Brother Kaman

Member
  • Posts

    2,427
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Brother Kaman

  1. 1 hour ago, VonNoble said:

     

    Thank you.    I too see the numbers moving from religion per se.....I am curious if reverence exists independent of religion?

     

    Again thanks for your input.

     

    von

     

     

    Most of us revere our selves. That accounts for our survival instinct. Some revere themselves because they know there is no G/god before them or above them.

  2. On 11/28/2017 at 12:45 AM, VonNoble said:

    We do very little by way of holiday decorating in our senior citizen years.   When there were kids around we did plenty.   But there is no sense to being on ladders and such now.

     

    So we hauled a few totes to the thrift store and put up exactly four decorations.   Two sockings on the front courtyard wall.   A Santa hat on the Greek statue next to the driveway.    And we hauled a Buddha staute from the house outside and put it on the wall by the stockings.   The statue I’d maybe a foot tall.    We happened to find a small child size Santa hat in our collection of odds and ends...and that fit the Buddha statue.   We thought it was funny.... so we put it out by the decorative stockings.

     

    We were amused and assumed others would be too.    Eh.... not so much.   As I was retrieving the trash can ysterday a woman stopped me.    She was passing by and told me putting out a Buddha like that was offensive.... especially at Christmas time.

     

    i am assuming she thought it offensive to Christians.    Perhaps she thought it offensive to Buddhists?   I didn't Have an immediate thought about it.... so I just said....well “Merry Christmas!  “      Smiled and waited.     She walked away.    That was the end of it.

     

    Now I am wondering if we have a warped sense if whimsey?    Does anyone else see a Buddha wearing a Santa hat as an offensive item?

    von

    It is your constitutional right to display a Buddha statue wearing a Santa hat. If one should be offended by you exercising your rights, they should take it up with the law makers.

  3. 2 hours ago, mererdog said:

    Will that happen before or after we get beaten up for saying the wrong thing to the wrong guy?

    "Carrying a firearm has taught me great patience with fools, reduced my road rage and made me very polite. Should I ever have to use my firearm to defend myself, family or property, I can never be seen to have picked a fight or incited others to violence."

    Conforming to the rules your society enacts is a survival mechanism. I have conformed well enough to satisfy the society I live in to have reached 70 yrs and not been jailed. If I offend unintentionally and am attacked, well, that is part of what the firearm is for.

  4. 49 minutes ago, mererdog said:

     

     Once someone complains about your actions, you have been warned that those actions produce a negative reaction from that person. At that point, if you choose to continue those actions, you are choosing to provoke a negative reaction. As such, any harm that arises due to the negative reaction you provoke is an avoidable consequence of your decision. So the key question to ask is "Are the potential rewards of this course of action worth the potential costs?"

    If we only did things which would not offend, we would become paralyzed by inaction and nothing would be done.

  5. 25 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

     

    In his own way, Batman is just as ludicrous as his super power associates.

     

    Master of all martial arts,  master forensic science, master pilot, master diver, master medical researcher, master chemist, master gymnast, Master Computer Science, master race car driver, master of personal flight devices, master dancer, master medic/healer -- and richer than Midas -- all women want him -- I know I left off some of his skill sets.  It is pure fantasy.  Just not the same fantasy.

    Truly a Supreme Being, 

  6. 1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

     

    That helps make my point.  There is no reason to refer to "the gods" as "supreme beings".  It would make sense to refer to "God" -- singular with capital G -- as the supreme being.  It assumes God as the one and only.  The moment we have two, they can't both be supreme.  There can only be one supreme.  

     

    I really don't want to come off as a grammar police.  I'm only explaining my reasoning.

    Think of it as the Justice League where they all have the same superpowers.

    • Like 1
  7. 22 hours ago, VonNoble said:

    If there were to be a Mt. Olympus sort of place....and the Gods/Goddesses and all the supreme beings 

    (that actually have a significant following on the planet earth)....this excludes celebrities, politicians, and

    any human types......

     

    If they were to gather for a meal at the end of the year (or whatever deities do to socialize)

    .....what would the conversation look like (or who would be included in the gathering?

     

    Even though WE have limited knowledge - for example - would there only be one being there by 

    known by many names......

    ....would there be more than one

     

    If there was more than one - would they be surprised to find out there are others in existence?

     

    Would the entities gather moan about their fate?  Complain about the unruly humans?

     

    What might happen?


    It assumed that being Supreme Beings they would not resort to name calling and arguments.

     

    von

     

     

    Seems to be an exercise in creating the G/gods in our own image once again.

  8. 1 hour ago, mererdog said:

    Does that mean that we have no responsibility to take the likely reactions of others into account while making our plans? Does it mean, for example, that if I call my wife ugly, her getting upset is purely her choice, and not something that I could have prevented? If I were to wave a Nazi flag, aren't the inevitable negative reactions at least partially my fault? 

    If I push someone and they fall over, "You could have chosen to have better balance" seems like a feeble justification. Doesn't it? 

    And, personally speaking, the whole "choosing to be happy" rubs me the wrong way. It belittles the pain of others. According to the story, the Buddha did not understand suffering until he experienced it himself. I suspect that if you haven't experienced someone else's suffering, you cannot understand it. What I can do does not indicate what you can do. Where I am strong may be where you are weak. Faulting the weak for being weak just seems cruel.

    I felt bad because I had no shoes, until I met a man with no feet. He made fun of me for not having shoes as nice as his, and now I feel even worse.

    All of life is a choice, one right after another. If we are not responsible for our choices, who is? I remember a time in my generation when we said, "The devil made me do it." There are others who would say we have no choices, that we merely respond to the laws of physics. If memory still serves me, Buddha is attributed to have said that we are the only ones responsible for our actions and that would have to include our responses to the actions of others.

  9. 7 minutes ago, VonNoble said:

    Thx for your response.    I’ mot sure I quite follow the white man Druids reference tho?

     

    von

    Because Indians were hunter gatherers, many feel today that they are closer to the earth and have a greater connection than the rest of us regular folks. The Druids also had an ancient Earth based spiritualism. Go back far enough and we all did at one point. That does not make us or anyone any more special today than the Pope. I do not understand why staying inside a building during the eclipse without electronic devices is honoring nature any more than being outside enjoying the spectacle. 

  10. 17 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

    Von:

     

    There are Christians who go into a foaming lather when they are told "Happy Holiday's" instead of "Merry Christmas".

     

    We still don't know what it was, that set off this particular Christian, over this particular incident.  If it was all that important to her, she would have explained how it was offensive.  She didn't.  Everybody is simply expected to know.

     

    Still, since she is a neighbor, perhaps you can ask her what was so upsetting?  I suggest asking her to be specific.  If she complies, we will know something.  If she refuses, we will also know something.

    It has not been determined that the offended lady was a  Christian.

  11. 9 hours ago, VonNoble said:

    Now that I have returned to the Western part of the USA.....I am more frequently able to interact with Native Americans.   It came to my attention earlier today that during the recent eclipse many citizens raced to see the "once in a lifetime" event.   However cultural norms, of course differ.   The Native Americans of the area did just the opposite.   

     

    It is considered a sacred moment...if I understood it correctly - it is a four -hour event of the sun and moon in communications like no other time.   The tribal members not only avoided seeing the eclipse they remained inside and sat quietly for the entire four hours (no eating or drinking, using electronics, or other busy work) - it was strictly quiet, meditative, prayerful time for the entire family.   Tribal schools were closed.  Those attending university that could not get home - did not go to class but rather sat quietly in their dorm room. 

     

    I was not aware of this practice but it struck me as very much in keeping with a way to honor and pay respect to the natural order. 

     

    Your thoughts? 

     

    von

    The Indians I hang out with are happy to view a once in a lifetime eclipse. Mostly Catholic, Protestant and agnostic. I see your experience much like an encounter with white man Druids and the such. 

  12. 5 hours ago, VonNoble said:

     

    If that is the case....then how do we comprehend the projection that those belonging to churches some how behave with superior morality over those who do not attend churches?  If there is no proven record of higher charitable impact by churches (over non-churches) - - no measurable social rewards, spiritual enrichment ...if they are just like everyone else - what is the point of having them?   (not the accusation some might read into it...quite the contrary) ...it is more of a real question re: the reasoning behind granting them so many "passes" not given to any other entity...including the LARGE impact on politics.   Any other entity is regulated more in regards to politics.    That tax-free status has allowed a bunch of money to be funneled into political action type places......

     

    One just has to wonder a bit about if the non -church folks aren't taking a bit of a hit merely because they are not grouping and funding the "non-church" folk agenda...maybe    

     

    It may be completely wrong...but it is worth considering....it has evolved over time....like most things and maybe the non-church folks should at least look at it.   Is the privilege once afforded one group as a courtesy now applicable and justified? 

     

    von

    There are a good many non profits that are also non religious that do as much or more for the poor than churches.

  13. 1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

     

    You do know what running amuck means, don't you?  It's a way of committing suicide.

     

    Fifteen minutes of fame?  Be careful what you ask for.  I can imagine the headlines.  "Crazy old man running with dagger.  Falls down and hurts himself."

     

     

    That would be crazy old naked man. That is where the fifteen minutes of fame come in. The rest can just be an obituary. 20 years from now i would be so old as to make suicide painless just like the tune.

  14. 1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

     

     

    I needed some time to consider a response.

     

    Not all gods are equally improbable.  I am satisfied with the evidence,  that the Universe exists.  I am less satisfied with the evidence, for the existence of other gods.  

     

    As for what you know, I have been paying attention these past years -- while you explained what you know, and how you know it.  Good reasoning for a Pantheist.  Not so much for a Monotheist.  

     

    As for Howdy Dowdy Time -- by all means.  Let the good times roll.

     

    :whist:

    Ok, you are pretty much A/athiest toward the Monotheist and A/agnostic about the rest. That is what I have learned over the years reading your posts.  :cool:   Remember, it was Buffalo Bob Smith, pulling the strings.

  15. 1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

     

     

    I don't suggest it.  The world might not end.  Then what?  

    For one thing, running amuck just has a real good ring to it. Another 20 years and I an going to strip naked and run amuck. By then the world will be much closer to ending. At least my part of it will be unless I am right and am immortal after all. In that case I will have my 15 minutes of fame. :o

  16. 19 hours ago, mererdog said:

    The planet could be destroyed tomorrow, leaving no one to remember you and nothing that bears your mark. The universe is short on guaranteed futures.

    Perhaps we should all run amuck, knowing that it could all be gone in an instant.

  17.  

    3 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

     

    The Natural Order is real.  Nature is real.  The Universe is real.  Sky Daddy?  Not so much.  We are talking about what can be proven.  It makes a difference which god we are looking for.  The questions that we ask, matter to the answers that we find.  

     

    :whist:

     

     

    I am sorry, Jonathan H.B. Lobl. I did not know your agnosticism is G/god specific. It smacks of religious fundamentalism to tell me that because you do not know something, therefore I cannot know it either. You can only know what you know. You cannot know what another knows without being told. Hey kids, it's Howdy Dowdy Time!:cool:

  18. 1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

     

     

    Feel free to correct me.  I thought that you were a Pantheist.  Very different from a Monotheist.  That means that your God is part of the Natural Order -- while the God of Monotheism is Supernatural.  :mellow:

    Perhaps my god is the natural order. Perhaps my god is Howdy Dowdy and Clarabell the Clown is Patron Saint of All Forums. What does my god have to do with it?