed and given to Christians during the Portuguese and British rule. Yes, we have regulations about foreign money also, Foreign Contributions Regulation Act (FCRA). Nothing new, has been there for ages and ignored for political reasons. :)
Big problem around Tirupati, but that's probably only the tip of the iceberg. It's like laying siege. I remember how struck I was by the huge crosses atop schools and hospitals in TN. Some of those could have paid for 6 more beds, or 2 more classrooms. But it was a dead giveaway for the real reason they were built. I have nothing against foreign money with no strings attached.
 

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
There's no imposition. The village is mostly Christian and the land is private.

Thanks for clarifying.

On private land, the only consideration is the size.

However, this is a tad like Dearborn Michigan. I'm not sure how much sway minority religions ought to have. No to a statue, yes to a church?
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
However there is also a violent past between the Hindus and Christians in the form of the Goan Inquisition and others. This is the main issue.
Interesting detail ... this is the main issue. So many years ago ... still an issue. That tells a lot.
Probably the evangelizing Christians don't know this historical fact. I would really feel ashamed.

The Goa Inquisition (Portuguese: Inquisição de Goa) was an extension of the Portuguese Inquisition in colonial-era Portuguese India. The Inquisition was established to force conversion to the Roman Catholic Church and maintain Catholic orthodoxy in the Indian dominions of the Portuguese Empire. [1] The institution persecuted Hindus, Muslims, Bene Israels, New Christians and the Judaizing Nasranis by the colonial era Portuguese government and Jesuit clergy in Portuguese India.[1] It was established in 1560, briefly suppressed from 1774 to 1778, continued thereafter and finally abolished in 1820
Goa Inquisition - Wikipedia
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Even nowadays I still see Christians evangelizing in India (lack of conscience ... I guess).

Good to read that Christianity fails in India. Of course they do create lots of damage by trying.

“Christianity is posing a growing and serious demographic threat to Hinduism by converting large
numbers of Hindus through aggressive proselytising. This effort is heavily funded by Christian organisations in the West that see India as being ripe for large-scale conversions. Since proselytising and conversions are not part of Hindu tradition, or that of any religion that originated in India, the playing field is tilted against Hinduism, and this is causing serious societal friction.
This sometimes leads to spontaneous and violent reactions.”
Why Christianity Failed In India | Outlook India Magazine
 

Marcion

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma
They may be trying to spread their evangelical religion but in my part of the world Christianity has become a minority and still shrinking. Dogmatic religion can only be stopped by higher education and development,
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
India is the only nation on earth along with Turkey, which has never persecuted its Jewish population, which has found refuge and thrived in India for centuries.
I think Jews don't evangelize, so that mixes well with India maybe.

Zoroastrians were granted refuge in India by the Hindus after the arab invasion of Persia, and they and their temples and culture exists to this day intact in India.
When I see a statue of Zoroaster I just love that man. He could come to my home any day.
Bring His fire with Him would be "cool" or rather a warm welcome; as it is cold here now.

Similarly with Bahai refugees escaping islamic persecution in Iran have found refuge in India.
That's nice. When travelling to see the Dalai Lama (also found refuge in India) I saw Bahai's huge Lotus Temple in Delhi. Beautiful.

The Arya Samaj and Buddhism faced heavy resistance from orthodox Hindu society for their teachings proclaiming the equality and fraternity of all human beings and criticizing casteism and casteist discrimination.
In my view "equality" means that we all have this "Divine Spark" in us. Still we are all free to express ourselves in our unique ways
I believe a pure caste system could work, if the ones in charge have no ego (lust for money, power and control). But alas, where to find that.

The Prajapita Brahmakumaris also faced heavy resistance and violence from chauvinistic Hindu society for their teachings that empowered women as leaders and teachers in religious society, rather than being confined to the four walls of the house as illiterate and submissive child rearing machines.
They must have hated my Master. He praised women always, especially being more spiritual than men, having 7 divine qualities, whereas man 4.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
They may be trying to spread their evangelical religion but in my part of the world Christianity has become a minority and still shrinking
Does it shrink as huge (only 14 million people though) as in the Netherlands:
1900: Christianity 96% + Atheist 05%
2015: Christianity 45% + Atheist 50%
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Dogmatic religion can only be stopped by higher education and development,
Dogmatic, if meaning judgmental, indeed needs some education. Jesus Himself told Christians "Do not Judge".
Who you think could qualify to teach this Higher education to Christians, if Jesus failed?

Dogma means the doctrine of belief in a religion or a political system. The literal meaning of dogma in ancient Greek was "something that seems true." These days, in English, dogma is more absolute. If you believe in a certain religion or philosophy, you believe in its dogma, or core assumptions.
 
evangelizing is per defintion "unethical" when they use phrases like "you will go to Hell, unless you accept only Jesus as your sole refuge",

Although it no doubt happens, that tends not to be what happens most of the time though. Even the average Evangelical Protestant doesn't take that approach.

In this case it's the "religious minority" doing the "religious discrimination" ... "My way is the Highway"

You seem to have somewhat rose-coloured glasses on.

You quoted someone from the RSS:

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh - Wikipedia

I tend to disagree with you on this one:

If Christians would make a peace offer "We stop evangelizing from now on ... could we have a statue of Jesus?"
Many Hindus would grant them the biggest statue ... I would. Hindus just love statues. Size is no problem.
And it's obvious it's about love, because most statues in India are very symbolical + esthetical.

I have seen so many temples. The more Deities the merrier it is for them.
If you bring your own Jesus, they love to put Jesus on their altar.

Have you ever considered that in a country of over 1 billion people, some people may not be quite as open-minded as others?

In situations like this all it takes is a small but highly vocal minority to cause problems.
 

Marcion

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma
Does it shrink as huge (only 14 million people though) as in the Netherlands:
1900: Christianity 96% + Atheist 05%
2015: Christianity 45% + Atheist 50%
As much.
That should not be 50% Atheist but rather 50% answered "having no fixed religion".
Higher education stimulates rational thinking which counteracts receptiveness for dogmatic types of religion.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
My personal view is that there should be no land allotted by government officials for statues supporting or promoting any religion. The article explicitly mentions that the state government allotted the required land.

And to anyone stating "it's private land" - you can't just do whatever you want on private land. We all know this. Local governments have their own code and requirements for structures built. There is, I am sure, a reason that the government had to be involved in allotting the land for the project. We're talking about a 114 foot structure. I could probably build a 114 foot structure on my property, but it wouldn't be to code, and would very likely be an incredible safety hazard. The government was involved, period, and they signed off on the statue. I say, if religious people want to build statues of this magnitude (beyond simple land decoration) they should be required to find land that doesn't have government-controlled building requirements that they need to meet. The government of a land that is home to people of varying religious persuasion should never involve itself in meting out permissions and sanctions for religious adornments. Buildings are one thing... religious idols and singular instances of iconography are quite another.
 
Top