• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Poll: Give up your religion to save a stranger

Those who are strong in their religion, would you give up their religion to save a stranger?

  • Yes (Why?)

    Votes: 10 71.4%
  • No (Why not?)

    Votes: 4 28.6%

  • Total voters
    14
  • Poll closed .

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Can't you see how giving up your life is the epitome of the faith you follow? I wonder, is this question you ask, it is based on a fear of death? Death is but a way-station to the next life you will have. I don't fear death at all, though I am not really all that interested in the pain that precedes death. But I would ask....do soldiers defending one's country, knowing that death is a possibility, does that affect their faith? IMO, not in the slightest.
I dont know how it relates to fear or death. Faiths like buddhism see life as part of their faith; so, its an illogical question to people who think the same.

Other faiths or religious dont have that. Their religion may say charity but it has a clause. Many people have left their faiths; it is not impossible. As such, to those who separate their faith from themselves-puting it higher the other things, have a duality view.

Can they drop the duality view to save another.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Carlita, how would I go about giving up my religion for the purposes of this thread?

I told other Buddhists here that life is the highest cammandment of the Buddha. So its a illogical question.

People leave their religon/s all the time daily. If we believe they can leave their religion to find the truth, I am sure one can leave their religion to save a human being.

(Have to quote me so I ger an alert)
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I strongly disagree. Many years ago, my ex wanted to take my children from me. I asked my children what they wanted and allowed them to make that choice, in the process condemning myself to a lifetime of serious emotional pain. My choice was based on my faith and my path to enlightenment. An incredibly hard lesson, I can tell you, but in no way did my belief in God waver for even an instant.

Some people separate themselves from their religion. They say it by words "My religion is important to me" or "I follow this religion". People leave their faith in god all the time.

If I had children and someone said "pick one. Give me your children or turn away from god". I would not hesitate to keep my children. I would turn away from god.

Many posters are saying thats impossible and people do it daily to find truth. If do so for that reason, why does leaving tonsave a life so difficult for many people to answe?
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Indeed. But without an afterlife there a whole lot of "reasons" one can come up with to cause hurts
That depends on the persons environment, education and experiences. We term that as 'samskaras' (broadly - social inputs). That is why slum-dwellers may have gangs and may indulge in unlawful activities.
 
Last edited:

Thanda

Well-Known Member
More than "with" an afterlife, is that what you mean?

That is just not a statement that I find at all credible. I have met far too much evidence to the contrary.

Yes. When people truly believe there is a life after death and they will be held to account for whatever evil they do here (even if they are never caught or no one sees them) they are encouraged to act according to their conscience. You and I may not always agree with the result of some specific person's acts of conscience but I am quite certain that if the world had more of it there would be less harm caused.
 

Thanda

Well-Known Member
That depends on the persons environment, education and experiences. We term that as 'samskaras' (broadly - social inputs). That is why slum-dwellers my have gangs and may indulge in unlawful activities.

Hurts and unlawful activities are not identical terms. The rich kid may not join a gang but it does not mean he will not be evil.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Yes, he is the victim of another life-style. Heard about a rich American kid who has gone to Mexico with his mother. If you want I can find the reference, quite recent. He does not know and recognize social laws, thinks the whole world is there just for him.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Yes. When people truly believe there is a life after death and they will be held to account for whatever evil they do here (even if they are never caught or no one sees them) they are encouraged to act according to their conscience.

That may happen, but only as a best case scenario for people who hold afterlife beliefs.

The worst case scenario for the same group is ugly, obnoxious, and dangerous. I know of that first hand.

It is far better not to encourage such beliefs and use the true stuff (moral and ethics) instead. As an important bonus, it is also more respectful of people.

You and I may not always agree with the result of some specific person's acts of conscience but I am quite certain that if the world had more of it there would be less harm caused.

I SO, SO disagree. I am fairly shocked to even read that.
 

Thanda

Well-Known Member
Yes, he is the victim of another life-style. Heard about a rich American kid who has gone to Mexico with his mother. If you want I can find the reference, quite recent. He does not know and recognize social laws, thinks the whole world is there just for him.

Right, so each person, not matter their circumstances, can choose whether to be good or evil.
 

Thanda

Well-Known Member
That may happen, but only as a best case scenario for people who hold afterlife beliefs.

The worst case scenario for the same group is ugly, obnoxious, and dangerous. I know of that first hand.

It is far better not to encourage such beliefs and use the true stuff (moral and ethics) instead. As an important bonus, it is also more respectful of people.


You will have to explain the supposed superiority of morals and ethics to similar values being taught within the context of the afterlife

I also don't understand how it is more respectful of people.

I SO, SO disagree. I am fairly shocked to even read that.

You views on religion and faith are quite perculiar (to me) so I am not surprised. Are you telling you don't want people doing what they believe deep in their hearts to be right?
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Right, so each person, not matter their circumstances, can choose whether to be good or evil.
No, some people are forced into a life-style by circumstances from which they cannot escape. Think of abducted children forced into beggary or prostitution. Life is probability and chance. Did the Syrians know that IS will arise and they will be trekking to Europe?
 

Thanda

Well-Known Member
No, some people are forced into a life-style by circumstances from which they cannot escape. Think of abducted children forced into beggary or prostitution. Life is probability and chance. Did the Syrians know that IS will arise and they will be trekking to Europe?

Trekking to Europe and committing evil are two different things. Each person comes to a point in their lives where they need to choose who they will be whatever the cost. Many who have been forced into lifestyle from young ages as you describe have grown up and refused to continue in that life. Some who did so managed to escape. Others who did so lost their lives - they were prepared to die rather than live a life of evil.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
You will have to explain the supposed superiority of morals and ethics to similar values being taught within the context of the afterlife

Purer. More solid, respectful and respectable. Accepting of rational analysis and untainted by abusive fears.

No contest at all.

I also don't understand how it is more respectful of people.

Not raised by Kardecists, were you?

You views on religion and faith are quite perculiar (to me) so I am not surprised. Are you telling you don't want people doing what they believe deep in their hearts to be right?

Quite the opposite.
 

Thanda

Well-Known Member
Purer. More solid, respectful and respectable. Accepting of rational analysis and untainted by abusive fears.

No contest at all.

And yet the fears are only tainting if they don't exist. E.g. I'm sure you have no problem with a person who avoid stealing because he is afraid of going to jail. Being afraid of going to jail is not abusive, is it?

Not raised by Kardecists, were you?

Of course not. I don't even know what that is. Why would you even assume most people who are religious are Kardecists?
 

Thanda

Well-Known Member
Quite the opposite.

How is it the opposite? I said:
"You and I may not always agree with the result of some specific person's acts of conscience but I am quite certain that if the world had more of it there would be less harm caused."​
To which you replied:
"I SO, SO disagree. I am fairly shocked to even read that."​
 

JoStories

Well-Known Member
How is it the opposite? I said:
"You and I may not always agree with the result of some specific person's acts of conscience but I am quite certain that if the world had more of it there would be less harm caused."​
To which you replied:
"I SO, SO disagree. I am fairly shocked to even read that."​
Some people, do to their upbringing, have no conscience. RAD or reactive attachment disorder, leads to sociopaths who have literally got no conscience. Think Ted Bundy or some other serial killer. Acting on one's conscience is all well and good when a person has one but for those who are either sociopaths or psychopaths, conscience is a relative word.
 

JoStories

Well-Known Member
I dont know how it relates to fear or death. Faiths like buddhism see life as part of their faith; so, its an illogical question to people who think the same.

Other faiths or religious dont have that. Their religion may say charity but it has a clause. Many people have left their faiths; it is not impossible. As such, to those who separate their faith from themselves-puting it higher the other things, have a duality view.

Can they drop the duality view to save another.
Can you name a single religion where life is not an integral part of that faith? I can't. Christianity has life and death, true, however, living according to the commandments of Christ is what that faith is built on. Christ himself gave up his life for others so how is that different for those who follow that faith? Would a Christian woman whose child were dying not willingly give up her life for that of her child? I don't see how that is different from what you see as different for Buddhists.
 
Top