More fleshed out…
AmenWhat a fecking disguisting piece of shit.
Sorry for the mega late replay. He was that, as in brutal as Carolina Red said, but it is a mistake to judge people of the distant past based on the morality of today. I am talking of course about people that were and are considered people and, just that. When it comes to prophets and god incarnations then your Mohamed's and Jesus's don't get the same excuse as they should have been by definition perfect (in terms of morality).He was a barbarian.
Sorry for the mega late replay. He was that, as in brutal as Carolina Red said, but it is a mistake to judge people of the distant past based on the morality of today. I am talking of course about people that were and are considered people and, just that. When it comes to prophets and god incarnations then your Mohamed's and Jesus's don't get the same excuse as they should have been by definition perfect (in terms of morality).
Did Alexander do brutal things? Yes, by our standards. By the standards of the time? He was a far bigger visionary IMO then most leaders. I will not get to much in to how much of a coincidence it is that he died at almost the same age as a critical religious figure, that changing the World with new ideals was a common theme or how his resting place was becoming a bigger site of pelerinage then any Christian vestige, and then was "magically" lost. I am not implying that Christianity created the image of it's central piece based on a real person, not at all.
But, Alexander spoke Greek, as opposed to the others, who, according to the Romans spoke languages that sounded like "Bah Bah Bah" , which is where the name Barbarian came fromI agree with all your points. However, alexander is judged differently in public discourse compared to other kings from the so called east who basically did the same things. If attila, genghis khan etc are barbarians then so is alexander.
I only have an axe to grind with the double standards.
People today using the word barbarian do it with its current meaning which is uncivilized, blood thirsty, violent, lowly inferior peoples.But, Alexander spoke Greek, as opposed to the others, who, according to the Romans spoke languages that sounded like "Bah Bah Bah" , which is where the name Barbarian came from
I get it, though maybe the examples are not the best. The great Khan has more in common with Hitler imo then Alexander.I agree with all your points. However, alexander is judged differently in public discourse compared to other kings from the so called east who basically did the same things. If attila, genghis khan etc are barbarians then so is alexander.
I only have an axe to grind with the double standards.
Which is exactly the feelings of the Romans. And they couldn't speak GreekPeople today using the word barbarian do it with its current meaning which is uncivilized, blood thirsty, violent, lowly inferior peoples.
I agree. Even though the intention we can say was "not Roman" the truth is, it also implied low level of tech. Get as offended as we can but the reality was barbarian civs were inferior.Which is exactly the feelings of the Romans. And they couldn't speak Greek
The Romans found electricity first, they just thought it a novelty.I agree. Even though the intention we can say was "not Roman" the truth is, it also implied low level of tech. Get as offended as we can but the reality was barbarian civs were inferior.
Very interesting. From my armchair historian perspective I think one of the biggest miss steps of human civilization was that the abundance of slavery (and it's justifications) in the ancient World, prevented the Romans and Greeks (to stay with Europe) to make the industrial revolution. We could now be a couple of thousand years more evolved in tech if slavery was not such a convenient (and efficient) solution to work loads. Why devote thought to make engines when you can just enslave a "few" people and do the work for free.The Romans found electricity first, they just thought it a novelty.
The Romans probably wouldn't be as vicious if they hadn't invented plumbing, basically, by using lead, the whole society had lead poisoning. Long term, low level lead poisoning causes increased aggression
Very interesting. From my armchair historian perspective I think one of the biggest miss steps of human civilization was that the abundance of slavery (and it's justifications) in the ancient World, prevented the Romans and Greeks (to stay with Europe) to make the industrial revolution. We could now be a couple of thousand years more evolved in tech if slavery was not such a convenient (and efficient) solution to work loads. Why devote thought to make engines when you can just enslave a "few" people and do the work for free.
To get it back to religion, few if any had much to say about what an abomination slavery is and, yet, want people to believe they hold the "book" on morality. This and the enormity of misogynism found in the big 3 religions tell us that it was not just written by humans, but by males and more then that, males in positions of power or at the very least with great ambitions of power (Mahomed, the Christian church, Pharaons, etc). It's as transparent as it gets but still, the promise of immortality is so desired by people that they are willing to pretend they don't see the fraudulent, self serving and right silly claims and reasoning that comes from the texts.
I hold very different views about some of the Eastern philosophies, as compared to the "West" Abrahamic religions (I know it's wrong to say they are European let alone Western, but it's easier to make the distinction with the Indian and Chinese). The latter are infantile compared to the complexity of the East. If we could restart history I would want the Romans and/or Greeks to do the industrial revolution and some of the Eastern philosophies to be the norm, for the time, after that evolve things from there.Gautama forbade his followers to hold or trade in slaves. However in gender equality he doesn't do all that well by 21st century standards. Like nuns having to take way more vows than men. However letting women become ordained in 500 ae India was very progressive for its time. Essentially the idea that women could realise the spiritual enlightenment equal to that of men.
I hold very different views about some of the Eastern philosophies, as compared to the "West" Abrahamic religions (I know it's wrong to say they are European let alone Western, but it's easier to make the distinction with the Indian and Chinese). The latter are infantile compared to the complexity of the East. If we could restart history I would want the Romans and/or Greeks to do the industrial revolution and some of the Eastern philosophies to be the norm, for the time, after that evolve things from there.
What do you mean of in terms of religion in this context? I separate the philosophy, in terms of ways of living life, message, etc, from religious interpretations as in it includes magic (gods, miracles, reincarnation, heaven, eternal and unquestionable morality, etc).Buddhism at the heart of it is not excempt from being a religion. It can be both a philosophy and a religion, but people who thinks it's not religion know very little about it.
As a American Buddhist, I always subscribed to the thought that Buddhism was just a philosophy, but I am seeing that it is also a religion due to recent life events. My eyes have been opened a bit, but I still view it primarily as a philosophy.Buddhism at the heart of it is not excempt from being a religion. It can be both a philosophy and a religion, but people who thinks it's not religion know very little about it.
What do you mean of in terms of religion in this context? I separate the philosophy, in terms of ways of living life, message, etc, from religious interpretations as in it includes magic (gods, miracles, reincarnation, heaven, eternal and unquestionable morality, etc).
Buddhism I have far more time for then other thought/religions, but it's not safe from bs promises either. There just is a lot more value there, imo, then other, more primitive dogmas.
I am sure those in Myanmar don't think Buddhism is just a philosophy. That's the problem with religion. Even the most well meaning of them can be used for the most unimaginable horrors.
I know. That's why I make the distinction between some of the philosophies and the religion. As a religion, is just as "up" there with flying horses and walking on water.Buddhism includes mind over matter, omniscience for Buddhas, rebirth(infinite lives), miracles, hells, realms of hungry ghosts, demi gods and gods etc.
I know. That's why I make the distinction between some of the philosophies and the religion. As a religion, is just as "up" there with flying horses and walking on water.
Edit: are you a Buddhist? You don't have to answer of course. It's just seldom I find actual believers in the buddhist tradition as a religion.
So my next question, if you want to answer of course, is if you fallow the teachings as life lessons and end it at that, or if you believe in reincarnation, heaven, etc and the more magical elements?I'd call myself Buddhist yes. Had a keen interest since I was 18. Now 35.
I could name you a holy buddhist text that contains a flying horse. It's a actualy quite interesting as it contains prophecies about the fall of Tibet 600 years before it happened going into more detail than ought to be possible.
So my next question, if you want to answer of course, is if you fallow the teachings as life lessons and end it at that, or if you believe in reincarnation, heaven, etc and the more magical elements?
I have some experience with Japan and people that fallow Buddhist traditions, but are essentially as Atheist as you can get. I have 0 experience with Buddhism as seen as an actual religious, magic, practice. I would love to hear more from you or anyone else regarding this, because the jessus and mahomed lovers are taking all the space and as much as I don't value religion, I value different views on a subject.
Good for you then. There are zillions of misogynists, sorry, muslims and christians that will also attest to having magical experiences. At least the difference is Buddhists don't make lobbies against women rights or look to censure cartoons or defend murder. As much as I disagree with you, I would rather live in a World dominated by your faith then jessus or the child loving one.I believe in the elements of Buddhism that is considered superstitious by our western modern standards because of my personal experience with some of the greatest buddhist masters alive. I essentially have plenty of "magical" experiences that strangers over the net wouldnt believe. Of course I believe in the ethics and enjoy the philosophy as well.
Good for you then. There are zillions of misogynists, sorry, muslims and christians that will also attest to having magical experiences. At least the difference is Buddhists don't make lobbies against women rights or look to censure cartoons or defend murder. As much as I disagree with you, I would rather live in a World dominated by your faith then jessus or the child loving one.
That's fair. Just on the anal sex part, the vast, vast majority of it is done in heterosexual sex. Homosexual sex, as far as I know (people can validate or not this) is by an large majority about oral and mutual hand type pleasure.My stance is just I'm not out to convert anyone or share my experiences over the Internet. There is plenty of mischief in Buddhism, but like you I'd take that over any other religion in the world. It was only recently though that homosexuality stopped being a crime in Bhutan. The teachings about anal sex was more about how it disturbs the winds in the body and I guess since Buddha founded a monastic order, he didn't want monks shagging each other.
That's fair. Just on the anal sex part, the vast, vast majority of it is done in heterosexual sex. Homosexual sex, as far as I know (people can validate or not this) is by an large majority about oral and mutual hand type pleasure.
Not to be crass but the question of anal sex is, imo, one of the most misunderstood elements of homosexuality and, sexuality in general, and then carried over in to religion and then values. Anal is by far and away a type of sex done by a woman and a man.
My stance is just I'm not out to convert anyone or share my experiences over the Internet. There is plenty of mischief in Buddhism, but like you I'd take that over any other religion in the world. It was only recently though that homosexuality stopped being a crime in Bhutan. The teachings about anal sex was more about how it disturbs the winds in the body and I guess since Buddha founded a monastic order, he didn't want monks shagging each other.
Is this about farting?
