Does Christianity demand that I put aside common sense? — frank

No.

Per the gospel account he didn't really die. People saw him 3 days later. :roll: — frank

So because people saw Him 3 days later, it means He didn't really die? :s

My answer: yes casual sex is always immoral. Sex should be restricted to a committed relationship, where the end goal (of the relationship, not of the sex necessarily) is having a family and children - or at the VERY least intimacy between the two lovers. Marriage is a spiritual union between the two lovers, and as such I don't see the need for the marriage ceremony to officiate this. It's between the two lovers and their God.

In today's world though, this can be a double-edged sword, it's a tight rope to walk, because relationships and families are more unstable today than they were in the past. It's definitely doable, but gotta be careful man... gotta be careful...

What's ghastly about a powerful King going to die after his beloved? That's almost the essence of heroism. It makes sense that it is misunderstood in an age such as ours, which, as Kierkegaard said:

Let others complain that the age is wicked; my complaint is that it is paltry; for it lacks passion. Men's thoughts are thin and flimsy like lace, they are themselves pitiable like the lacemakers. The thoughts of their hearts are too paltry to be sinful. For a worm it might be regarded as a sin to harbor such thoughts, but not for a being made in the image of God. Their lusts are dull and sluggish, their passions sleepy...This is the reason my soul always turns back to the Old Testament and to Shakespeare. I feel that those who speak there are at least human beings: they hate, they love, they murder their enemies, and curse their descendants throughout all generations, they sin

And the reason it is nihilistic is precisely because it castrates man's need for love, and man's need to suffer for their love. All in order to avoid suffering. Don't REALLY love your child - because you know, he is already dead. Be careful there - not too much attachment, you will suffer. It promotes a disengagement with life, or better said, a superficialy engagement with life. It cannot go into depths, it always remains at the surface.

All these realms, however blissful, are impermanent and therefore they are ultimately "dukkha" because they are not free from decay and death. — boundless

Why are death and decay so bad?

So, the training leads to see reality with personal preferences, which are said to be rooted in ignorance (avijja), the cause of craving (and ultimately the cause of samsara). — boundless

I think you mean without personal preferences, but then I see that as dehumanising. How can you be human, if you don't have any preferences? We are human precisely because we can choose, and we choose based on our will, meaning based on our preferences.

For example, even in the Canonical commentaries (i.e. included in the Pali Canon) there are a few "positive" description of Nirvana as being "permanent" (or even "eternal" albeit "not-self and not pertaining to a self", see e.g. this section of the Kathavatthu, a part of the Theravada canonical Abhidhamma). — boundless

Sure, it's even called "eternal bliss". But those conceptions are never developed, nor is it clear what "eternal bliss" means, when Nirvana literarily translates as a "blowing out". When you combine this with the doctrine of anatta - no abiding self whatsoever - then it seems to me that things go quite far towards nihilism. Buddhism speaks very clearly against eternalism, and actually also condemns nihilism, but the two condemnations are made because both eternalism and nihilism assume that there is an abiding self to begin with.

And in fact, the reduction of lust, attachments, aversions etc are accompained by an increasing of "positive" qualities like loving-kindness and compassion. — boundless

I don't see why the "positive" qualities would follow from the mere removal of lust, and the like. To me, it's more like those positive qualities have to be cultivated for themselves. Love, after all, isn't merely the absence of evil.

Some people who practice meditation end up becoming very closed in themselves, and cold, unmoved, uncaring, inhuman. Breivik for example used meditation to carry out mass murder.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/may/22/anders-behring-breivik-meditation

So I'm not at all sure about the soundness of this Buddhist philosophy. It makes sense in the West, where people are generally no longer interested in anything except comfort, and individualism or egoism reigns supreme.

Detachment also means that one does not see the world with the lens of one's preferences and therefore he might also be more able to love others for what they are (and not under the lens of one's expectations, for example). — boundless

I want to challenge this. The personality is an integral aspect of loving someone. It is because of one's preferences, in other words, one's humanity, one's fraility, that love is at all possible. It is because I prefer this, over that, that I can be said to like the one. How is it possible to "love others for what they are" when I have no preferences whatsoever? To love them means that I must will to like them... I must will to want them, to prefer them, to choose them.

Anyway, if that belief is not true, Buddhism, howwever, can be very useful to be mindful, patient and so on. — boundless

I agree.

Buddhist teachings about ethics are in my opinion very useful to non-Buddhists (for example to do vipassana, samatha and metta meditation I do not think that "belief" is required, except an amount of "trust"...). — boundless

Not so much here. I don't think ethics requires meditation and the like. Meditation just helps to clarify perception, but does nothing apart from that. It does not change one's will, it does not bring about a change in one's being or one's character.

IMO, the belief in Samsara is the reason behind this "world-denying" tendency in India. — boundless

I agree.

It would probably be interesting at least. But I find absolute comparisons and competitions relatively unhelpful. In a way, one person can be looking for a useful knife to cut some food with, while another may be searching for the One, True blade Excaliber. Both are noble. Or has Excaliber been found? Then good! Maybe I am searching for it too in a way. You have your beliefs. May they safely carry you wherever you need them to. (Please overlook my melodramatics and mild playful joking. It is less sour and tart than lemonade. This is definitely a serious subject. Carry onward please. Respond as you see fit! :up: ) — 0 thru 9

Hm, I think that you have already placed me in a little box that says "Christian", and therefore not worth aruging with, because it won't get anywhere. That's what I feel, I may be wrong, but that's what it seems like. I am not dogmatic, I just look at what is there. In fact, whether or not Buddhism is nihilistic has nothing to do with Christianity.

About love and relationships:

All the experience you can derive from it is Dukkha

In ultimate reality, relationships don't exit. It's just craving/clinging arising in the mind for seeing, hearing, smelling, touching etc.

Ajahn Chah once explained well how to have a relation, here in a simile of a glass:

The Broken Glass

You may say, "Don't break my glass!" But you can't prevent something breakable from breaking. If it doesn't break now, it'll break later on. If you don't break it, someone else will. If someone else doesn't break it, one of the chickens will! The Buddha says to accept this. He penetrated all the way to seeing that this glass is already broken. This glass that isn't broken, he has us know as already broken. Whenever you pick up the glass, put water in it, drink from it, and put it down, he tells you to see that it's already broken. Understand? The Buddha's understanding was like this. He saw the broken glass in the unbroken one. Whenever its conditions run out, it'll break. Develop this attitude. Use the glass; look after it. Then one day it slips out of your hand: "Smash!" No problem. Why no problem? Because you saw it as broken before it broke. See?

So your child died? No problem! There is no self there, who is there to die? See your child as dead already.

And more:

to go for Nirvana is definitely a selfish matter

Yes you will hurt some feelings, but like I said, you cannot have everything, you have to sacrifice.

So if this isn't an example of nihilism, I don't know what is. Sure, Buddhists claim "Oh yeah, we are not nihilists, because there is no self in the first place to die" - I don't see how that avoids the accusation.

String successfully pulled. — Baden

See, just one session with the master was enough! :wink:

You have to be tremendously smart, and really the best negotiator, and just have this really slick ability to see instinctively how to make things happen the way you want, which is always the best way if you are tremendously intelligent. I'm thinking of writing a book called "The Art of the Sensible Suggestion" - I'll send you a copy. — unenlightened

:lol: I'm actually looking forward! You do have quite a bit of talent at this art.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Sparingly and selectively. There's an art to it. You should take lessons. :nerd: — Baden

I would be glad to be taught by the master himself ;)

Thanks for the replies. With regards to our discussions, I have a bit more time today, so I will use it to clarify my position. So that you don't claim that I'm strawmanning, I will use the exact statements, in the exact contexts, used by people who identify as Buddhists.

@Baden, if you think it appropriate, feel free to move this to its own thread.

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/13731/relationships-what-is-love

Question:

As to Buddhism all sorts of love is "Attachment". And the is no such thing called a person.

Top Answer:

There 3 things interplay here:

Kama Raga - attachment to sensual objects or objects arousing lust
Chanda Raga - attachments to people (lovers, loved one's, family, friends)
Suba Sanna - perception of beauty in the shape of the body
So when you see a person the following can happen:

Pleasure, displeasure, neutral sensation on how you perceive the person based on
Previous interaction and perception formed as friend or not or a person who matters or not or good person or bad person or likable or not
Perception of looks of the person
Relative to one's looks
As an object of desire
So when you see a person of the opposite sex the 1st time, what you get is Kama Raga and Suba Sanna. This is in seeking of pleasure born of such interactions.

Though Kama Raga heavily influences Chanda Raga, the main thing is that the person is influential in you life / perceived world. As the "puppet master" of the perceived world you get pleasure from the "puppets" in the show when they seem to go according to your expectations.

Chanda Raga is what might keep a relationship going even when Kama Raga subsides with time and into old age when Suba Sanna wanes off.

Though in seeking pleasure we get the above 3, in fact these give diverse sensations: pleasure, displeasure, neutral due to impermanent nature and non self nature of existance. All the experience you can derive from it is Dukkha (pain - Dukkha Dukkha, pleasure - Viparinama Dukkha, neutral - Sankhara Dukkha). So to understand the 4 Noble Truths contemplate on the arising and passing of sensations.

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/26482/if-the-self-is-an-illusion-all-my-relationships-are-illusion-too

Question:

If the self is an illusion - of little importance - where does that leave my relationships?

All the people I know, have a relationship with this 'fake self' of mine -- so the relationships are groundless? an illusion also?

Top Answer:

You are asking something like "If superman is fictional, what happens to his relationship with Lois Lane?".

In ultimate reality, relationships don't exit. It's just craving/clinging arising in the mind for seeing, hearing, smelling, touching etc.

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/21366/how-do-you-have-a-relationship

Question:

Buddhism has made me realise that everything is impermanent and undergoing the process of destruction including intimate relationships however if I know this then why is it still so painful when it happens? And what is the point of trying to build a life together with another person when it's inevitably going to end? Sometimes it all feels like such a cruel joke. I was in a relationship for 15 years and never thought it would end but it did and 6 months later I still feel so sad. I don't want to ever get involved intimately with another person ever again because I don't ever want to go through that pain again. Yes this may be aversion to pain but why put yourself through that if you can avoid it? Sure there will be more pain from other things but the pain of separation from a loved one feels worse than a death. It actually feels like I could die.

Top Answer:

Nyom Arturia,

Ajahn Chah once explained well how to have a relation, here in a simile of a glass:

The Broken Glass

You may say, "Don't break my glass!" But you can't prevent something breakable from breaking. If it doesn't break now, it'll break later on. If you don't break it, someone else will. If someone else doesn't break it, one of the chickens will! The Buddha says to accept this. He penetrated all the way to seeing that this glass is already broken. This glass that isn't broken, he has us know as already broken. Whenever you pick up the glass, put water in it, drink from it, and put it down, he tells you to see that it's already broken. Understand? The Buddha's understanding was like this. He saw the broken glass in the unbroken one. Whenever its conditions run out, it'll break. Develop this attitude. Use the glass; look after it. Then one day it slips out of your hand: "Smash!" No problem. Why no problem? Because you saw it as broken before it broke. See?

But usually people say, "I've taken such good care of this glass. Don't ever let it break." Later on the dog breaks it, and you hate the dog. If your child breaks it, you hate him, too. You hate whoever breaks it — because you've dammed yourself up so that the water can't flow. You've made a dam without a spillway. The only thing the dam can do is burst, right? When you make a dam, you have to make a spillway, too. When the water rises up to a certain level, it can flow off safely to the side. When it's full to the brim, it can flow out the spillway. You need to have a spillway like this. Seeing inconstancy is the Buddha's spillway. When you see things this way, you can be at peace. That's the practice of the Dhamma.

That's the case how to possible think if having or losing a relation.

The other case is the sub-question:

And what is the point of trying to build a life together with another person when it's inevitably going to end? Sometimes it all feels like such a cruel joke.

Realization that becoming is actually a "curel joke" is a very high realization and if seen in all compound things the reason for earnest seeking a path out, blessed if having come to the Buddhas good teachings. This is meeting up with the reality of Dukkha.

So in regard of search, what will be for a long time benefit? That search it self is bound to much suffering as well, is clear, but if not having a search is needed and there are three kinds:

Iti 54

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "There are these three searches. Which three? The search for sensuality, the search for becoming, the search for a holy life. These are the three searches."

Centered,

mindful,

alert,

the Awakened One's

disciple

discerns searches,

how searches come into play,

where they cease,

& the path to their ending.

With the ending of searches, a monk

free of want

is totally unbound.

Search for a partner is nothing but about searching after sensuallity, maybe becoming, isn't it? Of course after a career even more... so just give it a deeper thought and maybe use you luck of independency you currently have for a more holly life to be.

At the End it's maybe worthy to say, that also searching for a relation to be able to live the holly life is actually nessesary, so admirable friend(s) are always worthy to seach for and also to invest much in such a relationship, even of course it will outardly break, but once being part of the other kind, no and never alone and without support till standing firm alone.

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/19351/why-buddha-was-not-worried-about-his-family-after-enlightenment/19481

Question:

Of course, after getting enlightened, One is free from worry: now the person is in higher dimension and is always happy, as he knows how perfect everything is.

But still Buddha's family was there; I mean, wasn't his family his responsibility?

I remember when the Buddha came back to the palace and met his wife: she asked, "just tell me, if it was possible to get enlightenment in the palace."

How necessary is it to leave our families to practice, and if it is not necessary why didn't Buddha just come back? I always feel sad when I think about Siddhārtha Gautama's wife Yashodhara.

If one is enlightened, he can not hurt anyone feelings: but Buddha hurt Yashodhara's feelings?

I know I am incorrect somewhere, because after all He was enlightened, so he can not take wrong decision.

Top Answer:

What's your point? There is NO SUCH THING as right decision and wrong decision. It purely depends on the context of the situation. If Gautama wants the answer he is seeking, then he has to leave the family. Period. It is NOT WRONG. He did it because he was yearning for it. It cannot happen to you or me, because we don't have the guts to sacrifice and drop everything that doesn't matter and go towards our goal. If Gautama wanted to rule the world or a kingdom, he would have taken different actions. Actions are according to the goal and the situation. Don't think in terms of marriage/divorce law or morality here.

I also want to add finally that, to go for Nirvana is definitely a selfish matter. If I want to find out what it is, it is because it is MY DESIRE to find out. Without Desire, you cannot live, breathe, feel or do anything. It is a desire to find out about life that Gautama went forth with. And whether you like it or not, it is selfish. And why not be selfish about this? Yes you will hurt some feelings, but like I said, you cannot have everything, you have to sacrifice.

And keep in mind, this stack exchange has a greater number of Eastern Buddhists than many other English speaking online places. And these answers make it clear how utterly nihilistic and devaluing Buddhism is of the world and its possibilities. Compare this, on the other hand with Christianity. Christianity, where God Himself comes into the world to live amongst human beings out of Love. Where He, being the King of Kings allows Himself to be mocked and humiliated, and ultimately killed in the name of Love. Behold One who was not afraid of suffering - who did not want to "escape" suffering, but rather plunged straight into the jaws of suffering. Jesus, apart from being God, was a real man. There is something mawkish and unmanly about the retreat from the world in order to avoid suffering. It is true that attachment is suffering (or rather has the potential for suffering in it) - but that's no reason to avoid it.

Only weak natures, who cannot bear the pressure of pain and suffering will give up on themselves. A strong nature, even if reality were different than its desire, would never renounce the said desire. That is the ultimate statement of its strength, will, and determination in front of the world. The fact that it chooses to stick with its nature, rather than surrender to external circumstances. As such, the faith proposed by Christianity is the ultimate rebellion, the ultimate scandal, man's determination that he will stick with himself, rather than with the world. Christianity does not devalue this world by postulating a Heaven when "All tears will be wiped away", but rather lifts up the world, makes it divine. What greater source of strength can be imagined, than this infinite faith, which burns up anything that stands against it, and remains true to one's nature and desires?

It is only in relationship with the transcendent that the joy of immanence is possible.

Blaise Pascal:
"Man is only a reed, the weakest in nature, but he is a thinking reed. There is no need for the whole universe to take up arms to crush him: a vapour, a drop of water is enough to kill him. but even if the universe were to crush him, man would still be nobler than his slayer, because he knows that he is dying and the advantage the universe has over him. The universe knows none of this."

If you think this is a bad idea, blame unenlightened, as it's his. — Baden

I have a question. Does unenlightened still pull them strings? :wink:

Hi 0 thru 9, I appreciate your response. However, I don't see sufficient effort to answer the points I've brought up. For example:

Attachments are seen as the cause of suffering in Buddhism - you are not to be attached. So how is it possible to love and care for your children, for example, without any form of attachment? Your children become, just like Buddha's children became for him, a stumbling block. So he left his palace and his children and his wife to find enlightenment alone in the forest. And that is applauded in the story. His loved ones represented nothing more than obstacles in his way. How can this not be selfish? It seems to me that Buddhism is, in its essence, built around this personal aversion to suffering, that sets one on a mission to end suffering for themselves, for their own sake. — Agustino

I've made a point here that you do not address. I am not looking to convince you, or to be convinced by you, but since this is a philosophy forum, I think it's appropriate to engage in dialogue and try our best to resolve problems and misunderstandings. Disengaging from dialogue isn't very productive in achieving this aim.

I have nothing against Buddhism, please keep in mind that I studied Buddhism for quite a few years, first beginning quite early at the age of 12, indirectly through Osho. Then I've read through some of the Sutras, some introductory books, watched lots of YouTube lectures, etc. It's not like I reject it out of hand. But I simply don't see how you can conceptualise social relationships, for example, under Buddhism. Yes, mindfulness, compassion, wisdom, clear sight and everything you mention are much needed. But I'm sure you'll agree that Buddhism gives a certain spin to those practices.

You sure this isn't a misrepresentation of Buddhism? — Erik

I am discussing Western Buddhism for the most part. I did claim it is a misrepresentation of actual Buddhism:

Hence the prevailing acceptance of a (misunderstood) nihilistic religion like Buddhism. — Agustino

I am saying that Buddhism is accepted as it is accepted mostly because it is misunderstood through the lens of our hedonistic/consumerist culture. — Agustino

acknowledge suffering, identify its cause, recognize that it can be minimized, and follow certain practices (Eight Fold Path) as a means of eliminating as much of it as humanly possible. — Erik

Put that way, but very often it is phrased as "life is suffering, desire is the cause of suffering, suffering can be extinguished, the way to extinguish it is the Noble Eightfold Path".

with salvation coming strictly through God's grace. This obviously holds true for the salvation of the whole as well: to assume that one could do something to improve the condition of the world without God being the cause would seem to be a case of hubris. — Erik

But for Christianity, everything is sustained into being by God. You do have free will (that is of the essence of Christianity), so what you do does matter. But since you only exist because of God, it is, ultimately, not just your doing, but also God's. So whatsoever one does is, at the very least, permitted by God (who sustains everyone into being).

Also, salvation in Christianity is freely given. It just has to be accepted. Though salvation IS NOT the same as deification (theosis) which is the ultimate aim of Christianity.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

However, it is true that even Asian Buddhism tends towards nihilism. Attachments are seen as the cause of suffering in Buddhism - you are not to be attached. So how is it possible to love and care for your children, for example, without any form of attachment? Your children become, just like Buddha's children became for him, a stumbling block. So he left his palace and his children and his wife to find enlightenment alone in the forest. And that is applauded in the story. His loved ones represented nothing more than obstacles in his way. How can this not be selfish? It seems to me that Buddhism is, in its essence, built around this personal aversion to suffering, that sets one on a mission to end suffering for themselves, for their own sake.

How is loyalty at all possible without attachment? How is human society, and all the many social benefits we extract by living in communities at all possible? Our communities are built around attachments. Attachments to your home, attachments to your family, attachments to your children, attachments to your work, etc. We can only be successful in an endeavour which requires collaboration (building a business, building a family, building an organisation, etc. etc.) so long as we remain loyal to each other onto the very end. But this doctrine of non-attachment precludes this lived dependence between people that is necessary in order to have a society.

And then the whole doctrine of anatta (no-self) leads to a detached view of suffering. People are suffering because they are ignorant, therefore it is like a nightmare, ultimately, it's nothing to care about. The Bodhisattva may choose to stay behind until all creatures are saved, however, there is this disconnect and detachment that exists between the Bodhisattva and the rest. The Christian saint falls on his knees and cries at the suffering of the world - the Buddhist sage, on the other hand, sits unmoved, like a rock. There are no tears in his eyes - indeed, if there were to be any tears, he would not have escaped suffering yet. This aversion to suffering is taken to such extremes that one prefers not being human anymore, just to avoid suffering. One prefers castrating one's self, just to get rid of suffering.

Tell me how this doesn't portray a nihilistic tendency that can be exploited and has been exploited in Buddhism. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to be corrected on this, but everything that I've read on Buddhism points back to the same thing - a concern with one's OWN salvation, and a distaste of anything that brings about suffering to one's self.

Fellow members: how do you decide to flag a moderator? — frank

Whenever I see them, I flag them. Simple really.

Are you perhaps saying that Buddhism is accepted only or mostly because it is misunderstood? If so, what does that mean? If not, what did you mean? — 0 thru 9

I am saying that Buddhism is accepted as it is accepted mostly because it is misunderstood through the lens of our hedonistic/consumerist culture. Buddhism is a palliative against pain and suffering. But the issue lies with the way it is used. It's used in order to mask resolvable pains as unresolvable ones, in order to maintain a diseased state of the soul, in order to prevent the pain from waking one up to one's own conditioning. Buddhism is a way of avoiding the need to look at your own face and to actually do something that can bring about a resolution.

For example, an alcoholic may resort to Buddhism and the tenet that life is suffering as a palliative for accepting his condition. He suffers because, oh well, suffering is unavoidable. It's the nature of life. There is no urgency to remedy his condition, nor is there anything morally wrong with his actions.

It is nihilistic not because it is a-theistic, but rather because it leads one towards being irresponsible for one's own condition, AND, more importantly, for the condition of the world. And somewhat paradoxically, Buddhism also engenders this same self-concern which plagues the West today - because it turns the focus inward, on one's self, as it becomes of prime importance to pay attention to yourself, and only secondarily to others. If your son smokes and you don't like that, for example, it teaches you to accept it, because life is suffering, it is in the nature of life to have our desires disappointed. And thus, you don't do anything about it. These are all manifestations of nihilism.

So while Buddhism is misunderstood in the West, it is also true that Buddhism is, amongst the religions, the most nihilistic and world-denying. That is why it can be misunderstood in the first place. It is for this reason that it can be used as it is being used.

The point is that probably any examples you find are not actually democracies. That does not mean that they are not declining or collapsing. It does mean that they're not collapsing because they're democracies. — tim wood

Yes, they are not "actually" democracies because it belongs to the essence of democracy to be unstable and to, over time, decline into tyranny. Although this is the same trope the communists played, saying that the USSR wasn't "actually" communism.

Killing someone in self-defence is not murder for example. Killing someone unjustly, and without due cause, that, on the other hand, is murder. Because of this attachment to a particular context (or set of contexts) it is possible to judge murder as always wrong. Indeed, we have defined the concept in such a way that it is necessarily wrong.

Wrath is inherently wrong, agree or not? — Baden

Wrath is an excess of anger, again, it's defined such that it's always wrong.

Wrath — Baden

Same as murder above.

In this sense, violence is not like murder. Murder is defined according to a particular context, and as such, it is always wrong.

It's never inherently good. It can only be a pragmatic good. — Baden

I disagree on the distinction here I think. What is violence in-itself? To me, in-itself it is always contextual. That is part of its essence. You cannot have contextless violence.

Anyway, it's the other chap that's the problem, and my violence is down to him. That's where we are, isn't it? — unenlightened

I have an alternative. Violence in-itself is not a problem. Whether it's good or bad depends on the context. You just have an unnatural aversion to violence, such that you don't see that it's ever good.

Christianity is a dead religion. — frank

This statement needs some unpacking. Christianity is dead in the sense that its symbols no longer resonate for Western man - that much is true. And Christianity has been "dying" in this sense ever since Nietzsche proclaimed that "God is dead, and we have killed him". Christianity has lost its authenticity in other words. The symbols used by the Christian religion no longer "make sense" to the way of being of the average Joe in the Western world. Christianity has lost its vitality.

Christianity has become legalistic. The meaning behind the words is lost. All we have left are the words, and without the meaning, the words are, of course, empty and absurd. To revive Christianity we have to recover the meaning, we have to re-invent the meaning. We have to re-paint the white fence white again, since it has darkened with the passage of time.

Although as a side note, Christianity is doing great in Latin America and China.

It's absurd stories and ridiculous requirements have been superseded by secular authority and science. — frank

But it's not because the stories are absurd, or the requirements are ridiculous. They are absolutely not. It's because "secular man" does not have the openness required to understand them. The social environment is inimical to Christianity, and as such, Christianity cannot but be misunderstood by the masses. To talk of a hedonistic AND Christian age at one and the same time is indeed a contradiction in terms. They are two parallel worlds. The evils currently seen in the world are interpreted, by science and secular authority, as necessary. As the nature of existence. Hence the prevailing acceptance of a (misunderstood) nihilistic religion like Buddhism.

However, such people are 0.1% of the population or less. For the rest, the whip is needed.

(It's not that black and white - most people need just a little "threat" to be nice, decent people. But those who need no threat at all are very rare. And those who need a lot of threat, they are also rare - psychopaths, etc.)

Tyranny doesn't always come from without. In some cultures people are taught in childhood to internalize a dictatorial figure. People of that kind won't need much of a threat from an external force to enjoy peace. — frank

This is a very arbitrary way of thinking about the phenomenon, which actually obscures any understanding of the existence of man. First, people are taught everything in childhood - even NOT internalizing a dictatorial figure. That is also, indeed, something they - internalize.

Second, why should we conceive it as a dictatorial figure, instead of a moral conscience? Then those who lack moral conscience are (rightly) seen as deficient, as being unable to access an integral part of what it means to be fully human, instead of (inadequately) perceived as being free. Psychoanalysis becomes deficient when you overextend it to the point where all guilt is interpreted as the internalization of a dictatorial figure or neuroticism. It is true that guilt can have a neurotic aspect (when it becomes a stumbling block to change, when one dwells on it beyond the point of usefulness, etc.). But to think this is the only aspect of guilt is to fail to see the phenomenon in its entirety. And not only. In so doing, guilt actually becomes unexplainable. Why is it at all possible for people to feel guilt? Sure, they are indoctrinated in childhood, but why is such indoctrination at all possible? Why is this a possibility of the human being?

At the same time, understanding why such an obfuscation takes place isn't difficult. The desirous part of the soul, which wants to do solely as it pleases, can't wait for a reason to take control. What better reason than to reverse the truth, and replace it with a lie?

The truth is that having a moral conscience, being capable to feel guilt - these are possible for the human being because they are useful. Guilt is necessary in order for us to be social creatures. It is also necessary for us in order to change. Meditating on guilt can indeed produce changes in one's character.

So yes, I agree that people with a highly developed moral conscience do not need an external force to enjoy peace. They know that if they do wrong, they will let themselves down, and won't be able to look in the mirror any longer.

No violence, no state. But no state, more violence. Lamentable. If we all just stayed online insulting each other rather than fucking about in the real world, we might be able to solve this. — Baden

Forget the state. Without the kind of violence that they are talking about you cannot even have this forum.

I think it is possible for us to live in peace. — Moliere

Okay, how do we live in peace if I want X, and you also want X, and we both can't have it? Must there not be some means or manner for the two of us to negotiate, or at least for the two of us to determine who gets X and who doesn't? If there is such a means, then that means itself is violent, under the definition we are using.

Violence begets violence. We live in a cycle of violence. — Moliere

That's not true. Violence does not always produce resentment. I gave you the above scenario, when a main contractor pays the subcontractor less than agreed price due to delays. That is a violent act. But it does not beget resentment, so long as the other party understands it as reasonable.

This is the great Platonic insight. We can have order precisely because reason can modulate the spirited and desirous aspects of the soul. People only become resentful when they interpret the violence done to them as unfair, unjust, undeserved.

If your son understands that if he smokes he harms his body, and for that reason, he upsets you, then he will understand why you're telling him that it won't be fair for you to give him his weekly allowance if he keeps doing it.

That is how we live in peace. Unenlightened seems to allow this desirous aspect of the soul take him to an extreme, whereby he takes any form of violence to mean the absence of peace. He starts thinking in black and white instead of dialectically. What unenlightened proposes is chaos, and the dissolution of not just the state, but also the family, associations, businesses, and anything that involves cooperation. Cooperation is based on mutual understanding and mutual concessions.

As Jordan Peterson would say, people must know that you can bite, even if you never do. Otherwise they will not respect you.

No, of course not. If all my tomatoes get stolen or vandalised, I won't grow any next year. I'm not threatening anyone. — unenlightened

Why not? Maybe the person taking them wants you to keep growing them. If he knew this, he would modify his behaviour and would not take all of them anymore, only some. It does count as violence since it is opposed to the desire of the other, and you're forcing him not to find anymore tomatoes there.

We can't live together. — unenlightened

So then how would society be possible?

But if your communication of consequences are "If you take my ball, I'm going to punch you" then that is a threat, and said threat is violent. — Moliere

Agreed. But do you agree with the need for this kind of communication in order for society to be at all possible?

That's quite funny. I'm inclined to admit that nothing can be enforced without violence.
But then I would suggest that if we agree, we don't need to enforce anything. — unenlightened

Are you kidding me? How else can we have a society then? You're behaving as if we didn't have expectations from each other, and conflicting desires that we need to negotiate. Without negotiating them, we won't be able to live together.

My son smokes. I don't like that. We will need to negotiate that... Maybe he doesn't smoke around me, etc. Without negotiating, we cannot live together.

So do you take all communications of reactions which can be seen as negative or unfavourable by the other party as threats?

From my experience people don't take them this way. If I tell a subcontractor "look, you've already been late 1 day, if you are late another day I will have to cut 10% off your price because you are creating additional costs for us, and it's not fair for us to bear the costs alone". On the other hand, if you were to tell someone "work 24/7 for me or else I will fire you and make sure you starve" now that is a threat and abusive too.

I haven't proposed a world. I have merely pointed out and lamented that the world that we live in is founded on violence. — unenlightened

So why do you decry that the world is founded on violence if you don't even have an alternative? I fail to see how it could be otherwise, without us losing many of the things we value.

it is mine by social agreement. — unenlightened

Agreed.

And the social agreement is enforced by the threat and use of violence against those who fail to agree. — unenlightened

By what else could the social agreement be enforced? We have desires from each other, we are social creatures. I desire my son not to smoke for example, because it is harmful to him. If he does smoke, what shall I do? Shall I not seek to change that? And if I do, will my desire not be violent, since it is opposed, at least, to his current way of thinking?

How else can we live together, if not by this mutual give and take? We all have desires from one another, we are social creatures. If we don't take these desires into account, if we don't communicate them, if we don't communicate what our boundaries are, there will be trouble...

Sure there is. There is the threat -- threatening others is still violence. Calling it "defense" doesn't change that. — Moliere

I don't see it as a threat, I see it as communication of consequences. So if you were to tell your child, "if you don't do your homework, it won't be fair for me to give you your weekly allowance", I don't see that as a threat. It's communicating to them how you will react to their actions so that they are aware of it and can take it into account when deciding what to do.

Consequences may be "violent", if by that you mean that they are things that someone does not desire to happen. That's not necessarily negative though.

No it isn't. If I stand guard over my tomatoes with a big stick, that is violent even if everyone keeps out of my way. Threats of violence are violence; peace is not threatening. — unenlightened

I don't understand how the world you're proposing will ever work out. People need to know that there are consequences for actions. The sort of world you're proposing, without the stick, is a world where no communication of consequences is made. But we have limited resources, and often our human desires come into conflict with one another. We need a mechanism by which to negotiate. And negotiating presupposes that both parties communicate with each other and understand the consequences. There is nothing violent about me saying that if you steal my property, I will defend it. There is, on the other hand, something violent about you appropriating my property.

Imagine a world where people don't know there are consequences... We could form no association whatsoever in that world. Society demands a certain degree of discipline. Without that, all our associations end up being temporary associations, so long as our self-interest aligns. There could be no family for example.

And the truth is that those tools of mass destruction and death you saw on display form a good part of the reason you are so safe. — Hanover

I sort of agree. Unenlightened is, in a way, sitting on the white sepulcher of colonialism, and crying foul. The irony being that, it is precisely by climbing on the sepulcher that it is possible to cry foul at all.

My opinion is that we are sitting on the precipice of Western civilization as we know it. We are at a historical cross-roads at the moment, and what will happen in the next 50 years may very well decide the next 300. The way I see it, the world is in chaos, and we need to bring back some form of order. How will we do it?

Well I'm second-guessing myself now, but I'm almost positive I've seen him drop expletives here and there. — Erik

Yeah, I just meant that I wasn't around, so I wouldn't know. I added to my post:

Maybe I was spared because I stopped posting roundabout when Maw made his return. — Agustino

Maw doesn't swear? Are you kidding me! — Erik

That's what happens when you're not around for awhile :rofl: Maybe I was spared because I stopped posting roundabout when Maw made his return.

Well, to be honest, @Maw is FAAAR more intolerant than Buxta, even though he doesn't swear.

So, we ought to be more tolerant to people who become increasingly intolerant to other's opinions? That's not a stable equilibrium by any means. — Posty McPostface

I don't think he was intolerant, I think it was just his style.

But, I had nothing against Buxte, just that he became increasingly hostile and grudging against a particular moderator, upon being notified that he was put on 'probation' — Posty McPostface

Come on, did you or the moderators really expect Buxta to stop? Then he wouldn't be Buxta anymore. So I don't buy this. Whoever gave the warning did not expect him to stop, and gave the warning on purpose, knowing the end. People here are not dumb.