When Buddhist and Christian relatives meet ... conflict
-
Originally posted by dragon_stone:
if science can explained everything, then who would believed in the creator? looks like science is beginning to explain a lot of things...example; clonings, artificial insemination, genetic modified foods and plants etc...so scary sometimes...
Why scary? Shld be good what..
Anyway, Buddhism does *Not* believe in Creatorism. There is no creator. If you are interested, I can refer you to the story of Buddha and the Maha Brahma, who claimed to be God.
Cloning is perfectly fine too, as long as there is a high level of morality involved. Of course there are other issues such as, who is going to take care of the cloned child -- does he have parents? But cloning by itself is fine.
When you clone a person, it's just the same bodies that are cloned, the mindstream is different. I am not the same person as my clone if I ever get a clone. Just like twins may have same appearances but are each different mindstream and can have different personalities.
Genetically modified foods and plants are also fine, though what side effects we do not know. But so far there has not been any cases as far as I know of negative effects from GM food.
It seems only the Theistic, Judeo-Christian religions that believe in a personal Creator have problems with that. Buddhism as a non-theistic teaching has no problems, and would welcome such developments as long as they bring more benefits than harm.
-
True, clones can have vastly different destinies too as karmic seeds within each store consciousness could be vastly different. And it will be very interesting to study what affinity there is between the clone and original person ... probably similar to parent-child affinity??
-
I posted this before regarding the notion of a Creator:
First of all Buddhism does not accept the Judeo-Christian or other theistic religions' idea that there is a personal Creator, means the Old Testament kind of God that has a personality of its own.. and you can actually meet him up for coffee
. If there is a personal Creator it brings a lot of questions into mind. Therefore, Albert Einstein said,
"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity"
and..
“If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.”
Regarding the question of Personal God in Buddhism,Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Slightly edited from the first topic in our forum regarding Creationism: How the Brahma believed He was God?
In Buddha's days there were many many different teachings, one popular one was Brahmanism. In fact the Brahma was still worshipped nowadays. Brahma was known to be "The Supreme One, the All-mighty, the All-seeing, the Ruler, the Lord of all, the Maker, the Creator, the Chief of All".
In Buddhism, the Mahabrahma resides in the 1st Jhana plane, the first plane among the 8 jhanic planes. There were higher realms above where he lives that he was unaware of, and above it all, beyond the 8 Jhanic planes and all Samsaric planes, is Nirvana. Nevertheless all the devas below the 1st Jhana planes considered him as the Creator God. Buddha did not subscribe to the belief of such a notion that the Universe and its Inhabitants were the Creation of the Mahabrahma. He met with the Brahma, asked him questions which he could not answer. Eventually he has taken refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha.
The Buddha was also known to have said this,
If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why does he order such misfortune
If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why prevail deceit, lies and ignorance
And he such inequity and injustice create?
If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Then an evil master is he, (O Aritta)
Knowing what's right did let wrong prevail!
When the previous universe was destroyed and this universe was formed, the Mahabrahma was first to be reborn. Other subsequent brahmas/devas were to be reborn.
'On this, brethren, the one who was first reborn thinks thus to himself: " I am Brahmà, the Great Brahmà, the Supreme One, the Mighty, the All-seeing, the Ruler, the Lord of all, the Maker, the Creator, the Chief of all, appointing to each his place, the Ancient of days the Father of all that are and are to be. 'These other beings are of my creation. And why is that so? A while ago I thought, 'Would that they might come!' And on my mental aspiration, behold the beings came." DN 1 2:5
In reality, the universe works by the law of Karma and he has no control over the system of karma.
The Venerable Ledi Sayadaw, a highly renowned Myanmar scholar-monk of the first part of this century, gave a careful analysis of the powers of Maha Brahma in his Niyama Dipani (MB pp. 138-39). He states that although Maha Brahma can perform all sorts of transformations, he cannot actually create independent creatures, change the kammic law of cause and effect, or keep anyone from growing old or dying. Brahma can use his special powers to transport a man to the brahma plane for a short visit, but he cannot ensure that someone will be reborn there.
from http://www.jenchen.org.sg/vol5no3f.htm:
When he came to know about Sakyamuni Buddha in the human world who speaks of the universal truth, he was curious and arrived at the human world with the intention to debate with the Buddha. The Buddha, with his ability to know another's mind, knew his intention and asked, "You claim to be the creator of the human race and all things in the universe, is this a fact?"
The king replied, "Yes, it is."
Buddha continued to question him, "Since you created life, why did you also create death? Is death created by you too?"
The king paused for while, and thinking that everyone loves life and nobody welcomes death, he replied, "I did not create death."
Buddha asked him again, "All human beings experience sickness, did you create sickness also?" The king knew that nobody likes to be ill, and he replied, "I did not create illness."
Buddha asked many questions in succession, but the king denied that he created them. Eventually, he admitted that he did not create the universe and all things in it, and certainly not the human race. The king of heavens was full of regrets and he felt ashamed. Finally, he accepted Buddha as his teacher and invited Him to spread the Dharma in the heavens.(continued below)
http://www.mahindarama.com/e-library/whybuddhism2.html
"To those who talked about the first cause of this world, the Buddha responded by saying that it is impossible to find a first cause since everything is changing, interdependent and conditioned by other things. Something that acts as the cause in the present may become the effect in the future. Later that same effect may again become the cause. Such phenomenon continues ad infinitum. It is called the universal law of Anicca or impermanency.”
However, Buddhism is largely Agnostic rather than Atheist. We believe that pondering over such things brings no benefits at all to our spiritual practice, enlightenment, and liberation from samsara.
Kinds of speech to be avoided by contemplatives
"Whereas some priests and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to talking about lowly topics such as these -- talking about kings, robbers, ministers of state; armies, alarms, and battles; food and drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, and scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women and heroes; the gossip of the street and the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity [philosophical discussions of the past and future], the creation of the world and of the sea, and talk of whether things exist or not -- he abstains from talking about lowly topics such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue.
"Whereas some priests and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to debates such as these -- 'You understand this doctrine and discipline? I'm the one who understands this doctrine and discipline. How could you understand this doctrine and discipline? You're practicing wrongly. I'm practicing rightly. I'm being consistent. You're not. What should be said first you said last. What should be said last you said first. What you took so long to think out has been refuted. Your doctrine has been overthrown. You're defeated. Go and try to salvage your doctrine; extricate yourself if you can!' -- he abstains from debates such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue."
-- DN 2
Ten wholesome topics of conversation
"There are these ten topics of [proper] conversation. Which ten? Talk on modesty, on contentment, on seclusion, on non-entanglement, on arousing persistence, on virtue, on concentration, on discernment, on release, and on the knowledge & vision of release. These are the ten topics of conversation. If you were to engage repeatedly in these ten topics of conversation, you would outshine even the sun & moon, so mighty, so powerful -- to say nothing of the wanderers of other sects."
-- AN X.69
-------
"Malunkhyaputta Sutta stresses that whether the universe was created or uncreated, finite or infinite, is irrelevant to our main spiritual concerns: the cause and cessation of suffering:
"Therefore Malunkhyaputta, bear the undeclared as undeclared. Malunkhyaputta, what are the not declared? The world is eternal, is not declared by me. The world is not eternal, is not declared by me. They are not essential for the principles of the holy life, they do not lead to turning away, to detachment, to cessation, to appeasement, to realisation, to enlightenment and to extinction. Malunkhyaputta, what are the declared by me? This, is unpleasant, is declared. This, is its arising, is declared. This, is its cessation is declared. This is the path to its cessation, is declared. Malunkhyaputta, why are these declared by me? These are the essentials for the principles of the holy life; they lead to turning away, to detachment, to cessation, to appeasement, to realisation, to enlightenment and to extinction. Malunkhyaputta, I declare them." MN 64"Therefore in Buddhism, the question of God is irrelevant and not given importance. Instead, like a scientist, the Buddha encouraged the Buddhist practitioners to find out for themselves the truths that the Buddha said, to put it to test, and to see for ourselves, and to get enlightened. Buddhism does not encourage any blind belief and dogmas (see Kalama Sutra), and also encourages analytical questioning -- whether this teaching actually helps us.
Kalama Sutra
"Rely not on the teacher/person, but on the teaching. Rely not on the words of the teaching, but on the
spirit of the words. Rely not on theory, but on experience.Do not believe in anything simply because you
have heard it. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. Do
not believe anything because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything because it is
written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and
elders. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is
conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
- the Buddha
Note: this is just a summary, please read the entire sutra here: http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/resources/kalama_sutra.htmlThere are countless enlightened persons from Buddha's times till today, some of them even posting in this forum (not me), who have awakened to the ultimate reality and seen for themselves the truths that the Buddha taught. Beliefs in divine etc are not important and irrelevant in Buddhism, Buddhism being a man-centered (means having great love and compassion for all sentient being, as well as to practise for one's own spiritual development) rather than God-centered teaching, which is a reason why it is the only religion that does not have a history of having fought religious wars, --
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
No fanaticism
Of Buddhism alone can it be affirmed it is free from all fanaticism. Its aim being to produce in every man a thorough internal transforming by self-conquest, how can it have recourse to might or money or even persuasion for effecting conversion? The Buddha has only shown the way to salvation, and it is left to each individual to decide for himself if he would follow it.
- Prof. Lakshmi Narasu, "The Essence of Buddhism" -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
I posted this before regarding the notion of a Creator:
First of all Buddhism does not accept the Judeo-Christian or other theistic religions' idea that there is a personal Creator, means the Old Testament kind of God that has a personality of its own.. and you can actually meet him up for coffee
. If there is a personal Creator it brings a lot of questions into mind. Therefore, Albert Einstein said,
"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity"
and..
“If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.”
Regarding the question of Personal God in Buddhism,Therefore in Buddhism, the question of God is irrelevant and not given importance. Instead, like a scientist, the Buddha encouraged the Buddhist practitioners to find out for themselves the truths that the Buddha said, to put it to test, and to see for ourselves, and to get enlightened. Buddhism does not encourage any blind belief and dogmas (see Kalama Sutra), and also encourages analytical questioning -- whether this teaching actually helps us.
There are countless enlightened persons from Buddha's times till today, some of them even posting in this forum (not me), who have awakened to the ultimate reality and seen for themselves the truths that the Buddha taught. Beliefs in divine etc are not important and irrelevant in Buddhism, Buddhism being a man-centered (means having great love and compassion for all sentient being, as well as to practise for one's own spiritual development) rather than God-centered teaching, which is a reason why it is the only religion that does not have a history of having fought religious wars, --
"In reality, the universe works by the law of Karma and he has no control over the system of karma."
Hey, I like this phrase and thanks for the reply. I will read up more of these pages...
you know, it is hard not to believe in a creator (for some religions) but sciencists should not play god in a sense?
It is not good to go against nature, like cloning of Dolly the goat. She grown old too fast and died...
Diverting of sounthern rivers water to the north in China, cause untold naural diasters...etc...
-
Rely not on the teacher/person, but on the teaching. Rely not on the words of the teaching, but on the
spirit of the words. Rely not on theory, but on experience-> from Master Chin Kung:
佛陀在入涅槃之å‰�，特别交代å�Žå¦“å››ä¾�法”ï¼Œç”¨è¿™å››ä¸ªæ ‡å‡†è¾¨åˆ«ä½›æ³•çš„çœŸä¼ªï¼Œå”¯æ��å�Žäººè¢«äººæ¬ºéª—。å�ƒä¸‡ä¸�è¦�迷信，“这个法师å��气很大，大概没有问题ï¼�”ä½ è¦�è¿™ æ ·æƒ³ï¼Œä½ å°±é”™äº†ã€‚å��æ°”å†�大也ä¸�行，也ä¸�å�¯é� ，为什么？他是凡夫，他ä¸�是圣人。我刚æ‰�æ�¥è¿˜é�‡åˆ°ä¸€ä½�居士，å“å“啼啼的告诉我：他被人欺骗了。那个欺骗他的人， 说是净空法师弟å�，他就相信了，这个很糟糕ï¼�ä¸�è¦�说是净空法师的弟å�，我就告诉他，我身æ—�的这些人都是妖é”é¬¼æ€ªï¼Œä½ æ•¢ç›¸ä¿¡å�—？ä¸�但他们这些人ä¸�能相信，连 我也ä¸�èƒ½ç›¸ä¿¡ï¼Œä½ ä»¬è¦�相信我的è¯�ï¼Œä½ ä¹Ÿèµ°é”™è·¯ã€‚
所以佛教导我们这四ä¾�æ³•çš„æ ‡å‡†ï¼Œç¬¬ä¸€ä¸ª“ä¾�法ä¸�ä¾�人”，法是ç»�典。善导大师讲得好，善导是å”�æœ�时候人，我们净土宗第二代祖 师，ä¸�è¦�说是一般å��气大的这些人说法，我们ä¸�能相信他，è¯�得阿罗汉果的人æ�¥ç»™æˆ‘们说法，说的跟ç»�上讲的ä¸�ä¸€æ ·ï¼Œä¹Ÿä¸�能相信；è�©è�¨æ�¥è®²ç»�，法身è�©è�¨ã€�ç‰è§‰è�© è�¨æ�¥è®²ç»�，跟ç»�å…¸ä¸�相应也ä¸�能相信；佛æ�¥è®²ç»�，诸ä½�è¦�è®°ä½�，佛佛é�“å�Œï¼Œä»Šä½›æ— 异于å�¤ä½›ï¼Œè®²çš„ä¸€å®šæ˜¯ä¸€æ ·ï¼Œä»Šä½›è·Ÿå�¤ä½›è®²çš„ä¸�ä¸€æ ·ï¼Œè¿™ä¸ªä½›ä¸�æ˜¯çœŸä½›ï¼Œå¤§æ¦‚æ˜¯é” çŽ‹å�˜çŽ°çš„，æ�¥æ¬ºéª—我们的。所以一定è¦�懂得ä¾�法ä¸�ä¾�人。我们接å�—佛陀教诲，å�¯ä»¥å�‘æ³•å¸ˆè´¨ç–‘ï¼Œä½ æœ‰æ€€ç–‘çš„æ—¶å€™ï¼Œ“法师ï¼�ä½ è¿™ä¸ªè¯´æ³•æ˜¯æ ¹æ�®å“ªä¸€éƒ¨ç»�ç»�文讲的，佛 有没有说过？”ä½›è¦�没有说过，我们就ä¸�接å�—，他得有ä¾�æ�®ï¼Œä¸�是éš�éš�便便å�¯ä»¥è¯´çš„。这是说明ç»�典的é‡�è¦�，是我们唯一的ä¾�é� 。
第二æ�¡æ•™ç»™ 我们“ä¾�义ä¸�ä¾�诔，è¦�ä¾�ç»�典讲的æ„�æ€�，言è¯å¤šè¯´å°‘说ã€�深说浅说没有关系，å�ªè¦�æ„�æ€�讲得ä¸�错。这æ�¡é‡�è¦�ï¼�佛晓得。佛ç�å�Žä¸€å�ƒå¹´ï¼Œä½›ç»�ä¼ å…¥ä¸å›½ï¼Œä¼ 到ä¸å›½æ�¥ å¿…é¡»è¦�把å�°åº¦çš„梵文翻æˆ�ä¸å›½æ–‡å—，å�Œæ ·æ˜¯ä¸€ä¸ªåŽŸæœ¬ï¼Œæœ‰ç»�过ä¸�å�Œäººçš„翻译，è¬å¦‚我们在《大è—�ç»�》里é�¢çœ‹åˆ°ï¼Œã€Šé‡‘刚ç»�》 就有å…ç§�译本，原本是一个，å…个人翻译的那当然翻译的ä¸�会æ¯�个å—ã€�æ¯�一å�¥æ˜¯ä¸€æ ·çš„，这ä¸�å�¯èƒ½çš„事情ï¼�å…个本å�éƒ½ä¼ ä¸‹æ�¥äº†ï¼Œæˆ‘们到底接å�—哪个本å�？å…个本å� 都翻得ä¸�错，都翻得很好，这就是“ä¾�义ä¸�ä¾�诔，æ„�æ€�都对了。我们在å…个本å�里é�¢ä»»é€‰ä¸€æœ¬æ�¥ä¿®å¦ï¼Œéƒ½æ˜¯æ£ç¡®çš„，都没有问题。为å�Žä¸–人æ–疑生信。
第三ã€�ä¾�智ä¸�ä¾�è¯†ï¼šæ™ºæ˜¯åœ£äººçš„æ™ºæ…§ï¼Œä¹ƒä»Žæ— æˆ‘çš„å¤§æ™ºã€�å�Œä½“的大悲ä¸äº§ç”Ÿã€‚å› æ¤ï¼Œå‡¡å�«æœ‰è‡ªæˆ‘ä¸å¿ƒï¼Œä¸�论为己为人，乃至于为一切众生，或者为求æˆ�å°±æ— ä¸Šçš„ä½› é�“，ä¸�论是大我ã€�å°�我ã€�梵我和神我，个别的我与全体的我，都ä¸�能产生真æ£çš„æ™ºæ…§ï¼Œå› æ¤ä»�属于知识å�Šè®¤è¯†çš„范围。知识是从自我的å¦ä¹ ç»�验ä¸äº§ç”Ÿåˆ†åˆ«ã€�记忆ã€� 推ç�†ç‰çš„作用；而智慧则å�ªæœ‰å®¢è§‚的现象，没有主观的ä¸å¿ƒï¼›å�ªæœ‰è¿�作的功能，没有主体的ä¸å¿ƒï¼Œå¦‚果与æ¤ç›¸è¿�，就ä¸�是明师。
第四个教给我 们“ä¾�了义ä¸�ä¾�ä¸�了义”。这å�¥è¯�é�žå¸¸é�žå¸¸é‡�è¦�ï¼�什么å�«äº†ä¹‰ï¼Ÿä»€ä¹ˆå�«ä¸�了义？最简å�•çš„说法，对我现å‰�有利益的，就是了义。这个ç»�å†�好ã€�å†�æ·±ã€�å†�广，我å¦äº†ç”¨ ä¸�上，这å�«ä¸�了义，就是现在人所讲的“所å¦é�žæ‰€ç”¨”，这就是ä¸�了义；å¦äº†ç«‹åˆ»å°±ç®¡ç”¨ï¼Œå¦äº†ç«‹åˆ»å°±å¾—好处，这å�«äº†ä¹‰ã€‚好处里é�¢æœ€æ®Šèƒœçš„是脱离å…é�“轮回，这å�« 真实了义ã€�究竟了义。如果我们å¦äº†è¿™éƒ¨ç»�典，这个ç»�å…¸ä¸�能帮助我们脱离三界å…é�“，å¦äº†ä¹‹å�Žè¿˜è¦�æ�žå…é�“轮回，这就ä¸�了义。 -
practise what you preach?
-
Originally posted by dragon_stone:
if science can explained everything, then who would believed in the creator? looks like science is beginning to explain a lot of things...example; clonings, artificial insemination, genetic modified foods and plants etc...so scary sometimes...
There are still people who believe the world is flat despite the scientific evidence.
There are people who deny evolution.
There are people to believe that if you use a vibrating belt, it can jiggle away your fats.
People will believe anything.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Genetically modified foods and plants are also fine, though what side effects we do not know. But so far there has not been any cases as far as I know of negative effects from GM food.
It seems only the Theistic, Judeo-Christian religions that believe in a personal Creator have problems with that. Buddhism as a non-theistic teaching has no problems, and would welcome such developments as long as they bring more benefits than harm.
GM Food; see link http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/health/view/331620/1/.html
and its getting more scary by the day...
-
Originally posted by dragon_stone:
GM Food; see link http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/health/view/331620/1/.html
and its getting more scary by the day...
What about this is scary? Pigs turning flourescent or using pigs to breed organ? -
Originally posted by Beyond Religion:
What about this is scary? Pigs turning flourescent or using pigs to breed organ?we are tampering with nature and making pigs flourescent so much so that they could not sleep
(just joking)But seriously, this is in experimental stage, wonder what would effect to the pigs with the modified genes. Pigs are breed as in the food chain.
Can they still be considered as food?
Will they have any effect on human (after consumption)?
Can the modified pigs[say; before slaughter] live as normal (eating, walking etc...)?
-
Originally posted by dragon_stone:
we are tampering with nature and making pigs flourescent so much so that they could not sleep
(just joking)But seriously, this is in experimental stage, wonder what would effect to the pigs with the modified genes. Pigs are breed as in the food chain.
Can they still be considered as food?
Will they have any effect on human (after consumption)?
Can the modified pigs[say; before slaughter] live as normal (eating, walking etc...)?
If the relevant scientific research progress well, no pigs (or other animals for that matter) will ever have to die in order for humans to eat meat.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat
As a Buddhist, I have no problems tampering nature as long as that is beneficial to all beings.
-
Originally posted by Beyond Religion:
If the relevant scientific research progress well, no pigs (or other animals for that matter) will ever have to die in order for humans to eat meat.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat
As a Buddhist, I have no problems tampering nature as long as that is beneficial to all beings.
here is an interesting link http://www.i-sis.org.uk/index.php about GM food which we all should be aware of.
Sg food authorities are not going to labelled GM food when it is on sale at supermarkets or over the counters. We have not understand the effects, if any, of these foods at the present moments. There could be risks...
-
Originally posted by dragon_stone:
here is an interesting link http://www.i-sis.org.uk/index.php about GM food which we all should be aware of.
Sg food authorities are not going to labelled GM food when it is on sale at supermarkets or over the counters. We have not understand the effects, if any, of these foods at the present moments. There could be risks...
As with any new invention, there most certainly will be risks. When the aircraft was first invented, it is a filmsy deathtrap made of canvas and wood, but thanks to the relentlessness of the inventors, you and I can zip around the globe today with contemptuous ease.Again, if scienists back then took the attitude that it is against nature (or God's will) to fly, we will not be living in the world we know today. As a matter of fact, if all of mankind took this belief, we still would be living in medieval times (where non believers like me will be strung up and burnt at the stake
and with the God-loving crowd jeering on)The important thing is that the mere possibility of risks should not preclude us from undertaking a scientific research for the betterment of all beings, and to perfect the technique and also striving to eliminate any risks inherent in any new invention.
-
Originally posted by Beyond Religion:
As with any new invention, there most certainly will be risks. When the aircraft was first invented, it is a filmsy deathtrap made of canvas and wood, but thanks to the relentlessness of the inventors, you and I can zip around the globe today with contemptuous ease.Again, if scienists back then took the attitude that it is against nature (or God's will) to fly, we will not be living in the world we know today. As a matter of fact, if all of mankind took this belief, we still would be living in medieval times (where non believers like me will be strung up and burnt at the stake
and with the God-loving crowd jeering on)The important thing is that the mere possibility of risks should not preclude us from undertaking a scientific research for the betterment of all beings, and to perfect the technique and also striving to eliminate any risks inherent in any new invention.
Yeah, since when did the christian message of believe or die get to Asia untill the end of Qing dynasty? -
Hi to all,
First of all, I'm a catholic..
I can understand some of you going thru with all the awkardness discussing christianity or being"preached" by yr relatives or friends who in their newly found religion.or being christians for a very long time. . This is so when are very enthusiatic or zealously want to share with you. While it is ok to share with.anyone as we are called to "witness" our faith to others, we have to be sensitive to others..
By being sensitive.. means witnessing at the right time and the right place.. It also means do it with gentleness, love and care.. in short a "holistic approach"
Thru our actions i.e being caring, and displaying a "christian" attitude towards our neighbours, i.e our friends, relative, colleagues, etc.. they may come to know that our religion is a religion of love and compassion for the others.. No forcing.. or whatever, just some enouragement, or an "occasional" push. If one is not receptive to it.. we have to leave it there.. cause we know that time to convert him or her is not there as yet.. We will pray till he is ready.. to be converted. No point pushing or rushing as it may hurt the other person feelings..
For eg.. a non catholic study in a catholic school.. may not convert till he starts working or later stage in life.. He may remember all the prayers taught in school and who knows start praying to know Christ..
There are some who convert to catholicism cause their prayers has been answered.. eg non christians who go to novena church to ask Mother Mary to pray for thier petitions and got answered and became curious abt the faith and got converted subsequently..
As for me,, i would rather show by my examples to others and an "occasional" talk on christ.. if they are interested we will proceed form there..
Catholics are known for its tolerance towards other people's faith. and many people r aware of it.. as a result many people have respect for us .. a true fact..
Thanks for bring out all your grievances and we are better aware of it..
God bless all of you!
"Once a catholic, always a catholic"
-
"Once a catholic, always a catholic"
Not really true since there are quite a number of catholics converting outside to other religions (Buddhism included) as well.
By the way, all christians are also catholics, since in the Apostle creed (which is also used in most of the other traditional groups like the anglicans, lutherans, methodists etc) it states "I believe in the Holy Catholic church, the communion of saints etc", BUT it's whether they are ROMAN catholics or not.
-
I apologise if i seem quite harsh towards catholics. I have nothing against catholics per se, as my own mother is one, and having being brought up a semi-catholic anglican. But i am quite offended when some catholics, especially the younger ones, think that they are tolerant compared to other christians, when that was not really the case until Vatican 2 when the catholic church became more tolerant of other christians and other faiths.
However, even up to now, non-catholic christians cannot take holy communion with roman catholics, and the roman catholic still has some issues in history it needs to address, such as forced conversions of native americans, persection of jews, the inquisitions and the crusades.
-
Originally posted by Catholicuser:
Hi to all,
First of all, I'm a catholic..
I can understand some of you going thru with all the awkardness discussing christianity or being"preached" by yr relatives or friends who in their newly found religion.or being christians for a very long time. . This is so when are very enthusiatic or zealously want to share with you. While it is ok to share with.anyone as we are called to "witness" our faith to others, we have to be sensitive to others..
By being sensitive.. means witnessing at the right time and the right place.. It also means do it with gentleness, love and care.. in short a "holistic approach"
Thru our actions i.e being caring, and displaying a "christian" attitude towards our neighbours, i.e our friends, relative, colleagues, etc.. they may come to know that our religion is a religion of love and compassion for the others.. No forcing.. or whatever, just some enouragement, or an "occasional" push. If one is not receptive to it.. we have to leave it there.. cause we know that time to convert him or her is not there as yet.. We will pray till he is ready.. to be converted. No point pushing or rushing as it may hurt the other person feelings..
For eg.. a non catholic study in a catholic school.. may not convert till he starts working or later stage in life.. He may remember all the prayers taught in school and who knows start praying to know Christ..
There are some who convert to catholicism cause their prayers has been answered.. eg non christians who go to novena church to ask Mother Mary to pray for thier petitions and got answered and became curious abt the faith and got converted subsequently..
As for me,, i would rather show by my examples to others and an "occasional" talk on christ.. if they are interested we will proceed form there..
Catholics are known for its tolerance towards other people's faith. and many people r aware of it.. as a result many people have respect for us .. a true fact..
Thanks for bring out all your grievances and we are better aware of it..
God bless all of you!
"Once a catholic, always a catholic"
Hey just wonder why Catholic is given this sweet white piece of thing to be put onto mouth by the priest?
-
Originally posted by sanath:
I apologise if i seem quite harsh towards catholics. I have nothing against catholics per se, as my own mother is one, and having being brought up a semi-catholic anglican. But i am quite offended when some catholics, especially the younger ones, think that they are tolerant compared to other christians, when that was not really the case until Vatican 2 when the catholic church became more tolerant of other christians and other faiths.
However, even up to now, non-catholic christians cannot take holy communion with roman catholics, and the roman catholic still has some issues in history it needs to address, such as forced conversions of native americans, persection of jews, the inquisitions and the crusades.
I think at the end of the day, no monotheistic religions can ever claim that they are tolerant of other faiths. All such religions have their share of participation in religious wars, persecution and forced conversion.
Having said that, and on a matter of degree, monotheistic religions are much more tolerant than they were in the past. However, that is only because of the secularisation of governments in countries in which these religions are practised widely. The ironic part is that we (the nonbelievers) are spared the intolerance of the prevailing religions (preaching love and peace) by secular intervention.
-
hi isis,
the little white piece is holy communion.. not a sweet..
It is the body of christ.. it is only meant for baptized catholic. and he or she must not be in the state of serious sin.. If he is, he must go to confess his sins to a priest, who has been given the authority to forgive the sins.. then he can go to receive holy communion..
hope that helps
God Bless!!
forever catholic
-
hi sanath,
no pro.. so are u a catholic?? .. since your mum is a catholic.. ..IMy apology if any catholic offended anyone here..
catholic are more tolerant towards people of other religion.. However, that doe not mean we just let it be.. We are also call to "witness" our faith to non believers.. But catholics tend to show it thru actions.. i.e caring.. loving etc..
As for holy communion.. Since the other church is not in communion with rome, they cannot receive holy communion..
hope that helps
-
No, i am not, i converted to Buddhism when i was a teenager because i could not accept the teachings of either the catholic or the anglican churches, and the schism that caused my confusion in the first place.
-
I respect any person who practises what he preaches, it does not matter whether he is a Buddhist or Christian or Muslim.
言行一致
�实质��形�
-
it does not matter for a buddhism to go to church,u can go to church ,reversebly,u can invite ur uncle to temple.As heart sutra teach ,void is not form ,form is not void.It does not matter that u wear suit or buddhist cassock.it's what u really believe matters.really buddhist should have "�争" heart.As long as u r a good-hearted man ,u will be treated well by buddha.
share for the rest "generate ur heart without dwelling anywhere"
-
Originally posted by dragon_stone:
"In reality, the universe works by the law of Karma and he has no control over the system of karma."
Hey, I like this phrase and thanks for the reply. I will read up more of these pages...
you know, it is hard not to believe in a creator (for some religions) but sciencists should not play god in a sense?
It is not good to go against nature, like cloning of Dolly the goat. She grown old too fast and died...
Diverting of sounthern rivers water to the north in China, cause untold naural diasters...etc...
If man never played God, then you should not survived your last bout of whatever bacteria infection. Go figure what should be done.