I am writing this note in the response of "Dautari" and "Dalli Resham". I have no idea bout the christain in Boston or Dallas but i have some thing very sepcial to say if you are Christain Student. if so call me at 719-406-4759 or write me e-mail at samuelshrestha@gmail.com
My name is Samuel Shrestha.
Thanks.

I am not against, conversion or anyone changing their belief of their liking but the missionaries in Nepal use dirty tactics to convert. The dirtiest one which I havecome accross is the missionary people invite village people to dinner and they "trick" you and feed beef. Later reveal the fact that they have already eaten beef and have comitted a sin which will not be pardoned by their gods but jesus will save them and now they have no choice but to convert. This is disgusting but they do it anyway..

ewwwww! that's cheap, but certainly not unexpected. Such people can stoop to any level....

:-)

I think you have raised a very valid point. The missionaries in Nepal, and surely many other parts of the world, are taking the wrong path in spreading the gospel. Because of those so called missionaires the entire Christian fellowship is being tarnished just like people are so suspicious of Muslims just because of some extremists.

I became christian out of my own choice. No missionary contacted me. I invited Jesus into my heart on my own accord and became a Christian. And I believe everyone should be able to pick their own religion. That is why we have not baptized our son. He is a kid now. He goes to church nowadays because his parents go. But when he grows up I don't want him feel "obligated" to be a christian just because his parents were believers. I want him to have inner faith in Christianity or whatever faith he opts for.

Bathroom Coffee, it is certainly an exaggeration to say that we christians are being persecuted here in sajhaland but are we harrassed? Oh yes. Why? Because noone asked you to come and talk about/against Christian faith in this thread in the first place. Have you read Sambhai's posting? If you are not a Christian, you did not have to write here. Had it been a thread discussing Christian faith or discussing religion it would have been okay. But it's like showing up at a Sunday service and start shouting slogans against Jesus and us Christians. You have the right to say whatever you want but don't misuse your rights. Learn to be courteous.

Bathroom coffee, I am sorry I did not mean to single you out there. What I just wrote was addressed to most of the people posting here in this thread but since I started out responding to your last post (after 8-)'s post), it came out in a way that looked as if I was talking to you only.

my dautari, you are right. faith should be the choice. and some christian should not say that Hindu become Hindu by birth. I myself believe in God, but not in any religions though I feel close to Hinduism.

and you christians have full rights of establishing connection among your fellow Christians, go on. We outsiders have full rights of reading your threads. Please don't think we are envaded in your personal lives.

So, some one-sided claims in this thread about Christianity made we outsiders little disappointed. If claim like "I believe in Christ becasue He will forgive us for any wrong doings and takes us directly to heaven" implicitely tells us that you meant to say "Christianity is superior, it does everything for us.... every rationale human being should follow such path" or something like this. Should be discouraged from any side.

BC – just skimmed over your previous postings/queries. From snippets of yours and others postings, I believe everyone has tried to answer your questions in best way possible. It is evident you are just trying to poke holes in their faith. Faith is to be tested and we could all use a good shake of faith now and then. A comfortable faith easily tends to get lazy and complacent.

“Christians persecuted right here in Sajha-land” – you are correct in pointing out my making mountains out of molehill. A bit of theatrics from my part, I am afraid. I should not be or have the right to compare our thread to Christians being persecuted in real world I.e. recent incident in Afghanistan, Church bombings in Pakistan, Catholics nuns raped and murdered in Dharan 10/12 years ago. Thank you for the reality check. However, you must agree with “Jesus sucks elephant’s penis” is absolutely out of order.

"So when missionaries come to Nepal ARE THEY NOT DOING THE SAME?" Missionaries persecute Nepalese people in Nepal? Beg your pardon? Ah! You mean “To annoy persistently;bother”. Most Nepalese people are up and about before ratto bhalle crows “Kukurii kwaaaaaaa”. Therefore, any missionary hell bent (pardon my usage) on converting a Nepali Hindu (Isn't that your worry?) is unlikely to catch possible convert early on Saturday morning. Probably get bitten by Tommy the faithful kukkur. However, If you are referring to over enthusiastic bible thumping Christians, (I wouldn’t call them fanatics, but high on god) they too annoy me and make me cringe with embarrassment. E.g. A particular person outside Oxford Circus tube station belts bible scripture and asks every passer to repent for sinful ways. Apparently shopping on your hard earned money is sin. I guess, everyone uses bible to suite his or her own purpose. Therein lies the danger.

“All righterous people are persecute by ignorant and disillusioned” – Jesus was persecuted by ignorants.
Dalai Lama is being persecuted.
Prophet Mohammed, Stephen Hawkins, Carl Sagan, L Ron Hubbard and etc etc are ignorant? How do they fit into equation of “righteous people being persecuted da…da…da”? Could you elaborate please?

I am calling ignorant and disillusioned to whoever chooses to poke holes in other people’s faith with sole intention of picking a fight (name calling, cussing, etc) rather than have healthy discussion based on questions and UNDERSTANDING.

How can you trust when you have made up your mind to not listen?

Jesu Badai :o)


P.s Question to all non-Christian students or ex –Students of Christian schools I,e St Xaviers, St Marys (KTM), or in India (St Josephs (NP), Loreto, St Joseph Convent etc). Did priests or nuns ever try to convert you to Christianity forcefully or allure you to convert with promises of riches? Your answer is appreciated. Thank you

Well it almost seems you guys are telling that Nepali Hindus do not have any faith and they will convert the moment you give them some money??? You guys seem to ridicule yourself here now.

I grew up in a Christian home so i do not know much about conversion but you all are making Nepali people look too poor and undignified here. Are poor Nepalis so undignified about their own religion and existance that they would convert the moment someone gives them money?? this is a big insult to Them.


If it was not for some of those missionaries some of our villages would never get any medical or educational help.

I once read the letter Baburam Bhattrai wrote in a Nepali English daily saying that he and rest of his villagers could study only because there was a English missionary women who came to their village to open a school and educate them. And because of that the whole village produced dynamic Nepali Leaders.

But again people are people, we are greedy, sinful and tend to do anything and some people are greedy enough to even change their religion for money but remember there are more than a billion Christians in this world and i do not think all of them have hidden purpose.

There is a saying in Nepali i think that says that if you are good you see everyone good. So do not project cheap mentality of your minds by discussing rubbish.

I do admire the Christians for their effort in spreading the word of love and forgiveness however the minute they tie the words of love and forviveness to some hard to prove being like god I tend to lose all the admiration.

Dear Thaha_Payen jee, you wrote: So, some one-sided claims in this thread about Christianity made we outsiders little disappointed. If claim like "I believe in Christ becasue He will forgive us for any wrong doings and takes us directly to heaven" implicitely tells us that you meant to say "Christianity is superior, it does everything for us.... every rationale human being should follow such path" or something like this.

Well, when we make claims like "I believe in Christ becasue He will forgive us for any wrong doings and takes us directly to heaven" we are only stating our faith. It's the path that we have chosen to go to heaven and be saved. Others have chosen what they believe to be the right path. We found our path to be the right one but we can't prove that other paths are wrong - we just choose not to walk that path. All religions make that claim. Not only we Christians.

Where Greeks the first people to record the Bible as a written document ?

As with the Old Testament, we just don't know who wrote most of the New Testament. Tradition has assigned the Gospels and most of the Epistles to certain authors, all of whom were important figures in Jesus' life or the early days of the faith. It was important for the early church to believe the authors wrote the works attributed to them, since their eminence lent the writings authority. But since we don't have the original signatures, none can be verified except through textual clues.

The first generation of Christians didn't see any need for a permanent written record of the sayings and stories of Jesus. Jesus' return and the restoration of the Kingdom of God on earth were imminent--why bother preserving stories if the world was about to end? Stories were simply passed along orally, primarily as a means of preaching and convincing outsiders. But as the first generation began to die off and hopes for the Second Coming dimmed, there was a need to preserve Jesus' words and deeds for posterity.

Quite a few collections of stories about Jesus circulated in the early church, among them The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Mary, and the Secret Book of John. Some of these gave very different and in some cases conflicting accounts of the gospel and, most importantly, of Jesus' alleged resurrection. Some argued for the physical resurrection, with the mantle of leadership falling on those who had experienced it firsthand: the apostles. Others said the resurrection was a spiritual event that anyone could experience. Some thought this latter "heresy" would have led the church away from an organized entity into a situation where anyone could judge the truth for themselves. As Elaine Pagels points out in The Gnostic Gospel, this was no trivial matter. The decision on which interpretation was "correct" was central to the future of the church.

We'll return to the question of how the "canonical" books of the New Testament were determined in the fifth and last installment of this answer. For now we'll just say that Iraneus, the bishop of Lyons in 180 AD, decided that the validity of any work had to be judged by whether it was "apostolic." That is, it should have been written by or for one of the twelve apostles. But, as Pagels goes on to say, regardless of whether the names given to the Gospels are those of the actual authors or merely reflect a claim to apostolic authority, "we know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the Gospels."

Recent scholarship or, more correctly, recent rethinking of previous scholarship has brought an intriguing possibility to the table. Matthew, Mark and Luke are termed the Synoptic Gospels, so called because they generally agree on the details and timeline of Jesus' life, sometimes even using the same words to describe the same events. Because of this similarity, quite a few scholars posit that there was a previous collection of Jesus' sayings and works which all three gospel writers relied on when compiling their histories. This collection, as yet just a theoretical construct, has been given the name "Q" (short for Quelle, German for "source").

It's a tempting idea. Mark is regarded as the earliest gospel and hence closest to Q. Of the 661 verses in Mark, only 24 aren't quoted in either Matthew or Luke. Matthew and Luke occasionally disagree with Mark regarding Jesus' words or the order of events, but they never both disagree on the same point.

Burton Mack in The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins offers another conjecture. It's possible Q was the work not of a single person, but rather of a community trying to give written form and substance to what it believed. If that's the case, the question of authorship in the usual sense evaporates. But rather than have this discussion come to an abrupt end, we'll work on the assumption that the authors were individuals, not a committee.

Mark, not an apostle himself, was an associate of the apostle Paul for a short time, but the gospel bearing his name is (to some minds) based on the preaching of Peter. It's generally assumed to have been the first gospel written, coming in right before Matthew at about 65 AD.

The author of Matthew is traditionally held to be the tax collector mentioned in Matthew 9:9, sometimes referred to as Levi. However, Matthew borrows heavily from the Gospel of Mark. It's hard to believe someone who was in close contact with Jesus would have had to rely on secondary sources. Since this gospel has the most quotations from the Old Testament, sometimes going to ridiculous lengths to try to show that Jesus was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, it's assumed that Matthew was written for a Jewish audience. There is suspicion that it might have been originally written in Hebrew, although only Greek texts have ever been found. Scholars differ on the composition date, but most agree on roughly 65 - 70 AD with a few placing at as late as 100 - 134 AD.

The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts are assumed to have been written by the same person, since they are addressed to the same individual, a Roman named Theophilus. The author was a doctor, Paul notes in Colossians 4:14. If Mark represents the teachings of Peter about Jesus, Luke most likely represents the teachings of Paul. Luke claims to have researched his material, but his dating, especially in the early chapters regarding Jesus' birth, is inconsistent with other sources.

The book of Acts can be seen as a sequel to the gospel of Luke, starting where the previous book ends. But where in the earlier work Luke needed to research the story, in Acts he is a character in it. He was a companion of Paul on his missionary journeys and was present during his imprisonment. In this sense, Luke had more first-hand experience of Paul than he had of Jesus. Both books were probably written after Matthew and Mark, probably around 65-70 AD but before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

The Gospel of John differs markedly from the other three books both in tone and in some historical details. John does not follow the timeline in the other three and adds quite a few stories and details not found in them. For this reason, it's thought that John's gospel was not a child of Q, but a completely original work either by someone who knew Jesus directly or by one of his associates. The three letters of John found near the end of the New Testament are generally assumed to have been written by this same individual.

The identity of John has remained a mystery, although tradition has it that he is "the disciple that Jesus loved" mentioned in John 13:23. But here is a curious thing. In the entire gospel, John never mentions his own name (although he does mention other gospel writers). His purpose is to exalt the deity of Jesus. It seems out of character for him to pat himself on the back in that one verse, if in fact he was John the apostle.

William Barclay gives us an elegant answer. He states outright that even if John was not the direct author of the book, it was at least written under his authority. The book likely dates from about 100 AD, the last of the books to be written. If this dating is accurate, John would have been very old. Barclay posits that it was probably a group writing remembrances from John's fading memories, and it was they who described John as the disciple Jesus loved..

The letters to the Romans, the Corinthians, the Galatians, the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, the Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus and Philemon are widely assumed to have come from the hand of the apostle Paul and are called the Pauline epistles for that reason.

E. P. Sanders says it's fairly clear Paul was unaware of the four Gospels, and the authors of the Gospels didn't know of Paul's letters.

A few small stylistic variations in Colossians and Ephesians make some scholars suspect Paul didn't write them, but the evidence is sparse and unconvincing. The letters to Timothy and Titus are suspect as well, and some critics feel they were later edits of some of Paul's more personal correspondence to individual church leaders, or pastors. Hence, they are often referred to as the Pastoral epistles.

The author of the letter to the Hebrews is completely unknown. Stylistic or literary criticism has failed to match it with any known author, although it is usually included among the letters of Paul. Some names that have been bandied about are Barnabas (an associate of Paul), Apollos, or even a dual authorship of Aquilla and Priscilla, two Christians who ran a church out of their house in Rome. Early tradition knew that it was anonymous, but since it was such a popular work among the early Christians, it was included among the letters of Paul in order to insure its apostolicity and thus its place in the Bible.

The letter of James isn't anonymous, but it's not known who exactly James was. Five people named James are mentioned in the New Testament, one of whom was the brother of Jesus. It's this person whom tradition has accepted as the author, although the evidence is sketchy.

It's always been assumed the first and second letters of Peter were in fact written by Saint Peter. No real objection to that belief has been raised until rather recently, largely because few early church fathers quoted it as they did other canonically accepted books.

The Revelation is often called the Revelation of Saint John. Tradition says this is the same as the author of the fourth gospel, but that seems implausible. The style of the Greek is different, and while the gospel author avoids mentioning his own name in order to focus attention on Jesus, the author of Revelation mentions his own name repeatedly. He doesn't call himself an apostle, as would be his right, but merely a prophet. Exactly who the author was is open to conjecture. There is no real consensus, except that he was apparently a Jewish writer, writing in Greek to the Jewish believers after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Most critics put the date at about 95 - 100 AD.

Hinduism vs Christianity: Hindu beliefs compared with Christian beliefs
Hinduism:

1) Hindus believe in the divinity of the vedas, the world's most ancient scripture, and venerate the Agamas as equally revealed. These primordial hymns are God's word and the bedrock of Sanatana Dharma, the eternal religion which has neither beginning nor end.
2) Hindus believe in a one, all-pervasive supreme being who is both immanent and transcendent, both Creator and Unmanifest Reality.
3) Hindus believe that the universe undergoes endless cycles of creation, preservation and dissolution.
4) Hindus believe in karma, the law of cause and effect by which each individual creates his own destiny by his thoughts, words and deeds.
5) Hindus believe that the soul reincarnates, evolving through many births until all karmas have been resolved, and moksha, spiritual knowledge and liberation from the cycle of rebirth, is attained. Not a single soul will be eternally deprived of this destiny.
6) Hindus believe that divine beings exist in unseen worlds and that temple worship, rituals, sacraments as well as personal devotionals create a communion with these devas and Gods.
7) Hindus believe that a spiritually awakened master, or satguru, is essential to know the Transcendent Absolute, as are personal discipline, good conduct, purification, pilgrimage, self-inquiry and meditation.
8) Hindus believe that all life is sacred, to be loved and revered, and therefore practice ahimsa, "noninjury."
9) Hindus believe that no particular religion teaches the only way to salvation above all others, but that all genuine religious paths are facets of God's Pure Love and Light, deserving tolerance and understanding.


Christianity:
1) Christians believe that the bible is the uniquely inspired and fully trustworthy word of God. It is the final authority for Christians in matters of belief and practice, and though it was written long ago, it continues to speak to believers today.
2) Christians believe in one God in three persons. He is distinct from his creation, yet intimately involved with it as its sustainer and redeemer.
3) Christians believe that the world was created once by the divine will, was corrupted by sin, yet under God's providence moves toward final perfection.
4) Christians believe that, through God's grace and favor, lost sinners are rescued from the guilt, power and eternal consequences of their evil thoughts, words and deeds.
5) Christians believe that it is appointed for human beings to die once and after that face judgment. In Adam's sin, the human race was spiritually alienated from God, and that those who are called by God and respond to his grace will have eternal life. Those who persist in rebellion will be lost eternally.
6) Christians believe that spirit beings inhabit the universe, some good and some evil, but worship is due to God alone.
7) Christians believe that God has given us a clear revelation of Himself in Jesus and the sacred Scriptures. He has empowered by his Spirit prophets, apostles, evangelists, and pastors who are teachers charged to guide us into faith and holiness in accordance with his Word.
8) Christians believe that life is to be highly esteemed but that it must be subordinated in the service of Biblical love and justice.
9) Christians believe that Jesus is God incarnate and, therefore, the only sure path to salvation. Many religions may offer ethical and spiritual insights, but only Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life

Bold
Center

ju "RAM"ji,

you can define and redefine a word but it is not going to help you. my intention is not to bash you belief or you in person. but when you make claims and arguments i can't just sit around and listen. you said FEAR of GOD is the BEGINING of KNOWLEDGE. how so? your GOD sounds like a BULLY to me either you believe me or i'll punish you. so be FEARFUL. why do we have to fear god?

well you don't have to respond to this if you do i will keep on debating till the end.


Did I sais That God spoke those word's ? if I Did Then I apologize..And If you got it wrong then let me tell you that ....
Those verses are actually from the book of proverbs,
Nepali ma" Hitoupades" vhannincha,
Hajur le yedi Bible Padnu vho Vhanni Tyha Paunuhunecha Ki yo Addhya Auta Bau le afno chora lai Samjhayeka Kura,haru hun
Taile Sunnai Parcha ra Mannai Parcha Vhanera Lekheko ta Maile Katai Paaina.....

Eagerli Waiting for your response,
Eju

Sorry bro birbhadra Hajur lai sambodhan Garna Vhoolechu.......

:-)

well i didn't wanted to "resurrect" this thread but since you specifically asked for my input i am obliged to answer your question.

FYI i have read Bible many times. not out of religiosity but out of curiosity. i did not find any thing that compelled me to believe in christianity any more than any other religion. you are wrong most christains take bible literally and it is said that words in bible are that of gods even if you say no so.

i don't have any problem with Jesus if he ever existed i am sure he was a great being. id don't have preoblem with people believing in what they want if it makes them happy. my only concern with this thread was (it started as something different though) taht why nepalis were converting to christianity. i am sure all of these folks are as analytical as i am or more. and presumably no nepali are christians by birth. i was just wondering what is so compelling or convincing about bible that converted them. i then made a direct comparision of bhagavat gita and bible they are some what similar but philosophically gita is much sound than bible, no offence.
has any of the convert christian ever read gita?
i am sorry to say but i think i represent an unbaised view on religion. i don't get offended when people say bad things about sanatan dharma. because i know there are both good and bad things in hindu culture. but mind you the veic scripures are merely philosophical meditations rathar than doctrines.

beliefs! i don't know about that i like to know things not believe things. as far as i know scriptures of vedic culture are far more superior philosophically than any other scriptures. i have read koran and it amazes me that people in 21 century take it literally.

no offence to any one... but ready to debate... will accept inferiority if somebody convinces me that i am wrong with sound argument that is and please don't quote bible or any scriptures if you do you need to justify it on a philosophical ground with valid and sound arguments.

EjuraM,

"Fear of God" can be traced to the Western emphasis on the fatherhood of God. E.g "Our Father in Heaven, Hallowed be thy Name" etc. Personally, I consider "Fear or God", a healthy fear as I had for my own Father. A fear out of respect, awe and love rather than someone who punished me for making mistakes E.g after being caught smoking at the age of 10-12, my father lined up my friends and I and gave us wack on our hands. He did it out of concern than spite.

To balance out this paternal trait, "merternal " aspect of faith I.e Mother- love, which is unconditional, accepting the child no matter waht, regardless of behaviour. Christ fulfilled this by saving the marginalized (prostitutes, leppers, disabled deformed, sick and the needy etc) by grace.

P.s I am no authority on Bible nor a spokesperson of Christianity. Much of my embryonic understaning has come from Bible and books by Phillip Yancey. I am on a journey in Christ. I hope to share what I know with you, but please understand I do not have all the answers, YET ;o)

Bhibadra

You may have read Bible 1000 times, it still won't make you an authority on Bible and Christianity. To truely believe and understand Bible, you have to accept its word and follow it's teaching.

Similarly you will not get teaching of Hindu Scripture or Bhagvat Gita, if your intention is to understand why Hindus believe in God with Elephant head and human Body. I don't expect Pastor Casey Treat of Seattle to understand why Hindu's don't eat beef when so many people in India are dying of starvation. Than again he says "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve".

Or

You will not get teaching of Koran, if your intention is to understand what makes sucide bombers tick.

Cheers

Note: Being your typical bloke, I am not very good at multi-tasking. Therefore, I will start by answering questions posed by Bathroomcoffee.

Do Nepalese Christians feel persecuted?

Absolutely! I remember as a child, attending mass in stuffy room with doors and windows closed for the fear of being found out be neighbours or being rounded up by athorities. Had heard of horrible stories of protestant Pastors being tortured. Than again, what you have to consider is our country has one of the worst human rights violations. Not just Christians but other religions and marginalised people (basically all people with no connections, poor, low cast, etc)


Nepalese Christians disowned by their own Family?

We have culture of disowning our Dai, Bhai, Didi and Bhahini at drop of our hat if they do not confim to our view. e.g daughter marries to some different cast. We disown (embarassed) our Nepali brothers abroad just because they can't speak English or have a menial job.

Cheers

More on BC's query to follow soon.

View/Share this post only

Dear Christain brothers,
I am proud of my christain brothers to belive and practice the faith of christainity. however, i hope and pray to god that god will help and guide our brothers and sisters heart to not just become christain by title but be a real christian.
when i was in college, there were some kids who used to go to play piano on campus crusade and call herself a christain, one girl who didn't maintain any basic modesty of being a woman used to call herself a christain because she was born in a christain family.
and of course you meet a lot of people who have luxuary to drive thier fancy cars to church and who don't have to worry about money,and they would love to be part of the church. well what is wrong with that is they are seeking the religion as a affiliation.
Affiliation is good but what is important is to follow the guidence of the god. do you guys work hard in life? do you guys respect the law of the country where you are residing? did you guys lied at the embassy to get US visa and now working illegally to earn money to go to school in the USA?>
Remember as a christain you should always see the citizenship in heaven not on earth. you guys should definately go help poor Nepalis as good christains rather than working to stay in the USA. Remember those missionaries who go to places like rukum and darchula, you guys should beat them, not physically i mean, but by faith wise.. you guys should go to those place and them the people more. after all why should they have to come to our country and help when we've got our own christains...
unselfishness comes when you devote to god. when earthly things mean nothing and you're happy for your investment in the heaven.
don't take christainity as a club, don't call yourself christain if you're working illegally and not respecting the law. don't call yourself christain if you're not not following the guidence of god.... please advised that you can repeant but reapeantance means you change for god... you can't committ sin again and again and repeant again and again...
that would be like amitab bachan in amar, akbar and anthony movie...
good luck my brothers and sisters... may the lord guide you to become a true christain and protect you...

I totally agree with dyamn