Love cannot be sinful

Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by pghguy, Oct 1, 2010.

  1. shawn

    shawn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    0
    When a person has remembered who they are, or are in the process of remembering, this is an awakening.

    Everyone is walking around sleeping, in a dream state dominated by the natural mind, thinking that they are awake, but they are not.
    They identify with their natural name and their natural body, never realizing that they are not their body...they possess a body.....dwell in it, but that is all.

    Awareness brings with it a sense of connection, if you haven't reached the connection yet then you are not aware, still sleeping in some way.

    This connection is with the Source of All and everything/everyone that exists.
    When one sees and knows this viscerally then it is the most natural thing to act in a loving and compassionate manner as you would like to be treated yourself.

    This is how these concepts are nested into each other.
    Spirituality=awareness=connection=love=awake=compassion
    It is all part of the same state of "mind".
    The sleeper must awaken.
    The amnesiac must remember.
     
  2. pghguy

    pghguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    And several of us have clearly explained why Q's statement was wrong.
     
  3. c0de

    c0de Vassal

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,237
    Likes Received:
    0
    .

    @ pghguy


    You are avoiding the issue.

    Do you admit that love is based on exclusivity? Yes/No?

    If not, then would you be prepared to make that statement I suggested to your loved ones?
     
  4. pghguy

    pghguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    I had no intent to avoid the issue.

    Love is not based on exclusivity. You are either confusing, or intentionally perverting, the difference between the emotion of love and living a life of love.
     
  5. c0de

    c0de Vassal

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,237
    Likes Received:
    0
    So tell me: would you tell your loved ones that your love for them is not exclusive?

    You can't live a live of love that is divorced from the emotion of love. Since the emotion itself is based in exclusivity, everything you derive from it (morality etc.) would also be based in exclusivity.

    Incidentally: God is not love. God transcends love.

    If you actually believe this, then you've never truly loved anyone.

    I hope for your sake this isn't true.
     
  6. pghguy

    pghguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is not saying your do not account for the emotional factor. By your standard, you cannot love your children to the same degree that you love your wife.
     
  7. shawn

    shawn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    0
    Love is connection.
    Everyone gets sidetracked by other issues and so argue and wrangle over the matter, thus proving the lack of connection they have.
    One is either self-centered and lost or connected/aware.
    It is not that complicated.
     
  8. Bhaktajan II

    Bhaktajan II Hare Krishna Yogi

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    115
    a]
    Yes. But your use of the word "exclusivity" . . . IMO, should read "Not-Indiscriminately" ---We Discriminate those we love from those we do not.

    b] Love is a VERB. Love is expressed in actions. It is not a Noun (thing); It is the name of an action.

    c] Actually, there is no Love in the material world; there is "give and take".
    Love in the material world is based on ego engrandisement or ego-based duty.
    So-called Love is a contract.
    Love in the pure-sense is the Human Persons yearning for other inter-personal reciprocal exchanges . . . ergo, God's love is that of the Original-First Person who is far away & also in our Hearts [the life-force nucleus of individual conscious soul-beings that all creatures possess] ---yet we 99% of masters of our own domain, seek mundane "sense-gradification" as the all and all of our personal existances, which last for such short spans of time in "the material world of repeated birth and deaths".

    The ironic thing is that an atheist defaults his own existance to being a walking & talking biological auto-maton without ultimate purpose for existing other than to aspire for so-called mundane goals . . . whereas, the soul is really a part and parcel point of light that must be beholding to the original source & reserviour of all personal/personality/attraction/People Oriented human-pastimes that exist between the paths of Celetial pleasures and bestial pleasures as the aim of life.

    One must dedicate a portion of life in Meditative/Contemplative/Service-to-Others vocations inorder to experence for oneself the conscious soul within ---and then approach the greater world at large to past the time of ones life so as to see that all experiences confirm the futility of material sense gradification and thus the higher need to have the soul transcend the mundane chewing of the cud.

    c] BTW, "FEAR IS BASED ON WHAT IS KNOWN".

    We never fear the un-known. How could we fear the un-known?
    How could the un-known be fearsome? We must be informed of the fearsome first before we can fear it.

    Test-Pilots teach us this all the time.

    Exploding Steam Compressors technology was learned the hard way.

    Societal rules of safety operations are enacted after the common method proved deadly.

    After 24 Hours of being lost ---then the police may search out a loved one that has not arrived at their normal location.

    Try the standard traditional methods without cheating ---then report the verdict of Truth or semi-truth or bogus-truth
     
  9. The Word

    The Word Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    God's love won't affect most people in this age because they didn't obey him. The only way to know the love of God is by obeying his commandments. I hear from many people how much God loves them but they break his commandments to not have other gods before him. The Bible is a god to most Christians because when they are faced with the truth, they always go to the Bible. This proves they love the Bible more than God.

    Many people go to church where they have an altar, paintings, pictures, statues and carvings of deities on them. This is breaking the commandment to not worship any idols and the reason for this commandment is that people get images in their minds that will deceive them of the truth if they get confronted with him. They won't recognize the carpenter who's preaching the gospel.
     
    Anyone who is taking the name of the Lord in vain is breaking these other commandments I just wrote about. If' you're worshipping idols, you don't know who the true God is so if you teach or preach about him or share him with anybody, you are using his name in vain. You can't share, teach or preach something you don't have.
     
    Those who don't obey God can't love the lord with all their hearts, minds and souls or love their neighbor as themselves. How are you supposed to love him when you love yourself better? How can you love him when you love your Bible better. How can you love him when you reject homosexuals, criminals, prostitutes, sex offenders, alcoholics, drug addicts, abortion doctors and women who abort their fetuses?
     
    The commandment to not bear false witness against your neighbor is the most frequently disobeyed commandment there is. Anyone who worships false gods and idols who accuses their neighbors of being sinners are breaking this commandment.
     
    Let's go to the commandment; thou shalt not steal. All the words that God spoke through the prophets, Jesus and the saints are God's words. He's the author of them and he controls them. He gives authority to those who can speak them or write them on paper but anyone else who uses them for their own benefit is a thief. We call this an antichrist who steals the words of God and preaches them to others for money, power, praise, and control. Not only does he benefit but in the mean time he is deceiving everyone with the words that needs to be interpreted by God only. This is how all religions begin and the more people that join these religions, the more stealing of God's words that goes with it.
     
    There are three religions in the world today with over a billion religious people in each one. This means that God's words are being stolen and spoken in vain by millions or even billions of people every day. With this disobedience, it's impossible for them to experience the love of God. The only people who will ever know God's love are those who obey him. God knew who these people were before he ever created them so he created these people who obeyed him as the Word of God.
     
    Whoever spoke for this Word during this age were the ones who were created as the Word. These are the people who listened to the Word in the gospel and found faith in God. Jesus, the prophets and the saints were those who had faith and received the love of God. Once a saint has faith, he still doesn't realize the love of God because he has sins in the flesh that cause him to be selfish in his thoughts. But now that he's obeying God's commands, God can get him to confess his sins and make him repent of them through humiliation. Then he can forgive him of those sins and put his love into the saint's heart.
     
    This love of God is understanding of all things. It is the truth of all that exists. With this love in your heart, you won't know what fear is and you will see the love of the world that you used to indulge in. The love of the world is based on fear. It is a very selfish emotion that keeps the love of God out and as you can see today, there isn't any love of God except the one who is inspiring this writing. When the world hears the voice of God's love in the gospel, there will be two reactions to it and one of them most likely won't happen today. This means that the love of God will be rejected by those who love the world.
     
    I preach about Jesus paying the price for all people so they can all go to paradise and live for eternity and most people selfishly deny the words I speak because they want to see the sinners punished for their sins, even though they are sinners themselves. Many of them tell me they don't want to live in a boring world or just die and never live again. Disobedient people don't want to hear the truth. They don't want anything to do with God's love. They want the emotional love that they experience in this world. They want to satisfy their lust, greed, jealousy, pride, gluttony, envy, and laziness. These are what they love and makes them feel loved.
     
    God's love is going to eliminate the love of the world very soon. It won't be long before someone gets angry enough at the love I'm preaching that his love for the world will seek my death. I already know that I'll die in this way but I also know that the end of this world will happen soon after I'm gone. When the earth's crust melts, that will be the end of the love of the world forever and ever. Then God's love will be the only love that exists in our next world called paradise.
     
    With God's love we will experience each other in a whole different way. There won't be anything to hide because our thoughts won't contain any lies. There won't be any greedy ambitions that destroys the lives of people. There won't be any loneliness, hunger, pain, anxieties, guilt, shame, dissatisfaction, helplessness, or any other negative feelings. We won't understand what it is to kill, steal, lie, cheat, or die. We'll never work for another man again because the love of God will supply us with all our needs. His love made sure we will have someone to love for the rest of eternity so most people will be born both male and female partners who will never be divorced because they are one person. That's how much God loves us all.
     
    The new government that God's love found in this age will rule with love and peace. They will teach God's love to everyone and they will know that they're loved by God because there won't be any deception or corruption in the government. The people will trust them and their God who loves them. The saints who came before me got to see more of God's love when they found new saints but I I'll have to wait to experience it in paradise when I see it with my new eyes and new body. The prophets never got to experience God's love inside them but the fact they got to speak his words were enough to give them hope for paradise when they get to experience his love for the first time. God's love is much difference than the love of the world.
     
     
     

     
  10. Bhaktajan II

    Bhaktajan II Hare Krishna Yogi

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    115
    Please tell me what those three are.
     
  11. Sinful Hypocrite

    Sinful Hypocrite Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    Love is based in faith.
    If you love someone you have faith that they also love you . You can never prove your love except to give your life for someone and that is not usually possible or desirable. How can we know if we love someone any more than they can know we love them. Without having faith in one another there is no love.

    It is a mystery such as God and his love for us. But we must have faith before we can ever experience love . Even a child has faith in his mother to feed and clothe him and this is automatic. Later in our lives when we must choose or give freely of our faith we refuse and forget what we once had as children. We forget that we must give love freely and this requires faith in others before we can get any love in return.
     
  12. Bhaktajan II

    Bhaktajan II Hare Krishna Yogi

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    115
    The Suicide Bombers Among Us
    Theodore Dalrymple
    The Suicide Bombers Among Us by Theodore Dalrymple, City Journal Autumn 2005

    All terrorists, presumably, know the dangers that they run, accepting them as an occupational hazard; given Man’s psychological makeup—or at least the psychological makeup of certain young men—these dangers may act as an attraction, not a deterrent. But only a few terrorists use their own deaths as an integral means of terrorizing others. They seem to be a breed apart, with whom the rest of humanity can have little or nothing in common.

    Certainly they sow panic more effectively than other terrorists. Those who leave bombs in public places and then depart, despicable as they are, presumably still have attachments to their own lives, and therefore may be open to dissuasion or negotiation. By contrast, no threat (at first sight) might deter someone who is prepared to extinguish himself to advance his cause, and who considers such self-annihilation while killing as many strangers as possible a duty, an honor, and a merit that will win ample rewards in the hereafter. And Britain has suddenly been forced to acknowledge that it has an unknown number of such people in its midst, some of them home-grown.

    The mere contemplation of a suicide bomber’s state of mind is deeply unsettling, even without considering its practical consequences. I have met a would-be suicide bomber who had not yet had the chance to put his thanatological daydream into practice. What could possibly have produced as embittered a mentality as his—what experience of life, what thoughts, what doctrines? What fathomless depths of self-pity led him to the conclusion that only by killing himself and others could he give a noble and transcendent meaning to his existence?

    As is by now well known (for the last few years have made us more attentive to Islamic concepts and ways of thinking, irrespective of their intrinsic worth), the term “jihad” has two meanings: inner struggle and holy war. While the political meaning connotes violence, though with such supposed justifications as the defense of Islam and the spread of the faith among the heathen, the personal meaning generally suggests something peaceful and inward-looking. The struggle this kind of jihad entails is spiritual; it is the effort to overcome the internal obstacles—above all, forbidden desires—that prevent the good Muslim from achieving complete submission to God’s will. Commentators have tended to see this type of jihad as harmless or even as beneficial—a kind of self-improvement that leads to decency, respectability, good behavior, and material success.

    In Britain, however, these two forms of jihad have coalesced in a most murderous fashion. Those who died in the London bombings were sacrificial victims to the need of four young men to resolve a conflict deep within themselves (and within many young Muslims), and they imagined they could do so only by the most extreme possible interpretation of their ancestral religion.
     
  13. Bhaktajan II

    Bhaktajan II Hare Krishna Yogi

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    115
    Young Muslim men in Britain—as in France and elsewhere in the West—have a problem of personal, cultural, and national identity. They are deeply secularized, with little religious faith, even if most will admit to a belief in God. Their interest in Islam is slight. They do not pray or keep Ramadan (except if it brings them some practical advantage, such as the postponement of a court appearance). Their tastes are for the most part those of non-Muslim lower-class young men. They dress indistinguishably from their white and black contemporaries, and affect the same hairstyles and mannerisms, including the vulpine lope of the slums. Gold chains, the heavier the better, and gold front teeth, without dental justification, are symbols of their success in the streets, which is to say of illicit enrichment.
    Many young Muslims, unlike the sons of Hindus and Sikhs who immigrated into Britain at the same time as their parents, take drugs, including heroin. They drink, indulge in casual sex, and make nightclubs the focus of their lives. Work and careers are at best a painful necessity, a slow and inferior means of obtaining the money for their distractions.
    But if in many respects their tastes and behavior are indistinguishable from those of underclass white males, there are nevertheless clear and important differences. Most obviously, whatever the similarity between them and their white counterparts in their taste for sex, drugs, and rock and roll, they nevertheless do not mix with young white men, even in the neighborhoods devoted to the satisfaction of their tastes. They are in parallel with the whites, rather than intersecting with them.
    Another obvious difference is the absence of young Muslim women from the resorts of mass distraction. However similar young Muslim men might be in their tastes to young white men, they would be horrified, and indeed turn extremely violent, if their sisters comported themselves as young white women do. They satisfy their sexual needs with prostitutes and those whom they quite openly call “white sluts.” (Many a young white female patient of mine has described being taunted in this fashion as she walked through a street inhabited by Muslims.) And, of course, they do not have to suffer much sexual frustration in an environment where people decide on sexual liaisons within seconds of acquaintance.
    However secular the tastes of the young Muslim men, they strongly wish to maintain the male dominance they have inherited from their parents. A sister who has the temerity to choose a boyfriend for herself, or who even expresses a desire for an independent social life, is likely to suffer a beating, followed by surveillance of Stasi-like thoroughness. The young men instinctively understand that their inherited system of male domination—which provides them, by means of forced marriage, with sexual gratification at home while simultaneously freeing them from domestic chores and allowing them to live completely Westernized lives outside the home, including further sexual adventures into which their wives cannot inquire—is strong but brittle, rather as communism was: it is an all or nothing phenomenon, and every breach must meet swift punishment.
    Even if for no other reason, then (and there are in fact other reasons), young Muslim males have a strong motive for maintaining an identity apart. And since people rarely like to admit low motives for their behavior, such as the wish to maintain a self-gratifying dominance, these young Muslims need a more elevated justification for their conduct toward women. They find it, of course, in a residual Islam: not the Islam of onerous duties, rituals, and prohibitions, which interferes so insistently in day-to-day life, but in an Islam of residual feeling, which allows them a sense of moral superiority to everything around them, including women, without in any way cramping their style.
    This Islam contains little that is theological, spiritual, or even religious, but it nevertheless exists in the mental economy as what anatomists call a “potential space.” A potential space occurs where two tissues or organs are separated by smooth membranes that are normally close together, but that can be separated by an accumulation of fluid such as pus if infection or inflammation occurs. And, of course, such inflammation readily occurs in the minds of young men who easily believe themselves to be ill-used, and who have been raised on the thin gruel of popular Western culture without an awareness that any other kind of Western culture exists.
     
  14. Bhaktajan II

    Bhaktajan II Hare Krishna Yogi

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    115
    The dissatisfactions of young Muslim men in Britain are manifold. Most will experience at some time slighting or downright insulting remarks about them or their group—the word “Paki” is a term of disdainful abuse—and these experiences tend to grow in severity and significance with constant rehearsal in the mind as it seeks an external explanation for its woes. Minor tribulations thus swell into major injustices, which in turn explain the evident failure of Muslims to rise in their adopted land. The French-Iranian researcher Farhad Khosrokhavar, who interviewed 15 French Muslim prisoners convicted of planning terrorist acts, relates in his book, Suicide Bombers: Allah’s New Martyrs, how some of his interviewees had been converted to the terrorist outlook by a single insulting remark—for example, when one of their sisters was called a “dirty Arab” when she explained how she couldn’t leave home on her own as other girls could. Such is the fragility of the modern ego—not of Muslims alone, but of countless people brought up in our modern culture of ineffable self-importance, in which an insult is understood not as an inevitable human annoyance, but as a wound that outweighs all the rest of one’s experience.
    The evidence of Muslims’ own eyes and of their own lives, as well as that of statistics, is quite clear: Muslim immigrants and their descendants are more likely to be poor, to live in overcrowded conditions, to be unemployed, to have low levels of educational achievement, and above all to be imprisoned, than other South Asian immigrants and their descendants. The refusal to educate females to their full capacity is a terrible handicap in a society in which, perhaps regrettably, prosperity requires two household incomes. The idea that one is already in possession of the final revealed truth, leading to an inherently superior way of life, inhibits adaptation to a technically more advanced society. Even so, some British Muslims do succeed (the father of one of the London bombers owned two shops, two houses, and drove a new Mercedes)—a fact which their compatriots interpret exactly backward: not that Muslims can succeed, but that generally they can’t, because British society is inimical to Muslims.
    In coming to this conclusion, young Muslims would only be adopting the logic that has driven Western social policy for so long: that any difference in economic and social outcome between groups is the result of social injustice and adverse discrimination. The premises of multiculturalism don’t even permit asking whether reasons internal to the groups themselves might account for differences in outcomes.
     
  15. Bhaktajan II

    Bhaktajan II Hare Krishna Yogi

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    115
    The BBC peddles this sociological view consistently. In 1997, for example, it stated that Muslims “continue to face discrimination,” as witness the fact that they were three times as likely to be unemployed long-term as West Indians; and this has been its line ever since. If more Muslims than any other group possess no educational qualifications whatsoever, even though the hurdles for winning such qualifications have constantly fallen, it can only be because of discrimination—though a quarter of all medical students in Britain are now of Indian subcontinental descent. It can have nothing whatever to do with the widespread—and illegal—practice of refusing to allow girls to continue at school, which the press scarcely ever mentions, and which the educational authorities rarely if ever investigate. If youth unemployment among Muslims is two and a half times the rate among whites, it can be only because of discrimination—though youth unemployment among Hindus is actually lower than among whites (and this even though many young Hindus complain of being mistaken for Muslims). And so on and so on.
    A constant and almost unchallenged emphasis on “social justice,” the negation of which is, of course, “discrimination,” can breed only festering embitterment. Where the definition of justice is entitlement by virtue of group existence rather than reward for individual effort, a radical overhaul of society will appear necessary to achieve such justice. Islamism in Britain is thus not the product of Islam alone: it is the product of the meeting of Islam with a now deeply entrenched native mode of thinking about social problems.
    And it is here that the “potential space” of Islamism, with its ready-made diagnosis and prescriptions, opens up and fills with the pus of implacable hatred for many in search of a reason for and a solution to their discontents. According to Islamism, the West can never meet the demands of justice, because it is decadent, materialistic, individualistic, heathen, and democratic rather than theocratic. Only a return to the principles and practices of seventh-century Arabia will resolve all personal and political problems at the same time. This notion is fundamentally no more (and no less) bizarre or stupid than the Marxist notion that captivated so many Western intellectuals throughout the 20th century: that the abolition of private property would lead to final and lasting harmony among men. Both conceptions offer a formula that, rigidly followed, would resolve all human problems.
    Of course, the Islamic formula holds no attraction for young women in the West. A recent survey for the French interior ministry found that 83 percent of Muslim converts and reconverts (that is, secularized Muslims who adopted Salafism) in France were men; and from my clinical experience I would bet that the 17 percent of converts who were women converted in the course of a love affair rather than on account of what Edward Gibbon, in another context, called “the evident truth of the doctrine itself.”
    The West is a formidable enemy, however, difficult to defeat, for it exists not only in the cities, the infrastructure, and the institutions of Europe and America but in the hearts and minds even of those who oppose it and wish to destroy it. The London bombers were as much products of the West as of Islam; their tastes and their desires were largely Westernized. The bombers dressed no differently from other young men from the slums; and in every culture, appearance is part, at least, of identity. In British inner cities in particular, what you wear is nine-tenths of what you are.
    But the Western identity goes far deeper. One of the bombers was a young man of West Indian descent, whose half-sister (in his milieu, full siblings are almost unknown) reports that he was a “normal” boy, impassioned by rap music until the age of 15, when he converted to Islam. It need hardly be pointed out that rap music—full of inchoate rage, hatred, and intemperance—does not instill a balanced or subtle understanding of the world in its listeners. It fills and empties the mind at the same time: fills it with debased notions and empties it of critical faculties. The qualities of mind and character that are attracted to it, and that consider it an art form worthy of time and attention, are not so easily overcome or replaced. Jermaine Lindsay was only 19, four years into his conversion from rap to Islam, when he died—an age at which impulsivity is generally at its greatest, requiring the kind of struggle for self-mastery that rap music is dedicated to undermining. Islam would have taught him to hate and despise what he had been, but he must have been aware that he still was what he had been. To a hatred of the world, his conversion added a self-hatred.
    The other bombers had passions for soccer, cricket, and pop music. They gave no indication before their dreadful deeds of religious fanaticism, and their journeys to Pakistan, in retrospect indications of a growing indoctrination by fundamentalism, could have seemed at the time merely family visits. In the meantime, they led highly Westernized lives, availing themselves of all the products of Western ingenuity to which Muslims have contributed nothing for centuries. It is, in fact, literally impossible for modern Muslims to expunge the West from their lives: it enters the fabric of their existence at every turn. Usama bin Ladin himself is utterly dependent upon the West for his weaponry, his communications, his travel, and his funds. He speaks of the West’s having stolen Arabian oil, but of what use would oil have been to the Arabs if it had remained under their sands, as it would have done without the intervention of the West? Without the West, what fortune would bin Ladin’s family have made from what construction in Saudi Arabia?
    Muslims who reject the West are therefore engaged in a losing and impossible inner jihad, or struggle, to expunge everything that is not Muslim from their breasts. It can’t be done: for their technological and scientific dependence is necessarily also a cultural one. You can’t believe in a return to seventh-century Arabia as being all-sufficient for human requirements, and at the same time drive around in a brand-new red Mercedes, as one of the London bombers did shortly before his murderous suicide. An awareness of the contradiction must gnaw in even the dullest fundamentalist brain.
    Furthermore, fundamentalists must be sufficiently self-aware to know that they will never be willing to forgo the appurtenances of Western life: the taste for them is too deeply implanted in their souls, too deeply a part of what they are as human beings, ever to be eradicated. It is possible to reject isolated aspects of modernity but not modernity itself. Whether they like it or not, Muslim fundamentalists are modern men—modern men trying, impossibly, to be something else.
    They therefore have at least a nagging intimation that their chosen utopia is not really a utopia at all: that deep within themselves there exists something that makes it unachievable and even undesirable. How to persuade themselves and others that their lack of faith, their vacillation, is really the strongest possible faith? What more convincing evidence of faith could there be than to die for its sake? How can a person be really attached or attracted to rap music and cricket and Mercedes cars if he is prepared to blow himself up as a means of destroying the society that produces them? Death will be the end of the illicit attachment that he cannot entirely eliminate from his heart.
    The two forms of jihad, the inner and the outer, the greater and the lesser, thus coalesce in one apocalyptic action. By means of suicide bombing, the bombers overcome moral impurities and religious doubts within themselves and, supposedly, strike an external blow for the propagation of the faith.
     
  16. Bhaktajan II

    Bhaktajan II Hare Krishna Yogi

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    115
    Of course, hatred is the underlying emotion. A man in prison who told me that he wanted to be a suicide bomber was more hate-filled than any man I have ever met. The offspring of a broken marriage between a Muslim man and a female convert, he had followed the trajectory of many young men in his area: sex and drugs and rock and roll, untainted by anything resembling higher culture. Violent and aggressive by nature, intolerant of the slightest frustration to his will and frequently suicidal, he had experienced taunting during his childhood because of his mixed parentage. After a vicious rape for which he went to prison, he converted to a Salafist form of Islam and became convinced that any system of justice that could take the word of a mere woman over his own was irredeemably corrupt.
    I noticed one day that his mood had greatly improved; he was communicative and almost jovial, which he had never been before. I asked him what had changed in his life for the better. He had made his decision, he said. Everything was resolved. He was not going to kill himself in an isolated way, as he had previously intended. Suicide was a mortal sin, according to the tenets of the Islamic faith. No, when he got out of prison he would not kill himself; he would make himself a martyr, and be rewarded eternally, by making himself into a bomb and taking as many enemies with him as he could.
    Enemies, I asked; what enemies? How could he know that the people he killed at random would be enemies? They were enemies, he said, because they lived happily in our rotten and unjust society. Therefore, by definition, they were enemies—enemies in the objective sense, as Stalin might have put it—and hence were legitimate targets.
    I asked him whether he thought that, in order to deter him from his course of action, it would be right for the state to threaten to kill his mother and his brothers and sisters—and to carry out this threat if he carried out his, in order to deter others like him.
    The idea appalled him, not because it was yet another example of the wickedness of a Western democratic state, but because he could not conceive of such a state acting in this unprincipled way. In other words, he assumed a high degree of moral restraint on the part of the very organism that he wanted to attack and destroy.
    Of course, one of the objects of the bombers, instinctive rather than articulated, might be to undermine this very restraint, both of the state and of the population itself, in order to reveal to the majority of Muslims the true evil nature of the society in which they live, and force them into the camp of the extremists. If so, there is some hope of success: physical attacks on Muslims (or on Hindus and Sikhs ignorantly taken to be Muslims) increased in Britain by six times in the immediate aftermath of the bombings, according to the police. It wouldn’t take many more such bombings, perhaps, to provoke real and serious intercommunal violence on the Indian subcontinental model. Britain teems with aggressive, violent subgroups who would be only too delighted to make pogroms a reality.
    Even if there is no such dire an eventuality, the outlook is sufficiently grim and without obvious solution. A highly secularized Muslim population whose men nevertheless wish to maintain their dominance over women and need a justification for doing so; the hurtful experience of disdain or rejection from the surrounding society; the bitter disappointment of a frustrated materialism and a seemingly perpetual inferior status in the economic hierarchy; the extreme insufficiency and unattractiveness of modern popular culture that is without value; the readiness to hand of an ideological and religious solution that is flattering to self-esteem and allegedly all-sufficient, and yet in unavoidable conflict with a large element of each individual’s identity; an oscillation between feelings of inferiority and superiority, between humiliation about that which is Western and that which is non-Western in the self; and the grotesque inflation of the importance of personal existential problems that is typical of modern individualism—all ensure fertile ground for the recruitment of further “martyrs” for years to come.
    Surveys suggest that between 6 and 13 percent of British Muslims—that is, between 98,000 and 208,000 people—are sympathetic toward Islamic terrorists and their efforts. Theoretical sympathy expressed in a survey is not the same thing as active support or a wish to emulate the “martyrs” in person, of course. But it is nevertheless a sufficient proportion and absolute number of sympathizers to make suspicion and hostility toward Muslims by the rest of society not entirely irrational, though such suspicion and hostility could easily increase support for extremism. This is the tightrope that the British state and population will now have to walk for the foreseeable future; and the sweet dream of universal cultural compatibility has been replaced, in a single day, by the nightmare of permanent conflict.
     
  17. c0de

    c0de Vassal

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,237
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course it is. You are the one who put in the boundary, not me. If you objectify love to the degree of an abstraction, it's not "love" at all anymore. Its just misapplying the label onto something of your own creation.

    Actually, a parent has more love for their children than their partner. This is an evolutionary fact. How do you NOT know this? Couples get divorced all the time. How many disown their children?
     
  18. pghguy

    pghguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    I put no such boundary on anything. In fact, by my definition, love has no boundaries.

    Where are you getting this so-called evolutionary fact. That's the biggest load of dung I've ever heard. Disowning children has nothing to do with anything.

    You actually continue to prove my point for me.
     
  19. 17th Angel

    17th Angel לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    9,437
    Likes Received:
    3
    I disagree.... Sorry lol. Nothing truly in love be sinful? But isn't it also said that the greatest damage can come from the best intentions? Isn't that to a degree somewhat the same thing? If not, why not?
     
  20. Diagoras

    Diagoras Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    Far from it. And calling it "love" is entirely appropriate. There are countless studies that all confirm that the amygdala, an evolutionary ancient organ within an organ - the brain, is the one that fires fast and furious when people experience emotion. Including all expressions of what we call love. Interestingly it is also the part of the brain most associated with addictive behaviour. A crocodile, an elephant and a partridge all have an amygdala essentially indistinguishable from each other and from ours. This is because the amygdala is an evolutionary ancient organ with which all these lineages must have shared a common ancestor. The fact that it deals with emotion, fight or flight and addiction shows that nature selected for an organ to help deal with certain causation. Protecting offspring, mating attachments and the addictive emotional mechanisms we call love all have their root in being selected as advantageous. They are evolved behaviours governed by a part of the brain.
    To understand how like an onion the brain is, built layer upon layer back through evolutionary history is an enlightening experience. Indeed it make evolutionary theory undeniable.
     

Share This Page