Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Kia Ora,

::) It would seem we want others [cis-gender people] to accept us for who we are...Yet at times can find it hard to return the favour...

Would I be right in saying that the vast majority of us [as in trans-people] believe we are somewhat open minded especially when it comes to issues of gender and sexual orientation ?

But how open minded are we really?

Are we really open when it comes to another person's religious, spiritual beliefs that relate in a negative way to the gender identity and sexual orientation of others?

Do we respect their right to their opinion?

It's a common belief that  People who are open Minded:
•   Are more accepting of others and have fewer prejudices
•   Are more optimistic and make the most of life
•   Have less stress because they are more open to change
•   Have better problem solving skills
•   Want to learn more, therefore are more interesting

Where's your moral compass needle set? 

Just some "food for thought" [to chew on for awhile]...

::) BTW you don't have to participate in the little poll, it's just there to add some flavour to the topic... ;)

Metta Zenda :)

I'm definitely open minded, but to a point. I'm not willing to entertain ideas that are totally stupid.

"My mind aint so open, that anything can crawl right in." - song by magazine that I get in my head when people are being mumbo jumbo.
Magazine - My Mind Ain't So Open (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rItxPQdSiEY#)
It used to be more open and the kid-romantic in me mourns the way the boundaries of my world have stiffened up a little.

However, the poll is built in such a leading way, that it is prejudiced against religious beliefs - which are not the only enemy of open-mindedness (and I'd argue, you'd have to be very open minded to believe the things most religions asked you to.)

The mind is like a parachute - It only works when its open

I like that,
Axelle

PS: Morals have an unpleasant flavour for me, yet ethics is for me where it's at.
PPS: Morals are always tinted by dogma --- ok, dogma is there to survive, but overcome dogmas are there to be equalised and crushed. Amen

When I studied ethics - the difference between ethics and morals presented to us was that morals were about an individual and the individual's inner core of right/wrong, whereas ethics were about how those morals are applied in social contexts. This means that morals tended to be more general, but firm and unyielding and ethics flexible, depending on a situation.

Now, my friend Samuel Johnson would have said that the best morals are based in the revealed truths of the Bible, that the solidness of God backs up the solidness of the individual and so creates a firm moral base for ethical systems. Although I agree in principal, I don't believe in God, and so basing my morals on the morals revealed by a non-existant God would not be solid at all.

I do very strongly believe that morals should be firm and unyielding (but need not be strong in number) to be a decent, authentic and honest individual (indeed the striving to be decent, authentic and honest may all be parts of an individual's morals in themself). As to someone who claims that they have no fixed morals - I think the following exchange from Boswell's Life of Johnson sum my mind up well.

Johnson:    He wants to make himself conspicuous. He would tumble in a hogstye, as long as you looked at him and called to him to come out. But let him alone, never mind him, and he'll soon give it over.

Boswell:  He person maintained that there was no distinction between virtue and vice.

Johnson:   Why, Sir, if the fellow does not think as he speaks, he is lying; and I see not what honour he can propose to himself from having the character of a liar. But if he does really think that there is no distinction between virtue and vice, why, Sir, when he leaves our houses let us count our spoons.

- One of my morals is that ethics are relative to their situation, but to people who say they have no morals at all, I'll be counting my spoons.

OMG I do SO disagree! (most seldom so strongly)

Morals are taught and trained behaviour. It is "moral" people that stone the adulteress, ethics will never do that - not in my knowing. If something is unethical it could still be moral, hardly the other way round.

There also is *moralizing* yet no "ethicalizing".

If it is moral requirement to kill people, there are plenty examples, - in order to maintain dogma --- I know why I'd rather be ethical.

Food for though?
Axelle

PS: How immoral to masturbate as did Onan OT! Yet it has NOTHING to do with being unethical what ever.

It's only a moral requirement to kill people if your morals are constructed that way...there are dumb morals as well as good ones, doesn't mean morals are themselves wrong. Morals are not the soul domain of the religious and the religious are on the whole not murdering psychopaths.

All the nitty gritty about stoning adultresses is ethics, and the ethical/legal system of that custom. If you remember the man with the morals, Jesus, was the one who stops the stoning by pointing out the hypocrisy in stoning a person when they are themselves guilty of crimes. The stoning people were following ethics, and Jesus is following morals (namely the moral to do unto others &c)...

And I'm not saying any of this as a Christian.

Quote from: Pica Pica on July 20, 2011, 01:41:23 PM
It's only a moral requirement to kill people if your morals are constructed that way...there are dumb morals as well as good ones, doesn't mean morals are themselves wrong. Morals are not the soul domain of the religious and the religious are on the whole not murdering psychopaths.

All the nitty gritty about stoning adultresses is ethics, and the ethical/legal system of that custom. If you remember the man with the morals, Jesus, was the one who stops the stoning by pointing out the hypocrisy in stoning a person when they are themselves guilty of crimes. The stoning people were following ethics, and Jesus is following morals (namely the moral to do unto others &c)...

And I'm not saying any of this as a Christian.

Kia Ora Pica,

::) Closeted Christian Perhaps ?  ;) ;D

Metta Zenda :)

Even taken as a fictional character, Jesus has some pretty solid and beneficial morals.

i believe in jesus, and consider myself a christian. one important moral i learned from the bible is to have an open mind and never condemn others even when the rest of society calls them sinners and wants to stone them. i'm not perfect myself, so i have no right to tell other how to live as long as they don't do anything harmful to anyone

jesus even dined with sinners, i'm sure he'd dine with transsexuals too. so i will do the same and never reject people for any other reason than a personality i can't stand. but even then i might give them a chance

and jesus never said it's ok to hurt others in his or god's name, so i will not consider those who abuse religion true christians. religion is really only empty rituals and reading without necessarily understanding. christianity is to me a faith that teaches me to love. period. no place for hate, except hating the sin itself
but these morals are seriously hard to uphold. i hate the guy who hurt my brothers, and the one who hurt my friend's daughter, and this makes me a very bad christian in my own eyes

Morals and ethics should always be situational and relavent to the moment.

What is good today, may in fact be evil tommorow.

ethics should definitely be changeable according to situation

but i think morals that apply only to oneself should be "firm and unyielding" (using pica's words). morals that require you to harm other people are not good morals as i see it, because according to my morals harming people is not good. and i will never yield on this point, "to never harm anyone", even when i feel compelled to go out and commit extreme atrocities upon certain people who have harmed younger members of my family. if i were to go by ethics, i'd just choose the one which suits my situation best ("an eye for an eye" is perfectly ethical in some religions), but my morals won't allow me to

Quote from: cynthialee on July 20, 2011, 04:02:07 PM
Morals and ethics should always be situational and relavent to the moment.

What is good today, may in fact be evil tommorow.

Oh Cynthialee, we are so opposites. My morals and ethics do not transcend space and time they are ever constant. As far as "open mindness," as a scienetist I am open to consider anything but but metaphisical stuff.

Kate D

I think I'm pretty openminded.

I do not see how morals and ethics can be anything other than situational to truely be moral.

Hmm....I dunno about open mindedness meaning all those things...maybe I'm open minded about open mindedness filling a set criteria of results? x3

Seriously though, I think I'm pretty open-minded, of course, but I can also be fairly aggressively defensive DUE to open-mindedness: If I perceive what I'm open about as being attacked, I get concerned and go out of my way to stand up for it. D:

Quote from: Pica Pica on July 20, 2011, 02:11:04 PM
Even taken as a fictional character, Jesus has some pretty solid and beneficial morals.

Kia Ora Pica,

A "Christian" Atheist...Quote from our friend  Wiki...
"Jesus, although not seen as divine, is still a central feature of "Christian" atheism. Most Christian atheists think of Jesus as a wise and good man, accepting his moral teachings but rejecting the idea of his divinity. Hamilton said that to the Christian atheist, Jesus is not really the foundation of faith; instead he is a "place to be, a standpoint". Christian atheists look to Jesus as an example of what a Christian should be, but they do not see him as a god!"


::) The whole atheist verses theist/[in this case Christian] thing is quite interesting especially for those of us who were born and live in the West where Christianity has had a foothold for [let's say] quite a while=entrenched in ones psyche so to speak...A couple of years ago I read a book by a French philosopher Andre Comte-Sponville's The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality. anyway he calls himself a "Christian" atheist, that is he tends to abide by the Christian values his family had installed in him...He would attend Christening, wedding and funerals  in church and would partake in the Christmas festive breaks like Christmas, Easter, etc, but when it comes to a belief in a god he doesn't have one ...

Metta Zenda :) 

I would have picked #3 but I am open minded. You assume if someone has religious beliefs they are close minded. I am a very open minded person but draw the line on behavior that doesn't follow my main religious belief, "Love your neighbor as yourself" or better known as treat others as you would like to be treated. I think my position allows for almost anything that isn't -intended- to hurt someone else.

Just goes to show how these enquiries tend or may create endless ping-pong about meanings of words e.g. morals and ethics.
I'd bring one dictionary definition and out comes another.

The same as all these various trans***** interpretations do.

I think I'll give that a miss because it doesn't mesh with my understanding. Things like "good" and "bad" morals?! --- good Lord!
And then "flexible" ethics, really?
Like one day it's unethical to kill, then "flexing" ethics it is perfectly fine?

That's of course all being done under various "moral systems". Like burning witches, or feeding believers to the lions. None is ethical, but "good morals" at one point, and at a later point you'd just call it "bad morals"?... hey.

Religion and all its "moral requirements" and teachings also create such as the Taliban and company. Just which one you'd belong to is already too much for me to get around to.

Like my hemline being too short being considered "immoral"... tutut.
I personally stick to my knowing that it is not unethical having a shorter hemline then some more "moral" brethren.

As it will also be unethical to sleep with your neighbour's, friend's or even conkered enemies females.
Reading in the OT the latter being perfectly moral and EVEN a requirement from above (when e.g. taking over Canaan).

I think even then it may have been practical to impregnate each of the enemies females having had all the males killed – moral ok, but ethical?

Then, I guess its just words after all, yes?

Let red be carmine and blue be azure...

Quote from: Stephe on July 20, 2011, 11:28:36 PM
I would have picked #3 but I am open minded. You assume if someone has religious beliefs they are close minded. I am a very open minded person but draw the line on behavior that doesn't follow my main religious belief, "Love your neighbor as yourself" or better known as treat others as you would like to be treated. I think my position allows for almost anything that isn't -intended- to hurt someone else.

Kia Ora Stephe,

::) This was not meant as an attack on "religious " people, I was more or less just stating a fact, that "religious upbringing" can have [but not always] an impact on the level of open mindedness in some people....

I've changed it now so has not to offend other religious people........

Thanks for pointing this out Stephe [Well I would also like to thank Pica too who also mentioned it earlier]....

Metta Zenda :) 

Kia Ora,

::) Just to keep things on track [OK I know I'm guilty of taking threads off track too] ;)  :icon_yikes:

::) For some people just the thought of others/strangers romping around in their birthday suits[even at nudist beaches] pushes their moral compass to it's limits...Or another example if they see a "same sex" couple holding hands and or kissing[like hetero couples normally do] in public, this makes them feel uncomfortable...Or some might be offended by "mix race" couples...

When it come to your level of open mindedness would any of the examples above cause you any discomfort ? 

Sadly due [no doubt to their upbringing] there are some trans-people who are uncomfortable with homosexuality and the race/ethnicity of  a person can be a sticky point too...

I guess this is what I'm on about when "I" talk of open mindedness...

That is  [if they are not harming others]  "LIVE AND LET LIVE !"

I think it's a general trend in the West that young people are becoming more accepting of the differences in others...But I guess there will always be exceptions to this rule...   

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: ~RoadToTrista~ on July 20, 2011, 08:10:46 PM
I think I'm "pretty" openminded.

Kia Ora Road,
  ::) I think all open minded people are "pretty"... ;)

Metta Zenda :) ;D

Live and let live is your moral then.

Kia Ora Pica,

::) If a person is not knowingly[ "intentionally" ] harming another person or animal or the environment with their actions...Then why should "my" conscience button be pushed ?

However my conscience is stirred when I witness the actions of others that deliberately cause suffering [ compassion or empathy]...But at times I have no means at my disposal to intervene...Only a wish that it never happened and a desire for it to end....

Pica, in the real world there is no "right or wrong" just skilful and unskilful actions...

Where do you stand Pica ? 

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Lisbeth on July 21, 2011, 01:38:16 AM

• Yes in general I would like to think so, I'm pretty laidback about things
• Yes for the most part but I do have some very strong opinions on certain things for example abortion
• Not really, I find it hard to accept certain things because of my "inherited" beliefs..

Unfortunately, I have a problem with these options. I am open-minded because of my inherited religious beliefs, not the other way around.

Kia Ora Lisbeth,

::) Bloody hell  :icon_yikes:  ;) ;D...No seriously, I did mention at the beginning that voting in the poll was optional...

"You can please some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time!" Good old Abe Lincoln, took a bullet for that...I know how you feel Abe  ;) ;D

Metta Zenda :) 

Quote from: Pica Pica on July 20, 2011, 12:19:43 AM
"My mind aint so open, that anything can crawl right in." - song by magazine that I get in my head when people are being mumbo jumbo.
Magazine - My Mind Ain't So Open (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rItxPQdSiEY#)
It used to be more open and the kid-romantic in me mourns the way the boundaries of my world have stiffened up a little.

However, the poll is built in such a leading way, that it is prejudiced against religious beliefs - which are not the only enemy of open-mindedness (and I'd argue, you'd have to be very open minded to believe the things most religions asked you to.)

Kia Ora Pica,

::) I can't argue with that...It's an irrefutable truth... ;) ;D

Metta Zenda :)

QuoteDo we respect their right to their opinion?

I try very hard to RESPECT a person's right to their opinion if it is anywhere in the vicinity of plausible, but there are two major places where I usually fail:

I do NOT respect your view if that view consists of "those who disagree with me are obviously morons" - in other words, if you want my respect, then YOU respect the views of others. If you, for instance, believe conservative christians are toothless illiterate knuckle-dragging hillbillies because they are intolerant of LGBT people, I can't respect that.  Likewise, if you are a Christian and you think all pro-gay people are simply self-serving pervs who will believe anything so long as they get a pass - no respect for you. Kindly acknowledge that people of good-will and reasonable intellect CAN see things differently than you.

2. People who clearly have never reasoned through that which they say they believe, but are obviously parroting what they have been taught. It goes without saying this is somewhat subjective until you plumb the depths but if you have much of an exchange you begin to see that your questions don't get straight answers because you've traveled past the point that your opponent has THOUGHT about the proposition they claim to believe.

although, admittedly it can be kinda fun driving them off that cliff and watching for the Wile E. Coyote moment...

Quote from: Tammy Hope on July 21, 2011, 02:49:04 AM
I do NOT respect your view if that view consists of "those who disagree with me are obviously morons" - in other words, if you want my respect, then YOU respect the views of others.

2. People who clearly have never reasoned through that which they say they believe, but are obviously parroting what they have been taught.

i agree with both. i'll respect anyone's view on things as long as they also respect mine if our opinions differ, but i'll still have trouble respecting a view that is used to justify actions that harm other people. and people who blindly belive what their teacher or textbook says without reasoning it through on their own often have problems explaining why it has to be like that

no wonder i don't have much respect for many of my former teachers, they only taught what the text book said but couldn't explain it in depth. "i don't know" is an answer much easier to respect than "that's just how it is", but i know only a very few teachers who'd ever admit not knowing something

Why do you mock those with a religous upbringing by placeing the words in quotes? Do you not accept that these peple are being raised in faith?

Kia Ora Cynthialee,

::) Not only do I accept the fact that many people have been raised in faith [and in good faith for the most part] I also accept their belief in a god or gods...If a person's mind is capable of creating a world where their concept of a god or gods appears to be real for them and for the most part brings them some form of comfort, why should I not accept this to be "their" truth ?

Now may I ask you a similar question [well I'm going to anyway just for the fun of it] ;)

::) Do you believe that "all" religions are about control ? and I mean control in a negative[or if you like a mocking=with contempt]  sense....[A little prompter perhaps to jog your memory "QFT"]

I have no wish to make you feel uncomfortable I'm just trying to understand how your mind works...

Thanks for asking this question Cynthialee,

After all  "How can one learn if one does not ask questions !" And as you may have already gathered I tend to ask lots of questions.........many answer these questions directly, whilst some tend to focus more on the messenger  ;)

Metta Zenda :)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Kia Ora Lisbeth,

::) I must apologise for my sense of humour...At times I tend to forget where the other person's mind might be at when reading my responses....It's an old habit of mine not to take life too seriously, for if one does then it will become well... "serious"...and there's no fun in that !

The other reason is "nothing is permanent", happiness-sadness are two side of the same coin and I like to continually flip life's coin and just go with the flow...

I do hope you will continue to post, but if you have made up your mind not to then I respect your decision...

Metta Zenda :)

Once again you dodge my question and insert meaningless platitudes into the conversation.

For once I would like it if you talk to me to drop the pretend 'rightous' nice girl act and just straight out answer it with out the 'proper' salutations and greetings.
Get to the point, stop obfuscating and just comit to a coment. Stop pussyfooting around things and make a point for once.

Quote from: Zenda on July 21, 2011, 01:31:46 AM
Pica, in the real world there is no "right or wrong" just skilful and unskilful actions...

Where do you stand Pica ? 

If this were the case, then incidence of murder and such would be higher - people don't murder because it's inconvenient or just because they might get caught, but because it is wrong.

Quote from: cynthialee on July 21, 2011, 08:42:02 AM
Why do you mock those with a religous upbringing by placeing the words in quotes? Do you not accept that these peple are being raised in faith?

Kia Ora Cynthialee,

" Not only do I accept the fact that many people have been raised in faith [and in good faith for the most part] I also accept their belief in a god or gods...If a person's mind is capable of creating a world where their concept of a god or gods appears to be real for them and for the most part brings them some form of comfort, why should I not accept this to be "their" truth ?

Now may I ask you a similar question [well I'm going to anyway just for the fun of it]

  Do you believe that "all" religions are about control ? and I mean control in a negative[or if you like a mocking=with contempt]  sense....[A little prompter perhaps to jog your memory "QFT"] !"

It's the same "answer" I gave you before Cynthialee....But for some strange reason you have refused to acknowledge it.....

The "Quotes" is something I often use and for the most part just to  "emphasis"  not necessarily to offend or ridicule others...It would seem that most other readers are "not" put out  by it...But I could be "wrong"...

Do you have problems with people who can't write or spell or use the English language correctly Cynthialee ?

Metta Zenda :) 

Quote from: Pica Pica on July 21, 2011, 03:35:12 PM
If this were the case, then incidence of murder and such would be higher - people don't murder because it's inconvenient or just because they might get caught, but because it is wrong "unskillful" ! "Think about it "

Metta Zenda :)

Nothing to do with skill, people who think morals are not right and wrong do not have a moral compass, they have a moral weathervane.

Quote from: Pica Pica on July 21, 2011, 04:10:55 PM
Nothing to do with skill, people who think morals are not right and wrong do not have a moral compass, they have a moral weathervane.

Kia Ora Pica,

And thank you for such an interesting view point... ::) Definately some  "Food for thought " ::) .....

::) The words "skilful" and "unskilful" (kusala and akusala) are how Buddhists talk about the ethical status of ones actions. According to Buddhism actions should not be deemed right or wrong because there is not one single correct path through the obstacles in life; therefore, one should strive to be skilful, [kusala], and stray away from becoming unskilful...And this is where "mindfulness" comes into play...

The practice of ethics in Buddhism, although it obviously has to do with actions in the external world, is fundamentally about internal choices we make about which mental states we are going to exercise. When one is mindful one has a choice about how one's going to respond. Do we react in an angry manner or practice patience? Do we act selfishly or selflessly?

When one has mindfulness one has choice. Without mindful observation of the mind, it's impossible for us to choose to act skilfully rather than unskilfully. It goes without saying that much of the time most people lack the mindfulness to make choices. This doesn't mean that everything one does while on "automatic pilot" is unskilful, just that we will at times inadvertently create suffering for ourselves and others by blindly acting out unskilful impulses, and in doing so will miss opportunities for cultivating greater wellbeing.

::) So in a nutshell... [a soft one so it's easy to crack] ;) :D

Quote from Tenzin Palmo [An English Buddhist woman]

"We always have a choice to carry out skilful or unskilful acts. Any action committed under an unwholesome state of mind is negative -- it doesn't matter that the eventual outcome is positive. Likewise, an action may look negative but if it has a positive or wholesome motivation behind it, the action itself is positive !"

Happy Mindfulness Pica :)

Metta Zenda :)

Hmmm, interesting.

Dear Kia Ora Pica,

many thanks, for this thoughtful precis. It meshes perfectly well with my own line of thinking or "mindfulness".

Even if we do not always hit the "bulls-eye" and miss the target, being "unskillful", - so long we accept the concept as our direction to aim, it be so much more then to remain unaware.

Thank you,
Axelle
PS: has it to do that this knowing happens to talk ethics rather then morals? Yes, I do think so IMHO.

The word 'harmartia' meant to miss the mark - and was often translated in the Bible to the word sin.

Pica Pica,
guess why I used it? :-)

Was just trying not to get to "sinful" (missing the mark)  with my replies. :-)

Cheers,
Axelle

Kia Ora Axelle,

::) There's no such thing as "sin" [in Buddhism]... ;) ;D

Metta Zenda :)

Honey, it's why I called it "missing the mark" , yes?
Or "not doing your best" in a given situation, or being "unskillful" etc.

"Sin" is, or had become, a dogmatic thing over the centuries.
It's now not adhering to dogma, ergo being "immoral" or "sinful". Period.

The Greek word for sin, αμαρτία when translating the Greek Bible texts, was "missing the mark". YMMV.
Not saying I'm a master of hermeneutics but did complete a ministries study... a while ago. As a result am not "religious" about things i.e. rather try and be "skillful" :-)

Axelle

Quote from: pollAre you open minded ?

I like my mind closed, locked, padlocked, and with a chain on it.

In general, I don't respect people's beliefs.  I respect the fact that people have beliefs, but I don't respect the beliefs themselves.  This is particularly true if those beliefs are self-contradictory, not well-reasoned, and held by people who consistently argue that everyone else must have the same beliefs that they do.

The way I see it, I don't need to be constantly entertaining a bunch of useless theories which are most likely all wrong.  I am much better off not knowing about it, thank you very much.  I have much better things to do with my time than listen to people drawl on about gods, blessings, magic, afterlife, underworlds, conspiracies, demons, and a whole host of other things which probably don't exist.

If you can bend spoons with your mind, show me.  If you are the subject of an all-powerful being who can create an entire universe just by thinking about it, show me.  If you have magic pixie dust that you use to make love and lust concoctions, show me.

The extent to which my mind is open ends at the point where people start talking about all kinds of fantasy which has absolutely no effect in the actual world.  If someone can't provide physical evidence for their beliefs, then IMHO their beliefs are about as valid as Star Wars.  The only significant difference is that Star Wars is more believable.

Skilful, unskilful. The sytem is still full of value judgements.

Quote from: Zenda on July 21, 2011, 12:41:58 AM
Kia Ora,

I guess this is what I'm on about when "I" talk of open mindedness...

That is  [if they are not harming others]  "LIVE AND LET LIVE !"

I -try- to go one step further which is the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". This means rather than just ignoring what others are doing, you actively try to do something nice for others. If you had added the "if they are not harming others" I would have picked that choice out of these options :)

Quote from: VeryGnawty on July 22, 2011, 06:01:53 AM
I like my mind closed, locked, padlocked, and with a chain on it.

In general, I don't respect people's beliefs.  I respect the fact that people have beliefs, but I don't respect the beliefs themselves.  This is particularly true if those beliefs are self-contradictory, not well-reasoned, and held by people who consistently argue that everyone else must have the same beliefs that they do.

The way I see it, I don't need to be constantly entertaining a bunch of useless theories which are most likely all wrong.  I am much better off not knowing about it, thank you very much.  I have much better things to do with my time than listen to people drawl on about gods, blessings, magic, afterlife, underworlds, conspiracies, demons, and a whole host of other things which probably don't exist.

If you can bend spoons with your mind, show me.  If you are the subject of an all-powerful being who can create an entire universe just by thinking about it, show me.  If you have magic pixie dust that you use to make love and lust concoctions, show me.

The extent to which my mind is open ends at the point where people start talking about all kinds of fantasy which has absolutely no effect in the actual world.  If someone can't provide physical evidence for their beliefs, then IMHO their beliefs are about as valid as Star Wars.  The only significant difference is that Star Wars is more believable.

What is real to me is Love exists. You can't prove it scientifically or physically but I know it exists. What I worship is that Love makes the world a better place to live in and all my God asks is we love each other.  He makes no demands on me or my life other than this. IMHO THAT is a hard enough thing that it absorbs all the time I have free to spend on stuff like this :P 

Hate to be argumentative but you are the same as the people you seem to abhor. You don't like people who explain you must hold the same beliefs as they do, but then explain how everyone who doesn't believe as you do are simply wrong.. I respect you believe there is nothing outside of what can be physically proved but you don't appear to reciprocate those feelings towards others.

Cynthialee,
* The system is still full of value judgements. *

Honey, guess what? Life is one never ending string of value judgments, like it or not.
If it wasn't you wouldn't live.

We HAVE to make value judgements every step of our way, and that's what we are taught from the day we are born. Bottle too hot? We scream! Someone nice to you? We smile!

Want to cross the street into a bus? Not really. And on and on.

So you need a compass, else how you know you go South rather then North?

Axelle

I was only pointing out the contradiction in the philosophy.

Kia Ora[to no one in particular],

::) "Life is a paradox !" [Full of contradictions]

::) Just to reiterate: The words "skilful" and "unskilful" (kusala and akusala) are how Buddhists talk about the ethical status of ones actions. According to Buddhism actions should not be deemed right or wrong because there is not one single correct path through the obstacles in life; therefore, one should strive to be skilful, [kusala], and stray away from becoming unskilful...And this is where "mindfulness" comes into play...

::) A little "food for thought" parable on burden:

Two Buddhist Monks were on a journey, one was a senior monk, the other a novice. During their journey they approached a raging river and on the river bank stood a young woman who was clearly concerned about how she would get to the other side of the river without drowning. She asked if the monks could help her...

The novice monk shook his head and walked straight past her without giving it a thought and he crossed the river. The senior monk smiled said get on my shoulders and I'll carry you across, so she climbed onto his shoulders and he carried her across the river . Once safely across he placed her down, and the two monks continued on with the journey.

After many hours they were approaching the journey's end, the senior monk could see some concern on the novice monk's mind, he asked what was wrong. The novice monk replied, "how could you carry her like that? You know we can't touch women, it's against our way of life". The senior monk answered, "I left the woman at the rivers edge a long way back, why are you still carrying her?"

The moral of the story: The senior monk may have broken monastic rules but out of compassion had acted skilfully. Once the purpose was fulfilled he put her down and continued on. He never gave it a second thought. However the novice monk was carrying the burden of what the senior monk had done as emotional baggage.

We have little use for the past except for the purpose of learning from our experiences, wholesome and unwholesome... Just like in this story, we need to let go of any burden the past may place on us.


::) These burdens can also be in the form of a personal grudge/vendetta against someone... ;)   

"Sabbe Dhamma Nalam Abhinivesaya !"

Happy Mindfulness :)

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Zenda on July 22, 2011, 01:54:47 AM
Kia Ora Axelle,

::) There's no such thing as "sin" [in Buddhism]... ;) ;D

Metta Zenda :)

That is to bad because proselytising as hard as a southern-baptist preacher should be a sin in Buddhism  >:-)

Kate D

Quote from: kate durcal on July 22, 2011, 05:30:19 PM
That is to bad because proselytising as hard as a southern-baptist preacher should be a sin in Buddhism  >:-)

Kate D

Kia Ora Kate,

::) Opening a person's mind to life's possibilities is neither preaching or trying to solicit and as I've mentioned before nor is it a sin[according to Buddhists  ;)]...It's all about having compassion for the suffering of others Kate...No matter what their personal beliefs are...

My personal thoughts can't enter another person's mind without their permission...

::) Buddhism is just a name given to a particular belief system, and if one's personal "faith/beliefs" are strong, what have they to fear ? I can assure you, you won't become a Buddhist by reading about Buddhist psychology & philosophy [unless that is....it's your "karma"   ;) ;D]...

::) Or perhaps I'm really casting a nasty "magical'" conversion spell...  >:-)

::) BTW Did you find the parable interesting Kate ?

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Stephe on July 22, 2011, 09:13:39 AM

What is real to me is Love exists. You can't prove it scientifically or physically but I know it exists. What I worship is that Love makes the world a better place to live in and all my God asks is we love each other.

If all your God asks is for us to love each other, then I have no quarrel with your God.  In fact, I would rather have other people believe in your God regardless of his status of existence, as the world would be a much better place.

Quote from: StepheHate to be argumentative but you are the same as the people you seem to abhor. You don't like people who explain you must hold the same beliefs as they do, but then explain how everyone who doesn't believe as you do are simply wrong.

Your theory would be nice, if it were actually true.  However, it is not.  First of all, I don't abhor people simply for believing in falsehoods or disbelieving in truths.  I simply said that I don't respect those beliefs.  This is a very different thing.

Secondly, I never actually said that anybody was wrong.  I said that they were probably wrong.  Two completely different things.  If there are a thousand religions all claiming that ONLY their god is the true god, then at least 999 of those religions must be wrong.  The same goes for any other mutually exclusive theories, whether they are based in science or not.  Given the number of crazy things people believe, and the conditions which must be present in the universe in order for any given theory to be true, then the logical conclusion is that most of what people believe must be wrong.  While any particular theory COULD be correct, I don't see why I should be spending my time pondering such a theory if it seemingly has no effect on the actual universe and the person proposing the theory can't provide any evidence that it does.  Like I said, I have better things to do with my time.  Specifically:  I could be doing research to try to find out what actually is true so that I won't be scammed by the next snake oil salesman, diet pill, or (dare I say) religion.

I'm not saying that everyone who doesn't believe as I do is wrong.  That would be a very foolish statement.  What I am saying is that, given the number of mutually exclusive ideas that people believe, most of those beliefs must necessarily be wrong.  If there are thousands (maybe more) of people who believe that the Earth is only six-thousand years old, and billions of people who believe that the Earth is billions of years old, then only one of these theories can be true (non-linear time and parallel universes notwithstanding).  We can already establish the wrongness of at least several thousand people, and this is only on one single idea on one single topic.  Either the Young Earth theory is incorrect, the Old Earth theory is incorrect, or they are both incorrect because space and time are a lot more bizarre than we think they are.  Regardless of what the actual truth is, there are a lot of people who are simply WRONG.

QuoteI respect you believe there is nothing outside of what can be physically proved but you don't appear to reciprocate those feelings towards others.

What feelings?  I believe in my theories based on the current evidence.  Feelings have nothing to do with it.  Please explain exactly what feelings I am supposed to have for others, and how it relates to our beliefs.

Quote from: VeryGnawty on July 23, 2011, 06:03:19 AM
If all your God asks is for us to love each other, then I have no quarrel with your God.  In fact, I would rather have other people believe in your God regardless of his status of existence, as the world would be a much better place.

Your theory would be nice, if it were actually true.  However, it is not.  First of all, I don't abhor people simply for believing in falsehoods or disbelieving in truths.  I simply said that I don't respect those beliefs.  This is a very different thing.

If you read (which I assume you have and not just listened to what people told you these books say) most religious books, at the core have this same message. Look at what almost every religion has in common, not at the differences. You will see this "Love each other as yourself" in almost everyone. It's why God sent Jesus/Christ here (which you likely don't believe either), God saw we just were NOT getting the message. Jesus's MAIN message over and over was "Look, forget all those old rules, just LOVE EACH OTHER". It's really just that simple. Now people with their hatred can twist any of these to suit their own evil purposes, which we all have seen happen. That isn't God's love working, that is people being selfish. Yes, unfortunately most churches/religions seem to try to apply all sorts of silly rules rather that just following this simple precept.

You have to remember ALL these books are -mans interpretation- of what God is and wants of us. That is why you see so many different "versions". Too many people then take these books literally or feel one has to believe them literally to get Gods message out of them. I honestly feel most religions are worshiping the same God, just in their own way of trying to understand it. It's humans trying to comprehend something beyond what they can understand.

It's likely why some people such as yourself chose to believe God just doesn't exist instead. You can't understand it, no humans can explain it scientifically so it's simple to just assume "therefore it doesn't exist". Don't forget 200 years ago we didn't understand bacteria and the cause of infection. Science explained those things in ways we consider nonsense today. Just because science can't show evidence for something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Again has anyone ever scientifically proved Love exists? There is a LOT that humans do not understand.

Next section...

And maybe I see this differently but "not respecting those beliefs" seems to be a pretty negative statement towards other people. I respect everyone's beliefs, even people who believe there is no God or that the world was made is exactly 7 days and there is no evolution. Sharing a belief and respecting someone else's beliefs are different things.

Lets move this into the context of this forum. I am going to assume you -believe- your birth sex doesn't match your gender. You have no scientific proof this is true. Other people obviously aren't going to share this belief in their own life but I have found most people -respect- my belief this is the case for me. Now imagine if everyone was like you and didn't respect this belief we have? Do you like people who refuse to accept you have gender identity issues and tell us you have no proof of this, so you are wrong? Of course not. But this is how you treat other people about their religious beliefs.. How is your lack of respect for other peoples beliefs be any different than these people who refuse to accept someone being TG?

Verse 19 of the Tao Te Ching includes:

Throw away morality and justice,
and people will do the right thing.

Does one really need a moral compass?

Its me i judge not others and when i do judge others i quickly ask to be forgiven by above

Quote from: Julie Marie on July 23, 2011, 11:01:48 AM
Verse 19 of the Tao Te Ching includes:

Throw away morality and justice,
and people will do the right thing.

Does one really need a moral compass?

How do they know what the right thing is without a compass?

Don't forget 200 years ago we didn't understand bacteria and the cause of infection. Science explained those things in ways we consider nonsense today.

We assume those explanations are nonsense because of a hugely high mortality rate.  Few scientific discoveries equal 'the germ theory of disease" when it comes to radically changing life.  Starting by almost doubling it.

Quote from: tekla on July 23, 2011, 01:35:35 PM
Don't forget 200 years ago we didn't understand bacteria and the cause of infection. Science explained those things in ways we consider nonsense today.

We assume those explanations are nonsense because of a hugely high mortality rate.  Few scientific discoveries equal 'the germ theory of disease" when it comes to radically changing life.  Starting by almost "doubling" it.

Kia Ora Tekla,

::) "For better or for worse!"  ???

Metta Zenda :)

I am open minded. I much prefer to let others be whoever they want to be. Who am I to judge them yea or nay? It's just not my place to judge.

I will go on to say that the role of a Christian is to present the message of Jesus and not beat others over the head with it nor condemn those who do not accept it. If you have presented it in a rational way that shows someone their life can be improved, then it is time for you to move along and let the message itself and the quickening of the Holy Spirit to do their work.

  I voted the "somewhat".  I have some strong differences with certain things, I am not PC.  But I am tolerant.  I have crossed paths with people that are open minded on about everything, but are not tolerant when is crosses their viewpoint.  I had to steer clear of these people in my past.  These were the most dangerous, especially if they were in management!   These people will say the the right things, but if you are in that group they mentioned and you admit that your are "one of those", they seem to make your life harder.  They are fishing.  I have a close minded, but tolerant left wing person as a friend.  At least he is honest!  I had the least difficulty with him than the other males when I came out.  Go figure!  All of my friends run the gamut.  Right, left, straight, lesbian, etc.
  Joelene

I'm tired, so I'm only going to respond to one point.

Quote from: Stephe on July 23, 2011, 10:56:24 AMNow imagine if everyone was like you and didn't respect this belief we have? Do you like people who refuse to accept you have gender identity issues and tell us you have no proof of this, so you are wrong? Of course not.

You assume much.  What I "like" are people who have put a lot of thought into what they do believe.  It is my experience that reasonable people can come to a reasonable compromise.

My best friend thinks it is absolutely ludicrous that I "want" to be female.  His entire life is built around strength and masculinity.  He doesn't understand why any "guy" would "want" to be female.  This is the limit of his understanding about my desires, and he probably won't understand much more any time soon.  This does not stop us from being friends.  We agree to disagree, and then we move on to more important matters.  Even if he does tell me I am wrong, it doesn't matter.  In time, the data always reveals who is correct and who is not.  Even if it didn't, it still wouldn't matter.  I don't need him to accept me as female, I need me to accept me as female.  I don't need him to accept who I am anymore than I need him to accept the fact that I like vegetables when he wants to eat meat.  We aren't friends so that we can blindly affirm each other's beliefs.  We are friends so that we can challenge each other's beliefs, so that we may both become more knowledgeable and productive human beings.

If you have presented it in a rational way...

If religion was presented in a rational way, it wouldn't be religion, it would be science.

If we don't at least try to present it in a 'rational' manner it becomes a disjointed non-cohesive grouping of ideas and nobody will understand what you are trying to say. I also believe that science and religion can coexist happily though I am sure there are many who will disagree. I try to keep an 'open mind' about things I cannot fully explain in order to be able to accept new possibilities when they arise-and they always do!

Randi

A 'rational' explanation is one that any other human of similar intelligence could observe and deduct (think) and come to the same conclusion.  Rational comes from reason meaning:  the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways and/or a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something that supports a conclusion or explains a fact.  Either way no two independent observers are going to arrive at something like Genesis, and the fall, the redemption, the life of Christ, and all that based on looking at the world. 

It's not that's it's good or bad, it's that the province of religion is faith, not reason.  No doubt in my mind that people looked out on the world and lacked answers, so they made some up.  Jesus, turtles, whatever.  It may or may not be the truth.  Science by the way does not say it has the truth, all science has is the numbers on what works what percentage of the time.  That's all science is, a collection of things that work.  We often realize it works long before we arrive at the 'reason'. 

Quote from: tekla on July 23, 2011, 10:58:11 PMThat's all science is, a collection of things that work.

That's exactly why I like my beliefs to be challenged.  If my beliefs don't work, I want to know about it.  If I were to disbelieve in the existence of gravity, I would rather discover the truth of my disbelief before I jump off a cliff rather than after.

I always used to ask my students which way things fell before Newton 'discovered' gravity.  The point was that Newton didn't 'discover' it at all.  People before him knew things fall down, and if you push something hard enough it will fall over.  He just kind of explained and named it.  And only kind of.  We know that matter (pretty much all of physics could be recreated as long as you kept this statement) repels at infinitely small distances, and attracts at infinitely large distances.  We're not at all sure as to why.

Quote from: tekla on July 23, 2011, 11:15:46 PM
I always used to ask my students which way things fell before Newton 'discovered' gravity.  The point was that Newton didn't 'discover' it at all.  People before him knew things fall down, and if you push something hard enough it will fall over.  He just kind of explained and named it.  And only kind of.  We know that matter (pretty much all of physics could be recreated as long as you kept this statement) repels at infinitely small distances, and attracts at infinitely large distances.  We're not at all sure as to why.
[/quote

Love yor response. I could not help to notice that your reputation is 114, wow, I rmember in the past when your rputation was so low; what is your secret?  :)

This getting interesting, since believes inevitably have to do with "feeling" something is more right then something else.

Even in science a LOT of gut-feeling is the start of better understanding leading to more knowing. Gut-feeling about hypothesis, after hypothesis, on and on, where NOTHING is proven at all yet.
You would actually need an infinite number of hypothesis to select from to be reasonably sure that the presented conclusion is correct, or call it bullet prove.

Back to "feeling" ... what happens if your feeling changes?! Then your "truth" could change also!

How about that? Maybe things may not be SO rational at all as they seem at times.

Axelle
PS: Ayn Rand in -Atlas Shrugged- went onto this "rationality rant" when I had just come out of my last LGAT 7 day training. (LAGAT = Large Group Awareness Training)
I nearly flipped by all her "rationality only" writing. There happens to be still a lot beyond science, like it or not.

Quote from: Pica Pica on July 23, 2011, 12:16:59 PM
How do they know what the right thing is without a compass?

Most people instinctively know right from wrong.  And you can call that their compass.  But does it have to be a "moral" compass?  Too often, "moral" is turned into a tool to try to get people to do what you want them to do.

Quote from: tekla on July 23, 2011, 10:58:11 PM
No doubt in my mind that people looked out on the world and lacked answers, so they made some up.

And when religion was created, along with heaven & hell, god & satan, the world was a very small place.  For many it was only a few miles in diameter, and flat at that. 

If we ventured back in time to when religion as we know it today was being formed, we'd most likely consider the people of the time to be terribly uneducated and misinformed.  They weren't stupid, they just didn't have the information available to them we have today.

Quote from: Axélle on July 24, 2011, 08:57:05 AM
Even in science a LOT of gut-feeling is the start of better understanding leading to more knowing.

"start" being the key word in that sentence.  Science is the art of using the brain to hammer out all of the gut feeling.  If the data still supports the theory, it can be said to be an accurate description of the universe.  Science may often start with intuition, but it should never end there.

QuoteBack to "feeling" ... what happens if your feeling changes?!

Then you'll probably start researching something else.

QuoteThen your "truth" could change also!

The physics of the universe disagree with this assessment.

QuoteMaybe things may not be SO rational at all as they seem at times.

Things cannot be rational, because they are just things.  Only people can be rational or irrational.

Very good,
Now being very rational I should not have used "things" and rather "Zusammenhänge" call it "explanations" or "contexts" for lack of a better word.

However even things (objects) are only "out there" for you, because they happen to reside in your brain first. If not in your brain no-thing exists.

The same applies to truth. And in that sense it is YOUR truth. If it is not in your brain it be a no-truth i.e. a falseness at best.

Lots of people talk about something they perceive as ultimate truth. It is only ultimate in your own brain. Everything out there is not, if you are not.

Food for more thought?

Axelle
PS: You may notice that I keep is with Nietzsche when he says: EVERYTHING is PERCEPTION, and that would also included truth. Call it ultimate or not.

I rmember in the past when your rputation was so low; what is your secret?

They only counted the 'yeahs' and dropped the smites, and I collected smites like fleas on a dog, which is a shame I actually liked the smites more because I think on those I was veering dangerously close to the truth.

IDK about that Tekla.
The times I smited you was because you were being too cold and heartless. (which can have its uses but you take it too far on occasion)

Quote from: tekla on July 24, 2011, 12:03:25 PMI actually liked the smites more because I think on those I was veering dangerously close to the truth.

"Occasionally, men stumble over the truth.  Most of them are able to pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Winston Churchill

you take it too far on occasion

Too far is the only journey that's worth it, because it's the only destination that you really get to arrive at.  You don't even have to worry about when you get there - everyone else will tell you.

the people of the time to be terribly uneducated and misinformed

Oh I don't know, seems to me no one would read that stuff anymore if they hadn't hit upon a couple of timeless truths.  And you can't fault their creativity and imagination, they had that in spades.  They knew what they knew, and tragically much of what they did know has been lost.  Like us they were just muddling about trying to make the best of what they had and pretending that there was no other way.

I mean they wrote one hell of a narrative full of depth, beauty and nuance.  I'll take the authors of Genesis, Exodus, Psalms, the Gospel of Luke and John, and the Revelation of St. John the Divine and they stand as authors every bit as good as the ones we have, and all the ones that came in-between.  The Revelation of St. John is not only one of the most surreal things ever written, it's one of the few things that I think is so dangerous that access to it should be strictly limited, and at that, only under supervision.