Do you really think you are helping anyone?

[NemisisQ]

When you evangelize and preach your religion to other people?

Do you really think that other people want to hear you chastise their beliefs and tell them they believe wrong and that they should believe what you believe? Do you have any idea how rude and narcissistic you come off to others when you preach at them and quote scripture at them? Do you honestly think that tactic really helps anyone?

This isn't directed at anyone in particular here, but I know there are some here who like to "spread the word" as it were and really wonder if they think they are helping at all?

Just sayin, religion doesn't solve everything. In fact, there are childrens in poverty that just wouldn't accept religion, as their value system is completely different from those that have lived through peace and fulfillment.

Please be more specific, it deeply depends on the person which the religious man is regarding.

 

[Draka]

Just sayin, religion doesn't solve everything. In fact, there are childrens in poverty that just wouldn't accept religion, as their value system is completely different from those that have lived through peace and fulfillment.

Please be more specific, it deeply depends on the person which the religious man is regarding.

Be more specific? It doesn't depend on anything. Proselytizing is flat out rude and really doesn't help anyone. If someone wants to come and listen to a person preach in a church or elsewhere, then that is different. But to either go door-to-door or approach random strangers, even online, and start spewing why they should abandon what they believe and should believe what you believe is flat out insulting, rude and born of arrogance.

 

[Kathryn]

Sky dancer - I guess you should give your definition of "enlightenment."

Here's my definition:

capitalized : a philosophic movement of the 18th century marked by a rejection of traditional social, religious, and political ideas and an emphasis on rationalism

Here's a good, concise definition of the Age of Enlightenment:

[SIZE=+1]Enlightenment (Age of Enlightenment) [/SIZE]

An intellectual movement which began in England in the seventeenth century, but then spread to have eventual influence over all sections of the world. The term "Enlightenment," rooted in an intellectual skepticism to traditional beliefs and dogmas, denotes an "illumined" contrast to the supposed dark and superstitious character of the Middle Ages. From its inception, the Enlightenment focused on the power and goodness of human rationality. Some of the more characterisitic doctrines of the Enlightenment are: 1) Reason is the most significant and positive capacity of the human; 2) reason enables one to break free from primitive, dogmatic, and superstitious beliefs holding one in the bonds of irrationality and ignorance; 3) in realizing the liberating potential of reason, one not only learns to think correctly, but to act correctly as well; 4) through philosophical and scientific progress, reason can lead humanity as a whole to a state of earthly perfection; 5) reason makes all humans equal and, therefore, deserving of equal liberty and treatment before the law; 6) beliefs of any sort should be accepted only on the basis of reason, and not on traditional or priestly authority; and 7) all human endeavors should seek to impart and develop knowledge, not feelings or character.
Glossary Definition: Enlightenment (Age of Enlightenment)

Most people of faith that I know do not see any significant contradiction between this philosophy and their walk of faith (except for possibly #4 - since hindsight is 20/20 and obviously the Age of Enlightenment has not led to any sort of Utopia of earthly perfection, or decreased man's propensity for cruelty).

So - most Christians I know DO seek enlightenment. Now - if the Buddhist definition of enlightenment is different, then we're simply not talking about the same thing.

I'd like to point out that a person can seek enlightenment AS WELL AS salvation.

 

[Kathryn]

And Sky, I'll ask again - do you believe that seeking enlightenment is a better choice than seeking salvation?

 

[Vinayaka]

When you evangelize and preach your religion to other people?

Do you really think that other people want to hear you chastise their beliefs and tell them they believe wrong and that they should believe what you believe? Do you have any idea how rude and narcissistic you come off to others when you preach at them and quote scripture at them? Do you honestly think that tactic really helps anyone?

This isn't directed at anyone in particular here, but I know there are some here who like to "spread the word" as it were and really wonder if they think they are helping at all?

With the availability of information via the internet now, I wish proseltysing just stopped. In some countries laws are being passed or have been passed, and I'm all for it. Of course the proseltysers make a stink about that too. My rule of thumb is to answer when asked, but that's it. Its just common decency, and it applies to many more things than religion. "I'm sorry but I don't care if you think a Toyota is better than a Honda."

 

[Vinayaka]

And Sky, I'll ask again - do you believe that seeking enlightenment is a better choice than seeking salvation?

Kathryn, I think if you google 'nirvana', 'moksha' or 'self-realisation' you'll have a better sense. It is a totally different concept, yes.

 

[Kathryn]

Kathryn, I think if you google 'nirvana', 'moksha' or 'self-realisation' you'll have a better sense. It is a totally different concept, yes.

My point though, is this:

When we embrace a particular set of beliefs, we have chosen to believe those tenets/concepts because we believe they hold more truth than other tenets/concepts. By saying we believe in the teachings of a particular faith or philosophical concept, we are saying that we do NOT believe some other beliefs/concepts to be true.

In other words, we believe we've found truth that many others have not found.

Does that make us arrogant?

And if we believe that we have found such profound truth, should we share that with others?

 

[Vinayaka]

My point though, is this:

When we embrace a particular set of beliefs, we have chosen to believe those tenets/concepts because we believe they hold more truth than other tenets/concepts. By saying we believe in the teachings of a particular faith or philosophical concept, we are saying that we do NOT believe some other beliefs/concepts to be true.

In other words, we believe we've found truth that many others have not found.

Does that make us arrogant?

And if we believe that we have found such profound truth, should we share that with others?

I agree with almost all of this. Arrogance is a confusing word, as a watcher can confuse arrogance with just confidence. Only God knows who is really arrogant. I remember stories of professional athletes for example, saying they were good at that skill ... not because they were arrogant, but because they were good..

as far as sharing goes, in my version of Hinduism, which leans to the mystical, truths discovered within oneself are kept there because we strongly believe in 'sacred is secret, secret is sacred, in other words, blabbing merely diminishes the mystical power of that experience. So legitimate teachers will rarely speak of their own realisation, if at all. So no, we don't share. Not because it comes across as arrogant, but because you lose some of the power in sharing. Kind of like sharing with the public intimate moments with your spouse. You may not ever get another intimate moment if you did that.

 

[Kathryn]

So how do you share your beliefs with others? If your Hindu beliefs are of such value, are you under any moral obligation to share this wisdom or this path with those who may need such guidance in their lives?

 

[Vinayaka]

So how do you share your beliefs with others? If your Hindu beliefs are of such value, are you under any moral obligation to share this wisdom or this path with those who may need such guidance in their lives?

If someone is interested in Hinduism, they can go on line and find a ton of information. Various temples around the country have open houses, or guided tours to explain stuff ... only to those who are interested. Interfaith groups, high school, or college comparative religion classes, occasionally request tours or guest speakers, and we oblige. in fact, I'm one of the hosts for such things at my local temple. the onus is entirely on the seeker.

(There is one notable exception within the many sects or sampradayas of Hinduism on this, a group who does proseltyse actively, even to other Hindus, but they are not the norm. )

 

[Kathryn]

OK, you're on your own I guess. If you find us, great. If not, it's on you.

Honestly, that's how I see this approach.

On the other hand, I don't personally like strangers knocking on my door and trying to "convert" me, either.

I think there's a middle ground, and I hope I've found it. I practice my beliefs, and I am open about my faith. If a person is seeking advice, or if they are discussing something in their life with me and I realize that there's an issue on the table which I believe could be addressed via my faith, I'll share that insight. That's not intruding, I don't believe, but it's also not secretive, or timid, or withholding information which may be helpful.

 

[sky dancer]

Sky dancer - I guess you should give your definition of "enlightenment."

Here's my definition:

capitalized : a philosophic movement of the 18th century marked by a rejection of traditional social, religious, and political ideas and an emphasis on rationalism

Here's a good, concise definition of the Age of Enlightenment:

[SIZE=+1]Enlightenment (Age of Enlightenment) [/SIZE]

An intellectual movement which began in England in the seventeenth century, but then spread to have eventual influence over all sections of the world. The term "Enlightenment," rooted in an intellectual skepticism to traditional beliefs and dogmas, denotes an "illumined" contrast to the supposed dark and superstitious character of the Middle Ages. From its inception, the Enlightenment focused on the power and goodness of human rationality. Some of the more characterisitic doctrines of the Enlightenment are: 1) Reason is the most significant and positive capacity of the human; 2) reason enables one to break free from primitive, dogmatic, and superstitious beliefs holding one in the bonds of irrationality and ignorance; 3) in realizing the liberating potential of reason, one not only learns to think correctly, but to act correctly as well; 4) through philosophical and scientific progress, reason can lead humanity as a whole to a state of earthly perfection; 5) reason makes all humans equal and, therefore, deserving of equal liberty and treatment before the law; 6) beliefs of any sort should be accepted only on the basis of reason, and not on traditional or priestly authority; and 7) all human endeavors should seek to impart and develop knowledge, not feelings or character.
Glossary Definition: Enlightenment (Age of Enlightenment)

Most people of faith that I know do not see any significant contradiction between this philosophy and their walk of faith (except for possibly #4 - since hindsight is 20/20 and obviously the Age of Enlightenment has not led to any sort of Utopia of earthly perfection, or decreased man's propensity for cruelty).

So - most Christians I know DO seek enlightenment. Now - if the Buddhist definition of enlightenment is different, then we're simply not talking about the same thing.

I'd like to point out that a person can seek enlightenment AS WELL AS salvation.

The sanskrti word for enlightenment is 'bodhi', it means 'awake'. In Tibetan, the term is 'sang gyay', which means to 'refine away' and 'to enfold'.

Enlightenment means becoming a buddha. One who is 'awake' to the 'truth of how things truly abide' and who has refined away the poisons of the mind, hatred, desire, ignorance, pride and jealousy, so that enlightened qualites of love, compassion, joy, equanimity and wisdom remain.

A buddhist is not interested in 'finding salvation' because that involves taking on a concept of god as a personal savior. Buddhism is non-theistic,

We are not talking about the same things at all. Christians do not seek to become Buddhas. They don't even consider that Buddhas exist. They want to be 'saved' and spend eternity in heaven with God.

There is a reason, that Buddhists have our own definitions for words like 'enlightenment' which is a bad english translation of words like 'bodhi' and 'sang gye' which are more precise.

That's why we look to the Sanskrit, Pali, and Tibetan translations of words rather than rely on ordinary definitions.

 

[Kathryn]

The sanskrti word for enlightenment is 'bodhi', it means 'awake'. In Tibetan, the term is 'sang gyay', which means to 'refine away' and 'to enfold'.

Enlightenment means becoming a buddha. One who is 'awake' to the 'truth of how things truly abide' and who has refined away the poisons of the mind, hatred, desire, ignorance, pride and jealousy, so that enlightened qualites of love, compassion, joy, equanimity and wisdom remain.

A buddhist is not interested in 'finding salvation' because that involves taking on a concept of god as a personal savior. Buddhism is non-theistic,

We are not talking about the same things at all. Christians do not seek to become Buddhas. They don't even consider that Buddhas exist. They want to be 'saved' and spend eternity in heaven with God.

There is a reason, that Buddhists have our own definitions for words like 'enlightenment' which is a bad english translation of words like 'bodhi' and 'sang gye' which are more precise.

That's why we look to the Sanskrit, Pali, and Tibetan translations of words rather than rely on ordinary definitions.

So - do you think that seeking enlightenment is a superior way to use one's time and spiritual energy than seeking salvation?

 

[sky dancer]

And Sky, I'll ask again - do you believe that seeking enlightenment is a better choice than seeking salvation?

I have already answered this question, but I will do so again. Yes. Seeking enlightenment is a better choice for me than seeking salvation from a God I don't believe in.

I seek enlightenment to become a Buddha in order to benefit sentient beings. Buddha is not God. It is the highest attainment a human being can aspire to.

 

[Kathryn]

I have already answered this question, but I will do so again. Yes. Seeking enlightenment is a better choice for me than seeking salvation from a God I don't believe in.

I seek enlightenment to become a Buddha in order to benefit sentient beings. Buddha is not God. It is the highest attainment a human being can aspire to.

I didn't ask whether or not it was a better choice just for you.

I asked if you believe it is a better choice in GENERAL. For all people - not just yourself.

And - why or why not?

 

[sky dancer]

So - do you think that seeking enlightenment is a superior way to use one's time and spiritual energy than seeking salvation?

If you're trying to trap me into insulting Christians by saying that my path is superior to yours I'm sorry you go that way.

Obviously, I think it is more worth my time seeking Buddhahood, than salvation in the Christian sense. If I thought Christianity would make me enlightened I'd be a Christian.

I make a different choice than you do, after an informed decision. After being raised in a Christian tradition and finding it lacking for me.

That doesn't mean that Christianity isn't the right path for you. It's just NOT the right one for me. Is that threatening to you when other people find another path other than Christianity completely fulfilling?

 

[Kathryn]

And sky - here's another question. You don't believe God exists, right?

So - if God does not exist, then those who believe in God are mistaken, right?

If they are mistaken, is it right for you to allow them to remain in a state of misinformation, believing in something which is not true?

 

[Kathryn]

Look - you either believe God exists, or you believe God does not exist. It's not as if God exists for some people, and doesn't exist for others. So - some of us are right and some of us are wrong. We can't all be right.

If you believe that your belief system is correct (ie, God does not exist) then you believe that others are mistaken. In other words, wrong.

I'm not trying to "trap you." I am simply trying to look at this logically, and I want you to look at it logically as well.

 

[sky dancer]

I didn't ask whether or not it was a better choice just for you.

I asked if you believe it is a better choice in GENERAL. For all people - not just yourself.

And - why or why not?

I'm not going to go there. If a person wants to become enlightened, the Buddhist path is excellent. If a person wants to go to heaven or hell, they should choose Christianity.

You think Christianity is a better choice for ALL people, not just yourself.

I don't.

 

[Kathryn]

I'm not going to go there. If a person wants to become enlightened, the Buddhist path is excellent. If a person wants to go to heaven or hell, they should choose Christianity.

You think Christianity is a better choice for ALL people, not just yourself.

I don't.

Way to go! I see that you are avoiding the obvious - not all that adeptly but you're still doing it.

Either God exists, or He doesn't. You are either right or wrong. I am either right or wrong. We can't both be right.

I wonder why you can't see that.