--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Comment below:
>
> **
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"
<reavismarek@>
> > wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > And for what it's worth, you strike me as one of the most
> > > intellectually honest and open to discussion individuals that
> post
> > > here and I share your chagrin whenever anyone claims
differently.
> >
> > So, Marek, you think it was intellectually honest
> > of Curtis to equate Jim's comment that MMY and Guru
> > Dev revitalized the spiritual momentum of the world
> > with the belief of some Christians that only they
> > will go to heaven and everybody else will go to hell?
> >
> > If so, that tells me all I need to know about
> > *your* intellectual honesty.
> >
>
> **end**
>
> Judy, although Curtis' comparison of Jim's beliefs re Maharishi and
> Guru Dev with extreme dualism of Christian fundamentalism may not
be
> 100% congruent, it does represent (IMO) an honest response to how
> beliefs themselves, no matter how strongly and sincerely held, are
> almost always based on incomplete information and ignorance.
>
> Beliefs represent an emotional attachment to a certain order in the
> world (and beyond), oftentimes based on the individual's own
> experiences, but in the case of religions, frequently based on
> someone else's stated experiences. Jim's experiences seem genuine
> enough as he relates them, but the extrapolation of his experiences
> to the belief that Guru Dev and Maharishi represent a unique
juncture
> in the world and human affairs is, however sincere, unveriafiable
and
> tantamount to similar sectarian beliefs of Christianity or any
other
> religion.
>
> The fact that Curtis came to you in an open, straightforward manner
> even after you had been insulting, and your subsequent dismissive
> responses betray your own emotional dishonesty.
Not only did Curtis not come to me in an open,
straightforward manner, the dishonesty of his
response was even greater than that of his
original bogus comparison.
That comparison was offensive and insulting, a
deliberate attempt at guilt by association.
There were all sorts of comparisons he *could*
have made on the basis you suggest above
("incomplete information and ignorance") that
would have been entirely unproblematic and
would have made his point a lot more clearly.
That you *support* him in the comparison he did
make, and in his dishonest responses to my
pointing out how offensive it was, tells me, as
I say, all I need to know about your own
intellectual integrity.
"May not be 100% congruent," indeed.
Excuse me while I go take a bath.
