Points of Intersection?

[arthra]

Originally Posted by Pilgram

Arthra says:

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

The examples i posted were from Iran... In Iran, which claims to live under Moslem laws Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians are accorded rights although solely within the context of the larger Moslem society... so they are permitted properties and rights to practise their religion, not so for Baha'is, even though Baha'is are propably more numerous than Zoroastrans and Jews at this point...

The United Nations has sent a representative regularly to Iran to check on the status of Baha'is there and report back to the General Assembly.

In recent years while there are still Baha'is imprisoned for their religion not so many have been executed.

A well known example of execution can be found at this site:

http://www.adressformona.org/truestory.htm

Where a group of Baha'i women were executed.

- Art

[Pilgram]

Originally Posted by arthra

The examples i posted were from Iran... In Iran, which claims to live under Moslem laws Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians are accorded rights although solely within the context of the larger Moslem society... so they are permitted properties and rights to practise their religion, not so for Baha'is, even though Baha'is are propably more numerous than Zoroastrans and Jews at this point...

The United Nations has sent a representative regularly to Iran to check on the status of Baha'is there and report back to the General Assembly.

In recent years while there are still Baha'is imprisoned for their religion not so many have been executed.

A well known example of execution can be found at this site:

http://www.adressformona.org/truestory.htm

Where a group of Baha'i women were executed.

- Art

Greetings Art,
I have no doubt that Iran treats minority religions in a most un-Moslemlike fashion. That's the problem living in a country that has no real separation of church and state. While Bahais are discriminated against, my guess is that other religions too suffer under Iran's god-goverment! It may not be possible but if I were in Iran and did not practice Islam, I would probably try to get out!

As you know America has fewer (not zero) problems of discrimination against minority religions. (Any other than Christian).

It will always be the case where a country that is "A" in its religious majority will always discriminate against all "non-A" religions. The only thing that varies is the amount of the discrimination.

That is why I would prefer to see people put away their differences in dogma and embrace the core beliefs that are the heart and soul of ANY religion. Unfortunately, we have not yet evolved far enough to see the logic in doing so. Therefore, the beat goes on! And the beatings. And the killings.

Peace and Love,
Pilgram

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

Dear Vaj:

It is my impression.......

Susma Rio Sep

as i say, su,

you can believe whatever it is that you'd like to believe, regardless of what anyone will say to the contrary. that's certainly something that you've demonstrated quite clearly.

since you are unwilling to consider that your understanding of Buddhism may not be correct, we are no longer capable of dialog on this subject.

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by pilgram

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?

yes - i am addressing the argument, not the person, as it comes across. i don't know you except by your arguments. sorry if it's confusing. it's not (as you seem to be implying) some kind of underhand way of confusing the issue.

Originally Posted by pilgram

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.

oh, forgive me; i must have missed the place on the website where it says "pilgram defines the terms of reference". religious dialogue is as supremely unsuited for both political yah-boo-style debate as it is for dissection by the tools of greek logic. it's not by any means a choice between "psychedelia" and "maths" as you seem to be suggesting. i am not disparaging logic - i am pointing out that what is a "valid" argument for you is not necessarily "valid" for others, as should be pretty obvious by now. there is very little point in discussions which are just people stating their points of view no matter how ill-informed. you make a lot of generalised comments. when you do so and i feel i have to take issue with one of them, i will do so. it is for the other readers of the thread to decide who is being reasonable, who is trying to be accusatory or controversial.

Originally Posted by pilgram

Some of us really want to make human contact and discuss things that are of great importance to us.

some of us might think that dispelling ignorance and learning about each other is of greater importance than making meaningless statements like "i would like to love you too" - meaningful relationships (especially those in cyberspace) take a long time to build.

Originally Posted by pilgram

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)?

that's exactly what i (and others by the sound of things) are disagreeing with you about. i'm not here to "prove" points. however, if you make assertions (and you have) that appear to be misleading (or "invalid" if you like) i *will* pick you up on them. you don't seem to take kindly to that - albeit you haven't responded to a lot of the posts where i have pointed out things that you have got wrong about my religion and my sacred texts. to put it bluntly (which i don't like doing) you don't know nearly as much about judaism as you think you know. if you are sincerely interested in "love and peace", you will think a little about how this is to be achieved. not trying to browbreat your interlocutors is a start.

Originally Posted by 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.

this doesn't surprise me. have you actually read any bashevis singer (the guy on whose stories FOTR is based) at all? you'd find something a bit more realistic and a bit less quaint. judaism is a real religion that has lasted for 3000 years by the study, practice and hard work of millions of real people. is it my fault you are attached to a stereotypical idea of judaism? if i was black, would you expect me to act like some hip-hop gangsta-rapping stereotype, or would you attempt to encounter me as i really am, not as you would like me to be? the basis of dialogue is *dealing with the real person*, not your idea of what they ought to be.

Originally Posted by pilgram

"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.

this i absolutely agree with. perhaps we should all try and start by abiding by it.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Pilgram]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i am not disparaging logic - i am pointing out that what is a "valid" argument for you is not necessarily "valid" for others, as should be pretty obvious by now. there is very little point in discussions which are just people stating their points of view no matter how ill-informed.

Greetings bb,

How can I put this ... your grasp of the subject of logic and valid argumentation leaves something to be desired. A logical argument is not valid for one person and invalid for someone else like you'd like to believe. The most basic primer on logic would explain this.

If you stick with your argument that on this website we don't need to adhere to logical reasoning, that's fine. You can do all the fuzzy reasoning you care to. But to baldly state as a MATTER OF FACT that validity changes from person to person as you wish it to is simply incorrect. You may say that the sun revolves around the earth if you wish but it just isn't so.

Just because people are discussing religion or philosophy (logic is a branch of philosophy) that doesn't imply that most of us aren't trying to make well reasoned arguments. You imply that you are merely voicing your opinion but if ever I heard a more authoritarian voice on this website I couldn't tell you whose it might be. You have no hesitation quoting your scriptures at great length (and boring to some of us). If this is not to persuade the reader that you are RIGHT, what's it for? No one asked for it, you just started spouting this authority and that authority. Like when I stated something from Exodus you failed to stay with the words as they appear in Exodus. Instead, you had to "explain" why Exodus didn't really mean what it said. The ##### is really the text one needs to look at because ***** says that @@@ and %%% is really $$$. Try staying with an issue instead of shifting it and hoping no one notices. We do.

You may deny that you are trying to "win" an argument but anyone reading your long quotes of scripture (that seem interesting only to you) can easily see otherwise. You may convice others that you are merely expressing your opinion but as Susma has noted, you smell more like a "professional" (Susma's word not mine) apologist (my word not Susma's).

Peace and Love (to all who accept it),
Pilgram

P.S. For anyone not understanding my parenthetical message in my closing, it is because babanabrain believes that if one wishes Peace and Love on his fellows, he has to do it with a timid voice and not dare to make a logical argument or call a spade a spade. One can be both loving and of goodwill to all while being firm and not allowing a faulty argument to pass for truth.

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by pilgram

How can I put this ... your grasp of the subject of logic and valid argumentation leaves something to be desired. A logical argument is not valid for one person and invalid for someone else like you'd like to believe. The most basic primer on logic would explain this.

insulting me doesn't make you any more convincing. what i am saying is that if your "valid" argument is based upon faulty premises or invalid assumptions, then it invalidates the argument. i am questioning your assumptions and you are ignoring the fact that i am not working with the same assumptions as you are.

Originally Posted by pilgram

If you stick with your argument that on this website we don't need to adhere to logical reasoning, that's fine. You can do all the fuzzy reasoning you care to. But to baldly state as a MATTER OF FACT that validity changes from person to person as you wish it to is simply incorrect. You may say that the sun revolves around the earth if you wish but it just isn't so.

you seem very anxious for me to be the evil pope to your righteous galileo when actually, it's a bit more like you being an interior decorator and me being a surveyor. because you refuse to consider the big picture in your pretty little logical model doesn't mean it's not there.

Originally Posted by pilgram

Just because people are discussing religion or philosophy (logic is a branch of philosophy) that doesn't imply that most of us aren't trying to make well reasoned arguments.

but halakha (jewish law) has only a partial relationship to greek-derived logic. sorry. that's just how it is.

Originally Posted by pilgram

You imply that you are merely voicing your opinion but if ever I heard a more authoritarian voice on this website I couldn't tell you whose it might be.

i'm not "merely" doing anything. i am not the one telling you what to *believe*. i am telling you how i interpret my sacred texts according to my received, tried and tested interpretative tradition. you have no business telling me what i should or should not hold as an opinion about my own texts.

Originally Posted by pilgram

quoting your scriptures at great length (and boring to some of us). If this is not to persuade the reader that you are RIGHT, what's it for?

perhaps it is to give you some idea that there may be a bit more to these texts than you think there is.

Originally Posted by pilgram

No one asked for it, you just started spouting this authority and that authority. Like when I stated something from Exodus you failed to stay with the words as they appear in Exodus.

that is simply not the case. the interpretation is verse-by-verse matched with the source text. look, the fact that you can't be arsed to read and understand the explanation doesn't mean the explanation doesn't make sense. you asked, in a rather insulting, "have-you-quit-beating-your-wife" kind of way, how i justified the text saying it was OK to swindle non-jews and i explained how it absolutely wasn't and the way that the tradition gets from your understanding of it to ours. i fail to see how that could be clearer. the Torah is not a simple text. it is a complicated one. you can't have it both ways: feel free to address my explanation if you like, but don't tell me that i can't use jewish commentators to explain jewish texts.

Originally Posted by pilgram

The ##### is really the text one needs to look at because ***** says that @@@ and %%% is really $$$. Try staying with an issue instead of shifting it and hoping no one notices. We do.

this reveals that you have no idea how jewish texts or judaism work. perhaps you would prefer it if i did a little dance and went "oy, vey" a bit so you could think me quaint and olde-worlde.

you smell more like a "professional" (Susma's word not mine) apologist (my word not Susma's).

i think this is a disgraceful thing for you to say and i would like it reported.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Pilgram]

Greetings BB and All,

Originally Posted by bananabrain

insulting me doesn't make you any more convincing.

It was never my intention to insult you.

what i am saying is that if your "valid" argument is based upon faulty premises or invalid assumptions, then it invalidates the argument. i am questioning your assumptions and you are ignoring the fact that i am not working with the same assumptions as you are.

This is absolutely NOT what you said. What you said is:
Originally Posted by bananabrain
i am not disparaging logic - i am pointing out that what is a "valid" argument for you is not necessarily "valid" for others, as should be pretty obvious by now. there is very little point in discussions which are just people stating their points of view no matter how ill-informed

We can do this as for long as you like. Again, you are ATTEMPTING to shift the issues. And again, we notice!

A valid argument is not ABLE to be valid for one person and invalid for another. This is why I say you simply have no understanding of logic. I am not insulting you as you have said. I am informing you. But you just don't seem to want to listen.

Logic has rules that don't change for bananabrain or me. If an argument is valid, it is valid. It is valid for you, for me and for everyone. If, however, you do not understand the nature of rules of argumentation and logic, I can see why you might BELIEVE that the argument is not valid for yourself or some other as you clearly said in your post I reproduced above(the second one.)

What you tried to do by shifting the issues in your first quoted post at the very top of this post is sprinkle a bit of truth among the illogic. You are right when you say IF I were to make a "valid"(your word) argument based upon faulty premises or invalid assumptions, then it invalidates the argument." The key word is IF. And if I were to then I would agree with you. [ But no one can make a "valid" argument based upon invalid premises. That is the very definition of an invalid argument.]

But this is not what you said in your first post (the one that starts: i am not disparaging logic). You have shifted the subject. I hope that you see this and are honest enough to admit it.

I was not trying to insult you in any post I've ever written. When I said earlier that I would like to love you, I meant it and still do. What you need to understand is that I can argue with you or anyone and still be friends. I may attack your reasoning vehemently but that is not an attack on you.

I can see that like myself and everyone else you believe what you believe. That's fine. I am not trying to get you to believe what I believe. What I am trying to do with you and everyone else is to make a reasoned argument about matters that are obviously very important to all of us. This is no mere coffee house banter or bar room bs.

So I can disagree with you about things of opinion, is there a god, what sex is she, are there more than one, etc. but I will point out faulty reasoning when you are trying to "educate" someone about Judaism or anything else. And I expect you to do the same to me. So I hope this clears a few things up. We'll see, huh?

Peace and Love,
Pilgram

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,


perhaps a little more tact in all of our approaches would be the path to walk in this instance...

in any event...

what i really see is that people have different meanings for the same words... which really complicates matters to the nth degree.

i'm simply curious... maybe we would be better off, in this sense, picking something like Roberts Rules and be done with it....

[Pilgram]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste all,


perhaps a little more tact in all of our approaches would be the path to walk in this instance...

in any event...

what i really see is that people have different meanings for the same words... which really complicates matters to the nth degree.

i'm simply curious... maybe we would be better off, in this sense, picking something like Roberts Rules and be done with it....

Greetings Vaj,

This is very funny. See, Susma, Vaj has a good sense of humor.

Love and Peace,
Pilgram

[Pilgram]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i think this is a disgraceful thing for you to say and i would like it reported.

b'shalom

bananabrain

Pilgram had said: "you smell more like a "professional" (Susma's word not mine) apologist (my word not Susma's)."

Of course, you must know, bb, that I can't really smell YOU through the internet. The "smell" was merely metaphor. Really, you are a sensitive fellow aren't you? In any case, as I said earlier I meant no offence but if you feel you must "report" me, I understand and bear you no ill will if I am thrown into the dungeon of website oblivion.

Peace and Love,
Pilgram

[I, Brian]

Pilgram, your comments are condescending and insulting to other members, and have no place on the comparative-religion forum. I will contact you privately and communicate with yourself with some of the ground rules of discussion in this place.

Whether offence was intended or not, it is important that discussions here remain civil and respectful. I do not believe this has been the case on this thread.

I'm therefore closing this thread, and hope that we can re-appraise the original questions in a more satisfactory manner another time.