muon

Actually, Buddhism was the first great missionary religion. Buddhists believe that normal existence is an endless cycle of grasping, pain, and suffering, and also think there's a way out. They are strongly motivated to share this belief. While most Buddhists won't claim that their religion has a monopoly on truth, and are low-key about proselytizing, proselytize they sometimes will.

Waning Moon Conrad

As a Buddhist who believes in Buddhism, I belive the following to be true:

Buddhism is not the truth! Buddhism is a vehicle!

Once there was born on a lotus,
a teacher who urged us to notice;
that Dharma's a boat,
to cross a wide moat,
to the Isle of Bliss it'll float us!

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Waning Moon Conrad ]</p>

jess

Beauty is Truth, Truth-Beauty
That is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know
(Keats)

Without realizing it, the individual composes his life according to the laws of Bauty even in times of greatest distress.
(Kundera)

Everything must have a beginning, and that beginning must be linked to something that went before.
(Mary Shelly)

The whole is different than the sum of its parts
(Wertheimer)

Living beings are just DNA's way of reproducing itself.
(paraphrase of Sagan)

Straight Hate

I think re-constructionist religions like Norse Heathenism are largely 'un-apologetic' - that is, if I'm understanding the term correctly. Many Asatruars believe in religious plurality and see their deities more as metaphorical concepts. Of course, one can never make generalizations as I'm sure there are exceptions here as well.

Perchance

There are some (Neo)Pagan websites and books I've encountered which, while they don't proselytize, talk about a future in which everyone will "live in harmony with the earth" or "recognize the God in themselves" or "[inset goal here]." Apparently, this is NOT to be achieved through proselytization, forced conversion, or anything of the sort that seems particularly to be associated with the history of Christianity and Islam. It seems to have to do with people recognizing the "truth" of (Neo)Paganism, though the word "truth" is surprisingly little used in the sources I've read. Instead, "wholesomeness" and "freedom" take its place. I cannot tell, however, if these people are apologists not pushing their religions because they feel that others will come to recognize their rationality in time, or if they are people believing in some sort of more mystical conversion. A lot of them end with a kind of prophecy-like call such as, "The Goddess is returning," or "Pagnanism is the natural religion of humankind." This may refer to the "forces" of the universe reaching out and convincing people they exist, without recourse to reason.

As to the rationality of the arguments... Well. I can say that I've liked their arguments better than most of the Abrahamic ones I've read, but just liking an argument better doesn't make it true.

-Perchance.

mibby529

Well, we saw how quickly they started claiming clearly Indian skeletons as Nordic. (Kennewick man, anyone?) Of course, in my experience, if it WEREN'T Indian, no one would want to study it. (Anyway, there are Indian skeletons dating to 40kya in South America [Monte Verde,] so Asatru's theories of being here before Indians are clearly incorrect.)

Perchance

What are you talking about here? I don't understand.

-Perchance.

mibby529

Oh, sorry, just recalling the Wounded Knee massacre, where Indian skeletons were taken to the Smithsonian where they would be measured so the anthropologists could find any "evidence" of racial inferiority - and those skeletons have yet to be repatriated.

Perchance

All right, but...

I wasn't sure where the "Non-Abrahamic apologetics" came in.

-Perchance.

mibby529

I was originally referring to Asatru. It's quite ironic that scientists would consider human decency "creationist," while allying themselves with creationists from a cult less than ten years old.