Interfaith as a Faith

[Quahom1]

So many words and so much talk over an extremely simple issue. This point needs addressing ‘again’.

The irony here is the mirror image of the message; to show what I mean:




The Liberalism in all its forms exists to gain converts not to understand other faith. The only understanding it does is akin to how one army general studies another before a battle to achieve total victory. Is this so hard to understand?

All ‘proper’ Liberals that are in fact ‘true’ to Liberal writ are tied to the very doctrines that are the foundation stone of worldwide Liberalism.

So-called open-minded Liberals that may wish to interfaith in a sharing and equal fashion with members of non-proselytizing tolerant faiths must realise that their own actual faith is followed properly by millions who believe that these other faiths are evil, bogus and corrupt. Sadly, virtually all variations of the Liberalism are lead by the overseers that have to press on with the main thrust of Liberal credo. They must spread the truth and this means promoting the one-sided belief that their brand of theology is the only one worthy of getting the adherent to the enlightenment – THE ONLY ONE WHICH COUNTS FOR MANKIND. The leaders will never accept any fair compromise with other faiths for the spiritual monopoly of the masses and for anyone to think otherwise is irresponsible and dangerously naïve.

Now if you are talking of so-called Liberals that are not really proper conversion Liberals then that is another thing altogether. What you must realise is that the Liberalism spends billions globally on conversion(funded by ORDINARY Liberals) against what it sees as ‘rival’ faiths and no amount of nice chumminess over coffee will EVER change this main point.

You can not stop proper Liberals infiltrating events that are ‘supposed’ to be there for acceptance and understanding unless you get real, wise up and begin to recognise how Liberalism really works in society.

I'm not poking fun at anyone. My point is that the message is the same, only the names and titles have been changed. How one sees the other, is not really different from the perspective of someone looking in from the outside...

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[I, Brian]

Sorry, bolo - I still don't see the world through your eyes. I see many competing ideals - memes, if you will - but I think it's quite unfair to imagine that because someone is a "Christian" that they are therefore secretly trying to subvert you against your will. That's just not Christianity in the UK, nor is it ever likely to be. It just comes across as aggressive as those who preach that liberalism is the root of all evil in disintegrating society. It's like a mirror in action.

[taijasi]

Q,

I don't think your flip-flop argument here holds much water. You have to strain it too hard, change too many words, and it comes across with a message which - at best - is something like, "Hey folks, don't ya see, it's kind of like this ..."

No, Interfaith is about meeting people of other faiths where they are, whether they're official representatives of that faith - as might attend a Parliament of the World's Religions ... or just everyday joe adherents. And this has to be done on common ground, so let's TAKE AN EXAMPLE from what the Parliament itself set forth as GOALS:

• Foster understanding and cooperation between diverse peoples, communities and cultures
• Promote human rights and social justice
• Cultivate cultures of peace
• Encourage sustainable ways of living
• Understand and respect each other
• Forge relationships and friendships
• Uncover shared convictions and concerns
• Commit to common cooperative action

Now when it comes to the true raison d'etre and/or modus operandi of various fundamentalist groups - both "Christian" and otherwise - I really don't want to be finger-pointing and accusatory.

If a person, group, representative faith (or representatives of that faith) at a council or gathering ... chooses to observe and agree to these goals and commitments, then by definition they are interested in Interfaith dialogue and activity. If they do not commit to this process, or if they can't resist the temptation to proselytize, then I think they need to examine their motives carefully.

What I seriously question, is whether a faith or religion which sets itself up as the "one and only right, true path to enlightenment (God, salavation, etc.)" ... could EVER be AS COMMITTED to Interfaith relations - as it would necessarily be to converting others and "preaching the gospel" (or doctrine of salvation, whatever that might happen to be).

The Buddhists who attend Interfaith dialogues, and councils of the Parliament of World's Religions, are NOT there to gain additional followers. His Holiness the Dalai Lama, for example, may speak out against the slaughtering of monks & nuns in Tibet, against the destruction of many thousands of monasteries, against the enslavement of the Tibetan people and the attack on the Buddhist religion & on all who practice it. He may even go further and ask for HELP in this situation, and naturally he might encourage all who are sympathetic to ENQUIRE of their government about WHAT CAN BE DONE to save this dying people, this country, and this religion.

He will happily encourage those who are interested to attend a local Dharma center to learn more. But THIS is as far as he will go. He will not tell people that if they do not seek the Buddha, they will go to hell. He will not tell them, that it's nice to have faith in Allah, or Yahweh, but this really not where it's at, because ONLY BUDDHA saves. And he WILL NOT use his opportunity to speak about Interfaith, as a PLATFORM for the CRUSADE to save souls and gain converts. NOT ON YOUR LIFE.

While HHDL MIGHT remind us of the problems in Tibet, you CAN TRUST AND BELIEVE that he will have prepared for such an occasion as the Council of the Parliament of World's Religions ... a short speech that deals MOSTLY with ways that people of various faiths can dialogue with each other. He might focus on Tibetan Buddhism (Gelugpa sect, especially) a good deal, because he knows the most about it, and is the head of that tradition. He would like for folks to understand what it means when they dialogue with someone who has chosen this path.

But he will ALSO speak about Tibetan Buddhism in general, and also about all followers of the Buddha, in the context of how Interfaith works best for people of this calling. And he will NOT judge another person, another group, another tradition or even another sect of Tibetan Buddhism - including the Nyingma - for their choices. He may disagree with certain teachings, but you better believe that he wouldn't abuse his speaking opportunity to proselytize, condemn, or criticize.

I dare say that most other Buddhist leaders would follow suit. And I sure know a heckuva lot of Buddhist laypeople, and a few that have taken vows, who would do the same.

I can extend that statement to MOST people I know, of MOST other religions. But I do know a few exceptions. And I could, if it were helpful, begin "naming names" of dozens, upon dozens, of evangelical types, and people of all sorts of Christian backgrounds ... as well as a few of Muslim background ... who I DO think would totally SOAPBOX the kind of situtation(s) I'm talking about. And this isn't just something religious people do, but that's the focus here.

Still, it's a diversion, imho, to object to Interfaith dialogue ... just because we know that some people can't put the proselytism and urge-to-convert down, long enough to get to know folks of other paths and callings. I do agree, that the thumping crowd will pretty much hijack ANY situtation they can - but usually only where they feel threatened, or unwelcomed. I look at it as a simple, psychological defense mechanism, and pretty much a fear-based reaction.

A good Interfaith environment, whether a large gathering, a small, informal group of college friends, or an online discussion forum ... will welcome and encourage participation from people of ALL faiths, backgrounds and interests - so immediately, the tendency for hijacking is greatly lessened. Where it DOES arise, it's sometimes best to just step quietly aside, and let a person preach on ... into empty space. Usually, I've noticed, it's not as if they're actually seeking a reaction, anyway. And the audience, I've noticed, is also, almost always, optional.

Interfaith goes great with coffee or tea. It's good in the IHop, or waffle horse, on Sunday - or any - mornings. Or afternoons. It's not uncommon in student centers at most colleges. It can go on in philosophy class, before or after the lecture, and even during the discussions. In the philosophy club at UNC Asheville (NC, USA), we put on a film, Mindwalk, and held a dicusssion panel afterwards, moderating a dialogue and Q&A with the audience. We had a great turnout! And it didn't even get hijacked ...

Interfaith can happen on the airplane, when a Unitarian Universalist asks the gentleman sitting next to him, about the meaning of his traditional African garb ... leading to a discussion of cultures, backgrounds, and traditions. It can also occur, when the Baptist Reverend I know goes traveling to India, speaking with the Hindu brothers and sisters whom she knows over there ... probably by the hundreds. She doesn't go, to convert them.

Thanks to Neosnoia, I can once again appeal to the Wisdom of Mahatma Gandhi, which is appropriate here - and in every instance or discussion of Interfaith:

“If you do not see God in the next person you see, you need look no further.”

I should think it would be extremely difficult ... to convert GOD.

Namaskara,

taijasi

[Quahom1]

Interesting. I don't think yours has a leg to stand on...does that make it any less viable than mine?

Or are we arguing ends against the middle?

v/r

Q

edit: I changed five word groups to that of one word that encompases all.

It was easy, as the author was as impassioned about his faith as I am about mine...what is the problem Taj?

You don't like a Christian that has half a damn brain and an education to go with it? So sorry for you. I stand my ground.

so...move me. ;-)

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Interesting. I don't think yours has a leg to stand on...does that make it any less viable than mine?

If you can back up your opinion, then it might be more than just that.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

It was easy, as the author was as impassioned about his faith as I am about mine...what is the problem Taj?

Empassioned, sure. That's fair enough. I think it's a good sign. What does lukewarm get you, anyway?

Detachment, too, has its place. I have never met a person who was determined to convert me, who also truly had my best interests in mind, or at heart. I would go so far as to give him or her the benefit of the doubt, and accept that s/he MEANT well. But intentions, and actions, can be two different things entirely. And the problem arises when a person fails to see, or just plain disregards, what Gandhi had to say (in this case).

Originally Posted by Quahom1

You don't like a Christian that has half a damn brain and an education to go with it? So sorry for you. I stand my ground.

I don't like it if anyone simply uses that brain, and that eduation, to try and CLONE themselves (or their special brand of faith, religious preference, etc.).

We don't have to invent ourselves totally from scratch. In one sense, there's nothing new under the sun. But I doubt seriously that an open-minded (and open-hearted) person could possibly attend an Interfaith event, or come to a forum like CR, and not LEARN something, every single day! That goes for veteran posters, mods, newbies, and so on. And I don't care if you have fifteen (or 33) degrees and every book ever written in your library and repertoire. At the end of the day, it comes down to how you use it (with apologies to Eric Clapton).

I realize that there are many people feel strongly, and passionate about "sharing the Gospel." Well, so do I. But if go around rubber-stamping other people, then all that's accomplished at the end of the day is a world full of stamped ideas. What have I learned!?!

And so, Pythagoras required the 5 years of silence for all new entrants - novitiates, akoustikoi - in his Mystery School. The medieval Christian monastics, too, knew the value and necessity for silence. An Interfaith event, of other format than CR or a discussion forum, could certainly be held ... with silence as a stipulation. One's education, and thinking ability, would not be a deficit. But verbosity, such as my own, might!

Namaskar,

andrew

[Quahom1]

If you can back up your opinion, then it might be more than just that.

You first my friend...

Empassioned, sure. That's fair enough. I think it's a good sign. What does lukewarm get you, anyway?

a cheap bath, not worth the 50 cents.

Detachment, too, has its place. I have never met a person who was determined to convert me, who also truly had my best interests in mind, or at heart. I would go so far as to give him or her the benefit of the doubt, and accept that s/he MEANT well. But intentions, and actions, can be two different things entirely. And the problem arises when a person fails to see, or just plain disregards, what Gandhi had to say (in this case).

I don't like it if anyone simply uses that brain, and that eduation, to try and CLONE themselves (or their special brand of faith, religious preference, etc.).

We don't have to invent ourselves totally from scratch. In one sense, there's nothing new under the sun. But I doubt seriously that an open-minded (and open-hearted) person could possibly attend an Interfaith event, or come to a forum like CR, and not LEARN something, every single day! That goes for veteran posters, mods, newbies, and so on. And I don't care if you have fifteen (or 33) degrees and every book ever written in your library and repertoire. At the end of the day, it comes down to how you use it (with apologies to Eric Clapton).

I realize that there are many people feel strongly, and passionate about "sharing the Gospel." Well, so do I. But if go around rubber-stamping other people, then all that's accomplished at the end of the day is a world full of stamped ideas. What have I learned!?!

And so, Pythagoras required the 5 years of silence for all new entrants - novitiates, akoustikoi - in his Mystery School. The medieval Christian monastics, too, knew the value and necessity for silence. An Interfaith event, of other format than CR or a discussion forum, could certainly be held ... with silence as a stipulation. One's education, and thinking ability, would not be a deficit. But verbosity, such as my own, might!

Namaskar,

andrew

Not trying to convert you, nor anyone else...I could care less whether you convert. I wouldn't even know what to tell you to convert to...

Do you mean..."silence is golden"? Well, there are excpetions to the rule...

v/r

Q

[Blue Jay]

Originally Posted by taijasi

• Understand and respect each other

Hello Taijasi,

Can you explain what it means to respect each other?

Jesus said to go into all the world and preach the Gospel (Mark 16:15). How do I correctly respect a person who feels in his conscience that he has to preach the Gospel to me?

I would feel disrespected if he did that.
He would feel disrespected if I did not listen politely.

How do we show respect for each other in this case?

BJ

[Quahom1]

Are you back?

no, sorry wrong "blue bird".

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by Blue Jay

Hello Taijasi,

Can you explain what it means to respect each other?

Jesus said to go into all the world and preach the Gospel (Mark 16:15). How do I correctly respect a person who feels in his conscience that he has to preach the Gospel to me?

I would feel disrespected if he did that.
He would feel disrespected if I did not listen politely.

How do we show respect for each other in this case?

BJ

Interfaith is, first of all, a place where people should feel comfortable, and welcome, to come to hear and to share ... but without feeling imposed upon. I would respectfully submit - and this fairly well makes my point - that there are individuals who cannot help but impose upon others, precisely because they have misinterpreted the passage you cited.

Notice, for example, that the setting and the audience for your citiation, involves the eleven remaining apostles - after the crucifixion, and after Judas Iscariot was no longer among the other eleven. No Christ did NOT say, "All ye who read these words, and come after these eleven, GO AND DO LIKEWISE."

Do we really think that we are no different than the Eleven (earlier, and later, Twelve) Apostles? If so, then immediately we're going to be an impasse, you and I, or whoever wishes to argue this case with me. To suggest that those Eleven or Twelve closest Apostles didn't have a GREAT DEAL of individual and group instruction, which even the 70 didn't receive ... is, in my finding, an absurd notion. Christ PREPARED them, for their specific and unique mission!

And yet, one does not need to go far, at least here in the southern US "Bible Belt," to find self-appointed preachers, apostles, and all manner of groups & individuals ... who feel quite confident that somehow or another, they HAVE been appointed - as were these Eleven - to go forth and preach the Gospel to every creature.

But even if a person presume, and decide s/he KNOWS this `Gospel,' which s/he is supposedly called forth to preach ... there are two points that need underlining.

One, is that: Nowhere would this give such a person the right, wherewithal, or excuse - to fail to show Respect, for the person or group with whom the Gospel is being shared. And where a person or group already follows a spiritual or religious path, the best course and approach will always be, to say such things as, "This is the path which works for me, which I have found rewarding, and which appeals to me ... based on my experience(s). How do you feel about x, y or z?"

And if there is little or no receptivity, or if another person or group is quite comfortable, happy, or fulfilled practicing another faith or religion - then that means to DROP IT." From that point on out, one can only share, and teach by example. Not by proselytism.

The second point I would emphasize, is that the Gospel being shared, if indeed, we PRESUME to know what this Gospel is ... should at least reflect some SEMBLANCE of what Christ did indeed teach and show us. He was, above all, a man of ACTION ... and not a street-corner prophet. He went about, doing God's WORK, not just spouting scripture, or babbling about all the things that God had said to His people in the PAST.

I can quote scripture all day long, with the best of them. I may not be as erudite and learned as some, and I have no "divinity degree," or high-ranking position with one or another of the Christian churches. But if a person insists to me, "Oh, this here Bible is GOD'S WORD, and God's instruction manual for us on how to live, and it contains wonderful truths and prophecies" ... then I will say, How do you know? And I will say, What makes you think that the MEANING you have attached to this particular passage or parable, is the only meaning there is? Or the best one? Or the one that the Master intended?

You see, I belive there is a Gospel, but what I hear the bible thumpers preaching, and what I see them shouting from the rooftops ... is a FAR cry, in many cases, from what I think and believe the Master intended. Gospel? WHOSE Gospel? If a person presume to tell me what Christ intended, then s/he must be ready to sit and listen, if and when I disagree, and say I think he meant X, instead of Y.

Originally Posted by Blue Jay

Can you explain what it means to respect each other?

Respecting one another, in terms of Interfaith, means listening, attentively, to the points that another person makes. It means leaving personal, group, denominational or sectarians agendas ... at the door. Any individual, or group, whom & which cannot do this, won't get far in an Interfaith dialogue ... because the focus won't be on harmony, and it won't be on any of the eight goals I listed earlier, from the Parliament on the World's Religions website.

There's another great thread that runs parallel to this one, with plenty of overlap. It's the thread on the Rush to be Right. Interfaith is not about being right. And debate, even friendly debate, isn't something that should be the primary focus on an interfaith dialogue or discussion. Where this occurs, progress is slowed - to a snail's pace. And all too often, people go away unhappy.

Progress can mean many things, for each of us, and in terms of the various religions or religious groups. But there is a HIGHER Purpose at work, when one enters into Interfaith dialogue. This Higher Purpose will either be honored, sought, and furthered ... or it will be disregarded, and a lesser agenda allowed to hold sway. Discussions can be derailed, but fortunately, there are enough people (I think) involved - in many cases - to get things back on track.

The tradition that matters most to me, wherein various Masters of the Wisdom are acknowledged, Their Presence and Teachings sought, and the rules for modern discipleship applied ... often leads one to appreciate Interfaith AS a Faith, inasmuch as one accepts that there are presences and powers all around the world - which work toward cooperation and understanding. And again, the Plan of Universal Brotherhood will either be welcomed and embraced ... or, for whatever reason, it may be countered.

Sometimes, I think the question we must ask ourselves is, "How far does my Vision really extend?" At other times, the question may be, "Was my heart large enough to accommodate and accept this person, this group?"

Namaskar,

andrew (taijasi)

[seattlegal]

Funny thing--if you only flap one wing, or seek to clip one wing, you'll only end up spinning around in circles.

[arthra]

Or we could call it a "broken winged bird" ...right?

- Art

[bolo]

Fine, okay, great – It’s nice to kick around ideas and opinions and everyone is naturally entitled to their own BUT the truth remains; evangelists ONLY become interested in interfaith to gain new converts as this exercise is what their holy book demands. To preach the Gospel of Christ crucified! This is their ‘prime’ perceived motive for existing, to spread the so-called Good News!

Take for instance the Alpha Course which is a huge missionary outreach to get more converts; over 2 million individuals in the UK and 8 million worldwide have now attended this conversion platform.

http://uk.alpha.org

Others have likened this expansive fundamentalist outreach to a 'cult' and stated that Alpha can be cultic, intrusive and abusive. It also has links to the so-called ‘Toronto Blessing’ which saw adherents rolling in the aisles, shouting loudly and braying like donkeys etc. This has been to subject of debate also between unbiased psychologists who have alluded that brain - washing methods and hypnosis have been a deciding factor. Most common Christian denominations have thoughtlessly run these courses at their churches etc, not realising how the crafty evangelists have actually infiltrated their realms, although there now seems to be several leading Christians who have come out against these missionary inroads. Such Alpha-based interfaith methods are just one ‘small’ example of how expert fundamentalists can even get into other denominations of their ‘own’ religion which they see as contaminated and bogus. Most other faith systems have also been infiltrated and converts used as major examples of how right they are and how wrong they were BEFORE they converted. Recall the way that old ex-smokers are always the most anti- tobacco following their conversion to clean lungs and you will get my drift.

Alpha course is not about preaching to the already converted it actively targets vulnerable people and effectively turns them into ‘evangelical’ Christians who do not question the strength of the arguments with which they are presented. It also displays decidedly anti-gay etc undertones which fit it well with the seemingly amicable yet hardline biblical concepts expounded.

If and when such fundamentalist are rejected (after the more trustingly inexperienced ones actually start to get the message about their ecclesiastical tricks) at interfaith they usually turn nasty and accuse the others of being ‘satanically-misled’. I have seen this happen before.

‘Liberal’ – minded Christians (‘liberal’ herein meaning the type of Christians who do ‘not’ follow the word of the bible ‘properly’ to the T - like fundamentalists always do) that wish things were not like this will be exceptionally disappointed because the leaders (the ones again who follow the bible etc properly) have a duty to proselytize and tell other persons, albeit sometimes quite politely, that they are following the wrong path.

I just cannot see why others cannot see this plain fact of life – it’s not that difficult really! Do some people actually think they can change nearly 2000 years of theocratical mind-set, which utterly demands the necessary spiritual elitism from devout sectarian adherents to actually exist? I see no feasible argument for the reverse herein!

Moreover, can a truly tolerant and pluralistic Global Village never operate fairly/equally when one ‘interested’ party sees interfaith NOT as a chance to share and harmonise with others but as nothing more than a golden opportunity to bring more seekers back into the ‘true’ flock, i.e. the one which THEY tell you is the only worthy one?

First please understand the nature of ‘Mission’ to other faiths/philosophies BEFORE putting your trust into the hands of smiling missionaries that appear to want to only share bread at friendly interfaith events. They have a hidden agenda and they actually thrive of trust to survive. The 'aggression' comes NOT from simple lone messangers such as me but from overtly -zealous theocracies that have experta and well funded plans for total spiritual monopoly and dominion over others! Theocracies that have infiltrated the very core of our society and are working weekly to disenfranchiese us all from our liberties and freedoms to choose for ourselves.

They can be the ‘only’ winners – yes winners as they see this as Spiritual Warfare (don't believe me - just checkout their own work books for followers)against Satan; they MIUST save your soul for you whether you like it or not; history is overflowing with prime examples of this cheerless truth!

Do not please misplace your valuable trust and loyalties with the forces of fundamentalism!

[I, Brian]

I don't think anyone denies that there is an evangelising message in mainstream Christianity. Heck, it's there for all to see.

The difference is, interfaith isn't and shouldn't be about the inconfident trying to placate the most vociferous and aggressive persons in their group. That rightly isn't interfaith.

Interfaith, as Taj points out, is getting diversity to accept common ground. We have that here in simply asking for civility in exchange and discussion of ideas.

Some people come here and can't accept that - we've seen it from *all* of the different major faiths here, a few others as well. Most have a "truth" that they insist on inflicting on the membership of CR.

Point is, they are removed, and we continue with a truly interfaith platform.

[bolo]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

is getting diversity to accept common ground.

But Brian this comment alone shows me that you sadly fail to understand the very nature of fundamentalism and are that you are overtly trusting.

Fundamentalism by virtue has never and will never accept any “common ground” for it sees all other faiths as being spurious and in rival competition with its one-sided decrees! The only common ground it sees is the perceived spiritual ‘Battle ground’ for our souls which it sees as being in dire peril. You appear to have largely ignored most of what I have said on these posts and instead pushed forth the idea that we must all blindly accept hardline fundamentalist missionaries into tolerate interfaith events – I cannot fathom your particular motives if you truly wish to further genuine interfaith between tolerant paths.

I seem to for some reason to be banging my head against a brick wall here.

One can only warn in good faith.

[I, Brian]

bolo, I think you quite misunderstand what interfaith is - it isn't about only choosing the most liberal people to come together and agree - it's about dialogue with everybody.

There's nothing blind about it - you don't fight discrimination with discrimination and hate with hate - yet you continue to labour under the impression that the only way to work with religion is to fight it. That's not interfaith.

As before, we have ground rules here - most accept them, but we've had people of every major faith and non-faith refuse to that, and they are ejected as a result.

I've been doing this for the past 7 years in various online communities. I can assure you there's nothing naive in the approach, but neither will I take on board any side's fears. CR is strictly neutral, as should be.