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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (23783)	10/2/2002 3:55:17 PM
From: Moominoid	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

There are big differences between those modern day cults and the ancient religions like Hinduism or Judaism (which evolved from the Canaanite and erlier beliefs). Christianity more fits that model but how many followers did Jesus have in his lifetime? Muhammad is certainly getting nearer this modern model. I don't think you could describe Buddha in that way. So maybe over time there has been a trend towards hero-worshipping cults from more organic religions.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (23783)	10/2/2002 7:15:15 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

<David feeling is not just as legitimate as thinking. > I think you mis-speak... how can one be more 'legitimate' than the other. Do you mean on is 'better'... or 'more effective' at cetain tasks??? Perhaps tasks that you value? <But it's like an engine with no steering. It's the brains which steer the feelings. > With this analogy you negate your above assertion. Besides, often the brain 'causes' the feelings by not accepting what is happening. And often the brain simply keeps steering into pain and suffering... why is that? <<But apart from that, feelings are not very measurable. We can't objectively measure somebody else's feelings>> So drop them and look at something that can be measured??? LOL <Religious feelings are notably irrational - leading to all sorts of horrendous violence. > You mean unlike violence over land, race, food, and water? <<Sure, specialisation of labour manned the institution, but the concentration of power, getting the girls, food and money was the driving force. >> Again, you negate your assertion above... certainly all this happends with or without what one might call 'religion'. <<Check out all the religions [especially the minor cults which can be examined in real time, like David Koresh, Jim Jones, the Heaven's Gate Wackoes, Moonies etc and look who is at the top and who started it - a randy, self-important greedy guy who just loved telling other people what to do, especially the girls]. >> First of all the teaching of all the major religions are practically the opposite of what you're saying. Jesus, the Buddha, etc were supposedly what they were BECAUSE they exemplifed what the rest of the world was NOT [which is greedy, self-important... etc etc.]. One doesnt' have to know anything about religion to see this. AS for 'minor cults, etc'.... you could take a fraction of the 'new age spiritual' type [spin off from the east I suppose] in the US and they would far outnumber ALL those groups... they are 'new', yet don't make front page news... they're back health club section under 'yoga' and such. I thought the brain 'steered'??? Your broad brushstrokes are simply so many bytes spit off your hard disk stored there over the years from watching news and reading magazines... I don't see much 'steering' of the information. Better fire up some more 'RAM' for this discussion. DAK