Re: Whose evidence to believe Ian Johnstone-Bryden
The difficulty in discussion of Abrahamic religions
is that only the fundamentalist models are completely secure and fixed. Many of
those following these religions are not fundamentalist and do not have any
desire to be evangelical. The Christian religions are a large family of faiths
that share some aspects but can be very different. Logically the same is true
of some flavours of Islam because the position that 'no man should come between
another and God', implies that each Muslim is controller of his or her own
beliefs and therefore that there must be as many forms of Islam as there are
followers.
Probably, an overwhelming majority takes a very
pragmatic view of their particular religion. However, those same pragmatists
can rapidly form up behind the fundamentalists against another religion, in the
same way that those following religions that may not be classed as
fundamentalist can show very similar intolerance and discrimination.
Unfortunately, most people build a picture in their
own mind of what another religion is and that then becomes a box into which all
who say they follow that religion are conveniently placed. It makes life simple
and provides a clear focus for discrimination even though it is not logical and
unfairly condemns.
To a fundamentalist Christian, only the Creation Theory is valid and this has led to conflict in theUS
where creationists fight to exclude Darwin 's
theories from schools. Some Darwinists are equally determined that creationism
should not be taught, but may also consider themselves Christian. As Darwin 's Theories are now
widely accepted by many Christians, logic says that these individuals are not
fundamentalist Christians but cannot argue with the individuals that they are
not Christian.
There is very little purity in Christian belief because the faith prospered by absorbing festivals and beliefs from pagan religions and in some parts of South America, there are Catholic Christian communities that that would be considered heretical and pagan by some Christians. This pragmatism can apply to Hebrews. A colleague, who in his forties still obedient to his mother, a very orthodox Jew, enjoyed bacon sandwiches and enthusiastically enjoyed Christian festivals but was the model of orthodoxy at the Synagogue.
To a fundamentalist Christian, only the Creation Theory is valid and this has led to conflict in the
There is very little purity in Christian belief because the faith prospered by absorbing festivals and beliefs from pagan religions and in some parts of South America, there are Catholic Christian communities that that would be considered heretical and pagan by some Christians. This pragmatism can apply to Hebrews. A colleague, who in his forties still obedient to his mother, a very orthodox Jew, enjoyed bacon sandwiches and enthusiastically enjoyed Christian festivals but was the model of orthodoxy at the Synagogue.
Usually what happens is that some very anti-social
people hide behind religion and quote only those parts of the faith that
support their positions. That applies to a great many religions. In Liberal
Christianity, senior priests no longer believe in many of the teachings that
were once followed blindly and some show little sign of even accepting God. ianj-b@firetrench.com
During the last forty years, we have been able to
observe a new faith emerging that claims to be based on science. How far that
proves to be a false faith will only be seen at some point in the distant
future and even then there may be followers of the belief who refuse to accept
any proof of fallibility. The Global Warmers who became Climate Changers may
have deliberately distorted or hidden inconvenient facts to suit their beliefs,
but their new faith includes correctly observed phenomena. The questions for
debate are in the interpretation of the observations and the accuracy of
conclusions drawn from observation and interpretation. As climate science is
still a very long way from being a settled science, there will be observations
that prove to be very accurate but interpretation may be shown to be seriously
flawed.
As the new faith started out with a belief that
human activity was causing a new Ice Age, it already has a questionable
history. Those predicting a new Ice Age 40 years ago discovered that reality
was not cooperating with their computer model predictions and they started to
change their belief to blame human actions on increasing global temperatures.
When the rate of warming slowed and then stopped, some scientists deliberately
concealed data and deliberately misrepresented other data and produced new
computer models that were designed to distort data to support earlier trends as
a continuing and increasing trend. More recently, a new group of climate change
believers have expressed horror that human activity is delaying and may halt the
development of the next Ice Age which they claim should otherwise arrive in
1500 years time.
What this area of belief demonstrates is how a new
faith can develop on the basis of accurately observed conditions that are
interpreted to fit a pre-conceived belief and then for later observations to be
distorted or suppressed to avoid the faith being discredited. In itself, it
might form a part of a healthy debate of the environment and identify actions
that many might wish to support for very sensible reasons. What makes it an
extremely dangerous religion is that it includes a very aggressive
proselytizing element. What makes it even more dangerous is that it coincides
in various parts of the world with other older religions that are actively
proselytizing.
sbicitizen : Message: Re: [sbicitizen] Re: Private note Ian
Johnstone-Bryden ianj-b@firetrench.com
- 2 Feb
In much the same way, very few individuals ever
chose a religion, but accept the religion of parents, extended family, the society
in which they live. That also means that the views of those few individuals who
have studied a specific religion may be significantly different from the
general view of a religion by its followers. For a great many people, religion
is only lightly accepted. It is used as the setting for celebration of a birth,
the coming of age, marriage, and death. Outside those occasions religion is not
a great consideration but that may not reduce the value of belief, just
position it as a background guide.
Dear TNM, A discussion on the topic of Religion in
the context of Sri Aurobindo's and The Mother's Integral Yoga is welcome, if
deemed necessary. However, we are of the opinion that it is better to establish
and lay down the facts before engaging in unending debates.
With regards to the Supreme Court Judgment, one can
keep arguing about matters of Religion and Spirituality forever as these are
merely a play of words. But for those who choose to play with words and the Law
that is defined by these words, the Supreme Court Judgment establishes that
enough has been said and argued on this subject and this matter can now be laid
to rest, unless this Judgment is now sought to be reviewed or challenged.
Moreover, in the interest of Truth let us not get
distracted by the never-ending arguments of legal experts or the polemics of
self-appointed custodians of Sri Aurobindo and The Mother. Let us instead pay
heed to the words and actions of Sri Aurobindo and The Mother who have: -
Clearly stated that the ideals, teachings and the institutions they founded
were not part of any religion whatsoever. They also acted according to these
principles. - Have clarified that it is not their purpose to propagate any
religion, new or old. - Unequivocally discouraged their followers from being
religious. These are the undisputed facts and the only ones that matter. But in
case there is any information that is to the contrary, you or others are
invited to present it here, as the purpose of this website is to present
information that is factual and truthful.
However, we would like to add that we are of the
opinion that if some of Sri Aurobindo's and The Mother's followers wish to
establish a new religion in the name, ideals or teachings of their Masters,
they are of course free and welcome to attempt it. It is entirely up to them to
try and reconcile their preferred personal beliefs and intentions while going
against the directions and guidance of their Masters. If this is the path that these
followers choose, so be it.
But there is
absolutely no reason or justification for the rest of the followers to get misled
by a few individuals who wish to further their personal views and preferences
by creating the Myths of a non-existent religious movement. Editors, Auro
Truths. February
3, 2012 at 9:27 am