VonNoble
-
Posts
1,388 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by VonNoble
-
-
59 minutes ago, cuchulain said:
the kindness given only lives on in the people who receive it. if they let it die its gone.
I see your point. On the other hand, our family folklore is riddled with stories of kindness extended to my great great grandfather when his wife died and he HAD TO go to work.... and others helped him raise the kids. Also stories about helping my immigrant grandparents when they arrived with nothing at Ellis Island... certainly these kind acts (often related through my siblings to their grandchildren).....well that would mean the deed lived on through at least five generations....
THAT is just what our family knows about. We are often unaware of the significance of the impact of our actions.... things we did not even know helped someone... may have changed their life....
von
-
The only thing about you that will live on forever is the kindness you have given.
Is that true?
von
-
Another what you project to the world thought I heard yesterday......
The most attractive person in any room....is the happy one
True?
von
-
3 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
By definition, all nonprofits -- including churches -- should not be making a profit. All profits should be subject to the same tax. That includes salary for the clergy.
That may be what is suppose to happen. I cannot say if it does or does not. There were plenty of rumors about that particular church .... but gossip is often wrong. Even if taxes were paid on the profits.... they were not likely paid on the land as most if the enterprise was under the more than a city block long church building.
If the proper taxes were paid like any other businesss - than I have no issue with it.
thx. von
-
16 minutes ago, cuchulain said:
i can look at the object and say its a book. someone else might say its wood pulp and glue. someone else would say a nice collection of fairy tales while another would insist the bible i was referencing as a mere book is really the ultimate truth. all different perspectives for the same object, multiple truths at the same time, like most of reality. subjective, but also objective, and rarely is one perspective complete(if ever).
Point WELL made... thanks
von
-
44 minutes ago, mark 45 said:
whether or not it should be is decided by the property owners and the franchise operating said facility(s).and really,there is no free lunch,even in a mega church.
Valid point - Jesus throwing money changers out of the temple (with a note of irritation if not anger)....still in cases where the mega-church is the owner of the land, building and all property therein .....there is money to be made.
About 15 years ago - I became aware that the PASTOR of the nearest megachurch owned the land upon which the church was built (and collected hefty rent for a long term lease, the pastor also owned the building (not the church congregation) (but the pastor held the title) for which he collected rent as well. They also ran a daycare, restaurant (which turned a profit) as well as a brisk retail store, exercise classes, dance lessons and rental property (again owned by the pastor) and rented to the church.
I applaud the savvy business sense. No law against being clever.
I somehow felt badly for the coffee shop (yes there had been one) right across the street that went out of business. I guess that is the nub of it. One was operating as a business. The other as a tax exempt entity with a built in clientele of hundreds. The dude running the business had to pay taxes to operate. The dude with the built in clientele did not. Just didn't seem right somehow. Yeah...I know life isn't fair. But like many I root for the underdog often just cuz they have spunk against the odds. Not everything legal is right.
von
-
3 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
People who are drawn to ideas might want a teacher, but not a master. They do their own thinking.
.gif ":thumbu:")
von
-
4 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
In Childhood's End, by Arthur C. Clark -- The aliens gave Humanity a new technology. It was now possible to verify all historic events. They were now subject to being viewed. No deception was possible.
Of all the religions, only Buddhism survived. Even then, only "raified Buddhism".
THAT is worth a repeat. THX!
-
Hmmmm......I am not sure I want tax exemption to someone competing in retailing efforts (gift shops in church)....restaurants (big ones have them complete with free child care) - it does give the church not only a recruiting tool but also a financial advantage. Sort of. Maybe. If I were the coffee shop that has been opened for years - and depend on my customers to make a living. I would not be thrilled with a mega-church putting me out of business...on real estate upon which they pay no taxes (and I do) - and they use free labor (I have to pay mine the required minimum wage and all applicable FICA etc.) ......so while I get your point about the social activities...I am not sure the business model should be permitted. It then becomes more than a draw. It becomes competition to people who pay taxes and have to pay staff. Just thinking it through....still weighing it all.......
Not that what I think one way or the other is worth a hill of beans to anyone but me.
That too is one of the learning curves of aging. It is presumed whatever you know - is outdated.
(too often that is a correct conclusion with me)
von
-
4 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
How strange is it, that an Agnostic should come to be worshiped as a god?
....it is a strange world indeed.
-
All right to the heart of my thinking ...so thanks to all.
If people do join for other than strictly spiritual reasons...and IF the churches are aware of this - do they pander to that fact. Are they running programs to attract people like any business? Are they amping up "profits: by using free labor of the members to grow the intake of money? Is that ethical? (I am sure it is legal) ...how does that play into running a business with tax exemption criticism? (church day care for free taking money away from mom and pop trying to run a day care for profit? )
von
-
Criticism is that Buddhists allow too many choices. Anything goes. I find that is not the case. The simple guidelines allow for a person to grow comfortably. One size never fits all comfortably. There is always more than one way to see things. We are excellent at self deception. Less so as you become self aware.
von
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
I think Buddha was an Agnostic. He didn't know and he didn't care.
I agree.
von
-
I met a Buddhist monk as a child. We were living in California at the time. Of course, my parents encouraged me to go ahead and talk to the guy and see what I thought about it. I did. I liked it. And promptly moved on with my life - which at that time meant lots of moving from city to city.
At age 16 - I found a non-Buddhist meditation teacher (the teacher studied for some time with Buddhists) but he himself was not Buddhist. In fact he was a Jesuit priest of all things. I took to meditation right away. But like many - I was not always consistent (am more so now.)
So here is what i know after a half century of dabbling with the philosophy of Buddhism. (I know the sects/schools of Buddhism differ re: rituals etc) but there are some basics that seem to work in every life. You get to pick and choose with Buddhism. There is a variation for those who want to involve spiritual beings - most do not. But you can choose. Either way you are still a Buddhist. Some Buddhists believe everyone is a Buddhist
- some just don't know they are yet. Maybe they will in the next lifetime. You don't have to sign a contract, dance around the May pole or anything else. If you think you are - you are. Most variations of Buddhism opt for practical, accepting and simple.
There is no clergy required to "get" the message. There is no tithe required to be in good standing (certainly like any other thing if you are using the electric in the building or taking lessons you should make an offering but no one has EVER required me to pay to learn or pray in a Buddhist building or class.) By design the message is simple and clear. Interestingly enough - not everyone takes away the same exact interpretation and it rarely matters. Whatever you get - usually helps you to become better. More aware of your own actions. Also more aware of how your actions impacts the lives of others.
When you are ready - you will absorb more and more understanding. of the message. When you are ready a teacher will happen by to help you but they may not actually appear in the role of a teacher. It might be a kid who speaks the truth. Which I kind of like. There have been many people who did not look like a teacher but they left an impression that changed you along the way.
Anyone else want to throw in/out some generalities?
von
-
Henrik Ibsen.....A Doll's house.....just finished reading that one in my class a the university. Now there was a chap ahead of his time (by about 50 years.)
Being written in the late 1800s naturally it was completely and totally a man's world legally. Women had no rights. Cutting to the very last bit of it, the leading lady had borrowed money illegally as there was no legal option. She did so to save her husbands life. In the process she forged her father's name to a document, lied to her husband about the source of funding and managed to somehow scrape the money together to make payments of the debt. The husband finds out...is vile to her and ends by telling her she is of low moral character and he will never let her actually raise their children. She will remain in the house for appearance sake but she would be kept away from her kids. She left. (My guess is it would be pretty rough to SEE her kids but never be allowed to talk to them unsupervised...among other problems with their marriage.)
The shocking part was the reaction of the students to her leaving. The author, Ibsen, certainly provided at least enough balance that one could find some reason to credit her in life. But it was a totally one sided assault on the woman in class. The language was harsh (deranged, psychotic, mental) and the observations (she should have been shot, jailed, drug through town) really astounded me. I was surprised only one female student did not want to string up the leading lady. The class is roughly 50/50 gender wise.....but only one would speak up even remotely to consider the issue might have a second side to it. It was weak and she caved in fast as the other girls in class got LOUD and aggressive. It is noteworthy that only ONE...still today....would find any merit in a woman who essentially took an enormous risk to save her husband - only to have him weaponize that effort. He had the technical right to do so. That does not make it the moral right to do so.
So to the point of favorites: After finishing this work.... I read additional works of Ibsen. The subject matter in all of his works I have read so far - is largely controversial. Even now. Even 125 years later he is rocking the boat and challenging the norms. I have to give him some credit for that.
von
-
An interesting point raised recently by my very conservative neighbor.
He LOVES his church. I know this because he mentions it darn near every time I see him.
He has never actually invited me to attend but he has told me quite a bit about how he was a different man before going there. His pastor is amazing and you all can fill in the rest. One point I hear over and over and over is about the GREAT program for kids there (and it does sound like they have lots of stuff for kids to do)...then he continues about the super duper extra great teen program (and I bet the kids do love the outings and trips and weekend fun things.)
So are the non-church going people (and their kids) missing some social outlets that are important for balance?
There are not too many programs other than athletics for teens, for example. Most teens i know don't join scouting or 4-H these days. Weekend dances at school never happen any more that I know of.....so this is a non-electronic social event for kids. Do you think parents ever join in name only just to give their kids more do? (or to get cheap child care for kids?)
von
-
On 11/2/2017 at 12:48 PM, mark 45 said:
we invite people to come,if they wish.this year we will have a couple of"new"guests.yes we know all of them,but they are free to invite someone else(just let us know so we can set up an extra plate.)
Same basic idea.....and good for you....
I suspect MANY people welcome extras into their home often unexpectedly....a kid shows up with a friend unexpectedly or....surprise everyone this is my finance ......or whatever....that is the same general train of thought. All of which is a bravo moment in my view. Highly social people seem to find a way to gather.
Less social people might wait to be asked.
My mother used to laugh and say my father NEVER knew a stranger. Everyone was instantly his friend. That might be so.
He was a good man and a great dad. If he ever had an enemy I never knew about it. (other than me during my rebellious teenage years)
von
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, cuchulain said:
I can fully respect and appreciate that tradition, I just don't know that I have the courage to do such a thing. It is very Socratic, that is, living as a citizen of the world, and treating everyone as your brother(or sister). I applaud.
There is no reason for others to chose this system
we just grew up with it. Only as I age - do I continuously see our childhood was not not normal
which is neither good or bad.
We just never knew another way of things. We did not live near any family so they just invited in a family-of-the day sort of thing. Most of my siblings live too far away to see one another much any more so the adopt strangers tradition just stayed in play.
von
-
It is proven to me over and over that my parents did not adhere always to traditional ways of doing things. This is another one of those traditions. I checked with all my siblings (but the one in Puerto Rico who we cannot contact yet) and sure enough - like me - they are opening their homes to strangers. Our mom and dad did it every year.
One year it was political refugees....one year some young service men my father just "brought home" .....homeless people ....senior citizens....my dad had a knack for finding large groups of people with no place else to go. And it was a riot of fun for us kids every year. We never knew what we would have to eat (you might get turkey, mac & cheese, PB&J, whatever - we never cared. It was fascinating to hear the stories. I always looked forward to it. We all did. And apparently still do.
This year we will cram our house full of university students stuck at the university over the holiday....and have also invited a group home around the corner. We haven't met the folks yet - but we will be fun to make their acquaintance over pumpkin pie.
My parents were constantly broke (they had more kids than they could "afford" to be sure.....) but that never stopped them from throwing open the cupboards and using up anything in there to feed people. Somehow we always had enough. I was sort of pleased all the siblings (we are NOT alike in many ways)... but in this one thing - it is just family tradition My one sister said she is loading up on bologna and hotdogs to make sure she can keep food on the buffet line she forms in her dining room. And HER three kids - who are all now married with children - are ALSO bringing strangers into their homes for the day. It is nice to see what my folks started. We have dumped a ton of their traditions but I rather like this one survived.
von
-
On 10/31/2017 at 11:45 AM, cuchulain said:
I don't even want to host my in laws...I can't even imagine hosting strangers. How does that work, even? Maybe I am in too rural an area to grasp it.
THAT REALLY made me laugh.....thanks so much for that.....I suspect your in-laws and mine are related. (shhh!) I will deny saying that if asked.
von
-
cuchulain and Brother Kamen,
I too am always surprised by how many people are "in love with the traditions" and are clueless re: the origin of those traditions. For that matter I likely am as well as I just enjoy some stuff without looking into the origins. But the Christmas bunch of stuff is particularly and solidly rooted in NOT Christian origins. Thanks for those reminders - very timely as I see Christmas decorations up all over the stores.
von
-
2 hours ago, Dan56 said:
The problem with some Christians is that they believe you do need their opinion to have a decent and moral life.. They are convinced that non-believers have no code to live by.. Whereby, atheist having no standard of ethics or a primary base of principles to establish morality, can't possibly maintain a distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. But I don't hold to that, because you don't need a fundamental rule that says "Don't commit murder or steal from others" to be morally upright. Religion does not replace, nor is it a substitute for commonsense.
Dan56,
I appreciate your being able to distinguish yourself from "some Christians".
The problem for non-Christians is the assumption that standards of ethics ....and base principles of established morality can ONLY be defined in terms of Christianity. Much of the moral world is not Christian... and still much of the world (the non-Christian part) is ALSO living morally and much if by alternative codes....not Christian codes but codes nonetheless. So the basic assumption that non-Christians are without standards is false. That is more than my opinion. It is a very large world with a very large population. The immoral behavior disdained and unacceptable crosses everyone's life - thankfully, in a small % of the overall population. The evildoers are from EVERY religion and also from those with no religion. No lock on dysfunction in any camp. It exists everywhere. Conversely so does decency...in every camp.
From my perspective it is far beyond commonsense that one does not do harm to others. It is a code of doing better than yesterday, learning from mistakes (by admitting them to oneself) and figuring out how in the heck to stop making the same ones over and over. Prayer works for some. Approaching it more practically works for others.
An example. My father was Catholic and thereby Christian. He was also an alcoholic. After a horrific accident he made a vow, in a church, with plenty of witnesses..... if God allowed my mother to live he would never take another drop of alcohol. He was a man of deep, deep faith and once he promised this to God - he lived up to it. For him - that worked.
However, I have siblings who have zero faith in anything (government, deities, themselves) ...and they too battle alcohol. To tell one of them to pray over it would not have helped them in the slightest. However, a more practical approach: Hey! Lets think about the fact your entire world outside of work involved hanging out at the bar with your bar friends. When you decide to stop drinking how are you going to fill those four hours a night? That was a more practical solution (and aided by rehab specialists that too worked.)
So the moral aspects of our choices can be intrinsic (because we see we are causing problems for ourselves and others) (or they tell us we are and we believe the person telling us) .....or because we feel we have "sinned" and need to seek forgiveness and amend. Two different roads ending in the same BETTER and more moral lifestyle .
Your recognition of two points of view is very much appreciated...it keeps learning possible.
My understanding of the origins of evolution are not aligned with yours - but I certainly can understand why you opt for the view you have - it is consistent with your life and that is important for peace for any of us in our own life. It is right for you because it works well for you.
von
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, ULCneo said:
Then apparently he forgot that the separation clause of the U.S. constitution states that congress, under no circumstances, can EVER mess with the conduct of the goings on of the Church, absent applying the heightened scrutiny standard (which copyright law nearly always fails heightened scrutiny.) the only real question is whether the use is "Religious" in nature. if it is, then copyright will NEVER apply.
Knowing this attorney for more than a decade - I am reasonably sure - he is not likely to have overlooked or forgotten anything when discussing law. He is pretty dang sharp. That is just my opinion of him...but that opinion was forged and formed by seeing him in action for quire awhile.
von
-
3 hours ago, ULCneo said:
As I've said, before, there are certain expressions in Hebrew and Greek that don't translate well into English, because English is rather restricted in terms of expression.
As opposed to what ? I am curious to know.
I have always found English covers things nicely for me.
In my family, combined, we have speakers of at least eight languages between us.
Including one who speaks Hebrew and one who studied in Greece for years.
We also have a French speaker and a German speaker in the family. Half the family uses Spanish regularly.
It is all very unscientific but since all of them are native English speakers and all think English is just as expressive as any other language....I am wondering how you concluded otherwise? Just curious. You may be right. But coming from a bit of a linguistic oriented family I am asking for additional help. If you can indicate evidence that English is less expressive than Hebrew or Greek ...it will be a fun topic over the holidays. However i am not taking them on.... without some information to defend myself.
(I am not one of the gifted kids.....I am pretty well tapped out at three languages and I struggle in all of them.) I have credentials that say I am fine with them but in reality it is very difficult for me. Not so for my siblings....one of whom picks up languages faster than I make pocket change..... so I put credence in their opinions in things connected to language. Perhaps you can point me in the direction to research your assertion? Or re-claify if I misunderstood.
thx
von
the non-religion version of Buddhism
in Eastern Religions & Philosophies
Posted
One benefit of Buddhism as a philosophy is the strong current away from self recrimination and guilt.
The approach encourages learning. Every human has tons of past mistakes. It is a given at birth we will learn from those mistakes. Screw ups are sort of necessary for most of us to realize the wrong way to go about it
von