"Therefore all who will speak up for me before men, I will speak up for
him before my Father who is in the heavens; and whoever denies me
before men, I also will deny him before my Father who is in the
heavens.
Do not suppose that I came to bring peace upon the earth; I did not
come to bring peace but rather a sword. For I came to make a man
hostile against his father and a daughter hostile against her mother
and a bride hostile against her mother-in-law, and his enemies [shall
be] his own household."

And as we both are well aware, this is hardly near the most extreme prescriptions for violence to be found - within this tissue of essays by individual men, all stapled together by other men - then re-translated, edited. And left for interpretation by millions, unacquainted with the idea of allegory, and hardly interested in discovering. As with all the other Holy books, none of which came via supernatural meteorite / with glyphs.

Of Course! there are passages such as above, also common to every other Western religion. Do you know many capable of applying that general plea for Goodness / ignoring the other exhortations to ~Slay for God's Love? Any?

Would you seriously assert that 'spiritual awareness' has anything whatsoever to do with various mens' dogma (we won't get into womens')? I deem that a fair question, if the object is to comprehend homo-sap's relationship to theology as of 2001 (by One calendar). You are clearly capable of other than the play of opposites - though it's a lot more work than merely extirpating volumes of contradictions.

Is fundamentalism a tenable mindset for survival next.. or not? (there's a nice Boolean one for dismissal, as it won't just go away). *That* was what my earlier assertion concerned, not more about mens' words on paper.


Cheers,

Ashton

Is fundamentalism a tenable mindset for survival next.. or not?

Seems to have a subject and a predicate, but I suppose the question could be taken trivially: "can this mindset survive" next? (Who would have any idea how to erase a common mindset from the repertoire?)

Can (our idea of) civilization, that of the 'open society', survive relentless anonymous attack from within and without - via all presently known techno means?

But never mind. Such a question can generate only endless ideas of what 'survival' might mean; how many suspects, territories might be erased in escalating horrors and increasingly irrational responses to an invisible opponent. Nobody has any idea of what we might next find ourselves (US) capable. Not even worth speculating.

Happened to catch this evening, a CNN showing of the British journalists's foray into Afg. (before 9/11). Her interview with a Taliban official, after her visit to the 'football stadium' now being used for public executions. His comment,

~ "if [those outside Afg.] wish to see this field used for sports, perhaps they could build us a place for executions. We have our work to do.."

The rest of the hour, via open and at times hidden cameras - demonstrated the destruction of the infrastructure and the repression of most people and of all women. She has a midle-Eastern name ( ___? Shah) and speaks the language.

Forget any idea of 'rationality'. For the Taliban - this is 'survival' enough.

Seems already clear enough - the personal fantasies on all sides about "what a God Wants", those held by a few with the power to order actions: will determine the escalations next. 'We' won't have a vote - 'National Security'.

I smell a new form of homo-sap madness: Religiocide?
Clock has been set back to October, 1962.



No questions,

Ashton