Poll: Give up your religion to save a stranger

[Thanda]

That depends on ones religion. The Buddha talks of salvation but he does so inlight of breaking away from attachments and gaining full wisdom as he. That is "salvation". Hell or eternal damnation is in the mind and is not perminent. If one is aware and mindful of his obstructions, giving, meditation, etc leads to salvation or better known as enlightenment.

We cant be enlightened by sitting on our cushions. Practice-faiths dont work that way.

But even then, it is not one act. You cannot sit down and think "I want to be enlightened" and then boom, you're enlightened. Enlightenment comes over time (some Buddhists say over many lifetimes). And even if you're sitting on a couch it would like take hours of meditations, exerting ones self to focus, resisting distractions etc. Therefore it is not one act. It is many acts over a period of time.

Remember Carlita, many people have given their lives for others - policemen, firefighters, doctors and nurses working in war-zones, women choosing to give birth even though they know it will cost them their lives. We cannot assume that just because they did that they have achieved enlightenment.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well you may look at it one way or the other.

But note that I never said a person becomes sin. I said a person can sin. Sin is an action not a person. But we cannot blame our environment for our wrong choices. To grow spiritually we must take responsibility for our own actions and choices. People from the same environments react differently to different situations - its about choice.

My sins are my own. I admit that, and if I don't repent I am willing face the consequences.

That makes sense.

In my faith, we learn how to be aware and at peace with external influences. Sin doesnt come from us when we can do this. However, not everyone follows Buddhist morals and they have attachments that affect not only themselves by their actions, they also affect others.

Sin/wrongful actions does come from us "and" we cannot say we are not externally influenced by others sins. Its more about awareness of what we do that controls or guides the act itself. Our buddha state guides our actions if we are mindful of pur state of mind.

Sin is an internal influence (inherited sin) by some faiths and religious so they find it hard to not sin given they blame themselves (for lack of a less harsh word). Instead, we should realize our choice to sin doesnt come from us (our pure nature) but external influences from mental attachments to other peoples choice to sin.

 

[Aiviu]

Except this OP assumes a situation where you can give it up

Hmmm.... huh! Thats the point?! Like i have to give it up then and only then i am able to save the one? Like he says before i can act :"Wait, before you can save me - please disregard your religion because, you know ... i ... dont ... like ... it.". I guess i would agree and save him. Because you know its him who dont like it. I was never meant to give it up. I was meant to give up what his religion was. Nothing easier than that if he doesnt even believe.

 

[RedDragon94]

Those who are strong in faith. Would you give up your religion (your life) to save a stranger?

Is there a specific example of this? I don't know of any instance where I would have to give up what I believe to save someone, if anything in my mind it would be just the opposite and I would put my faith into practice in order to save someone.

 

[Corthos]

I'm going to try to clarify some things. A lot of posts I disagree with; here is why.



I don't know if you have children, if you do, well. If I were a mother I needed to sacrifice myself to save my child's life I would do so in a heart beat. I saw a little girl playing with a ball cross the street and I ran for her not thinking of myself. I completely shed myself of any ego and self-care for the life of someone else no matter the age or who they are.

As such, religion is someone's life. If I were a Christian and to save another person was to stop practicing my faith and forget god, I would do exactly that. I would be thinking of someone else not myself regardless of how long this person has to leave. Death is not a release. Life life to it's fullest not lve life for death. We should be comfortable with death, yes; and, not the expense of saving ourselves (our religion, our family, etc) instead of saving someone else's life.



Bad wording. If I were Christian and someone said "turn away from Jesus or your child get's it", I would in a heart beat. It's not about me, it's the child; no matter what punishment I receive as a result of thinking of another person's life.

The monk in the link did something for a cause rather than saving a life. I wouldn't give my life for a cause even if it's protesting like Catholic's do about abortion. If I had the choice to save someone at the expense of myself, I would. Unfortunately, my cultture makes us think of ourselves before another.



True. It's a hypothetical question, though. Would you give up your life (which means your faith, your family, etc) for another person to live? If it's your child? If it's a termianally ill person? Extend that more, what about a healthy stranger?

Would you turn from your faith (pretending that you could given many others do on their own) to save another person's life--even for a minute?



Something evil? You're doing a good thing for saving another person's life in place of your own (your religion, your family, yourself)



Think of a mother and child. Would a mother let her child die because she rather save herself instead or would she replace her life for a child to live? Dying for someone else to live isn't something big. If your morals can let you go as far as take your own life for another, then I'd say that's the highest sacrifice. If we can't do that, what is our limit before we think of ourselves before we think of others?



Yep. The Boddhisattva (for example_ helps others to enlightenment first before he gets enlightenmnent. The Buddha would never think of himself before another. Save is not a good word. As long as you get it.



I dont know about yours, but in my faith it is right to give myself for the sake of saving another person. Not all faiths think that way. Some have tenants that the faith/religion comes before any person. Which is very odd for me, when it comes to religion. Where is the limit of one "giving to help another in need" without puting ourselves in danger by doing so? Why is life so much important to us at the expense of letting someone else die?



Of course, I disagree. That's the highest sacrifice to die for another. Many religious prophets have done so to the best they can. I feel it's selfish to think otherwise. I see no value in saving myself at the exepsense of another. Our culture (America) has a pride thing; and, it does make people think of themselves first. It's not a bad thing to be self-centered, but to be selfish? I saw a child ran accross the road twice and I did not think twice about my life but that child's. Should I have let that child die?

I don't undestand how death can be a release if the dying can life a full life if the other choose to take their life IF the situation called for it.



No. Wrong wording. Save your reliigon (keep your religion) rather than give it up (turn from god, whatever) to save another from death. See above.



Small good? Saving a life? I dont understand that.

Ah! Thank you for the clarification. =)

In terms of giving up my faith outwardly, such as denouncing it, that would be easy. =) Ahura Mazda isn't a jealous God, and cares more about someone's actions than who's "team" they are on. Gathic Zoroastrianism is more of a path to truth, enriching of the world through your behaviors, and a reverence for life, than it is a religion with religious edicts from God that one must follow.

In terms of inwardly, that would be impossible. Not because of some kind of selfishness, or religious dogma, but because good thoughts, good words, and good deeds have always been a part of me even before I decided to follow this specific path. =)

If I had to give up my worldly possessions to save someone's life, that would be easy. To give my own life would also be easy. To give up my family to save someone, though?... That wouldn't be so easy. If they weren't at risk, and it just meant something like separation, then yes. I would never put them at risk of anything harsh, though.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Those who are strong in faith. Would you give up your religion (your life) to save a stranger?

Is this a trick question?

There is a big difference between giving up ones religion and giving up ones life. You can give up your life and keep your religion, and you can give up your religion and keep your life.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Is this a trick question?

There is a big difference between giving up ones religion and giving up ones life. You can give up your life and keep your religion, and you can give up your religion and keep your life.

Its not a trick question. Most people consider religion their life.

They will never part with it.

My question: Not even to save someone's life?

My religion is my life. The first "tenant" of my faith is life is not to be taken. In my school we are boddhisattvas. Our goals is to lead others to enlightenment "before we find our own". That is puting our self aside for the sake of others.

Can anyone part with their religion (sacrifice themself) to save a healthy adult stranger?

Religion teaches charity: what is the highest charity than giving your life for another?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Is there a specific example of this? I don't know of any instance where I would have to give up what I believe to save someone, if anything in my mind it would be just the opposite and I would put my faith into practice in order to save someone.

Thats a good twist. Not the OP goal but thats how I see it. I would leave my faith to save another. Why would anyone not?

 

[djhwoodwerks]

I would not denounce Jesus as my savior to save a life. It would depend on "WHY" I would have to die to save someones life.

 

[Aupmanyav]

According to my religion salvation doesn't come by one act. It comes by becoming righteous and holy. That takes a lifetime of giving, resisting evil, drawing near to God etc. One act can neither save a man nor damn him for eternity.

We in East know it well. Karma balance.

Save yourself even if you have to destroy the whole world, is the principle you need to follow.

Let the whole world be destroyed and we would not want to live. Humans are social animals.

My sins are my own. I admit that, and if I don't repent I am willing face the consequences.

Consequences? Like being roasted in hell for eternity? That is not true, you need not fear.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

In my faith, the Buddha says that Boddhisattvas are to lead others to enlightenment before he or she leads oneself. (To lazy now to find perfect wording). So, in that sense, and in my morals regardless, I would abandon my faith (my life) in order to save a stranger.

I would gladly go to hell to save a stranger. Satan has no power over me anyway. He has nothing with which to blackmail me spiritually. I know myself. I no longer call myself Christian (more as a protest than disbelief). I got rid of a label, not my faith in God. When people told John the Baptist they were saved or whatever because they were children of Abraham, he told them God can make Abe's descendants out of rocks. I think Christians feel themselves exempt from this lesson: God can make Christians out of Kleenexes. He doesn't need suck-ups, He needs us to do the right thing.

I get more upset by the people who would crush others under their feet to flashmob themselves into Heaven. Such vile selfishness should not be rewarded by anything other than reincarnation to give another shot at it until you get the whole "morality" thing right.

No.
Hell no.
People die, people die all the time and they will continue to die and you know what will happen to the person you save by giving up your faith? They'll still die, all you did was buy them some more time.

I wouldn't give up faith for myself or anyone else.

Jesus said something similar: You'll always have the poor, but if I want to get my feet rubbed, spend the money on me ... go me!

Because they're selfish. Because they can't let go. Death is release, from this life to whatever comes next and religion is supposed to facilitate that.

Why would one trade the infinite for the finite?
To stall death? What good is that? How does that truly save anyone?

I kinda agree (as a nurse I've seen my fair share of selfish people drag out the inevitable), but many people are also quick to dismiss the possibility of being saved from devastation. I mean, Jesus' faithful are going to die anyway, so why should HE bother?

Hmmm... I can't help but wonder how one leads someone else to enlightenment before they lead themselves, since enlightenment is a state of realization and understanding, or am I wrong in those regards?

Technically, everyone is already "there", but must realize it. It's like in the Wizard of Oz where Dorothy could've gone home (or was already home in the movie, since she was dreaming) at any time. She only had to know that was an option.

Think of a mother and child. Would a mother let her child die because she rather save herself instead or would she replace her life for a child to live? Dying for someone else to live isn't something big. If your morals can let you go as far as take your own life for another, then I'd say that's the highest sacrifice. If we can't do that, what is our limit before we think of ourselves before we think of others?

It would depend on the scenario. Will my death ensure the death of the child anyway? If we are alone in the woods and I let a bear eat me to save my child ... the bear is going to just have two meals, not one ... OR the child will die of exposure because it's the middle of nowhere.

Guys, another question.

How far would your charity go before you think of yourself before another person?

I'm having this point of contention with my mother right now. She acts like because we're still unemployed (I'm still trying to recuperate after suffering bad medical issues prior to our relocation), I should not be charitable at all to those in need. Our previous house sold and she's not going to starve to death anytime soon, so I will hold onto the morals SHE HERSELF TAUGHT ME: give to those who need it. However, when I'm so low I'm about unable to pay necessary bills, I do put giving on hold or at least reduce it.

Talking about something like that is already far into the bragging territory. And one doesn't brag about charity.

I believe what Jesus said about doing good, giving a kind of "double jeopardy" clause where if you are rewarded for something on earth, you get squat in heaven. However, I am willing to risk any heavenly reward on the matter, but only if I am educating someone on the nature of doing good. Some people apparently have never been taught how to be generous or compassionate, so we have to provide examples. I just don't think I'll get rewarded in heaven for any I give because I relinquished that right when I mentioned it. Still, if it makes others better people, it was worth it, no?

But I did risk eternal damnation to destroy the previous South African government.

I threatened genocide against the Afrikaners if they continued to threaten to put me in prison
if I did not serve in their Nazi pseudo-christian military.

Epic. Good for you.

Save yourself even if you have to destroy the whole world, is the principle you need to follow.

We are social creatures. Destroy the world and you'll be dead inside a week.

Remember, by destroying the world, you are destroying air, water, food, etc. It's really shooting yourself in the foot and that's just silly.

 

[Aupmanyav]

And even if you're sitting on a couch it would like take hours of meditations, exerting ones self to focus, resisting distractions etc.

I do not think Buddha ever wanted that. He warned people against unfruitful contemplation (Acinteyya). His eight fold path was simple.

 

[Mycroft]

If the price were my faith, then no.
And we're all selfish, but denying someone their death is moreso, aswell as cruel.

No not at the expense of your religion, just in general: Would you take the cure?

 

[Thana]

No not at the expense of your religion, just in general: Would you take the cure?

In that case, yes I would.

 

[Mycroft]

In that case, yes I would.

But wouldn't that contradict your earlier position?

To stall death? What good is that?

Surely, then, it would be better to simply die and be done with it?

 

[Thana]

But wouldn't that contradict your earlier position?
Surely, then, it would be better to simply die and be done with it?

No, my earlier position is that faith has more value than life. Faith is the point of life.

 

[Mycroft]

No, my earlier position is that faith has more value than life. Faith is the point of life.

But you then asked in what is the point in stalling death. As if, somehow, when you're supposed to die, then you're supposed to die. If you had ebola, then you're supposed to die.

 

[Thana]

But you then asked in what is the point in stalling death. As if, somehow, when you're supposed to die, then you're supposed to die. If you had ebola, then you're supposed to die.

What is the point of stalling death when it costs you everything, is what I was driving at.

 

[Mycroft]

What is the point of stalling death when it costs you everything, is what I was driving at.

But what if it's the will of god that you should sacrifice your faith to save that person?

 

[Thana]

But what if it's the will of god that you should sacrifice your faith to save that person?

It wouldn't be, though.
How many times were people martyred for their faith in the bible, Why would God expect them to give up their own lives to keep their faith but not apply that to anothers life?