The problems of Christian fundamentalism in the US

[PaliRichard]

My eference to Sharia law comes from my experiences of working with a vert decent Iranian guy who came to this country, not as a refugee, but as someone who was fed up of the strict constaints of Islam [when Islam is applied by fundamentallists] i told him not to be too hard on his own religion as we have the same sort of nutter in our own society who would manipulate the wording of the Bible to suit his own ends. i am not an Islamaphobe. Parts of what my friend told me make a lot of sense, specially when he told me a Muslim is asked to perform an act of kindness every day. He then pointed to what was happening in Bradford, Dewsbury, and such and warned of the extremists taking charge of the Mosques. He even said he was unhappy about the teachings given at a Mosque in Sheffield and prefers to go to a more traditional Mosque. He warned against the younger, hot headed Muslims and said they were the ones affected most by radical teachings.

We were only exchanging views in general terms, but my workmate seemed to be very worried by it all. I have no views at all on Islam but I fear fundamentallism in any religion.[/Quote]

 

This explanation does not actually justify the points I addressed in my previous post though does it? In fact it doesn't even really touch on it. All it does is make further reference to you saying you're not an Islamaphobe, it in no way addresses your previous post that suggested you are. In the first post I addressed of yours you made direct points about how Buddhism and Christianity were good, and how Islam was bad, you in no way mentioned fundamentalists. You still haven't said your wording was mistaken in that first post (which may be the case, I'm not saying you are an Islamaphobe, only that the post I addressed suggested that you were).

 

As you have not clarified your position in relation to that first post and just made excuses and being insulting since all you have done is lead people on here to believe you are trying to now back track and make excuses, rather than actually addressing the original point, so I will ask you in a very simple, plain and clear way that will hopefully resolve the issue.

 

In post #67 when you said

All Christians preach is tolerance and honesty and kindness whenever possible. This is sensible even if you dont believe in God. Budhism is the same, whether you believe in the religion or not, but Islam and its cruel Sharia law has no place in the modern world[/Quote] was that a miswording or is that your opinion? All the posts you've made in defence since have merely avoided that core point and come across as either feeble excuses or deliberate avoidance of that core question.

 

Budha preached a more relaxed religion, he hated the strict frightening priests and believed religion should foster happy positive thoughts, not fear and be used primarily to control people[/Quote]

 

Buddha didn't teach a 'more relaxed' religion, he was quite strict in the 'rules' (it's not technically correct to call them 'rules' but it is sufficiant for this conversation) and would openly admonish those who 'broke' them and openly criticize those who 'misrepresented' his teaching. The Buddhist rules are some of the strictest in the religious world, and people who broke them could be (and were) asked to leave the order.

 

He didn't 'hate' any priests (he often engaged other sects directly about their beliefs, and on numerous occasions accomodated them and their questions to him), and he certainly didn't teach 'happy, positive thoughts'. In fact what he taught was 'skillful' (to the goal) thoughts/action that in some cases went against peoples personal happiness for the sake of the final result. He taught a way of thinking and analyzing that would lead to one end only, Nibbana (Nirvana).

 

He didn't teach us to be all fluffy and pacifistic, he didn't teach vegetarianism (in fact it is possible to feed a monk a wholly vegetarian diet and break all the rules he set in place about food). Other than stuff we wouldn't normally eat (like tiger, snake and a few others) in this country the only rules regarding meat and fish was that it shouldn't be raw.

 

I have been a practicing Buddhist for nearly twenty years, I have gone through full Zen training and around five years ago took the triple gem vow in the Theravaden tradition. I think your version of Buddhism is somewhat alien to what the Buddha actually taught.

 

Does that make it bad that you choose to take those ideas and incorporate them into your belief? Not at all, you may do/believe as you wish, but what you consider 'Buddhist' is far removed from what the Buddha would have considered his teaching, that is the only point I'm trying to make.

 

I find sectarianism, as is found in Scotland and Ulster terrible and can never fully understand it. Why hate someone because of their faith ?? Disagree somewhat yes, but not hate. Celtic and Rangers fans are prime examples of religious lunacy. What the hell has religion got to do with football ??

 

Are you sure you don't know me and have come here just to try to wind me up? I'm a Celtic fan, and I neither hate Rangers fans nor partake in 'religious lunacy'.

 

Let me repeat my question to you, which for me is the important point here, In post #67 when you said

All Christians preach is tolerance and honesty and kindness whenever possible. This is sensible even if you dont believe in God. Budhism is the same, whether you believe in the religion or not, but Islam and its cruel Sharia law has no place in the modern world[/Quote] was that a miswording or is that your opinion?

[Ryedo40]

If you live in a place where 'Christian [or any other kind of] Fundamentalism' is the norm, then it's not a problem is it?

 

Yes, it is a problem. It's especially a problem for those on the receiving end of that fundamentalism.

 

How many Christian Fundamentalists have blown up buses and trains in the UK, buildings in the US, trains in Spain, or anything else elsewhere?

 

Fundamentalists don't always resort to blowing up buses, trains and buildings. Most, with the exception of the LRA(a militant Christian fundamentalist group that operates throughout Africa), use less violent methods to impose their beliefs on the rest of society. A current example might be the Christian lobby groups, in places likes Uganda, who seek to create laws that will see the execution of gays. Another might be the religious lobby groups in Honduras who are currently trying pass laws that will see doctors - and teenage girls and victims of rape - imprisoned for using or distributing the morning-after pill; you can sign the petition here.

[Tradescanthia]

This explanation does not actually justify the points I addressed in my previous post though does it? In fact it doesn't even really touch on it. All it does is make further reference to you saying you're not an Islamaphobe, it in no way addresses your previous post that suggested you are. In the first post I addressed of yours you made direct points about how Buddhism and Christianity were good, and how Islam was bad, you in no way mentioned fundamentalists. You still haven't said your wording was mistaken in that first post (which may be the case, I'm not saying you are an Islamaphobe, only that the post I addressed suggested that you were).

 

As you have not clarified your position in relation to that first post and just made excuses and being insulting since all you have done is lead people on here to believe you are trying to now back track and make excuses, rather than actually addressing the original point, so I will ask you in a very simple, plain and clear way that will hopefully resolve the issue.

 

In post #67 when you said was that a miswording or is that your opinion? All the posts you've made in defence since have merely avoided that core point and come across as either feeble excuses or deliberate avoidance of that core question.

 

 

 

Buddha didn't teach a 'more relaxed' religion, he was quite strict in the 'rules' (it's not technically correct to call them 'rules' but it is sufficiant for this conversation) and would openly admonish those who 'broke' them and openly criticize those who 'misrepresented' his teaching. The Buddhist rules are some of the strictest in the religious world, and people who broke them could be (and were) asked to leave the order.

 

He didn't 'hate' any priests (he often engaged other sects directly about their beliefs, and on numerous occasions accomodated them and their questions to him), and he certainly didn't teach 'happy, positive thoughts'. In fact what he taught was 'skillful' (to the goal) thoughts/action that in some cases went against peoples personal happiness for the sake of the final result. He taught a way of thinking and analyzing that would lead to one end only, Nibbana (Nirvana).

 

He didn't teach us to be all fluffy and pacifistic, he didn't teach vegetarianism (in fact it is possible to feed a monk a wholly vegetarian diet and break all the rules he set in place about food). Other than stuff we wouldn't normally eat (like tiger, snake and a few others) in this country the only rules regarding meat and fish was that it shouldn't be raw.

 

I have been a practicing Buddhist for nearly twenty years, I have gone through full Zen training and around five years ago took the triple gem vow in the Theravaden tradition. I think your version of Buddhism is somewhat alien to what the Buddha actually taught.

 

Does that make it bad that you choose to take those ideas and incorporate them into your belief? Not at all, you may do/believe as you wish, but what you consider 'Buddhist' is far removed from what the Buddha would have considered his teaching, that is the only point I'm trying to make.

 

 

 

Are you sure you don't know me and have come here just to try to wind me up? I'm a Celtic fan, and I neither hate Rangers fans nor partake in 'religious lunacy'.

 

Let me repeat my question to you, which for me is the important point here, In post #67 when you said was that a miswording or is that your opinion?

 

Please read..........

 

a. i do not come onto this forum to 'defend myself'.

b. I do not like fundamentalism in any religion.

c. You deny the existence of sectarianism in Scotland ?? Celtic and Rangers ??

Are you serious ??

d. you have kicked off about buddhism, chapter and verse. In my opinion that makes you the very person this thread is about, a fundamentalist.

e. I have no intention of clarifying my position on anything, neither did i intend winding you up, i dont have to wind you up, you do a good enough job on yourself.

 

Go join the Salvation Army, they may allow you to play the tambourine..........you may find it therapeutic. Boddhism obviously screws you up, take it a little easier, your blood pressure must be sky high.

 

Now go and find someone else to bother. Goodnight........and God bless.

[Tradescanthia]

You're a loose cannon! Time to practice a little restraint.

 

 

and Its time for another holiday in Spain, methinks.

 

 

You are right, a spell in Andalusia is due..........

I do tell it like it is, a lot dont like it. They should avoid open forums. Perhaps they should lighten up, forget the 'teachings of Buddha' or Zen or any other teachings and make their own minds up. I was led to believe that Buddhism was a quest for 'inner peace'. I dont think I will be renewing my membership of the temple

[PaliRichard]

Please read..........

 

a. i do not come onto this forum to 'defend myself'.

b. I do not like fundamentalism in any religion.[/Quote]

 

That is fair enough, you don't have to defend yourself.

 

But if you make statements that make you sound like an Islamaphobe then refuse to quantify why you made those statements don't complain that people are making assumptions about you.

 

c. You deny the existence of sectarianism in Scotland ?? Celtic and Rangers ??

Are you serious ??[/Quote]

 

Did I deny it? You said Celtic and Rangers fans, I merely replied I was a Celtic fan and don't partake in sectarian violance or hate of Rangers fans, not that it doesn't exist.

 

d. you have kicked off about buddhism, chapter and verse. In my opinion that makes you the very person this thread is about, a fundamentalist.

e. I have no intention of clarifying my position on anything, neither did i intend winding you up, i dont have to wind you up, you do a good enough job on yourself.[/Quote]

 

I haven't 'kicked off' about Buddhism at all. All I did was clarify some of the teachings of Buddhism. It's funny that earlier on in the thread you were complaining that Christians didn't understand the 'original' teachings of Christianity, all I was doing was clarifying the 'original' teachings of the Buddha.

 

I even stated that you were free, in my opinion, to take any of those teachings and apply them to your life as you see fit, you don't have to become a 'Buddhist' to do that. I think many people on this Forum do that with the teachings of the Buddha without being Buddhist, I think that's a good thing.

 

I'm not sure what you qualify a 'fundamentalist' as but if someone merely clarifying what the teaching of their religion is comes across to you as 'fundamentalism' then religion doesn't stand a chance does it?

 

Go join the Salvation Army, they may allow you to play the tambourine..........you may find it therapeutic. Boddhism obviously screws you up, take it a little easier, your blood pressure must be sky high.[/Quote]

 

I'm fine thankyou, I'm getting slightly frustrated because you don't seem able to qualify your position while simultaniously misunderstanding everyone else's, but other than that I feel great.

 

Now go and find someone else to bother. Goodnight........and God bless.

 

I will repeat myself, my intention is not to 'bother' you, it's merely to ascertain what your position of Islam, not fundamentalism in Islam, not your complete misunderstanding of Sharia, but the religion of Islam is, because all you have done for several days is sidestep the question.

[PaliRichard]

I was led to believe that Buddhism was a quest for 'inner peace'. I dont think I will be renewing my membership of the temple

 

Buddhism is a path to the unbinding of stress, sometimes translated as suffering.

 

It can be seen as a quest for 'inner peace', that's not a bad way of looking at it, but it's not technically correct. If you want to see it that way, feel free, but if you refuse to take clarification of what it actually is without resorting to call its adherhants fundamentalists that shows your own prejudice, not anyone elses.

[Tradescanthia]

Inner peace, being happy in your own skin is priceless. I am 99% of the way there...........I reckon its the pagan part of me that gives it. My cathedral is the woodlands, I never fail to unwind there and sometimes it has been difficult, believe me. Search some of my posts using 'cancer' as a keyword.............

[PaliRichard]

Inner peace, being happy in your own skin is priceless. I am 99% of the way there...........I reckon its the pagan part of me that gives it. My cathedral is the woodlands, I never fail to unwind there and sometimes it has been difficult, believe me. Search some of my posts using 'cancer' as a keyword.............

 

It's this part of you that I agree with, I know we have been having a bit of a verbal scuffle but as I have consistently said from the beginning of our conversation I do actually agree with a large part of what you say.