Post 61:
The *real danger* is The Monotheistic Tendency ("We're Right/We Have *The* Truth, We Will Spread On You), of which christoislamism is the prime, highly developed and most extreme example. But all missionary tendencies that seek to supplant or subvert ancient established tradition are problematic. The difference is merely in degree.
"My moral right... you shouldn't take it from me"
Your "right" ends where mine begins. Personal space and freedom from missionaries is a universal right of ALL. And you may NOT take these rights from others by inviting your unwanted person and unwanted views - however glorious you imagine them to be - into their space.
Consider if all the billions of humans on this planet went about peddling their "ingenious" individual views on every other human as per their alleged "moral right". That is the absurd right you claim. I claim the right to be left in peace to follow the religion of one's ancestors.
People must be allowed to continue to pass down their ancient ancestral traditions naturally, to the next generations (certainly where these are harmless, even beneficial). <- And of course, such natural transmission is the one thing that christianism expressly disapproves of in India and the rest of unconverted Asia: it keeps telling Hindus not to assume that they have a Right to pass on their religion to their own children, but that they should instead understand that their Hindu kids should be made to have an open mind to "everything". (With which christianism is merely trying to get itself to have an "equal chance".) And this 'argument' is the frequent Opener for christianism's "Why Hindus should allow christian evangelisation".
Note that when christianism has established itself, it will appeal to its flock to keep to its "tradition", such as in S America where catholicism is staring down a face off with competing christianisms.
Religious proselytising is one of the worst possible things I can think of. It is more than mere interference and invasion of personal space, it is a Crime from which Tragedy frequently ensues:
It is a grave danger to human spiritual diversity on this planet and various people's collective spiritual/religious evolution. It is a threat to their ancient, ancestral, native traditions - where these traditions are harmonious. Of all losses, the one that is most irretrievable and irreplaceable is where an individual, community or population loses its ancestral tradition. (And subversion and inculturation do NOT count as preservation of ancestral tradition.) I don't mind people enriching what they already are with other related things: there is no objection in my mind when I read about Arabians eagerly including others' Gods such as the Hellenes'. It's like how no one forced the Taoist God Nezha on me. And yet, since childhood I have looked at Nezha with the same kind of appreciation and the same regard that I have for my own Gods (the intensity of feeling may vary).
There is something very wrong about disturbing the natural traditions of a harmonious and happy people by insinuating one's own religion by subverting and/or hijacking theirs, just because one thinks one's own is Right and True.
The Gods in other religions are the way Divinity manifests there. And the traditional local understanding of those Gods is something built over generations of interactions which the local people have had with their Gods and which they have carefully passed down.
To take this away from them - such as by distorting it - is very wrong. And to take (appropriate) from it to further one's own religion's chances of converting the people is more wrong still.
I do not approve of proselytising at all. The only efforts of conversion I could admit is of reverting people to their natural, ancestral traditions where these are harmless and recoverable (or the nearest relevant neighbour) rather than christoislamism. Still, I just don't think recovery is usually possible in the case of an ancient ancestral, traditional religion being lost. (Disregarding Deus Ex Machinas.)
Outside of inherited tradition, people must seek and discover for themselves what they want. It is not for others to try selling what they imagine would be Perfect for everyone else. This is not Advertising: "to inform the audience of their choices" - the analogy does not apply. The right to freedom to continue on as before applies. If someone in a traditional, naturally-evolved religion was dissatisfied, they will find their own way to something else.
I thoroughly approve of natural (hence also non-missionary) atheism and agnosticism as occurs in the west. It produces some very good, balanced people. Consequently, I dislike it when others peddle religion among them, as if they're some blank canvas asking to be written on: if they had been looking for something else, they would themselves make the effort to find it.
Post 74:
Even were I the kind that intended to go about telling people to hold fast to their ancestral native traditions, it would not make me a missionary: I would not be peddling *my* religion then, as I would be telling them to remain as they are/constant to what they were/continue as they had been doing. Reminding people to retain their own religion is NOT the same as missionising them.
But even that is not true in my case: I have no intention to go about interfering with other people. (Besides, they would - else ought to - know the value of their religion for themselves.)
Christoislamism does concern me, as it affects more than merely Hindus. But an interest in warning Hindus against christoislamism cannot be classed as missionising either. It is simply an attempt at preventative immunisation - which is especially necessary since more than Hindus and other Dharmics are concerned.
Quote:the real danger(christo-islamics).
The *real danger* is The Monotheistic Tendency ("We're Right/We Have *The* Truth, We Will Spread On You), of which christoislamism is the prime, highly developed and most extreme example. But all missionary tendencies that seek to supplant or subvert ancient established tradition are problematic. The difference is merely in degree.
Quote:Call it wrong but the point that i make is that i consider just missionarism my moral right and you shouldnt take it from me.Oh goodie. The monotheistic tendency. (And it IS wrong.)
"My moral right... you shouldn't take it from me"
Your "right" ends where mine begins. Personal space and freedom from missionaries is a universal right of ALL. And you may NOT take these rights from others by inviting your unwanted person and unwanted views - however glorious you imagine them to be - into their space.
Consider if all the billions of humans on this planet went about peddling their "ingenious" individual views on every other human as per their alleged "moral right". That is the absurd right you claim. I claim the right to be left in peace to follow the religion of one's ancestors.
People must be allowed to continue to pass down their ancient ancestral traditions naturally, to the next generations (certainly where these are harmless, even beneficial). <- And of course, such natural transmission is the one thing that christianism expressly disapproves of in India and the rest of unconverted Asia: it keeps telling Hindus not to assume that they have a Right to pass on their religion to their own children, but that they should instead understand that their Hindu kids should be made to have an open mind to "everything". (With which christianism is merely trying to get itself to have an "equal chance".) And this 'argument' is the frequent Opener for christianism's "Why Hindus should allow christian evangelisation".
Note that when christianism has established itself, it will appeal to its flock to keep to its "tradition", such as in S America where catholicism is staring down a face off with competing christianisms.
Religious proselytising is one of the worst possible things I can think of. It is more than mere interference and invasion of personal space, it is a Crime from which Tragedy frequently ensues:
It is a grave danger to human spiritual diversity on this planet and various people's collective spiritual/religious evolution. It is a threat to their ancient, ancestral, native traditions - where these traditions are harmonious. Of all losses, the one that is most irretrievable and irreplaceable is where an individual, community or population loses its ancestral tradition. (And subversion and inculturation do NOT count as preservation of ancestral tradition.) I don't mind people enriching what they already are with other related things: there is no objection in my mind when I read about Arabians eagerly including others' Gods such as the Hellenes'. It's like how no one forced the Taoist God Nezha on me. And yet, since childhood I have looked at Nezha with the same kind of appreciation and the same regard that I have for my own Gods (the intensity of feeling may vary).
There is something very wrong about disturbing the natural traditions of a harmonious and happy people by insinuating one's own religion by subverting and/or hijacking theirs, just because one thinks one's own is Right and True.
The Gods in other religions are the way Divinity manifests there. And the traditional local understanding of those Gods is something built over generations of interactions which the local people have had with their Gods and which they have carefully passed down.
To take this away from them - such as by distorting it - is very wrong. And to take (appropriate) from it to further one's own religion's chances of converting the people is more wrong still.
I do not approve of proselytising at all. The only efforts of conversion I could admit is of reverting people to their natural, ancestral traditions where these are harmless and recoverable (or the nearest relevant neighbour) rather than christoislamism. Still, I just don't think recovery is usually possible in the case of an ancient ancestral, traditional religion being lost. (Disregarding Deus Ex Machinas.)
Outside of inherited tradition, people must seek and discover for themselves what they want. It is not for others to try selling what they imagine would be Perfect for everyone else. This is not Advertising: "to inform the audience of their choices" - the analogy does not apply. The right to freedom to continue on as before applies. If someone in a traditional, naturally-evolved religion was dissatisfied, they will find their own way to something else.
I thoroughly approve of natural (hence also non-missionary) atheism and agnosticism as occurs in the west. It produces some very good, balanced people. Consequently, I dislike it when others peddle religion among them, as if they're some blank canvas asking to be written on: if they had been looking for something else, they would themselves make the effort to find it.
Post 74:
Quote:You seem on a mission to not let errors of others to have negative effects on the hindus,hence you are a missionary.The charge is absurd. Don't play the equal-equal card.
Even were I the kind that intended to go about telling people to hold fast to their ancestral native traditions, it would not make me a missionary: I would not be peddling *my* religion then, as I would be telling them to remain as they are/constant to what they were/continue as they had been doing. Reminding people to retain their own religion is NOT the same as missionising them.
But even that is not true in my case: I have no intention to go about interfering with other people. (Besides, they would - else ought to - know the value of their religion for themselves.)
Christoislamism does concern me, as it affects more than merely Hindus. But an interest in warning Hindus against christoislamism cannot be classed as missionising either. It is simply an attempt at preventative immunisation - which is especially necessary since more than Hindus and other Dharmics are concerned.