04-20-2007, 10:22 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-SwamyG+Apr 20 2007, 09:47 PM-->QUOTE(SwamyG @ Apr 20 2007, 09:47 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have made attempts to read some good arguments, but have found none that convinces me enough. The one argument I have heard is the state of affairs in NE India and their anti-nationalism. Are the NE Indians culturally so different from the rest of the India? I don't see Christians in Kerala or Tamil Nadu asking to be separated from India. So even for sedition, is there another motive than just religion?
From âtheirâ perspective in a free society they are touting how they are better than âusâ. They list their strengths and our weaknesses. So if our neighbor buys into their thoughts, on what grounds do we cry âfoulâ as long as the neighbor does not threaten our way of life?
< snip >
I would love to see a precise articulation on how, in a free society, conversion attempts are bad. I am not talking about forced conversions.
[right][snapback]67529[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Great post.
Whatever the motivation of the people in the North east - a rigid paranoia of Christianity is not in our interest. While we Hindus are so good at "understanding" how rigid Christianity is, we fail in seeing that the rigidity is equally a put off for Christians. We end up seeing failures in converts when we could actually be finding victories in "half-converts" and diluters and benders of rigid faiths - which is an Indic trait.
is it possible that some Hindus have a more rigid view and mindset about what consititutes "indic" even as we believe ourselves to be flexible and wholly indic?
Ultimately rigidity and flexibility are human traits and not traits of inanimate objects like books. Hindus can show more rigidity of attitude than followers of rigid faiths. That is ironic because they then behave less like Hindus and more like followers of rigid faiths. And they lose the support of Hindus that they should be gaining.
From âtheirâ perspective in a free society they are touting how they are better than âusâ. They list their strengths and our weaknesses. So if our neighbor buys into their thoughts, on what grounds do we cry âfoulâ as long as the neighbor does not threaten our way of life?
< snip >
I would love to see a precise articulation on how, in a free society, conversion attempts are bad. I am not talking about forced conversions.
[right][snapback]67529[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Great post.
Whatever the motivation of the people in the North east - a rigid paranoia of Christianity is not in our interest. While we Hindus are so good at "understanding" how rigid Christianity is, we fail in seeing that the rigidity is equally a put off for Christians. We end up seeing failures in converts when we could actually be finding victories in "half-converts" and diluters and benders of rigid faiths - which is an Indic trait.
is it possible that some Hindus have a more rigid view and mindset about what consititutes "indic" even as we believe ourselves to be flexible and wholly indic?
Ultimately rigidity and flexibility are human traits and not traits of inanimate objects like books. Hindus can show more rigidity of attitude than followers of rigid faiths. That is ironic because they then behave less like Hindus and more like followers of rigid faiths. And they lose the support of Hindus that they should be gaining.