Hmmm..
 
"I'm more offended, to be honest, but putting "intricacies" in quotes. Theology 
is quite a large and varied field. and that wasn't my point. My point was that 
these people were gloating over "knowing more" (in fact, an average of 4 
questions more) than religious people, as if they had understood all of 
religion better than all those who practise it. These were questions like "what 
religion was Mother Theresa," and while it's shocking that many people didn't 
know that, in terms of religion it's the equivalent of "what year did Columbus 
sail" is to history."
 
I'm unclear why this is so troublesome for you..  Personally, I love Bill 
Mahr.  He is  not just an atheist--he is militant!  (So much so that I am 
reminded of Shakespeare's.. 'I think thou doth protest too much"). He is soo 
focused on denying God and religion that I wonder if  somewhere there is a 
dormant longing for a faith-based practice.  Perhaps there was some deep 
disappoinment  or betrayal in his youth.  
 
Or:  It sells well and  it has become part of his "brand" as a comic,  which is 
his livlihood. 
 
 Regardless, he does speak intelligently about scriptures and religious 
histories.  Yet, he seems  unwilling to  even acknowledge or listen to  other 
intelligent ideas.  For example, he makes great fun of Mormons.   I am not 
Mormon, but I have a home in UT with many very Mormon neighbors.  They are very 
nice people, and don't even have green heads amidst their "magic" underwear, 
(to quote Bill).  Larry King had President Kimball on his program many times to 
talk about Mormon views on a variety of world issues.  Yet when Larry told Bill 
what a thoughtful, intelligent and kind man he was, Bill's eyes opened wide in 
disbelief with a , "Really"?? And a doubting shake of his head.
 
He cannot reconcile intellect and rational thought with "faith". Insisting 
there must be one or the other, but they cannot coexist. So,  many atheists 
pride themselves on their analytical knowledge, but they simply cannot  valuie 
the insight those with faith have.  For  many, faith means  they have little 
need to be  caught up in "facts". They listen to their inner guide.
 
Why get so riles about their knowledge?  If you have faith, there is a whole 
sphere they are ignorant about.  Live and let live.... K


> 



--- On Fri, 10/1/10, DP <wookielife...@yahoo.ca> wrote:


From: DP <wookielife...@yahoo.ca>
Subject: [Zen] Re: Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church.
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, October 1, 2010, 10:37 AM


  





--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, mike brown <uerusub...@...> wrote:
>
> DP,
> 
> Thanks for the reply. It's probably difficult, if not impossible, to keep 
> religion out of politics in the sense that politicians have personal beliefs 
> that may impact on their personal decision making. However, we in the west 
> mostly live in secular societies and overt religious decisions should stay 
> the 
> hell (excuse the pun) out of legislative decisions that affect all citizens. 

Well, I don't know how far that can go. People talk about taxing churches where 
the ministers make overt political statements. Couldn't that have been used to 
suppress Martin Luther King? As well, on the international scene and I think of 
Desmond Tutu and the Dalai Lama, whose faith has sustained them. Dennis 
Kucinich is another example of someone whose faith (Roman Catholic with a bit 
of existentialism thrown in) has resulted in progressive politics. the 
abolitionists were often religious (Quakers, etc). 

I object to your subject line, because in my (admittedly short) years as a 
church goer I have never, ever been told not to think. Quite the opposite, in 
fact. And it's not like I go to a small "new age Christian" church, but one of 
the mainline churches in Canada.

> 
> 
> I'd also argue with you over the point about atheists knowing the answers to 
> a religious survey but not understanding the intricacies of theology. If 
> someone 
> doesn't know who delivered the Sermon on the Mount they sure as hell (there I 
> go 
> again) don't understand the "intricacies" of theology. 
> 
> Mike.
> 
I'm more offended, to be honest, but putting "intricacies" in quotes. Theology 
is quite a large and varied field. and that wasn't my point. My point was that 
these people were gloating over "knowing more" (in fact, an average of 4 
questions more) than religious people, as if they had understood all of 
religion better than all those who practise it. These were questions like "what 
religion was Mother Theresa," and while it's shocking that many people didn't 
know that, in terms of religion it's the equivalent of "what year did Columbus 
sail" is to history.

> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: DP <wookielife...@...>
> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, 1 October, 2010 23:16:46
> Subject: Re: [Zen] More about arguments and ego
> 
>   
> 
> Well, there are ways that politics and religion/spirituality intersect that 
> are 
> (for me) fruitful and interesting. The debate over Obama's old minister, for 
> example, could have led to a mainstream introduction to Liberation Theology. 
> Or 
> we could talk about "Creation Care," the Evangelical environmental movement. 
> Instead, there are constant threads about keeping religion out of politics, 
> and 
> how atheists are smarter, more moral and more compassionate than religious 
> people. The latest has been about how atheists did better than religiouis 
> people 
> on a quiz about religion. I thought the quiz was superficial, and that just 
> because the atheists knew the answers they didn't know the intricacies of 
> theology. Of course, I was ridiculed for even arguing that theology was 
> complex.
> 
> So yes, some hurt feelings and envy over the people who have "the truth." but 
> also frustration because I think that it's our emphasis on materialism (in 
> all 
> senses of the word) that causes a lot of the world's problems.
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, mike brown <uerusuboyo@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi DP,
> > 
> > Could you elaborate on this a bit more: "As well, I am frustrated that the 
> > section of the political forum dedicated to religion is dominated by the 
> > atheists."
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ________________________________
> > From: DP <wookielifeday@>
> > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Fri, 1 October, 2010 7:58:28
> > Subject: Re: [Zen] More about arguments and ego
> > 
> >   
> > I appreciate your comments, and your story. That is strange, and yet not 
> > uncommon from what I've heard. OTOH, it's a valuable metaphor for how we 
> > experience the world. We ultimately really don't know. And perhaps what I 
> > feel 
> 
> > is envy over their illusion of certainty (which they definitely present)
> > 
> > And yet another part of it is that I feel that some of the issues in the 
> > world 
> 
> > (this is a political forum that I'm talking about) need a spiritual outlook 
> > as 
> 
> > well as a real world, material component. Certainly the idea of "there is 
> > nothing more to this world, and when you die that's it" seems to counter 
> > any 
> > sense of hope for the future, at least in my opinion.
> > 
> > As well, I am frustrated that the section of the political forum dedicated 
> > to 
> > religion is dominated by the atheists.
> > 
> > I guess if I *was* more secure in my beliefs I wouldn't let it bother me.
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Kristy McClain <healthyplay1@> wrote:
> > >
> > > *bows to all*
> > >  
> > > I wasn't going to comment on this thread, but after reading DP's posts on 
> >this, 
> >
> > >i  decided to share an experience i am having right now..
> > >  
> > > To begin, I was struck when you  wrote that what really bothers 
> > > you is 
> >that 
> >
> > >people attack you about  what the "truth" is when it comes to 
> > >religion.  
> >I 
> >
> > >have said before here that, in my view, there really is no such thing as 
> > >"the" 
> >
> > >truth or even "a" truth.  Its simply one's perception of it--beit 
> > > a 
> >person, 
> >
> > >idea, theology  or event.  The need to be right or somehow 
> > >prove that 
> >one 
> >
> > >person's perception is correct and therefore, another's is wrong, is at 
> >the  
> >
> > >heart of our societal and global conflicts.
> > >  
> > > I think most of that is ego-driven, but to pretend or deny that humans 
> > > don't 
> 
> > >have egos is equally foolish.  Its okay to have opinions, beliefs, 
> > >values 
> >and 
> >
> > >moral constructs.   I think the danger of ego  in 
> > >this is when one 
> >insists 
> >
> > >their viewiint is the only correct one.  
> > >
> > >  
> > > I agree with Chris-- great wisdom there when he suggests that 
> > > when you do 
> >not 
> >
> > >respond to some flaming post or insult or complaint, you actually 
> > >demonstrate 
> 
> > >greater emotional maturity, and they are aware you maintain your views, 
> > >but 
> >are 
> >
> > >now moving on to the more important matters of your real life.
> > >  
> > > I also agree with Bill.  Such matters  cannot be analized 
> > > in some 
> >logical 
> >
> > >frame.  If you have faith-- then  logic has little to do 
> > >with it, and 
> > >perhaps  use  your  faith that perhaps your 
> > >message will resonate 
> >somehow via 
> >
> > >less tangible means.
> > >  
> > > Now, as I am now facing a problem that started with internet discussion, 
> > > but 
> 
> > >has now become a real life threat, I  must caution others to 
> > >beware those 
> > >on-line who indeed may have psychiatric buttons you do not want to inflame.
> > >  
> > > The man I've written about here who claims a lifetime of trauma , abuse, 
> > >tragedy and drama is at it again.   After calmly making it clear 
> > >to him 
> >that I 
> >
> > >will no longer be a part of his self-created dramas, but wish  him 
> > >well-- 
> >the 
> >
> > >following events have unfolded..
> > >  
> > > I received an e-mail from a man claiming to be an ordained minister, 
> > >  and 
> 
> > >friend of this man.  Telling me that ****  was in a 
> > >serious car 
> >accident  and 
> >
> > >has been taken to a local hospital..  Stating that  the 
> > >event  
> >details were 
> >
> > >still unclear, but reassuring me this man is alive.  Etc., 
> > >etc.. He 
> >offers his 
> >
> > >e-mail if I have questions or concers.. as if I must certainly be  
> >anxiously  
> >
> > >awaiting any information on this tragic event.   
> > >  
> > > 
> > > Certain that this is more of the same I  do not reply or 
> > > respond. For 
> >people 
> >
> > >with this type of  psychological disorder which is to a large 
> > >degree  
> > >attention-seeking,  grandiose ideation, and other 
> > >symtoms.  There is a 
> >bit of 
> >
> > >narcissisism, but his whole personality is more complex, and best left to 
> > >be 
> > >diagnosed by medical professionals.
> > >  
> > > But I do know the worst thing you can do to such a person is ignore 
> > > them.  
> >
> > >Though it is the only appropriate and sane respomse or 
> > >treatment. 
> > >  
> > > I received a second e-mail a day later stating that the car was totally 
> > >destroyed, and  he had retrieved the personal belongings (and cell 
> >phone)  of 
> >
> > >our "friend", and encouraged me tio call him with support. He is being 
> > >transferred to another hospital.   Reminding me to keep 
> > >jim in our  
> >heart and 
> >
> > >prayers. And so  and so on.
> > >  
> > > Again, I do not respond, and suspect that  the person writing the 
> > > e-mails 
> >is 
> >
> > >indeed  my "friend" himself. 
> > >
> > >  
> > > This morning, i received a third e-mail from this minister friend of the 
> >man.  
> >
> > >Starting out with telling me that the man in the hospital had 
> > >told  him a 
> >bit 
> >
> > >of what i said to him.. and could not believe how i could be so horrible 
> > >to 
> >such 
> >
> > >a wonderful, decent, giving man  Etc., Etc.  It escalated 
> > >into a temper 
> 
> > >tantrum on-line with capitalized  angry retorts and 
> > >profanity.  
> >(Ministers 
> >
> > >aren't  what they used to be) *sigh*
> > >  
> > > At this point, I know I'm dealing with a very unbalanced individual who 
> > > is 
> > >indeed in psychic pain.  But this is out of my league. I care 
> > >deeply about 
> 
> > >prople and ache for every child on the globe. Not knowing  
> > >me, its 
> >hard  for 
> >
> > >anyone here to know  my  real heart or  
> > >values. I am not being 
> >cruel, I am 
> >
> > >doing  the right thing for him and myself. 
> > >  
> > >  
> > > This is  hard on two levels.  First, this  man is 
> > > much "sicker" 
> >than I 
> >
> > >realized, and I am personally afraid.  He has my address.  
> > >I have 
> >blocked his 
> >
> > >numbers from my phones, and will keep all e-mails in a folder for 
> >evidence.  
> >
> > >But this man does own firearms, is emotionally unstable and I got 
> > >into this 
> >
> > >mess by just trying to be a friend  at an interfaith workshop and 
> >discussion 
> >
> > >group.  
> > >
> > >  
> > > It is times like this that  having a family of attorneys is 
> > > comforting. I 
> >have 
> >
> > >contacted friends who are MD's and a psychiatrist, and explained the 
> >events.  I 
> >
> > >just want to be left alone, and let the medical personnel where he is sort 
> >this 
> >
> > >out.  
> > >
> > >  
> > > BUT~~  what if its all a lie? If he is seeing all these 
> > > doctors,  they 
> >are 
> >
> > >going to pick up on this.  But if he is just a 
> > >neurotic man behind a 
> >computer 
> >
> > >screen, I have reason to fear.
> > >  
> > > My point is-- sheezus--  take a breath.  Stand by your 
> > > convictions if 
> >its 
> >
> > >important to you.  Let go.  The other option is surrender 
> > >to listening 
> >to 
> >
> > >others views with a softened heart.  We all have the right to have 
> > >our on 
> > >viewpoint, so long as it does not hurt self or others. Or maybe get a new 
> > >hobby:)
> > >  
> > > Kristy 
> > >  
> > >  
> > > --- On Thu, 9/30/10, DP <wookielifeday@> wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > From: DP <wookielifeday@>
> > > Subject: [Zen] More about arguments and ego
> > > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> > > Date: Thursday, September 30, 2010, 12:51 PM
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I've thought some more about my problrm with getting into arguments on 
> > > the 
> > >internet. I think that the internet has fueled a certain type of ugliness 
> > >in 
> > >arguments, with its tendency towards short comments that snipe at 
> > >miniscule 
> > >errors in one's posts. I want to walk away, and yet I hate the idea of the 
> > >bullies winning the argument.
> > > 
> > > I find that in religious discussions the "internet atheists" (a specific 
> > > term 
> >
> > >for these type of arguers, not all atheists) tend to crowd out people who 
> > >want 
> >
> > >to sincerely discuss religion on particular forums, so I get frustrated. 
> > >
> > > 
> > > But here's where the ego comes in. Obviously, there is ego involved in 
> >winning 
> >
> > >an argument, but there is also some ego in leaving. I feel like I'm saying 
> >"i'm 
> >
> > >taking my ball and going home."
> > > 
> > > As well, i'm very insecure about my beliefs, and I feel like I'm somehow 
> > > not 
> 
> > >worthy of my arguments. How does insecurity relate to ego, or is that a 
> > >completely different question?
> > >
> >
>









      

Reply via email to