Oh gee. Now we agree on something. Try to convince MJ though that
thinking Indians see the Hindu pantheon as metaphors. He thinks
everyone in India takes them literally. But MJ has never been to India
and I'm sure the place would come as a shock to him.
On 03/28/2015 11:27 AM, jason_gre...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
Semitic religions, that is Judeo-christian-muslim worldview
is basicaly literalist. Most of what is written there are
interperted literaly.
Eastern religions, that is Hindu-Buddhist philosophy is more
metaphorical, allegorical, symbolic and figurative.
This leads to confusion and misunderstanding, when both
groups read each other's literature.
Could it be JohnR is a literalist?
--- <anartaxius@...> wrote :
Religious scriptures can contain some mention of facts, but usually
they seem to be on the order of say the mention of the Kennedy
assassination in the Illuminatus! triology of Shea & Wilson, where
there is quite a lot of mention of historical people in an otherwise
unbelievable story. There is more historical information available for
Pontius Pilate than for Jesus. JR's view of the world does not seem to
rest much on factual data, and seems to lack an underpinning of basic
logic. Religious scriptures and apologetics basically just want to
convince you of something, and there is nothing I see wrong in that,
but buyer beware. Our societies tend not to give us the tools to think
critically. The Netherlands has been a place where free thinking has
had a better hold than in most, but I am ignorant of how well that is
holding up currently.
--- <turquoiseb@...> wrote :
I am aware of the problems with establishing the historical existence
of many religious figures, Xeno, but that isn't what I was getting at
with JR. I have noticed in him a tendency that I doubt he is aware of
-- or, if he is, he probably sees nothing wrong with.
When claiming to believe in the existence of Krishna or similar
figures from religious myth here in the past, he has cited as proof
"scriptures" such as the Gita. Bzzzzzzt. Thanks for playing, but no
win. Religious scriptures are NOT factual, no matter how many people
believe they are. Scholars often don't even know the *century* many of
them were written in, much less who wrote them. Best to consider them
creative fiction written with the intent to inspire IMO.
The only *other* mechanism by which JR can claim to have "done
research" on the question of whether someone like Krishna existed in
real life or not is "seeing" -- meaning some kind of subjective
realization or vision or intuition. While I admit that such things
exist -- subjectively -- I do NOT admit that any of these "seeings"
have anything to do with fact. If they did, more people who claim to
be able to see the future would be millionaires. :-)
I was just hoping to see JR try to actually posit and then defend some
mechanism by which he thinks "proof" could be offered of Krishna's
existence. If he actually tried, it might wake him up to the fact that
the only reason he *does* believe in such silliness is that someone he
holds as an "authority" said so. In other words, his only "proof" is
the word "Maharishisez."
Now, as for Schroedinger's cat, I for one have no problem with someone
being both alive and dead at the same time. Just look at Keith
Richards -- the guy has looked like death on a stick since the 1960s,
yet he still manages to tour and play some pretty good guitar. If
that's not an example of Schroedinger's paradox, I don't know what
is. :-)
As for the answer to "What's in the big pink box, man?" that is as
much of a koan as it was when posed in the movie "Buckaroo Banzai."
Me, I kinda doubt it's enlightenment. :-)
