Why are the Virtues not enough?

[Pilgram]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

to be precise: many jews and many muslims feel uncomfortable with each other - but by no means all. i am not minimising the unpleasantness of the current situation, but my experience of jewish-muslim dialogue, not to mention social contact has been extremely positive and has resulted in many lasting friendships. we just all need to get out of our boxes and preconceptions a lot more - what terrorists and fundamentalists want us to do is stay in them so they can run things by making us all afraid. i recommend a book by karen armstrong on ths subject - "the battle for G!D" which is available at amazon.

susma - what on earth does "judaists" mean? i've never heard anyone use this word before you!

b'shalom

bananabrain

When you say that you are "not minimising the unpleasantness of the current situation" are you by any chance refering to people being systematically shot by Israeli soldiers trained not to kill but only to maim so that the kill ratio does not get too many countries overly concerned with Israel/Palestinian unpleasantness?

Are you saying "unpleasantness" tongue in cheek?

I assume from your many words that you believe that much or all of this is merely "appearance" and that these poor people being crippled for life or made dead is not more than an "unpleasantness" because in the overall sceme of your religion, people are immortal and only appear to suffer and die.

My understanding of Buddhism has led me to believe that it is one of the least toxic religions. However, if your choice of words (unpleasantness = denial of civil and human rights, imprisonment, terrrorism, torture, intentional maiming and death) is representative of Buddhism then perhaps I have to reassess my understanding of it.

A religion that does not actively kill may passively kill by doing nothing to stop it. That does not make it a good religion. It only makes it passively evil.

Christians claim to obey Jesus yet I've never seen one of them actually turn the other cheek. And only few have even been reported to have done so by witnesses. With good reason. It's a stupid and toxic teaching. All sentient beings protect themselves when attacked. And most christians simply ignore Jesus' admonitionn to turn the other cheek.

But this is a perfect example of what I am talking about when I say we need to look at the words and dogma of religions and get rid of the chaff. (Yes chaff is part of the plant, but try eating it regularly and throw away the wheat instead and tell me how you feel in a few months.)

Your use of the world "unpleasantness" is most interesting to me. Would you care to explain it I wonder?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Pilgram,

bannanabrain is Jewish, not Buddhist

[Pilgram]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste Pilgram,

bannanabrain is Jewish, not Buddhist

Thank you for pointing out my mix up of post answering. I think everyone knows to whom the various parts of my last post were directed. If not, I'd be glad to specify.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Pilgram,

perhaps, it would be of some benefit for you to do so... since you posted this:

"My understanding of Buddhism has led me to believe that it is one of the least toxic religions. However, if your choice of words (unpleasantness = denial of civil and human rights, imprisonment, terrrorism, torture, intentional maiming and death) is representative of Buddhism then perhaps I have to reassess my understanding of it."

which is not representative of Buddhism in the least.

whilst it may be clear to you and i, for a new reader of the forum, it may not be.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

susma - what on earth does "judaists" mean? i've never heard anyone use this word before you!

b'shalom

bananabrain

Banana, you are too modest of your learning and reading grasp.

Anyway, I use the term 'Judaist' which you will find defined in a good dictionary to refer to an adherent of the traditional religion of the Jewish people, that having Moses for a lawgiver and Jaweh for a God and circumcision for a very physical telltale mark.

For me a Jew is not necessarily a Judaist, because many Jews don't believe in Jaweh. And also I think the term 'Judaist' is neutral, compared to the term 'Jew'.

But tell me, what do you know about circumcision among the Jews who don't believe in Jaweh or are atheists? They do it just the same for a ethnic cultural practice?

Susma Rio Sep

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by Pilgram

There isn't one person in a thousand who can tell me all of the dogma of his or her religion. This is not by accident.

Not even the Pope can tell all of the dogmas of the Church he is heading
as the Vicar of Christ. He has to consult his books and his theological and historical experts.

And if any one enthusiast or infatuated adherent of his religion would search far and wide and long into the history of dogmas in his bride of a religion, he will get all confused to discover the contradictions and inconsistencies and uncertainties in its repertory of dogmas down the ages and over the diverse factions of spokesmen.

And I find all that very academically entertaining.

You know, Pilgram, we can love each other. If there is only one room left in the boarding house, I can share it with you.

You remind me of my undergraduate days in matters of religion. I want to imagine that I have outgrown my peevish phase in this realm.

Susma Rio Sep

[Pilgram]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste Pilgram,

perhaps, it would be of some benefit for you to do so... since you posted this:

"My understanding of Buddhism has led me to believe that it is one of the least toxic religions. However, if your choice of words (unpleasantness = denial of civil and human rights, imprisonment, terrrorism, torture, intentional maiming and death) is representative of Buddhism then perhaps I have to reassess my understanding of it."

which is not representative of Buddhism in the least.

whilst it may be clear to you and i, for a new reader of the forum, it may not be.

As I said:

"Thank you for pointing out my mix up of post answering. I think everyone knows to whom the various parts of my last post were directed. If not, I'd be glad to specify."

Specifically, My comments on "unpleasantness" were directed to bananabrain since he is the person who used the term. I do not fear many readers will not understand to whom my comment was directed.

It did surprise me somewhat that who I thought was a Buddhist (i.e. bananabrain) would have used such a tongue in cheek expression to represent the horror taking place in the Mideast between the Jews and Moslems.

I HEREBY STATE THAT I MADE A MISTAKE. BANANABRAIN NEVER SAID ANYTHING THAT I HAVE READ HERE THAT LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT HE IS A BUDDHIST. I STILL BELIEVE BUDDHISM TO BE ONE OF THE LEAST TOXIC OF ALL RELIGIONS.

Whether or not he is a Jew as you say, I do not know. My comment would have been the same for a Jew, Buddhist, Christian, atheist or Hindu. To refer to the terrorism being perpetrated by both Israelis and Palestinians today in the Mideast as "unpleasantness" can only be seen by this reader as gross ignorance or intentional and vile understatement

I hope this clarifies any confusion I might have caused. If anyone has further questions please do not hesitate to ask for further clarification. Do be specific about what it is you would like clarified.






.

[Pilgram]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

Not even the Pope can tell all of the dogmas of the Church he is heading
as the Vicar of Christ. He has to consult his books and his theological and historical experts.

And if any one enthusiast or infatuated adherent of his religion would search far and wide and long into the history of dogmas in his bride of a religion, he will get all confused to discover the contradictions and inconsistencies and uncertainties in its repertory of dogmas down the ages and over the diverse factions of spokesmen.

I agree that one would get "all confused to discover the contradictions and inconsistencies and uncertainties in its repertory of dogmas." I couldn't agree more. That is precisely why I suggest examination and deletion of such dogma.

And I find all that very academically entertaining.

You know, Pilgram, we can love each other. If there is only one room left in the boarding house, I can share it with you.

You remind me of my undergraduate days in matters of religion. I want to imagine that I have outgrown my peevish phase in this realm.

Susma Rio Sep

It is not my intention to entertain you or anyone else. If I remind you of your undergraduate days in matters of religion I will hope you are more noble than to have been condescending toward me. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply wished to comment on your own peevish phase in this realm.

Peace and Love,
Pilgram

[Susma Rio Sep]

Good, Brother Pilgram. I will guard myself from the appearance of condescending. Forgive me.

Like old wine, me. Maybe someone here will say 'like old fart.' Hahaha.

You know, Pilgram, once I addressed someone in a forum as brother, and he got raving mad at me. "Don't call me brother', he retorted fiercely. 'Brother' stands for a member in a religious community, he reminds me; and he detests religion.

Of course he was not mindful then that the atheist French revolutionaries propounded the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity.

All men are brothers. And Susma adds: Some are sisters.

No offense intended to our sisters here. I love them all whatever.

Susma Rio Sep

[Pilgram]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

Good, Brother Pilgram. I will guard myself from the appearance of condescending. Forgive me.

Like old wine, me. Maybe someone here will say 'like old fart.' Hahaha.

You know, Pilgram, once I addressed someone in a forum as brother, and he got raving mad at me. "Don't call me brother', he retorted fiercely. 'Brother' stands for a member in a religious community, he reminds me; and he detests religion.

Of course he was not mindful then that the atheist French revolutionaries propounded the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity.

All men are brothers. And Susma adds: Some are sisters.

No offense intended to our sisters here. I love them all whatever.

Susma Rio Sep

Good Sister Susma,

There is no forgiveness necessary where there has been no offence. But if you had been condescending (only you could know, I only pointed out the possibility due to the semantics {little joke, ha ha}), then of course I forgive you.

As far as your calling me brother, I not only take no offence but rather thank you for the warm greeting. I used to work in a construction union in my youth and enjoyed the brother appellation when it came from brothers who truly understood the meaning of unionism and appreciated the hard, long fight that had been fought by our earlier brothers and sisters on picket lines in America. They had to withstand the illegal and immoral tactics of paid corporate goons and sometimes paid assasins. The gains in human decency and fair wage for all Americans is little understood or appreciated by most Americans today. And so it goes.

There is a book titled, Don't Call Me Brother that came to mind when you mentioned your mad raver. The author writes of the hypocrisy and poison of religion. But like yourself, I too see us all as brothers and sisters even if some object and cry not.

I recently re-read one of your earlier posts. What is it you mean when you refer to science in relation to religion?

[Susma Rio Sep]

Pilgram asks:

I recently re-read one of your earlier posts. What is it you mean when you refer to science in relation to religion?

Maybe you might give me some excerpts from that post?

My position about science and religion generally is that science is concerned with facts as perceived by our senses and can be predictable once we see into their consistent character; religion for me is basically concentrated on the emotional concerns of our nature.


Susma Rio Sep

PS I am a guy, and not a sister even in my psychology; but I love all people: guys, gals, and all others belonging to one anatomy but aspiring after the other.

[Pilgram]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

Pilgram asks:

[/i]

Maybe you might give me some excerpts from that post?

My position about science and religion generally is that science is concerned with facts as perceived by our senses and can be predictable once we see into their consistent character; religion for me is basically concentrated on the emotional concerns of our nature.


Susma Rio Sep

PS I am a guy, and not a sister even in my psychology; but I love all people: guys, gals, and all others belonging to one anatomy but aspiring after the other.

Good Brother Susma,

Guy, girl, I didn't think it mattered judging by your language that you love us all. In any case, if you felt offended by my salutation, I apologize for any discomfort it may have caused to your mind or your psychology.

I agree with you about what you say of science but if religion is to be "concentrated on the emotional concerns of our nature" what distinguishes it from psychotherapy, psychiatry and psychology which also look into the same concerns?

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by Pilgram

Good Brother Susma,

Guy, girl, I didn't think it mattered judging by your language that you love us all. In any case, if you felt offended by my salutation, I apologize for any discomfort it may have caused to your mind or your psychology.

I agree with you about what you say of science but if religion is to be "concentrated on the emotional concerns of our nature" what distinguishes it from psychotherapy, psychiatry and psychology which also look into the same concerns?

I read that some thinkers do question whether the psycho sciences are really sciences like physics and chemistry.

And I also read that emotions as the word indicates refers to bodily impulsive movements, dating to the time when man like unthinking animals act before thinking, because the thinking faculty was not yet cultivated as it is today, into a systematic skill.

My inclination is also to hold religion as a behavior founded upon emotions, therefore not susceptible to rational thinking without being discovered to be illogical and of no sound solid basis -- except again on emotions, i.e., impulsive acting before thinking.

Yet for me, religion is a luxury like all acting on impulse; and that is why I being religious in a way, make sure that religion does not rule me, but I oversee my religion. I indulge in the luxury but I keep guard that I don't get myself enslaved to the luxury so that it rules me.

Now, the first indication that religion is ruling a person is when he subject himself to another human on religious grounds, or he does not want to face the illogic in his religion but prefers to call it mystery or beyond his understanding.


No offense received about your thinking that I am a sister. The name 'Susma' conventionally might suggest a feminine gender, specially in the Latin languages. But there are guys from the Latin world also with names ending in 'a' but of the male gender, for example, Seneca.


Susma Rio Sep

[Pilgram]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

I read that some thinkers do question whether the psycho sciences are really sciences like physics and chemistry.

Well, of course psychiatry and psychology are not on an equal playing field with physics, chemistry and more obviously mathmatics. But they are more "scientific" than any religion in that no hypothesis is offered on "faith."

And I also read that emotions as the word indicates refers to bodily impulsive movements, dating to the time when man like unthinking animals act before thinking, because the thinking faculty was not yet cultivated as it is today, into a systematic skill.

My inclination is also to hold religion as a behavior founded upon emotions, therefore not susceptible to rational thinking without being discovered to be illogical and of no sound solid basis -- except again on emotions, i.e., impulsive acting before thinking.

I understand your inclination but I lean more to the belief that human beings noticed that fear and ignorance were qualities that could be easily exploited in those who agreed with a shaman or witch doctor's explanation for things supernatural.

Yet for me, religion is a luxury like all acting on impulse; and that is why I being religious in a way, make sure that religion does not rule me, but I oversee my religion. I indulge in the luxury but I keep guard that I don't get myself enslaved to the luxury so that it rules me.

Now, the first indication that religion is ruling a person is when he subject himself to another human on religious grounds, or he does not want to face the illogic in his religion but prefers to call it mystery or beyond his understanding.

I agree with you somewhat but I more so believe that the first indication of trouble comes when a person hands over responsibility for her/his own thinking and acting to a god, gods, shaman, priest, or guru. From that point it becomes easier to blame one's failings on the devil, demons, etc. And it is much easier to "put one's faith" in the dogma of a ready made religion than to graple with something as pesky as logic which admitedly takes some effort beyond reciting a creed or listening to a cleric talk.

No offense received about your thinking that I am a sister. The name 'Susma' conventionally might suggest a feminine gender, specially in the Latin languages. But there are guys from the Latin world also with names ending in 'a' but of the male gender, for example, Seneca.


Susma Rio Sep

I am glad you were not offended by "sister" brother.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by Pilgram

Well, of course psychiatry and psychology are not on an equal playing field with physics, chemistry and more obviously mathmatics. But they are more "scientific" than any religion in that no hypothesis is offered on "faith."



I understand your inclination but I lean more to the belief that human beings noticed that fear and ignorance were qualities that could be easily exploited in those who agreed with a shaman or witch doctor's explanation for things supernatural.



I agree with you somewhat but I more so believe that the first indication of trouble comes when a person hands over responsibility for her/his own thinking and acting to a god, gods, shaman, priest, or guru. From that point it becomes easier to blame one's failings on the devil, demons, etc. And it is much easier to "put one's faith" in the dogma of a ready made religion than to graple with something as pesky as logic which admitedly takes some effort beyond reciting a creed or listening to a cleric talk.

I am glad you were not offended by "sister" brother.

Dear Pilgram, I can see myself in you. If we take those people seriously who talk about soulmates, maybe we are soulmates.

What about the luxry of religion as I understand it, Do you also indulge in this luxury?

I understand that you are very concerned about religious people being manipulated by charlatans to their, i.e., charlatans', own purposes, and also with bringing out the common ingredients and of course harmless and constructive in a way of various religious systems. I commend you most highly for your concern and search and endeavor.

On my concern for religion as a luxury, I particularly like church wedding and religous burials; they are more emotionally satisfying than their non-religous counterparts.

Best regards,

Susma Rio Sep