[Robert]

I posted this on TB but thought I would also carry it over here as I'm seeing some intelligent and civil debate on this board.
Rob



First, I am not attacking the Bible, Christianity, Buddhism or any other religious belief system. I am, however, confronting the basis and justification of man’s actions.

Let me explain:
Our actions can be expressed in two directions, inwardly or outwardly.

Through inward expression the world is not subjected to the individual’s beliefs and however valid or invalid those beliefs may be, they do not bring suffering to anyone but the individual holding them. So no external proof is required to support inward expression.

Outward expression can manifest in nonviolent actions to our fellow man or violent actions.

Nonviolent outward expression:
Nonviolent expression brings NO suffering to society. An example of nonviolent outward expression would be Mother Teresa of Calcutta feeding starving children.(Selfless compassion) It is important to understand that, regardless of the belief system, suffering is NOT brought upon mankind and proof for the impetus of the individuals actions are not required. It is also important to note that the nonviolent expression of selfless compassion requires no social or religious belief system. (Belief in Catholicism for Mother Teresa’s actions was not required regardless whether they were her justification or not.)

Violent Outward expression:
Through violent outward expression of our beliefs society IS affected by our actions. For example, the individual who justifies war through his book or belief system.
The instant society is affected by our beliefs we must prove the validity of those actions because they directly result in suffering to others. Thus we must prove our book or system is the absolute truth. Without that proof our actions become nothing more then our subjective opinion and the outward actions reflected by those opinions manifest in society as chaos. (War, hatred, condemnation, etc.)
Without proof we cannot align with any God, we must stand alone, because in fact, we have not proven the existence of the God we are justifying our actions through.

So while neither inward nor outward expression can prove the existence of God it is only violent outward expression that must supply the proof because it is only violent outward expression that brings suffering to others through our beliefs.

[SmartAZ]

The only proof offered by the bible is that when God prophesies something, it happens.

[Robert]

The only proof offered by the bible is that when God prophesies something, it happens.

Regardless whether or not this statement is true not everything in the Bible is an event. Are you using the Bible as a justification for your actions and if so which actions?

[Anita]

It SOUNDS like you're saying that if interpretations of sacred scripts result in behavior that affects society in an adverse way, some proof should be offered that the interpretation represents FACT. Am I on the right track?

[Robert]

It SOUNDS like you're saying that if interpretations of sacred scripts result in behavior that affects society in an adverse way, some proof should be offered that the interpretation represents FACT. Am I on the right track?

Yes, well put.

[Anita]

I find the task insurmountable, much like that of Annemarie's. Faith [by definition] requires no facts, and interpretations of sacred scripts come with no particular limits.

Interpretations of sacred scripts have created people like Osama bin Laden [Islam] and Fred Phelps [Christianity], as well as countless others that have placed burdens on societies ever since ... well ever since societies have HAD sacred scripts.

MOST of society realizes that these far-flung interpretations are NOT representative of the sacred scripts used to justify antisocial acts, considering the interpreters "fringe" in their thinking. That's seems to work fairly well in keeping "fringe" thoughts from escalating to the point where masses are affected, but when it doesn't [and history shows that it doesn't ALWAYS], there's been a backlash that thumps down these fringe thoughts for pretty long periods of time. They resurface, and society washes, rinses, and repeats the whole process.

[Robert]

I find the task insurmountable, much like that of Annemarie's. Faith [by definition] requires no facts, and interpretations of sacred scripts come with no particular limits.

Faith has two definitions. It can represent a religious affiliation.( John’s faith is Episcopalian)
2. Blind acceptance of the unknown.

I imagine ‘2' is what you’re referring to.
We have to think about blindly following anything. The bulk of people who followed Jim Jones came from socialized religions where they were taught to accept without question. Why? Is God afraid of questions or are the individuals giving the sermons afraid of questions?
I think we should be fearless. We should question everything, ourselves, our values, our country and our religion.
Something that doesn’t stand to reason, simply shouldn’t stand. We can follow a book but we can also misinterpret that book. We can base our argument on distortions in that book and overlook what doesn’t fit our paradigm. So we have to be very careful.
This is what I’m saying, that when we judge something ‘evil’ we had better analyze our thinking and the motivation behind that judgement because if we don’t then we become Paul Hill, who killed and an abortion doctor in the name of God and we become bin Laden.
When we use nationalism as a unification and justification fore our actions then we should be very aware that it was the same tool used by Hitler and Hitler was no more then a fanatic on a soap box until people followed him.

<B>MOST of society realizes that these far-flung interpretations are NOT representative of the sacred scripts used to justify antisocial acts, considering the interpreters "fringe" in their thinking. That's seems to work fairly well in keeping "fringe" thoughts from escalating to the point where masses are affected, but when it doesn't [and history shows that it doesn't ALWAYS], there's been a backlash that thumps down these fringe thoughts for pretty long periods of time. They resurface, and society washes, rinses, and repeats the whole process.</B>

I’m not sure I agree with that. Here’s why:
First, a group consensus does not necessarily establish truth or right. (WW2 Germany, The Crusades, Inquisition, etc) If it did Christians would be praying to Barabus today.
Secondly, the world has constantly been at war (only several minutes since the beginning of recorded history that it hasn’t). This indicates a flaw in global thinking and basically man. We have not learned that greed doesn’t make us happy and power corrupts. It keeps coming back to bite us.

[Anita]

if not impossible, close to it.

For instance, Jerry Falwell said something recently [hold on while I find it]. SHEESH...not only can't I quickly find it, but I forgot what he said. I remember it, but I couldn't quickly find it; it was about nuking Islam off the face of the earth "in the name of the lord". Okay, I found it again (http://www.baptiststandard.com/postnuke/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid=2518) through googling. Christians KNOW that these thoughts go against the teachings of Jesus, just as Moslems know that the thoughts of bin Laden go against the teachings of Mohammed, but NOBODY expects ANYONE to come up with FACTS that even go so far as to suggest that these two people existed as HUMANS.

Belief systems are interpreted and distorted every day. It's just the way things work. Where there's a NEED, a SOLUTION will be found, even if that solution is a false one. It's just human nature, methinks, and if you concentrate on correcting this situation, I think you're in for a lifetime of disappointment because people WANT to believe what they WANT to believe...and that includes YOU and ME.

[Robert]

I think you're in for a lifetime of disappointment because people WANT to believe what they WANT to believe...and that includes YOU and ME.

Yes, that is exactly right. The Buddhist call it maya or mayic illusion (clouding). The ability to see reality. We twist our books to conform to our perceptions because we are desperately attempting to create a reality that is safe to us, to our thinking. This is why I am so vigilant about man’s inner search fo truth. To find truth within yourself you must be fearless. You have to give up your systems. The illusion that others are different then us and the illusion that other’s Gods are different then our own.
While we can’t bring reality to society it doesn’t stop us from seeking it for ourselves. If you go back and read my initial hypothesis you will see that I place high importance on looking past our subjectivity. The subjectivity that finds safety in nationalism and socialized religion. Both are good examples because we have people justifying their killing through them.
We have to be fearless and look into ourselves without judgement, without saying,” this is good or bad” we must look as objectively as possible. Because if we say good or bad our ego stops us from seeing the truth of it. So I have proposed a method that asks man to question the validity of his thinking and the methods he uses to justify his actions. And that takes courage because we don’t want to give up the safety of our books. We don’t want to think for ourselves, we want to run to a book or a constitution that tells us what to do so we don’t have to think, to take responsibility. We want to defer our actions to someone else. We can’t.
The ‘Catch 22' is that it is not possible for man to prove with utter certainty that God condones killing. We can quote one book or another but they are not proof, they just become diminished to the level of a weapon yielded by individual subjectivity.
So is it possible to ‘see’ absolute truth? I think we can get glimpses of it but the important thing is to never lose site of the core of our thinking that manifests externally as suffering to others. If the world changes it will change through that and change on an individual basis.

“Massive change is entirely dependent upon individual action.”
M.K. Gandhi

ps. I like the way you think.

[Anita]

I'd be interested in your thoughts about this essay by Maureen Farrell (http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/12/far04041.html), Robert.

[Robert]

I'd be interested in your thoughts about this essay by Maureen Farrell (http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/12/far04041.html), Robert.

This is interesting because I have spent considerable time looking into the WW2 Germany and I think the essay expresses some valid concerns.
The difference is that she is looking at the American society as above that. No people are above that. Germany was the result of a society driven by nationalism which justified and established their actions.
Several factors were set in place at the time.
1. Germany was in a depression.
2. They had very low esteem after losing WW1.
3. A small group of people (the Jews) controlled the wealth.

Hitler rose to power gradually and if he had started his speeches talking about gas chambers the people would have very likely walked past him with little consideration.

He didn’t. He started telling the people how great they were and how proud they should be. He used nationalism which is nothing more then geographical bias to energize the masses and nationalism, as it always does, brings fragmentation. The illusion of us and them, us and our enemies. We are great, we are better then anyone, we are right, we have ‘god on our side’ and all the rest of it. Sound familiar?

So we had this country fueled by this very unifying but distorting force, nationalism, fueled by its belief that ‘god’ was with them. The result? They began their expansionism and genocide. Were there people who protested? There always are and they were hated for their lack of patriotism for not ‘being with us’ but the ‘rule of popularity’ (democracy) had taken hold. So we have to look at democracy too and ask, does the majority indicate right and truth? A democracy can drive Capitalism which is greed and a democracy can drive hate which is genocide and we had a genocide in this country driven by nationalism and ‘christian’ justification. The difference is we had no one to stop us and winners write the history.

So now we once again march in war, driven by nationalism, because without nationalism there can be no war and now we are also driven by the belief that ‘god is on our side’ and we say, “if you are not with us you are against us” just as Hitler said.
Now our economy is falling, taxes and debt are rising. Now we have a country divided with a president who thinks he’s an instrument of ‘god’, who thinks he can legislate morality. So now we are at the door, we’re waiting for terrorism and terrorism is the spark that will unite the people through war. And countries always like wars until they lose.

[Anita]

not the article, but how your mind and MY mind come to similar conclusions. I toyed with the reincarnation thing for a LONG time, myself. I even came to the conclusion that my second born was a reincarnate of her dead uncle [who died at an EARLY age and seemed to call out to me at his funeral] I didn't know at that time that I was pregnant with her, but I was, and I told him [at his funeral] that I understood what he was saying because I was getting his messages from WITHIN. The only music that would solace her in infancy was the music that HE loved. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

I came to realize that this particular death was the one that brought to my attention my OWN mortality. I felt quite justified in having the thoughts I had, but never went on to embrace the whole thing as REAL. You HAVE, and I admit it's VERY comforting.

[Robert]

From what I have found through my ‘explorations’ and studies is that the soul enters a specific body when it feels that the life will bring the learning it requires to advance spiritually. While this does fit with many eastern thought it is not entirely from those belief systems.
Anyway, the soul very possible could be that of your uncle because for one, we often return to environments that afford us the opportunity to resolve karmic debts created with those souls we have encountered in previous lives.
There are some things to check that may solidify this. One is appearance. What I’ve found is that we often look very much the same from life to life and your second born may very well look like your uncle in facial structure and even build.
The other thing is astrological signs. You might want to compare rising and birth signs from those around you. I’ve seen some interesting aspects in this area too.

[Anita]

It was HER uncle [husband to my ex-husband's sister], and she looks NOTHING like him [even in facial structure]. My girls both look like me. My son prolly looks like me, as well, but he sports a beard and I have a hard time seeing myself with a beard. I'm actually UNWILLING to explore the issue further, because I really do think that my willingness to believe this AT THE TIME was due to my grief in his death, which [as I said] exposed me to MY mortality. I was a full-time student at the time, and I MISSED two weeks of school, and I was one of those students who NEVER missed a day. His death hit me like a bag of rocks on my head. That was 23 years ago, and I've no intention of revisiting the thoughts I had at that time.

[Robert]

OK, Sorry.

[Anita]

OK is enough. I'm having a lot of trouble lately communicating, and *I* should be the one apologizing all the time. Just wanted you to be aware of my BTDT episode.

:beer: