Fundamentalism: church of amalgamation

[Mus Zibii]

Is fundamentalism the answer or the problem? In America, some Christians wear the term like a badge of honor and scoff at the notion that totalitarian religion is something unholy. Islam seems to be following this path, becoming tragically inseparable from middle-eastern terrorism in the eyes of many. Like their Christian and Jewish and Buddhist and Hindu and even Atheist brothers, they see no harm in attempting to systematically rid the planet of unbelievers.

What evidence is there in any given faith that dominance of the respective religion is not the only way to worship? Is God and/or higher truth so fragile that it requires blood to sustain it? Is it the work of a devil or just humanity?

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Mus Zibii!

Is fundamentalism the answer or the problem?

There are other threads here that deal with this subject in general at length.

What evidence is there in any given faith that dominance of the respective religion is not the only way to worship?

Just curious, what is your solution?

 

[samabudhi]

What evidence is there in any given faith that dominance of the respective religion is not the only way to worship?

How about: many forms of worship in a single faith.
If a single faith supports many different methods, then why wouldn't it be open to other methods from other faiths? (rhetorical)

 

[lunamoth]

Sam:

How about: many forms of worship in a single faith.


lunamoth: It's just my take on things, but I think this is what we already have, we just don't see it.


Sam: If a single faith supports many different methods, then why wouldn't it be open to other methods from other faiths? (rhetorical)

lunamoth: I'm not sure I understand your question correctly, but I'll take a stab at it. It's a dilemma for those consciously and conscientiously trying to observe their religion. On the one hand if you "pick and choose" among the teachings of a religion to suit your own ideas then you have supplanted the teachings of that religion with your own. You've decided you know better than God, and what kind of God is that to worship? Thus the disdain for this among purists, or fundamentalists. On the other hand, if you decide to follow a path to the letter of the law/practice/doctrine, you lose any wiggle room to think that other people are totally as good as you are on different paths. Once you choose what you believe to be right, then others must be wrong, or at least lacking. At least this is how it appears to me in monotheism.

Sorry if I've missed your point and spoken out of line.

cheers,

 

[Quesocoatl]

Is fundamentalism the answer or the problem? In America, some Christians wear the term like a badge of honor and scoff at the notion that totalitarian religion is something unholy. Islam seems to be following this path, becoming tragically inseparable from middle-eastern terrorism in the eyes of many. Like their Christian and Jewish and Buddhist and Hindu and even Atheist brothers, they see no harm in attempting to systematically rid the planet of unbelievers.

What evidence is there in any given faith that dominance of the respective religion is not the only way to worship? Is God and/or higher truth so fragile that it requires blood to sustain it? Is it the work of a devil or just humanity?

I don't really see what's so fundamental about it.

 

[lunamoth]

Just an addendum thought. There are lots of people who don't worry about such things. Perhaps even the majority of believers. Peace!

 

[Mus Zibii]

Kindest Regards, Mus Zibii!


There are other threads here that deal with this subject in general at length.


Just curious, what is your solution?

Believe it or not, I looked and didn't see any. Then I went to the front page, saw a link directly to a friggin' thread about this same thing. So... sorry.

My solution? Tolerance, patience, letting down defense and listening to other views. A little less conversion by fire and sword.

 

[iBrian]

Nothing really wrong with threads overlapping on subject matter - its a pretty norm experience of messageboards.

 

[samabudhi]

On the one hand if you "pick and choose" among the teachings of a religion to suit your own ideas then you have supplanted the teachings of that religion with your own. You've decided you know better than God, and what kind of God is that to worship?

I see religions as tools for us to use, not people as slaves to religions.

On the other hand, if you decide to follow a path to the letter of the law/practice/doctrine, you lose any wiggle room to think that other people are totally as good as you are on different paths. Once you choose what you believe to be right, then others must be wrong, or at least lacking. At least this is how it appears to me in monotheism.

Yes. Monotheistic, which essentially means, one way. Many Gods = many ways = more tolerance without even having to bother about it.

 

[Mus Zibii]

I see religions as tools for us to use, not people as slaves to religions.

Yup...

The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.

 

[Mus Zibii]

I saw today video of children (have no idea who they were, where they were from, assuming they were middle-eastern) acting out the beheading of Nick Berg.

A couple of weeks ago, I visted an Evangelical Christian forum (out of curiousity) and large groups were bragging about taking their children out of school under the pretense of home-schooling while they themselves were quitting their jobs. Why? Because Glorious Appearing, the best selling Evangelical 'NOVEL' had been released and these many many people were taking it as a sign that the rapture is near.

Now, how are these two set of kids going to deal with life ten years down the line?

Child abuse is bad enough, but can you imagine being scarred in the name of God and then having to live with a screwed up take on faith or none at all? Sometimes I wish I believed in hell.

 

[lunamoth]

I see religions as tools for us to use, not people as slaves to religions.


Yes. Monotheistic, which essentially means, one way. Many Gods = many ways = more tolerance without even having to bother about it.

I have to correct myself: I said "that's how it appears to me in monotheism" but what I meant was that's how it appears to me in fundamentalism.

Reading Elaine Pagel's Beyond Belief, The Secret Gospel of Thomas. I think she makes a good point that eventually many of us need to seek our own way. A lot of the book is about how the early church fathers tried to use discernment of spirits to decide what was of God, what was man's imaginings, and so sorted out a lot of the apocrophal writings still known or recently discovered. It was done in a polictical climate of course, but it was not done out of evil intentions, I don't think. Irenaeus, it seems, had church unity in mind when he made his selection of the four gospels. 'course a whole bunch of Christians had to be named heretics to achieve this. Sigh.

Fundamentalist, liberal, free spirit. Whatever the name, however you choose to view your religion or path, in the end it is what you do with it that counts. Does your way lead to peace and loving-kindness, or to violence and oppression.

 

[samabudhi]

I think she makes a good point that eventually many of us need to seek our own way.

In the end, everyone has their own religion anyway. Noone prays for the same amount of time. Noone has the same devotion as any one other person. No two people are without at least a single point of difference when it comes to religious scripture.

Ask Avinash. He pointed out that the concept of 'religion' is just a self-imposed barrier which has nothing to do with the truth. If someone was sincere in their spirituality, the boundaries of religion would never be allowed to become a problem.

Damn. I can't remember one of my stock quotes. It went something like, 'Christianity has more schisms than...' and then I forget. Oh well. You can imagine.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, samabudhi!

It went something like, 'Christianity has more schisms than...' and then I forget. Oh well.

With all due respect, it seems to me that buddhism does too.

 

[samabudhi]

Juantoo

I meant nothing derogatory about Christianity having schisms, it's just so much more pronounced than in Buddhism. Eastern religions are less prone to labeling and boxing. Take the far east for instance. Many people consider themselves Confucian, Taoist and Buddhist. Abrahmic religions have a tendency to become exclusive, hence the irony when it ends in their fracturing.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, samabudhi!

I meant nothing derogatory about Christianity having schisms, it's just so much more pronounced than in Buddhism. Eastern religions are less prone to labeling and boxing. Take the far east for instance. Many people consider themselves Confucian, Taoist and Buddhist. Abrahmic religions have a tendency to become exclusive, hence the irony when it ends in their fracturing.

I did not feel you were being derogatory, at least I didn't take it that way. You were merely providing your observation. As I was. And I wanted to help insure my observation was not seen as derogatory.

I do not disagree with your view, I do think it stems from a different perspective, or "take on things." The Abrahamic religions are not exclusively as you see, but there are dominant factions within each segment that are as you see.
Likewise, from what I have seen, mostly in this forum, there are schisms among Buddhism as well, that are inherent in "denominational" factionalizing. Different individuals see the world differently. I saw somewhere recently that Asian minds think differently than Western minds, that because of the nature of the religious/moral drives within the accepted social norms the brains of the two distinct cultures develop differently. I am not versed well enough to elaborate, but I think it is intriguing.

I am not sure I agree that Eastern religions are less prone to "labelling and boxing." Even in what I have learned here from Vaj, I understand there are several dominant styles/types/denominations of Buddhism, and I suspect likewise of Taoism and Confuscianism. Because those boxes and labels are different, does not mean they do not exist. Because the adherents prefer not to call a box "a box," does not mean a box doesn't exist.

And while I agree that exclusivity that ends in fracture is ironic, I do not see that as solely endemic in the Abrahamic religions. Denial doesn't remove the reality overall, it merely casts a blanket over the view of the one in denial.

I guess what I am trying very delicately to say, is that a pot calling a kettle black as a reason for dismissal, or whatever, doesn't seem any more convincing than the other way around...the kettle calling the pot black for the same reasons. If both are "guilty," then such a reason is shared by both and not a worthwhile argument to be used against either. In other words, it comes across to me as an attempt to establish the exclusivity of Buddhism by charging the Abrahamic religions with exclusivism. From where I sit, exclusivity is a personal/individual thing. Yes, in some cases it is institutionalized. But ultimately the individual is accountable for their own actions. I come from a Christian perspective on this, and I am not viewing others with an exclusive view. (Contrarian? Perhaps...). In my understanding Buddhism places the onus on the individual as well. For an individual Buddhist to claim exclusivity, is that not contrarian as well?

Perhaps I am out of line; if so, I apologize. These are merely my observations.

 

[samabudhi]

I saw somewhere recently that Asian minds think differently than Western minds, that because of the nature of the religious/moral drives within the accepted social norms the brains of the two distinct cultures develop differently. I am not versed well enough to elaborate, but I think it is intriguing.

It certainly is, but I think when you say Asian, you mean east of India. I think the main reason for the eastern mind being so extremely different to the rest of the worlds', is their language. Their languages fall into the Sino-Tibetan group, which has a markably different way of expression and pronounciation.
For instance, the pitch of words in the Germanic languages is used primarily for expression. There are only a few exceptions like, 'You're done!' being a statement, and 'You're done?' being a question, each involving a different pitch. In the Sino-Tibetan languages, pitch is an integral part of the meaning. (There are special terms which I can't remember right now.) In Mandarin Chinese for instance, there are 5 different pitches. Saying 'Ghan' where the f
word is flat would mean 'Dry.' Saying 'Ghan' where the pitch of a word trails downward would be the equivalent of our f-word. So it's important that you get it right! 'Could I have some f-ing noodles please. '
Apparently Cantonese has 7 pitches!

Language plays an extremely important part in the structuring of thoughts in the brain. It cannot be underestimated. It ultimately has an effect on the way we think about everything, since most of our thoughts get run through our internal dialogue and are subject to it's terms and conditions.

I am not sure I agree that Eastern religions are less prone to "labelling and boxing." Even in what I have learned here from Vaj, I understand there are several dominant styles/types/denominations of Buddhism, and I suspect likewise of Taoism and Confuscianism. Because those boxes and labels are different, does not mean they do not exist. Because the adherents prefer not to call a box "a box," does not mean a box doesn't exist.

Ah! But it does. There is ultimately no distinction between religions. If there were, then we would all be holding onto our own distinct religion, and how could they be called religions then, but only points of view. If you make a point of being different, then what is your motive. You are drawing our attention to the fact that you are different, and the only outcome of such actions is conflict.

While it is true that there are many, many different points of view within Buddhism, there is far more tolerance for them. Abrahamites can be so extremely nit-pickety, fighting over the most trivial details. I still haven't worked out what the difference is between Shiite and Sunni, though I think the reason is that they are not fighting over the religion, but rituals and parasitic memes, if you like, that have become attached to the religion.

In other words, it comes across to me as an attempt to establish the exclusivity of Buddhism by charging the Abrahamic religions with exclusivism.

When I wrote that line, I had not the faintest thought of Buddhism in my mind. It was so not about comparisons. If you'd like, I humbly retract my original statement.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, samabudhi!

Thank you very much for your response!

It certainly is, but I think when you say Asian, you mean east of India. I think the main reason for the eastern mind being so extremely different to the rest of the worlds', is their language. Their languages fall into the Sino-Tibetan group, which has a markably different way of expression and pronounciation.

Ah yes, thank you for the reminder. I can see now how language would contribute to the different "formatting."

In the Sino-Tibetan languages, pitch is an integral part of the meaning.

I was talking with a friend today about how the "surfer" lingo of the West Coast (mainly around Los Angeles) has developed a tonal significance. My friend called this culture "valley-sheep", said in a distinct tone mimicking the bleating of a sheep, and it like totally made sense!

So yes, inflection can change the meaning of a grouping of words. We thought this unique, not being able to think of any other English speaking sub-culture in the US that is so tonal. And California has a long history with Asian immigrants. Purely speculation on our part, but it would seem to support what you say here in an abstract way.

Language plays an extremely important part in the structuring of thoughts in the brain. It cannot be underestimated. It ultimately has an effect on the way we think about everything, since most of our thoughts get run through our internal dialogue and are subject to it's terms and conditions.

Oh, absolutely!

Ah! But it does. There is ultimately no distinction between religions. If there were, then we would all be holding onto our own distinct religion, and how could they be called religions then, but only points of view.

Yes, I like to think that the vast majority of religions are looking towards the same goal, that they are expressions that are culturally significant and meaningful. Still, each individual will still see the world through their own eyes. That view may be moulded and framed by what they are familiar with, but ultimately no two people will see any single thing/matter/concept in an identical way. So there is the individual component.

If you make a point of being different, then what is your motive. You are drawing our attention to the fact that you are different, and the only outcome of such actions is conflict.

I assure, conflict is not my intent. If I am different, it is because I think for myself. I listen to what others have to say, and I consider such things, but ultimately I have to reconcile with myself. Those things that do not reconcile are set aside.

My intent is to draw out what it is you really mean, for the purpose of understanding. If you are not comfortable, I will stop asking or presenting alternative views.

While it is true that there are many, many different points of view within Buddhism, there is far more tolerance for them. Abrahamites can be so extremely nit-pickety, fighting over the most trivial details.

I agree. Which is why I have such a difficult time with my own faith. I see a lot of contrary reasoning set forth as dogma and doctrine. If we (as Christians) are supposed to love our neighbors, why has that love contained such an Orwellian quality for centuries? Hate, disguised as love. So yes, I agree with you, but I don't think the solution is dismissal or disregard. I like to think the solution lies in dialogue. From dialogue comes understanding. Understanding alleviates unfounded fears. Removal of fear paves a path for tolerance.

When I wrote that line, I had not the faintest thought of Buddhism in my mind. It was so not about comparisons. If you'd like, I humbly retract my original statement.

There is no need to retract the statement. Like I said, I have not taken anything written here as a slight. It serves the point I have finally come to. Dialogue, leading to tolerance, ideally on both of our parts.

Thank you.