Interfaith as a Faith

[InLove]

bolo: I was addressing that last comment to the interfaith community here as a whole--not you directly. I feel certain that there are others here who are not so mystified by my statement.

So, bottom line, if you do not want to interfaith with the people you insist upon calling "fundamentalists", then don't. I never advocated you doing this in the first place. I only asked you to reconsider your terminology.

If we are at an impass, then that is where we are. Believe it or not, most of the Christian community would not even label me as a "fundamentalist". I have tried to help you communicate with the people you are trying to warn. I see that I have not succeeded in doing so, so I will not bother you anymore about it.

Ruby, while you were posting here, I was posting what I thought might be something of interest to you on one of your threads on the LC board. I did not know you perceived me this way, or I would not have bothered you anymore, either. My sincere apologies.

InPeace,
InLove

[lunamoth]

bolo and Ruby, sounds like paranoid delusions to me. A fundy lurking in every dark corner, infiltrating our churches and interfaith activities (and forums).

Fundamentalist/intolerant attitudes are human traits, not a religous ones.

2 c,
lunamoth

[arthra]

The thing is... in "real life" and that means of course what I've experienced (heh...heh) ...those who cannot tolerate differences or different views avoid Inter-faith activities because they simply don't want to expose themselves to alternate possible views...or are maybe not ready yet.

If anything they may suspect us of subterfuge .... and are more fearful.

So we need to work at allaying each other's apprehensions and relaxing and opening "the eye of thine inward being". Maybe enjoying some concert together or working on a service project.

There are fundamentalists...and there are fundamentalists. Everybody's different and has capacity to change... Even me!

- Art

[taijasi]

It seems to me that if the fundamentals of any faith are Brotherly Love based on the Golden Rule (or its equivalent), including a basic respect for one's neighbor, regardless of creed, caste, gender, skin color, or ethnic background ... then the particulars of one's religion (or one's neighbor's) really don't matter, and I should be proud to be a `fundamentalist!'

So it is very much so a question of semantics. I would go further, and say that there are many people who have a somewhat narrow view of things, whether this be from a religious perspective, a geographical/cultural mindset, or a political, even scientific one! But this still does not preclude simple human decency, patience, a respect for others, and in many cases, a strong desire to learn and to better oneself. This can also extend to others, such that the most narrow-thinking of people, can also be some of the most altruistic, or other-focused.

And at the end of the day, or even for my brief stay in Heaven (in the Devachan of the Theosophist, or the Pure Land of the Theravadin), I'd as soon be with a narrow-minded NICE person ... as an arrogant & big-headed genius, even if s/he did happen to know everything there was to know about world religions.

So I find myself struggling (harder than ever) to NOT be one of the latter, and if I am a bit narrow about some things (MANY things) ... then I'd like to try, in all humility, to change that. But what good is it, for knowledge's sake, if it serves no purpose at the end of the day, than to make my head a little bigger? There goes I Cor. 13 again ...

On the more Humanistic side, I think there are few documents more sacred on this planet - than such a thing as the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document will be only 60 years old next year, but its value, in modern times, far exceeds that of many, many stacks of the "holy documents" or sacred scriptures of every world religion (imho), for precisely the reasons I have mentioned above. In the very least, it should complement these scriptures, being - itself - a testimony to and appeal for the recognition of the presence of the Divine in every person ... often phrased in terms of DIGNITY.

For causes such as this, were Great Souls like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., martyred. Bono Vox, the Good Voice of U2, along with Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, and incredible numbers of other unlikelys, through their Humanitarian actions (philanthropic, altrustic, other-focused, and truly Charitable) ... are all the proof I need that what the Christian calls `God' and `Christ' - as well as what the Buddhist refers to as `Bodhichitta' and `Buddha Nature' - are alive & well, very active in the world today.

Interfaith dialogue, it can help, if it contributes to our understanding of one another, and especially if it furthers, or makes possible, such progress as these very practical things that various noble souls are doing to alleviate suffering and to help liberate the human spirit. They do not all hail from one religion, these souls, but they do serve - One Cause.

I even believe that at some point in the future, we will have `One World Relgiion,' but this is something so wonderful, so beautiful, and so amazing ... that I feel increasingly unworthy to even suggest the idea. It is something a person must come to, on his or her own, and it CANNOT be imposed from without, since even the recognition that this is desirable - and GOOD - is quite a bit too frightening for many individuals to consider.

The group-reaction mentality, of many faiths and religious mindsets, still colors and conditions us ... so that even if a man stand up and cry out for Unity, he is more likely (in many parts of this world) still - to be crucified for it, or villified, spat upon, and chased off. Whether that occurs at an online forum, on a college campus, or in the heart of a major city, makes little difference. It underscores how much growth we still lack ... before Love can truly save the day.

So Interfaith first, and maybe some day ... an InterWeaving of religious Faiths, to form One Faith. The kind of fundamentaiism that opposes either of these gestures, is the kind of which I think we must be wary. No need for paranoia, but perhaps best to sidestep it, whenever it appears. And if there's one thing I've learned about detractors and this spirit that seeks to divide - is that neither can survive where is nothing there to fuel them.

Namaskar,

taijasi

[taijasi]

Btw, nice post, Art. I like how some of the same ideas can make it into two, or several posts on CR at once! I've seen this happen often, and it's an interesting phenomenon. Almost like some kind of Raincloud just precipitates it ...

Namaskar,

taijasi

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

bolo and Ruby, sounds like paranoid delusions to me. A fundy lurking in every dark corner, infiltrating our churches and interfaith activities (and forums).

Fundamentalist/intolerant attitudes are human traits, not a religous ones.

2 c,
lunamoth

I have no proof exactly which minute I deleted that post but it was well before you posted this one. I think it was just before InLove posted #46.

All the crap I have to put up with on here, then you "nice" guys go hold onto grudges like they were life-savers. I don't claim to be a Christian and it's treatment like this that convinces me that religion has NOTHING to do with what makes people good. I had simply answered another person's question. If Christians had been half as good to me I might be a Christian today. But no! They refuse to answer questions. And they punish me when I do. That has been the story of my whole life. THE GOLDEN RULE DOES NOT WORK.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

I have no proof exactly which minute I deleted that post but it was well before you posted this one. I think it was just before InLove posted #46.

All the crap I have to put up with on here, then you "nice" guys go hold onto grudges like they were life-savers. I don't claim to be a Christian and it's treatment like this that convinces me that religion has NOTHING to do with what makes people good. I had simply answered another person's question. If Christians had been half as good to me I might be a Christian today. But no! They refuse to answer questions. And they punish me when I do. That has been the story of my whole life. THE GOLDEN RULE DOES NOT WORK.

Hi Ruby,

Well, from where I sit you are not the only one here putting up with a lot of cr*p. Look. I hear your pain, I know that lots of bad things are done to people and have been done to you in the name of religion, but that is not an excuse for you to lash out at every other person on this forum, accusing anyone who even comes close to having a traditional view of Christianity as a "Fundy."

People have reached out to you here, including myself. I wish you could see that.

Laurie

[RubySera_Martin]

So I guess you justify yourself for posting against a deleted post. You think you have a right to call me down for a post I had already deleted. That is what offends me.

I can't help it that she copied my post. I should not be held responsible for what other people do with my posts. But that is exactly what you are doing.

It's the heigh of unfairness.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

So I guess you justify yourself for posting against a deleted post. You think you have a right to call me down for a post I had already deleted. That is what offends me.

No Ruby, not just that post. I'm not trying to justify anything. I am responding as a member (not a moderator) who has become very frustrated with your highly negative view of anything that remotely smacks of traditional Christian belief. I respect your search for meaning, and admire how you've found it in nature and your quest for being your authentic self. Others here have also admired these qualities of yours. But, respect is a two-way street. I'm sorry you see my faith as a dirty mitten. It may be worn and frayed, but it still keeps me warm.

I'm willing to start over with you. How about it?

Laurie

[InLove]

Hi, Peace to All Here--

Well, it looks like there was a technical problem. As I have said before, I am famous for them. But when I posted, I honestly did not know you would delete your post, Ruby. Stuff happens, I guess.

I am willing to start over as well. I just saw your response to me on the other thread I mentioned. Thank you. I have not read through everything that has been posted everywhere since I have been in the shower, and I am going to my daughter's house tonight, but when I come home or in the morning, I will read through it all.

I am grateful for the "cool" heads that do prevail. My wish is to become very, very cool.

Thanks everyone. Everyone.

InPeace,
InLove

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

I should not be held responsible for what other people do with my posts.

No, Ruby - you should accept responsibility for what you post on a public forum. Whether you go back and delete that post or not is irrelevant - once you've made a statement in public, you can't call it unfair if people hold you to your words, even if you try and pretend they never happened.

Anyway, it would be great to get back on topic.

[bolo]

Caution is alas recurrently mistaken for paranoia. This is an old truism which still holds water today, however many can not face this truth (or simply do no want to) for it deeply ‘challenges’ their subconscious private leanings to what they perhaps fear the most!

So my well- meant views, which I simply included to only ‘caution’ other people about accepting missionary fundamentalists into ordinary interfaith gatherings are seen by some on this thread as “extreme” are they? This is quite hilarious when we consider that orthodox faith systems have for centuries used religious nonconformists as whipping boys to implement their secular authority over their own followers. Attacks on different beliefs (within and without the main orthodoxy) are so interwoven into our history and civilization that representatives of these mainstream religions seem to feel as though they not only have a right but a 'sacred obligation' to belittle, condemn, disinform, reject and ridicule beliefs that fail to live up to their prejudiced doctrinal expectations.

I entirely agree that all rational persons within both Christianity and Islam may try to work reciprocally and pleasantly under the devise of Inter-Faith relations, however no matter how many charismatic people there are in both these exclusive faith systems they will ‘never’ (that word again) manage to overcome the iniquitous and self-centred character of underlying fundamentalism that exists at the very heart of their faiths. Most adherents of course seek to usually play this fact down or alter the reality of the situation somewhat. Never mind any other religions or philosophies but if I had a pound/dollar for every time that I have heard at first ‘affable’ Christian and Muslim ‘experts’ together on radio/TV shows later rip each others beliefs apart as being bogus and misleading I would now be pretty rich. These two faiths alone can ‘never’ get along for long when it comes down to the – ‘My faiths righteous and genuine but yours is counterfeit, my holy book proved this’, grass root issue of faith. They will under no circumstances transform their holy scriptures to fit in with others that they perceive as being corrupt and in opposition to theirs – no way EVER! History proves this so well and this historical problem is ‘theirs’ to fix at ground level - not ours!

An unstable minority of persons (e.g. the same old fundamentalists that follow the faith ‘strictly’ and to the letter, who are always waiting in the wings) is all it takes to utterly devastate the greatest efforts of everyone else by misconstruing Holy Writ (or should I say sticking to its original scripturally-designed tenants?) These are the radical activists, who are frequently supported by large extremely well-funded (with ‘public’ donations) missionary based organisations, which I allude to and the ones that you ‘must ‘become aware of if you are at all genuine in wanting to preserve any type of harmony within interfaith liaison. I tell you this my friends in good faith as innocence is certainly NO excuse at this stage of the game. In the U.K for instance, I have always maintained that the concept of creating a so-called Multi-Faith society was a hollow façade due to the wholly disproportionate power held by the Church of England. Yes you may accuse me of being overtly cynical, nevertheless recently the Church of England insisted on its ‘supremacy’ by redefining the boundaries. Their barrage against Islam was the notorious public statement that: 'Britain is not a multi-faith community - it is a Multi-Cultural community'. How utterly insulting this was for many who did not share that same CofE core belief and yes it ‘did’ create a big fuss. That was obviously a plain warning that the people who ‘organize’ Christianity see it as clearly possessing ‘precedence’ and having distinct liberties in addition to any other spiritual classification in the U.K. Rights that they have no intent on yielding to ‘anyone’ at any time. This is how they self-admittedly see the spiritual situation and how they wish to keep the ‘monopoly’ of religious public perception and focus. I know that other countries have seen similar events/public disclosures that compare with this type of old-fashioned religious ‘elitism’ from religious leaders and of course politicians in high office. Remember though please that we are NOT talking of centuries ago when the Church cremated ‘heretics’ alive at the stake (e.g. perhaps people like me who speak the truth as they see it)– we are talking of what is happening today – now!

On another level of selective fundamentalism we can see the dangers within. For example, some so-called Pro-life, anti-abortion activists expressing excessively religious views have fashioned highly aggressive actions against others that they have disagreed with. Campaigners from these religious clusters have picketed ‘legal’ abortion clinics and terrorised the medical workers and patients within. Due to this type of gross religious fundamentalism - violence and police participation has ensued and doctors have even been murdered in the name of God. Yes, devout Christians ‘do’ kill. This type of disruptive commotion which is based on religious fervour is performed in the name of their god. We can see similar actions in the biblical objections against the Euthanasia lobby which is persistently being blocked by the Bishops – the leading fundamentalists that think we must be forced to live through severe and painful terminal illness and not have the human dignity to choose when to die if we so choose. Of course I could go one and on about such matters.

These events mark only a few small examples of how spiritual extremists (and yes in this particular event Christians) act when they fail to get their own way. Furthermore, in the UK we have recently had Christian fundamentalists mounting huge pickets across the country in protest against a successful stage show (Jerry Springer the Opera) which ‘they’ say is offensive to God. I know personally that some of the performers in that show have even received death threats. Why anyone would wish to ‘interfaith’ with such ‘damaged goods’ is just unbelievable, silly and defies all common-sense. I certainly don’t seek to denounce all people who follow the path of Christianity, Islam or in fact any other faith system. I recognize that most Christians and Muslims are fine, caring individuals, yet I do firmly ‘condemn’ any individual spiritual storm-trooper or grouping that wants to over-prioritise themselves above and at the ‘expense’ of other more trusting religions. Now if that makes me an ‘extremist’ then that is what I am.

Accepting such self-righteous zealots that work on a - ‘Must gain converts to the faith’ hidden agenda into tolerant interfaith events is plainly ridiculous and can only lead to tears for the well-meaning yet overtly unquestioning little souls that unwisely opened the door in the first place.

[bolo]

BTW – here is more on the fundamentalist group ‘Christian Voice’ which is heavily behind the Jerry Springer Opera protests which I mentioned. They, like other evangelicals, are against abortion, euthanasia, gay rights, other faiths etc and are supported by countless everyday religious people who think they are working for love and harmony in society.

http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/islam20.html

Of course there are many hundreds of thousands of such fundamentalist organisations eagerly waiting for the chance of a polite invitation to ‘interfaith’ (e.g. spread their somewhat coloured version of truth and light) with more trusting types.

Virtually all of these sort of highly intolerant groups are connected to the larger religious lobby organisations which in itself is quite a sobering thought! The forces of fundamentalism rely on public trust, gullibility and conditioning to survive.

I wonder, do you consider their particular views to be fair and balanced or "extreme"?

[arthra]

Bolo... Just curious. You're fairly new to this forum and I haven't asked you about your own interest or orientation.

So feel free to do that...

- Art

[RubySera_Martin]

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.

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.