gmk@uicsl.UUCP (11/09/84)
Although I agree with you that there is too much heat and not
enough light in net.religion, I would like to comment on
a quote from the LA Times article:
/**** uicsl:net.religion / amra@ihuxj / 2:32 pm Oct 30, 1984 ****/
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.
How would the Pope feel if the Buddhist leader told a crowd
of Italians or Poles that Europe's Christian tradition
provided "fertile terrain" for the spread of Buddhist beliefs?
This is the main problem in any attempt to discuss religion
in general and Christianity in particular. Each person views
the other not as a rational person to engage in stimulating
discourse, but as a godless heathen to be converted to the
one true faith. This missionary mentality (especially among
Christians) and the superiority complex it creates set up a
barrier across which the warring parties can pointlessly shout
at each other
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Koob
...!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsg!gmk
"Coins and crosses never know their fruitless worth"
- Jon Andersongmk@uicsl.UUCP (11/11/84)
In reponse to a letter from Steve Aldrich, I sent him a long note clarifying my "missionary mentality" comments. Since the letter turned out to be a better exposition of my thoughts on the subject than my original comments, I thought I would post it to the net. ********************************************************************* Dear Steve, Thanks for your reply to my response. I didn't miss the point of your posting. Rather, I found it ironic that an article intended to call for religious unity by demonstrating the mutual respect and admiration(?) of the Pope and Vasana-Tera for each other and their religious beliefs failed to achieve its goal by inadvertently revealing the Pope's (true) condescending attitude toward other religions. (A free users guide to the previous sentence is available upon request. :-) ) It's apparent from the Pope's remarks that he does not view Buddhism as a valid path, but merely a stepping stone to Christianity. He was simply being diplomatic in his encounter with Vasana-Tera. One cannot reasonably expect the leader of a religion (who claims spiritual infallibility) to acknowledge that a "competing" faith has any shred of validity whatsoever. Notice that John Paul said he rejected nothing in Buddhism that is "true" and "holy". In other words, any aspects of Buddhism that happen (by sheer coincidence) to agree with Catholicism are OK. Everything else is heresy. I'm sorry if I sound overly cynical or bitter. I was raised a Catholic (10 yrs. in parochial schools!) but rejected Catholicism and Christianity a long time ago. I still harbor deep suspicions of the Church and organized religion, in general. It seems that most people (including the most devout) inherit their faith from their parents and are perfectly willing to accept it without question. They insist that their religion is the "right" one, since they were lucky enough to have been born into it. Never mind that they have never investigated alternative religions. Why should they? They've already found "truth". This arrogance is not limited to religion: How many parents will let their schools teach courses on Marxism, for example? Mustn't poison our minds with "furren" thoughts. It's easier to hate it when you don't know anything about it. The old adage that religion and politics should never be discussed among friends sadly appears to be true. The nature of religion and the manner in which it is taught (indoctrination from an early age) tends to make people inherently intolerant of others' beliefs. We're talking about people's most deeply held beliefs, here, any challenge to which is seen not only as an attack on their faith and world view but as a personal insult. This is the main problem with net.religion. The second problem is the strong Christian bias of all the traffic in this news group. This is a product of the dominance of Christianity in our society and the afore-mentioned religious arrogance. Even the atheists/agnostics/humanists concentrate their fire power on the Christians, rather than on religion in general. With a few exceptions, any attempts to inject some diversity into the discussion are quickly shouted down as "proselytizing". I fail to see how fundamentalist Christians can submit Bible quotes of copyright-violating length without receiving any complaints, whereas an informative article about a little known path is the object of intense verbal abuse. Perhaps the atheists believe that Christianity is the only path in contention for validity, and therefore the only one worth disputing. Having said all of that, Steve, I'll agree with you that there is a common thread running through most of the world's major religions in spite of their extremely diverse beliefs, teachings, and superficialities. In fact, I am currently struggling along a path that teaches that all religions are derived from a common, divine source. Through the ages small aspects of the teachings have been selected by prophets and tailored to the culture and understanding of the people of that time and place. Religion is the result of the institutionalization of these teachings by ambitious disciples of the prophets. Although I believe that ECKANKAR (see the article by Grant Rostig a couple of months ago) is the one true path, ECKANKAR teaches that all paths (or religions) are valid, except that some may be slower than others. Since reincarnation is a fundamental principle of ECKANKAR, this is no problem. Some religions may increase your spiritual unfoldment and prepare you for accelerated development in a later life. Obviously, the direct practice of ECKANKAR is the ultimate spiritual "short-cut", provided one is ready for it. Well, this letter is too long already. The bottom line is that I agree with you--and I don't. I believe in religious unity--at a fundamental level, at least--but I think that the LA Times article confirms my observation of the religious arrogance, condescension, and intolerance extant in the world. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Koob ...!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsg!gmk "The preacher trained in all to lose his name, The teacher travels asking to be shown the same." - Jon Anderson
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (11/16/84)
From Gary Koob (uicsl!gmk): > It seems that most people (including the most devout) inherit their faith > from their parents and are perfectly willing to accept it without question. > They insist that their religion is the "right" one, since they were lucky > enough to have been born into it. Never mind that they have never > investigated alternative religions. Why should they? > They've already found "truth". Hmm.... I was not born into Christianity. I was not exposed to any real Christian teachings until I was 15. I quickly saw that Christianity (or rather Christ) provided something which the melange of Easternish beliefs wherein I had been raised did not: a guarantee that I was accepted and loved, no matter how badly I had sinned or failed to do good. This is so much better than anything else I've ever heard of that I would not want to be without it. It is so unlike most of the world's beliefs (apparently including ECK) as to render the likelihood of its truth much greater; as dear old C.S. Lewis says, Christianity is something you could never have guessed; it has just that odd twist about it that real things have. Mind you, this doesn't mean I accept everything without question; I have lots of struggles with God. So many evangelists glibly say "You can have a personal relationship with God!" without noticing what they are saying -- i.e. that it is a personal relationship, with its moments of intense, joyous communion and its moments of equally intense dispute. It is like a marriage (in fact that analogy is used in the Bible); it's a life, not just a set of doctrines, or even just a path (it is both of those, but so much more). -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq "I'm not asking for anyone's bleeding charity." "Then do. At once. Ask for the Bleeding Charity."
jnelson@trwrba.UUCP (John T. Nelson) (11/17/84)
> How would the Pope feel if the Buddhist leader told a crowd > of Italians or Poles that Europe's Christian tradition > provided "fertile terrain" for the spread of Buddhist beliefs? > This is the main problem in any attempt to discuss religion > in general and Christianity in particular. Each person views > the other not as a rational person to engage in stimulating > discourse, but as a godless heathen to be converted to the > one true faith. This missionary mentality (especially among > Christians) and the superiority complex it creates set up a > barrier across which the warring parties can pointlessly shout > at each other But consider that it is the nature of the religion (not the men) that requires the Pope to be a missionary and the Buddhist to accept the Christian tradition to their country. As odd as it may seem there is no contradiction or hypocracy here. It would be a much different matter, however, if the Pope had entered the country by force... or if the Pope acted in his own self-interests as opposed to representing the views of the church. - Which John?
gmk@uicsl.UUCP (11/17/84)
From Jeff Sargent: > /**** uicsl:net.religion / aeq@pucc-h / 12:05 am Nov 17, 1984 ****/ > > I quickly saw that Christianity ... provided ... a guarantee > that I was accepted and loved, no matter how badly I had sinned > or failed to do good. > This is so much better than anything else I've ever heard of > that I would not want to be without it. > It is so unlike most of the world's beliefs (apparently > including ECK) as to render the likelihood of its truth much greater; More accurately, the concept of automatic forgiveness was more appealing to you than self-discipline and responsibility. I'm sorry Jeff, but there are no free rides in this life. A heinous criminal who makes a death bed conversion to Christianity, or any other religion, expecting to be forgiven for his "sins" is in for a big surprise. Even though you know nothing of ECK, you are partially correct in saying that ECK does not guarantee forgiveness of "sins". First of all, there is no concept of sin in ECK--only karma. "Bad" actions accumulate negative karma whereas "good" actions accumulate positive karma. Negative karma also comes back at you, boomerang-style, demanding payment. So, unlike Christianity, there is no way to instantly erase your past. But neither is one doomed to eternal damnation for failing to get straightened out in a single lifetime. You always get a second chance...and a third and a fourth.....As long as you have a karmic deficit, the cycle of birth and death continues. Me: >> It seems that most people (including the most devout) inherit their faith >> from their parents and are perfectly willing to accept it without question. Jeff: > Hmm.... I was not born into Christianity. I was not exposed to any real > Christian teachings until I was 15. I knew I would get flak on this point. Aside from converts, like yourself, and doubters, like myself, the vast majority of people practice the faith of their parents--if only superficially. I'm glad that you had the courage to question the beliefs of your parents and went on to find a religion with which you were comfortable--that answered your questions. For me, Christianity raised more questions than it answered; I found my answers elsewhere. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Koob ...!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsg!gmk "We go round and round and round and round Until we pick it up again... Carry round and round and round and round Until it comes to carry you home" - Jon Anderson