Are you open to the possibility that you may be wrong ?

Originally posted by Marxman
Your happiness isn't all important. If your beliefs hinders the happiness of others than it is wrong. End of story.

Why would you assume that my happiness would lead to other people's suffering? I am not talking about carnal happiness, but true happiness.

A truly joyous person wishes everyone to be happy. That is why a Bodhisattva will strive to bring happiness to others and help lead them into enlightenment.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Of course not, why? Porque it makes absolutely no sense to adhere to a religion if think it being wrong is a possiblity.

It makes less sense to me to have a 100% closed mind on a subject - be it religion, be it politics, be it anything. Especially when, knowing something of history, I know how vast the number of religions are that have existed and continue to exist, and the multitude of claims they make, include a veritable cacophony of:

"We are the only true one. Do not join us and you are doomed."

Conviction is fine - but not to the extent where it encourages pig headed ignorance. And it is ironic that many a hardcore Evangelist expects everyone else to be open minded to their message - they want Muslims and Atheists and Hindus and Buddhists and so on to have open enough minds to listen to what they are selling and to actually embrace it - but they themselves don't believe in being open minded themselves and listening to the claims of others. Because of course they are wrong.

No, it is unthinkable for them to even consider that perhaps some other group may have greater validity. Or that maybe some other faith is the true one.

That smacks of double standards to me.

Because really there is a difference between:

A. "I have strong doubts about my religion being right but I will stick with it and ignore any and all such doubts doubts"

B. "I refuse to have doubts and I refuse to even consider anything that might create doubt because there is no way in hell I am wrong. The majority of people might disagree, but I. AM. NOT. WRONG!"

C. "I believe I am right, but there is a chance I am wrong, so I will listen to the arguments of others and I might learn something. Even if it takes me away from where I am now."

Originally posted by Lord Urizen

[b]Are you at ALL open to the possibility that you can be wrong ? That your beleifs/conclusions could be false ?
[/B]

No. 😐

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
It makes less sense to me to have a 100% closed mind on a subject - be it religion, be it politics, be it anything. Especially when, knowing something of history, I know how vast the number of religions are that have existed and continue to exist, and the multitude of claims they make, include a veritable cacophony of:

"We are the only true one. Do not join us and you are doomed."

Conviction is fine - but not to the extent where it encourages pig headed ignorance. And it is ironic that many a hardcore Evangelist expects everyone else to be open minded to their message - they want Muslims and Atheists and Hindus and Buddhists and so on to have open enough minds to listen to what they are selling and to actually embrace it - but they themselves don't believe in being open minded themselves and listening to the claims of others. Because of course they are wrong.

No, it is unthinkable for them to even consider that perhaps some other group may have greater validity. Or that maybe some other faith is the true one.

That smacks of double standards to me.

Because really there is a difference between:

A. "I have strong doubts about my religion being right but I will stick with it and ignore any and all such doubts doubts"

B. "I refuse to have doubts and I refuse to even consider anything that might create doubt because there is no way in hell I am wrong. The majority of people might disagree, but I. AM. NOT. WRONG!"

C. "I believe I am right, but there is a chance I am wrong, so I will listen to the arguments of others and I might learn something. Even if it takes me away from where I am now."

However, fundamentalist Christians are at war. They believe that demons inhabit the unsaved, and if they listen to anyone other then the bible or their own members, they too will be possessed.

How can anyone reason with that?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, fundamentalist Christians are at war. They believe that demons inhabit the unsaved, and if they listen to anyone other then the bible or their own members, they too will be possessed.

How can anyone reason with that?

You can't. which was a point Marchello made perfectly in the Mormon thread where he said the only people that can know the Truth are the ones with Christ, and he classes himself as one of them.

Of course the people who don't "know Christ" can't ever know the truth. And since Marchello is of Christ, people who disagree logically (ABC) must be wrong because they can't possibly be of Christ. Because a person of Christ would be of the same mind as Marchello.

Honestly it is absurd. And sad. And irritating when people like that also think they have some sort of God given duty to inflict their views on the "unsaved masses." Fundamentalism, be it Islamic, Christian or whatever is a terrible thing. All the more so when the Fundamentalist is proud of their fundamentalism and view it as a virtue.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
You can't. which was a point Marchello made perfectly in the Mormon thread where he said the only people that can know the Truth are the ones with Christ, and he classes himself as one of them.

Of course the people who don't "know Christ" can't ever know the truth. And since Marchello is of Christ, people who disagree logically (ABC) must be wrong because they can't possibly be of Christ. Because a person of Christ would be of the same mind as Marchello.

Honestly it is absurd. And sad. And irritating when people like that also think they have some sort of God given duty to inflict their views on the "unsaved masses." Fundamentalism, be it Islamic, Christian or whatever is a terrible thing. All the more so when the Fundamentalist is proud of their fundamentalism and view it as a virtue.

It's a trap with no doors. I know, I used to be one of them. So, remember this, when you read the posts from people like Marchello, you are looking into the cage. They are the ones who are trapped, and you are free. When I think that way, I just feel sorry for them.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It's a trap with no doors. I know, I used to be one of them. So, remember this, when you read the posts from people like Marchello, you are looking into the cage. They are the ones who are trapped, and you are free. When I think that way, I just feel sorry for them.

I used to be Christian, and I even used to be a lil bit Conservative on many issues....(for example, I used to beleive Homosexuality was sinful and abominatable, I used to be 100% against Abortion, I used to beleive Jewish people were misguided, all that bullshit other Christians beleive, etc.)

But I was never Fundamentalist per say, and I don't think I ever thought that other people were evil just because they didn't beleive what I beleived.

But yes, looking backwards, I can see how trapped my mind was, how narrow my vision was, and how much better off I am today.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why would you assume that my happiness would lead to other people's suffering? I am not talking about carnal happiness, but true happiness.

A truly joyous person wishes everyone to be happy. That is why a Bodhisattva will strive to bring happiness to others and help lead them into enlightenment.

Originally posted by Marxman
I wasn't really talking about you personally. You just said "If it makes you happy then go for it" and I was just bringing up the point that if one's happiness imposes on another's, is it worth it?

I don't see how Bodhisvattha imposes on another's happiness. If someone wants you to be happy, how can they impose on your happiness ? 😬

It's not like Evangelism where your happiness means nothing, but your "salvation" means all. Evangelism is what imposes on your happiness and freedom of choice.

I fail to see when and where Buddhists have imposed their beleifs on all others, and damned anyone who thinks differently to Hell.

Originally posted by Marxman
I wasn't really talking about you personally. You just said "If it makes you happy then go for it" and I was just bringing up the point that if one's happiness imposes on another's, is it worth it?

I would agree. True happiness requires that every one be happy. If I have true happiness, and you are not happy, how can I be happy?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I don't see how [b]Bodhisvattha imposes on another's happiness. If someone wants you to be happy, how can they impose on your happiness ? 😬

It's not like Evangelism where your happiness means nothing, but your "salvation" means all. Evangelism is what imposes on your happiness and freedom of choice.

I fail to see when and where Buddhists have imposed their beleifs on all others, and damned anyone who thinks differently to Hell. [/B]

If.....one's....hap-ee-ness.....imposes on....another's.........is it......worth....it?

Originally posted by Marxman
Are you reading my post? I wasn't talking about Shakya or his beliefs in any way. I'll say it again, and slowly this time.

If.....one's....hap-ee-ness.....imposes on....another's.........is it......worth....it?

😆

Originally posted by Marxman
Are you reading my post? I wasn't talking about Shakya or his beliefs in any way. I'll say it again, and slowly this time.

I hardly ever read your posts.....

Originally posted by Marxman
[B]If.....one's....hap-ee-ness.....imposes on....another's.........is it......worth....it?

No it's not

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
"We are the only true one. Do not join us and you are doomed."

Conviction is fine - but not to the extent where it encourages pig headed ignorance. And it is ironic that many a hardcore Evangelist expects everyone else to be open minded to their message - they want Muslims and Atheists and Hindus and Buddhists and so on to have open enough minds to listen to what they are selling and to actually embrace it - but they themselves don't believe in being open minded themselves and listening to the claims of others. Because of course they are wrong.

No, it is unthinkable for them to even consider that perhaps some other group may have greater validity. Or that maybe some other faith is the true one.

I agree. This is one area of human interaction where modern people are sorely behind the times. I'm not going to say that there aren't examples of religious intolerence in ancient times. I'm just saying that as a whole, they were way more tolerent of another person's religion. That's one of the great things about studying history. You can see that most of the time; when these ancient civilizations expanded and encountered other religions, they tolerated religious diversity. You can find evidence of Roman and Egyptian and Nubian and Indian and Greek gods being worshipped throught out the ancient worlds, and not just in their native land or by the inhabitants of those native lands. Another really great aspect of this mingling of civilizations is that two people from different religions could see aspects of their own gods in the gods of another religion. This is something we don't do today. A christian would cringe at the idea of a parallel ideology being present in Islam. And that's just willful ignorance. And it's sadly the same in the converse situation.

In ancient times, they could often see past the differences in a name and grasp the root philosophy surrounding a god or ideology. This is something that has sadly gone away in the modern practice of religion. "Love thy neighbor" has become "Love thy neighbor as long as he thinks the same person said 'love thy neighbor'".

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I agree. This is one area of human interaction where modern people are sorely behind the times. I'm not going to say that there aren't examples of religious intolerence in ancient times. I'm just saying that as a whole, they were way more tolerent of another person's religion. That's one of the great things about studying history. You can see that most of the time; when these ancient civilizations expanded and encountered other religions, they tolerated religious diversity. You can find evidence of Roman and Egyptian and Nubian and Indian and Greek gods being worshipped throught out the ancient worlds, and not just in their native land or by the inhabitants of those native lands. Another really great aspect of this mingling of civilizations is that two people from different religions could see aspects of their own gods in the gods of another religion. This is something we don't do today. A christian would cringe at the idea of a parallel ideology being present in Islam. And that's just willful ignorance. And it's sadly tyhe same in the converse situation.

In ancient times, they could often see past the differences in a name and grasp the root philosophy surrounding a god or ideology. This is something that has sadly gone away in the modern practice of religion. "Love thy neighbor" has become "Love thy neighbor as long as he thinks the same person said 'love thy neighbor'".

It was actually Christianity that began the promotion of religious intolerance. Later on, Islam adapted it.

Romans adopted Greek mythology, and even embraced Egyptian mythos into thier culture.

Pagan Romans kept Jews as slaves, but did not exterminate them simply for thier beleifs. Remember, Romans ensalved everyone, not just Jews.

Pagan Romans would execute Christians, because they saw Christians as a threat to thier own rule

Once Constantine made Christianity the official religion of Rome, all others were executed.

People of Pagan beleifs and other religions were hunted within the empire and burnt alive (and or tortured in other ways)

Spanish Inquisition repeated this trend in a much higher concentration.

How excatly does one "adapt" religious intolerence?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
How excatly does one "adapt" religious intolerence?

You can't literally.....what I mean was that while Islam is the current powerhouse behind religious intolerance, Christianity was beforehand.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You can't literally.....what I mean was that while Islam is the current powerhouse behind religious intolerance, Christianity was beforehand.

I'm pretty sure you can go all the way back to the Jews for that little nugget of inspiration. At least as far as modern western religions are concerned.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I'm pretty sure you can go all the way back to the Jews for that little nugget of inspiration. At least as far as modern western religions are concerned.

Jews were never the powerhouses than Christians and Muslims have been. Yes, Jews have done thier fair share of persection, but they have been persecuted by everyone else.

They have been persecuted by Christians, Muslims, Egyptian Pagans, Roman pagans, Greeks, Nazis, etc.

When I thnk of religious intolerance and persecution in general, Christianity and Islam inspire a much higher image than Judaism ever could.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Jews were never the powerhouses than Christians and Muslims have been. Yes, Jews have done thier fair share of persection, but they have been persecuted by everyone else.

They have been persecuted by Christians, Muslims, Egyptian Pagans, Roman pagans, Greeks, Nazis, etc.

When I thnk of religious intolerance and persecution in general, Christianity and Islam inspire a much higher image than Judaism ever could.

Powerhouse? Who said anything about a powerhouse? I'm talking about thinking you're better for believing in your god, while everyone else is just ignorant and ill-informed.