amra@ihuxj.UUCP (Steven L. Aldrich) (10/30/84)
I read an interesting article a while back that may be of interest to people in this news group. It was reported by the Los Angeles Times, and appears below complete and un-edited. [ or should I say un-altered since I have obviously used an editor to enter the story -:) . ] Pope Hails Wisdom of Buddhists!! (5-11-84) By: Don A Schanche L.A. Times. BANGKOK--Pope John Paul II slipped off his shoes to sit quietly with the supreme patriarch of Thailand's Buddhists at a monastery here yesterday and afterward praised the " ancient and venerable wisdom " of the Asian religion. After meeting with the 87 year old Buddhist patriarch, His Holiness Vasana-Tera, the Roman Catholic pontiff told 30,000 Catholics at the city's National Stadium that their country's Buddhist tradition provided " fertile terrain " for Christian beliefs. "The church looks with *sincere respect* upon the religious wisdom contained in non-Christian tradition and rejects *nothing* that is *true* and *holy* in them," he said. (emphasis mine) Referring to the contemplative aspect of Buddhism, John Paul said: "The fruits of a peaceable and gentle wisdom are manifestly evident in the Thai character and are esteemed and respected by those who have the good fortune to meet you and come to know the spiritual quality within you." Thailand, last stop on his 11-day Pacific pilgrimage, is mostly Buddhist, with Christians making up less than 1 percent of its 50 million people. About 200,000 are Catholics. After his jet landed from Papua New Guinea, the pope kissed the tarmac and was welcomed by Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn. He was driven to the ornate throne room of the Grand Palace to meet King Bhumibol Adulayadej, Queen Sikrit, and members of their family. The pope told them he had come to thank them and the Thai people on behalf of the church for " the generous hospitality given to thousands and thousands of refugees." Thailand harbors 135,000 refugees from Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam and provided temporary refuge for hundreds of thousands more before they left for new homes in the United States, Australia, France and Canada. The pope will visit the Phanat Nikom refugee camp 55 miles north of here today. John Paul II then called on the supreme patriarch of the Buddhists at Ratchabopit Monastery. He sat on a low throne facing Vasana-Tera, who sat cross-legged on a platform so their eye level was equal. Without even a word of greeting, the two sat in silence for five minutes of prayer and meditation. The Buddhist leader then spoke concerning "common objectives such as happiness and peace based on *justice, loving kindness, and compassion," said a Vatican official. The pontiff's reply was too softly spoken for anyone but the Buddhist leader and his translator to hear. --Los Angeles Times (05-11-84) I wish more people, especially in this group, would develop the same attitude toward the beliefs of others. Why can't we calmly discuss and share our views on religious matters without animosity toward each other?? It seems that the only purpose of this group is to argue,insult be-little and denounce the beliefs of others who dis-agree with our own opinion(s). If each one of us would try harder, I believe we could actually carry on * calm, rational, & maybe even meaningful* discussions about different religious views of the world. Personally, I get tired of reading so much *hate mail* on this news group. When I first started reading net.religion, I had hoped to gain some insight into many different religions. However it didn't turn out that way. I believe if we *ALL* tried a little tolerance for a change, there would be a significant improvement in the quality and diversity of material submitted to net.religion. If you'd care to comment on this, send it to me by Email or POST your reply to this news group. I will do my best to respond in a timely manner. However I am rather busy at the moment, so replies may be slow in coming. Thanks in advance for your input, always glad to hear from others. (even if we don't agree on things) PEACE & BEST WISHES From the life force currently known as: Steve Aldrich (IHNP4!IHUXJ!AMRA) P.S. "Which way are you lookin', is it hard to see? Do you say what's wrong for him is not wrong for me? You walk the streets in righteousness, but you refuse to understand. You say you love the baby, then you crucify the man!" Jim Croce
ecl@hocsj.UUCP (10/31/84)
Reference: <732@ihuxj.UUCP> Amen! This item should be required reading for all those posting to this newsgroup. Evelyn C. Leeper ...ihnp4!hocsj!ecl
emh@bonnie.UUCP (Edward M. Hummel) (11/02/84)
Steve put his finger right on it! One of the main purposes of this group should be education, not conversion. I am very interested in what various religions hold to be the essential truths. There is too little discussion about what makes up the core of a religion and too much arguing. Arguing has its place, but sometimes it reduces to little more than sarcasm, name-calling and general flaming. I think most people who have a belief are not going to be easily swayed by the type of discussion taking place in this group. Most religions do not differ greatly in practice. Can someone summarize the basic tenets of: Catholicsm, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and the major Protestant churches? What do people know of Unitarianism, Universalism, Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses? Thanks for your patience. Ed Hummel {allegra,burl,ihnp4,cmcl2,...}!clyde!bonnie!emh
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (11/14/84)
> One of the main purposes of this group should be education, > not conversion. I am very interested in what various religions > hold to be the essential truths. There is too little > discussion about what makes up the core of a religion and too > much arguing. Arguing has its place, but sometimes it reduces > to little more than sarcasm, name-calling and general flaming. Sentence 1: Very proselytic statement. Sentence 2: Really? Even Ken Nichol's religion, or David Brunson's? I would guess not: both of them have been expounding what the essentials of Christianity are, from their point of view. The general net response is: buzz off/go away/f___ off. Sentence 4: True. But the question is complicated by the tendency of many to call an exposition which does not happen to conform to their own beliefs (such as many by Ken, or myself) a "flame". Needlessly so, I think, because Ken doesn't really (as far as I can tell) have any desire to beat anyone over the head with his Bible - but he *does* believe in not rolling over and playing dead when someone slams Christianity undeservedly, or slams the Christ. Non-christians, a question: many of you have expressed a desire that we should shut up or go away, or quit "preaching", etc. Larry Bickford has observed, accurately I believe, that most of the articles submitted by Christians are submitted on topics in which an anti- Christian comment was made; we do not normally just get up and say "everyone who doesn't agree with me goes to Hell", just to get up and proclaim how great Christianity is. But as the discussion progresses, and Christians say what they believe, then all of a sudden, we're "preaching", "proselytiziing", trying to "convert" people. Well, maybe we are. So what? What do you want? Sterile discussions all predicated on the notion, "here's what I believe. It's no better or worse than what you believe. We should tell each other what we believe, but we won't try to convince anyone that they ought to believe it, too." No, thanks. Religious beliefs, by their very nature, tend to affect how people live. If the beliefs that affect your life aren't worth propagating, they aren't worth holding personally. I expect non-christians to try to convince me that I'm wrong. Don't expect me not to speak up when I think you're in error. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Cheshire Chuqui) (11/20/84)
In article <467@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: >Non-christians, a question: many of you have expressed a desire >that we should shut up or go away, or quit "preaching", etc. Larry >Bickford has observed, accurately I believe, that most of the articles >submitted by Christians are submitted on topics in which an anti- >Christian comment was made; we do not normally just get up and >say "everyone who doesn't agree with me goes to Hell", just to get >up and proclaim how great Christianity is. But as the discussion >progresses, and Christians say what they believe, then all of a >sudden, we're "preaching", "proselytiziing", trying to "convert" >people. Well, maybe we are. So what? What do you want? Sterile >discussions all predicated on the notion, "here's what I believe. >It's no better or worse than what you believe. We should tell each >other what we believe, but we won't try to convince anyone that >they ought to believe it, too." No, thanks. Religious beliefs, >by their very nature, tend to affect how people live. If the beliefs >that affect your life aren't worth propagating, they aren't worth >holding personally. A major problem I have with these discussions as a non-christian is the lack of flexibility in the discussions by many of the participants. Many discussions seem to quickly degenerated into 'I'm right-- I have God on my side and you're going to Hell.' There is a fine line between explaining your position to me and telling me what my position is (~you can't be right-- you aren't a {christian/jew/zen druid}!~). I'm interested in hearing the Christian viewpoint. I'm interested in hearing the Jewish viewpoint. I'm interested in discussing the viewpoint from my perspectives as a Zen Druid. I'm not interested in constantly hearing why, as a Zen Druid, I'm going to go to Hell because I turned my back on a man who may or may not have existed, may or may not have been the Son of God, and may or may not be the saviour of mankind (and womankind). The perspectives of my religion allow your God(s) to coexist with mine-- I just wish that some of the more conservative members of the various religions out there would allow me the same freedom to serve God as I see fit without feeling persecuted. I have never (and will never) attempt to tell you that the only way to God is through growing living things and staring at your navel. All I really ask is you don't assume that the only way to God is through the Christian, Jewish, or any other pantheons. I tried it, and it didn't work for me. What I have now does, and I rejoice in it, but it probably won't work for you because you are different. If you look very closely at Christianity you'll see that every person has a different view of what it really means-- that diversity within a single framework should show you that there are equally valid views outside that framework as well. chuq please, -- From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA This plane is equipped with 4 emergency exits, at the front and back of the plane and two above the wings. Please note that the plane will be travelling at an average altitude of 31,000 feet, so any use of these exits in an emergency situation will most likely be futile.