Hello, What "tirade"?

Your entire post was a tirade. Let me refresh your memory.

I am so dissappointed in them.

Are Christians the only religious people you are dissappointed in? Do Muslims, Jews, or Buddhists behave any better or worse AS A WHOLE? Certainly there are no hypocrites to be found in any religion except Christianity, by the tone of your post.

If only Christians would behave as their Master asks. But this is the problem, they do not, in the main, and moreover, are often in your face about it

And if self-satisfied Buddhists would not be so condescending to the "unenlightened," we might actually have a dialogue here, instead of endless bouts of finger-pointing.

They knock on your door, invite you to pray with them in their way, of course, witness for Jesus, then condemn you for not following him

I have invited many of these evangelists into my home, and in spite of my not sharing their beliefs, I've yet to have a single one condemn me. Perhaps it's because I am respectful of THEIR beliefs. You get back the same attitude you offer in most cases.

When I share my point of view and faith practices with them, they get a little white in the face and can't seem to wait until they are out the door, informing me on their way that I am going to eternal damnation. Yeppers, just the sort of thing that wins hearts and minds.

I think this sentence demonstrates exactly why you get so little out of these encounters. You invite them in not to hear what THEY have to say, but to educate them about YOUR (presumeably superior) belief system. Obviously you aren't interested in their Christian beliefs, and feel you already know enough about them to have made your decision, so why do you rudely waste their time if you aren't trying to accomplish a little converting of your own?

On the other hand, I welcome people of all faiths to my Zen Center and Temple.

Do you not see your own self-righteous condescention in this statement? Let me break it down for you, then. You are simply saying "I am BETTER than them because I do such and such, while THEY do this and that." I thought Buddhists were supposed to be modest and unassuming, not considering themselves to be superior to ANY other living being, but your every statement shouts just that, "My beliefs are more advanced than yours, I am therefore superior to you." Besides, no self-respecting Christian would be visiting such a temple in the first place.

My granddaughter, much to my dismay, is being schooled at a Baptist church school.

Why dismayed? Because your feel YOUR beliefs are superior, that's why.

I felt good about this until I opened it to see that it was a manual on how to approach Buddhists to show them the fallacy of their faith and to convert them to the "one, true faith."

Like it or not, that IS part of their doctrine, they are simply following the tenets of their faith.

Poison right there in church.

Of course, this isn't over the top. Poison? You claim you posted no tirade yet compare their teachings to poison.

Our library, and I chance to say, all Buddhist libraries would not contain such a book about approaching Christians. In fact, some of the Dalai Lama's works, as well as Thich Nhat Hahn's say to the contrary, stay with your faith, deepen it, do not convert to Buddhism! I say the same at Zen Center.

This is a disingenuous remark at best. Buddhism is not a faith at all, at least not in the traditional sense. You have no "God" to worship, so of course it's ok to let people stay with their faith. Do you suggest that Christians do the same? Allow anyone with any belief system at all believe that they will be "saved" as long as they are a "good person?" They cannot rewrite their entire dogma to suit you, and whether YOU (or assholes like Icononclast) like it or not, or think it fair and proper, it is what it is. Why can't you respect that? Or is your respect only offered to those who respect YOUR beliefs?

The only thing worse than a sanctimonious, self-righteous Christian is a sanctimonious, self-righteous Buddhist.

To use a quote from the Poisonous Book itself, "Remove the beam from your own eye before worrying about the mote in someone else's."

And DO meditate on humility. You definitely need some work in that area.

Considering your user name and some of the words in your post which I've quoted, I think you're the perv.

And here I thought the name was just humorous.

Hell of a comeback, Iconoclast! Ranks right up there with "neener neener neener." Them again, one could hardly expect a REAL argument from such a narrow-minded, hateul peabrain such as yourself.

such a narrow-minded, hateul peabrain such as yourself.

Yes, I hate everybody. Not just Christians. Especially immature dumbasses like yourself.

Certainly there are no hypocrites to be found in any religion except Christianity, by the tone of your post.

Exactly why all religions are bullshit.

I have invited many of these evangelists into my home, and in spite of my not sharing their beliefs, I've yet to have a single one condemn me.

Probably because you share some of their beliefs or else you wouldn't be arguing against those of us who don't.

Besides, no self-respecting Christian would be visiting such a temple in the first place.

Why not? Because they don't respect any religion but their own?

Hell of a comeback, Iconoclast! Ranks right up there with "neener neener neener."

It's necessary so you can understand.

Or is your respect only offered to those who respect YOUR beliefs?

Look in the mirror.

And here I thought the name was just humorous

That's because you're an idiot.

And here I thought the name was just humorous

That's because you're an immature idiot.

Buddhism is not a faith at all, at least not in the traditional sense.

Not in the western world. Talk about narrow-minded.

Dick, you created your JU account a year ago and you haven't written one article. This is what you consider a contribution?

BTW. You should start using a spell checker.

Your entire post was a tirade. Let me refresh your memory.

With palms tgether, Hello Dick, Let me see if I can reply to each of your thoughts here. The title of this post was "Why so hard on Christians? I am not quite sure how I or anyone else could reply without answering the question.

Are Christians the only religious people you are dissappointed in? Do Muslims, Jews, or Buddhists behave any better or worse AS A WHOLE? Certainly there are no hypocrites to be found in any religion except Christianity, by the tone of your post.

No, of course not. But the post did not ask about other faiths followers, it specifically addressed Christians. I am dissappointed in any practitioner who fails to practice. But I am also there to encourage them as well. I wish all Christians, Jews, and Muslims to be the best they can be. Yet, we do live in a diverse world, like it or not, and we must share the planet. Sharing requires a certain amount of respect, boundaries, if you will. A person's right to belief stops at another person's door. As to Buddhists, it would be difficultr to be a Buddhist "hypocrite, I think, as Buddhists have no "beliefs" to violate and if we do violate a precept, we do not see that violation in quite the same way as the Judea-Christian tradition tends to see ot or that of the Muslim faith. We see it as a mistake, that's all, a mistake that should be corrected with practice.

And if self-satisfied Buddhists would not be so condescending to the "unenlightened," we might actually have a dialogue here, instead of endless bouts of finger-pointing.

I am not sure what you are saying here. I believe all human beings are enlightened. If you are thinking that I am "self-satisfied" I am sure if you knew me you would find that most humorous.

I have invited many of these evangelists into my home, and in spite of my not sharing their beliefs, I've yet to have a single one condemn me. Perhaps it's because I am respectful of THEIR beliefs. You get back the same attitude you offer in most cases.

This is remarkable. I am happy for you. I, however, have no "attitude" I am recounting actual events solicited by the post.

I think this sentence demonstrates exactly why you get so little out of these encounters. You invite them in not to hear what THEY have to say, but to educate them about YOUR (presumeably superior) belief system. Obviously you aren't interested in their Christian beliefs, and feel you already know enough about them to have made your decision, so why do you rudely waste their time if you aren't trying to accomplish a little converting of your own?

Most interesting. It is my home they have knocked on the door of. They have come to witness and attempt to bring me to their point of view. A dialogue about my point of view is considered bad manners? You are correct, I am ndecidedly not interested in their Christian beliefs. I am interested in them as people. Like Christians, I took vows when I became a monk, to save all sentient beings. How genuine would this be if when those very beings were in my living room would I not offer them an alternative view? The difference between Christian proslytizing and Buddhist's is simple. A Buddhist offers only a way when asked, not a condemnation when refused.

Do you not see your own self-righteous condescention in this statement? Let me break it down for you, then. You are simply saying "I am BETTER than them because I do such and such, while THEY do this and that." I thought Buddhists were supposed to be modest and unassuming, not considering themselves to be superior to ANY other living being, but your every statement shouts just that, "My beliefs are more advanced than yours, I am therefore superior to you." Besides, no self-respecting Christian would be visiting such a temple in the first place.

I do not consider myself to be anything at all. Nothing. Buddhists are many things. I can see how you might think what you do. I am only offering an example to address the question. At the same time showing how it could be otherwise. You see this as a show of superiority. I do not. I see My granddaughtit as a demonstration of behaving without judgement. I never suggested that my way is better, this is your assumption which you are adding to the situation.

Why dismayed? Because your feel YOUR beliefs are superior, that's why.

How rude. I love my granddaughter dearly and do not want her to be raised in this faith. I do not believe my faith is superior, it is just different, but its differences are important. I am dismayed because of all the things I have outlined above. These are not fictions, they are recountings of actual experiences. I do not wish my granddaughter to be raised to think this way, as a grandparent I have this right. Of course, the mother has her rights as well, and I must respect that. Therein lies the rub, eh?

Like it or not, that IS part of their doctrine, they are simply following the tenets of their faith.

No arguement here.

Of course, this isn't over the top. Poison? You claim you posted no tirade yet compare their teachings to poison.

Dick, in Zen Buddhism, we believe there are three poisons: greed, hatred, and delusion. Attempting to convert someone is an act of greed. Condeming them for not converting is an act of hate. Seeing them as somehow apart from you in the first place is an act of delusion (seeing with dualistic eyes). It is hardly a tirade to address one teaching with another.

This is a disingenuous remark at best. Buddhism is not a faith at all, at least not in the traditional sense. You have no "God" to worship, so of course it's ok to let people stay with their faith. Do you suggest that Christians do the same? Allow anyone with any belief system at all believe that they will be "saved" as long as they are a "good person?" They cannot rewrite their entire dogma to suit you, and whether YOU (or assholes like Icononclast) like it or not, or think it fair and proper, it is what it is. Why can't you respect that? Or is your respect only offered to those who respect YOUR beliefs? The only thing worse than a sanctimonious, self-righteous Christian is a sanctimonious, self-righteous Buddhist. To use a quote from the Poisonous Book itself, "Remove the beam from your own eye before worrying about the mote in someone else's." And DO meditate on humility. You definitely need some work in that area.

From a western theistic perspective you are correct. But western theism is not the only religious point of view in the universe. Zen Buddhism has no God, nor does it not have a God. I suggest that Christians honor boundaries of good manners, keep their faith close to them, honor their God, and act more like Jesus, except when he lost his cool in the Temple gardens.I believe we get along when we have a sincere desire to do so. This means we approach people as friends and not as potential converts. When living in a free, pluralist, country, I most certainly can ask them to rewrite their dogma to conform to our law.

Dick, in reading the rest of this, I confess I am saddened. You throw very hurtful words at me without having much of a clue as to who I am. You have read into my post things that ate not there, at least intentionally, and then respond to what you think is there. I am hardly sanctimonious. I am just an old priest. Nice quote. An important Teaching.

Do I believe Zen is superior? Of course. As Master Dogen suggests, this practice is good for al people. I have practiced Zen most of my life and find its practice deeply centering. It has helped me cope with combat, paralysis, child abuse, poverty, alcoholism of my father, and many other ills. Do I think others should become Zen Buddhists? Only if they are not finding what they need from an honest approach to their original faith. I need no converts nor disciples.

Be well.

The title of this post was "Why so hard on Christians? I am not quite sure how I or anyone else could reply without answering the question.

Very Good.

the post did not ask about other faiths followers, it specifically addressed Christians.

Also.

It is my home they have knocked on the door of. They have come to witness and attempt to bring me to their point of view.

Even better.

You are correct, I am ndecidedly not interested in their Christian beliefs.

Then why invite them in at all? You answer this question here, of course:

Like Christians, I took vows when I became a monk, to save all sentient beings. How genuine would this be if when those very beings were in my living room would I not offer them an alternative view?

Save them from what? From believing in the God of their choosing, and offering to share those beliefs with you?

A Buddhist offers only a way when asked, not a condemnation when refused

A contradiction so large I can scarcely believe you can't see it yourself. These door knockers are not asking you for a way, they believe they've already found it and are generously offering to share that information with you. As far as condemnation goes, they are simply repeating Scripture, it sounds to me that since you personally find that offensive, you feel they shouldnt be saying it.

Again I ask you, why invite them in at all? They are not seeking information about your ways, you are obviously not interested in theirs, so the entire encounter is bound to be upsetting to all involved.

You feel an obligation to "save them." (your own words.) They feel an obligation to "save you."

In my opinion, there's little difference between the two of you. Are you not proselytizing with these very posts? The only difference is that they go door to door. And you can ALWAYS say, "No thank you, I am not interested."

I promise, they will go away with out condemning you at that point, since this seems to be what bothers you the most. Take that issue up with the various people who authored the Bible then, not the door-knockers, for they are powerless to change this tenet of the faith in question.

And no, grandparents do NOT have the "right" to dictate the faith in which a child is raised unless they are raising that child themselves. With your obviously anti-Christian attitude, you should consider yourself lucky to be allowed to spend time with the child at all.

Dick, you created your JU account a year ago and you haven't written one article. This is what you consider a contribution?BTW. You should start using a spell checker

You are indeed a humorless, nasty little troll, and I will pray for your soul just because it annoys you.

My account here is my business, and I will write an "article" when I feel like it.

And you should learn to recognize the difference between a typo and a spelling error.

So there! Take that! Neener!

What religious person doesn't pick and choose Bible verses? Not you, Gid or Baker? Bullshit.

Icono,

You do not know me. Do NOT pretend to. I was being polite in my response.

Interesting that in that entire post of mine, you could only find one sentence of 3 words to disagree with and Baker could use to call me asinine.

I found more. I only COMMENTED on that one sentence. I'm trying to keep the conversation civil and respect your point of view, even though I disagree, a courtesy you seem unwilling to extend to me.

And you should learn to recognize the difference between a typo and a spelling error.

Basically the same thing. A spell checker can correct either.

I'm trying to keep the conversation civil and respect your point of view, even though I disagree, a courtesy you seem unwilling to extend to me.

You're right, Gid. I apologize.

Save them from what? From believing in the God of their choosing, and offering to share those beliefs with you?

I thought it was supposed to be the same God.

they believe they've already found it and are generously offering to share that information with you.

Because they think their way is the only way.

I thought it was supposed to be the same God.

Obviously, your reading comprehension skills are about as sharp as your intellectual capacity.

Zen Buddhism has no God, nor does it not have a God.

Think again, if you're able, Icon, I won't be engaging you again on this topic. Just beware of those chips on your shoulder, they can get awful heavy after a while. Luckily for the rest of us, they're your burden to carry, not ours.

Obviously, your reading comprehension skills are about as sharp as your intellectual capacity.

So you believe in more than one God? You're a pagan.

Save them from what? From believing in the God of their choosing, and offering to share those beliefs with you?

Hello Again, Dick, Interesting you should ask. Save, in this case, means "assist" or "help" 'bring to the other shore.' In Buddhism a metaphor for becoming awake, that is to see with non-dualistic eyes. It is not a matter of belief, but of clarity of perception. Their God is the same as my God; God is One, afterall, not two, belief in him is the choice.

A contradiction so large I can scarcely believe you can't see it yourself. These door knockers are not asking you for a way, they believe they've already found it and are generously offering to share that information with you. As far as condemnation goes, they are simply repeating Scripture, it sounds to me that since you personally find that offensive, you feel they shouldnt be saying it. Again I ask you, why invite them in at all? They are not seeking information about your ways, you are obviously not interested in theirs, so the entire encounter is bound to be upsetting to all involved. You feel an obligation to "save them." (your own words.) They feel an obligation to "save you." In my opinion, there's little difference between the two of you. Are you not proselytizing with these very posts? The only difference is that they go door to door. And you can ALWAYS say, "No thank you, I am not interested." I promise, they will go away with out condemning you at that point, since this seems to be what bothers you the most. Take that issue up with the various people who authored the Bible then, not the door-knockers, for they are powerless to change this tenet of the faith in question. And no, grandparents do NOT have the "right" to dictate the faith in which a child is raised unless they are raising that child themselves. With your obviously anti-Christian attitude, you should consider yourself lucky to be allowed to spend time with the child at all.

Careful Dick, you are making my point for me. It would seem you are suggesting that a non-Christian is "lucky" to be "allowed" to visit a grandchild. How very tolerant of you. As to the "contradiction" I believe it is in yur mind. I accept the door knockers, as you call them, are acting out of generosity of spirit. I see that their faith requires this door knocking of them. Neither is the problem. The problem comes in the conversation, which by definition, is a two way interaction. With many, if not most such door knockers, there is no conversation. Overtime, as you suggest, I have learned not to invite most of them in. As an aside, I have had on two occassions Christians come to my Zen Center and during my Dharma talk insist that I come to Jesus to save my soul. I have never, nor would I ever consider such a rude affront as to go to their Church and interrupt their service with such statements.

As to my presence on this blog, you may choose to read or not read my posts, most of which are in the religion section. They are not there to attract converts, Buddhists do not "convert" people in the same sense as Christians, Jews, or Muslims do. My posts are simply statements of my practice and information about Zen itself.

Be well.

And that in itself is the problem. Tolerance only really works when neither side can impose its views on the other. As long as the possibility of doing so still exists, then tolerance is not "needed". And in the modern western world, where these disagreements lead to electoral battles rather than bloody conflicts, that 'need' for tolerance is less keenly felt. Having forgotten the origins of tolerance as a kind of necessary truce, it is instead bandied about today as a 'noble idea', in which guise it doesn't seem to work quite so well.

Dear Chak, could you elaborate on this a bit? I fear I am losing your point. Thank you.

So you believe in more than one God? You're a pagan.

Did I say that? LoL, I have not stated my own personal beliefs here, so my original assessment of your reading comprehension skills stands.

Obviously, your reading comprehension skills are about as sharp as your intellectual capacity.

And just for your edification, you intellectual infant, "pagan" is usually used to define ANY pre-Christian belief system or religion, whether that be ancient Judaism, the Egyptian's worship of Ra, or the Native American's or Hindu's worship of multiple Gods. I'll leave you to guess at my beliefs, many things are hidden for good reason, and you're an excellent demonstration of why that has to be.

And Sodaiho, I never said that I myself would prevent you from seeing a grandchild due to a difference of religious beliefs, if you go back to my first comment here you'll see where I stand on that. I simply don't care, each will find his/her own path or they wont. The difference between you and I is that I don't give a flying fig whether others follow MY path or not, and as a matter of fact, I'd be the last one to reveal it to them.

I was just pointing out that if the mother or father of that child is a Baptist, you should consider yourself lucky that they permit you any contact at all. That doesn't necessarily mean I agree with the practice of alienating family members who hold "different" beliefs.

Having forgotten the origins of tolerance as a kind of necessary truce, it is instead bandied about today as a 'noble idea', in which guise it doesn't seem to work quite so well.

It works in some places, but I it does require an extremely secular society. It seems to work fairly well in Oz; even at the height of the global anti-Islam push there were only a few incidents.

And just for your edification, you intellectual infant, "pagan" is usually used to define ANY pre-Christian belief system or religion, whether that be ancient Judaism, the Egyptian's worship of Ra, or the Native American's or Hindu's worship of multiple Gods.

Really? That's not common in any variant of English that I'm aware of. Jews are usually excluded as they are a monotheistic faith. Where does pagan include Judaism? Is it a regional US usage?

#45 by Dick Gozinya Monday, April 24, 2006

I knew you would take the bait and respond after you said you wouldn't, little boy. aaaaahahahahahahahahaha.

I won't be engaging you again on this topic

Dear Chak, could you elaborate on this a bit? I fear I am losing your point. Thank you.

Gladly, and I'll try to be clearer. The word tolerance is being used a lot here and it seems to mean at least two different things.

My little historical diversion was to show that tolerance (originally religious tolerance, but with other kinds following in its wake) came about as a kind of truce in an unwinnable struggle. This is a tolerance where you agree to a minimum of civilty and social co-operation towards people whose beliefs, morality and lifestyle you really don't like, but you have (wisely) given up trying to change by force. Although we take this for granted today, it was at the time an immensely original thought; in previous societies almost everyone shared the same beliefs, morality and social ethos - and if they didn't they were in trouble.

Tolerance however is also being used here as a kind of code word for agreeing with the other person's point of view; indeed it is being proposed (unrealistically) as the litmus test of 'tolerance'. The fact remains that, at a political and social level, people still have very strong opinions on what is right for society as a whole and struggle in the political arena to get society to accept those ideas. We are very fortunate that in the contemporary western world that struggle is carried out through a system of free democratic elections and through forums such as this, rather than through armed struggle.

Because it appears that these struggles are winnable (banning or allowing abortion, permitting or not permitting gay marriage, cutting or not cutting taxes etc) through the ballot box with a minimum of blood spilt, it is not clear what the rhetoric of 'tolerance' has to do with this process. 'Conservatives' and 'Liberals' (as right and left are called in America) will each try to mould or re-mould society as they believe it ought to be, and sometimes its hard to see what kind of compromise is possible in this process.

It works in some places, but I it does require an extremely secular society

This is a good point, and it is important to remember that a 'secular society' does not have to mean a society whose individual members are without religious belief. Take as a very good example the vision for their new republic of America's Founding Fathers.

The difference between you and I is that I don't give a flying fig whether others follow MY path or not, and as a matter of fact, I'd be the last one to reveal it to them.

Would your path be 'chaos magick' by any chance?

Cactoblasta: Here are the commonly accepted definitions of PAGAN.

1)One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion.
2)One who has no religion.
3)A non-Christian.
4)A hedonist.
5)A Neo-Pagan.
6)A person who does not acknowledge your God.

It seems we are both correct.

Chak:

Would your path be 'chaos magick' by any chance?

Never heard of that, but it does sound intriguing!