Points of Intersection?

[Susma Rio Sep]

To Pilgram:


Thanks for the reminder that the issue so much words have been expended so far and without arriving at a consensus is the following:

The current issue still revolves around whether the human race is better served by joining one religion (voluntarily of course, I can't believe I had to address someone's suggestion that it was to be mandatory! sheesh!) where everyone is a brother and a sister, rather than six billion religions where each is the competitor of the other. Six billion little gods just aint gonna cut it!

I agree with your position completely.

There is just that value now inculcated and accepted in democratic societies today of religious liberty, understood as everyone can embrace the peculiar religion he prefers.

You and I, do we abolish that human right of religious liberty now universally propounded in democratic societies, and put in its place the obligation of doing with only one religion that has the best of all religions of all times?

Yes, I think we should do that, we who are advocates of a universal religion.

How? Here are some suggestions:

1. Make it a required course of studies from the very first day of schooling to the graduate levels and to even post schooling years and outside schooling premises, namely, studies of the evils of religion, and also its beneficial contributions if any to mankind; so that you cannot enjoy all the civil and political rights of citizenship unless and until you pass successfully an examination on the evils and goods of religion, which examination is administered periodically in the life of every citizen.

2. Organize all governments of democratic states into a world body to assume and exercise the office of determining what is good and what is evil in religion for mankind, like a religious food and drug authority.

3. Impose trade sanctions and other disincentives on governments and states which do not join the above organization to determine a common list of what is good and what is evil in religion, and promulgate it on the citizenry.


These three principles will lead to a very generic religion where all the beliefs and practices are good or at least not inhibitive of the pursuit by every man for life, peace, and happiness among mankind and for every individual, and the observance of liberty, equality and fraternity.

What about those people who still would not want to accept the universal religion worked out by the world body for religion? Like for example, Buddhists?

I don’t see any difficulty with Buddhists, they believe in Buddha don’t they? They give honor to Buddha, don’t they? So in practical terms whatever the protestations of Buddhist connoisseurs, Buddha is their god.

The universal one world religion containing all the good things about religion and excluding all the evils is very generic, so it can include very fine tuning for each individual adherent, just that any fine tuning should not verge into the evils of religion as we know from history past and present.

Susma Rio Sep

[Vajradhara]

Namaste pilgram,

thank you for the post.

when i say "we" and "our view" i'm meaning to indicate that of the Buddhists in general and that of my school in particular. i apologize if that was not made clear.

in reference to my positive claimant statement, it was in reference to this statment of yours "The person making any assertion BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF" which isn't the case, as you correctly assert in your response to me.

not a big deal there.. just pointing it out for educational purposes for the interested reader.

since we are talking about religion and a world religon at that... what roles doe atheists or agnostics play in it and what is the purpose of bringing them into the discussion? no matter how you craft it, there will be some that don't choose to join the club, not matter how "inclusive" it claims to be.

Some of the founding fathers of America were deists, this is true.. of course some were also Freemasons and others were Christians... heck, perhaps they simply said they were deists and were, in reality, part of the Illumaniti?

now, regarding "one size fits all" that certainly doesn't apply in organ transplants, does it? it most certainly doesn't apply in tastes.. not everyone agrees that apples are delicious (of course, they are heathens ) really.. where in our day to day life do you find "one size fits all"? heck.. my feet are two different sizes and there on the same body! this is like making a hat with a bunch of holes in the band and saying that it fits everyone just fine. the truth is that on small heads the hat looks odd and on large heads the hat won't fasten. incidently, this is why "fitted" hats are quite popular... they fit you "exactly". i don't find that one size fits all in my car seat... i need to have the seat up and the back tilted, whilst my spouse, needs the seat back and the back straight. i note that my neighbor has a 9' ceiling whereas mine is 10'. further, i see that i've got many, many drill bits for my drill... each for a different sized hole.

now this statement of yours i find very interesting:

"....And the kind of "one size fits all" (I like your description since I think it's true) religion that I envision does not prevent them from doing whatever it is they want to do. Just don't go spouting off all the things that other people "shouldn't" do."

so.. they can do whatever they want provided that don't do something that you don't agree with? i hope that you see the irony of this statement

again, i feel compelled to point out in your example of 6 billion gods that not every religion has this belief and it's a fallacy to argue that this is correct. moreover, this would imply that every human has their own god that they worship. the last time that i checked, this was not the case. if you have some source material on this i'd be quite happy to read it.

fortunately, Buddhism doesn't pin itself into a corner with some sappy morality play that isn't in touch with reality. according to our teachings, you use the methods necessary to prevent harm and suffering to beings...and sometimes that may be violence to prevent greater harm. if i may be so bold... i'd say that a Buddhist wouldn't have any problem assassinating Hitler during WW2 to prevent the harm to the other beings.

you do know, do you not, that Buddhism has no dogmas to uphold, no creed to die or kill for? perhaps, a study of the teachings themselves would be of some value to you in your research rather than generalizations that don't seem to be applicable to the teachings.

eh.. perhaps you aren't really including Buddhism at all in this religion of yours since it seems to be foucsed on some type of god or deity worship, i can't really say.

good luck in your task, i think it will be difficult to say the least.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Su,

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

I don’t see any difficulty with Buddhists, they believe in Buddha don’t they? They give honor to Buddha, don’t they? So in practical terms whatever the protestations of Buddhist connoisseurs, Buddha is their god.


Susma Rio Sep

what do you mean by "believe"? do you mean to say that we believe that he existed as a human being, born in Lundi and all of that? well... given the nature of documents and so forth from 500 B.C.E. we may have to take some accounts of him as metaphor and allegory, though, there is little doubt that he existed.

ah.. i see it now... if you "honor" someone or something you worship it.. is that how it goes? well... i've got some bad news for you sunshine... that's not how it is.... and i've been telling you this for nearly 5 months now and still it's unclear to you. i apologize, i must be doing a terrible job of explaning the most basic facts of our tradition that i've left you hopelessly confused about the whole thing.

here's a great site to visit that should be able to explain what i've failed to:

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/basic-guide.htm

i would be quite interested to know from whence you've formed your opinions of Buddhism. i'd hazard, given your Catholic nature, that you've read the Papal Bull "Crossing the Threshold" and have derived your information from that. i'm sorry to have to say this, but the Pope is wrong in his understanding of Buddhism.

it is my opinion, based on the errorenous information that you continually post, that you are making things up as you go without putting the time into properly understanding what the various traditions are trying to say. further, when someone does correct you, you simply ignore them. your posts don't change to reflect the correct information.. why is that? are you so convinced that you have the only correct understanding of the Buddhist tradition or the Jewish tradition for that matter?

i don't get it... in your posts you imply that you are happy to learn and to get new knowledge yet, despite this, your subsequent postings reflect none of this learning that you are claiming. what gives? you aren't really trying to learn what others believe, are you? you are trying to pursuade others to agree with your point of view and that is it, from what i can tell.

[arthra]

Well my friend Susma while i do admire your spunk in offering these principles...I have deep reservations about them.

Susma wrote:

Here are some suggestions:

1. Make it a required course of studies from the very first day of schooling to the graduate levels and to even post schooling years and outside schooling premises, namely, studies of the evils of religion, and also its beneficial contributions if any to mankind; so that you cannot enjoy all the civil and political rights of citizenship unless and until you pass successfully an examination on the evils and goods of religion, which examination is administered periodically in the life of every citizen.

My reply:

Problem is Susma...someone's going to write those text books and decide what are the evils and good things about religion and this smacks of maybe a Soviet type education.... also an attempt to regiment peoples' spiritual life.

2. Organize all governments of democratic states into a world body to assume and exercise the office of determining what is good and what is evil in religion for mankind, like a religious food and drug authority.

Comment:

While i myself believe that a world parliamentary system would be beneficial, I don't think it's task should be to determine "what is good and what is evil in religion for mankind, like a religious food and drug authority". The priorities of a world government would be maintaining peace and security... as well as issues concerning monetary systems and trade regulations, not what the religion for mankind should be...

3. Impose trade sanctions and other disincentives on governments and states which do not join the above organization to determine a common list of what is good and what is evil in religion, and promulgate it on the citizenry.

Comment: Yeh, using a world government for this purpose would be contraproductive i would think.

Susma:

The universal one world religion containing all the good things about religion and excluding all the evils is very generic, so it can include very fine tuning for each individual adherent, just that any fine tuning should not verge into the evils of religion as we know from history past and present.

My reply:

As a Baha'i I want you to know that while we do advocate a world government as well as international court of arbitration we are very careful to say that this world government should be setup by the governments themselves something like the League of Nations or the United Nations and not deal with religion per se... other than encouraging rights to freedom of religion:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

- from the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights

There are already today many religious groups recognized as nongovernmental associates that regularly consult with the UN and this i think has been a beneficial arrangement.

I think the solution here is for enlightened people of whatever belief system to work together cooperatively on issues that face humanity and not to impose a Soviet type authority that dictates what is evil or beneficial in religion.

- Art

[Susma Rio Sep]

Dear Vaj:

I am giving everything here that I write my own impressions of things and my own conclusions, faulty as they might appear to other people.

On the other hand, there is no one here who is possessed of infallibility and omniscience.

I haven't not read any papal Bull since I postgraduated myself from Roman Catholicism.

I am not spreading wrong information, but my impressions and my conclusions. We are in a forum where everyone is at least knowledgeable about everyone else writing from the standpoint of his own impressions and conclusion, again, however faulty to others they appear or shortsighted or lopsided.

If you can't accept my ascrbing to Buddhists a belief in Buddha as some god, then you have all the right to not be able to -- what a sentence! Buddha himself would not be perturbed in the least....

I am sure you are aware that it's not only me, but a lot of observant people like for example, Arthra, our Baha'ist brother poster here also do. And people who have been to lands where Buddhism is the native dominant traditional religion reach the same conclusion.

Let's have a good laugh together, inviting also Buddha to join in:

[b]HAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAA HAAAAAAA HAAAAAAA HAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAH...!/B]

Dear Vaj, even a Buddhist you do have a sense of humor....

Namaste.

Susma Rio Sep

[Pilgram]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste pilgram,

in reference to my positive claimant statement, it was in reference to this statment of yours "The person making any assertion BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF" which isn't the case, as you correctly assert in your response to me.

not a big deal there.. just pointing it out for educational purposes for the interested reader.

Greetings Vajradhara,

You seem to continue to harbor some misunderstanding about a matter of logic and valid argumentaion. You quote me correctly in your first paragraph above but immediately go on to say "which isn't the case, as you correctly assert in your response to me."

Vaj, you are wrong. It is the case. The assertor of any statement DOES bear the burden of proof. And this is what I asserted BOTH times I spoke of it. Where do you find me ever contradicting that?

If you believe that by modifying the assertion with the word "positive" or "negative" you somehow escape bearing the burden, you are incorrect. No matter how you phrase an assertion (in the negative or in the positive) the one making the assertion bears the burden. You cannot shift the burdern by phrasing ithe assertion in some seemingly clever fashion.

There are 50 states in the U.S.A. is an assertion.
There are NOT 50 states in the U.S.A. is an assertion.
They are both assertions even though one is phrased positively and the other negatively. The person making the assertion bears the burden of proving either assertion.

If I were the asserter of the first assertion I bear the burdern of proving that there are 50 states.

If I were the asserter of the second assertion I still bear the burden of proving that there are NOT 50 states.

The burden doesn't shift to someone else in either of my assertions to prove me wrong. I bear the burden of proving my assertion correct.

You say that it is "not a big deal there" but I disagree. It is precisely because one does not have a firm grasp of logic and valid argumentation that one is able to say anything (whether valid or not) one wishes and believe that it is on equal footing with a valid argument. This is exactly why it is so difficult to get others to see a point. If someone has no understanding of what makes for valid reasoning it becomes impossible to validly reason. It is a VERY BIG DEAL!

I too am "just pointing it out for educational purposes for the interested reader."

Peace and Love,
Pilgram

[Pilgram]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

To Pilgram:

Thanks for the reminder that the issue so much words have been expended so far and without arriving at a consensus is the following:
I agree with your position completely.
There is just that value now inculcated and accepted in democratic societies today of religious liberty, understood as everyone can embrace the peculiar religion he prefers.
You and I, do we abolish that human right of religious liberty now universally propounded in democratic societies, and put in its place the obligation of doing with only one religion that has the best of all religions of all times?

Yes, I think we should do that, we who are advocates of a universal religion.

Greetings Susma,

As much as I would like all people to live in peace and love I do not beleive we will get there by abolishing religious liberty. It is tempting and in my younger days I would have said it is the only way. It appears that many human beings must be led by the nose into heaven. But I am not that leader.

I believe in open and free debate such as this one. The problem (the very large problem) is that so many people cannot recognize the difference between opinion and fact.

I do not see how we will ever obtain peace and loving coexistence on this planet until valid reasoning is taught and understood. In its place we now have "it's all good" "whatever you believe is just as true as whatever anyone else believes"

This gross ignorance of logic and valid argumentation is what allows our religious and political leaders to use us against each other and maintain "otherness" with its corresponding fear, prejudice, hatred, and war.

No, friend Susma, I would not take away any rights of man even if man is abusing the right. It is up to each and every individual to answer some day about how she or he tried to understand and tried to cooperate with others, or didn't.

It's ironic that billions of "monotheists" can have so many different gods, is it not?

Peace and Love,
Pilgram

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

Dear Vaj:

I am giving everything here that I write my own impressions of things and my own conclusions, faulty as they might appear to other people.

On the other hand, there is no one here who is possessed of infallibility and omniscience.

I haven't not read any papal Bull since I postgraduated myself from Roman Catholicism.

I am not spreading wrong information, but my impressions and my conclusions. We are in a forum where everyone is at least knowledgeable about everyone else writing from the standpoint of his own impressions and conclusion, again, however faulty to others they appear or shortsighted or lopsided.

If you can't accept my ascrbing to Buddhists a belief in Buddha as some god, then you have all the right to not be able to -- what a sentence! Buddha himself would not be perturbed in the least....

I am sure you are aware that it's not only me, but a lot of observant people like for example, Arthra, our Baha'ist brother poster here also do. And people who have been to lands where Buddhism is the native dominant traditional religion reach the same conclusion.

Let's have a good laugh together, inviting also Buddha to join in:

[b]HAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAA HAAAAAAA HAAAAAAA HAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAH...!/B]

Dear Vaj, even a Buddhist you do have a sense of humor....

Namaste.

Susma Rio Sep

Namaste su,

i just don't understand you at all. you claim to be interested in learning about other traditions and practices, yet, when people do explain what they believe, it either doesn't get transmitted properly.. or something... honestly, i don't know what it is.

depending on when you graduated from Catholism to...? you could have read the Bull, it was written in 1979.

you, of course, have every right to say that we worship Buddha as a god, we worship idols, we eat babies... really, whatever you'd like. none of it would be correct but if that's not important to you, then it really shouldn't matter that we protest.

yes, i'm quite aware of the Baha'i belief regarding Buddha and, as i have said in my postings to them, that it isn't a correct point of view. in any event, they can believe what they choose as well.

let me provide an analogy that may help explain my point..

for the sake of our analogy, you will be an expert car mechanic and i am a consumer. when i come to your repair shop because my car isn't working and you tell me what's wrong, wouldn't you find it quite odd for me to disagree with you and then go about explaining what i think is wrong with the car?

eh.. perhaps it's a poor analogy.

:sigh: there are some men that you just can't reach. if you honestly believe that the Buddha wouldn't mind if someone ascribed some type of "god-hood" to him then i really have no idea what to say. you could, of course, read his own words on this subject and see for yourself, however, i think that you couldn't be bothered and would rather keep your already set opinions about how things are and how they should be. this is your right, but that doesn't make you right.

i'm not joking, not kidding around or being jocular in any sense. i'm serious about my practice and my beliefs. you don't have to share them or agree with them, however, i would think it common curtesy to at least consider that you could be incorrect in your "conclusions" of Buddhism which are based on none of the Buddhas teachings.

if you cannot find it in you to accept the explanations of myself and other Buddhists that post on this site, or others, then i would heartily encourage you to do the work yourself and try to come to a well reasoned opinion.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Pilgram,

thank you for the response.

any retort to the rest of the post?

now... it is quite possible that i could be incorrect... i'm frequently wrong about a great many things...

here's pretty much how i see the whole burden of proof argument:

In debates, one side of the argument often carries the burden of proof, rather than the other. In philosophical debates, often various arguments have the effect of shifting burden of proof from one side to the other. How would we decide who carries the burden of proof?

In a dispute between a theist and an agnostic – between someone who wants to show that God exists, and someone who is as yet undecided whether God exists, we would take the burden of proof to be on the theist. This is because the person who wants to show that God exists is making a significant claim about the world, which is in most people’s views somewhat contentious.

In a philosophical dialogue concerning the existence of an external world that gives rise to the sensory experiences we have, we might suppose that the person who doubts that such an external world exists bears the burden of proof.

What these cases have in common is that they are positive arguments, making some significant claim, and as such it is the place of the advocates of such claims to defend them, and not the place of the audience to show that they are or might be false. The basic rule of burden of proof is he who asserts must prove. (Walton). It is the person who is advocating a thesis – even if the thesis is one of doubt, such as the argument that our sensory experiences do not prove that external objects exist – who bears the burden of proof. This basic rule is intended to show that when one offers an argument or claim, it is your job to establish it, not your audience’s job to prove you wrong.

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~cnm1/Ha...Mark%20Two.htm

[Darkwolf]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

You and I, do we abolish that human right of religious liberty now universally propounded in democratic societies, and put in its place the obligation of doing with only one religion that has the best of all religions of all times?

Yes, I think we should do that, we who are advocates of a universal religion.

You are JUST AS BAD as the people you dislike so much. You suggest taking away religious freedom and imposing your ideal of religion on everyone, JUST LIKE extremist Christians, Muslims, ect. If you and your supporters try to implement such a plan, I will fight you every step of the way.

I will worship my Gods as I see fit.

[Pilgram]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste Pilgram,

thank you for the response.

any retort to the rest of the post?

Not at this time unless there is a particular point upon which you wish to know my thoughts.

now... it is quite possible that i could be incorrect... i'm frequently wrong about a great many things...

here's pretty much how i see the whole burden of proof argument:

In debates, one side of the argument often carries the burden of proof, rather than the other. In philosophical debates, often various arguments have the effect of shifting burden of proof from one side to the other. How would we decide who carries the burden of proof?

Generally, the burden only shifts when one party (the one who did not first bear the burden) introduces something new that is not agreed upon by the other. This doesn't remove the first asserter's burden, it merely places a different and additional one on the new (second party) asserter. The first asserter still has to carry her burden and the second has to carry his.

In a dispute between a theist and an agnostic – between someone who wants to show that God exists, and someone who is as yet undecided whether God exists, we would take the burden of proof to be on the theist. This is because the person who wants to show that God exists is making a significant claim about the world, which is in most people’s views somewhat contentious.

I agree with you but not for the reason given. I agree that the burden of proof is on the theist because she is MAKING THE ASSERTION i.e. God exists. It doesn't matter that "most people" may find that view contentious. In fact it appears that most people believe that god/gods exist. But belief is a far cry from proof and so the burden of proof is upon the asserter (as it always is).

In a philosophical dialogue concerning the existence of an external world that gives rise to the sensory experiences we have, we might suppose that the person who doubts that such an external world exists bears the burden of proof.

I am sorry but you lost me here. You seem to be referring to a true skeptic but since there is no ASSERTION being made, no one has, as yet, any burden of proof. What would be the assertion and who would be the asserter?

What these cases have in common is that they are positive arguments, making some significant claim, and as such it is the place of the advocates of such claims to defend them, and not the place of the audience to show that they are or might be false. The basic rule of burden of proof is he who asserts must prove. (Walton). It is the person who is advocating a thesis – even if the thesis is one of doubt, such as the argument that our sensory experiences do not prove that external objects exist – who bears the burden of proof. This basic rule is intended to show that when one offers an argument or claim, it is your job to establish it, not your audience’s job to prove you wrong.

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~cnm1/Ha...Mark%20Two.htm

I agree totally with Walton's basic rule. However, perhaps you could clarify this example you've chosen concerning the skeptic and some other? What is the assertion/s being made and who is/are making them?

Again, you italicized the term "positive" but I think I am beginning to see what you might mean. Correct me if I am wrong. If by "positive" you simply mean the one who first asserts something, then I agree that that person has the burden of proof if the second person does not agree.

But if by positive you mean that the assertion must be worded in a "positive" fashion rather than a negative, then I disagree for the same reasons stated in my last post. A person asserting that there are not 50 states in the USA bears the burden of proving that. It is still a positive statement even though the asserter is saying "not 50". If you agree that the asserter still has the burden of proof even though she uses a "negative" term i.e. "not 50", then I think we are in agreement. But then the word "positive" becomes superfluous, does it not? They are arguments period, no?

Perhaps this may be of help also: where there is agreement, there is no burden of proof on either side since there are then "stipulations" of this or that.

Are we in agreement about who has the burden of proof or do we need further clarification?

Peace and Love,
Pilgram

[bananabrain]

OK, susma:

i'm saying that the traditional position is that our revelation is unique in being a collective one as opposed to coming via one prophet. now, this traditional position may have been very useful in mediaeval apologetics like the kuzari but it's hardly going to lay the modern sceptic in the aisles. my own position is indeed in agreement with you that "the fact of the events covering revelations and the revelations themselves as contents are matters of religious beliefs, so let's not argue about them?" it's not actually a commandment to hold this PoV, but it's the one that works for me and enables me to avoid embarrassment in front of people that disagree with me!

Judaism does create otherness. Have you ever heard of the gentile or the goyim? Let us look at the old testament and how the goyim were treated as "others." Jews were forbidden to charge interest on loans to other Jews, but not to the goyim! You probably overlooked this accidently, no?

great sarcasm there. look, pilgram, you obviously don't know anything about how this text works in practice via the oral tradition. quote me a verse and i'll explain it to you, but i'm not going to address inaccurate generalisations based on your ignorance of what you're criticising.

Universalism says no such thing. There is no mandate to join.

er. surely if something is "universal" then it applies to everyone? or are you referring to a specific group like the perfectly inoffensive unitarian universalists?

(or should I take your word "may" and run with it as it applies to Judaism as well, hmmm?)

i think you ought to explain this.

Our way or the hell way. But the Jews don't get any stars here either.

another generalised accusation. show me the textual evidence, please.

Please leave me out of your analysis of how YOU are the problem and how YOU need to grow up. Speak for yourself. Your simplistic "grow up ... and stop whining" solves nothing since no one is making any moves in that direction. Least of all YOU. (Perhaps you weren't whining?)

i am simply saying we all bear responsibility for our own actions and should grow out of blaming other people. i didn't start this by blaming your belief system for all the wrong in the world. you made the first accusation. and your tone is hardly conducive to spreading tolerance. you seem to have arrived at this site expecting everyone to be so impressed by your insight that we all buy your book or something. so far, i've seen very little sign of your convincing anyone of anything they didn't already believe - and your reaction to this seems to be to throw your toys out of the pram! don't be so petulant. after all, you *do* want us to buy your book, don't you? *grin*

You are very wrong about revelations and those who claim them as true. The person making any assertion BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF. I, as the one hearing it, have no burden at all.

discussion about the rules of argument is one thing, but you're kind of assuming our format here is one of traditional debate, where we have a "motion", people "for" and people "against", where, as you point out, the assertor probably has the burden of truth. what we are doing here IMHO is *dialogue*. this is not about proving points. it is about understanding the other person's point of view, not gaining disciples. i'm not trying to prove anything to you, as a careful reading of what i wrote would have revealed (susma seems to have understood it, for example) i'm just saying - for interest and information - that that's what *we* believe. i'm not out to convince anyone to agree with me, just to improve knowledge of judaism. by the sounds of some of the things you're saying, it's about time somebody did!

from our point of view, this is a "one size fits all" approach and would not be something that we'd endorse.

quite. elegant solutions are inevitably procrustean.

this is specifically why the Buddha proclaimed that there are 84,000 entry ways into the Dharma.

and this is why we say that "the Torah has 70 faces".

So the development of finance and Banking in Europe before say the seventeenth century or so largely grew out of excluding the Jews from all other occupations...at least that is the impression I've had.

i think i'll take my discussion of this over to the "G!D or money" thread, where it belongs.

That today we think in terms of "the planet" and such concepts as inter dependence, ecology, etc. is really very recent...

at least as far as the general public are concerned. mystics have been thinking in these terms for centuries.

There seems to be an assumption by some people (and not just on this forum) that because my myths are different from other's myths, I must think I am right and they are wrong. This is not the case. I simply accept that they see things differently. I like it that way. I like diversity.

quite right. the beginning of dialogue is the idea that "there are many paths up the mountain" and that "because i am right does not mean you are wrong". philosophically this can be based on the principle that human perception is by definition limited and therefore objectivity is impossible. this realisation frees us to recognise our own subjectivity and understand the subjectivity of others. in effect, it is this which enables the growth of compassion for every human being.

But trying to eliminate differences in belief and mythology in the name of unity is just as bad as trying to convert someone because you think your particular religion is the only right one.

that's what i meant by universality creating otherness, but you've put it much better than i did.

God is not the problem. All the myth, arbitrary rules of what to eat, how to have sex, with whom you're allowed to have it with, blah, blah, blah, is the problem. Deists simply said: yeah, there's a god, great. Now let's get some good work done.

i agree. the subsidiarity of human freewill means that the only valid rules are those that you accept and take upon yourself rather than trying to force upon others. this is what judaism teaches and is, incidentally, incompatible with missionary work, which we realised 2000 years ago - we're not saying that everyone should do what we do! the Torah is a set of laws for the jewish people, not for general use. they only become arbitrary when misapplied and i think it is this that causes the problem.

one size fits all works just honky dorey with the overwhelming majority of things pertaining to humans as I've said before in so many ways. What is one more time?

you can say it as many times as you like, but it doesn't sound any more convincing to me. sorry.

The god/gods that humans choose to place their faith in is a lot less important to them than their necessity to eat, drink, sleep, have adequate medical care, have a job that affords them a livable wage and have a government that affords them real justice and protection rather than simply holy words

what about religions that tell them that these things are important? judaism certainly says all these things, but you won't pick that up from reading english translations of the "old testament". that bears the same relationship to practical rabbinic judaism as copied out shorthand notes do to hearing the original lecture.

Just don't go spouting off all the things that other people "shouldn't" do. (Real saints don't do this, only the fakes do)

surely a "one size fits all" religion would not be able to avoid doing this either?

When two thousand denominations of the same "religion" create two thousand different ways to be "right", wars happen.

and a religion which says "no denominations" will do the same thing. that's how the inquisition got going.

Religionists: keep your dogma, your rituals, your special decoder rings. All it costs is human suffering and death.

yeah, because "non-religionists" don't suffer and die.

Jews were forbidden by Jehovah to charge interest to Jews but they were allowed to charge it to the goyim (non-jews). But if you wrote it in response let me point out that this practice predated the Renaissance by at least one or two thousand or years!

again, quote me the verse and i'll explain it. if you think it means we're supposed to swindle people who aren't jewish, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

The goyim, btw, is still a term used by many Jews about non-Jews. But it's "just a joke", like calling a black person a ... ?

oh, there are jewish arseholes????? my goodness me, what a surprise!!!!

They restricted the number of occupations that Jews were allowed to perform (for example they were forbidden to be chemists, brewers or flour-millers)

this is because they wished to prevent us poisoning the wells and and using the blood of christian babies to make bread. so it had a kind of logic, even if it was based on lies.

You and I, do we abolish that human right of religious liberty now universally propounded in democratic societies, and put in its place the obligation of doing with only one religion that has the best of all religions of all times?

it's working extremely well in france at the moment, isn't it?

no matter how you craft it, there will be some that don't choose to join the club, not matter how "inclusive" it claims to be.

quite!

perhaps they simply said they were deists and were, in reality, part of the Illuminati?

of course, if everyone's lying about everything, it makes for an interesting world, don't it?

fortunately, Buddhism doesn't pin itself into a corner with some sappy morality play that isn't in touch with reality.

i agree. nor does judaism in my experience.

are you so convinced that you have the only correct understanding of the Buddhist tradition or the Jewish tradition for that matter?

quite. if you want to know how a car works, ask a mechanic. similarly, if you want to know about buddhism, a [knowledgeable] buddhist should be the first person you ask. ignorance doesn't make you more of an expert than someone who knows more than you.

Problem is Susma...someone's going to write those text books and decide what are the evils and good things about religion and this smacks of maybe a Soviet type education.... also an attempt to regiment peoples' spiritual life.

and my point from the beginning was that this has been tried many times and has never, ever, ever worked. people aren't like that.

The problem (the very large problem) is that so many people cannot recognize the difference between opinion and fact.

hear, hear!

you, of course, have every right to say that we worship Buddha as a god, we worship idols, we eat babies... really, whatever you'd like. none of it would be correct but if that's not important to you, then it really shouldn't matter that we protest.

and we sure as hell have exactly the same problem with people telling us that judaism says all sorts of things when in fact they are talking complete bollocks.

if you cannot find it in you to accept the explanations of myself and other Buddhists that post on this site, or others, then i would heartily encourage you to do the work yourself and try to come to a well reasoned opinion.

ditto.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[arthra]

Bananabrain wrote:


"....discussion about the rules of argument is one thing, but you're kind of assuming our format here is one of traditional debate, where we have a "motion", people "for" and people "against", where, as you point out, the assertor probably has the burden of truth. What we are doing here IMHO is *dialogue*. this is not about proving points, it is about understanding the other person's point of view, not gaining disciples. .... i'm not out to convince anyone to agree with me, just to improve knowledge of judaism."

My comment:

Yes, that's where i'm also coming from also on this forum.... dialogue and understanding are more important than mere debate. Of more value here is appreciating varying points of view rather than "making points".

Maybe there are those drawn here though who learn by debate and i think that may be alright for itself but dialogue should be valued above mere debate.

- Art

[Susma Rio Sep]

Dear Vaj, you tell me:

if you cannot find it in you to accept the explanations of myself and other Buddhists that post on this site, or others, then i would heartily encourage you to do the work yourself and try to come to a well reasoned opinion.

Is our impasse as bad as that between Protestants accusing Catholics of idolatry in their devotion to Mary and the saints, and Catholics insisting what they give to Mary and the saints is veneration of hyperdulia and dulia, but not the worship of latria.

On my part, I just smile, because they are both right in their respective minds and observations. We would need a judge trained in logic and in language and thought and the world outside the mind to unravel their knotty tangle.


Best regards,

Susma Rio Sep

[Susma Rio Sep]

Well, I guess I did manage to stir up the hornet's nest with that earlier post about an obligatory one world religion. Regrets all around.

I had asked myself the question:

You and I, do we abolish that human right of religious liberty now universally propounded in democratic societies, and put in its place the obligation of doing with only one religion that has the best of all religions of all times?

And I answered it myself thus:

Yes, I think we should do that, we who are advocates of a universal religion.

Darkwolf tells me:

You are JUST AS BAD as the people you dislike so much. You suggest taking away religious freedom and imposing your ideal of religion on everyone, JUST LIKE extremist Christians, Muslims, ect. If you and your supporters try to implement such a plan, I will fight you every step of the way.

I will worship my Gods as I see fit.

Well said, Darkwolf, my sincerest commendations to you. I can't agree with you more. Don't be alarmed when I get carried away by my sometimes fervid enthusiasm.


Listen, everyone here, I must correct my words, for my thoughts and sentiments are not really what those words in the earlier post denote.

Here is my definitive and absolutely unchangeable position about all the goods of religions -- let's not talk about a one world religion:

All governments which subscribe to the principle of separation of church and state should assume upon itself the compulsory duty to disseminate information about the goods and evils of religion, and also its verities and its errors, from the past to the present

It should be compulsory on every citizen to pass an examination on his knowledge of the goods and evils of religion and its verities and errors, on which successful passing of the examination there would be more eligibility for a citizen to qualify for government posting or grant.

For the rest of my disturbing earlier post, I invite all of us here to consider that in religion we are situating ourselves in a domain of discourse not like that of car maintenance and troubleshooting. (No, that's not my business, just my weekend chores on occasions.)

May I also propose that we all here ascribe to the aspiration:

Peace on earth to men of good will, that good will that does not in any way manifest itself in violence whatever.

Namaste all.

Susma Rio Sep