--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > -<curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > It is his rejection of that cruel ideology that makes his > > > > thinking so attractive to me. He is saying something that > > > > is the opposite view of the karmic belief system, "it's > > > > not fair!" > > > > > > Well, let's say it's the opposite of the view of some > > > who believe in karma. > > > > The phrase "It's not fair" is the exact opposite of karmic > > theory without any need to reference how people apply what > > it means to their personal lives. > > LOL! Sorry, but I think it's absurd to get all wrought > up over belief in the abstract. How can it be "cruel" > except in reference to how it's applied?
Black people are inferior. Apply that in the good way. > > <snip> > > > > I think it is fascinating that you are promoting a guy > > > > who explicitly states that he does not belief in God > > > > and whose views are so much more inline with Gandhi > > > > than Guru Dev. > > > > > > You think Guru Dev didn't believe in helping people who > > > were suffering? > > > > I don't really know. He didn't seem like much of a > > people person to me. I do know that he promoted Sanatana > > Dharma and that includes supporting the caste system and > > its belief that a child born with > > Yadayadayada. Since we aren't talking about how people > apply their beliefs, "I don't really know" is all you > need to say, isn't it? Let me extend it. You don't either. We both are just sharing our opinions based on pretty scanty evidence although Paul Mason has taught me more about what the guy really did believe than Maharishi ever did. But the fact that he supported a socially oppressive system is a fact. Unless you have a reason why today children should be brought up in the brothel caste. > > <snip> > > > Sometimes it seems to me that those who argue against > > > certain religious beliefs base their arguments on the > > > most simplistic understanding of those beliefs, and once > > > they've demolished the case for the simplistic versions, > > > think they've eliminated any reason for holding any > > > version of the beliefs. > > > > And sometimes people who hold beliefs without evidence > > that convinces non believers try to shift the discussion > > away from the lack of evidence > > Actually, I was calling attention to the lack of > evidence. You really need to step foot in India then. There is a whole country worth of evidence of the cruelty of the caste system based on karmic thoery. I get it that you have added in some nice personal touches to the cruel system so it can work better for you. But that has nothing to do with how it is practiced for hundreds of millions of people. And it is not your personal formulation of the system of karma that I am objecting to. > > <snip> > > But that is not the case in its native country where > > hundreds of little girls are being brought up in brothels > > that they cannot escape because of their birth status. > > Ah, so it *is* about how (some) people apply their > beliefs, then. Make up your mind, please. It is a direct result of the system. These unchallenged beliefs are a problem. It is also a problem how it gets applied. > > See, I don't think it really has all that much to do > with specific religious systems. I don't think they > determine behavior so much as that they're used as an > excuse for behavior. I'm all for criticizing behavior > where appropriate, but I think blaming it on religion > is way too easy, especially from a simplistic view of > the religion in question. First of all if we want to talk about having a simplistic understanding of the Hindu religious beliefs I have to object to your using Krishna's statement about the unfathomable nature of Karma out of context.He is referring to the future effect of an action and all its implications for a group of people and an individual trying to make a decision. As far as the specific punishments for various actions and the specific type of birth punishment meted out by Karma the Hindu scriptures are very clear. If you read the Laws of Manu you will find very detailed descriptions of what happens for trying to buck the caste system. (and we have already dealt with Maharishi attempted dodge, it doesn't hold up if you actually read the book.) Here is where Sam Harris and I agree. The absurdity of religious beliefs are being protected by people who are assuming a modified version that removes the most obviously antisocial elements. I am not arguing against your personal mix of ideas Judy. They are none of my business. I am arguing against a system of beliefs that claims to know how the universe works after death. And a society that uses that system to oppress people for generations. What you believe in your self determined life in your free society has nothing to do with my objection. You have the luxury of believing anything you want precisely because our society has rejected the Vedic claim that they know everything about how life works based on old books and a tradition that tells a child: "you will never be good enough." >
