Discussion in 'Modern Religions' started by wil, Jan 11, 2017.
Holy Sh!t, Batman! Seriously?
Remember we're casting a long way back here ... and yes, I can see those questions, as naive in their day as some contemporary questions of ours will be shown to be in the future.
Whether one should question or not is a complex problem.
The general rule is you have to know something before you can question something. Too often it's one who knows nothing questioning everything.
Empty vessels ... The proof of the pudding ... etc., etc.
As one famous Zen master used to say, after a 10-minute instruction: "Enough talk. Zazen."
I ask questions BECAUSE I don't know...
And to what end did they find it useful? For violent disagreement and division?
The discussion.... I find discussion useful, exploring viewpoints, learning who thinks and contemplates, and who simply vomits the party line.
I have no problem with the concept of learning, and discussion can be a significant part of that.
However, never getting around to applying the learning is the part that I don't understand. Arguing over how many angels can dance on the point of a needle is a needless point. What practical purpose does it serve?
The only purpose served is political, so "we" can round up those who disagree and burn them at the stake. "Truth" isn't really the motivation, it is the separation, distinction, subjugation and wielding of earthly power.
I suppose we could compost the Holy Sh!t to grow the grain to feed the Holy Cows...
Do you eat meat? No? Oh, you're probably a follower of Mani. Let's get 'em. It's the most recent example I have learned from studying Manichaeism.
I think the exact opposite argument can be made from the same point. If we all agree that everything is allowed to be questions none will be in a position to round anyone up.
Did someone make a statement that one should not apply what one has learned?
I missed that. Knowledge is not power, knowledge plus action is power, pray but move your feet.
Going back to what Craz said earlier . . .
Yes, this somewhat reflects Confucius' private views about some topics, so it might be doable. The problem for me is forcing other people to do it. Censorship would lead to people talking in code. Kinda like some forbidden topics in China's blogosphere. Some would just create a coded language to discuss what's forbidden.
A great deal depends on the political atmosphere. Is it a tolerant atmosphere? There are rare times in human history when this is demonstrably so. Or is it an exclusive atmosphere? I see the majority of the last two thousand years of human history being plagued with intolerant exclusivity...the atmosphere today being no exception.
By the way, the words used ("tolerant" or "exclusive") are not themselves indicative of the actual political atmosphere; meaning there are many exclusive groups who claim to be tolerant. Just because they use the word doesn't mean they practice the discipline.
Besides the Confucian ideal already mentioned, I would also include movement meditation and chants from Won Buddhism, a modern Buddhist religion founded in Korea.
I would rather say that every point of history has something that it is less tolerant of and some things that it is more tolerant of. Being a super liberal guy surrounded by equal-minded people it's a very tolerant world for me right now.
Would you say you are tolerant of less-than equal minded people? That would be the true test of tolerance in my view, at least until someone who doesn't agree with you wishes to forcibly convince you, either by death or threat of harm to yourself, family or property - at which point one may invoke self-defense. At least on the philosophical level, I would say that being *only* surrounded by like-minded people would be quite intolerant, by definition.
Very true. I've failed miserably with this point many times.
Somewhat agree here. You touched a complex issue! Hate speech has the potential to stir up violence. A Canadian magazine once said that Islam isn't compatible with Western values and will lead to future threats. The author states this is not a problem in a conservative magazine in the United States, but in Canada it is. He goes on to say Canadian law might require the magazine to issue an apology, publish a rebuttal, and compensate Muslims. He also discusses countries that ban hate speech, and gives some examples between the back-and-forth other countries have considering whether or not they should be more like the U.S. on this issue.
"In Canada, the right to freedom of expression is not absolute, nor should it be," the commission's statement said. "By portraying Muslims as all sharing the same negative characteristics, including being a threat to 'the West,' this explicit expression of Islamophobia further perpetuates and promotes prejudice towards Muslims and others."
Here's the article from the New York Times: click here.
OK, but it is quite evident, glaringly, how in practice *anything* that comes from the left is "freedom of expression," and *anything* that comes from the right is "hate speech" or "misogyny" or "discrimination" or some other derogatory or inflammatory allegation, and the person is tried, convicted and hung in the court of public opinion by the lefty lynch mob without benefit of evidence or council. Just having a right leaning opinion is sufficient to be denuded of any human dignity...the evidence happens time and again...but that's OK! In any other context this conduct would be a crime against humanity.
On the *rare* occasions where the left is forced to recant, their apology appears as some tiny little postscript hidden away where people seldom find it.
There is clearly a blatant double standard that is being conducted. Seriously...who carries the bullhorns these days? It isn't the fascists. Authentic journalism is dead. I take *everything* I hear in the news with a grain of salt, with the automatic presumption there is an underlying left tilted slant.
I am intolerant of intolerant people, and impatient with impatient people...our religion should.help us overcome that.
So who does the labeling? Who labels whom intolerant or impatient? Or is this label a rubber stamp that gets used whenever convenient?
What you've said is emblematic of what I'm trying to say.
I don't agree with many people, but I defend to the death their right to disagree with me. I don't see that from the other side, they want to kill me simply because I disagree. They want to blow up the White House because they disagree. That's NOT American, and it is NOT protected speech. These people should be called to task for their words.
If someone had said it was time to blow up the White House 4 years ago, they would be convicted in the court of public opinion for being prejudiced and probably a litany of other accusations. So there is a distinct double standard, and the left doesn't even respect the dignity of the office of the President enough to even give the guy a chance. They won't even seat half of his cabinet picks! This is unheard of in the history of American politics.
The guy that sees the other side does the labeling...
Separate names with a comma.