The “governments” consider creating war to be a major portion of their purpose.
To a point yes. But it is a minor very minor point. It is more about territory and strutting.
Prismatic,
No religious text is authored by anything other than humans. To believe otherwise is naive.
To remove any text from the Quran would be encouraging more disgruntled angry humans. You would be editing a sacred text. There are the now peaceful that would be outraged at the insulting attack. To remove the Quran entirely is even worse. Humans are dependent upon their religion of choice, it is their security blanket. Outsiders messing with that blanket has caused atrocities beyond what these terrorists have done or will do.
Again , infiltration, governments cooperating legitimately and cooperative understanding with the peaceful are the solutions. A very simple effective way could be pointing out the cowardice of the nonsuicidal leaders. A simple put up or shut up will remove possible recruits and quite likely any nonbrainwashed new recruits.
So is the Dalai Lama saying that those who facilitate terrorism are to be excommunicated from their religion?
Or that people should not think about terrorists who terrorize in the name of a religion as being members of said religion?
You can’t figure out the truth?
The Dalai Lama should live in the real world instead of attending cocktail parties.
The man is full of it.
Any man who kisses the Pope’s hand has to be.
and the Pope… kisses the Koran
BTW Buddhism is not recognised as a religion.
As a non-theist that is my point but note I stated this earlier,
Islam and the Quran as authored by evil prone human[s] included loads of evil elements in their holy texts and they end up influencing and inspiring the unavoidable existence of evil prone Muslims to commit terrible evils and violence.
To convince theistic Muslims there is no God would be another issue. While not addressing this point we need to convince all Muslims and non-Muslims [especially apologists like you] there are indeed loads of evil elements that influence SOME Muslims to commit terrible evils and violence. We want them to understand the direct causes of the effects.
The point is at present the majority of Muslims [good and evil prone] do not accept there are evil laden elements in the Quran that are directly responsible in influencing SOME Muslims to commit evils and violence.
What is worst the majority of non-Muslims and their leaders are so ignorant of Islam and the Quran [& other texts] and they don’t have the intellectual integrity to read and understand what is in the Quran. As such, they blindly insist Islam and the Quran are fully good and peaceful when the fact is, Islam [Quran] in part is inherently evil and malignant.
The majority, i.e. the peaceful Muslims denounce those Muslims [the fundamentalists] who commit ‘evil’ acts as not-Muslims while those fundamentalists claim the peaceful Muslims are not true Muslims and some are hypocrites. This is why the jihadists are killing Muslims perceived as hypocrites and apostates.
When we prove and identify the factual direct link from cause to effects, i.e. there are evil elements in the Quran [& other texts] that directly cause [influence] SOME Muslims to commit terrible evils and violence, any average sensible rational Muslims and non-Muslims will accept that objective fact which then can be proven easily.
When the majority of non-Muslims and Muslims understand and are aware Islam [& Quran] in part [not whole] is factually evil and malignant, their consciousness and awareness of such a fact would change from their current stance to finding answers and solutions to such malignant evils. To insist Islam and Quran is wholly peaceful to the contrary would be stupidity then.
To reveal and accept the fact that Islam [Quran & other texts] is partly evil and malignant would be unpleasant for Muslims but it will not result in outraged and being insulting. This is like being outraged and insulting to the fact the Earth is not flat and the Earth orbit the Sun.
Note it is very normal to correct or remove anything that is potentially malignant away from humans, e.g. food or medicines that are found to contain poisonous or malignant elements are removed from shelves and not made available for normal human use. For example asbestos is a very cheap and useful building material but it is banned in many countries because it has malignant element in it.
So the very obvious logical solution to the partly Islam and Quran problem is to remove the malignant parts, i.e. the evil laden verses. The removal [editing] has to be the solution, and humanity will have to find ways to lessen the psychological impact to enable the truth to prevail.
The other alternative approach is to get rid of Islam [together with other religions subsequently]. At present with the existence of malignant evil elements, Islam is a threat to humanity now and in the future. Sooner of later religion [as defined] will run out of its shelf-life for humanity. The priority is to get rid of Islam and replace it with other benign religion in the immediate future. In the longer run humanity will replace all religions with fool-proof spiritual approaches to deal with the unavoidable existential DOOM.
Again you missed out many other important factors and variables.
The current fact is a percentile of % [appx 20%] of human are unfortunately born with evil tendencies and the hardcores/recalcitrants of them cannot be educated, trained or rehabilitated easily.
Therefore as long as
- 20% of evil prone Muslims with
- loads of evil elements in the Quran
exists, evil and violence will manifest in ALL sorts of ways and sources of human activities.
Your “simple” solutions addressing leaders of jihadists, and others will not work unless you get rid of the ultimate root causes. Note for example the leader of the Taliban, Bin Laden was killed but then many sub-groups of fundamentalists, jihadists and other fundamentalist emerged. Thus you may convinced some leaders to be peaceful but those evil prone who disagree will start their own groups as long as 1 and 2 above exist.
The main malignant cause is the ideology not the leader which can be replaced by any one infected with that evil ideology.
What you cannot ignore is the critical quantum of a potential of approximate 300 millions 
evil prone Muslims of various degrees. Only a few leaders from these 300 millions is necessary to influence the rest of the flock.
In addition, do not focus merely to the notable and evident evils and violence of terrorism. There is a full range of evils and violence committed by the evil prone within humanity, e.g. education [boko haram, Malala, etc.] politics, cultural, arts, misogyny, oppression of non-Muslims human rights, economics, social, cultural and other matters.
Your “simple-minded” solutions that ignore and not directly addressing factor 1 and 2 above will not work.
No talk of excommunication.
The effect of the Dalai Lama’s view in this case results in the deflection of the fact that Muslims terrorists has a direct link to Islam itself.
The Dalai Lama made the wrong assumption
- that ALL religions are peaceful and not evil,
- thus Islam as a religion must be peaceful and no evil,
- therefore there are no evil Muslim [Islamic] terrorists.
As I had argued in this thread, Islam [in part] is inherently evil and malignant thus influence SOME naturally born evil prone Muslims to commit very evident terrible evils and violence.
This whole thread is just fucked.
Who wants to talk shit about a guy like the Dalai Lama?
Why do you have such a hard on for Islam?
Are you just trolling, or can you really not understand the basic problems with what you’re saying?
Religion is a VERY loose term. In this post I argue Buddhism can be a non-theistic religion by consensus based on an agreed definition.
styles/prosilver/imageset/icon_post_target.gif
Ninian Smart did a very extensive research on all the major religions in the world and noted they all share the following 7 dimensions, he called the Seven Dimensions of Religion.
www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/F … evendi.htm
A meaning and definition of a word is dependent of sufficient consensus and thus usable as defined and qualified. Note the meaning and definition of the word ‘gay’ in the present and that false “Islamophobia” which I do not agree with.
WHO ARE YOU to shut the views of others?
If you think you have strong counter views, just present them.
If you don’t like it, just ignore the thread and leave others who has interests to do so.
That would be REASONABLE!
Often, if a person feels very uneasy about certain views to the extent of wanting to censor/ban them, there is some thing mentally wrong within that person.
The same could be said of someone who can’t perceive how poorly he is being received, thus just keeps blindly ranting.
I don’t think this is a popularity forum. As far I understand this a forum for any one to express their views in compliance within the rules stated. I will post for my own reasons and that is none of your business. Whether any one responds to my posts is secondary to me.
I worked for a couple of years as a volunteer in a soup kitchen run by Buddhist monks.
I had ample time to ask questions about their philosophy and that question was one of them. Is Buddhism a religion.
The answer was no. Their reason being, the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God was not part of Buddhism.
The Dalai Lama is just a man as every other male/female in human form are. We are all imperfect, all capable of the most atrocious crimes if pushed to the wall and some of us even before we reach that wall.
Hasn’t the Dalai Lama been criticised recently by the media (or maybe the silent treatment) for saying something which opposes the Muslim migration into Europe?
I think it’s basically political damage control. He wants to savour the sympathetic press coverage he gets from those in power in the West.
For many people in the West the Dalai Lama has been made into a moral authority figure - ‘one of the good guys’ and so what he says carries weight for them.
No religion has to be peaceful.
Islam is an expression of a people who are by nature, as a whole, more violent than contemporary Europeans. Who also have a way different outlook on life due to their nature. The religion is secondary, it’s about importing different stocks of people which is the core issue.
That ‘Islam is a violent religion’ is a talking point into which conservative minded people have been forced because they want to avoid the dreaded ‘racist’ label.
Those Europeans who respect Muslims do so because they are afraid - not wanting to be called a bad person (islamophobe); and the bombing helps too.
At the same time they think that they are poor people deserving of love.
Just as conservatives respect liberals because they are afraid of them - not wanting to be called a bad person (racist).
They don’t think they are poor (at least not the White liberals) and thus the spell is breaking.
Respect+Pity at the same time equals great power over slave-morality kind of people.
Think Jesus.
Even the Jewsus guy, lol.
So those are the two narrative you have to get going for yourself.
The Jewsus should take note as well if he wants to hit it off with the forum.
I understand there are different views when it comes to a question of whether Buddhism is a religion or not.
I think we are conditioned to relate ‘religion’ with the Abrahamic religions that involved a personal god. If we start from this perspective, then most Buddhists would not want to associate Buddhism as a religion in that respect.
There are many sects of Buddhism and perhaps you happened to work with one or two sects and groups within those sect who refuse to recognize Buddhism as a religion because of the negatives of the conventional religions like the Abrahamic religions with a personal god.
However I am very aware there are many Buddhists who recognized Buddhism as a religion for various purposes especially to get tax-exemptions.
From an intellectual and academic perspective generally Buddhism is recognized as a religion [albeit a non-theistic religion] as within agreed definitions and qualifications. Buddhism [as a set of human behaviors and thoughts] shares many significant commonalities with all main religions except for the ‘god’ element. Some Buddhists do recognize their Buddhism doctrines has a ‘God’ element but not a personal god nor an Absolute God.
So it depends on what perspective we are defining Buddhism as a religion or not a religion. What is critical here is the specific definition and qualifications must be laid out. Then it is up to each to agree with whatever suit their purposes.
I think the main factor was political correctness and the fears by most leaders that if they condemned Islam and Muslims, then that could send a tsunami of genocides on innocent Muslims by evil prone non-Muslims.
Despite the possibility of the above danger, the Dalai Lama should not be that hasty to compromise the truths of reality, i.e. Islam [in part] is inherently evil and malignant and thus there are evil Muslims terrorists inspired by Islam [in part] itself.
To avoid provoking rage by non-Muslims rights, the truth of the evil in Islam could be presented in such a manner that will not stir anger.
Jesus on the other hand preached an overriding absolute pacifist moral maxim [e.g. love your enemies, etc.] that do not allow any room for evils like the sort committed by SOME Muslims. Christianity as a religion has its various negative baggage, but not the sort of terrible evils that Islam [in part] enables.
You are stuck only with your plan. Your plan is akin to going up to a strong simple minded Momma’s boy and telling him that his momma is an ugly disgusting whore. Your ass will be grass. You have no grasp of how strong religious bonds are. You do not grasp that religion and its texts are part of a person. You can claim all that you have studied and read and you may dabble in psychology but, you have no deep grasp. You want atrocities to stop and want to do it in a way that will cause a world war. Governments and religious leaders have the abilities, knowledge and resources to change the terrorism peacefully, yet they do not. The reasons are simple.
Simple manipulation of ego and creating uncertainty can and would affect the situation with the least amount of violence. There will be those few that truly thrive on killing but, they could be easily found and eliminated. You do not attack the religion, you attack the people and minds. Governments and religious leaders are not acting against terrorists in any real effective way. They want terrorists. Right now these Islamics serve a purpose.
Socialist governments cannot exist without enemies to fight. … Governments and religious leaders are not acting against terrorists in any real effective way. They want terrorists. Right now these Islamics serve a purpose.
[/quote]
Precisely. The Dalai Lama gave inspiration to Islam to outcast terrorists, thus bringing fear of being seen as a “terrorist” to them. Of course, if they take that to heart, they slowly learn to do all things indirectly, subtly so that no one knows who really did it (instead of their normal boasting tactic). They become Judaists.
Your views seem very paranoid.
Note I have not stated how [specifically] and when I will implement my proposed plans.
As mentioned above,
Note I have not stated how and when I will implement my proposed plans.
If and when implemented my plans will ensure there are fool-proofs alternative replacement to ensure there are no related side-effects to humanity.
You simply accused me of wanting to implement approaches that will cause a world war. Note this is what I stated earlier within this thread;
The other alternative approach is to get rid of Islam [together with other religions subsequently]. At present with the existence of malignant evil elements, Islam is a threat to humanity now and in the future. Sooner of later religion [as defined] will run out of its shelf-life for humanity. The priority is to get rid of Islam and replace it with other benign religion in the immediate future. In the longer run humanity will replace all religions with fool-proof spiritual approaches to deal with the unavoidable existential DOOM.
viewtopic.php?p=2632412#p2632412
Note the words ‘benign’ an ‘fool-proofs’ approaches, i.e. believers will be weaned off with no detrimental side effects to the individual[s] and humanity in maybe 100-150 years time.
I know how primal and barbaric is the religious drive within human beings. I stated being religious is like a drowning man trying to grab even straws in an attempt to avoid drowning an to survive. This is why some fanatical zealous religious bigots will go the extent of killing innocents to defend their religion.
It is because I understand this very dangerous aspects of human nature in relation to religiosity that I proposed humanity must focus on the evil laden elements [root causes] that influenced SOME evil believers to commit terrible evils which exists only in Islam. Fire-fighting solutions like yours are not effective.
You prefer to deny the above fact [of the ultimate root causes] like an ostrich.
I dare you to counter check my claim by reading the Quran to verify what I had claimed and stated.
Your solutions are too simple mind, narrow and shallow without a deep understanding of human nature and Islam.
What I had proposed is merely a theory at present.
Humanity will not have an efficient solutions at the present till at least another 100-150 years and I am optimistic based on the current trend of an exponential expansion of knowledge in various fields. The critical knowledge will come from genomics and advance neuroscience plus IT and other advanced knowledge.
In the meantime the most we can do to educate the ignorant majority [including you] on the truth.
What I have presented is very objective and can be verified by any one and despite that you prefer to deny and simply thrown in shallow fire-fighting solutions.
What are you talking about?
Note the religion, i.e. the ideology is held in the minds of the people and that is precise where I am starting with here.
They are not solving the problem effectively because they are fire-fighting and not addressing the ultimate root causes.
Talking merely about terrorists is very shallow.
There is a whole range of evil and violence cause directly by Islam and the Quran [in part] which do not involve terrorism.
I suggest again you educate yourself on ‘what is Islam’ and ‘who is a Muslim’ and all there is to know about Islam.