Is ISIS a disaster for all muslims?

[sojourner]

evolution 'theory'

Just a theory, not a fact.

I think that, in order to remain responsible with our faith, we have to re-imagine our theological constructions in light of what we know about the universe. As an example, I understand that science has gotten back to within a second of the big bang (about 15 billion years ago). How does that knowledge inform our understanding of the creation myths in Genesis, and how can the two be reconciled, such that both enrich our lives?

 

[Windwalker]

As long as there is war, starvation, poverty and corruption, the human species is in the earliest stages of civilisation.

The fact that you recognize it as an inferior condition shows you are not at that stage.

 

[sojourner]

The fact that you recognize it as an inferior condition shows you are not at that stage.

I don't think either position is correct. I don't think it's an either/or proposition. I think it's more a both/and.

We have to consider what we mean, generally, by "enlightenment." We have to consider that many who enlightened do not come from first-world nations. We have to consider that we, who enjoy a first-world life are doing so at the expense of our powerless sisters and brothers, and at the expense of the health of our planet. Is our lifestyle any less "barbaric" than that of religious terrorists?

 

[Nakosis]

We are not. They are. It's the trailing edge of our advance. As a whole, we've evolved beyond that. The problem is that those with a higher consciousness are not drawn to power. That's the conundrum.

I think those not attached to power have been around for awhile. I don't necessarily think in any greater or lessor percentage now then in the past.

Even fewer become public and outspoken. They generally come to an untimely end. Man as a species is still capable of coming to an untimely end. There are no guarantees.

Evolution just means change, not progress to something "better". I still see man for the most part as a self destructive species.

 

[sojourner]

I think those not attached to power have been around for awhile. I don't necessarily think in any greater or lessor percentage now then in the past.

Even fewer become public and outspoken. They generally come to an untimely end. Man as a species is still capable of coming to an untimely end. There are no guarantees.

Evolution just means change, not progress to something "better". I still see man for the most part as a self destructive species.

And an earth-destructive species.

 

[Nakosis]

And an earth-destructive species.

We can't destroy the earth. It is more powerful then any one species. We are part of it. The earth changes, We are among many things that affect that change.

All creation requires destruction. All destruction creates something. They are one in the same. Only our judgement differs.

 

[sojourner]

We can't destroy the earth. It is more powerful then any one species. We are part of it. The earth changes, We are among many things that affect that change.

All creation requires destruction. All destruction creates something. They are one in the same. Only our judgement differs.

We can destroy its ability to sustain human life.

 

[Windwalker]

I don't think either position is correct. I don't think it's an either/or proposition. I think it's more a both/and.

I don't think it's an either/or either. Everyone goes through that stage of the warrior in themselves, and in their cultures. The modern culture still has the warrior as part of itself, but it is not the defining paradigm. It's not "where they live" as a whole, even though that part of us still exists within us. But there are those who simply have not developed anything higher yet. They are still operating at that level as the dominant mode of operation. So it is both within us, but the earlier stages of warrior/convert-or-die you infidel does not rule the day. We instead harness it's power in us towards higher ideals, to function at higher standards towards a greater good for the whole.

We have to consider what we mean, generally, by "enlightenment." We have to consider that many who enlightened do not come from first-world nations.

I would disagree with this. The Buddha didn't come from a 1st world country. Jesus didn't have a condo in Miami beach and a private jet.

We have to consider that we, who enjoy a first-world life are doing so at the expense of our powerless sisters and brothers, and at the expense of the health of our planet. Is our lifestyle any less "barbaric" than that of religious terrorists?

Yes, it is less barbaric. That we are idiots and are lacking self-awareness in a consumption craze, not thinking beyond narcissistic greed, is not the same thing as a moral choice to kill another human because they don't think like you do. We are in a better position to correct a pathology, which capitalism has become, as opposed to still operating an early value system which sees other humans as objects/non-humans if they aren't part of their tribe. These are very different issues.

 

[sojourner]

I would disagree with this. The Buddha didn't come from a 1st world country. Jesus didn't have a condo in Miami beach and a private jet.

You misunderstood. Read the post again. We agree on this point.

Yes, it is less barbaric. That we are idiots and are lacking self-awareness in a consumption craze, not thinking beyond narcissistic greed, is not the same thing as a moral choice to kill another human because they don't think like you do. We are in a better position to correct a pathology, which capitalism has become, as opposed to still operating an early value system which sees other humans as objects/non-humans if they aren't part of their tribe. These are very different issues.

I think that both issues stem from the same source, though: from the way in which we objectify others. Objectification can take the form of genocide, oppression, or merely discrimination. And it's all dehumanizing. All we've done is "switch gears" from a warlike paradigm to a more subtle and insidious paradigm, but both are a product of a failure to perceive all things and all people as interrelated and interdependent.

 

[Windwalker]

I think that both issues stem from the same source, though: from the way in which we objectify others. Objectification can take the form of genocide, oppression, or merely discrimination. And it's all dehumanizing. All we've done is "switch gears" from a warlike paradigm to a more subtle and insidious paradigm, but both are a product of a failure to perceive all things and all people as interrelated and interdependent.

How I look at it is in a developmental model. The circle of "me" starts out very small. In fact it is incapable of seeing the other at all, except only in an object way. There is no self-identity sensed or seen in the other in an infant. As the child grows, the circle of "me" widens. Its self-identity is with the family unit. As it develops further, the circle widens again, to friends and peers. Then older still it widens to group identification. Then wider still, at a more mature stage it widens to include the community, then the nation. Still wider, still more mature, it widens to global-centric mind, including other humans as our self-identification, seeing ourselves in the stranger, the foreigner, and so forth. The yet, still wider, we see ourselves in all living things, animals, trees, and life itself. Still wider and more incluse beyond that, is all existence itself in a cosmocenrtric consciousness, the divine mind, the mind of Christ, Buddha mind.

People at the group-centric modality see others outside the group as non-humans. You see what's happening here? The less developed we are, the tighter and more narrow our world allows for the other to exist in it. It's not that problems don't exist at the higher levels. You still have boundaries. It's just that they are wider and more inclusive the more advanced or mature we are. And it's not until you realized Christ Consciousness, that there are "no boundaries".

 

[sojourner]

How I look at it is in a developmental model. The circle of "me" starts out very small. In fact it is incapable of seeing the other at all, except only in an object way. There is no self-identity sensed or seen in the other in an infant. As the child grows, the circle of "me" widens. Its self-identity is with the family unit. As it develops further, the circle widens again, to friends and peers. Then older still it widens to group identification. Then wider still, at a more mature stage it widens to include the community, then the nation. Still wider, still more mature, it widens to global-centric mind, including other humans as our self-identification, seeing ourselves in the stranger, the foreigner, and so forth. The yet, still wider, we see ourselves in all living things, animals, trees, and life itself. Still wider and more incluse beyond that, is all existence itself in a cosmocenrtric consciousness, the divine mind, the mind of Christ, Buddha mind.

People at the group-centric modality see others outside the group as non-humans. You see what's happening here? The less developed we are, the tighter and more narrow our world allows for the other to exist in it. It's not that problems don't exist at the higher levels. You still have boundaries. It's just that they are wider and more inclusive the more advanced or mature we are. And it's not until you realized Christ Consciousness, that there are "no boundaries".

Oh, I get that. In fact, I wrote a 35-page paper on the subject for a graduate theology class. What I'm saying is that we're still largely operating at that closed-group consciousness level -- whether we're waging war or waging discrimination. It's all just window-dressing for a problem that is fostered by looking at the world atomistically instead of organically.

 

[Windwalker]

Oh, I get that. In fact, I wrote a 35-page paper on the subject for a graduate theology class. What I'm saying is that we're still largely operating at that closed-group consciousness level -- whether we're waging war or waging discrimination. It's all just window-dressing for a problem that is fostered by looking at the world atomistically instead of organically.

Or you could say reductionistically versus holistically. And I do agree what we are seeing as the majority is still at the ethnocentric level, but probably the higher end of it. ISIS however is operating at the tribal level, and early ethnocentric. The only point I see where we begin to start thinking holistically is at the postmodern stage. That's still only about 20% right now, leaving 70% at the ethnocentric in the middle, and about 8% at tribal and lower. The remaining 2% are moving those moving beyond postmodern into the integral mind. You've got to first get the middle up to postmodern first.

 

[Nakosis]

We can destroy its ability to sustain human life.

Sure, man wouldn't be the first species to become extinct.

 

[serp777]

Is Islam as disaster? It certainly seems to be causing a lot of problems in the world. At least Christianity and other religions are less violent in general.

 

[outhouse]

Is Islam as disaster? It certainly seems to be causing a lot of problems in the world. At least Christianity and other religions are less violent in general.

Less fanaticism and fundamentalism.

Neither Judaisn or Christianity state the other prophets are incorrect, and only OUR version is right because god Chinese whispered is some self proclaimed prophets ear.

 

[ShivaFan]

... as horrible as the atrocity in motion, I am also very horrified by their passion to destroy ancient artifacts and art and archeological treasures that now belong to the entire world as hertitage and historic value and beauty.

... why such ugly hate for these artifacts?

Yes, this will have long term impressions for observers of Islam, it will be remembered for many decades.

 

[s2a]

Them atrocities being committed by ISIS and similar groups are horrifying the non-muslim world.

People will now be suspicious of their muslim neighbours: would they do such things if they thought they could get away with them?

Young muslims leaving peaceful places like Canada to join such groups reinforces the negative impression of islam that the jihadis are producing.

Will things be worse for muslims than they would be without the jihadist groups?

Nope. But it remains an UGLY PR move ...

 

[Sees]

... as horrible as the atrocity in motion, I am also very horrified by their passion to destroy ancient artifacts and art and archeological treasures that now belong to the entire world as hertitage and historic value and beauty.

... why such ugly hate for these artifacts?

Yes, this will have long term impressions for observers of Islam, it will be remembered for many decades.

The sad thing is the prime, supreme example of the religion, Muhammad, set the tone when destroying idols in Mecca all those years ago. It leads to zero surprise that today's minions find idols, relics, etc. to smash and burn. Some ugly parts are not extreme or fanatical at all but part of the core and heart. Intolerance is firmly imbedded despite apologetic claims.

No excuse today or 1,400 years ago. It's shameful and despicable.

 

[sojourner]

I, admittedly, don't know anything about Islam, other than what I learned in school, read here and see on the news. What I see isn't encouraging, in the least.

 

[Pastek]

There are muslims living among us and some of them are known to have travelled overseas to fight with ISIS.

Should one be worried about what might happen if they manage to return to Canada?

Should one be worried about the influences here that led them to join that fight?

There have already been terror plots hatched here. Fortunately, they were discovered in time.

You're right. But i think those people are most of time kept under surveillance.