mererdog

That's what I'm saying. Consider a simple scenario- You want to fight me and I don't want to fight you. So, if I fight you, I am not doing what I want to do and I am instead doing what you want me to do. If I let violence or threats of violence from you prompt me to be violent, I am allowing you to control my actions rather than acting according to my own judgment. By having thought out the morality in advance and adopted a clear philosophy, I am more readily able to maintain self-control when people are trying to manipulate me in that way.

Very tactful. ;)

I have always considered my temper to be a character flaw. My personal history shows it helping me very little and harming me quite a lot. I take it your experience differs?

Actually, it does, and in more than one way. At the most basic level, it prevents others from stealing my sovereignty by changing me from a decision-maker into someone who reacts to the decisions of others. I won't be fooled into thinking I have no other choice, so my hand will never be forced. My personal freedom is valuable enough that I believe I am willing to suffer and die for it. Not that I look forward to my next opportunity to test the strength of those convictions, of course.

Weren't even the women in religious office basically the property of the temple or cult? My understanding is that they were basically forced into that life as children and never allowed to leave. A friend years back sold me on an ironic tale of women with tremendous power to shape the future of nation-states but no real power over their own lives. Is that inaccurate, at least according to your studies?

My opinions on this subject are inextricably linked to my pacifism, so I suppose I should start there... First, it is important to understand that I did not decide to become a pacifist. I was not persuaded to the position by evidence or argument. I simply came to a point where I had to acknowledge a truth about myself, namely that whenever I intentionally try to harm someone I end up feeling guilty about it. Unraveling the is/ought knot in the back of my head, I realized that, regardless of what reason might tell me I should believe, I was handicapping myself if I failed to be honest about what I actually believed. And my reactions make it clear that I believe violence to be unjustifiable. On the one hand, my pacifism prevents me from being anyone's enemy, because there is no one I really wish to harm. On the other hand, my pacifism limits my problem-solving options when dealing with those who would act as my enemy. It isn't that I love my enemy, just that I want to keep my commitment to do only right, even if everyone else seems to be doing wrong. So that's basically where I am on the subject. I have no scripture that I fall back on and no authority I look to for guidance. I'm just trying to use my conscience as a guide. But we all do things differently, which brings me to some questions for everyone.... How do you handle enemies? Why do you do that? Do you think it is the right way to do it? Have you given it much thought?

My opinions on this subject are inextricably linked to my pacifism, so I suppose I should start there... First, it is important to understand that I did not decide to become a pacifist. I was not persuaded to the position by evidence or argument. I simply came to a point where I had to acknowledge a truth about myself, namely that whenever I intentionally try to harm someone I end up feeling guilty about it. Unraveling the is/ought knot in the back of my head, I realized that, regardless of what reason might tell me I should believe, I was handicapping myself if I failed to be honest about what I actually believed. And my reactions make it clear that I believe violence to be unjustifiable. On the one hand, my pacifism prevents me from being anyone's enemy, because there is no one I really wish to harm. On the other hand, my pacifism limits my problem-solving options when dealing with those who would act as my enemy. It isn't that I love my enemy, just that I want to keep my commitment to do only right, even if everyone else seems to be doing wrong. So that's where I am on the subject. I have no scripture that I fall back on and no authority I look to for guidance. I'm just trying to use my conscience as a guide. But we all do things differently, which brings me to some questions for everyone.... How do you handle enemies? Why do you do that? Do you think it is the right way to do it? Have you given it much thought?

OK. Why would any of that make you suspect I think that something is a weakness?

Why do you ask?

You know, I had a very similar conversation with cuchulain and yourself. So similar that I am finding a bit of schadenfreuda unavoidable..... But it is apparently really hard to get people to notice the difference between saying their claim is wrong and saying their claim is unproven- between saying their evidence is faulty and saying the opposite of their claim is true. This seems to be especially true with claims whose truth they take as a given in their daily life.

According to some of the old reports, Thuggee cults killed to apease Kali, so she would not destroy the world.

Actually, light is the only thing that can be seen, and light is energy. When you are looking at a dog, for example, what you actually see is light reflecting off the dog. If someone redirects that energy with a mirror or lens before it reaches you, the dog will seem to vanish, even if it never moved. That is probably a good metaphor for something....

Counterfactuals are tricky. For the most part, we know what did happen and can only speculate a to what could have happened under different circumstances. Could a specific addict have stopped using wthout the release from guilt that came with belief in salvation? Could a specific community provide for their widows and orphans if there weren't many members who believe charity is rewarded in the afterlife? And how would you go about proving it?

Another way to look at it is that the internet makes it harder for people to enforce arbitrary standards of behavior when communicating. That added freedom of choice leads to a lot of experimentation, and over time the communication styles that get used the most are the ones that are the most effective. Our cultural norms and expectations are changing accordingly, so people's emotional reactions are, as well. So the smart money says that it is only a matter if time before acts we currently consider rude become acts we consider polite, and we become slightly embarrassed about some of our prior reactions to those acts. This, I suspect, is a good thing.

Zen is largely anti-rational. The koans are designed to change the way people problem-solve, getting them to adopt a more intuitive and less thoughtful approach. Of course, Zen is also largely experiential, so those benefits are supposed to come as a result of rigorous meditation, with the koans acting as a sort of checksum to keep you on the right path. As such, the point is not to try to understand the meaning of the words, but to follow the words down the rabbit hole.... At least, that is how it has been explained to me...

"Before technology, chop wood and carry water. After technology, adjust thermostat and open tap." Technology:1 Enlightenment:0

Yeah, I don't see what that changes, other than losing the alliteration with "Hate". Bad things were done to your grandfather? It happens. Part of the younger generation's job is learning how to let go of the older generation's grudges against dead people and to not allow their prejudices to become ours.

Heritage is an interesting word. I grew up in the South, so it is extra-interesting to me. It makes me think of the times I've had guys telling me black people can't be trusted, invariably rattling off some laundry list of grievances their family has had to put up with over the years at the hands of Them. Heritage has always seemed kind of stupid to me.

Ah. So we are now into the realm of conspiracy theory. Read between the lines and look at your history and it's all so clear, eh?

The Beatles wrote a bunch of songs. Charles Manson listened to those songs and heard warnings of an upcoming race war and calls to provoke that war with violent acts. There were quite a few deaths as a result. But where does the blame lie? What is the problem? Is it the violent imagery of Rocky Raccoon? Is it the obvious literal interpretation of Happiness Is A Warm Gun? I don't think so. See, an awful lot of people listen to Beatles songs. Overall, those who listen to the songs are not really much different than their neighbors who don't. So it seems fairly clear that the songs are not the source of the problem. You disagree?

Well, you don't want to believe in just any old afterlife, God, or whatever, though, do you? I mean, you don't want to believe in an afterlife where your loved ones suffer, or a God who hates your loved ones, do you? Most people want to believe in a world that agrees with them. A world where what they consider good is rewarded and what they consider bad is punished. Look at your earlier objection again, "Killing without cause the innocent. Like...those kids...that God killed...because their friend called his prophet bald?" What you seem to be saying is that the morality espoused by the Bible does not match your current understanding of morality, and you therefore cannot accept it as true.

Words have only the meaning we bring to them. You interpret a passage to mean one thing. Dan interprets it to mean another. Neither of you is really wrong, nor is either of you really right. But you were right about interpretation mattering because it has consequences. When you insist that the violent interpretation is the correct one, you are encouraging violent consequences. And for what? To spread a "truth" based on an assumption that words can only mean what you think they do?

Modern psychology suggests that if you already reject a position, sound arguments supporting it will seem full of errors to you. Also that if you already accept a position, error-filled arguments supporting it will seem sound to you. This would mean that when things seem wrong to us it might simply be because we dont want them to be true and, further, that we are ill-equipped to know when this is the case...

Of course. So why cite the violent interpretation as if it is the correct one? If someone believes the Bible to be inerrant, why would you tell them the Bible says to drown nonbelievers? What positive consequences are you hoping for? That asside.... You cite only a portion of possible answers to the question of the Bible's purpose. One popular belief is that it is only able to be properly understood under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If that belief is accurate, complaining that those who lack the Spirit's guidance fail to understand the Bible is like complaining that you can't breathe underwater. Another popular belief is that the Bible is part of a greater test, wherein the "wheat is separated from the chaff". Essentially, the belief is that those who don't deserve the truth will not find it. To dispute that belief requires making assertions about what people deserve, and while I have strong opinions on that subject, arguing opinions is a waste of time that leads inevitably to rancor. And still we are only scratching the surface. I have heard many explanations given for the Bible's purpose, and assume many other possible explanations exist that haven't been thought of yet. If an argument rests on an assumption that the Bible's purpose is any specific thing, that argument is not proven until that assumption is.

That would be shifting the burden of proof. Jonathan made a claim. The validity of the claim rests on an interpretation. Proving his claim therefore requires proving the interpretation. If you are going to accuse someone of inciting a riot, you should be prepared to show that you fully understand what they said- that you did not miss the irony, the joke did not go over your head, and you had everything in its proper context.