Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 3:30 pm
Wow Ron, you haven't been idle have you? This is one hell of a post (Sorry, just realised. No pun intendedronboskz650sr wrote:Whew! I didn't know I fell so far behind in just one thread.
)Where do I start.ronboskz650sr wrote:One of the main differences between Christianity and other far-eastern religions is the philosophy of coming together to subsequently go out and do God's work. The others often promote separating from humanity altogether to achieve some higher state of self actualization..often associated with emptiness, rather than fulfillment. Still others come together to separate from society as a group of believers. Still others, even western ones, come together to defy authority. The bible doesn't condone this. Only the first example...coming together to go out and do God's work..has any basis in biblical teaching.
Ron, you profoundly misunderstand the nature of many eastern religions if you believe this. Let's start with 'emptiness'. The concept of emptiness in many Eastern religions and in Buddhism in particular has nothing to do with an absence or a lack of anything. It is a condition where craving and longing and all the attatchments to the world have ceased. In rough and ready terms, it is the condition of being in the presence of reality itself. Far from being the opposite of fulfillment, 'emptiness' is the fullest and profoundest kind of spirtual experience there is.
Buddhism is 'the Middle Way.' It teaches neither the renunciation of the world nor indulgence in it. In many forms of Buddhism, far from selfishly seeking personal 'enlightenment', devotees swear a Boddhisattva vow to renouce theri final 'enlightenment' and strive to teach others until such time that ALL sentient beings are ready to achieve it. This is a most active and compassionate religion. It does not aim however, to convert. It is for those who want it. Most other Eastern religions have many degrees of practice, some of which do involve renunciation of the world, but by no means all. This is historically true of Christianity as well.
It is perfectly possible to interpret Christiantiy as a first century political movement, striving to throw off the Roman yoke (just as it is possible to see Islam as a political movement striving against the power of the new merchant classes of Mecca). Because politics and religion were at this time intimately connected, political ideas were often expressed through religious language and political movements took on religious forms. Many other interpretations are also possible. The first century writers may well have had a lot to gain in terms of their political/religious ambitions.ronboskz650sr wrote: Much of what we believe ancient scientists did comes from writings that are even older than the bible. We believe them...why would they lie? What would they have to gain? The 20th chapter of the book of John closes with this statement "These things have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in his name." There you have it...we don't say anything for ourselves. It's for others...not our own nirvana, or karma, or any other self-centered level of spiritual achievement. The first centuries writers had nothing to gain personally...only an early death. The modern church, if it is trying to control anybody (and some are) is not in compliance with what Zoo and I believe. Frankly, the world is far less tolerant of us than the other way around.
In addition, at this period in time there was no concept of 'history' as we know it, no attachment to factual accuracy. Writers everwhere wrote what they believed would bring about a required result, depending on their particulart political or other belief.
Cows get branded too. We are social conditioned by the prevailing ideologies of our time, and of course many are hoodwinked into accepting a position of subservience to others purely on the grounds of economic position. It still happens today, unabated. It is also the case that social and economic circumstances often make it more advantageous to an individual to allow themselves to be exploited by others when the alternative option offered to them was poverty and starvation. But IMHO this is far from an ideal situation.ronboskz650sr wrote:There was a comment a ways back about slavery. Personal study of the word servent you are referring to...I forget who wrote it (sorry), and further study of historical evidence will show a different kind of slavery than the egyptian/hebrew, or pre civil war america slavery. The bible condoned servant-master relationship is not cruel or oppressive. Many times a servant would choose to stay with his master once he or she was freed, due to the family-like treatment they recieved. The servant would then voluntarily pledge allegiance by having an ear peirced with the earring of the master, which was worn for life.
The constitution of the U.S. was written at the time of the Enlightenment when abstract ideas like 'inalienable rights' were part of the political rhetoric of the time. Unfortunately, such terms were and are just rhetoric and nothing else. You only demand a right when there is a power structure that can take it away. No actual 'rights' are inalienable whatever the 'founding fathers' might have written. If they were then everyone, everywhere in the world would have them. Look around.ronboskz650sr wrote:Do you think your rights come from the constitution? The founding fathers didn't. They, and I, claim rights to be "inalienable" Or from God. If you don't believe in God, subtitute the word "automatic." The constitution doesn't give you rights. You have them already.
Wow, Ron. We agreeronboskz650sr wrote: I've often wondered why anyone with "no blelief" would fight with great passion on the side of disbelief? Who cares? If you really have no beliefs, what is the argument for? What is the prize if you win it? Eternal emptiness or nothing at all? Go ahead, go for it. We can only try to show what we believe, and why. It seems believing nothing would be even harder, since there's no evidence of it at all. Or is it so easy, because no thought is required whatsoever? No accountability. No "little voice inside." The bible says God is evidenced in all creation (My paraphrase...It's too hard to be an accident, since we're still figuring it out a little at a time...look at how smart we are!) I guess those who believe nothing don't need any basis for that. Maybe someone who belives nothing can help me out with this one...I'm pretty lost on the concept.
. I don't think there is any such thing as a person without any beliefs. The ego which the the cause of so many of our own miseries is also an essential and ineradicable part of our personality. Unfortunately it will turn anything to its own ends even our best and least selfish intentions. It will also always fill a vacuum. It is very hard to live with a significant uncertainty and the ego will always leap into the gap with a belief or at the very least a speculation to fill the vacuum.If by people without beliefs you mean atheists, then that is a different matter. Athiests have many reasons for objecting to forms of religion among other things, but that is usually because they have another agenda. I have given you some of my reasons why I object to religious institions and religious beliefs.
Personally, I don't see religion itself as an enemy because in my view it is just one of the ideological weapons used by a highly vicious and exploitative society to maintain minority privileges at the expense of the welfare of the marjority of humankind. In other words, religion exploits and distorts the spiritual impulse in human beings for the purpose of deceiving them into accepting poverty, war etc etc.
C'mon Ron, this is like saying, I know that hererosexual sex does no harm to anybody but what about date rape? Of course there are situations where harm is done, but this is not the result of hetero or milk sexuality in itself, it is the result of sexual violence which is of course something else.ronboskz650sr wrote:Jeff, I disagree that using the body's waste elimination system as a form of pleasure derivation does no harm to anybody. What about prison rape? Most of those guys are'nt gay, so where did they get the idea from?
Ron, creative cooking is unnecessary for human beings to survive, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Many AIDS victims contracted the disease through heterosexual sex, or through contaminated blood transfusions. Does this mean we should avoid these practices too? The incredibly complex sexual nature of hiuman beings is right. The things that turn people on are many and various. The available evidence all shows that very few heterosexual men or women are without some kind of individual quirk in their sexuality, and very few of these individual variations can be said to aid the survival of the species.ronboskz650sr wrote:Simply using the anatomical proximity of the assotiated nerve endings for convenience is pretty creative, but totally unecessary for humanity to survive, or have pleasure surviving. It also increases the spread of Aids to a larger number of people. I think the concept of "in the closet" came from the inherent ability of those in there to realize they didn't want people knowing about it. I think there is psychological damage, from discussing this with those who switched back. It seems to me that the incredibly complex sexual responses of men and women complement each other nicely, and lend themselves well to the perpetuation of the species. "Be fruitful and multiply" is the theme of God's plan for man on the earth, and the vehicle needed to be 1. pleasant enough to make up for labor pains, and 2. renewable as needed.
ronboskz650sr wrote:Anyway, I'm back for a couple days...got some Job prospects, and playing a little waiting game til the first of the year so I can follow up on a resume' I sent out yesterday. Brief update.
Good luck with the job search Ron.Well, that was fun (why do I get hooked so easily
)