The End of Christian America

[just me]

"In human relations, ____ demands sacrifice, self-constraint, kindness, humility, patience, forgiveness, and love of one's fellow human beings. Like the great religions, ____ teaches you not to cause pain and suffering but to actively prevent them. It is up to you to learn to control a hot temper, for instance, and to develop a reserve that leaves you indifferent to the abuse of others, even though you know you can destroy them if you choose to.
not finished
For practitioners of ____, victory through dishonor is despised. One must fight honorably or be dishonored. The ultimate good lies not in winning a hundred battles, but in overcoming a man or an army without conflict.
____ has been described as a state of mind. It goes far beyond physical speed, strength, and grace. It is a way of life. In its simplest sense, ____
is doing anything perfectly, without ego, and in harmony with the Universe."
from "Advancing in Tae Kwon Do" by Richard Chun

my chosen key words.....without conflict

 

[EloquentBohemian]

Don't be angry. This is what religion does to people. It makes them close their minds to the world. The more I see it, the more at peace I am because the more assured I am of the validity of my position.

Science will close people's minds, as well. To not entertain the possibilities and probabilities that there may be more to Existence than our senses can comprehend and our tools can verify, is to remain closed-minded.
I know may people who are deeply religious whose minds are not closed. They see the advances of Science and applaud them.
I also know many in scientific fields who are rational and deeply spiritual simultaneously. They see no conflict in this.
To make a statement such as "This is what religion does to people" is a generalization and negates the philosophies inherent in Jainism and Buddhism, to name but two.

Metaphorically, life is a multi-faceted jewel with countless faces.
Again, as metaphor, science and spirituality look at the same wall, and this wall represents Reality, but they look from opposite sides.
On one side, science sees the reality of the wall as rough and detailed, worthy of measurment, classification, categorization and worthy of exploration.
On the other side, spirituality sees the reality of the wall as smooth and transluscent as liquid glass, worthy of gazing at in wonder as it shifts and flows and worthy also, of exploration.

Then there are those who will climb to the top of the wall and gaze at one side and then the other. These individuals realize that there are two sides to the wall, equally intriguing and equally relevant, equally marvelous and equally mysterious, but in reality, merely one wall.

Oh, that we all could climb this wall which divides us.

 

[Satya]

"In human relations, ____ demands sacrifice, self-constraint, kindness, humility, patience, forgiveness, and love of one's fellow human beings. Like the great religions, ____ teaches you not to cause pain and suffering but to actively prevent them. It is up to you to learn to control a hot temper, for instance, and to develop a reserve that leaves you indifferent to the abuse of others, even though you know you can destroy them if you choose to.
not finished
For practitioners of ____, victory through dishonor is despised. One must fight honorably or be dishonored. The ultimate good lies not in winning a hundred battles, but in overcoming a man or an army without conflict.
____ has been described as a state of mind. It goes far beyond physical speed, strength, and grace. It is a way of life. In its simplest sense, ____
is doing anything perfectly, without ego, and in harmony with the Universe."
from "Advancing in Tae Kwon Doe" by Richard Chun

I'm a 2nd degree black belt in Tae Kwon Do. What is your point?

Oh, that we all could climb this wall which divides us.

If it isn't religion, then do you care to explain why people like JM choose to ignore any information which contradicts their beliefs? Why are some people so proud of all the things they don't think about? I don't mind you contradicting my generalization, but please do interject an alternative explaination.

 

[Tarakini]

Science will close people's minds, as well. To not entertain the possibilities and probabilities that there may be more to Existence than our senses can comprehend and our tools can verify, is to remain closed-minded.
I know may people who are deeply religious whose minds are not closed. They see the advances of Science and applaud them.
I also know many in scientific fields who are rational and deeply spiritual simultaneously. They see no conflict in this.
To make a statement such as "This is what religion does to people" is a generalization and negates the philosophies inherent in Jainism and Buddhism, to name but two.

Metaphorically, life is a multi-faceted jewel with countless faces.
Again, as metaphor, science and spirituality look at the same wall, and this wall represents Reality, but they look from opposite sides.
On one side, science sees the reality of the wall as rough and detailed, worthy of measurment, classification, categorization and worthy of exploration.
On the other side, spirituality sees the reality of the wall as smooth and transluscent as liquid glass, worthy of gazing at in wonder as it shifts and flows and worthy also, of exploration.

Then there are those who will climb to the top of the wall and gaze at one side and then the other. These individuals realize that there are two sides to the wall, equally intriguing and equally relevant, equally marvelous and equally mysterious, but in reality, merely one wall.

Oh, that we all could climb this wall which divides us.

This is quite lovely. How did you learn these things?

 

[EloquentBohemian]

If it isn't religion, then do you care to explain why people like JM choose to ignore any information which contradicts their beliefs? Why are some people so proud of all the things they don't think about?

I don't see how this is relevant to my post. I am not here to explain people like JM any more than I am here to explain people like you.
My point is that we must cease trying to prove who is right and who is wrong because it all rests on individual perception and what one accepts as the parameters one views the world by.
We, as a species, would accomplish much more by respecting the views of others - which doesn't imply accepting those views - rather than endlessly arguing about them.

I don't mind you contradicting my generalization, but please do interject an alternative explaination.

You gave no explanation for this generalization: "This is what religion does to people. It makes them close their minds to the world." Why do you in turn demand an explanation from me?
Your statement is a logical fallacy of a faulty generalization. You concluded, without any supporting evidence, that religion as a whole, any religion - for you did not specify a particular one, closes people's minds. In what way does Buddhism close minds? In what way does Jainism? In what way does the Bahai Faith?

The thrust of my post is to show that these agruments will continue as long as either side does not see the other's side.
I see from multiple sides and find them all relevant and probable - the operative word here being: probable.
You cannot prove that any deity does not exist or that any religion is wrong any more than JM can prove that a deity exists or any religion is right.
The arguments are pointless and meaningless on both sides.
Either climb the wall and view each other's side or tear the wall down.
Argue about what the barrier is made of or remove the barrier.
The choice is up to both of you.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

This is quite lovely. How did you learn these things?

By living and listening, learning how to respect the thoughts of another because they were not my thoughts, and not trying to prove my point of view, rather, merely state my thoughts without force.
If philosophies such as Zen and Existentialism taught me anything, it is that the universe will provide no answers nor will it validate anyone's point of view.

 

[Tarakini]

I don't see how this is relevant to my post. I am not here to explain people like JM any more than I am here to explain people like you.
My point is that we must cease trying to prove who is right and who is wrong because it all rests on individual perception and what one accepts as the parameters one views the world by.
We, as a species, would accomplish much more by respecting the views of others - which doesn't imply accepting those views - rather than endlessly arguing about them.

You gave no explanation for this generalization: "This is what religion does to people. It makes them close their minds to the world." Why do you in turn demand an explanation from me?
Your statement is a logical fallacy of a faulty generalization. You concluded, without any supporting evidence, that religion as a whole, any religion - for you did not specify a particular one, closes people's minds. In what way does Buddhism close minds? In what way does Jainism? In what way does the Bahai Faith?

The thrust of my post is to show that these agruments will continue as long as either side does not see the other's side.
I see from multiple sides and find them all relevant and probable - the operative word here being: probable.
You cannot prove that any deity does not exist or that any religion is wrong any more than JM can prove that a deity exists or any religion is right.
The arguments are pointless and meaningless on both sides.
Either climb the wall and view each other's side or tear the wall down.
Argue about what the barrier is made of or remove the barrier.
The choice is up to both of you.

You are looking from the point on the top of the mountaintop and this is wonderful and all but one certain path that is for one to take is not always the same path for another to take. Granted, it seems silly to say that this or that path is the better, as it is all subjective to the particular pathtaker. In short, there are no walls to break down other than in the wall creator's own minds. There are walls sometimes for some of us that we didn't create for ourselves, and these are our teachers and our unlimiters, and for these we give thinks. - erf' I mean "thanks!"

 

[Tarakini]

By living and listening, learning how to respect the thoughts of another because they were not my thoughts, and not trying to prove my point of view, rather, merely state my thoughts without force.
If philosophies such as Zen and Existentialism taught me anything, it is that the universe will provide no answers nor will it validate anyone's point of view.

Your reasoning is of gentle rain trying to sway the grasses into tenderlings of gracious hearts such as you may be yourself, and for such reasonings your heart might become the tutor of even the gods, but this remains un-ascertained, but your heart is ascertained by it's own inherent beneficence or pure reasonings. Pure reasonings of logical reasons must only spring from pure motivations, and pure motivations must be by their very difinitionings be the true source of all things pure.

 

[Satya]

I don't see how this is relevant to my post. I am not here to explain people like JM any more than I am here to explain people like you.
My point is that we must cease trying to prove who is right and who is wrong because it all rests on individual perception and what one accepts as the parameters one views the world by.
We, as a species, would accomplish much more by respecting the views of others - which doesn't imply accepting those views - rather than endlessly arguing about them.

But if someone doesn't even bother reading your views, then clearly they don't have any respect for them.

You gave no explanation for this generalization: "This is what religion does to people. It makes them close their minds to the world." Why do you in turn demand an explanation from me?
Your statement is a logical fallacy of a faulty generalization. You concluded, without any supporting evidence, that religion as a whole, any religion - for you did not specify a particular one, closes people's minds. In what way does Buddhism close minds? In what way does Jainism? In what way does the Bahai Faith?

I'm not arguing about the generalization, merely that was only one aspect of the post. In the context of the thread, I was discussing why JM wasn't bothering to read the article I posted. You came into the thread and commented on only one post I made without grasping why I made the generalization that I made. And you provided no alternative explaination for what I was really arguing.

The thrust of my post is to show that these agruments will continue as long as either side does not see the other's side.
I see from multiple sides and find them all relevant and probable - the operative word here being: probable.
You cannot prove that any deity does not exist or that any religion is wrong any more than JM can prove that a deity exists or any religion is right.
The arguments are pointless and meaningless on both sides.
Either climb the wall and view each other's side or tear the wall down.
Argue about what the barrier is made of or remove the barrier.
The choice is up to both of you.

My purpose was to prove JM wrong about his views of the founding fathers. He is the one who continually interjects rhetoric into every discussion. Rhetoric which I will always challenge as long as he continues to post it.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

Actually, I've been following this thread quite closely and have read the links supplied. I take no issue at the discussion, only the generalization about religion you made. Generalizations do not advance a discussion.

The other point I wish to make, and I have seen and heard it in countless discussions of this sort, is that the rule of empirical proof of a statement will never apply in a matter of personal faith. It cannot be measured. It cannot be quantified. It cannot be catergorized.

I ask no one to accept or believe what another says, only to respect it.

 

[Satya]

Actually, I've been following this thread quite closely and have read the links supplied. I take no issue at the discussion, only the generalization about religion you made. Generalizations do not advance a discussion.

The other point I wish to make, and I have seen and heard it in countless discussions of this sort, is that the rule of empirical proof of a statement will never apply in a matter of personal faith. It cannot be measured. It cannot be quantified. It cannot be catergorized.

I ask no one to accept or believe what another says, only to respect it.

As I said, I don't think it is very respectful for a person to claim to know more than you on a topic but not even read what you have to say about it. JM has made it quite clear in this thread and others that he feels that he knows what the founding fathers had in mind and anyone who disagrees with him is in need of an education in history. Am I to respect the views of someone who has made it quite clear that they don't even consider mine worth reading?

 

[EloquentBohemian]

As I said, I don't think it is very respectful for a person to claim to know more than you on a topic but not even read what you have to say about it. JM has made it quite clear in this thread and others that he feels that he knows what the founding fathers had in mind and anyone who disagrees with him is in need of an education in history. Am I to respect the views of someone who has made it quite clear that they don't even consider mine worth reading?

Though in this case, between you and JM, if he has not read what you have to say, this is between you and him.
Most of the theological and religious world would not approve or respect my opinons, but that does not mean that I shall be like them and not respect theirs. Respect does not imply acceptance. It does not even imply refusal to discuss points of view; it implies only respect.

As I said, it is not the discussion between you and JM I posted issue with, it is your statement - "This is what religion does to people. It makes them close their minds to the world." - and this staement only. You made a generaliztion with no supporting evidence.
Granted, JM has made statements without supporting evidence, but they were in the context of the ongoing discussion. This statement of yours lumps all religions under one conclusion which more than implies that religions close people's minds. How do you come to this conclusion?

I consider that my mind, and the minds of others I know, were opened by our experiences within certain religions, for me specifically, my involvement with the Bahai Faith and with Zen; and though I did not remain within their boundaries, I would not have gained the breadth of mind and respect for other's views I have now without those religious experiences.
Similarily, I would not have this breadth of mind and respect without my study of Existentialist and Absurdist schools of thought either.

 

[Satya]

Though in this case, between you and JM, if he has not read what you have to say, this is between you and him.

Then why did you even bother to post? Obviously you didn't like my short little generalization, but that had very little to do with what we were discussing, and as you said, you were following the thread very closely so you should have been aware that was the case.

As I said, it is not the discussion between you and JM I posted issue with, it is your statement - "This is what religion does to people. It makes them close their minds to the world." - and this staement only. You made a generaliztion with no supporting evidence.
Granted, JM has made statements without supporting evidence, but they were in the context of the ongoing discussion. This statement of yours lumps all religions under one conclusion which more than implies that religions close people's minds. How do you come to this conclusion?

As I said before, my support is JM and people like him. That is how I substantiate that position. Unless you wish to propose an alternative explaination for why JM has closed his mind to information which conflicts with his beliefs. I generalized it a bit and could have narrowed it down to "This is what orthodox Abrahamic religion does to people." Would that have bothered you as much?

I consider that my mind, and the minds of others I know, were opened by our experiences within certain religions, for me specifically, my involvement with the Bahai Faith and with Zen; and though I did not remain within their boundaries, I would not have gained the breadth of mind and respect for other's views I have now without those religious experiences.
Similarily, I would not have this breadth of mind and respect without my study of Existentialist and Absurdist schools of thought either.

I've studied religion and philosophy in depth as well. But that doesn't mean I have to respect the views of someone who doesn't respect my views enough to even read them, as you seem to have suggested I should on more than one occasion in this thread.

 

[bamf]

Satya, you said it and EB disagreed, it is completely relevant to the post.

And food for thought, the founding fathers thought common people (and I assume most people on this forum fall into this category) should have only superficial say in government, most owned slaves, and many were racist. Should we continue on that tradition as well?

 

[Satya]

Satya, you said it and EB disagreed, it is completely relevant to the post.

The post was referring to JM, and EB took two lines out of context to argue a generalization I made because he saw an opportunity to preach respect for others views. He did so right after JM made the exact same argument. (see the Tae Kwon Do post) Considering JM wasn't even bothering to read my views, he was being very disrespectful, and thus very hypocritical. So that leaves me free to ask EB for an alternative explaination for why JM won't read my views and why I should respect JM's views even though he clearly doesn't respect mine. If EB wishes to preach, then that is fine, but I reserve the right to question the motives and thinking of the preacher.

And food for thought, the founding fathers thought common people (and I assume most people on this forum fall into this category) should have only superficial say in government, most owned slaves, and many were racist. Should we continue on that tradition as well?

1. Common people in the 18th century were a bit different than common people of the 21st century. Many of the "common people" alive today have more education than some of the founding fathers.
2. Slavery was considered culturally and morally acceptable at the time, and many of the founding fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson, held rather uncommon views that it should be done away with. Thomas Jefferson himself proclaimed that if he was ever out of debt then he would free all his slaves.
3. Science back in the 18th centruy taught that people of different races were actually of a different species. It was a view that persisted all the way into the 20th century until improvements in the feild of genetics finally ended it.

If you judge most of the founding fathers relative to their time, then you will find they were actually increadibly educated and open minded people. Thomas Jefferson wanted to castrate people found guilty of homosexual acts, which today would seem attrocious, but back in his day would have been seen as a very liberal minded positon.

 

[bamf]

The post was referring to JM, and EB took two lines out of context to argue a generalization I made because he saw an opportunity to preach respect for others views. He did so right after JM made the exact same argument. (see the Tae Kwon Do post) Considering JM wasn't even bothering to read my views, he was being very disrespectful, and thus very hypocritical. So that leaves me free to ask EB for an alternative explaination for why JM won't read my views and why I should respect JM's views even though he clearly doesn't respect mine. If EB wishes to preach, then that is fine, but I reserve the right to question the motives and thinking of the preacher.

1. Common people in the 18th century were a bit different than common people of the 21st century. Many of the "common people" alive today have more education than some of the founding fathers.
2. Slavery was considered culturally and morally acceptable at the time, and many of the founding fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson, held rather uncommon views that it should be done away with. Thomas Jefferson himself proclaimed that if he was ever out of debt then he would free all his slaves.
3. Science back in the 18th centruy taught that people of different races were actually of a different species. It was a view that persisted all the way into the 20th century until improvements in the feild of genetics finally ended it.

If you judge most of the founding fathers relative to their time, then you will find they were actually increadibly educated and open minded people. Thomas Jefferson wanted to castrate people found guilty of homosexual acts, which today would seem attrocious, but back in his day would have been seen as a very liberal minded positon.

I am curious where you got this information, not because I doubt it but because I want to read more on it (especially all of these things about Jefferson).

 

[Cecilff2]

As I said before, my support is JM and people like him. That is how I substantiate that position. Unless you wish to propose an alternative explaination for why JM has closed his mind to information which conflicts with his beliefs. I generalized it a bit and could have narrowed it down to "This is what orthodox Abrahamic religion does to people." Would that have bothered you as much?

It doesn't matter. Just one person to the contrary of that statement invalidates it. If you're looking for an explanation of the problem, I'd say it's stubborness. You don't have to be religious to vehemently deny any truth.

 

[Satya]

I am curious where you got this information, not because I doubt it but because I want to read more on it (especially all of these things about Jefferson).

I heard it on a History Channel documentary, but it isn't hard to find references on the internet to Jefferson's thinking.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7842/archives/slaves5.htm

 

[Satya]

It doesn't matter. Just one person to the contrary of that statement invalidates it. If you're looking for an explanation of the problem, I'd say it's stubborness. You don't have to be religious to vehemently deny any truth.

I'll accept stubbornness as an alternative explaination. And I never said that orthodox religious beliefs make all people who believe them ignore conflicting information, only that it does do that to people. If it does it to some people, then my statement is true.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

The post was referring to JM, and EB took two lines out of context to argue a generalization I made because he saw an opportunity to preach respect for others views. He did so right after JM made the exact same argument. (see the Tae Kwon Do post) Considering JM wasn't even bothering to read my views, he was being very disrespectful, and thus very hypocritical. So that leaves me free to ask EB for an alternative explaination for why JM won't read my views and why I should respect JM's views even though he clearly doesn't respect mine. If EB wishes to preach, then that is fine, but I reserve the right to question the motives and thinking of the preacher.

So, these are the posts I am referring to....

No further comment, Satya. I cannot discuss things in this manner.

Granted, he was not looking at what you were posting. Granted JM was not reading your views to the extent I thought he should be, either.

Ok, you just lost my respect again. He just told you what you are doing, and you won't look.

In reading this, I agreed with IndigoSensor completely.

Don't be angry. This is what religion does to people. It makes them close their minds to the world. The more I see it, the more at peace I am because the more assured I am of the validity of my position.

The discussion was intriging up until here and your argument was well thought-out, comprehensive, supported well and actually informed me with data I hadn't known about before.
Granted, JM insinuated that just because people didn't share his point of view, they must not have a grasp of the history of this country, but he made no generalized remark.

But then you said this, which basically puts all religions in one unsupported biased category.
How do you justify a blatant generalized statement that religion closes people's minds?
How does this further the discussion about the state of Christianity in America, the Founding Fathers and the Constitution?
To jump to this conclusion from the actions of only one person within in one conversation is not justified nor accurate.
This is the one and only remark I found issue with within the context of the discussion because it had no bearing on the conversation.
If JM had of made a statement generalizing that Reason closed people's minds, I would have asked the same of him.

I didn't enter the discussion on the Constitution because my schooling in the States ended when I was 14 and moved to Canada, and I don't have the knowledge you have on this subject and as I said, I found your thoughts and links informative.
Though you may take umbrage at my interjection to the conversation, I could not just let a comment like this go by unchallenged.

So, I got kicked off the server, so I'll add this as an edit...

I generalized it a bit and could have narrowed it down to "This is what orthodox Abrahamic religion does to people." Would that have bothered you as much?

It is still a generalization, but let's not argue about this as it diverts the thread. One of the few things within any conversation, not just this one, which I take issue with is generalied unsupported comments. I've given my opinion and in retrospect, perhaps I should have PM'd you with my disagreement instead of posting within the thread.