Points of Intersection?

[arthra]

Well my friend Susma,

I admire your well meaning enthusiasm anyway... I think your intentions are good and that's important.

There are some good things happening i think with Non-governmental organizations and the UN...also there's was the World Parliament of Religions around 1993 that made some good pronouncements.

I think the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is also very good in principle.

Susma wrote:

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.

Comment:

That also sounds good Susma...

- Art

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by arthra

Well my friend Susma,

I admire your well meaning enthusiasm anyway... I think your intentions are good and that's important.

There are some good things happening i think with Non-governmental organizations and the UN...also there's was the World Parliament of Religions around 1993 that made some good pronouncements.

I think the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is also very good in principle.

Susma wrote:

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.

Comment:

That also sounds good Susma...

- Art

Dear Art:

Can you ever imagine that one day in some very strange permutation of fate which is forgive me another name for God, some people would want to persecute you or your religion for being true to your religion, and you have to defend yourself and your religion with resorting to violence?

Susma Rio Sep

[Pilgram]

Originally Posted by 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

Greetings banana and Art,

Instead of paying any attention to those pesky rules of "mere" debate (like valid and invalid arguments) why don't we all just smoke a big fat joint and say whatever pops into our heads? (Not that there's anything wrong with that in the proper setting!) But this is not that setting.

And it's not about "making points," Art. What kind of points would one even get on this website?! We don't know the real identity of each other. What would these "points" you ponder be worth to you or anyone else? Could I buy a Harry Potter chocolate frog if I accumulate 10 of these points? Okay, I don't mean any harm, I'm just adding what in my warped mind resembles levity! Don't get all offended. I took no offence by your belittling mere rules of debate. You just don't know any better, right? (Another joke! HaHa)

Now, it's not about making points but it is about "proving" points. Otherwise what's the sense of communicating? Just to hear ourselves talk (or type)?

No, some of us are not just blowing hot air out of our fingers? Some of us really want to make human contact and discuss things that are of great importance to us. But I am also certain that there are some who are just "hanging out" and banging away on the keys for ... what? Points? To impress the chicks at Borders? I'm not mentioning any names so don't jump to conclusions, guys.

Debate and logical argumentation was an art form known to the Greeks from whose serious and "logical" efforts you enjoy many luxuries (like your computer) and pleasures that you would no doubt never have acquired by just sitting around the fire eating magic mushrooms and "dialoging with God." (Don't anyone jump to the conclusion that I am not in favor of using botanicals in a reverent fashion.)

At least three or four of us here are having a discussion that includes the importance of how and why words and word constructions are used. It might amuse you to know that some of us realize that we can learn a great deal about each other by carefully considering the words and word structures used by each other.

"Dialoguing" is only the beginning of worthwhile conversation. ["Dialogue and understanding are more important that MERE (emphasis mine) debate" - Art] Clearly "understanding" each others' terms of dialogue is for intermediate and advanced spirits trying to help each other to a better place.

You can disparage logic and valid argumentation all you want. Ignorance, like Wisdom, is its own reward, and punishment.

Love and Peace,
Pilgram

P.S. bananabrain, I had a much more positive view of Judaism BEFORE I read your "knowledge of Judaism." So if your goal is to improve our knowledge of it, perhaps you might find another voice. I loved the kind and (in my opinion) wise rabbi in Fiddler on the Roof. I hope you don't find this too mundane or parochial but if you do, that's okay. I still loved him and always will. I'd like to love you too.

[Pilgram]

Susma,

I have not forgotten you. I owe you a post reply. Please be patient.

Love and Peace,
Pilgram

[arthra]

Dear Art:

Can you ever imagine that one day in some very strange permutation of fate which is forgive me another name for God, some people would want to persecute you or your religion for being true to your religion, and you have to defend yourself and your religion with resorting to violence?

Susma Rio Sep

Thanks for your question my good friend!

Baha'is are not permitted to defend their religion by resorting to violence or organizing say some sort of defensive Jihad:

"Beware lest ye shed the blood of any one. Unsheathe the sword of your tongue from the scabbard of utterance, for therewith ye can conquer the citadels of men's hearts. We have abolished the law to wage holy war against each other. God's mercy hath, verily, encompassed all created things, if ye do but understand."

- Baha'u'llah


Baha'is have lived in very oppressive societies such as in Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia and in Iran and other Moslem countries where being a Baha'i would be enough to be imprisoned and sometimes executed. Moslems who become Baha'is can be considered "apostates" in Islam, but we are not permitted to use any violence to counter violence to defend our Faith...

Primary place in the world where Baha'is are oppressed today is probably in Iran where it is prohibited for Baha'i to enter higher education.

Baha'is as a group are not afforded any rights in society as say Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians are.

Baha'i Holy Places have been seized as well as all Baha'i properties including cemetaries which were desecrated.

Baha'i marriages are not recognized and the children of Baha'is are removed from their parents' custody and placed with Moslem families. Married Baha'is have been accused of immorality for "living together" and imprisoned or punished.

Baha'is who teach other Baha'is about the faith can also be imprisoned...and so on.

So it is not just some weird permutation of a future possibility it's already happened and we Baha'is do not resort to any violence of any kind to defend our Faith.

We apply normally to the international community hoping that through moral suasion or international law (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) the persecution and oppression of Baha'is will cease...

Personal self defence however is permitted in the event of a break down in law enforcement but not for religion.

- Art

[Pilgram]

Greetings All,

Just thought I'd mention this to keep things straight. Bananabrain starts post #42 by saying: okay Susma, thus giving readers the idea that he is addressing one called Susma. Fine.

But then his quoted material is taken not only from Susma but from 1, 2, 3 or more different sources.

Just thought readers might like to know that if they hadn't noticed. It took me one or two of his posts before I noticed.

Any reason you like to shift between sources without crediting them by name?

Peace and Love,
Pilgram

[Pilgram]

Arthra says:

Baha'is as a group are not afforded any rights in society as say Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians are.

- Art

What society are you now talking about? Iranian? German? American?

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by arthra

Dear Art:

Can you ever imagine that one day in some very strange permutation of fate which is forgive me another name for God, some people would want to persecute you or your religion for being true to your religion, and you have to defend yourself and your religion with resorting to violence?

Susma Rio Sep

Thanks for your question my good friend!

Baha'is are not permitted to defend their religion by resorting to violence or organizing say some sort of defensive Jihad:

"Beware lest ye shed the blood of any one. Unsheathe the sword of your tongue from the scabbard of utterance, for therewith ye can conquer the citadels of men's hearts. We have abolished the law to wage holy war against each other. God's mercy hath, verily, encompassed all created things, if ye do but understand."

- Baha'u'llah


Baha'is have lived in very oppressive societies such as in Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia and in Iran and other Moslem countries where being a Baha'i would be enough to be imprisoned and sometimes executed. Moslems who become Baha'is can be considered "apostates" in Islam, but we are not permitted to use any violence to counter violence to defend our Faith...

Primary place in the world where Baha'is are oppressed today is probably in Iran where it is prohibited for Baha'i to enter higher education.

Baha'is as a group are not afforded any rights in society as say Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians are.

Baha'i Holy Places have been seized as well as all Baha'i properties including cemetaries which were desecrated.

Baha'i marriages are not recognized and the children of Baha'is are removed from their parents' custody and placed with Moslem families. Married Baha'is have been accused of immorality for "living together" and imprisoned or punished.

Baha'is who teach other Baha'is about the faith can also be imprisoned...and so on.

So it is not just some weird permutation of a future possibility it's already happened and we Baha'is do not resort to any violence of any kind to defend our Faith.

We apply normally to the international community hoping that through moral suasion or international law (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) the persecution and oppression of Baha'is will cease...

Personal self defence however is permitted in the event of a break down in law enforcement but not for religion.

- Art

This is really something new for me -- and your religion is still around and growing, and there are people like you with evidence of learning (no patronzing intended) around and joining.

Are you guys not slated to be the "remnant of Israel' to last to the end of times with the privileged label of "remnant"? that is, unless you get treatment of extinction before those days.

Of course, I don't give serious attention to such "remnant of Israel" and end times fantasies. Just being sardonic.

Congratulations to you and your religion.

Being an observer I do claim the right and the role of some kind of judge: you deserve some kind of Oscar, and certainly not for acting but for being sincere to the price of possible self-extinction.

Susma Rio Sep

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by Pilgram

Susma,

I have not forgotten you. I owe you a post reply. Please be patient.

Love and Peace,
Pilgram

I think, Pilgram, I can get your prevailing concern and I admire it, though you give me the picture of Don Quixote de la Mancha.

Vaj is very knowledgeable about a lot of things also, like you, but he sometimes get a bit miffed with some posts here and there, then he seems to suffer a slight diminution of his Nirvanic equanimity. But he is certainly an authority on Buddhism, and an apologist and even at times a polemicist.

Art is a good exponent of Baha'i of which he is a committed sincere adherent, without any guile, a man of transparency.

Banana, I have the impression that he is a professional defender of Jewish beliefs and observances and of Jews in general. Professional? Well, as in a lawyer is a professional, so also an accountant.

Now, I am ready to be hit with brickbats, unless Brian delete this post before enough people get to read it.

Susma Rio Sep

[bananabrain]

Banana, I have the impression that he is a professional defender of Jewish beliefs and observances and of Jews in general. Professional? Well, as in a lawyer is a professional, so also an accountant.

susma, what the arse are you on about? i don't even understand what point you're making. if i see someone talking bollocks about judaism, i try to set them straight. i am as entitled to do so as you would be if i started ascribing beliefs and practices to another group. there's nothing "professional" about it.

without "attack", there is no need for "defence".

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Vajradhara]

Namaste pilgram,

thank you for the post.

<b>

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.</b>

it's more than a simple assertion, it's an assertion about something significant about the world... but... yes, that's the gist of it.

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

Peace and Love,
Pilgram[/quote]</b>

i believe that we are in agreement...hopefully, others are as well

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Su,

thank you for the post.

you ask:

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.

to which i respond:

it is my opinion that these are apples and oranges we are talking about. it's not like you and i are disagreeing about how a certain Sutra is understood or if the rules of the Vinya should be updated, you are seemingly making judgements predicated on your understanding of something else entirely.

if you believe that you are right in your assertions, despite all the textual evidence to the contrary, then i guess we are at that impasse. if you cannot or are unwilling to accurately understand our tradition then there seems to be little room for dialog.

[Darkwolf]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

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.

The idea of someone imposing their religion on me is guaranteed to get my hackles up. Freedom of religion is something I hold very high in my ideals.

While I wouldn't go so far as to require a test on religion, I do think there should be more education, such as a world religions class in high school.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste Su,

thank you for the post.

you ask:

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.

to which i respond:

it is my opinion that these are apples and oranges we are talking about. it's not like you and i are disagreeing about how a certain Sutra is understood or if the rules of the Vinya should be updated, you are seemingly making judgements predicated on your understanding of something else entirely.

if you believe that you are right in your assertions, despite all the textual evidence to the contrary, then i guess we are at that impasse. if you cannot or are unwilling to accurately understand our tradition then there seems to be little room for dialog.

Dear Vaj:

It is my impression that masses in Buddhism actuate themselves in acts that indicate they have a belief in some god, and Buddha is that god for them. God is understood here as an unknown power, the way I use the word in my definition of religion:

Religion is a human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended by the believer to influence the power to react favorably to the believer. (See that thread on What is a religion.)

Who are these masses in Buddhism? The general populace in Vietnam, Burma, Thailand, Tibet...

Vaj, you are not one of them.

But I do suspect you have some godly regard for Buddha, even though on the witness stand you would declare that you don't believe that Buddha is any kind of a god.


I think the impasse between you and me, Vaj, about Buddhism and a god -- you insisting that Buddhists don't believe in any god, I seeing some god in Buddhism -- is due to the fact that I am talking on the levels of action and affection, while you as a connoisseur adherent of Buddhism are talking on the cognition level.

Insofar as the cognition is concerned there is no god, not for you, Vaj, and fellow Buddhist connosseurs.

But on the levels of action and affection, I am very inclined to maintain that:

If we look at the visible actions or external behavior of the Buddhist masses in regard to Buddha, and also reproduce in visible advancing graphic lines on a screen their inner affective stances; then those visible actions or external behavior and the graphic lines representing the affective stances of Buddhists are no different from similar manifestations of believers in God like Jews, Christians, and Muslims in regard to their God.

Now, my point is that in many instances: concepts in the mind are not necessarily faithful or can be faithful to the actions and affections of people talking about concepts.

Actions and affections say one thing; talk representing concepts can and does very often say another thing maybe even the direct opposite.

As far as I can see, the Buddhist masses give worship to Buddha as some kind of a god; even though they might not be able to produce a definition of god the way intellectualized monotheists do.

Now, about the Buddhist connoisseurs of the West, of which, Vaj, you are a very concrete example, I am inclined to seriously suspect their actions and affections are in line with the idea of Buddha as a god, whatever their articulate cognition says otherwise.

On my reading about Buddhism, I think I have read enough to know its bare bone didactics.

Buddhist ideas of how to live life without being overwhelmed by the incident of suffering makes a lot of sense in terms of theories and in terms of practices. Although there is a lot to be said in sound critique against its attitude of counter poising suffering exclusively to desire.

Beyond these down to earth directives of living life to be in control of oneself and to transcend one's more unruly passions, its metaphysics of human existence and the universe is speculative philosophy.


Now, may I invite you, brother Vaj, to join me in a good hearty laugh:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Well, at least, a smile then?

Susma Rio Sep

[Pilgram]

Vajradhara says:

Namaste pilgram,

thank you for the post.

Pilgram said: "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."

Vaj said: "it's more than a simple assertion, it's an assertion about something significant about the world... but... yes, that's the gist of it."

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

Vaj said: "i believe that we are in agreement...hopefully, others are as well


Begining of new post:
Greetings Vaj,

I believe we are almost there, my friend. The only hesitation I have before agreeing with you on our definition is that I am not so sure why an assertion would have to be "about something significant about the world?" I think anyone making any assertion bears the burden of proving her assertion be it something as significant as the existence of god or the existence of a chocolate bar in one's pocket.

And if you can find it in agreement with your spiritual and mental integrity to add that ANY assertion (even the seemingly "insignificant") places a burden of proof on the assertor, then I believe we are in total agreement. Of course, if you have a reason why only significant assertions should be proven by the asserter, I would be most interested in knowing it.

Love and Peace,
Pilgram