The Fun of Zen


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    @kt_ said in The Fun of Zen:

    @Jaloopa said in The Fun of Zen:

    @xaade said in The Fun of Zen:

    Otherwise you're just dealing with subjective perception of meaningless dribble.

    Religion in a nutshell

    QFAVCPOR

    Quoted for a very cynical perception of religion.

    FTFY



  • @xaade There are simpler, rules-based versions of Buddhism for beginners.

    Wasn't a bunch of the Gnostic Gospel thrown out because it was too solipsistic? (Yes, yes it was)



  • @Captain said in The Fun of Zen:

    There are simpler, rules-based versions of Buddhism for beginners.

    You're focusing on the wrong thing.

    I never meant to criticize a religion, but the quotes from the OP, that take the religion, gut it of any meaning, and regurgitate something that any person off the street would consider pseudo-intellectual gibberish.

    The point is that it loses all meaning if the person conveying it cannot convey it properly, and that's where you end up with eastern mysticism becoming about wearing crystals on your neck as some kind of "I'm cultured" fashion statement.


  • Dupa

    @lucas1 said in The Fun of Zen:

    @kt_ All I am saying is that maybe you should think about it differently. I used to be very Militant Atheist and a lot of my posts on here reflect this. I have since changed my tune a little after learning that it is an allegory for a lot of bits.

    So, because you've changed your tune I should think different?



  • @kt_ I am trying to convince you to change your tune because I thought similarly beforehand.

    All I am saying is try to understand what is there behind it before writing it off.



  • @xaade Until recently I was very much against anything religious. But while I will never believe I am taking a different view on it.


  • Dupa

    @lucas1 said in The Fun of Zen:

    @kt_ I am trying to convince you to change your tune because I thought similarly beforehand.

    All I am saying is try to understand what is there behind it before writing it off.

    What's in this?



  • @kt_ I just think you are being a bit short sighted. That is all.


  • Dupa

    @lucas1 said in The Fun of Zen:

    @kt_ I just think you are being a bit short sighted. That is all.

    So you can't even answer a question?



  • @kt_ Question regarding what?


  • Dupa

    @lucas1 said in The Fun of Zen:

    @kt_ Question regarding what?

    What's in this?



  • @kt_ What are you asking about? Specifically.


  • Dupa

    @lucas1 said in The Fun of Zen:

    @kt_ What are you asking about? Specifically.

    You said I shouldn't write it off before I understand what's there. What is there?

    You wanna convince me, start by convincing me instead of talking about your life story.



  • @kt_ With any religious or spiritual thinking there is something behind it. It isn't obvious and before I knew better I used to say it was nonsense.

    For example this chap talks for a good few minutes about this:

    https://youtu.be/USg3NR76XpQ?t=4132

    It is about 1h 5 minutes if the link does work on here.

    His discussion about the Snake is interesting. Because he is saying we Abstracted an actual Serpent / Snake to something that existed in a person and then actually evil.


  • Dupa

    @lucas1 are you suggesting I'm not able to appreciate the bible from a cultural perspective and as a literary piece?



  • @lucas1 said in The Fun of Zen:

    @xaade Until recently I was very much against anything religious. But while I will never believe I am taking a different view on it.

    A pragmatic person would question whether there were benefits to believing.

    That would be the wrong route for me, because of my personal experiences that started my belief, but it's a starting place for some people.


  • Considered Harmful

    @Jaloopa said in The Fun of Zen:

    After paying with a £50 note, the Zen master asks for his change

    "Change comes from within"

    You know what the guy gave his colleague for his birthday?



  • @ben_lubar said in The Fun of Zen:

    If there's a yes/no question, you can answer "yes" if you think the statement is true, "no" if you think the statement is false, or "mu" to un-ask the question.

    Where does "meh" fit into this structure?


  • FoxDev

    @djls45 said in The Fun of Zen:

    @ben_lubar said in The Fun of Zen:

    If there's a yes/no question, you can answer "yes" if you think the statement is true, "no" if you think the statement is false, or "mu" to un-ask the question.

    Where does "meh" fit into this structure?

    You're looking for WTZ ;)



  • @RaceProUK said in The Fun of Zen:

    @djls45 said in The Fun of Zen:

    @ben_lubar said in The Fun of Zen:

    If there's a yes/no question, you can answer "yes" if you think the statement is true, "no" if you think the statement is false, or "mu" to un-ask the question.

    Where does "meh" fit into this structure?

    You're looking for WTZ ;)

    No, that's the framework for PHP... that's full of WTZ.



  • @xaade said in The Fun of Zen:

    @sh_code

    Good thing Jesus never explained anything, then.

    Matthew 13:36-37

    36 When Jesus had left the crowd and gone indoors, his disciples came to him and said, “Tell us what the parable about the weeds in the field means.”
    37 Jesus answered, “The man who sowed the good seed is...

    ...and what a fuckload of good that did, right?
    anyways, Christianity has always been a religion for the stupid plebs, that's why it's:

    1. So popular
    2. So trivial
    3. So over-explained
    4. While at the same time still so nonsensical, nonspecific and internally inconsistent.


  • @sh_code said in The Fun of Zen:

    ...and what a fuckload of good that did, right?

    It's so terrible, it teaches to not be sanctimonious, show compassion, be flexible, love others, treat others as you would want to be treated, be humble, and so on. It obsoleted an old society set of laws with a new system that treats women as equal to men, doesn't require an overbearing ruleset, and tells you to take care of the poor and the widows.

    It's almost as if all the problems of Christianity comes from not reading the source material.


  • FoxDev

    @xaade said in The Fun of Zen:

    It's almost as if all the problems of Christianity comes from not reading the source material.

    Or selectively reading the source material.



  • @RaceProUK said in The Fun of Zen:

    @xaade said in The Fun of Zen:

    It's almost as if all the problems of Christianity comes from not reading the source material.

    Or selectively reading the source material.

    Yeah. To quote a song: "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." People try to force reality to fit their preconceived notions rather than adapting to reality. Happens in scientific pursuits as well.


  • Java Dev

    A fun thing to do is to quote selectively disregarded parts of the Bible, which I've done with Jehovas. They really do not like it when you mention the parts of the Bible they want to pretend does not exist. I wonder why~



  • @RaceProUK said in The Fun of Zen:

    @xaade said in The Fun of Zen:

    It's almost as if all the problems of Christianity comes from not reading the source material.

    Or selectively reading the source material.

    The story goes that someone was having a hard day and decided that a Bible verse to think about would provide assurance and comfort. Not being familiar enough to know of any verses in particular, she decided to pick one at random, so she opened her Bible, stuck her finger on the page, and read the verse she pointed to.

    And he [Judas Iscariot] cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. (Matthew 27:5)

    That wasn't very uplifting, she thought, so she tried it again.

    Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise. (Luke 10:37b)

    That wasn't any better, so she tried once more.

    Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly. (John 13:27b)


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Benjamin-Hall said in The Fun of Zen:

    Yeah. To quote a song: "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." People try to force reality to fit their preconceived notions rather than adapting to reality. Happens in scientific pursuits as well.

    The major difference is that scientists occasionally change their minds to fit the facts. Usually with much grumpiness.



  • @dkf said in The Fun of Zen:

    @Benjamin-Hall said in The Fun of Zen:

    Yeah. To quote a song: "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." People try to force reality to fit their preconceived notions rather than adapting to reality. Happens in scientific pursuits as well.

    The major difference is that scientists occasionally change their minds to fit the facts. Usually with much grumpiness.

    In my experience, models are rarely rejected as much as tweaked. Epicycles didn't die with Copernicus. Scientists have their pet models and apply them everywhere they can, even if the assumptions are a poor fit.



  • @Benjamin-Hall and then there is Time Cube...



  • @Arantor are you mocking the sacred Time Cube? Be thou condemned to hell-fire! 😈



  • @Benjamin-Hall said in The Fun of Zen:

    Epicycles didn't die with Copernicus.

    Of course not. Copernicus' model had just as many epicycles as Ptolemy's.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @MZH said in The Fun of Zen:

    Of course not. Copernicus' model had just as many epicycles as Ptolemy's.

    It was Kepler who really started to remove the epicycles…



  • @xaade said in The Fun of Zen:

    It's almost as if all the problems of Christianity comes from not reading the source material.

    such as the unbelievers being automatically deserving of the worst and most permanent punishment there is, their main god being absolutely good and forgiving and expressing this by genociding the planet with flood, torturing civilizations with 7 plagues for not submitting to his will (because previously he manipulated and "hardened the heart" of their leader so that he wouldn't submit)...

    @xaade said in The Fun of Zen:

    It obsoleted an old society set of laws with a new system that treats women as equal to men, doesn't require an overbearing ruleset

    ...have you missed the 20-40 page section describing how shrines and tents should be built and what and how exactly can and/or has to be sacrificed at certain occasions and for certain purpose? precise dimensions and materials to use for specific parts? along with the instructions of which fabrics are okay to combine in your attire, and which are not? along with the most fascinating and mysterious explicit rule i've ever come across in the bible: that you are not allowed to boil lamb's meat in the milk of its own mother?

    nah, the bible and christianity, in its pure form, i.e. in the form presented and required in their holy books which are claimed to be unerring, completely true and completely perfect, is the same kind of abomination as any other religion, even islam.

    the only difference is that christianity was forced to get significantly more sane, gradually drop most of the fundamentalism and terroristic approaches to things (that are outlined and instructed in the bible), to keep being accepted in growingly atheistic western society. so today's christianity is largely harmless, precisely because it ignores most of the content of their wholly true and good holy book, and reduces its "teachings" mostly to the universally non-offensive "be nice to people".

    case in point: any time christian tells you something about what it means to be christian, you can pull out an example from old testament showing the complete opposite. you'll most likely get answer along the lines of "but that's old testament, that doesn't count!"

    well, then, i mean I agree, this kind of shit shouldn't be followed, but if it doesn't count, why the hell is it included in the printout of your "wholly good, wholly truthful and wholly worth following" book? why do you go into the trouble of including it just to then go into the trouble of ignoring it and handwaving it away? just revise the damn book finally, to a form in which you don't need to cherrypick it to keep your religion acceptable even in modern times!


  • kills Dumbledore

    @sh_code said in The Fun of Zen:

    the only difference is that christianity was forced to get significantly more sane, gradually drop most of the fundamentalism and terroristic approaches to things (that are outlined and instructed in the bible), to keep being accepted in growingly atheistic western society

    QFT. Modern Islam is basically Christianity form a few hundred years ago. Moderate Muslims are the ones who have dropped the stuff that doesn't fit in to the modern world and jihadists are more like the WBC type fringe of their religion



  • @sh_code said in The Fun of Zen:

    well, then, i mean I agree, this kind of shit shouldn't be followed, but if it doesn't count, why the hell is it included in the printout of your "wholly good, wholly truthful and wholly worth following" book

    It's not that it doesn't count. It was a covenant formed with the Jews during a period of time when having wars would be necessary. The Law wasn't a set of rules leading to perfect behavior. It was a set of rules that best fit the time and produced the best society for the context and circumstance.

    @sh_code said in The Fun of Zen:

    the only difference is that christianity was forced to get significantly more sane

    Yeah. Jesus came up with a new set of guidelines for producing a better fit religious culture for modern times. People were really upset that Jesus did that, so much so that they hung him.

    Why is a god not capable of changing the ruleset to fit the times?

    @sh_code said in The Fun of Zen:

    "but that's old testament, that doesn't count!"

    It still counts.

    1. It shows that people were unable to follow the law, or any set of laws, due to imperfection.
    2. It shows how God guided Israel through that period of time.

    @sh_code said in The Fun of Zen:

    is the same kind of abomination as any other religion, even islam.

    The whole point of your post is to show that Christian is just as bad as Islam, and yet you only proved that Christianity was able to adapt and Islam was not.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @xaade said in The Fun of Zen:

    It's not that it doesn't count. It was a covenant formed with the Jews during a period of time when having wars would be necessary. The Law wasn't a set of rules leading to perfect behavior. It was a set of rules that best fit the time and produced the best society for the context and circumstance.

    That's a Reformist position. The Orthodox won't have anything to do with it.


  • kills Dumbledore

    @xaade said in The Fun of Zen:

    and yet you only proved that Christianity was able to adapt and Islam was not

    Only if you treat "Islam" as synonymous with "jihadist islamists". Most Muslims in western countries follow a watered down form much like the watered down Christianity that's most prevalent


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @xaade said in The Fun of Zen:

    The whole point of your post is to show that Christian is just as bad as Islam, and yet you only proved that Christianity was able to adapt and Islam was not.

    More seriously, it's probably more accurate to say that the strengths of different views within a religion wax and wane over time. Right now, the extremists are in the ascendant in much of Islam (though they're still not the majority) and the moderates are much stronger in most European Christianity. The extremists are a bit stronger in the US (and also in some parts of Ireland). However, these things change and it is wrong to say that just because they are a particular way now that they were always that way and unsafe to assert that they always will be that way in the future; there were periods (especially the early middle ages, but also through for hundreds of years after) when Islam was a lot less awful than Christianity and no particular reason to assume that current trends are immutable.

    History; it's full of interesting lessons for those who want to learn.



  • @Jaloopa said in The Fun of Zen:

    @xaade said in The Fun of Zen:

    and yet you only proved that Christianity was able to adapt and Islam was not

    Only if you treat "Islam" as synonymous with "jihadist islamists". Most Muslims in western countries follow a watered down form much like the watered down Christianity that's most prevalent

    That's ignoring the background of Islam, where it's basically Muhammed being pissed off that Christianity is watered down and wants to reform it back to the old ways.



  • @Jaloopa said in The Fun of Zen:

    @xaade said in The Fun of Zen:

    and yet you only proved that Christianity was able to adapt and Islam was not

    Only if you treat "Islam" as synonymous with "jihadist islamists". Most Muslims in western countries follow a watered down form much like the watered down Christianity that's most prevalent

    When Muslims add it to their book, explicitly, then it will be like Christianity.

    The canon of Islam gets progressively more violent.

    For now, Muslims are adaptable, but ISLAM is not.

    Whereas Christians adapted because CHRISTIANITY adapted.

    Look, I'm not saying that Muslims are secretly evil boogeymen. I'm just saying that there is a difference between the two religions where Christianity has a god endorsing the adaptation.


  • BINNED

    @dkf said in The Fun of Zen:

    That's a Reformist position. The Orthodox won't have anything to do with it.

    That's not how I understood the Chesterton quote. The way I understood it, Conservatives don't want to roll everything back to the beginning (that would be Reactionaries), they just want to undo the latest round or two of mistakes.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @antiquarian said in The Fun of Zen:

    That's not how I understood the Chesterton quote. The way I understood it, Conservatives don't want to roll everything back to the beginning (that would be Reactionaries), they just want to undo the latest round or two of mistakes.

    That's your biases showing. He's saying that true conservatives don't want to change things, even things that obviously should be changed, and true progressives change things, even things that obviously shouldn't be changed. He thus critiques both sides of that particular divide, despite him being personally more towards the conservative perspective (obvious from the exact language he uses).

    It wasn't meant as something to be greatly debated in this thread. There's a whole Garage to do that in. ;)


  • BINNED

    @dkf I think you may have missed a couple of things:

    Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition.

    Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob.



  • @djls45 said in The Fun of Zen:

    @ben_lubar said in The Fun of Zen:

    If there's a yes/no question, you can answer "yes" if you think the statement is true, "no" if you think the statement is false, or "mu" to un-ask the question.

    Where does "meh" fit into this structure?

    • "yes" is to answer in the affirmative
    • "no" is to answer in the negatory
    • "mu" is to un-ask the question
    • "meh" is to un-answer the question


  • @xaade said in The Fun of Zen:

    @sh_code said in The Fun of Zen:

    well, then, i mean I agree, this kind of shit shouldn't be followed, but if it doesn't count, why the hell is it included in the printout of your "wholly good, wholly truthful and wholly worth following" book

    It's not that it doesn't count. It was a covenant formed with the Jews during a period of time when having wars would be necessary. The Law wasn't a set of rules leading to perfect behavior. It was a set of rules that best fit the time and produced the best society for the context and circumstance.

    No.
    Galatians 3 is pretty clear that the Law's purpose is to bring us to Christ. The Law was purposely written to be impossible for us to keep in order to emphasize that faith, and not works, is the Way to avoid condemnation. See also Romans (especially chapters 3 and 4).

    @sh_code said in The Fun of Zen:

    the only difference is that christianity was forced to get significantly more sane

    Yeah. Jesus came up with a new set of guidelines for producing a better fit religious culture for modern times. People were really upset that Jesus did that, so much so that they hung him.

    Yeah, he made the rules easier to follow by stripping away the traditions that had built up around them.
    And then pointed out that following the Law meant even keeping absolute control over your own thoughts and emotions, so that looking with lust is the same as adultery and hate = murder. OH, WAIT........

    Why is a god not capable of changing the ruleset to fit the times?

    It's not that He can't. It's that God wouldn't. Abrogation is not something that can be found within the pages of the Christian Bible. On the contrary, God is described as never changing His requirements for mankind's behavior.

    @sh_code said in The Fun of Zen:

    "but that's old testament, that doesn't count!"

    It still counts.

    1. It shows that people were unable to follow the law, or any set of laws, due to imperfection.
    2. It shows how God guided Israel through that period of time.

    Yep. They couldn't properly obey the Law then; we can't properly obey the Law now. The Law is our truancy officer to keep bringing us back again and again to make us realize that we need a Savior; we cannot do what we want (no matter how good we or others think we are) and expect good to ultimately come from it.

    @sh_code said in The Fun of Zen:

    is the same kind of abomination as any other religion, even islam.

    The whole point of your post is to show that Christian is just as bad as Islam, and yet you only proved that Christianity was able to adapt and Islam was not.

    Which makes for a really funny paradox. The Christian God is unchanging and steadfast, yet Christianity and whatever culture it encounters have mutually adapted to each other (except for the core part of Christianity, which is concerned with the core of Man).
    And the Muslim god is described within the Koran as fickle and unknowable, yet Islam demands that all cultures submit to it.


Log in to reply