IMO, it was all about control.
Don't let Moff hear you. :)
|
IMO, it was all about control.Don't let Moff hear you. :)
I was really going to let most of this pass. Samnell did a reasonable job presenting both sides.
As for "control", again, a lot of the New Testament passages that talk about "Hell" don't talk about it as though they were bringing about a new concept. The concept already existed. I'm not sure why there seems to be such a difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament on this. I don't doubt that there was an element of "the boogieman" to try and get people to do what was "right" in the first place. If memory serves me right, a lot of the passages in the gospels referencing "Hell" were very much directed at the Pharasees. The group of people who were supposed to have "gotten it" but really missed the meanings of the scriptures. Not saying that we can't learn from it, but there was probably a good element of "shock value" attached to someone criticizing and condemning the religious leaders (power?) of the time -- and essentially telling them (in front of a crowd of people) that they were destined for Hell the way they were behaving.
Of course this idea has certainly been used as "control". Especially in the '80s and '90s there was a lot of selling "fire insurance" with churches. It seems to have settled down a bit, but I'm sure it's still very prominent in certain areas.
|
|
People aren't rats in Pavlovian mazes.
I disagree with this. At least in practice. Most people here on these boards are not like this -- but look around you. So many people want every decision that they make to be boiled down to "good" and "bad". "Right" and "wrong". They are looking for that carrot. They want to believe that by voting for person X that they will never again have to worry about putting gas in their car ever again. People do not want to think for themselves. They want someone else to think for them It's sad, but the more I watch the world around me, I'm appalled at how little people actually think. I think that Kirth seems to see this more than others. If "The Church" ever endorses something (or someone, or whatever) then so many people think "well if the church says this is right, then it must be" without actually thinking about what the consequences actually will be. It's seen on both sides. You've got Bill Mahr and Dawkins on the other side. People will believe EVERYTHING or NOTHING that these people have to say when the truth is that they have some interesting and good points that need to be thought about while some of what they say is poorly thought about or presented or sometimes wrong.
So while I'd love to see a world where "people aren't rats in Pavlovian mazes", I don't know that it will ever get here.
Of course this idea has certainly been used as "control". Especially in the '80s and '90s there was a lot of selling "fire insurance" with churches. It seems to have settled down a bit, but I'm sure it's still very prominent in certain areas.
I believe I have heard the argument 'what if I am right' used by believers at least twice in this very thread. While they did not specifically state the consequence was going to hell for not believing, it was certainly implied.
I do not think it has 'settled down'.
And what about your bulking every time I mentioned 'control'? Was it that you feel you have not been controlled but recognize that religion/church/Christianity has been used to control people? Does that not seem the least bit arrogant to you? "Yeah, those guys are a bunch of suckers. But not me. My church is different."
You've got Bill Mahr and Dawkins on the other side. People will believe EVERYTHING or NOTHING that these people have to say when the truth is that they have some interesting and good points that need to be thought about while some of what they say is poorly thought about or presented or sometimes wrong
I don't know anybody who believes everything Dawkins or Maher says except for Dawkins and Maher. (Which is normal. I don't know many people anywhere who think they themselves are consistently wrong.) Even back on Politically Incorrect I spent most of my viewing time either revolted with Maher or revolted that he was the only one on the panel making an argument for my policy preferences, and usually doing so so poorly.
I can think of fewer disagreements I have with Dawkins (In fact I'm a fan of his, which I certainly can't say for Maher and his world-weary fratboy act.) but there have been some. It's pretty typical for him to publish a book or give a new talk and a certain variety of atheist comes out of the woodwork to join the pile-on. Sometimes their arguments are truly awful and sometimes they're pretty convincing.
Which isn't to say that there aren't idiots, blind followers, and the like among atheists too. There certainly are. Ayn Rand did very well at creating her own personal cult of personality, even without the accouterments of the state and its powers that so facilitated the same with Stalin and his lot.
|
|
I believe I have heard the argument 'what if I am right' used by believers at least twice in this very thread. While they did not specifically state the consequence was going to hell for not believing, it was certainly implied.
I do not think it has 'settled down'.
And what about your bulking every time I mentioned 'control'? Was it that you feel you have not been controlled but recognize that religion/church/Christianity has been used to control people? Does that not seem the least bit arrogant to you? "Yeah, those guys are a bunch of suckers. But not me. My church is different."
I believe that every time I said something like "what if I am right", I also said that it was not reason to believe. Also, my point more often than not is to suggest that the consequences for me being wrong are minor in comparison. On the other side of things, I find it interesting that some people seem to choose that as reason to not believe. It's almost as if they believe that they can will Hell or Heaven to not exist. It either does or it doesn't. If you don't believe that it exists, fine. But if you don't believe that Hell exists because it sounds bad -- that just seems odd to me.
The consequences of "belief" or "unbelief" are fairly well documented in the Bible. Especially the New Testament. I would venture to say that most of the time when this was brought up in this thread, it was in response to something else that someone said or brought up -- not as a way to show superiority, or as a means of condemnation, or judgement, or whatever.
A number of people (here even) seem to feel and strongly imply that I am wrong for believing what I believe. I don't get that at all. I really don't understand. If I am wrong and for some reason suddenly stop believing or "being" a Christian, how would my life be better or right?
I've seen "Hell" brought up by Christians in response to questions or comments -- not as a means of converting or attack. In that way, I do feel that it has calmed down quite a bit.
As for the "control". I've seen first-hand what "control" does and doesn't do. I've seen it in extreme cases (like the Boston Church of Christ) as well as my own church(es). Over the past few years it has amazed me how much power the pastor of a church wields -- and we don't have anything close to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. I've seen the Bible used as a means of control. I have never doubted that.
The thing that I have a problem with is that you have implied that the Bible was written with that in mind. And I disagree. By implying that the Bible was written with control in mind, it tells me that I've been "duped". If I said the same thing to you, especially about something that you feel you have done your best to look at with an open mind, how would you feel? And whenever I ask you to show me where the original writers put something in for the explicit reason of control, I get nothing.
I don't get the "arrogant" comment. How am I being arrogant. I don't believe that Islam was written with control in mind. Yet it very much is being used for control. I went to the pastor of my church and told him that he was using his position as a means of control. Even my church. The difference that I see, is that the "control" is still fairly minimal. I could have left any time I wanted to. Others certainly were. My reason for staying was -- if you take out all the good elements in a church, what do you end up with? Have you ever heard of people using patriotism to get people to do what they want? Isn't that a means of control? If you're American and you don't feel that you are controlled but admit that others might use that to control people -- "Does that not seem the least bit arrogant to you?" Do you go around looking at other people's marriages saying "boy, those people are so controlled in their marriage -- but not me. My marriage is different."?
I believe that Christianity is right. I know that people can and often are wrong. It's up to me to find some balance in there for my own life.
|
People aren't rats in Pavlovian mazes.I disagree with this. [SNIP] You've got Bill Mahr and Dawkins on the other side. People will believe EVERYTHING or NOTHING that these people have to say when the truth is that they have some interesting and good points that need to be thought about while some of what they say is poorly thought about or presented or sometimes wrong.
So while I'd love to see a world where "people aren't rats in Pavlovian mazes", I don't know that it will ever get here.
A valid point. Some people aren't ready to accept free will and make their own decisions, taking whatever is spoon-fed to them by media, father, church, party, nation, advertising, etc. as gospel truth. But I think that everybody *can* learn to grow up and make their own decisions, no matter how much easier it may be to follow the herd and dress the same and act the same and use the same lingo, for fear of being the one left standing when everyone else sits down.
Extremism is on the rise in all faiths, and all politics, it seems. Yitzak Rabin gets assassinated by his own people for standing in the way of the Forever War. A faith that kickstarted the Rennaissance is now associated with flying planes into buildings. The Prince of Peace is quoted by people who celebrate the murder of Dr. Tiller, pray for the death of Obama and hail IEDs as God's solution to gays being allowed in the military. Anyone who disagrees with one's views is either a fascist, a socialist or some utterly contradictory and nonsensical combination of both.
Having been a psych student, and used a Skinner box to condition rats, I'm well aware that Pavlovian conditioning works, but I'm also aware that it can be risen above, by a sentient person.
Someday, faith will no longer be hijacked by the extremism and dogma of those who refuse to exercise their God-given free will.
And, hey, as long as I'm dreaming, it will rain Reese's Pieces and butterscotch candies, too! :)
And, hey, as long as I'm dreaming, it will rain Reese's Pieces and butterscotch candies, too! :)
They used to say that about nations that didn't engage in slavery too. The story of the last couple of centuries has been that of more and more people achieving things that were once deemed impossible dreams. And the usually violent and always oppressive counterrevolutions.
But if you don't believe that Hell exists because it sounds bad -- that just seems odd to me.
Agreed. Sorta like believing in god simply because you want him to be.
The consequences of "belief" or "unbelief" are fairly well documented in the Bible. Especially the New Testament. I would venture to say that most of the time when this was brought up in this thread, it was in response to something else that someone said or brought up -- not as a way to show superiority, or as a means of condemnation, or judgement, or whatever.
But it is a judgment, Moff. The Bible is being offered up as a rule book. You are saying the Bible is right, despite admitting it is not meant to be scientifically accurate nor that it should all be taken literally. You can say that you are not trying to convert anyone, however, when you tell me I am going to be separated from god for rejecting him, that is how I am going to take it. Essentially, you are telling me I am wrong and here is your evidence. Then you seem surprised when I question your evidence.
A number of people (here even) seem to feel and strongly imply that I am wrong for believing what I believe. I don't get that at all. I really don't understand. If I am wrong and for some reason suddenly stop believing or "being" a Christian, how would my life be better or right?
I hope you did not mean to imply that non-Christians are worse or wrong.
Do you not feel and strongly imply that non-believers are wrong for not believing? I believe you have even said, outright, that we are rejecting god.
I can not say your life would be better if you were not a Christian. Christianity offers hope. I am cool with that. But I also thought we agreed believing in things simply because we wanted them to be true was odd.
And whenever I ask you to show me where the original writers put something in for the explicit reason of control, I get nothing.
Show me where the original writers did not put something in for the explicit reason for control. Better yet, let us agree neither of us can know the intention behind the authors. Would it satisfy your requirements if I offer up what leads me to draw that conclusion?
I will even start in the beginning. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Right there in the beginning is something more powerful than us that is like a parent. This being has power and authority over us. And by extension, anyone who speaks for this being. Thus, power and authority can be transferred to a priest with nothing more than ink on paper. Can I prove this? Obviously, no, otherwise I would be writing the book right now. It seems to me that religions throughout history have been used and abused by priests.
I will concede religions have also been used for good just like other tools.
By implying that the Bible was written with control in mind, it tells me that I've been "duped".
All of the world religions can not be right. Someone was duped.
|
|
Lots of good stuff...
That was quite a post. Let me see what I can do.
I do not believe because I want it to be true. I have actually taken a good look at a lot of different things and ideas and so on. It is a conscious choice that I have made because I feel that it makes the most sense. I do not necessarily feel that you need to share that opinion. But with a similar thing to Hell -- I cannot will God into existence. He either exists or he doesn't. What I do or believe really has no effect on that.
As to the "judgement" stuff. You (plural "you") have repeatedly put the Bible up for debate. Have an issue with it. Don't understand something. Whatever. Then when an explanation is given you say that we are being judgemental. If you don't want to know the answer, then don't ask the question. If someone brings up "Hell" and seems to have a skewed idea of what is really in the Bible, then I'll chime in and let people know what the Bible actually says or whatever. There seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding as to what we (or at least "I") believe. I'm just trying to clarify. I use the Bible for my life. It seems odd to me that I should use it for yours. I hold myself accountable to the Bible. I hope that you or others will hold me to that. I do not hold you accountable to the Bible. So I'm not sure how I could be judging you.
Haven't you as much said that you are rejecting "God"? You too have looked at what is out there and have basically found Christianity wanting. As to whether or not that's "wrong"? It's a choice you have made -- nothing more.
The Bible is made up of many different books, many different stories, and many different authors. Therefore, many different points. Some of the points are rules -- and while that may be to help "control" people, any civilized society needs rules. It really seems like the rest was mostly to inform. As for "speaking for God", that again really changed in the New Testament. That's why the ripping of the veil when Jesus died was such an important event to mention. Jesus was essentially saying that the common person no longer needed the priesthood to go directly to God. It's a very important point that often gets overlooked. I see again and again in the gospels that Jesus was trying to get people out of the control they were in. Not under control.
You are confusing the point I was making with the "duped" statement. There are a number of religions that are not about being under or putting others under control. If I am being controlled then I'm being "duped" -- and I really don't like that idea at all. Whether or not I'm "right" is another matter -- in that regard, I guess I could be "duped" but I don't think I'm any worse for it. But I don't feel that I am being controlled. My pastor doesn't feel I'm being controlled either -- and may wish I was a little more under control.
I do not believe because I want it to be true.
O.k., I obviously misunderstood our exchange below.
Outside of the Bible, why do you believe there is a god?I don't know that I have a good answer for that question. Two thoughts come immediately to mind. 1) Stuff here is pretty amazing. Everything from just the ability that I have to think, process things, and so on, to the complexity and diverity of life makes it difficult for me to believe that all of this happened entirely randomly by chance without any form of intelligent design (using that term loosely since it now means something other than there was intelligence behind the design). And the other thought is 2) simply because I want it to be. It's a pretty lame answer, but I'm pretty awesome. You're pretty awesome. I have a hard time accepting or believing that my only purpose on this earth is to live, make the world better for the next lot, and then die. Wanting it to be true, doesn't make it true. But if I'm wrong, then I did my best to make the world a better place for the next lot and they can then continue the cycle.
Would you please elaborate what you meant by the part I bolded. Am I missing the context?
I do not necessarily feel that you need to share that opinion.
I apologize, Moff. I have been guilty of lumping you in with other posters and other Christians I have met in real life.
If someone brings up "Hell" and seems to have a skewed idea of what is really in the Bible, then I'll chime in and let people know what the Bible actually says or whatever.
Of course what is says and what it means often seems debatable. However, I believe I understand you point here.
Haven't you as much said that you are rejecting "God"?
The thing is, I would not put it that way. How do you reject something that does not exist? To me, 'reject' implies I have experienced something and then rejected it. I guess I would be o.k. if you said I reject the concept of god. Still, for me, there is a strong negative connotation to that. Would you not be the least bit insulted or feel like I was being condescending if I asked you why you rejected reality?
…any civilized society needs rules.
Oh, absolutely, I agree. The problem I have is that I believe those rules need to be questioned. Constantly. Just looking at history, we see that rules we once thought were o.k. were not. If there is a good reason behind a rule, cool. If the only reason is because the rule has been there before, not so cool.
But you (plural Christian you) can not question the Bible's rules because they come from the big man himself. That is where I have a problem. One, the big man himself never existed, so the Bible's rules have no more authority behind them anything else. Therefore, in my opinion, they must be evaluated on their own merit and each individually. You may be open minded enough to agree with me, but I have met plenty of Christians who would not.
Jesus was essentially saying that the common person no longer needed the priesthood to go directly to God. It's a very important point that often gets overlooked.
Yes, important enough that Martin Luther had to re-iterate it. And still, I think the message gets lost.
You are confusing the point I was making with the "duped" statement.
Fair enough. Perhaps it is more like Illusion vs. Mind Control. Someone Mind Controlling you can make you do things you would not do, whereas someone with Illusion does not control your actions, but you do things believing in falsehoods.
|
|
Again, so much there.
How long ago did I make that statement? It felt like ten years ago.
It's often hard because I feel like I'm answering different questions, but then my answers get put in elsewhere. And I don't know if I can really explain my position well.
I think at some basic level we all want to be right. Whatever "right" is. No one wants to be wrong. At the same time, what we want to be doesn't necessarily mean that it is. So at some level, I do want to be "right", I do want God to exist, I do want heaven to exist, I want there to be more of a point to our short time on the earth. None of that really matters in the end -- it either is true or it isn't. The original question that was presented was "outside of the Bible..." which in essence is saying "outside of anything religious or having to do with God..." and so I did my best to answer with that in mind. Then we ask a different question without that caveat and put the new answer with the old question and then I don't even know what I'm saying anymore. Probably more than anything, I believe because of what I've seen and experienced. But generally, I try not to give that as an answer because I cannot expect you to believe based on what I've experienced. So in the end it isn't really a good argument and so I try not to include it. But apparently that ends up muddling things up more.
What you said about "rejection" is interesting to me. From my point of view, I guess that I really don't feel like I've "rejected" reality. At worse case, I may have added onto it -- but "reality" is what it is. The existence or non-existence of God doesn't really have any bearing on that. There was an earthquake in Haiti. Whether or not God allowed it or maybe even caused(?) it is really irrelevant to the reality that it happened. David Hames died in that earthquake. That's the reality. Christians may have added to that to believe that he is in a "better place", but the reality is that he is gone. On your side, why do you feel that you need to "experience" something to reject it? (or accept it?) What would you need to experience to feel that you've rejected God (or at least the concept of "god")? And why is there a negative connotation to it? How can there be a negative connotation to something that doesn't exist?
With regard to the rules ...
But you (plural Christian you) can not question the Bible's rules because they come from the big man himself.
I feel that if that were true, there truly would be only one "universal" church that was the end-all as to what the Bible really said. I know what you are saying and I'm not sure what to say in response. There are people who feel that "the right to bare arms" means that they can blow away their neighbor. Most of the rules in the Bible hold their own "under their own merit". There are some that don't -- and I struggle with that. At the same time, as I understand the Bible, the "rules" have very little to do with "Christianity" or "salvation". And the rules were constantly being questioned by Jesus as well as the disciples/apostles. A lot of the letters of Paul were dealing with issues with the Old Tesatment Law. And I too have met people who will hold onto that one "rule" with their own interpretation as if it's the most important thing in the world -- and those people are really missing Jesus' message. Basically a long way to say that for the most part -- I agree with you on that.
With regard to "lumping me with other Christians" -- not sure what to say. A few Sundays ago, people at church were discussing why more people didn't come to church. One person said that it was because of some of the language Christians use. I said "are you serious? You think that people don't come here because we use big words?" Christians have sheltered themselves so much over the past many years and they are still holding onto things that they were told 20 years ago. I've learned an incredible amount from here alone. And I've had to do a fair amount of soul-searching and research for myself because of this thread and other things that have come up. I look at how much I know now compared to a few years ago -- and there is a big difference. Most people haven't had to change the way they think or what they think they know. I think that it's changing but "Christians" still have a long way to go.
It's often hard because I feel like I'm answering different questions, but then my answers get put in elsewhere. And I don't know if I can really explain my position well.
Probably because they are the same questions and answers over and over again.
How can you believe?!
How can you note believe?!
Also, we each bring our own perspective. We are like two blind men holding an elephant. You have the leg and are telling me it is thick. I have the tail and I am telling you that you must be crazy because it is thin.
Probably more than anything, I believe because of what I've seen and experienced. But generally, I try not to give that as an answer because I cannot expect you to believe based on what I've experienced.
Yet, that is essentially both of our answers.
From my point of view, I guess that I really don't feel like I've "rejected" reality.
Much like I do not feel I have 'rejected' god.
The existence or non-existence of God doesn't really have any bearing on that.
True. However, you act on the assumption there is a god where I act on the assumption there is not a god. You tell me that I have rejected god because I act on that assumption. Likewise, I can tell you that you have rejected reality because you act on the assumption that it is vastly different (god exists) than it is. Maybe it is not the best analogy, but I was trying to demonstrate how it feels judgmental/condescending.
Sort of like saying you are wrong, not because you are ignorant of the truth, but because you know the truth and choose to be wrong.
On your side, why do you feel that you need to "experience" something to reject it? (or accept it?)
Do you reject the existence of Santa Claus? Why do you reject Santa Claus? He is real and he wants to bring you presents but he can't because you are being a silly doody head.
That is a bit of an exaggeration for effect, but essentially, when you tell me I am rejecting god, that is how I feel. It lays the blame on me for not believing. This, of course, leads to the debate about whether or not you can choose to believe. I am of the opinion that it is not a conscious choice. Otherwise I could choose to believe I am stunningly handsome.
It also feels manipulative to me.
I feel that if that were true, there truly would be only one "universal" church that was the end-all as to what the Bible really said.
Assuming the Bible was truly inspired by god, why would he allow his word to be distorted? Assuming the Bible was written by various men, each with their own agenda, it makes perfect sense.
One person said that it was because of some of the language Christians use.
For me, it has nothing to do with language. If the churches I had been to focused more on the message of being cool to other people, I might still go. Instead the focused seemed to be telling everyone how Jesus was the coolest guy eva.
I was just cruising CNN and stumbled upon the following article.
Whatever happened to bin Laden
Not really all that informative or interesting in my opinion…until I got to the comments.
Number 17
Killing Bin Laden would not be a good thing????? Another Martyr would be created??????
Sounds like the person writing this article is a muslim?????? Do you believe there is such a thing as a martyr?????? If you do you probably believe that 50 virgins will be waiting on him in heaven. For your information.......Only one being creates and that is GOD ALMIGHTY....A Martyr is nothing more than a KILLER or MURDERIST and last time I checked that was against God'S commandments. I guess it just proves how STUPID the MUSLIM PEOPLE AND THEIR RELIGION IS.
Wow. Should I even bother to tell this guy that Allah is GOD ALMIGHTY? Or that Christianity has how many martyrs?
|
|
You tell me that I have rejected god because I act on that assumption.
No. I say that you have rejected God because you say there is no God. If your hang-up is on the word "rejected" (like mine is with "control"), then fine. You say there is no God. There are no fairies. There are no boogie men. There is no Santa Claus. They are all grouped together in the same group of fiction and there is no actual "rejection". They simply don't exist to "accept" or "reject".
Regardless, you have made a decision.
With regard to "why would he allow his word to be distorted" -- that gets into the whole thing of "free will". We got no where with that before and I don't see that changing now. In the end -- "why?" I have no idea. Just one more of many questions I plan to ask.
Your response to "why no church" surprised me. I would have thought that it was more because "church" is no longer a "safe" place. Christians or others who all go to church are all about judging people. Even now, our sermons are on how we are basically screw-ups and what we need to do to be "better". I don't know that I've ever heard a message that basically said "Jesus is the coolest guy evar". It's generally not focused on him -- on what he said, maybe -- but not on him. Out of curiosity, what church(es) did you visit?
And for the record -- I know perfectly well why or how you cannot believe. And I fully expect you not to believe. There is absolutely no reason for you to believe. I am not trying to convince you that I am right. I am not trying to tell you that you should believe.
This is not a debate. I feel that this is important enough to say again. This is not a debate. There is no "right" or "wrong". I am not trying to convince you of anything.
The problem that I have is that when I try and answer things, I tell you what I believe or how I feel. When you respond, you seem to try and point out how I'm wrong. You bring up Santa Claus. You bring up people's agendas. You compare God (faith) with "reality". You bring up the elephant as though we are talking about the same thing. You often say how I or Christians are being judgemental. I'm not sure how else to say what we believe. It has nothing to do with being judgemental. I'm not making the decision. It's not up to me. If God exists, you can tell him how he wasn't "fair", or that you didn't actually "reject" him or whatever. And if he doesn't exist then you don't have to worry about that. So in order to keep from being "judgemental", how should I say what Christians believe? You ask questions, knowing full well what the answers are, and then point out how "mean" we are or something.
I'm trying to help people better understand our (hopefully all Christians') perspective or point of view. What are you trying to do?
|
|
Sorry if I offended above. I'm apparently in a mood. There just seem to be a number of times when I feel like I'm coming to a tennis match prepared with a basketball. I feel like one thing is being addressed when that isn't what is being addressed at all. We seem to be back to "Christians are crazy because they believe in something that doesn't exist." When I thought that the original issue was that the concept of "Hell" was created by Christians for the express purpose of "control".
So now I know that "Hell" was created so that 2000 years later, little old me would be controlled to blindly do ... what? Feed the hungry? Help the homeless? Work at a job? Pay taxes? No, wait. I've got it. Go to church. That's it. "Hell" and "God" were created to give people a place to go for help, friends, warm fuzzies, etc. And there is of course no greater "bad" than that.
You'd think that I would have learned by now that no matter what the question or comment actually says, it really means either "Christians are crazy for believing in something that doesn't exist" or "Christianity exists now for the sole purpose to control the masses". And that questions and comments are not presented to actually learn more, but rather to try and demonstrate those two points even more.
Ok, so I'm still in a mood. I'll try and be better.
Killing Bin Laden would not be a good thing????? Another Martyr would be created??????
Sounds like the person writing this article is a muslim?????? Do you believe there is such a thing as a martyr?????? If you do you probably believe that 50 virgins will be waiting on him in heaven. For your information.......Only one being creates and that is GOD ALMIGHTY....A Martyr is nothing more than a KILLER or MURDERIST and last time I checked that was against God'S commandments. I guess it just proves how STUPID the MUSLIM PEOPLE AND THEIR RELIGION IS.
Everyone knows the more punctuation marks you put after a sentence the more important the sentence is. This guy has some super important questions.
Heh, murderist.
I don't know anybody who believes everything Dawkins or Maher says except for Dawkins and Maher.Maybe personally. It seems like if I ever try and look up a balanced review of something they did, it's often like trying to find the proverbial needle in the haystack.
Lot's of balanced discussion of their stuff on this thread. Why resort to critics?
|
|
Lot's of balanced discussion of their stuff on this thread. Why resort to critics?I don't know anybody who believes everything Dawkins or Maher says except for Dawkins and Maher.Maybe personally. It seems like if I ever try and look up a balanced review of something they did, it's often like trying to find the proverbial needle in the haystack.
I was just trying to show that the church isn't the only one that is "blind" with regard to who they follow or what they believe. For the most part, people here seem to have a rather balanced view of people.
I am sorry I ambushed you, Moff.
Archdiocese defends decision to deny children because of lesbian parents
How does the Catholics refusing service to homosexuals (or their children in this case) still warrant being called news? At this point does anyone really expect the Catholic church to be any other way?
"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." - Saint Augustine
I believe this is what Moff has been trying to tell me all along.
Archdiocese defends decision to deny children because of lesbian parentsHow does the Catholics refusing service to homosexuals (or their children in this case) still warrant being called news? At this point does anyone really expect the Catholic church to be any other way?
In the sense that we always expect people to do better? I'm guilty. In the sense that we expect them to actually do better? Well it depends on who we're talking about. GLAAD infuriated me pretty thoroughly a few months back. But the Catholic hierarchy doing better is certainly an expectation that we shall wait far longer to see met, if it ever is. Not only is the hierarchy deeply and profoundly invested in this sort of knuckle-dragging, the demographics are stacked powerfully against any improvement.
But some people do expect improvement on some other fronts too.
As for it being news, I think it should be but not in the kind of incidental way in which it'll be reported. Things like this are almost always covered as isolated incidents when they should be treated like they are: as expressions of a deliberate and organized program.
To give an example in the context of another issue with the same organization, the news story should not be that the Catholic Church in Germany, the Netherlands, and Ireland has the same problem with (or rather, the same policy of) facilitating child molestation as it has in America. It beggars belief to suggest that when the hierarchy in many nations behaves in the same way with regard to the issue that they are not acting on instructions from on high. A couple of diocese could certainly have gone off the rails, but when we see the same thing again and again the problem's bigger than a few dirty bishops who should be indicted.
Are there any Taoist on this board who would be willing to discuss Taoism with me?
Are there any Taoist on this board who would be willing to discuss Taoism with me?
The philosophy or the religion?
The philosophy or the religion?
Philosophy.
Yup. But what is there to discuss? The Tao that you seek is not the Tao.
O.k. Then what is the Tao I seek?
O.k. Then what is the Tao I seek?
More fundamentally, what do you seek?
As a former physics geek, I enjoy the way Taoism fits with science. There is no conflict when both recognize the interconnectedness of all things.
I do not know. I find many concepts that I understand of Taoism interesting. For example, moderation. What I can not seem to wrap my head around is action through non-action. It seems an excuse to be a slacker. The Tao Te Ching makes no sense to me whatsoever.
|
I do not know. I find many concepts that I understand of Taoism interesting. For example, moderation. What I can not seem to wrap my head around is action through non-action. It seems an excuse to be a slacker. The Tao Te Ching makes no sense to me whatsoever.
On the contrary, action through non-action is the opposite of being a slacker. Like in The Matrix when whats-his-face says to Neo "Stop trying to hit me and hit me," it's about simply doing rather than being focused on the process.
But I'm no Taoism expert, and I would imagine someone who is would find that I've misstated it horribly. The Tao Te Ching is a great read for anyone.
|
|
I do not know. I find many concepts that I understand of Taoism interesting. For example, moderation. What I can not seem to wrap my head around is action through non-action. It seems an excuse to be a slacker. The Tao Te Ching makes no sense to me whatsoever.
On the one hand;
Sometimes we are filled with an urge to take action when an event (or person) fills us with strong emotion, and, in some of these cases, non-action would be a far wiser choice. A loved one is injured? We pace, we snap at the doctors who can't tell us what we want to hear, consumed with a need to *do something about it,* when, in reality, the best thing we could be doing is remaining calm and trying to keep the situation from becoming any worse than it already is and to help those who might be less able to deal with such things (such as children) to get through it. Our bodies, our very natures, work against us, pumping us full of 'fight or flight' chemicals, which end up doing nothing other than making us miserable (and occasionally dangerous) to be around in a stressful situation.
Society, through fiery (and often exagerrated) rhetoric exhorts us to be *outraged* at many things, day after day, only exacerbating this natural human tendency.
And yet, Gandhi didn't bring about change by acting. He chose a surprisingly effective course of non-action, and ended up shaming people who would have never backed down against any level of action (just ask the original natives of Tasmania how well Britain deals with uppity natives who won't back down, if, yanno, the last of them hadn't died in 1905...).
On the other hand;
Sometimes it's right and necessary to be angry, outraged, even revolutionary, but, not every single day, like the voices ranting at us over talk radio want us to be. It's possible that the worst danger of this outrage oversaturation is not the crazy .0001% that pick up a gun and go shoot an abortion doctor, or 'strike back at the gubmint' by joining a militia and blowing a federal building, it's the other 99+% of us that become so emotionally fatigued from the constant barrage of fresh scandal and outrage that we *don't* become outraged by the very real things that *should* stir us up out of our chairs to 'do something about it.'
All things in moderation, I guess, including moderation itself.
Taoism can be difficult because it forces us to hold two apparently conflicting concepts in balance. Nonaction is a viable path because we need to recognize our inherent smallness in the whole, our mote-ness if you will. OTOH, we, as part of everything, are every bit as important as anything else, large or small (think about the cliche butterfly flapping its wings). The key is having the wisdom to know the difference.
All things in moderation, I guess, including moderation itself.
That makes sense. And Gandhi is a really good example.
I understand and agree with moderation. I am having trouble reconciling 'non-action' with something vile like slavery. As you pointed out, I think Gandhi helps me better understand right-action.
Somewhere I had seen that we should let go of our concepts of 'good' and 'evil'. That everything just 'is' and we should accept it as such. I have a hard time just accepting something like slavery…or maybe to put my feelings in a more contemporary context, not allowing same-sex couples to marry. I think that is wrong. Am I suppose to let go of my concept of right and wrong and just accept that it is? Is non-action doing nothing and hoping the universe will be as it should be (maybe righting itself by my concept of 'right' or not, whichever is the way of the universe)? Or should I practice right-action by doing something? Should that 'something' be effortless?
The more I think about it, the more my head spins.
The key is having the wisdom to know the difference.
So sometimes we should do nothing and sometimes we should do something. The trick is knowing when, when not, what and what not?
It just occurred to me that non-action may mean not hanging on to expectations. You still act, you just do not focus on a specific outcome. Regardless of what happens, you continue doing what you believe is right.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I'm not a Taoist (IANAT?), but I've studied martial arts influenced by Taoist principles (tai chi). In martial arts terms the Tao, or Way, is realized when the techniques are internalized to the point that they do not require conscious thought or concentration to execute perfectly. We might call it muscle memory.
Ethically, I think the big idea of Taoism is to internalize the process of ethical reasoning to the point that ethical decision-making is intuitive and correct. That second point, correct, is important because otherwise an intuitive approach to ethical reasoning results in a reliance on "gut feelings" that are anything but reliable. When you have the Tao, you know the right thing to do, even in a difficult ethical situation, without having to work through it.
Moreover, as I understand it, having the Tao that way is a very practical matter. The "right thing to do" in this case means "the best way to accomplish the right goal," not toeing some kind of moral line in the sand that is ultimately futile.
So if you have the Tao, you might know the right action you as an individual could make to end slavery... or you might know that there isn't anything you could do at that point in time and that it's more important to focus your attention somewhere you can have an effect.
Thoughts?
That certainly seems practical and a moderate approach.
However, is trying to have an effect at all going against the Tao?
"Always without desire we must be found,"
"Therefore the sage manages affairs without doing anything, and
conveys his instructions without the use of speech."
"Therefore the sage seeks to satisfy (the craving of) the belly, and
not the (insatiable longing of the) eyes. He puts from him the
latter, and prefers to seek the former."
Maybe I am focusing too much on the concept of 'non-action'.
I'm not a Taoist (IANAT?), but I've studied martial arts influenced by Taoist principles (tai chi). In martial arts terms the Tao, or Way, is realized when the techniques are internalized to the point that they do not require conscious thought or concentration to execute perfectly. We might call it muscle memory.
This is one aspect of wu wei (sp?). You also see this effect in other sports, performing, writing, etc. It's being in the zone, or feeling that you are the instrument and something greater is performing through you. In the Taoist view, though, that something is the Tao, not a divinity.
As you open yourself to the Tao, more and more of life will become effortless. The desire for being open to the Tao reminds me strongly of the Buddhist mindfulness or Zen's beginner's mind.
...or Zen's beginner's mind.
I was thinking earlier today that beginner's luck is that openness, lack of investment in results, humility that somehow leads to success.
In the Taoist view, though, that something is the Tao, not a divinity.
What is the difference between Taoist philosophy and Taoist religion?
Is Caesar Milan's Calm Assertive effortless action?
In the Taoist view, though, that something is the Tao, not a divinity.What is the difference between Taoist philosophy and Taoist religion?
There is a religion based on Taoism, but I'm not very familiar with it. According to Wiki, it incorporates elements of Chinese folk religions and the 'Celestial Masters?' I always think of "Bridge of Birds" by Barry Hugart when Taoist religion is mentioned, but have no idea how faithful that depiction is. [If you haven't read that book, you should!]
I used to say I've been accused of being a Taoist, because I have yet to read a book on taoism that isn't dangerously anti-intellectual. I think, however, I've come to terms with being an intellectual Taoist. My view on Tao is this: be the world you want to live in. You can't stop slavery, but you can refuse to buy products made by slaves. You can't stop bigotry, but you can not be a bigot. If your ideas are worthy, you will see the benefit, and if other see you benefiting, they may adopt your ideas.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I'm not a Taoist (IANAT?), but I've studied martial arts influenced by Taoist principles (tai chi). In martial arts terms the Tao, or Way, is realized when the techniques are internalized to the point that they do not require conscious thought or concentration to execute perfectly. We might call it muscle memory.This is one aspect of wu wei (sp?). You also see this effect in other sports, performing, writing, etc. It's being in the zone, or feeling that you are the instrument and something greater is performing through you. In the Taoist view, though, that something is the Tao, not a divinity.
As you open yourself to the Tao, more and more of life will become effortless. The desire for being open to the Tao reminds me strongly of the Buddhist mindfulness or Zen's beginner's mind.
At the risk of being flippant, the Tao is having enough ranks to auto-succeed if you take 10.