If you do not practice the faith you were "born into", why not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hs_hopeful
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
The Buddha said, “This is the only way, monks, for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow and lamentation, for the destruction of suffering and grief, for reaching the right path, for the attainment of nirvana.”

Lots of religions claim to be the right religion. You will need more than just a quote from scripture to convince anyone who does not already follow your religion. I am sure my quote from the Tripitaka did not convince you…

rossum
 
The Buddha said, “This is the only way, monks, for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow and lamentation, for the destruction of suffering and grief, for reaching the right path, for the attainment of nirvana.”

Lots of religions claim to be the right religion. You will need more than just a quote from scripture to convince anyone who does not already follow your religion. I am sure my quote from the Tripitaka did not convince you…

rossum
It’s true a lot of religions do claim to be the right one. I would need more proof from people then a few words.
 
You misunderstand what I am asking. Why would you expect to see long lines at the confessional, and people remaining in there pews during communion? The same people who dissent on contraception, are the same people who feel it is okay to occasionally go to Mass. And when they do go, they see no problem with receiving the Eucharist. I would not expect to see them at confession, because they feel they are not sinning.
Oh I understand. But I also think Catholics who dissent on contraception, Mass attendance, even something like marriage are also well aware that they are dissenting. They would have to be living under a rock not to. So my only point was with so many Baptized Catholics dissenting, the CC is too in a crisis. Faithful Catholics surely can’t think all the Baptized Catholics who have given up on attending Mass and so forth is in any way a good thing. So they can’t just point out troubles they see in other Christian faith communities without acknowledging there are critical problems within their own as well. Peace.
 
The Buddha said, “This is the only way, monks, for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow and lamentation, for the destruction of suffering and grief, for reaching the right path, for the attainment of nirvana.”

Lots of religions claim to be the right religion. You will need more than just a quote from scripture to convince anyone who does not already follow your religion. I am sure my quote from the Tripitaka did not convince you…

rossum
I suppose it is your signature that fails to convince. It also seems to undermine your own beliefs.
 
I suppose it is your signature that fails to convince. It also seems to undermine your own beliefs.
My sig is a short, humorous, summary of the Prasangika-Madhyamika Buddhist position. It is not an ultimate truth, it is a statement about ultimate truth; a meta-statement.

My point about quoting scripture to non-believers remains, unless you are now a Buddhist?

rossum
 
My sig is a short, humorous, summary of the Prasangika-Madhyamika Buddhist position. It is not an ultimate truth, it is a statement about ultimate truth; a meta-statement.

My point about quoting scripture to non-believers remains, unless you are now a Buddhist?

rossum
This is really too difficult to resist. If I understand it correctly, then this is a statement about the ultimate truth which is not an ultimate truth about the Ultimate truth. A Meta-truth?
🤷
 
Oh I understand. But I also think Catholics who dissent on contraception, Mass attendance, even something like marriage are also well aware that they are dissenting. They would have to be living under a rock not to. So my only point was with so many Baptized Catholics dissenting, the CC is too in a crisis. Faithful Catholics surely can’t think all the Baptized Catholics who have given up on attending Mass and so forth is in any way a good thing. So they can’t just point out troubles they see in other Christian faith communities without acknowledging there are critical problems within their own as well. Peace.
You still misunderstand. Of course they realize they are dissenting. To dissent from something means you are aware of the issue. Why would you expect to see dissenters in the confession lines?
 
You still misunderstand. Of course they realize they are dissenting. To dissent from something means you are aware of the issue. Why would you expect to see dissenters in the confession lines?
Right. We either assent or dissent to the faith. Then actually putting it to action and deeds is even another aspect. We can assent to the faith but not obey it! That is the worst! If we dissent, we are at least not obeying because we believe it’s not from Jesus. This would be bad because we don’t really know Jesus like we think we do, but are not guilty of knowing it’s His will in the sense that one who assets to the belief yet fails to obey in deed does.
 
You still misunderstand. Of course they realize they are dissenting. To dissent from something means you are aware of the issue. Why would you expect to see dissenters in the confession lines?
As long as Catholics understand that the fact dissenters aren’t in confession lines or don’t attend Mass every week, etc etc is also a crisis in their church instead of being quick to point out crises in others, then I don’t have a problem understanding.
 
As long as Catholics understand that the fact dissenters aren’t in confession lines or don’t attend Mass every week, etc etc is also a crisis in their church instead of being quick to point out crises in others, then I don’t have a problem understanding.
We are well aware that this is a crisis. We are well aware that over the past 50 to 60 years, people have not been taught their faith in a way that allows them to understand the seriousness of the consequences of not believing in it. That’s actually one of the reasons this web site exists - is in order to help fill the gap. 🙂
 
This is really too difficult to resist. If I understand it correctly, then this is a statement about the ultimate truth which is not an ultimate truth about the Ultimate truth. A Meta-truth?
The original source for my sig is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrecht: Brill.

I have not read Siderits but saw the quote in a piece on Nagarjuna. The “Madhyamika” in Siderits’ title refers to the religious and philosophical school of Buddhism that Nagarjuna founded. I have seen the same quote again in other places in reference to the Madhyamika and Nagarjuna - it seems quite popular. The quote is intentionally paradoxical; paradox is necessary to remind us that words are insufficient when trying to describe the fundamental nature of reality.

For a philosophical discussion of Nagarjuna and reality see the web article Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought. The Siderits quote is at the end of section four of the article:

There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

rossum
 
Born Christian, now Buddhist. Why? The short answer is that Buddhism works.

The long answer is the same but takes more words. I was brought up as a Christian. When I hit my teens I dropped religion and switched to atheism. That was mainly because I objected to the rather too common, “anyone who does not agree exactly with us is damned for eternity,” attitude. After a few years I moved away from atheism, I felt that while it did avoid many of the problems with Christianity it was not itself a solution. I looked at different religions to find something that would work for me. None of the Abrahamic religions attracted me – as a hangover from my atheism I still had a problem with the concepts of God and soul. Initially I was interested in Hinduism. The background of Indian religion provides a very different world view: less exclusive – everyone achieves liberation eventually, the concept of karma and a much more relaxed attitude to other religions and to alternative variants of the same religion. Of the Hindu texts the Bhagavad Gita and Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras were the ones that attracted me most. In particular there is hardly any mention of gods in the Yoga Sutras. That seemed to be an interesting direction to explore.

Reading round Hinduism I inevitably came across Jainism and Buddhism. Jaininsm has souls but no gods, or at least no important gods. Buddhism has no souls and its attitude to gods is very casual – like any other living being they need to become enlightened. A mere god is far inferior to a Bodhisattva, let alone to a fully enlightened Buddha. Buddhism seemed to have the elements I was looking for: non-exclusivity, no soul, morality and while it did have gods, they were unimportant and could easily be ignored. So I tried Buddhism. I studied more on it, went to groups and to meditation classes and found that everything fitted together well and it suited the way I wanted to go.

A frequently quoted Buddhist text is the Kalama sutta which says that if we are to accept something then we have to try it first to check that it is correct:

[The Buddha said:] “Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blameable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.”

This advice applies to the Buddha’s own words just as much as to anything else. I followed the Buddha’s advice. I tried Buddhism, found that it worked and I have followed it ever since.

There is even some scientific evidence that Buddhism works: see Buddhists ‘really are happier’.

Buddhism is a very practical religion. It is a sustained attempt to alleviate the suffering of a less than perfect world. Generally it succeeds. Buddhism works.

rossum
Just curious, Rossum, why do you consider Buddhism a religion if its founder was a man?
 
Just curious, Rossum, why do you consider Buddhism a religion if its founder was a man?
The Buddha was a man. He said, in effect, “I am just a man. What I have done, you can do as well, because you are also men.” You do not have to be a god to attain enlightenment. A man can do it, as the Buddha showed.

If you want to consider it a philosophy or a way of life instead of a religion, then that is fine. It is what it is; the name is just a label.

rossum
 
We are well aware that this is a crisis. We are well aware that over the past 50 to 60 years, people have not been taught their faith in a way that allows them to understand the seriousness of the consequences of not believing in it. That’s actually one of the reasons this web site exists - is in order to help fill the gap. 🙂
Yes but I’ve found though even the site doesn’t always get everything right either. I’ve had to correct faithful Catholics associated with the site many times on what their church teaches in regard to who is a Catholic and in what their church teaches in regard to who is a Christian.
 
The Buddha was a man. He said, in effect, “I am just a man. What I have done, you can do as well, because you are also men.” You do not have to be a god to attain enlightenment. A man can do it, as the Buddha showed.

If you want to consider it a philosophy or a way of life instead of a religion, then that is fine. It is what it is; the name is just a label.

rossum
Two sides of the same coin, is it?
 
I’ve had to correct faithful Catholics associated with the site many times …
Are you talking about the apologists like Jimmy Akin or Tim Staples, or you talking about the various posters on these forums?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top