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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (269)	2/28/2002 7:40:15 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Uh...yeaah...there's that, of course. I was offering a fresh perspective for ponderers; but simply reacting has merit too. siliconinvestor.com

To: thames_sider who wrote (269)	2/28/2002 10:00:47 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

What you said.

To: thames_sider who wrote (269)	3/1/2002 7:07:16 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 21057

The Hindus ultimately worship Brahm, of which the Trimurti (Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva) is the principal manifestation, and the Devi (gods like Ganesha and Indra) are manifestation of Brahm as revealed in nature. Shamans generally acknowledge a universal force that manifests itself in the various natural phenomena. Shintoism counts all of the Emperors as ultimately emanating from the Sun God. But it wouldn't matter much, since the tales that are told among various cultures are no substitute for the results of philosophical reflection, and a sounder conception of what God would be like, any more than their accounts of nature are a substitute for science. The Crusades were not merely a serious of religious wars. Specifically, they were a response to attacks on the Byzantine Empire, and the prospect of Muslim control of places sacred to Christians, which had been under Byzantine control, especially Bethlehem and Jerusalem. They were not arbitrary "butt kicking". Heresy is not a belief in another religion, it is distortion of the truth of the religion one professes. It is particularly important in the history of Christianity because of the emphasis placed on correct belief. In Judaism, where there is an emphasis on praxis, it is hard to define the content of orthodoxy, and it is a misnomer to term highly observant Jews "orthodox". Additionally, the attitude to competing religions will often differ. The Rabbis speak of the Noahides, the "sons of Noah", gentiles who do not have the full Torah, but who worship God and pursue justice. Catholics believe in "invincible ignorance", although the term has become more elastic in recent years. Originally, it was applied to those who, through no fault of their own, had never been evangelized, but whose thirst for righteousness constituted a "baptism of desire". Nowadays, there are those who would apply it to anyone who is too culturally alienated from Christianity to comprehend the truth. Also, in Catholicism, some people believed that the Great Pagans, like Socrates, were rescued from with Adam and Abraham, and some believed, like Dante, that the lived in kind of Paradise of Reason, inferior to communion with God in Heaven, but superior to Hell proper. There is, in fact, no reason to question the sincerity of those who originated or perpetuated most great religions. The Buddha did not profit from his teaching, in fact, he renounced a kingdom, and those who followed did not generally hold power as they spread his teaching, but remained simple monks. Moses renounced his status as a Prince of Egypt in order to lead former slaves into the desert, and finally to die there. Christ and almost all of his disciples were crucified for their trouble. Is it mystical nonsense to believe that there is an underlying order and meaning to the universe? Does it have no social value to see the positive law as being subject to the moral law, and therefore subject to revision as we better learn from experience and reflect upon first principles? Is there something wrong with believing in the Fatherhood of God, and therefore the Brotherhood of Men? Is it superior to believe that morality is just what a society happens to believe at any given time, and that we are not called to improvement? Is it superior to believe that all that we care about is irrelevant in the total scheme of things, and that they matter to us merely because of chemical combinations in our brain, so that our deepest concerns and sentiments are somehow illusory? There is as much or more reason to respect and give privileges to the various religions as to subsidize museums or symphonies or charities........