What do I do with a statue of Buddha?

[Contarini]

Come on Edwin - get with it here.

false (fôls)
adj. fals·er, fals·est

1. Contrary to fact or truth:

False religion would naturally mean… a religion contrary to the true one.

Do you dispute the fact that buddhism is a false religion?

Of course Buddhism is not entirely false by the definition you have provided. Many things about Buddhism are not contrary to Christianity. And Christianity as it exists historically is not an entirely true religion either (i.e., there are many things commonly believed and done by Christians which are false).

The Gospel is entirely true, but none of us completely understand it. There may be parts of it that non-Christians understand better than we do.

You called me a bigot by saying the following words addressed to me “Indeed, in a further burst of irrational bigotry…”

Exactly. Not for saying Buddhism was false, but for linking Satanism with both Buddhism and ancient pagan religions.

You take an instance of an invidividual doing good and seeking truth and try to extrapolate that to somehow apply to his religion. This is a false assumption based upon false reasoning. If this particular person’s persuit of truth is pleasing to God it is in spite of his religion not because of it.

Balderdash. Buddhism is founded on Buddha’s search for truth and virtue.

Buddhism says, “cultivate compassion and tame your selfish passions.”
A hypothetical Buddhist of good will does this.
You say, “you are doing this in spite of your religion.”
This is plainly irrational. How can a person be doing something “in spite of” their religion when they are doing exactly what their religion tells them to do?

Truth can never be pleased with error since error is directly opposed to It.

Of course. But you assume that every aspect of Buddhism is opposed to the truth of Christianity. Which is plainly false.

Edwin

 

[RosaryCrusader]

Of course Buddhism is not entirely false by the definition you have provided. Many things about Buddhism are not contrary to Christianity. And Christianity as it exists historically is not an entirely true religion either (i.e., there are many things commonly believed and done by Christians which are false).

The Gospel is entirely true, but none of us completely understand it. There may be parts of it that non-Christians understand better than we do.

Edwin, you can try to explain it away all you want but the point is buddhism cannot save you. It’s an erroneous religion not established by Christ and as such has no value before God or man.

Despite what you say Christianity is entirely true as it was established by Truth itself and promised the charism of infallibility, by the power of the Holy Ghost, through the successors of Peter.

You say, “you are doing this in spite of your religion.”
This is plainly irrational. How can a person be doing something “in spite of” their religion when they are doing exactly what their religion tells them to do?

So you’re saying that their religion tells them to pursue knowledge of the Creator and objective Truth? Buddhism does not even ackowledge a god or gods. You’re confusing the pursuit of truth with fulfilling the precepts of a false religion. One is pleasing to God and has Him for an end the other does not.

Of course. But you assume that every aspect of Buddhism is opposed to the truth of Christianity. Which is plainly false.
Edwin

I never stated every aspect of buddhism is contrary to Christianity. A rotten apple may have a good bite left in there somewhere but no one in their right mind would consider it a good apple or recommend someone eat it.

 

[redhen]

I never stated every aspect of buddhism is contrary to Christianity. A rotten apple may have a good bite left in there somewhere but no one in their right mind would consider it a good apple or recommend someone eat it.

That’s ok, there are some Buddhists who think that there are some good things in Christianity too, based on the Pali canon.

"There are bad religions in the world; and those you ought to avoid. How can you tell a bad religion?

“Of whatever teachings you are able to assure yourself, ‘These doctrines conduce to passion, to bondage, to wealth and fame, to covetousness, to discontent, to company, to sluggishness, to delight in harming’ - of such teachings you may affirm with certainty: ‘This is not the Dharma; this is not the discipline of the Aryas; this is not the Master’s teaching.’

“But of whatever teachings you can assure yourself, ‘These doctrines conduce to dispassion, to detachment, to material poverty, to frugality, to contentedness, to solitude, to energy, to delight in harmlessness’ - of such teachings you may affirm with certainty: ‘This is the Dharma; this is the discipline of the Aryas; this is the Master’s teaching.”

buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=6,5845,0,0,1,0

 

[rossum]

Do you dispute the fact that buddhism is a false religion?

By “false” do you mean “entirely and completely false” or “at least partly false”?

If the first then Christianity is a false religion, since some parts of Christianity disagree with the Catholic Church - many Christians refuse to acknowledge the Pope for example. Since some parts of Christianity, and of Catholic Christianity, agree with Buddhism - “You shall not kill”, “You shall not steal”, You shall not bear false witness" are all part of Buddhism - then also parts of Christianity are false.

Since that definition does not seem to be a useful one, we are left with “partly false”, meaning “partly disagreeing with Christianity”. That is obvious, and has already been stated in Nostra Aetate:Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. … The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.
Do you wish to emphasise that which joins men together or that whch separates men from their brothers?

rossum

 

[RosaryCrusader]

By “false” do you mean “entirely and completely false” or “at least partly false”?

I commented on this a couple of posts up…

If the first then Christianity is a false religion, since some parts of Christianity disagree with the Catholic Church - many Christians refuse to acknowledge the Pope for example.

Christianity cannot ‘disagree with the Catholic Church’ since they are one and the same. Also, it matters not what protestants believe or say - they are outside of the Church visible by their own protestation of Divine revelation.

Do you wish to emphasise that which joins men together or that whch separates men from their brothers?

rossum

I love you and want you to be happy forever in Heaven. If emphasising our similarities means complacency then I’d rather not.

 

[rossum]

Christianity cannot ‘disagree with the Catholic Church’ since they are one and the same. Also, it matters not what protestants believe or say - they are outside of the Church visible by their own protestation of Divine revelation.

From where I am looking, “Christianity” covers a lot more than just the Catholic Church, just as to you “Buddhism” covers a lot more than the particular school of Buddhism to which I subscribe (Madhyamika). I generally think that when a group of Christians try to narrow the definition of “TRU[sup]TM[/sup]-Christians” it says a lot more about them that it does about Christianity. Do you really want to come across like the Jehova’s Witnesses? “Everybody except for us is wrong.”

I love you and want you to be happy forever in Heaven. If emphasising our similarities means complacency then I’d rather not.

You are more likely to convert me by starting from our common basis in our scriptures than otherwise. “Love others as you love yourself” - Bhadramayakaravyakarana sutra 91. That is half of the two commandments that Christ gave right there. Why not try to build on that rather than reject it?

rossum

 

[GeorgeSword]

From where I am looking, “Christianity” covers a lot more than just the Catholic Church, just as to you “Buddhism” covers a lot more than the particular school of Buddhism to which I subscribe (Madhyamika). I generally think that when a group of Christians try to narrow the definition of “TRU[sup]TM[/sup]-Christians” it says a lot more about them that it does about Christianity. Do you really want to come across like the Jehova’s Witnesses? “Everybody except for us is wrong.”

Well, in all honesty, everyone can’t be right… logic would say that there can only be one truth.

 

[adstrinity]

Well, in all honesty, everyone can’t be right… logic would say that there can only be one truth.

Please see rossum’s signature line for the response.

 

[firstmode]

First gospel of the infancy of Jesus Christ:

1. But an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in his sleep and said, Arise, take the child and his mother, and go into Egypt as soon as the cock crows. So he arose, and went.
2. And as he was considering with himself about his journey, the morning came upon him.
3. In the length of the journey the girths of the saddle broke.
4. And now he drew near to a great city in which there was an idol, to which the other idols and gods of Egypt brought their offerings and vows.
5. And there was by this idol a priest ministering to it, who, as often as Satan spoke out of that idol, related the things he said to the inhabitants of Egypt and those countries.
6. This priest had a son three years old, who was possessed with a great multitude of devils, who uttered many strange things, and when the devils seized him, walked about naked with his clothes torn, throwing stones at those whom he saw.

 

[Siddhartha]

Well, in all honesty, everyone can’t be right… logic would say that there can only be one truth.

Depends upon the “truth” in question. If religion X says God is human, and religion Y says God is divine, both can be truth. In fact, Christianity itself is based on the idea that both statements are truth.

 

[JPUSC]

If you like Asian art, you can hang up these beautiful pictures. In the meantime, I’d stash that buddha in the garage.

http://mattstone.blogs.com/photos/asian_icons/christmas2004_our_lady_of_china_with_chi.jpg http://adhocinfoway.com/velankanni/images/velankannimada.jpg http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ecnviVdaKhM/SDDuZuAF47I/AAAAAAAAAwo/hFhAUG7fCd4/s400/OLAkita.jpg http://www.geocities.com/ace_playwright/lavang1.jpg

Romano Guardini, in his classic work The Lord, stated that Buddha would be the greatest challenge to Christ in the modern age. In an age of terrorism, such a statement may appear to be an exaggerated concern, but Buddhism offers Christianity serious and subtle challenges. Because it appears to be peaceful, non-judgmental, and inclusive, its appeal will undoubtedly continue to grow. Because it offers a spirituality that is supposedly free of doctrine and authority, it will attract hungry souls looking for fulfillment and meaning. “For this reason,” the Holy Father states, “it is not inappropriate to caution those Christians who enthusiastically welcome certain ideas originating in the religious traditions of the Far East — for example, techniques and methods of meditation and ascetical practice.” As he correctly observes, “In some quarters these have become fashionable, and are accepted rather uncritically.”

Nostra Aetate, Vatican II’s Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, states that “Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination.” It continues to note that, “The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions” and believes that other religions, in certain ways, “often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.”

But, the document insists, the Church “proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ ‘the way, the truth, and the life’ (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself” (par 2). While the Council affirms that Buddhism may contain a “ray of Truth,” it does not endorse appropriation of Buddhist beliefs into Christian practice. Rather, the Council insists that non-Catholic religions can be fulfilled only through the truths held exclusively by the Church.

In Buddha’s final words to his disciples under the sala trees, he said, “Make of yourself a light. Rely upon yourself; do not rely upon anyone else. Make my teachings your light. Rely upon them; do not depend upon any other teaching.” When the Fourth Evangelist described John the Baptist, he said, “He was not himself the light, but was to bear witness to the light” (John, 1:8). He continued by proclaiming that Christ “is the true light that enlightens every man who comes into the world” (John, 1:9). Christ, the “true light,” did not teach His followers to extinguish their fires, such as is meaning of nirvana, but to illuminate the world with His love, and to reflect the light of His truth.

ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/clarkolson_cathbuddh_feb05.asp

The final goal of Buddhism is not merely to eradicate desire, but to be free of suffering.

Buddha also taught the “three characteristics of being”: that all things are transitory, there is no “self” or personality, and this world brings only pain and suffering.

According to Buddhist upaya, Christianity is allowable as long as it is viewed as a stage of spiritual progression, leading eventually to the extinction of self — nirvana.

A Buddhist allows others to believe in a God or gods, but such beliefs are merely convenient means to the final end, which has nothing to do with a God or gods.

http://www.hartclassics.com/images/products/lightoftheworld.jpg

In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw how good the light was…God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them…God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good.
**Genesis 1: 1-4, 27, 31 (NAB) **

In all things we suffer tribulation: but are not distressed. We are straitened: but are not destitute. We suffer persecution: but are not forsaken. We are cast down: but we perish not. Always bearing about in our body the mortification of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be made manifest in our bodies. For we who live are always delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake: that the life also of Jesus may be made manifest in our mortal flesh. So then death worketh in us: but life in you.
II Corinthians 4:8-12 (Douay-Rheims)

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.
Apostle’s Creed

 

[Ghoti]

Depends upon the “truth” in question. If religion X says God is human, and religion Y says God is divine, both can be truth. In fact, Christianity itself is based on the idea that both statements are truth.

Sure. But each statement is only **part *of the truth.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses say Jesus was **only **human, which is false.

The Cathari said that Jesus was **only **divine, which is false.

Christians say Jesus was human **and **divine - which is the **whole **truth, as it were, but only on this **particular **point of faith. Because, IIRC, Mormons maintain that Jesus is both human and divine, but deny the Trinity.

*edit: I believe that this is stated in the Catechism, that other faiths may have elements of truth in them, but only the Catholic Church contains the whole of the truth.

 

[Siddhartha]

The final goal of Buddhism is not merely to eradicate desire, but to be free of suffering.

The final goal is not the eradication of mere “desire”. The final goal goal is eradication of tanha or trishna, which is not mere ‘desire’ (since in Buddhism, as in all spiritual traditions, ‘good desire’ is needed in order to practice). Tanha is the sensual craving, thirst, that necessarily causes suffering. From a Catholic perspective, tanha is analogous to concupiscence.

Buddha also taught the “three characteristics of being”: that all things are transitory, there is no “self” or personality, and this world brings only pain and suffering.

Buddha never mentioned three characteristics of “being”. Which he did mention were the three marks of conditional phenomena. The three marks, or characteristics, are anicca (impermance), dukkha (unsatisfactoriness – not “pain and suffering”), and anatta (“lacking-a-unchanging-core”, which is not “lacking-a-personality”).

That which is not conditional phenomena, is nibbana, or nirvana, which is the end of craving.

According to Buddhist upaya, Christianity is allowable as long as it is viewed as a stage of spiritual progression, leading eventually to the extinction of self — nirvana.

There is no official Buddhist position on Christianity. Different Buddhists will have different opinions.

Nirvana is not the extinction of “self”: nirvana is the end of craving.

A Buddhist allows others to believe in a God or gods, but such beliefs are merely convenient means to the final end, which has nothing to do with a God or gods.

It depends on what you mean by “God”. In Christianity, “God” is often synonymous with “Truth”. In that sense, in Buddhism, the final end has everything to do with “Truth”.

 

[rossum]

According to Buddhist upaya, Christianity is allowable as long as it is viewed as a stage of spiritual progression, leading eventually to the extinction of self — nirvana.

A common mistake that non-Buddhists make when talking about Buddhism is to refer to the “extinction of self”. You can no more extinguish your self than you can kill a unicorn. Neither your ‘self’ nor unicorns exist. What can be extinguished is the mistaken belief that you do have a ‘self’. Things are not always what they appear to be, and the appearance of self is one of those misleading things.

The Buddha classified other religions as useful and not useful. Most versions of Christianity fall into the useful category. I would make an exception for the extreme forms of Calvinism where our actions have no consequences. A useful religion links our actions to the consequences of those actions.

rossum

 

[Contarini]

Edwin, you can try to explain it away all you want but the point is buddhism cannot save you.

If by “save” you mean “bring me into a living relationship with the Triune God,” then of course. Even Buddhists don’t claim this. Why are you bringing it up? How is it relevant to the discussion?

Whether Buddhism can do what *it *claims is another question. I don’t claim to have a firm opinion on the subject. Particularly when Buddhists make somewhat different claims for their religion depending on what form of Buddhism they practice.

It’s an erroneous religion

You keep using these sorts of terms even when you admit that they are imprecise (as you do below when you grant that not everything in Buddhism is contrary to the truth). Why not speak more accurately? Don’t you care about truth? (And don’t tell me that you care about Truth and so don’t need to worry about truth. That’s a spiritually pernicious attitude. Truth–with a capital T–cannot live without a love for truth of the ordinary kind–without careful attention to what words mean, what ideas imply, and what the evidence of our senses tells us.)

not established by Christ

You’re a Catholic, not a Barthian or presuppositionalist Calvinist. You are supposed to believe in general revelation and natural theology, aren’t you?

and as such has no value before God or man.

I think that if you study your own tradition a little more carefully, you’ll find that what you have just said is marginally orthodox at best and heretical at worst. Did St. Thomas Aquinas think that Aristotle’s ideas had no value before God or man?

Despite what you say Christianity is entirely true

Again, you sling big words around without establishing what you mean. Am I right in thinking that the word “Christianity” as you have just used it means something like “the revealed set of dogmas and practices officially promulgated by the magisterium of the Catholic Church–the Pope and the bishops in communion with him”? Do you really think that that’s what most non-Catholics (and you are on the non-Catholic forum) are going to assume you mean by the word? Isn’t it misleading at best to use a word in such a specialized sense without clarifying what you mean by it?

What I mean by “Christianity” is what most people in the world at large mean by it: the historical religion (or, if you prefer, family of religions) associated with Jesus Christ. And clearly Christianity in this sense contains much that is false and bad.

as it was established by Truth itself and promised the charism of infallibility

But “infallibility” in Catholic theology is extremely restricted. Christians, even Catholics, can believe many errors and do many wicked things without infallibility being affected.

If you want to compare Christianity and Buddhism, you have to take both of them as historical phenomena. It’s completely unfair to compare a rarefied essence of “true Christianity” (however you get that essence) with the messy historical reality of Buddhism or any other religion.

 

[Contarini]

So you’re saying that their religion tells them to pursue knowledge of the Creator

No, I didn’t say that. I said that it tells them to pursue virtues which Christianity also acknowledges. One could also argue that the Buddhist concept of Nirvana is not entirely incompatible with a highly apophatic, mystical understanding of the Christian God. Clearly they aren’t the same. But some things about Nirvana sound a lot like what Christians believe about God, so it’s not unreasonable to hope that Christians seeking God and Buddhists seeking Nirvana may, at least some of the time, wind up in the same “place.”

and objective Truth?

You really do like big, resounding terms which you don’t bother to define, don’t you? If by “objective truth” you mean “something that is true whether you believe it or not, so that you’d better conform yourself to it rather than the other way round,” then Buddhists do seek objective truth. Buddhists talk a lot about “skillful means” and the fact that different paths are good for different people, but in the end no Buddhist believes that abandoning yourself to selfish craving is going to get you anywhere good. There are objective truths about the world and about the nature of living beings which, for Buddhists, must govern how we live if we want to be happy and virtuous and at peace.

Buddhism does not even ackowledge a god or gods. You’re confusing the pursuit of truth with fulfilling the precepts of a false religion. One is pleasing to God and has Him for an end the other does not.

Again, we keep going round in circles because you are addicted to fine-sounding terms like “false religion,” even when you make admissions that gut these terms of their meaning. Clearly many of the precepts of Buddhism are compatible with Christianity and, according to Lumen Gentium and other teachings of orthodox, mainstream Christian churches, will point people toward God (whether people realize it or not). For a Buddhist, pursuing truth clearly means following these precepts. And because Buddhism contains these precepts, it cannot simply be called “false.” There are other teaching in Buddhism which are ostensibly contrary to Christianity. Those are the points where more study is needed. It may well be that some of these teachings are simply false and evil. But I don’t think I’m qualified to say this. And since (as I said before) you’ve given me no reason to think that you understand Buddhism (or Christianity, for that matter) better than I do, I’m hardly likely to take your word for it.

I never stated every aspect of buddhism is contrary to Christianity.

Then in the context of the current discussion it is irresponsible and misleading for you to say things like “a false religion.” This is because you are using this term to argue that every aspect of Buddhism should be rejected. What I am saying is very simple: what is good and true should be accepted, and what is false and bad should be rejected. Since you admit that not all aspects of Buddhism are false and bad, you have no grounds for arguing that all aspects of Buddhism should be rejected.

A rotten apple may have a good bite left in there somewhere but no one in their right mind would consider it a good apple or recommend someone eat it.

If there’s one good, solid bite left, why not take that bite and throw the rest away?

But more often it’s the other way round, with religions as with fruit.

It’s funny that you should use this example, because just this morning I was cutting up some peaches. I ate one myself, gave one to my wife, and cut up two more for my wife to freeze and use in smoothies later. All of these peaches were beginning to go bad. All of them had some bad spots. But there was lots of good eating on all of them. There are two peaches in human stomachs right now and two in the fridge that would be in the trash if you had your way. So I’m glad that most of us have learned to take an approach more respectful of goodness wherever we find it.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

If emphasising our similarities means complacency then I’d rather not.

If you tell a Buddhist that their religion is completely false, when they know for sure that it isn’t (and your own Church agrees with them), I fail to see how this is likely to lead a Buddhist to union with the Triune God.

Edwin

 

[GeorgeSword]

Please see rossum’s signature line for the response.

No offence to Rosum, but his signature defies all logic.

 

[rossum]

No offence to Rosum, but his signature defies all logic.

You are not the first to notice my sig. The original source 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.”

Another approach to the same topic is:The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

Jay Garfield, “Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation.” OUP 2002.

rossum

 

[RosaryCrusader]

Edwin,

Your argument seems to be of a relativistic nature as is obvious with your objections to terms such as “objective Truth” “false religions” etc. Concerning the latter there is no point in putting more meaning into the term than is necessary which only illustrates a certain level of misunderstanding or possibly bad will. Had I wanted to express the idea of a completely false religion I would have said so by use of the terms “utterly false religion” or “completely false”.

I thought my apple anaolgy would get the point across but evidently that is not possible if you cannot tell the difference between a fruit that is “going bad” and one that is bad. The former consists of an advanced degree of ripening which some may not find suitable to their liking but nevertheless completely edible. The latter consists of an advanced stage of decay, inedible without bodily harm. My example was of the latter.

BTW, I would’ve done the same thing with your peaches; they were not rotten.

The implication of your arguments would induce someone to believe that buddhism expresses enough truth that one should leave it alone; they’re well on their way. This is not a Christian attitude and we’re called to make believers of all men. This naturally begs the question of whether or not emphasizing the elements of truth in whatever religion actually does more harm than good. If it breeds a spirit of complacency then it should be rejected because Christ desires that all men should come to the knowledge of the Truth [yes, objective Truth]. You are correct when you quote the Church in saying that She does not reject the elements of truth in each religion - how can she? However, that should not be interpreted as the need to emphasize it to the point of hyper-exaggeration. Because something contains a sliver of truth does not make it acceptable to openly embrace nor to adopt an attitude of indifference towards it. satanism contains at least a fiber of truth as it acknowledges the existence of the soul, spiritual beings etc. We can acknowledge those truths but not without a certain danger.

This whole topic is getting way off so I’ll just close with this question:

Do you think buddhists should be evangelized?