Comments on: RageBoy’s fragments of mysticism

By: jouez au poker gratuites

jouez au poker gratuites — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 18:20:20 +0000

poker no limit holdem…

Commevousvoyez internet poker game software carte 3c texas holdem poker www poker net regole omaha…

By: black jack

black jack — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:35:54 +0000

tornei di poker on line…

Finden poker online in italiano 888 poker ganar ala ruleta casino online mit bonus tornei di poker on line…

By: jeu slots casino en ligne

jeu slots casino en ligne — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:02:08 +0000

…

AprÃƒÂ¨scela video poker odds jugar a ruleta 7 card stud poker rules party poker reload bonus code jugadas texas holdem…

By: télécharger un poker gratuites

télécharger un poker gratuites — Thu, 29 May 2008 05:29:05 +0000

joue au poker gratuites…

Look jouer au poker gratuitement regles poker full jeu de cartes poker casino poker on line jeu video poker gratuites…

By: johne

johne — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:56:12 +0000

At the moment David, you’re being drowned out by the most ostentatious chest-beaters for religion, who seem to be Osama bin Laden and G.W. Bush.
And that could be one explanation of why Dawkins is on a tear, and many of the rest of us have been brought up short.

By: jake

jake — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:13:26 +0000

i don’t know much about these topics, but i picked up suzuki’s book a while ago…it’s not been read only because i came across a very charismatic person that has innumerable audio lectures on this and other eastern philosphy topics…alan watts.

i don’t know what alan’s view of suzuki was, but based on this ‘sketch,’ i would say he was very much against that type of teaching.

what’s your view of alan watt’s on this topic…it’s very important to me to learn the most direct version possible of all this stuff and so far watt’s seems to be the way to go.

thanks.

jake

By: Rachel

Rachel — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:05:32 +0000

Spirituality may seem to be what all religions have in common, but that doesn’t mean it’s their core. Religions differ over the importance of belief, faith, action, practice and ritual; it only seems obvious to some religions that spirituality is the core of religion.

Indeed. In Judaism, for instance — at least, mainstream normative Judaism, in a historical sense — praxis is far more important than belief, and what one might call ‘right action’ (living according to the system of mitzvot) is far more important than belief, faith, or “spirituality.”

Of course, that tendency is finding a counterbalance today in phenomena like the Renewal movement, which attempts to marry some of the “spirituality” and joy of Hasidism with a liberal, post-triumphalist sensibility and by so doing to reinject spirit into Judaism’s arguably dry mainstream. But this kind of thing, much as I support it, is definitely fringe-y and isn’t anywhere near the “core” of Judaism.

Personally, I think a whole lot of the problems vanish if we just accept the idea of local revelation, and reject any religion’s claim to universality. This enables us to preserve the notion of difference â€” which is a way of respecting the local â€” without falling into the depression of relativism.

Huh. I’m not sure I’m with you, there, but it’s an interesting idea which I’d like to consider more closely. For my own part I favor the metaphor that “God” (for lack of a better word; the term is loaded but it’s the most recognizable one we’ve got) is broadcasting on all frequencies and each tradition “receives” where it happens to be open or listening — I think revelation is far bigger than what any given tradition receives.

By: Emil Sotirov

Emil Sotirov — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:19:52 +0000

On the notion of “spirituality”… I think Americans tend to use the term in a narrow religion referring sense. In Europe, being “spiritual” refers to cultural awareness (art, etc…). “Culture” (cultural traditions) is the replacement of religion for most Europeans. You can be spiritual without being part of a formal religious tradition. Re-ligio for most Europeans means re-linking to their past, their cultural traditions, and the people around them – and not to transcendental stuff. To me, that sort of “cultural” re-ligio is much more healthy. In this context, religious traditions are accepted as part of your own tradition. My own cultural tradition is Christian… I tend to identify with the moral stuff coming from Christianity. I take it as produced by humans for humans… and object of questioning. There is no dilemma of being either “spiritual” or an amoral “relativist.”

By: fp

fp — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:55:57 +0000

I’ll try to write something more thoughtful than my offhand comment. This is way deep. But one thing I was trying to point out was that you took Crosbie’s “superstitious or delusional” and counterbalanced it with “neither,” creating, I thought, a false dichotomy, because there are other things to be that might include either or both or neither. The set of ways we might evaluate the religious would certainly include the subset of “superstitious or delusional (or both)” and the subset of “neither superstitious nor delusional,” but I think there are other dimensions to explore, and I’ll try to do that by sharing something that is more meaningful than my mini-rant.

I don’t think this is as trivial as I’m making it sound here in comment-space.

By: David Weinberger

David Weinberger — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:55:06 +0000

I’m confused by your comments, Frank. “Stupid” is my paraphrase of Crosbie’s “Superstitious” and “insane” is for “delusional”. I think the bifurcation was his. I don’t think all religious people are either superstitious or delusional.

Frank, “you have a feeling” religion is like a MMORPG, just as Crosbie compares religious beliefs and practices to an infection. If you want to examine that feeling, would it be too much to ask that you specify exactly which religions you have in mind, and which beliefs/practices you find delusional or otherwise wrong? Because my point was (and is) that religions are vastly different. I don’t think you can find a single commonality that, when looked at carefully, is actually meaningfully in common. E.g., “They all believe in G-d.” A. No they don’t. B. Their conceptions of G-d are very different. C. What follows from those conceptions — even their ways of holding their beliefs — is way different.