The Tale of Two Mindsets - Power of the Hindu Good News

The Hindu God News should be shared (http://hindugoodnews.com) because the mindset that it brings can be life-changing.

Here are some thoughts contrasting the Hindu Good News with the Christian Good News.

Mindset and locus of control:

Locus of control refers to the extent to which individuals believe they can control events affecting them.  A person's "locus" is conceptualized as either internal (the person believes they can control their life) or external (meaning they believe their decisions and life are controlled by environmental factors which they cannot influence, or by chance or fate).  Individuals with a strong internal locus of control believe events in their life derive primarily from their own actions: for example, when receiving test results, people with an internal locus of control tend to praise or blame themselves and their abilities. People with strong external locus of control tend to express helplessness and blame external factors such as the country or the company.

Let us say that you have two choices in mindsets:

(1) Believe that you are a limited human being, a sinner.  That you cannot help yourself out of this sinful existence without the help of an external savior.

(2) Believe that you are an unlimited being as is everyone else around you.  The physical form and material endowments or lack of them do not define who you are.  There is no separate external savior.   As the unlimited being, you are the savior, the architect of your life.

What locus of control do each of these mindsets lead to?

Which mindset is likely to be enable one to move from an external to internal locus of control?

Which mindset is likely to be enable one to move from an internal to external locus of control?

Let us say that you have two choices in mindsets:

(1) Believe that you are a limited being, a sinner.  Sinful actions are committed because of a petty mindset that we are limited and innately sinful beings with plenty of shortages in life, a mindset of poverty.  Given that we are inherently limited and sinful, we cannot help doing sinful things.  That an external power will absolve you of all your sins in this life in exchange for believing that the external power has unlimited saving power.  

(2) Believe that everyone bears consequences to their sinful actions.  Recognizing that we are unlimited beings - non-separate from each other, the world, and the ultimate divine - is the way to avoid petty sins in life, is the way to overcome a mindset of poverty and replace it with a mindset of plentifulness and generosity, of compassion and forgiving nature with an understanding that others have petty nature with their mindsets of limited helpless beings.

Which mindset is likely to lead to a life of deliberate sin?  

Which mindset is likely to lead to compassion, caring, and forgiving nature?

History-Centric Dogma of Christianity

Mainstream Christianity has some essential, non-negotiable beliefs or dogma.  The dogma are centered on some crucial historical claims.  Dogma can be summarized in the form of three major claims.  The purpose of these claims, and their supporting arguments, is to convince the reader that Jesus is son of God and believing in Jesus as savior is the only means to salvation.

Claim 1:  Jesus died on the cross but was brought back to life by God.

The historical sequence of three claims is non-negotiable for mainstream Christians:

(1) Jesus was crucified.

(2) Jesus died on the cross.

(3) Jesu came back to life after dying on the cross.

An additional premise is:

(4) Only God can bring back someone from death to life.

The conclusion drawn from these four premises is that Jesus died on the cross but was brought back to life by God.

Christianity will be incomplete if the belief stops with this conclusion.  There is more to the Christian dogma.

Claim 2: God sent his son in human form as Jesus and subjected him to death by crucifixion as the ultimate human sacrifice to atone for Original Sin of humanity.

(1) Adam committed the original sin by eating the forbidden fruit.

(2) God cursed Adam and his successors (all of humanity, since Adam was the first human male) with Original Sin.  Original Sin separated humans from proximity to God and made humans mortals.

(3) sacrifices were made to atone for sins.  Size of the sacrifice to atone for a sin had to be commensurate with the sin.  Over time, Jews practiced all forms of sacrifice, including human sacrifice, but none were sufficient to atone for Original Sin.  

(4) God sent his son in human form as the ultimate sacrifice as payback to atone for the Original Sin.  Thus, death of Jesus was intended by God to be the ultimate sacrifice that was needed to free up humanity from Original Sin.

Claim 3: Belief in Jesus as savior is essential to claim the benefit of freedom from Original Sin and achieve eternal life in heaven in the proximity of God.

The centrality of the Christian faith is in the notion of salvation and belief in Jesus as the savior as the only means to achieving salvation.

Above claims are essential dogma for Christianity.  Following words of Paul to the Church of Corinth as shown in the Bible clarify this:

1 Corinthians 15:14-19 

And if Christ has never been raised, then the message we tell is worth nothing. And your faith is worth nothing. And we will also be guilty of lying about God, because we have told people about him, saying that he raised Christ from death. And if no one is raised from death, then God never raised Christ from death. If those who have died are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised from death, then your faith is for nothing; you are still guilty of your sins. And those in Christ who have already died are lost. If our hope in Christ is only for this life here on earth, then people should feel more sorry for us than for anyone else.

(B) Liberal Christianity is the fringes of Christian faith, remaining unclear about its level of commitment to historical claims.  Thus, liberal Christianity comes in flavors with different levels of commitment to above arguments, with some rejecting more claims than others.  Many youngsters are rejecting Christianity's historical claims.  Liberal Christianity's blurring helps attract such people back to the church.

(C) Be clear in your understanding that Nicene creed memorializes the essential, non-negotiable elements.  Nicene creed summarizes the essential history-centric elements for Christians.  Do not get distracted by non-essential history-centric aspects such as Moses parting the sea or the idea of creation in Genesis.

(D) Nicene creed is a dogma unsuitable for reconciling with science. Christians will try to convince you that forensic methods of analyzing history validate claims of Nicene creed.  They do not. 

(E) Christians shift focus to non-essential Christian theology and then constantly adjust theological claims to accommodate science.  Thus, theology adjusts itself to fit with the theory of evolution, with the theory of Big Bang, with relaxed absolute moral standards etc., Recognize that theology is merely a red-herring designed to convince you to accept the dogma.  Following Paul's words above, Christianity's real claim is the history-centric aspect of Nicene creed.

God-Man Interaction

Joe D'Cruz talks about how fishermen in Kerala who are Christian are drawn back to worshipping their ancestral God Murugan.  This behavior of Christian fishermen points to a deficiency in modes of god-Man communication allowed in Abrahamic faiths.  These fishermen are not happy with the arms-length contractual relationship offered through prophets.  Jesus, for example, offers salvation to Christians in return for faith that Jesus is the son of God.  Christians get an arms-length contractual relationship.  Contrast this to the beautiful and personal relationship that is depicted in such acts as moorti pooja or singing devotional Keerthanas.  Those Christian fishermen want the intimacy with Murugan that their Hindu ancestors had.  While they worship Murugan next to Jesus, all they really desire is the intimacy with Murugan.

God-Man Interaction

How can man interact with God?  How does God communicate with man?  In theistic religions, only three modes arise for this God-Man communication.  Not all modes are available in a religion.  In Abrahamic religions in particular, we know that God is accessible only through prophets.

Third-Person communication: Man cannot communicate with the infinite God directly.  To facilitate communication, God chooses special people called prophets.  God conveys all his messages to humanity through these prophets.  Rest of humanity has no direct access to the infinite God.  All access to God's word then is restricted through the recorded words of prophets (hence third-person communication).  Religiousness in this case boils down to remaining devout to the word in the recorded scriptures and holding the belief that the prophet was a genuine mediator.  Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam allow only third-person communication.  Other modes would bypass the need for prophets and thus undermine the history for prophets.  Rest of humanity has no recourse to prophet either but only to written records and historical claims authenticating the communication.

Second-Person communication: Man cannot directly communicate with the infinite God.  However, man can communicate with God  by invoking him into finite forms or objects and then ritually interact with him.  Pagan religions that existed before Abrahamic religions sought this approach for communion with God.  Biblical records of the formation of Abrahamic religions speak of the blind beliefs of local Pagan religions and how they blindly believed that their idols  themselves were Gods.  Clearly, this is a perversion of the human effort to achieve a second-person communication where the human forgets the symbolism and mistakes the idol itself to be God.  An appropiate Second-Person communication explicitly acknowledges and maintains the essence of symbolism.  This is evident in Hindu rituals even today.  For example, a Hindu builds a Ganesh moorti from clay, invokes Ganesha into the moorti, and then interacts indirectly with Ganesha by interacting with the moorti. At the end, the Hindu calls for Ganesha to return, and then submerges the moorti in water to let it disintegrate.  Hindus even celebrate the occasion of Ganesh moorti nimajjan in a local water body.

First-Person communication: When man is directly in communion with God through a higher state of consciousness, we call that direct communication.  Not every man may achieve this, but through special methods, all men are capable of achieving this state.  Rishis of ancient India who recorded the Vedas are an example. Over time, sampradayas or lineages evolved as different traditions to achieve communication with God or achieve an understanding of ultimate reality.

First and second person communication became impossible in religious traditions which held that God is transcendental and not immanent thus absent from the material world.  Such religions do not leave much even for imagination, forcing one to hold that any form for God is false, and that idols are false gods.  The new testament too warns that symbolic worship is devil worship.  Yahweh even sent down a commandment, in fact the very first commandment, that he, a jealous god, will not tolerate any worshipping of other gods. Alas, Yahweh leaves no choice for humans to associate with him, even hold a thought of him with form.  To make up for this lapse, God has to use human prophets or messiahs as mediators.

Both first and second person modes of communication are available in Hinduism appropriate to the individual's maturity.  Brahman, for Hindus, is both transcendental and immanent thus allowing for as much closeness as one desires.  

At a first glance, one can mistake a priest in a temple as a mediator to God.   Priest is only guiding you in the process of worshipping God.  Priest is merely a guide and not an intermediary between a worshipper and God.

Moorti pooja is second-person communication with God.  Murti pooja is an ancient tradition that has continued in India for millenia and thrives even today.  The intent of second-person communication is clear and distinct in the Indian moorti-pooja tradition.  Even today, individual Hindus perform moorti pooja in their homes where he/she invokes a deity into the moorti and then treat the moorti as a guest in the house by performing various activities such as making arrangements for their bath, offering them food, etc.,  The Hindu fully realizes the value of moorti pooja: that without the second-person communication as a bridge, it is practically impossible to reach first-person communication; and that second-person communication is a continuum that offers solace and intimacy with Ishwara that the individual is prepared to handle.

The oft-quoted clay-pot from Chandogya Upanishad is a reminder to the Hindu that names and forms are not the ultimate Brahman but Ishwara, a symbolism of the integral unity that ties names and forms to the Ultimate Truth.  Recognition of the temporal dependence of names and forms in the perceptual world on the unchanging Ultimate Truth is the reason that the Hindu is not caught up in History-centric beliefs.  For example, for a Hindu, the central concern is the message of Buddha but not the actual time and events of his life.  For a Christian, the actual history is central to the belief system.  As Peter says in the Bible, without the belief in the historicity of crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, the entire Christian belief system collapses.  The actual messages delivered by Jesus are just incidental. Historicity of Jesus is central.

Tradition of Ishta devata allows for one to develop deep intimacy with forms and names of worship that suits the individual. Given the richness of intimacy allowed in Hinduism, it is hardly a surprise that third-person communication is alien to Hindus.  

Over time, Vedic rituals transformed into Upasana meditation with a specific deity.  The term 'Upasana' means relating to a deity in a prescribed manner.  There are many kinds of Upasanas in different sects and lineages.  Upasana bridged the distance of arms-length moorti pooja or second-person communication to the ever closeness to God leading to first-person communication.  Here again, Indian system is context-dependent.  Depending on the maturity of the individual, Hindus can choose to communicate with God - through Tantra or physical performance with the body via participation in Yajna, Rituals etc., through Mantra or sound where the belief is that specific pronunciations and vibrations are essential, and where the mind and intellect, but not the body, are used in the communication, or through meditation where only the intellect is involved.

Equivocating About Sameness of Religions

We should push people who use sameness argument to clarify what they mean by it: identicalness or similarity in certain aspects.  DO NOT let them equivocate.

Sugar and salt are both white with similar physical appearance.  They are not the same because of their differences regardless of their similarities.  Sugar and salt are similar in some respects but they are not identical.  We understand what salt and sugar are by means of their differences, not by similarities. 

What makes religions distinct is incompatible beliefs.  That two religions have some common beliefs does not change anything and does not make them the same in all respects - we need to focus on the differences to pay attention to their defining beliefs.

If two religions A and B are the same and A came first, then B is merely a restatement of A and hence unnecessary.  B is merely a duplicate.

If anyone claims sameness, ask them why they would not go with the original and drop the duplicates.  Their response will invariably focus on the differences. 

We should ask tye same question to Hindus who bring up sameness.  If they truly believe Christianity and Islam are the same as Hinduism, why do they not go tell folks of those religions to drop duplicates and go with the original Hinduism?

Oh, may be they mean that there is some truth in all religions? That is not useful because it far from sufficient.  

Understanding the purpose of sameness principle explains in what ways sameness is legitimate and in what ways it is limited..  Purpose of sameness is two fold: (1) philosophical recognition that an earnest desire to know the truth can manifest itself in multiple ways.  This diversity is fundamental to human endeavor. (2) It is safe to say that two religions are distinct if and only if they have some incompatible beliefs.  Thus, at most one religion can be true.  All others have to be false.  Until we have conclusive evidence and universal consensus that a particular religion is true, we should consider alternaties as likely and show them respect.

Hinduism differs from other faiths like Christianity and Islam in two ways. First of all, it does not believe in any dogma and rejects the exclusive claim of any individual, however highly evolved, to the monopoly of Truth.   Rejection of such monopoly is what Hindus mean when they say there are multiple paths to God.  That is what the appropriate meaning for sameness is.


You cannot have mutual respect just by focusing on what is common.  Mutual respect requires acknowledging differences openly and acknowledging that, while no more than one religion can be true, no one religion  can be shown to be true.

What is Wrong if Hindus Accept  Jesus as an Avatar?

Hindus who are unclear as to why it is not OK to accept Jesus as an Avatar,  please consider the following:

(1) One cannot accept Jesus as an Avatar without accepting everything Jesus said is true.  The only source of what Jesus said or did is the bible.  One cannot accept Jesus as Avatar and not accept the bible. Jesus is a real person with a history of sayings and actions.  This history also ties him intimately to Old Testament and prophecies made there.  Jesus also speaks of Old Testament characters as real prophets.  You have to accept those prophets and all that they said or did.

(2) The moment you accept the bible, exclusivism is triggered which automatically implies that all things not verifiable historically in matters of divinity / God are suspect.  In particular, such non-verifiable claims will be deemed false if not in agreement with the bible.  

(3) Thus, bible becomes the primary authority and everything else is secondary.  Thus, if Bible says all gods other than Yahweh are false gods, you have to agree that other avatars cannot be God.  Thus, Jesus becomes your only Avatar or God.  All your itihasa turn into myths.  All avatars become false gods.  Murti puja becomes idol worship and the bible tells you that idol worship is devil worship.  You are forced to denounce everything other than Jesus.

(4) history-centric aspects of Bible are incompatible with the concept of Avatars.  Jesus alone is son of God.  Rest of the prophets are merely humans with special previleges.  God does not appear in human form in the Bible.  That very idea is antithetical to the notion of God sending his only son to save humankind.  Hindus cannot accept Jesus as an avatar and at the same time accept all history-centric aspects of the bible.  How can Hindus accept Jesus but not the essence of bible when bible is your only source of information on Jesus?  It is impossible.  If you accept Jesus, you cannot be a Hindu.  By reductio ad absurdum, Hindus cannot accept Jesus as an avatar.

Turning the Other Cheek

As you see oppression from the political system in your country, as you see injustice happening, you get angry. It is very good to get angry at injustice and sin. 

But what does the Bible warn us about? 

“Be angry, and do not sin” (Ephesians 4:26)

We should not react to injustice and corruption by committing the sin of disobedience to rulers and authorities, as that will be disobeying God’s ordinance: 

“He that sets himself in opposition to the authority resists the ordinance of God; and they who [thus] resist shall bring sentence of guilt on themselves.” (Romans 13:2) 

When the Apostle Paul wrote these things, the ruler or the authority was a Roman conquerer, a despot who persecuted the Christians! Paul asked followers to remain subject to that authority and obey it!

Paul asks Titus to remind the Christian believers of them:

Titus 3:1-2

Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone.

In the day of Jesus, Romans were occupying the land of Israel and oppressing the children of Israel, and there were armed forces resisting the Romans (like Zealots), and there were people expecting that the Messiah would come to save them from the Roman occupation and oppression.  

But Jesus simply called to obey Caesar: 

“Pay then what is Caesar’s to Caesar” (Matthew 22:21). 

And Jesus added later: 

“My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).   

Jesus did not come to change a political system or to save the children of Israel from the Roman occupation. Jesus did not come to resist injustices of this world. 


Turning the Other Cheek: Gandhi vs. Jesus

There is a difference between Gandhi's nonviolence and Jesus "turning the other cheek".  The difference is that Gandhi called for non-violent action, including peaceful resistance to a malevolent authority, whereas Jesus took the path of non-response or the path of inaction.  

This difference is clear in the approaches that Gandhi and Jesus took in their respective lives.  Gandhi chose non-aggression or non-violent means, such as Public burning of British made clothes or producing salt from salt water in a stand against oppressive salt taxes, in his struggle for fairness under colonial oppression.  Jesus simply chose not to offer any resistance at all.  Jesus did not rescue, even resist, the land from the control of the Romans.  Jesus did not attempt to help the laborers of Rome who were resisting the injustice.  Jesus did not free the Jews from their social evils, or restore justice to their nation. In a word, Jesus failed to do the social or political reforming work that was expected of him.

Howard Zinn, a word war II veteran, who fought in the war and saw countless deaths of innocent civilians, wrote in his article titled "A Just Cause, Not a Just War": 

Opposing the bombing of Afghanistan does not constitute "giving in to terrorism" or "appeasement." It asks that other means be found than war to solve the problems that confront us. King and Gandhi both believed in action--nonviolent direct action, which is more powerful and certainly more morally defensible than war.

To reject war is not to "turn the other cheek," as pacifism has been caricatured. It is, in the present instance, to act in ways that do not imitate the terrorists.

Terrorism and war have something in common. They both involve the killing of innocent people to achieve what the killers believe is a good end. I can see an immediate objection to this equation: They (the terrorists) deliberately kill innocent people; we (the war makers) aim at "military targets," and civilians are killed by accident, as "collateral damage." 

Is it really an accident when civilians die under our bombs? Even if you grant that the intention is not to kill civilians, if they nevertheless become victims, again and again and again, can that be called an accident? If the deaths of civilians are inevitable in bombing, it may not be deliberate, but it is not an accident, and the bombers cannot be considered innocent. They are committing murder as surely as are the terrorists.

Nonviolent resistance or civil disobedience can be justified rationally as the better course of action as it avoids large "collateral damage" from outright war.  In offering nonviolent resistance, the practitioner seeks to protest and refuse to comply with unjust laws or policies. Practioner of nonviolent resistance posits that violence distracts from the existing injustices, the unjust laws and policies, and perpetrates violence as a response to violence or injustice.  

Henry David Thoreau wrote on civil obligation and law: 

It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.  The only necessary obligation one has is to do at any time what one thinks right."  Nonviolent resistance or civil disobedience seeks to singularly focus on the injustice and point out that to those in power that subjects can rightfully reject unjust laws and policies.

The phrase "Turn the other cheek" originates in the Sermon of the Mount in the New Testament. In the Gospel of Matthew, as diametrically opposed alternative to the Old Testament notion of "an eye for an eye" is given by Jesus.

Matthew 5:38-42

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’  But I tell you, don’t fight back against someone who wants to do harm to you. If they hit you on the right cheek, let them hit the other cheek too. If anyone wants to sue you in court and take your shirt, let them have your coat too. If a soldier forces you to walk with him one mile, go with him two. Give to anyone who asks you for something. Don’t refuse to give to anyone who wants to borrow from you.

There are two possible interpretations:  (1) Jesus is calling for inaction, or (2) Jesus is calling for nonviolent resistance.  

Several English translations translate Matthew 5:39 as: "But I say, do not resist an evil person."  This is a clear case of non-resistance and inaction.  Could this really be the intent?  Was Jesus really preaching inaction or not resisting injustice?

To break this confusion, let us look at the same message from the Sermon on the Plain from the Gospel of Luke.

Luke 6:27-31

“But I say to you people who are listening to me, love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Ask God to bless the people who ask for bad things to happen to you. Pray for the people who are mean to you. If someone hits you on the side of your face, let them hit the other side too. If someone takes your coat, don’t stop them from taking your shirt too. Give to everyone who asks you for something. When someone takes something that is yours, don’t ask for it back. Do for others what you want them to do for you.

Here the message is unambiguous.  Non-violent resistance cannot be love for your enemies.  Non-violent resistance cannot be doing good to those who hate you.  Thus, Jesus could only have meant inaction and non-resistance to aggression.  

The very life of Jesus is an attestation to such non-resistance to aggression.  Jesus offered no resistance to crucifixion.  Jesus would not even allow his disciples to non-violently protest his crucifixion.  As a living example, Jesus was a consummate non-resisting pacifist, even-minded to whatever suffering was in store for him.  

It is important to clarify one thing:  one should not get caught up in the false dichotomy of fight or flight.  Jesus is not advocating flight.  This is common to Gandhi as well who faced the  harsh police action without fear, standing tall with his conviction.  Jesus too is suggesting confidently facing the evil without resorting to any violence.  

However, it is clear that Jesus does not call for offering any resistance.  Jesus says, Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me? Jesus is willing to receive all that the Father gives him, both the disciples and the suffering.  The image of the cup is used in the Old Testament to denote suffering (Ps 75:8) and, in particular, the wrath of God (Is 51:17, 22; Jer 25:15-29; 49:12; Lam 4:21; Ezek 23:31-34; Hab 2:16; cf. Rev 14:10; 16:19).

Farewell to the Christian God

Charles Templeton was a man widely known in the 40s & 50s among Christians.  He was an evangelist who was even better known than Billy Graham.  He spoke to thousands, both in the USA and abroad, leading hundreds of people to the Lord.  Templeton’s ministry was prominent, and in 1946, he was listed among those “best used of God”by the National Association of Evangelicals.

Charles Templeton was a  former associate of Billy Graham. Templeton had once preached to stadium crowds of up to 30,000 people calling them to place their faith and trust in Christ.  He later rejected the Christian faith and wrote the book "Farewell To God, My reason for rejecting the Christian Faith".

What caused Charles Templeton to reject Christianity?  

Charles Templeton's  popularity and success as an evangelist began to unveil serious doubts.  The more he read, the more he found himself questioning the essentials of  Christian faith.  

His doubts began with the book of Genesis.  In his desire to pursue a more liberal approach to his questions, he began studying at Princeton Theological Seminary.  

 Charles Templeton recounts his conversation with Billy Graham (Farewell to God, My reason for rejecting Christian Faith, pages 7-8)

In the course of our conversation I said, ‘But, Billy, it’s simply not possible any longer to believe, for instance, the biblical account of creation. The world was not created over a period of days a few thousand years ago; it has evolved over millions of years. It’s not a matter of speculation; it’s a demonstrable fact.’ ‘I don’t accept that’ Billy said. ‘And there are reputable scholars who don’t.’ ‘Who are these scholars?’ I said. ‘Men in conservative Christian colleges[?]’ ‘Most of them, yes,’ he said. ‘But that is not the point. I believe the Genesis account of creation because it’s in the Bible. I’ve discovered something in my ministry: When I take the Bible literally, when I proclaim it as the word of God, my preaching has power. When I stand on the platform and say, ‘God says,’ or ‘The Bible says,’ the Holy Spirit uses me. There are results. Wiser men than you or I have been arguing questions like this for centuries. I don’t have the time or the intellect to examine all sides of the theological dispute, so I’ve decided once for all to stop questioning and accept the Bible as God’s word.’ ‘But Billy,’ I protested, ‘You cannot do that. You don’t dare stop thinking about the most important question in life. Do it and you begin to die. It’s intellectual suicide.'”‘I don’t know about anybody else,’ he said, ‘but I’ve decided that that’s the path for me.'”

Charles Templeton started questioning the reliability of thr Bible.  He was taken in my the compelling evidence in support of the Darwinian theory of evolution.  He later confessed that he always doubted the Genesis account of creation.  He also could not reconcile himself with the biblical teachings of final punishment for the disobedient.

Charles Templeton Could no longer live with this private conflict he faced inside.  One day, he cut loose from it all.  He bade "Farewell to (Biblical) God".

Among other things, Charles Templeton recognized that Christian theology completely failed to explain the problem of evil.  It failed to offer a cogent theodicy, Justice of Christian God.  

Theodicy is a troubling area for many practicing Christians.  While some choose to let faith get ahead of questions, others simply cannot get past them.  In a future article, we will look into this in detail.

Jesus will not colonize you.  Why then does Christianity colonize?

Columbus reflected the religious component of his motivation in the dedicatory opening of his diary of the first voyage in search of a sea way to India (Friday, 3 August 1492):

Your highnesses, as Catholics, Christians and Princes who love the Christian faith and long to see it increase, and as enemies of the sect of Mahomet and of all idolatries and heresies, have seen fit to send me, Christopher Colombus, to the said parts of the Indies to see ... what way there may be to convert them to our holy faith ... (from the original in Las Casas 1989-94: XIV, 41).

Columbus began his diary, with "In nomine Domini nostri Jesu Christi".  It means "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ".

Columbus landed in the chain of islands we call the Bahamas on 12 October 1492.  Nearby exploration revealed Hispaniola and Cuba. Columbus found gold and a docile Arawak population on Hispaniola, and, believing he had arrived in Asia, he dubbed the Arawaks 'Indians'. After the Santa Maria struck a reef and was wrecked, 39 of the sailors stayed behind, while the Nina and the Pinta returned to Spain in early 1493. Columbus's achievement created great excitement in Europe, and the gold he procured in Hispaniola was enough to ensure a warm reception when he met Isabella in Barcelona in 1493. 

In line with the prevailing custom, and following on the precedent set by the Portuguese, the then Pope Alexander VI was petitioned for title to the newly-discovered lands. The Pope acceded the newly discovered land to Spain in a bull of 3 May 1493. Later that year, in order to prevent disputes between Spain and Portugal, the Pope drew an imaginary north-south Line of Demarcation, some 563 kilometres west of the Azores and Cape Verde Islands. East of that line belonged to Portugal, and west to Castile.  

What gives Pope this authority?  Jesus Christ appointed Peter and his successors as shepherds, that is: persons looking after people and caring for them (John 21,15-17). The Pope is therefore first and foremost the Supreme Pastor. Handing on Jesus' message that God is Love and planting this message in contemporary soil is a major task of the Church in each epoch of history. The Pope plays a crucial role in this as the Prime Witness to Faith. The Pope is also the Unifier of the People of God.

Columbus returned in late 1493, this time with 1500 men, including seamen, officials and religious with clear settlement intentions. The settlers began to enslave the natives and demand tribute. The Spaniards devised the encomienda system, whereby colonists were granted vast tracts of land and the possession of the Indians living on them, which became a major instrument of colonization on the mainland. In return, the colonists were charged to protect the Indians and convert them to Catholicism, and teach them the rudiments of faith and the superior virtues of European civilization.

History is filled with examples of the Church actively supporting and even providing spiritual sanction and backing to colonialism. The expansion of European powers across the world was not just sanctioned but supported by the Church. It has been a thoroughly Christian enterprise from Columbus to present day. Both Protestants and Catholics were instrumental in driving colonialism forward. For example, Christians provided theological backing to the enslavement of Africans and the theft of land in both Africa and the Americas.  This assuaged any sense of guilt or remorse some may have had.  Worse, Church and contemporary Christian theology provided the moral force behind land grabbing, enslaving, and civilizing the heathens.

It appears while Jesus would not colonize you, Christianity certainly will.  How did this come to be?

The first act of colonialism is to ignore the ownership of land by indigenous people and take it over by force   A commonly cited justification is that these indigenous people were uncivilized without a God.  If the Heathens did have gods, they were false gods of stone and wood. Accordingly, with the God's word in their hand, and with Pope's support for the spread of Christianity, the invaders took on the mission by subjugating the indigenous people and gaining control over their land.

Where does such logic arise from?

Plenty of Yahweh sanctioned land-grabbing in the Old Testament

The most popular one is the land of Cannon that Yahweh, Lord the Jewish God, offers Israelites leaving Egypt: 

Numbers 33:50-54
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+33%3A50-54&version=ERV

There, the Lord spoke to Moses and said,  “Speak to the Israelites and tell them this: You will cross the Jordan River. You will go into the land of Canaan. You will take the land from the people you find there. You must destroy all of their carved statues and idols. You must destroy all of their high places. You will take the land and you will settle there, because I am giving this land to you. It will belong to your family groups. Each of your family groups will get part of the land. You will throw lots to decide which family group gets each part of the country. Large family groups will get large parts of the land. Small family groups will get small parts of the land. The lots will show which family group gets which part of the land. Each tribe will get its part of the land.

Watch this video clip from the movie God in Trial to see the immorality of Yahweh's ways.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QduJ121DBXU


Let us now move to the New Testament and Christianity.

There are deep-rooted dogma in Christianity related to salvation that freed Christian Europeans from any fear of immorality.

The Problem of dogmatic foundation of Christianity

The standard Christian Gospel says that humans are bad and sinners. God condemns all sinners to Hell unless their sins are forgiven.  In the old days people made sacrifices to make up for their sins and appease God but then Jesus, the Son of God, came and died once and for all for humanity’s sins.  Now if someone prays to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, then they are forgiven of their sins and after they die they will go to Heaven, to enjoy paradise with God.  Everyone else will go to Hell to be tortured and endure punishment forever.

While some Christian sects articulate it differently, or are incredibly obsessed with various other aspects of Christian practice or theology, when pressed and distilled, this is the Gospel at the heart of their faith.

Problem of Unconditional Guarantee of the Final Destination

One’s personal salvation, and the personal salvation of others is to be a Christians primary concern and it is apparently God’s primary concern as well.  Nothing else seems to matter.  As protestants woll tell you, works cannot bring salvation.  Only faith can - faith in Jesus as the savior.

The focus on faith - and nothing else you may do or not do for the rest of your life - unburdens the Christian from the consequences of their actions. If morality is to follow God's laws, and immorality is sinning by violating God's command, where is the question of immorality if your faith alone can assure you a safe passage and a seat in God's quarters?   Thus how you actually live, how you relate to other people, how you relate to the land, how you engage in politics, how you handle money, etc.  are all truly freed from the burden of morality.  Life then is morally unburdened free-for-all, win-at-all-costs, winner-take-all.  Christians who believe in this “Gospel” can pretty much do whatever they want, for all purposes including colonial ones.


Guaranteed Salvation Turned Colonial Engine

Salvation theology originated in and has been spreading hand-in-hand with Western European culture.  For centuries Christianity and Western culture have been heavily involved with one another, a symbiotic existence, and the result is the blurring of lines of what it means to be a Christian and what it means to be a Western European. Furthermore, what is good for the material well-being of Europe has become synonymous with what is good for Christianity and what is moral for Christians.

With European colonialism grew Christian expansionism.  In return, Christianity providing the moral impetus.

The Evil Twins - Colonial Expansion and Christian Missionary Ambitions


In 1965, John Harrison and Peter Laslett published The Library of John Locke, within which they listed 195 titles under the category of voyages and travels. Most of these describe trips to the Americas by European explorers.  Such voyages were very expensive to mount and were usually sponsored either by the monarchy or by the church in Europe.  It must be born in mind in analysing these texts that writers were interested in two main goals in relaying their descriptions of native Americans back to Europe, namely the enlargement of a kingdom or church. Thus Father Joseph D'Acosta, head of a Jesuit College and quoted by Locke in his Second Treatise, writes in his Natural and Moral History of the Indies:

The intention of this History is not only to give knowledge of what has passed at the Indies, but also to continue this knowledge, to the fruit we may gather by it, which is to help this people for their souls  health, and to glorify the Creator and Redeemer, who has drawn them from the obscure darkenes of their infidelitie and imparted unto them the admirable light of his Gospel.

Father Cristoval D'Acuna writes of a similar objective:

Such is the sum of the new discovery of this great river which excludes no one from its vast treasures, but rewards all who wish to take advantage of them...those who are most interested in this discovery, are the zealous men who seek the honour of God and the good of souls...faithful ministers of the Holy Gospel, that, by its brightness, they may dispel the shadow of death in which these miserable people have lain for so long a time...this new vineyard will always require fresh and zealous labourers to cultivate it, until it is made- entirely subject to the keys of the Roman church.

Gabriel Sagard Theodat was appointed to bring both the Church and the French Dominion to North America. M. De la Salle, a French explorer expresses most succinctly the dual nature of this voyage:

"The design of traveling from Lake Frontenac in Canada to the Gulf of Mexico through a vast unknown country is to bring the inhabitants to the knowledge of  Christian Religion, and extend the dominions of France."

Reference:

Barbara Arneil, John Locke and America: The Defence of English Colonialism, p 24-25, Oxford University Press (1996)

Gaining the World vs. Losing the Soul

In the Hindi movie "John Day", John is a banker who lives a peaceful life until his serene life is disturbed by a tragedy that kills his daughter followed by another tragedy that leaves his wife in coma.  John goes on a rampage to destroy his enemies.

As the movie ends, the screen is filled with these beautiful words from Mark 8:36

Mark 8:36

What good is it if someone gains the whole world but loses his soul?

These are words that appeal to any Indian.  I was moved by these words.

All Hindus are instantly moved by these words, for selflessness is taught to them as the stepping stone to moksha or liberation.  However, we cannot impose Hindu or Indian ethos on a Christian text.  To understand what those words in Mark 8:36 mean, we need to dig further.

Promptly I went to look at Mark 8 to understand the context.  Mark's gospel quotes these words of Jesus spoken to his followers.  In what context does Mark's gospel use these words?  We need to look at verses further back to really understand what these words of Jesus mean.


Mark 8:31-38

Jesus then began to teach his disciples. He taught them that the Son of Man must suffer many things. He taught them that the elders would not accept him. The chief priests and the teachers of the law would not accept him either. He must be killed and after three days rise again.  He spoke clearly about this.

Peter took Jesus to one side and began to scold him.  Jesus turned and looked at his disciples. He scolded Peter. “Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You are not thinking about the things of God. Instead, you are thinking about human things.”

 Jesus called the crowd to him along with his disciples. He said, “If anyone wants to come after me, he must say no to himself. He must pick up his cross and follow me. If he wants to save his life, he will lose it. But if he loses his life for me and for the good news, he will save it. What good is it if someone gains the whole world but loses his soul? Or what can anyone trade for his soul? Suppose you are ashamed of me and my words among these adulterous and sinful people. Then the Son of Man will be ashamed of you when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.”

Jesus is saying that matters of this world do not concern a person who is interested in saving his/her soul.  If you are focused only on this-worldly matters, your soul will not be saved.  Humans can save their soul by one and only one thing: "Picking up the cross and following Jesus".  Trying to save his life in any other way will only lose the life (i.e., cannot save his soul).

Jesus is talking about Selflessness as in shunning interest in worldly matters as far as saving one's soul is concerned. Shunning them not because they are distractions or lead to bad vices but because they are useless as expedients in saving one's soul.  There is no discussion of employing these less-worthy worldly goods to the benefit of others in the society.  There is no discussion of shunning them because they are distractions from the goal of salvation.  Instead, the focus of the individual is always on saving one's own soul.  Given that, in the Christian theology, soul has separate identity from one person to another, seeking nothing more than saving one's own  soul is nothing but selfishness.

For all schools of Dharma, Hinduism, Buddhism or others, reducing cravings in worldly matters is an important matter in itself in bringing about the right state of mind.  For Buddhists, doing so is essential to enlightenment.  For Hindus, such a state of mind prepares them for Moksha.  For Christians, worldly matters are a non-issue - only belief in Jesus as savior can bring about salvation.