Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including,

Well this is where the reverend and I found frequent disagreement.
When one takes their idea of reality and wraps it with their idea of what is meaningful, a box is created.

He and I never agreed upon the acceptance of controversy within dialogue as normal. He always felt that any threat to the humble opinion "took" something from the dialogue, rather than enhancing the reality of individuality and the diversity of approach to an idea. His idea(of humility) and mine differ greatly.

As he was inclined to draw the attention to himself, his isms and his personal bibliography, his hopes seem to include a kind of projection of an elevation in thought and belief, that would become benign within the controversy of differing beliefs and opinions. He seemed to want to seek the ultimate scientifically supported ism to stand clear of any world of spiritual controversy and to define unity and enlightenment within relative terms. This is spiritualism and enlightenment in a box.

Obviously, in order to see thru the conflicts of personal realities and find commonality, one would have to accept the fact that belief often puts limits upon perspectives, and that all perspectives are but different angles of approach to any subject that may have many diverse outcomes within the varying approach.

Trying to be co-dependent is useless because it limits ones self expression due to a fear one might upset another. If one does not have freedom of expression, one is also not free to listen to all expressions because one fears the opposing thought or the feelings that come with any challenge to the personal belief system.

If expression is limited to another's personal judgments of acceptability, then there is going to be a lack of communication, where all thoughts and ideas are directed within certain terms and conditions. In this there is no humility because there is no ear to listen, but instead an ear directed and closed in focus to agree with what is held within the personal belief system.
Now you've created a segue..

I think the contrast of extremism is always going to come up when one wants to make a point toward an invasion of personal freedoms or fear of being invaded by an opposing thought or belief.

In the reality of all things. Hitler and the Nazi party was an outpicturing of emotional frustration and the need to put blame upon someone or some system for the woes of personal and political experiences. That whole episode was the result of a collective consciousness pushing the outward reality into the manifestation of what was being carried within the psyche's of all who were living in that era.

If we want to be inclusive of the whole then we must include everyone in the creation of the whole. Otherwise we are going to divide ourselves into what the religions have decided is real, in the promotion of the empirical God who creates (out of jealousy and anger) a world where we must suffer in order to become subservient and pliable to the will of circumstance.

Once we become self aware of our own participation in the creation of the opposing thought, we can find utility and form in approaching it and rising above it, rather than fighting with it or giving it power over us where we continue to hold that fear within and re-create it time and time again in the reality of personal experience.