Hinduism is far superior to Christianity and Islam?

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is one negative point that would not make Islam as superior to Hinduism [on average].

Now respectfully, you used the term “average,” this term is a statistical term and the way you are using it is violating fundamental statistical principles! It is a great sin in statistics to take an outlier (you say “one negative point”) as an estimator of the population mean which is the average. For you to be able to use the term “average” correctly, there are certain statistical conditions that must be satisfied. In order to calculate an average, you can either consider the whole population or consider a representative sample of that population. Taking an isolated case as an estimator of population mean is not statistically valid.

To give you an intuition of why your statistical analysis is not valid let me take an example in another setting than Islam. For example, let us take the case of Buddhism now. So, if I were to take Buddhist monks such as the hate preacher Ashin Wiranthu in Burma or the obnoxious Galagodo Gnanasara in Sri Lanka and generalize their case to all Buddhists, do you think this could be considered a valid statistical inference of mean behavior? Now, the expert analysts in international affairs are saying that these two Buddhist monks are principally responsible through their hate preaches for the massacre of tens of thousands of Rohingya Muslims in Burma and the persecution of Muslims in Sri Lanka. On the basis of this information now, were I to relate their immoral actions to Siddhartha Gautama by pointing to the fact that Siddhartha Gautama was of the Kshatriya (soldier) caste (i.e. second caste in the caste system in ancient India), would that then also be accepted as valid? What do you think? If we are to be consistent with your reasoning then the latter would also have to be valid inferences! However, a healthy intellect would be inclined to think that even if Siddhartha Gautama was a second class citizen in ancient India, it does not mean that his modern followers must now adopt a second class barbaric behavior. Don’t you agree? What do you think of Ashin Wiranthu and Galagodo Gnanasara? What do you think of their behavior and the many Buddhists, among them many monks, who have been rapping, butchering and killing tens of thousands of innocent Muslim women and children in Burma and Sri Lanka? Is there behavior representative of the Buddhists in general?

Here is a documentary by the BBC which give you some facts about the actions of those who claim to be strict followers of Siddhartha Gautama in Burma: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irQhr9DOfbg

Please, what are your thoughts on this? Is this what Siddhartha Gautama taught? Did Siddhartha Gautama teach people to kill tens of thousands of innocent and defenseless women and children?
_______________________________

Note my point posted earlier;

In term of spiritual coverage I would present Hinduism and Islam as follows;
[note out of 10/10 highest]

Hinduism: 1........................................>9.0
Islam: ----- -------4............>5

By average I meant the following;

At the lower levels, due to Islam's monotheism it is more superior [spiritual wise] to the kindergarten levels of polytheism of Hinduism.
But the max spriritual level of Islam is only 4 to 5 whereas at its highest level, Hinduism [Masters and Phd] is very much superior than Islam at the advance levels.
Because the Masters and PhD levels carry heavier weightage, on 'average' Hinduism is far more superior to Islam.

Note the above is not directly based on the acts of Muslims, Buddhists or other believers but rather on the primary principles, ideology, doctrines and ethos of the said religion.

As of the acts of believers, Muslims, Christians, etc, note this thread;

Do Not Blame Muslims!
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24842
The PRIMARY focus should be on the ideology not on the believers.
Obviously we have to deal with the evil prone believers who committed evil acts but that is secondary to the critical issue.

The Buddha in his religious teachings do not condone the killings of non-believers and there are no leading religious texts in the main Buddhist sutras that exhort Buddhists to kill non-believers.
It is the same with Christianity's NT which has an overriding pacifist maxim to 'love your enemies' love your neighbors, etc. thus giving no room for any Christian to kill non-Christian enemies.
Islam with its core the Quran, condone Muslims to commit various evils upon non-Muslims. This is so evident when Islamists quote the Quran to justify their killing of non-Muslims in the name of Allah, Quran and Muhammad.

Btw, which madhhab [school] or sect of Islam do you belong or is inclined to?

I am a Muslim and that’s it. And being a Muslim means making an effort to follow the Holy Quran to the best of one’s ability and in the Holy Quran, Allah, the All-Wise says to follow His Messenger Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). So following the prescriptions of the Holy Quran also includes following the tradition (sunnah) of the blessed Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Dividing Islam into sects is prohibited in Islam. Allah, the All-Knowing says in the Holy Quran, interpretation of meaning:

• Indeed, those who have divided their religion and become sects - you, [O Muhammad], are not [associated] with them in anything. Their affair is only [left] to Allah; then He will inform them about what they used to do. [Quran 6:159]

Now, may I in turn ask you about your religious or cultural (or whatever you might judged to be an appropriate term) inclinations or belonging?
________________________________

I am not religious and is not-a-theists.
My principles are to be a good human being with reliance on philosophy-proper and is thus against evil.

evil = relate to human act[s] and thoughts that are net-negative to the well being of the individual and therefrom of humanity.
Evil in this case is not related to ontological evil, like Satan or some free floating evil entity.

[gaffo]

- seemingly opposite to what's happening in the US, weirdly.

what is happening here at home these last 2 yrs has me scared shitless.

i know of the 1920's histroy of Italy, Germany, and Japan.

and "it can't happen here" is bullshit.

I had chills when the crowd chanted "Nobel! Nobel! Nobel!" because I could see a complete disregard for reason. It is scary how reason and mercy are not only being disregarded but seen as weaknesses. Not looking good at the moment.

"Nobel" ? welcome education on this particular.

Amen! overall!

mercy is only a Vice (the same thugs value Pride as a virtue! - one of the "Seven" not virtues) for thugs.

America is populated by 1/3 by the same thugs that sent the civilized world to war 80 yrs ago.

it can happen here and it IS!!!!!!!!

I'm not fan of the Dems (I'm a reg Independent - vote 3/4 dems but affirm the dem's corruption and denial of offering 3rd party viabily in the "System" of two (one) - (party of the rich) rule the last 80 yrs.

vote Dem in Nov - Reichbugs in congress have ignored their oath to my constitution - they chose party over Rule of Law/Nation.

nov is our last chance -i fear.

;-(

scared shitless..............

after nov, I might be more or less full of shit depending upon if folks get off ther fking arse and VOTE!!!!!!!!!

or just s(h)it out and allow the Reichbugs to remove the Rule of Law and America with it.

[Averroes]

Bringing in Kierkegaard's depression [if it is true] is ad hominen.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
-wiki

In fact, no it was not an ad hominem because I did not avoid the topic but on the contrary I was spot on the topic! It was pertinent to the discussion to mention the chronic depression of Kierkegaard because the subject matter of his philosophical work itself was anxiety! And it is common knowledge that persistent anxiety is a major symptom of depression. But anyway let me explain that more clearly to all forum members who might be interested. I think this is very interesting and will no doubt interest many members of the forum.

Recall, the following is what the reference you quoted mentions:

Kierkegaard wanted to understand the anxiety that must have been present in Abraham when "God tested [him] and said to him, take Isaac, your only son, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah and offer him as a burnt offering on the mountain that I shall show you."

Take note of the wordings of this reference you yourself quoted. It is not said that Prophet Abraham (pbuh) was anxious but it is said “the anxiety that must have been present.” Now here we have an example of how mastery of the language (here English) is so important to philosophy!

The expression “must have been present” means that the relation of anxiety to Prophet Abraham (pbuh) is an assumption of Kierkegaard and not a statement of fact. From the an online English grammar site we can read the following:

4. Expresses positive logical assumptions (Must + have + past participle)

That must have been my mother calling me last night, nobody else has my number.
He must have won the lottery with the new house and car he has just bought.
She must have been at home - her car was there.
Site: http://www.grammar.cl/english/must.htm

So Kierkegaard assumed that Prophet Abraham(pbuh) experienced anxiety when about to sacrifice his son. And nowhere is it mentioned or even implied in the scriptures (note the plural) that Prophet Abraham(pbuh) felt anxious! It is not mentioned in the Vedas and it is not mentioned in the Holy Quran. But specifically, Kierkegaard quoted the Bible available nowadays. So let us focus on that. From the reference you quoted, Kierkegaard is reported to have quoted the passage from Genesis 22. Even though there are a lot of historical errors in that biblical account of the sacrifice, yet in that whole biblical passage about Prophet Abraham (pbuh), nowhere is it mentioned or even implied that he felt anxiety when about to sacrifice his son. After reading that passage, in fact, the contrary is implied! So, a pertinent question that a philosopher should ask himself is as follows: how come did Kierkegaard come to think about anxiety in relation to the sacrifice of Prophet Abraham(pbuh), when nowhere is anxiety mentioned or even implied?

Now before answering that question it is important to consider that the Wikipedia reference does not qualify Kierkegaard writings on the matter as a psychological assessment! On the reference you yourself quoted this is what is said about Kierkegaard writings:

Fear and Trembling (original Danish title: Frygt og Bæven) is a philosophical work by Søren Kierkegaard [a Christian], published in 1843 under the pseudonym Johannes de silentio (John of the Silence).

Kierkegaard work on the matter was merely qualified as philosophical and not psychological! More than a century has passed since psychology has been set apart from philosophy. This is common knowledge by now!

So, one must ask: how come did Kierkegaard come to think about anxiety in relation to the sacrifice of Prophet Abraham(pbuh)?

As Kierkegaard has allowed himself to philosophize about Prophet Abraham(pbuh), I have allowed myself to do the same to him in return! So, my philosophical thoughts on why Kierkegaard thought that Prophet Abraham(pbuh) felt anxious is explained by the fact that he himself (i.e. Kierkegaard) was a chronically depressed and a constantly anxious individual. Now, the interesting thing is that since I have historical evidence of Kierkegaard being depressive, I can even claim to a psychological assessment of him, as his chronic depression is evidenced by his own acknowledgment in his writings! So the philosophy of Kierkegaard in Fear and Trembling is just a classic case of psychological projection with the peculiarity that Kierkegaard in a lucid moment did acknowledge that he himself was suffering from chronic anxiety and depression.

So here you go, this is the detailed explanation of this pertinent comment of mine!

___________________________

Kierkegaard is touted as the father of existentialism which has its set of principles and philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism

Søren Kierkegaard is generally considered to have been the first existentialist philosopher,[2][10][11] though he did not use the term existentialism.[12] He proposed that each individual—not society or religion—is solely responsible for giving meaning to life and living it passionately and sincerely, or "authentically"

Well, thank you for this refresher on existentialism. It is quite convenient for me that you have posted this link for it says something about this movement that is in line with my previous assessment. It is said the following on the Wikipedia entry on existentialism:

In the view of the existentialist, the individual's starting point is characterized by what has been called "the existential attitude", or a sense of disorientation, confusion, or dread in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world.

For me this makes perfect sense that Kierkegaard be the father of existentialism! It is common knowledge that chronically depressed people feel disoriented, confused and dread in the face of an apparently (i.e. for them it is thus) meaningless world! As a matter of fact, this is depression by the book!

The National Institute of Mental Health of the US has an interesting article on depression and it lists the signs and symptoms of depressed people and this fit exactly the definition of “the existential attitude.”

Signs and Symptoms

If you have been experiencing some of the following signs and symptoms most of the day, nearly every day, for at least two weeks, you may be suffering from depression:

Persistent sad, anxious, or “empty” mood
Feelings of hopelessness, or pessimism
Irritability
Feelings of guilt, worthlessness, or helplessness
Loss of interest or pleasure in hobbies and activities
Decreased energy or fatigue
Moving or talking more slowly
Feeling restless or having trouble sitting still
Difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions
Difficulty sleeping, early-morning awakening, or oversleeping
Appetite and/or weight changes
Thoughts of death or suicide, or suicide attempts
Aches or pains, headaches, cramps, or digestive problems without a clear physical cause and/or that do not ease even with treatment
Site: https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/ ... ndex.shtml

In a nutshell having “the existential attitude” means being chronically depressed. My advice for those with “the existential attitude” is to seek professional help as soon as possible. This is not a normal condition, but it is a serious illness which Soren Kierkegaard suffered from. It is called chronic depression in clinical psychology and psychiatry.

___________________________

Nietzsche may have said a few positive points for Islams for perhaps as a counter to his hatred of Christianity but there is no way Nietzsche as an atheist and having an abhorrence for religion would have a total positive views of Islam and its negative baggage.

As a matter of fact he did have positive views on Islam and he was very eloquent about it! Instead of having you speaking for Nietzsche, it’s better to let Nietzsche speak for himself! Here are the explicit statements of Nietzsche:

Nietzsche wrote:

Christianity destroyed for us the whole harvest of ancient civilization, and later it also destroyed for us the whole harvest of Mohammedan civilization. The wonderful culture of the Moors in Spain, which was fundamentally nearer to us and appealed more to our senses and tastes than that of Rome and Greece, was trampled down (—I do not say by what sort of feet—) Why? Because it had to thank noble and manly instincts for its origin—because it said yes to life, even to the rare and refined luxuriousness of Moorish life!... The crusaders later made war on something before which it would have been more fitting for them to have grovelled in the dust—a civilization beside which even that of our nineteenth century seems very poor and very “senile.”—What they wanted, of course, was booty: the orient was rich.... Let us put aside our prejudices! The crusades were a higher form of piracy, nothing more! The German nobility, which is fundamentally a Viking nobility, was in its element there: the church knew only too well how the German nobility was to be won.... The German noble, always the “Swiss guard” of the church, always in the service of every bad instinct of the church—but well paid.... Consider the fact that it is precisely the aid of German swords and German blood and valour that has enabled the church to carry through its war to the death upon everything noble on earth! At this point a host of painful questions suggest themselves. The German nobility stands outside the history of the higher civilization: the reason is obvious.... Christianity, alcohol—the two great means of corruption.... Intrinsically there should be no more choice between Islam and Christianity than there is between an Arab and a Jew. The decision is already reached; nobody remains at liberty to choose here. Either a man is a Chandala or he is not.... “War to the knife with Rome! Peace and friendship with Islam!”: this was the feeling, this was the act, of that great free spirit, that genius among German emperors, Frederick II. What! must a German first be a genius, a free spirit, before he can feel decently? I can’t make out how a German could ever feel Christian....

__________________________

[Averroes]

Your definition of 'psychology' is deceptive in bringing in 'context' which is secondary.

Note,

Psychology is the science of behavior and mind, including conscious and unconscious phenomena, as well as feeling and thought. It is an academic discipline of immense scope and diverse interests that, when taken together, seek an understanding of the emergent properties of brains, and all the variety of epiphenomena they manifest.
As a social science it aims to understand individuals and groups by establishing general principles and researching specific cases.

In fact, again no! For example, let us consider the definition that you yourself quoted:

Psychology is the science of behavior and mind, including conscious and unconscious phenomena, as well as feeling and thought. It is an academic discipline of immense scope and diverse interests that, when taken together, seek an understanding of the emergent properties of brains, and all the variety of epiphenomena they manifest.
As a social science it aims to understand individuals and groups by establishing general principles and researching specific cases.

I already gave the definition of science. Let us now consider the definition of “phenomena.”

Phenomena is defined as follows:

• Phenomena: an object or aspect known through the senses rather than by thought or intuition, or
  a fact or event of scientific interest susceptible to scientific description and explanation.

Reference: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phenomenon

Let us recall the subject of your proposed study. You wanted to know about, I quote:

I am more interested in the psychological processes that was going in Abraham's mind during his willingness to sacrifice his son

Now, before any psychological investigation, it is necessary that we first establish the facts, or the phenomena of interest scientifically. Don’t you agree? So, how do you intend to establish scientifically the event of Prophet Abraham (pbuh) sacrificing his son? If one cannot do that scientifically then there is no scientific psychological study that can take place to begin with! Do you follow? One should not confuse the discipline of psychology with speculative philosophy! These disciplines have been set apart very clearly about a century ago! And this should be learned and memorized by the neophyte philosophers!

You asked me the question: Can you prove with direct empirical evidence there was a person named 'Abraham' [or similar names] who existed in the said period of time and was commanded by a God to sacrifice his son?

In fact that is the question that you should be asking yourself first! For it is you who is seeking a psychological assessment of the state of mind of Prophet Abraham (pbuh). So can you prove that Prophet Abraham(pbuh) was about to sacrifice his son by direct empirical evidence? If you cannot do that then you cannot undertake a scientific psychological study of the state of mind of Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) under such a circumstance.
And if you do not believe in the scriptures, then you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this event even happened! That means that your psychological study cannot even take off! And that was exactly my point!

Philosophy can be a challenging subject for some people! If these nuances cannot be grasped then it is better not to work oneself up that much for one is going to make a lot of mistakes and end up confusing oneself even more. This is just an advice, it’s up to the individual now.

______________________________

Note the verses from the Bible are correct in relation to the context of the psychology arising from "WHY" Abraham was so willing to carry out the disgusted extreme command from God [which is illusory and an impossibility].

I did not know you believed in the Bible! This is very interesting! Alright, I record that. But please consider that the exegesis of the Bible does not belong to the field of psychology but to the field of Judeo-Christian theology. The field of psychology does not take its facts from the Bible! The scientific community would object to using the word “psychology” to qualify the exegesis of the Bible. Being precise in the use of words is very important in philosophy!
_______________________________

[Averroes]

The Buddha in his religious teachings do not condone the killings of non-believers and there are no leading religious texts in the main Buddhist sutras that exhort Buddhists to kill non-believers.

Burmese Buddhist chief monk Sitagu Sayadaw disagrees with the statement quoted above! On the 30th of October 2017, Sitago addressed an assembly of Burmese military officers with a sermon quoting the Buddhist scriptures and saying to them that there is no sin in killing non-Buddhists (unbelievers) because the latter are wild-beasts and animals. And after that sermon the great massacre of the Rohingya Muslims were to occur namely the massacre of the Tula Toli village where women, children, old people were raped, butchered, some were burnt alive in their homes and others killed while they were trying to escape the village, i.e. they were shot in the back!

Paul Fuller who is a lecturer in Buddhist studies at Cardiff university has written a whole article on that by quoting the horrific relevant Buddhist scripture. Here is the article: http://www.newmandala.org/sitagu-sayada ... -buddhism/

Sitagu Sayadaw is one of the most respected religious leaders in Myanmar. He is very well known for his teachings and for his philanthropic work. He has considerable influence. It therefore surprised many in his native Myanmar and worldwide when he gave a sermon in Kayin State on 30 October with a particularly striking message. The sermon appeared to suggest that the killing of those who are not Buddhist could be justified on the grounds that they were not complete humans, or indeed humans at all.

“Don’t worry King, it’s a little bit of sin. Don’t worry,” Sitagu Sayadaw said. “Even though you killed millions of people, they were only one and a half real human beings.” A video of this sermon to Burmese military officers is available on YouTube!

The Buddhist scriptures quoted by Sitagu is about a battle in which a Buddhist king by the name Dutugamunu with his army fought against a Hindu-Tamil army. After the battle it is narrated in the Buddhist scripture that Dutugamunu felt remorse for having slaughtered and killed millions of Hindus and he sought advice from the senior monks. And the senior monks gave the following “advice”:

• From this deed arises no hindrance in thy way to heaven. Only one and a half human beings have been slain here by thee, O lord of men. The one had come unto the (three) refuges, the other had taken on himself the five precepts. Unbelievers [they have “wrong-views”, micchādiṭṭhi] and men of evil life were the rest, not more to be esteemed than beasts. But as for thee, thou wilt bring glory to the doctrine of the Buddha in manifold ways; therefore cast away care from thy heart, O ruler of men! [Mahavamsa 25]

After this speech by Sitagu on the 30th October 2017, many analysts foresaw the massacre of Rohingya Muslims coming. Some analysts such as Khin Zaw Win, director of the policy think-tank Tampadipa Institute said, “It’s sad, but there might soon be a Burmese equivalent of ‘Sieg Heil!’ What happened to democracy?” And this is exactly what happened!

The United Nations is saying that this is genocide and crime against humanity being perpetrated by the Buddhists against the Rohingya Muslims in Burma.

Indeed, hate preachers are very dangerous people. There are a lot of Buddhist hate preachers nowadays who have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of Rohingya Muslims. One of them goes by the name Ashin Wiranthu in Burma, who has been named by Times Magazine as "the Face of Buddhist Terror", and the article was banned in Buddhist countries such as Sri Lanka. And in Sri Lanka itself, there are a lot of Buddhist hate preachers, their leader going by the name of Galagodo Gnanasara. Social media such as Facebook, YouTube and forums (such as this one) is the primary method these Buddhist monks use for disseminating their hate preaching worldwide. For example, in the beginning of this year Facebook had to shot down the account of Ashin Wiranthu because of his hate preaching. Here is an article on the matter: http://time.com/5178790/facebook-removes-wirathu/

All this get one to think that these violent Buddhists monks, who claim to be strict followers of Siddhartha, are being inspired by the military upbringing of Siddhartha who was born a second class citizen in ancient India. As I already wrote, Siddhartha Gautama was of the Kshatriya (i.e. soldier) caste of the Hindu caste system. And his followers killing tens of thousands of defenseless and innocent women and children could be thought as them following the early military life of Siddhartha. The latter view being supported by the violent Buddhist scriptures which endorse the killing of millions of unbelievers (non-Buddhists) as a way to heaven for the Buddhists.

Since the subject has been raised on this thread, let us all address it. There are a lot of things to be addressed here. So I ask all of you reading this: what are your thoughts on all this, particularly on the violent Buddhists being inspired by monks through some violent Buddhist scriptures? Please share your thoughts. There is no need to be afraid, the Burmese and Sri Lankan Buddhist monks have no control over this forum!
___________________________

[Veritas Aequitas]

Bringing in Kierkegaard's depression [if it is true] is ad hominen.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
-wiki

In fact, no it was not an ad hominem because I did not avoid the topic but on the contrary I was spot on the topic! It was pertinent to the discussion to mention the chronic depression of Kierkegaard because the subject matter of his philosophical work itself was anxiety! And it is common knowledge that persistent anxiety is a major symptom of depression. But anyway let me explain that more clearly to all forum members who might be interested. I think this is very interesting and will no doubt interest many members of the forum.

Recall, the following is what the reference you quoted mentions:

Kierkegaard wanted to understand the anxiety that must have been present in Abraham when "God tested [him] and said to him, take Isaac, your only son, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah and offer him as a burnt offering on the mountain that I shall show you."

Take note of the wordings of this reference you yourself quoted. It is not said that Prophet Abraham (pbuh) was anxious but it is said “the anxiety that must have been present.” Now here we have an example of how mastery of the language (here English) is so important to philosophy!

The expression “must have been present” means that the relation of anxiety to Prophet Abraham (pbuh) is an assumption of Kierkegaard and not a statement of fact. From the an online English grammar site we can read the following:

4. Expresses positive logical assumptions (Must + have + past participle)

That must have been my mother calling me last night, nobody else has my number.
He must have won the lottery with the new house and car he has just bought.
She must have been at home - her car was there.
Site: http://www.grammar.cl/english/must.htm

So Kierkegaard assumed that Prophet Abraham(pbuh) experienced anxiety when about to sacrifice his son. And nowhere is it mentioned or even implied in the scriptures (note the plural) that Prophet Abraham(pbuh) felt anxious! It is not mentioned in the Vedas and it is not mentioned in the Holy Quran. But specifically, Kierkegaard quoted the Bible available nowadays. So let us focus on that. From the reference you quoted, Kierkegaard is reported to have quoted the passage from Genesis 22. Even though there are a lot of historical errors in that biblical account of the sacrifice, yet in that whole biblical passage about Prophet Abraham (pbuh), nowhere is it mentioned or even implied that he felt anxiety when about to sacrifice his son. After reading that passage, in fact, the contrary is implied! So, a pertinent question that a philosopher should ask himself is as follows: how come did Kierkegaard come to think about anxiety in relation to the sacrifice of Prophet Abraham(pbuh), when nowhere is anxiety mentioned or even implied?

Now before answering that question it is important to consider that the Wikipedia reference does not qualify Kierkegaard writings on the matter as a psychological assessment! On the reference you yourself quoted this is what is said about Kierkegaard writings:

Fear and Trembling (original Danish title: Frygt og Bæven) is a philosophical work by Søren Kierkegaard [a Christian], published in 1843 under the pseudonym Johannes de silentio (John of the Silence).

Kierkegaard work on the matter was merely qualified as philosophical and not psychological! More than a century has passed since psychology has been set apart from philosophy. This is common knowledge by now!

So, one must ask: how come did Kierkegaard come to think about anxiety in relation to the sacrifice of Prophet Abraham(pbuh)?

As Kierkegaard has allowed himself to philosophize about Prophet Abraham(pbuh), I have allowed myself to do the same to him in return! So, my philosophical thoughts on why Kierkegaard thought that Prophet Abraham(pbuh) felt anxious is explained by the fact that he himself (i.e. Kierkegaard) was a chronically depressed and a constantly anxious individual. Now, the interesting thing is that since I have historical evidence of Kierkegaard being depressive, I can even claim to a psychological assessment of him, as his chronic depression is evidenced by his own acknowledgment in his writings! So the philosophy of Kierkegaard in Fear and Trembling is just a classic case of psychological projection with the peculiarity that Kierkegaard in a lucid moment did acknowledge that he himself was suffering from chronic anxiety and depression.

So here you go, this is the detailed explanation of this pertinent comment of mine!

___________________________

Kierkegaard is touted as the father of existentialism which has its set of principles and philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism

Søren Kierkegaard is generally considered to have been the first existentialist philosopher,[2][10][11] though he did not use the term existentialism.[12] He proposed that each individual—not society or religion—is solely responsible for giving meaning to life and living it passionately and sincerely, or "authentically"

Well, thank you for this refresher on existentialism. It is quite convenient for me that you have posted this link for it says something about this movement that is in line with my previous assessment. It is said the following on the Wikipedia entry on existentialism:

In the view of the existentialist, the individual's starting point is characterized by what has been called "the existential attitude", or a sense of disorientation, confusion, or dread in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world.

For me this makes perfect sense that Kierkegaard be the father of existentialism! It is common knowledge that chronically depressed people feel disoriented, confused and dread in the face of an apparently (i.e. for them it is thus) meaningless world! As a matter of fact, this is depression by the book!

The National Institute of Mental Health of the US has an interesting article on depression and it lists the signs and symptoms of depressed people and this fit exactly the definition of “the existential attitude.”

Signs and Symptoms

If you have been experiencing some of the following signs and symptoms most of the day, nearly every day, for at least two weeks, you may be suffering from depression:

Persistent sad, anxious, or “empty” mood
Feelings of hopelessness, or pessimism
Irritability
Feelings of guilt, worthlessness, or helplessness
Loss of interest or pleasure in hobbies and activities
Decreased energy or fatigue
Moving or talking more slowly
Feeling restless or having trouble sitting still
Difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions
Difficulty sleeping, early-morning awakening, or oversleeping
Appetite and/or weight changes
Thoughts of death or suicide, or suicide attempts
Aches or pains, headaches, cramps, or digestive problems without a clear physical cause and/or that do not ease even with treatment
Site: https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/ ... ndex.shtml

In a nutshell having “the existential attitude” means being chronically depressed. My advice for those with “the existential attitude” is to seek professional help as soon as possible. This is not a normal condition, but it is a serious illness which Soren Kierkegaard suffered from. It is called chronic depression in clinical psychology and psychiatry.

I stated ad hominen where you are relying on Kierkegaard's depression [as claimed] to question his credibility is assessing the psychological state of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his own son.
It may be true Kierkegaard had linked his own depressive state to speculate Abraham's willing to sacrifice his son.

As I had stated based on the universal behavioral pattern [re DNA, RNA] there is a strong evidence to infer a person's behavior in 10,000 years ago can have the same root cause with what humans do at present.
Therefore, people who are willing to sacrifice their sons in 2018 would share the same perverted psychology with people [like Abraham] who sacrifice their sons 10,000 or even 50,000 years ago.

Rape is mentioned in the Old Testament, I am very confident the psychology surrounding those ancient rapists mentioned in the OT and prior are fundamentally the same with rapists at present in 2018.
They will have uncontrollable sexual lust and all its related feelings and an erection.
Do you dispute this point??

I will argue perverts who have sexual lust for young children have the same perverted psychology whether it is now or 10,000 years ago.

I will also argue all humans who sacrifice their sons and others to a God & for various reasons has the share the same fundamental existential reasons.

Averroes: In a nutshell having “the existential attitude” means being chronically depressed.
You are very wrong here - bad logic of hasty generalization due to lack of knowledge on the subject of existentialism.

DNA wise ALL humans has the potential to face an existential crisis.
This existential crisis potential is active in the majority of people.
Theists are the ones who has the more active existential crisis.
This is why theists cling [like drowning men] to God to save themselves from that crisis.
This is why this clinging to psychological security is so desperate to some theists that they will kill anyone they perceived as a threat to their "crutch".
The Quran in fact exhorts Muslims to kill non-believers who are a threat to TROP [The Religion Of Peace], i.e. their own existential security.

The evidence is when theists give up theism they will naturally suffer a great or some degrees of the signs and symptoms you listed above. Theism is a very effective means to provide quick relief to suppress and alleviate the above signs and symptoms. Problem is, theism is a double-edged blade where the trend is the cons are outweighing its pros.

The main purpose of religions and theism is to deal with the mother of all existential crisis, e.g. Angst.

Credit for Kierkegaard for having suffered from chronic depression [as claimed] and that he was able to expose the link between theism and existentialism of Angst via Abraham as his case study.

My thesis is when we are able to understand the concept of Angst [soon] more clearly with advanced neurosciences and neuro-pyschology, we will be able to deal with the inherent Angst and find alternative fool proof strategies to replace theism & organized religions and resolve the problem of theistic-related evils and violence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nietzsche may have said a few positive points for Islams for perhaps as a counter to his hatred of Christianity but there is no way Nietzsche as an atheist and having an abhorrence for religion would have a total positive views of Islam and its negative baggage.

As a matter of fact he did have positive views on Islam and he was very eloquent about it! Instead of having you speaking for Nietzsche, it’s better to let Nietzsche speak for himself! Here are the explicit statements of Nietzsche:

Nietzsche wrote:

Christianity destroyed for us the whole harvest of ancient civilization, and later it also destroyed for us the whole harvest of Mohammedan civilization. The wonderful culture of the Moors in Spain, which was fundamentally nearer to us and appealed more to our senses and tastes than that of Rome and Greece, was trampled down (—I do not say by what sort of feet—) Why? Because it had to thank noble and manly instincts for its origin—because it said yes to life, even to the rare and refined luxuriousness of Moorish life!... The crusaders later made war on something before which it would have been more fitting for them to have grovelled in the dust—a civilization beside which even that of our nineteenth century seems very poor and very “senile.”—What they wanted, of course, was booty: the orient was rich.... Let us put aside our prejudices! The crusades were a higher form of piracy, nothing more! The German nobility, which is fundamentally a Viking nobility, was in its element there: the church knew only too well how the German nobility was to be won.... The German noble, always the “Swiss guard” of the church, always in the service of every bad instinct of the church—but well paid.... Consider the fact that it is precisely the aid of German swords and German blood and valour that has enabled the church to carry through its war to the death upon everything noble on earth! At this point a host of painful questions suggest themselves. The German nobility stands outside the history of the higher civilization: the reason is obvious.... Christianity, alcohol—the two great means of corruption.... Intrinsically there should be no more choice between Islam and Christianity than there is between an Arab and a Jew. The decision is already reached; nobody remains at liberty to choose here. Either a man is a Chandala or he is not.... “War to the knife with Rome! Peace and friendship with Islam!”: this was the feeling, this was the act, of that great free spirit, that genius among German emperors, Frederick II. What! must a German first be a genius, a free spirit, before he can feel decently? I can’t make out how a German could ever feel Christian....

__________________________

Nietzsche in general has a negative view of theism.
Therefore he would be unlikely to have any ultimate favor for Islam which is theistic.

Nietzsche has direct experience with Christianity and for some reasons from his personal experience with the Church he had hated Christianity.
Nietzsche only mentioned 'the wonderful culture of the Moors in Spain' but he was not aware the whole history of Islamic influence elsewhere, e.g. terrible evils and violence in India and Middle East.
I bet Nietzsche did not read the Quran in contrast he would have read the OT.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The Buddha in his religious teachings do not condone the killings of non-believers and there are no leading religious texts in the main Buddhist sutras that exhort Buddhists to kill non-believers.

Burmese Buddhist chief monk Sitagu Sayadaw disagrees with the statement quoted above! On the 30th of October 2017, Sitago addressed an assembly of Burmese military officers with a sermon quoting the Buddhist scriptures and saying to them that there is no sin in killing non-Buddhists (unbelievers) because the latter are wild-beasts and animals. And after that sermon the great massacre of the Rohingya Muslims were to occur namely the massacre of the Tula Toli village where women, children, old people were raped, butchered, some were burnt alive in their homes and others killed while they were trying to escape the village, i.e. they were shot in the back!

Paul Fuller who is a lecturer in Buddhist studies at Cardiff university has written a whole article on that by quoting the horrific relevant Buddhist scripture. Here is the article: http://www.newmandala.org/sitagu-sayada ... -buddhism/

Sitagu Sayadaw is one of the most respected religious leaders in Myanmar. He is very well known for his teachings and for his philanthropic work. He has considerable influence. It therefore surprised many in his native Myanmar and worldwide when he gave a sermon in Kayin State on 30 October with a particularly striking message. The sermon appeared to suggest that the killing of those who are not Buddhist could be justified on the grounds that they were not complete humans, or indeed humans at all.

“Don’t worry King, it’s a little bit of sin. Don’t worry,” Sitagu Sayadaw said. “Even though you killed millions of people, they were only one and a half real human beings.” A video of this sermon to Burmese military officers is available on YouTube!

The Buddhist scriptures quoted by Sitagu is about a battle in which a Buddhist king by the name Dutugamunu with his army fought against a Hindu-Tamil army. After the battle it is narrated in the Buddhist scripture that Dutugamunu felt remorse for having slaughtered and killed millions of Hindus and he sought advice from the senior monks. And the senior monks gave the following “advice”:

• From this deed arises no hindrance in thy way to heaven. Only one and a half human beings have been slain here by thee, O lord of men. The one had come unto the (three) refuges, the other had taken on himself the five precepts. Unbelievers [they have “wrong-views”, micchādiṭṭhi] and men of evil life were the rest, not more to be esteemed than beasts. But as for thee, thou wilt bring glory to the doctrine of the Buddha in manifold ways; therefore cast away care from thy heart, O ruler of men! [Mahavamsa 25]

After this speech by Sitagu on the 30th October 2017, many analysts foresaw the massacre of Rohingya Muslims coming. Some analysts such as Khin Zaw Win, director of the policy think-tank Tampadipa Institute said, “It’s sad, but there might soon be a Burmese equivalent of ‘Sieg Heil!’ What happened to democracy?” And this is exactly what happened!

The United Nations is saying that this is genocide and crime against humanity being perpetrated by the Buddhists against the Rohingya Muslims in Burma.

Indeed, hate preachers are very dangerous people. There are a lot of Buddhist hate preachers nowadays who have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of Rohingya Muslims. One of them goes by the name Ashin Wiranthu in Burma, who has been named by Times Magazine as "the Face of Buddhist Terror", and the article was banned in Buddhist countries such as Sri Lanka. And in Sri Lanka itself, there are a lot of Buddhist hate preachers, their leader going by the name of Galagodo Gnanasara. Social media such as Facebook, YouTube and forums (such as this one) is the primary method these Buddhist monks use for disseminating their hate preaching worldwide. For example, in the beginning of this year Facebook had to shot down the account of Ashin Wiranthu because of his hate preaching. Here is an article on the matter: http://time.com/5178790/facebook-removes-wirathu/

All this get one to think that these violent Buddhists monks, who claim to be strict followers of Siddhartha, are being inspired by the military upbringing of Siddhartha who was born a second class citizen in ancient India. As I already wrote, Siddhartha Gautama was of the Kshatriya (i.e. soldier) caste of the Hindu caste system. And his followers killing tens of thousands of defenseless and innocent women and children could be thought as them following the early military life of Siddhartha. The latter view being supported by the violent Buddhist scriptures which endorse the killing of millions of unbelievers (non-Buddhists) as a way to heaven for the Buddhists.

Since the subject has been raised on this thread, let us all address it. There are a lot of things to be addressed here. So I ask all of you reading this: what are your thoughts on all this, particularly on the violent Buddhists being inspired by monks through some violent Buddhist scriptures? Please share your thoughts. There is no need to be afraid, the Burmese and Sri Lankan Buddhist monks have no control over this forum!
___________________________

My main point as above is;
There are no leading [underlined earlier] verses in the main sutras of Buddhism that exhort Buddhists to kill non-believers.

One point to note.
Theravada Buddhism is not the sole representative of Buddhism per se. There are two more main schools i.e. Mahayana and Vajrayana.

Note the authors point from that article.

I would suggest that the primary intention of the Dutthagamani passage is not to justify the killing of living beings who are not Buddhist per se. The point of the passage—however much we might disagree with its logic—is the idea that actions performed with the idea of protecting and defending Buddhism, or “bringing glory to the doctrine of the Buddha”, overrides more accepted ethical norms such as the precept of not killing living beings. Protecting the Dhamma circumvents the usual operation of karma. All actions have consequences, but the effects of these actions can be lessened if the motivation for them is a noble one.
http://www.newmandala.org/sitagu-sayada ... -buddhism/

Note,
the 5th Century CE Sri Lankan chronicle, the Mahavamsa,
is not a main sutra of Theravada Buddhism.

The Mahavamsa ("Great Chronicle", Pali Mahāvaṃsa) (5th century CE) is an epic poem written in the Pali language.[1] It relates the history of Sri Lanka from its legendary beginnings up to the reign of Mahasena of Anuradhapura (A.D. 302) covering the period between the arrival of Prince Vijaya from India in 543 BCE to his reign (277–304 CE). It was composed by a Buddhist monk at the Mahavihara temple in Anuradhapura about the sixth century A.D.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahavamsa

The quoted reference to 'killing' is not in alignment with the main sutras and the core principles of Buddhism.

I would say the Mahavamsa is something like the Ahadith of Islam which are merely the views of various believers and they do not have the authority of the core of the religion.

There are some verses re killing from the Mahayana schools but they do not represent the core principles of Buddhism.
In most cases they are metaphorical that represent killing the internal demons of negative impulses.

In any case the preaching of Sitagu must be condemned and he should be disrobed by the relevant Buddhist Council.

In this case, we should blame the Buddhists who are evil prone due their human nature but we cannot blame Buddhism per se.
But it is not the case with TROP which is inherently and malignant evil in a large part. [to be discussed in another OP].

[Averroes]

I stated ad hominen where you are relying on Kierkegaard's depression [as claimed] to question his credibility is assessing the psychological state of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his own son.

Indeed, that was yet another one of your numerous mistakes!

It may be true Kierkegaard had linked his own depressive state to speculate Abraham's willing to sacrifice his son.

At last, you have finally understood the point I had made in mentioning Kierkegaard’s chronic depression. I just remark that you are slow to understand for I had to write a lot to explain the obvious! At least for me, it was really easy to spot that! But as I said, philosophy is not suited for everyone. You will really need to upgrade your philosophical level to keep the exchange interesting for me. I will not be able to sustain this philosophical spoon feeding indefinitely!
__________________________

Therefore, people who are willing to sacrifice their sons in 2018 would share the same perverted psychology with people who sacrifice their sons 10,000 or even 50,000 years ago.

I will also argue all humans who sacrifice their sons and others to a God & for various reasons has the share the same fundamental existential reasons.

Well, you can argue if you want, but you will have to take into consideration that a lot of countries all around the world are willing to sacrifice their sons to protect what they cherish the most. This has happened throughout history, and in fact, this is something that a lot of countries (with nukes!) today itself are ready to do at this very instant! Countries such as America which commemorates on specific days of each year their sons who lost their lives in their various wars. And also countries such as Germany, Russia, China, France, England, Burma, Sri Lanka, Vietnam etc… A lot of countries have sacrificed their sons (and the sons of their enemies more so) to protect and expand their economic interests! Throughout all the history of mankind, it's been like that everywhere. And in my humble opinion, it's not the few words of a neophyte philosopher armed only with the "existential attitude" who is going to change all that! Don't you agree? For example, each of America, China and Russia would be willing to sacrifice their sons with the advent of WW3. So, do you think you would be able to dissuade diplomatically either America, China, or Russia armed only with your "existential attitude"? I don't think so! But anyway it's up to you.
___________________________

Rape is mentioned in the Old Testament, I am very confident the psychology surrounding those ancient rapists mentioned in the OT and prior are fundamentally the same with rapists at present in 2018.
They will have uncontrollable sexual lust and all its related feelings and an erection.
Do you dispute this point??

What I do not dispute actually is that in Burma and Sri Lanka they do not read the OT, yet the Buddhists there have been raping and killing tens of thousands of innocent and defenseless Rohingya women and children after being sermoned by senior Buddhist monks quoting violent Buddhist scriptures.

____________________________

Averroes: In a nutshell having “the existential attitude” means being chronically depressed.
You are very wrong here - bad logic of hasty generalization due to lack of knowledge on the subject of existentialism.

No, it is not a fallacy! Having the "existential attitude" means being depressed. That is a scientific psychological fact! This is well documented in psychology. Here is one reference: https://psychcentral.com/lib/what-is-ex ... epression/
____________________________

The evidence is when theists give up theism they will naturally suffer a great or some degrees of the signs and symptoms you listed above. Theism is a very effective means to provide quick relief to suppress and alleviate the above signs and symptoms.

So in effect, you are saying that belief in God, the Almighty, is a “very effective means” against depression. I agree 100% with that! At last, we are finding common grounds between us! That’s very good. We are heading in the right direction by exchanging like this.

___________________________

Credit for Kierkegaard for having suffered from chronic depression [as claimed] and that he was able to expose the link between theism and existentialism of Angst via Abraham as his case study.

Really?? You are crediting someone for having chronic depression!! This is the first time I come across that kind of “crediting!” Don’t you think that this is a bit foolish? I am just asking! Anyway, I take note of that. It’s very interesting to learn about your moral values and goals in life.

My thesis is when we are able to understand the concept of Angst [soon] more clearly with advanced neurosciences and neuro-pyschology, we will be able to deal with the inherent Angst and find alternative fool proof strategies to replace theism & organized religions and resolve the problem of theistic-related evils and violence.

Whether it’s “soon” or not, I am not in a hurry! So advanced science can take all its time for its various investigations! Personally I am not waiting for you or anyone else to understand “Angst”, or anything else for that matter! As the alternative strategy of Islam is doing a great job for me not only to stay clear of depression but by bringing great positive joy in my life. So, there is absolutely no pressure on my side on science to come up with a “foolproof strategy” to deal with the dramatic consequences of disbelief in the Oneness of God, the Almighty.

But now I am really intrigued! Maybe you can shed some light on this matter for me. So, since you do not believe in God, the Almighty and science has not yet found a “foolproof strategy” to replace belief in God, the Almighty, so then logically that means you and those like you are having to find other less effective strategies to deal with your chronic/seasonal depression, pending this so-called “imminent” breakthroughs in science according to you. Right? So my question is what are the sub-optimal strategies that you are using at present to deal with your chronic depression? Do you use anti-depressant pills, or natural herbs, or by trying to communicate your depression with others through your writings for example on this forum, i.e. a form of psychotherapy? Or a combination of these? Kierkegaard opted for the latter method according to his writings. May I further ask you, if so, are these measures effective? Of course, if you do not want to answer, it’s alright. In such a case, there is no need for you to further worry yourself, as you must no doubt have much on your mind already! Anyway, it is very interesting to get to know you better.

______________________________

[Averroes]

Nietzsche in general has a negative view of theism.
Therefore he would be unlikely to have any ultimate favor for Islam which is theistic.

Nietzsche has direct experience with Christianity and for some reasons from his personal experience with the Church he had hated Christianity.
Nietzsche only mentioned 'the wonderful culture of the Moors in Spain' but he was not aware the whole history of Islamic influence elsewhere, e.g. terrible evils and violence in India and Middle East.
I bet Nietzsche did not read the Quran in contrast he would have read the OT.

And yet again you are the loser!

In a letter to his friend Köselitz dated March 13 1881, Nietzsche wrote:

"Ask my old comrade Gersdorff whether he'd like to go with me to Tunisia for one or two years. . . . I want to live for a while amongst Muslims, in the places moreover where their faith is at its most devout; this way my eye and judgment for all things European will be sharpened."

Nietzsche fascination for Islam was in total contrast to his "appraisal" of Christianity and Judaism. I understand though that this really comes as a surprise to many people. But the case of Nietzsche is characteristic of a very favorable tendency towards Islam of very intelligent people who come to learn about Islam from another background and particularly those with philosophically predisposed minds. For example, we must now mention Goethe who likewise was greatly fascinated with Islam from a young age, and eventually embraced Islam. Goethe is called the greatest German man of letters. He was also a philosopher, a scientist and also a statesman among his various talents. His intellect has been estimated by the experts to be around 210! Einstein was a mere 160! And it is known that Nietzsche read Goethe voraciously! In the Will to Power, Nietzsche mentions Goethe by name as one of the greatest human beings, i.e. one closest to nothing short than his ideal of the Übermensch! And this says it all! In The Twilight of Idols, Nietzsche has such an eloquent and beautiful praise of Goethe that this cannot but be quoted in full!

Nietzsche wrote:

• Goethe — not a German event, but a European one: a magnificent
  attempt to overcome the eighteenth century by a return to nature, by an ascent to the
  naturalness of the Renaissance — a kind of self-overcoming on the part of that
  century. He bore its strongest instincts within himself: the sensibility, the idolatry of
  nature, the anti-historic, the idealistic, the unreal and revolutionary (the latter being
  merely a form of the unreal). He sought help from history, natural science, antiquity,
  and also Spinoza, but, above all, from practical activity; he surrounded himself with
  limited horizons; he did not retire from life but put himself into the midst of it; he if
  was not fainthearted but took as much as possible upon himself, over himself, into
  himself. What he wanted was totality; he fought the mutual extraneousness of reason,
  senses, feeling, and will (preached with the most abhorrent scholasticism by Kant, the
  antipode of Goethe); he disciplined himself to wholeness, he created himself.
  
  In the middle of an age with an unreal outlook, Goethe was a convinced
  realist: he said Yes to everything that was related to him in this respect — and he had
  no greater experience than that ens realissimum [most real being] called Napoleon.
  Goethe conceived a human being who would be strong, highly educated, skillful in all
  bodily matters, self-controlled, reverent toward himself, and who might dare to afford
  the whole range and wealth of being natural, being strong enough for such freedom;
  the man of tolerance, not from weakness but from strength, because he knows how to
  use to his advantage even that from which the average nature would perish; the man
  for whom there is no longer anything that is forbidden — unless it be weakness,
  whether called vice or virtue.
  
  Such a spirit who has become free stands amid the cosmos with a joyous
  and trusting fatalism, in the faith that only the particular is loathesome, and that all is
  redeemed and affirmed in the whole — he does not negate anymore. Such a faith,
  however, is the highest of all possible faiths: I have baptized it with the name of
  Dionysus.

No comment!

Now, it is not much mentioned in the West but known quite well by all that Goethe was a Muslim and a great lover of the Holy Quran. Goethe also wrote truly beautiful poems in praise of Islam and the blessed Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). He had studied the Arabic language, and read and studied the Holy Quran extensively and intensively. He had once said that he wanted to supplicate like Prophet Moses (pbuh) in the Holy Quran. Allah, the All-Wise informed us in the Holy Quran of how Prophet Moses (pbuh) supplicated to Him:

• [Moses] said, "My Lord, expand for me my breast [with assurance]
  And ease for me my task
  And untie the knot from my tongue
  That they may understand my speech. [Holy Quran, interpretation of meaning, 20:25-28]

Professor Katarina Mommsen, who is a scholar in Goethe, has written a paper on Goethe, titled “Goethe the Muslim.”

The relationship of Goethe to Islam and to its founder is one of the most astonishing phenomena, not only within Goethe’s own life, but within the historical epoch in which he lived.
Goethe was only 23 years old when he wrote a wonderful hymn in praise of the prophet Muhammad. But even when he was 70 years old, the poet declared quite publicly that he was considering “devoutly celebrating that holy night in which the Koran in its entirety was revealed to the prophet from on high”. Between these two dates lies a long life, during which Goethe testified in many forms to his veneration for Islam. This was expressed primarily in that work which, alongside “Faust”, we today consider one of his most essential poetic bequests: the “West-Eastern Divan”, a collection of 250 poems in an oriental style. In a pre-publication announcement of this work-in which he came closer to the orient than any German writer before or after him-we can even find the remarkable statement that the author of the book would not deny the allegation that he himself was a Muslim.
(...)
Goethe was very sensitive to the linguistic beauty of the Koran. Even in his late years he praised this beauty in the “West-Eastern Divan” where he says: “The style of the Koran is severe, elevated, formidable, in parts truly sublime”. If one is acquainted with Goethe’s way of expression, one knows that the words “truly sublime” belong to the highest attributes which he could assign to a literary landmark.

There is so much to be said about Goethe and Islam. Anyway, more than a century has passed since Goethe. But today itself we can observe Germans embracing Islam in great numbers. For example in the following YouTube video, we can see a mass conversion of Germans to Islam on a single day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzIdhC_d9og

So here you go with yet another detailed explanation and genuine philosophical work!

[Averroes]

My main point as above is;
There are no leading [underlined earlier] verses in the main sutras of Buddhism that exhort Buddhists to kill non-believers.

Yes, I considered the emphasis on the word “leading,” and I confirm everything I said earlier. One of the meanings of the word “leading” from the dictionary is as follows:

leading: providing direction or guidance
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/leading

And as the Buddhist scholars are themselves acknowledging, a lot of Buddhists, among them Buddhist monks, are being led by Buddhist texts encouraging them to kill non-believers (non-Buddhists) as a way to heaven.

Note the authors point from that article.

I would suggest that the primary intention of the Dutthagamani passage is not to justify the killing of living beings who are not Buddhist per se. The point of the passage—however much we might disagree with its logic—is the idea that actions performed with the idea of protecting and defending Buddhism, or “bringing glory to the doctrine of the Buddha”, overrides more accepted ethical norms such as the precept of not killing living beings. Protecting the Dhamma circumvents the usual operation of karma. All actions have consequences, but the effects of these actions can be lessened if the motivation for them is a noble one.
http://www.newmandala.org/sitagu-sayada ... -buddhism/

Yes, I have taken note of that part too, and I find it to be very informative but also disturbing on the true nature of Buddhism. In a nutshell, it is saying that: in Buddhism killing is allowed to bring “glory to the doctrine of the Siddhartha Gautama”. I think everyone who has read the article has very clearly understood that part, especially:

• “the idea that actions performed with the idea of protecting and defending Buddhism, or “bringing glory to the doctrine of the Buddha”, overrides more accepted ethical norms such as the precept of not killing living beings.”

And for me that makes perfect sense that Siddhartha could imply such a message as he was himself born a second class (warrior) citizen in ancient India. Once Buddhism was thought to be a religion of peace, however, nowadays its true colors are showing! But anyway, thank you for emphasizing that part of the article for those who might have missed it!

There are some verses re killing from the Mahayana schools but they do not represent the core principles of Buddhism.

It’s good that you yourself are now acknowledging the violence in the Buddhist scriptures. We are surely going in the right direction now. However, by now we already knew of the violent verses in Buddhists scriptures that are causing a lot of people who are non-Buddhists (i.e. non-believers) to be the target of violent attacks by Buddhists seeking a way to heaven through the killing of innocent women and children as written in the Buddhist scriptures, which scriptures are being preached in sermons to military officers by the top Buddhist scholars.

In this case, we should blame the Buddhists who are evil prone due their human nature but we cannot blame Buddhism per se.

I am not convinced. I think that either we treat every religion and people with the same standards or else we lose intellectual and moral credibility. Buddhism deserves no special status or treatment. I think many people if certain conditions are united can come to the conclusion that Buddhism has an inherently malignant origin in that Siddhartha Gautama was born and raised as a second class (warrior) citizen in ancient India. And that has polluted his doctrines with an inherent element of violence as witnessed by the nowadays available violent Buddhist scriptures.

In any case the preaching of Sitagu must be condemned and he should be disrobed by the relevant Buddhist Council.

What about Ashin Wirathu, whom Times Magazine has called “The Face of Buddhist Terror” and who was banned from Facebook for his hate preaching? And also what about Galagodo Gnanasara in Sri Lanka? Do you condemn them as well for inciting people to violence through their hate preaching? For example, there is an informative article in the Independent about the situation in Sri Lanka:

New clashes between Buddhist extremists and Muslims occurred in two different towns in Sri Lanka, Kandy and Ampara, in early 2018. Triggered in part by hate-filled posts spread by nationalistic Sinhala Buddhist Facebook groups, these riots resulted in the death of one Muslim and the destruction of many buildings.

To many non-Buddhists outside Asia, this sort of violence can seem surprising. Westerners think of Buddhism as a peaceful religion, folding Buddhist terms and practices into stress relief practices such as mindfulness. But like any religion, Buddhism has a far more complicated story than that – and Sri Lanka has seen many disturbing and violent episodes that attest to that fact.

The Buddhist Protestantism of the 19th century, the monks who invoked Buddhist texts to justify the Sri Lankan civil war, and the extremist movements surging today all have one thing in common: a belief that Sri Lanka is a Buddhist nation that must be protected from foreign elements, violently if necessary. The Sri Lankan case shows that nationalism and extremism can be filtered through anything.

Site: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 32401.html

Do you condemn these hate preachers as well?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I stated ad hominen where you are relying on Kierkegaard's depression [as claimed] to question his credibility is assessing the psychological state of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his own son.

Indeed, that was yet another one of your numerous mistakes!

It may be true Kierkegaard had linked his own depressive state to speculate Abraham's willing to sacrifice his son.

At last, you have finally understood the point I had made in mentioning Kierkegaard’s chronic depression. I just remark that you are slow to understand for I had to write a lot to explain the obvious! At least for me, it was really easy to spot that! But as I said, philosophy is not suited for everyone. You will really need to upgrade your philosophical level to keep the exchange interesting for me. I will not be able to sustain this philosophical spoon feeding indefinitely!

The above is very childish, i.e. those sort of behaviors that is common in kindergarten grounds.

You cannot judge a book by its cover.
We will see soon who has to upgrade his philosophical level.

The point is I have not read of Kierkegaard's suffering from depression.
Kierkegaard's point is only one reference among the tons of evidence to link God with the existential crisis.

I dare say you are suffering from some sort of existential crisis [not necessary chronic depression] that compel you to God and very unfortunately you end up with that evil laden TROP that straight-jacketted your spiritual progress.

Therefore, people who are willing to sacrifice their sons in 2018 would share the same perverted psychology with people who sacrifice their sons 10,000 or even 50,000 years ago.

I will also argue all humans who sacrifice their sons and others to a God & for various reasons has the share the same fundamental existential reasons.

Well, you can argue if you want, but you will have to take into consideration that a lot of countries all around the world are willing to sacrifice their sons to protect what they cherish the most. This has happened throughout history, and in fact, this is something that a lot of countries (with nukes!) today itself are ready to do at this very instant! Countries such as America which commemorates on specific days of each year their sons who lost their lives in their various wars. And also countries such as Germany, Russia, China, France, England, Burma, Sri Lanka, Vietnam etc… A lot of countries have sacrificed their sons (and the sons of their enemies more so) to protect and expand their economic interests! Throughout all the history of mankind, it's been like that everywhere. And in my humble opinion, it's not the few words of a neophyte philosopher armed only with the "existential attitude" who is going to change all that! Don't you agree? For example, each of America, China and Russia would be willing to sacrifice their sons with the advent of WW3. So, do you think you would be able to dissuade diplomatically either America, China, or Russia armed only with your "existential attitude"? I don't think so! But anyway it's up to you.

Sacrificing sons/daughter for wars, gods, or whatever is traceable to that fundamental existential crisis. This is fundamentally an evil act where in the case of war is not yet avoidable.
War itself is evil [must be eliminated] as it arise from an existential threat to a group of people but that is not as evil as the selfish individual sacrificing his son to God to gain favor for his own salvation of eternal life in Paradise with 'eternal virgins.'

Rape is mentioned in the Old Testament, I am very confident the psychology surrounding those ancient rapists mentioned in the OT and prior are fundamentally the same with rapists at present in 2018.
They will have uncontrollable sexual lust and all its related feelings and an erection.
Do you dispute this point??

What I do not dispute actually is that in Burma and Sri Lanka they do not read the OT, yet the Buddhists there have been raping and killing tens of thousands of innocent and defenseless Rohingya women and children after being sermoned by senior Buddhist monks quoting violent Buddhist scriptures.

You are deflecting the point and bringing in a strawman.
My point is, we can understand human nature now and even those 10,000, 100,000 or even million of years ago because of the base generic DNA features that have not changed over those periods.
This apply to rapists, homosexuality, pedophilla, and the likes.

Note I mentioned the 5th Century CE Sri Lankan chronicle, the Mahavamsa, is not a main sutra of Buddhism nor Theravada Buddhism proper. This was an independent view of one ancient writer which is not in alignment with the core principles and ethos of Buddhism proper.
Surely to authenticate any points in the Ahadith or Sira, a Muslim has to align the point with the Quran -the original words of Allah.

Averroes: In a nutshell having “the existential attitude” means being chronically depressed.
You are very wrong here - bad logic of hasty generalization due to lack of knowledge on the subject of existentialism.

No, it is not a fallacy! Having the "existential attitude" means being depressed. That is a scientific psychological fact! This is well documented in psychology. Here is one reference: https://psychcentral.com/lib/what-is-ex ... epression/

Depression is a very loose term.
Existential depression is totally different from Chronic Depression, note from your link.

Existential depression may be caused by a specific event in the person’s life (e.g., loss of a job or a loved one), or nothing at all. Existential depression has not been widely researched and no specific therapeutic approaches have been shown to work better than others in its treatment.

What is serious depression, e.g. Chronic disorder is stated the Psychiatric Manual, the DSM V.

Existential Depression or Crisis is the one that drive people into theism as a crutch to provide psychological security.

Now who is doing the spoon-feeding?

The evidence is when theists give up theism they will naturally suffer a great or some degrees of the signs and symptoms you listed above. Theism is a very effective means to provide quick relief to suppress and alleviate the above signs and symptoms.

So in effect, you are saying that belief in God, the Almighty, is a “very effective means” against depression. I agree 100% with that! At last, we are finding common grounds between us! That’s very good. We are heading in the right direction by exchanging like this.

It is VERY Good to expose you are delusional in believing in something illusory i.e. God aggressively and persistently.

Let's be specific, if you want to use the term 'depression' then it is 'existential depression' of various degrees.

Yes, theism is the most and "very effective means" to get immediate relief against the existential crisis [I do want to use depression as it is directly associated with some kind of mental illness e.g. chronic depression, bipolar, etc.]
It is so easy with theism to give immediate relief, i.e. just believe and surrender to God and one is saved with an instant experience of release of existential pains.

Note DNA wise ALL humans has the potential to suffer from that existential crisis and it is active in almost all humans.
While the majority end up with theism, the non-theists resort to other non-theistic modes, like drugs, escapism, other habits, seriously into hobbies, sports, jobs, crimes, etc.
There is a small majority of non-theists who could see through the weaknesses of the above and strive via the philosophy-proper [rational and wise] and spiritual approaches.

Credit for Kierkegaard for having suffered from chronic depression [as claimed] and that he was able to expose the link between theism and existentialism of Angst via Abraham as his case study.

Really?? You are crediting someone for having chronic depression!! This is the first time I come across that kind of “crediting!” Don’t you think that this is a bit foolish? I am just asking! Anyway, I take note of that. It’s very interesting to learn about your moral values and goals in life.

I have empathy for Kierkegaard's depression.
We cannot be sure his was a chronic disorder depression or an existential depression.
'Credit' meant despite the 'sufferings' he could have gone through, he still have the tenacity to think rationally and came up with the basic principles of existentialism which is a great source of knowledge for humanity to work on to progress forward.

My thesis is when we are able to understand the concept of Angst [soon] more clearly with advanced neurosciences and neuro-pyschology, we will be able to deal with the inherent Angst and find alternative fool proof strategies to replace theism & organized religions and resolve the problem of theistic-related evils and violence.

Whether it’s “soon” or not, I am not in a hurry! So advanced science can take all its time for its various investigations! Personally I am not waiting for you or anyone else to understand “Angst”, or anything else for that matter! As the alternative strategy of Islam is doing a great job for me not only to stay clear of depression but by bringing great positive joy in my life. So, there is absolutely no pressure on my side on science to come up with a “foolproof strategy” to deal with the dramatic consequences of disbelief in the Oneness of God, the Almighty.

There you go.
The above reveal your very selfishness in only taking care of your own personal salvation rather than that of the human species and humanity into the future.

Now I can truly say this [your earlier statement];
Anyway, I take note of that. It’s very interesting to learn about your moral values and goals in life.

There is another thesis that I am working one, i.e.;
ALL theists are fundamentally very selfish in desperately [subliminal] striving for their own personal salvation, to the extreme [by some] of sacrificing their own sons and daughter for God.

But now I am really intrigued! Maybe you can shed some light on this matter for me. So, since you do not believe in God, the Almighty and science has not yet found a “foolproof strategy” to replace belief in God, the Almighty, so then logically that means you and those like you are having to find other less effective strategies to deal with your chronic/seasonal depression, pending this so-called “imminent” breakthroughs in science according to you. Right?

So my question is what are the sub-optimal strategies that you are using at present to deal with your chronic depression?
Do you use anti-depressant pills, or natural herbs, or by trying to communicate your depression with others through your writings for example on this forum, i.e. a form of psychotherapy? Or a combination of these?
Kierkegaard opted for the latter method according to his writings. May I further ask you, if so, are these measures effective? Of course, if you do not want to answer, it’s alright. In such a case, there is no need for you to further worry yourself, as you must no doubt have much on your mind already! Anyway, it is very interesting to get to know you better.

There are loads of strategies to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis, i.e. theistic and non-theistic. Other categories are spiritual and non-spiritual, religious versus non-religious.
Other resort to drugs and various activities that has good and evil elements to deal with the inherent existential Angst.

In terms of Religious & Spiritual, note I mentioned the following in terms of ranking.

................Kindergarten [1 low]...............................PhD [10 highest]

Examples [there are others];
Hinduism covers the range from 1/10 to 9/10.
Buddhism covers the range from 1 to 9.5

With the introduction of monotheism the Abrahamic jumped above the kindergarten level into level 3/10 but it maximum is only 5 or 6 in terms of spiritual quotient.
Judaism 3 to 5
Christianity 3 to 6
Islam 3 to 4.5

To deal with the inherent existential crisis I have resorted to the core principles and practices [not as a follower of their organization] of Hinduism [advaita vedanta] for some time then to Buddhism plus Taoism and philosophy-proper.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nietzsche in general has a negative view of theism.
Therefore he would be unlikely to have any ultimate favor for Islam which is theistic.

Nietzsche has direct experience with Christianity and for some reasons from his personal experience with the Church he had hated Christianity.
Nietzsche only mentioned 'the wonderful culture of the Moors in Spain' but he was not aware the whole history of Islamic influence elsewhere, e.g. terrible evils and violence in India and Middle East.
I bet Nietzsche did not read the Quran in contrast he would have read the OT.

And yet again you are the loser!

Jumping to conclusion again.
Where is the reference where Nietzche had claimed he read the Quran thoroughly or had read of the history of the carnage in Middle East, India and elsewhere by Muslims who are inspired by verses in the Quran.

In a letter to his friend Köselitz dated March 13 1881, Nietzsche wrote:

"Ask my old comrade Gersdorff whether he'd like to go with me to Tunisia for one or two years. . . . I want to live for a while amongst Muslims, in the places moreover where their faith is at its most devout; this way my eye and judgment for all things European will be sharpened."

Nietzsche fascination for Islam was in total contrast to his "appraisal" of Christianity and Judaism. I understand though that this really comes as a surprise to many people. But the case of Nietzsche is characteristic of a very favorable tendency towards Islam of very intelligent people who come to learn about Islam from another background and particularly those with philosophically predisposed minds. For example, we must now mention Goethe who likewise was greatly fascinated with Islam from a young age, and eventually embraced Islam. Goethe is called the greatest German man of letters. He was also a philosopher, a scientist and also a statesman among his various talents. His intellect has been estimated by the experts to be around 210! Einstein was a mere 160! And it is known that Nietzsche read Goethe voraciously! In the Will to Power, Nietzsche mentions Goethe by name as one of the greatest human beings, i.e. one closest to nothing short than his ideal of the Übermensch! And this says it all! In The Twilight of Idols, Nietzsche has such an eloquent and beautiful praise of Goethe that this cannot but be quoted in full!

Nietzsche wrote:

• Goethe — not a German event, but a European one: a magnificent
  attempt to overcome the eighteenth century by a return to nature, by an ascent to the
  naturalness of the Renaissance — a kind of self-overcoming on the part of that
  century. He bore its strongest instincts within himself: the sensibility, the idolatry of
  nature, the anti-historic, the idealistic, the unreal and revolutionary (the latter being
  merely a form of the unreal). He sought help from history, natural science, antiquity,
  and also Spinoza, but, above all, from practical activity; he surrounded himself with
  limited horizons; he did not retire from life but put himself into the midst of it; he if
  was not fainthearted but took as much as possible upon himself, over himself, into
  himself. What he wanted was totality; he fought the mutual extraneousness of reason,
  senses, feeling, and will (preached with the most abhorrent scholasticism by Kant, the
  antipode of Goethe); he disciplined himself to wholeness, he created himself.
  
  In the middle of an age with an unreal outlook, Goethe was a convinced
  realist: he said Yes to everything that was related to him in this respect — and he had
  no greater experience than that ens realissimum [most real being] called Napoleon.
  Goethe conceived a human being who would be strong, highly educated, skillful in all
  bodily matters, self-controlled, reverent toward himself, and who might dare to afford
  the whole range and wealth of being natural, being strong enough for such freedom;
  the man of tolerance, not from weakness but from strength, because he knows how to
  use to his advantage even that from which the average nature would perish; the man
  for whom there is no longer anything that is forbidden — unless it be weakness,
  whether called vice or virtue.
  
  Such a spirit who has become free stands amid the cosmos with a joyous
  and trusting fatalism, in the faith that only the particular is loathesome, and that all is
  redeemed and affirmed in the whole — he does not negate anymore. Such a faith,
  however, is the highest of all possible faiths: I have baptized it with the name of
  Dionysus.

No comment!

The above is not evidence that Nietsche has read the Quran and understood its ethos thoroughly, i.e. TROP [The Religion of Peace] is evidently, inherently and malignantly evil.
This is the same mistake and ignorance that the present authorities ignorant believed Islam is TROP, e.g. Bush, Obama, Cameron.
However some of the European are waking up the inherent evil of TROP based on the evil acts of SOME Muslims but they are still ignorant of the inherent ethos of TROP.

Now, it is not much mentioned in the West but known quite well by all that Goethe was a Muslim and a great lover of the Holy Quran. Goethe also wrote truly beautiful poems in praise of Islam and the blessed Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). He had studied the Arabic language, and read and studied the Holy Quran extensively and intensively. He had once said that he wanted to supplicate like Prophet Moses (pbuh) in the Holy Quran. Allah, the All-Wise informed us in the Holy Quran of how Prophet Moses (pbuh) supplicated to Him:

• [Moses] said, "My Lord, expand for me my breast [with assurance]
  And ease for me my task
  And untie the knot from my tongue
  That they may understand my speech. [Holy Quran, interpretation of meaning, 20:25-28]

Professor Katarina Mommsen, who is a scholar in Goethe, has written a paper on Goethe, titled “Goethe the Muslim.”

The relationship of Goethe to Islam and to its founder is one of the most astonishing phenomena, not only within Goethe’s own life, but within the historical epoch in which he lived.
Goethe was only 23 years old when he wrote a wonderful hymn in praise of the prophet Muhammad. But even when he was 70 years old, the poet declared quite publicly that he was considering “devoutly celebrating that holy night in which the Koran in its entirety was revealed to the prophet from on high”. Between these two dates lies a long life, during which Goethe testified in many forms to his veneration for Islam. This was expressed primarily in that work which, alongside “Faust”, we today consider one of his most essential poetic bequests: the “West-Eastern Divan”, a collection of 250 poems in an oriental style. In a pre-publication announcement of this work-in which he came closer to the orient than any German writer before or after him-we can even find the remarkable statement that the author of the book would not deny the allegation that he himself was a Muslim.
(...)
Goethe was very sensitive to the linguistic beauty of the Koran. Even in his late years he praised this beauty in the “West-Eastern Divan” where he says: “The style of the Koran is severe, elevated, formidable, in parts truly sublime”. If one is acquainted with Goethe’s way of expression, one knows that the words “truly sublime” belong to the highest attributes which he could assign to a literary landmark.

There is so much to be said about Goethe and Islam. Anyway, more than a century has passed since Goethe. But today itself we can observe Germans embracing Islam in great numbers. For example in the following YouTube video, we can see a mass conversion of Germans to Islam on a single day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzIdhC_d9og

So here you go with yet another detailed explanation and genuine philosophical work!

The Quran as it is general presented is a very messy book to read, i.e. without a theme.
Most apologists like Karen Armstrong & others and even Islamic Scholars cannot see the 500 pound gorilla in the Quran due to confirmation bias.

Note the existential crisis [depression] is a very forceful primal drive that is will deceive and delude people to believe lies as truth..

Note this lie perceived as truth.
I have demonstrated this in other posts.
I wonder you understand the implication here which is the same fundamental forces of the existential depression that forces you to believe God is real when in fact God is an illusion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My main point as above is;
There are no leading [underlined earlier] verses in the main sutras of Buddhism that exhort Buddhists to kill non-believers.

Yes, I considered the emphasis on the word “leading,” and I confirm everything I said earlier. One of the meanings of the word “leading” from the dictionary is as follows:

leading: providing direction or guidance
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/leading

And as the Buddhist scholars are themselves acknowledging, a lot of Buddhists, among them Buddhist monks, are being led by Buddhist texts encouraging them to kill non-believers (non-Buddhists) as a way to heaven.

Note did you read I stated,
'no leading verses from the MAIN sutras of Buddhism'.
I deliberately underlined the words.

I have already stated,
the 5th Century CE Sri Lankan chronicle, the Mahavamsa,
is not one of the main sutra of Buddhism or in this case Theravada Buddhism.

Btw, there is no concept of 'heaven' in Buddhism-proper.
In the lower kindergarten levels, the concept of heaven is used to provide for those who has such an inclination in accordance to the level of spirituality.
In the kindergarten levels of Buddhist practices, statues of Buddha, joss-sticks and other idols are used but these are not acceptable within the core principles of Buddhism.

Note the authors point from that article.

I would suggest that the primary intention of the Dutthagamani passage is not to justify the killing of living beings who are not Buddhist per se. The point of the passage—however much we might disagree with its logic—is the idea that actions performed with the idea of protecting and defending Buddhism, or “bringing glory to the doctrine of the Buddha”, overrides more accepted ethical norms such as the precept of not killing living beings. Protecting the Dhamma circumvents the usual operation of karma. All actions have consequences, but the effects of these actions can be lessened if the motivation for them is a noble one.
http://www.newmandala.org/sitagu-sayada ... -buddhism/

Yes, I have taken note of that part too, and I find it to be very informative but also disturbing on the true nature of Buddhism. In a nutshell, it is saying that: in Buddhism killing is allowed to bring “glory to the doctrine of the Siddhartha Gautama”. I think everyone who has read the article has very clearly understood that part, especially:

• “the idea that actions performed with the idea of protecting and defending Buddhism, or “bringing glory to the doctrine of the Buddha”, overrides more accepted ethical norms such as the precept of not killing living beings.”

And for me that makes perfect sense that Siddhartha could imply such a message as he was himself born a second class (warrior) citizen in ancient India. Once Buddhism was thought to be a religion of peace, however, nowadays its true colors are showing! But anyway, thank you for emphasizing that part of the article for those who might have missed it!

Note I have mentioned a few times already,
The 5th Century CE Sri Lankan chronicle, the Mahavamsa,
is not part of Buddhism proper.
Therefore we cannot blame Buddhism per se for what is written in the Mahavamsa.

Somehow you need a lot of spoon feeding on this.

Note there is a general issue with soldiers who are of the Abrahamic religions or Eastern religions where there is a precept 'Thou shall not kill another human being'. This is also a question raised by Buddhists who are also soldiers. Thus there is a need to with such a dilemma.
I believed Sitagu was trying to help the soldiers to deal with this dilemma but there is no indication Sitagu exhorted the soldiers to kill non-believers because they are disbelievers.
As I had mentioned Sitagu [is stupid] should be condemned for bringing the above verses in his lecture which could be misconstrued by others.

But note there is no dilemma for Muslims in term of killing in war because Allah sanctioned warfare for all Muslims to kill non-Muslims. e.g. 2:216

The point is religion should NEVER be mixed with politics.

There are some verses re killing from the Mahayana schools but they do not represent the core principles of Buddhism.

It’s good that you yourself are now acknowledging the violence in the Buddhist scriptures. We are surely going in the right direction now. However, by now we already knew of the violent verses in Buddhists scriptures that are causing a lot of people who are non-Buddhists (i.e. non-believers) to be the target of violent attacks by Buddhists seeking a way to heaven through the killing of innocent women and children as written in the Buddhist scriptures, which scriptures are being preached in sermons to military officers by the top Buddhist scholars.

I do not agree with the above.
I have not heard of any Buddhist soldiers who quoted the above verses or refer to Sitagu to justify their killings [justified or unjustified].

Note the message of the Mahavamsa [not of Buddhism proper] in regard to killing.
The main message was the soldier[s] felt remorse [thus mental sufferings] after they have killed millions.
Therefore the main message is 'Do not kill or you will suffer mentally.'
Thus if one had killed [not deliberately] but in the course of duty, then one can find consolation in that message from the Mahavamsa - which is not part of true Buddhism.
Core Buddhism will eliminate all wars and thus no need for soldiers to face the dilemma to kill as a duty.

In this case, we should blame the Buddhists who are evil prone due their human nature but we cannot blame Buddhism per se.

I am not convinced. I think that either we treat every religion and people with the same standards or else we lose intellectual and moral credibility. Buddhism deserves no special status or treatment. I think many people if certain conditions are united can come to the conclusion that Buddhism has an inherently malignant origin in that Siddhartha Gautama was born and raised as a second class (warrior) citizen in ancient India. And that has polluted his doctrines with an inherent element of violence as witnessed by the nowadays available violent Buddhist scriptures.

This is why your philosophical level is very low due to lack of proper critical thinking.

It is not only Buddhism, but any ideology must be presented by its recognized constitution. i.e. the main sutras of Buddhism and not some side texts written by some others.
Therefore the Mahavamsa cannot be a part of the Constitution of Buddhism.
It is the same with Islam which must be centered on the immutable words of Allah in the Quran. [others will disagree and rely on Ahadith or Sira as well].

You are very ignorant of Siddhartha Gautama.
He was born of 'warrior class' but he had the moral compass to run and disown himself from his birth status to be an ascetic and later founded Buddhism proper.
Looks like I need to do spoon feeding again.

In any case the preaching of Sitagu must be condemned and he should be disrobed by the relevant Buddhist Council.

What about Ashin Wirathu, whom Times Magazine has called “The Face of Buddhist Terror” and who was banned from Facebook for his hate preaching? And also what about Galagodo Gnanasara in Sri Lanka? Do you condemn them as well for inciting people to violence through their hate preaching? For example, there is an informative article in the Independent about the situation in Sri Lanka:

New clashes between Buddhist extremists and Muslims occurred in two different towns in Sri Lanka, Kandy and Ampara, in early 2018. Triggered in part by hate-filled posts spread by nationalistic Sinhala Buddhist Facebook groups, these riots resulted in the death of one Muslim and the destruction of many buildings.

To many non-Buddhists outside Asia, this sort of violence can seem surprising. Westerners think of Buddhism as a peaceful religion, folding Buddhist terms and practices into stress relief practices such as mindfulness. But like any religion, Buddhism has a far more complicated story than that – and Sri Lanka has seen many disturbing and violent episodes that attest to that fact.

The Buddhist Protestantism of the 19th century, the monks who invoked Buddhist texts to justify the Sri Lankan civil war, and the extremist movements surging today all have one thing in common: a belief that Sri Lanka is a Buddhist nation that must be protected from foreign elements, violently if necessary. The Sri Lankan case shows that nationalism and extremism can be filtered through anything.

Site: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 32401.html

Do you condemn these hate preachers as well?

All people who promote evil acts of whatever kind should be condemned.
Whilst the above mentioned people should be condemned for any resulting evil acts, one has to take note why are those in Myanmar are not directing attention to Judaism, Christianity, Taoism and other religion but ONLY what is related to Islam?
Do you know why the direct their specific attention to Islam ONLY?

Even in Sri Langka, the evil prone Buddhists are only directing their attention to Tamil Tigers North East of Sri Langka but not non-Buddhist everywhere in the world like what SOME Muslims are doing around the world who blatantly quote the Quran to justify their killing of infidels.

If you have a high level of critical thinking competence, you should arrive at the conclusion that it is the main ideology of the religion that is to be blame.

Btw, would you claim you had understood the Quran thoroughly and have not missed out the critical elements due to confirmation bias? e.g. like not seeing the true nature of the face-image I posted earlier.

[Averroes]

You cannot judge a book by its cover.

It all depends on which book!