--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Kristy McClain <healthypl...@...> wrote:
>
> 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
> 
> 
Because they are so certain, and uncertainty is my natural state, the hardest 
part of myself to embrace.
And again, I'm very much of the belief that some of our problems are indeed in 
need of a spiritual mindset to solve. I find the utter denial of that troubling.

And finally, I guess my analogy would be that if on the forum on the political 
site for arts and entertainment (and there is one on the site in question) was 
dominated by people who said that arts and entertainment was frivolous or even 
dangerous, I think people on that forum would havbe the right to be irritated.


> > 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Fri, 10/1/10, DP <wookielife...@...> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: DP <wookielife...@...>
> 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 <uerusuboyo@> 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 <wookielifeday@>
> > 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*
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > I wasn't going to comment on this thread, but after reading DP's posts 
> > > > on 
> > >this, 
> > >
> > > >iÃÆ'‚  decided to share an experience i am having right 
> > > >now..
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > To begin, I was struck when youÃÆ'‚  wrote that what 
> > > > really bothers you is 
> > >that 
> > >
> > > >people attack you aboutÃÆ'‚  what the "truth" is when it 
> > > >comes to religion.ÃÆ'‚  
> > >I 
> > >
> > > >have said before here that, in my view, there really is no such thing as 
> > > >"the" 
> > >
> > > >truth or even "a" truth.ÃÆ'‚  Its simply one's perception 
> > > >of it--beit ÃÆ'‚ a 
> > >person, 
> > >
> > > >idea, theologyÃÆ'‚  or event.ÃÆ'‚  The 
> > > >need to be right or somehow prove that 
> > >one 
> > >
> > > >person's perception is correct and therefore, another's is wrong, is at 
> > >theÃÆ'‚  
> > >
> > > >heart of our societal and global conflicts.
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > I think most of that is ego-driven, but to pretend or deny that humans 
> > > > don't 
> > 
> > > >have egos is equally foolish.ÃÆ'‚  Its okay to have 
> > > >opinions, beliefs, values 
> > >and 
> > >
> > > >moral constructs.ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'‚  I think the 
> > > >danger of egoÃÆ'‚  in this is when one 
> > >insists 
> > >
> > > >their viewiint is the only correct one.ÃÆ'‚  
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > IÃÆ'‚ 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.
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > I also agree with Bill.ÃÆ'‚  Such 
> > > > mattersÃÆ'‚  cannot be analized in some 
> > >logical 
> > >
> > > >frame.ÃÆ'‚  If you have faith-- thenÃÆ'‚  
> > > >logic has little to do with it, and 
> > > >perhapsÃÆ'‚  useÃÆ'‚  
> > > >yourÃÆ'‚  faith that perhaps your message will resonate 
> > >somehow via 
> > >
> > > >less tangible means.
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > Now, as I am now facing a problem that started with internet 
> > > > discussion, but 
> > 
> > > >has now become a real life threat, IÃÆ'‚  must caution 
> > > >others to beware those 
> > > >on-line who indeed may have psychiatric buttons you do not want to 
> > > >inflame.
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > The man I've written about here who claims a lifetime of trauma , 
> > > > abuse, 
> > > >tragedy and drama is at it again. ÃÆ'‚  After calmly 
> > > >making it clear to him 
> > >that I 
> > >
> > > >will no longer be a part of his self-created dramas, but 
> > > >wishÃÆ'‚  him well-- 
> > >the 
> > >
> > > >followingÃÆ'‚ events have unfolded..
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > I received an e-mail from a man claiming to be an ordained minister, 
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ and 
> > 
> > > >friend of this man.ÃÆ'‚  Telling me that 
> > > >****ÃÆ'‚  was in a serious car 
> > >accidentÃÆ'‚  and 
> > >
> > > >has been taken to a local hospital..ÃÆ'‚  Stating 
> > > >thatÃÆ'‚  the eventÃÆ'‚  
> > >details were 
> > >
> > > >still unclear, but reassuring me this man is alive.ÃÆ'‚  
> > > >Etc., etc..ÃÆ'‚ He 
> > >offers his 
> > >
> > > >e-mail if I have questions or concers.. as if I must certainly 
> > > >beÃÆ'‚  
> > >anxiouslyÃÆ'‚  
> > >
> > > >awaiting any information on this tragic event.ÃÆ'‚  
> > > >ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > 
> > > > Certain that this is more of the same IÃÆ'‚  do not 
> > > > reply or respond.ÃÆ'‚ For 
> > >people 
> > >
> > > >with this type ofÃÆ'‚  psychological disorder which is to 
> > > >a large degreeÃÆ'‚  
> > > >attention-seeking,ÃÆ'‚  grandiose ideation, and other 
> > > >symtoms.ÃÆ'‚  There is a 
> > >bit of 
> > >
> > > >narcissisism, but his whole personality is more complex, and best left 
> > > >to be 
> > > >diagnosed by medical professionals.
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > But I do know the worst thing you can do to such a person is ignore 
> > > > them.ÃÆ'‚  
> > >
> > > >Though it is the only appropriate and sane 
> > > >respomseÃÆ'‚ or treatment.ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > I received a second e-mail a day later stating that the car was totally 
> > > >destroyed, andÃÆ'‚  he had retrieved the personal 
> > > >belongings (and cell 
> > >phone)ÃÆ'‚  of 
> > >
> > > >our "friend", and encouraged me tio call him with support. He is being 
> > > >transferred to another hospital.ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'‚  
> > > >Reminding me to keep jim in ourÃÆ'‚  
> > >heart and 
> > >
> > > >prayers. And soÃÆ'‚  and so on.
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > Again, I do not respond, and suspect thatÃÆ'‚  the 
> > > > person writing the e-mails 
> > >is 
> > >
> > > >indeedÃÆ'‚  my "friend" himself. 
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > This morning, i received a third e-mail from this minister friend of 
> > > > the 
> > >man.ÃÆ'‚  
> > >
> > > >Starting out with telling me that the man in the hospital had 
> > > >toldÃÆ'‚  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 manÃÆ'‚  Etc., 
> > > >Etc.ÃÆ'‚  It escalated into a temper 
> > 
> > > >tantrum on-line with capitalizedÃÆ'‚  angry retorts and 
> > > >profanity.ÃÆ'‚  
> > >(Ministers 
> > >
> > > >aren'tÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'‚ what they used to be) 
> > > >*sigh*
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > At this point, I know I'm dealing with a very unbalanced individual who 
> > > > is 
> > > >indeed in psychic pain.ÃÆ'‚  But this is out of my 
> > > >league. I care deeply about 
> > 
> > > >prople and ache for every child on the globe.ÃÆ'‚ Not 
> > > >knowingÃÆ'‚  me, its 
> > >hardÃÆ'‚  for 
> > >
> > > >anyone here to knowÃÆ'‚  myÃÆ'‚  
> > > >realÃÆ'‚ heart orÃÆ'‚  values. I am not 
> > > >being 
> > >cruel,ÃÆ'‚ I am 
> > >
> > > >doingÃÆ'‚  the right thing for him and 
> > > >myself.ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > This isÃÆ'‚  hard on two levels.ÃÆ'‚  
> > > > First, thisÃÆ'‚  man is much "sicker" 
> > >thanÃÆ'‚ I 
> > >
> > > >realized, and I am personally afraid.ÃÆ'‚  He has my 
> > > >address.ÃÆ'‚  I have 
> > >blocked his 
> > >
> > > >numbers from my phones, and will keep all e-mails in a folder for 
> > >evidence.ÃÆ'‚  
> > >
> > > >But this man does own firearms, is emotionally unstable 
> > > >andÃÆ'‚ I got into this 
> > >
> > > >mess by just trying to be a friendÃÆ'‚  at an interfaith 
> > > >workshop and 
> > >discussion 
> > >
> > > >group.ÃÆ'‚  
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > It is times like this thatÃÆ'‚  having a family of 
> > > > attorneys is comforting. I 
> > >have 
> > >
> > > >contacted friends who are MD's and a psychiatrist, and explained the 
> > >events.ÃÆ'‚  I 
> > >
> > > >just want to be left alone, and let the medical personnel where he is 
> > > >sort 
> > >this 
> > >
> > > >out.ÃÆ'‚  
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > BUT~~ÃÆ'‚  what if its all a lie? If he is seeing all 
> > > > these doctors,ÃÆ'‚  they 
> > >are 
> > >
> > > >going to pick 
> > > >upÃÆ'‚ onÃÆ'‚ this.ÃÆ'‚  
> > > >But if he is just a neurotic man behind a 
> > >computer 
> > >
> > > >screen, I have reason to fear.
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > My point is-- sheezus--ÃÆ'‚  take a 
> > > > breath.ÃÆ'‚  Stand by your convictions if 
> > >its 
> > >
> > > >important to you.ÃÆ'‚  Let go.ÃÆ'‚  The 
> > > >other option is surrender to listening 
> > >to 
> > >
> > > >others views with a softened heart.ÃÆ'‚  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:)
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > KristyÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > --- 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
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > ÃÆ'‚  
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 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?
> > > >
> > >
> >
>




------------------------------------

Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
    zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to