Showing posts with label extremism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label extremism. Show all posts

Saturday, 12 September 2015

Choosing Your Own Reality


Written by Mathew Naismith


This is an awkward post to write, actually, I wasn't going to write it, it's going to be too ambiguous for a number of people, meaning, for anyone religiously following a certain ideology, my explanations are going to seem like a joke to them. This is all to do with explaining the different aspects of things like God, ego, soul, for example. In most ideologies, these things only have one meaning, one explanation, all other explanations are irrelevant and wrong, I will however hopefully show this isn't correct, all ideologies have their own truths which in turn creates a certain reality.

Which ideology speaks the utter truth: over and above all other realities, is Buddhism correct over and above Christianity or visa-versa? Is Islam correct over and above Buddhism or visa-versa? Who actually defines what ideology is more correct over and above all other ideologies? This is an important question to answer because the answer to this question isn't ambiguous at all, actually, the answer is quite unambiguous, meaning, the answer to this question is quite obvious.

At present we have religious extremists expressing themselves in a very extreme way, this is wholly do to these people believing their ideologies are the be and end all above all other ideologies. 

What is the driving force behind these extreme reactions, what makes them extreme within their ideology? 

Most people will just look at the ideology itself, in this case, this makes all the people who follow such ideologies, that can be expressed in an extreme way, extremists in some way. This analogy would also make all Christians extremist as well, especially when  considering the religious Dark Ages. Does the actions of Christian extremists in the Dark Ages infer that all Christians today are extremists?  Of course not. Extremism hasn't anything to do with the ideology itself, its to do with the implementation of such ideologies by certain people religiously following an ideology.

If we are religiously following an ideology of one kind, what human trait are we actually expressing to an extreme? Following any ideology religiously is defined as an extreme reaction going by dictionary definitions. The only human trait that can create extremism in any way is egotism as opposed to ego.

So the answer to the question, who actually defines what ideology is more correct is egotism, not the ideology itself. Yes, an ideology can be written in an egotistical way but it's the way a person reacts to this ideology that can cause it to become extreme. I don't know of too many ideologies that aren't written in an egotistical way, God definitely exists, God defiantly doesn't exist. You even have ideologies that state that all other ideologies that have a believe in God and/or soul, are beliefs brought about by delusions, in other words these ideologies are delusional, this is a quite a broad statement to make. This kind of statement says to me that such statement like this are highly influenced by egotism themselves. What other human trait, other than egotism, would state such a statement? 

I've seen people fixated to a certain ideology use science to explain why God and souls don't exist, however, I've also seen people following a different ideology use relevant science that explains that God and the soul do exist, which one again is more correct over another? Egotism will always state my ideology is more correct no matter what.

The point is, no ideology is perfectly correct, however, no ideology is incorrect either, the truth is defined in what reality we presently reside in. Does God defiantly exist? Most definitely but only in certain realities.

The Infinite Consciousness: There is supposed to be over 8 million realities within this one physical reality, only egotism can state, categorically, which one is more correct over and above all other ideologies. I do find it quite amusing that some ideologies state that all ego expressions are an illusion, but in stating so, have themselves not expressed a form of egotism!!

Consciousness itself is extremely diverse and infinite within it's expression, it ever changing as human history quite plainly shows, which ideology is always correct above all other ideologies?  Once again egotism will say my ideology is always correct but what does a consciousness, not influenced by egotism, actually say?  

All ideologies have merit within their own realities, if you want to create a certain reality for yourself,  follow a certain ideology as it's these ideologies that create a particular reality, in other words each ideology creates it's own reality. For example, Buddhism creates a certain reality as does Christianity, Islam and even materialism, is one reality more correct over and above another reality? Egotism once again will say it is within it's own ideology, it's own reality.

Consciousness itself isn't defined by egotism nor ego, it has not fixed to defined  boundaries, it's infinite within all it's expressions either it be of egotism, ego or a state of being egoless.

Materialism; expresses a state of egotism and creates relative realities according to the ideology being expressed.

Religions like Christianity; mostly expresses ego and  creates relative realities according to the ideology being expressed.


Religions like Buddhism; creates a state mostly void of the ego and creates relative realities according to the ideology being expressed. One might judge, "To express materialism is less worthy than to express Buddhism for example, one is more of a delusion than another". The only part of the humans self that will make this statement is egotism. 

Consciousness is that vast and infinite within it's expressions and non-expressions, there are no true delusion, the only delusion there is, is only knowing that we are only of one of these realities. We are not just egotism or ego nor egoless, we are all of what is.

In all, is it wrong to just choose one reality to exist by? I will answer this with another question, is it wrong in being physically human? Experiencing being human is experiencing one reality, this isn't wrong no matter what way we express ourselves, we can however express ourselves to the point of being highly destructive though, even this isn't wrong. When we look at our destructiveness only through this reality, destruction is wrong, however, this view changes when we realise we are all of what is, there is no right or wrong, just different expressions of consciousness that a wise collective consciousness would change to something more constructive I feel. 


It matters not what reality you choose to experience, what does matter is how destructive our fixation to a reality can become when expressed to an extreme.                           

Sunday, 25 January 2015

Being Within Our Own Space


Written by Mathew Naismith

I think this is important to bring forth, it’s important not to judge another religions, other spiritual practices and concepts and any other ideology as being unworthy especially in relation to our own, who are we to truly judge such things?

Each person has their own path and their own space even though we are on the same journey, what seems to be causing conflicts is other people judging other ideologies as being inferior to their own. This at times can induce us to become extremist within our own ideology; this can in turn induce us to force our own ideologies (space) onto others especially when we see our own ideological concepts as being the be and end all, the absolute truth and most worthy above all else. Doesn’t this these days sound familiar??

Is the problem within the ideological concepts themselves or is it within the people expressing such ideological concepts?

We often judge that other ideological concepts are this that and the other making the people of such concepts unworthy in same way in our eyes, however, can an ideological concept exist without such people following such concepts?  These concepts need people to create them and then follow them before they become influential to us; it’s the people who are the concepts not the concepts who are the people!! Yes, these ideological concepts and doctrines influence us because we allow such concepts to do so; the emphasis is on us not the ideological concepts and doctrines.

How many Muslims are not extremists within their ideological concepts?  Just because a few Muslim extremists are trying to force their own ideological principles (space) onto others, does this mean Islamic ideological concepts are extreme or does this infer that certain groups of people are of extremism within these principles?   

An extremist will read into an ideology what they want it to read, not what is actually written. They will also extract certain concepts out of such ideologies and discard or disregard the rest; this of course changes the true meaning of such ideologies.  

Take an Islamic, Christian or Buddhist ideology, what are these ideologies if we only use and utilise certain concepts out of them without taking in the whole ideology? An extreme action for it is extreme to only use and abide by certain concepts within an ideology while discarding the rest of the concepts within an ideology. 

New age spirituality is different, it doesn’t seem to have a fixated set of ideologies to follow, people who are of this new age spiritualty have their own ideologies they personally follow as they have their own space.  We all have our own space to begin with because we all have a different path of life to follow, this can at times incorporate following fixated ideologies, does this make these fixated ideologies, such as religious ideologies, any less worthy than following our own personal ideologies?  It shouldn’t.

When you look at this, you can see that new age spirituality has taken various concepts from other ideologies to produce their own personal ideology, is this also of extremism?   If we are using the concepts out of other ideologies and discarding the rest, are we being extreme within this action?

It’s an extreme action to take certain concepts out of cetin ideologies but it’s not of extremism, the reason for this is we are not trying, or shouldn’t be trying, to force our own space onto others, yes they give other people the idea of their own concepts but in most these people don’t force their own concepts (space) onto others.

Wouldn’t it be nice if all ideologies worked like this, keep within your own space without infringing on other people space unless these people are accepting of such ideologies. Personally I love being influenced by other people’s space (ideologies), not just because they make me more personally aware but more collectively aware as well.   

What goes against making me more aware is extremism; anyone with a fixated ideology only wants you to be aware of their ideology while discarding all the rest, how aware will this then make us?  We would once again be living in ignorance instead of awareness and we know how destructive ignorance can be. 


I haven’t exactly become attached to my own space but I do have a close bond with it, it is who I am which to me is important to me to be aware of, I am my path. People of extremisms are also of their path for they chose to be influenced by fixated ideologies, they also chose to influence other people’s paths, this is their path, is it truly any less worthy than my own?  All we need to do is stick to our own path and have our own space as much as possible and try not to judge other people’s path too unworthy in the meantime. 

Become your space…….

Saturday, 24 January 2015

Christian Values Giving the World its Freedom


Written by Mathew Naismith  

I’m having a discussing at the moment with two obvious hard line atheists mainly about consciousness, their reactions are typical of any extremist, this is scary because atheism is becoming more and more popular.  I should point out that not all atheists are this extreme within their actions and views as not all Muslims are extremists.   

The following is my response to these atheists, I didn’t insert the responses from these atheists because I found them rather highly irrational and it would have made this post a little too long for me. You also might find some of the information I’ve supplied here interesting, Christianised countries certainly have their merits that the whole free world should be thankful for.  


"Various agnostics and theists have criticised atheism for being an unscientific, or overly dogmatic and definitive position to hold, some with the argument that 'absence of evidence cannot be equated with evidence for absence'. The philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues that a failure of theistic arguments might conceivably be good grounds for agnosticism, but not for atheism, and points to the observation of an apparently "fine-tuned Universe" as more likely to be explained by theism than atheism.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism


The following is an interesting read about the typical bad arguments of atheism.



Richard Dawkins has lost it: ignorant sexism gives atheists a bad name says atheists.



The main point is atheism wouldn't exist unless it wasn't for people having a belief in deities therefore atheism couldn't exist if deities were proven to exist. Can we say the same about religion? Think on this if I was you before answering yes.

The point is atheism is very shallow and narrow minded within it's concepts especially when compared to religion.  

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­_________________________________________

The following was my reply to humanism being more about atheism than theism/spirituality; this point was made from a person who is supposed to be into straight science not philosophy.   


“Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism).” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

Philosophy isn’t a science and it’s certainly not psychology even though psychology evolved from philosophy, we must remember here that modern day science evolved from philosophy, mysticism and alchemy.

Is the study of humanism predominantly scientific if it’s mainly based on philosophy and ethics? I don’t think so!!!

One of the biggest in-humanitarian countries in the world is atheistic (China) and the most humanitarian countries in the world are predominately Christian by far, doesn’t this alone say something? I don’t think it would to in-humanitarians somehow.

This is an interesting survey I must say; the top ten are all Christian orientated countries, atheistic counties didn’t even come close.


___________________________________________

Go back a thousand years or so, what would the world be like now without Christian countries coming together in a common cause? Think on this, would there be any atheists around today?

Let’s now look at recent times; there was again a major threat to the free world in the mid to late 1900’s, what counties helped keep our freedom that atheists and alike enjoy today?

Now let’s look at the present times, what counties are again assisting atheists and like keep their freedom and their life style, remembering an atheistic minority country is actually assisting this peril?

How ignorant can hard line atheists get, they owe their freedom and their living conditions to Christian orientated countries, it’s a blessing not all atheists are this ignorant and thankless. No I’m not a Christian as such, I don’t praise a God or idolise Jesus but I am giving and caring and I do appreciate my life I have today.

Christianity has hard line extremist atheist on one side and religious extremists on the other side, these hard line atheists better hope these Christian countries hold out, if they don’t their atheism won’t be around much longer.

_______________________________________

One of the traits of extremists is deception; these two atheists continually express this trait and other traits of extremism, this is a clear observation not judgement.


This kind of deception obviously comes too freely for you Dusty, a typical extremist trait, another trait of an extremist is irrationality, how often do you display this trait remembering abusive behaviour, deceit and deliberate intimidation are defined as irrational behaviour?

Let's look at the behaviour of Islamic extremists, they are abusive, intimating, deceitful and highly irrational, most extremists display these traits as you obviously do yourself. Thanks again for proving my point Dusty; it's good to see you are still participating.

I just can't believe how thankless these extremist atheist are in regards to soldiers who are and were Christians dying for their freedom and way of life, if it wasn't for people having beliefs Dusty you most probably wouldn't be here, try not to be so unethical and thankless but this after all is another sign of extremism, you surly couldn't deny that? Yes of course you could like any good extremist can.

I thank my lucky stars I had and have soldiers who are Christian dying for my freedom and way of life right throughout history; you can be as thankless all you like Dusty but not me. You can have your extremism my friend all to yourself.


Do we just be a let be, let everything run it’s own course? This would be nice, but like in WWII if they did this, I know I wouldn’t’ be around today and the world wouldn’t be as expressive of freedom as it is today, we certainly wouldn’t be talking about spirituality as we do today.

We have all got our part to play; all we can do is go with the flow of the moment, if you feel like taking action, you take action but at the same time remembering each action attracts a reaction.  

Life would indeed be passive without extremism of any kind, this is active intentions, passive intentions are people like you and I discussing passive ways to exist and just be.    

Extremist Traits:  I think it’s important to recognise the traits of extremism, not just in others but in ourselves as well; the following should assist in this.