Interfaith as a Faith

[bolo]

THANK YOU, Bolo

Thanks Ruby, sadly until some promoters of interfaith between rampant fundamentalism and the more ‘trusting’ types are actually at the receiving end of what this is all about they will never be able to appreciate what persons like you and I are seeking to explain to them in good faith. They will never be able to differentiate between a genuine practitioner at interfaith and a smiling evangelist who is exceptionally well -funded and trained to infiltrate such events for the prime reason of 'Missionary Outreach' to others.

We can only warn!

[RubySera_Martin]

Just read up on this thread. Brian, you imagine my problem with fundamentalism is intolerance. It's not. It's far, far more than intolerance. Okay, okay, anything can be made to fit a mold called "intolerance" but we are talking about something far more sinister than simple intolerance.

You imagine fundamentalism is just a specific set of religious ideas. It's not. It's far, far more than that. And it's not just an American problem. It's a global problem.

However, I think it is imperative that we differentiate between individuals who hold certain religious beliefs and a sinister global threat. We are talking about human beings who have found what they think is the best religious choice for them. We must respect that. And I do. On the level of the individual.

On the level of global politics fundamentalism is more than a threat. It's a reality. If you are at all aware of what happens beyond your own boundaries, which perhaps you aren't, then you will know that I speak the truth.

When the world's most powerful man is a pawn of the Religious Right, then we are in trouble. This has been the case for a very long time. Not even the world wars lasted longer than this war on terrorism has been going on. In another few years we will have put in another "Hundred Years' War." And there is no end in sight.

Someone suggested I refer to such things as global warming. I think that person was being sarcastic in the extreme. Even this war on terrorism is but the tip of the iceburg of the threat of fundamentalism. What Bolo is talking about is far more serious than a little war.

As for your attack on the liberal Christians, Brian, I don't think you understand. So far as I know, not one of us said we were better or more peaceful. We are saying that we want to discuss topics that are not allowed on the regular Christian board, due to the large number of very conservative Christians on there.

If you are at all familiar with forming groups and how they function, you will know that sometimes conflict is necessary simply for people to figure out who's who and what the group is about. In this case, we are talking about the formation of a totally new religious movement. We are at the cutting edge of exploration and search for a theology that can be called Christian but better meet the needs of people today than traditional Christianity.

We are scattered all over the globe and come from very diverse backgrounds and experiences. Most of us have existed on the outer margins of Christianity all our lives because we could neither leave nor stay. A forum like your created for discussion of the issues is desperately needed. Such forums are beginning to appear on the internet.

My problem with you is that you contribute to the problem by hating me for posting and hating me for not posting. You're going to suggest a gentler term than that but it adds up to the same thing--you don't like me. You can delete my membership and all my posts but you cannot change the truth of what I say. Christian fundamentalism is the Number #1 threat of the planet.

I guess normal people would rather kill the prophets and break the mirrors than fix their ignorance and face reality. So Brian if you really and truly want to know why I say fundamentalism is this planet's number one threat, you will absorb what Bolo is saying, and then do some really serious research.

Start with the faith statements of American schools, churches, and other Christian organizations, large numbers of which are posted on the internet and open to the public. Make special note of the faith statements of American megachurches. Research the global outreach programs and missions these churches operate. Look at the positive and negative implications of these beliefs. Research the role of the American Religious Right in global politics and foreign policy TODAY.

I don't know how better to answer your question.

[bolo]

Yes, there can be no possible allegations of "intolerance" which ever stand up against one who only ‘warns’ in fairness about very real missionary dangers.

I reiterate that clever evangelists have been for many centuries abusing the trust, friendliness and blanket naivety of others at interfaith liaisons for the single purpose of creating 'outreaches' to these people. Any genuine examination of how the forces of fundamentalism have usurped other faiths throughout the decades is crystal clear evidence of this. The BIG difference today is that they are just more expert at what they do, e.g. gain converts with more practiced expertise and better-funded methods worldwide. They are not in ‘any’ way interested in sharing the cup of genuine tolerance and understanding for they already have been extremely well-trained to know ‘more’ about the beliefs, traditions, festivals and customs of others than the actual practitioners themselves. They perceive ‘all’ other faiths as being rivals to their limited brand of sectarianism, needing to be either subjugated or ‘spiritually rehabilitated’ and they have greater funding and proficiency in their circles than you could ever imagine. Now, why anyone will not or cannot see this plain fact (which is self-admitted in Christian theological dogma - spreading the gospel/good news etc) is especially bizarre and would lead me for one to seriously question their ‘motives’ on a site which I assume is dedicated to human harmony and spiritual tolerance. Yes, fundamentalism is a global problem and one which needs to the strongly challenged for one set of elitist sectarian beliefs can never result in true concord. Why anyone would wish to help such radical forces gain a foothold at trusting interfaith events is very VERY odd!

[bolo]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Ruby, a question - why is religious fundamentalism the #1 enemy of the planet? Is it by any chance because of intolerence?

One or two serious points need to be addressed herein...

I’m sure that Ruby can answer this one but it has to be said that ‘fundamentalism’ is the number one enemy simply because it demands total and unquestioning allegiance to a doctrinal plan which is elitist, biased against others and seeks to spread this particular spiritual prejudice, which is founded ‘not’ on solid hysterical truths but only blind faith, to others via expert missionary tactics. Of course not that long ago even speaking like this would have resulted in a little visit from the Inquisition and a nice trip to the blazing stake following a fun night or two in the prison. The very same theological credos that sent so many innocent dissenters to that stake are 'still' in place today, the holy books have NOT been changed, and many dearly believe that we would all be better off if we revived their somewhat savage usage into contemporary society - for our own good you understand!

Now where do you think that would leave liberal-minded persons who believe in ‘pro-choice’ issue and personal liberty with anti-biblical topics like abortion, gay rights, euthanasia, minority beliefs etc?

Can you perhaps feel the heat of that stake around here yet?

[bolo]

Tried once again to 'edit' my little slip – ‘historical’ not “hysterical truths” was the word I was after above ..

What's up with the edit function???

[I, Brian]

Ruby, I don't hate you - I simply found your behaviour disruptive, and responded on that point.

As for the whole fundamentalism issue - I don't deny there is aggressive marketing out there, but to claim it as the "Number 1 threat to the planet" I think is more than overstating it. I'll put Climate Change top of that, which is driven by irresponsible consumerism worldwide, rather than due to any specific religious worldview.

To be honest, I don't see a conspiracy with interfaith issues at all and am surprised to see them suggested. It's true that different religious groups want to have a strong voice in interfaith, but I see many sides doing this and act accordingly.

What I find comes across more in this thread is that some people dislike intolerance to the point of intolerance themselves - a paradoxical outlook where those who hate are hated, surely?

[RubySera_Martin]

Brian, thanks for clarifying your position.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

To be honest, I don't see a conspiracy with interfaith issues at all and am surprised to see them suggested. It's true that different religious groups want to have a strong voice in interfaith, but I see many sides doing this and act accordingly.

I wonder if perhaps you simply have not been in a position to see these things. That does not rule out that they exist. It simply means you have not seen them. As you confess, these issues are probably worse in the Bible Belt in the USA than anywhere else in the entire world. I consider it significant that it is these very people who operates American foreign policy.

It has long been known that there is no greater danger to society at large than religious fanatics. And an alarming number of American and Muslim fundamentalists are religious fanatics. Incidentally, they hold the fate of the rest of this planet in their hands. Bush is the Christian fundamentalists' pawn.

Read news articles of the culture wars in the US. When I first read these articles I felt like the air was so full or toxins I could hardly breathe. Brian, this stuff is REAL, whether or not you believe it. In this environment children are being born and raised--just be replicates of their fundy fanatic parents.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that your interfaith forums are wrong or in any way a threat to society. We're trying to discuss an issue some of us deal with on a daily, hourly, basis. It impedes discussion when we are told by the manager that the topic of discussion is illegitimate just because he personally has not seen it, has not been in a position to experience it first-hand.

Maybe someone will have to set up a forum to discuss these issues apart from this forum. However, that would be unfortunate because the people are here.

As for climate being the biggest problem. Brian, if someone blows up the planet in the next few days or years, climate problems will no longer exist. But there's more to it than that. It's a far deeper problem.

Look at the way education laws in some American states have been changed to deny a full scientific education to children in public school--just because fundamentalists believe creationsim is more valid than evolution. The implications for future generations, if we don't blow up the planet first and I don't think we will, are huge. If these children are denied a full education in science, then there will be so many more people who refuse to believe the climate problem.

That's right. Fundamentalists are very likely to reject the idea that climate problems are legitimate. The world is going to end shortly, so why bother your head with science and climate issues. God creates and controls the weather. That is fundamentalist belief.

Also, look at the thousands of people in North America whose lives have been forever scared because of fundamentalist teachings, because of being forced to choose between their families and community, and lying about what they believe. Others have been kicked out of their churches on trumped-up charges, or at the whim of some church leader or pastor.

A significant portion of these excommunicated members are forbidden to interact with or visit their families because of the dictates of fundamentalist religion. Some fundamentalist churches go so far as to invade the marriage bed. Some fundamentalists will refuse to do business with excommunicated members. Some will refuse to eat at the same table as excommunicated family members.

These things damage lives permanently. Counselors and other human service providers see some the worst cases up close on a daily bassis. On the other hand, it is an open question whether the worst cases even get reported or have the strength to seek help.

That is on the personal day-to-day level of existence in an exclusively fundamentalist community. On the macro level, laws are being put in place for some of the more blatant abuses, such as spanking/beating children. Another thing that happens despite laws to prevent it, is attempted murder by fundamentalists of homosexual people. Thus, laws cannot prevent the abuses. Fundamentalists will go to jail for their beliefs before they change what they believe.

I don't know how many gays have been killed in the name of religion but I have read the testimonies of people whose lives have been threatened in unmistable terms. For example, a pastor drives a man out of his church at gun-point because he is gay.

That is one of the documentable abuses of fundamentalist religion. The present war between the US and Iraq is another such documentable issue. Please open your eyes and accept reality for what it is. And please, Brian, don't tell us who are in the thick of it that we don't know what we're talking about.

Again, this is not directed at any specific individual. I know fundamentalists who are very good people but the effects of the collective fundy mind/belief on the global scale is a power to be reckoned with. If you don't want the evidence piled on in all its gory detail, just accept that we do know what we're talking about. Accept that these things are real. In addition, this is your site so you have the right to forbid discussion of these issues on your forum. But telling us these issues are not real or legitimate is probably outside your rightful domain. That is how I see it.

Ruby

[InLove]

(Tiptoeing in--and very quickly back out)

Saw a bumper sticker the other day here. It said: "In God we trust. In Bush we don't."

For what it's worth...

InPeace,
InLove

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by InLove

(Tiptoeing in--and very quickly back out)

Saw a bumper sticker the other day here. It said: "In God we trust. In Bush we don't."

For what it's worth...

InPeace,
InLove

Someone seems to be starting to think. That gives me hope. Thanks for sharing this, InLove.

[InLove]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

Someone seems to be starting to think. That gives me hope. Thanks for sharing this, InLove.

Your welcome, Ruby. Been thinking all along. You and I just approach things in a different way. None of the words here on this thread, regardless of who posted them, are lost on me. I am listening. Have been all along. I may have sidetracked things a little bit or a lot, but it was unintentional.

I think that's all I should say right now. I have most likely said too much already. I still hold to my statements here, but I do see where you (and bolo) are coming from. I have all along. Like I say, our approaches to the problem are just very different.

I really do want to let my part in this thread be over, at least for now. I think it is for the best, all around.

As hopefully always,

InPeace,
InLove

[flowperson]

Here is something that may help thought processes:

http://www.witherspoonsociety.org/ma...iumvirate2.pdf

flow....

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by InLove

Your welcome, Ruby. Been thinking all along. You and I just approach things in a different way. None of the words here on this thread, regardless of who posted them, are lost on me. I am listening. Have been all along. I may have sidetracked things a little bit or a lot, but it was unintentional.

I think that's all I should say right now. I have most likely said too much already. I still hold to my statements here, but I do see where you (and bolo) are coming from. I have all along. Like I say, our approaches to the problem are just very different.

I really do want to let my part in this thread be over, at least for now. I think it is for the best, all around.

As hopefully always,

InPeace,
InLove

InLove, I don't want to draw you back to responding to this thread if you don't want to. I'm trying to understand your meaning of this post. I wonder if perhaps you took my post personally. Maybe you think I meant you don't think. That was not my meaning at all.

I get the impression bumper stickers are a way folk wisdom is transmitted in our society. The sticker that says:

In God we trust. In Bush we don't.

tells me whoever wrote up that sticker has differentiated between Bush and God. I thought your message to me was that some fundamentalists do not support Bush and his wars. For me, that is good news and indicates that someone--whoever wrote up that sticker--is starting to think. No personal reflection on you at all. I hope this clears up misunderstanding.

Ruby

[InLove]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

InLove, I don't want to draw you back to responding to this thread if you don't want to. I'm trying to understand your meaning of this post. I wonder if perhaps you took my post personally. Maybe you think I meant you don't think. That was not my meaning at all.

I get the impression bumper stickers are a way folk wisdom is transmitted in our society. The sticker that says:

In God we trust. In Bush we don't.

tells me whoever wrote up that sticker has differentiated between Bush and God. I thought your message to me was that some fundamentalists do not support Bush and his wars. For me, that is good news and indicates that someone--whoever wrote up that sticker--is starting to think. No personal reflection on you at all. I hope this clears up misunderstanding.

No problem, Ruby. (Thought I'd step back in to say that.) I am just thinking that my energies will be better used in other conversations. I shouldn't have stepped back in. I kind of gave up more personal info than I wanted to in an attempt to let you know that not everyone here where I live thinks the same way. I see now that you see that. Thanks for clearing it up for me (and others). I am trying to read in a little different light these days, with a little more discernment.

That said, let me try and do a little personal damage control to anyone reading this thread. When I posted the quote from the bumper sticker, I was not taking a pot-shot at the president. I was trying to illustrate that Texans do not always revere him as the final authority just because he happens to be from here. I may not always agree with him, but he is still the president, and I am not into bashing him here in CR.

Okay--now I think I will go chop wood or at least carry some water where I can. All part of the journey.

InPeace,
InLove

Edit: Thanks for the link, flow.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

I don't think anyone is suggesting that your interfaith forums are wrong or in any way a threat to society. We're trying to discuss an issue some of us deal with on a daily, hourly, basis. It impedes discussion when we are told by the manager that the topic of discussion is illegitimate just because he personally has not seen it, has not been in a position to experience it first-hand.

I think this is the crux of it - you feel like you're in a war zone, but there's a sense of you extrapolating the experience beyond the war zone to where it doesn't necessarily apply.

I'm certainly aware of at least some of the political machinations of neocon Christians - used to read their stuff years ago on other forums when their supporters posted it - and hopefully if you read any of my posts on the Politics board you'll get the impressions that I am aware of the religious influences in the USA at the political level - from attacking the teaching of evolution, to US foregin policy.

Thing is, on the political side, I see it more as a temporary extreme that will swing back - I've noticed that there appear to be a number of Republicans who are quite concerned about the shift too far right in the current administration, and that their attempts to bludgeon their way through the world not only makes the US unpopular abroad, but also raises very real concerns on home US soil.

As for the religious side - I still think secualism and diversity in the US is going to be bulwark enough for a lot of faith marketing in the USA. No, I don't think people like yourself are going to feel more accepted where you are in the thick of it, but I have my doubts that a country as diverse and adverse to generalisations like America is going to allow itself to become too monochromatic on issues of religion and politics.

I agree - there are are movements in the US that probably require balancing with opposing opinion, and I daresay you're a part of that process and I respect that.

What I'm cautioning about is the application of that fight and opposition where perhaps it's both unnecessary and irrelevant. There are fundamentalists, and there are fundamentalists.

Perhaps you need that sense of inclusivity to help with your own position - I'm simply pointing out that not every Christian who calls themselves a fundamentalist is necessarily a part of the problem you yourself face.

[bolo]

I'm simply pointing out that not every Christian who calls themselves a fundamentalist is necessarily a part of the problem you yourself face.

So many words and so much talk over an extremely simple issue. This point needs addressing ‘again’.


The Church in all its forms exists to gain converts not to understand other faith. The only understanding it does is akin to how one army general studies another before a battle to achieve total victory. Is this so hard to understand?

All ‘proper’ Christians that are in fact ‘true’ to biblical writ are tied to the very doctrines that are the foundation stone of worldwide fundamentalism.

So-called liberal-minded Christians that may wish to interfaith in a sharing and equal fashion with members of non-proselytizing tolerant faiths must realise that their own actual faith is followed properly by millions who believe that these other faiths are evil, bogus and corrupt. Sadly, virtually all denominations of the Church are lead by the archbishops that have to press on with the main thrust of evangelical credo. They must spread the gospel and this means promoting the one-sided belief that their brand of theology is the only one worthy of getting the adherent to the godhead – THE ONLY ONE WHICH COUNTS FOR MANKIND. The leaders will never accept any fair compromise with other faiths for the spiritual monopoly of the masses and for anyone to think otherwise is irresponsible and dangerously naïve.

Now if you are talking of so-called Christians that are not really proper ‘evangelising’ Christians then that is another thing altogether. What you must realise is that the Church spends billions globally on evangelisation (funded by ORDINARY CHRISTIANS) against what it sees as ‘rival’ faiths and no amount of nice chumminess over coffee will EVER change this main point.

You can not stop proper Christians infiltrating events that are ‘supposed’ to be there for acceptance and understanding unless you get real, wise up and begin to recognise how fundamentalism really works in society.