I think you have hit it, Dinesh. Disrespect can only be seen in separation, when one is judging the other. The spirit of each religion I have studied, tells us not to judge, and leads us into the unity of man. However, in practice, it can be lost, as this is difficult to achieve, and requires we each set aside our need to argue, feel injured, feel superior, even feel valued. The practice requires everything and nothing of us. In time, we may learn that to respect each other, simply means respecting ourselves.
On Mar 22, 9:00 am, Dinesh <[email protected]> wrote: > Very true Neil, most of the times 'Hindu' = 'Dinesh', so it may appear > as mutual disrespect in a debate on hinduism vs .... . Corrected in > time, I think, disrespect vanishes, but if persistent it turns bitter. > Any way I just wrote what I thought (Jesus being an example.). > > Religion is not just the face as seen, it has rigid structure which is > reinforced by people who put reason before religion. I don't claim > much knowledge of most religion, but of what I know this certainly is > true. Fortunately or unfortunately such people do not come to > limelight. > > On Mar 22, 5:39 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I sympathise with what you are saying Pat, but also feel there are a > > lot of 'pet rocks' about. One that strikes me as being amongst these > > is the feeling that there is no god or explanation of purpose, itself > > set in the solidity of stone. The paradox seems to be in what happens > > when we feel the truth is that something deep set in others is just a > > load of old toss and also know revealing this feeling will upset > > others and that there is some kind of mannered expectation we should > > respect it. How do we proceed in argument when to do so is likely > > only to surface a kind of mutual disrespect rather than mutual > > understanding? > > I'm inclined to a position in which we need something before the god > > questions, but this is extremely difficult when our politics is > > primarily 'religious' and not based in argument that can be factual > > rather than traditional-emotive. > > > On 22 Mar, 11:00, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 12 Mar, 16:20, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Ah, but I can feel the air and technically it can be seen because it > > > > is full of micro particles, some of which we refer to as pollution; > > > > you are familiar with the London Fog I'm sure. > > > > Indeed. It was/is a famous brand name for trench coats. As for the > > > old pea-green "London Fog", I never encountered it, as it was a 'smog' > > > based on the over-use of coal-burning in the City. > > > > > Playing God are we? Only the drips that you allow? lol Well then I > > > > can only surmise from what you proffer and of course only use the > > > > limited knowledge that is afforded me by the Him. > > > > If you get so lucky as to be able to put all of that together, yes. > > > However, the drips of data we get aren't always so easy to fit into > > > patterns. > > > > > Well I thought you believed in the Father Son Holy Ghost bit so that > > > > would make big daddy the third party, being that two of them are one. > > > > Yet I accept NO trinity. How can one be three? I realise that one > > > can 'appear to be' a countless mutltitude but it cannot BE more than > > > one. > > > > > Test and then judge. Judge for what and for what reason? He doesn't > > > > find it fun you say, and of course I guess you speak on behalf of the > > > > judge. > > > > If there is only one, for whom ELSE could you speak? We ALL speak on > > > behalf of the one, it's just that most don't realise that's the case. > > > > >What you don't see is that you are constantly trying to find > > > > reason to support something that is simply a belief, one that remains > > > > enigmatic, beyond reproach and without any course of proof or > > > > disproof. > > > > Oh I see that, but I don't see that as a problem. You might. I'm not > > > constantly trying to find reasons, I've found them. More, I've passed > > > along some answers. More, some are rejected as not seeming to fit > > > someone's personal view that is taken from the same 'pool of > > > evidence'. IF what I say is truly beyond reproach, then why seek to > > > reproach it? For YOUR sake? For God's? Mine? None of those > > > possibilities actually make any sense. So yet you incline yourself > > > towards inclining yourself away from what I say, you do so for reasons > > > that are no more or less reasonable than my own. > > > > > I see everyone living in the same world with some, such as yourself, > > > > attributing experiences, good or bad, to a deity, a creator who by > > > > design places lives in atrocious living circumstance as a means of > > > > testing and judging. Tell that to someone being cruelly tortured for > > > > no purpose. > > > > Find just one. And how do you measure 'purpose'? With what > > > scientific tool? Who taught you how to use it and are you sure there > > > isn't a left-handed model that might work better? > > > > >One can find justification in anything by simply adopting > > > > this externalization of human experience. I might feel entirely > > > > different if it all came out of some new discovery that actually > > > > established the existence of such a being. > > > > Might? I think you know you'd feel entirely different. Yet when > > > confronted with it, do you not think you'd feel awfully stupid? > > > > >However, being that it is > > > > based on ancient superstitions and myths of desert dwelling people > > > > with limited knowledge and probably one of the few myths out of the > > > > many that stayed the course of history, yet to be formally dispelled, > > > > I would have to remain skeptical of it and keep it in the box of > > > > fanciful figments of man's conjured conclusions to life's > > > > wonderment. > > > > Yeah, those prople who came up with algebra and chemistry were pretty > > > uneducated compared to the Dark Age's man that had to re-learn from > > > the Arabs what they'd forgotten. Simply because something has been > > > believed for years without proof does not mean that the thing itself > > > is 'unbelievable' simply because no proof exists FOR it, as no proof > > > against it exists either. > > > > >I might add that the monotheist religious persuasions > > > > all originated in the same region and have striking similarities. > > > > Yes, you would thinkg the the God of Abraham would read/sound a lot > > > like the God of Abraham. > > > > > Natives in the jungle are no less fervent believers of totem gods than > > > > you are of yours and the "Thousands" of others out there including > > > > spiritualists and cultists. What you choose to believe is no more > > > > valid than pet rocks. > > > > Nice. So my life's work is, for all you care, pet rocks. Fair > > > enough, I never once expected everyone to be bowled over with it, and, > > > if you expect me to be terribly upset because one individual wants to > > > stick his fingers in his ears and say, "La-La-La-La-La...", don't hold > > > your breath; some doom themselves in many different ways and no one > > > has ever changd that aspect of life. But I bet you wish that whole > > > 'Pet Rock' idea was something YOU'D done, as you value it enough to > > > remark on their surprising (to you) popularity amongst the people and > > > a fortune was had. He always laughs last. > > > > >Truth is I could spend a few hours putting > > > > together my own religion and probably get followers willing to do > > > > anything to appease my god of all gods. I'll call it Chimpsky. lol > > > > Yup. Probably. And, you would have that inner gut feeling that you'd > > > led them all astray and you'd damn yourself for it. Not worth doing, > > > then, is it? Trouble is, you couldn't do such a thing because your > > > own God-given ethics prevent you from it, yet you can deny their > > > origins in the same breath as proclaiming that which no person gave > > > you is from yourself. > > > > > On Mar 12, 3:41 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 12 Mar, 02:26, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Alternatively, you've got the cart before the horse. We > > > > > > > > > humans have > > > > > > > > > knowledge because a subset of God's all-encompassing > > > > > > > > > knowledge is > > > > > > > > > afforded us by Him. <<Pat > > > > > > > > > Supposition entirely and from where you proceed in order to > > > > > > > > construct > > > > > > > > the rest of the design. Knowledge 'afforded' us would in that > > > > > > > > account > > > > > > > > be more uniform, unilateral without discrepancy or the conflict > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > false knowledge and true knowledge as in the case of Gallileo > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > reveal itself to be more so, instinctive knowledge. <<Slip > > > > > > > > Not if you aren't afforded that. And galileo was afforded what > > > > > > > he was > > > > > > > afforded. <<Pat > > > > > > > Again your basing your response totally on your own supposition that > > > > > > the only way we can gain knowledge is by the doling out of allowed > > > > > > levels of understanding and ability to learn by some imaginary > > > > > > deity. > > > > > > <<Slip > > > > > > > > >We have in record > > > > > > > > perceived and calculated knowledge by experience, subsequently > > > > > > > > failing > > > > > > > > at times to perceive actual truths and bounding forward on > > > > > > > > faulty > > > > > > > > conjecture until, through alternate experience, truth > > > > > > > > emerged.<<Slip > > > > > > > > Therefore demonstrating our limited knowledge.<< Pat > > > > > > > You are saying absolutely nothing here. It demonstrates how we have > > > > > > struggled along on our own since our primordial beginnings, how we > > > > > > accumulated knowledge from experience and discovery. There is no > > > > > > indication that we were allowed to have some knowledge or the > > > > > > limitation of knowledge. <<Slip > > > > > > You've assumed, without proof, that we are alone and that God is not > > > > > with us. Just because you cannot see God with your eyes, doesn't mean > > > > > He's not present. You don't see the air around you. > > > > > > > > >We > > > > > > > > can't simply dismiss or disregard thousands of years of > > > > > > > > floundering on > > > > > > > > myths and notions in an attempt to establish the Harrington > > > > > > > > Theorem of > > > > > > > > deity knowledge which postulates an imparting of human > > > > > > > > knowledge by a > > > > > > > > third party source presented as the gate keeper of all > > > > > > > > knowledge. Slip > > > > > > > > Which is not my postulate. Rather, I postulate that the One > > > > > > > created > > > > > > > us as third party items where He is the one reality that holds > > > > > > > the lot > > > > > > > and that lot exceed the addition of our allotments. > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
