--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > The reason it is wrong to persecute gay people has nothing to do with the > scripture. The reason people practice hospitality and charity has nothing to > do with the scripture. These are values we hold as a society or at least try > to impose laws to disallow the worst violations. Linking these behaviors > good or bad to the authority of scripture rather than the process of > reasonable discourse about what kind of world we want to live in is the > problem in my view. Because there is nothing intrinsic in the system of > authority that guides one person to use it for good and another to use it for > evil. > > So I say let all human ideas stand on their own merit and don't shield > spiritual claims with claims of bigotry just because someone challenges the > idea as a bad one, held for bad reasons. You would be right to tell a > holocaust denier that his idea was wrong by the evidence even if he didn't > use it to do bad things to Jews today. And a person who challenges them to > provide evidence to support their outrageous belief is not a bigot for asking > them to prove it.
Apologies up front for jumping into what appears to be a much longer discussion. While not disagreeing with your major points, applying them in a larger context seems a gray area. Not challenging, or countering, just exploring. Take for example a fanatic fan, perhaps strongly believes that the Red Soxs WILL win this year, it is their destiny, and they are the greatest franchise that ever existed. They may not hurt anybody with this belief (well except me perhaps if I challenge to vigorously -- or after their 6th beer. ) And some fans can take you down a long logical trail as to why the Red Soxs in reality do rock. It may be hard to refute some points, and time sucking to unravel flaws in what appears to be reasonable logic. Why should I take the time -- if the belief doesn't hurt anyone. While I CAN challenge them, I doubt that I would take the time. There are so many idiotic positions people build out if false information, premises, reasoning and perception. Which ones should one challenge, how vigorously, and to what gain for anyone? Plus, its my observation, that people are far less likely to change their minds, is sustained and deeps ways, if you simple challenge their beliefs. They may indeed dig in deeper not that their egos are involved. It is often more productive, from my experience, to create conditions that enable the "believer" to challenge their own ideas, and to see the light -- to create that "ah ha" experience within them - on their own terms, using their own logic. Not always easy -- but not always hard either. I might distinguish between lower and higher probabilities of harm. The false Red Sox's belief may induce little if any harm. What about the belief "everybody is essentially good deep inside" or "everyone is essentially bad deep inside". Either belief could cause harm to the believe or those they interact with. Should we challenge them with the Truth -- (which of course is MY slant on things) that people are neither fully good or bad inside? And do I have any proof of that? Let's take Creation stories. When there is a mystery -- all sorts of explanations may arise -- look at 9/11. For something as big as creation, a huge array of stories, many great, arise. Yet we don't really have definitive proof as to how creation really came about. Physics thinks it knows some things about it, but not the whole thing. Some of the cross-cultural creation stories are certainly more entertaining, often more inclusive (children of nature and all), and more inspiring than dry physics and equations might be. Is the latter superior in all ways? What about a false idea that does good. A number or religious groups are increasingly seeing the environment as God, or God's creation, and are increasing gearing up to fight for ecological causes. Is it productive to tell them they are all wet, challenge to prove God works in this way? Or just let them to be deluded while doing the right thing. And maybe God is embedded deep in nature -- and should be cared for -- like an alter everywhere - I can't disprove that. Your point appears to touch on the right to challenge. I don't feel constrained to challenge any's belief. I only choose to do so if their crazy story affects me. If someone says that God says I need to kill my first son -- I would challenge them in a quite vigorous WTF way (or do a call out to God" God, you must be putting me on. God said, no, I said huh, and God said son, do what you want but look out next time you are on highway 61". If someone says that God says I need to kneel and pray 5 times a day -- I might say -- well, thats nice, but it's not part of my routine, I don't care to do so, I see no proof that God said this (probably because I may challenge an anthropomorphic deity) -- but I can see a beauty in it, a surrender to nature, a letting go -- and may see benefit in that. And good exercise if you have picked yourself off the floor lately. Why should I challenge their belief. > People will always believe things that are false. Myself included. The > issue for me is how we discuss ideas, with freedom of the right to challenge > bad evidence, or in a protected class of beliefs that are considered too > special to be subjected to the same process that we use for every other idea > in our society. No one would claim that a person is being a bigot for > telling a member of the the other political party that their ideas have no > merit. No, they would probably just be egoistically blind and stupid. Finding fault with some ideas, and finding absolutely no merit are two quite different things. I would be a bigot of sorts to take such absolute stands. Look at this group. 37.5% would say an emphatic "No!" if asked if Republicans have ANY ideas of merit. (24.6% would say the same about Democrats.)That's as closed minded as one can get -- a categorical, absolute rejection of a vast array of ideas -- most of them probably unknown to, or unconsidered, by the denier. Trying to correct other's false beliefs before correction all of ones own false beliefs is folly. > And no one would get away with a bad idea with the excuse that they haven't > hurt anyone with it yet. The freedom to challenge ideas is a very good thing. The freedom to challenge is good. And I don't see explicit barriers to doing so. Other than the constraints of politeness and time. And in some cases livlihood. At work, a large company, I could challenge so many unsupported unsupportable beliefs of colleagues. I don't generally because such beliefs don't directly affect my professional interaction with them. And by challenging them, bad feelings could arise which could affect my professional dealings with them. I interact with a lot of people at work, and depend on a certain mutual sense of good will and trust. By correctly pointing out their false beliefs (in topics not directly related to work) I break down and perhaps break that goodwill and trust. What about something fundamental: people who believe firmly that they create their own thoughts. I no more create my thoughts than I create my beard. The latter just grows, and the former just bubbles up so to speak. But the view of creating and ownership of ones thoughts can be a highly dangerous belief -- distorting, leaking into and poisoning most other perspectives. And while I have the right to challenge their perceptions -- best to leave sleeping dogs lie. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > -<curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > It is his rejection of that cruel ideology that makes his > > > > > > > > > thinking so attractive to me. He is saying something that > > > > > > > > > is the opposite view of the karmic belief system, "it's > > > > > > > > > not fair!" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, let's say it's the opposite of the view of some > > > > > > > > who believe in karma. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The phrase "It's not fair" is the exact opposite of karmic > > > > > > > theory without any need to reference how people apply what > > > > > > > it means to their personal lives. > > > > > > > > > > > > LOL! Sorry, but I think it's absurd to get all wrought > > > > > > up over belief in the abstract. How can it be "cruel" > > > > > > except in reference to how it's applied? > > > > > > > > > > Black people are inferior. Apply that in the good way. > > > > > > > > What?? You just said there was no "need to reference how > > > > people apply what it means to their personal lives." > > > > > > Ideas can be intrinsically wrong with no way to express > > > them nicely. I am objecting to ideas. > > > > I don't think it makes any sense to object to ideas > > *unless* they are the cause of bad actions. The thing > > is, certain ideas can lead to good actions as well as > > bad ones, depending on the interpretation and > > inclinations of the actor. > > > > The biblical story of Sodom, for example, leads some > > people to condemn homosexuality; it leads others to > > practice hospitality and charity. > > > > <snip> > > > > > But the fact that he supported a > > > > > socially oppressive system is a fact. Unless you have a > > > > > reason why today children should be brought up in the > > > > > brothel caste. > > > > > > > > Did Guru Dev support children being brought up in the > > > > brothel caste? > > > > > > Yes by supporting the system that keeps them their. > > > > You think he would have approved of all the manifestations > > of the caste system, including children kept in slavery in > > brothels? > > > > <snip> > > > > > It is a direct result of the system. These unchallenged > > > > > beliefs are a problem. It is also a problem how it gets > > > > > applied. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure how they can be a "problem" *unless* they're > > > > used as an excuse for bad behavior, and even then I think > > > > it's the behavior that needs to be challenged rather than > > > > the beliefs. > > > > > > I don't really understand how you are separating beliefs > > > and actions here. I am looking at the beliefs as the cause > > > of the problems in the actions. > > > > Yes, I know. I'm suggesting that isn't the only way to > > look at it. I think the beliefs are too easy a target > > and too vulnerable to misunderstanding. That approach > > is fraught with all kinds of pitfalls. Go after the > > *behavior*. That has the advantage of being empirically > > observable. > > > > <snip> > > > > > First of all if we want to talk about having a simplistic > > > > > understanding of the Hindu religious beliefs I have to > > > > > object to your using Krishna's statement about the > > > > > unfathomable nature of Karma out of context. > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, where did I use that statement in this > > > > discussion?\ > > > > > > In your first response you used the phrase that Karma > > > was unfathomable or not understandable. > > > > I believe I said "complicated and inscrutable." > > > > > If you didn't get this idea from the Gita then it sounded > > > like you had. > > > > I don't need the Gita to tell me that if karma exists, > > it must be complicated and inscrutable. > > > > > > > I am arguing against a system of beliefs that claims to > > > > > know how the universe works after death. And a society that > > > > > uses that system to oppress people for generations. > > > > > > > > And I say again, I think people behave the way they want > > > > to behave regardless of their religion. Some pretty awful > > > > things happened to Native American children when Christians > > > > got hold of them, just for one of far too many examples. > > > > > > I think it is intrinsic in the ideas that one person knows > > > the mind of God. For me that is the cause of these injustices. > > > It is certainly true that some religious people are fabulous > > > in every way. > > > > Yes, and they can be motivated by the same ideas, the same > > knowing the mind of God, as the people who are awful in > > every way. > > > > > But their belief in bullshit should be challenged just > > > as we have in every other area of human knowledge. > > > > I disagree. I think it's a recipe for bigotry. Challenge > > the *behavior*, not the ideas. > > > > <snip> > > >
