So you're saying that people convert to Christian, load up on material benefits and then convert back to Hindu? From a material point of view, that's profitable to the convert/reconvert and a huge waste of money and effort on the part of the missionary. So, what you're opposed to is crafty Hindus conning and exploiting missionaries?
No, I know that's not your concern. But your argument is all over the place.
Similarly, you have argued both that humanitarian and educational outreach are OK, and that there is no such thing as sincere humanitarian and educational outreach.
You wrote: "Any ways conversion is always about intolerance and denying ones past."
"Intolerance" is a loaded but ambiguous word. Intolerance toward good things is bad; intolerance toward bad things is good. I'm intolerant of slavey, rape, and lynchings. How about you?
You mention without apparent objection that Hindus worship Jesus alongside many other gods. You at least imply that Christianity would be OK if it were preached as a polytheistic religion. But if the Christianity being preached is not polytheistic, you interpret it as imperialistic.
Consider this as a hypothetical: a person could become convinced that all the good things in his or her past could be preserved, and even find a creative and authentic development, in a different religious setting. Hindus who worship Jesus in a polytheistic way, obviously think that their Hindu religious values are expressed and developed through their devotion to Jesus. Such a person could conceivably go from a "polytheistic Jesus" to a "monotheistic Jesus" without demonizing his whole Hindu past: he could see the past as prologue (as do, for instance, messianic Jews.)
I can't see how that could injure you, the seeker's Hindu neighbors, or the secular state of India.
Do you think the 17 million Indian Catholics have the right to practice their religion? Even though it's monotheistic?
Are you against the right of these 17 million Indian Catholics to share the faith with their families, neighbors, friends? You are against organized efforts to spread the Gospel. Are you OK with disorganized efforts?
If what you're trying to do is to defend the human dignity of the ordinary Indian Hindu, then I'm with you.
So you're saying that people convert to Christian, load up on material benefits and then convert back to Hindu? From a material point of view, that's profitable to the convert/reconvert and a huge waste of money and effort on the part of the missionary. So, what you're opposed to is crafty Hindus conning and exploiting missionaries?
No, I know that's not your concern. But your argument is all over the place.
You are right its not my concern. I am only discussing the issues involved. My point was that those people who momentarily accepted Christianity are not really Christians and never were at any point of time. You can claim them as Christians.
Similarly, you have argued both that humanitarian and educational outreach are OK, and that there is no such thing as sincere humanitarian and educational outreach.
Definitely not. I have asked you to define as to what according to you should be well within the boundaries and parameters of what in your opinion constitutes "sincere humanitarian and educational activity". You haven't given me any answer yet.
You wrote: "Any ways conversion is always about intolerance and denying ones past."
"Intolerance" is a loaded but ambiguous word. Intolerance toward good things is bad; intolerance toward bad things is good. I'm intolerant of slavey, rape, and lynchings. How about you?
You know very well the "intolerance" I am talking about has to do with the one shown against men belonging to different race or religion. You can very well try to obfuscate the main point by arguing over different connotations of the word but it achieves nothing.
You mention without apparent objection that Hindus worship Jesus alongside many other gods. You at least imply that Christianity would be OK if it were preached as a polytheistic religion. But if the Christianity being preached is not polytheistic, you interpret it as imperialistic.
Its not my business to decide what exactly the Christians should or shouldn't be allowed to preach. My demand is that foreign missionary activity must be curbed or at least strictly monitored. They must not be allowed to encroach upon the private space or offend the religious sensibilities of people of other religious groups, or be allowed to actively involve in proselytization activity. And mostly importantly the Judiciary will arbitrate every individual cases of conversion to ascertain if they are indeed genuine coversion and not simply a racket.
Consider this as a hypothetical: a person could become convinced that all the good things in his or her past could be preserved, and even find a creative and authentic development, in a different religious setting. Hindus who worship Jesus in a polytheistic way, obviously think that their Hindu religious values are expressed and developed through their devotion to Jesus. Such a person could conceivably go from a "polytheistic Jesus" to a "monotheistic Jesus" without demonizing his whole Hindu past: he could see the past as prologue (as do, for instance, messianic Jews.)
I can't see how that could injure you, the seeker's Hindu neighbors, or the secular state of India.
As I said, I have no problem with genuine conversion. It is immaterial how you came to the conclusion, but if you believe that Jesus can be your only Saviour and you sincerely believe yourself to be a Christian, the anti-conversion laws isn't likely to prevent you from converting. The anti-conversion laws are not meant to suppress the freedom to choose ones religion.
You can think of the anti-conversion laws as a kind of "consumer protection"
(BTW Hinduism isnt really polyethisic, it is actually very much monotheistic. Its a religion of contradictions.)
Do you think the 17 million Indian Catholics have the right to practice their religion? Even though it's monotheistic?
I think everybody has the right to practice their religion. I never said anything to the contrary.
You are against organized efforts to spread the Gospel. Are you OK with disorganized efforts?
Not if they are actively proselytizing, irrespectively of whether organized or disorganized.