Poll: Give up your religion to save a stranger

[Thanda]

If I were about to die and someone gave their life up for me, I would be internally grateful in this life and the next. Why would he let me die knowing I am not going to cease to exist? Every part of life is worth living and the next life is no different than things. Which makes sacrifice pretty useless if that is the case. Charity without strings may be a better way of putting it. For some reason when I put the word death in the equation, it becomes a huge moral issue. In my personal opinion it sounds a bit like ego. Though logical in everyone's respectiful religion.

Will your gratitude bring salvation to the individual who has given up their religion?

 

[Thanda]

Hmm. They are both human. Age doesn't make a person pure, the heart does.

Well according to me, children are generally purer than adults. I believe we are born pure and over time, if we make the wrong choices, we lose our purity.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Could be. I'm not one to use context when saving a person's life. Guess everyone's different.

Well, 'giving up one's religion' could mean that more people end up dying than the one you save.
(Who may be on the verge of death anyways)
Never easy to try and do the 'life mathematics' balancing act.

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.

I reckoned God would understand that I was in a corner and was choosing the lesser of two evils.
Two days after I made the threat they had me incarcerated in a mental asylum,
but then a miracle occurred.

Suddenly as if by magic the ANC was un-banned and Nelson Mandela was released.
They released me a few days later.

26 years ago that was. Now the ducks have come home to roost.
The ANC is just as evil as the previous South African govt.
But I think it was a risk worth taking for a quarter of a century of relative peace.

Still I feel a twinge of guilt sometimes, whenever I see the ANC being evil.
I have forsaken most material trappings of this life as I have always
felt that I had one foot in the next world, knowing that I may have to
do the suicide mission thing again.

This is probably why I have been seeing spooks regularly since then
and have never really been scared of dying, death, ghosts, or any form of spirituality.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well according to me, children are generally purer than adults. I believe we are born pure and over time, if we make the wrong choices, we lose our purity.

Eh. I believe in Buddha-nature. We are all pure at heart. Someone else's mistakes and bad decisions shouldn't make me see otherwise.

What can we say?

 

[Thanda]

Eh. I believe in Buddha-nature. We are all pure at heart. Someone else's mistakes and bad decisions shouldn't make me see otherwise.

What can we say?

Well according to you. I am not pure, that I know - I have all kinds of evil thoughts going through my minds at times.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well according to you. I am not pure, that I know - I have all kinds of evil thoughts going through my minds at times.

I believe you have a buddha nature; a pure nature. You may make mistakes and bad decisions, but that shouldnt make me see otherwise.

 

[Thanda]

I believe in buddha nature. I believe you have a pure nature. You may make mistakes and bad decisions, but that shouldnt make me see otherwise.

I believe there is a difference between mistakes and sins. Mistakes are the things we do wrong because we didn't know better. Sins are the things we do wrong even though we know better. Mistakes don't affect our purity. Sins do.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I believe there is a difference between mistakes and sins. Mistakes are the things we do wrong because we didn't know better. Sins are the things we do wrong even though we know better. Mistakes don't affect our purity. Sins do.

I dont believe in sin. I believe we are born and say pure at heart. We are influenced by a lot of mess. We wouldnt be "sinners" if a child were in an isolated environment that has no sin and he has no concept of it. If an adult was in that same position, how would he know sin? Its external influence.

Internally there is no descrimination (age, whatever). All is pure.

 

[Thanda]

I dont believe in sin. I believe we are born and say pure at heart. We are influenced by a lot of mess. We wouldnt be "sinners" if a child were in an isolated environment that has no sin and he has no concept of it. If an adult was in that same position, how would he know sin? Its external influence.

Internally there is no descrimination (age, whatever). All is pure.

Innocence and purity are two different things. It is actually my fault for pretending they are the same. A child is innocent, they do know good or evil - like Adam and Eve. Not knowing good or evil does not make you pure, it only makes you innocent (meaning you are not guilty of anything). But to be pure you must make the right choice between good and evil.

And good external influence cannot make you do evil. External influences provide you with a choice - do I give in or do I resist?. If you make the right choice you will become more pure and more enlightened. If you make the wrong choice you will give into the darkness. That is when when you make a wrong choice in one thing, it becomes easier the next time to make another wrong choice than it is to make the right one.

Sin comes from the heart, not from external influences.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Innocence and purity are two different things. It is actually my fault for pretending they are the same. A child is innocent, they do know good or evil - like Adam and Eve. Not knowing good or evil does not make you pure, it only makes you innocent (meaning you are not guilty of anything). But to be pure you must make the right choice between good and evil.

And good external influence cannot make you do evil. External influences provide you with a choice - do I give in or do I resist?. If you make the right choice you will become more pure and more enlightened. If you make the wrong choice you will give into the darkness. That is when when you make a wrong choice in one thing, it becomes easier the next time to make another wrong choice than it is to make the right one.

Sin comes from the heart, not from external influences.

Id say pure rather than innocent. Purity doesnt depend on actions but can be influences by actions. Innocence can be lost based on our actions. The former is influences, that doesnt mean one is not pure anymore. The latter is based on, our innocence we Can loose based on our actions ans their consequences.

We make good actions to keep our innocence. These actions, our innocence is a reflection of our true self, our purity.

A child is innoncence until he is tauht what his culture tells him what is right and wrong. That is external influence and can affect his innocence as a result, hide the purity within. This goes for adults too. There is no age limit where one looses their purity. Depending on environment and upbringing, there is a point where one looses their innoncence.

I think Im saying its the other way aroundx if Im correct from your post.

Sin is external according to the Buddha. He calls it attachments. Without attachments there is no sin. Its something we can acheive even for a minute because it is not a part of us. As long as we realize we are not sin, we can grow spiritually. If we think we are sin, in my opinion, it harms growth.

The outlook is pestimistic. A pure heart doesnt see life like that child or not.

 

[Aiviu]

I voted finally "yes".

Why?

Because thats the essence of religion. You cant give up whats in your heart. Empathy is what religion is saying. If other do not act on that than those are the one's who give theirs up. And that counts even for a god-centered religion.

 

[FearGod]

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

If so, why?
If not, why not?

If this does not apply to you, dont take the poll. Its a yes/no on purpose. Those strong in their faith would know whether their faith is or is not important enough to keep it at the expense of a stranger's life.



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.

That doesnt mean I am weak in faith. It means I think of others before myself.

I got this from watching Obama's last speech. The lady, I forgot her name, who refused to give service to a gay couple because it was against her christian morals, sat with the crowd in front of the pres. My co-worker and I watched together. She agreed that the woman should stand up for her faith (whatever it may be).

I thought, that is like me joining the military in the reserves KNOWING that I may be called to active duty, I may kill others which is against my morals. Would I kill? More than likely. Not for personal gain but to protect my country which are many strangers I do not know.

Should your faith be at your highest priority or your relationship with others?

I'll save the stranger and keep my religion.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'll save the stranger and keep my religion.

How can you do that? I asked either or. Anyone would save both.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Will your gratitude bring salvation to the individual who has given up their religion?

No. His salvation by whatever religion is given by the Act of giving himself for another, even if it means ones life.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I will and when the stranger is safe I will return to my faith (a circumsized member is not that big a problem if it happens that way - and just like what FearGod said).

However, so many posts, so few votes!

 

[Thanda]

No. His salvation by whatever religion is given by the Act of giving himself for another, even if it means ones life.

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.

 

[Thanda]

I voted finally "yes".


Because thats the essence of religion. You cant give up whats in your heart. Empathy is what religion is saying. If other do not act on that than those are the one's who give theirs up. And that counts even for a god-centered religion.

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

 

[Jiddanand]

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

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

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.

 

[Thanda]

Id say pure rather than innocent. Purity doesnt depend on actions but can be influences by actions. Innocence can be lost based on our actions. The former is influences, that doesnt mean one is not pure anymore. The latter is based on, our innocence we Can loose based on our actions ans their consequences.

We make good actions to keep our innocence. These actions, our innocence is a reflection of our true self, our purity.

A child is innoncence until he is tauht what his culture tells him what is right and wrong. That is external influence and can affect his innocence as a result, hide the purity within. This goes for adults too. There is no age limit where one looses their purity. Depending on environment and upbringing, there is a point where one looses their innoncence.

I think Im saying its the other way aroundx if Im correct from your post.

Sin is external according to the Buddha. He calls it attachments. Without attachments there is no sin. Its something we can acheive even for a minute because it is not a part of us. As long as we realize we are not sin, we can grow spiritually. If we think we are sin, in my opinion, it harms growth.

The outlook is pestimistic. A pure heart doesnt see life like that child or not.

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.