you are like an english speaker telling a spanish speaker that when an "hombre" is at the door, the man's whole life is called into question, whether he is a "real man" or not , etc etc, and not just that there is someone at the door.
You'll need to explain why the analogy supposedly applies.
While I have fundamental issues with people who declare belief in God, I have no issues with people who speak linguistically different languages.
(It's usually people who aren't very good with words that distrust them. Lol.)
words are limited, and even a master usually can't use them to say certain things to certain people. I think it is similar to a classical violinist's level of criticism versus a layman, the criticism just keeps going up as the facility with words goes up. Or it should.
I think you still underestimate what words can do.
A particular sequence of words can change another person's mental state.
In fact, in Hinduism, they have the concept of
vedic sound.
And, as the saying goes, listening to sabda (ie. the sacred sound) can change a person, while listening to a mere ipse dixit argument does not.
It's not the words that are somehow inherently faulty; it's all just about what people say, or don't say.
anybody who wants to be my disciple should be prepared to be considered an idiot for following a guru.
Pfft. There's nothing wrong with developing a helpful relationship with a teacher.
It's probably because it is so difficult to develop a helpful relationship with a teacher that the whole guru process has gotten such a bad reputation.
I guess they could just be helpless. A guru distinguishing someone as a helpless or idiotic should say something about the guru's ability to see the inner light in all people. Hence they are just deluded bodhisattvas, grinding out bones on the karmic wheel. Nothing worth following about a person like that.
You do realize there are some major problems with the idea of "the inner light in all people" or "Buddha nature", don't you?
there is a pretty ox cart outside, we should all go outside and ride in it, because the smoke in here is getting to me. (i'm sure you know that one)
As a matter of fact, I don't know this one.
my point is that "contempt" is usually the wrong word to use to describe the theistic team mentality.
Like I said: I usually feel contempted, despised by theists.
But somehow, in theist/non-theist exchanges, only the stance of the theists is to be considered?
In japan they have a business term for "insider" and "outsider". i feel that those terms may express actual contempt in a way, but then again i can't speak for them.
Again, this is a mundane analogy. You will need to explain how it applies when talking about things that are above and beyond the mundane.
I am the first to point out the necessity of deferring to authority, especially in religious matters - and this primarily on the grounds that trying to play it solo is solipsistic insanity.
depending on who you ask scientology is either solipsistic insanity spread to others, or true, or a communal give and take, mostly take, of ideas. I mean are all prophets solipsistically insane? As far from being a scientologist as I am, i still see much of it as sensible, and i am not going to call ron hubbard solipsistically insane (assuming he actually believed himself) - the idea that drugs pollute the body is probably in general correct, although I admit i come to that from a view based on things i have seen, and not from medical expertise. And some things in moderation seem to be beneficial. I mean i would avoid prescription drugs if possible, for example.
Read this -
"Epistemic and Ethical Egoism and the Ideal of Autonomy" (scroll down the page and there is a link to download the word file)
and get back to me.
The "solipsistic insanity" I am referring to is another concept for epistemic autonomy. Esp. in Western culture, epistemic autonomy is considered an ideal, often implied, but upon closer inspection, it turns out to be very problematic. I've posted on this at the forums before.
I'm not conceding anything. I remain as dubious as ever that economics was "THE driving factor" behind slavery. It was A driving factor. Sometimes it may have been dominant, sometimes maybe not.
