As for dying for faith...think, as I mentioned earlier, of the Christian martyrs that were thrown to lions. Did they want that? Did they seek that out? Of course not. But they also weren't willing to deny what they believed. This thread took the turn of equation between those videos...equating Christianity with radical Islam that encourages young people to make themselves as bombs. I'm seeing a sharp distinction between that and a martyr in the sense that I'm speaking. One goes with the intent to die and the intent to kill along with it....the other doesn't wish to die but is just unwilling to compromise their beliefs.
That is up to the person following it, and perhaps the religion. I think it is a personal one. A cause to improve yourself.
There's nothing noble of dying for a cause in and of itself. Martyrdom is not valour, it's not anything. What makes you who you are is how you life your life, not by your beliefs, but by your actions. Doing the right thing, overcoming fear, is what Ghandi is talking about. Under no circumstances is killing the right thing. Therefore, anyone who kills can not be servicing anything noble. You can call them martyrs, but really they are just immoral criminals. One's beliefs do not define what is just or not just in this world. If you act on your beliefs, you have the capacity to do great harm and evil. To die for your beliefs may be the best way to go, but it's also tragic as it's too often based on ignorance and malformed thoughts of a corrupted mind. The video 110 across street showed was truly sad and disturbing. The people who propagate such hatred and glorify killing of others are morally bankrupt. Dehumanizing their enemies (turning them to monkeys, calling the criminals, making them into caricature villians) is exactly what the Nazis did, and the Japanese. These Muslims are modern day Nazis, led by modern day Hitlers. We can't use violence to defeat them directly, since they are using the power of control to make others do their dirty work. They are the definition of cowards. How do you fight cowards? With truth, compassion, and justice. You truly have to appeal and build bridges to those who want another way. And you have to show that you are sincere. Otherwise, this will only escalate into unimaginable horrors.
This thread has taken an interesting turn. That is a great metaphor but not an exact one. When it comes to spiritual matters how do you know the difference between the finger and the Moon? Martyrdom to me comes down to a matter of faith. If you believe you are dying for a just cause then you are a martyr. This is inherently subjective but faith in anything is inherently subjective.
I can agree with a lot of this. Martyrdom is subjective but the actions of it have affects so whether one believes they are dying for a just cause that is less for the person martyring themselves and more about what happens after they martyr themselves.
You must have never seen any American comics from the '40s. The Nazis and especially the Japanese were certainly dehumanized.
They can do it to serve both goals on different levels. While the greater goal is to become the prime influence of Islamic thought, everytime they lend their banner, such as al Qaeda, to a regional conflict, whether it be Iraq, Chechnya, or SE Asia, there is some Islamic vision being assembled. They're ripping a lot of pages from old Marxist thought wrt terrorism, but I wonder if there's any more to it other than to stoke the flames of rebellion and freedom from spiritual enslavement. I guess using bombs and violence to awake the masses have worked at one point or another, but as this article suggests people get sick of crude and random violence and would rather stick to the evil they trust than another evil who claims they're there to free them. The Middle East is a victim of its natural resources as much as Africa is. I don't think the ME can police itself when the policemen, its government, are brutal and corrupt. If a common principle can be found among these terrorists and our government it'd be that the authoritarian governments are inadequate and lacking to the needs of its people...
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FUkQQq9V6I0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FUkQQq9V6I0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object> <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KvA1zphaeTQ"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KvA1zphaeTQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
Why do you have to just believe? Why can't you understand? I'm just saying that dying for moral reasons and understandings is different than dying due to a loyalty to a religion (like a sports team). Any religion is an interpretation of truth, not truth itself.
Because there is very little we actually do understand. While we are rational beings our rationality only takes us so far. But morality is also a matter of faith and ultimate truth isn't universally known. You are arguing that you know ultimate truth the problem is that those dying for religion are claiming the same thing. IN the end the basis for your POV isn't any different. Both of you are claiming truth.
Morality is a thought process, it isn't faith. It isn't much different than algebra. You determine the difference between right and wrong action then act on it. In Buddhism morality is stated as "If you wish to do a certain action, first reflect whether the action is likely to harm yourself or others or both. If the action is likely to cause suffering, refrain from doing it." I don't think it is much different in other religions. Now dying out of loyalty for the system of thought that defines morality instead of using the thought system to determine if that action is wrong or right seems backwards. It's sentimental, emotional bs. A lot of these people are not being moral, they are being melodramatic. Again, I understand dying as a moral choice. It's the romanticized idea of sacrificing oneself for a loyalty to a religion like a sport's team that I don't agree with. That's the vibe that I get from these people.
I'm not trying to make this intensely personal...but I can't help but notice that it seems your biggest criticism of people of faith is that they're black and white...that they make absolute statements. And yet...you may be more sure of your views of these things than any of us. When someone metions something about a soul you say something like, "it's stupid to believe in a soul!" If I mention something of Jesus you say sarcastically, "Yeah, like he's the only way!!!" Seemingly everything you present in these topics is absolute. It is because you say it is or because you read it somewhere and agreed with it. To disagree with you is to be stupid. To be wrong. You cite to Buddha. People believed there was something special about Buddha. It started with faith. Otherwise, it's words on paper. It's just another guy giving his view of things.
absolutely. i'm not arguing otherwise. it all begins and ends with faith. it doesn't have to be devoid of reason, however. some of the greatest philosophers we've known derive their sense of morality from some sense of faith in the divine. (one kinda off the subject sidebar though: the NT is a bit different. the gospels are certainly written with purpose to "tell the story." but much of it is comprised of letters from Paul to various churches. he's not sitting down writing those letters intending them to be preserved for all posterity to understand Christianity. it's not a "revealed" text...it's not writers being met directly by God and told what to write down. it's distinct that way, because each letter/book of the NT doesn't purport to be anything other than what it is...with the possible exception of Revelation, which is a mix of prophecy and speaking to the persecution the Christians were facing at that time)
The morality class I took at the Catholic High school I attended was basically a math class. You were given a moral problem and had to figure out the correct moral answer using a formula. There was nothing about faith involved. It was very systematic. I guess faith would only come in play for the reason for morality, that is pleasing a god rather than creating true happiness and peace to oneself and other beings. Yeah, people thought the Buddha was on to something. What he said made sense. That's exactly what fueled my interest. It made immediate sense. There isn't that much to just "believe in". No fables, just direct experience. It started with reason. Faith should never be a substitute for knowledge. The Buddha said "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
And this is the simple truth—that to live is to feel oneself lost. He who accepts it has already begun to find himself, to be on firm ground. Instinctively, as do the shipwrecked, he will look around for something to which to cling, and that tragic, ruthless glance, absolutely sincere, because it is a question of his salvation, will cause him to bring order to the chaos of his life. These are the only genuine ideas; the ideas of the shipwrecked. All the rest is rhetoric, posturing, farce. -Søren Kierkegaard
i promise you...at the heart of what they taught you started with faith. Greek philosophy on morality highly influenced the Catholic Church. Aristotle in particular. But you can't read Aristotle very long before you get to the crux that he can't begin to comprehend morality outside the view of religion. Buddhism, too, requires an element of faith. Certainly faith in the Buddha that his is the way to escape suffeing and pain, at the very least. Ultimately, Buddhists make absolute statements as to the existence of and nature of God, too. All of these are statements of faith which can't be empirically proven. But I'm not arguing these points with you so much....just pointing out that I find it frustrating sometimes to discuss these issues with you...because if i say something i believe, you call it dogma...and then you follow it up with an absolute statement of your own.
