Do you mind me asking but What kind of church did you belong to because I'm from Ireland which when I was a child in the 60's was a very conservative Catholic country, but I don't remember my parents commanding me to obey them even though they were practicing Catholics. I was given full freedom to think for myself by them and my teachers. Of course 90% of people at that time attended mass. Religion was everywhere. But I think the Irish, although it was a conservative Catholic country, are by their nature quite a liberal minded, freedom loving , irreverent and progressive people's and just ignored the Church,s pronouncements or attempts to control our minds and hearts. I remember the wild parties full of casual sex and almost orgies, even back in the 70,s in so called Catholic Ireland. One Irish Professer on tv said "we Irish were straight-laced by day and hedonistic by night" — Ross

The ideal catholic community is one in which there is an acceptance that pretty much ‘everyone does this’. So you wouldn’t even consider not wanting to attend mass every Sunday, make your first communion, or recite the Nicene Creed, when all your friends are doing it anyway. There is no need to command obedience to God when this obedience is considered ‘normal’ behaviour. So I don’t doubt you had full freedom to think for yourself within an Irish Catholic context.

I grew up in a suburban Catholic school community in Australia (in the 80s). By the time we stopped listening to our parents, the teachers had us believing that all our religious practices at least were ‘normal’. That started to change once I left school, of course. Thinking for yourself within a religious context isn’t quite the same as thinking for yourself without these constraints, but it’s easiest to restructure it as ‘self’ once you’re free of the original context, at least initially.

But this isn’t following Jesus’ teachings - it’s following everyone else.

the teachers had us believing that all our religious practices at least were ‘normal’ — Possibility

What do you mean by normal in this sense. In primary school were marched down to the church on a regular basis but I went to a non denominational secondary school where God was hardly mentioned. My Dad was very religious but my mother although she had faith had a much more liberal take of Catholicism. There was a fierce backlash against the Catholic church in Ireland from about the late 80,s and especially 90,s mainly because of the clerical sexual abuse scandals. The Irish had felt so oppressed by a traditionally authoritarian church that the reaction against it by a new generation was huge and now we have the first openly homosexual prime minister in our history which would have been unthinkable a generation ago.

Loving kindness (metta) in Buddhism includes love for all living things. — Ross

"Metta" isn't 'love', and "loving-kindness" is an awkward translation.

From Thanissaro Bhikkhu: Metta Means Goodwill:
/.../
Metta is a wish for happiness — true happiness — and the Buddha says to develop this wish for ourselves and everyone else: "With metta for the entire cosmos, cultivate a limitless heart." (Snp 1.8) But what's the emotional quality that goes along with that wish? Many people define it as "lovingkindness," implying a desire to be there for other people: to cherish them, to provide them with intimacy, nurture, and protection. The idea of feeling love for everyone sounds very noble and emotionally satisfying. But when you really stop to think about all the beings in the cosmos, there are a lot of them who — like the snake — would react to your lovingkindness with suspicion and fear. Rather than wanting your love, they would rather be left alone. Others might try to take unfair advantage of your lovingkindness, reading it as a sign either of your weakness or of your endorsement of whatever they want to do. In none of these cases would your lovingkindness lead to anyone's true happiness. When this is the case, you're left wondering if the Buddha's instructions on universal metta are really realistic or wise.
/.../
metta is not necessarily an attitude of lovingkindness. It's more an attitude of goodwill — wishing the other person well, but realizing that true happiness is something that each of us ultimately will have to find for him or herself, and sometimes most easily when we go our separate ways.

This understanding of metta is borne out in the Pali Canon, first of all in the word itself. The Pali language has another word for love — pema — whereas metta is related to the word mitta, or friend. Universal metta is friendliness for all.
/.../


Please see the rest of the essay for canonical references.

The ideal catholic community is one in which there is an acceptance that pretty much ‘everyone does this — Possibility

I think it's more a question of political authorities using and abusing religion for their own ends rather than the fault of the Church itself. A classic case in my country is Northern Ireland during the conflict there in the 70,s and 80,s where people were murdered simply because they were a Catholic or Protestant. It had nothing to do with religion, the motives were political. If you think of Renaissance painters in the 15th century in Italy like Michelangelo who painted and sculpted make and female nudes for exhibition in public places and was commissioned by the Catholic church to do so. And Leonardo da Vinci was openly homosexual as far back as THE 15th century. and it had no impact on his celebrity status. I think something has happened since that time when things became more conservative or repressive , 19th century Victorian society in Britain and Ireland was notoriously repressive where women had to cover themselves up completely , reminds me of the fundamentalist Islamic codes on women's dress nowadays . I think it's more about politics and social attitudes than religion which is used by people for their agendas. Jesus treated women as equals 2000 years ago when it was almost unheard of at that time. He was in my opinion a counter cultural figure.

"Socioeconomic success is wisdom"? (transl: Greed is good :roll:) ... — 180 Proof

You misread my tone.

Have you read Döblin's Berlin Alexanderplatz?

It could very well be that being a liberal humanist, one expects too much from life, and from mankind, and that, like Franz Bieberkopf should have done, one should set one's hopes on no more than bread with butter.

I would very much like to believe that there is a wisdom that is beyond and above socioeconomic success, a wisdom that is worth more than socioeconomic success, a wisdom that trumps socioeconomic success. But I am afraid, sincerely afraid, that there is no such wisdom, and that socioeconomic success is as good as life gets.

I am afraid, sincerely afraid, that there is no such wisdom, and that socioeconomic success is as good as life gets. — baker

You may be right. As Kafka wrote: "There is an infinite amount of hope in the universe ... but not for us." Still, the teachings of e.g. the Buddha, Laozi, Epicurus-Lucretius, Seneca-Epictetus, ... Spinoza ... Zapffe-Camus, Buber ... Gandhi-King ... Nussbaum-Sen ... are wise insofar as they provide reminders for unlearning habits (vices) by which we tend to make ourselves, and therefore others, more miserable than less. This 'unlearning misery' is completely in one's control whereas "socioeconomic success" is always dependent on – at the mercy of the volatile cycles of – (rigged!) market forces and exogenous events (e.g. pandemic effects on local, regional, even national economies).

No matter that material well being for a relative few is "as good as life gets" – I'm anarchic (a catastrophist-entropologist-agonist) and not utopian by any means – wisdom, as philosophy manifests, is aspirational, a horizon approached but never reached; as Buddhists say "Be here now ... The path is the goal, the journey is the destination." Wise. In contrast to "You shall receive your reward in the hereafter", blah blah blah, etc. Christianity had from its beginning completely misconstrued (corrupted) the simple, though not easy, teaching

Whatever you find hateful (harmful), do not do to anyone. That is the meaning of the Torah, all the rest is commentary. Go study it. — Hillel the Elder, standing on one foot

Compared to (early) Buddhist practices, Christianity has always been a mug's game.

I am a Christian of some sort.
Your challenge is worthy of a response.
But I make a poor champion for others. especially if we disagree about what has changed.

Metta" isn't 'love', and "loving-kindness" is an awkward translation. — baker

Pali metta is the equivalent of Sanskrit maitri which seems to be more like friendliness, goodwill, or benevolence, the opposite being ill-will.

In the Yoga Sutra of Patanjali, maitri is supposed to be practiced together with other attitudes like compassion (karuna), happiness (mudita), and indifference (upeksanam).

It is debatable how to best apply this in practice, though. For example, when coming across a tiger in the forest. I think the idea is that when practiced properly, the object of your metta, in this case the tiger, will be moved to respond in kind and be nice to you instead of having you for breakfast or lunch. But I don't know how many Buddhists have developed their metta to the degree that it would work out as intended.

On the other hand, if the ultimate objective of metta is to eradicate selfishness, then perhaps offering yourself as food to the tiger may be the quickest way to achieve it.

In the Jataka Stories, the Buddha in a previous life met a starving tigress that was about to eat her own cubs, and offered himself to her as food out of metta and karuna (Āryaśūra's Jātakamālā, Vyāghrī-jātaka).

This would seem to have thoroughly eradicated his selfishness as he later attained nirvana. So, there may be some truth in it ....

would very much like to believe that there is a wisdom that is beyond and above socioeconomic success, a wisdom that is worth more than socioeconomic success, a wisdom that trumps socioeconomic success. But I am afraid, sincerely afraid, that there is no such wisdom, and that socioeconomic success is as good as life gets. — baker

Interesting, Baker. I am afraid that wisdom may be as good as life gets... I prefer your fear as it is more straight forward and it would mean I can stop trying to understand Being and Time...

What do you mean by normal in this sense — Ross

Not worth questioning, I suppose.

I think it's more a question of political authorities using and abusing religion for their own ends rather than the fault of the Church itself. A classic case in my country is Northern Ireland during the conflict there in the 70,s and 80,s where people were murdered simply because they were a Catholic or Protestant. It had nothing to do with religion, the motives were political. — Ross

I don’t think you can separate politics from religion, especially when it comes to Catholicism, which has a clear hierarchical structure of authority. The Church is far from faultless, even in the case of Northern Ireland. The idea that religion is ‘used and abused’ or a tool to be wielded is the same argument the gun lobby employs. But religion is not a tool you can reserve only for those licensed to use responsibly. It’s a capacity that anyone can access for any reason: to inspire attention and effort towards that vague awareness of ‘something’ beyond our understanding, and give it form. There’s no such thing as an ‘accident’ in using religion.

But religion is different from teachings, and actually has nothing to do with wisdom. This is the main point I want to get across.

The Church is far from faultless, even in the case of Northern Ireland. The idea that religion is ‘used and abused’ or a tool to be wielded is the same argument the gun lobby employs. — Possibility

I disagree I think religion is used frequently for the purposes of all kinds of injustice. I lived through the troubles in Ireland so I know what it was like. The famous slogan of the Unionists in Northern Ireland is we don't want Rome Rule . By that they meant being ruled by a Dublin government which was a Catholic country would mean Catholic domination of the whole island and the protestant unionists would then be a minority. So you see how they used religion for their political ends. It was a few priests in northern Ireland who were important in developing the peace process. The Church during the conflict preached non violence and did not take sides.
I wonder to what extent is it powerful conservative elements in society who are using the Church for their own agenda or is it the other way around that the Church is the cause of these elements. I think it's a chicken-and-egg situation. It's not that straightforward . In the middle ages the Church made war and actually organized massacres of heretics, protestants etc. Nowadays the Church,s role is very different, in a world of ethnic conflict, terrorism and violence, the Church preaches non violence, peace, help for the needy and so on. I think where it was greatly at fault nowadays was it's recent covering up of child sex abuse rather than handing over the perpetrators to justice. That did more damage to the church than anything else in it's history and it will never recover it's moral authority or trust in Ireland that it once had.

It is debatable how to best apply this in practice, though. For example, when coming across a tiger in the forest. I think the idea is that when practiced properly, the object of your metta, in this case the tiger, will be moved to respond in kind and be nice to you instead of having you for breakfast or lunch. But I don't know how many Buddhists have developed their metta to the degree that it would work out as intended. — Apollodorus

I think the Buddhists meant only human beings in relation to Metta. In my opinion modern psychology proves the validity of the Buddhist teachings about Metta, compassion, kindness and so on. It's been shown empirically that these values when practiced lead to greater happiness. The human brain over the course of evolution developed the capacity for empathy, compassion in response to the survival needs, and this led to greater cooperation and ultimately the building of more stable and larger communities and fast forward to the development of advanced civilizations. So in my opinion Buddhist philosophy not only contains the value of thousands of years of accumulated wisdom drawn from observing REAL people in REAL life situations but it makes practical sense for someone in pursuit of happiness.

So in my opinion Buddhist philosophy not only contains the value of thousands of years of accumulated wisdom drawn from observing REAL people in REAL life situations but it makes practical sense for someone in pursuit of happiness. — Ross

Correct. However, the concept of ethical conduct as conducive to happiness both in the individual and in society, was already central to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, and subsequently passed into the Christian tradition along with other elements of Hellenistic philosophy.

So, it does not seem to be exclusively a feature of Buddhism.

I think the Buddhists meant only human beings in relation to Metta — Ross

I want to make a correction to my point here, although Metta is meant to apply to all living things that obviously is not going to impact the behavior of Tiger you mentioned in your example. But the value of the Buddhist teaching here lies in the fact that it changes our attitude towards the whole of creation. Something I think is a very valuable life lesson for us TODAY in the plundering of the planets finite resources. Christianity does not have, to my knowledge, the same attitude of respect or Metta towards the natural environment. In the Bible it says Man has dominion over creation. Man is seen as superior to the animals. It's also due to the Newtownian view of the mechanical universe. That arrogance and flawed thinking is possibly what led us to the plundering of our planet, viewing it as a material object to exploit for our pleasure and to climate crisis of today. I think many people are realize that this attitude is not wise and the ecological and environmental movement is growing.

although Metta is meant to apply to all living things that obviously is not going to impact the behavior of Tiger you mentioned in your example. But the value of the Buddhist teaching here lies in the fact that it changes our attitude towards the whole of creation. — Ross

You are probably right there.

But I wouldn't blame Christianity for the destruction of the environment. People have always cut down forests to grow crops, build houses and ships, for fuel, etc. Large-scale deforestation, etc. only came with the growth of populations. The rest was the work of industrialization and commercialization of society. I don't see this as being connected with any particular philosophical or religious system.

Correct. However, the concept of ethical conduct as conducive to happiness both in the individual and in society, was already central to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, and subsequently passed into the Christian tradition along with other elements of Hellenistic philosophy.

So, it does not seem to be exclusively a feature of Buddhism. — Apollodorus

That's a good point and I've often pondered that myself. Having studied WESTERN philosophy in college for a few years I was intially impressed by the likes of Socrates and other WESTERN figures for a long time until I discovered EASTERN philosophy and I found a whole new tradition of wisdom there I had been largely ignorant of. There's a book Id recommend which examines both Western and Eastern philosophy . It's called How the World thinks by Julian Baggini. It's a bestseller I think. He's one of the few western philosophers whose very interested and knowledgeable about Eastern philosophy. Now some western thought such as Stoicism has similarities with Buddhism and you're correct that there was an intermingling of the traditions during the Hellenistic period. But unfortunately with the coming of Christianity all that ancient wisdom came to an end as Ancient Philosophical schools were closed by the Church in the 5th century AD. What survived of western philosophy was a Christianized Aristotle and Plato. Not until the 18th century did you get a revival of much ancient wisdom and then western colonial attitudes coupled with ignorance of Eastern thought continued until the 19th or even 20th centuries. It's all there explained much better than I can in Baginnis book.

. I don't see this as being connected with any particular philosophical or religious system. — Apollodorus

Actually it is. If you take the Celts which Im a bit familiar with being Irish or a Celt myself! They regarded the natural environment as sacred , they had a respect for nature, not seeing it as a worthless object to be used for exploitation. Of course they cut down trees, but they still had reverence for and respect and a sense of awe for creation and the natural world. Nowadays there's nothing of that attitude left. From my personal experience I was never brought up with that idea but a friend of mine who is in the Green party hugs trees and campaigns to protect the environment. Actually he and other like minded people influenced my views here. Then when I discovered Buddhism, Daoism and read Anam Cara by John o Donohue, an Irish expert on Celtic spirituality, who ironically was a former Catholic priest, it opened my eyes and I realized that I had been brought up with a closed mindset. Also when I met and befriended chinese nationals I realized that my mindset was a Eurocentric one and I found philosophy was a means to expand my mindset.

But unfortunately with the coming of Christianity all that ancient wisdom came to an end as Ancient Philosophical schools were closed by the Church in the 5th century AD. What survived of western philosophy was a Christianized Aristotle and Plato. Not until the 18th century did you get a revival of much ancient wisdom and then western colonial attitudes coupled with ignorance of Eastern thought continued until the 19th or even 20th centuries. It's all there explained much better than I can in Baginnis book. — Ross

I think this is a (West European) misconception. Plato’s Academy at Athens was closed in 529 AD because it was a Pagan school, but Classical philosophy continued to be taught at the Catechetical School of Alexandria and at the University of Constantinople from 425 AD to 1453 AD (when the city fell to the Turks) and after that at Greek philosophy schools like Phanar College in Constantinople.

Plato's works were freely available from libraries and schools run by the Church or monasteries throughout the Greek-speaking world and as far as Armenia.

What the Church prohibited was not philosophy itself but the teaching of it as a non-Christian tradition (or as an alternative to Christianity). Philosophy in Greece has been taught without interruption from Plato and Aristotle down to the present!

It was the Christian State (Eastern Roman Empire a.k.a. Byzantine Empire) that preserved all the original manuscripts of Plato, Aristotle, the poets, etc. And it was Christian scholars who translated all that into Persian, Syriac, and Arabic. Arab rulers then translated some of it into Latin and this is how it reached Western Europe. In the Eastern part of the Roman Empire it was never lost and it was brought from there by Greek philosophy teachers to Italy where it played a central role in the Renaissance movement.

But I agree that there are some interesting parallels between Ancient Greek and Indian philosophical traditions. The Shape of Ancient Thought by Thomas McEvilley (recommended to me by Wayfarer) is an excellent study of this subject.

I would very much like to believe that there is a wisdom that is beyond and above socioeconomic success, a wisdom that is worth more than socioeconomic success, a wisdom that trumps socioeconomic success. But I am afraid, sincerely afraid, that there is no such wisdom, and that socioeconomic success is as good as life gets. — baker

What is the connection between wisdom and socioeconomic success? Is someone wise to be born into inherited wealth? Is someone unwise if because of circumstances beyond their control they are no longer socioeconomically successful? Perhaps wisdom has more to do with how one lives whether one is socioeconomically successful or not.

How does one measure the worth of wisdom? Perhaps it is the other way around, that wisdom is the measure of worth.

What the Church prohibited was not philosophy itself but the teaching of it as a non-Christian tradition (or as an alternative to Christianity). Philosophy in Greece has been taught without interruption from Plato and Aristotle down to the present! — Apollodorus

Yes I was aware that ancient philosophy survived in the Eastern Roman empire. However all over Europe Christianity triumphed, and although some ancient survived it had to fit in with Christian dogma , otherwise it was rejected, so as far as I know and (one of us can check that out on Google ! ) Stoicism, Epicureanism, and many other ancient schools of philosophy which ran counter to Christian dogma were rejected as "pagan" philosophy. The reason why Plato and Aristotles thought was acceptable to the church is because it (parts of it to be precise ) was found to be compatible with Christian dogma. My point as I made previously, is that only during the 18th century Enlightenment and beyond when Church control of learning disappeared that much of ancient philosophy, such as Epicureanism, which was an atheistic , materialistic philosophy revived. And in fact this paved the way for the birth of modern science. The Renaissance you mentioned was not a period of much radical thought, it was mainly very creative in art and architecture, not philosophical thought , which had to wait until the Enlightenment.

My point as I made previously, is that only during the 18th century Enlightenment and beyond when Church control of learning disappeared that much of ancient philosophy, such as Epicureanism, which was an atheistic , materialistic philosophy revived. — Ross

Well, if atheism and materialism are your main concern, then it's a different story.

I think what tends to happen when someone converts to a new religion, is that they often start denigrating and even hating their old one.

However, if we think about it, Celtic religion no longer exists and we cannot realistically reconstruct it.

Also, from what is known about it, Celtic society was controlled by priests and kings, it involved human sacrifice, there were constant wars between different tribes, etc.

If you read the story of Cuchulainn, for example, it makes highly interesting reading but it doesn't sound like the ideal world you would like to live in. So, I think there is a danger of oversimplifying and over-romanticizing ancient cultures.

We must also bear in mind that Christianity in the British Isles was introduced peacefully, not by force. The natives converted of their own accord because they saw something of value in the new religion.

Similarly, in the Roman Empire, Romans were impressed by the exemplary ethical conduct of Christians, their faith, etc. Additionally, there already was a trend towards monotheism in Roman religion, especially among the educated classes, whereas popular religion had become a bit of a joke with superstitions and gods and goddesses for everything under the sun ....

A christian and a buddhist meet in a bar. The christian asks, "do you know who Jesus is?" "Of course, I do, " the buddhist replies, "Jesus was a bodhisattava." It's the buddhist's turn, "do you know of the Buddha?" and the christian, without batting an eyelid states, "Yes, the Buddha was a saint."

References:

1. Buddhism & Christianity

2. Barlaam and Josaphat/Bilawhar and Budhasaf

“Ask and it shall be given, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you. For everyone that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth, and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened.”

Gasan remarked: “That is excellent. Whoever said that is not far from Buddhahood [is a bodhisattva].” — Wikipedia

That buddhism can accommodate Jesus and likewise if there's a place for the Buddha in christianity, are these two religions really that different in terms of...wisdom?

I remember being in a newcomer meeting at a Buddhist center years ago and a Latin dude with very weak English, and apparently a Christian background, struggling to ask how the soul fits into the Budhdist scheme of things. He asked as though it were a given and he just didn't yet know how it fit in. None of the teachers would touch the question, the big weenies. Finally another newcomer tried to explain no-self. She was a university student and quite knoledgeable about Buddhist philosophy. Unfortunatly the more she explained the deeper the puzzeled expression grew on the poor fellows face.

Which is wiser (i.e. less foolish (self-immiserating))? :chin:

Christian: "For Heaven's sake, save your soul from Hell!" (Suffer as Christ suffered.)

Buddhist: "Reduce suffering here and now." (What soul?)

One element worthy of mention is Thomas Aquinas, deeply engaging with Aristotle in the 13nth Century when the texts became available on the Latin side of the Church. The Enlightenment you prefer has much to thank this engagement as a point of departure.

Before that time, the only references to Plato were confined to passages from the Timaeus. In the 4th Century, Augustine was familiar with a number of Neoplatonists but his references to Plato in the City of God are almost entirely confined to the text of the Timaeus.

That is a long time between trains.

Unfortunatly the more she explained the deeper the puzzeled expression grew on the poor fellows face. — praxis

I would say that's a good outcome for both the interlocutors, buddhist and christian. It's the WTF? moment every buddhist aspires to and wishes to elicit from would-be converts though it is a fact that buddhist sanghas lack an evangelical wing.

The big difference between Christianity and Buddhism is that one is built on philosophical foundations and the other is built on bullshit.

The basic metaphysical picture at the heart of Christianity (and Islam and Judaism) is one that can be arrived at by rational reflection and enjoys epistemic justification. By contrast, nothing similar can be said for Buddhism. Take, for instance, the Karmic view of how the universe operates (a view I take to be central to Buddhism). What evidence is there for it? What good argument implies it? None that I know of (happy to be provided with one - but to date, no Buddhist I have spoken to has been able to furnish me with one). No wonder Buddhists encourage their followers to sit around and think nothing - rational reflection destroys such views. Buddhism is for the intellectually touched and psychologically weak, methinks. And Buddhists appeal not to epistemic reasons, but instrumental ones (believe this and you'll be happy, etc.).

Which is wiser (i.e. less foolish (self-immiserating))? :chin:

Christian: "For Heaven's sake, save your soul from Hell!" (Suffer as Christ suffered.)

Buddhist: "Reduce suffering here and now." (What soul?) — 180 Proof

I'm not sure but it appears, from my personal experiences and those of others, that morality and hedonism don't always go hand in hand as some/most of us believe. Sometimes, to be good, one must suffer is what I mean.

I have no clue as to why that is. All I can say is goodness, on occasion, involves a whole lot of pain. :cry:

When you say "Buddhism" "Christianity" "Wisdom", I have to ask, what do you mean?

Are you thinking of an all inclusive Buddhism? Are the Hinayana, Mahayana, Vajrayana schools all the same? Are the four Tibetan Buddhist lineages all the same? Is Zen Buddhism the same as the above? (no, it's not).

When you say "Christianity," do you mean the exoteric, Roman orthodoxy or proto-orthodoxy? Are you thinking of the Old Testament, the New Testament or both? By "Christian," are apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings included? What about esoteric Christianity and mysticism like the writings of Eckhart Tolle, Reinhold Niebuhr, Thomas Kempis and Valentin Tomberg? What about early Christian writings that are collectively found in the works of heresiologists like Irenaeus, Athanasius, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Epiphanius? What about the early Christians they railed against; the Gnostics, their books and the discovery of the Nag Hammadi scriptures in 1945?

When you say "wisdom," do you mean experiential or learned? Is one obtainable without the other? Does one lead to the other? Can one lead to the other? What is the goal of Christianity? What is the goal of Buddhism? Are they "salvation" and "enlightenment" respectively or is there more to the story?

So I have to answer your question yes and no.

Unfortunatly the more she explained the deeper the puzzeled expression grew on the poor fellows face.
— praxis

I would say that's a good outcome for both the interlocutors, buddhist and christian. It's the WTF? moment every buddhist aspires to and wishes to elicit from would-be converts — TheMadFool

Many of the enlightened folk love to revel in their self-perceived superiority, it is true. :vomit: