How is that even possible?

>>14993455 (OP)

It's a celebration of the liberal secular syncretic religion.

>>14993455 (OP)

Syncretism. Most people historically didn't give a shit about theology. They just collected a bunch of superstitions through their life.

No idea about the book, I remember picking it up at a bookshop but then I didn't buy it kek. Is it good?

>>14993455 (OP)

During late Mughal, there were Muslim communities that celebrated Hindu holidays. During sepoy rebellion, rebels used both Hindu and Islamic narratives againstthe British. But Christian part is I am not sure, because Christianity was always seen as an invader religion.

>Christianity was always seen as an invader religion

Really? But christianity has been present in India since at the latest the 8th century, at the earliest the 1st.

No christian would have come as a conqueror until the portuguese.

>>14993455 (OP)

It's called being Sikh.

>>14993455 (OP)

India. India is literally the most free country ever regarding thought.

It was a really stupid book. He starts off saying he has a story that will make you believe in God, tells a super implausible story that he claims happened to him, then at the end says "you probably think I made this up. But it's a better story if you believe it isn't it?" at which point I wanted to punch him in the face. Horrible argument, I think atheists and religious ppl can both agree on this.

>Really? But christianity has been present in India since at the latest the 8th century, at the earliest the 1st.

they were foreigner groups and didnt had much influence to public, they were seen like how a Jew would be seen as in medieval Europe

>No christian would have come as a conqueror until the portuguese.

British ruined the Christianity's reputation in India

I'm not Indian so, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Sikhs read to me like a Sufi offshoot in Hindu territory who simply decided they didn't need the Quran or Muhammad anymore.

Very little Christian influence, or Jewish or Zoroastrian influence for that matter.

>Sikhs read to me like a Sufi offshoot in Hindu territory who simply decided they didn't need the Quran or Muhammad anymore.

eh, you are sorta right. their big daddy was a Kabir who was a Sant MAt (heteredox Hindu sect member) but very possibly had Muslim origins. Guru Nanak was student of him and the religious environment in Punjab made it avaliable to make a following of Sikhs (students) of Guru Nanak.

I can not call Sikhism a deliberate elaving of tradition or syncretism, it was naturally developed from local philosophical, political and religious issues

The Brit's Christianity was Episcopalian which is a bullshit LARP of Catholicism.

I kind of think the Portuguese, who trashed the Malabar library of Syriac and Malayalam, did more fundamental damage to Indian Christianity.

British enforced the caste system of Christians and the rest of population. When Portuguese came, they came as foreigners when British came they changed whole fabric of society.

Read biography of Gandhi, the British were using Christianity as a distinguishing identity for them and functioned as a caste. The modern day reputation of Christianity is form British rule. Seen as manipulative and invasive therefore.

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_Christian

>>14993455 (OP)

its a secularist movie painting hindus as tolerant people

What the fuck.

Captcha: AYYY0

>>14993455 (OP)

Im East Asia Christians are permitted altars for ancestor worship. Don't get too anal about doctrine anon.

>which is a bullshit LARP of Catholicism.

No it is not.
