Interfering with 'another person's faith'?

[Marcion]

When talking to people who have a different type/colour of path or faith, mostly Christianity, I often feel somewhat encumbered by a feeling of trespassing.

For me the historical Jesus was a tantric Master and his teachings were universal, not Christian. His instructions about praying are for me more like detailed instructions about the use of mantra's meant to transform the mind of the disciple in a mystic direction.

In my contact with active Christians I sometimes feel like I must control my tongue in that I cannot be too enthustiastic about 'my' Jesus and His teachings out of fear that they will see me as indirectly criticizing their specific religious way of thinking since they follow more the interpretations of the evangelical authors in the New Testament.

Should you remain silent when your views conflict with another person's faith or should you be bold and accept that this kind rubbing of views is inescapable in the long run?

 

[SalixIncendium]

My signature pretty much says it all.

Discussion on varying views is fine, but being so bold as to assume your views which are correct for you are just as correct for another and acting upon this assumption to the point of interference is both arrogant and egotistical and potentially destructive.

 

[Erebus]

I went with, "It depends how you go about it."

First of all, any exchange of knowledge is going to influence another person on some level. Even the most civil discussion on a religious topic will require the other person to consider another point of view. That might not sound like interfering with another's faith but there's a good reason a lot of cults forbid or severely limit members' contact with outsiders. A polite exchange of ideas can potentially be the catalyst for somebody to completely change their outlook.

I personally don't think that this potential for change is reason enough to avoid discussing religion with somebody (assuming both parties are interested in discussing it of course).

Now if we're talking about actively trying to get another to change their views, I think you need much more to go on than the other person simply believing differently to you. If somebody is just getting on with their own thing and their beliefs seem to be working for them, I see no good reason to try to make them abandon their faith. In my opinion, their faith would need to result in harm to themselves or others for that. Terrorist organisations and suicide cults are some of the most extreme examples here and I would say that interfering in their faith is absolutely justified.

 

[Twilight Hue]

When talking to people who have a different type/colour of path or faith, mostly Christianity, I often feel somewhat encumbered by a feeling of trespassing.

For me the historical Jesus was a tantric Master and his teachings were universal, not Christian. His instructions about praying are for me more like detailed instructions about the use of mantra's meant to transform the mind of the disciple in a mystic direction.

In my contact with active Christians I sometimes feel like I must control my tongue in that I cannot be too enthustiastic about 'my' Jesus and His teachings out of fear that they will see me as indirectly criticizing their specific religious way of thinking since they follow more the interpretations of the evangelical authors in the New Testament.

Should you remain silent when your views conflict with another person's faith or should you be bold and accept that this kind rubbing of views is inescapable in the long run?

If people stayed silent, then what kind of progress can be established if a religion is never tested and put through the proverbial ringer?

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Dear @Marcion

If by “interfering” one means showing interest (and sometimes concern) for another’s wellbeing and/or the wellbeing of those they come across, I’d say that there are situations where “interfering” is acceptable.

There are times when it is rather apparent that someone’s beliefs are causing them and/or those they interact with, great distress and harm. Then, it is not a bad thing to ask them about their conclusions and offer them help in untangling their ideas.

We should be able to question our own convictions when they’re effects seem negative.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[Marcion]

By interfering I mean that your ideas about certain teachings are so different from the normal way of interpreting them that the other person's viewpoint is intrinsically made to seem wrong or at least faulty.

Talking about ideology should I think never inflict mental pain to anyone, hence my struggle with this subject.
I suspect that most people will have the feeling that their religion or path is a fixed set of ideas and that you should not question the way that the ideological building was and still is arranged.

 

[Vinayaka]

Most people who leave toxic (to them) faiths do it because they studied or practiced long enough to discover it no longer resonates with them. It's not because somebody else preached at them. Therefore, my take is to leave them alone, fully knowing one day they'll figure it out on their own.

Of course, this idea is easier because of reincarnation, and the idea that we're all souls progressing through many lifetimes, not individuals with personalities living one lifetime. So a change can happen between births.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When talking to people who have a different type/colour of path or faith, mostly Christianity, I often feel somewhat encumbered by a feeling of trespassing.

For me the historical Jesus was a tantric Master and his teachings were universal, not Christian. His instructions about praying are for me more like detailed instructions about the use of mantra's meant to transform the mind of the disciple in a mystic direction.

In my contact with active Christians I sometimes feel like I must control my tongue in that I cannot be too enthustiastic about 'my' Jesus and His teachings out of fear that they will see me as indirectly criticizing their specific religious way of thinking since they follow more the interpretations of the evangelical authors in the New Testament.

Should you remain silent when your views conflict with another person's faith or should you be bold and accept that this kind rubbing of views is inescapable in the long run?

I've had Christianity imposed on me in various ways for my entire life. I have the right to comment on it.

The alternative would be to concede that I don't have the right to speak out about things that affect me, which I think is unacceptable.

I see things differently when it comes to religions that respect secularism, don't impose themselves on non-believers, and ensure that all of their members freely, continuously consent to their membership. These religions are rare, though.

 

[RestlessSoul]

By interfering I mean that your ideas about certain teachings are so different from the normal way of interpreting them that the other person's viewpoint is intrinsically made to seem wrong or at least faulty.

Talking about ideology should I think never inflict mental pain to anyone, hence my struggle with this subject.
I suspect that most people will have the feeling that their religion or path is a fixed set of ideas and that you should not question the way that the ideological building was and still is arranged.

If a person is holding onto a fixed set of ideas, in all likelihood nothing I say is going to persuade them to let go.

On the other hand, the capacity to let go of fixed ideas is, in my opinion, a necessity for anyone seeking spiritual growth.

So I might just gently challenge another’s fixed beliefs, while trying always to keep in mind that there is as much they can teach me, as I can teach them. Without reasoned debate, undertaken in good faith, neither of us is likely to learn anything from the other.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I've had Christianity imposed on me in various ways for my entire life. I have the right to comment on it.

The alternative would be to concede that I don't have the right to speak out about things that affect me, which I think is unacceptable.

As I see it, this is no different than having a job that sucked because the boss was unprofessional and abusive and saying that you have the right to comment on how jobs suck.

Some people love their jobs and have great bosses and had nothing to do with your less than favorable experience, so what gives you the right to comment to them about how jobs suck?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I see it, this is no different than having a job that sucked because the boss was unprofessional and abusive and saying that you have the right to comment on how jobs suck.

Some people love their jobs and have great bosses and had nothing to do with your less than favorable experience, so what gives you the right to comment to them about how jobs suck?

No, I think it's like complaining about the pollution that a factory spews into the environment, or about how some people aren't happy to work there. The fact that other workers might be happy in their jobs doesn't change the fact that these complaints are valid.

 

[SalixIncendium]

No, I think it's like complaining about the pollution that a factory spews into the environment, or about how some people aren't happy to work there. The fact that other workers might be happy in their jobs doesn't change the fact that these complaints are valid.

Not really. Your analogy only works if the factory stopped belching pollution into the environment. Are Christians still trying to impose their beliefs upon you?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Your first poll option is "It depends how you go about it."

I would have much preferred "It depends on why you go about it."

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

If you want to get technical about it, even parents "interfere" in the "faith" of their children by teaching them literally ANYTHING about what they could/should believe.

In that light interference must be understood to be completely unavoidable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not really. Your analogy only works if the factory stopped belching pollution into the environment. Are Christians still trying to impose their beliefs upon you?

Yes.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I suspect that most people will have the feeling that their religion or path is a fixed set of ideas and that you should not question the way that the ideological building was and still is arranged.

I don’t know, perhaps it is so. But I have been lucky not to meet many such people.

Man experiences, questions, doubts, changes, reevaluates, find new beliefs (or his way back to previous ones), regains faith, matures, acquires understanding (not just principle), depth and spiritual wisdom ...and hopefully, on his deathbed, is at peace with what’s occurred and has some sort of idea of what he was up to all the time.

I see life as a spiritual process and would not aim to die the same person that I was born as. Personally.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[Valjean]

Are the other people really interested in their religion, or is it just a convenience? Are they interested in truth, or just enjoying religion as an opiate?
Things to consider.

 

[Windwalker]

By interfering I mean that your ideas about certain teachings are so different from the normal way of interpreting them that the other person's viewpoint is intrinsically made to seem wrong or at least faulty.

We naturally like to believe that our thoughts are right since we are convinced by them. And then when we change how we believe, we will probably assume that how we believed before must have been wrong, since what we believe now is right.

Example: A friend of mine from Bible college days who left the faith and became an atheist said to me over lunch one day, "I'm so glad I know the truth now." I remarked back to him, "I remember you and I saying those exact same words back when we were in school together". After a long pause, he replied, "Yeah, but the difference is now I really DO have the truth".

But do we need to understand the nature of truth and belief in terms of right vs. wrong? I think that is more indicative of a mode of thinking, particularly with fundamentalist thought, which tends to be in black or white terms, be that about religious truth, or scientific truth. It's the same thing. The mode of thinking itself that sees the world in binary, dualistic terms.

Talking about ideology should I think never inflict mental pain to anyone, hence my struggle with this subject.
I suspect that most people will have the feeling that their religion or path is a fixed set of ideas and that you should not question the way that the ideological building was and still is arranged.

People like stability as it gives a sense of security and safety. But if we never left the nest, we'd never learn how to fly. Should a bird not fly in front of chicks, because they don't want to disturb their comfort?

Being made uncomfortable is not a bad thing. It can lead to growth. People live in mixed societies, at least outside isolationist groups. This has always been a source of tension for traditionalist cultures, thrown into the mix with other cultures and other ideas. Cosmopolitism, creates the birthing ground for evolution. But evolution is messy, and painful, much like childbirth.

That said, I don't think one should set out to try to evangelize that other person to convert them to a new perspective. That happens as a matter of growth. You cannot yell at your bones, "Grow, damnit!," and expect any movement. However, sheltering them from exposure to other perspectives, I see as detrimental to growth for them, or anyone.

Expose them to how you have come to perceive things now, and if they are ready, they can more readily make a change as they can know that others have done so themselves, and turned out just fine, and the stories of them eating babies were just fictions told to them to keep them fearful and locked down into place. "Don't go outside Jimmy. You'll hear other ideas and lose your faith, and God will reject you right along with them".

Last point, if they are on this discussion forum, they are choosing to be exposed to it. Expose them to it. But don't try to convert them to it. It's like the sower and the seed. Be the rain, be the nutrients of the soil, but let the seed sprout when and if it is ready.

Don't try to usurp nature. But if they are not ready, if they want to stay in the nest, then forcing them to fly could be more they are ready for. But if they are here, where many different ideas flourish, they are exposing themselves to this. It's not our job to protect them. They'll protect themselves, if they feel that distressed by seeing how others think about things differently than themselves.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Yes.

I guess they’ve just given up on me…or I’ve unwittingly developed a tolerance to it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I guess they’ve just given up on me…or I’ve unwittingly developed a tolerance to it.

Examples for me include my father-in-law - who will still bring Christian principles, The Bible, or "God's views" (as if they weren't his own views) into any conversation in which he doesn't agree with whatever is going on. It's so obvious that that is what triggers him - his own discomfort - not "God's discomfort", and not even his discomfort with what "God must be thinking." And he is many times not subtle or sensitive about it.

There is also a man I walk and talk with frequently, and he is constantly very open with his attempts to convert me. Yet this is the same man who recently openly came-on to my 18-year old daughter immediately following comments about how God has commanded us to "be fruitful." That's an allusion to procreation - in other words... sex.

These passive or openly aggressive types are out there, and they have crap-all substantiation of their beliefs. They are practiced only in very inferior techniques of convincing people, and must rely on the gullible of our human brethren in order to gain converts, or even an interested ear. It is a monstrosity, and something I have found I simply must combat any time I see it and feel compelled to do so.