or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The New Pope and 'Relativism'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The New Pope and 'Relativism' - Page 5  

post #161 of 193
Humans are not mere machines.

We're so industrialized/Western in our thoughts that we need to compare us to machines in order to visualize how our components interact. Yet it is the exact opposite. Industry has merely been mining biology for better ways to design things.

Our man-made machines are tools that imitate biological attributes/processes/designs. I cannot think of a machine that is not merely a doppelgänger of a biological element.

Comparing humans to machines is ass-backwards, like saying Mac OS is just a copy of Windows.

Humans have DNA but we are not mere player pianos.

DNA might be the assembly line but once we roll off the dealer's lot, we can do whatever the heck we want. The primal stuff might be encoded, but whether the individual or society agree on anything is nearly random. For some reason, we can always go counter to our parents/societies wishes at any time. We can even go against our own "better judgement" or "intuition".

I can agree with the human-as-machine metaphor only so much. At some point, some machines just come away as being better than some humans.

Better to leave that metaphor out of the argument, and keep biological as biological and not mention machines except in specific topics about they effect our biology.
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
post #162 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz



The ten commandments are an unmovable core to all of this

But it's neither here nor there, we have to figure out the best way to love our neighbor and start there.

Exactly, and as soon as you have to weigh one decision against another, you are practising relativism.

Lets take thou shall not murder - I'm sure you would agree this is an absolute. Except it is not. It is relative to your perception of the situation you are in. When your wife and kids are held at knifepoint by a thug and you're holding a gun, the decision to shoot is relative to the situation, you can try to justify this killing as anything you please, but it is still a murder, and thus the commandment not to murder is not an absolute, because an absolute law will stand up as an absolute to any possible circumstance.

No absolute law stands up to every possible circumstance, if a relative decision is the better one.

What happens when the right thing to do is to disobey Gods "Absolute" commands. What then is the 'framework' your decision to overrule God, hangs on then?
post #163 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Exactly, and as soon as you have to weigh one decision against another, you are practising relativism.

Lets take thou shall not murder - I'm sure you would agree this is an absolute. Except it is not. It is relative to your perception of the situation you are in. When your wife and kids are held at knifepoint by a thug and you're holding a gun, the decision to shoot is relative to the situation, you can try to justify this killing as anything you please, but it is still a murder, and thus the commandment not to murder is not an absolute, because an absolute law will stand up as an absolute to any possible circumstance.

No absolute law stands up to every possible circumstance, if a relative decision is the better one.

What happens when the right thing to do is to disobey Gods "Absolute" commands. What then is the 'framework' your decision to overrule God, hangs on then?

Ah Ha! I see what you're getting at.

That is a One-Many issue, in that we can have absolutes, but they are still personal -- and not mechanistic. The murder thing is a good example, in that the needs to not murder are not in conflict with the 'value of human life'. This is where we come into contact with true, personal order that is revelatory -- you have a system that won't sacrifice the needs of the individual for the needs of the collective. You have the this motif functioning in the way that the Godhead relates to itself, and that unity/diversity directly translates to revealed Law and order.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #164 of 193
did you actually answer the question, or was that a trip into twaddleland?

You can be as smart as you like dmz, but if you cannot communicate, you're entirely wasting your talent.
post #165 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
did you actually answer the question, or was that a trip into twaddleland?

You can be as smart as you like dmz, but if you cannot communicate, you're entirely wasting your talent.

Ssshhh... you'll spoil his trick of pretending to talk over our heads when he really doesn't have much left to say.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
post #166 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
if you cannot communicate, you're entirely wasting your talent.

/**Begin Ultra-High, falsetto sing-song voice**/
/**(And this goes for shetline too) **/

Yeeeeees but the same goes for yooooooou
If YOU'RE NOT LIIIIIIISTENING!!

/**End Ultra-High, falsetto sing-song voice**/

more later

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #167 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Lets take thou shall not murder - I'm sure you would agree this is an absolute. Except it is not. It is relative to your perception of the situation you are in.

I'm treading on thin ice now because I haven't even read the book myself, but I have heard several Christians draw a clear distinction between "Thou shalt not murder" and "Thou shalt not kill". They say the latter is a corruption that has occurred in translation, and that the former is the correct meaning.

"he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one"

This is Jesus talking to the disciples.
If they are not permitted to kill given the right reason, why would they ever need a sword?
post #168 of 193
Pope Benedikt said the following;

Quote:
We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires.

And I must say: I agree 100%.

That sentence has two parts: first it is about relativism, and second about ego and own desires.

1)

Relativism is everywhere: Politics, Trends, Youth Culture, you name it.

An example: President Bush is a Politician and he is a Christ (he always says so and I do believe that). He is against abortion. But he is pro death penalty. Why is that so? The bible states clearly that you shall not kill. Why is abortion condammned and death penalty okay? That is relativism (IMHO).

What Benedikt wants to make clear (IMHO): the principles of the catholic chuch are definitive, not subject to change (at least not easily). They are guidelines for every catholic man and every catholic woman. They are not changed according to mainstream interpretation of what is okay and what is not.
People (especially catholic people) should know these principles and try to life according to these - even if that is sometimes quite hard and even if they fail from time to time.

I can not see anything wrong in this word from the pope. And please keep in mind that this is all about moral "laws", not laws that are enforced in some kind (like the Taliban did in Afghanistan). So, if you do not want to follow these principles, then don't do it. You are free to do what you want. But you should think about it.

2)

The pope said that you should not be egoistic and you should not only keep in mind your own desires. That money, power or career should not be the main aspect of human life. Despite the fact that these thoughts are not typical "conservative" thoughts, what is wrong with these words?


As a matter of fact I think that Benedikt XVI is not the "conservatice hardliner" as many of you may think of him. He is conservative, but he is one of the best theologists out there, he is intelligent and he seems to have changed as his duty changed (from the Congregation to the Holy See). He is quite different from John Paul II, but exactly how he is we will see in the time ahead.

Give him the time and be prepared to be surprised.

Just my opinion ...

klg
post #169 of 193
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by klg
That sentence has two parts: first it is about relativism, and second about ego and own desires.

We've (at least attempted to) address relativism already so let's look at point 2: ego and own desires.

This is a classic example of the pernicious threat that we all face from fundie thought. We all act from ego and our own desires. An atheist does on pursuing atheism and the Pope does in pursuing the Papacy.

It's just that one has the balls to admit the situation and the other is so morally impotent they have to justify it with reference to "God's will".

I desire power and position in the Vatican: God's will not mine.
My ego is threatened by gay men: God's will not mine.
I want to bomb Iraq for my own vicarious ends: God's will not mine.
I want to oppress you: God's will......

You get the picture.....

Quote:
Relativism is everywhere: Politics, Trends, Youth Culture, you name it.

An example: President Bush is a Politician and he is a Christ (he always says so and I do believe that). He is against abortion. But he is pro death penalty. Why is that so? The bible states clearly that you shall not kill. Why is abortion condammned and death penalty okay? That is relativism (IMHO).

Relativism is not everywhere and the examples you cite are not it. They are fundamentalist.

A relativist position would necessitate flexibility in laws. A belief that the death penalty is always the correct response to murder and that abortion is always wrong are contradictory but hey....no one said fundies were intelligent. The fact is that they are both absolutist. They contradict each other and necessitate that the holders are hypocrites and/or non-thinkers but that's a different story.


Quote:
What Benedikt wants to make clear (IMHO): the principles of the catholic chuch are definitive, not subject to change (at least not easily). They are guidelines for every catholic man and every catholic woman. They are not changed according to mainstream interpretation of what is okay and what is not.

That has not been the case historically and it can be proved that the Church did exactly that for a great part of its history.

If the situation is different now then it is merely more proof that the Church changes things on a whim. They changes the bits of their won scriptures they didn't like for God's sake - they are hardly going to worry about changing dogma they made up themselves in the dark ages.

Quote:
People (especially catholic people) should know these principles and try to life according to these - even if that is sometimes quite hard and even if they fail from time to time.

I can not see anything wrong in this word from the pope. And please keep in mind that this is all about moral "laws", not laws that are enforced in some kind (like the Taliban did in Afghanistan). So, if you do not want to follow these principles, then don't do it. You are free to do what you want. But you should think about it.

The Taleban believed they had 'moral laws'. the fact the Church cannot recognize that others may also be acting form a moral basis because it is different or opposes their own is yet more evidence (if any were needed) of the rampant fundamentalist reductionism this thread is about and this Pope is the apotheosis of.

Quote:
The pope said that you should not be egoistic and you should not only keep in mind your own desires. That money, power or career should not be the main aspect of human life. Despite the fact that these thoughts are not typical "conservative" thoughts, what is wrong with these words?

They are typical conservative words - it's just that conservatives are most often hypocrites so they act in the opposite way while saying them.

It all depends what you choose to focus on: the words or the actions.

Quote:
As a matter of fact I think that Benedikt XVI is not the "conservatice hardliner" as many of you may think of him. He is conservative, but he is one of the best theologists out there, he is intelligent and he seems to have changed as his duty changed (from the Congregation to the Holy See). He is quite different from John Paul II, but exactly how he is we will see in the time ahead.

We will see.

Quote:
Give him the time and be prepared to be surprised.

That's what I'm afraid of.....we can only hope time is with us....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
post #170 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
It's kinda like predestination minus all the French and German theologians.

At its current state, physics does not suppose that reality is predestined.

That said, I'm still asking you the same question, is it not true just because you don't like it, or what is your basis for dismissing it? (If French and German theologists are relevant, please elaborate - I couldn't name a single theologist apart from my cousin, much less French and German ones.)

Interestingly, if it appeared that reality was "predestined", this new information would have no bearing on me. I'd still do what I like full stop.
post #171 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
[B]We've (at least attempted to) address relativism already so let's look at point 2: ego and own desires.

This is a classic example of the pernicious threat that we all face from fundie thought. We all act from ego and our own desires.

Do all people do that? Or do you only speak for yourself? :-)

Quote:
An atheist does on pursuing atheism and the Pope does in pursuing the Papacy.

Well, Benedikt said that he didn't really want to become pope but rather wanted to spend the last years of his life quietly (perhaps writing some books). And - I do believe that.

Quote:
It's just that one has the balls to admit the situation and the other is so morally impotent they have to justify it with reference to "God's will".

I don't think so ...

Quote:
I desire power and position in the Vatican: God's will not mine.
My ego is threatened by gay men: God's will not mine.
I want to bomb Iraq for my own vicarious ends: God's will not mine.
I want to oppress you: God's will......

I think you mix a few things ...

The church is not against gay men (or women). The church only says that gay couples should not be married.

The church was against the Iraq War.


Quote:
Relativism is not everywhere and the examples you cite are not it. They are fundamentalist.

What I meant was: when it comes to abortion, killing is a bad thing (tm), a crime. When it comes to death penalty, killing someone suddenly becomes an option (and it is very obvious that an imprisioned - example - murderer is no immidiate threat anymore). That - IMHO - is not fundamentalism, it is just not consistent.

Quote:
A belief that the death penalty is always the correct response to murder and that abortion is always wrong are contradictory but hey....no one said fundies were intelligent.

:-)

Quote:
The fact is that they are both absolutist.

But: a catholic christ can choose whether he/she wants to follow the rules of the church (in all points). When it comes to state laws, one cannot choose. The law is enforced by police and state. That is the difference.

Quote:
The Taleban believed they had 'moral laws'.

But in Afghanistan - at that time - there was no seperation between the state and religion. The religion was enforced and everyone who was not willing to follow that religion was arrested or killed.

Quote:
the fact the Church cannot recognize that others may also be acting form a moral basis because it is different or opposes their own is yet more evidence (if any were needed) of the rampant fundamentalist reductionism this thread is about and this Pope is the apotheosis of.

One of the most important topics of the former pope John Paul II was the dialogue between different religions (Jews, Muslims, Orthodox Christs, for example). Do you really think the catholic church does not recognize that others may also be acting on a moral basis, even people who don't believe at all? I don't think so.

Quote:
They are typical conservative words - it's just that conservatives are most often hypocrites so they act in the opposite way while saying them.

I partly agree with you. But - as I tried to point out - I don't see Benedikt as a conservative as we define "conservative" in politics.

Quote:
It all depends what you choose to focus on: the words or the actions.

Of course, the actions are important. If the words are not "compatible" with the actions then they are just lies, nothing more ...
Quote:

We will see.

I agree.
post #172 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
[B]Ah Ha! I see what you're getting at.

That is a One-Many issue, in that we can have absolutes, but they are still personal -- and not mechanistic. The murder thing is a good example, in that the needs to not murder are not in conflict with the 'value of human life'. This is where we come into contact with true, personal order that is revelatory -- you have a system that won't sacrifice the needs of the individual for the needs of the collective. You have the this motif functioning in the way that the Godhead relates to itself, and that unity/diversity directly translates to revealed Law and order.[B]

Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
did you actually answer the question, or was that a trip into twaddleland?

You can be as smart as you like dmz, but if you cannot communicate, you're entirely wasting your talent.

Very quickly, the issue with 'no killing'/'no murder' is that it's not the binary act of killing, it is a relfection of a one/many paradigm, a way of living together that is a reflection of the Godhead's community -- one God, three persons. You can't simply identify God with his rules, ala 'don't kill'. But I do think, in a pantheistic sort of way, you are being logical to say killing at all is wrong, which is exactly where some of the Eastern religions go with this idea.

So it's not relative to move the sabbath or kill murderers, it is a reflection of order/justice that has been revealed.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #173 of 193
So your saying the commandments are absolute, and it isn't relative if you choose to take another point of view into consideration.

PS. Big text makes you look an ass!
post #174 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK

PS. Big text makes you look an ass!

FINE,

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #175 of 193
sacrasm is funny, but it doesn't answer any of the questions I asked you, like...

what is the 'framework' you hang your decisions on when the moral thing to do is overrule Gods' "absolute" laws.

and my last post wasn't a statement, it was a question. I just forgot to add the "?".

Hope you can answer that too.
post #176 of 193
and I have another question....

when you are evaluating a moral decision, what takes precedence,

a) the teachings of Jesus
b) The absolutism of Old Testament God
c) something else.
post #177 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
sacrasm is funny, but it doesn't answer any of the questions I asked you, like...

what is the 'framework' you hang your decisions on when the moral thing to do is overrule Gods' "absolute" laws.

and my last post wasn't a statement, it was a question. I just forgot to add the "?".

Hope you can answer that too.

I don't know for certain, part of it is straightforward, like justice issues resistitution/death penalty "put the evil out from among you", etc.-- others aren't -- like the business of keeping 'ar 'wimon barefoot 'an preggers, not allowing them to work outside the home, whether it's okay to own slaves, have four wives, smoke pot once a year, etc.

We are supposed to be headed for ALL truth, so if I could exhaustivley answer you then we'd be done. All I know for certain is that it can't turn into the opposite of itself.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #178 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz

All I know for certain is that it can't turn into the opposite of itself.

how do you know for certain you know that for certain?
post #179 of 193
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
All I know for certain is that it can't turn into the opposite of itself.

Jesus => Church => Spanish Inquisition
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
post #180 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
I don't know for certain, part of it is straightforward, like justice issues resistitution/death penalty "put the evil out from among you", etc.-- others aren't -- like the business of keeping 'ar 'wimon barefoot 'an preggers, not allowing them to work outside the home, whether it's okay to own slaves, have four wives, smoke pot once a year, etc.

how does "put the evil out from among you" relate to "turn the other cheek", and "love thy enemies"?

How do you decide "in the absolute" when the messages require "relativity" to chose the moral right?
post #181 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Jesus => Church => Spanish Inquisition

isn't that meant to be Paul => Church >= Spanish Inquisition?
post #182 of 193
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
isn't that meant to be Paul => Church >= Spanish Inquisition?

Yeah - but that way it wouldn't be turning into the opposite would it ? Paul invented the Inquisition avant le lettre.....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
post #183 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
how does "put the evil out from among you" relate to "turn the other cheek", and "love thy enemies"?

How do you decide "in the absolute" when the messages require "relativity" to chose the moral right?

That's the $64,000 question. At one level I think there an application to the Jews, as they were occupied by the Romans -- with the subtext being the fairly constant runs at the establishment by zealots. On another level, there were so many crimes that were SOLEY between the perpetrator and his creator -- that it may be a antidote to a litigious culutre. And of course there is a root of love and patience there, obviously.

Adultery, murder, etc., from a culutral standpoint, is treason -- and that is essentially the theme you find in the Pentateuch. I don't think Christ nullified those themes, especially when he comepares unjustified hatred to murder, and reiterates that the Law was a form to 'love your neighbor". So I can't believe that we are -- worst case here -- to offer the rapist a daughter after he breaks in a rapes the wife.

Now, a stoic or a buddist might, but I can't see being sin-free in a such a sitruation. You could use theft, anything there -- do you let someone rip you off and continually let him do it until you are bankrupt? Do you report him to the authorities? When Christ said to obey those in authority, does that mean we should report crimes?

Anyway, that it for now, gotta work.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #184 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Jesus => Church => Spanish Inquisition

Yea, yea, yea -- it's been fixed.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #185 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
So I can't believe that we are -- worst case here -- to offer the rapist a daughter after he breaks in a rapes the wife.

Now, a stoic or a buddist might, but I can't see being sin-free in a such a sitruation.

I'm really tempted to open a Buddhism thread to ascertain and clear up your (apparent) misconceptions of Buddhism...

If you think a Buddhist is going to passively let someone harm his family, I invite you to ask one what they'd do in response.

The Buddha is quite clear on self defense and protecting others.

It is not the idiotic masochistic pacifism you seem to think it is.

Remember, the true karmic onus is on the attacker to not attack, not the victim to not defend. Only if the attacked succumbs to rage and intentionally harms/kills the other does it have a karmic effect for them.
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
post #186 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
I'm really tempted to open a Buddhism thread to ascertain and clear up your (apparent) misconceptions of Buddhism...

If you think a Buddhist is going to passively let someone harm his family, I invite you to try it sometime.

The Buddha is quite clear on self defense and protecting others.

It is not the idiotic masochistic pacifism you seem to think it is.

Remember, the true karmic onus is on the attacker to not attack, not the victim to not defend. Only if the attacked succumbs to rage and intentionally harms/kills the other does it have a karmic effect for them.

Don't miss the point just becuase I'm using the most extreme thing I can think of. In it's essence, that is what the religion teaches -- if that case is too extreme then use what the Dali Lama said about a wasp stinging him. It's the idea behind a binary killing/not killing -- that the killer only wrongs himself, and not that there is a cohesive system of justice that can demand death and not disrupt the oness of being.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #187 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Yea, yea, yea -- it's been fixed.


How can you fix God's deed? Isn't god absolutely unmistakable?
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
post #188 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Don't miss the point just becuase I'm using the most extreme thing I can think of. In it's essence, that is what the religion teaches -- if that case is too extreme then use what the Dali Lama said about a wasp stinging him. It's the idea behind a binary killing/not killing -- that the killer only wrongs himself, and not that there is a cohesive system of justice that can demand death and not disrupt the oness of being.

It's Dalai Lama and could you please source that reference to spare us from wading through googols of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant and Gordon Sumner links?
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
post #189 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
It's Dalai Lama and could you please source that reference to spare us from wading through googols of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant and Gordon Sumner links?

Just that he would have the brushed the wasp off, after it stung him -- anyway, this is getting off the topic.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #190 of 193
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Just that he would have the brushed the wasp off, after it stung him -- anyway, this is getting off the topic.

I don't consider clarifications to be off-topic.

Back to your point...

We don't need to kill the man breaking and entering our home (we do, as opposed to overpowering or restraining him, or fleeing), nor do we need to murder him for raping our wife (we do, all too gladly). Doing so is in anger, fear and is as base as the attacker's crimes.

We kill all too easily, because it "feels right". We have the gun, so we use it.

We bomb because we have bombs. We avenge, we seldom use true diplomacy. We want to match and exceed the violence of our attackers.

We've let the no-doubt-true "survival of the fittest" animal phenomena define our human interactions despite the fact that we have the capacity to act better than animals do.

The Abrahamic religions in particular just feed upon these base instincts. They cultivate hate and delude people into thinking that the "peace" after the destruction of your enemies is a "righteous reward", as opposed to the mere orgasmic glow from a bloodbath (near or far) that it really is.
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
post #191 of 193
before this goes off topic, does DMZ now think that the Bible is absolute, or relative?
post #192 of 193
dmz thinks that the horse is dead enough, for now.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #193 of 193
This thread has ceased productivity related to it's original topic.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The New Pope and 'Relativism'