Around the Survivors a Perimeter Create

[ehowton]

Muslims tell us Islam is a religion of peace; that we shouldn't judge an entire people on a few extremists. Of course the extremists don't think they're extremists, and they certainly don't call themselves that. Hell, look at Christianity and not just the absurd amount of denominations - which would at least be easy - rather the different theological positions which infiltrate and span dissimilar doctrinal churches: charismatics, evangelicalists, continuationists and their polar opposites the cessasstionists, dogmaticists, born-again-ists, fanatacists and fundamentalists...to name a few.

I know Christians and atheists both who are straight-laced as can be, as well as members of both camps whose ethics you'd question frequently. So if spirituality doesn't guide their morals, what does?

Its crystal clear: God hates fags, but there's gays who preach; women are subservient but some women teach! Free will, predestination, works/sew, grace/reap - omnipotent divinity, causation/correlation, monotheistic holy trinity?

Muslims tell us Islam is a religion of peace; that we shouldn't judge an entire people on a few extremists. On what then, should we? I tell you - completely by accident, I've figured it all out: I'll look critically at low-mysticism (and I'm going to come unglued on the next person who tells me Christianity isn't a mystic religion - seriously? - Revelations, anyone???) religions which firstly contain equal parts philosophy, and secondly have no extremism whatsoever (or extra-terrestrial planet-populating ideas, but that's a personal choice).

Have you ever tried to explain to people how you manage to stay so happy through simply maintaining a good attitude, backed up by years of empirical data, only to have the Dalai Lama sit down in your living room and repeat back your own words to you?

Yeah, neither had I.

I was dumbstruck.



I caught his holiness the Dalai Lama in his "first live morning show interview ever" on an impromptu day-off and couldn't believe what the man had to say. After droning on and then listing all the problems currently in the world, Ann Curry asked him, "How do you find contentment in all that?" His reply?

Basically, these problems are temporary.

I love this man! He qualified this with statements concerning human experience and attitude being key to overcoming problems in the world today. Had I not learned this myself through my own experiences, I might've thought this man a loon. Instead, I'm all, "Finally - someone to back me up!" It just turns out that 'someone' is the Dalai Lama. Pretty impressive posse, huh? Next - and this is even better - after Ann asks him how he handles his own sadness [concerning a tragedy] when he can't do what he wants to do, he chuckles at her! Then says,

If there's a way to overcome it, then you don't have to worry. If there's no way to overcome that suffering or tragedy, then there's no use in worrying.

People, I've been saying this for years.

I'll look critically at low-mysticism religions which firstly contain equal parts philosophy, and secondly have no extremism whatsoever. Buddhist practice what is known as the "Middle Way" which is a "path" between extreme sensual gratification and extreme subjective sanctification. God that's smart. let me clarify - There's no such thing as a Buddhist extremist.

So maybe I'm a Buddhist?

That's okay, some accounts suggest Jesus was too.

Comments

[schpydurx.livejournal.com]

You made this claim: "THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A BUDDHIST EXTREMIST" I have provided you with a counter-example that nullifies your claim. You reject my example because you wish to fit the facts to your theory instead of your theory to the facts.

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

Your use of a declarative statement does not automatically make the introduction of your counter-example nullifying.

While I may think intentionally setting yourself on fire is "radical," culturally it may not be, I don't know, and I'm pretty sure you don't either (see above). Of course the argument could then be made that religious groups which kill non-believers in the name of their own deity are considered moderates in their society - the distinction I was attempting to make was harming others (you don't hear a lot about droves of Muslims offing themselves quietly and without fanfare, innit?) Were Heaven's Gate members considered terrorists? They were not. Why?

Again, if it helps, I can change the word I used to something else ("violent", for example) or at least provide a modifier, e.g. "religious extremists." But I would like to do this with your full acknowledgement - i.e. I don't want to change the word then you have you attack that word (anti-capitalists assert that capitalism is "violent" for example, and that argument would have no place here).

Regardless of your decision, and while I always enjoy a lively exchange with you, please try to refrain from making sweeping statements and passing them off as fact. That being said, thank you for bringing this up! Something new to think about and consider.

[schpydurx.livejournal.com]

I'm satiated.

[thesweetestnote.livejournal.com]

ME TOO!