40 Christians on pilgrimage attacked by suspected Hindu radicals in India
Six suspects affiliated with a radical Hindu mob have been arrested on charges of attempted murder following an attack on Catholics walking a 280-mile pilgrimage.
The group of 40 Catholics were walking to a sanctuary in the Tamil Nadu state of India — from Karnataka to the Marian shrine in Velankanni — on a pilgrimage that has been a tradition for decades, when they were attacked earlier this month.
The assailants, who are in custody, are accused of blocking a road the Catholics were walking along and then attacking them both verbally and physically. Along with facing charges of attempted murder, they also face charges of "rioting, hurting religious sentiments and acting to destroy religious peace," the Union of Catholic Asia News reports....
B. McCausland wrote: In Ulster at least, people have a vague idea of who are we talking about when using the terms 'Bible believing born again Christian'...
Yes the problem is that simplicity in Christ is being replaced by complexity in Christ. Some Christians describe themselves as "Baptist (1644 rather than the 1689 Confession), creationist, non-charismatic, non-ecumenical, cessationist, evangelical and born again Bible believer, premillennialist (of the Spurgeon type, that is, unsure, but still holding loosely to it in case I am wrong), Psalms Only in Sunday morning worship, but Hymns in the Evening Gospel service so that we can sing Bringing In The Sheaves and What a Friend We Have in Jesus, multiple elders but no cardinals, one pastor at a time, no women preachers or church officers, no collections but offertory box at the rear of the sanctuary as per biblical warrant (from the Temple), all sermons to be 30-45 minutes long, no cushions in the pews lest people fall asleep, women not to pray in the prayer meeting, and all men must stand up to pray!"
And if I can't find a church which ticks all those boxes, I WON'T GO TO CHURCH!
danfromtenn wrote: ... using a denominational label is only a convenience that quickly identifies you with a certain set of beliefs. In conversing with someone it serves as a filter but then you have to comb through what remains throwing out whatever is not biblical. I could say that I'm a Baptist but then I would have to refine that and add that my church holds to the doctrines of Grace for instance. That chops out a huge number of Baptist churches. The final filter has to be the Bible alone, though.
Yes, you make sense. The most difficult group to witness to are RCs, as the common lingo seems to say the same things, making them agree to all you may say, yet they are miles from the truth because the terms in their context have a total different meaning.
John, more than the Anglicans, some RC would say they had been born again by 'receiving Jesus' through the Eucharist, as they have heard such term inside the charismatic/progressive or mystic circles
Enjoyed reading the comments so far. I might add that using a denominational label is only a convenience that quickly identifies you with a certain set of beliefs. In conversing with someone it serves as a filter but then you have to comb through what remains throwing out whatever is not biblical. I could say that I'm a Baptist but then I would have to refine that and add that my church holds to the doctrines of Grace for instance. That chops out a huge number of Baptist churches. The final filter has to be the Bible alone, though.
John UK wrote: I know the problem sister, and of course there is vagueness and ambiguity. But even Anglicans can say they are "born again" because that happened at their christening. Before JW's adopted their new name, they were called Bible Students (KJV) and they would call themselves Bible believers. But neither Anglicans nor JW's are following Jesus. The only people who can follow Jesus are those who know him and hear his voice calling them. These are sheep, elect and precious to him.
John, not many Anglicans acknowledge themselves as 'born again' as they are quite aware they are not and not many are up to date with the finery 9f their doctrine . As for JW they are Bible students, which is different from Bible believers. In Ulster at least, people have a vague idea of who are we talking about when using the terms 'Bible believing born again Christian' without confusing any with Anglicanism or Russelites.
B. McCausland wrote: John, your theory sounds prime, but reality is not as simple. Most of the news mentioning 'Christian' 90% of the times or more means RC, as probably is this case, which is a vast difference from what we understand as to be a Biblical Christian. And as for being a 'follower of Jesus', even this is vague, as any devout RC trusting in the rosary, praying to Mary and relying on masses thinks him/herself as followers also. The ambiguity is vast. It is worth to define faith even if it might take extra terms or sentences to present the identity, which indirectly provides opportunity to witness by the Word contrasting true from false belief. A useful term nowadays might be a bible believing born again Christian
I know the problem sister, and of course there is vagueness and ambiguity. But even Anglicans can say they are "born again" because that happened at their christening. Before JW's adopted their new name, they were called Bible Students (KJV) and they would call themselves Bible believers. But neither Anglicans nor JW's are following Jesus.
The only people who can follow Jesus are those who know him and hear his voice calling them. These are sheep, elect and precious to him.
Chris G P wrote: Interestingly, it is odd that the Hindus, who are supposed to be peaceful, pacifistic, and even usually strictly vegetarian people, seem to have renounced these principles when they are in power, and want to suppress any religious group by force and violence that threatens their monopoly, whether that group is evangelical Christian or Roman Catholic!! What happened to the dangerous yoga and meditation practices, supposedly to bring about peace and love, as taught by their gurus and “holy men”, and occasionally women, and that they are foisting on church halls, liberal churches, and in schools in the West that do not know any different? Let us just hope that the enthusiastic eyes of thousands of their Weatern devotees are opened whenever they get to hear of these things!! The true church of the Lord Jesus Christ will never be defeated. Praise be to God.
Yes, they can walk 280 miles, beat themselves with whips and chains, mutilate parts of their bodies and live in some monastery and it doesn’t merit anything.
Yes, brother praise the Lord. All the blood and suffering that will ever be necessary was done on the cross.
Interestingly, it is odd that the Hindus, who are supposed to be peaceful, pacifistic, and even usually strictly vegetarian people, seem to have renounced these principles when they are in power, and want to suppress any religious group by force and violence that threatens their monopoly, whether that group is evangelical Christian or Roman Catholic!!
What happened to the dangerous yoga and meditation practices, supposedly to bring about peace and love, as taught by their gurus and “holy men”, and occasionally women, and that they are foisting on church halls, liberal churches, and in schools in the West that do not know any different?
Let us just hope that the enthusiastic eyes of thousands of their Weatern devotees are opened whenever they get to hear of these things!! The true church of the Lord Jesus Christ will never be defeated. Praise be to God.
John UK wrote: ... there is no biblical warrant for a denomination, and there is biblical instruction not to hold men in such high esteem as to cause division in the church. "I am of Paul, I am of Apollos etc." Rather, it was simply, the church at Corinth, the church in Ephesus. They all had to get on with each other. Today we can't seem able to do that, so we split off and form yet another denomination, so there are now hundreds, thousands of splintered groups, all claiming to follow Christ. I find that very sad, very sad.
John, your theory sounds prime, but reality is not as simple. Most of the news mentioning 'Christian' 90% of the times or more means RC, as probably is this case, which is a vast difference from what we understand as to be a Biblical Christian. And as for being a 'follower of Jesus', even this is vague, as any devout RC trusting in the rosary, praying to Mary and relying on masses thinks him/herself as followers also. The ambiguity is vast.
It is worth to define faith even if it might take extra terms or sentences to present the identity, which indirectly provides opportunity to witness by the Word contrasting true from false belief. A useful term nowadays might be a bible believing born again Christian
Amen Christopher, I am completely the same as you on this, because there is no biblical warrant for a denomination, and there is biblical instruction not to hold men in such high esteem as to cause division in the church. "I am of Paul, I am of Apollos etc."
Rather, it was simply, the church at Corinth, the church in Ephesus. They all had to get on with each other. Today we can't seem able to do that, so we split off and form yet another denomination, so there are now hundreds, thousands of splintered groups, all claiming to follow Christ. I find that very sad, very sad.
John UK Wrote: 'Christopher, your good point reminded me of my spiritual father, who, on carrying his cross down the Falls Road in Northern Ireland, was asked by many people, "Are you Protestant or Catholic?" His reply was always, "I'm just following Jesus."'
Sounds like a wise man, John. I normally won't even say, Baptist any longer, because I think it's just natural for anyone to think that means I'm all in, on every single thing, believed and taught. Also, it's not easy when there have been so many issues within the denomination(s).
I've also never thought it wise to say, I'm a Calvinist, or, I'm with Arminius, or Luther, etc. When the latter two are mentioned, the point is usually referring to soteriology; to choose, or to be chosen, but they taught many other things, so, to me, it's like saying, I'm with them, from A-Z...my guy is error-free.
Christopher000 wrote: When it comes to who I align myself with, as far as a denomination, if asked, or my religion, my answer has become, "I'm a follower of Christ".
Christopher, your good point reminded me of my spiritual father, who, on carrying his cross down the Falls Road in Northern Ireland, was asked by many people, "Are you Protestant or Catholic?"
Right you are. "Christian" is a generic word these days, and an umbrella term, to the world, that encompasses anyone who claims to believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Tell someone you're a Christian, and that can mean anything from being Roman Catholic, to Mormon, and all kinds of false religions and cults, in-between. When it comes to who I align myself with, as far as a denomination, if asked, or my religion, my answer has become, "I'm a follower of Christ".
Christian, has been hi-jacked by so many others, and the problem is that when used as an umbrella word, like it is now, it lumps the true church in with the crimes and shenanigans of all the false churches. The world says, "There goes those crazy Christians again, and/or, associates us with the pedophiles still being exposed, etc.
The headline for this article should have quotes around the word Christian or the words so-called added after the word Christian. It is misleading people who don't know that Roman Catholicism is not Christian and this article is about Roman Catholics in India on pilgrimage to a Marian shrine!
COMMENTS 
locked 
System Notice
