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!

Originally Posted by 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]

Originally Posted by Mus Zibii

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:

Originally Posted by samabudhi

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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.

[I, Brian]

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

[samabudhi]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

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]

Originally Posted by samabudhi

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!

Originally Posted by 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.