Gandhi Against Christ
©Prakash J. Mascarenhas. 30th August 2003. This page is copyright.
An exchange on Gandhi and his perversion of Christ and the Message of Christ, with a man who identifies himself merely as "Kapil", in response to my page, Gandhi Vs. Christ. Other relevant pages are Sophaster's Gospel and Jesus: Good Man, Bad Man, or Mad Man?.
Kapil wrote:
You, the editor, have used such words as "seducer" and "dissembler" in Mahatma Gandhi Ji's honour. I am surprised and shocked at this dichotomy of yours (or is it hypocrisy?): On one hand you say that your mission is to "reach out to the souls with the Message of Jesus Christ", and on the other hand you use such derogative words to describe one of the greatest followers of Christ! Fine, now you'll jump up and say, "Gandhi wasn't a follower of Christ!" So does that mean one can use bastardised vocabulary against anyone who is not a follower of Christ? If that is the case, God save the Jews! I am afraid I am being forced to admit this, but Christianity's worst advertisements are its own adherents.
Christianity is not about hypocrisy and cooing sweet nothings when it is necessary to tell the truth and nothing other than the truth, in a matter that concerns us so vitally as our eternal salvation.
Christianity enjoins charity in all its adherents. The greatest charity is to tell the truth and to bring souls to Christ Jesus, for without Christ Jesus there is no salvation.
It would be hypocritical of me to succumb to the subverted mis-version of the Good News of Christ Jesus by Gandhi for that would thus put souls who witness my perverted witness and who are thereby misled by it, into sure and inescapable damnation.
It would be hypocritical of me to pretend to be both a Gandhian and a Christian, for they are mutually exclusive ideologies.
Christianity has been represented authentically by C.S. Lewis, and by those others who protested the hypocritical Fr. Benny Aguiar and who's letters in protest I have reproduced in the same article.
It is not me that is being abusive, it is you. You have used the word "bastardised" when the facts do not warrant it.
But then, that is not at all surprising. You have rejected and not even considered the letters from Martin Raghunath, his quote from C.S. Lewis, and Rachel Rajaiah.
I note that you faithfully observe the Hindu practice of idolatry by elevating Gandhi to a deity, despite his formal denial and refusal to sanction any such move, a denial he himself validated for posthumous times.
You say "Mahatma" and you say "Ji" and all that stuff. It is Hindu idolatry speaking.
This is the tendency to elevate persons is power or prestigious and eminent persons to deityhood.
Hindu culture demands that a person should not be addressed as one's equal but there is a whole lot of "ji"s, "bhai"s, "anna"s, "saheb"s, etc. thrown in. It is not unusual for a man to accumulate more than three or four of these all together at the same time.
Thus a man would identify himself as Mahatmaji Masterji Mohandasji Karamchandji Gandhiji Dadasaheb and stuff like that. Typical. And idolatrous, the whole stuff.
Get over that stupid, thoughtless habit.
I stand by the fact that Gandhi was a student of Rolland. However, as you insist, I will study that point once again. However, that point is not too material.
Gandhi was also a disciple of Leo Tolstoy. However, his greatest ideological influences came primarily from the Satnami Hindu movement that, in the face of the impact of Islamic monotheism upon India, sought to whitewash and to justify the monstrousities of Hinduism as being moral and beneficial to man; and secondly, the augmentation from the neo-pagan Westernism represented by such as Blavatsky and the "Theosophist" movement.
Prakash J. M.
From: Kapil
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 06:07:12 EDT
Subject: Re: The Great Sophaster
To: [email protected]
Was this meant to add insult to the injury? Well, you are so lucky: Lucky because you get to write your nonsense adjacent to the writings of an apostle. Great writings by the Mahatma; made a world of sense to me.
Adding insult to injury? You insult Christ and Christianity and Christians, and gratuitously and arrogantly impose yourself and your foul and obscene Hindu ideas upon us, and you have some gall to allege that I, in defending Christ and Christianity from your gratuitous attacks and corruptions of Christianty is "adding insult to injury"! Talk of impertinence!
The world is full of writings and sites and publishers and books that propagate the teachings of Gandhi, and his perversion of Christianity and his subversion of Christianity, but if you find one site critical of him, you are offended. And you cannot bear that there is permitted a voice against him and wish that it were silenced.
As I said in my first email, I still say: You don't know the first thing about the Mahatma. You must have read bits and pieces here and there and think you are scholar in the subject. Well, you aren't.
Heard of the "Denial Syndrome"? And so, I am unqualified, while you are qualified.
You are self-qualified to pervert Christ and misrepresent him, and so is your Gandhi, and together, you are qualified to disqualify anyone who will defend Christ Jesus, so that, according to you, no one is qualified to defend Christ and no one is qualified to demolish those who subvert and demolish Christ. Wow!
Kapil
Prakash wrote:
Looks like you missed this page?
http://geocities.com/orthopapism/sophaster.html
Prakash J.M.
From: Kapil
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 05:58:01 EDT
Subject: Re: Gandhi
To: [email protected]
My Dearest Prakash,
Thanks a lot for your message. Why do you assume that I won't "take your advice"? Of course I'll consider your advice and start doing positive work aimed at my salvation. I appreciate your concern and thank you for the time you have taken to write me.
Your averment rings hollow. What you write and reiterate runs counter to your averment. Your mind is closed, you insist on the falsehood you were brought up in, and which you embrace uncritically and defend irrationally. That does not make for confidence in your promise.
Do you hate and condemn the Mahatma just because he wasn't Christian, or is it because he honestly admitted that Christianity's teachings do not satisfy his soul?
Why do you assume that because I condemn someone for wrongdoing, that this proof that I "hate" that person? Is that a logical conclusion?
Why do you insist upon imposing your assumptions on me? What is the basis of your claim that I hate, other than your mere and bland assertion that I do so, based upon nothing more than your own authority and misrepresentation of my position?
From the Christian viewpoint, those who are outside are some outside because of invincible ignorance, while others due to vincible ignorance. That is, the first category do not know the truth, and therefore are not culpable of malice and bad faith; the second know and are. And Gandhi, as evidenced by his own words, belongs to the second category.
Gandhi never gave Christianity a chance. He prejudged it. He was determined to whitewash and justify Hinduism, and dedicated his life to that task, to subtly and not-so-subtly subverting and perverting Christianity and Christians.
None of the reasons stated above are enough justification for your vitriolic campaign directed against a great sage who is no more.
I am entirely ignorant of having conducted any "vitriolic campaign" against any "great sage" who "is no more." And in the two pages that feature Gandhi, my words are minimal in proportion, a small handful.
We are all sinners, therefore we are here, then who are we to become a moral authority and question someone else's beliefs?
We are all sinners. So, therefore, according to you, we are incapable of making judgements. Wow!
That means that if someone offers you a glass of poison and tells you that it is poison, you will say, "Oh! But I cannot judge!" and drink it. right?
We certainly can make judgements. The judgements we are permitted and even more, strictly obliged to make, are judgements of discernment, not of jurisdiction.
Being sinners does NOT dispense us. On the contrary, we are obliged to discern that we may not sin more.
But on what basis do you give Gandhi a right to judge Christianity, to distort, to pick and choose according to his own whims and fancies and to fabricate his own fraudulent version and to impose himself and his fraud upon me and millions of others and yet refuse me the right to judge Gandhi and his action and resist his impositions upon me and others, especially when it vitally concerns our eternal salvation?
The article you came up with, in my view, is not at all constructive. I don't see any love but only hate in it. How can you claim to be a true Christian, brother? You tell me to work on my salvation whilst you yourself preach against so many other religions. Classic dichotomy. Why can't you just be happy with your religion; why interfere in someone else's religion?
Because I see a man walk into a forest path where I have learned that a maneater prowls, should I say charitably, "Goodspeed to you, brother" or should I say, "Beware! There is danger on that path?" And if I warn, then I am uncharitable, but if I look on unmoved, and even abet him in his folly, then I am good and charitable?
Men have made themselves paths of their own, which they pretend leads to God. God denies it, and prescribes his own. Who are we to believe, fallible men or the infallible God? And if I see a man walk on the path that leads inevitably to hell, should I look on impassively and even abet him? Will God commend me or will he condemn me for this?
The High Courts of various states, you say, have struck down various Gandhian methods as unconstitutional. Two point here I wish to make: 1. You are a believer in the Lord, how can you uphold the decisions of man-made bodies - is it just because they have vindicated your prejudice for a particular person?; and 2. Gandhian methods are hardly unconstitutional: It is because of Gandhi Ji that India is a secular state today: Christians wouldn't have the same privileges as the majority populous if it weren't for the Mahatma. You should therefore thank him. Imagine what would have happened to the minorities if someone like Nathuram Godse had his way?
Man-made decisions? Well, was Gandhi not a man? I do NOT subscribe to the blasphemy that he was God or an incarnation of God. God forbids that evil lie, that heresy that will certainly take me to hell if I submit to it.
Gandhian methods have been nothing more than sedition. And courts have, at last, acknowledged this fact and outlawed them. For too long has India been held hostage to Gandhianism and thus prevented from becoming a civil society.
India is not a secular state because of Gandhi but despite him. Christians do not ask for any privileges and we do not want or ask to be patronized by any majority. We are indifferent to whatever our enemies devise against us, whether that hater of Christ is a Gandhi, a Nehru or a Godse.
But it is a fact that Gandhi found the Indian National Congress a democratic party and remade it to suit his authoritarian streak, making it his own personal fiefdom, domineering and imposing himself.
He blackmailed opponents into silence or secession, and he autocratically bequeathed the party to Nehru as if it were his zamindari to gift. That is Gandhi's true legacy.
That legacy led to Nehru's authoritarian rule over India till his death, as if he were the only Indian capable of ruling and all others were idiots.
It is why his daughter was handed over the chair as a birthright, and why she arrogantly imposed herself, insolently equating herself with India, "Indira is India; India is Indira", and going so far as to impose "Emergency" to uproot naysayers.
And it is why today the Congress is in ideological doldrums, based upon nothing more than a dynasty and the desperate cry for "Bahu" Sonia, a third class Italian import, and a fake Christian to boot, to condescend to rule the base, quivering and brainless neanderthals that make the Congress Remnant.
If I agree with Christianity's views, I am a nice person; if not, I am a hypocrite; a dissembler; a seducer; a what not...! How does this work?
Cute. But how does this sound: "If I agree with your and Gandhi's misrepresentation of Christianity, I am a nice person; if not, I am a hypocrite; a dissembler; a seducer; a what not...! How does this work?"
Christianity is true because it is true. Christianity depends vitally upon the credentials of Christ Jesus, as the sole incarnation of God, who died for us, reconciled us to God in potential and in whom we can be saved, if we will confess and walk in his way.
Throughout the ages we have had men claiming to be God, to be the incarnation of God. And yet none of them had any prior evidence. But with Christ Jesus there was prior evidence beginning from Adam. He was predicted by Henoc, Noe, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Josue, and other patriarchs, by King David his ancestor and so on down the ages.
His exact life and his passion, etc., were predicted.
The year of his coming was predicted.
And in keeping with all of this, he came. He is the Messiah, the Christ.
"There is no other name given to man under the heaven by which we can be saved other than that of Christ Jesus."
This is the Son of God, the one and only, in whom man can attain to heaven. All those who add to him, are of Satan, the Father of Lies.
How does this work? It works by Grace.
God seeks the salvation of all men. God grants grace freely, according to and appropriate to one's level of intellectual development towards the truth - towards himself.
Men, when they have good will, are corresponding to the grace of God. That is the beginning of salvation, but it does not assure salvation.
God wishes to draw men, gradually, and according to the development or attainment of the capacity he gave us, and which is ours always, to the realisation and confession, according to the impetus of his grace, of himself, and of Christ Jesus, the Theandros. The Economy of Salvation is the record of our progress, in fits and starts, towards that end.
In so far as we correspond faithfully to that constant impetus forward, and are sincere in our obedience, even in our comparative ignorance of the final end, we are found to be just, in his justice and therefore eligible to enter into his presence upon death.
However, if we retract or sidestep, then we display bad faith, and break with him.
Ignorant though these souls may be, of the final end, they know so much that the grotesque obscenities of the cults of their fathers is not acceptable and permissible before God, and avoid and contemn them. This is one of the sure evidences of the Grace of God working in a soul.
Christianity is no great religion in my view. Christ certainly was great; but Christianity is the religion of the West. I embrace Christ, but reject Christianity.
Christianity is the one and only true religion prescribed by God for all men, not merely for Europe. And Christ was born a Hebrew, an Asiatic.
Asia and Europe and Africa are not separate continents. That idea is passe, outdated. It is accidents of topography that separates Africa from the rest of the Eurasian landmass. And the Eurasian landmass in not really separate from the American landmass, continuing down to Patagonia. The Bering Sea is a shallow sea, and when sea levels are lower, then the land is continuous.
Racially, too, Europeans are not different from most Indians and West Asians. We have a common Aryan, Japhetahic ancestry, and for far too long have we, under the Iranian and Greek and Roman empires mixed and commingled. But all men are descended from one man, Adam.
No one can be of Christ without being a Christian. Christ sent out his disciples, telling them, Go forth and convert all mankind. He who hears you, hears me.
But you reject those who bear his authority and pretend yet to be with him. You are not. You cannot be. You can be with Christ only by being with those who bear his authority in this day and age.
Your name Prakash is no anglican name; it is a Sanskrit word.
My name is Sanskrit for light. Do you think that this fact is a revelation? What is your point? When did I pretend to be "Anglican"? What are you about?
Take the name of the first generation of disciples of Christ Jesus. Mark and Luke are Greek names, not Hebrew. And Luke is the same as Prakash.
So much anger, so much hatred for other religions? Is this what Christianity preaches?
If I tell you the truth, though it be unpleasant, am I your enemy? And if I look on impassively as you go down to your damnation, am I your friend?
Christianity commands its adherents to witness to the truth, always, for the love of God, first, and of man, second. It is charity to seek a man's salvation. And the greatest and highest truth is the First Commandment: Jehovah (or Elohim) alone is God. There is no other God besides Him. All other "gods" are false and man-made. He who worships these "gods" partakes of the rebellion of the fallen angels.
I have Christian friends; and I am glad none of them view Christianity like you do. They are true missionaries, not hypocrites.
Really? They who have compromised, who are ashamed and ignorant of the Gospel of Christ, who live as Christians only in name and not in fact? Missionaries? Of what? For whom? Not for Christ, certainly, for Christ was not a dumb mute.
Christ was upfront, in-your-face. He talked sharply to the hypocrites, the Pharisees and the Sadducees, condemning them for their errors. And he insisted on the truth, his rights.
When he spoke to the Samaritan woman, he insisted that the truth came through the Jewish religion, not the Samaritan heresy.
By your standards, it was Christ, not the Pharisees and Saduccees, who was the hypocrite.
And to your friends, I say, remind them of what Christ said, when we get to the Final Judgement: "Those of you who were ashamed to confess me, I shall deny you on that day. And those of you who were not ashamed to confess me and to witness to me, I too shall not be ashamed to confess you before my Father." I pity your "Christian friends".
In your view, Gandhi Ji is burning in the eternal hell, because he didn't follow your religion; but he followed his own religion, Hinduism, and he followed it perfectly. Therefore he should, according to the vedas, be in the highest planetary system, with the God. You may not agree with this, but the World doesn't have judge everything by Christian writings. And if I have to go to hell and burn eternally to be in the company of the Mahatma Ji, I am more than happy to go there.
You are welcome to your delusions. And you may burn in hell, as you desire. I cannot stop you.
I read about a great Christian called Martin Luther King, Jr., in comparison to whom you and all your Fathers and Bishops look puny. He had different views about the Mahatma. I accept him to be a true Christian, not just because he praised the Mahatma, but because he never interfered with other religions.
King was a great man, certainly, as Gandhi was. But he was not a Christian but a Protestant. However, he certainly was not a hypocrite like Gandhi. As for his "Gandhianism" that is excusable on the grounds of invincible ignorance, something that cannot be argued in favour of Gandhi himself.
To praise the Lord, you needn't condemn anything or anyone. And certainly not the Mahatma, to whom the Christians of India owe their lives. He is your Schindler.
Gandhi our Schindler? We owe Gandhi our lives? You are insane!
Take care, brother,
My humble respects,
Kapil
PS: You never responded to the point I made: Gandhi Ji wasn't a follower of Romain Rolland; it was the other way 'round. Please don't alter history. I hope you will verify the facts and change that particular point. And also, Leo Tolstoy is the greatest Christian I have known; and I see no harm if Mahatma was his follower, which he was.
Tolstoy was an apostate heretic, and nothing more than that. And he was certainly not the greatest "Christian" ever. You are merely ignorant. There were and are too many Christians who are far greater than him.
Prakash wrote:
Mr. Kapil or whatever you are,
Thanks for your letter.
I stand by my article on the Great Hypocrite and Dissembler Mohandas Gandhi whom I refuse under any circumstance to call a "Mahatma." What I have written is what the Bible says; read the Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 1.
Mr. Gandhi contemptuously rejected the exclusive and fundamental doctrine of Christ and distorted his message according to his own mind, and, to add insult to injury, had the impertinence to attempt to inflict this malconcoction as being the authentic version of Christ's message. That is evidence of malice.
And as a matter of fact, what you write only proves my point. You add gratuitous blasphemy, insulting Christ Jesus when you write "I submit that Mahatma Gandhi Ji was none other than the son of the Lord, the incarnation of Lord Jesus himself." But that - gratuitous blasphemy - is integral to your foul and obscene cacodoxy - the heresy of Hinduism.
For your blasphemy, you are apt to go to hell to join Mr. Gandhi in the eternal flames. I would suggest that you start applying your mind critically, not in doing mischief, but in doing positive work, mainly directed at your own salvation.
I know that you are not going to take my advice, but I would suggest that you acquire and study the three volume Radio Replies by Frs. Rumble and Carty which demolish completely and entirely Gandhi's lies and hypocrisy and prove the authentic Christianity.
And, just by the way, High Courts all over India, particularly in Kerala, and also the Indian Union's Supreme Court have struck down Gandhian methods as unconstitutional. A slap in the face for your "Mahatma", what?
God who is the same as Jesus Christ, and that EXCLUSIVELY so, is very condemnatory of heretics and those who spread wrong ideas and mislead people, even when they have deluded and hypnotized themselves that their errors are the truth. My condemnation of Mr. Gandhi is a continuation and echo of that condemnation. Therefore my conscience is clear. I have done no evil in this matter.
Prakash J.M.
Kapil wrote:
Hello Prakash,
Just read the article "Gandhi vs Jesus" on your microsite. The article was very interesting (an eye-opener, in fact), but what shocked me are the editor's remarks. You, the editor, have used such words as "seducer" and "dissembler" in Mahatma Gandhi Ji's honour. I am surprised and shocked at this dichotomy of yours (or is it hypocrisy?): On one hand you say that your mission is to "reach out to the souls with the Message of Jesus Christ", and on the other hand you use such derogative words to describe one of the greatest followers of Christ! Fine, now you'll jump up and say, "Gandhi wasn't a follower of Christ!" So does that mean one can use bastardised vocabulary against anyone who is not a follower of Christ? If that is the case, God save the Jews! I am afraid I am being forced to admit this, but Christianity's worst advertisements are its own adherents.
You have the audacity to call Bapuji a "seducer". Well let me tell you, Sir, that you don't know a thing about the Mahatma. You mentioned, in bold letters, that Mahatma was a follower of Romain Rolland -- this is as gross as suggesting "Jesus never existed at all." Just because you have a computer and access to a site that will host whatever you write, don't change history. Romain Rolland was a follower of Gandhi, not Gandhi a follower of Rolland.
Don't say a word about the Mahatma, because you don't know anything about him. I submit that Mahatma Gandhi Ji was none other than the son of the Lord, the incarnation of Lord Jesus himself.
Hail Lord Jesus,
Kapil