Interfaith as a Faith

[InLove]

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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. .

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!)

 

[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]

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]

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]

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

 

[iBrian]

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]

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.