Predatory Proselytism
Re: Predatory Proselytism
It's never difficult to find despicable facts about any religion. And Theravada buddhism easily counts among the most corrupt of them. So we are not doing any better here than a bunch of christians would do on their own forum spitting on Theravada buddhism.
Where knowledge ends, religion begins. - B. Disraeli
http://www.buddha-vacana.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.buddha-vacana.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Predatory Proselytism
Oh, my.Theravada certainly has its problems, but I do not see that that this thread was meant to spit on Christianity.Sekha wrote:It's never difficult to find despicable facts about any religion. And Theravada buddhism easily counts among the most corrupt of them. So we are not doing any better here than a bunch of christians would do on their own forum spitting on Theravada buddhism.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: Predatory Proselytism
I've been preached to a lot, in a predatory manner. I guess over time, I've lost hope that they would ever change, and instead I grew some elbows.Coyote wrote:Why? Many Christians do care about what predatory Christian groups do to the rest of us. Not least because it reflects badly on them.
With regard to proselytism - Maybe we should debate them, talk to them. You never know, you might convince them that what they are doing is unwholesome and generally just annoys people. Ven. Yuttadhammo has had some interesting conversations with those who have tried to convert him. I am sure that meaningful dialogue can come of it.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: Predatory Proselytism
The trouble is that if your belief is the ONE TRUE FAITH and you know that unbelievers will be tormented in hell (or some equivalent of it) for eons, then the very best thing you can ever do for an unbeliever is convert them to your ONE TRUE FAITH. Asking them nicely is best, but bribing them and blackmailing them is still ultimately good, and so is standing over them with a cudgel whacking them until they say they believe.Coyote wrote: With regard to proselytism - Maybe we should debate them, talk to them. You never know, you might convince them that what they are doing is unwholesome and generally just annoys people.
And that is true whether your ONE TRUE FAITH is Christianity, Omnianism or Pastafarianism.
That is, any believer in the ONE TRUE FAITH who doesn't proselytise is being untrue to the faith, weak and half-hearted.
Logically, proselytism is not the error - the belief is.
Kim
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Predatory Proselytism
I rather doubt that His Noodliness would ever expect or want its followers to harm anyone in any way for any reason.Kim O'Hara wrote: And that is true whether your ONE TRUE FAITH is Christianity, Omnianism or Pastafarianism.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: Predatory Proselytism
I agree that the beliefs that lie behind the proselytism are ultimately the problem, which is what leads religions to try and spread their faith in the first place. But active proselytising requires a drive that would seem to me to be quite course and ego-driven. It simply isn't the case that all theists are ready to lie, blackmail and use violence to gain converts. It isn't just about hell, but about Christ. Ever read anything like "the fulfillment of all desire"? Depending on the sect of course proselytising can be more about sharing a way of life they believe is the most rewarding. Not only can there can be meaningful dialogue, but it can be used as an opportunity to practice metta and strengthen one's understanding of the dhamma.Kim O'Hara wrote:The trouble is that if your belief is the ONE TRUE FAITH and you know that unbelievers will be tormented in hell (or some equivalent of it) for eons, then the very best thing you can ever do for an unbeliever is convert them to your ONE TRUE FAITH. Asking them nicely is best, but bribing them and blackmailing them is still ultimately good, and so is standing over them with a cudgel whacking them until they say they believe.Coyote wrote: With regard to proselytism - Maybe we should debate them, talk to them. You never know, you might convince them that what they are doing is unwholesome and generally just annoys people.
And that is true whether your ONE TRUE FAITH is Christianity, Omnianism or Pastafarianism.
That is, any believer in the ONE TRUE FAITH who doesn't proselytise is being untrue to the faith, weak and half-hearted.
Logically, proselytism is not the error - the belief is.
Kim
Metta
"If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of miserliness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared."
Iti 26
Iti 26
Re: Predatory Proselytism
That reminds me tilt of a convo I had with a tour guide back in 2010 when I was in New Delhi.
So, the subject was on how the Muslims insist on the conversion of the non Muslims in a mixed marriage situation between a Muslim & a non.
And he was lamenting that even in a cricket game, Indian Muslims would rather support Pakistan than their own country LOL
Now the icing on the cake...
I asked him if he was a Brahmin and he said yes. Fine.
Then I asked him if he would mind marrying a non Hindu and he said no.
Then I asked him if his 'no' was with or without any reservation/conditions.
Then he says as long as she converts over to the Sanatana Dharma, it's fine.
Then I asked him what if she refuses? Then he said that it's not an option for her and added that it was for her own good.
Then I asked him what's the difference between his stance and that of the Muslims?
'Sanatana Dharma is the only true path, is there another?'
End of dialogue...
So, the subject was on how the Muslims insist on the conversion of the non Muslims in a mixed marriage situation between a Muslim & a non.
And he was lamenting that even in a cricket game, Indian Muslims would rather support Pakistan than their own country LOL
Now the icing on the cake...
I asked him if he was a Brahmin and he said yes. Fine.
Then I asked him if he would mind marrying a non Hindu and he said no.
Then I asked him if his 'no' was with or without any reservation/conditions.
Then he says as long as she converts over to the Sanatana Dharma, it's fine.
Then I asked him what if she refuses? Then he said that it's not an option for her and added that it was for her own good.
Then I asked him what's the difference between his stance and that of the Muslims?
'Sanatana Dharma is the only true path, is there another?'
End of dialogue...
Re: Predatory Proselytism
Great story! And it illustrates very neatly the root of the problem: any religious belief (Buddhism included!), sincerely and deeply held, trumps all other allegiances and all rational discourse.plwk wrote:That reminds me tilt of a convo I had with a tour guide back in 2010 when I was in New Delhi.
So, the subject was on how the Muslims insist on the conversion of the non Muslims in a mixed marriage situation between a Muslim & a non.
And he was lamenting that even in a cricket game, Indian Muslims would rather support Pakistan than their own country LOL
Now the icing on the cake...
I asked him if he was a Brahmin and he said yes. Fine.
Then I asked him if he would mind marrying a non Hindu and he said no.
Then I asked him if his 'no' was with or without any reservation/conditions.
Then he says as long as she converts over to the Sanatana Dharma, it's fine.
Then I asked him what if she refuses? Then he said that it's not an option for her and added that it was for her own good.
Then I asked him what's the difference between his stance and that of the Muslims?
'Sanatana Dharma is the only true path, is there another?'
End of dialogue...
Discourse between people of different faiths is possible (and I think it's desirable, as most of us would agree) but it is only possible to those who are prepared to acknowledge that their religion may be incomplete or incorrect on some points, or at least not the only path. That's pretty easy for Buddhists but cuts other beliefs to the core.
Kim
Re: Predatory Proselytism
I disagree. Dialogue doesn't mean that you can't be sincerely and deeply religious, or that you have to be a hypocrite like in the story above. Why would it? It simply means one has to understand where another person is coming from and be able to take an impartial look at where you stand. The biggest barrier to that is not deeply held belief IMO but the fact that we speak different "languages". Of course some hold their faith so tightly that this is not possible, but that does not equate "sincerely and deeply held", as if those who are able to have civilised dialogue aren't sincere.Kim O'Hara wrote: Great story! And it illustrates very neatly the root of the problem: any religious belief (Buddhism included!), sincerely and deeply held, trumps all other allegiances and all rational discourse.
Discourse between people of different faiths is possible (and I think it's desirable, as most of us would agree) but it is only possible to those who are prepared to acknowledge that their religion may be incomplete or incorrect on some points, or at least not the only path. That's pretty easy for Buddhists but cuts other beliefs to the core.
Kim
Metta
"If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of miserliness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared."
Iti 26
Iti 26
Re: Predatory Proselytism
Hi, Coyote,Coyote wrote:I disagree. Dialogue doesn't mean that you can't be sincerely and deeply religious, or that you have to be a hypocrite like in the story above. Why would it? It simply means one has to understand where another person is coming from and be able to take an impartial look at where you stand. The biggest barrier to that is not deeply held belief IMO but the fact that we speak different "languages". Of course some hold their faith so tightly that this is not possible, but that does not equate "sincerely and deeply held", as if those who are able to have civilised dialogue aren't sincere.Kim O'Hara wrote: Great story! And it illustrates very neatly the root of the problem: any religious belief (Buddhism included!), sincerely and deeply held, trumps all other allegiances and all rational discourse.
Discourse between people of different faiths is possible (and I think it's desirable, as most of us would agree) but it is only possible to those who are prepared to acknowledge that their religion may be incomplete or incorrect on some points, or at least not the only path. That's pretty easy for Buddhists but cuts other beliefs to the core.
Kim
Metta
I stand by what I said.
But I don't mind if you disagree, which just goes to show that I am more flexible and tolerant than the average proselytiser.
Kim
Re: Predatory Proselytism
It doesn't matter how long Christianity been in India. Christianity is an Abrahamic religion, which IMO is diametrically opposed to all things "Dharmic".Coyote wrote:True, but these are assumptions that come from the article in the OP. Native culture is contrasted with the "foreign" Christian culture.Kim O'Hara wrote:Hi, Coyote,Coyote wrote:Where is the line drawn between aggressive destruction of native culture and the natural replacement of one religious culture by another?
You might like to look at the assumptions buried in the above.
"native culture" as compared to ?
"religious culture"? Can a religion be separated from its cultural matrix? Can a religion be separated from its religious underpinnings?
"natural replacement" ? Does that ever happen?
Kim
By religious culture I meant the aspect of culture, in this case Hindu, that is religious given that it was this that the article was talking about being destroyed or exploited. Ultimately I don't think it can be separated from its cultural matrix, but the article was talking about religious aspects of the Hindu culture, not the culture as a whole.
As for whether natural replacement ever happens, well, thats part of why I ask the question. Is there really a difference? If so, where do we draw the line? It was a genuine question. I guess I would make a distinction between forced or "predatory" extinction/replacement and that which comes as a result of society slowly (or not so slowly) moving in another direction, but this is not an absolute distinction. The article makes out that Christianity is some kind of foreign invader, much how Islam is treated in the UK. Cultures will clash, but how much of this is truly a result of unethical tactics? Christianity has, after all, been present in India for at least 1500 years.
"He, the Blessed One, is indeed the Noble Lord, the Perfectly Enlightened One;
He is impeccable in conduct and understanding, the Serene One, the Knower of the Worlds;
He trains perfectly those who wish to be trained; he is Teacher of gods and men; he is Awake and Holy. "
--------------------------------------------
"The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One,
Apparent here and now, timeless, encouraging investigation,
Leading to liberation, to be experienced individually by the wise. "
He is impeccable in conduct and understanding, the Serene One, the Knower of the Worlds;
He trains perfectly those who wish to be trained; he is Teacher of gods and men; he is Awake and Holy. "
--------------------------------------------
"The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One,
Apparent here and now, timeless, encouraging investigation,
Leading to liberation, to be experienced individually by the wise. "
Re: Predatory Proselytism
Ah, the fictionality of dialogue ...Kim O'Hara wrote:Great story! And it illustrates very neatly the root of the problem: any religious belief (Buddhism included!), sincerely and deeply held, trumps all other allegiances and all rational discourse.
Discourse between people of different faiths is possible (and I think it's desirable, as most of us would agree) but it is only possible to those who are prepared to acknowledge that their religion may be incomplete or incorrect on some points, or at least not the only path. That's pretty easy for Buddhists but cuts other beliefs to the core.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: Predatory Proselytism
Huh?binocular wrote:Ah, the fictionality of dialogue ...Kim O'Hara wrote:Great story! And it illustrates very neatly the root of the problem: any religious belief (Buddhism included!), sincerely and deeply held, trumps all other allegiances and all rational discourse.
Discourse between people of different faiths is possible (and I think it's desirable, as most of us would agree) but it is only possible to those who are prepared to acknowledge that their religion may be incomplete or incorrect on some points, or at least not the only path. That's pretty easy for Buddhists but cuts other beliefs to the core.
A few more words may help us know what you want to say ...
Kim
Re: Predatory Proselytism
Often, when people summon to "dialogue," what they actually mean is 'I want you to listen to me and do as I say.' But this isn't PC to say flat out, so they talk about the importance of dialogue and open-mindedness and tolerance etc.
Hence the fictionality of dialogue.
Hence the fictionality of dialogue.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!