samtonga43
Well-Known Member
Well said, shunyadragon. I, too, am wondering what Joel means when he describes certain systems of philosophy as 'deep'.
?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
Well said, shunyadragon. I, too, am wondering what Joel means when he describes certain systems of philosophy as 'deep'.
?
He describes the 'moral philosophy' as deep.
samtonga43
Well-Known Member
What do you think he means by 'deep' in the context of moral philosophy?
Well. ah . . . .@joeir has not revealed this detail.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
joelr
Well-Known Member
It is considered deep philosophy on consciousness and the nature of reality. - Vedas, the oldest scriptures of Hinduism, and deal with meditation, philosophy, consciousness and ontological knowledge
The first known author was praising a supreme deity, very similar to the OT and Yahweh.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Taoism is from Hinduism. The philosophy in all religions is not all praised a s deep philosophy.
The praise isn't meaningless because the philosophy is deeper than most religions.
Right, so you continue to waste time by repeating the same nonsense argument, over and over, complete nonsense (saying someone is "devoted" to a religion because there is some deep philosophy?), hurling ridiculous accusations completely based in nonsense. Then I tell you it's nonsense and you cry "insult" and label me immature. Please stop using narcissistic tactics.
Here is a tip, when you repeat the same argument over and over, despite that it's been debunked and based in nonsense you might get a repetitive response back. But it's ok for you to be repetitive?
But not me?? That would be tactic #2 of you know what.
Is it problematic? Ok, cool, thanks for letting me know! Bye now. Go away.
Yeah exactly...."so what". I said it was deep. You are the one having a nutty over it. OR is it when you have an issue the whole world has to stop? Hmmmm, that sounds like something called..
Ok? It's your issue, you are the one making a parade out of one statement I made? So what - nothing? I just made a comment. The end. Move on. Deal.
No the moral philosophy isn't burdened? You are making it that way. This entire thing is all in your head. You are mad at literally nothing.
If you haven't backpeddled then explain why the moral philosophy is outdated?
samtonga43
Well-Known Member
What do you mean by 'deeper' in this context?
You believe that it's been debunked and based in nonsense. I can't find this 'debunking'. Can you help?
Tsk! Very immature, joelr.
...the impression given by joelr?
"Making a parade"? LOL! That would be you, joelr. Maybe re-read before you press 'reply'.
joelr
Well-Known Member
There is more philosophy in the Bhagavad Gita than many religious text.
You can read about some of it here:
Bhagavad Gītā | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
It goes deep into moral theory as well as theories on consciousness in other text.
Do you know what we are talking about? I really hope you do because if you are just coming into this without any background you have made an embarrassing mistake.
Tsk! Very immature, joelr.
Again, are you aware of the conversation and the continuous bulling this person has been throwing at me for stating I find a philosophy to be deep? I didn't say "true" I said deep. Are you familiar with standing up for yourself after continuous rounds of bullying? I'm going to guess no you have not ever done such a thing.
Then you don't know what a narcissist is. One thing they do is bully you until you call it out. Then they turn it around and say "why are you so excited" or call you childish for reacting. Classic NPD.
I'm sorry you are butthurt because your beliefs don't have enough evidence for you to mount a successful debate. I just ask for evidence and give evidence. Maybe you should butt in when you know what you are talking about instead of at random and going on the back of another persons beef with me. Can you start your own? Or is that not something you think you can do? YOu can only jump in at the end of a debate when you have no information about the context and just go "yeah, that's right, ..."
Again, do you know the context here? He's having a nutty because I said Hinduism has deep philosophy. From this he feels I'm inconsistent because it means I also support all the supernatural theology and wu because I like some of the philosopy. That's actually it. Over and over he just keeps saying I'm inconsistent and I'm supporting all Hinduism, all the supernatural ideas. I said, no I do not, I like the philosophy and he continues to the point of absurdity.
You must not understand speaking up for yourself? I don't know why you are chiming in, without a point just to throw shade at me? That is about as lame as it gets.
I post evidence. Real evidence. Parades of evidence. Clearly you are butthurt by that. I'm sorry your position isn't supported so you feel you have to attack me through arguments with other people. That is weak. It shows incredible weakness.
Absolutely false. There is no evidence of this. The Tao te Ching dates from the 4th century BCE. Your claims are getting outrageous. Like Confucian morality Taoist morality is rooted in Chinese culture. By the way Confucian moral philosophy has been the backbone of Chinese family and community moral teachings since. Confucius lived from 551-479 older than any record of the Gita, and actually, much of this collection of writings was collected from older sources from all over the ancient kingdoms of China, by Confucius and his students. This includes poetry, including the oldest woman's literature in the world, which includes moral teachings from the woman's perspective dating from the early Bronze Age.
By the way the by far oldest code of a legal system, morals and philosophy are in the ancient writings of Sumeria and Babylonia, which included the story of Gilgamesh.
You need to present specific sources to back up your baseless claims.
This is false. Which religions do you claim are not praised as having 'Deep philosophy, Name one, and I will provide the sources that claim they have 'Deep philosophy,' Remember the claim of 'Deep Philosophy' is a subjective claim from a biased perspective.
You have not presented any specific 'Deep Philosophy' that would unique to the Gita.
Deeper? Too vague of a claim to be meaningful when compared to other religions and philosophies such as
Confucianism and Taoism, are dated older than the Gita.
Her is is a tip: stop making false claims you cannot back up as in the more ancient moral philosophy of Taoism and Confucianism
Not going away, Presented documented evidence for Taoism and Confucianism more ancient than the Gita. Yes, you may go away without responding, or continue to make false claims as documented above.
I did not say that. I said the Gita is outdated containing Mythical Creationism and ancient legends not relevant to today. You're being selective about what you will accept and reject to justify your agenda. ALL religions contain moral philosophy relevant to today that evolved over time, some more ancient than the Gita..
The evidence demonstrates the moral and ethical philosophies are universal with ALL cultures around the world in the history of humanity more ancient than the Gita and evolved over time to our present system of morals and ethics, legal systems and religious belirfs
My contention is NOT that the moral philosophy of the Gita is necessarily 'outdated.' It is not unique from other ancient religions and philosophies some of which are older like Confucianism and Daoism.
Last edited:
Not that old. Taoists and Confucianism are documented as older including the use of meditative practices involved with the concept of consciousness.
As previously documented I acknowledged the contributions of the eGita, but not unique to the Gita.
As I previously stated. Nothing new. The Gita proposed a Theistic relationship between humans and Deities,
The Gita has a flawed ancient mythology concerning the nature and origins of reality.
samtonga43
Well-Known Member
You haven't answered my question, joelr. What do you mean (contextually) by the word 'deep'?
An interesting problem with the different religions and philosophies claiming the high road negating the contributions of others and ignoring the evidence of morals and ethics being as old as humans and our immediate relitives existed on earth.
There is fossil evidence of Neanderthals and other ancient pre-humans caring for the elderly and disabled members of their tribes and family. moral philosophies and compassion for our fellow humans are universal and older than human homo-sapiens, and natural to the nature of being human,.
Neanderthals Took Care of Deaf and Disabled Buddy Until Old Age
Neanderthals Took Care of Deaf and Disabled Buddy Until Old Age
A new analysis suggests that an older Neanderthal from nearly 50,000 years ago, ended up being deaf and most likely depended on his friends in order to survive, after he had suffered several injuries and other deterioration.
Neanderthal Depended on Others
Known as Shanidar 1, this Neanderthal’s remains were uncovered in 1957 during excavation works at Shanidar Cave in Iraqi Kurdistan by Ralph Solecki, an American archaeologist and professor emeritus at Columbia University. Several studies in the past showed that his skull, as well as other parts of his body had suffered numerous injuries. According to The Source , Shanidar 1 suffered a severe blow to the side of the face, a breakage and the eventual amputation of the right arm at the elbow, serious wounds to the right leg, as well as a progressive deterioration and loss of his hearing’s function.
A new analysis of the skeletal remains published October 20 in the online journal PLoS ONE , suggests that Shanidar 1 – other than being disabled – needed the help and protection of his friends in order to survive, “More than his loss of a forearm, bad limp and other injuries, his deafness would have made him easy prey for the ubiquitous carnivores in his environment and dependent on other members of his social group for survival,” Erik Trinkaus told The Source (the new study’s co-author and professor of anthropology in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis.)
There is fossil evidence of Neanderthals and other ancient pre-humans caring for the elderly and disabled members of their tribes and family. moral philosophies and compassion for our fellow humans are universal and older than human homo-sapiens, and natural to the nature of being human,.
Neanderthals Took Care of Deaf and Disabled Buddy Until Old Age
Neanderthals Took Care of Deaf and Disabled Buddy Until Old Age
A new analysis suggests that an older Neanderthal from nearly 50,000 years ago, ended up being deaf and most likely depended on his friends in order to survive, after he had suffered several injuries and other deterioration.
Neanderthal Depended on Others
Known as Shanidar 1, this Neanderthal’s remains were uncovered in 1957 during excavation works at Shanidar Cave in Iraqi Kurdistan by Ralph Solecki, an American archaeologist and professor emeritus at Columbia University. Several studies in the past showed that his skull, as well as other parts of his body had suffered numerous injuries. According to The Source , Shanidar 1 suffered a severe blow to the side of the face, a breakage and the eventual amputation of the right arm at the elbow, serious wounds to the right leg, as well as a progressive deterioration and loss of his hearing’s function.
A new analysis of the skeletal remains published October 20 in the online journal PLoS ONE , suggests that Shanidar 1 – other than being disabled – needed the help and protection of his friends in order to survive, “More than his loss of a forearm, bad limp and other injuries, his deafness would have made him easy prey for the ubiquitous carnivores in his environment and dependent on other members of his social group for survival,” Erik Trinkaus told The Source (the new study’s co-author and professor of anthropology in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis.)
joelr
Well-Known Member
I was thinking of Buddhism. The only outrageous claims are your suggesting all this nonsense about supporting things I don't believe in. I am familiar with Sumeria and the first author in history.
Yes, the moral philosophy is deep, the exploration into consciousness is deep and accepted as deep by many great thinkers, writers and scientists. Emerson, Ghandi, Heisenburg,
I already gave sources and all that with the philosophy, I'm not going to just keep posting the same philosophical topics. We are past that.
Laozi is traditionally regarded as one of the founders of Taoism and is closely associated in this context with original or primordial Taoism.[25] Whether he actually existed is disputed;[26][27] however, the work attributed to him—the Tao Te Ching—is dated to the late 4th century BCE.[28]
Not older than Hinduism. Didn't say the Gita was older, I'll deal with that lie below.
Then here is yet another tip. Stop lying. Here is what I actually said:
"It is considered deep philosophy on consciousness and the nature of reality. - Vedas, the oldest scriptures of Hinduism, and deal with meditation, philosophy, consciousness and ontological knowledge"
Ha, in the tip about me stopping false claims you make up a fantasy argument? Somehow the Vedas being th eoldest scripture in Hinduism becomes "the Gita is older than everything"?????
That isn't sketchy? Please, stay, I'll continue smashing you all day.
Well that's a big lie. Here is what I said about the Gita: post 4199
"The work begins with Arjuna articulating three objections to fighting an impending battle by way of two teleological theories of ethics, namely Virtue Ethics and Consequentialism, but also Deontology. In response, Kṛṣṇa motivates Arjuna to engage in battle by arguments from procedural ethical theories—specifically his own form of Deontology, which he calls karma yoga (a deontological perfection of duty), and a radically procedural theory unique to the Indian tradition, Yoga, which he calls bhakti yoga. This is supported by a theoretical and metaethical framework called jñāna yoga (the Gītā’s metaethics, or elucidation of the conditions of ethical reasoning).
While moral theory is a topic of discussion in both epics, the Bhagavad Gītā is a protracted discourse and dialog on moral philosophy...."
Your response:
"Nothing new in the above. I have studied the Gits for over fifty years, and acknowledged that there are philosophical contributions in the Gita, but the above is a selective overstatement of the relevance of the Gita today."
I didn't see anything about "mythical creationism" or "ancient legends"?
So you once agin are changing my words to argue against a strawman position. Pretty much how it's been.
So you can explain why these moral and ethical philosophies are not relevant or outdated, or just leave it as your opinion. I don't care at this point. There have been too many misrepresentations of my words.
Maybe explain (since you seem to be so much into people owing explanations) why you follow a bunch of ancient legends? You are critical of Hinduism and wu so why the inconsistency?
joelr
Well-Known Member
The Vedas are older, 1500, I have studied Taoism. It is unique but very different. Not as deep into metaphysics. More about ways to live and think.
Obviously that is a metaphor or literal for fundamentalists. The Illiad has Gods and creatures as well but it's the story and the meaning.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Better than the Abrahamic religions? They have a cyclic universe which is actually an idea in modern cosmology. It isn't "then God created everything".... wu.
samtonga43
Well-Known Member
You don't know exactly what you mean?
samtonga43
Well-Known Member
Here's another odd 'word'. Does it mean non-scientific? Or perhaps anything joelr does not believe? Or maybe anything he doesn't understand?