Harmony

[wil]

Harmony will begin when we of each faith and each denomination decide to quit telling the others that we have the one and only corner on the truth and that the rest are going to hell. Harmony will start when we can respect others beliefs an...d their connection with Almighty, YHWH, The Allness, G!d, Allah, Krishna, The Great Spirit, and allow them to connect in their way. Harmony will begin when we can attend each others celebrations, holydays, as guests and absorb the beauty of each others beliefs. Harmony will begin when we have Lao Tsu, the Torah, the Quran, the Tao te Ching on the shelf along with the Bible, the Bahavad Gita, the Book of Mormon..... Harmony will begin when we realize that G!d is bigger than any one religion, and has had to speak to each in their language for thier ears, and for their understanding, and our beliefs are for ourselves.....and we've got plenty to work on ourcellves before we even consider telling others what mistakes they are making.

 

[Vajradhara]

hi wil,

how does having those books on one's bookshelf do anything to promote respect for differences of opinion?

i'll grant that reading those books would help one understand another point of view however understanding a point of view and being respectful of it are quite different things, wouldn't you agree?

it would seem that in your idea of harmony every being will in some manner subscribe to a belief in some sort of deity or otherworldly power of some nature. what allowance, then, is there for beings that do not hold those views? does harmony in this case also extend to beings which profess no religious view and/or those beings which express religious views which deny the existence of deities and gods?

 

[seattlegal]

hi wil,

how does having those books on one's bookshelf do anything to promote respect for differences of opinion?

i'll grant that reading those books would help one understand another point of view however understanding a point of view and being respectful of it are quite different things, wouldn't you agree?

it would seem that in your idea of harmony every being will in some manner subscribe to a belief in some sort of deity or otherworldly power of some nature. what allowance, then, is there for beings that do not hold those views? does harmony in this case also extend to beings which profess no religious view and/or those beings which express religious views which deny the existence of deities and gods?

Well, how many non-believers/disbelievers would see different religions getting along respectfully as nothing short of miraculous?

 

[Vajradhara]

Well, how many non-believers/disbelievers would see different religions getting along respectfully as nothing short of miraculous?

none of them i'd suppose. i seems that by definition non-believers/disbelievers/atheists wouldn't see anything as miraculous.

that said are you suggesting that all religious beings getting along respectfully would demonstrate the reality of a deity/creator deity to non-believers/disbelievers/atheists?

i added the atheist bit there for our discussion as i'm not to sure, really, what the distinction between non-believer and disbeliever is.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

Harmony will begin when we of each faith and each denomination decide to quit telling the others that we have the one and only corner on the truth and that the rest are going to hell. Harmony will start when we can respect others beliefs an...d their connection with Almighty, YHWH, The Allness, G!d, Allah, Krishna, The Great Spirit, and allow them to connect in their way. Harmony will begin when we can attend each others celebrations, holydays, as guests and absorb the beauty of each others beliefs. Harmony will begin when we have Lao Tsu, the Torah, the Quran, the Tao te Ching on the shelf along with the Bible, the Bahavad Gita, the Book of Mormon..... Harmony will begin when we realize that G!d is bigger than any one religion, and has had to speak to each in their language for thier ears, and for their understanding, and our beliefs are for ourselves.....and we've got plenty to work on ourcellves before we even consider telling others what mistakes they are making.

no mention of satanism would you include that as well ?

 

[wil]

hi wil,

how does having those books on one's bookshelf do anything to promote respect for differences of opinion?

i'll grant that reading those books would help one understand another point of view however understanding a point of view and being respectful of it are quite different things, wouldn't you agree?

it would seem that in your idea of harmony every being will in some manner subscribe to a belief in some sort of deity or otherworldly power of some nature. what allowance, then, is there for beings that do not hold those views? does harmony in this case also extend to beings which profess no religious view and/or those beings which express religious views which deny the existence of deities and gods?

It does for me. I have no issues with those that only believe what the science will tell them. Nor do I have issues with the Bhuddist that says that he doesn't know whether there is an afterlife or a G!d.

No those books on a shelf won't do a lot if they aren't read. And in no way am I indicating they should be the only ones on the shelf.

From Steven Covey's 'Seven Habits of Highly Effective People' I learned that one should seek first to understand, then to be understood. I've found often that if understand anothers thinking, and honor it, I no longer have the need to be understood.

Surely you noticed I didn't say Harmony IS...but Harmony begins with....

 

[wil]

no mention of satanism would you include that as well ?

I surely don't know why not, although I have not gotten to reading much about it, as I've yet to encounter one.

Heck we may as well start with what say 90% of the world is before we worry about the small fractions of a percent.

 

[wil]

Well, how many non-believers/disbelievers would see different religions getting along respectfully as nothing short of miraculous?

Wouldn't they though?

I think half the reason there are atheists is due to the actions of believers.

 

[Vajradhara]

It does for me. I have no issues with those that only believe what the science will tell them. Nor do I have issues with the Bhuddist that says that he doesn't know whether there is an afterlife or a G!d.

i'm not one of those sorts of Buddhists Wil. i'm the sort that has a more positive mindset regarding those subjects, i.e. they are knowable.

No those books on a shelf won't do a lot if they aren't read. And in no way am I indicating they should be the only ones on the shelf.

nor did i think so. what i don't really understand however is the connection which you seem to be making between reading and understanding/having respect for other view points. i can read Dianetics and not generate an iota of support for it's views, for instance.

how does reading another view work out to understanding that view and being respectful of it?

From Steven Covey's 'Seven Habits of Highly Effective People' I learned that one should seek first to understand, then to be understood. I've found often that if understand anothers thinking, and honor it, I no longer have the need to be understood.

that sounds effective

Surely you noticed I didn't say Harmony IS...but Harmony begins with....

i did...it seems like an unsupported axiom which isn't consonant with my own world view so i'm seeking to understand the connection between those in your world view.

 

[wil]

no mention of satanism would you include that as well ?

Yes I also left out Jains, Sikhs, Scientologists, Sufis, Shinto, African Traditions, Voodoo, and many many more, not to dis or discount them by naming a number of them and then .... I was inferring all walks of life, or intending to.

I'll be right upfront and tell you I currently have the most issues with Wahabists, or Pure Islam, whatever it is that is creating the radicals over 'there' and Literal Fundies that are creating the radicals over here...

It is my cross to bear, I am intolerant with intolerant people, I admit it.

 

[wil]

i can read Dianetics and not generate an iota of support for it's views, for instance.

What issues did you have when you read Dianetics? (I haven't)

i did...it seems like an unsupported axiom which isn't consonant with my own world view so i'm seeking to understand the connection between those in your world view.

I suppose it is an unsupported axiom. Whats say we get about a 2/3 trillion people to try and see how it goes?

My world view is that it is ignorance and distance that separate us. You know say you see a morbidly obese person, or a bum, or a person with horrific burns, or one of a race or sexual preference that you have been raised to abhor. If you remain distant, you get to keep your prejudices and stories in your head. If you meet them, sit and talk, learn of their family, their trials and tribulations, their dreams and wishes...all the crap fades away...and you find a spirit a life form, not so different from your own.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

I'll be right upfront and tell you I currently have the most issues with Wahabists, or Pure Islam, whatever it is that is creating the radicals over 'there' and Literal Fundies that are creating the radicals over here...

It is my cross to bear, I am intolerant with intolerant people, I admit it.

yes i agree there is some really vile religion around

not just in islam

 

[seattlegal]

none of them i'd suppose. i seems that by definition non-believers/disbelievers/atheists wouldn't see anything as miraculous.

Their faith must be very great.

that said are you suggesting that all religious beings getting along respectfully would demonstrate the reality of a deity/creator deity to non-believers/disbelievers/atheists?

Nope.

i added the atheist bit there for our discussion as i'm not to sure, really, what the distinction between non-believer and disbeliever is.

Disbeliever says, "Impossible!" Non believer realizes that the "impossible!" assertion cannot be logically proven.

 

[wil]

yes i agree there is some really vile religion around

not just in islam

Oh I agree and as usual was not clear enough, when I said

and Literal Fundies that are creating the radicals over here...

I was referring to some folks of our faith. You know the G!d hates ****, Quran burning, short earthers, we are all going to hell types...I've yet to understand that....

 

[Lunitik]

hi wil,

how does having those books on one's bookshelf do anything to promote respect for differences of opinion?

i'll grant that reading those books would help one understand another point of view however understanding a point of view and being respectful of it are quite different things, wouldn't you agree?

it would seem that in your idea of harmony every being will in some manner subscribe to a belief in some sort of deity or otherworldly power of some nature. what allowance, then, is there for beings that do not hold those views? does harmony in this case also extend to beings which profess no religious view and/or those beings which express religious views which deny the existence of deities and gods?

If they are on your shelf, hopefully you will read them and see that each teach exactly the same thing.

Each teaches salvation, each teaches the oneness and ultimate unity of all things, through this oneness we are shown how to interact in community for by harming another we actually harm ourselves. We also learn something of different cultures, for the stories told directly reflect the sensibilities of those who are targeted. Once we realize that the teachings are in harmony, it becomes quite easy for the followers to be in harmony with each other.

Of course, it becomes difficult to reconcile faiths which teach humility with those that teach selfishness. Personally I would prefer to look at the balance which is generated by these apposing views though, rather than say one or the other is wrong.

 

[Vajradhara]

What issues did you have when you read Dianetics? (I haven't)

it's the foundation of $cientology.

I suppose it is an unsupported axiom. Whats say we get about a 2/3 trillion people to try and see how it goes?

that's helpful how?

My world view is that it is ignorance and distance that separate us. You know say you see a morbidly obese person, or a bum, or a person with horrific burns, or one of a race or sexual preference that you have been raised to abhor. If you remain distant, you get to keep your prejudices and stories in your head. If you meet them, sit and talk, learn of their family, their trials and tribulations, their dreams and wishes...all the crap fades away...and you find a spirit a life form, not so different from your own.

fair enough. how does reading a book about their beliefs translate into any of what you just mentioned?

i can read a book about Jain Dharma or i can read a book regarding 11 Dimensional Super String Theory and i cannot see how my act of reading those books would do anything other than make me conversant with the views espoused therein. i cannot see how understanding those views, in and of itself, produces the respectful and tolerant view which you are advocating.

indeed, i would go so far as to suggest that reading is a purely biomechanical process and that meaning, such that it is, arises through a far more complex physiological process in which the brain extrapolates, analyzes and draws inferences various sensory inputs.

 

[Vajradhara]

Disbeliever says, "Impossible!" Non believer realizes that the "impossible!" assertion cannot be logically proven.

since logic is a formal system which doesn't correspond to reality, in much the same manner in which mathematics does not, i'm unclear as to how much value there is in using it for a guide to reality.

in any event, it's a useful enough distinction.

i would be interested to know where you feel the view "anything is possible however not everything is probable." would end up on your bivalent scale?

 

[Vajradhara]

If they are on your shelf, hopefully you will read them and see that each teach exactly the same thing.

Each teaches salvation, each teaches the oneness and ultimate unity of all things, through this oneness we are shown how to interact in community for by harming another we actually harm ourselves.

i disagree. all religions do not teach the same things. they may share many common features especially in the areas of ethics and morals however it would be a mistake, in my view, to conclude that these commonalities denote a common provenance.

We also learn something of different cultures, for the stories told directly reflect the sensibilities of those who are targeted. Once we realize that the teachings are in harmony, it becomes quite easy for the followers to be in harmony with each other.

how does reading about the views of others, in and of itself, produce this understanding of them as individual sentient beings that you would like to live in harmony with? could it not, just as easily, produce understanding of them as individual beings and generate a feeling of intolerance and a desire not to live in harmony?

 

[wil]

it's the foundation of $cientology..

And when you read Dianetics, your thoughts on Scientology did not change on iota?

Of course dealing with people, meeting with people, being involved in discussion would assist as well. But as we know those few books have spawned thousands of denominations and sects, to understand each and their point of view having some foundation is a great start don't you think?

 

[Vajradhara]

And when you read Dianetics, your thoughts on Scientology did not change on iota?

no. i'm firmly in the "against crazy cults" camp.

Of course dealing with people, meeting with people, being involved in discussion would assist as well. But as we know those few books have spawned thousands of denominations and sects, to understand each and their point of view having some foundation is a great start don't you think?

it *could* be a great start however understanding a view does not mean that one is tolerant or respectful of said view. i am not tolerant of $cientology nor am i tolerant of National Socialism, for example, yet i have read their books and feel fairly conversant in their views.

i think that you've got some fairly significant assumptions in your axiom, Wil, not least of which is the implied idea of an underlying unity regarding the provenance of these traditions which i don't happen to share. consequently i am not really able to see how you are coming to the conclusions that you are.