Comments on Elizaphanian
But what is Just,
And what is unjust, Sam?
Need anyone tell us these things
""And how is a person of no integrity a person of no integrity in the views he holds? There is the case where a person of no integrity is one who holds a view like this: 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is how a person of no integrity is a person of no integrity in the views he holds" (Cula-punnama Sutta)
"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
The wise man tells the world.
Andrew - you're a Pirsig fan then? In which case all I am talking about is the apprehension of quality.
Steven - the wise man kills the Buddha when he meets him on the road.
....sure, the apprehension of quality on a social level though. Or so I'd just throw out there. When you talk about someones deeds and they're corruption, it's being done relative to society.
Even Lila had quality, just not the sort that's consistent with what society does. The OT seems to be by and large a socially oriented document. Which makes sense as it essentially identifies and orients the Hebrew persona. Joshua is a perfect example of what happens when social quality breaks down and one flees to the biological; to the whims. (it seems that that is the foolishness the Hebrew refers to).
On the other hand, Christ isn't so concerned about social conventions. he seems concerned with the intellectual self; another sort of foolishness seems to arise with Christ.
sam--
'if you meet the buddha on the road, kill him.' i can't help but wonder what your confirmation prep class looks like...
When you come across Buddaha, do this!
http://www.ghastlycomic.com/d/20...d/
20060702.html
Yes, it violates good taste, but it is rather appropriate.
Dude, what it violates is my employer's sexual harassment policies. A heads-up NSFW would've been nice!
or find a tantric buddha....
I hate to break to you Sam, I mean that was some nice waffling you did there but actually
"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
means directly to say that if you are an atheist you are a fool. All that gibberish you have pounded out up there is nice but never what was intended.
Gary, hate to break it to you, but you seem to have completely missed the point. In other words, what does "fool" mean here?
BTW I didn't realise you were a Biblical expert - that is, what I said might be gibberish, but it is reasonably well informed gibberish...
"Whoever sayeth, thou fool, shall be in danger of Hell fire." - Matthew 5:22.
I get this "you're an atheist, therefore you're a fool" crap thrown in my face by "kind, loving" Christians all the time. How many of them do you think are clued into all this language parsing stuff you talk about? No, it's just smugness and self-congratulation about belonging to the right tribe.
Speaking of the Buddha, a student once asked him if God existed, and he respnded: "The question does not edify." I take this to mean that morality is independent of God's existence - in Buddhist terms, right action is more important than right belief. A person who needs the carrot of heaven and the stick of hell to keep him in line is not a truly moral person but a self-interested one. The idea that you need to believe in a particular mystical being and a particular set of legends to be a virtuous person is one that I find incredibly frustrating and wrong-headed.
right action IS more important than right belief - that's what Jesus teaches too, and the overwhelming claim of the Bible.
For the record - I thought it was implicit but it needs to be explicit - I don't think that being an atheist makes you a fool today. Though I think being a humourless atheist is indeed very foolish...
"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." is probably the biblical passage most quoted online to an atheist. A close second are the various passages (usually gleefully quoted) about atheists burning in hell for being, well, atheists.
What about the right action being performed because of a wrong reason? Many atheists argue that a christian doing the right thing (say giving to charity) for the wrong reason (the bible told me to) is dangerous because it validates all aspects of the belief system, both negative and positive.
right action IS more important than right belief
My understanding of Protenstantism (which I know you do not ascribe to, Sam) and St. Paul (whom I must assume you do) is that right action is totally insufficient compared to right belief.
Which is a subject of intense academic disagreement these days! My take on St Paul, following people like Ed Sanders and Tom Wright, is that he taught a) we are saved by grace but we are judged according to our actions.
Observer - I'm not sure motivation is that central a Scriptural concept...
Well informed??? Biblcal Expert???
If by well informed you mean you spoke to the author, then fair enough.
I suspect though that you mean, well informed in the "opinion I agree with" sense.
Biblical expert, lol. sort of like being a Hansel and Gretal "expert".
Commenting by HaloScan
