Gurus For Hire Enlightenment For Sale

[shel]

I'm sorry, what page is that on???

I could cite you a number of books that investigate the European religious beliefs upon which the colonization of the Americas, India and so on was undertaken, but I can see that would be pointless.

Let me guess. The religious belief behind these undertakings was that 'God needs gold and good spices'.

[viniketa]

I doubt, if you survey history, that you can find a more prevalent ideological reason for making war on other people, oppressing them, etc., than religious ideology.

In one respect, you are correct, Malcolm. Historically, particularly in the West, it's only been relatively recently that we've separated thought & ideas (and, therefore, ideology) into these nice, neat packages as 'political', 'scientific', 'economic', 'religious', etc. During long periods of history, as it was written, religion was the primary lens through which all human activities were viewed. Money, power, status, all these things were seen as bestowed by God, and God was always seen as being on the side of the most wealthy, most powerful, and most authoritative.

While I have a great deal of sympathy for the view that "religious organizations" can be seen more as part of the problem than the solution, I don't see that we can propose "throw out all religious human activities" as part of the solution, either. Today, we do have different lenses through which we can analyze the past (and the present), and derive different *conclusions.

For all the ideas about "post-modern" or "post-industrial" society, we are still faced with the modern paradox: how to have maximum individuality within maximum community. People are social, communal animals, and we simply cannot eradicate collective action,including collective action based in metaphysical thinking.

[shel]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Native_Americans_and_Christianity

Kevin

Hi Virgo,

Interesting, the linked article begins with: "Native Americans and Christianity have a history that dates to the the arrival of the first European explorers. This history is marked by genocide, cultural destruction, domination and resistance.

Much of the destruction was done for land, politics, and power, but a significant part of it was done for religious reasons, as Christians embarked on a world-wide, conversion-by-the-sword "re-education" scheme."

A significant part of it was done for religious reasons? If this were true the "conversion-by-the-sword" scheme would have to be the most insanely idiotic and immoral strategy of all time, particularly being that it lasted for centuries. You'd think that after a few hundred years someone might have bothered to check on how well things were working out. Like, "hey guys, we've wiped out over ten million Native Americans and only have a small handful of converts. Should we maybe rethink our conversion strategy?" and someone else says, "nah, let's give it another century or so. We might get a few more converts."

[Virgo]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Native_Americans_and_Christianity

Kevin

Hi Virgo,

Interesting, the linked article begins with: "Native Americans and Christianity have a history that dates to the the arrival of the first European explorers. This history is marked by genocide, cultural destruction, domination and resistance.

Much of the destruction was done for land, politics, and power, but a significant part of it was done for religious reasons, as Christians embarked on a world-wide, conversion-by-the-sword "re-education" scheme."

A significant part of it was done for religious reasons? If this were true the "conversion-by-the-sword" scheme would have to be the most insanely idiotic and immoral strategy of all time, particularly being that it lasted for centuries. You'd think that after a few hundred years someone might have bothered to check on how well things were working out. Like, "hey guys, we've wiped out over ten million Native Americans and only have a small handful of converts. Should we maybe rethink our conversion strategy?" and someone else says, "nah, let's give it another century or so. We might get a few more converts."

Hi Shel, I don't know... try reading the whole article before posting comments about it.

Have a good day,

Kevin

[viniketa]

Like, "hey guys, we've wiped out over ten million Native Americans and only have a small handful of converts. Should we maybe rethink our conversion strategy?" and someone else says, "nah, let's give it another century or so. We might get a few more converts."

The thinking at the time was if they did not convert, they might as well be dead, as they could not participate in bringing God's plan to fruition if they did not convert. Dead 'savages' were not a moral problem.

[shel]

I doubt, if you survey history, that you can find a more prevalent ideological reason for making war on other people, oppressing them, etc., than religious ideology.

In one respect, you are correct, Malcolm. Historically, particularly in the West, it's only been relatively recently that we've separated thought & ideas (and, therefore, ideology) into these nice, neat packages as 'political', 'scientific', 'economic', 'religious', etc. During long periods of history, as it was written, religion was the primary lens through which all human activities were viewed. Money, power, status, all these things were seen as bestowed by God, and God was always seen as being on the side of the most wealthy, most powerful, and most authoritative.

I guess that's one way of looking at it. God did let Jesus get crucified, after all.

[shel]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Native_Americans_and_Christianity

Kevin

Hi Virgo,

Interesting, the linked article begins with: "Native Americans and Christianity have a history that dates to the the arrival of the first European explorers. This history is marked by genocide, cultural destruction, domination and resistance.

Much of the destruction was done for land, politics, and power, but a significant part of it was done for religious reasons, as Christians embarked on a world-wide, conversion-by-the-sword "re-education" scheme."

A significant part of it was done for religious reasons? If this were true the "conversion-by-the-sword" scheme would have to be the most insanely idiotic and immoral strategy of all time, particularly being that it lasted for centuries. You'd think that after a few hundred years someone might have bothered to check on how well things were working out. Like, "hey guys, we've wiped out over ten million Native Americans and only have a small handful of converts. Should we maybe rethink our conversion strategy?" and someone else says, "nah, let's give it another century or so. We might get a few more converts."

Hi Shel, I don't know... try reading the whole article before posting comments about it.

Have a good day,

Kevin

Will the article convince that conversion-by-the-sword is a good strategy?

[Virgo]

Will the article convince that conversion-by-the-sword is a good strategy?

No, but again, read it and then we can discuss it further. Only one page.

Kevin

[username]

This is high school level generalizations. So basically we are told we should follow a new ideology, ie: equated to religion(!) as conceded above, that makes people hate religions, ie: ideologies too (including this new ideology itself by logical deduction [absurd]), as the major root cause of most evil and wage a campaign to evolve beyond or simply put: wage an existential war on religions in general & Buddhism in particular. Till they disappear and totally wiped off (exterminated). So that only a Dzogchen ideology (where ideology is equated with religion as conceded above [more absurdity]) as re-invented into a personal abomination remains.

Any graduate level mathematician, logician or philosopher, never mind post grad, will laugh his head off at so many self contradictory self defeating axioms gathered into such short generalized simplistic idea, ever. Most war starters say they do not want to start a war, they usually call it self defense, but saying I want to[b][i] evolve religions (equated to all ideologies to boot as above!) in general & Buddhism in particular out of existence with my new ideology (religion!) is declaring an existential war on religions in general & Buddhism in particular that few of them dared to put so plainly. Basically any religion ie: by logical deduction ideology too (since ideology=religion too as we are told on this page), and ideology includes any individual thinking philosophy, over 7 billion now!, will need to be evolved out of existence too. 1984. Right!!!

Malcolm's views have nothing to do with George Orwell's theories from the book 1984. You are basically calling him a war starter the likes of which the world has never seen before (see the part of the text that I highlighted in green). I've seen this before and it happens a lot these days, your suffering from paranoia, and there is a particular reason why. . .

Kevin

You accused someone here before explicitly of smoking ganja IIRC. If you imply that again, this time to me: I do not smoke anything what-so-ever, not even the Ayurvedic cigarettes praised here. As I said here before if this sort of remarks were made by my personal friends in my defense I would immediately admonish them in public and would myself apologize. However as I also said before unfortunately this has been going on for many years. Many blogs by people treated so, testify to those and are still up. Most people regardless of their belief system do not let such things happen. We have different value systems.

I wish you all the best.

[viniketa]

I guess that's one way of looking at it. God did let Jesus get crucified, after all.

Slightly different explanation... simply allowing the follow-through of free will and original sin.

In the case of 'nations', the explanation is: If God is all powerful, God cannot loose. Therefore, God's side is always the winning side.

Circular reasoning, yes. Still, it was reasoning that passed muster for a long time (and for some, still does).

[Virgo]

You accused someone here before explicitly of smoking ganja IIRC. If you imply that again, this time to me: I do not smoke anything what-so-ever, not even the Ayurvedic cigarettes praised here. As I said here before if this sort of remarks were made by my personal friends in my defense I would immediately admonish them in public and would myself apologize. However as I also said before unfortunately this has been going on for many years. Many blogs by people treated so, testify to those and are still up. Most people regardless of their belief system do not let such things happen. We have different value systems.

I wish you all the best.

I certainly hope you don't smoke pot, but that isn't what I accused you of so I don't know why you bring it up here. See what I am saying?

Kevin

[shel]

Like, "hey guys, we've wiped out over ten million Native Americans and only have a small handful of converts. Should we maybe rethink our conversion strategy?" and someone else says, "nah, let's give it another century or so. We might get a few more converts."

The thinking at the time was if they did not convert, they might as well be dead, as they could not participate in bringing God's plan to fruition if they did not convert. Dead 'savages' were not a moral problem.

The point was that morals aside, it was a supremely idiotic and unsuccessful plan. But of course we know that it was never actually a plan for religious conversion, right?

[shel]

I guess that's one way of looking at it. God did let Jesus get crucified, after all.

Slightly different explanation... simply allowing the follow-through of free will and original sin.

In the case of 'nations', the explanation is: If God is all powerful, God cannot loose. Therefore, God's side is always the winning side.

Circular reasoning, yes. Still, it was reasoning that passed muster for a long time (and for some, still does).

The point was that you seem to be ignoring the more obviously compassionate side of Christianity involving Jesus and the "Doctrine of Love" etc.

[viniketa]

The point was that morals aside, it was a supremely idiotic and unsuccessful plan. But of course we know that it was never actually a plan for religious conversion, right?

Supremely idiotic if the measure of "success" was living conversions, yes. Their 'plan' was to compliment God's domination by extending the domination of people adhering to his plan.

When God is on your side, fulfillment of your desire for land and resources furthers God's plan.

[viniketa]

The point was that you seem to be ignoring the more obviously compassionate side of Christianity involving Jesus and the "Doctrine of Love" etc.

I'm not ignoring it.

[username]

You accused someone here before explicitly of smoking ganja IIRC. If you imply that again, this time to me: I do not smoke anything what-so-ever, not even the Ayurvedic cigarettes praised here. As I said here before if this sort of remarks were made by my personal friends in my defense I would immediately admonish them in public and would myself apologize. However as I also said before unfortunately this has been going on for many years. Many blogs by people treated so, testify to those and are still up. Most people regardless of their belief system do not let such things happen. We have different value systems.

I wish you all the best.

I certainly hope you don't smoke pot, but that isn't what I accused you of so I don't know why you bring it up here. See what I am saying?

Kevin

That is not a clever reply, why? Because you have said that here before. People are generally very intelligent & have great sensing instincts. Even if it was a clever reply people sense meaning and value each person by their honesty & true intent which does comes through, I assure you, even if they do not say it to you. All the best.

[Tarpa]

make a god of uselessness, sew it at the seams, float it down the river where the sewage hits the sea " - psychadelic furs

Of course religions do much worse than just stinking up the sea.

Wonderful peaceful old christianity would still be burning me and my ilk and our books had it not been for the renassaince period, but then that sort of thing is just S.O.P. for monotheistic demons.
Gotta hand it to them for being able to elevate a worldly tribal god / demon ? named yawheh, YWHW, to a position of universal central power and intelligence and the source of all creation, that was quite a stunt and they pulled it off. Of course man was created to use the earth and all in and on it for his personal playthings, so their little story goes,.......nice, what a religion, nuff said.

Funny how nobody ever, ever, ever brings up the history of islam when discussing it in the media, we can't know the present if we don't know the history, wich speaks for itself, nuff said.

" but religions are good because they all teach ethics, and therefore this is enough to make the world a better place "
No, simply being a decent human being doesn't require religion, or ethics or any formal lists of of ethical behaviour, and in any case we all know how well they follow their thou shalt and thou shalt nots, hypocrisies playground, and most of the people running the world are of christian faith, all we have to do is turn on the t.v. to see how much of a boon to mankind and the earth and all beings christianity has been, lucky us.

I don't respect these " religions ", and I don't repect the very idea of monotheistic demonic power structures, nor do i respect androcentric systems, to me both of these types of structures are antithetic to compassion and wisdom in their very idea. And both systems historically are always very good at mucking up the planet and killing beings, both systems have been nothing but a pain in the ass to the rest of the world.

[Virgo]

That is not a clever reply, why? Because you have said that here before. People are generally very intelligent & have great sensing instincts. Even if it was a clever reply people sense meaning and value each person by their honesty & true intent which does comes through, I assure you, even if they do not say it to you. All the best.

Username, I didn't accuse you of smoking pot and I don't think you smoke pot, nor did I ever suggest it. I do think you sounded paranoid when you implied that Malcolms views were somehow Orwellian in nature, I mean that is a huge accusation that you implied.. especially after he repeatedly stated that he does not want to end any religion and that he feels people should consciously evolve past religions. That's all I was saying. If you do have a bout with paranoia, I know why (and no it's not because of pot smoke).


Kevin

[shel]

The point was that you seem to be ignoring the more obviously compassionate side of Christianity involving Jesus and the "Doctrine of Love" etc.

I'm not ignoring it.

You wrote a few posts back:

In one respect, you are correct, Malcolm. Historically, particularly in the West, it's only been relatively recently that we've separated thought & ideas (and, therefore, ideology) into these nice, neat packages as 'political', 'scientific', 'economic', 'religious', etc. During long periods of history, as it was written, religion was the primary lens through which all human activities were viewed. Money, power, status, all these things were seen as bestowed by God, and God was always seen as being on the side of the most wealthy, most powerful, and most authoritative.

If those involved in Native American genocide did not have the capacity to separate value categories as you describe above, and Jesus stands for love, compassion, humility, sacrifice and so on, then how could such atrocities have been committed for religious reasons? Did they forget about Jesus and his message for all those centuries? What did they think all the crosses stood for?

[username]

That is not a clever reply, why? Because you have said that here before. People are generally very intelligent & have great sensing instincts. Even if it was a clever reply people sense meaning and value each person by their honesty & true intent which does comes through, I assure you, even if they do not say it to you. All the best.

Username, I didn't accuse you of smoking pot and I don't think you smoke pot, nor did I ever suggest it. I do think you sounded paranoid when you implied that Malcolms views were somehow Orwellian in nature, I mean that is a huge accusation that you implied.. especially after he repeatedly stated that he does not want to end any religion and that he feels people should consciously evolve past religions. That's all I was saying. If you do have a bout with paranoia, I know why (and no it's not because of pot smoke).


Kevin

Good luck to your online diagnostics. I note your diagnosis you did in defense of your friend & as I mentioned for someone else you did here previously. Your intent is still coming through. I pass. As for my points, they are first semester level logical deduction and variable unification based on what was said here, quite elementary my dear Virgo:

This is high school level generalizations. So basically we are told we should follow a new ideology, ie: equated to religion(!) as conceded above, that makes people hate religions, ie: ideologies too (including this new ideology itself by logical deduction [absurd]), as the major root cause of most evil and wage a campaign to evolve beyond or simply put: wage an existential war on religions in general & Buddhism in particular. Till they disappear and totally wiped off (exterminated). So that only a Dzogchen ideology (where ideology is equated with religion as conceded above [more absurdity]) as re-invented into a personal abomination remains.

Any graduate level mathematician, logician or philosopher, never mind post grad, will laugh his head off at so many self contradictory self defeating axioms gathered into such short generalized simplistic idea, ever. Most war starters say they do not want to start a war, they usually call it self defense, but saying I want to evolve religions (equated to all ideologies to boot as above!) in general & Buddhism in particular out of existence with my new ideology (religion!) is declaring an existential war on religions in general & Buddhism in particular that few of them dared to put so plainly. Basically any religion ie: by logical deduction ideology too (since ideology=religion too as we are told on this page), and ideology includes any individual thinking philosophy, over 7 billion now!, will need to be evolved out of existence too. 1984. Right!!!

Best wishes.