13 Jun '10 07:51>
Originally posted by Diodorus SiculusIn my experience I have found there to be some subtle complexities to the underlying nature of certain groups to to either answer or not answer questions.
Next time you are in church, raise your hand at the Q and A part and ask a question and next time you are at a scientific conference raise your hand at the Q and A part and ask a question. That to my mind is the difference.
In science questioning of dogma is positively invited and faith certainly exists in hypotheses but based on statistical ana ...[text shortened]... sibility that errors exist in the teachings or that the proposed model is distinctly unfeasible.
With christians groups I have found it is as you described.(I have come across many christian groups devoted to mainly good works.)
With the Tibetan bhuddist group questions of all sorts were encouraged after meditation and visualization. The quality of questions reflected the effectiveness of the teacher.
With the Hare Krsnas I found only one or two out of say...100, that were willing to answer questions, and then only in private. They used to sh[t me for being like that for years. Then as I grew to learn more about the group I sensed that they were more devotion orientated-not answering questions because because they felt it an unneccesary diversion from there on going inner and outer chanting. If you didn't get the Bhagavad Gita the same way they did, then no amount of questioning would help.
(experience with other groups as well)
Conclusion: different people have different orientations and hence require different types of groups to satisfy their (current) spiritual hankerings. Seems like three distinct groups. Those of good works. Those of devotion. Those of "intellectual leanings".
(Of course some may be a mixture of all three.)