Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: James Calladine who wrote (9513)	1/17/2002 9:11:43 PM
From: Bill Fischofer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

I agree. Incivility weakens any argument. Disagreement can be vigorous without being rancorous. At times it may seem to require effort, but civility in discourse is a habit well worth cultivating.

To: James Calladine who wrote (9513)	1/17/2002 9:15:36 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Ideas are not equal in respect to how well they support or undermine the various arguments which occur on this thread. If the words of Adi Da, or testimony from others, lends either support or disrepute to his teachings...they ought to be presented as a challenge to such teachings. Likewise, with regard to the policies, principles, or dogmas of any particular bible, philosophy, or belief system. You seem to be suggesting that everyone adopt an attitude of non critical thinking, and indiscriminate acceptance. I think such hypocrisy would negate the potential value in people sharing and testing ideas for a learning purpose. In that regard, when people put on airs implying they are better people because of their "absolute morality" as opposed to the morality of (for instance) a card carrying secular humanist--then they have every right to expect that the absurdities, cruelties, and inanities of their source will be subjected to exposure and examination. Public documents may certainly be ridiculed; and if they have harmed humanity then they ought to be. Sometimes it is difficult to separate the criticism (say) of an ancient book, from the person professing the beliefs. Some slippage is bound to occur, especially if gratuitous insults and misrepresentations have been previously extended. People need to acquire thick skins if they are going to discuss such personal issues as religion. The field of religion often has natural roots in ethnic/racial exclusion and "superiority." There are a number of wars flowering today as testimony to this. So one expects some hard feelings in a forum where "certainties" are bound to clash...and where agnostics might be tempted to prick the balloons of those who would pretend to speak and act for God. Your framework of "some" mutual respect is fairly elastic and relative. There will always be those who think someone is or is not transgressing that rather arbitrary line. Then again, over long periods of time respect can simply be eroded by familiarity. The question of whether or not it should then be faked is perhaps a moral one more fully suited to the consideration of someone with truly moral qualities--such as your spiritual teacher...