I don't agree with that. Everyone on the planet is heavily deluded, but I am more concerned about mass destruction coming from Islam than from any other religion, because it seems more likely.
Of course it seems more likely, given popular news. But I doubt it would seem that way if you were living in Iraq; or experimenting with the effects of nuclear radiation. So, letâ€™s have a further look at why I maintain this position against you.
Firstly, so far, it is clear that nuclear offensive has actually been delivered by the West (sometimes even risking its own people). And, secondly, I assume, since you havenâ€™t provided a percentage, that by mass destruction you mean a relatively sudden and worldwide loss of many people due to a single event in time: an event of nuclear holocaust. Thirdly, on the basis that everyone on the planet is heavily deluded and not everyone is â€œfrom Islam,â€ religion, in fact, becomes irrelevant. I question, therefore, why you think it wise
to reduce such a complex thing arbitrarily to a particular religion. It must be, Kevin, that you think the West (and therefore by default, Christianity) is worth preserving because it is not as deluded, despite your protestations to the contrary. Your comments, fundamentally, do not make sense, otherwise.
I see no wisdom in believing that the origin/cause of such an event as nuclear holocaust should be pinned down as more likely to "come from Islam.â€ In fact, I see such a thing as counter-wisdom.
Itâ€™s abundantly clear that the actual origin of nuclear technology comes from (or through) those who develop it. To ignore this glaringly obvious factual and absolute cause is to appeal to peopleâ€™s emotions, particularly fear. And this has the effect of completely ignoring the part that developing such technologies has, and continues to have, on the possibility of nuclear holocaust.
So, Kevin, it does not seem likely to me that mass destruction will come from any religion. And, on the above grounds, I think my way of thinking is in accord with emptiness--in accord with the absolute--and yours is not.
One cannot promote the valuing of wise living with a devaluing of it; not credibly, anyway.