Search results

Mythos, hi. I'm Jane. Is Taoism a Religion or a Philosophy? Daoism was a philosophy first, then a religion. (This is true of most religions, actually. It arises as a reformist or rejectionist sect. Takes first a highbrow, elitist form -- as debated ideas, i.e. as a philosophy. Later it...

Hi, Victor. Welcome back. Has it ever occurred to you that in our Christian doctrine it is always the victim who bears the weight of the sin and not the perpetrator? --Victor. We are talking here, ultimately, about how contemporary culture teaches morality to our children. Right? We are...

radarmark. Hi, again. The only question is, do you accept non-Western Sources? Is that a serious question? Or are you just being nasty? We are talking here about hearsay evidence. Which is "inadmissible evidence" in American jurisprudence. But there are some "hearsay exceptions,"...

Hi, radarmark. Thanks for the references. Appreciate it. One of my favorite Portland hangouts (don't laugh!) is the Reed College Library. Excellent, comfortable old-fashioned library, monster collection of books, and is open past midnight most days. Should be able to find your references...

Stranger. Hi. Thank you for your comments. You have cut very close to the bone . . . regarding what I am getting it. It is immensely gratifying to hear my actual ideas repeated back to me. And with new insights added. A living, breathing, vital morality which could exist between God and...

Hi, radarmark. Mainly we have to give up the idea of “absolute truth” from anywhere. Ditto, that! Been a couple decades since I last looked into Buddhist history. And, today (big surprise), I am a lot more skeptical than I was then. Do you know a good, recent critical source, which...

Hi, radarmark. . . . it is a given in my value theory, in my ethical code that behavior and action should be judged . . . by a developing, revealed, discoverable standard . . . I am sorry if this upsets you, Jane Q. Why should I be upset? It is a good theory. It is just wrong. (Well . . ...

radarmark. Hi. The only way into the beliefs of a tradition is within the tradition. I know it doesn't seem like it, to you, from the way I state my arguments . . . But I've been there, done that. Someday, looking at traditions from inside their own logic and within their own emotional...

Hi, radarmark. Kongzi, Mozi, Laozi, and Zhuangzi . . . The issue is not great men or great ideas. Who said I was talking about their ideas? Screw their ideas! It is the individual who makes progress. Wrong! It is the individual interacting with other individuals . . . this is...

Hi, Dream. You obviously have not been to Law School. There are realistically only two principles involved when deliberating the merits of a law case: 1. Logic. 2. Precedence. "Mercy" never enters into the equation (nor should it) until the punishment-phase. This is true, I believe...

Hi, radarmark. I don't think you are hearing me: I reject all "codes of conduct." ("Codes of conduct" look back to earlier stages in human affective development.) Morality (instead) is a process, a transaction, one-person to one-person. There is no societal mandate governing this...

To get back on topic . . . My view (contra that of Victor) is that the movement from severe notions of justice to ideas of forgiveness is a natural evolution. Not just a Christian development but one involving all of Monotheism. This movement forward is even reflected, linguistically, in...

Hi, Dream. My argument is simple: There is no "God of Mercy" in Leviticus. If you want to find "mercy," you have to look elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. I once heard the Quran described as "Leviticus on steroids." This is not entirely unfair. Because the Quran too consists mostly of Arab...

Hi, radarmark. My view is that both are right. But limited. They each have one thing in common. They each define "morality" as a "code of conduct." A "group" code. (To me, actual morality is something other than a "code of conduct." Morality exists solely between two persons. It is...

Hi, radarmark. Though I have taken a different route, I have come halfway back toward your position: I do not agree with your thesis that sin = debt. But if you read Leviticus and the rest of the legalistic side of the Torah, not via First Century Pharisee and later rabbinic...

Thanks, Dream. I am being pretty "categorical" here, aren't I? Putting hard edges around things. When actual lived-reality has its sharp edges worn-down soft. I'm just trying to make sense of it all, like most of us here. With my nose in the Bible, there is still a significant fraction of...

Hi, radarmark. I'd like to take half-a-step back from my prior statements, to you, regarding Hebrew scripture and "debt." I've been doing a little research. (See my response to Dream, previous page.) The biggest advocate for the Temple system in ancient Judah and Israel was the Torah's...

Hi again, Dream. There is this marvelous book by A.C. Graham called Disputers of the Tao: Philosophical Argument in Ancient China (1989). Graham claims that great ideas by someone like Kongzi (Confucius) did not arise sui generis, out of the brain of one great man. But these ideas developed...

Hi, Dream. Been looking, some more, into inheritance in the Hebrew Bible. "Birthright." The laws found in the Book of Leviticus were first formulated (and perhaps written down) during the puritan reforms of King Hezekiah of Judah (715-686 BCE). Took just a quick scan, but found nothing in...

Hi, radarmark. I appreciate the linguistics lesson. But the ancient world really did interpret all things, consistently, in economic terms. Even bad behavior. Admittedly, Jewish Monotheism was a little different. "Prosperity" was not Number 1 on the agenda of true monotheists. Doing...