XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.religion.hindu
XPost: alt.religion.jain
From: invalid@invalid.invalid
David Dalton wrote:
> In article ,
> noname wrote:
>
>> David Dalton wrote:
>>
>> > The problem with most so-called fundamentalists is that
>> > they follow minor messages that conflict with their
>> > main messages.
>>
>> Another problem with them is that they follow their main messages, to
>> the letter, however the letters can be twisted to accomodate their
>> desires.
>>
>> > One of my messages on my Salmon on the Thorns web page is:
>> >
>> > "The fundamental is to love; however this can not be always
>> > achieved and so one must at least strive to love. Messages
>> > that conflict with that sentence must be discarded or edited
>> > to no longer conflict."
>>
>> No cigar, dude; striving might work okay if you're rowing a boat or
>> picking up a log, but when it comes to the "spiritual", striving is a
>> definite Catch-22.
>
> Would you prefer it be all or nothing then, and mostly
> end up as nothing?
Mostly doesn't count. You mostly don't have 2.3 children even though
that might be the average. Mostly people are less than uninterested in
the spiritual, though there are swell business contacts to be made at
church.
> And for example an Inuit hunter
> in killing a seal isn't loving that seal but can
> strive to love that seal and treat the seal as humanely
> as possible.
Do you think the seal cares how you feel about it when you shove a spear
through it?
>> > Two other related messages on that web page are:
>> >
>> > "Don't care what anyone believes as long as they are loving,
>>
>> I wonder if Cook Ting loved his oxen. I wonder if Josef Menegle (the
>> "Angel of Death") loved his patients. Watch out for those loving
>> folks who believe they should cook you and eat you.
>
> Obviously they aren't loving.
You said "don't care what anyone believes as long as they are loving"
and I think you ought to understand just what a stupid thing that is to
say, at least the way you've put it; if they're loving then you don't
seem to care what kind of nutjobs they are.
> Your definition of loving
> appears to be skewed, so perhaps you are a psychopath?
I don't have the first clue, your definition of loving appears to be
skewed, perhaps your are having delusions of grandeur.
>> > or try to be as much as possible within constraints of life."
>> >
>> > and
>> >
>> > "Loving behaviour should be both within our species (including
>> > to other nationalities, races, spiritual paths, orientations,
>> > genders, ages, transgendered status, mental health diagnoses,
>> > physical illness diagnoses, and physical disability
>> > classificatons, and with no instigation of war) and, though
>> > we would give our own species a `human family' edge, to
>> > members of other species and to each species as a unit and
>> > to the environment we are part of."
>> >
>>
>> Sounds like a well-intended crock to me, fwiw.
>
> It is necessary to spell out who we should be loving
Sorry man, that is just the most dumbassed thing I have read or heard in
recent memory. You propose setting down rules, so you go ahead and
enjoy the results of that.
> towards since Jesus didn't do so and many Christians
> are loving only towards people like themselves, if that.
Count the number of people who consider themselves Christians and you
will find that the number of actual Christians among them amounts to a
small percentage; Jesus would be apalled.
> And sometimes a well-intended crock provides good fertilizer.
Pour out the poo 'fore it gets on yoo!
--
noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
