You accuse ByronMorrigan of mind-reading (i.e. claiming that you have hate in your heart). But your claim is equally unverifiable. At the end of the day, no one really knows what is in the Christian missionary's mind, except for that missionary, and God. Maybe missionaries do proselytize out of love, and maybe they do so out of hate. My guess is that it varies from Christian to Christian. What we can say for certainty (well, with as much certainty as you possess) is that proselytizing is a sin. Remember, no one here is an atheist; we can point to an omniscient and omnipotent God as the source of all moral law, and can define good and bad from God's point of view. The only question is as to which religion accurately represents God's views on morality. To us, proselytizing is a sin. It's an interference with one's personal devotion to God. Like you, we believe that there is a right and wrong way to worship God. For example, no Hindu would offer beef as prasadam. But unlike you, we don't believe it is our dharma to correct others' behavior. Just as you say proselytizing is not a sin, we have an equally valid basis for saying that it is indeed a sin.
When I say "equally valid," I of course don't mean that both our claims are simultaneously true. What I mean is that both arguments logically follow from our starting assumptions. We assume the theology of Hinduism, you assume Christianity. Can you give me a compelling reason to believe you over Hinduism?
I'm not sure what you mean here. Your statement about Islam seems to suggest that you can separate Muslims (Christians) from Islam (Christianity). Which is it?
Having said all this, it's difficult to disagree with Devotee's comment that Christians are disguising hatred with love. Belief that non-Christians are going to hell seems to breed hatred of them. And I'm not just pulling this out of a vacuum. This is the very ethic of the Inquisitions, whereby people were tortured to the point of conversion. The logic seems to be that extracting a confession of faith will save the person's soul, and is thus loving. But the infliction of violence on the individual suggests hatred. The Inquisition made its way to India, where Christians attempted to extract such conversions from Hindus. You'll have a hard time convincing us that this is loving.
While I agree with Byron's charge of spiritual terrorism, I will say this much: spiritual terrorism is infinitely preferable to real terrorism. Christians over the centuries have evolved for the better. I'll take the world's supply of evangelical Christians over a handful of inquisitors. That said, I think that both forms of terrorism stem from the same belief in the eternal condemnation of non-Christians. You want to save us from this torment, and then turn on us and become angry when we reject your supposed gift, i.e. when we spurn your love.
But maybe it's unfair to bring up ancient history, so here's a modern example. Listen to the Christian protestors' denunciation of Hinduism during Rajan Zed's historic Hindu prayer in the U.S. Senate, and tell me if such an act is loving towards Hindus (I'm guessing you'll agree it's not loving). Then tell me why the protestors' actions are not in agreement with Christian teaching. Seems to me like Joshua demolishing the idolaters' golden demons.
Bookmarks