Re god-word Comments
Jun 08, 2007 02:38 PM
Re the god-word Comments
>Maybe, but no one is going to stop using it.<
I stopped using it! So that is one.
It occurred to me what Chuck is - he's
a "nihilist." - which is: "an extreme form
of skepticism, the denial of all real
existence or the possibility of an
objective basis for truth...." according
to the dictionary.
>Maybe we could redirect. Instead of talking about what others
shouldn't do (as if it matters what anyone think anyone else
shouldn't do) why not turn it around, and think about what we (the
only people we have any control over, after all) should do?<
Oh what a nice lady! You would
have been great to have around during
the Inquistion: "Oh... they are only
burning that guy on the stake because
they think it is the right thing to do.
We should have respect for their
independent viewpoints, and after all,
he's going to reincarnate anyway!"
Pollyanna, pollyanna, pollyanna, -
just a brain of mush.
<But surely this doesn't mean tolerance and embracing diversity of
false religions? Are we to be tolerant of satanists (if they truly
exist) are we to be tolerant of cults that offer death as a reward?<
The only one who isn't totally
self-hypnotized and makes any sense!
> Last night I went to see the Dalai Lama when he spoke here in
Perth > on "Ethics for the new millennium" as part of that speech he >
mentioned that religions can be divided into two types, those that are
theistic and those that have no concept of a God or Creator.
> He emphasised the importance of having tolerance and embracing
> diversity by developing a deeper understanding of each tradition and
respecting its differences.
> Even if traditions have very different understandings and beliefs we
need to practice loving kindness and tolerance.<
I must have been in-tune with the
god-subject. I'm afraid I don't know
what this "loving kindness" is. If
someone started expressing "loving
kindness" to me I am afraid I would
have to start hitting them with a stick!
Tolerance is largely a passive
attitude - you leave them alone and
don't attack them (like some fundamentalists
do) - and this I can agree with
- "live and let live" if the group
involved isn't doing direct harm.
Criticize if necessary, but it doesn't
have to sink generally into physical
persecution. "Tolerance" doesn mean
you have to abandon your values and
Endorse another belief. From the
superior Theosophical perspective,
all the Exoteric religions (with
perhaps the exception of Buddhism)
are just "wrong" and corrupted from
their origins, and creating much
suffering from their ignorant ideas.
- jake j.
> Re: the god-word
> Dan's quotes on this are great and also
> Reigle's article "God's Arrival in India" at:
> I don't think the power of Words can
> be underestimated, and the "God"-word is
> perhaps the worse in its effects. People
> who don't believe in the strict personal-god
> idea of the big no-bo-daddy sitting on a
> throne and granting favors, and claim a more
> "elevated" understaning of it - still use
> the word, and using the word still reinforces
> all the negative influences associated with it,
> and a real paralysis of the inner nature.
> Its far worse than any curse word used in
> common parlay. Here's a coarse example of
> the effect words have, no matter what
> innocent or "elevated" meaning we might
> claim to associate with them.
> The F-word is an old English term
> originally meaning "to plow the earth,"
> as in farming. It gradually came to have
> the different primary meaning of referring
> to the sex act. No matter how many times
> one uses the word in the original sense,
> it will still produce the reaction of its
> current meaning. No matter how many times
> I say "I'm going out f---ing today" -
> meaning I'm going out to plow my land for
> farming, it will still raise up all the
> elementals and meanings associated with
> the current meaning. It is the same with
> the god-word. No matter what "elevated"
> meaning one claims to have for it, it
> will still raise up all the negative
> elementals, hatred, soul-benumbing associations,
> that it has primarily been associated with
> it. This is why the g-word is much worse
> than the f-word.
> - jake j.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application