Interfaith as a Faith

[jiii]

originally posted by bolo

Fundamentalism does not know how to interfaith – it only knows how to convert! One choice is based on common-wisdom and good sense whilst the other is based on naivety, ignorance and misplaced loyalties

I understand your point, bolo, and I must agree with you on a certian level. Some religious faiths would seem predisposed to a one-way exchange, which is contrary to cooperation and "inter"-anything. However, I don't think that the "doctrines" of these such religions actually directly commands that. I think, rather, that it is the most popular interpretations in this day in age for some sects.

If I had a whole lot of initiative (and I don't right now), I don't doubt that I could find excerpts from sacred books all over the world in every religion that could be easily interpreted as advising that "this way is the only way worth following. You should tell people about it." Every religion that has written anything has spoken of their religion in this way at some point. Needless to say, it would seem that most religious adherents do not actually do this. They take such self-aggrandizing statements quite lightly, not because they believe they are untrue, but because they don't actually understand them to be something that translates exclusively into action and intention...maybe not at all.

Take Protestantism, for instance. Historically speaking, Protestantism developed in resistance to the terror tactics and tyrannical rule of the Catholic Church. They argued that following an interpretation of spirituality from some religious organization was foolish. Casting away the Catholic authority, the Protestants were left, by default, with only the Bible. Thus, their faith cut away the umbilical cord to their somewhat abusive parent organization and went out to find out what it was all about based upon their interpretation of the Bible. No interpreter was to be accepted anymore. This was a huge step forward in many respects!

Now, most religions have been around for a LONG, LONG time! Buddhism began around 500 BC, Christianity around 1 AD, Confucianism around 550 BC, Islam around 600 BC, Taoism around 600 BC, Zoroastriansim around 1000 BC. These religions have had a very long time to refine and redefine themselves. Although the schism of the Eastern and Western church occurred around 1000 AD, the Protestant breakaway didn't really start until the mid-1500's. The revolutionary idea of abandoning the Catholic Church as the sole interpreter of the meaning of God and Jesus hasn't really even had a solid 500 years to work itself out yet. In this way, the Protestant doctrine is a newly developing faith that hasn't had nearly the amount of time to develop as many other religions. Protestantism is still without a refined identity.
Protestantism cast Christianity into the dark for a while, sacrificing easy acceptance of authority for the opportunity to find out for themselves. This is a very important development, I think.

To ostracise Protestants that embody your complaint, for instance, would seem to be the easy solution. They aren't being reasonable, "they are still in the Dark Ages", they won't cooperate...kicking them out would seem to be the best way to handle it. I just don't think that in the long run that would be the "clear" and obvious decision, because the best way to develop is by exposure to everything else. In the early days of all religions, I'm sure that there were plenty of fundamentalists. Starting a new faith is almost considered laughable in this day in age, and it wasn't always much easier in the times of antiquity either. New faiths are, almost always, based upon the conviction of people that were very bold in their faith to a new idea expressed by a spiritual icon or book. This conviction was almost always one that the average person would consider irrational...even in those times.

So, yes, you are right about what you say. Protestantism doesn't contain the only examples, either, it's just a particular take I had thoughts on. Many people are still considered to be somewhat fundamentalist in their viewpoints and their interest in what others say is blockaded from their beliefs. Nothing really sinks in. It is certainly frustrating at times, but removing them from inter-faith ventures is not nearly the clear-cut way of dealing with the issue as I think you are expressing.

The continent of North America was once inhabited far and wide by various tribes of Native North Americans. When European man arrived with modern technology, the Native Americans were still living in the Stone Age. They had migrated much further than Europeans from Africa, and they hadn't been settled for half the time that homo sapiens in Europe had. Europeans looked down upon Natives as though they were savages and used their primitive ways as a validation for exterminating them. The should've changed with the times, the Europeans said, but the Natives were doing all that they knew. I'm not suggesting that you, in any way, are taking this kind of drastic stance against fundamentalists, but I do think that so far as Protestantism goes, the bugs are still being worked out, and deciding based upon our apparently superior outlook that they are just primitve and in the "Dark Ages" is not entirely appropriate based upon historical facts.

-jiii

[arthra]

My own view is that people can always change ..including fundamentalists and we need to "keep the door open" to them. But it takes time and patience and willingness to do this.

People who giveup on this I think will only tend to harden the attitudes on both sides. So my strategy is to "keep the door open".

I had an example of this a year or so ago when we had a forum sponsored by our Inter-faith Council on Church and State issues...

An evangelical more fundamentalist pastor had a reputation in our community as being among the most hardened in his attitudes.

On the other side was a more liberal pastor who was the chaplain of the University.

Both told me at one point that they would never appear together in a forum to discuss church-state issues...

But some time later they agreed..

and we had a valuable dialogue that was much appreciated.

I also set up display boards from local newspapers and the internet on church-state issues.

So people from various views appeared at our church-state forum uncluding the former Mayor and Police Chief.

So I say be open and willing to consider that people can change!

- Art

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by jiii

If I had a whole lot of initiative (and I don't right now), I don't doubt that I could find excerpts from sacred books all over the world in every religion that could be easily interpreted as advising that "this way is the only way worth following. You should tell people about it."

The Christian version is "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father but by me." Then there's also verses like Mark 16:16 that say unless you believe and are baptized you won't be saved. And the "Great Commision" verses where Jesus commands to preach the gospel to every creature to the ends of the earth. There are so many ways to understand/interpret every single one of those passages that people from pretty much any position can use them to support and justify their own agenda.

Take Protestantism, for instance. Historically speaking, Protestantism developed in resistance to the terror tactics and tyrannical rule of the Catholic Church. They argued that following an interpretation of spirituality from some religious organization was foolish. Casting away the Catholic authority, the Protestants were left, by default, with only the Bible. Thus, their faith cut away the umbilical cord to their somewhat abusive parent organization and went out to find out what it was all about based upon their interpretation of the Bible. No interpreter was to be accepted anymore. This was a huge step forward in many respects!

I would be inclined to ask where you are getting your information. I have taken more than one formal course on the Reformation and what you describe does not at all reflect what I learned.

Now, most religions have been around for a LONG, LONG time! Buddhism began around 500 BC, Christianity around 1 AD, Confucianism around 550 BC,

Islam around 600 BC

Sorry but you're off by 1200 years. Islam started about 600 AD/CE.

Taoism around 600 BC, Zoroastriansim around 1000 BC. These religions have had a very long time to refine and redefine themselves. Although the schism of the Eastern and Western church occurred around 1000 AD, the Protestant breakaway didn't really start until the mid-1500's. The revolutionary idea of abandoning the Catholic Church as the sole interpreter of the meaning of God and Jesus hasn't really even had a solid 500 years to work itself out yet.

There have been break-away churches far longer than the official Protestantism. Luther did not set out to start his own church; just to reform the Catholic Church. But he received so much opposition that when he was officially confronted by the RC and demanded to recant he could not conscientiously do so. He obtained the protection of powerful rulers who converted to his beliefs and thus the Lutheran Church was eventually started.

Calvin and Zwingli disagreed with him and with each other and also started their own churches, complete with the protection of their own rulers/princes. Right now I am reading of the Anabaptist movement which did not acquire state-santion.

In this way, the Protestant doctrine is a newly developing faith that hasn't had nearly the amount of time to develop as many other religions. Protestantism is still without a refined identity.

As for defining itself, every single Protestant group definitely defined itself. The defining mark of Protestantim may be said to be its appeal to the scripture alone for its authority. Because, as stated above, the Bible can be understood in so many different ways, the splintering of Protestantism has not stopped to the present day. The best antidote for the splintering that I see is interfaith and ecumenical movements.

Protestantism cast Christianity into the dark for a while, sacrificing easy acceptance of authority for the opportunity to find out for themselves. This is a very important development, I think.

You make it sound like Protestantism is a separate religion from Christianity. It's not. As part of Christianity is goes back just as far as any other segments of the Christian church.

To ostracise Protestants that embody your complaint, for instance, would seem to be the easy solution. They aren't being reasonable, "they are still in the Dark Ages", they won't cooperate...kicking them out would seem to be the best way to handle it. I just don't think that in the long run that would be the "clear" and obvious decision, because the best way to develop is by exposure to everything else. In the early days of all religions, I'm sure that there were plenty of fundamentalists.

Again, I don't know where you are getting your information. Protestants and fundamentalists are NOT the same thing. Anybody can be a fundamentalist regardless of religious persuasion. Very many Protestant Christians are NOT fundamentalists.

DrFree is much closer to reality in her/his thinking around fundamentalists than you are.

So, yes, you are right about what you say. Protestantism doesn't contain the only examples, either, it's just a particular take I had thoughts on. Many people are still considered to be somewhat fundamentalist in their viewpoints and their interest in what others say is blockaded from their beliefs. Nothing really sinks in. It is certainly frustrating at times, but removing them from inter-faith ventures is not nearly the clear-cut way of dealing with the issue as I think you are expressing.

I think if you carefully read DrFree's posts you will see that not participating in interfaith is the decision of the fundamentalists and NOT of the interfaith organization.

[bolo]

Thank you for all your various offering herein but although I admit that the history of a range of faiths is especially important we must ‘not’ lose track of the main point which is that fundamentalists become interested in interfaith for ‘one’ main reason and that is to seek new converts. I must reiterate that they see us as ‘Mission Targets’ not people of equal rights and no amount of pleasant friendliness from us will ever change this for they are acting out their doctrinal duties. They see this as their sacred duty and that is what they are all about. They firmly believe they do this for ‘our’ own good (and theirs to of course) – to save our souls as we are at least erroneous in our spiritual views or at worst working for the devil. They have absolutely mountains of books, courses, websites and a huge resource on how ‘best’ to tackle anyone who ‘challenges’ their faith, that is - has a different philosophy to theirs. They have ‘all’ the answers (and have heard all your questions a million times before) and all their seemingly good-natured actions and gestures are just a part of their greater game plan to get ‘you’ to sigh up to their brand of fundamentalism. Being acceptable, trusting and naïve are NOT sensible options with the rampant forces of fundamentalism. Moreover, keeping a door open for a historically proven theocratical ‘Mission Machine’ to abuse at their leisure is entirely absurd, dangerous and without any good sense. In such a situation they can be the only feasible winners - not us!

Yes history lessons are most interesting I admit but the plain truth is that we can certainly not ‘ever’ trust any theocracy which preaches (historically and still today) total religious elitist supremacy and moral dominion over others. Such intolerant ecclesiastical structures are expert (subsequent to centuries of practice) at either converting or suppressing whatever stands in their way. Anyone who fails to realise this hard truth is unhappily either incredibly naïve and dangerously trusting or I have to say a complete idiot. I dearly wish that this was no so but that is just the depressing reality of the situation!

think if you carefully read DrFree's posts you will see that not participating in interfaith is the decision of the fundamentalists and NOT of the interfaith organization.

Yes – this can be true, many fundamentalists refuse to participate yet those that do take an active part do it for the above reasons. It make good sense to realise that anyone who is committed in the belief that their faith is the 'only' genuine way to the godhead will never compromise that belief in any way, they will never water it down into something which is forbidden in their holy scriptures. Ergo again I reiterate that the only interest they have at interfaith liaisons is to tell others (albeit in perhaps an awfully polite fashion) how ‘their’ way is the only way worth following and that your way is wrong, bogus and spiritually dangerous.

All this is quite easy to appreciate when you abstract most of the superfluous baggage and focus on what history teaches us about how one fundamentalist supremacist culture always takes over others when ‘friendly’ missionaries start getting involved in ‘talking nicely’ to other ‘trusting’ faith systems. How many marvellous and beneficial earlier cultures, which could have taught modern man so much, and their ancient religions have been defamed, then either converted or crushed into extinction subsequent to Interfaithing with pleasant -sounding missionaries? You surely don’t need me to spell all that out herein.

So-called ‘trust’ in this particular instance sadly equates with gross gullibility or perhaps in a minority of cases a subconscious ‘desire’ and even attraction for what fundamentalism has to offer. Playing with fundamentalist fire (and brimstone in equal quantities) at interfaith may seem like fun (for ‘fun’ read – mistakenly ‘perceived’ progressive spiritual/social advancement) yet one’s fingers may get burnt if one is not vigilant. Numerous worldwide cultures have learnt this sad fact at their cost after it was too late to change things.

Methods of mission are still very effective and their holy writ is the same today as it was then. They are now in fact simply more expert at what they do and they actually rely on 'trust' to get in that open door!

Tolerance and especially 'acceptance' are the very best friends of fundamentalism everywhere!

[InLove]

Hi--Peace to All Here,

bolo--

In my view, there is an inherit danger in your words that could cause some to believe that anyone of the Christian faith with a desire for interfaith relationships is insincere or braindead. (I'm not going to go into the whole matter of fundamenatalists of other faiths, since I think it is safe by now to say you are referring exclusively to those who call themselves Christian.)

My experience tells me that when someone uses the terms "always" and "never" to evaluate social behavior, it usually means that haven't thoroughly investigated the situation they are describing.

As Always...
InPeace,
InLove

[wil]

Last night we had a Muslim Iman come and discuss the tenents of his faith at our interfaith service.

While if we were of a different bent we could have easily been distracted, annoyed, incensed at his focus on Islam, and his non acceptance of interfaith as an option, it was all quite enlightening.

He described the problem with those that are labeled terrorist is not that they are Mulsim, but that they are not Muslim enough. If they were to follow the teachings they would not be doing what they are doing. But instead of being raised in Islam, they are products of western influences in Arabic countries, where secularism was forced in as we drew lines in thier sands and created the countries...an interesting observation. So the blame is still on the west, for corrupting the young minds with secular thought and allowing them to become less of a Muslim and more opportunity for confusion. The Imam was of the same age, of the same schooling, and he to was confused with what he heard on the street v. what he was taught in school v. what he heard at the mosque.

We could have conversed for ours....discovering the nuances of our various beliefs.

[Dondi]

Interesting wil. If all the Muslims in a country were completely isolated and simply followed the teachings of the Qu'ran, do you think they would live peacefully amongst themselves?

[wil]

We didn't have the time to get that far....But until we do my current thinking is no. As the discussion I've had here is that there were to be 72 different sects, and only one would become the final sect....and all/most believe their sect to be that sect.

In addition as I understand it, the in fighting/killing between Muslim sects mostly has to do with political issues, not religious issues. Sorta like Christians fighting Christians...all over the globe.

But back to your question, and to me this includes the can Christians Kill? question...if we all were to follow the tenents of our faiths...there should be very little violence or none at all. Appears we are human though.

The discussion was extremely interesting...like discussing with one that insists that all who expect to see heaven must be saved, Muslims believe that the Quran spells out the latest word from G-d, but do also speak well of the 'people of the book', Christians and Jews.

We touched on terrorists, fasting, women, Mecca, prayers, pbuh, infidels (disbelievers)....it was only an hour...I hope to learn more, anticipate having to more opportunities to meet him next month.

[bolo]

Originally Posted by InLove

Hi--Peace to All Here,

bolo--

In my view, there is an inherit danger in your words that could cause some to believe that anyone of the Christian faith with a desire for interfaith relationships is insincere or braindead. (I'm not going to go into the whole matter of fundamenatalists of other faiths, since I think it is safe by now to say you are referring exclusively to those who call themselves Christian.)

My experience tells me that when someone uses the terms "always" and "never" to evaluate social behavior, it usually means that haven't thoroughly investigated the situation they are describing.

As Always...
InPeace,
InLove

InLove

I am rather surprised that you seem to find me the enemy when all I have done is express a fair desire for others to be made aware of the clear dangers of interfaithing with fundamentalism as you appear to be promoting herein. I feel the "danger" lies in your words - not mine and this is supported by examining the history of how fundamentalism actually works!

You have not in any way given us any feasible reassurance of how you plan to rewrite the holy books of any sort of fundamentalism and remove the parts which demand the adherents of those faiths to convert or oppress others. Do you actually ‘deny’ that is what is asked for in these assumed sacred scriptures? Can you not appreciate this truth? You appear to accuse me of not ‘investigating’ the situation, yet by your own admissions it is undoubtedly ‘you’ that is acting in a most naïve and dangerous manner by urging other good and trusting people to interfaith with absolutist faith systems that are only interested in seeking new converts. You go on to allude that I am also only referring to the Christian branch of fundamentalism. This is simply not true as I deplore all forms of absolutism. It must however be realised that we in the West we do see a greater influence for Christian-type fundamentalism as this is of course the historically governing structure that we have been largely brought up with and live under in general. Do you also deny this?

Terms like ‘always’ and ‘never’ that you draw attention to me using are especially fitting for the theocratical (and not only social) - based behaviour that is displayed on a weekly national basis by all fundamentalists. I am very surprised that you appear now to be some sort of ‘apologist’ for such radical factions.

You declare that you will not go into the whole matter of fundamentalists yet here you are in fact blatantly urging us to open doors to these rampant faith systems that have always believed that anyone who fails to share their brand of religion is bogus, misled and inspired by evil forces in spiritual matters. How in their right mind could anyone advocate such a ridiculous thing?

Do you actually think that 'you' can change their ancient holy scriptures/doctrinal basis and somehow eradicate the ground origin of their beliefs? Do you think that they will somehow just turn around and say – ‘Oh dear we were so wrong all this time - our god and our faith are wrong because InLove says so’ – is that really what you are telling us on this particular thread?

Do you not realise that fundamentalism has been intimately monitoring, analyzing, researching and infiltrating other faiths for numerous centuries? Trusting faith systems that the fundamentalists now know ‘more’ about than the majority of actual adherents to those faiths know? You give the distinct impression that you are altogether uninformed of the fact that across the globe, cultures that at first ‘welcomed’ (i.e. interfaithed with) seemingly friendly missionaries with open arms have been later subjugated by these great experts in worldwide religious conversion. Have you never heard of ‘Evangelisation’ or pondered on the significance of this term and considered how it actually applies to the interfaith situation? Do you know how much they spent of their so-called 'Decade of Evangelisation' or have any idea of the ramifications?

You ought to also realise that the ‘ordinary’ everyday Christians, Muslims etc who only pay lip-service to their given faiths have been inadvertently towing the line for the more fundamentalist leaders for many centuries. This is frequently done in an innocent fashion and without clear knowledge of what lies under the thin veneer of religious respectability, supposed tolerance and social concern. A

A vulgar analogy may be with how many nice ordinary German families supported the national political regime in the last world war whilst it was busy murdering millions behind the scenes due to a core belief that if was 'superior' in some way. The families where yes very nice yet they were perhaps largely unaware of what exactly lay behind the main thrust of their supported beliefs!

Fundamentalism, either religious or political, is the 'real' enemy (not I my friend) that you should be watching out for, as it is anti-freedom, anti-democratic and anti-human!

[arthra]

I think Bolo that your reaction to what you perceive as fundamentalism only will shut down any kind of valuable exchange or possible dialogue.

To me your view is extreme... Inter-faith by its very nature is an open system..

Intrinsic in my Faith is the following admonition:

"Consort with the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship." Whatsoever hath led the children of men to shun one another, and hath caused dissensions and divisions amongst them, hath, through the revelation of these words, been nullified and abolished.

______________________________________

And in our history we have dealt with the most virulent of fundamentalists, Nazis and communists and survived.

- Art

[InLove]

Hi, Peace to All Here--
In the interest of not shutting down valuable communication, (okay, in self-defense as well) here goes.

Originally Posted by bolo

InLove

I am rather surprised that you seem to find me the enemy when all I have done is express a fair desire for others to be made aware of the clear dangers of interfaithing with fundamentalism as you appear to be promoting herein. I feel the "danger" lies in your words - not mine and this is supported by examining the history of how fundamentalism actually works!

I do not see you as “the enemy”. You are missing my point. I know that I appear to be arguing semantics over the term “fundamentalist”. But it goes beyond semantics. The majority of people in this world who embrace the actual “fundamentals” of their faith, no matter what faith, are not fanatic political or religious activists. Moreover, millions of people on this planet do not speak in “scholarly” terms. This does not, by any means, invalidate their experience or their terminology. The scholar who is truly wise understands that to speak only in scholary language tends to alienate the very people with whom he/she is trying to communicate.

Originally Posted by bolo

You have not in any way given us any feasible reassurance of how you plan to rewrite the holy books of any sort of fundamentalism and remove the parts which demand the adherents of those faiths to convert or oppress others. Do you actually ‘deny’ that is what is asked for in these assumed sacred scriptures? Can you not appreciate this truth?

I don’t believe that I have indicated anywhere that I plan to alter the divine literature of the ages. If you are referring to what is generally called "The Great Commission” in the Bible, then perhaps I can help. If you need help understanding the term “Jihad”, then there are others here in CR who can address this better that I. You have indicated that you are interested in history; so you might find this a valuable endeavor.

Originally Posted by bolo

You appear to accuse me of not ‘investigating’ the situation, yet by your own admissions it is undoubtedly ‘you’ that is acting in a most naïve and dangerous manner by urging other good and trusting people to interfaith with absolutist faith systems that are only interested in seeking new converts.

I never said that I am naïve. But you have said so several times now. I never said I was acting in a dangerous manner by urging anyone to interfaith with anyone else. All I have done is to speak from my own experience, promise you that I would do some research on the organizations you have mentioned, and continue my own interfaith experience.

Originally Posted by bolo

You go on to allude that I am also only referring to the Christian branch of fundamentalism. This is simply not true as I deplore all forms of absolutism.

My apologies. I have re-read your last post, and it does not specifically address one group. And for a minute there, I thought you might be onto something by using the term “absolutism” rather than “fundamentalism”. But after a quick study, I realize that this might be confusing to the masses as well, since it is sometimes interchangeable with Calvinism. So, still searching…it may be a losing battle, but I really have a problem accepting a definition I believe is erroneous, even when modern scholars, political activists, and the press insist on shoving down my throat. It just keeps coming back up (no pun intended, it just came out that way).

Originally Posted by bolo

It must however be realised that we in the West we do see a greater influence for Christian-type fundamentalism as this is of course the historically governing structure that we have been largely brought up with and live under in general. Do you also deny this?

Speaking as a U.S. citizen, I see our governing structure as a democracy. Some say it is a republic. Still looking into that one. And no, I don’t deny that there has been and continues to be a great deal of Christian influence in “Western” societies. And some of it has come under the name of Christ, but had little to do with the fundamentals of His teachings.

Originally Posted by bolo

Terms like ‘always’ and ‘never’ that you draw attention to me using are especially fitting for the theocratical (and not only social) - based behaviour that is displayed on a weekly national basis by all fundamentalists. I am very surprised that you appear now to be some sort of ‘apologist’ for such radical factions

.

It is unfortunate that you see me as an apologist for extreme political and religious activists. This is a misunderstanding on your part.

Originally Posted by bolo

You declare that you will not go into the whole matter of fundamentalists yet here you are in fact blatantly urging us to open doors to these rampant faith systems that have always believed that anyone who fails to share their brand of religion is bogus, misled and inspired by evil forces in spiritual matters. How in their right mind could anyone advocate such a ridiculous thing?

Again, you are misunderstanding me. I have repeatedly and directly addressed the issue of “fundamentalism”. And I have never urged anyone to be trampled or brainwashed by extremists. I suggested that you call the police if you are having problems with outlaws.

Originally Posted by bolo

Do you not realise that fundamentalism has been intimately monitoring, analyzing, researching and infiltrating other faiths for numerous centuries? Trusting faith systems that the fundamentalists now know ‘more’ about than the majority of actual adherents to those faiths know?

Ahh…now we are getting somewhere! At least we are distinguishing between the extremists and the fundamentalists. I think what you are getting at here is what I have been trying to tell you. The extremists will tell the real fundamentalists that they have been following the wrong path. They tell them that they need to go out and persecute those who do not agree with them. But the real fundamentalists know better. As a friend of mine (a Methodist minister, by the way) once told me, “Jesus died to take away our sins, not our brains”.

Originally Posted by bolo

You give the distinct impression that you are altogether uninformed of the fact that across the globe, cultures that at first ‘welcomed’ (i.e. interfaithed with) seemingly friendly missionaries with open arms have been later subjugated by these great experts in worldwide religious conversion. Have you never heard of ‘Evangelisation’ or pondered on the significance of this term and considered how it actually applies to the interfaith situation? Do you know how much they spent of their so-called 'Decade of Evangelisation' or have any idea of the ramifications?

Would it interest you at all to know that I am of Cherokee heritage? Would this make a difference in your perception of my words? Of course, I know about these things. My heart is broken concerning these events. The Spirit grieves. But the Spirit can give us the wisdom to understand the past and learn from it. I can accept Christ because I recognize Him by the Spirit, regardless of what the powermongers in this world do. I know the difference between using His name to gain political power and leaning on His Spirit to understand His Word.

Originally Posted by bolo

You ought to also realise that the ‘ordinary’ everyday Christians, Muslims etc who only pay lip-service to their given faiths have been inadvertently towing the line for the more fundamentalist leaders for many centuries. This is frequently done in an innocent fashion and without clear knowledge of what lies under the thin veneer of religious respectability, supposed tolerance and social concern.

If you will re-read my posts, I think you will find that I am aware that some people do not understand the nature of the alliances they have formed. My hope is that these alliances do not last forever. I pray that their eyes will be opened, and they will see that the actions of the people they follow do not reflect the philosophy they claim to promote.

Originally Posted by bolo

A vulgar analogy may be with how many nice ordinary German families supported the national political regime in the last world war whilst it was busy murdering millions behind the scenes due to a core belief that if was 'superior' in some way. The families where yes very nice yet they were perhaps largely unaware of what exactly lay behind the main thrust of their supported beliefs!

Again, Hitler was not telling The Truth. His actions reveal this. People were confused. He confused them on purpose and substituted his own order. As you say, it was a “national political regime”. But it certainly was not presented as “an interfaith endeavor”. And for what it’s worth, history shows that many of the German people were not fooled. .

Originally Posted by bolo

Fundamentalism, either religious or political, is the 'real' enemy (not I my friend) that you should be watching out for, as it is anti-freedom, anti-democratic and anti-human!

There’s that word again!

Basically, bolo, what I am telling you is that by your chosen terminology, you are putting off many sincere people of various faiths who might listen to your warning if you would say things a little differently. Think of it as a “language barrier”. Please?

I do apologize for offending you. The post you are responding to does sound a bit sarcastic. I can only confess that I replied the way I did because you keep calling me or people like me “naïve” or “idiotic”. It’s the language, again.

Now, if you will excuse me, I have an appointment with a Buddhist. No, I am not going to try and convert or oppress him. I just want to know more about his perception of the Mystical Christ.

InPeace,
InLove

[InLove]

Originally Posted by InLove

Now, if you will excuse me, I have an appointment with a Buddhist. No, I am not going to try and convert or oppress him. I just want to know more about his perception of the Mystical Christ.

InPeace,
InLove

Oops, perhaps not a Buddhist. Sorry.

Anyway, on with the interfaith experience....

InPeace,
InLove

[bolo]

Originally Posted by arthra

I think Bolo that your reaction to what you perceive as fundamentalism only will shut down any kind of valuable exchange or possible dialogue.

To me your view is extreme... Inter-faith by its very nature is an open system..

Intrinsic in my Faith is the following admonition:

"Consort with the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship." Whatsoever hath led the children of men to shun one another, and hath caused dissensions and divisions amongst them, hath, through the revelation of these words, been nullified and abolished.

______________________________________

And in our history we have dealt with the most virulent of fundamentalists, Nazis and communists and survived.

- Art

To me your view is ‘naïve’ and very dangerous! Interfaith is yes agreed an open system that is exactly WHY it has to be made aware of the clear dangers posed by the infiltration from the forces of missionary fundamentalism. Why you seem blind to this fact is simply amazing to me!

[InLove]

Originally Posted by Ruby

Bolo, this is not in the least surprising. You ARE the enemy to fundamentalists. You point out their secret tricks. InLove doesn't like you doing that. It will hurt InLove's trade.

Ruby, I am sorry that you feel this way. You misunderstand me, as well.

InPeace,
InLove

[bolo]

Originally Posted by InLove

Oops, perhaps not a Buddhist. Sorry.

Anyway, on with the interfaith experience....

InPeace,
InLove

? And that is quite a 'mystifying' comment in itself!


I shall respond to your other comments when time permits me to - yet for now I will simply say that once again you have missed/ignored in fact all the main points which matter and especially the one which asks you how you will alter centuries of doctrinal teaching governing the lives of milliuons of ordinary folk, who follow the theocratical leaders that claim to uphold the TRUE and ONLY worthwhile faith(s).

Interfaith with intolerant missionary forces that claim the total monopoly on truth is both ludicrous and amazingly silly!

I am not 'offended' in any way just gob-smacked that others can be so utterly naive (that 'word' again!)