Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Dominance of Christian Views
Telly03
Veteran
I have recognized recently how freely Christian views are thrown around, unchallenged.
For example, on Facebook there are those who mention how they love their church and give thanks to God for positive events in their lives... this doesn't bother me at all, I'm happy for them if they are happy, but what I have been perceiving as rude and arrogant of late are the preachers that throw out scriptures that pretty much spell out that are going to heaven, and I am wrong in my beliefs and going to hell unless I buy into what they are selling. So my first step in making myself feel better about defending myself from these attacks against us "sinners" was to simply "defriend" the preachers from Facebook.
This is where simple ended, because my next step was how to deal with my Mom and Brother who enjoyed sending constant scriptures via email to me. My brother was cool when I asked him to stop... he said he understood where I was coming from, but my Mom said she would not stop spreading the word. It would have been easy to stop anyone by blocking their email at this point, but this was my Mom. I tried to turn it around on her by sharing a counter idea to every Christian idea she threw at me. She was shocked by my audacity of challenging anything from the bible, and it backfired on me as she turned up the preaching. My counter ideas to her beliefs eventually got her making personal attacks, saying how disturbed and wrong I was, how sad she was for me, how she will continue praying for me, and questioned herself on what she could have done better in raising me. This confirmed the perception I had that some Christians feel they are better people than those of other religions, and I don't enjoy being in a relationship with someone who feels sorry for me because of my beliefs.... So I have ceased communications with my Mom, but now I have to hear from my wife that I can't do this because she is my mother... I can't seem to win on this one.
I'm open to thoughts and ideas on my current dilema.
For example, on Facebook there are those who mention how they love their church and give thanks to God for positive events in their lives... this doesn't bother me at all, I'm happy for them if they are happy, but what I have been perceiving as rude and arrogant of late are the preachers that throw out scriptures that pretty much spell out that are going to heaven, and I am wrong in my beliefs and going to hell unless I buy into what they are selling. So my first step in making myself feel better about defending myself from these attacks against us "sinners" was to simply "defriend" the preachers from Facebook.
This is where simple ended, because my next step was how to deal with my Mom and Brother who enjoyed sending constant scriptures via email to me. My brother was cool when I asked him to stop... he said he understood where I was coming from, but my Mom said she would not stop spreading the word. It would have been easy to stop anyone by blocking their email at this point, but this was my Mom. I tried to turn it around on her by sharing a counter idea to every Christian idea she threw at me. She was shocked by my audacity of challenging anything from the bible, and it backfired on me as she turned up the preaching. My counter ideas to her beliefs eventually got her making personal attacks, saying how disturbed and wrong I was, how sad she was for me, how she will continue praying for me, and questioned herself on what she could have done better in raising me. This confirmed the perception I had that some Christians feel they are better people than those of other religions, and I don't enjoy being in a relationship with someone who feels sorry for me because of my beliefs.... So I have ceased communications with my Mom, but now I have to hear from my wife that I can't do this because she is my mother... I can't seem to win on this one.
I'm open to thoughts and ideas on my current dilema.
0
Comments
Everything is a teaching and a teaching is in everything...
The first step would be to acknowledge the wisdom in other religions. Jesus, to me, was a perfect Buddhist, he had unconditional love and compassion for his fellow human beings, and even as he was being humilated and murdered he held humility and understanding and forgave them... what a wonderful example!
The second step would be to be secure in your own beliefs... if they are working for you and bringing you happiness then that is enough! You don't need to prove yourself nor disprove others.
The third step would be to consider your interactions with others - especially those that challenge you, as your Mum does - as practice for your own beliefs... practice patience, tolerance, compassion, and recognise that the beliefs of others serve them in some way that is meaningful to them, and to have those beliefs challenged can be painful and startling, because to them those beliefs might be the difference between their happiness and their suffering.
The fourth step would be to be an example of your beliefs... if your beliefs are valid then let others see them through how they benefit you. If you are sharing your beliefs with others but contradicting them with your actions then you yourself are undermining your beliefs, no-one else. If others see that you are peaceful and loving - especially in conflict situations - then they are much more likely to acknowledge and appreciate the beliefs that allow you to be that way.
I speak all of this from experience! Live and let live, and let your actions speak, for they will say much more than any words could. Good luck!
However, I actually think you have made the right decision in not communicating with your mother. Let it sit for a while. Then offer to reestablish contact with certain conditions...namely no more preaching (either way).
There are people I can talk religion with. People I can't. And people I can to some degree.
Let her have to also handle the junk every time she sends it out.
People tend to think they are right, and when it comes to religion they have especially strong convictions. Adding family to that, familial love, can cause situations like this. They want to help/save their loved ones. There's not much we can do about that other than to ignore it... fighting doesn't help. It's not like we're going to change their minds. We have to accept that this is how they are, what they believe, and not get too bent out of shape about it.
I learned all this the hard way.
If you counter them with alternatives, they attack you. If you counter them with inconsistencies in their scriptures, they talk gibberish - and eventually attack you.
Not because they are bad people as such, but the rigidness of their religion and the fear it instills makes them... Vile...
The easiest is to just let them ramble when they do and enjoy when they don't.
About Jesus being a Buddhist... Well - I just think a quick look in the Bible shows a whole other truth that Jesus being a Buddhist. He never gave one Buddhist teaching. All his lectures are about man (and by man he means Jewish people) closing the distance to God before Judgment Day.
I see no point in declaring him Buddhist, he lived and died a Jew of heart and never pretended to be anything else.
Also, some folk like to believe that 'Mum 'n' Dad' are in Heaven, next to Jesus; challenge the scripture and you're basically saying they're not there, they're rotting in the ground; where they're going to end up, when they die.
I'm a threat to their reality just by refusing to nod my head in agreement. We humans are an odd bunch.
Also, in some traditions the precept against harm says not only to not harm other beings, but to not allow others to do so. This is akin in ways to how Christians feel it is their duty to spread the word of God to try to save other people. Doesn't mean you have to accept it, but you don't need to overtly deny it either. Aversion is just as bad as attachment
Lama D. Dorjee said, about mothers, "She brought you into the world. When she wants to talk, be respectful, listen, nod no matter how much you disagree, then hug her and tell her you love her. Even if she's crazy, she's your mother and tell her you love her." This of course does have limits, abusive parents and the like. But everyone, including her, do their best with what they have. She believes she is doing right by you. Let her do that, it doesn't make you not Buddhist. It doesn't hurt your practice. I"m sure there are times you wish certain people in your life saw things the Buddhist way, because you think it's pretty awesome. Your mom feels that way about her religion.
I do agree with you about Jesus being a Buddhist. Nonsense. Some of his teachings may parallel some Buddhist teachings, but to say he was a Buddhist is silly. MHO.
Christianity is a 'faith pill' akin to buddhism's 'intellectual pill' - in faith one just needs to believe - everything else falls into place after - the bond between mother and son is a strong one - it is natural for your mother to want to protect you, soul and all - the way to do that in christianity is to convince you of the faith.
Confrontation led to a complete communication breakdown - this isn't ideal where your mum is concerned - you only have one and they dont tend to last forever.
(Bronx tale) $20 was a cheap price for C to have Louie out of his life - Sonny asks him and he confirms he doesnt even like the guy! In the same way you dont even like christianity - an email a day - skim read, pick out the replies that show you've read it - thanks and delete - seems like a cheaper price to pay than losing all communication with your mum.
Your wife loves you and her advice is in your best interest in the long run.
Are you ready to compromise though?
There are some crazies tho', but they aren't part of my everyday life. I'm very interested in politics (not a party member, not engaged like that) and I usually meet them that way around. Love to discuss society and learn form other people and test my thoughts and analysis with them - sometimes you run into the "wrong" people
None of my practise requires spending time with those who feel obliged to convert me but I live where there is a diverse mix of cultures and religions so what works for me may not be acceptable for someone in a small town surrounded by evangelists.
It's one thing to alienate an anonymous Christian, quite another when they hold some ability to affect your lifestyle.
I do think it's someones right to practise trying to convert others just as it is my right to walk on by. When compassion dictates, facing and being fully present can sooth some Christian angst because that meets the fundamental lack in the human condition which we all share. In earlier years I have engaged in religious debates on my doorstep with evangelists with the only tangible result being some small doubt caused in anothers faith. That's something not to be proud of.
These days I just say, "Everyone's Buddhist in here but thanks for coming by to say Hi!and close the door again. I think that's actually kinder.
"There, there," I would counsel myself, "Christians are under orders to spread their faith by pestering others." This would calm me down for a while, but I still found the whole adventure annoying, until the day....
It was a sunny Saturday and I was in an exceptionally good mood for no discernible reason. I was puttering with some flowers out in front of the house when two men -- one older, one younger, both immaculately scrubbed -- approached me. The older man was carrying a big, white-bound book, the younger man, apparently in training, was carrying a brief case and some pamphlets. The older man did the talking. After our hello's, he asked what I thought of the state of the world. I knew he didn't give a shit what I thought, so I gave him some fairly simple answer. And that, of course, gave him an excuse to launch into the wondrous answers available in the Bible. He went on and on and on and, since I was in a good mood, I didn't interrupt. When he finally ran out of oxygen, I offered him my most glistening smile and said, "You know, I am so happy to know that you have found the answers to the questions in your life. You are exceptionally lucky!" This seemed to slow him down ... but not for long. He tried another tack: What did I think of pornography? Once again, I was not convinced he cared much what I thought, so I gave him a softball answer. And sure enough, when I had finished, he was off and running with the stunning truths he found in his religion and its book. Again, because I was in a good and benevolent mood, I let him run. And again, when he finally ran out of oxygen, I congratulated him on his exceptional good fortune ... how lucky he was to have found the answers he was seeking.
He was between a rock and a hard place. He couldn't come right out and say, "You have to agree with me" because that would allow me to ask "why?" ... at which point he might have said something like "because it's in the Bible" ... which would have allowed me the space in which to say "but I'm not inclined to lead a good life according to some book." You can't tell someone to believe "because I say so" or "because the Bible says so." People agree when they choose to agree. There is no universal and implacable mandate. No one can convince anyone else ... they can only convince themselves.
Pretty soon, the two scrubbed men went to try their door-knocking luck across the street with my evangelical Christian neighbor. I have no doubt my neighbor took the sour results at my house out of their minds.
Buddhism, for those who are serious, is pretty much the mirror image of the Christian mandate to convert and convince. Buddhism doesn't suggest we keep it bottled up like some Pentagon secret. We can talk about Buddhism if we like or not if we don't. But the attitude is more like friends who go to a diner for breakfast ... one orders scrambled eggs and the other orders fried. Everyone gets nourished and no one goes either to heaven or hell.
Of course in the fragile beginnings of Buddhist practice, there is sometimes the desire to 'share' our enthusiasms and our good news. Basically, it's not much different from the two scrubbed men who came seeking agreement at my house ... we would like our friends and family to accept and perhaps support our choices. And it stings when they say (usually more politely), "you're full of shit...let me tell you the way things really are!" And when we hear such a critique from those we like or love or trust, we figure there must be something wrong with us, that we have goofed, that we need to correct our erroneous, proselytizing ways.
Well, maybe so, but I think goofing in this way is all part of finding out what practice is and means in our lives. Nothing like a punch in the nose to inspire a little reflection and reshaping of actions.
But when all is said and done, the only real thing to do is to keep on practicing. If you get things wrong, correct them. If you get things right, correct them too. Just keep on practicing... and try to keep a smile on your face.
The teachings of Buddha, Muhammed and Jesus are so incredibly different and have very different goals. That's why it's not justified to call all of them Buddhists.
If you have two trees, they will both have a trunk and a crown, roots and leaves, bark and core. They will grow flowers and fruits. A birch is still very, very different from an oak. No matter how many similarities you find, they are ultimately just two different trees, used by different people to different ends - oak to build boats and tanks for whiskey, birch to harvest sap for wine or sugar.
From afar they may seem quite alike, but when you study them not even the green on the leaves are the same.
So yeah, I firmly believe there is an ultimate state of being, call it God, Nirvana, Tao, Allah, Great Spirit, whatever you want, and that this state is what Buddha, Jesus, Krishna and many other 'enlightened' masters experienced. As such they are all one and the same. Christ is a Buddhist. Buddha is a Christian. Krishna is a Hindu, a Buddhist and a Christian... not because of any similarities in the finger, but because that finger is pointing at the same moon, and where they unite is in all experiencing that same moon.
I am aware that all religions are religions, made up of the ideas that make up religions, ultimately answering the questions asked by the religion.
The answer is profoundly different in different religions, and even the questions asked are different. To the Christian, the goal is to be forgiven for sins and gain entrance to Heaven when corpses are restored to life after Armageddon.
To the Muslim it is to live by the word of Allah to gain enough on the cosmic scoreboard to enter Heaven.
The question in those religions are: How do I live blissfully forever?
Buddhism is about not living again and again (forever), by reaching a state of mind where no karma is created - nirvana. It is not a journey of the soul, but of the mind.
The question is: How do I avoid dhukka?
The two types of goal are exact opposites: Not existing, and existing forever.
The ideas of self are exact opposites: Eternal self, not-self.
The ideas of reaching the goal are opposites: Hope for salvation from someone else, attain salvation for and by yourself
The list can go on and on.
What makes religions different are the thousands of points where they contradict each other or have different conclusions or solutions. The few, general (basic human) ideas do not make them alike, do not make them work towards the same end and do not make one practitioner essentially practice the same as the other.
The Buddha Dhamma may not be expressed the same way by the next Buddha, but it sure will be the Dhamma, and not a teaching about Heaven for believers or Valhal for warriors or eternal souls or cosmic awarenesses - in that I am confident
I guess I'm going to come down halfway in between you two guys.
Different religions are different. They just are.
But, as Anwar Sadat said, man tends to emphasize the differences, rather than the similarities. And that is a negative.
Four legs and a surface does not make a stool a very good table, however much you emphasize the similarities.
In the same way no other religion leads to the end of dhukka. Maybe to something else - well you could maybe even squeeze in a room for some kind of impermanent Christian-Heaven and a Deva guarding the entrance, effectively making Christianity a part of Buddhist cosmology - but not the end of dhukka. That is, Buddha tells us, the ultimate goal, the only true liberation. No other religion can be used for that, no other religion has that goal.
Most religions contain some kind of wisdom, I don't question that. Mostly they deal with things Buddha taught was just hot air, not conductive to liberation. As such they are wrong view. Not inherently bad as such, but still wrong view. Part of the teachings come from Buddha showing contemporary philosophers and religious leaders why they have wrong views. Sometimes, though rarely, the listeners do not take refuge in the dhamma after hearing Buddha's teachings. Never have I seen Buddha telling them, that they live in a bad way as long as they abide by the usual human moral (not killing, stealing - the universals), but he always tell them that they have wrong view and won't be liberated and thus work towards unimportant goals.
That same thing can be said about prophets from other religions, and therefore they simply can't be Buddhists. They don't recognize or even have the slightest idea, that their view might be wrong, not conductive to liberation, nor do they talk about any kind of liberation, ceasing of kamma-production or any other Buddhist concept.
The similarities are so basic and the differences so profound that identification cannot be justified.
I don't want to sound zealous here, I mean it's quite clearly stated in the Tipitaka :om:
No one is saying you have to be a mix of religions.
But can't you have a peaceful conversation with someone of another faith and find that you have things in common? Or is the concept of peaceful relations not in the Tipitaka?????
I did say, that the things religions have in common are few indeed, therefore identification between all religions are meaningless. We agreed on that (uhm, I think).
It's not meant in a judgmental way, people can believe what they want.
Similarities are often of a very general character - do not kill, do not steal, do not lie, help the poor, forgive etc., you could say the things which are essential in any society. On the philosophical level, differences are severe. Maybe not between Islam and Christianity - the two being of a common ancestry - but between one of those and Hinduism or Buddhism, differences are very big.
Of course you can mix and match if you want to - who's to prevent you from that and why? But making a strawberry/banana-milkshake doesn't make banana strawberry tasting or vice versa - if you don't discriminate the ingredients just because they are now mixed, how will you be able to discuss their impact on the drink?
How will you discuss their different qualities?
You have to recognize strawberry for what it is, and banana for what it is.
I believe in reaching out and meeting the commonality in others but most religions ask for more of their participants than that. I find that most religious folks are only content to discuss that commonality for just so long before the Ego side of religion and identity starts to arise.
I tend to look at my interactions with others in terms of the identity results. (yeah it's that Zen thing).
What I mean by this is..Has the consequence of my interaction resulted in the hardening of anyones identity (mine or theirs) or the softening of it.
When having a discussion with someone about their different religion (usually evangelical) even though it might have been educating and stimulating, the end result has almost always failed the identity test. Meaning I have only caused more suffering, somewhere.
I try to interact with others with compassion, empathy, sympathy, love and equanimity but often that means keeping conversations with others about their religion short otherwise somewhere in the wake of that conversation, is the suffering I've contributed to..
And, things that religions have in common are few indeed? I'm having a hard time thinking of many things that are more important than not killing, not stealing, don't lying, and showing forgiveness. Hardly minor stuff. And I so often hear about people talk about compassion. But they think compassion is easy. That it's just feeling all warm inside when they see suffering. As I have said before, I think real compassion is taking action. And being accepting of another person's religious beliefs is in and of itself a compassionate act.
Funny you mention the strawberry/banana milkshake. I just had my noon yogurt -- strawberry banana blend. But I still like strawberry yogurt. And I still like banana yogurt. But I rather enjoy the way the two blend together, as well. I guess I'm just a yogurt infidel.
The underlying philosophy of religions is the interesting part - that is where analysis and thoughts are given. Take this example from my philosophy class in high school:
Is honor a virtue today? Well, probably. If you're honest and kind and achieve great things like winning an Olympic medal, you win some honor. Or you can be given an honorable task by your family around some celebrations - best man, toastmaster etc.
The medieval knight was all about honor. So are we different from him?
Yes, because his honor required him to fight to the death if slighted! Our sense of honor is based on social relations and achievements, the knight's honor was based on a warrior code. We cannot compare the two, because they have vastly different philosophies.
I don't say you never can, but reasons are more important than the overlying term.
And yes, you like both, like you like Christianity and Buddhism and strawberry and banana. You mix it. But that doesn't make you confuse strawberry with banana. The same way we shouldn't confuse Christianity with Buddhism.
But if you wanna mix it, by all means do that.
I'm not out to get anyone, I just advocate the view that it is in fact possible to make a distinction between Buddhism and Christianity and other religions. And that no other religion leads to the end of dhukka. But of course you can take in things from other religions, fitting them in. So you would have a Buddhist core with a tint of Christianity or the other way around.
It's just not the same as both religions share a common goal or common explanations to phenomena. Or that their prophets had a common world view.
Even if assume makes and "ass of u and me", I assume Buddhism is the only religion with a path to enlightenment :om:
I don't hereby judge other religions inferior. It is really none of my concern what they teach, unless of course they're out to get me
Now, let's say for argument sake that Jesus and Buddha both experienced the same enlightenment (argue against that if you wish, but for now...), how would Jesus relate his enlightenment? What are the factors that would determine how he articulated and expressed it? Considering that he obviously wished for others to experience this enlightenment too, how would he achieve it? Would he speak in foreign terms with alien concepts, or would he (skillfully) express his enlightenment to meet the individual and cultural needs of the people around him, i.e. speak in a language and through concepts that the people (Jews) around him could understand?
Now consider that what he spoke, to then be related to others, requires other (unenlightened) humans to convey his message, and consider how this form of, essentially, Chinese whispers could then be distorted, misunderstood, mistranslated etc. through the ages (2000 years) to reach this point now whereby comparison with another religion would seem to make more distinctions than similarities. Also consider the historical editing and processing of what Jesus taught and what we may be missing (references to re-incarnation, for example), and how this too lends to stronger distinctions.
What we are considering is not what humans have made of what Jesus and Buddha taught, but what Jesus and Buddha actually experienced and how and why they conveyed it as they did. There are infinite variables and factors that create distinctions, but what we are considering is the very core. Obviously we can't know if they experienced the same enlightenment, but if we look with eyes of wisdom and discernment then we can reveal very similar truths out of the scraps of historical references that we have.
http://www.tm.org/blog/enlightenment/jesus-christ-kingdom-god-within-you/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/pagels.html
http://www.dyad.org/d03Jesus.html
I think the Dead Sea Scrolls is the most obvious indicator of Jesus as an enlightened man teaching enlightenment than the view held by orthodox Christians of Jesus as distinct and a saviour.
For me, part of wisdom is knowing the difference between what you know and what you believe. I don't know about ultimate enlightenment and future lives, etc. I do know that Buddhist principles help alleviate (not eliminate) suffering. On Monday morning of this week I was diagnosed with a cancerous tumor on the kidney. The emotional suffering began. But keeping in mind Buddhist principles helped me alleviate some of that emotional suffering. (Note, on Tuesday afternoon the diagnosis was reversed...a tumor, but no cancer). But I have also personally known Christians dying of cancer and other diseases who were remarkably peaceful during their final days because they were practicing Christian principles.
But, we are each different.
I agree with your assessment regarding the previous comment in being a legitimate Buddhist belief.
The Orthodox would never believe Jesus to be anything but God incarnate. Arianism, the heresy of reducing him to merely a created being, was addressed by the Church in the 4th century resulting in the Nicene Creed. However, it still exists outside the Church particularly by the Jehovah Witnesses for example.
Forgive me
This is illustrated in the Jakata tales of the Buddha. One example was Savana Samma. He carried his mom and dad to the end of his life because they were blind. At any rate, barring any exception, one's parents always practice compassion toward their children. In their enlightenment of the 4 compassions of meta, karuna, mudita, and upekha, they are honored for their buddhahood first. They are our first teacher. The Buddha always respects his teachers. Thus, no matter how wrong or crazy one's parents are, they are still one's parents, one's first buddha, the giver of life to us as well as knowledge.
For me, I respect those who knock on my doors to spread their gospels because I know it is what they have to do. Their faith dictates they do so and as good disciples of their faith, they persevere in their belief. I admire them in their perseverence because perseverence is one of the buddha elements. Without perseverence, nothing could get done. This is a positive element that one should emulate in any one field.
Though I respect those who knock on my doors, I don't do it a hundred percent. I cannot stand still to those who in the act of pushing their faith and disrespect mine in the process. Not that they do, I notice, but I'm just illustrating a concept. The Jehova Witness that knocked at my doors were very courteous and friendly. Though the Buddha did not care about whether or not one defends Buddhism, nonetheless, it is important to preserve one's faith as a practitioner. In fact, it is one's duty to preserve something that is good. And, if believing in a religion that tells us to do good and respects other's and life, etc., if one does not preserve such belief, then the impermanence of the religion is instilled. It is just the fact.
Though Buddhism is about Tolerance, it does not mean to take things in without due process and become impassive. It is always about respect and acceptance but not an automatic adoption of any one belief. But, I get worked up sometimes when those that broadcast their religion mistaken it as a weakness and or a form of auto adoption of sort when you display a semblance of interest. It is not the case and once again, I admire their tenacy. Genuinely. Wish I have that kind of grit.
But thru my own enlightenment, I have not adopted any other faith other than Buddhism. Conversion is fine with me as people do what they are enlightened in and broadcasting religion for the world is a good thing. It is not a bad thing. But, if it is in the wrong (eg. disrespectful), then I have to draw the line. For example, saying that you go to hell for following a faith that worships idols is disrespectful.
Holding fast to your faith tradition is very important. It is when we start picking and choosing only the things that seem agreeable to us and/or indiscriminately mix in other things that we are in danger of missing the benefits the tradition in its fullness does offer.
Also, condemning others is something else entirely. Orthodox Christians do not believe that just because we are Orthodox and claim belief in Jesus Christ that we are automatically saved. Salvation is our hope, and we believe it requires obedience, ascetic practice, self emptying, and dependence upon God in all things.
We shouldn't condemn others, but only see ourselves as worthy of hell.
Forgive me
Some people are just plain uppity and want to force everyone to conform to their own feelings of righteousness--you know, guns, God, patriotism, etc. But I think more problematic is what is so often the case--respectful, loving family members who can't bear the thought of their loved one not being saved. Whether it manifests as nosiness, or pleas to attend church, or self-righteousness, or outright pressure--at the root of it may be the unbearable belief that the family member will be "lost" forever.
That kind of belief system absolutely cannot tolerate other belief systems--because to tolerate them would be to lose family members forever, and beyond that condemn all members of other religions to hell or eternal death.
Effective way to grow one religion and suppress others, sadly.