Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2011/09/23 23:03:11
Subject: Re:Poverty an invisible issue in GOP race
schadenfreude wrote:Most common modern interpretation is "Whoever believes in Jesus as their savior goes to heaven" There are a lot of denominations of Christianity, and every mainstream denomination that I know of has the same modern interpretation of John 3:16 that I just described.
Where's the call to convert everyone else in there? You made a statement about Christians feeling morally obligated to convert others to Christianity (this is called Evangelism). Nothing in John 3:16 encourages evangelist action (Try Mark 15:16). Many Christians and Christian denominations are not evangelist today and the desire to convert others isn't a primary motivation for many. Latter-Day Saints movements are a well known exception.
I don't criticize your interpretation of John 3:16 (I know of no debates in any denominations as to its meaning). I criticize the way you used it. John 3:16 is not a motivating verse for evangelist action.
LordofHats wrote:EDIT: This may sound strange, but have you considered a career in religious motivational speaking Melissa
lol... damnit, you're dragging me back in.
Spoiler:
I'm a scientist. A chemist, to be exact... if I had my way, I'd spend my working time toying with the building blocks of reality and making and producing cool new substances, and then spend my non-working time playing video games and chatting with friends. No religion involved.
The only reason I talk about it is because I'm surrounded by religious people whose views on their own faith confound me with their hypocrisy and inherent self-contradictions, so I try to logically think through the subject of faith while keeping in mind that faith is, well, faith, it's not all empirical evidence.
If Homosexuality is a sin, so what? Eyeballing the ass of the girl across the street wearing tight pants is also a sin, she's got a boyfriend and you're coveting her. So you're equally a sinner as the homosexual-- are you going to refuse to tolerate yourself, to change your ways? Are you going to stop desiring wealth, are you going to be the Good Samaritan? Frequently, these people aren't. They use religion as a shield against their own flaws, and they're all the worse for it. That's why I said it's kinda sad.
The one thing that I keep coming back to though, no matter how much I study, is that the ultimate sin in Christianity, if there is one, would be hate. There's nothing further from the Christian god and the Christian savior asked of Christians than hatred, because they asked only that you love them, and love everyone else just like the Good Samaritan did in the parable.
I don't know if I'm Christian, but I do my best not to outright hate these people regardless, because hate doesn't make anything good happen. It's not easy for me. I hate easily, as the mods on this forum know quite well. But I try... and I wish they'd try too.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/09/23 23:07:58
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2011/09/23 23:06:33
Subject: Re:Poverty an invisible issue in GOP race
Melissia wrote:lol... damnit, you're dragging me back in.
Yes. YES! Victory!
Spoiler:
The only reason I talk about it is because I'm surrounded by religious people whose views on their own faith confound me with their hypocrisy and inherent self-contradictions, so I try to logically think through the subject of faith while keeping in mind that faith is, well, faith, it's not all empirical evidence.
The one thing that I keep coming back to though, no matter how much I study, is that the ultimate sin in Christianity, if there is one, would be hate. There's nothing further from the Christian god and the Christian savior asked of Christians than hatred, because they asked only that you love them, and love everyone else just like the Good Samaritan did in the parable.
Welcome to the story of my life age 12-Present. Except I'm into History, and you can imagine how much fun history is with certain folks.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/09/23 23:07:27
biccat wrote:
Well, here's a chart showing statistics from 1998. I haven't seen anything more recent.
But in that, the difference between the 4th and 5th quintiles for women is within the margin of error and for men it's not hugely significant. But what's really interesting is when you look at earnings of spouses. Many tend to marry someone with a similar income, so wealthy marry wealthy and poor marry poor. This tends to skew household earnings even more.
Huh, maybe I was recalling the belief that marriage is obsolete, rather than actual incidence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:
Most religions believe in Baptism for the forgiveness of original sin.
Whut?
Please tell me that you're trolling.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/23 23:09:40
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Melissia wrote:I'm not sure what definition of "hereditary" you're using.
Oh, I mean that there's a 'poor', 'middle class', and 'rich' gene.
Then no. It IS hereditary, but it is not genetic.
LordofHats: I edited that spoiler statement for clarity if you want to read.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2011/09/23 23:16:41
Subject: Re:Poverty an invisible issue in GOP race
schadenfreude wrote:Most common modern interpretation is "Whoever believes in Jesus as their savior goes to heaven" There are a lot of denominations of Christianity, and every mainstream denomination that I know of has the same modern interpretation of John 3:16 that I just described.
Where's the call to convert everyone else in there? You made a statement about Christians feeling morally obligated to convert others to Christianity (this is called Evangelism). Nothing in John 3:16 encourages evangelist action (Try Mark 15:16). Many Christians and Christian denominations are not evangelist today and the desire to convert others isn't a primary motivation for many. Latter-Day Saints movements are a well known exception.
I don't criticize your interpretation of John 3:16 (I know of no debates in any denominations as to its meaning). I criticize the way you used it. John 3:16 is not a motivating verse for evangelist action.
You are correct that other passages such as Mark 15:16 are more important to evangelicals. I fell back on John 3:16 in my earlier posts because it's the most widely recognized passage, and probably the most relevant when it comes to atheists in America angering Christians by telling their children there is no god.
Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail, and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, but refuse. They cling to the realm, or love, or the gods…illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is, but they’ll never know this. Not until it’s too late.
2011/09/23 23:17:18
Subject: Re:Poverty an invisible issue in GOP race
I think we're well due for a good old nature v nurture debate
I'll get the pop corn... and some bendy straws
I have a hard time believing we can really link poverty to genetic factors. I could see poverty as the outcome of genetic factors (Like a genetic disposition towards laziness), but then I've always leaned more towards nurture and less towards nature.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
schadenfreude wrote: and probably the most relevant when it comes to atheists in America angering Christians by telling their children there is no god.
This is what I think Christians get up in arms about. The common Christian I think is less concerned with converting others and more interested in protecting their own kids from the possibility that their opinion isn't the only one in the world. EDIT: Christian parents naturally want their kids to go to heaven But I mean come on, can you blame them
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2011/09/23 23:29:11
LordofHats wrote:I think we're well due for a good old nature v nurture debate
I'll get the pop corn... and some bendy straws
I have a hard time believing we can really link poverty to genetic factors. I could see poverty as the outcome of genetic factors (Like a genetic disposition towards laziness), but then I've always leaned more towards nurture and less towards nature.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
schadenfreude wrote: and probably the most relevant when it comes to atheists in America angering Christians by telling their children there is no god.
This is what I think Christians get up in arms about. The common Christian I think is less concerned with converting others and more interested in protecting their own kids from the possibility that their opinion isn't the only one in the world.
Now we're on the same page.
On the nature versus nurture debate the roll model effect of poor parents probably has a larger effect on their kid's future than the actual effect of not having much money. Kids want to grow up to be like their parents. At best if mom is a housewife and dad is an honest hard working but poor man odds are their kids won't see any shame in that lifestyle. At worst if dad is goes in and out of jail for most of his life odds are his sons are going to have a very distorted view of what makes a man a man.
Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail, and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, but refuse. They cling to the realm, or love, or the gods…illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is, but they’ll never know this. Not until it’s too late.
2011/09/23 23:32:48
Subject: Re:Poverty an invisible issue in GOP race
halonachos wrote:
Most religions believe in Baptism for the forgiveness of original sin.
Whut?
Please tell me that you're trolling.
You never studied religion did you?
about.com wrote:In the Catholic Church today, baptism is most commonly administered to infants. While some other Christians strenuously object to infant baptism, believing that baptism requires assent on the part of the person being baptized, the Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and other mainline Protestants also practice infant baptism, and there is evidence that it was practiced from the earliest days of the Church.
Since baptism removes both the guilt and the punishment due to Original Sin, delaying baptism until a child can understand the sacrament may put the child's salvation in danger, should he die unbaptized.
Its called the Nicene Creed, and it is widely used by a lot of churches. Of course the Nicene Creed also states that we believe in zombies.
Nicene Creed wrote:We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church; in one baptism in repentance, for the remission, and forgiveness of sins; and in the resurrection of the dead...
That's just an NYT article, I can't link any of the actual research.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:
You never studied religion did you?
about.com wrote:In the Catholic Church today, baptism is most commonly administered to infants. While some other Christians strenuously object to infant baptism, believing that baptism requires assent on the part of the person being baptized, the Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and other mainline Protestants also practice infant baptism, and there is evidence that it was practiced from the earliest days of the Church.
Since baptism removes both the guilt and the punishment due to Original Sin, delaying baptism until a child can understand the sacrament may put the child's salvation in danger, should he die unbaptized.
Its called the Nicene Creed, and it is widely used by a lot of churches. Of course the Nicene Creed also states that we believe in zombies.
So we're now at the point where you can equate Christianity and religion without any intellectual shame?
Awesome.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/23 23:41:52
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
So we're now at the point where you can equate Christianity and religion without any intellectual shame?
Awesome.
*sigh* most religions believe that there is a concept of sin and have their own "ritual cleansing" that involves water.
Judaism
wiki wrote:The "Tvilah" is the act of immersion in natural sourced water, called a "Mikvah"[82][83] In the Jewish Bible and other Jewish texts, immersion in water for ritual purification was established for restoration to a condition of "ritual purity" in specific circumstances. For example, Jews who (according to the Law of Moses) became ritually defiled by contact with a corpse had to use the mikvah before being allowed to participate in the Holy Temple
Islam
wiki wrote:Ritual purification takes the form of ablution, in a lesser form (wudu), and greater form (ghusl), depending on the circumstance; the greater form is obligatory by a woman after she ceases menstruation, on a corpse that didn't die during battle, and after sexual activity, and is optionally used on other occasions, for example just prior to Friday prayers, or entering ihram.
An alternative "dry ablution"(tayammum), involving clean sand or earth, is used if clean water is not available or if suffering from an illness which would be worsened by the use of water; this form is invalidated in the same circumstances as the other forms, and also whenever water becomes available and safe to use. And is also necessary to be repeated (renewed) before every obligatory prayer.
Shintoism
wiki wrote:In Shinto, the main form of ritual purification is Misogi, which involves natural running water, and especially waterfalls. Rather than being entirely naked, men usually wear Japanese loincloths and women wear kimonos, both additionally wearing headbands.
Hinduism
wiki wrote:An important part of ritual purification in Hinduism is the bathing of the entire body, particularly in rivers considered holy such as the Ganges; it is considered auspicious to perform this form of purification before any festival, and it is also practised after the death of someone, in order to maintain purity.
A rose by any other name, besides we were discussing all of the religions within Christianity which is where I used the term religion. Just because you failed to see the context is not my fault.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/23 23:58:49
2011/09/23 23:59:13
Subject: Re:Poverty an invisible issue in GOP race
That would depend. Are we using the generalist version of sin? Or the technical one?
Evil is a better word. Almost all religions do have a water cleansing ritual. But don't call it Baptism if you want to be understood. Baptism is a specific water ritual unique to Christianity, and likewise I know of no other religion with a concept of original sin.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/24 00:00:32
LordofHats wrote:That would depend. Are we using the generalist version of sin? Or the technical one?
Sin is varied, but usually sex is a big thing, that and touching dead people in some cases.
Sin in the christian sense is simply not doing what God told you to or living an unclean life in defiance of god. Sin is the act of being away from God spiritually.
Generally speaking, sin is just another word for evil.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/24 00:02:33
halonachos wrote:
*sigh* most religions believe that there is a concept of sin and have their own "ritual cleansing" that involves water.
And yet only one of them practices Baptism. You cannot simply call all acts of ritual purification, involving water, Baptism. It makes you appear ignorant.
halonachos wrote:
A rose by any other name, besides we were discussing all of the religions within Christianity which is where I used the term religion.
There is so much wrong with this it isn't even funny. First, no, Baptism doesn't compare to things like Ghul, Misogi, or even Mikvah. Arguing that is like arguing that chicken compares to beef. Both are foodstuffs, but you don't judge chicken as though it were a porterhouse. Second, there are no religions within Christianity, there are denominations, sects, and churches, but not religions.
halonachos wrote:
Just because you failed to see the context is not my fault.
When you failed to use technical terminology correctly, it very much was your fault.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2011/09/24 00:06:10
Subject: Re:Poverty an invisible issue in GOP race
LordofHats wrote:That would depend. Are we using the generalist version of sin? Or the technical one?
Sin is varied, but usually sex is a big thing, that and touching dead people in some cases.
Sin in the christian sense is simply not doing what God told you to or living an unclean life in defiance of god. Sin is the act of being away from God spiritually.
Generally speaking, sin is just another word for evil.
Lust is a sin.
Like I said, sex is usually a really big sin when you're unmarried. In some Islamic cultures you have to cleanse yourself if you fart before going to pray. Sinning itself varies, but they are traditionally similar religion to religion.
2011/09/24 00:07:44
Subject: Re:Poverty an invisible issue in GOP race
LordofHats wrote:
Evil is a better word. Almost all religions do have a water cleansing ritual. But don't call it Baptism if you want to be understood. Baptism is a specific water ritual unique to Christianity, and likewise I know of no other religion with a concept of original sin.
Exactly.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
halonachos wrote: *sigh* most religions believe that there is a concept of sin and have their own "ritual cleansing" that involves water.
And yet only one of them practices Baptism. You cannot simply call all acts of ritual purification, involving water, Baptism. It makes you appear ignorant.
If you note I said baptism and not Baptism, the difference is that one is a generic term. Similar to how there is a difference between god and God.
dogma wrote:
halonachos wrote: A rose by any other name, besides we were discussing all of the religions within Christianity which is where I used the term religion.
There is so much wrong with this it isn't even funny. First, no, Baptism doesn't compare to things like Ghul, Misogi, or even Mikvah. Arguing that is like arguing that chicken compares to beef. Both are foodstuffs, but you don't judge chicken as though it were a porterhouse. Second, there are no religions within Christianity, there are denominations, sects, and churches, but not religions.
Except for the fact that baptisms are based off of Mikvah, and the fact that they all involve being 'cleansed with water' then yes I agree with you. Its more like saying that you're making chicken by frying it in sesame oil, olive oil, or peanut oil.
dogma wrote:
halonachos wrote: Just because you failed to see the context is not my fault.
When you failed to use technical terminology correctly, it very much was your fault.
When you fail to recognize subtle differences it is your fault.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/09/24 00:10:10
2011/09/24 00:10:31
Subject: Re:Poverty an invisible issue in GOP race
It's my example, so yes it does. If someone pays $5,000 in taxes (state, local, payroll, sales, property, etc.) and receives $6,000 in tax returns (state, local, federal), would you say that they paid taxes?
tax credits always go towards federal taxes, you still pay property taxes, and everything else. The stimulus plan I am referring to was federal tax credits (the whole state/federal divide) mainly so people could try to keep their house and not foreclose on it. You example has no real basis to go on, since tax credits apply and come from different sources. You would have to get tax credits on even your property, which I have never ever heard of.
It's apparent you are more interested in dodging the question than answering it. I'm going to conclude that you're refusing to answer the question because it disproves your position.
Your question is not a valid one. There are no real life examples or evidence that someone pays zero dollars or less total in their taxes and then gets money back. The only examples you can find, with actual evidence is on federal tax returns claiming stimulus money to help save mortgages. I can make up fake "hypothetical" claims all day that no one can answer. I am asking you to explain your data. Show me, empirical evidence where people paid all their taxes as in: Federal, state, city, county, property, earnings, capital gain, etc; and then got every single penny back plus some and made profit.
Crom wrote:
biccat wrote:I'm confused, am I an "autocracy-following friend" or "uneducated [and] in the dark"? Inquiring minds want to know.
The uneducated people are the ones that believe the GOP's ideas will actually work. Deregulation got us into this mess, and taxes have nothing to do with job creation. The facts prove that if you look at the data for the past 100 years in the USA. Job creation in the USA was at it's peak when everyone paid the most taxes, and now it is at it's lowest when taxes are at a 60 year all time low.
So what you're saying is that unless I'm rich (and evil), I'm a rube (and stupid). I'm pretty sure this is a violation of Rule #1.
I really hate to judge people, but if you honestly believe the GOPs rhetoric then yes, I have to question your intelligence. The GOP and their rich friends aren't stupid at all, hell look at the right wing media machine and look how much money it generates. People who follow Bachman and Palin, I really have to question their intelligence. I understand people are pissed, people are frustrated and people want change so bad sometimes they cling to any idea slightly different. The GOP and all the GOP spin off talking heads are using this to manipulate the system and skew people's views, and it is working. Almost all the facts are out there if you look at the data. Don't go to the media they will twist it into entertainment. Go to your local news outlet and actual news outlet. Read government data that the government puts out, don't get your facts from some random dude's blog. If you look at the data it is quite simple to draw the conclusion the GOPs plan for poverty doesn't do anything but get the rich richer.
If you look at anything in the past 30 years legislation wise, a lot of the GOP policy hurt us. Deregulation is not a good thing because humans cannot be trusted to not screw each other over. I am not even a liberal, and consider myself a moderate who leans liberal, but it is clear to me that the GOP's take on taxes, and poverty has little to do with getting the poorest people in the country more money. They also live behind the illusion that you can lower taxes with out cutting services, and I mean cutting them hard core.
Crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of the Eldar!
2011/09/24 00:11:39
Subject: Re:Poverty an invisible issue in GOP race
halonachos wrote:Sinning itself varies, but they are traditionally similar religion to religion.
Not really. The concept of sin varies widely from faith to faith, there is commonality across the Abrhamics (not surprising, because that's really the only place where "sin" is a thing), but even there the nature of sin is extremely variegated.
Hell, several Eastern religions don't even have concepts of sin.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2011/09/24 00:12:03
Subject: Re:Poverty an invisible issue in GOP race
halonachos wrote:Sinning itself varies, but they are traditionally similar religion to religion.
Not really. The concept of sin varies widely from faith to faith, there is commonality across the Abrhamics (not surprising, because that's really the only place where "sin" is a thing), but even there the nature of sin is extremely variegated.
Hell, several Eastern religions don't even have concepts of sin.
Name a religion where murder and theft are not sins. Also, which Eastern religions would those be?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/09/24 00:12:29
2011/09/24 00:14:22
Subject: Re:Poverty an invisible issue in GOP race
halonachos wrote:Sinning itself varies, but they are traditionally similar religion to religion.
Not really. The concept of sin varies widely from faith to faith, there is commonality across the Abrhamics (not surprising, because that's really the only place where "sin" is a thing), but even there the nature of sin is extremely variegated.
Hell, several Eastern religions don't even have concepts of sin.
Name a religion where murder and theft are not sins. Also, which Eastern religions would those be?
Taoism doesn't have a concept of "sin".
You're either following the Tau, or you're not.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Melissia wrote:Then no. It IS hereditary, but it is not genetic.
Well, it might be, there are arguments to the effect that political leanings are genetically determined, poverty isn't a huge stretch from that.
Unless this has been proven by several peer studies I find this super hard to believe. At one point we were all nomadic and had no sense of property and the USA definition of liberal and conservative don't really match with the rest of the world and the rest of the world sees us as authoritarian.
This is the same lines as people saying Liberals on average have more college degrees and make more money on average than conservatives, but that statistic is 100% dumb and meaningless. The idea is definitely interesting but I am gonna call this a bunch of bs until I google search some peer reviews on this to see if anyone can duplicate what this person(s) is doing to find these results to claim political views are genetic.
Crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of the Eldar!
halonachos wrote:
And yet only one of them practices Baptism.
No, you capitalized it, see:
halonachos wrote:
Most religions believe in Baptism for the forgiveness of original sin.
You even implied that original sin is something that non-Christians often believe in.
halonachos wrote:
Except for the fact that baptisms are based off of Mikvah, and the fact that they all involve being 'cleansed with water' then yes I agree with you.
The only things that Mikvah and Baptism have in common is ritual purification, and water. Their roles in their respective faiths are not comparable at all, one being tied to original sin, the other being tied to defilement.
halonachos wrote:
When you fail to recognize subtle differences it is your fault.
You are many things, but subtle is not one of them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/24 00:19:18
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2011/09/24 00:19:57
Subject: Re:Poverty an invisible issue in GOP race
halonachos wrote:Sinning itself varies, but they are traditionally similar religion to religion.
Not really. The concept of sin varies widely from faith to faith, there is commonality across the Abrhamics (not surprising, because that's really the only place where "sin" is a thing), but even there the nature of sin is extremely variegated.
Hell, several Eastern religions don't even have concepts of sin.
Name a religion where murder and theft are not sins. Also, which Eastern religions would those be?
Buddhism, Confucianism, Shintao, are all pretty much philosophies but have spiritual and sometimes supernatural mythos to them like a religion. A lot of these religions do not believe in sin at all, because they believe in a cause and effect connection throughout the universe instead, which is commonly known as Karma.
Crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of the Eldar!
2011/09/24 00:23:28
Subject: Re:Poverty an invisible issue in GOP race
I'd also point not all Christians believe Baptism cleanses original sin. To some its just a physical act to go with the spiritual act of accepting Jesus Christ as savior and an initiation into the Church body.
Buddhism has 'sin' as in evil, but Buddhism is much less focused on the evil acts of man and more on the inherent suffering of life as I understand it. But Buddhism is an absurdly diverse religion (One can argue some sects of Buddhism aren't religious at all).
halonachos wrote:Sinning itself varies, but they are traditionally similar religion to religion.
Not really. The concept of sin varies widely from faith to faith, there is commonality across the Abrhamics (not surprising, because that's really the only place where "sin" is a thing), but even there the nature of sin is extremely variegated.
Hell, several Eastern religions don't even have concepts of sin.
Name a religion where murder and theft are not sins. Also, which Eastern religions would those be?
Taoism doesn't have a concept of "sin".
You're either following the Tau, or you're not.
wiki wrote:In the Taoist view of sexuality the body is viewed as a positive asset, and mind and body are not set in contrast or opposition with each other. Sex is treated as a vital component to romantic love; however, Taoism emphasizes the need for self-control and moderation. In Taoism, sex is encouraged. Complete abstinence is frequently treated as equally dangerous as excessive sexual indulgence.
So there's something saying you shouldn't do something.
wiki wrote:The Three Jewels, or Three Treasures, (Chinese: 三寶; pinyin: sānbǎo; Wade-Giles: san-pao) are basic virtues in Taoism. The Three Jewels are compassion, moderation, and humility. They are also translated as kindness, simplicity (or the absence of excess), and modesty. Arthur Waley describes them as "[t]he three rules that formed the practical, political side of the author's teaching". He correlated the Three Treasures with "abstention from aggressive war and capital punishment", "absolute simplicity of living", and "refusal to assert active authority".
patheos wrote:Another perspective on suffering is offered by Taoist texts that say that illness is caused by three corpse worms that reside in the body. In some texts these are described as the three cadavers and nine worms. These, like the po souls, will sometimes report an individual's transgressions to heavenly officials. Sometimes the three cadavers will also conspire with the po souls to cause the body harm, and they will encourage demons to enter the body. Demons can cause illness, to punish a person, or just because they want to.
In order to begin a program of Taoist self-cultivation, once must first expel the worms, or cadavers. Also, there is a Taoist prohibition against eating grain that is based on the fact that the worms find grain a desirable food, and will be encouraged to stay.
Also if you want to be a taoist,
patheos wrote:The Taode jing states that nature is not sentimental and treats the people like sacrifices. Individuals are best off if they accommodate themselves to nature's laws and patterns, because to go against nature will only bring difficulty and trouble. When humans deviate from the natural order, societies will develop that are harmful to many.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/09/24 00:26:03
But I mean come on, can you blame them