# Ten Commandments...."Rules" or "Continuum?" for living.



## loki09789 (Oct 18, 2004)

"I am the Lord your G-d, Who has taken you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery"






"You shall have no other gods but me"






"You shall not take the name of your Lord in vain"






"You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy"






"Honor your father and mother" 






"You shall not murder"






"You shall not commit adultery" 






"You shall not steal"






"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"






"You shall not covet your neighbor's goods. You shall not covet your neighbour's house. You shall not covet your neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his bull, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbour's."
*(Please note: Because Shavuot is a Jewish celebration we are presenting the Jewish interpretation of the Ten Commandments. Different religions have different versions of the commandments) 

No particular reason for this translation/interp of the TC, just the first one I could pull off the internet.  Since we are dealing with transliteration, one is as good as another for this anyway:

Do you think of the TC as 'hard and fast rules' or a 'continuum/guidelines' that have to be reconciled relative to each other?

Take, for example, the relatively innocent (and lest politically charged) example of dealing with the standard joke starter of "does this dress make me look fat?"

If you 'shall not bear false witness' do you tell the 'truth' and say 'yes, you look fat as all get out'?  Doesn't that put you in violation of "shall honor" philosophically because you are 'dishonoring' your wife/family/your in-laws indirectly by the pain you will cause with such a reply?

I know that there have been many occasions when people have used/quoted the TC as 'personal life rules' when, if you read the above contextual application, they were really more 'political/religious rules' that were used to maintain the social order and established the ground work for the MOSAIC laws (which became much more complicated than TC).

THIS is not a discussion about the TC as part of sacred work or whatever, it is a discussion intended to share different perspectives on how the TC work for you in the 'real world' - or even how TC might have worked historically as well.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 18, 2004)

Take any criminal justice course and you will be taught that the root of all Law is based in religon if you follow the thread far back enough. 

A large chunk of Philosophy is too....


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 18, 2004)

Laws, like religions, evolve and adapt and change over time.


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 18, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Laws, like religions, evolve and adapt and change over time.


H888,

You were one that I was hoping would respond with some comments on this one.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 18, 2004)

The "shall not murder"+"shall not steal" has remained fairly intact though....


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 18, 2004)

> The "shall not murder"+"shall not steal" has remained fairly intact though....



Historically?? No, they haven't.

The very two chapters after the Ten Commandments were given sees the 'Chosen People' going around pillaging and conquering the natives of the area. "Juedo-Christian" nations still have legal executions and have gone to quite a few wars. For quite some time (and some could still argue now), they took the land and belongings of other people (Native Americans, anyone?).

You will generally see that, historically, the "no kill, no steal" rules only applied to members of a specific social group. Foreigners were not part of that group, neither were criminals. By and large, this is still the case.

The fact that some people are reinterpreting the TC to refer to universal principles applicable to all people (i.e., I will not kill anyone without exception) represents a move from sociocentric ethics to worldcentric ethics, in my opinion.

Laterz.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 18, 2004)

I would still say the "law" has stayed intact....the application of it and who people believed it applied to may have changed. But amongst their own, killing and stealing would bring down punishment.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 18, 2004)

> I would still say the "law" has stayed intact....the application of it and who people believed it applied to may have changed.



Yes, but those very changes demonstrate a fundamental evolution and divergence in the law itself.

This would be akin to saying "freedom for all" didn't change before we abolished slavery, just because the same wording was used.

Laterz.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 18, 2004)

Did the "Law" change or just the application? The "Law" was "Thou shall not murder". The application turned into "except for those guys"...

IMHO laws have more of a tendancy to be subdivided to account for variables and levels of culpability/severity (1st,2nd,3rd degree etc) but the "core" of the law is a generalization that has remained more or less intact.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 18, 2004)

Yes, the laws changed.

An idea or a principle or a value is not the law. A commandment or written rule is.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 18, 2004)

I think at the root of it were going back to things like this...
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#3


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 18, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Take any criminal justice course and you will be taught that the root of all Law is based in religon if you follow the thread far back enough.


Then take a philosophy course and do a chicken and the egg thing 

Was the purpose of religion to keep order and "enforce" the laws? A lot of it is a  punishment and reward system after you die, one that you get held accountable for your actions, but at the same time never see the system...  until you die.  Big punishment and a big reward though.

Laws govern society, as society changes, so do the laws.

Even if they are still worded the same.

"Thou shalt not murder"

Ok, define "murder"?

Kicking someones door in, slitting there throat and taking there money.  Yes

You are assaulted and kill the attacker in self-defence? umm...

Assisted suicide? err...

Suicide?  Does murdering yourself count...?

Killing a cow for super?  well they aren't human...

Well then how about a non-believer... a servant of satan? ...

Is a soldier commiting murder durring war?

How about a excecutioner?

How about if I acidentaly kill somone?

Different cultures might give different answers.  And over time those answers might change with the culture.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 18, 2004)

Well said, Andrew.  :asian:


----------



## Tgace (Oct 18, 2004)

Yeah. I guess Im misusing the word "Law". What Im trying to communicate is the "Moral Value" (i.e. unnecessary killing is wrong) at the base of written law.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 18, 2004)

> Yeah. I guess Im misusing the word "Law". What Im trying to communicate is the "Moral Value" (i.e. unnecessary killing is wrong) at the base of written law.



Uhhhh.... well, that's debatable.

I don't see a particularly great deal of worldcentric or universal moral values in much of the Old Testament, and definately not in any of the earlier books. In fact, the entire notion of "Chosen People" implies a very strong and pervasive sociocentrism and xenophobia.

A notable exception to this is Proverbs, which was clearly influenced by the "wisdom traditions" of ancient Egypt.

The chapters immediately following the institution of the Ten Commandments leave little room for the idea that they were meant to be applied to all human beings, as opposed to strictly applying to Jews only.

Then, again, the Kabbalistic practice of midrash could be evoked here, with there being differing "levels" of interpretation in regards to the commandments....


----------



## Mark Weiser (Oct 18, 2004)

I am not a Rabbi but I will try and do my best to give insight into this subject matter. 

One of the requirements for fully understanding the Ten Commandments is an working knowledge of Hebrew. This way you can fully get the meaning of the words. 

For Instance the Ten Commandments 

*&#1497;&#1489;*  &#1500;&#1465;&#1488; &#1514;&#1460;&#1512;&#1456;&#1510;&#1464;&#1495;

The verse in Hebrew is Exodus Chapter 20:12 and being translated means you shall not commit murder. Now we could go over Hebrew Grammar and learn a great deal.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 18, 2004)

Herry,

I don't see where your argument of ethnocentrism on fits in here.  Assuming the topic is exactly as it appears, and that the Ten Commandments are accepted, in one form or another, by most, if not, all religions, then the discussion is probably meant to be about the different interpretations - verbatim or otherwise.  At least that's the way I see it.  Andrew made one heck of a good case for the interpretation side of things, and I must agree that in light of what he said, the Ten Commandments are guidelines upon which law is based, depending upon the situation.  I'd like to hear what you have to say about interpreting "an eye for an eye..."  Most Fundamentalists would take that as literal.  How do you see it?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 18, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Assuming the topic is exactly as it appears, and that the Ten Commandments are accepted, in one form or another, by most, if not, all religions



*blink*

Uh, where did you get the idea that the Ten Commandments are accepted by "most, if not all religions?"  Or do only the religions based on Hebrew texts really count?


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 18, 2004)

> I don't see where your argument of ethnocentrism on fits in here.



Because, traditionally, the moral precepts of the Ten Commandments were assumed to only apply to Hebrews. That is why you see Jewish armies slaughtering and pillaging and enslaving two chapters later.

It was only later that other interpretations of the Law saw the light of day.



> Assuming the topic is exactly as it appears, and that the Ten Commandments are accepted, in one form or another, by most, if not, all religions, then the discussion is probably meant to be about the different interpretations - verbatim or otherwise. At least that's the way I see it.



No, the Ten Commandments are not accepted by most religions. 

The Ten Commandments _shares_ many moral rules in common with other religions (do not steal, do not lie, do not kill, adultery is bad, etc), but these are not specific, particular, or exclusive to Judaism in any sense. Also, such precepts as "you shall have no other God but me" is most definately particular and culture-specific to the "monotheistic" Hebrews.

And, if we compare say similar laws in Buddhism to Judaism, well, the Buddhists have always held that they applied universally to all people (i.e., murder is wrong --- period). The Hebrews did not (i.e., murder is wrong --- if you're a Jewish non-criminal).



> Andrew made one heck of a good case for the interpretation side of things, and I must agree that in light of what he said, the Ten Commandments are guidelines upon which law is based, depending upon the situation.



Yes. But, what needs to be understood is that the laws of Judaism, like those of any religion, are social constructions. As such, they reflect the culture of the time, and as that culture changes so to do the laws.

The "interpretation side" that Andrew is pointing to is a more recent evolution of Jewish thought --- one that moved from a sociocentric to a worldcentric perspective. Its arguable as to _when_ exactly this change took place, but the fact is that it did.

We see similar changes in Christian thought when some say, for example, that 'hell' is a state of being and not a place, there is holiness in other religions, not all non-Christians are heathens, etc. Again, these are historically recent innovations. Like the traditional Jewish Law, they do not reflect a traditional understanding or interpretation but a more modernist, humanistic, or deist one.



> I'd like to hear what you have to say about interpreting "an eye for an eye..." Most Fundamentalists would take that as literal. How do you see it?



The context in which that passage existed clearly was meant to be the way of handling disputes among Hebrew people several thousand years ago. The Torah consists by and large of laws and rules for Jewish people in regards to how they operate as a society. That, too, was clearly meant to be taken literally --- only later re-interpretations would cast a different light on it.

Once again, as the culture changes so to do the laws.

I'm an American living in the 21st century. Legal precepts from a foreign culture of 3,000 years ago aren't particularly relevant in teaching me how to live properly. You guys got Yahweh, and I got my way.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 19, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Because, traditionally, the moral precepts of the Ten Commandments were assumed to only apply to Hebrews. That is why you see Jewish armies slaughtering and pillaging and enslaving two chapters later.
> 
> It was only later that other interpretations of the Law saw the light of day.
> 
> ...


So, you're saying you don't believe in that type of moral code as a template for living? I also don't see where there isn't a similar set of rules, tenets, laws, or whatever you (and Peach) choose to call them for every society. Maybe they don't exist as the Ten Commandments, and my not stating that earlier was a mistake, but the concepts _do _exist in all cultures. 

I understand that you are [probably] saying that each lives his life the way he sees fit (is that true?), and, if your screen name is any indication of your beliefs, then you don't subscribe to any type of religious tenets, either. Or maybe you do and choose not to share that.

The Hebrews were as barbaric a race as any back then. Remember, we've been around for almost 6,000 years, give or take a century. I think maybe whoever was responsible for the initial interpretation of the Ten Commandments was making an attempt at establishing a viable, lawful culture instead of allowing everyone to do as he pleased (yes, he - women were chattel back then). No one ever said that those Hebrews were a peaceful people - not entirely, at least. My tribe was responsible for waging war (Maccabee, derived from the Hebrew _Maccabiah_, or war) and defending our people against our enemies. All cultures have had and continue to have a sector of the population which is responsible for just that. It's human nature to fight. Don't you argue with anyone? (Who, you? Never? ) I also seem to recall you implying in another thread that the Bible and its stories were rewritten extensively and, therefore, subject to question. (I know you'll correct me on this one if I mis-remember.) One must take into account the times in which people were living. I don't know that we can really understand what life was like that long ago. Perhaps it was okay to do all those horrible things in order to survive. Who knows. If it was a matter of your own survival, I'll bet you'd do what you had to. We're martial artists - that's what we do.:samurai:

[Now don't 'go Robertson' on me.  This is purely discussion.]


----------



## pete (Oct 19, 2004)

i was taught that when god walked amoung us he gave us one rule: love one another as i have loved you, making the ten commandments pretty much obsolete.  an eye for an eye became turn the other cheek. we can all stick by our testaments...

pete


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 19, 2004)

pete said:
			
		

> i was taught that when god walked amoung us he gave us one rule: love one another as i have loved you, making the ten commandments pretty much obsolete. an eye for an eye became turn the other cheek. we can all stick by our testaments...
> 
> pete


Pete,

You are moving into the 'spirit of the law' vs. the 'letter of the law' with this idea.

The underlying, ideal situation would be that people are all 'agapei' motivated enough (love/loyalty/selfless/god'fearing') that we follow the TC not by the letter or because we have to but almost automatically because we are always seeking do the write thing for the 'whole.'

I think Herries point about 'centrism' is that these 'laws' only applied to 'those like us' and if you weren't on the inside, it was totally acceptable to do just about anything to 'you' and there would be no retribution based on social or religious propriety.  Rape a hebrew woman/sodomize a hebrew boy and, as a hebrew, you will be tried and punished.  Do the exact same thing to someone outside of the Hebrew community (Samaritans for example) and no problem with go or the Hebrew community.

The Messianic message was, generally speaking, that following the law to 'just do it' or simply to keep peace with your fellow Jew wasn't the best motivation.  Finding a deeper link to God was what I believe was at the core of Jesus' message.  After that, everything else would fall in line.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 19, 2004)

> So, you're saying you don't believe in that type of moral code as a template for living?



No. I'm saying that any "moral code" is a rather fluid social construction that is subject to constant change, revision, and re-interpretation. The point is that the contemporary interpretations we hear today are _not_ always the interpretations that the culture has used.

Many adherents typically like to give the excuse that these interpretations and understandings had been there from the very beginning, but that human ignorance or a couple of bad social apples prevented it from taking root culturally. Apparently, the implications of this assumption are that us moderns are so fantastically intelligent and bright that we can plainly see that which our ancestors were too thick-headed to acknowledge.

Just ignore the fact that nobody really put forward these "humanistic" interpretations of the TC until the the rational philosophy of humanism first popped up in ancient Hellenism, and then again during the European Renaissance. There are similar arguments as to how the Bible "supports" democracy and the separation of Church and State, but that apparently no one figured out these interpretations until atheists like Rousseau and Paine started putting forward their ideas.

The culprit here is clearly social evolution and change, not a "deeper understanding" of the laws in question.



> I also don't see where there isn't a similar set of rules, tenets, laws, or whatever you (and Peach) choose to call them for every society. Maybe they don't exist as the Ten Commandments, and my not stating that earlier was a mistake, but the concepts do exist in all cultures.



I suggest re-reading my previous post. I already touched upon this.



> I understand that you are [probably] saying that each lives his life the way he sees fit (is that true?)



Yup.



> and, if your screen name is any indication of your beliefs, then you don't subscribe to any type of religious tenets, either. Or maybe you do and choose not to share that.



I have shared my "religious beliefs" before. I am neither an agnostic nor an atheist, if that is what you are inquiring. And, to note, my screen name has an ironic twist to it based on Greek numerology and Christology.



> The Hebrews were as barbaric a race as any back then. Remember, we've been around for almost 6,000 years, give or take a century.



Well, I never said the Hebrews were any more barbaric than anyone else at the time. The Khans could certainly put them to shame, as could a few Native American tribes.

However, the point I was trying to make is that this intepretation of the TC is not some kind of hidden "original intention", as it is a result of social evolution.



> I think maybe whoever was responsible for the initial interpretation of the Ten Commandments was making an attempt at establishing a viable, lawful culture instead of allowing everyone to do as he pleased
> 
> [...]
> 
> I also seem to recall you implying in another thread that the Bible and its stories were rewritten extensively and, therefore, subject to question. (I know you'll correct me on this one if I mis-remember.) One must take into account the times in which people were living.



Yes, that's another point I'd like to bring up: we don't really know when exactly the Ten Commandments were written. 

I personally agree with the assessment that they were established to create some kind of order or law among the Hebrews themselves, as well as furnishing a kind of solidarity. Thus, the sociocentric nature of the commandments.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 19, 2004)

> You are moving into the 'spirit of the law' vs. the 'letter of the law' with this idea.
> 
> The underlying, ideal situation would be that people are all 'agapei' motivated enough (love/loyalty/selfless/god'fearing') that we follow the TC not by the letter or because we have to but almost automatically because we are always seeking do the write thing for the 'whole.'
> 
> ...



Oy vey, someone just _had_ to bring up Christianity, didn't they?

While I appreciate the message that "Jesus Christ" was trying to put forward (not that its any different from, say, Plato or Pythagoras or Krishna or Buddha), its not like Christians all of a sudden started acting all humanistic and enlightened --- leaving the silly ol' Jews to their ethnocentricites. Nope, the Christians (at least the non-Gnostic, pre-modern variety) had their good share of ethnocentrism, as well. 

They just replaced its bases from circumsized penises to rigid beliefs.

Then again, I suppose it was all just a part of the Hellenistic environment of the time. Other Jewish sects, like the Therapeutae and Pharisees, had similar "humanistic" ideas, also.

Laterz.


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 19, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Oy vey, someone just _had_ to bring up Christianity, didn't they?
> 
> While I appreciate the message that "Jesus Christ" was trying to put forward (not that its any different from, say, Plato or Pythagoras or Krishna or Buddha), its not like Christians all of a sudden started acting all humanistic and enlightened --- leaving the silly ol' Jews to their ethnocentricites. Nope, the Christians (at least the non-Gnostic, pre-modern variety) had their good share of ethnocentrism, as well.
> 
> ...


Not meaning to imply exclusive rights the message, just recognizing the 'reactionary' nature of the Christ message in the New Testament (and there are other 'messages' yes that we can interpret from the text, this is only one).

As you have mentioned in the past, Buddhism is far more 'evolved' a philosophy for personal growth because the individual 'how to' path is more effectively outlined relative to Christianity/Judeo practice - which, in agreement with your past comments, is more about social order than individual spiritualism.


----------



## MisterMike (Oct 19, 2004)

If Jesus' message was to believe in only the one true God, and to repent for the Kingdom of God is near and to die on the cross for our sins, I do not see any commonality between Plato, Krishna, Buddha, etc.

Some of the other teachings may have some similarities.


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 19, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> If Jesus' message was to believe in only the one true God, and to repent for the Kingdom of God is near and to die on the cross for our sins, I do not see any commonality between Plato, Krishna, Buddha, etc.
> 
> Some of the other teachings may have some similarities.


Well, I think I see Herries point better....

That was one of the messages but not the only one. That may be the message that you have put at the center of all his messages, though.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 19, 2004)

heretic888I have shared my "religious beliefs" before. I am neither an agnostic nor an atheist said:


> Must have missed the post referred to above.
> 
> Whew! Glad we agree on something.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Oct 19, 2004)

That is why the Torah is the Light unto the World due to the influence(s) upon the nations. The TC are the base in which the Torah is written upon therefore as the Talmud. 

The influence and guideance of the Torah to the Hebrew people and how they(Hebrew) lived among themselves is to be an example to other Nations.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 19, 2004)

Well, that was ecumenical.

First off, Christian ideas are technically classified as an aspect of, "neo-Platonist," thought. That's because, like Plato's, "Myth of the Cave," allegory, Christians hold this world to be only a dim reflection of a Reality we could not directly witness; the classic formulation of this is in (Paul's) remark that, "now we see as in a glass, darkly...."

Second off, I ain't so good on Krishna. However, a number of religions feature what Sir James Frazier called, "dying and reviving gods:" Baldur is perhaps the most famous example. In fact, one of the immediate precursor religions to Christianity, Mithraism, focuses upon a god, born around the winter solstice, who is a Son of God, dies for the sins of all mankind, is reborn, and is remembered through a ritual involving sacrifice and the consumption of blood, if I recollect correctly.

Third off--any Christian ought to be able to see more than one echo of Jesus' teachings in Buddha's," Life is suffering; the cause of suffering is desire...," and the rest of the Four Noble Truths. (Incidentally, it is Buddhism Lite to argue that Buddha taught "self-growth:" the growth of the self is seen in Buddhism as exactly the problem, since it is the Self that attaches to mere material things, and suffers because it cries like a baby when these things are taken away.)

Scope out the so-called, "Jesus Seminar," is my advice. It's run by an ecumenical group of clerics and scholars....

But then, I'm pretty much a Roger Zelazny/Bab 5 guy when it comes to these matters: "Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit."


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 19, 2004)

> Not meaning to imply exclusive rights the message, just recognizing the 'reactionary' nature of the Christ message in the New Testament



Yup. Although, technically speaking, the whole 'letter' vs 'spirit' dichotomy springs moreso from the earlier Pauline strands of proto-Christianity than it does from the later Synoptic strands. In most of the Synoptics, "Jesus" actually emphasizes following and obeying the law, both Jewish (i.e., respect and follow the TC) and Roman (i.e., give unto Caesar what is his).

The later Synoptic strands, of course, reflect the growing literalist community centered in Rome. This is evident with the emphases on papal authority (Peter, the first pope, is titled the "rock"), organizational hierarchy, submission to the law, and so on.



> As you have mentioned in the past, Buddhism is far more 'evolved' a philosophy for personal growth because the individual 'how to' path is more effectively outlined relative to Christianity/Judeo practice - which, in agreement with your past comments, is more about social order than individual spiritualism.



Hrmmmm.... well, I didn't necessarily say Buddhism is strictly more "evolved" than Judaism or Christianity. I personally think all three religions emphasize different lines or modalities of human development, and anyone would benefit in studying (but not rigidly attaching) to all three. Its just that, historically, Buddhists have much better track records on the moral-o-meter.

Different strokes for different folks, in any event.



> If Jesus' message was to believe in only the one true God, and to repent for the Kingdom of God is near and to die on the cross for our sins, I do not see any commonality between Plato, Krishna, Buddha, etc.



Depends on which gospel you are referring to. There is a different "the message" for each one. If, for example, I were to draw prinicpally from the Gospels of Thomas and John --- then many of your claims above wouldn't be so clear-cut.

But, to tackle them one at a time:
1) Think Jews and Christians were the only ones that professed belief in the "One God"?? Pshaw. Just look at Pythagoras, Plato, or the Corpus Hermeticum. Hell, Jesus' "Father" sounds a hell of a lot more like the God of Plato than the God of the Jews.
2) That "the end is near" is no big news. Many apocalypses of the time, not all of them Jewish. Interestingly, Jesus' most notable discussions of the Kingdom of God are that it is "within you" and that "it is laid out upon the Earth, but men do not see it" and that "it is already here".
3) Personally, I think the "divine redeemer" and "universal savior" bit comes more from Paul than any of the Gospels.



> That is why the Torah is the Light unto the World due to the influence(s) upon the nations.



Think you got it the other way around. The Torah comes from other nations (most notably Egypt and Persia), not vice versa.



> The influence and guideance of the Torah to the Hebrew people and how they(Hebrew) lived among themselves is to be an example to other Nations.



Uhhhh... no offense, but if we're going by actual history, then there are far better examples for the world to look to. Like, say, people who _didn't_ murder and pillage their way to a supposed "promised land"??

Ironically enough, the Torah has benefitted far more from the rational philosophies of the Renaissance and Enlightenment than the Torah ever has benefitted foreign nations. In my opinion, anyway.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 19, 2004)

> Well, that was ecumenical.



You're welcome.  :uhyeah: 



> First off, Christian ideas are technically classified as an aspect of, "neo-Platonist," thought. That's because, like Plato's, "Myth of the Cave," allegory, Christians hold this world to be only a dim reflection of a Reality we could not directly witness; the classic formulation of this is in (Paul's) remark that, "now we see as in a glass, darkly...."



Christianity was heavily influenced by the writings of Plato, its true (particularly with Paul). But, outside of some Gnostic branches, I don't see too much commonality between historical Christianity and guys like Plotinus. In fact, Plotinus (the "founder" of Neo-Platonism) was pretty critical of the Christians of his day...



> Second off, I ain't so good on Krishna. However, a number of religions feature what Sir James Frazier called, "dying and reviving gods:" Baldur is perhaps the most famous example. In fact, one of the immediate precursor religions to Christianity, Mithraism, focuses upon a god, born around the winter solstice, who is a Son of God, dies for the sins of all mankind, is reborn, and is remembered through a ritual involving sacrifice and the consumption of blood, if I recollect correctly.



Yup. The oldest most likely being the Egyptian Osiris.



> Third off--any Christian ought to be able to see more than one echo of Jesus' teachings in Buddha's," Life is suffering; the cause of suffering is desire...," and the rest of the Four Noble Truths.



Yup again. There are similar strands in Platonic, Pythagorean, Orphist, and Hermetic thought, too. Which is probably why guys like Huxley had something going when they spoke of "perennial" philosophies...



> Incidentally, it is Buddhism Lite to argue that Buddha taught "self-growth:" the growth of the self is seen in Buddhism as exactly the problem, since it is the Self that attaches to mere material things, and suffers because it cries like a baby when these things are taken away.



Well, Robert, be careful here.

Buddhist doctrine makes an emphasis on "personal growth", also --- right livelihood, right speech, right conduct, and so on. The point, however, is that this is only a _step_ toward the ultimate release of Nirvana (which can't be summed up with any personal rules or codes). Come to think of it, Paul said pretty damn similar things when he emphasized the differences between "psychic" Christians (those based on "elementary teachings" of "the law") and "pneumatic" Christians (those based on the wisdom of the Spirit). Hrmmm.....

Also, the separate-self sense attaches to more than just "material things". Attachment to emotions, intellectualizing, and even the idea of a "self" in the first place are also part of "the problem".

Incidentally, I don't particularly believe there was either a historical Gautama Siddhartha or historical Jesus Christ.



> Scope out the so-called, "Jesus Seminar," is my advice. It's run by an ecumenical group of clerics and scholars....



I personally wouldn't recommend the "Jesus Seminar". Many of their conclusions are based on laughable bases, and don't reflect an in-depth historical analysis of the context in which "Jesus" is supposed to have lived. In my opinion.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 19, 2004)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> That is why the Torah is the Light unto the World due to the influence(s) upon the nations. The TC are the base in which the Torah is written upon therefore as the Talmud.
> 
> The influence and guideance of the Torah to the Hebrew people and how they(Hebrew) lived among themselves is to be an example to other Nations.


Does force feeding it to them count?

Much of Christianity was spread at the point of a sword or end of a musket.  The Hebrew people never did that though...

But I suppose you can't judge the message by the messangers.

Or in this case can you?  I mean those people where supposed to be the "examples" of the religion...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 19, 2004)

It is indeed, "Buddhism lite," to claim that Buddhism teaches the aggrandizement of the self--or more precisely supports capitalist ideology about things like consumerism--but we've had that argument already, and you're wrong. But I am glad to see that you've taken the point a made on other threads--and had to argue with you--about Buddhism being deconstructive of what I ten called, "spiritual materialism."

As for what I described as the so-called Jesus seminar, it's curious that you would find them incompetent as scholars. I'm not particularly famiular with Biblical studies as a discipline, but there seem to be an awful lot of participants with advanced degrees from very reputable institutions, who teach and work at some very impressive schools and churches. Maybe you're right, and of course credentials hardly establish brains, but I doubt it.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 20, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> It is indeed, "Buddhism lite," to claim that Buddhism teaches the aggrandizement of the self--or more precisely supports capitalist ideology about things like consumerism--but we've had that argument already, and you're wrong. But I am glad to see that you've taken the point a made on other threads--and had to argue with you--about Buddhism being deconstructive of what I ten called, "spiritual materialism."
> 
> As for what I described as the so-called Jesus seminar, it's curious that you would find them incompetent as scholars. I'm not particularly famiular with Biblical studies as a discipline, but there seem to be an awful lot of participants with advanced degrees from very reputable institutions, who teach and work at some very impressive schools and churches. Maybe you're right, and of course credentials hardly establish brains, but I doubt it.


And this from the man who is insistent upon _not_ involving his education or other *personal* credentials...

What I'd like to know is where you, Herry, got such an encycolpaedic knowledge of the various religions.  Heck, even Robertson dragged Mithraism back into this discussion.  I consider myself well-read, but the area of religion, outside of what I was taught in religious school as a child and studying the Greek/Roman pantheons, isn't one I've delved into.  Possibly could, if I could fit it between reading MSGM Parker, fiction, and all the other stuff I do... oh yes. That Kenpo thing.

Seriously, recommendations for good, _basic_ reading to start other than Internet sources.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 20, 2004)

> It is indeed, "Buddhism lite," to claim that Buddhism teaches the aggrandizement of the self--or more precisely supports capitalist ideology about things like consumerism--but we've had that argument already, and you're wrong. But I am glad to see that you've taken the point a made on other threads--and had to argue with you--about Buddhism being deconstructive of what I ten called, "spiritual materialism."



*sigh*  

At no point did I say that Buddhism teaches "the aggrandizement of the self" (which is actually the opposite of most systems of "self-development" that have any weight to them, anyway). I said, very plainly, that there is an emphasis in Buddhist doctrine on "working on" the self --- such as the concepts of right conduct, right livelihood, right speech, and so on. Y'know, the Eightfold Path?? Ring a bell??  :idunno: 

And, since its relevant to the topic, one of the very basic teachings of Buddhism (attributed to Siddartha Gautama himself) is:

"Avoid all evil, do good, purify the mind."

In Buddhism, "avoiding evil" consists of:
1) no killing
2) no stealing
3) no lying
4) no sexual misconduct
5) no intoxication

The next part, "doing good", consists of six _paramitas_:
1) charity
2) morality
3) tolerance
4) perseverance
5) meditation
6) wisdom

The first three consist of doing good to others, the last three in doing good to oneself.

In any event, all of the above demonstrates a whole lot of "working on the self". The culminatory revelation of No-Self, or No-Mind, is just that --- a culmination of a lot of hard work. The bulk of the work consists of disciplining the self, teaching the self, getting the self to think and act and behave in a certain way. As in Pauline proto-Gnosticism, working on things like morals and tolerance and proper thinking is a stepping stone to working on things like self-transcendence, Spirit-dissolution, divine Wisdom, and all that.

Of course, I could just "be wrong", as you claim --- without, of course, any arguments or explanations as to why this is so. It could just be that I imagined the Eightfold Path, or imagined the moral prescriptions of Buddhism, or imagined _paramitas_ or _koshas_ or dozen other teachings of Buddhism that emphasize "self-work".

But, hey, at least I actually gave a reason as to why "I'm right" (whatever that's supposed to mean).


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 20, 2004)

> As for what I described as the so-called Jesus seminar, it's curious that you would find them incompetent as scholars.



Funny. I don't remember calling anyone "incompetent". 

Its just that I, unlike you, _am_ actually familiar with Biblical studies as a discipline and cannot recommend it. Did you know that they actually came to their conclusions on the basis of a vote?? A vote?! 



> I'm not particularly famiular with Biblical studies as a discipline, but there seem to be an awful lot of participants with advanced degrees from very reputable institutions, who teach and work at some very impressive schools and churches. Maybe you're right, and of course credentials hardly establish brains, but I doubt it.



As you've pointed out in the past, Rob, a degree doesn't necessarily confer understanding. In fact, I seem to recall you sharply criticizing a celebrated economist a few thread back... 

Truth is, I don't particularly have a whole lot of respect for the "historical Jesus" studies as a whole. Many of their theories and hypotheses are based on rather dubious Church records (a la Eusebius) or on traditional assumptions (such as Peter being the "first pope", of which there is no proof). Even though many of the participants are agnostic or atheist, I am bewildered as to why they would just assume that the transmitted history of the Church is true, "as is" --- considering the institution has such a darkened history of immorality, deceit, and forging of documents??

Again, I think the major problem with groups like the "Jesus Seminar" is that they tend to ignore the cultural, religious, and historical environment the early Christians were raised up in. Like how, for example, the Jews were never really persecuted for their _beliefs_ and the ruling powers didn't have any problem with "monotheism", which is an assumption most of them run on. Or, how there is scant evidence of mass "Christian persecutions" prior to the mid-to-late 200's.

And, they completely ignore alternate texts and beliefs systems like the Gnostics. As if, by some magic, the four Synoptics are the only credible texts concerning the "historical Jesus" that we have. Its utterly laughable.

Like I said, the vast majority of their conclusions are based on: a) unproven traditional assumptions handed down by the theological system, and b) what people _want_ Jesus to be like (it is now in vogue, for example, to emphasize the "political rebel" and "Jewishness" of Jesus --- none of which are particularly apparent in the Gospels).

But hey, Rob, if you think I'm dead wrong on this, then its a simple matter of providing historical sources and documentations that proved Jesus existed, or that the Synoptics should be given historical primacy, or that there weren't numerous "Christianities" at the time anyway, or any of the other traditional assumptions everyone builds on.

Me, I prefer good science. Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 20, 2004)

> What I'd like to know is where you, Herry, got such an encycolpaedic knowledge of the various religions. Heck, even Robertson dragged Mithraism back into this discussion. I consider myself well-read, but the area of religion, outside of what I was taught in religious school as a child and studying the Greek/Roman pantheons, isn't one I've delved into. Possibly could, if I could fit it between reading MSGM Parker, fiction, and all the other stuff I do... oh yes. That Kenpo thing.
> 
> Seriously, recommendations for good, basic reading to start other than Internet sources.



Hmph. A good beginning work on cross-cultural mythology would be any of Joseph Campbell's many works, I'd say. Sir James Frazer's _The Golden Bough_ should also be mentioned here (whom Campbell relied upon in more ways than one). 

You can also go in depth into any particular subject, and explore the writings or teachings of only one particular group (such as Osirianism). Cumont, for example, is traditionally regarded as "the authority" of Mithraism.

Personally, the various Mystery Schools interested me more than the standard religions of the time --- in large part due to their connections to Christianity, and to philosophies like Orphism, Platonism, and Pythagoreanism. Some have theorized, for example, that Pythagoras founded both Orphism (i.e., was the author of texts attributed to Orpheus) and the Dionysian Mysteries in Greece (based on the earlier Osirian Mysteries of Egypt).

When it comes to the Mysteries, I must recommend J. Godwin.

Hope this helps.  :asian:


----------



## pete (Oct 20, 2004)

heretic888, i think you are missing the point that christianity is about faith, not facts.  the message of jesus, whether you want to prove his historical existence or not, is more a "way" than a list of what not to do.  its basically to stop trying to look for loopholes, exceptions and interpretations in a list and ask wwjd.  if you follow the way, you'll know... pete.


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 20, 2004)

pete said:
			
		

> heretic888, i think you are missing the point that christianity is about faith, not facts. the message of jesus, whether you want to prove his historical existence or not, is more a "way" than a list of what not to do. its basically to stop trying to look for loopholes, exceptions and interpretations in a list and ask wwjd. if you follow the way, you'll know... pete.


I have to go with Herrie on this one.  If the foundation of Christianity is that there was a Christ and there is not sufficient proof to move you to the point of faith...well it is not going to work for you.

Even with faith, there is a foundation of information that does answer things factually (or at least informationally) that you start from, faith begins when you choose to believe in the absense of 'facts.'


----------



## pete (Oct 20, 2004)

loki09789, go ahead with herry and have fun... sinners usually do (lol) ... 
i'm not one to prostheltize (sp?).  heck, i can't even prove what i ate for dinner monday night. pete.


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 20, 2004)

pete said:
			
		

> loki09789, go ahead with herry and have fun... sinners usually do (lol) ...
> i'm not one to prostheltize (sp?). heck, i can't even prove what i ate for dinner monday night. pete.


Sure you can prove the dinner dilema...you just might not want to 'explore the evidence'


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 20, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> *sigh*
> 
> At no point did I say that Buddhism teaches "the aggrandizement of the self" (which is actually the opposite of most systems of "self-development" that have any weight to them, anyway). I said, very plainly, that there is an emphasis in Buddhist doctrine on "working on" the self --- such as the concepts of right conduct, right livelihood, right speech, and so on. Y'know, the Eightfold Path?? Ring a bell?? :idunno:
> 
> ...


So Herry.  Wait - first let me thank you for your suggestions for further reading.  I recognized Godwin from some of your earlier posts.

Okay - etiquette has been satisfied.  Now:

How, exactly, do the eleven tenets, or whatever you'd like to categorize them as, of Buddhism differ ideologically from the Ten Commandments *aside from there being eleven of these and ten of those*?  Seems to me that each set is a group of guidelines for living.  Additionally, and maybe a bit off-topic, in the prayer we say - the Veyohaftah - instructs us to have the words of G-d in our hearts as well as 'on the doorposts of thy house and upon thy gates;  that ye may remember, and do all my Commandments' and be humble.  That instruction is why we Jews have mezuzot on door lintels in our homes.  The prayer contained within them blesses the occupants -- but -- it is also a reminder of G-d's presence and what is expected of us on a daily basis through G-d's commandments.  

Charity is certainly something we Jews grow up practicing.  Since pre-k in religious school, I was given a quarter (remember how old I am in relation to you all, please) to contribute each week to tzedakah (charity). When something good occurred in our family, I was given a dollar to contribute;  sometimes more than that.  I helped my mom and the other moms gather things for and organize the *rubbish* sales (which were anything but), the proceeds of which went to charity.  We contribute to UJA, UJF, and through Hadassah and ORT.  We buy trees to plant in Israel.   Maybe that's why I'm a fund raiser today - because I believe that we should help each other (my Maccabee warrior heritage notwithstanding.)

All that being said, I don't believe it's limited to Judeo-Christian religions.  Just took a detour getting here.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Oct 20, 2004)

KT glad you brought that up about Charity. I remember an example to possible understanding I got from a Rabbi on this subject.

Your boss hands you a $1000. Do you feel obligated to pay it back to your boss? Now if your parents handed you $1000 do you feel obligated in the same way to pay repay your parents? 

The Rabbi stated in a Jewish community if someone has a need he or she will be taken care of in that the members of the community will give what is needed without any thought of repayment. You may wake up the next morning and find a envelope with funds in it without any clue who gave it. It is a commandment or a way of life to take care of each other.

Also at the Shabbath Dinners we take up a collection for a charity and when we reached our families goal. We give it to that charity without asking for recognition.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 20, 2004)

> heretic888, i think you are missing the point that christianity is about faith, not facts. the message of jesus, whether you want to prove his historical existence or not, is more a "way" than a list of what not to do. its basically to stop trying to look for loopholes, exceptions and interpretations in a list and ask wwjd. if you follow the way, you'll know... pete.



Something tells me, Pete, that I know a bit more about historical Christianity than you do. In any event, there are quite a few problems with your assumptions:

1) "Faith", as referred to in the New Testament, comes from the Greek word _pistis_ --- which has absolutely nothing to do with what you're talking about. Traditionally, _pistis_ was regarded as laying the foundation for later _gnosis_ (which goes back to the point I made about Buddhism before), as Paul repeatedly pointed out.

2) There is no single "the way" or "the message" of Christianity. Every one of the gospels, canonical or non-canonical, differ to degrees. The Gospel of John (which personifies Jesus as an embodiment of the divine Logos), for example, is drastically different than, say, the Gospel of Mark. Even during Paul's time, there were multiple "Christianities". This really shouldn't surprise.

3) If there was no historical Jesus Christ, then its fairly silly to ask what a myth would do in a real-life situation.



> I have to go with Herrie on this one. If the foundation of Christianity is that there was a Christ and there is not sufficient proof to move you to the point of faith...well it is not going to work for you.



Personally, I would suggest conducting an in-depth study of the authentic Pauline letters (Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, etc.) to get an idea on what the early Christian may have thought about concerning "the Christ". Compare it to the rituals and philosophies of the Mystery Schools, and see if you find any fun commonalities.  :uhyeah: 



> Even with faith, there is a foundation of information that does answer things factually (or at least informationally) that you start from, faith begins when you choose to believe in the absense of 'facts.'



Well said. 



> loki09789, go ahead with herry and have fun... sinners usually do (lol) ...



Eck. Typical Christian literalism: if someone disagrees with you, they must be "sinning". Must be some kinda deity that consigns people to hellfire on the basis of having "the wrong opinion".


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 20, 2004)

Well, Jesting Pilate sure as hell had SOMEBODY crucified, and contemporary historical accounts sure as hell discuss the troublesome sect of them there "Christians," and we'll even leave out the weird notion that the Buddha never actually existed.

Otherwise, it looks as though we pretty much agree about that old abnegation of the self thingy. The major division, I'd say, is that I'm a lot more skeptical about the way many Americans (including your Ken Wilber guy) translate Buddhism as something that's just fine with consumerism...which I can't see for the life of me, but then I haven't the Asian languages to be sure.

It's interesting that you're adopting the tactic of  a) agreeing with me, b) citing the same sources but then claiming that people need to check the same sources lest they fall into error, c) proliferating terminology as a substitute for explanation, d) pooh-poohing any sources that don't immediately reinforce your views.

It leads to goofy statemenments, like, "They took a vote!" which of course they did--it's what committees are wont to do. You don't like their conclusions, you don't respect their work, which is why you wrote:

"I personally wouldn't recommend the "Jesus Seminar". Many of their conclusions are based on laughable bases, and don't reflect an in-depth historical analysis of the context in which "Jesus" is supposed to have lived." 

By the way, folks, don't be dazzled by citations of things like Mithraism, WHOEVER makes them. The level of citation and insight I've seen so far ain't a big deal--it's easily available on the Internet, or from oldies like Bullfinch's "Mythologies," and the Frazier book--both of which are going on a century old, and which have probably been superseded by recent scholarship. The Joseph Campbell is middle-brow Jungianism; flip through (and I do mean flip) the old "Hero With 1000 Faces," and you'll have all you need.

If'n ya wants to get serious about recent Biblical scholarship, let's discuss Mieke Bal's work.

For the Buddhist stuff, there's plenty available--hell the dalai lama's books have been best-sellers for  a while now, as have Trich van Thanh's and several others. I prefer sources the "Heretic," (a real heretic'd go after that Wilber guy, but I cheaply digress) can't stand: D.T. Suzuki, ""Zen and Japanese Culture," (nice martial arts section!) Herrigel's "Zen and the Art of Archery," "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind," by Shunryu Suzuki, and a couple of newbies like Herman Kauz's "A Path to Liberation," and Furuyu's "Kodo: Ancient Ways," or dave Lowry's books. Or, hell, take a look at "The Journal of Asian Martial Arts," which has a lot of great philosophy/history/culture scholarship wedged in among the articles featuring some of the editors' inept martial arts.

But the first chapter of Thoreau's "Walden," or some Allen Ginsberg, or something fun like Kerouac's "Desolation Angels," and "On the Road," will give you pretty much All ye Need to Know, including chunks of the Heart and Diamond sutras. This stuff ain't that tricky to understand--to use, there's the rub.

Like everybody else, us somewhat-scholarly types rely a lot on other people's work, are limited in terms of times and energies, and puff ourselves up. The key is not to take other puffery so seriously.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 20, 2004)

> So Herry. Wait - first let me thank you for your suggestions for further reading. I recognized Godwin from some of your earlier posts.



No problem. 



> How, exactly, do the eleven tenets, or whatever you'd like to categorize them as, of Buddhism differ ideologically from the Ten Commandments *aside from there being eleven of these and ten of those*?



They differ a lot, actually.

Buddhism teaches nothing about "you shall only worship this god" (that would be a violation of the paramita of tolerance) or about "observing the sabbath". The Ten Commandments, by contrast, do not emphasize tolerance, charity, wisdom, meditation, sexual misconduct (outside of adultery), or warnings against intoxication.

There are some _very basic_ moral laws both observe --- do not lie, do not steal, do not kill, don't be greedy, don't cheat on your wife, etc. --- but, these are neither unique nor exclusive to either religious traditions.



> Additionally, and maybe a bit off-topic, in the prayer we say - the Veyohaftah - instructs us to have the words of G-d in our hearts as well as 'on the doorposts of thy house and upon thy gates; that ye may remember, and do all my Commandments' and be humble. That instruction is why we Jews have mezuzot on door lintels in our homes. The prayer contained within them blesses the occupants -- but -- it is also a reminder of G-d's presence and what is expected of us on a daily basis through G-d's commandments.



Ummm... that's very nice and all, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the discussion.  :idunno: 



> Charity is certainly something we Jews grow up practicing. Since pre-k in religious school, I was given a quarter (remember how old I am in relation to you all, please) to contribute each week to tzedakah (charity). When something good occurred in our family, I was given a dollar to contribute; sometimes more than that. I helped my mom and the other moms gather things for and organize the *rubbish* sales (which were anything but), the proceeds of which went to charity. We contribute to UJA, UJF, and through Hadassah and ORT. We buy trees to plant in Israel. Maybe that's why I'm a fund raiser today - because I believe that we should help each other (my Maccabee warrior heritage notwithstanding.)
> 
> All that being said, I don't believe it's limited to Judeo-Christian religions. Just took a detour getting here.



No, the principle of charity and altruism are not unique to any religious tradition. But, you asked about the Ten Commandments and, well, charity ain't one of them.

That being said, there _are_ other places in the Torah where things like charity, perseverance, meditation, and even wisdom are emphasized. Hell, Proverbs is nothing _but_ teachings about the Wisdom (Chokmah) of God. But, again, not in the TC.

Personally, I think the "meditation and wisdom" side of Judaism (as with Christianity and Islam) are more emphasized in esoteric and monastic traditions. They don't tend to be emphasized to the general public.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## pete (Oct 20, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Something tells me, Pete, that I know a bit more about historical Christianity than you do.


 not saying much, except that you may be a legend in your own mind... remember, i offer no proof of what i had for dinner monday night, much less event over 2000 years ago.




			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> In any event, there are quite a few problems with your assumptions:  yada, yada, yada


 they seem to be your problems based on history and proof, rather than faith and the way.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Eck. Typical Christian literalism: if someone disagrees with you, they must be "sinning". Must be some kinda deity that consigns people to hellfire on the basis of having "the wrong opinion".


first of all, please allow me to introduce you to the kettle, mr. black...
and second, in the immortal words of foghorn leghorn, 'its a joke son, a joke... boy's like paul revere's ride... a little light in the belfry'

st. peter


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 20, 2004)

If you would prefer to do domething a little quicker and more efficient than reading someone else's library, try "The Teaching of Buddha".  That was all I required.  I was able to interpret the meaning all on my own.  I'm sure you can too, if you try.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 20, 2004)

> Well, Jesting Pilate sure as hell had SOMEBODY crucified, and contemporary historical accounts sure as hell discuss the troublesome sect of them there "Christians"



Prove it, Rob.

I know this really isn't fair, since you clealry don't know too much about the historical Jesus research in question --- but, prove it. Cite some historical sources, please. I have spent quite some time looking into the "historical Jesus" stuff, but perhaps you know something I don't.

Been through Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Elder, and the Talmud. Nothing I've seen that doesn't reak of Christian forgery (can even discuss the particulars, if you're so interested). Or, perhaps you can cite the historical particulars of Pilate's reign with primary records, something no historian seems able to have gotten his hands on??

No _mention_ is even given of the Christian sect(s) prior to 115 CE, with Tacitus. And, the context of his reference clearly does not rely on first-hand information, as opposed to hearsay. And, even then, there are no discussions of persecution or the like --- only that they're annoying. No "mass persecutions" of them poor wittle Christians til around 250 CE or so, and those lasted for all of three years (until the then-emperor died). 

They're called _forgeries_, Rob. Pseudipigraphica, if you want to be cordial. The Church loved them.



> and we'll even leave out the weird notion that the Buddha never actually existed.



Not that silly, considering "the" Buddha had nothing written about him (or his teachings) until about +200 years after he was supposed to have died. And, even then, all of the stories concerning his life are clealry mythological (such as him being born "out of his mother's left side", a serpent protecting him from rainfall, having nice little talks with the demon Mara, and so on).

But, then again, Buddhism teaches there were thousands of Buddhas before Gautama, and a thousand more after him. In fact, "the Buddha" isn't even a person or historical individual --- as opposed to a quality of consciousness inherent to all beings.

So, whether there was a Gautama or not, doesn't actually mean that much to Buddhist philosophy. They don't exactly go around, asking WWBD or anything silly like that.



> Otherwise, it looks as though we pretty much agree about that old abnegation of the self thingy.



Looks like. 



> The major division, I'd say, is that I'm a lot more skeptical about the way many Americans (including your Ken Wilber guy) translate Buddhism as something that's just fine with consumerism...which I can't see for the life of me, but then I haven't the Asian languages to be sure.



*shrugs* At points, Buddhism could be construed as supporting "consumerism". And, at other points, it clearly opposes it. 

Remember, even Buddhist priests conduct rituals for good luck, or rain for the crops, or helping one's soul reincarnate into a nice life when they die, and so on. They clearly have no problem in providing self-consoling functions for the populace, but also recognize that there is "more to" the dharma than that.

The idea, Rob, is not that Buddhism only teaches one thing for all people. But that, depending on one's level of understanding and preparation, that different types of teaching are laid out. This is a quality that, I feel, modern Christianity is lacking (unless there are thousands of hidden esoteric Christian teachers I don't know about).

Then again, I don't think all of civilization revolves around capitalism, so that may just be my ideology speaking.  :uhyeah: 



> It's interesting that you're adopting the tactic of a) agreeing with me, b) citing the same sources but then claiming that people need to check the same sources lest they fall into error, c) proliferating terminology as a substitute for explanation, d) pooh-poohing any sources that don't immediately reinforce your views.



a) More than likely, Rob, I never actually disagreed with you. I, for example, never made the claim that Buddhism doesn't have ego-transcendence as its ultimate goal --- only that its worried about other stuff, too.

b) Never made the claim my sources were the end-all, be-all. I believe people need to read through things themselves, and come to their own decisions.

c) Nope, sorry. I expect that if somebody is asking about the particulars of a foreign philosophy like Buddhism, that they have some kind of elementary grounding in its principles. I mean, you can't really discuss the particulars without the terminology (durrr... Eightfold Path, wuzzat??). 



> It leads to goofy statemenments, like, "They took a vote!" which of course they did--it's what committees are wont to do. You don't like their conclusions, you don't respect their work



Sorry if that's my ideology speaking again, Rob, but I think democracy is great for deciding political leaders. Not facts about reality.

And, as I've said before, I don't have too much respect for the whole field as a whole. Its rife with theological assumptions, even among the atheists.



> By the way, folks, don't be dazzled by citations of things like Mithraism, WHOEVER makes them. The level of citation and insight I've seen so far ain't a big deal--it's easily available on the Internet, or from oldies like Bullfinch's "Mythologies," and the Frazier book--both of which are going on a century old, and which have probably been superseded by recent scholarship. The Joseph Campbell is middle-brow Jungianism; flip through (and I do mean flip) the old "Hero With 1000 Faces," and you'll have all you need.



Oh yes, definately. I agree. Someone merely asked for basic introductory readings, and I cited classics. Whoopdy-dee-doo.



> For the Buddhist stuff, there's plenty available--hell the dalai lama's books have been best-sellers for a while now, as have Trich van Thanh's and several others. I prefer sources the "Heretic," [...] can't stand: D.T. Suzuki, ""Zen and Japanese Culture," (nice martial arts section!) Herrigel's "Zen and the Art of Archery," "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind," by Shunryu Suzuki, and a couple of newbies like Herman Kauz's "A Path to Liberation," and Furuyu's "Kodo: Ancient Ways," or dave Lowry's books. Or, hell, take a look at "The Journal of Asian Martial Arts," which has a lot of great philosophy/history/culture scholarship wedged in among the articles featuring some of the editors' inept martial arts.



The hell?? I can't stand the Dalai Lama, the Suzukis, or Lowry?? Where'd you get any of that from...

... although, personally, I think there is more to Buddhism than Zen and Tibetan flavors (although those are the most popular in America). I'd recommend translations of works from guys who started this stuff, like Nagarjuna (creator of the 'shunyata' doctrine).



> a real heretic'd go after that Wilber guy, but I cheaply digress



A "real heretic" would take the time to actually read the writings of someone before making ignorant judgments about them.  :disgust:


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 20, 2004)

> they seem to be your problems based on history and proof, rather than faith and the way.



Yup. Its great to disregard reality as long as you have "faith", ain't it??   

Oh, and by the way, that "the way" thing?? Yeah, that was aped from the Essenes who aped it from Cynicism.... philosophical plagiarism.



> first of all, please allow me to introduce you to the kettle, mr. black...



Yup. I'm sure everyone remembers how I label everyone that disagrees with me a sinner, or how they'll burn in hellfire. 

Uhhh.... kettle, pot, black, hypocrite??  :idunno:


----------



## pete (Oct 20, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Yup. Its great to disregard reality as long as you have "faith", ain't it??


 is "reality" the ability to prove, or the inability to disprove?  and is faith the abililty to believe without proof, but also without evidence proving otherwise?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 20, 2004)

and were those questions supposed to prove any point?


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 20, 2004)

> is "reality" the ability to prove, or the inability to disprove?



Bit of both. Although, technically, reality is supposed to be a "thing", not an "ability".



> and is faith the abililty to believe without proof, but also without evidence proving otherwise?



"Faith", in my opinion, is usually a crutch that people use to avoid exploring subjects that might undermine their rather tepid belief system. Why someone, for example, would just blithely ignore the original use of the concept, in the Greek _pistis_, is beyond me.


----------



## raedyn (Oct 20, 2004)

Some people use faith to blind themselves, yes.

But some people use 'faith' to give their life meaning, to lead them in how to make choices, to comfort them in times of need. There is nothing inherently wrong with having faith, or even with using it as an explanation. It's just not particularly convincing to those that don't share it.


----------



## MisterMike (Oct 20, 2004)

Which belief systems whould you deeem tepid? Curious...


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 20, 2004)

Gee whiz.  I leave for a couple hours and you boys _still_ can't play together nicely.

Dan, I appreciate your direction vis-a-vis reading.  Thanks.

Herrie, Robertson, Random and Pete - I know only one of you personally - and you can be as obstinate as the first two listed, you know - but I feel like I have a little insight as to each of the rest of you, having jousted with you all for the past few months.  Name calling?  Trite.  You are - all four of you - well-read and able to present your thoughts in a cogent, concise and compact manner when you want to.  I'm disappointed to see arguing when there's more that you all can share with the rest of us.

Herrie,  You keep reminding me that I stray from the Ten Commandments in some of my replies, and you're right, to a point.  Perhaps it's because I view them as guidelines, as I've stated previously, and I also view the teachings of my religion as whole cloth, not patches forming the whole.  I also don't see - especially after reading some of the ripostes herein - where one can take anything at face value.  It's just not that simple.  You can cite history til you (and Robertson) are blue in the face.  Don't you believe that civilization has evolved - and bettered itself in the past two millenia?  Don't you believe in the basic goodness of humanity when given the chance?

Someone once wrote that there are only about 5 or 6 storylines which exist, and everything else is an embellishment on them.  That's my point - moral code exists within all religions.  It's humans who f*%# it up.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 20, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> You can cite history til you (and Robertson) are blue in the face.  Don't you believe that civilization has evolved - and bettered itself in the past two millenia?  Don't you believe in the basic goodness of humanity when given the chance?



KT, how does having a knowledge of history contradict any of these notions?

In fact, a knowledge of history is the only factor that allows us to determine if, and how, civilization has evolved and bettered itself, and to truly analyze the "basic goodness of humanity".


----------



## pete (Oct 20, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Herrie, Robertson, Random and Pete - I know only one of you personally - and you can be as obstinate as the first two listed...


 hey herrie... time to order some more kettles...


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 20, 2004)

Okay. Okay.  Point to you, Petey.  (A decorative handle, please.)

Peach,
History, as Herrie is using it, merely buttresses his argument that we're all barbarians with no redemption in sight (I take some license in condensing your thoughts, sir).  He, like you and a few others, accuse certain people of continuing to be aggressive and warlike in spite of the admonition by their faith(s) to be otherwise.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 20, 2004)

> But some people use 'faith' to give their life meaning, to lead them in how to make choices, to comfort them in times of need. There is nothing inherently wrong with having faith, or even with using it as an explanation. It's just not particularly convincing to those that don't share it.



Oh, I have absolutely no problem with people using 'faith' of one form or another to find meaning and solace in their lives. I myself do this.

What I _do_ have a problem with is when people use 'faith' as smokescreen. I have a problem when people use 'faith' as a crutch to not bother dealing with reality or, even worse, using 'faith' as a justification for rather immoral actions.

'Faith' in the what the individual believes is unknown can be a wonderful thing. But spitting in the face of known facts because your 'faith' would have you believe otherwise is just a smokescreen.



> Which belief systems whould you deeem tepid? Curious...



Any one that refuses to deal with reality by interjecting it with 'faith' instead. 'Faith' in and of itself is not a bad thing, but using it as an excuse is.

I personally feel that 'faith' should suplement known facts, not try and deny their existence.



> Herrie, Robertson, Random and Pete - I know only one of you personally - and you can be as obstinate as the first two listed, you know - but I feel like I have a little insight as to each of the rest of you, having jousted with you all for the past few months. Name calling? Trite. You are - all four of you - well-read and able to present your thoughts in a cogent, concise and compact manner when you want to. I'm disappointed to see arguing when there's more that you all can share with the rest of us.



The only "name calling" I can seem to recall was by Pete, the same one who used his "faith" as an excuse for not dealing with observable facts.



> Herrie, You keep reminding me that I stray from the Ten Commandments in some of my replies, and you're right, to a point. Perhaps it's because I view them as guidelines, as I've stated previously, and I also view the teachings of my religion as whole cloth, not patches forming the whole. I also don't see - especially after reading some of the ripostes herein - where one can take anything at face value. It's just not that simple.



Sure it is. The people that formulated these moral rules intended them to be that --- rules. They intended them to be laws for the Jewish people to follow in their day-to-day lives, not suggestions or guidelines for how they _might_ want to consider behaving. And, as with any laws, there were repercussions for disobeying them.

Now, you are free to view them as more loose guidelines if you so wish. And, I think that is a good and noble thing. But, I'm not going to pretend that that was what they were intended for --- or used for historically.

Laws, of course, change with the times. As do their interpretations. This is a result of social evolution, not deciphering "hidden meanings".



> You can cite history til you (and Robertson) are blue in the face. Don't you believe that civilization has evolved - and bettered itself in the past two millenia? Don't you believe in the basic goodness of humanity when given the chance?



Uhhhhhh... sure. But, that just does more to prove my position that the Ten Commandments have changed as a result of cultural evolution, not of people "figuring out" some "hidden meaning" behind the literal text.

Now, don't get me wrong --- there are _some_ parts of the Bible I think should be intepreted metaphorically or symbolically. But, cut-and-dry prescriptive laws ain't one of them.



> Someone once wrote that there are only about 5 or 6 storylines which exist, and everything else is an embellishment on them. That's my point - moral code exists within all religions. It's humans who f*%# it up.



A rather meaningless assertion, considering its humans who created them in the first place. Moral laws are social constructions, after all, and perpetually reflect the cutlure of the time.

This, again, assumes some kind of hidden "original intent" by the creators of the law who suprisingly _just happened_ to see things the ways us moderns do --- slavery is bad, all people should be treated equally, women should have an equal say in society, wars are nasty, laws shouldn't be so strict --- none of which, of course, is actually evident in the text themselves. And, none of which, of course, was actually being put forward until society reached the point were these beliefs were publicly held.

Kinda like how no one thought Genesis mentioned the Big Bang until physicists told us what the Big Bang is. I'm sure new "truths" and "morals" will be read into the Bible into the coming centuries, as well.



> hey herrie... time to order some more kettles...



Oh, look. More insults and personal attacks, along with the perpetual refusal to deal with rational objections or historical observations. All thanks to the smokescreen of an ethnocentric and biggoted 'faith'. Delightful.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 20, 2004)

> History, as Herrie is using it, merely buttresses his argument that we're all barbarians with no redemption in sight (I take some license in condensing your thoughts, sir). He, like you and a few others, accuse certain people of continuing to be aggressive and warlike in spite of the admonition by their faith(s) to be otherwise.



*raises eyebrow*  :idunno: 

The hell?! Where did you get that from??

Where, in my constant referencing to social and cultural evolution, and the notion that us seeing things in a less concrete-literal and absolutistic light is a moral innovation of modernism could you possibly get the notion that I think humanity are "a bunch of barbarians"?!


----------



## pete (Oct 20, 2004)

herrie, i didn't realise you'se heathens were so thinskinned. oops, there i goes again with that dang name-callin... now where was it that i did it before... oh yeah, must have been somewhere between my last attempt at a joke (prefixed by lol) and you puttin' words in me mouth... yeah, now i see hows ya operates. 

 anywho, good to see that even you realise the difference between facts and your "historical observations"... or do ya now?  seems like you come up with a lot of "observations" that cannot stand as proofs, but not much in the way of "fact" that would dis-prove anybody's faith... 

 now, back to my regular schedule of bigotted smokescreen, crutches, and immoral actions... 

but first a word from our sponsor...


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 20, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> History, as Herrie is using it, merely buttresses his argument that we're all barbarians with no redemption in sight (I take some license in condensing your thoughts, sir).  He, like you and a few others, accuse certain people of continuing to be aggressive and warlike in spite of the admonition by their faith(s) to be otherwise.



KT,

I definitely think you've taken a lot of license in how you condensed Heretic's thoughts   I think you might even be projecting...

I've never heard Heretic identify the details of his religious/spiritual beliefs, but I'd certainly argue that he has lots of faith in the ability of humanity to grow, learn, and evolve over time.  I think this is made clear by his insistence that we not maintain any illusions about the tenets of faith being altered over time as people grow.

Heretic has an excellent knowledge of the history of religious belief; don't make the mistake of confusing that for a heavy-handed indictment of religion itself.  I think, in fact, his position on spiritual behavior is far more open-minded than my own 

I absolutely accuse people of maintaining behavior in direct opposition to the admonition of their faith(s); history cannot help but bear out this argument.  People (including atheists like me) are inherently hypocritical.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 20, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> What I _do_ have a problem with is when people use 'faith' as smokescreen. I have a problem when people use 'faith' as a crutch to not bother dealing with reality or, even worse, using 'faith' as a justification for rather immoral actions.


But that is kind of one of the main purposes of faith in history, and today.

How do you unite a people?

How do you get them to not feel guilty about going to war and killing people just like them?

You got to dehumanize the other guys.  Create a common enemy to unite against.

A good case could be argued that the Christian church served pretty much as a militaristic, expansionist dictatorship for much of the middle ages.  The Pope of course being the Dictator.

Kinda like the Borg   Assimilate or be exterminated.  Right up until fairly recently even, survivors of the Residential schools are still around.

A big smokescreen to hide what was really going on and get people to do things they other wise might not have done.

Pretty harsh on anyone that might stray from there path too...  Babtisms done at threat of death to ones family, the inquesition, the crusades...  A good example of that.  How do you convince that many people to go to war for that long ?


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 20, 2004)

> anywho, good to see that even you realise the difference between facts and your "historical observations"... or do ya now? seems like you come up with a lot of "observations" that cannot stand as proofs, but not much in the way of "fact" that would dis-prove anybody's faith...



Oy vey. I could barely make sense of that.   

If you actually want to discuss the subject, Peter, it might help to bring up specifics and not just dole out sweeping generalizations and vague allusions.

I don't seem to recall, however, attempting to "disprove" anybody's "faith" --- considering faith is an emotional quality that really cannot be disproven.



> I definitely think you've taken a lot of license in how you condensed Heretic's thoughts  I think you might even be projecting...
> 
> I've never heard Heretic identify the details of his religious/spiritual beliefs, but I'd certainly argue that he has lots of faith in the ability of humanity to grow, learn, and evolve over time. I think this is made clear by his insistence that we not maintain any illusions about the tenets of faith being altered over time as people grow.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the kind words, peachmonkey.  :asian: 



> But that is kind of one of the main purposes of faith in history, and today.



That may traditionally be one of the main usages of "faith", but its still an usage I do not respect or condone.

I personally tend to not like the word "faith", because of the aforementioned nasty implications it often haves. Concepts like "awe", "wonder", "humility", and "inspiration" are preferable, IMO.

Laterz.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 20, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Thanks for the kind words, peachmonkey.



No problem 





			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> That may traditionally be one of the main usages of "faith", but its still an usage I do not respect or condone.
> 
> I personally tend to not like the word "faith", because of the aforementioned nasty implications it often haves. Concepts like "awe", "wonder", "humility", and "inspiration" are preferable, IMO.



Agreed.

One of my primary causes of discomfort with many Western religions, at least as practiced currently, is their emphasis on acts of "faith" in this fashion, rather than focusing on compassion and empathy.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 21, 2004)

Peach and Herrie,

My position may contain some projection.  I tend to do that - ask Pete.  I go on the defensive the moment my people are having pot shots taken at them.  And, I choose to believe that we have evolved to the point where we are able to discern right from wrong.  As I've stated elsewhere, I cannot discuss my people and their on-going struggle to survive in an unemotional manner.  In fact, I will usually _not_ engage in discussion of mid-East politics involving Israel for just that reason.  I cannot see it in a rational and unemotional manner.  Nor can I undo what's been done.  I can only support them.  Therefore, I will react as I have been, with no rational explanation.  It's who I am.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 21, 2004)

Meh. No worries.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 21, 2004)

> I've never heard Heretic identify the details of his religious/spiritual beliefs



Since this was brought up, I suppose I'd better elucidate. Without getting too much into the particulars, I hold to a vision of the Perennial Philosophy based in large part from the writings of Ken Wilber (among other things):

1. Spirit exists. 
2. Spirit is found within. 
3. Most of us don't realize this Spirit within, however, because we are living in a world of "sin", separation, and duality --- that is, we are living in a "fallen" or illusory state. 
4. There is a way out of this "fallen" state of "sin" and illusion, there is a Path to our liberation. 
5. If we follow this path to its conclusion, the result is a Rebirth or Enlightenment, a direct experience of Spirit within, a Supreme Liberation, which --- 
6. marks the end of "sin" and suffering, and which ---
7. issues in social action of mercy and compassion on behalf of all sentient beings.

The particulars of these seven points are discussed here: http://www.becomingme.com/timeless_wilber.html

Laterz.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 22, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Since this was brought up, I suppose I'd better elucidate. Without getting too much into the particulars, I hold to a vision of the Perennial Philosophy based in large part from the writings of Ken Wilber (among other things):
> 
> 1. Spirit exists.
> 2. Spirit is found within.
> ...


Hmm.  I don't consider myself as 'fallen' -- then again, with women that carries a dual meaning.  

Since Wilber is postulating that one exists in a fallen state of sin and illusion, and the only way out is to follow the path to enlightenment, which marks the end of sin and suffering,  I would like to know:
1)  Is one born with sin, as I think some of the Catholic religions believe, according to what Wilber says?
2)  Can one be absolved of his/her sins prior to finding the path and reaching enlightenment?
3)  What, exactly, does he see as enlightenment?  Death, apparently, since he also speaks to being reborn, and, in a literal sense, one _must_ die to be reborn.

Yes, I know you posted the citation to look it up, but I can't right this moment (however, I will read it - promise), and I'm interesting in _your_ interpretation anyway.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 22, 2004)

Kenpo tiger, even though you said you didn't have time at the moment to read the interview I linked, I would really suggest you do so.

But, to answer your questions:

1) "Sin" was used as a metaphor (which is why I put it in quotation marks). I suppose you could say one is "born with sin", in the sense that one is born with a separate-self sense of some kind, into the world of samsara and duality. It doesn't have the moralistic connotations you seem to be implying, however.

2) Once again, as Wilber points out in the interview, "sin" is not something the self does --- it is something the self _is_. "Sin" or "hell" or "purgatory" are metaphors for the state of separaton, duality, and "illusion"; called samsara in Buddhism and maya in Hinduism. It is a state inherent with exclusive identification with the separate-self sense (in which case, metaphorically speaking, one experiences as being "separated" from "God").

3) Enlightenment is defined as the death of exclusive identification with the separate-self sense, which is experienced as an actual "death" (since the ego, in a sense, literally "dies"). Wilber gives both Eastern and Western examples of this. This is explained in the interview I linked.

Hope I clarified myself. Laterz.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 22, 2004)

Okay Herrie. I promised I'd read the link, and I have just done. Basically, I did grasp what was being said without reading the entire interview simply from what you stated in your post. I found a couple things interesting:

1) "In Judaism it is called the ruach, the divine and supraindividual spirit in each and every person, and not the nefesh, or the individual ego. Your ruach, or ground, is the Supreme Reality, not your nefesh, or ego."

2) "Like any experience--a sunset, eating a piece of cake, listening to Bach--one has to have the actual experience to see what it's like. But we don't therefore conclude that sunset, cake, and music don't exist or aren't valid. Further, even though the mystical experience is largely ineffable, it can be communicated or transmitted... You yourself try it, and compare your test results with others who have performed the experiment. Out of this consensually validated pool of experiential knowledge, you arrive at certain laws of the spirit-at certain "profound truths", if you will."

To address the first. I find it interesting that he cites Judaism as a primary example of divine spirit in people - and he references it later on in the interview as well (I've cobbled together those portions.) We are taught - at least _I_ was - that G-d exists within our spirit as a concept (my interpretation also). So that's not all that far from what Wilber is saying, just a bit less elegant way of expressing it. He sounds almost Freudian/Jungian in his approach to the self.

The second idea I quoted interests me as well. I am a musician and can hear music in my mind. I'm able to 'translate' it to an instrument, be it my voice or one of the other instruments I play, and you can listen and hear what I'm thinking/hearing. Now, that is _my_ interpretation/translation. Does that mean that your experience of it is the same as mine? Hmm.

All in all, a interesting read. Thank you. (You see I keep my promises. )


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 22, 2004)

> I find it interesting that he cites Judaism as a primary example of divine spirit in people - and he references it later on in the interview as well (I've cobbled together those portions.) We are taught - at least I was - that G-d exists within our spirit as a concept (my interpretation also). So that's not all that far from what Wilber is saying, just a bit less elegant way of expressing it.



Yup. And, to think, he didn't even bring up the Kabbalah. 

I am interested in this "G-d exists within our spirit as a concept". What do you mean by that, exactly??



> He sounds almost Freudian/Jungian in his approach to the self.



Errr... partially. Wilber borrows heavily from both Freud and Jung, but his ideas also come from other sources (like Piaget and Maslow, among others). I will say this, though: Wilber does use a lot of Freudian terminology (sometimes in a different way than Freud did) when explaining his metaphysics.



> The second idea I quoted interests me as well. I am a musician and can hear music in my mind. I'm able to 'translate' it to an instrument, be it my voice or one of the other instruments I play, and you can listen and hear what I'm thinking/hearing. Now, that is my interpretation/translation. Does that mean that your experience of it is the same as mine? Hmm.



Well, what Wilber is talking about is that you can't "really know" what that song is like unless you hear it yourself. Someone just telling you what it sounds or feels like would be inadequate.

In regards to your querry, I would say that the experience is  basically the same for most people (due to a relatively shared objective reality), but that different individuals intepretet that experience in different ways (which can be a lot more damn complicated than it sounds). Myth of the given, and all that.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 24, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> I am interested in this "G-d exists within our spirit as a concept". What do you mean by that, exactly??
> 
> Errr... partially. Wilber borrows heavily from both Freud and Jung, but his ideas also come from other sources (like Piaget and Maslow, among others). I will say this, though: Wilber does use a lot of Freudian terminology (sometimes in a different way than Freud did) when explaining his metaphysics.


Where d'ya think Piaget and Maslow got _their_ ideas? They just took what was originally stated and refined it, making certain things more specific to certain groups. (It's a very long time ago and I'll have to pull out my Psych texts!)

G-d exists within our spirit as a concept. That is what I was taught in Hebrew school. There is no representation of G-d given to us. If you've ever been in a synagogue, there is ornamentation (depending upon how glitzy the congregation is) but no images of G-d. That's because, I was taught, that G-d exists within us and is defined by who we are as individuals. Pretty progressive for late 50s-early 60s, huh. Well, I'm a Reform Jew, which is a sect of Judaism most of the others consider might as well be Christian. *sigh* Even the Reconstructionist movement looks at us like that. Personally, my interpretation of what I was taught is that since G-d created us in his (sic) own image, then the way I communicate with G-d is through my own actions and the way I live my own life. I don't need to go into a specific building to talk to G-d, nor do I need someone to run interference for me (like a rabbi). I also don't necessarily need to agree with what G-d does all the time. (Now who sounds like a heretic?) That's as far as I'm taking this. You want to discuss? PM me.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 25, 2004)

> Where d'ya think Piaget and Maslow got their ideas? They just took what was originally stated and refined it, making certain things more specific to certain groups.



Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold up a sec.

Piaget and Maslow were surely _influenced_ by Freud, no doubt (hell, who wasn't?). But, don't mistake that as just "building upon" what he said (and refining it), as it could be argued that people like Jung and Adler did.

Piaget and Maslow were essentially putting forth very different ideas and concepts than Freud, even though they were both strongy influenced by his work. I don't think you'll find much about self-actualization, peak experiences, or formal-operational cognition in Freud's writings, y'know?  :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 25, 2004)

> G-d exists within our spirit as a concept. That is what I was taught in Hebrew school. There is no representation of G-d given to us. If you've ever been in a synagogue, there is ornamentation (depending upon how glitzy the congregation is) but no images of G-d. That's because, I was taught, that G-d exists within us and is defined by who we are as individuals. Pretty progressive for late 50s-early 60s, huh. Well, I'm a Reform Jew, which is a sect of Judaism most of the others consider might as well be Christian. *sigh* Even the Reconstructionist movement looks at us like that. Personally, my interpretation of what I was taught is that since G-d created us in his (sic) own image, then the way I communicate with G-d is through my own actions and the way I live my own life. I don't need to go into a specific building to talk to G-d, nor do I need someone to run interference for me (like a rabbi). I also don't necessarily need to agree with what G-d does all the time. (Now who sounds like a heretic?) That's as far as I'm taking this. You want to discuss? PM me.



Hrmmmm.... your view of "G-d" sounds very existentialistic. Almost like a neo-deism. 

Thanks for the explanation. Very interesting food for thought.  :asian:


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 25, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold up a sec.
> 
> Piaget and Maslow were surely _influenced_ by Freud, no doubt (hell, who wasn't?). But, don't mistake that as just "building upon" what he said (and refining it), as it could be argued that people like Jung and Adler did.
> 
> Piaget and Maslow were essentially putting forth very different ideas and concepts than Freud, even though they were both strongy influenced by his work. I don't think you'll find much about self-actualization, peak experiences, or formal-operational cognition in Freud's writings, y'know? :asian:


Refining is one thing;  building upon is very much another.  Freud was just too hung up on mommie dearest to see past it.  I also don't know that Jung or Adler 'built upon' Freud's writings.  I kinda like Jung's archetypes.  Also the concept that you could be creating those around you and they exist only because you do.  Kind of like G-d...


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 25, 2004)

> I also don't know that Jung or Adler 'built upon' Freud's writings.



Yup. Sure did.

Y'see, there are currently about four or so major "schools" of psychology: 1) Skinnerian behaviorism, 2) Freudian psychoanalysis, 3) Rogerian humanism, and 4) transpersonal psychology (representing a variety of folks ranging from Grof to Wilber --- who, curiously enough, no longer identifies himself with the transpersonal crowd).

Humanistic and transpersonal psychology usually get "lumped" together by most folks who don't know better, and are collectively referred to as "third force" psychology (as opposed to behaviorism or psychoanalysis).

In any event, Maslow is claimed by both the humanistic-existential and transpersonal schools, but not by them silly psychoanalysts. Jung, on the other hand, is most definately a psychoanalyst. Piaget was definately influenced by Freud, and probably falls moreso into the psychoanalytic school (although there are clear parallels with the humanistic approach, i.e. Maslow's hierarchy of needs).

Most of the "cognitive scientists" and neuropsychologists today are built strongly upon the materialistic claims of behaviorism.

Anyways, laterz.  :asian:


----------



## raedyn (Oct 26, 2004)

wow, it's like flashback to first year psych class...


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 26, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Yup. Sure did.
> 
> Y'see, there are currently about four or so major "schools" of psychology: 1) Skinnerian behaviorism, 2) Freudian psychoanalysis, 3) Rogerian humanism, and 4) transpersonal psychology (representing a variety of folks ranging from Grof to Wilber --- who, curiously enough, no longer identifies himself with the transpersonal crowd).
> 
> ...


When I was in college, Skinnerian psychology was brand new and thought to be a passing sub-set of psychology.  

Want to explain when transpersonal came into being?  And what, exactly, sets it apart from the other branches.  

Too bad I never kept up with my studies.  Gee, I guess having a family took precedence.

Piaget definitely belongs with Maslow, in my opinion.  I always enjoyed their views, which my Psych of Personality (among other courses) prof used to expound upon in spite of Piaget being lumped with the other Child Psychologists at that time.

Remember that there's a major age gap between us.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 26, 2004)

This discussion should probably be moved to a new thread.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 27, 2004)

> This discussion should probably be moved to a new thread.



As you wish.  :asian:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18562


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 27, 2004)

It is grossly inaccurate to represent current psychological schools in terms of Skinner, Freud, Rogers and "transpersonal,"--this wasn't even true back in the 1970s, when it was probably closest to true.

Further, Rogers is not really a psychologist, but a psychotherapist; in point of fact, all these schools of psychology would better be described as schools of psychotherapy.

Currently, Skinner's ideas are generally understood to have some value as suggesting techniques (for, example, the treatment of phobias through various "desensitization," techs); Freud's ideas are generally skipped over or treated as "primitive," Rogers is nowhere in sight except as providing some general background ideas, and the "transpersonal," stuff is employed only in quite-limited areas of upper middle-class privilege.

Current general treatment methodologies, for better or worse, tend to emphasize drug therapy where necessary and short-term psychotherapy.

Perhaps you folks are not as far distant in age as you might think.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 27, 2004)

Pssst.... wrong thread, fella.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 27, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Pssst.... wrong thread, fella.


:lol:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 27, 2004)

So even if I hadn't known that, and already posted on the other thread---should we perhaps have another Commandment about not enjoying somebody else's being caught acting stupid?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 27, 2004)

:sadsong:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 28, 2004)

Thanks, Heifetz.

Pssst...George Bush is a dweeb.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 28, 2004)

"Pssst...George Bush is a dweeb."

The hell?


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 28, 2004)

> So even if I hadn't known that, and already posted on the other thread---should we perhaps have another Commandment about not enjoying somebody else's being caught acting stupid?



Ummmm.... dunno about that, I was just trying to point out that that discussion had moved to another thread.

The "Dubya is a dweeb" comment should probably belong on another thread, too....


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 28, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> It is grossly inaccurate to represent current psychological schools in terms of Skinner, Freud, Rogers and "transpersonal,"--this wasn't even true back in the 1970s, when it was probably closest to true.
> 
> Further, Rogers is not really a psychologist, but a psychotherapist; in point of fact, all these schools of psychology would better be described as schools of psychotherapy.
> 
> ...


Glad to see I'm not as paleolithic in my knowledge as I thought.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 28, 2004)

11th Commandment: Thou shalt stay on-topic. 

 :asian:  :asian:  :asian:


----------



## Nightingale (Oct 28, 2004)

MT MOD NOTE:

C'mon guys... I'm in the middle of midterms.  Keep it on topic so I don't have to take time away from my homework to bring out the topic bat, k?

-Nightignale-
MT MODERATOR


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 28, 2004)

Nightingale said:
			
		

> MT MOD NOTE:
> 
> C'mon guys... I'm in the middle of midterms. Keep it on topic so I don't have to take time away from my homework to bring out the topic bat, k?
> 
> ...


Thanks NG, good luck on those fun exams btw...

I have yet to see any posts that address the 'continuum or rules' idea - regardless of the context/historical setting or who it did or did not apply to in the view of the followers.

Basically, if your not suppose to lie, but telling the truth is going to brutally crush a loved ones ego, do you 'sin' (in the current usage of knowingly doing something that is wrong) for the sake of "love/honoring" that person or do you tell the truth?

There are many cases on a daily basis when TC come into direct conflict with each other.  Which one takes precidence in those moments for you and why?


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 28, 2004)

> There are many cases on a daily basis when TC come into direct conflict with each other. Which one takes precidence in those moments for you and why?



For me, the morality of a situation is always dependent on its contextual situation. I find absolutisms childish and naive.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 28, 2004)

It is always wrong to kill people. There may be times when this is a lesser wrong than the consequences of not killing somebody, but killing is always wrong. So is violence; again, there may be times when violence is a lesser wrong than letting things go.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 28, 2004)

> It is always wrong to kill people. There may be times when this is a lesser wrong than the consequences of not killing somebody, but killing is always wrong. So is violence; again, there may be times when violence is a lesser wrong than letting things go.



An interesting claim --- considering "right" and "wrong" are arbitrary unless given reference points. Kinda like "light" and "dark", "up" and "down", "left" and "right", "hot" and "cold", and so on...

... and, if something happens to be the least "wrong" action in any given situation, then what you are in fact saying is that all possible actions are "wrong" and there is no "right". A truly intriguing concept, considering "wrong" means nothing unless "right" gives it a proper definition and context.

Very intriguing indeed.


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 29, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> It is always wrong to kill people. There may be times when this is a lesser wrong than the consequences of not killing somebody, but killing is always wrong. So is violence; again, there may be times when violence is a lesser wrong than letting things go.


So, as a martial artist, do you view yourself as a 'sinner' or 'premeditating murder' in your training of physical/lethal force techniques?

Context counts.  I think the laws about force/deadly force demonstrate where the American/local governmental perspective on this idea is.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 29, 2004)

There are almost always mitigating circumstances for any scenario you may propose.  My vote:  guidelines within the context of society and the situation.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Oct 29, 2004)

There are times when Killing is necessary look at Military and Law Enforcement agenices that at times are called upon to use Deadly Force to protect life and property. As Martial Artist we train in a deadly art that was designed to use lethal force when necessary that is part of the MA that you have chosen to study. That is the History of any Martial Art


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 29, 2004)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> There are times when Killing is necessary look at Military and Law Enforcement agenices that at times are called upon to use Deadly Force to protect life and property. As Martial Artist we train in a deadly art that was designed to use lethal force when necessary that is part of the MA that you have chosen to study. That is the History of any Martial Art


That is the history of culture/religion/philosophy too.  These have been the context that martial arts draws values/ethics and acceptable use definitions from.

Consider the Biblical OT and all the 'justified' killings that happend.  Samuel was the prophet that told...the leader of a Jewish nation (can't remember the name at the moment) to obliterate an entire 'other' peoples existence down to cattle farmlands and buidings....the TC only applied to member WITHIN that group.  outside of it, you were fair game.

One point that Herrie made, that I liked, was the issue of who gets to be included as "us" or excluded as "them" has had a bearing on how these codes have been applied and interpretted.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 29, 2004)

> One point that Herrie made, that I liked, was the issue of who gets to be included as "us" or excluded as "them" has had a bearing on how these codes have been applied and interpretted.



Yup. 

Its really interesting to see how this dialectic played out historically. Initially, rights and dignity would only extend to those of the same kinship lineage as you (i.e., the same 'clan' or 'tribe'). Then, they were extended to those of the same 'race' or 'people'. Eventually, it became extended further to those of the same 'nation' or 'creed' or 'culture' (this was when organized religion really started to run things). And now, some of them wacky progressive types are putting forth ideas like banishing the death penalty (thus extending the right of life to all human beings, without exception).

Of course, there is considerable overlap --- even today. The same types that are concerned with the "rights" of the fetus, for example, often have no problem with capital punishment. Strange, neh?

From the martial art side of things.... this is how it was explained to me in Ninpo: killing goes against the natural law, unless deemed absolutely necessary (i.e., no other choice). Plain and simple, you don't kill unless you absolutely have to (not because you rationalize that you have to, but unless you really have no other choice).

Laterz.


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 29, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Yup.
> 
> Its really interesting to see how this dialectic played out historically. Initially, rights and dignity would only extend to those of the same kinship lineage as you (i.e., the same 'clan' or 'tribe'). Then, they were extended to those of the same 'race' or 'people'. Eventually, it became extended further to those of the same 'nation' or 'creed' or 'culture' (this was when organized religion really started to run things). And now, some of them wacky progressive types are putting forth ideas like banishing the death penalty (thus extending the right of life to all human beings, without exception).
> 
> ...


Based on this view what is your take on 'pre-emptive' actions, whether national or personal?  What would 'have no other choice' have to look like in order for you to make the first move righteously within this logic.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 29, 2004)

> Based on this view what is your take on 'pre-emptive' actions, whether national or personal? What would 'have no other choice' have to look like in order for you to make the first move righteously within this logic.



It really depends on the circumstances. I don't think the pre-emptive strike in Iraq was justified morally, if thats what you're referring to. Then again, I'm not altogether sure whether individual morality and national morality are really the same thing (i.e., you can't always "turn the other cheek" or "walk away from it" when you're a responsible nation)...

When it comes to personal matters, I adopt the Ninpo philosophy of simply walking away.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 29, 2004)

So, is it fair to say that the concensus seems to be that the 10 commandments are currently perceived or applied as more of a continuum than a cut and dried "carved in stone" set of behavioural laws?


----------



## GAB (Oct 29, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Thanks NG, good luck on those fun exams btw...
> 
> I have yet to see any posts that address the 'continuum or rules' idea - regardless of the context/historical setting or who it did or did not apply to in the view of the followers.
> 
> ...


Hi, I feel that if in doubt tell the truth, it will rise its head (lie) and then it will be worse... 
I think truth is the answer. Truth to one is a lie to another.. sometimes you can't win, however, you have to be able to know you are trying the best and lieing is a not a good..

Someone say's I got to tell you something, but you can't tell anyone... I say don't tell me, talk to a Priest or Doctor. Don't drag me into this, because I will not lie to cover you up...

Many times I have been put in bad situations, for better or worse I would tell the truth, you screw up and lie and get caught you are in double trouble...

One time an officer who did something pretty bad was being covered up by a few of his buddies. He was bragging about how he was going to skate, I was senior on the watch and had to tell IAD the story, the guy was suspended for lieing but not for what he had done..

I am glad it went that way and not back on me, I was considered OK because I did not abuse persons or lie. There are enough bad guys out there without us being one...Contrary to some thoughts on this board... Regards, Gary


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 30, 2004)

> So, is it fair to say that the concensus seems to be that the 10 commandments are currently perceived or applied as more of a continuum than a cut and dried "carved in stone" set of behavioural laws?



I would say that is how most modern religious adherents (in the West anyways) perceive them. There are exceptions, of course.

 :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 30, 2004)

> however, you have to be able to know you are trying the best and lieing is a not a good..



"Lying" is not "good", eh??

So, tell me.... when German families were lying to the Nazi soldiers about the Jewish refugees they had hiding in their cellars.... was that "bad"??

Personally, I don't think so.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 30, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> "Lying" is not "good", eh??
> 
> So, tell me.... when German families were lying to the Nazi soldiers about the Jewish refugees they had hiding in their cellars.... was that "bad"??
> 
> Personally, I don't think so.


What hasnt been mentioned (unless I missed it) is what is the persons frame of mind (mens rea: in legalize)? Is there "evil" intent behind a persons actions? Are you lying to save a Jewish family or to scam some old person out of his life savings? Are you killing in self-defense or killing to silence a witness to a crime?




> mens rea definition  in most cases, an act is a crime because the person committing it intended to do something wrong. This mental state is generally referred to as Mens rea, or guilty mind. Mens rea expresses a belief that people should be punished only when they have acted in a way that makes them morally blameworthy.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 30, 2004)

The legal exceptions to the above being criminal negligence and reckless actions. In brief, situations where a "normal" person should have "known better"......


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 30, 2004)

> What hasnt been mentioned (unless I missed it) is what is the persons frame of mind (mens rea: in legalize)? Is there "evil" intent behind a persons actions? Are you lying to save a Jewish family or to scam some old person out of his life savings? Are you killing in self-defense or killing to silence a witness to a crime?



Well said. 

Personally, I believe that motivation and intention (which are an undeniable part of the context of the situation) are among the major factors in determining morality of actions.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 30, 2004)

The problem is not going off the deep end into moral relativism....in this country, killing your daughter because she was the victim of a rape is wrong regardless of your ethnic background.


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 1, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The problem is not going off the deep end into moral relativism....in this country, killing your daughter because she was the victim of a rape is wrong regardless of your ethnic background.


True on paper, but based on the legal outcomes, what message could be percieved about how sympathetic or permissive society is for such actions?  They may find him guilty, but the sentencing might be so mild (depending on record, circumstances, emotional state....) that you would have to wonder if it was done just to satisfy the legal process.

Current laws discourage the 'eye for an eye' actions, but people who are applying the law as a living thing might be doing the 'continuum' thing in how they apply it.

I think the whole point of this thread for me was that people tend to stop exploring faith, religion/philosophy at a relatively 'elementary' level and then form judgements (not just opinions but full blown prejudicial stances) about them/it based on that 'elementary' level of understanding.

Children are taught (at least now, among the people I know who are active in religious education) that the TC are 'rules' that you try to live by, but at no point (even during the teen years when they are developing those abilities to discuss/discourse the grey areas) does the 'continuum' reality of how these things are going to be applied get discusses.

Much like Herrie has mentioned about Western/Judeo Christian religion before, using the pattern of responses or which TC 'rules' you tend to apply more than others can be used as a tool for self discovery is not mentioned IMO because the focus in on the community and not the personal spiritual growth.
THere are elements that touch spiritual growth, but the major focus does seem to be social order in the 'body' of the faith.

Even the lack of topical discussion responses, to me, is an indication that people don't really reflect on these fundamentals of the faith - whether they are bashers or believers.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 1, 2004)

> True on paper, but based on the legal outcomes, what message could be percieved about how sympathetic or permissive society is for such actions? They may find him guilty, but the sentencing might be so mild (depending on record, circumstances, emotional state....) that you would have to wonder if it was done just to satisfy the legal process.



Here is an excellent point where I would say that individual morality and national morality can differ. I would say that laws should be more concerned with the stability, welfare, peace, and order of the society --- not of getting people to "be good" or "avoid evil". That kinda stuff should be left to the individual (in a democracy, anyway).

The liberal State can not impose any favored version of the Good Life --- each individual is free to explore their own sense of morals as they see fit, provided they do not invade the rights of others (thus causing disorder and chaos, something the liberal State can do something about).

This is why, for example, that hate groups like the Klu Klux Klan are perfectly free to believe what they believe, gather together and discuss it, and even have parades and rallies about it --- but, they are _not_ free to invade the rights of others through violence, theft, or destruction of property. The social State is responsible for order and peace, not ethics and morality.

That's how I see it, anyway.



> Much like Herrie has mentioned about Western/Judeo Christian religion before, using the pattern of responses or which TC 'rules' you tend to apply more than others can be used as a tool for self discovery is not mentioned IMO because the focus in on the community and not the personal spiritual growth.



In my opinion, this is because of the history of "personal spirituality" in Western societies as a whole. 

Jesus (if you believe he existed) and al Hallaj were both crucified for exclaiming the ultimate mystical statement that, "I and the Divine are One". Johannes Eckhart's writings were made anathema upon his death. Origen, celebrated as perhaps the greatest Christian intellectual during his lifetime, was later demonized by the literalists centuries after his death. The Gnostics were all but destroyed by the Catholic Church. Quakers have been ridiculed and persecuted for centuries. Sufis are commonly persecuted by more mainline Muslims in the Middle East. Kabbalah has a long history of needing to hide its adherents from conventional Judaism. Neoplatonism and Hermeticism have both been typically underground movements.

Generally, mature pronouncements of spiritual growth are reserved behind the doors of monasteries --- as we see with the Hesychast tradition within the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Laterz.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 2, 2004)

One of my favorite quotes about Law by Abraham Lincoln....



> I know the American People are much attached to their Government;--I know they would suffer much for its sake;--I know they would endure evils long and patiently, before they would ever think of exchanging it f or another. Yet, notwithstanding all this, if the laws be continually despised and disregarded, if their rights to be secure in their persons and property, are held by no better tenure than the caprice of a mob, the alienation of their affections from the Government is the natural consequence; and to that, sooner or later, it must come.
> 
> Here then, is one point at which danger may be expected.
> 
> ...


----------



## PeachMonkey (Nov 3, 2004)

I think it is healthy to balance your respect for the law with respect for that which is right, for there are laws so unjust that they cannot be obeyed.

This balance is delicate, of course, for it can lead to "Ends Justify The Means" mentalities which I rarely, if ever, support.

I recommend the short reading of Henry David Thoreau's "On Civil Disobedience", Martin Luther King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail", and Mohandas K. Ghandi's "Satyagraha in South Africa".  All are available free on the interweb.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Nov 4, 2004)

I just stumbled on another quote that addresses the idea of law vs. action:

"Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience... Therefore [individual citizens] have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring."

This quote came from the Nuremberg Tribunal that tried European war criminals after the Second World War.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 4, 2004)

Indeed. Which is why I differentiated between "individual" morality and "national" morality. 

In my opinion, the two are directed at completely different purposes. Ideally, anyway.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 4, 2004)

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_RuleOfLaw.html

The Rule of Law:
The Rule of Law is a concept required for a free society, where individual rights are absolute. Its basic premise is that the use of force is tightly controlled by objective, predefined laws. It is opposed to the Rule of Men, where those wielding power can use force in any way they choose. Where the whims, envy, or viciousness of the few are unchecked by any restrictions, and everyone else's lives are at the complete mercy of these thugs. 

The Rule of Law is the system that subordinates the use of force to specific rules. It is based on the premise that some uses of force are wrong (the initiation of force), and some applications of force are right (retaliatory force). It is based on the understanding that the peaceful, productive interaction of men is conditional on individual rights, and the use of force can make that impossible. That all men must obey the law and respect others rights. 

The Rule of Law in practice means a system of objective, predefined laws governing the use of force among people. It means the establishment of a government as a means of enforcing those laws. It means requiring the government to obey those same laws.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Nov 4, 2004)

The Rule of Law is, of course, a fundamental concept that anyone who accepts the value of society has to recognize.

However, there has to be some sort of continuum that deals with laws that are so unjust, so wrong, that they cannot be obeyed.  These are the areas that the writings of Ghandi, of King, of Thoreau, and of the Nuremburg Tribunal deal with.


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 5, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> The Rule of Law is, of course, a fundamental concept that anyone who accepts the value of society has to recognize.
> 
> However, there has to be some sort of continuum that deals with laws that are so unjust, so wrong, that they cannot be obeyed. These are the areas that the writings of Ghandi, of King, of Thoreau, and of the Nuremburg Tribunal deal with.


The point isn't a continuum to deal with 'unjust laws' but to discuss how, either socially or individually, the way that people 'continuum up' these laws in application.

It is one thing to say "don't lie, it's wrong" but when that is in direct opposition in a given moment, how you reconcile it will reveal what your personal priorities (or social priorities) are.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 5, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> The Rule of Law is, of course, a fundamental concept that anyone who accepts the value of society has to recognize.
> 
> However, there has to be some sort of continuum that deals with laws that are so unjust, so wrong, that they cannot be obeyed. These are the areas that the writings of Ghandi, of King, of Thoreau, and of the Nuremburg Tribunal deal with.


There are also laws that are "on the books" that are routinely ignored. Society has moved past the written law but its left either out of bureaucratic sloth or as a "might need it later" option. Adultery is still a misdemeanor "on the books" in NY but its never (as far as I know) prosecuted. Be that as it may, its still a law that should be obeyed morally. With exceptions like extended separation, abusive relationships etc. aside......


----------



## PeachMonkey (Nov 5, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Adultery is still a misdemeanor "on the books" in NY but its never (as far as I know) prosecuted. Be that as it may, its still a law that should be obeyed morally. With exceptions like extended separation, abusive relationships etc. aside......



There are a number of problems with legislating moral behavior like adultery.

First, there's the fact that people of all religious and political spectrums commit it; some people do it when lonely and sad, others do it if their marriages fall apart, others do it because they're greedy... regardless, enforcing it would become too much of a burden, and perhaps helped lead to a recognition that it's the kind of behavior that few people approve, but is silly to legislate.

Moreover, some people marry while still expressly agreeing to sleep with, or even love, people outside of the marriage contract.  Most commonly found among the polyamorous, this sort of relationship helps highlight how dated and useless adultery law is (and, moreover, how the concept of marriage is not strictly based on Judeo-Christian concepts).

Regardless of all of this, the writers I spoke of were far more interested in more dangerous and unjust laws than this.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 5, 2004)

Yeah, I dont believe I disagreed with that. Just used adultery as an example of unenforced law..............


----------

