The fundamental problem with “is” seems to be the person using that word seemingly speaks with a god-like authority
— Art48

Not to any competent language user. — SophistiCat

Only under the proviso that such a "competent language user" holds certain other beliefs.
Such as, "Whatever a person says is only their own opinion and not necessarily objective truth."

The fundamental problem with “is” seems to be the person using that word seemingly speaks with a god-like authority — Art48

And the problem doesn't go away when using other words instead of "is".
Because the problem isn't in the verb "to be", but primarily in the use of the indicative grammatical mood for making declarative statetments about other people and things.

To avoid the feel of speaking with god-like authority, one would need to speak in I-messages.

And with medievel diet we have to remember it wasn't fresh, the food that could be preserved. The idea was to eat only the food from the last season, not this one as you didn't know just how the it would be this year. So a lot of salt. — ssu

It's not clear what you mean, some words are missing in those sentences. Are you talking about the preservation of meat in climates where people eat mostly meat?

Anyway, it's not germane to the OP.

I had no idea that I was talking to a women. — ssu

I generally take a dim view of gender issues, but even I am starting to feel offended for so often being categorized wrongly, despite repeated clarification.

And it's A womAn.
WomEn is plural.

Insofar is the fear of a civil unrests a factor in the ineffectiveness of the actions so far taken against Trump?

Do there exist any analyses on this?

Seems likely that the underlying concepts of karma, as it's commonly understood today, are rooted in a fear of living in an "unjust" world.
Seems likely that the underlying concepts of reincarnation are rooted in the fear of death.

Neither hold up to scrutiny. They are the products of irrational thought as a way to alleviate the anxieties of those fears. Many believe them today for those very reasons. — ThinkOfOne

Parallel to that, the refusal to believe that the consequences of one's actions will come back to haunt one is what makes people refuse to even consider karma and reincarnation/rebirth.

If you believe that if you lie, someone will lie to you, would you still lie?
If you believe that if you steal, someone will steal from you, would you still steal?

@obscurelaunting

It's very possible for me to see all there is to life, the good and the bad and yet still not think this is enough for me to stay. Life is nothing but a slip of consciousness and just like that you could say it is amazing but I will say this is to be destroyed. Why? Because it can. Do not tell me it's a matter of what feels good and what doesn't, because then choosing to feel bad by choosing to die becomes something that feels good; so feeling good isn't the pinpoint at hand here.

So since I CAN think like this, how can I not think like this? Do not tell me to just be one with life in experience because this is futile and never has been fulfilling. Do not tell me that if I can choose either I should choose life, because I'm saying to you my choice IS non-existence, this is the dilemma: the choice and the confusion of life.

I am looking for the answer that breaks down this thinking and builds myself a new thought basis.

What you're asking for cannot be done in the framework of secular culture and science. They'll just write you off as mentally ill, as an aberration. They certainly don't think you have some insight into the futility of life as it is usually lived.

Nonsense. Where do you get these ideas???
— baker

Of course it's nonsense, but haven't you noticed these sentiments? — ssu

Sure. But what are the metaphysical assumptions behind them?

By comparing it to a bad meal, not to no meal.
— baker

We've been created to go well without food for one day, actually. It's water that we need basically daily. — ssu

You're forgetting you're talking to a woman. I've been hungry almost as much as the average hungry African.

Well, sort of. Assume if you had eaten for your entire life exceptionally great meals, basically always something of the level that one gets in Michelin star restaurants, with added detail to the healthiness of your diet.

And for a good part of my life, I have eaten exceptionally good food, and I've grown proper organic food until recently.

You wouldn't know how bad food actually people e

I do know. It makes me want to puke.

For an anecdote, I remember once on a Finnish Navy island garrison the commanding officer decided to remember the Winter War by having the conscripts exactly the same kind of food with the historical amount during winter that soldiers were given during WW2...at the same naval fortress. The records were they, so the kitchen had no trouble in recreating the WW2-era cuisine. Hence they got a small portion of porridge (without honey or sugar) and that's it. As the garrison was on a fortress island, the conscript didn't have the chance to order pizza or anything in the evening. The conscripts (who had been born in the 1980's) hadn't experienced cold and hunger. Many said that they respected differently the war veterans after that experience.

The average peasant in the Dark Ages ate healthier food than most people do today.

I'm absolutely sure that we wouldn't image just what people ate thousands of years ago.

Certainly no pesticides and no GMOs. In the old times, food was much healthier, much more satiating because it had real taste.

Changing the world seems easy compared with being asked to change your self - to challenge the unconscious roots of your standard issue modern world identity. — apokrisis

To give up on one's self-confidence?? To give up on one's sense of entitlement?? No, better to die!

Actually, it's our inherent love of a good tune that will ultimately drown us. Can't blame the pipe or the piper for that. — Baden

And when the power runs out, we'll just hum.

Secularism does rock, though. You gotta admit. — Tate

Really? Encouraging people to be senseless consumerist zombies destroying the planet?

I'm supposed to believe that this is what grandfather fought for?



Really? They fought and died in order to establish ridicule and hostility as civilizational achievements????

*sigh*

The exact workings of the Sharia law are irrelevant in this. All we need to know is that
1. Sharia law foresees the death penalty for some offenses,
and
2. the ultimate authority in the government of Iran is vested in an autocratic "Supreme Leader" (who has the authority to interpret Sharia law).
Which is exactly what happened. (And why on earth would they issue him a death verdict if not because they thought that what he did was harmful to Islam?)

If you don't like that, sue them. You're a lawyer, you know how that works. Sue Iran, sue the Shias, sue the Muslims altogether. Sue the UN for allowing such countries and religions to exist. Tell them that they're wrong to take offence at a book. Tell them they have no right to feel and think as they do. Tell them they have no right to retaliate. (And while you're at it, sue, for example, the Thai king. They don't take too kindly to those they deem to be desecrating their religion either.) I would love to see you do that. Sue them. Take action. Don't be a coward. Stop this ineffectiveness. Because the posters of this forum are not the right audience for your grievance.

I candidly do not know what the primary driver of the silence from Imams in the West is. — Hanover

How about instead of speculating, you ask the only people who can answer your question: the imams in the West?

Eight days into the discussion, have you done that? If not, why this absurd insistence on speculation and ineffective problem solving?

Civil war...we can only hope. Unfortunately, just like nothing happened to Bush and Cheney for indisputably being outright war criminals, nothing will happen to Trump for all of his vague quasi-criminal offenses (which every president is more or less guilty of). — Merkwurdichliebe

Is there any real interest to do anything about Trump?

Why the colossal failure of the US justice system and the American public in general?

Good question. What are the practical needs of society? The basics as per Maslow?
If they are not met, then how would that affect any metaphysical beliefs?
Why metaphysical and not personal, economic or political beliefs...? — Amity

Because metaphysical beliefs come first.

One meets one's practical needs because one has certain metaphysical beliefs.

There's no point in eating if you have no idea what you're eating for, living for, or if what you've been living for is gone.

If you've ever apologized for something wrong that you did, or ever tried to make amends, then you were in fact relying on the workings of karma.
— baker

How so? — Amity

Because you believed in the _mitigating_ effects of your apology or efforts to make amends.

My impression of Indian culture before it underwent westernisation, is that it's belief in reincarnation encouraged slower and more sustainable lifestyles,

but that it's belief in karmic justice encouraged social neglect of the downtrodden. — sime

This social neglect is a possible consequence of not believing in karma at all, or of believing oneself to already be "above karma" (and thus not subject to it).

But this neglect is also a way to push the downtrodden to "try harder". It's similar to how secular societies implicitly believe that punishing people will motivate them to better themselves.

For example, if modern society is to survive then it needs to adopt environmentally sustainable lifestyles together with long-term ecological investments that will benefit future generations more than today's. Does this necessity imply that society's environmentally unsustainable belief that "You only live once" will mutate towards a belief in reincarnation that encourages people to work for tomorrows generations rather than today's ?

I don't think so. Belief in reincarnation or rebirth might encourage people to be more careful in what they do; if they seem themselves as the recipients of their own actions down the line, they're less likely to do harmful things. But since belief in reincarnation or rebirth is generally considered woo, we're left only with the tentaive love that people have for their children.

If karma has to be taken seriously, then it is to sensible to identify Karma with causality and then recall the practical impossibility of knowing causal relations with any certainty. — sime

Indeed. In fact, it is said that trying to figure out the exact workings of karma would make one insane.
However, this doesn't detract from the usefulness of the principle of karma for informing one's course of action. Namely, if you predict that suffering for yourself, for others, or for both would ensue from something you intend to do, then you shouldn't do it.

I am looking for what it means in the here and now, the practical world.
For example, how does that fit in with crisis management or counselling? — Amity

For example, by recognizong that acting out of hostility will bring along more hostility.

This whole thing has always been about Western secular supremacism.

Never mind, it's all a load of bull anyway — Amity

If you've ever apologized for something wrong that you did, or ever tried to make amends, then you were in fact relying on the workings of karma.

When people only do good for some future reward, not for 'good in itself'. — Amity

Why should this be problematic?
Doing something for "good in itself" gives one the pleasure of feeling proud about one's morality, so it still falls under "doing good for some (future) reward".

Apparently, it is when you make karmic deposits and withdrawals.
The goal is to make as many deposits as possible and as few withdrawals as needed.

How does that work?

It's like putting a spoonful of salt into a cup of water, as opposed to putting a spoonful of salt into a great river. Putting it into a cup of water makes the water undrinkable; putting it into a great river makes no discernable difference to the taste of the water. The salt here is standing for bad deeds, and the amount of water for good deeds.

And some are judged as deserving of their illness or misfortune because they must have been bad in a previous life. 'What goes around comes around'. — Amity

Hence until one has exited the cycle of karma, one is remiss to make fun of those who have fallen on hard times or to feel schadenfreude towards them. Because until one has exited the cycle of karma, one is still subject to falling on hard times.

So if true, what does this matter? Any unfortunate ripening seems to be predestined, right? — Tom Storm

It matters because you can mitigate it, at least on the level of how you think about it. Without karma, you'd be hopelessly left to your fate.

Yep, the cool kids never like optimism or happiness - such responses are viewed as gauche, and don't you know life is grave and dreadful? — Tom Storm

Optimism is seen as naive and stupid while pessimism as realistic and intelligent. So perhaps we should rip our clothes and put ash on our head. Sackcloth and ashes. — ssu

Nonsense. Where do you get these ideas???

But yes, if you haven't ever felt hunger, how can you value a good meal? — ssu

By comparing it to a bad meal, not to no meal.

Sometimes something lousy can make you appreciate good.

That's appreciation for people who have no value system.

Yes. When people behave in ways that one thinks are anti-social, uncivilized, or immoral, one must condemn it. One must disavow the unacceptable action. — Bitter Crank

And then they call the police on you and you're the one who gets into trouble.

From time to time, we witness acts that are "bad", whether that's stabbing authors or shooting the convenience store clerk; stealing catalytic converters or defrauding the Medicare program; trying to overthrow the election or seize the neighboring country. We can't be indifferent. We need to be clear to ourselves (and to whoever is in earshot) that we condemn wrongdoing.

But with a simplistic approach like that, you condone the hostility with which it all started. "It's okay to be hostile, it's just not okay for others to return in kind."

Yes, obviously. Islam is committed to human flourishing. They should change their tradition so that it's nicer to me. — absoluteaspiration

Why are to telling me that?

You don't get to decide what other people consider harmful.

I think they should at the very least reform their tradition. — absoluteaspiration

Why do you need them or their tradition to be different than they are?
Because you're not in control of your feelings?

You seem to be under the impression that Muslims irrationally defend Islam whenever possible.

No, I'm not under that impression. It's not clear why you think that.

And if you internalized some other psychological theory, you'd speak differently.

That's why it's important for religious leaders to speak up. It's their job to go full MLK Jr and shout "Let freedom ring!" — Tate

Only if they are committed to secularism.

No, I want you to understand why disagreement on important topics makes peaceful coexistence impossible.

And what I see more so unfortunately is an attempt to derail the thread into one over hypocrisy and strained attempts at moral equivalency — Hanover

On the contrary. In order to be able to judge others from the moral high ground, one actually has to hold the moral high ground.

If it can be pointed out that a prospective judge does not hold such a moral high ground, his judgment is at least suspect.

He that is without sin, let him first cast a stone.
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

as opposed to better understanding why a religious leader would send marching orders to murder an author

Because the religious leader believes he has the divine authority to do so.

That you don't believe he has such divine authority is on you, not on him.

And I'm really not coming after you so much for this, but just responding to you from how another poster who I generally ignore has responded in the hopes of better explaining my position.

You keep complaining about how religion is treated poorly at this forum. I'm offering some explanations as to why.
For me, the main reason why religions aren't credible is insofar they are worldly, secular, and insofar religious people themselves relativize their own doctrines.

Anyway, I'm fine with emotion, passion and hostility when it comes to things like this that matter. — Hanover

There you go. With passion, and hostility, it all goes downhill. Once you approve of passion and hostility, how can you expect anything other but killing, raping, and pillaging?

I've already stated this the best I could, which is that my best guess is that there is not the impetus upon public condemnation within that community that there is other communities, and I'm not clear exactly where that arises from. — Hanover

Like I already said, I think it's because at least some religious people have a strong sense of religious autonomy, and so see no need to make themselves seem credible to others, or to seek to be understood by others. So they don't explain themselves to others.

A classical example with this is when atheists request theists to provide proof of God. The atheists claim that the burden of proof is on the theists, yet the theists don't consider themselves as having that burden at all (and that instead, if anything, the burden is on the atheists).

Why do I have to "coexist peacefully" with an unjust medieval tradition? — absoluteaspiration

Why should they coexist peacefully with an unjust secular tradition?

I want to live in a society where I'm free to tell the world the pain I suffered because of their hypocrisy.

Just listen to yourself. You expect justice and redress from the very people you consider unjust (and all kinds of bad).
Do you really think that's a sane expectation??

And what do you think will happen if you tell the world "the pain you suffered because of their hypocrisy"?
Why should they care about you and your pain? Can you explain? Can you spell it out?

Similarly, Rushdie's provocation is a creation of Islamic repression. — absoluteaspiration

Again, a case of blaming others.

And a repression of what exactly? Rushdie was at no time a citizen of an Islamic republic where he would be bound, by his citizenship, to a particular religion. So he has no grievance of this kind. Sure, his parents expected him to comply with certain norms. So what? It's teenager rebellion on his part.

Would the Communists have been right to silence Milan Kundera too?

Who says they didn't keep him around for strategic purposes?


-----

If a Hugo Award winning writer like GRR Martin is not good enough for you, then how how about something classic like The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne?

Just what do you think that reading books like that can accomplish? All they do is make people hop from one train of passion onto another one, while the problem of suffering remains looming as ever.

But neither he, nor anyone else, is free to dictate what effect that choice should have on others and how others should respond to it.
— baker

That's a strange way to frame the argument. — Tom Storm

Why strange? Can you explain?

That secondary issue is, should fanatics

So a "fanatic" is now a clearly definable and universally binding category?

have the right to threaten and kill people whose art/opinion they don't like? There's only one correct answer here.

Should people have the right to act in bad faith, to be hostile, to provoke others, and yet others must take this stoically, because the hater's rights are above every other concern? There's only one correct answer here.

What if it an author wrote a book about a bikie gang and a club decides to kill the author and publisher and anyone else involved because the book took a controversial view of the club's history?

Some people have too much time and money on their hands.

I'm saying it's fine that you make difference judgements to mine - after all no one is going to get killed.

No, it's not fine. We cannot peacefully coexist that way.

That's true what it says, but, as noted in other threads, there's no evidence of any actual stonings or biblically mandated death penalties in the past 2,000 + years.

It's part of the reason for the OP, in trying to figure out the real theology because it's often very distant from its literal decrees. — Hanover

It's more relevant in how one interprets the discrepancy: Do they not stone people because they have mercy, or see them as "fellow humans who shouldn't be hurt"? Or is it because they don't believe that the religious decree was actually issued by God?

What's your response to that? What should we conclude about the Muslims around us? — Tate

People threatening others with death is quite a common occurence. Just look at this forum. Even moderators quite nonchalantly tell others to kill themselves or that they deserve death.
What should we conclude about the people around us?

My point is, those Muslims who believe that someone deserves to be killed aren't some kind of aberration, exception. Liberals, secularists, also threaten with death. (And insofar they hold positions of power, they make it happen too, legally.)

I think that we can conclude from that that some (if not many, most) people want to rule over the lives and deaths of others.

He should be free to make any choice he wants to make. — Tom Storm

But neither he, nor anyone else, is free to dictate what effect that choice should have on others and how others should respond to it.

And further, for a religious person to request input on how to practice their religion -- from outsiders of that religion??? (Like in the passage you quoted earlier.) This is absurd.
— baker

So we disagree on this point and the others are not significant enough to follow up. Irshad Manji is a Muslim. When she makes comments about Islam and the wider world community, it is worth listening. That's a judgement of course, and one you obviously don't share. Fine. — Tom Storm

It's not fine. It's part of the answer to the OP's quest: to understand religious autonomy.

I thought the problem was being stabbed in the face for writing a book. — praxis

This kind of trivializing really doesn't help.

Yes, other people should be responsible for one man's existential problems. We form a community with the expectation of tolerating each other's differences. — absoluteaspiration

Rushdie didn't do his part. He wants other people to respect him, to tolerate him at least, but he doesn't want to return the favor.

If you were alienated from a religious community for being an illegitimate child, then why are you arguing on behalf of traditional religion?

I'm not arguing on behalf of it, I'm presenting its stance. Because nobody else does that here, yet it's crucial for understanding where they come from, and it's crucial for understanding conflicts with it.


One can save oneself a lot of time and grief by understanding traditional religion. It puzzles me how come more people don't take this route.

The alienation you suffered is plastered all over pop culture. See the Game of Thrones, for example.

Yeah, that reeeeally offers brilliant ways of coping. The dragons, they make it all so viable.

The prophet is dead, he can't be harmed. — Benkei

What is wrong with you? Are you unable to see things from another's perspective??