Why learn about other faiths?

[iam1me]

You are wrong, I only take the words of Jesus himself and don't mix anything. Rather it is Chistianity which has mixed Greek, Jewish and other ideology in with the teachings of the original Yeshua. Study the teachings of Yeshua seriously and you will realise this also.

"The words of Jesus himself" - you mean the words of Jesus that you hypothesize are recorded in a non-existent text?

 

[iam1me]

Never lose an opportunity, yes, but selective giving is also recommended. Give to where it will do the most good. The merits of the receiver need to be considered. The drug addict on the street may not benefit at all from your coin toss.

Yes - we have limited resources, so we should think about how to properly use those resources when trying to help others.

Hindus, for the most part, although there are exceptions, prefer not to think in good/evil terms, but more in dharmic/adharmic. It makes it less dualistic in nature. We don't believe in intrinsic evil.

Can you explain why you think dharmic vs adharmic is less dualistic than good vs evil?

I don't believe in intrinsic evil either: evil is a matter of what you do, not of what you are.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Hindus at least want to do good instead of evil. Buddhism, on the other hand, rejects doing either good or evil.

Not so. Did you gain your education of Buddhism from Christians or Buddhists?

Buddha has taught:

If the three ways of practice are analyzed, they will reveal the eightfold noble path, the four viewpoints to be considered, the four right procedures, the five faculties of power to be employed, and the perfection of six practices.

The Noble Eightfold Path refers to right view, right thought, right speech, right behavior, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.
Right View means to thoroughly understand the Fourfold Truth, to believe in the law of cause and effect and not to be deceived by appearances and desires.
Right Thought means the resolution not to cherish desires, not to be greedy, not to be angry, and not to do any harmful deed
Right Speech means the avoidance of lying words, idle words, abusive words, and double tongues.
Right Behavior means not to destroy any life, not to steal, or not to commit adultery.
Right Livelihood means to avoid any life that would bring shame.
Right Effort means to try to do one's best diligently toward the right direction.
Right Mindfulness means to maintain a pure and thoughtful mind.
Right Concentration means to keep the mind right and tranquil for its conce ntration, seeking to realize the mind's pure essence.

http://www.e4thai.com/e4e/images/pdf/theteachingofbuddha.pdf

How is any of His Holiness Buddha's Teaching a rejection of doing good?

 

[lukethethird]

What led you to believe your faith was the one true faith? Hope you’re ok about me asking you that.

Isn't everyone's faith the one true faith?

 

[iam1me]

Not so. Did you gain your education of Buddhism from Christians or Buddhists?

Buddha has taught:

If the three ways of practice are analyzed, they will reveal the eightfold noble path, the four viewpoints to be considered, the four right procedures, the five faculties of power to be employed, and the perfection of six practices.

The Noble Eightfold Path refers to right view, right thought, right speech, right behavior, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.
Right View means to thoroughly understand the Fourfold Truth, to believe in the law of cause and effect and not to be deceived by appearances and desires.
Right Thought means the resolution not to cherish desires, not to be greedy, not to be angry, and not to do any harmful deed
Right Speech means the avoidance of lying words, idle words, abusive words, and double tongues.
Right Behavior means not to destroy any life, not to steal, or not to commit adultery.
Right Livelihood means to avoid any life that would bring shame.
Right Effort means to try to do one's best diligently toward the right direction.
Right Mindfulness means to maintain a pure and thoughtful mind.
Right Concentration means to keep the mind right and tranquil for its conce ntration, seeking to realize the mind's pure essence.

http://www.e4thai.com/e4e/images/pdf/theteachingofbuddha.pdf

How is any of His Holiness Buddha's Teaching a rejection of doing good?

I was taught Buddhism by Buddhists.

Do not confuse "right" for "good". Right just means to act appropriately, in accordance with the Dharma. It doesn't mean doing moral good - which would conflict with the Dharma.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes - we have limited resources, so we should think about how to properly use those resources when trying to help others.



Can you explain why you think dharmic vs adharmic is less dualistic than good vs evil?

I don't believe in intrinsic evil either: evil is a matter of what you do, not of what you are.

Dharmic simply means ... that which leads you towards God, (or moksha, in the Hindu case) and adharma means that which leads you away from God (or delays you on the path to moksha)

Dharma/adharma is complicated, and is necessarily vaguer than good/evil, and seems to hit a wider range of possibility. Good/evil seems simplistic, like George Bush's 'you're either with us or against us'. It leaves little room for the more complex 'leaning towards' ideas that are all somewhere in the middle. A lot of actions have both factors in them. I don't think you can say something is good or evil, dharmic, or adharmic without closer inspection. Take murder, for example. If a person is mentally ill, and that disease causes delusions, is it evil? Even our justice society accepts the plea of insanity. But many folks would make the blanket statement that murder is evil. (Extreme example I know)

It may well just be language though, and it most like varies widely by individuals regardless of the terminology.

 

[Vinayaka]

Isn't everyone's faith the one true faith?

No. Not all people believe that. Many folks believe there are many valid paths or faiths. It`s a misconception often tossed about.

 

[wellwisher]

One of the strengths of religious forum is the diversity of Faiths represented. That presents an excellent opportunity to learn about the faiths of others. This opportunity doesn’t readily present itself to the same degree where I live as religion has become a risky topic of conversation and so best avoided. This year I joined my cities Interfaith council so that’s been helpful.

But why learn about the religion of another in the first place? What is your motivation and what is mine? It’s a personal question really. For me I like to see the bigger picture of ‘world history’ with civilisations that have come and been, and ideologies and beliefs that inspired the masses. It helps me better understand the world as it is today and others in an increasingly multicultural world. It also brings coherence to my own faith and worldview I can not deny.

Obviously there’s other agendas too. We can learn about another faiths so we can make our own beliefs look good and demean others. Many of us know that illusory satisfaction in our worldview as we build our straw man as to what we imagine another’s faith is about. Ego trips are part of the human condition and whose really immune?

Anyway thoughts and reflections? Thanks for listening and discussing if your interested.

In my observations, there are good and bad people in all faiths and in all religions. There is no one orientation of faith or religion that has a monopoly on good or bad people. What that means to me is something similar to "all roads lead to Rome". There are many paths that lead to the same central place. These various paths or roads are tuned to the needs of spiritual living and secular norms.

If we divided people, in a cataloging way, as good people and bad people, only two universal religions would appear. Instead, we tend to merge good and evil, and then subjectively lump all as good, via membership in each of hundreds of religions. The simplicity of the former goes to the core of faith, while the complexity of the later stays on the surface. Again, this has to do with the needs of secular living, where good snd evil can have opposing definitions.

For example, Jesus said blessed are the poor. Secular may say blessed are the rich since this provides more opportunity. This creates ambiguity, merging good and evil. The rich and the poor will both become part of any religion, so the divide is not good and evil, but rather which religious mask you are wearing in your secular culture.

 

[Marcion]

"The words of Jesus himself" - you mean the words of Jesus that you hypothesize are recorded in a non-existent text?

No, I mean the words of Yeshua that have the least chance of being adulterated or falsified by the teachings of others.
If you want to follow what the christian church teaches, that is your own choice, it is not mine.
I prefer the original teachings, not only in this case, also in other cases.
Just like i don't trust the food the food industry tries to sell me, I buy only fresh foods.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Capitalism is more than just an economy, it is a systematic approach to the economy meant to maximize profits at the expense of the rest of society.

The truth is that businesses of all sizes are run by people. Any good business owner or group of business owners (as with a corporation) understands the most important asset they possess are their human resources.

That's why companies are making record profits and paying their employees less than what they need to just survive. Look at Amazon for instance - they are worth trillions! Yet their employees are so afraid of not meeting quotas that they **** in containers rather thank risk a bathroom break, they pass out and are hospitalized or even die from being overworked, etc. And these two facts are not unrelated - it is through such mistreatment and disregard for their workers that Amazon can secure such profits.

So business owners can choose to act in the best interests of all or solely in their own interests. Governments can enable good and bad behaviour as any religions can.

Work is good, having a stable economy is good, but greed is never good. And capitalism is nothing more than systematic greed.

I agree that Capitalism can be systematic greed but then capitalism is just a word that exemplifies certain attitudes and behaviours which can be changed. Throughout history one of the most potent forces for moral change for better or worse has been religion.

When we start labelling the whole system as 'capitalism' and define it as you have done, then we are demonising it. Karl Marx did just that, did he not?

 

[iam1me]

Dharmic simply means ... that which leads you towards God, (or moksha, in the Hindu case) and adharma means that which leads you away from God (or delays you on the path to moksha)

Dharma/adharma is complicated, and is necessarily vaguer than good/evil, and seems to hit a wider range of possibility. Good/evil seems simplistic, like George Bush's 'you're either with us or against us'. It leaves little room for the more complex 'leaning towards' ideas that are all somewhere in the middle. A lot of actions have both factors in them. I don't think you can say something is good or evil, dharmic, or adharmic without closer inspection. Take murder, for example. If a person is mentally ill, and that disease causes delusions, is it evil? Even our justice society accepts the plea of insanity. But many folks would make the blanket statement that murder is evil. (Extreme example I know)

It may well just be language though, and it most like varies widely by individuals regardless of the terminology.

I think this criticism is a common misconception of those who argue for good versus evil. Critics want to limit the discussion to specific does or dont's irrelevant of context - but that generally isn't what Christians or other advocates of good versus evil teach on the subject. Taking into account factors such as insanity would be necessary for determining whether or not an action was good or evil.

Indeed, the Law allows and even sometimes calls for killing - but maintains that murder is a sin. What is the difference? The difference lies with the motivations and reasoning of the individual who carried out the deed. In fact, scripture even equivocates murder with hate:

1 John 3:15 Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.

 

[iam1me]

The truth is that businesses of all sizes are run by people. Any good business owner or group of business owners (as with a corporation) understands the most important asset they possess are their human resources.

That very much depends upon the industry. America tries to automate or otherwise dumb-down its positions as much as possible so that everyone is easily replaceable at a moments notice.

So business owners can choose to act in the best interests of all or solely in their own interests. Governments can enable good and bad behaviour as any religions can.

I agree that Capitalism can be systematic greed. but then capitalism is just a word that exemplifies certain attitudes and behaviours which can be changed. Throughout history one of the most potent forces for moral change for better or worse has been religion.

When we start labelling the whole system as 'capitalism' and define it as you have done, then we are demonising it. Karl Marx did just that, did he not?

You seem to think capitalism's relationship with greed is merely a critique from non-capitalists. You clearly haven't studied the philosophy of capitalism.

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”

― Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature & Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Vol 1
​

 

[Dawnofhope]

I was taught Buddhism by Buddhists.

Do not confuse "right" for "good". Right just means to act appropriately, in accordance with the Dharma. It doesn't mean doing moral good - which would conflict with the Dharma.

But Dharma as well as meaning cosmic law can simly mean the Teachings of Buddha Himself, which I have outlined.

So how is not destroying life, not stealing and not committing adultery only 'appropriate' behaviour and not moral behaviour?

 

[iam1me]

No, I mean the words of Yeshua that have the least chance of being adulterated or falsified by the teachings of others.
If you want to follow what the christian church teaches, that is your own choice, it is not mine.
I prefer the original teachings, not only in this case, also in other cases.
Just like i don't trust the food the food industry tries to sell me, I buy only fresh foods.

Well it's a good thing you've come along 2000+ years after Christ to tell us what Christ actually said. Let's just ignore everything written by his followers - we just need Marcion to write a new bible: Mormonism 2.0.

 

[iam1me]

But Dharma as well as meaning cosmic law can simly mean the Teachings of Buddha Himself, which I have outlined.

So how is not destroying life, not stealing and not committing adultery only 'appropriate' behaviour and not moral behaviour?

Karma is produced via intentional moral action.. So if you actively say to yourself "I am or am not going to do X because that is/isn't good" then your actions are morally motivated to do what is good, and so produce wholesome karma. Such karma, as with unwholesome/bad karma, keeps one in Samsara - the very thing that following the Buddha's Dharma is supposed to free you from.

On the other hand, if you help or hurt people without such intentions - then it is neutral in terms of karma and thus OK.

 

[Dawnofhope]

That very much depends upon the industry. America tries to automate or otherwise dumb-down its positions as much as possible so that everyone is easily replaceable at a moments notice.

I don't live in America so I would avoid trying to sound like an expert about a country I don't live in and experience the reality of day to day.

You seem to think capitalisms relationship with greed is merely an critique from non-capitalists. You clearly haven't studied the philosophy of capitalism.


“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”

― Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature & Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Vol 1

I have been a corporate owner and director of a medium sized business that did good and where people were treated well. So I know how it works from considering governance and management principles.

Adam Smith though an eloquent critique of capitalism is just another man with a perception of how the world works and an axe to grind. His words would be of no practical use for those who live in the world of business and commerce.

 

[Audie]

One of the strengths of religious forum is the diversity of Faiths represented. That presents an excellent opportunity to learn about the faiths of others. This opportunity doesn’t readily present itself to the same degree where I live as religion has become a risky topic of conversation and so best avoided. This year I joined my cities Interfaith council so that’s been helpful.

But why learn about the religion of another in the first place? What is your motivation and what is mine? It’s a personal question really. For me I like to see the bigger picture of ‘world history’ with civilisations that have come and been, and ideologies and beliefs that inspired the masses. It helps me better understand the world as it is today and others in an increasingly multicultural world. It also brings coherence to my own faith and worldview I can not deny.

Obviously there’s other agendas too. We can learn about another faiths so we can make our own beliefs look good and demean others. Many of us know that illusory satisfaction in our worldview as we build our straw man as to what we imagine another’s faith is about. Ego trips are part of the human condition and whose really immune?

Anyway thoughts and reflections? Thanks for listening and discussing if your interested.

Id think that learning about, say, 12 other religions would be
part of the 12 step recovery process.

 

[Audie]

So does your contempt for religion extend to contempt for those who practice it? Like I said before, I feel no drive to try to convert people to Mormonism, but I feel that my own life has been made better because of my beliefs. I also think I'm probably a better person because of my beliefs. Do you think I'd actually be a better person or a happier person if I didn't believe in God?

If believing the unbelievable is a required part of
what makes you a better person, go for it.

IF I had to chose one religion for America, I would
probably choose LDS, so dont take that wrong.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Id think that learning about, say, 12 other religions would be
part of the 12 step recovery process.

It sounds like hell on earth when you put it that way. I'd be inclined to start popping valium if I took that approach!

 

[Trailblazer]

How do you know that your religion is the best if you don’t know about other religions? Older religions such as Christianity, Islam or Buddhism may provide all you need but you will never know. Why is a newer religion better than an older one? Shouldn’t we all join the church of Scientology if that were true? Isn’t a desire to talk only to atheists prejudice? What’s so disenchanting about theism and theists? Isn’t the Baha’i Faith theistic? Hope you don’t mind the questions. I’m sure you’re up to it.

My “preference” for talking with atheists is just a preference based upon my personality and interests. I am not prejudice against any theists. I love everyone.

None of this is about what is a “better religion.” All divinely revealed religions are equal in the sense that they were all revealed by God. But the older religions have been abrogated.

“In conclusion of this theme, I feel, it should be stated that the Revelation identified with Bahá’u’lláh abrogates unconditionally all the Dispensations gone before it,” God Passes By, p. 100​

Why would I have a need to check out religions that have been abrogated? I do not have to “compare” the Baha’i Faith with religions that have been abrogated to determine which religion to choose.

Either the writings of Shoghi Effendi are authoritative or they are not. Baha’is cannot have it both ways.

What I believe is about what Baha'u'llah wrote. If Baha'u'llah is infallible, I do what Baha’u’llah says. To turn away from Baha’u’llah is akin to turning away from God, if Baha’u’llah represents God.

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth. Their falsity hath, in some cases, been exposed when the intervening veils were rent asunder. They themselves have acknowledged their failure in apprehending the meaning of any of the words of God.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 171-172​

Then we also have this:

“The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of Him Who is the Day Spring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof, hath gone astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed. It behoveth every one who reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of transcendent glory, to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the world. These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the other. Thus hath it been decreed by Him Who is the Source of Divine inspiration.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 330-331
​

I do not know why some Baha’is feel like they have to please everyone. We cannot please everyone and still be honest about what we believe, if we follow the Writings of Baha’u’llah. The older religions have been abrogated.