Worldview Discussion - Part 2

[Jane_the_Bane]

What about a man who teaches that one's father, mother, wife, children, brothers and sisters are enemies, and hatred towards them?

Hush, don't mention double standards or hypocrisy, or else all Trump-supporting evangelicals will explode in a paradox cloud of total protonic reversal.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hush, don't mention double standards or hypocrisy, or else all Trump-supporting evangelicals will explode in a paradox cloud of total protonic reversal.

Seems like discussing Guatama's past brings out the ridicule in people, doesn't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

I am glad he did. His brave quest has lead many to a path of less suffering.

My dad used to physically abuse my sister and me.

Everyone at church though just thought he walked on water.

Albeit, he kept his dark side hidden from them.

Those who treat Guatama as some "enlightened one" ... even though what he did was a crime and a shame and couldn't be hidden ... make me wonder about them.

It's like gathering around Richard Ramirez for his autograph; or wanting to marry him.

It makes you wonder what's going on in their heads.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

It took me a moment to grasp that you weren't referencing the unlawful detention camp in the Bay of Pigs, but just misspelled the Buddha's birth name.

I don't have a stake in this: while Buddha was certainly spot-on in his understanding of the psyche (reaching conclusions in 500 BCE that the mind sciences are only gradually realizing these days), I'm mostly interested in the message, not the messenger. And even that message isn't sacrosanct, but is subjected to the same close scrutiny as any other hypothesis.

 

[ananda]

I am glad he did. His brave quest has lead many to a path of less suffering.

Agreed. In his hagiography, not only did he first provide them with the material security they needed, he then later delivered his legacy - his discovery involving mental, psychological & spiritual security - not only to his son and his son's foster mother, but to the world.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

My dad used to physically abuse my sister and me.

Everyone at church though just thought he walked on water.

One of the things that renders so many Christian conservative/fundamentalist/evangelicals unpalatable to me is their insistence that physically abusing children is a perfectly fine educational tool and should be protected and maintained against the efforts of "sissy liberals".
They have even got biblical passages to support them: "spare the rod, spoil the child" and all that jazz.

 

[AV1611VET]

It took me a moment to grasp that you weren't referencing the unlawful detention camp in the Bay of Pigs, but just misspelled the Buddha's birth name.

LOL ... thanks for the correction.

O, what a tangled web we weave when first we misspell!

 

[AV1611VET]

One of the things that renders so many Christian conservative/fundamentalist/evangelicals unpalatable to me is their insistence that physically abusing children is a perfectly fine educational tool and should be protected and maintained against the efforts of "sissy liberals".
They have even got biblical passages to support them: "spare the rod, spoil the child" and all that jazz.

Um ... not even close.

His was more like: "spare the fist, bruise the child."

And all that jazz.

 

[AV1611VET]

Agreed. In his hagiography, not only did he first provide them with the material security they needed, he then later delivered his legacy - his discovery involving mental, psychological & spiritual security - not only to his son and his son's foster mother, but to the world.

Yup ... now we all shack up and call it "living together."

Families with so many extensions under one roof, you have to document whose father is whose.

Out with the nuclear family; in with the extended.

They make Gautama look good.

 

[ananda]

Yup ... now we all shack up and call it "living together."

Families with so many extensions under one roof, you have to document whose father is whose.

Out with the nuclear family; in with the extended.

They make Gautama look good.

As I see it, people are merely experimenting with alternative lifestyles in a more free, modern society, apart from the social and cultural mores and expectations of a more rigid past ... testing other possibilities in life, in a vain attempt to find a more lasting contentment than could be found through the customs of their forefathers.

Whether one is an individual in a nuclear family or in an extended family, whether people are or aren't "shacking up", "living together", or knows who's one's father is or not - people continue to discover that impermanence and discontentment still remains.

 

[TheOldWays]

Yup ... now we all shack up and call it "living together."

Families with so many extensions under one roof, you have to document whose father is whose.

Out with the nuclear family; in with the extended.

They make Gautama look good.

Not something I have noticed. I live in North America though so perhaps it's different where you live. In North America for the most part it's still pretty much your standard family setup although I am sure alternative styles of families are becoming more common.

 

[AV1611VET]

As I see it, people are merely experimenting with alternative lifestyles in a more free, modern society, apart from the social and cultural mores and expectations of a more rigid past ... testing other possibilities in life, in a vain attempt to find a more lasting contentment than could be found through the customs of their forefathers.

Ya ... and who suffers?

The children do.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not something I have noticed. I live in North America though so perhaps it's different where you live. In North America for the most part it's still pretty much your standard family setup although I am sure alternative styles of families are becoming more common.

Nothing's sacred anymore, is it?

 

[ananda]

Ya ... and who suffers?

The children do.

Not just children - pretty much everyone in the world is experiencing suffering, whether they are in customary relationships or not.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not just children - pretty much everyone in the world is experiencing suffering, whether they are in customary relationships or not.

That's Adam's fault -- not Gautama's.

 

[Zoness]

One of the things that renders so many Christian conservative/fundamentalist/evangelicals unpalatable to me is their insistence that physically abusing children is a perfectly fine educational tool and should be protected and maintained against the efforts of "sissy liberals".
They have even got biblical passages to support them: "spare the rod, spoil the child" and all that jazz.

"Those modern day sissys! If only people could be like it was in the past!"

There's the weird thing going on in society where a certain class of people think the rest of society is being emasculated under some bizarre pretense. In fact, I'd say the preoccupation with it suggests insecurity in their own sexuality, but that's another matter.

This same thing seems to apply to physical abuse. The idea that "I had it rough, and so should you" persists quite wildly in society, we see it reflected in the scripture even.

(sidebar)

It's sort of like when I see my parent's generation posting on Facebook to the order of "back in my day we didn't have all of these stupid safety regulations, we swam in any body of water and didn't wear seatbelts!"

Yeah we know, the average life expectancy reflects that pretty clearly.

 

[MehGuy]

Having wrapped up our discussion concerning the four questions every worldview deals with, we will now turn our attention to the rational warrant for the various worldviews discussed. I am interested in hearing from everyone who participated in the first discussion (and anyone who didn't for that matter but desires to join us) what rational warrant they have for holding the worldview they do. That is to say, what reasons, evidence, and arguments are there for the views you hold?

Ah. Well I am an atheist simply because I lack the evidence to believe in a God.

Not sure what "worldviews" I have.. ideally I think someone should be rational/skeptical and openminded. I think I pretty much fail at those three, but I try and I think I've come along way.

 

[holo]

Sorry, I don't.

Apparently not.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Yup ... now we all shack up and call it "living together."

Families with so many extensions under one roof, you have to document whose father is whose.

Out with the nuclear family; in with the extended.

They make Gautama look good.

The nuclear family is not some ancient and venerable construct. Its rise coincides with the ascent of the middle class, replacing the extended family that was the norm before- even in cultures embracing monogamy.
And guess what: it was a stillbirth so utterly dysfuctional, women started to rebel even though society desperately tried to amend its numerous faults through things like kindergarden, governesses and so forth.
It really takes a village to raise a child, and hoisting the whole responsibility on the nucleus of mom and dad is a disastrous idea.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Also, the decline of the nuclear family is the direct result of a greater degree of economic independence and basic human rights for women. As sad as it is that society as a whole has not yet replaced the dysfunctional mess of patriarchal monogamy with something new, the death of a system that restricted half of the population to a very narrow role and thrived only by oppressing them is good news.
I hope I live to see society finally get rid of the myth that this monstrous relationship model is somehow the gold standard, even though costly counselors and a whole genre of advice books exists solely to keep it barely functional by artificial means.