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.

Uri Lee wrote:

Elessar wrote:

Uri Lee wrote:
this will have a dramatic effect, for SHEEP will FOLLOW.
Find your own TAU, your own WAY. That is the only TRUTH !

Find my own Tau? Is this guy a loon or what?
:

My bad, spelling error, meant TAO.

But in answer to your question, YES, I am a loon,Welcome to my world! Everyone's insane, there is no such thing as sanity....is there?
Unless you think sanity is thinking the same as everyone else, then I would personally call that insanity. But I don't think the same as everyone else, so am I sane? Who's gonna be the judge? Are'n't you taught not to judge, lest you be judged yourself?
Don't you like being called a sheep? Doesn't the bible tell you to be a sheep? Do you find it empowering to attribute all power to something outside of yourself?
BAA!

Actually the ability to question one's own sanity is a sign that they are indeed sane.

halonachos wrote:

I declare that an irony. Irony is also funding a terrorist group to fight an enemy, that later uses the funding you gave to attack you a la 9/11 and the Osama Bin Laden.

That's more a karma matter.

generalgrog wrote:I'll comment on the sheep thing.

It's biblical. Jesus used the term sheep as an allegory to describe believers. In John: 21 he asked Peter to "feed his sheep". Jesus also said in John 10:11 "I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep."

The bible is full of references refering to believers as sheep.

The problem I see is that this reference has beeen twisted by certain people to imply that believers are stupid, ignorant, blind, etc. I know that I have seen the term sheep used as a derogatory term, by unbelievers aimed towards believers. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what the term sheep means in a biblical context.

GG

And let's be fair, people are like sheep. The more of them you have, the dumber they get. Like a real herd of sheep.

efarrer wrote:

halonachos wrote:

I declare that an irony. Irony is also funding a terrorist group to fight an enemy, that later uses the funding you gave to attack you a la 9/11 and the Osama Bin Laden.

That's more a karma matter.

That's not how karma works! Again, it isn't a cosmic revenge fantasy. It isn't "you did something bad now something bad will happen to you in return". That is far to small a scale and it also is to personal more often than not. Karma deals with more whether or not one is able to break free from the cycle of life and death and effects ones next attempt (reincarnation). The irony is that hoping that something bad happens to someone through karma creates bad karma for the person thinking it. See how I was able to work both irony and karma into that? Pretty neat huh? Well now I am off to get my reward of Coka-cola and some form of snack. Probably cigarettes or heroin, I don't know.

Ahtman wrote:

efarrer wrote:

halonachos wrote:

I declare that an irony. Irony is also funding a terrorist group to fight an enemy, that later uses the funding you gave to attack you a la 9/11 and the Osama Bin Laden.

That's more a karma matter.

That's not how karma works! Again, it isn't a cosmic revenge fantasy. It isn't "you did something bad now something bad will happen to you in return". That is far to small a scale and it also is to personal more often than not. Karma deals with more whether or not one is able to break free from the cycle of life and death and effects ones next attempt (reincarnation). The irony is that hoping that something bad happens to someone through karma creates bad karma for the person thinking it. See how I was able to work both irony and karma into that? Pretty neat huh? Well now I am off to get my reward of Coka-cola and some form of snack. Probably cigarettes or heroin, I don't know.

Of course it's not.

Kharma is not a revenge fantasy so much as it is a cosmic justification for a stratified society.

You are born closer to the top because you were good in the cycle, where the people below are there because of their misdeeds. kinda justifies mistreating those below you.

Sounds a great deal worse then a cosmic revenge fantasy worse when properly applied, doesn't it?

efarrer wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

efarrer wrote:

halonachos wrote:

I declare that an irony. Irony is also funding a terrorist group to fight an enemy, that later uses the funding you gave to attack you a la 9/11 and the Osama Bin Laden.

That's more a karma matter.

That's not how karma works! Again, it isn't a cosmic revenge fantasy. It isn't "you did something bad now something bad will happen to you in return". That is far to small a scale and it also is to personal more often than not. Karma deals with more whether or not one is able to break free from the cycle of life and death and effects ones next attempt (reincarnation). The irony is that hoping that something bad happens to someone through karma creates bad karma for the person thinking it. See how I was able to work both irony and karma into that? Pretty neat huh? Well now I am off to get my reward of Coka-cola and some form of snack. Probably cigarettes or heroin, I don't know.

Of course it's not.

Kharma is not a revenge fantasy so much as it is a cosmic justification for a stratified society.

You are born closer to the top because you were good in the cycle, where the people below are there because of their misdeeds. kinda justifies mistreating those below you.

Sounds a great deal worse then a cosmic revenge fantasy worse when properly applied, doesn't it?

None of what you said is close to correct.

It has nothing to do with stratified society.

Doing well cosmically (ie enlightenment, ect ect) has nothing to do with ones social status, such as in Christianity being rich or poor has nothing to do with whether one can get into Heaven. Have you seen a Hindu or Yoga mystic? Did they look like they were on the top of society? Did you see them treating other people badly for that matter? Mistreating those "below" oneself would only add bad karma to the person doing it thus making there ability to break free from the cycle of life and death that much more difficult/extended.

efarrer wrote:

generalgrog wrote:I'll comment on the sheep thing.

It's biblical. Jesus used the term sheep as an allegory to describe believers. In John: 21 he asked Peter to "feed his sheep". Jesus also said in John 10:11 "I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep."

The bible is full of references refering to believers as sheep.

The problem I see is that this reference has beeen twisted by certain people to imply that believers are stupid, ignorant, blind, etc. I know that I have seen the term sheep used as a derogatory term, by unbelievers aimed towards believers. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what the term sheep means in a biblical context.

GG

And let's be fair, people are like sheep. The more of them you have, the dumber they get. Like a real herd of sheep.

I rest my case.

GG

Ahtman wrote:

Of course it's not.

Kharma is not a revenge fantasy so much as it is a cosmic justification for a stratified society.

You are born closer to the top because you were good in the cycle, where the people below are there because of their misdeeds. kinda justifies mistreating those below you.

Sounds a great deal worse then a cosmic revenge fantasy worse when properly applied, doesn't it?

None of what you said is close to correct.

It has nothing to do with stratified society.

Doing well cosmically (ie enlightenment, ect ect) has nothing to do with ones social status, such as in Christianity being rich or poor has nothing to do with whether one can get into Heaven. Have you seen a Hindu or Yoga mystic? Did they look like they were on the top of society? Did you see them treating other people badly for that matter? Mistreating those "below" oneself would only add bad karma to the person doing it thus making there ability to break free from the cycle of life and death that much more difficult/extended.

I never stated people wouldn't screw things up. Christianity was used to justify Slavery at a time, that doesn't mean it was correct. Just as using Karma as an excuse for a caste system isn't correct. The Upanishads and Vedas as well as multiple Sutras say nothing about this.

Of course you can have multiple interpretations of something, that doesn't mean they are all correct, and yours is not correct.

Misinterpretation and misrepresentation don't change the truth of a thing. Almost every religion has been used as an excuse to cause harm at one point or another, that doesn't mean the entirety of the religion should be dismissed and it doesn't mean that what the twisted or misunderstood application was neither twisted or misunderstood. It still doesn't change that Karma (using whichever translation method you choose to use) is not what you said.

Ahtman wrote:I never stated people wouldn't screw things up. Christianity was used to justify Slavery at a time, that doesn't mean it was correct. Just as using Karma as an excuse for a caste system isn't correct. The Upanishads and Vedas as well as multiple Sutras say nothing about this.

Of course you can have multiple interpretations of something, that doesn't mean they are all correct, and yours is not correct.

Misinterpretation and misrepresentation don't change the truth of a thing. Almost every religion has been used as an excuse to cause harm at one point or another, that doesn't mean the entirety of the religion should be dismissed and it doesn't mean that what the twisted or misunderstood application was neither twisted or misunderstood. It still doesn't change that Karma (using whichever translation method you choose to use) is not what you said.

This is not misrepresentation. This is a practical application of karma as seen for hundreds of years in the Indian subcontinent. furthermore since your birth into a caste is part of the overall structure of the religion it cannot be said that doing well cosmically has nothing to do with socail status. In rural India to this day it is part an parcel a feature of the "Doing well cosmically".

Karma is a part of the overall societal construction that was used to enforce the rigid caste system that evolved. A wide variety of Hindu religious texts as well as the societal traditions of the region, support this viewpoint. Further to this point, the lower castes, in particular the large caste of untouchables could not as a general rule even participate in the religion. Do you realize that a lower caste person could not even aspire to the priesthood? Do you not recognize the inherent wrongness of this?

What a caste member did in the past life binds them to the caste they are in in this life. The only way to ever escape the sucky parts of this life is to be as good an example of your caste in this life so you might get a better life next time. If you screw up badly enough at obeying the caste requirements, you might become an animal. Now that's social and religious control taken to brand new levels. the christian in the middle ages could aspire to better in the current life. A hindu lower caste member's only hope was that if he was good in this life he might get a better life next time.

That Hindu mystic may not be at the top of the social chain but maybe check up on his family before you say that the caste and religion aren't connected. As a further aside a mystic does not represent the average beliefs of any religion. The priest hood of the regular people do.

Now that said...

Karma can be said to be the natural results of an action as viewed over an extended periods (looted without shame from Wikipedia because I really don't have time to get books out of the library, and I think I have a fine there anyways) . Where karma braks down for me is that it is then used by the Hindu religion to justify the caste system. Other faiths which use karma do not offend my sensibilities so. Good actions can lead to good things, bad actions to bad things. This can be seen either in a lifetime or over the course of several lifetimes. The Buddhists take this a step further by allowing that ignorance can make an action intended to be good into a bad action.

Broadly, karma can be considered a version cause and effect in the big picture. This is an obvious simplification[u][i] . However, when viewed in regards to my original statement which was more of a random jab at a comment by halonachos while trying to keep in the theme of religion, it was more or less appropriate, if technically incorrect.

I'll concede that maybe the problem is we are talking past each other, thinking the other is saying one thing while meaning another.

Even so, there have been caste systems in many places, much of which had no concept of karma, so i don't think blaming the misuse of an ideal should be placed on the ideal that wasn't originally meant to be used in that way. It is like blaming Nietzsche for Nazism even though he had nothing to do with it. His ideas were perverted to their use but that doesn't mean it was what he was trying to say, much like using the most basic concept karma to impose a caste system is the fault of the concept of karma.

So what you are saying(I think) is that karma was used by the Indian people to justify their caste-system and that it could've just functioned well enough on its own without the belief of karma.

Uri Lee wrote:
But in answer to your question, YES, I am a loon,Welcome to my world! Everyone's insane, there is no such thing as sanity....is there?

Yes, there is. Its really quite nice.

Uri Lee wrote:
Unless you think sanity is thinking the same as everyone else, then I would personally call that insanity.

There was a movie about this a while ago. It was called Fight Club. So, by your own definition, you're quite insane.

Uri Lee wrote:
But I don't think the same as everyone else, so am I sane? Who's gonna be the judge? Are'n't you taught not to judge, lest you be judged yourself?

Nope. I was taught to judge per my best experience while giving the benefit of the doubt.

lol
i did say I was going to stay on topic, however this is quite funny.
Since, sanity/insanity are just labels for whether an observer judges someones thought processes to fall into the accepted norm/or not, neither can truly exist, except in ones mind as a judgment.

halonachos wrote:So what you are saying(I think) is that karma was used by the Indian people to justify their caste-system and that it could've just functioned well enough on its own without the belief of karma.

Not at all. What I am saying is that even if they didn't have a concept karma there still would have been a caste system, which has nothing to do with karma. If it hadn't have been Karma it would have been something else, like say Divine Right. Placing the blame on Karma is placing the blame in the wrong place, assuming one is a against the caste system.

On the subject of Karma, I was under the impression that it caught up with you when it was reincarnation time, and not during your lifetime. Good Karma meant a step up the ladder, bad a step down (or possibly reset?).

Might just be Buddhism that teaches that though?

There is an underlying implication with karma that those who have a poor lot in life somehow deserve it that I've always found distasteful. It does help reinforce caste/class sytems as well, as do concepts like 'the meek shall inherit the Earth'/'Quiet down poor people, you'll get what you deserve in the next life.'

Ahtman wrote:Christianity was used to justify Slavery at a time, that doesn't mean it was correct.

This is a slightly different situation however, as the Bible specifically condones slavery on more than one instance.

Elessar wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Christianity was used to justify Slavery at a time, that doesn't mean it was correct.

This is a slightly different situation however, as the Bible specifically condones slavery on more than one instance.

That is a bit of an oversimplification. The old testament is where it comes up and it neither really condemns nor condones it, it just is. Jesus's words are pretty much the opposite of everything slavery is, which is also why the abolition movement was very strongly motivated by Christian ideology in England and the US. As with the karma question it is more in how a religious idea is bent to make it say what pleases you. In science it is determing the outcome then trying to make the evidence fit. In India it was used to make the caste system last, in Europe it made human trafficking ok. Still, blaming Christianity for slavery or Hinduism for allowing the caste system miss's the mark and ignores the greater social and cultural drives to sustain these ideas, such as political power and greed.

Greebynog wrote:There is an underlying implication with karma that those who have a poor lot in life somehow deserve it that I've always found distasteful. It does help reinforce caste/class sytems as well, as do concepts like 'the meek shall inherit the Earth'/'Quiet down poor people, you'll get what you deserve in the next life.'

that's a bit of a cynical way to look at it. Based on his teachings, Jesus was a realist. There will always be a group that's less advantaged than the median. The point of that beatitude is that divine judgment occurs regardless of earthly status.

If you look at it, jesus formed christianity much like the way cults form. Target the poor and the rich, promise them good things, and get them to believe in you. Whether or not christianity in whole and the other orld religions are just some cult remains to be seen.

Did anyone else see that history channel special talking about the books and psalms that weren't used in the bible? They said that there are writings about lil' jesus and how much he was a prick. He blinded a guy who said that Joseph's craftmanship was horrible.

Polonius wrote:

Greebynog wrote:There is an underlying implication with karma that those who have a poor lot in life somehow deserve it that I've always found distasteful. It does help reinforce caste/class sytems as well, as do concepts like 'the meek shall inherit the Earth'/'Quiet down poor people, you'll get what you deserve in the next life.'

that's a bit of a cynical way to look at it. Based on his teachings, Jesus was a realist. There will always be a group that's less advantaged than the median. The point of that beatitude is that divine judgment occurs regardless of earthly status.

The beattidudes are a description of the "normal" Christian life. It's another allegory, that Jesus used to illustrate Christian living.

For example, being poor in spirit has nothing to do with monetary status. It has to do with humility, relating to spirituality.

Being meek is also about humility, and the inheriting the earth is refering to the afterlife.

The bottom line is, that if your life isn't living up to what the beattitudes are describing, you need to check yourself spiritually to see why you aren't living up to the "normal" Christian life.

GG

halonachos wrote:If you look at it, jesus formed christianity much like the way cults form. Target the poor and the rich, promise them good things, and get them to believe in you. Whether or not christianity in whole and the other orld religions are just some cult remains to be seen.

Unless it is tribal, all religions start as cults. While it can be used as a pejorative, cult also refers to a religion in its seed form. Jesus didn't really form Christianity either. He went around and talked but it was his followers after his death that really formed it. Saying just talked to the poor and the rich in that time is a bit disingenuous as really those were almost the only two classifications. Not much of a middle class. There was the elite and the mob for the most part.

I know, I was just saying it because I could.

Ahtman wrote: Jesus didn't really form Christianity either. He went around and talked but it was his followers after his death that really formed it.

I guess it really depends on how you look at it. If you view Jesus as just some guy that went around pushing his views, and you deny his divinity and resurrection. Maybe you would see it as his followers that formed Christianity.

I however believe Jesus, when he explained to Peter that "upon this rock will I build My Church".

Matt16:16-18

16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

GG

I was rather hoping for a debate between the validity of cults today as opposed to the established religions of the world, but this is good too.

generalgrog wrote:

Ahtman wrote: Jesus didn't really form Christianity either. He went around and talked but it was his followers after his death that really formed it.

I guess it really depends on how you look at it. If you view Jesus as just some guy that went around pushing his views, and you deny his divinity and resurrection. Maybe you would see it as his followers that formed Christianity.

I however believe Jesus, when he explained to Peter that "upon this rock will I build My Church".

Matt16:16-18

16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

GG

Jesus certainly laid the foundation for Christianity, and is the raison d'etre to boot, but it was very unfinished by the time of the Ascension. It was, to crib from Dogma, an idea, a promise, and a mechanism for salvation. As a religion, it grew over time.

halonachos wrote:I was rather hoping for a debate between the validity of cults today as opposed to the established religions of the world, but this is good too.

From dictionary.com
CULT
1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. the members of such a religion or sect.
8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.


I agree that the early Church fits the technical definition, particularly #'s 1,2,4. I would agree that as the years went by, for some sects, you could add #5 to that list.

I'm not sure what you mean by "validity of cults today", but if you are talking about modern cults like Mormons, Jehovas Witnesses, Christian Science, and others they have some serious problems when the magnifying glass is turned on. I would consider them to be #6. Those 3 cults all have roots involving questionable "charasmatic" leaders. Mormons had Joe Smith, and Brigham Young. Jehovas witnesses had Charles Taze Russel. Christian Science had Mary Baker Eddy.

There are others, but those are the big three.

GG

Wasn't christianity seen as unorthodox when it first started, as was buddhism, judaism, and many others? So what makes them more acceptable than any of the newer cults?

halonachos wrote:Wasn't christianity seen as unorthodox when it first started, as was buddhism, judaism, and many others? So what makes them more acceptable than any of the newer cults?

Well first off I guess you could call Christianity a "cult" of Judaism, in that Christianity was birthed from the old testement/Judaism. I'm not sure how different modern Judaism is now from the time of Jesus, I know they no longer sacrifice animals since the temple was destroyed in the 1st century. But what made Christianity acceptable was that it was a fullfillment of Judaism, I.E. the Messiah had come, and the teachings of Christ were harmonious with Judaism.

The modern Christian cults (most of them are less than 200 years old) are at odds with orthodox Christianity, and I explained a lot of this pages ago. A good book I keep mentioning to read is called "Kingdom of the Cults" by Dr. Walter Martin. He goes into all of the mainstream cults that were around at the time he wrote the book, in addition to the three I mentioned, there is also transendental meditation, The Family, Moonies, Scientology, and many others.

GG