XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.religion.hindu   
   XPost: alt.religion.jain   
   From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   {:-]))) wrote:   
      
   > David wrote:   
   >> noname wrote:   
   >>> David Dalton wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> > The problem with most so-called fundamentalists is that   
   >>> > they follow minor messages that conflict with their   
   >>> > main messages.   
   >   
   > As seen by those who disagree.   
   >   
   > Fundamentalists see their main messages   
   > and all their minor messages without conflict.   
   > They are able to rationalize inerrancy into equations.   
   >   
   >>> Another problem with them is that they follow their main messages,   
   >>> to the letter, however the letters can be twisted to accomodate   
   >>> their desires.   
   >   
   > A whole book has a context.   
   > A set of books has a context.   
   >   
   > Taking any word, sentence or group   
   > of words or sentences out of the whole   
   > book or set of books out of that context   
   > to apply to some situation is to take it   
   > or them out of context.   
   >   
   > It is difficult not to.   
   > Yet easy to quibble about.   
   >   
   >>> > 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?   
   >   
   > In terms of Abrahamic religions,   
   > the first commandment applies. Love God.   
   > With all one's mind, heart, might.   
   >   
   > In terms of Taoism, left alone, people will   
   > return to what is natural for them. And to love   
   > is a very natural activity for people.   
   >   
   >>  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.   
   >   
   > A problem with rules, given a Taoist view,   
   > is that they create internal conflict.   
   >   
   > To have a rule, e.g. love or strive to love,   
   > puts one in a bind if one does not feel it.   
   >   
   > Taoist texts suggest forgetting about rules,   
   > doing away with wisdom and knowing,   
   > and the people will return to love.   
   >   
   >>> > 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.   
   >   
   > The text says Cook Ting loved Tao.   
   > All else flowed from that. His blade, sharp.   
   > Never needed to be made sharp.   
   > Was simply always sharp.   
   > Cuz he loved Tao.   
   >   
   > Jesus said to love God and neighbor   
   > and everything else flows from that   
   > accordion to scraps of the script.   
   >   
   > Plays on words vary.   
   >   
   >>> 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.   Your definition of loving   
   >>appears to be skewed, so perhaps you are a psychopath?   
   >   
   > He does not appear to exhibit much joy.   
   > He does appear to have tribbles with Desire.   
      
   If that's your honest opinion then you're a fucking moron.   
      
   --   
   noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)