|
Sad thing is, I know I could talk my wife in to it. Right now, though, we've got really good jobs here in Philly. And, during a bad economy, that's gold...LMAO if only I could talk my wife into it.Its a long drive I live up here with these yankees in Kansas. Daigle has suggested doing a crawfish boil as well but he is stuck in west TX.Hmmm...you're in Kansas! Only thing I can think of, we both move to Houston, then spend the rest of our lives gaming with HoustonDerek, my younger brother, Wolfthulu, and Tordek Rumnaheim!
I understand.
|
The Gulf of Mexico oil disaster was prophesied in 1903 by Gustav Meyrink, a European author, banker and occultist. In his 1903 short story - Petroleum, Petroleum - he actually says it is a prophecy. And he actually mentions the Gulf of Mexico as the location of the disaster. And he says the goal of the oil spill is to destroy the human habitat and human life itself. Petroleum, Petroleum - itself is about an evil chemist who intentionally causes an oil disaster by blowing up oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico. This destroys the lives of the people living along the shore of the Gulf of Mexico. The oil spills into the Gulf for years as the rest of the world bickers about what to do, covering all oceans. This causes seawater to no longer evaporate and it stops raining. This should destroy the rest of humanity. Exactly the intention of the evil chemist, who created the oil spill. Websites and radio shows dedicated to conspiracies and the New World Order are using this 1903 short story to say the Gulf of Mexico oil rig Deepwater Horizon was blown up on purpose and the oil will be allowed to leak into the water for years to come, allowing the New Wold Order to use the disaster to create their one world order.
Hereby a link to the English Translation of Gustav Meyrink's Short Story Petroleum Petroleum (1903) in which he foresaw the BP Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill.
http://gustavmeyrinkpetroleumpetroleum.blogspot.com/
So I just want to make sure...the only evidence you consider correct is hard evidence. Am I right? Not just hard evidence but ones you yourself can investigate?
I am not unlimited in my funds, time, and expertise. But in principle, yes. Every protocol must be something that an ordinary person could execute, not one that depends on private feelings or "revelation".
Personal testimony is almost completely worthless. People are fantasy prone, and many are just plain suckers for a good hoax. Founders of new religious movements are about the least reliable human beings in history. They've got every reason to convince themselves of a delusion, up to and including unparalleled personal investment in the story. Just look at the people who died in the Heaven's Gate mass suicide, or with David Koresh or Jim Jones if you doubt it.
Physical evidence is outstanding, the absolute gold standard. To use the first example Marcus tried to convince me with, for a resurrection I want to see the body and get a chance to go over it with a couple of independent medical teams and the usual array of instrumentation to verify that the body is dead. For the best assurances, I'd like the body to be mutilated and stored in separate places. Some vital part, like the head, should be burned to ash or otherwise thoroughly obliterated. (This is to remove every doubt that the corpse is actually a corpse.)
Then the body, every bit of it if divided, must be watched constantly. If there's any break in the surveillance, it's no good. I would prefer that the surveillance be automated and done by machine, the recordings also safeguarded against every possible form of tampering. Multiple independent cameras sending their recordings to different places off-site.
If the body doesn't come back to life, obviously someone was lying. If it does, we'll be doing a very thorough range of medical assessments to make sure this isn't an identical twin or some other such chicanery that somehow avoided our surveillance.
Similar protocols would work for the average miracle claim. If someone wants to produce matter from nothing, I'm going to want him strip-searched. If he needs tools, those tools are provided by the testers, not by him. He's not allowed to be anywhere near them until he goes about doing his thing. (This is how Johnny Carson proved Uri Geller was a fraud, incidentally.)
If you want something more like a prophecy, I would deploy these criteria.
|
|
So I just want to make sure...the only evidence you consider correct is hard evidence. Am I right? Not just hard evidence but ones you yourself can investigate?I am not unlimited in my funds, time, and expertise. But in principle, yes. Every protocol must be something that an ordinary person could execute, not one that depends on private feelings or "revelation".
Personal testimony is almost completely worthless. People are fantasy prone, and many are just plain suckers for a good hoax. Founders of new religious movements are about the least reliable human beings in history. They've got every reason to convince themselves of a delusion, up to and including unparalleled personal investment in the story. Just look at the people who died in the Heaven's Gate mass suicide, or with David Koresh or Jim Jones if you doubt it.
Physical evidence is outstanding, the absolute gold standard. To use the first example Marcus tried to convince me with, for a resurrection I want to see the body and get a chance to go over it with a couple of independent medical teams and the usual array of instrumentation to verify that the body is dead. For the best assurances, I'd like the body to be mutilated and stored in separate places. Some vital part, like the head, should be burned to ash or otherwise thoroughly obliterated. (This is to remove every doubt that the corpse is actually a corpse.)
Then the body, every bit of it if divided, must be watched constantly. If there's any break in the surveillance, it's no good. I would prefer that the surveillance be automated and done by machine, the recordings also safeguarded against every possible form of tampering. Multiple independent cameras sending their recordings to different places off-site.
If the body doesn't come back to life, obviously someone was lying. If it does, we'll be doing a very thorough range of medical assessments to make sure this isn't an identical twin or some other such chicanery that somehow avoided our...
So you basically have no trust in what anyone would tell you, Nor any evidence that maybe presented to you, or examples or traditions. You even give good examples. So what then, do you believe in then?
So you basically have no trust in what anyone would tell you
About the supernatural? Pretty much. I want evidence, not stories. People do lie. People are mistaken. Sometimes they even hallucinate. As I told Moff a page or two ago, most of us seem to hallucinate nightly. I must be able to discern what actually happened, not just what people said happened.
And I bet you think the same for everything that isn't your own religion. Do you think a fellow handing out flowers in the airport can really talk to the dead and astrally project? Certainly you don't believe everything anybody's ever said, or you'd be either insane or a very great fool. If I told you I rode a dragon to school every morning growing up, you wouldn't believe me. You'd want evidence. You'd want to see the dragon.
Show me your dragon, CJ. (That sounded just a little bit dirty. :) )
Nor any evidence that maybe presented to you
No evidence has been presented. If it is, I shall do my best to scrutinize it as previously discussed. If it doesn't meet scrutiny, then the claims that it is presented to support fail.
or examples
Examples would be evidence. Do you have some we can scrutinize?
or traditions
Traditions are just cultural practices. They tell me nothing about the universe except that a certain culture practices them. If we believed every tradition we heard, we're in the same place as we are if we believe anything anybody tells us. Do you really think the world is a dome held up by elephants? That the Japanese emperor is a direct descendant of the sun goddess Amaterasu? That Caesar Augustus was the son of a god? That Sumerian culture lasted a quarter of a million years, to judge by the regnal years of its kings? That Paul Bunyan wrestled the Mississippi river into its current shape?
You'll, of course, dismiss all of those except those from your own religion. And you'll most likely do it for the same reason I do: They're all a load of make-believe.
So what then, do you believe in then?
Things worth believing in, to start. Facts. The reasoned, empirical investigation of the universe. The ability of human beings to improve themselves and the lives of others.
I also have certain values I prefer, which I think are very much superior to other values. But I don't know that I'd say I believe in them in the same sense that I believe, say, the earth goes around the sun instead of the other way around.
When I say that I believe the sexes are equal, I don't mean that men and women have identical weights, parts, or the like. (Believe me, I've noticed women don't have the same parts as men!) I am expressing my preference that any position or right a man enjoys should be equally available and accessible to a woman. There's nothing special about men or women that means they must be solely entitled to X or Y thing, nor anything inferior about them that means they must be excluded. I might say that I believe in gender egalitarianism, and even in a purely androgynous society where one's physical sex has little to do with anything and one's gender identity is no more important than one's hair color. But that's not at all the same sense of the word as I'm using when I say that I believe the earth goes around the sun.
Only thing I can think of, we both move to Houston, then spend the rest of our lives gaming with HoustonDerek, my younger brother, Wolfthulu, and Tordek Rumnaheim!
Fine... don't even mention me in your list! (Pouts)
The one advantage I will not take away from science is its ability to easily get rid of out dated theories and ideas. This is not always the case for some extreme beliefs in religion.
Hurricane averted! You've hit on the most important point, the one that underlines the difference between truth claims made by the two. Both are human institutions, subject to error, but one of them has a correction mechanism in place; the other has a system of non-correction embedded in it.
|
The one advantage I will not take away from science is its ability to easily get rid of out dated theories and ideas. This is not always the case for some extreme beliefs in religion.Hurricane averted! You've hit on the most important point, the one that underlines the difference between truth claims made by the two. Both are human institutions, subject to error, but one of them has a correction mechanism in place; the other has a system of non-correction embedded in it.
Exactly. The very heart of the scientific process is that it makes a hypothesis, and then tries to disprove that hypothesis to see if it works.
Religion/supernaturalism does the opposite - they make something up, and then look exclusively for things that tend to support their claim.
|
|
As I continue to point out Religion does not make things up. You may not agree with things stated and may think and believe they are made up. This does not in fact mean they are. Yes science can update its beliefs, yet we are still bound by the same issues. Science may explain how but will never explain why.
|
|
As I continue to point out Religion does not make things up. You may not agree with things stated and may think and believe they are made up. This does not in fact mean they are. Yes science can update its beliefs, yet we are still bound by the same issues. Science may explain how but will never explain why.
Their response to this CJ is there doesn't have to be a why, not everything has to have a purpose. An atheist believes you give your own life definition in your own terms, and that there is nothing else. Thats where your just going to have a very fundamental difference, you can discuss all the "hows" you want but in the end they are just not going to agree there has to be a "why".
|
|
As I continue to point out Religion does not make things up. You may not agree with things stated and may think and believe they are made up. This does not in fact mean they are. Yes science can update its beliefs, yet we are still bound by the same issues. Science may explain how but will never explain why.Their response to this CJ is there doesn't have to be a why, not everything has to have a purpose. An atheist believes you give your own life definition in your own terms, and that there is nothing else. Thats where your just going to have a very fundamental difference, you can discuss all the "hows" you want but in the end they are just not going to agree there has to be a "why".
Maybe. There is a tendency to look the other way when what you believe in has wholes in the stories they choose to believe in. It is a choice by they way. Science is full of misconceptions and outright lies that have been washed away by other explanations. Yes it can give us better concepts, when these are explained away, but not one of them gives another the right to ridicule another's beliefs.
Also if there is no why, why bother to try and find the reasons for things to happen in the first place?
As I continue to point out Religion does not make things up.
You don't point it out, CJ. You just assert it ex cathedra and expect to be taken as infallible. Furthermore, I flat out don't believe that you actually think that, unless you're using some sort of weasel-out definition of religion that only counts the one you personally believe in.
Are you going to sit here with a straight face and tell me you don't think Xenu, Priapus, the divinity of Caesar Augustus, and the divine lineage of the Japanese emperor are made up?
You may not agree with things stated and may think and believe they are made up. This does not in fact mean they are.
But here's progress. You are willing to admit that reality exists. That means that we can tell whether or not things are made up. Supply me with some evidence for the reality of the stuff you believe in and I'll be happy to go over it. Show me the dragon. We can approach the problem in a rational matter, and I can't see any reason to object to that.
|
|
As I continue to point out Religion does not make things up. You may not agree with things stated and may think and believe they are made up. This does not in fact mean they are. Yes science can update its beliefs, yet we are still bound by the same issues. Science may explain how but will never explain why.Their response to this CJ is there doesn't have to be a why, not everything has to have a purpose. An atheist believes you give your own life definition in your own terms, and that there is nothing else. Thats where your just going to have a very fundamental difference, you can discuss all the "hows" you want but in the end they are just not going to agree there has to be a "why".Maybe. There is a tendency to look the other way when what you believe in has wholes in the stories they choose to believe in. It is a choice by they way. Science is full of misconceptions and outright lies that have been washed away by other explanations. Yes it can give us better concepts, when these are explained away, but not one of them gives another the right to ridicule another's beliefs.
Also if there is no why, why bother to try and find the reasons for things to happen in the first place?
I was using the term "Why" to equate existential, or divine purpose atheists don't have that mechanism and seem not to want or need it. I was using "How" to equate the study of how things work on a scientific level, there is a constant search in science to how things happen, but frankly none at all to look at "Why" or divine purpose, thats not sciences perview. So I think you may have misunderstood my response.
I think there are reasons for those old beliefs.
You're just dodging the question: Do you or do you not think those stories are accurate descriptions of reality?
I wish I could bottle my experiences and memories and ship them right to you.The "dragon" would make you piss your pants.
Why do you think I would consider your personal experiences even relevant? Do you think you're incapable of misunderstanding something? Or making an erroneous interpretation of events? I'd want to subject any of my own experiences that I thought might be paranormal to the same scrutiny I'd subject to yours.
Why do you think I would consider your personal experiences even relevant?
I wish I could bottle my experiences and memories and ship them right to you.The "dragon" would make you piss your pants.
To be clear (and less jerky) saying that if I had your brian download I'd be convinced is just another way of saying "Trust me." and "If you agreed with me, you'd agree with me."
I don't have to take your word for it that the moon exists. Why would I accept it for the supernatural?
|
|
I was using the term "Why" to equate existential, or divine purpose atheists don't have that mechanism and seem not to want or need it. I was using "How" to equate the study of how things work on a scientific level, there is a constant search in science to how things happen, but frankly none at all to look at "Why" or divine purpose, thats not sciences perview. So I think you may have misunderstood my response.As I continue to point out Religion does not make things up. You may not agree with things stated and may think and believe they are made up. This does not in fact mean they are. Yes science can update its beliefs, yet we are still bound by the same issues. Science may explain how but will never explain why.Their response to this CJ is there doesn't have to be a why, not everything has to have a purpose. An atheist believes you give your own life definition in your own terms, and that there is nothing else. Thats where your just going to have a very fundamental difference, you can discuss all the "hows" you want but in the end they are just not going to agree there has to be a "why".Maybe. There is a tendency to look the other way when what you believe in has wholes in the stories they choose to believe in. It is a choice by they way. Science is full of misconceptions and outright lies that have been washed away by other explanations. Yes it can give us better concepts, when these are explained away, but not one of them gives another the right to ridicule another's beliefs.
Also if there is no why, why bother to try and find the reasons for things to happen in the first place?
You are right I did.
I was using "How" to equate the study of how things work on a scientific level, there is a constant search in science to how things happen, but frankly none at all to look at "Why" or divine purpose, thats not sciences perview.
Except that it is, actually. Anything that interacts with the universe in any way is subject to science's inquiry. You can't even rescue the deist god from science, since the proposition of it still makes claims about the universe.
Why questions are just an ordinary species of how questions, not worthy of much in the way of distinction. Why do some species survive and others die off? We've got science for that. Why does lightning strike? Science. If the existence of the supernatural were demonstrated tomorrow, science would be working on it within the hour.
|
|
You have no belief in people and yet you trust them, or some of them with accuracy in their recording and measurements. Samnell you have faith in fact I feel you are a Zealot. But that's fine, all I ask is that you respect that I do not believe as you do. In fact most of the world does not whole hardily agree with you. We are however in a country that does not admonish someone who disagrees.
|
|
You have no belief in people and yet you trust them, or some of them with accuracy in their recording and measurements. Samnell you have faith in fact I feel you are a Zealot. But that's fine, all I ask is that you respect that I do not believe as you do. In fact most of the world does not whole hardily agree with you. We are however in a country that does not admonish someone who disagrees.
I respect if someone disagrees with me. I find it absolutely fine if someone has a personal belief that brings them peace and happiness, frankly I find it soothing. However the line has to be drawn when someones belief tries to interfere in my life such as sodomy laws, such morality laws, etc. etc. I will fully respect that persons life and belief up until they start infringing on my life, at that point the war is on. But in general CJ I find your beliefs to be non offensive so you have nothing to worry about.
|
|
You have no belief in people and yet you trust them, or some of them with accuracy in their recording and measurements. Samnell you have faith in fact I feel you are a Zealot. But that's fine, all I ask is that you respect that I do not believe as you do. In fact most of the world does not whole hardily agree with you. We are however in a country that does not admonish someone who disagrees.I respect if someone disagrees with me. I find it absolutely fine if someone has a personal belief that brings them peace and happiness, frankly I find it soothing. However the line has to be drawn when someones belief tries to interfere in my life such as sodomy laws, such morality laws, etc. etc. I will fully respect that persons life and belief up until they start infringing on my life, at that point the war is on. But in general CJ I find your beliefs to be non offensive so you have nothing to worry about.
Why thank you, While I may not agree with everything you have said. I firmly believe it is not my place in this world to tell you how to live your life. Just live mine the best I can.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The Gulf of Mexico oil disaster was prophesied in 1903 by Gustav Meyrink, a European author, banker and occultist. In his 1903 short story - Petroleum, Petroleum - he actually says it is a prophecy. And he actually mentions the Gulf of Mexico as the location of the disaster. And he says the goal of the oil spill is to destroy the human habitat and human life itself. Petroleum, Petroleum - itself is about an evil chemist who intentionally causes an oil disaster by blowing up oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico. This destroys the lives of the people living along the shore of the Gulf of Mexico. The oil spills into the Gulf for years as the rest of the world bickers about what to do, covering all oceans. This causes seawater to no longer evaporate and it stops raining. This should destroy the rest of humanity. Exactly the intention of the evil chemist, who created the oil spill. Websites and radio shows dedicated to conspiracies and the New World Order are using this 1903 short story to say the Gulf of Mexico oil rig Deepwater Horizon was blown up on purpose and the oil will be allowed to leak into the water for years to come, allowing the New Wold Order to use the disaster to create their one world order.
Hereby a link to the English Translation of Gustav Meyrink's Short Story Petroleum Petroleum (1903) in which he foresaw the BP Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill.
http://gustavmeyrinkpetroleumpetroleum.blogspot.com/
How does string theory play into this? Is it just the means to manipulate puppets, or is there more to it?
I firmly believe it is not my place in this world to tell you how to live your life. Just live mine the best I can.
Can we at least recommend something? I recommend everyone maul a frenchie once a week. Also, pee on anything that can't move (and some things that can). YAP!
You have no belief in people and yet you trust them, or some of them with accuracy in their recording and measurements.
People exist. That's kind of an obvious one. Poor measurements, poor recording, and poorly-constructed studies shall not survive scrutiny. Just like ghost stories about Roman legions or fairy tales about Palestinian clerics who hear voices.
Samnell you have faith in fact
Nope. When one has evidence, faith is superfluous. I hope never to have it in any meaningful sense of the word.
I feel you are a Zealot.
That's nice. I think you're a schizophrenic poopyhead. We can trade insults all day. I don't think anybody's under the impression that we're the best of friends. :) Yet I stand -well, sit- before you ready to reconsider my opinions at any time. All you have to do is give me reason to. Do you at least have some dragon scat you could put up for analysis? Scales, perhaps?
Because without those I think you're getting a bit excessive in the devotion here. One might even call it zealotry.
But that's fine, all I ask is that you respect that I do not believe as you do.
Where does respect enter into it? I am already aware that you hold any number of mistaken notions about the universe. I do not advocate that you be in any way oppressed or persecuted for doing so. Everybody gets equality, except non-believers and non-heterosexuals, naturally. That's all anybody's got any grounds to ask. For the rest, our opinions must stand or fall on their own.
Yet when we get to the point where we could actually start making those evaluations, suddenly all I get are excuses.
In fact most of the world does not whole hardily agree with you.
I've noticed. You'll have to tell that to someone who will fall for an implied argument from popularity if you mean for it to be somehow persuasive.
We are however in a country that does not admonish someone who disagrees.
You think so? I've been admonished, at great length, for virtually the entire time I've been aware of the wider culture for my various disagreements. In fact, admonished is putting it really mildly. I bet if I turned on CNN or Fox News or MSNBC right now I'd have to wait barely ten minutes before I got some kind of admonishment, either direct from its source or from the presenter relaying someone else's admonishment to me. I've been admonished for holding a minority opinion with regard to religion. I've been admonished for being gay. (You may remember participating in some of these...like one quoted above.) I've been admonished for being a socialist. And that's the stuff I actually care a bit about, not nonsense like whether or not I'm as obsequious as someone else would prefer.
For that matter, it's plain not true that the state itself does not admonish me. In fact, it goes way beyond that. You generally celebrate this fact and become rather irritated when I don't share your joy but instead voice reasonable objections.
You can engage in all the make-believe you like. You can play spooky music and make ominous threats about supernatural horrors. But that's just wasting our time. Got any evidence? If you do, why are you not sharing it?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Kirth -- I just have to say -- "I'm really, really sorry."
So, I'm really sorry for what you probably deal with on a regular basis.
Seems to be very little evaluation and a whole lot of easy dismissal.You confuse lack of effort with evaluation and consequent dismissal.
All I ask is please attempt to see the others point of view. Many, it seems to me, are not even trying.
I think you are being hypocritical here, CJ. How much actual evaluation have you done of Mormonism? I only single Mormonism out because I have a sense of your feelings on that particular religion. I am sure you have 'easily dismissed' countless other religions with little or no evalution.
|
|
I think you are being hypocritical here, CJ. How much actual evaluation have you done of Mormonism? I only single Mormonism out because I have a sense of your feelings on that particular religion. I am sure you have 'easily dismissed' countless other religions with little or no evaluation.Seems to be very little evaluation and a whole lot of easy dismissal.You confuse lack of effort with evaluation and consequent dismissal.
All I ask is please attempt to see the others point of view. Many, it seems to me, are not even trying.
Actually I have done my research. My wife is Mormon.
Actually I have done my research. My wife is Mormon.
I stand corrected.
Is it possible those of us who 'dismiss' Christianity have done just as much research?
|
|
Actually I have done my research. My wife is Mormon.I stand corrected.
Is it possible those of us who 'dismiss' Christianity have done just as much research?
Yes it is. It is possible to go through the same research and come up with different conclusions. Scientists do it all the time. Which is why I find discussion, or most forms thereof useful. I have been known to be wrong.
Is it possible those of us who 'dismiss' Christianity have done just as much research?
I like researching various mythologies, the various sect mythologies of christianity included.
Hey Kirth -- I just have to say -- "I'm really, really sorry."
Moff, to quote John Henry Holliday, "Wyatt Earp is my friend, but I believe I'm beginning to love you."
I like researching various mythologies, the various sect mythologies of christianity included.
Right now I am exploring Eastern religions. To some extent, I am finding them less focused on the messenger and more focused on the message.
I like researching various mythologies, the various sect mythologies of christianity included.Right now I am exploring Eastern religions. To some extent, I am finding them less focused on the messenger and more focused on the message.
Also guilty. I'm not really delving into one in particular right now, except some casual stuff for a PC. But I spent a good chunk of 1999 leg-humping religioustolerance.org. (Back then it had few and generally unobtrusive ads. Shame they can't come close to affording the site without 'em.) I mean religion's interesting in an anthropological way, but it doesn't hold a candle to my history obsession.
I mean religion's interesting in an anthropological way, but it doesn't hold a candle to my history obsession.
I do see your point, but I see more than just interesting stuff. Obviously, I am not claiming any religion is 'the way' or that all of them are somehow 'the way'…only that I do find nuggets of wisdom buried in a lot of rhetoric and self interest.
But, yes, they are also very anthropologically interesting.
I do see your point, but I see more than just interesting stuff. Obviously, I am not claiming any religion is 'the way' or that all of them are somehow 'the way'…only that I do find nuggets of wisdom buried in a lot of rhetoric and self interest.
I plain don't. But I'm not a big believer in wisdom either.
|
|
I like researching various mythologies, the various sect mythologies of christianity included.Right now I am exploring Eastern religions. To some extent, I am finding them less focused on the messenger and more focused on the message.
That's the difference in the nature of the way east and west work on a philosophical level (or at least how they worked for millenia up until the last 70 or so years).
The east focuses on community welfare, where as the west has become focused on individual liberties. There is a story told (I think in the book Woman Warrior, can't tell you who wrote it off the top of my head) about a girl who becomes pregnant outside of wedlock. Her family abandons her for the disgrace. She gives birth to her child in a pig sty, then then throws herself and the child into the family well.
In the west we might say that she wanted to remain close to her family, a last act to ensure that she would remain with them. It's almost beautiful.
In the east they would say she poisoned the well with her sin, it was the families main source of water and she put her corpse in it. It was an act of spite.
Figures like the Buddha, Lao Tsu, and Confucius never attempt to claim divinity. I wonder sometimes if this is because someone else has already done so, in the form of the Huangdi in China for Lao Tsu and Confucius. Buddha seems to have been one of the first to tear at the structure of the caste system, so making himself a god would belittle his work. It's rather interesting to see the parallels.
In the third century BC the Mauryan Emperor sent Buddhist missionaries into the west to spread the message of the Buddha. He visitied several royal courts of the Diadochi, and it seemed that many were willing to convert to the religion. I'm not sure why, but it seems that this was the only attempt at converting the west to Buddhism. Migratory groups, such as the Parthians and Sauromatae seem to have cut off the west from India, and by the third century AD there was a new Zoroastrian Persian Empire under the Sassanid Dynasty that was in holy war with the christians of Armenia and the Roman Empire up until the rise of Islam in the seventh century. Buddhism seems to have been blocked by the Iranian plataeu.
I blather too much don't I?
Lots of stuff.
Yes, he's like this all the time. This is just off the top of his head. He threatened to do research and inflict you with it. :)
I blather too much don't I?
Nonsense.
I plain don't. But I'm not a big believer in wisdom either.
I guess it would be difficult to quantify.
I plain don't. But I'm not a big believer in wisdom either.I guess it would be difficult to quantify.
3d6, of course.
|
|
I blather too much don't I?Nonsense.
No really, this was a question that bugged me when learning about Buddhism. The Mauryan Empire was the first to unite the majority of India under one ruler. The dynsaty produced was Buddhist, and it's major trade contacts were in the west. In historical context, the religion spreading north and east and not west has really bugged me. I spent a lot of time looking for a good explanation, and migration events were the only thing I could postulate as an explanation that made a good deal of sense.
Even amongst the Greco-Bactrians there were a good deal of Buddhists: can you imagine a Greek speaking, Buddhist Afghanistan? WTF?
I was wondering about this the other day. Is it 'easier' to be a Christian because it places fewer demands on you? Essentially, you just have to accept Christ as Lord. Whereas Buddhism puts the problem firmly on your shoulders. It is up to the individual to make his own 'heaven'.
I do not think it is quite that simple, but there could be something there.
I blather too much don't I?Nonsense.No really, this was a question that bugged me when learning about Buddhism. The Mauryan Empire was the first to unite the majority of India under one ruler. The dynsaty produced was Buddhist, and it's major trade contacts were in the west. In historical context, the religion spreading north and east and not west has really bugged me. I spent a lot of time looking for a good explanation, and migration events were the only thing I could postulate as an explanation that made a good deal of sense.
Even amongst the Greco-Bactrians there were a good deal of Buddhists: can you imagine a Greek speaking, Buddhist Afghanistan? WTF?
And this is why you should not consider yourself to blather too much. Blather freely and without fear. :)
I plain don't. But I'm not a big believer in wisdom either.I guess it would be difficult to quantify.
Most of what people call wisdom seems to me like a combination of things that are just mundane experience, ordinary operations of intellect, or pretty banal stuff like "common sense". Some sort of valuable, unique thing unto itself? I've never been convinced.
Not a big fan of common sense either, as it happens. It largely seems to be unexamined prejudices voiced as though they're laws of nature, which is about the silliest thing I can think of.
But, you know, I'm a known weirdo.
|
|
And this is why you should not consider yourself to blather too much. Blather freely and without fear. :)I blather too much don't I?Nonsense.No really, this was a question that bugged me when learning about Buddhism. The Mauryan Empire was the first to unite the majority of India under one ruler. The dynsaty produced was Buddhist, and it's major trade contacts were in the west. In historical context, the religion spreading north and east and not west has really bugged me. I spent a lot of time looking for a good explanation, and migration events were the only thing I could postulate as an explanation that made a good deal of sense.
Even amongst the Greco-Bactrians there were a good deal of Buddhists: can you imagine a Greek speaking, Buddhist Afghanistan? WTF?
Context is everything. If you don't understand the context, you cannot understand what is actually meant. This stumped my religion teacher when I asked him about it. As the history major in class I tended to ask him some of the harder to answer questions about context.
Edit: Context is also why I want to know about religious experience. It really helps to relate when both sides can gain a common understanding.