Another amusing thing is that there is a Buddha quote saying that his religion would end in 500 years.
If he was correct, what do we have now?
If he was wrong, then he clearly isn't omniscient.
And if he never said it, how can we trust anything he is claimed to have said.
In the end, the only way we can remain sane is to say, "the author is dead", and it's up to us to decide what is salvageable from the statements attributed to him.
Nothing is really gained from blocking it all as you said.
Well according to Mahayana Buddhists, we are in the Dharma Ending Age, and guess what! The Buddha gave a "secret" teaching on how to be a Buddhist in the Dharmic Apocalypse. It was only discovered about 500 years after his death. LOL.
"I reject the ideas expressed in these posts, but not the people who made them."
This suggests ignorance on the side of those guys. What if... There exists a tiny fringe, a very small percentage of people that are aligned with both?
This is the idea some polish psy suggests; he encourages us to have two strategies at hand:
"I reject the ideas expressed in these posts, but not the people who made them."
+
"I reject the ideas expressed in these posts AND the people who made them if they are psychopaths"
Because we would encounter both kinds. Hopes it makes sense!
What if all three have been re-incarnated in the big orange man? YoU knOW wHo I mean...does you r point still hold? Allow him his failings and hold him accountable for poor ideas? Now there is a thought experiment!
I love the article and have been thinking along a similar line and run I to what I consider an insight, maybe its just to me though, regardless I'll share. The idea or behaviour, shared by those otherwise exemplary instances of humanity, will always be a product of their time, in particular the context in which their experience was informed by the knowledge available to them. Did they know about calculus, compounding interest, attachment styles, platypus' etc. Not a bit of it. And so, while they may have had what we now think are bad ideas, at the time it might have been well suited to the context in which it was made. they should be forgiven for having bad ideas lest they be crucified...oh wait, one of them was actually. My point would be two fold, I agree - love the person and not the ideas so much and two - what they had to say may need to be revisited and revised or as you're implying, jettisoned altogether. Either could be a fair path to take. Thanks for posting and sharing the ideas.
Over my life I have held and said different ideas. The diversity of those thoughts reflect where I was at, at the time. The blog I write on Substavk is as much a journey.
Another amusing thing is that there is a Buddha quote saying that his religion would end in 500 years.
If he was correct, what do we have now?
If he was wrong, then he clearly isn't omniscient.
And if he never said it, how can we trust anything he is claimed to have said.
In the end, the only way we can remain sane is to say, "the author is dead", and it's up to us to decide what is salvageable from the statements attributed to him.
Nothing is really gained from blocking it all as you said.
Well according to Mahayana Buddhists, we are in the Dharma Ending Age, and guess what! The Buddha gave a "secret" teaching on how to be a Buddhist in the Dharmic Apocalypse. It was only discovered about 500 years after his death. LOL.
"I reject the ideas expressed in these posts, but not the people who made them."
This suggests ignorance on the side of those guys. What if... There exists a tiny fringe, a very small percentage of people that are aligned with both?
This is the idea some polish psy suggests; he encourages us to have two strategies at hand:
"I reject the ideas expressed in these posts, but not the people who made them."
+
"I reject the ideas expressed in these posts AND the people who made them if they are psychopaths"
Because we would encounter both kinds. Hopes it makes sense!
What if all three have been re-incarnated in the big orange man? YoU knOW wHo I mean...does you r point still hold? Allow him his failings and hold him accountable for poor ideas? Now there is a thought experiment!
I love the article and have been thinking along a similar line and run I to what I consider an insight, maybe its just to me though, regardless I'll share. The idea or behaviour, shared by those otherwise exemplary instances of humanity, will always be a product of their time, in particular the context in which their experience was informed by the knowledge available to them. Did they know about calculus, compounding interest, attachment styles, platypus' etc. Not a bit of it. And so, while they may have had what we now think are bad ideas, at the time it might have been well suited to the context in which it was made. they should be forgiven for having bad ideas lest they be crucified...oh wait, one of them was actually. My point would be two fold, I agree - love the person and not the ideas so much and two - what they had to say may need to be revisited and revised or as you're implying, jettisoned altogether. Either could be a fair path to take. Thanks for posting and sharing the ideas.
In general people are redeemable, but some ideas are just...not.
Over my life I have held and said different ideas. The diversity of those thoughts reflect where I was at, at the time. The blog I write on Substavk is as much a journey.
Simply brilliant. Thank you!
YMMV, but it’s hard to see where Jesus Christ’s, or the Buddha’s, teachings are harmful or misguided. I’m open to any suggestions.