They burn people don't they

[Zeno]

I had thought of posting the following essay (by Bertrand Russell, early 1950s) in continuation of some thoughts I had posted about in another thread but Rick's new post prompted me to post it now. The essay is about ten pages. It is well worth reading whether you agree with the ideas or conclusions. The main themes are troubling but very timely. Religious and economic themes are flushed out and nationalism is also discussed.

Below is an excert from this essay that may prompt some comments.

[ QUOTE ]
I think that the evils that men inflict on each other, and by resection upon themselves, have their main source in evil passions rather than in ideas or beliefs. But ideas and principles that do harm are, as a rule, though not always, cloaks for evil passions. In Lisbon when heretics were publicly burnt, it sometimes happened that one of them, by a particularly edifying recantation, would be granted the boon of being strangled before being put into the flames. This would make the spectators so furious that the authorities had great difficulty in preventing them from lynching the penitent and burning him on their own account. The spectacle of the writhing torments of the victims was, in fact, one of the principal pleasures to which the populace looked forward to enliven a somewhat drab existence. I cannot doubt that this pleasure greatly contributed to the general belief that the burning of heretics was a righteous act.

[/ QUOTE ]

Link to essay:
Ideas That Have Harmed Mankind (http://www.luminary.us/russell/ideas_harm.html)


-Zeno

[MMMMMM]

I am somewhat curious if they burned child heretics.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I am somewhat curious if they burned child heretics.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is an interesting question. It is late so will try to find information tomorrow. As a side theological note, John Calvin preached infant damnation. But that is another topic.

-Zeno

[Cyrus]

All religions, like serious childhood diseases, have been guilty of killing scores of people - men, women and children - and in many ways, including the most horrible ways. By far, the religions most guilty of causing death and destruction , have been the monotheistic religions.

You know which ones I'm talking about.

We should be moving fast from that phase in our evolution already but we seem to be stuck - stuck like a middle age man who can't shake off the measles.

[MMMMMM]

"All religions, like serious childhood diseases, have been guilty of killing scores of people - men, women and children - and in many ways, including the most horrible ways."


I have never read nor heard of anyone being killed in the name of, or for, or by, Taoism.

[Zeno]

Taoism is more of a philosophy than a religion. Though it does have 'religious' aspects to it. Whether it is a religion by a strict definition I do not know. If you take religion to mean a set of beliefs or principles to help guide you through the path of life then Taoism certainly qualifies.

Taoism is akin to and has elements of Confucianism in it as Confucianism has elements of Taoism. The concept of god or a god or gods is not a central tenet of either. Which is one reason why, in my opinion, it is on the bubble of being a religion and also why it steers away from becoming fanatical or too dogmatic, or why it is rare (if at all) to find its adherents engaging in killing others for being heretics or infidels and so on.

Taoist temples however, have beings that are worshiped or respected, I suppose these beings can be conceived of as Gods but I doubt if they are considered so in the western concept. And demons are also believed in. But all that is rather complicated and stems from ancient beliefs of the Chinese. I have been to a number of Taoist temples in Taiwan. I prayed (light incense) to some fabricated dolls (many are very, very old) that represented transcendent people or beings - As best as I can understand it. It becomes very complicated because in the temples worship is such an amalgamation of different things, including divination and belief in ghosts; evil spirits etc. that probably have little to do with the more traditional Taoist thought of say Lao Tzu.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

The disease eats at humanity in a terrilble way. The other thread about shooting children leaned over into the political direction and dimensions and bogged down into the swamp of specfic actions by Leaders etc so I am steering clear of it. I have lost interest.

-Zeno

[Cyrus]

Good post.

But you lost him after the word "philosophy".

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[MMMMMM]

"Good post.

But you lost him after the word "philosophy"."



Lol, Smartass; I have very likely read more books on/of Taoism and Buddhism than anyone on these forums.

By the way, it i erroneous to claim that Taoism and Buddhism are not religions but philosophies only.

[Cyrus]

"I have very likely read more books on/of Taoism and Buddhism than anyone on these forums."

Quite an un-Zen like attitude this, but if you say so.

By the way /images/graemlins/grin.gif, what is a book of Buddhism? (A book that's been blessed by you, perhaps?..)

"It is erroneous to claim that Taoism and Buddhism are not religions but philosophies only."

Zeno did not once mention the word "Buddhism" in his post explaining things to you! You are trying to shift again, but, as always, Zen master, you fall down with a thud.

(Get up quickly and pretend it's part of the routine.)

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
"I have very likely read more books on/of Taoism and Buddhism than anyone on these forums."

Quite an un-Zen like attitude this, but if you say so.

[/ QUOTE ]

In what way is guesstimating probabilities "un Zen-like"?


[ QUOTE ]
By the way , what is a book of Buddhism? (A book that's been blessed by you, perhaps?..)

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple books of Buddhism would be the Heart Sutra and the Diamond (or Diamond Cutter) Sutra. (A couple books of Taoism would be Lao Tsu and Chuang Tsu.)


[ QUOTE ]
"It is erroneous to claim that Taoism and Buddhism are not religions but philosophies only."

Zeno did not once mention the word "Buddhism" in his post explaining things to you! You are trying to shift again, but, as always, Zen master, you fall down with a thud.

(Get up quickly and pretend it's part of the routine.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say Zeno mentioned the word 'Buddhism'. I didn't say Zeno said Buddhism or Taoism was 'only' a philosophy (although at times,others have said or implied such on these forums). I was not trying to refute a claim by you or Zeno by mentioning what I mentioned. I was merely offering relevant information.

Again: please strive to learn the art of reading precisely, dear Cyrus. I was not trying to shift anything (nor do I feel I am anywhere near being a Zen Master).

[Cyrus]

"In what way is guesstimating probabilities "un Zen-like"?"

Guesstimating (!) is not what's un-Zen like, master. Arrogance and presumptuousness is. (As in "I have very likely done XYZ more than anyone on these forums". How the fuck do you know jack shit about the majority of the people posting here? Not to mention those just lurking - and laughing at your Grasshopper whoppers.)

"A couple books of Buddhism would be the Heart Sutra and the Diamond Sutra."

You didn't get it. No big deal. Life's too short.

"I didn't say Zeno mentioned the word 'Buddhism'. I was merely offering relevant information."

Did you learn all that weaselling by reading yer Tao, Grasshopper? Because that sure is some prime time weaselling!

Let me refresh your synapses: I wrote that most religions are guilty of hideous crimes. You questioned that claim by saying that Taoism was never guilty of any crime. Zeno corrected your half-learned ass by pointing out (politely, I'd day) that, ahem, well, Taoism is NOT a religion.

Alright so far? (Or do you enjoy replays of it?)

To which you responded that Taoism "and Buddhism" ("And Buddhism" - where the hell that came from??) are "not religions but also philosophies". Wow. Really? And what's that got to do with your dispute of my original claim?

Which was this, for yer pleasure: Almost all religions, and especially the monotheistic ones, are guilty of hideous crimes against humanity, including the wholesale slaughter of men, women and children.

Read the above until penetration to the brain is achieved and then practice your mantras in the lotus position. /images/graemlins/grin.gif And stop disputing the above statement.

[MMMMMM]

"Guesstimating (!) is not what's un-Zen like, master. Arrogance and presumptuousness is. (As in "I have very likely done XYZ more than anyone on these forums". How the [censored] do you know jack [censored] about the majority of the people posting here? Not to mention those just lurking - and laughing at your Grasshopper whoppers.)"

Which is precisely why I qualified my statement with the word "likely. Of course, there may be some others on these forums who have read upwards of 40 books on/of Buddhism and Taoism, also. It has long been a hobby of mine, starting in early high school (which was over 25 years ago).


"Let me refresh your synapses: I wrote that most religions are guilty of hideous crimes. You questioned that claim by saying that Taoism was never guilty of any crime. Zeno corrected your half-learned ass by pointing out (politely, I'd day) that, ahem, well, Taoism is NOT a religion."

I think Zeno pointed out that Taoism more resembles a philosophy than a religion. Others have said the same about Buddhism. While this is in part true ideologically, it is not so when it comes to practice, organization, or ritual. Both abovementioned religions are rich in ritual, tradition, and so forth--even in worship. Hence, even though they are not theistic religions, they are indeed religions--not merely philosophies.


"Alright so far? (Or do you enjoy replays of it?)

To which you responded that Taoism "and Buddhism" ("And Buddhism" - where the hell that came from??) are "not religions but also philosophies". Wow. Really? And what's that got to do with your dispute of my original claim?

Which was this, for yer pleasure: Almost all religions, and especially the monotheistic ones, are guilty of hideous crimes against humanity, including the wholesale slaughter of men, women and children."

I would agree that followers of monotheistic (and some pantheistic) religions have done the most slaughter in the names of their religions. I am not aware of any slaughter done by or for Taoism, however, and I would suspect slaughter by Buddhists to have been rare in historical terms.

As for Islam and Christianity, the injunctions of the prophet Mohammed (which are purported to be the Word of Allah) frequently advocate slaughter or the use of force, whereas the injunctions of Jesus do not. That however has not stopped vast numbers of Christians from engaging in slaughter under the guise of religion.