Isn't time that Humanity was more important than any religion
- Thread starter river
- Start date
does anyone who says "I am representative of effective medical treatment" automatically become a doctor?
god can't take an interest in me
surrender to god requires blind commitmment
etc etc
depends on the nature of the "questioning" and the extent that the said persons are dear to him
but you are doing so much more than that
thankfully easing into fideism is not a necessary condition (except in the minds of certain people advocating certain "truths" about god ...)
there are a whole range of people that are eager to take offense ...
so is it in t he case of theistic discussions, anyone who is not a theist is not required to adhere to the standard guidelines of sustaining/developing a relationship that we would otherwise lay down for any other scenario?
I do
kannistha, madhyama, uttama is all about that subject
desiring change in another (change that is initiated through a wide range of bridging activities) is hardly the grounds for someone standing on dubious ground.
As mentioned before, its kind of normal in human civilization and its the central theme that we use to analyze the history, guage the present and anticipatethe future (regardless whether its between two people or 2 billion).
You are even doing teh same thing right here int his thread ... demanding change etc on your terms (even though you admit you don't meet what you deem the correct criteria to sustain that change - ie you are not pure in intention etc etc)
who said I was talking about buddhism?
don't know what you are talking about.
Don't think I have ever spat or thrown a shoe at anyone
As for calling someone an idiot or fool or whatever or something along those lines, I'm pretty sure that you have done that.
I think its kind of an inescapable for anyone not to categorize a certain class of person like that. Its the natural consequence of establishing a model of values
sure
I'm just saying the responsibility for initiating successful change (hopefully for the better) in another does not rest solely and wholly on the person trying to initiate the change
yet you can't see how you are guilty of doing just precisely the same thing (while being outside of your declared authoritative model - namely having pure intention - for being capable of catalyzing such change) ... and yet you can't stop yourself, can you?
Why?
Because its the natural consequence of having values that oppose the values of another.
IOW your notion of effecting change totally bereft of issues of conflict is simply an imagination at worst or too reliant on examples too few and far in between to be accepted as a standard
Could be both?
Unless you can depict humans as a type of computer that simply processes information totally bereft of conscious awareness, how could it be anything else but both?
Have you asked him to cure your schizophrenia?
Of course not.
Yet if you want to stand by your claiming that
then you are presuming that the people I have actually spoken to were in fact representatives of God.
Such as that you, Lori, Adstar, Cifo etc. are representatives of God.
Are you a representative of God?
You are flat out lying.
I have never claimed those things.
I note, however, that the corollary of some popular approaches to God, where a guru or membership in a particular religious organization is considered a compulsory intermediate between a person and God, indeed result in apathy, said apathy manifesting in stances such as "God doesn't care about me" or "Surrender to God requires blind commitment."
What more am I doing?
You have shown, repeatedy, that you do not have precise memory of the things I said.
You barely know me.
You repeatedly strawman my points.
It is no wonder you see offense when in fact there was none.
I am in no way claiming that I am not guilty of offenses. Yet they are not the ones that you accuse me of; and more importantly, they are between me and God. They are not yours to judge.
If submission to an ISKCON guru or membership in a particular religious organization is a necessary requirement to believe in God, then that, for me, is a requirement for fideism.
And none other than theists claim to have God on their side.
We are not at an ISKCON temple. We are not on your turf. We are not in your living room. Nor are we in my living room.
We are meeting in a place that is, for all practical intents and purposes, neutral. We might as well be meeting in a public street.
So you don't get to exclusively set the rules, nor do I.
If I were to go to a religious establishment, then sure, there are standards I would expect myself to adhere to, ie. the standards of said religious establishment.
If I were to go to your living room, then sure, there are standards I would expect myself to adhere to, ie. your standards.
If you were to come to my living room, then I would expect you to adhere to my standards.
Whatever guidelines of theistic discussion we may adhere to and expect eachother to adhere to, here, at the forums, where we actually meet, yet need to be worked out and negotiated.
Last edited:
Those are just your projections!
Your judgments of the other person.
You don't factor in the state and attitude of the other person: this means that you don't ask the other person what they want, in life, and specifically from you.
You assume these things, and take your assumptions as the absolute truth about said person.
So let's see: White slaveowners wanted the blacks who rebelled, to change, to stop rebelling.
You think this was a wholesome desire on the part of the white slaveowners?
A person who assaults you, wants that you would not defend yourself. Is the assaulter's desire wholesome?
I am defending myself.
I will either push you out of my living room, or make you change.
For years, I have been trying to negotiate terms of interaction with theists: but they don't budge. For theists, it's either their way or the highway.
Open your scriptures on pretty much any page, and you see people being called fools and rascals.
But unlike some, I don't feel good about myself for doing so, nor do I feel divinely justified for doing so.
Not at all.
If everything happens according to God's will, and God's will is always good, then there are no true fools or rascals, and thus, no justified grounds for calling someone a fool and a rascal.
Moreover, I think it requires a measure of ill will to call someone or to at least think of them as a fool and a rascal. A goodwilled person would not call another such names, nor think of them that way.
I don't think ill will is ever wholesome.
Successful according to whom?
If you and I would first have a conversation about what I want, what I hope for etc., and then work out a plan to those goals, that would be the way change is ideally approached among experts - such as personal coaches or therapists, or relatives and friends who are really trying to help.
You, and theists in general, on the other hand, behave as if you are part of a universal and compulsory educational system which a person has no choice but to subject themselves to. All along you conveniently ignore that each brand of theism claims a different thing to be the Absolute Truth and has different expectations from people.
Again: To the extent to which one desires another to change, one is responsible to bring about that change in another, or else renounce the desire to change them. I am doing precisely that.
I desire you to change, and in a particular way, and I am doing my part in that. I take responsibility for this desire that I have. At some point, I may renounce it.
Why? Because I think that you, as a self-declared theist, have overstepped your competencies and my boundaries. And I want you either out of my system, or negotiate acceptable terms.
Oscar Wilde once noted that altruistic people lose all sense of humanity.
This is quite typical for theists: they treat non-theists as if they don't exist, as if they don't matter, as if the particular theistic standard that they present is absolute and universal for everyone.
Like a group of Americans going to a foreign country and demanding that the people there comply with the US constitution.
Except that for an actual person, is more like being faced with a group of Americans demanding that one comply with the US constitution, and a group of French demanding that one comply with the French constitution, and a group of Brazilians demanding that one comply with the Brazilian constitution, etc.
Each theist is pulling in their own direction, and threatens with eternal consequences if one doesn't comply.
There is a difference bewteen a values conflict, and a preferences conflict.
In a preference conflict, the two parties that are in conflict have in roundabout the same values, but somewhat different preferences in regard to a particular situation. Such a conflict can be resolved by referring to the fact of having the same or compatible values and working from there.
A values conflict is a deadlock. It can be resolved only by one party renouncing their values, giving in. The other options are not true resolution of the conflict - such as breaking the relationship or focusing on other things that the two may have in common that they both value.
You seem to conceive of this situation between us as a mere conflict of preferences, even as you speak of values.
I think it is much more fundamental than that.
Actually I was referring more to the content of your posts rather than specific individuals you were addressing.
Plenty of material in your recent replies to show you what i am talking about (I will indicate them with a ***)
***
lol
I am flat out lying yet you concede that they are true statements
talking about your ideas on god and the manner of dealing with his followers as if you are the only one with valid contributions to make to the discussion - I've marked them in this post with a ***
will the irony never end?
lol
so you interpret your statements of theists being hate-mongering aggressive bossy individuals who spit and throw shoes at their avowed enemies in line with a neutral approach to the subject?
Seriously, you pound people with jack hammers and then cry foul if you get brushed with a feather duster ....
***
not required.
plenty of people believe in god without doing these things.
You don't even need anyone's permission to believe in god ... or in fact to even worship god
***
or so you would try and have yourself believe ....
You don't say.
Thats why I suggested " so is it in t he case of theistic discussions, anyone who is not a theist is not required to adhere to the standard guidelines of sustaining/developing a relationship that we would otherwise lay down for any other scenario?"
As I said, kannistha, madhyama and uttama is all about this subject
well I thought we were talking about the desire to instill change in another (as it purports to ideology or world view) as opposed to the desire to keep someone in slavery or assault them
as I said earlier, this doesn't make you unique.
A influences B, B influences A (or A and B nullify each other) are the three general outcomes of any social interaction - doesn't matter whether we are talking about trends in theistic discourse or interior design.
I could say the same thing about your posts ...
Thats correct
Such persons are merely acting like one
So when you call some one a fool, you actually hate them ... and you think therefore everyone else who ever calls someone else a fool thinks in the same manner?
according to whether we want to declare it as A influences B
generally all spiritual disciplines talk about requiring patience. Practically speaking, in spiritual life one's entire life is a work in progress as opposed to having everything ironed out in a 3 day seminar or something.
you are?
hence negotiating acceptable terms becomes a category of relationship development between two or more individuals (as opposed to being the sole responsibility of just one)
and you do the exact same thing in your own particular style too.
In this world value systems are diverse and conflicts arise. If you want to point at a value system and say its at fault because it produces conflict, you cannot say anything.
Its becoming more and more unclear how this paints a picture of value/preference conflict being approached as one persons sole responsibility
Actually I don't, I don't, we destroy the environment, science has become a " must agree with me or I will destroy you personally and financially " original thought is not taken seriously and /or is a threat to mainstream science , this NOT how science was done centuries ago
Humanity does not believe in itself. What it does believe in more than itself is the metaphysical
The gods and godesses
So what I'm trying to do is have Humanity think of its self with NO metaphysics involved
You are not going to be able to promote an objective view by making hack statements about science. Only those "original thinkers" who are too lazy to learn the science and make something useful of those thoughts feel they are not taken seriously. And there is no threat in idle speculation. Centuries ago anyone who claimed to be doing science was actually doing something to demonstrate and make use of what they were thinking up.
Now days hacks complain about others not running with their ideas when it is obvious they have spent little real effort learning how to apply science for themselves.
My point being about science, mainstream, it that, they don't try to HELP, give help in a way that this theory could be on to something, rather than find faults in the theory, investigate the theory thoroughly
I haven't found this true, sure these people have there faults in their theory but so does mainstream (theory)
You are imagining things again.
Now tell me: Are you a representative of God?
Must I worship you like God Himself?
I have never claimed to believe that "God doesn't care about me" or that "Blind surrender is necessary".
I am noting that they follow from certain others stances, which I also do not hold.
But now if I note that something logically follows, to you this means that I agree with it, believe it????
Have you suddenly become an agnostic?
You pretend to think I lie.
You are trying to drive me crazy.
Some theists certainly behave like hate-mongering aggressive bossy individuals who spit and throw shoes at their avowed enemies.
And now you play the daisy.
I think you simply don't like the fact that I have turned your tactics against you.
They hurt, don't they? How do you think people feel when you use those tactics on them?
Keep that in mind, then.
Apparently, you are angry or upset, because your logical operators don't work anymore.
Plug in your operators for "some" and "all."
It is the responsibility of the person asserting a new theory or idea to investigate it to the point of being able to show others that it has real merit. Hacks routinely assume that scientists should do their work for them. This is called shifting the burden of proof, and is a very common fallacy used by ignorant hacks who know they will never put in the actual work to prove anything themselves.
Another typical hack response, about things "only being a theory". Do you know the difference between the scientific and common usage of the word?
Doesn't change the fact that you don't ask people what they want in life and from you.
Theistic preaching is all too often* the desire to enslave others, to assault them.
*Turn on your logical operator.
So?
Quote me. Quote me calling people fools and rascals.
Your founder acharya certainly felt divinely justified to write down calling people fools and rascals - he wrote it down as divinely inspired scripture.
Then why on earth not say so right away?
Language affords precise expression in this regard. If you mean "I think you are acting foolishly", then why say "You're a fool!"?
We are not small children so that we would have to satisfy ourselves with imprecise and rude language.
I welcome them to explain themselves.
So far, nobody has. Perhaps because they are too full of hate to actually think.
What are you trying to say?
I have asked you for patience and not to give up on me. I have asked you that more than once.
You have never asked me the same. You have always taken me for granted. You have never expressed appreciation for me, you never thanked me.
I am not saying this to complain, I am saying it to point out that you have given me no reason to think that you value me. Just the opposite.
I am.
Nobody suggested that it was the sole responsibility of just one, except in the cases where one person desires to have the upper hand.
I have many styles, depending on the situation.
That is not my point.
So far, the way you have treated me, the way you speak to me, indicates that you want to have the upper hand in our communication.
If you want the upper hand, then I am willing to let you have it. But you actually have to show that you are capable of it. Meaning, you will have to defeat whatever opposition I give you.
That's what comes with desiring the upper hand.
First, most not all have not the resources that mainstream science does
Second, define a hack, what are the characteristics of a hack
No, explain
even if we want to assume that what you say about me is true, actually it does ....
Ok theists are not necessarily fools and rascals but violent enslavers - roger that -
you are jumping up and down about something you nor anyone else can avoid doing themselves - namely relegating someone/something to alesser state on account of your values
on the contary, of late its difficult to find a post where you don't dive into derogatory accusations
as I said, so do you (except that you commonly delve into stronger language) . You simply imagine that you don't have a value system or conveniently ignore it for the sake of this discussion.
Guess you were being to literal minded to see the context.
If a philosophical system advocates that every living entity is constitutionally sat cit ananda, how could you possibly interpret any displays of ignorance as anything else?
lol
so if they can't/won't explain them (or alternatively, you can't understand) their explanations, then your derogatory assessments still remain derogatory comments.
As I said, this doesn't make you unique.
Welcome to the club!
If one doesn't have patience one effectively gives up on one's self - it doesn't really matter how many second and third parties invest their resources in the subject.
Look, in short, yes nurturing and support is important to developing a bond to help the assistance of change, but if you are crying foul the moment you receive any sort of negative feedback you are simply inflating yourself in a position that is impractical and also advocating a principle that you (nor practically anyone else) cannot perform.
It doesn't matter whether we are talking about origami or spiritual practice.
If you extend this notion of yours into all aspects of pedagogy, no one can effectively learn anything
:shrug: