God of obedience or God of Recognition?

[Netti-Netti]

...you jump all over the Buddhist analogy with a welter of references to the effect that attachment/aversion is a superficial affair and not intrinsic to the practice, as it most certainly is.

I didn't say attachment/aversion was not intrinsic to practice. It certainly is in Buddhism because it is an aspect of Dhukka. But that's not the point.

I was saying that specific attractions and aversion don't necessarily have moral properties that would link them to the moral issues raised by the Fall or to the question of odedience to G-d. Since Buddhism does not have a supreme deity that demands devotion and moral commitments, it is easy to see why I'd be puzzled about Buddhist terminology being introduced here, especially when the term conflict might do just fine.

Btw, it's still unclear whether Seattlegal actually intended a Buddhist analogy. Again, the use of the terms "attachment/aversion" was confusing and warranted clarification. In fact, my Post #27 was actually a second attempt to clarify the language of Seattlegal's Post #22. I'm kind of at a loss at this point.

Netti, Netti, my friend, you know this is angel dust, and far from the first you’ve thrown in your wake. I don’t claim to be familiar with every bit of psychological or philosophical jargon out there but I know when I’m being snowed.

Actually, I'm serious A subjective experience of conflict is not limited to an apprehension of the properties of the choices someone is facing. For example, in social psychology there are models of action that define a role for certainty. People resolve internal conflicts based in part on the certainty they have about the success of a course of action as well as the certainty they have about the probability of certain secondary consequences of their actions occurring.

Look, let’s part here as friends.

I haven't even addressed your original post and now you want to be rid of me? Haw!

Btw, I'm not in the least bit offended by your characterization. It just struck me as interesting that you'd suggest that my views indicate a lack of pluralism when I was trying to weave together several schools of thought .. principally because you had previously made it clear that you want to take an eclectic approach to the issues. I was trying to meet you half way - a least in terms of perspectivism - yet you would accuse me of being a garden variety apologist!!

I'm not in the least bit offended by your characterization. But it is remarkable that you criticize me for cluttering up your thread with irrelevancies when you are prepared to post a mulltiude of observations about how I see things that completely miss where I'm actually coming from and, moreover, show a failure to give the benefit of the doubt regarding the good faith of another discussant. It is kinda hard to avoid the impression of you taking an aggressive ad hominum approach when you make it personal with characterizations that are really pretty far off regarding someone you've never even interacted with before! I'd say it was pretty darned trigger happy.

I didn’t think you’d want to talk to me anymore anyway

You overestimate your power to scare me off so quickly. Moreover, the last sentence of my Post #33 makes it clear that your characterizations had not influence my decision to participate in this thread. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Actually I look forward to us talking some more. You're a good writer and seem to be working with lots of interesting ideas. I like your analysis of the political dimension of religion. It shows a genuine interest in the issues and avoids lapsing into the kind of heavy-handed cynical religious prejudice one often sees in that area of inquiry. My main suggestion would be to use historical/scriptural examples to fill things out. Some of your arguments are freestanding summaries without the specifics you are thinking about when you offer your summaries and ultimate conclusions.

The only other suggestion I would have: maybe avoid jargon that has a lot of philosophical connotations that may not be relevant to your line of argument.

Carry on.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

I didn't say attachment/aversion was not intrinsic to practice. It certainly is in Buddhism because it is an aspect of Dhukka. But that's not the point.

I was saying that specific attractions and aversion don't necessarily have moral properties that would link them to the moral issues raised by the Fall or to the question of odedience to G-d. Since Buddhism does not have a supreme deity that demands devotion and moral commitments, it is easy to see why I'd be puzzled about Buddhist terminology being introduced here, especially when the term conflict might do just fine.

Btw, it's still unclear whether Seattlegal actually intended a Buddhist analogy. Again, the use of the terms "attachment/aversion" was confusing and warranted clarification. In fact, my Post #27 was actually a second attempt to clarify the language of Seattlegal's Post #22. I'm kind of at a loss at this point.

Blame the woman! {Isn't that what Adam did in Genesis 3:12? }

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Blame the woman! {Isn't that what Adam did in Genesis 3:12? }

Huh? Not blaming anyone for anything. Btw, that's a sexist remark.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Huh? Not blaming anyone for anything. Btw, that's a sexist remark.

Please notice the smilies:

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Here---> Blame the woman! {Isn't that what Adam did in Genesis 3:12? and here---> }

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Huh? Not blaming anyone for anything. Btw, that's a sexist remark.

Please accept my apologies.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Please notice the smilies:

Originally Posted by seattlegal
Here---> Blame the woman! {Isn't that what Adam did in Genesis 3:12? and here---> }

I see the smilies. But do you mean them?

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Please accept my apologies.

Trying to buy me off now? Unbelievable.



____

[Snoopy]

I'm also offended by sexist remarks, but thankfully can be bought off quite cheaply.

s.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Trying to buy me off now? Unbelievable.



____

Well, if you don't want them, I guess I'll just have to eat them myself.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

I'm also offended by sexist remarks, but thankfully can be bought off quite cheaply.

s.

Indeed!

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Indeed!

Oh you know me so well. In fact, probably a little too well.

s.

[cyberpi]

Hmmm... the god of bribery. Or is this some sort of Zen stick in disguise?

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Or is this some sort of Zen stick in disguise?

Whatever it's called, I'm bought!

s.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Well, if you don't want them, I guess I'll just have to eat them myself.

I knew it: what looked like a peace offering was a clever ploy designed to increase your usual chocolate-covered almonds intake for the day.

No doubt you think they're calorie free and non-fattening because you offered them ostensibly in the spirit of seeking forgiveness. An interesting mix of supersitition and moral law.

[17th Angel]

..Blessed are the peace makers.