Sorry Arlo, it seems I misunderstood your stance on this somewhat. I have said on this forum before that I think religious people should not be trusted, because there is something faulty in there reasoning ability. You reminded me of a work colleague I knew some years back, he was a very religious, bible quoting Nigerian; he had a strong physical presence, with shinning, relaxing eyes; I had many discussions about the existence of God with him and continued to meet him occasionally after our work contracts finished. He got into some financial difficulties and asked me if I would take out a mortgage to buy a buy to let flat he had which he was forced to sell to pay of a debt to a bank; he said he would manage the letting for me and pay of the mortgage payments and then buy the flat back of me a year later. Once I understood fully what he was requesting I decided here was an example of why not to trust religious people and refused to speak to him after that.
-Peter 2008/9/25 Arlo Bensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [Peter] > If so, where do you draw the line? How come you are not out there helping > the poor now, instead of reading all this self-indulgent philosophizing? > > [Arlo] > First off, let me say that I don't (and I'm not saying you do) see this as > an option between hedonism and asceticism. And in criticizing the > uncompassionate materialism of "assembly-of-god" brand christianity, I am > not suggesting that everyone should embrace austerity. Clearly, no matter > you or I stand on this spectrum there will be people more hedonistic than us > on one side, and more austere on the other. I recognize that I am somewhere > in the middle, although I try to keep my lean towards the simple, > compassionate and Buddhistic side. My overarching concern is not that > Western culture makes hedonism or materialism alluring, but that the forces > that are supposed to balance this are actively legitimizing it instead. Thus > for someone like Hall, who would argue that the majority will always be > "selfish" (as opposed to "selfless"), the legitimacy to "theology" was in > constraining the selfish desires of man and channeling (or trying to) human > energy towards selfless enlightenment. What we are seeing today is the > complete opposite, the forces operating under the guise of "theology" are > leading men away from selfless enlightenment and towards selfish desire. And > they do so by pandering to materialism, xenophobia and power. And in doing > so they have usurped the names and words of christianity while leaving all > its meaning to vanish into dust. (Many could argue, of course, that this has > been the case since the Roman Empire appropriated Christianity from the > Jews. (its a strong argument I'd generally agree with)) > > [Peter] > but your: In "the old view" (of Christianity), you were tasked to help the > poor, feed the hungry and shelter the homeless.Do you think that is our > responsibility? > > [Arlo] > I think that (mostly) all of our historical spiritual messengers brought a > message of compassion. And yes, I think it is our responsibility to > alleviate the suffering of all living beings as much as possible. And no, I > don't think saying "I suffer because I don't own a Ferrari, so you have to > buy me one" counts as "suffering". It does not take much empathy to look at > the condition of another living creature and feel compassion for its pain (I > say living creature, not "only humans", to emphasize the Buddha's teachings > of compassion for all living things). How we respond, of course, points > again to the spectrum above. I could do more, sure. But I try. And that's > really all I'd expect from most people. But when the dialogue challenges > empathy from the start, begins with the orientation that the creature who > suffers does so because God is punishing it, and your lack of suffering is > evidence of God's favor, you preempt the entire encounter. You are no longer > asking "are you doing enough" but saying "I should do nothing". This is not > merely turning a blind eye, it is staring at those who suffer with contempt > and derision. > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
