"I don't think it is right to equate Islam with violence"

[sthitapragya]

Rubbish. Atheists killed 148 million in the last century alone, mostly in the name of purges, "reeducation" and the Brave New World. And many of their victims were not even people of "faith," though some certainly were.

So how did "faith" cause all that?

It's an empirically absurd quotation.

I just saw the wikipedia page from which you got this. Really, for a man with such amazing command over language, you are a disappointment. I really wish you weren't such a blind bigot. You would have been an amazing philosopher just on your language. Instead, your can now be compared with people like Nick A. Its really sad.

I really am not much in the intelligence department, but can you imagine that you disappoint me? All just because of your bigotry.

[Dalek Prime]

Rubbish. Atheists killed 148 million in the last century alone, mostly in the name of purges, "reeducation" and the Brave New World. And many of their victims were not even people of "faith," though some certainly were.

So how did "faith" cause all that?

It's an empirically absurd quotation.

I just saw the wikipedia page from which you got this. Really, for a man with such amazing command over language, you are a disappointment. I really wish you weren't such a blind bigot. You would have been an amazing philosopher just on your language. Instead, your can now be compared with people like Nick A. Its really sad.

I really am not much in the intelligence department, but can you imagine that you disappoint me? All just because of your bigotry.

Let's not go to far. IC is a fairly decent fellow, from what I know him. You're both good members of this forum, and I appreciate you both. It would be a sad day if either stopped writing here.

[sthitapragya]

Rubbish. Atheists killed 148 million in the last century alone, mostly in the name of purges, "reeducation" and the Brave New World. And many of their victims were not even people of "faith," though some certainly were.

So how did "faith" cause all that?

It's an empirically absurd quotation.

I just saw the wikipedia page from which you got this. Really, for a man with such amazing command over language, you are a disappointment. I really wish you weren't such a blind bigot. You would have been an amazing philosopher just on your language. Instead, your can now be compared with people like Nick A. Its really sad.

I really am not much in the intelligence department, but can you imagine that you disappoint me? All just because of your bigotry.

Let's not go to far. IC is a fairly decent fellow, from what I know him. You're both good members of this forum, and I appreciate you both. It would be a sad day if either stopped writing here.

Oh, I am not going anywhere. And I do not deny that IC is a decent guy. It is just that in his particular case with his set of abilities, his absolute bias is frustrating and therefore disappointing.

[Dalek Prime]

I just saw the wikipedia page from which you got this. Really, for a man with such amazing command over language, you are a disappointment. I really wish you weren't such a blind bigot. You would have been an amazing philosopher just on your language. Instead, your can now be compared with people like Nick A. Its really sad.

I really am not much in the intelligence department, but can you imagine that you disappoint me? All just because of your bigotry.

Let's not go to far. IC is a fairly decent fellow, from what I know him. You're both good members of this forum, and I appreciate you both. It would be a sad day if either stopped writing here.

Oh, I am not going anywhere. And I do not deny that IC is a decent guy. It is just that in his particular case with his set of abilities, his absolute bias is frustrating and therefore disappointing.

I hear you. Can't say I'm up to speed on this thread, but saying in general that 'atheists', as though they are a cohesive group, killed over a hundred million in the last century is a bit off. Unless by atheists, he means communists. Even then, that's a completely different animal.

[Walker]

You assume violence only by the faithful, which does happen if the faith decrees it.

However, bred violence can also be visited upon the faithful.

Either way, faith invariably breeds violence.

Then you're blaming the victims.

Rubbish. Atheists killed 148 million in the last century alone, mostly in the name of purges, "reeducation" and the Brave New World. And many of their victims were not even people of "faith," though some certainly were.

So how did "faith" cause all that?

It's an empirically absurd quotation.

Of course the victims are not to blame.

Many Christians have been killed solely because of their faith. It's happening now, and you ask how.

Therefore, faith invariably breeds violence, whether or not the victim has faith or the violent one has faith.

*

The quotation in a larger context:

“Man has throughout the ages been seeking something beyond himself, beyond material welfare – something we call truth or God or reality, a timeless state – something that cannot be disturbed by circumstances, by thought or by human corruption.

“Man has always asked the question: what is it all about? Has life any meaning at all? He sees the enormous confusion of life, the brutalities, the revolts, the wars, the endless divisions of religion, ideology and nationality, and with a sense of deep abiding frustration he asks, what is one to do, what is this thing we call living, is there anything behind it?

“And not finding this nameless thing of a thousand names which he has always sought, he has cultivated faith – faith in a savior or an ideal – and faith invariably breeds violence.”

- J. Krishnamurti
Freedom From The Known
Page 1

[Arising_uk]

...

So how did "faith" cause all that?

It's an empirically absurd quotation.

Faith in Marxist/Leninism and National Socialism, well Hitler, Stalin and Mao's versions anyway. Bugger all to do with killing in the name of Atheism. Still, after the next round of religious wars, one this time held with advanced weaponry we'll see if maybe your idea is not a bad one.

[henry quirk]

"If I fail to convert to Islam, there is a chance that some nutter will slit my throat. Then, if I fail to convert to Christianity, your god will condemn me to eternal torture."

Well, the nutter is just another imperfect, limited, creature while god is (presumably) perfect and unlimited. The nutter has a limited, imperfect, understanding and is therefore motivated in a limited, imperfect, way while god, with his perfection and infinitude, has a perfect understanding and motivation. So, presumably, if god wants to slaughter, he has excellent reasons.

And if that doesn't work for you, consider this: what we know of god comes largely through supposedly inspired writings, that is, a perfect infinity dictated stuff to a number of limited, flawed, monkey-things. Not surprising, then, the end result often reflects human bias, dream, and nightmare as much as it does god's intent(ions).

[ken]

Note: I clipped a few of the longer, rhetorical passages to keep my own response a readable length...readers are referred to the above for full context, and can judge if I missed anything they want to discuss.

How is this man doing something quite different? He still killed another body. I do not see the difference here.

Do you mean you can't see the difference between obeying and disobeying what a religion commands? Or are you confused about how "love your enemies" would be different from "kill them"?

A "religion" is not something that mysteriously appeared and overrides all human beings. Every religion is just an ideology devised/inspired, through human beings, and then taught through word of mouth of, or in written words from and to, human beings. Religions are ever changing things. They are not fixed things.

Nice assumptions. Now prove them.

Which ones, exactly, do you perceive to be assumptions?

1. If it is 'religions are ever changing and not fixed things', then can you name one religion that still reads with the exact same words and language now, as it did at its conception? If not, then all those religions have changed.
2. If it is 'every religion is just an ideology devised and inspired...', then what part of this, or is it all of it, that you are proposing is a "nice assumption"? The obviousness of it speaks for itself, does it not to you?
3. If it is 'a religion is not something that mysteriously appeared and overrides all human beings', then how could you think that was only an assumption? Do you believe that religions did mysteriously appear, or, do you believe that religions override human beings?

You may have to clarify better where and what, exactly, you believe are nice assumptions. To Me, those statements speak for themselves and are blatantly obvious, there is no assuming anywhere in them. But, then again, I am biased to what I write so I may not be able to see what you can see.

Obviously at any point throughout this change, from conception to present day interpretations, there are going to be ideas and interpretations that get lost, misinterpreted, and/or just changed. Human beings create religions. Religions were/are not miraculously created and unchangeable ideologies.

But to have a "misinterpretation," you would have to refer to a "correct interpretation."

Yes of course you would. I thought that was a given.

So how did you come to have possession of the "correct interpretation of Islam" so that you are now able to "correct" our reading of ISIL?

How I came to have possession of the "correct interpretation of islam" is the same way I have been saying in other posts, but that is NOT to say that you have read any of them. That is the exact same way any and every person can come to the have possession also, i.e., through the truly open Mind, from which ALL can be revealed. But from your writings here, which has already exposed how closed you can be, may be there is not enough room in this forum to explain this fully.

But on a much lesser grounded level of explaining how did I come to have possession of the "correct interpretation of islam" was by not reading into it with any preconceived ideas nor emotions. I just looked at, what is generally called islam' from an Everything's perspective, and there in lies Truth, for all to see and gaze at.

Who 'our' is, and how to correct 'their' reading of isil is a completely different matter. Reading isil may well be to far separated and/or removed from islam that the reading of isil could never be "corrected" now, when this is written. Only the ideology behind isil could be changed and this is what is needed before isil itself could and would change, for the better. Remember Isil obviously was born centuries after islam was created, so isil could be based on a totally inaccurate interpretation of islam, and therefore isil may NOT have anything at all to do with islam, itself. Would you, could you even, consider this a possibility?

Depending on how a reader, reads and an observer, observes, the question you asked could be answered in so many different ways. How I read the quote in question, the messages "love your enemies" and "kill them" can also imply the exact same thing, just with a different way or interpretation. If you want Me to explain this further I will, but it may be rather lengthy.

Disingenuous. "Interpretation" has limits, the limits of plausibility. What you are suggesting is far beyond the limits of any reasonable reading, so if any one take it they're just having trouble with basic reading skills, I'm afraid.

As I said, 'If you want Me to explain this further, then I will. You obviously you do not want Me to explain anything as you already appear to KNOW what the truth is, so no need for Me to explain anything further here about my interpretation.

Without clarification you are left with only your assumptions and by the way your three assumptions here are not correct ones, to the level you are proposing them as, and as I see them.

I WILL learn how to get past this belief-system and bring out a truly inquisitive person again, "one day".

By the way and honestly I did not notice the difference between obeying and disobeying what a religion "commands", but that might because I am NOT a follower/non-follower nor believer/non-believer of anything, except Self, so I was not reading that text from that certain viewpoint.

You don't need to. You just need to know the difference between obeying and disobeying. And you don't need a particular ideology to do it. It's basic logic and basic semantics.

Well that might just mean I am more simple and more basic than that and than what people think I am. Also, what I have basically found with basic hindsight is I am basically much better informed.

Are you suggesting here that even though you might know the difference between two things that you have NEVER missed that difference, EVERY time you have read something?

From what you have written here you have appeared, to Me, anyway to have missed a lot of things. In fact it appears, from My perspective, that you have put into what you read 'differences', and then have only read and seen a lot of those differences, which were in fact not even there in the first place.

The ONLY good, bad, right, wrong, or mistaken in any ideology are the ones people, themselves, put into ideologies, or anything else for that matter.

Oh. And just how, without having to interpret in your own right, do you detect any of these?

The same as above. Look from the truly open Mind, which naturally sees from the perspective of Everything.

How do you know what ISIL "put into" Islam, and what was really there?

Without looking into it to deeply at all I can see that isil did not put anything into islam, just like islam did not put anything into isil. What, however, people put into anything, including isil and islam, is another matter.

You definitely imply here that somehow you can detect the difference: I'd love to know how you do it.

Again, the exact same way, i.e., look from the truly open Mind, so then only the Truth of 'what is' IS then seen.

Just like there is NO bad, wrong, or mistaken ideology because bad, wrong and mistaken are only things that only human beings put into ideology, there is NO bad, wrong, or mistaken person, as such, also. Only human beings put or see bad, wrong, and/or mistaken into or from other human beings. Also, a person is NOT bad, wrong, or mistaken in their own right and on the whole. Within every person there is good thoughts and bad thoughts, right/true thoughts and wrong/false thoughts, and, accurate and inaccurate/mistaken thoughts. NO one person is better nor worse than another. Just different.

Then it's not bad to "put" anything at all into any ideology?

Who said that or would even suggest that?

I certainly never said that nor would even suggest that.

On re-reading of what I wrote I could have written it much better, but I was not suggesting that it was not bad to 'put' anything at all into any ideology. What I was saying is there is no mysterious ideology that sits somewhere, which is inherently good or bad or anything else, in of itself. Whatever is in a ideology is only because human beings, themselves, have put that in there. Can you spot the difference now?

Everything is just "different"?

Depending on your view, then obviously yes. But with a different view, 'everything', as one word is just united as One. Whereas, 'every thing', as two words is just different.

There could be as many "different" things, good or bad, etc., put into and come out of an ideology as there are people looking into or seeing from the ideology.

So an Amish farmer is the same as a Jihadi warlord? Lovely.

It would be better for you if, before you jump to a conclusion of "lovely" or any other conclusion, you just asked Me for clarity first.

How could two completely separate different things which you, yourself, have even defined and labelled them as two completely separate different things be the same?

You really do like to put your own preconceived conceptions and ideas/ideology into written/spoken words, and then make assumptions and judgments based on those prejudices.

But then we couldn't even identify them as "bad," "wrong" or "mistaken," because those adjectives are always relative to an ideology of what is "good," "true" or "accurate": and I suppose since no such ideology "teaches" anything, it couldn't teach us how to make that kind of judgment.

This is as easy to understand as if you were truthful enough to answer this question; Would you look at, and read and see, the koran the exact same way as you do now, and have the exact same views as you do now, if you were born into and raised up in a islam/muslim society or culture?

Yes. Right now, I think it says "Kill infidels." If I were born Islamic, I would also think it says "Kill infidels."

Well that is a truly amazing answer for a very simple straight forward question.

What do you think your view of the koran would be then?

it would depend. If I could read then as well as I read now, I'd likely find it just as horrid a book as I do now.

How do you define, 'read well'?

Are you really sure you read that well?

Or, maybe it is the case that what actually needs to be learned, and then taught, has not actually been written down yet?

Just reading words does not help a person to see and understand better.

Do you really mean to to tell Me that if you were brought up in a truly islamic state in a truly islamic way that you would see into and from the koran the exact same messages and meaning and you do now, if you could read just as "well" as you do now?

Talk about being blinded by one's own beliefs.

On the other hand, if I were an indoctrinated, semi-literate Jihadi, I would probably have no opinion of it at all, except to believe blindly what my Imams told me about it.

But, you would NEVER do that, would you? You would NEVER believe the leaders or the people you looked up to who talked about the ideology that you want to follow, would you? That is those people that you idolize and that you have put all your faith into, who preached/teached an ideology, that you now want to follow, you would not believe blindly, if you could just read "well"?

I do not think it is about being semi-literate or fully-literate. I am pretty sure there are some people who want to kill others because of a belief in an ideology who can read just as "well", if not better, than you.

Of course any child who is born into and raised by people that that child idolizes, usually mom and/or dad and which that child has quite naturally put all their faith into, who was also naturally preached/taught an ideology from the people they worship, their parents, that that child would naturally grow up to want to follow, depending on course of how much indoctrination was placed onto/into that child, the child will naturally believe blindly what those leaders say and tell.

You do not actually believe that if you grew up in a loving muslim home, following islam, and you loved your parents and wider family that you would somehow suddenly read the koran differently from how you have been taught to read it, then just instantly follow another, just as ignorant and stupid based, ideology like christianity, for example, just because you can read "well", do you?

If you still think you would, then I do not see any basic logic of reasoning in that thought.

Maybe you can show step by step the basic logic there?

I WILL say you would be just another muslim, reading the koran, and following islam peacefully, just like the majority want to and do do. But of course depending on how and what you have been indoctrinate with, in your infancy upbringing, you may also like to fight for your ideology now, whatever that ideology is, because like every young child they want to follow and please their leaders/parents who are the ones who are actually doing the indoctrinating. So, no matter how you could read or not read, maybe you now would be a jihadist, or a hindi, or a buddahist, or a christian, or a anything else you want to describe yourself as. 'You' would be what your upbringing brought you up to be. You can not choose what you were indoctrinated with from the beginning so up to a certain point you can not choose what you want to be. I thought a "well" read person would have far more sympathy and understanding for a poor helpless child that was indoctrinated into an ideology that their parents were teaching them to follow, especially to a child who was not as fortunate enough as you to become as literate as you are.

Ideology does NOT exist in its own right away from human beings, and thus, as such, teaching human beings from above, beyond, nor outside of human beings. The word 'ideology' is based upon ideas and ideals, themselves, which obviously from within human beings. Human beings make/create and change ideologies into the way that they are, NOW. 'NOW', being at any point throughout history, hitherto.

So in your view, no ideology can have reference to truth? Funny...their proponents think they all do.

Which is EXACTLY what you, yourself, have here also expressed and asserted. You have continually said if others read the "facts", like you have, then they will also know the truth. Hilarious hey how ALL people believe that they, themselves, are right whilst any other person with any other opposing view is wrong. I seriously can not stop laughing at how stupid human beings can be, and are, sometimes.

By the way, in My view, there actually is an "ideology" which actually does have reference not just to truth but to Thee Truth. That "ideology" is based on the idea that 'what (it) is' that is agreed upon, and accepted, by every One as being true, then that is thee Truth.

By the way I do NOT and NEVER identify any person as bad, wrong, or mistaken, nor, good, bad, or taken either, but I guess that is because I fully understand WHY every person is the way they are. I also understand WHY every person has every view they have, good or bad.

Your choice. Those of us -- on any side -- who think we have some facts in hand are less drawn to moral confusion.

Where is the moral confusion? I certainly do not have nor am confused about anything moral. I know what is right and what is wrong in life.

Again, picking a side, and then "using" the "facts" is what is blinding humans from finding and seeing the Truth.

Whose side should I pick? The side you are on, with all your "facts", or the other side, with all their, just as many "facts"?

Where do you think/believe ideology comes from?

Now, this view should be interesting to see.

Which ideology?

Any one.

They're not all the same, nor did they come from the same sources.

Are you absolutely sure of that "fact"?

Could you name just some of the different sources?

Nazi ideology didn't come from the same sources as Islamic, Catholic, Hindu or Communist ideologies...but that's basic history.

Well for this basic simpleton can you label and explain some of these different sources; not into to much detail, I may not be able to take it all in.

I'm sure you know that, so I'm surprised at the question. You'd maybe better clarify.

Sure, I would love to. Whatever source you think you know that is basic history/knowledge, I think you will find there is another root source below that, and below that one will be another root source, this goes all the way down till you come to a deeper learning where the source of ALL things is uncovered and revealed.

Truth however can only be discovered through further investigation. If total rejection of My views and/or complete refusal to look further at the possibility of Truth being in My views, then this will not lead you nor us anywhere.

Well, I'm going to say again, "How do you anticipate we will be able to recognize truth in your views?" To what ideology will we refer, since you say they are all equally bunk anyway...how do we find truth when you deny there is any such thing -- and then claim you've got it? You see, you're not even keeping faith with your own relativism when you assert that somehow I ought to find "truth in [your] views": given relativism, how can I do that?

I have NEVER denied there is no such thing as truth.

I have also NEVER asserted nor even suggested that you 'ought' to find truth in My views.

What I have said and suggested is that through further and much deeper investigation than we are currently at now, Truth can and WILL be discovered, however, if My views are totally rejected and/or refused to be looked at, then this will lead to nowhere, i.e., where you currently sit now.

You asked, "How do you anticipate we will be able to recognize truth in your views?" If every person could agree with My views, then that is how we ALL will be able to recognize truth, and also even see Truth for what it really is. I must reiterate now that I My views are ONLY in accordance with Everything else as a united One. From the perspective of this One this is where the only real and true subjective, relative, and by the way, objective, ultimate Truth can be found, seen and understood.

You also asked, "To what ideology will we refer, since you say they are all equally bunk anyway...how do we find truth when you deny there is any such thing -- and then claim you've got it?

The "ideology" we refer to is the one I proposed earlier, i.e., one that is based on the idea that the only truth(s) that can truly be referred to is the ones that we are ALL in agreement of and accept as being true or thee Truth.

All ideologies that are only relative and subjective to a relative few, by nature, are all equally debunked. If an ideology is not for ALL and not wanted to be followed by ALL, then they are naturally not right nor good for us, as One.

As already noted I have never denied there is truth. Finding truth is done by;
firstly, by admitting what we do wrong, if we do not do any wrong, then there is nothing to change about ourselves. Secondly, by seriously Wanting to change for the better.
Thirdly, by being truly Open and Honest about our wrong doing and continually seeking to change for the better.
That is HOW we can and WILL find truth, also in and through the process of Wanting, to change, Honestly and Openly who we are, for the better, WHO we actually are IS discovered and realized, also.

[Immanuel Can]

The quotation in a larger context:

“Man has throughout the ages been seeking something beyond himself, beyond material welfare – something we call truth or God or reality, a timeless state – something that cannot be disturbed by circumstances, by thought or by human corruption.

“Man has always asked the question: what is it all about? Has life any meaning at all? He sees the enormous confusion of life, the brutalities, the revolts, the wars, the endless divisions of religion, ideology and nationality, and with a sense of deep abiding frustration he asks, what is one to do, what is this thing we call living, is there anything behind it?

“And not finding this nameless thing of a thousand names which he has always sought, he has cultivated faith – faith in a savior or an ideal – and faith invariably breeds violence.”

- J. Krishnamurti
Freedom From The Known
Page 1

I appreciate the context. I still think it's untrue. By the most generous estimates, 7% of the world's war dead died in wars that could remotely be called "religious." One religion -- Islam -- accounts for 3.5%. The other 3.5 % indicates all wars with a significant "religious" component combined! That's Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Catholics, Polytheists, Animists...the whole lot, all together.

By any empirical measurement, "faith" is at most an extremely minor cause of violence. Territory, ethnicity, money, resources, language, colonization, and above all, secular ideologies outstrip every kind of faith you can name. Thus, scientifically, Krishnamurti is simply wrong. He's imagining something for which there is no reasonable data. (Source: The Encyclopaedia of War 3 Vols.)

But I understand his confusion. He thinks if you believe nothing, you'll hurt no one. You wouldn't believe the number of times I've heard Atheists make exactly the same mistake. They assume faith = intolerance = killing. But that's simply a myth. Facts don't come close to bearing it out.

Now, Atheistic ideology and killing, there is a real correlation worth studying.

[Immanuel Can]

....That is HOW we can and WILL find truth, also in and through the process of Wanting, to change, Honestly and Openly who we are, for the better, WHO we actually are IS discovered and realized, also.

I'd love to respond, but...the sheer volume of your response is daunting, as I have limited time on this forum, and I suspect others have limited time to follow.

I much prefer to deal with things in subject-specific bites, and I think it makes others much better able to read what we discuss and to participate themselves.

Perhaps we can both become more concise. With what part of your previous offering would you like to start? Just cut-and-paste, and I'll reply on point to that.

Thanks.

[Arising_uk]

...
Now, Atheistic ideology and killing, there is a real correlation worth studying.

By this light we can also look at the first world war as a Christian war as both sides had 'God' on their side. We can also look at the role Christians played in the second world war where their faith led them to kill others. How about the few million dead in the Gulf 'wars' all prosecuted by professed Christians.

No don't tell me, they weren't real Christians.

Still, it matters not as it looks like the godbotherers are back on the march and this time they are going to be heavily armed so we'll see if Christian faith keeps the body count down.

[Arising_uk]

... Thus, scientifically, Krishnamurti is simply wrong. ...

Not really, as he didn't say "war" did he, he said "violence" and the history of all religions shows a continued pattern of violence towards those within and without the respective faith. Even more so with the theist religions as they can brook no other 'God'.

[Wyman]

... Thus, scientifically, Krishnamurti is simply wrong. ...

Not really, as he didn't say "war" did he, he said "violence" and the history of all religions shows a continued pattern of violence towards those within and without the respective faith. Even more so with the theist religions as they can brook no other 'God'.

Faith in nothing breeds violence to oneself. Better you then me.

[Arising_uk]

Faith in nothing breeds violence to oneself. Better you then me.

Who has faith in nothing?

[Wyman]

Faith in nothing breeds violence to oneself. Better you then me.

Who has faith in nothing?

Most suicides I think. Nihilists.